1953-04-02

NATIONAL HEALTH


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by Howard Wightman of Creston, British Columbia, and considerably more than 100,000 other Canadians, praying parliament to consider the enactment of a comprehensive national health plan which would provide for all our citizens, irrespective of their income, full medical, dental, optical and other health care.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: On March 25 the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) asked if I had received any protests against the installation of a rifle range and other defence projects at Baie-du-Febvre, Quebec; and, if so, what the Department of National Defence was going to do about them.
There is no rifle range under construction at this locality. What the hon. member intended to refer to would appear to be a proof range for artillery along the south shore of lake St. Peter in the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska. This has been under construction since May 1952. Provision is also being made for a range for aircraft. The ranges have been located so that they do not interfere with navigation.
Within the last three or four weeks five representations have been received against the Department of National Defence taking over additional land. The purpose of taking over this land is to add to the area intended for the protection of the people and animals of the adjacent farms.
The amount of additional land proposed to be taken over having any agricultural value whatever is not large and full compensation will be paid for it. The benefits resulting to the countries mentioned and the town of Nicolet, as well as the entire district, in providing continuing employment and expenditures in the locality, will, it is 68108-224i
believed, far outweigh any of the disadvantages resulting from this development.



TRADE MARKS ACT


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 316 (from the Senate), relating to trade marks and unfair competition.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	Did the defence department since January 1, 1951, build a central heating plant at Comox, Vancouver island?
2.	If so, what was the cost of this project?
3.	Was the work performed by (a) cost plus contract; (b) contract by tender?
4.	If cost plus contract, what is the name of the firm which did the work?
5.	If tenders were called, what are the names of the firms tendering and the amount of each tender?
6.	What is the name of the successful tenderer? Mr. Dickey:
1.	The building is now under construction.
2.	$365,132 to date.
3.	Contract by tender.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	The firms tendering and the amount of each tender were as follows:
Smith Brothers and Wilson Limited,
1267 Richards street, Vancouver,
British Columbia	 $491,628
Mutual Construction Company Limited, 1430 Burnard street,
Vancouver, British Columbia . .	505,970
G. W. Ledingham and Company Limited, 1025 west 77th avenue,
Vancouver, British Columbia ..	509,112
6.	Smith Brothers and Wilson Limited, Vancouver, British Columbia.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Bryce:: 1.	Did the Department of Defence Production at Victoria, invite quotations in May 1952, for four propellers, 11" diameter by 11" pitch?

Questions
2.	If so, from what firms were quotations received and at what price?
3.	Was a purchase order issued for these propellers?
4.	If so, (a) under what date; (b) to what firm; (c) at what price each?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Invitations to tender were issued in May 1952 for: 4 .propellers, R.H. not bored, 11" dia. x 11" pitch and 2 double charging and bypass valves.
2.	Quotations were received as follows: Sumner Brass Foundry Ltd., bid on propellers only, $54.80, tax included, delivered.
Canadian Sumner Iron Works, bid on propellers and valves, $70, tax included, delivered.
3.	A purchase order was issued for 4 propellers and 2 valves.
4.	(a) May 26, 1952; (b) Canadian Sumner Iron Works, Vancouver, B.C.; (c) propellers $15 ea., valves $5 ea.



ASSISTANCE TO PRAIRIE PROVINCES, NOVA SCOTIA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Herridge:: 1.	What is the total amount spent under the terms of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, since 1935 to December 31, 1952?
2.	What is the total amount of financial assistance given to the tree fruit industry in Nova Scotia, since 1935 to December 31, 1952?
3.	What is the total amount of financial assistance given to the tree fruit industry in British Columbia, since 1935 to December 31, 1952?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Manitoba, $4,277,688; Saskatchewan, $35,276,331; Alberta, $28,049,108; British Columbia, nil.
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act does not apply to the province of British Columbia; however $2,429,939 has been expended under special votes for land protection, reclamation and development in that province under supervision of P.F.R.A. engineers.
2.	$18,888,000.
3.	$5,412,000.



WHARF REPAIRS AND RETAINING WORKS, ROBERVAL, QUE.

Mr. Spence:: During the years 1949-50,	1950-51, 1951-52 and
1952-53, what amounts were spent by the Department of Public Works in the county of Roberval for wharf repairs, retaining works, especially at the wharf of Roberval and along the Mistassini river?


Mr. Speaker:: This question was answered yesterday, and the answer appears in yesterday's Hansard.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Mr. Croll:: What are the names of all plants in the Toronto area that have been certified, in whole or in part, by the Minister of Defence Production as defence plants within the meaning of the National Housing Act?


Mr. Dickey:: A. V. Roe (Canada) Limited, Malton, Ont.
Canadian Arsenals Limited, gun division, Lindsay, Ont., small arms division, Long Branch, Ont.; instrument and radar division, Scarboro, Ont.; instrument and radar division, Leaside, Ont.
Dowty Equipment Limited, Ajax, Ont.
Canadian Steel Improvements Limited, Etobicoke, Ont.
Modern Tool Works Limited, Toronto, Ont.
Lucas-Rotax Limited, Scarboro, Ont.
Frigidaire Products of Canada Limited, Leaside, Ont.
Carriere and MacFeeters, Toronto, Ont.
Canadian Johns-Manville Company Limited, Toronto plant at Port Union, Ont.
John Inglis Company Limited, Scarboro works, Scarboro, Ont.
Aluminum Goods Limited, Toronto, Ont.
Canadian General Electric Company Limited, Downsview works, Downsview, Ont.
Chatco Steel Products Limited, Tilbury, Ontario.
Canadian Acme Screw and Gear Limited, York division, Toronto, Ont.
Canadian SKF Company Limited, Scarboro, Ont.
Stark Electronic Instruments Limited, Ajax, Ont.
Delamere & Williams Company, Limited, West Toronto, Ont.
PSC Applied Research Limited, Toronto, Ont.
D.M. Fraser Limited, Scarboro, Ont.
de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Downsview, Ont.
Kelvin-Thompson Company, Ajax, Ont.
Canadian Radio Manufacturing Corporation Limited, Leaside, Ont.



COMPULSORY WAR SAVINGS, WORLD WAR II

Mr. Fair:: 1.	What was the total amount of compulsory war savings collected in world war II?
2.	What was the date of time limit in which to claim repayment?
3.	What is the total amount repaid?


Mr. McCann:: This question was answered yesterday and the answer appears at page 3495 of yesterday's Hansard.



BROOKLYN, N.S.  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY SOLD

Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	Has certain property, acquired for radio or radar purposes, and situate at Brooklyn, Queens county, Nova Scotia, been sold by war assets corporation, or any other department or agency of the government?
2.	If so, (a) of what did this property consist; (b) to whom was it sold; (c) at what price?
3.	In what newspapers was this property advertised for sale?
4.	Were tenders called for the purchase thereof, and if so, what notification was given of such calling of tenders?


Mr. Dickey;: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Approximately 13-3 acres of land; 14 structures; underground services; electrical distribution system; overhead heating main and fencing.
(b)	Mr. Euchariste Harvey, St. Hubert, P.Q.
(c)	$10,250.
3.	Halifax Chronicle-Herald and Mail-Star and Liverpool Advance.
4.	Bids were solicited by advertising in the above newspapers, having notices posted in local post offices and sending notices to prospective purchasers.



GRAND BEND, ONTARIO, HARBOUR

Mr. Murphy:: 1.	Has the government any employees at the wharf or harbour at Grand Bend, Ontario?
2.	If so, (a) who are they; (b) what are their duties; (c) what are the salaries paid?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes, one.
2.	(a) R. G. English; (b) caretaker of the range lights; (c) $50 per annum.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	Did the defence department since January 1, 1951, build a chapel for the R.C.A.F. at Comox, Vancouver island?
2.	If so, what was the cost of this project?
3.	Was the work performed by (a) cost plus contract; (b) contract by tender?
4.	If by cost plus contract, what is the name of the firm which did the work?
5.	If tenders were called, what are the names of the firms submitting tenders and the amount of each tender?
6.	What is the name of the successful tenderer?
7.	What are the dimensions of the building?
8.	What was the cost of the furnishings?


OTTAWA BUILDING, CARLING AVENUE AND CLYDE STREET
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Is the government of Canada renting the building on Carling avenue and Clyde street, Ottawa,
Orders for Returns
formerly occupied by the Vipond Construction Company Limited?
2.	If so, from whom is this property being rented and at what price?
3.	Of what type of construction is the building and what are the dimensions?
4.	To what use is the building going to be put?
5.	Are any changes or renovations required on the structure?
6.	If so, what will be the cost of these changes and renovations, and who is paying the costs?


BRITISH COLUMBIA PORTS OF ENTRY
Mr. Cruickshank:: 1. During the last fiscal year, what was the revenue received at each port of entry in the province of British Columbia?
2.	During the same period, how many (a) individuals entered Canada at each port; (b) departed from Canada at each port; (c) motor vehicles entered Canada at each port; (d) motor vehicles departed at each port?
3. During the last fiscal year, what contracts were let for construction in connection with customs and immigration at each of such ports?
4.	How much was spent on this construction during the said year?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention to the fact that a question on yesterday's order paper to which I am to give an answer was not answered, but has been deleted from today's order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the
minister has spoken to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who asked the question, and that he understands that it will be restored to the order paper.



MORNING AND WEDNESDAY EVENING SITTINGS ON AND AFTER APRIL 13

['Mr. Speaker, I would not\nlike to go into that. For one reason, in the exchange of correspondence there is no reference to that matter at all. It is just a question of exchange of sick and wounded, and the question of whether that is to be voluntary or involuntary was not mentioned in the correspondence. I do not think it would be desirable for us to bring the matter up here.\nThe principle of voluntary repatriation has, however, been recognized to some extent in the communication of March 30, where the communist statement does use the word "insist". It says, "Those prisoners who insist upon being repatriated". Others would possibly go to a neutral state. The same language, however, was not used in regard to sick and wounded.']
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister) moved:: Inquiries of the Ministry amended by deleting the words "Wednesday, April 8" and substituting therefor the words "Monday, April 13", and by adding after the word "Wednesday" in the second last line thereof the word "thereafter".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I
should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Because the house will rise today until after Easter, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house with regard to the prospects for negotiations of an armistice in Korea, and of any other recent developments in regard to international affairs about which he cares or is able to inform us?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member was good enough to give me notice of his question. At the present stage in dealing with this very important question I would not wish to go much beyond the statement I made in New York in respect of recent Korean developments when I said, with particular reference to the statement of Chou En-lai of March 30, that this would appear to be a very important statement and obviously one that must be followed up.
It is the view of the government that the statement of March 30 which I have just mentioned, coming only two days after the letter of March 28 from the communist commanders in Korea to General Clark regarding the repatriation of sick and injured prisoners, is an encouraging development. Meanwhile the Chinese statement of March 30 is of course being carefully examined here as it is in the foreign offices of other governments.
As hon. members know, it has been the policy of the government, and indeed of this house, I think, to seek settlement of the Korean conflict by peaceful negotiation, and we have constantly done what we could with others to prevent extension of the war beyond the borders of Korea. Therefore we, and other governments who think with us on this matter, are always prepared to examine closely, and with good will, any sincere proposals which have the end of peace in view.
By a cable dated March 31 the communist foreign minister in Peking, Chou En-lai,


transmitted to me, as I think the house will know, as president of the United Nations general assembly, the full text of the statement which had been broadcast on the radio on March 30 to which I have referred. I distributed a text of this statement to the delegations of the member governments at the United Nations assembly, and I also transmitted it to the unified command, which is now officially seized of this proposal. At that time I told the United Nations assembly that I hoped, and I was sure they hoped, that this statement might provide a basis for peace in Korea; because it amounts to new proposals in regard to the one remaining obstacle in the way of an armistice there-the prisoners of war difficulty. These new proposals, and they are referred to in the Chinese cable as new proposals-and they have received the, support of the government in Moscow-go, on the face of them, a long way to meet the position taken last autumn by the United Nations assembly.
Meanwhile General Clark has replied to the communist commanders' letter of March 28 stating his willingness to proceed immediately with the arrangements for the repatriation of sick and wounded prisoners. General Clark has also informed the communist commanders that, if agreement is reached on the repatriation of sick and wounded prisoners, the United Nations command will be prepared to take up, as the second order of business, the question of resuming the full armistice discussions, at which the new proposals will be considered.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that we consider these developments as being hopeful, although there are a good many points to be clarified in the new proposals before we can afford to come to any final conclusions concerning them. Much will therefore, I think, depend on what takes place during the next few days both at Panmunjom and at the United Nations assembly in New York.


Major James William Coldwell: Can the minister express
an opinion with regard to the reported modification of the Russian view concerning disarmament and if there are prospects of an agreement on the basis laid down by the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say about that is
that yesterday afternoon at the United Nations assembly, when we were about to take up the report on disarmament from the political committee, amendments to that report were circulated by the Soviet delegation. Those amendments do also, on the face of them, seem to represent a possible change of attitude in this matter on the part

of the Soviet delegation; but there again they ought to be pretty carefully examined before we come to any conclusion in regard to them. We have not had much time to look into them and no one as yet is very clear or very confident about the result of this possible change of attitude. Again, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the house will agree, we should give these proposals on disarmament the same kind of careful consideration that we should give to the new proposals from Korea.


Mr. Gray  don:@: Might I ask the Secretary
of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) a question supplementary to those which have been asked. In connection with sick and wounded prisoners of war on both sides, what do the Chinese and North Koreans propose to do about those sick and wounded prisoners of war who do not want to be repatriated back behind the iron curtain?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would not
like to go into that. For one reason, in the exchange of correspondence there is no reference to that matter at all. It is just a question of exchange of sick and wounded, and the question of whether that is to be voluntary or involuntary was not mentioned in the correspondence. I do not think it would be desirable for us to bring the matter up here.
The principle of voluntary repatriation has, however, been recognized to some extent in the communication of March 30, where the communist statement does use the word "insist". It says, "Those prisoners who insist upon being repatriated". Others would possibly go to a neutral state. The same language, however, was not used in regard to sick and wounded.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders, of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: I
would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), and I apologize for giving him notice only ten minutes ago. In view of press reports that about 115 civil service positions are being abolished because the Department of Transport is discontinuing the collection of radio licence fees, and in view of the fact, as I have been informed, that a number of these employees have received separation notices- which I understand is a civil service diplomatic term for "roll your blankets and hit the trail"-would the minister kindly
Inquiries of the Ministry inform the house what has been done to find positions for those displaced civil servants?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I will be glad to answer. My
recollection is that there were 138 employees of the department affected by the abolition of the $2.50 licence fee. My recollection is, and I speak of course from memory, that of that group a very small number resigned. Another group were separated because of married women's status. The very large majority of them were placed in positions either in the Department of Transport or, through the co-operation of other departments and the civil service commission, in other departments of government. My recollection is that thus far there are only 17 people without employment.



FEDERAL GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I
would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) regarding a statement made by him when we were considering the supplementary estimates on March 27 and about which there appears to have been some misunderstanding. Is he in a position to state the exact amount of the grant which will go to the city of St. John's, Newfoundland?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Yes, I will be happy to answer. Apparently there was some misunderstanding in the reply to the question of the member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne). The position is that under the Municipal Grants Act the city of St. John's, Newfoundland, will in this current year, the year which ended on March 31, 1953, receive a total of $51,527. That amount is made up of $48,184, being taxes in respect of admiralty properties which are occupied by the crown, $2,543 in lieu of real property taxes, and $800 in lieu of local improvement taxes.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Waison MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Yesterday the hon. member for St. John's East asked me if I could state what the situation will be this year with respect to the normal markets for Newfoundland salt codfish. At that time I said that I expected to be able to make a statement today.
3532	HOUSE OF
Water Resources
It is somewhat early in the year to make any sound appraisal of the market prospects for a commodity like salted codfish, which, in Newfoundland, will not be ready for shipment to market until July or August at the earliest. In the meantime, the balance of the 1952 production is still going forward. Competitive production is just getting under way in the European producing countries. At the moment we have no reason to believe that there will be any significant increase in over-all world production of salted fish in 1953.
On the demand side, prediction is particularly difficult because of the complicating factor of currency restrictions in several of the important consuming markets. Officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce, as in former years, are presently in negotiation with the governments of some of these countries to make provision in their import plans for salted fish from Canada. The Newfoundland fisheries board and, through it, the fishermen of Newfoundland will be kept fully informed as new developments take place.


William Joseph Browne: May
I just ask one question of the parliamentary assistant? Has he any word yet when the report of the fisheries development committee of Newfoundland will be published?


John Watson MacNaught: The only information I have is that the report will be available very shortly.
(Translation):



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Would he be in a position to tell me whether negotiations between officers of the treasury board and the civil service commission with regard to the five-day week for civil servants in the Ottawa district have progressed sufficiently to allow him to render a decision in the near future?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, Mr. Speaker, discussions have not progressed sufficiently to allow me to render a decision.

(Text):



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: May I ask
the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) if he is in a position yet to indicate to the house when applications for certain revisions in contracts will be received from the rural mail couriers under the new legislation?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if I can say now when the contractors will know about this, although I presume that most of them should know by now. The bill is before the Senate, and although we could receive some of the applications now I doubt very much whether we could act upon them before the bill receives the royal assent. However I may tell my hon. friend that, presuming the bill is passed with the co-operation of both this house and the other place, we will be ready to start working on all the applications as soon as they are received.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 109, to authorize the grant of assistance to a province for the conservation of water resources-Mr. Winters-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 4-Agreements between provinces and local authorities.
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: There are some inquiries outstanding, and I wish the minister would answer them. One inquiry had special reference to Nova Scotia and another to Saskatchewan. I think there are some others outstanding.


Mr. Winters:: Just before we rose last night the hon. member for Cumberland asked if there had been communications with the provinces about the application of this bill, and whether there had been specific requests from Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan for participation in projects under this bill. We have communicated with all the provinces of Canada, and informed them in a general way what we proposed in this legislation. They have all answered expressing interest, and a desire to see the contents of the bill. We have had no specific requests for participation from either Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for ihe Minister of Fisheries) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 293, to implement the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean.


Mr. Pearkes:: Are we going to get a statement from the appropriate minister?


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps the house could be patient for a few minutes; I have sent for the parliamentary assistant. I think he has a statement ready.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Fisheries, perhaps I should say a few words on the second reading of this measure. The purpose and objects of the convention have already been outlined when the resolution came before the house last Friday, March 27. There are, therefore, only one or two points about the convention that I should like to go into to make its meaning clearer.
The first relates to the area of the convention. It embraces the whole of the north Pacific ocean and adjacent waters but it excludes expressly the territorial waters. The species Canada has been conserving, alone and with the United States-salmon, halibut and herring-spend much of their lives on the high seas. On the high seas they could be fished by other countries, the most likely of which was Japan. In this convention Japan has agreed, not to any change in the principle of the freedom of the seas, but to waive its right to fish these particular species coming to American and Canadian waters. Japan is willing to make this waiver because these species have been under conservation, under scientific management and regulation, and are already fully utilized by Canadian and American fishermen. In no other way except by a convention of this kind could such protection be found for these species. No conceivable extension of territorial waters could achieve this oceanic protection.
A second point might be made. The convention not only excludes the territorial waters of each of the parties, but it provides in explicit terms that nothing in the convention shall be deemed to prejudice the claims of any contracting party in regard to the limits of territorial waters or to the jurisdiction of a coastal state over fisheries.
North Pacific Fishery
The definition of territorial waters is a complex question on which it has been difficult so far to get full international agreement. The question of territorial waters, as hon. members will realize, could not have been even raised at a fisheries conference between the three nations. It involves many interests besides fisheries, both at home and abroad, including national defence, customs, transport, mineral resources of the sub-soil of the sea, not to mention our trade and other external relations with other countries.
Because of the complexity of the problems involved, the government has established an interdepartmental committee to deal with this matter. When the committee makes its report, the government will be in a position to act if it decides to make any adjustments in the delineation of territorial waters in so far as Canada is concerned. In this meantime, to protect the position of the three parties to the convention, the clause which I mentioned above was inserted in the body of the convention.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister if he can inform the house how the paper from which he has just read got into his hands?


Robert Henry Winters: I prefaced my remarks by reminding the house that I am Acting Minister of Fisheries.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sure we are very much indebted to the Acting Minister of Fisheries for his comprehensive statement. As hon. members will recall, the convention upon which this bill is based was considered in the standing committee on marine and fisheries. I do not know whether or not it is the intention of the acting minister to refer this bill to that committee. During the discussion in the committee stage, as well as in the discussion at the resolution stage, I pointed out a number of objections which were being taken to the ratification of this convention. These objections were based on the limited nature of the security provided. The acting minister referred to the fact that there was a measure of security, but it is only a measure of security, which is being provided for the fishing industry on the west coast. The limitations of that security fall under three main headings. First of all, the protection of our fish is limited to the three powers which have signed this convention, namely Canada, the United States and Japan. Other powers have not signed the convention, and therefore are not bound in any way by its provisions. Therefore, so far as the fish on the west coast are concerned, they are protected only to the extent that this convention applies to Japan, the United States and Canada.

North Pacific Fishery
Furthermore, the second limitation is that only three species of fish on the Pacific coast are protected at the present time, namely salmon, halibut and herring. Other species of fish are not now protected, and can be protected only until such time as the three powers signing the convention will accept the fact that any other species of fish which it is Canada's desire to preserve can be proved to have been scientifically conserved and fully utilized.
The third limitation to which objection is taken is the limited period of time this convention is in force, because after a period of eleven years and one day any of the contracting parties may discontinue the convention at will.
The reappearance of Japan as a great fishing power on the Pacific oc&an is already causing many repercussions. I pointed out some of the activities Japan was entering into when we were discussing this measure at the resolution stage. I pointed out the number of expeditions Japan was planning for 1953. I showed the expansion that had taken place in Japanese fishing during 1952. Already objection is being taken to the extension of the Japanese fishing interests into the Bering sea by the fishermen of the United States. Also under the peace treaty- and I am not now referring to the convention -Japan is bound to accept any proposal from Australia for the opening of negotiations for another fishing pact, dealing with the activities of the Japanese fishing industry around Australian waters. It is inevitable that such a pact would be based upon this one, which we are now asked to ratify.
All these limitations and reasons would suggest that perhaps the government is in somewhat of a hurry to give ratification to this treaty. I feel that this convention will serve as a pattern for many other fishing treaties and conventions the world over. A thorough examination of it would seem fully justified.
However, we must recognize the fact that a limited degree of security is given to the fish of the Pacific ocean off the coast of British Columbia, and that without this convention there would not be even that measure of security. So I can only hope that the convention will not be considered by any means the last word in fisheries agreements, conventions or treaties, and that further consideration should be given. I hope the minister will refer the bill to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of bill with which the average layman like myself does not f eel competent to deal at a time like this. I would hope that the parliamentary assistant to the

Minister of Fisheries would consent to sending the bill to the committee on marine and fisheries, so that experts on the fishing industry in Canada might appear before that committee and explain to it those sections of the convention which may not be quite clear to us.
I think people throughout the country will have to realize, as I do, that Japan, with its expanding population of now pretty close to 90 million people, must have access to the fisheries of the Pacific ocean, and that we cannot take the attitude that we must preserve special privileges for Canada. On the other hand we should be careful not to give away something without getting something in return. I am informed that if the treaty were passed in its present form it would limit the expansion of Canadian fisheries into Bristol bay and the Bering sea, and would in no way limit American operations off our Canadian shores. The only advantage that could be shown for this three-way deal is that it would provide a more lenient base for Canadians fishing in the waters of the gulf of Alaska. But here again the advantage is not very clear.
So I would hope that, even if it would require a little time, the minister would refer this treaty to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, where we could give it closer study.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I feel myself in considerable sympathy with the opening remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) when he referred to the difficulty of one who is more or less a layman, in the matter of foreign treaties, endeavouring to discuss this subject.
At the same time, as one who took a small part in the negotiation of this treaty, I consider it my duty to express my views to the house on the subject. Further, I flatter myself that perhaps to some slight degree I may be of some help in explaining those sections of the bill and those portions of the treaty which may be causing some worry.
Before going into the subject matter of the treaty I should like to trespass for a few moments upon the indulgence of the house to refer to those Canadians who were responsible for bringing these negotiations to their present stage. I am sure the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) would be in full agreement with me, if he were here to hear me say that the fact that the Hon. R. W. Mayhew was at the head of the Canadian delegation, and to a large extent set the tone of the negotiations in Japan, contributes in no small measure to the fact that we did come out of these negotiations with a treaty.

Of the others who were there, Mr. Stewart Bates, the deputy minister of fisheries-and this is no reflection on the then minister at all-was undoubtedly the leading member, irrespective of which nation you refer to, in these negotiations. Mr. Bates proved to me to be, first, a bonnie fighter when the interests of Canada were concerned, and second, an expert diplomat when, and there were such occasions, it looked as though negotiations might perhaps break down. The job that he has done for us, for the fishermen of the Pacific coast, is outstanding. Mr. Arthur R. Menzies, who was at the time charge d'affaires for Canada in Tokyo, took an active part throughout the negotiations', and this was just one of many arduous jobs that he has performed and performed well for Canada. We had with us Mr. Samuel Ozere, legal adviser of the Department of Fisheries, who has been described to me, and not by a member of the Department of Fisheries, as the outstanding lawyer on territorial waters on the North American continent. We had as advisers, Dr. Hart, our scientific director of the Pacific biological station, and Mr. John M. Buchanan, president of B. C. Packers. Dr. John Hart, as biologist, and Mr. Buchanan as speaking for the industry both added considerably to the weight of the Canadian delegation. And so I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that with one exception you had out there a group of men who have done a very fine job for the fishing industry of the Pacific coast and whose work was a credit to themselves and to the country which they represented.
I should like to put myself on record now as saying with all the modesty of which I am [DOT]capable-


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Oh!


Edward Turney Applewhaite: -and I note the interruption of the hon. member for Greenwood_____
that if my parliamentary career were to be cut short at five o'clock tonight I would feel that I had some ground for pride and satisfaction in that I had been able to contribute in a small way to the production of this treaty.
The subject matter of the treaty itself and the whole treaty clause by clause were referred to the standing committee of this house on marine and fisheries at the last session, and that committee considered the treaty and reported entirely with unanimity and almost non-politically. I have not a very long parliamentary career, and I do not know whether it is usual or very unusual that when a report is being submitted on a bill *some private member of a committee should move that the word "unanimously" be inserted. That was done in this case and
North Pacific Fishery
the committee's report -came in reading "unanimously". Of course, that could not have happened had any one member of the committee raised his voice against it.
The committee in its deliberations, I think, discussed this matter and looked at it entirely from a non-political point of view. The treaty's main-no, it would not be fair to say only-result is that we have protected for the lifetime of the treaty the halibut, the herring and the salmon of the Pacific coast of Canada. That is only three species out of all the species of fish that we fish for on that coast, but in the calendar year 1951, the last for which I have complete figures, the landed value of these three species on the Pacific coast was $37,821,945. The landed value of all the other species combined was $3,075,000. Therefore we have given protection during the lifetime of the treaty to these three species, which represent well over ninety per cent of the dollar value of our Pacific catch at the present time.
Why do I say, the "lifetime of the treaty"? I say that because in the treaty there is a fixed period of five years only. But the treaty does say that that protection for these three varieties of fish shall remain in force after the expiry of the five-year period until such time as all three governments, through their representatives on the commission, decide that halibut, herring or salmon no longer qualifies for or no longer requires that protection. In other words, the protection is there until Canada voluntarily relinquishes it, because protection is there until Canada's representatives on the commission state that it is no longer required.
I made reference, Mr. Speaker, to the unanimity and to the non-political aspect of the committee which considered this treaty. And at the time I was sitting on the committee I considered that that was a statement of fact. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), when speaking on the resolution stage of this bill, at page 3379 of Hansard spoke of-
-a certain amount of misunderstanding which existed on the west coast, and a good deal of controversy which took place, . . .
I would say, and I think not unkindly, that the hon. member for Nanaimo has contributed in no small way to that measure of misunderstanding which may have existed on the coast and to the measure of controversy which has been raised on the coast in connection with this treaty, because the hon. member for Nanaimo, in my opinion, did not introduce politics into the committee on marine and fisheries, but did take the committee on marine and fisheries into politics. And it is regrettable, because the hon. member for Nanaimo carries a lot of weight on


The Chairman:: In that regard, I might point out that there is an interdepartmental committee studying that matter at the present time. Do you not think that would cover it sufficiently?


Mr. Catherwood:: Yes, perhaps it will.
The hon. member for Nanaimo charged that the House of Commons committee investigating the treaty had been composed mainly of eastern Canadian Liberals who had paid scant attention to his protests. So far as I know that was the only protest, if it can be regarded as a protest, which the hon. member made, and a reply was given at that time to the hon. member for Haldimand. I point out that the meeting in British Columbia to which I have referred was that of June 5. The committee continued to sit until June 10; its report had not been given consideration on June 5, and I query the desirability of discussing the sittings of a committee on the hustings when the same people could not discuss it on the floor of this house, which was also sitting. If one can learn anything from the Ottawa Journal of Monday, March 23, 1953, I assume that discussing committee proceedings outside the house while the house is in session is still a practice that is engaged in.
Let us look at the accusations which undoubtedly did cause, and should have caused, considerable misunderstanding on the Pacific coast, and I quote:
We've spent millions of dollars on fisheries research to benefit our own fishing industry. And now it appears the Japanese are to reap the benefit of this expenditure.
We have been spending those millions of dollars for a good many years and up until the meeting in Tokyo in December, 1951, there was nothing on earth to stop the Japanese reaping the full benefit of that expenditure other than the armed might of Canada and the United States if they chose to go to war over it. By introducing this treaty we have worked out by agreement with the Japanese a situation whereby they cannot

reap the benefit of it. Because those millions of dollars which we have spent protecting the fisheries of the Pacific coast have been spent solely on salmon, halibut and herring is why salmon, halibut and herring are the only species covered by the treaty.
With reference to that, I should like to quote briefly from page 3.6 of the minutes of the committee for May 8. The witness was Mr. Stewart Bates, deputy minister of fisheries, and the questioner was the hon. member for Nanaimo. Referring to territorial waters, Mr. Bates said:
The question of Hecate strait that has been raised by the hon. member is one of the undetermined questions as between Canada and the United States. Canada claimed territoriality in these waters over fifty years ago, but took no steps then to enforce that claim against U.S. fishing vessels. Article No. 1 makes it plain that this document does nothing to affect territoriality and it makes it plain that the treaty does nothing to affect our future claims to territorial waters.
Article No. 1-
That is, of the treaty.
-paragraph 2, refers to that. Nothing in the convention can adversely affect our claim to territorial waters-any claim we wish to make. So, in effect the convention leaves the question untouched. You have asked specifically if it permits the Japanese to fish in Hecate strait. I think that, should a Japanese vessel appear in the Hecate strait, it would probably lead to appropriate action by the Canadian government. We have already claimed, the straits as territorial waters. We have permitted the United States to fish there but members on this committee from the Atlantic coast know that Canada accords the United States by treaty and understandings many rights that are accorded to the fishing vessels of no other country.
I agree entirely with the plea which the hon. member for Nanaimo has made, and which I understand has been supported on more than one occasion by the hon. member for Vancouver East, that the sooner we define our territorial waters on the Pacific coast the better it will be for all concerned. My limited understanding of the international legal situation is that when you define territorial waters you define them against the world. The job of the negotiators who went to Tokyo was not to define territorial waters against the world; we had no power to do that. We were there to make a treaty, an agreement with the Japanese whereby they would keep out of certain of our fisheries. In so far as the major items of our fishing are concerned, that is what they have done.
The treaty contains a great many high-sounding clauses which are difficult to interpret. It was outlined, I think most comprehensibly, by the parliamentary assistant when he introduced it. It is based upon the one assumption that you can ask only for those things for which you have some legitimate reason for asking. We asked the Japanese to keep out of our fisheries upon
North Pacific Fishery
which we had spent money conserving and building up. Our reasons for asking that were three: We are spending that money; we are controlling and regulating our own fisheries in those areas; and we are continuing to carry out scientific investigations with a view to building up a permanent yield in that area.
As long as we are doing those three things and can satisfy ourselves and others that there is not room to take more fish where we are fishing, we were entitled to go to Japan, as we would be entitled to go to any other country, and get them to agree to leave to us the business that we had built up. But we could not go to Japan and make an agreement which would be binding on Russia or on Peru. The question may be brought up-why all the hurry? Why do you not take a lot more time and get hold of many more nations? Japan was just returning to its sovereignty. It was just coming back into the position where it would be a factor in the fishing of the world. The negotiations were carried on, as everyone knows, in San Francisco and a peace treaty was signed. At that time the Japanese agreed to enter into negotiations immediately for a fishing treaty. Another reason why we did not make treaties with other nations at that time was that on the Pacific coast the only real fear was a fear of the Japanese. It was a fear which we regarded-and when I say "we" I mean the people of Canada-as so justified that we lost no time in making a treaty to protect our interests. If we had had to call a Pacific conference with Russia, China and the Philippines there would still have been no treaty.
I have not the slightest objection to anybody, friend or foe, poking holes in the treaty where they can find them, and it is not perfect; but I do protest most strongly against the creation of the impression on the Pacific coast or elsewhere that the treaty does things which it does not, or does not do things which it does. I say definitely that it does not enable the Japanese to come here and fish salmon, herring and halibut at the end of five years. It does not allow them to come here and fish those species at the end of ten years unless, first, the treaty is abrogated by some nation, or, alternatively, the Canadian representatives on the commission, which must always be unanimous, decide that these species require no more protection.
In general one of the greatest accomplishments of the treaty was not in connection with the Japanese. It was getting a legal and binding agreement with the United States of America, the third party, that, owing to the intermingling of fish on the Pacific

North Pacific Fishery
coast of this continent and to the intermingling of fishing operations, no abstention from fishing on the high seas off the Pacific coast of North America would be asked by the Canadians or the Americans against each other. Let no one try to tell me that by making that agreement we gave the Americans more than we got. You know, on a rough measurement the Pacific coast of the United States of America and the Pacific coast of Alaska, which is included, are four and one-quarter times the length of the Pacific coast of British Columbia. In mentioning that figure I am ignoring entirely the coast of the Aleutian peninsula, and the Aleutian islands, on the east side of which we have the right to fish under this treaty.
The prime reason of course was that it is almost impossible to segregate on the fishing banks, whether they be north or south of the international boundary line, salmon which may have been born in the Fraser river or in the Columbia river or in an Alaskan river, or halibut which may have been spawned in Canadian or United States waters. But by obtaining that commitment on the part of the United States of America we have brought to the fishermen of the Pacific coast a security of asset which it is hard to overemphasize. In so far as territorial waters are concerned, the subject is not irrelevant because territoriality is specifically protected in the treaty. We put in a clause that nothing in the treaty shall affect any claim any of us may choose to make, but the question of territoriality was not one for negotiation at all. We do not have to go to Tokyo to keep the Japanese out of our territorial waters. We have always had the legal right to keep them out. Therefore I say, with due respect to contrary opinion, that I think it is unfortunate that the very important subject of the protection of the high seas fisheries should be mixed up and clouded with the equally important subject of the definition of our territorial waters.
In that connection I might mention that "territorial waters" as such is a term that usually has reference to matters of navigation and originally concerned navigation by foreign warships. I think we may yet reach the stage where we may be able to extend our legally recognized interests in fishing much farther from our coast than we are able to extend our territorial waters, our control over the use of the seas as a highway by the people of other countries.
There is a third point which has been entirely ignored and overlooked in all discussions of the treaty, both by its supporters and by its opponents. The treaty sets up an international commission representing the
[Mr. Applewhaite.l
three countries. That international commission is a permanent body and its job will be not only to carry out the punitive clauses of the treaty but to investigate-the instructions are there-and report on the conservation and the building up of all stocks of fish which come within the convention area, which is the whole north Pacific ocean from Japan to Canada.
A great deal has been said, and rightly so, about the terrific economic pressure upon the Japanese for food, and that fish is one of their main foods. If the commission, as set up under the treaty, gets operating and gets to work, and is even fractionally as successful as have been the international commissions set up by Canada and the United States on the Pacific coast, it will have the effect of building up and increasing the perpetual yields which the Japanese can take from the fisheries which are normally tributary to Japan, and to that extent will have no small effect in relieving the economic pressure on Japan, and therefore relieving the incentive to her to go to other waters, including our own, for fish. That is a matter of no small importance.
I should like to refer to one or two specific points that have been brought up in the debate. With reference to Canadian fishing in Bristol bay, the protocol to the treaty makes provision for Canadians to fish salmon in Bristol bay if it is established that there are any fish of Canadian origin there. I quote one sentence from the protocol:
The commission to be established under the convention shall, as expeditiously as practicable, investigate the waters of the convention area to determine if there are areas in which salmon originating in the rivers of Canada and of the United States of America intermingle with salmon originating in the rivers of Asia.
That was with reference to the northern part, the Bering sea and so forth. So we have a treaty which is undoubtedly of general benefit. The question is: Why hurry? We are not in a hurry. We are the laggards. We are the ones who are dragging our feet. The Japanese and the Americans ratified this convention months ago. We are faced now with two alternatives. As a matter of fact we are right back where we started from. There was a demand over a great many years for a treaty with Japan to keep them out of our preserved fisheries. That treaty we have got. Then what logical objection can there possibly be against ratifying it? As to the necessity of referring the matter to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, the treaty was referred to that committee last year. It was gone over there clause by clause. We had the advantage of the evidence of such people as Stewart Bates, the deputy minister,

the legal adviser and legal advisers from the Department of External Affairs. We had representations from the fisheries council of Canada, from the united fishermen and allied workers' union, from-I speak subject to correction-certain branches of the industry, and others.
The committee first sat on the treaty on April 24. It brought in its report, having had its final sitting on June 10. The reason for the length of time was that after its original meetings public notice was given to everybody who, according to the files of the Department of Fisheries, had shown any interest. They had an opportunity to make their representations and they did make them. The whole field has been gone over.
There is nothing in the bill other than what is in the treaty-other than just the necessary provisions to give the treaty legal effect. The matter has been approved by the committee and there is not any necessity to have the same committee do the same job again.
The fisheries of the Pacific ocean require to have this protection against the fisheries of Japan. The fishermen of the Pacific coast require the clarification which this committee gives to the legal situation regarding fishing in high seas waters, and in the respective waters of Canada and the United States. If we do not ratify the treaty now we are either going to ratify it later or we are going to find ourselves in the position of having to start afresh and negotiate another treaty. In any event, every month's delay is an invitation to those whom this treaty would keep out to come in and take advantage of the time we are giving them.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the request which has been made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis) that this bill be sent to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. That committee could sit next week so there would be no delay whatever. Bills will not be assented to for a matter of some weeks in any event, and the very fact that this bill is not only the convention but also contains various provisions for carrying out that convention warrants, I think, our request that the bill be sent to that committee.


Mr. MacDougall:: Why?


Howard Charles Green: That is particularly important because just two or three weeks ago in this house we dealt with a new act known as the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the provisions of this north Pacific fisheries convention act should be carefully fitted in with
North Pacific Fishery
the terms of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. I believe that can best be done by sending the bill to the committee. After all, there is not a great deal of point in having such a committee if bills of this type are not to be considered by it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It has been considered.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure that the committee would go over the bill very carefully and that the general result would be to the benefit of all parties concerned.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) has spoken with some heat. No doubt that has been engendered by the fact that he has had a pretty hard time telling his story to the fishermen of British Columbia.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: I thought he weakened his submission a great deal by making an attack on the hon. member for Nanaimo.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: That was not an attack.


Howard Charles Green: After all, in my hearing, no one on the coast has claimed that this treaty is perfect, and quite a few people have spoken to me about it.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Neither has the hon. member for Skeena claimed that.


Howard Charles Green: They all agree that the treaty is not as good as they would like it to be; and I do not believe it helped very much to have the hon. member for Skeena come in this house and proceed to endeavour to kick the hon. member for Nanaimo around because of some statements the latter member had made at the coast.


George Randolph Pearkes: Or is purported to have made.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. You see, Mr. Speaker, there are many problems which are not settled by this treaty. For example, I would refer you to fisheries other than halibut, herring and salmon. The situation of Canadian fishermen with regard to those other fisheries is not helped at all by the treaty. It is very significant too that we read in the press within the last week that the Japanese crab fleet is now setting off for Alaskan waters. I have here the Vancouver Province of March 28 which carries a dispatch from Tokyo:
A crab fishing fleet of thirteen ships will leave in the next few days on the first postwar Japanese fishing expedition in Bristol bay, Alaska.
There is nothing to prevent a Japanese crab fleet from coming to the British Columbia coast and fishing for crabs in Hecate strait or in any other of our coastal waters which are not now described as territorial waters.

North Pacific Fishery
This is one problem which still has to be settled, and is another reason for great concern on the coast. The government seems to be pussyfooting about this matter of territorial waters. This afternoon I listened very attentively to hear the hon. member for Skeena say whether or not he thought Hecate strait should be considered Canadian territorial waters; but he made no such suggestion. In fact, he intimated that territorial waters were not very important in so far as this bill is concerned. Yet I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the whole treaty is based on the fact that it covers what is described as a "convention area".. From that convention area there are excluded by this bill the territorial waters of the different nations which are parties to the treaty. As far as territorial waters are concerned, if I understand the treaty correctly, a nation can prevent other countries fishing in its territorial waters.
If Hecate strait were considered to be territorial waters, then the Japanese crab fleet could not fish there, the Russians could not come in and fish there, nor could United States fishermen, without our consent. There is concern about the Americans fishing in Hecate strait. On March 20 I asked the parliamentary assistant to try to get me some information about the extent to which the Americans had been fishing for crabs in that strait. I said at page 3163 of Hansard:
When the parliamentary assistant is doing that,-
He was getting some other information.
-would he also try to find out what amount of crabfish has been caught by the Americans in Hecate strait. Surely that information can be obtained in one way or another; and it brings up this whole question of what are Canadian territorial waters. Could the parliamentary assistant get that further information?
The reply was:
If it is possible to get that information I will get it.
Now, I cannot see any reason why Canada does not take a firm stand and declare that Hecate strait is Canadian territorial water. This question of territorial waters is of great interest in several countries. In the United States, for example, it is becoming a particularly important question because of the offshore oil. Those members who are interested will find a very enlightening report in the current issue of U.S. News and World Report for April 3. The article is entitled "Offshore Oil; What's It About". In our neighbouring country they are now deeply concerned about the question of offshore rights, not only the extent of territorial waters but also the distance to which the United States can control the resources in or under the water.

For example, in 1945 President Truman laid claim to the resources along the continental shelf off the United States, but apparently the United States government has been careful not to claim that United States boundaries extend that far. They are claiming some right to the resources. Some of the states are claiming rights as far out as 30 miles off the coast. The state of California claims that it has rights 30 miles out to the outermost islands of California; Louisiana claims 27 miles; and Florida and Texas claim 10-5 miles. Apparently in the United States they have now reached the point where they are considering taking the stand that they are entitled to rights as far out as 250 miles from the coast.
With these developments occurring in the United States, the Canadian government should at least be able to make up its mind about Hecate strait, which lies between the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland of British Columbia. I do not believe there is a single reason why that strait should not be declared Canadian territorial water. In so doing, we would at least eliminate one of the objections raised in connection with this bill.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do urge the parliamentary assistant and the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Winters) to have this bill referred to the standing committee. Such a move would mean that it would be carefully considered. The issue is of sufficient importance to warrant that action being taken. I find that when there is a great rush to get legislation through, and a lot of war whoops are given out about the great danger of delay, that we must act quickly in this case because if we do not the Japanese will get us, or some such plea for quick action, usually we end up in a position which is not nearly as beneficial as would be the case if we had taken a little time and done the thing properly. I hope the government will agree to having the bill referred to the committee.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: I intend to be very brief this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, because I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) has done an extremely good job of analysing this legislation and putting it into understandable form for those members of the house who are perhaps not familiar with our fisheries problems on the Pacific coast. I agree with what he said about the committee on marine and fisheries having already considered this treaty very carefully, and having brought in a unanimous report supporting the signing of this agreement by Canada.
Personally, I welcome this treaty because it seems to me that it brings into being what I hope is a new era in Pacific fisheries relations. This problem of the protection of our

coastal fisheries is one with which I am very-familiar. I well remember when I was a lad 25 years ago fishing for pilchards off the west coast of Vancouver island. We were always concerned about rumours and reports that the Japanese were going to move into our territorial waters and take our pilchards, salmon, herring and halibut. It appears to me that, for the first time in history, this treaty will afford these fisheries some protection. I must say that, after all those years, I am very glad that we have finally decided to afford some protection to this very valuable asset. We have our salmon, our halibut and our herring, which are the principal fisheries resources on the Pacific coast, and they are now to be given what is considered to be the most adequate measure of protection possible under existing conditions. I would say to the parliamentary assistant I would be very happy, when this international commission is set up, if this question of the conservation of pilchards could be considered.
I recall that at one time off the west coast of Vancouver island we took some 200,000 tons of pilchards a year. Owing to the lack of international co-operation of the United States fishermen and the lack of protection given by the United States government to the pilchard fisheries off the coast of California, we find that there are no pilchard fisheries operations off our British Columbia coast at all. As a result, several million dollars' worth of fisheries products have been lost. I am glad to learn that the United States government has seen fit to put a closure on the catching of pilchards off the coast of California for a five-year period. It seems to me that this international fisheries commission which will be set up under this bill would be an effective agent to see that this fishery is brought back. I would hope that this example of international co-operation might motivate that great nation, Russia, to join us in this fisheries treaty in due course.
Like other hon. members, I am extremely happy to see that a special committee has been set up by the Department of Fisheries and the Department of External Affairs to consider the problem of our territorial waters. I realize just how important the problem of the definition of our territorial waters is, and from my experience on the committee on marine and fisheries I understand just how complicated and involved a problem it is, both from the legal aspect and from the economic aspect.
I must say that I have always felt Canada was short-changed, perhaps by the unfortunate representation we had in the early days when treaties were made on our behalf before we achieved national sovereignty.
North Pacific Fishery
Perhaps our interests were not as well protected as they might have been. I can also appreciate the fact that the United States feel they have a historical claim to the fishing in Hecate strait, and there are those who say we should deny them access to these waters. On the other hand, we must never forget that the United States provides the best market for our fisheries products, and the fisheries industry of Canada would be in a most unfortunate position if it were not for that market.
I feel that this treaty represents a historic advance in international relations. It provides additional protection to the great majority of our fisheries, and I believe it is worthy of the support of this house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the parliamentary assistant speaks now on behalf of the minister, he will close the debate.


John Watson MacNaught: I feel that I should make a few remarks, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the request of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), that this bill be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries for further consideration. If this had been the first time the convention had been before the house, I would be inclined to agree, and in fact I would agree with the request. But, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), as well as by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), this convention was before the house at the last session of parliament. At that time it was debated fully at the resolution stage, and was then referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries, where 146 pages of evidence were taken.
Opportunity was given by the committee for all interested parties to make representations. Very satisfactory evidence was given before the committee, particularly that of the deputy minister of fisheries wherein he explained the terms of the treaty. Then there was satisfactory evidence by Mr. Ozere, director of legal services in the Department of Fisheries, who explained the technical aspects, and further evidence of a legal nature by Mr. Erichsen-Brown, of the legal division of the Department of External Affairs. He gave very helpful evidence on the involved and complex problem of territorial waters. Then there was evidence from a representative from British Columbia, Mr. Homer Stevens, the secretary of the united fishermen and allied workers' union. His evidence took most of one day, and he was examined and cross-

North Pacific Fishery
examined by members of the committee. So I do not believe any useful purpose could be served by referring the convention again to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.
With respect to those observations concerning territorial waters, I can only repeat what I said before, that this matter is one of great complexity. The government has set up a committee composed of representatives from various departments who, at the present time, are considering this problem.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to a question of privilege. When I spoke earlier I asked that this bill be referred to the committee on marine and fisheries. I must explain that during the last session I was not able to follow the business of the house, and I did not know that the treaty itself had been referred to that committee last year, and had received consideration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee on the said bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee on the bill?


George Randolph Pearkes: On division.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Howard Charles Green: Has the parliamentary assistant been able to get the information concerning crab fishing by Americans in Hecate strait?


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, I have been unable to get any additional information. As soon as it is available I shall give it to the hon. member.


John Lambert Gibson: Where would that information be available? Would it have to be obtained from the Americans, perhaps at Seattle?


John Watson MacNaught: So far as I know that would be the only source from which the information could be obtained. We have no information otherwise.


John Lambert Gibson: The parliamentary assistant does not know whether or not it is available?


John Watson MacNaught: No, we do not know.


George Randolph Pearkes: I asked whether there had been any incidents of Americans fishing for crabs within the territorial waters of Canada in Hecate strait.


John Watson MacNaught: My information is that there are no instances of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 2-Definitions.
Howard Charles Green: I find in this section a definition of the term "convention area", and that it means all waters, other than territorial waters, of the north Pacific ocean, including the adjacent seas. Does that definition mean that the question as to what are or are not territorial waters is left entirely to the different countries who are parties to the treaty?


John Watson MacNaught: The answer is yes; it is left entirely to the countries themselves to determine their own territorial waters.


Howard Charles Green: That is, the Americans can say that such and such waters are American territorial waters, and Canada can do the same thing?


John Watson MacNaught: That is correct.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Perhaps it would be advisable if I were to put on record what the convention says in this particular. It says, in article I, paragraph 2:
Nothing in this convention shall be deemed to affect adversely (prejudice) the claims of any contracting party in regard to the limits of territorial waters or to the jurisdiction of a coastal state over fisheries.
That was put in there to protect all of us in making any claims as to territorial waters we might have in mind, or which might have been made and not accepted.


Howard Charles Green: In the paragraph to which the hon. member has referred there is a differentiation between territorial waters and the jurisdiction of a coastal state over fisheries. What does that mean?


John Watson MacNaught: Up to the present time there has been no difference between the two. One is co-extensive with the other.


Howard Charles Green: Does it mean that while Canada can claim that territorial waters extend only three miles from low tide, she could claim that she had jurisdiction over fisheries ten or fifteen miles out?


John Watson MacNaught: Canada most certainly could make that declaration, but whether it would be accepted by other countries is another matter. There is nothing in the treaty or convention to prevent Canada saying that our territorial waters shall extend four, miles or six miles or ten miles; but the matter as to whether it would be acceptable to other countries would at once arise.


Howard Charles Green: Do the words "coastal state" apply to a state of the union? Are they meant to cover a claim by, we will say, the state of California; or do those words mean only a claim by a nation?


John Watson MacNaught: I am informed that it covers all claims.


Howard Charles Green: By a state of the United States as well as by the nation?


John Watson MacNaught: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: What is the definition of Canadian territorial waters at the present time? What distance from the shore out to sea is considered territorial waters?


John Watson MacNaught: The answer to that question is generally three miles.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Regulations.
George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask a question on paragraph (a) of section 4, which has to do with the conservation and protection of fish in the convention area? Does that mean that Canada may pass regulations for the conservation and protection of other species of fish than salmon, halibut and herring, and provided the requirements for full utilization and scientific conservation are met on that, then the three contracting powers will agree to these other species being included?


John Watson MacNaught: If the commission makes the recommendations, this section gives the government of Canada power to make regulations relating thereto.


George Randolph Pearkes: Has the government of Canada or the department under consideration including any other species of fish, because a good deal of exploratory work has already been carried out at the biological station at Departure Bay on several other species of fish and money has been expended on other species of fish beyond merely the salmon, halibut and herring.


John Watson MacNaught: No other species of fish has yet met the whole three regulations; some have met one and some have met two, but none except salmon, halibut and herring has met the three necessary conditions.


George Randolph Pearkes: Of course no other power except the three contracting parties would be governed by these regulations.


John Watson MacNaught: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Why is subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of section 4 limited to Canadian fishing vessels? I understand that it is not in general terms such as the other clauses and thereby applicable to any vessel that is exploiting the stocks of fish in any part of the convention area.


John Watson MacNaught: The government of Canada can only enforce the regulations against its own nationals. The United States similarly has power to enforce against its nationals under similar legislation.
North Pacific Fishery


Howard Charles Green: I suppose there is nothing to prevent countries having different regulations, or not having any regulations at all, with regard to some particular subject. If that is so the result might be that Canada would have regulations prohibiting Canadian vessels from exploiting an area; the United States might have different regulations, and then a United States vessel could come in and exploit the area while the Canadian vessel could not?


John Watson MacNaught: No; the commission will make the recommendations and regulations, and they will be identical for the three countries.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Seizure and arrest for violation of convention.
George Randolph Pearkes: Again I presume that the seizure referred to applies to seizure on the high seas, and only on the high seas; is that correct?


John Watson MacNaught: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Jurisdiction of courts.
Howard Charles Green: If a United States vessel commits a breach of the regulations all the Canadian authorities can do is to seize the vessel and then turn it over to the United States who will do the fining or the imprisoning or the forfeiting of the ship; is that so?


John Watson MacNaught: That is correct. A similar provision applies in the operations of the halibut and salmon commissions.


John Lambert Gibson: This does not affect our jurisdiction over territorial waters at all in so far as United States ships are concerned?


John Watson MacNaught: Seizures and arrests within territorial waters are covered by the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act we passed about two weeks ago.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
On the schedule.
George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to say a word on section 3 of article VI of the schedule. It says that the contracting parties agree to meet during the sixth year after the ratification of this convention. I think that may explain the difficulties of the hon. member for Skeena and the misapprehensions that the hon. member was suffering under.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Annex agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Gold Mining
Protocol agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to provide greater assistance to the mining industry by changing the definition of the rate of assistance to one-half the excess of the cost of production per ounce over $18, with a maximum of $13.50, to provide further that the new rate of assistance shall be applicable to the number of ounces of gold produced by a mine in 1953 in excess of one-half of base year production or to one-half of 1953 production, whichever is larger.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reserve any statement I have to make on this for the second reading of the bill. Several hon. members wish to speak on this matter and they are not here today. I think we could very well save time by my reserving my statement until that time.


Mr. Knowles:: Perhaps it might be understood that the main debate could wait until other interested parties are here at a later stage, but it seems to me it would be desirable that there be put on the record now a statement as to the purpose of this legislation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a continuation of the existing policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The resolution seeks something more than that.


George Prudham: The resolution states clearly what we propose to do. It is just an extension of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act which, has been debated many times in the house. There is no change in policy. It is just an extension of the assistance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys say that it is just an extension; that it involves no change in policy. Will they explain the meaning of the words in the resolution which read:
... to provide greater assistance to the mining industry-


George Prudham: I do not think that there can be any misunderstanding of the resolution. It states clearly how we propose to extend it and for how much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is not just an extension of time. It is now clear that there will be an increase in the assistance to the gold mining industry.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are minor changes in the formula.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Prudham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 329, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES ACT INCREASE IN NUMBER OF DIRECTORS   ADJUSTMENT OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE, ETC.

Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937, to provide that the corporation shall be under the management of a board of directors composed of nine persons in lieu of seven; to increase the powers of the corporation, and to adjust its capital structure in such a way as to conform to normal commercial practice.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the parliamentary assistant going to make a statement?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It will be recalled that this motion is a formal one and no debate is to take place at this time, in compliance with the recent ruling of Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which we accept without prejudice.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, this bill has several purposes. It is dictated by the fact that under the new Financial Administration Act, Trans-Canada Air Lines is required to pay taxes. At the moment there are two corporations, Trans-Canada Air Lines Limited and Trans-Canada Air Lines (Atlantic) Limited. The one corporation makes substantial profits and the other corporation loses considerable amounts of money. Under the present situation Trans-Canada Air Lines Limited, the domestic company, is required to pay a substantial income tax while the overseas company pays no income tax. Nevertheless, under the method of financing, the deficit of the overseas company is paid from the profits of the domestic company.

The logical step would seem to be to amalgamate the two companies and avoid excessive taxation against the domestic company.
There is another feature. The capital of T.C.A. is represented by common shares requiring a fixed payment to Canadian National Railways. The company has no funded debt although in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of most people, common stock that requires a fixed payment of 3 per cent is in reality more in the nature of a bond or debenture. It is proposed to retire $20 million of the $25 million and to substitute a $20 million bond which will represent that part of the capital. This is a further effort to bring the financing of the company more in conformity with commercial practice.


Howard Charles Green: Bearing interest at 3 per cent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bond will bear interest at 3 per cent. The shares will be like other common shares; they will pay such dividends as the directors may determine and as the financial condition of the company will permit.
There are other minor changes. The number of directors is being increased from seven to nine to provide representation to parts of the country not now represented on the board of directors. The other changes that will appear in the bill are more in the direction of tidying up the act rather than being of importance in themselves.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the minister sure that the hard-boiled Department of National Revenue will not regard this as a tax-evasion scheme? It seems to me that the splitting up of the capital is a reasonable arrangement. Why should T.C.A. pay a lower rate of interest than the government now pays?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was not correct when I said that the new rate would be fixed at 3 per cent. The rate will be the commercial rate at the time the bond issue is made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will it be a public issue?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. T.C.A. is a subsidiary of Canadian National Railways. The capital was provided by the government to Canadian National Railways and by them to Trans-Canada Air Lines. The $20 million share capital will be returned to Canadian National Railways and reloaned by them against a bond which will bear the current rate of interest for that type of bond and for the period for which the bond is made. It will be a commercial transaction in every way.
Trans-Canada Air Lines Act
My hon. friend asked if there was evasion of taxation. This is simply an arrangement that bears out the facts. The original idea was that there would be two companies, each of which would stand on its own feet. If there was to be a deficit in either company the wealthy uncle, the government, would make good that deficit. We have never accepted that version of the arrangement; we have always said that T.C.A. is one entity as far as the government is concerned and if one branch makes money and the other branch loses money, the wealthy branch would have to support the poverty-stricken branch. We are simply making legislative provision for that arrangement.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister does not feel that a crown corporation should have a higher standard in its attitude toward taxation than just an ordinary corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it brings the act in conformity with commercial practice.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: With respect to the question of the number of directors, so far as Canadian National Railways are concerned, which have a small number of directors, I have raised the question whether it would not be desirable to have a much larger and more representative board. Would the minister say a word as to his attitude toward the question of increasing the number of directors, which I see he proposes to do here?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I had something to do with the reorganization of Canadian National Railways in 1936. Previously the board had consisted of 23 members, I believe, who were all parttime directors receiving an honorarium. It was thought at that time that the railroad was not receiving the attention from the directors that its affairs would seem to warrant. The number had been first reduced to a receivership of three in 1932 or 1933 when the board of 23 was done away with. A receivership of three was installed at that time, and in the reorganization of 1936 it was decided that a board of seven would be large enough to give reasonable representation and small enough so the directors could be paid a salary and be expected to live where they could attend meetings of the board and give their continuous attention to the affairs of the railroad.
It has worked out rather well. Vancouver no doubt would be very honoured to have a director on the board; but could anyone guarantee that that director would attend the meetings which I believe take place every week? We have a member from Saskatchewan, but in every case the member from Saskatchewan has moved to Montreal

Trans-Canada Air Lines Act and put himself in a position to attend to the business of the board.
It is not.my affair any more but I would be sorry to see a return to the casual director who attended when it suited him, and who thought about the work of the railway only when he was attending meetings of the board. In the case of Trans-Canada Air Lines the position is somewhat analogous. We have directors who attend regularly and give a good deal of attention to the work of the board. Winnipeg has substantial T.C.A. installations. That city has felt that it should be represented. Perhaps another director not living in Montreal would also be helpful provided we select a man who really will attend to the business of the air line.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not propose to labour the matter. I want to make one further comment. I was informed the other day of something I had not been aware of, that the directors of Canadian National Railways are geographically representative. The argument I made was that any ordinary commercial institution has a board of directors, I take it, for two reasons; first of all to bring in outside judgment and, second, to assist the company in getting business. I quite agree that outside men cannot be asked to attend meetings every week, but surely the answer to that is that the meetings could be much less frequent and they could have an executive committee, or what you will.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to have a director from the west coast?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has not been much
thought given to who will be appointed as directors. A director from the west and a director from the east might be appointed. I do not know what the decision will be. We are simply making arrangements for two more directors, one of whom must be a member of the board of directors of the railway. Under the terms of the bill the majority of the board must be directors of the railway. The provision for nine will mean that one additional railway director will be appointed and one additional appointee of the government.


Howard Charles Green: I realize the difficulty the minister has mentioned in having directors from more distant parts of the country, but I think in the case of Trans-Canada Air Lines it would be very beneficial to have someone from the west coast. He could get here overnight. After all, conditions are quite different there. We are very much concerned with the success of Trans-Canada Air Lines and we would appreciate having a director from the west coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Consideration will be given to that requirement as well as to the requirements of other parts of Canada.
[Mr. Howe.l


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister say how many of the directors are in the government service at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None directly. Four of the directors are members of the board of directors of Canadian National Railways. One was previously a member of the civil service but he is now retired, and as far as I know has no other occupation except that of director of Trans-Canada Air Lines.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then would it be correct to say there are really no outside directors? Is that true at the moment? Are they all either directors of Canadian National or civil servants, present or retired?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, that is not correct. It is a board of seven at the present time. Four are directors of Canadian National Railways. One is a retired civil servant and the two others have no association with the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if this would not be an appropriate time for the minister to tell us whether or not there has been any change in government policy with respect to the role assigned by the government to Trans-Canada Air Lines. I have in mind in particular the speech which the minister made on March 17, 1944, when he dealt rather fully with civil aviation policy, both domestic and international. On that occasion the minister referred to a statement which the former prime minister, Mr. King, made on April 2, 1943. At that time Mr. King said, as found at page 1778 of Hansard for that date:
-Trans-Canada Air Lines will continue to operate all transcontinental systems, and such other services of a main-line character as may from time to time be designated by the government. Competition between air services over the same route will not be permitted whether between a publicly owned service and a privately owned service or between two privately owned services.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking on March 17, 1944, in his then capacity of minister of munitions and supply, said that the policy enunciated by Mr. King on April 2, 1943, still stood. During the course of his very interesting speech that day he referred to the difficulties this country had got into because of certain mistakes that had been made in the early days of the building of our railways, and insisted that in his view the best kind of air service for Canada would be to have it on a noncompetitive and non-profit basis. As I say, he confirmed the position which the former prime minister had indicated, and made it clear that it was the intention of the government that all main-line services were to be operated by Trans-Canada Air Lines.
The minister pointed out on that occasion that back in 1936 or 1937 an offer had been

made to the Canadian Pacific Railway and to Canadian Airways Limited to come in on the new set-up of Trans-Canada Air Lines that was being organized at that time, but that they had refused to do so. I need not go further into the details of that speech because I am sure the minister remembers it as well as I do. My reason for asking whether there has been any change in that policy arises from the application by Canadian Pacific Air Lines, recently heard by the air transport board, for the right to fly a main-line air freight service across the country.
I understand that even if the air transport board looked favourably on that application the matter would still be subject to review by the government. I would think that would be the case in the light of the clear statement of policy made in 1943 and 1944. There are other aspects of the policy I need not go into at this time, but I wonder if the minister could tell us what the government's position is now with respect to main-line flying in Canada.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Before the minister replies, I would not want the discussion to take in too much territory. I presume the hon. member took advantage of the words "to increase the powers of the corporation" in the resolution to give him the opportunity to ask his question about possible changes in policy. However, this resolution seems to limit itself to the management and an increase in the board of directors.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we can agree, sir, that my right to do this is borderline; but if we agree on that, you might permit the minister to answer.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not mind agreeing to that provided we do not spend the rest of the afternoon discussing Trans-Canada Air Lines policy. If it is in order under the resolution it is for the minister to say, because I do not know exactly what the terms are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am in a difficult position as far as that question is concerned because I am no longer responsible for air line policies. As my hon. friend realizes, the air transport board is now in charge of administration of air policy and they report to my colleague the Minister of Transport.
I am still the minister to which the crown company, Trans-Canada Air Lines, reports; thus there is a separation of interests at the moment. As far as I know there is no change in government policy. Problems of air policy are promptly reviewed by the air transport board. For example, a service was required in the Okanagan valley and that
Trans-Canada Air Lines Act service is, in a sense, competitive with Trans-Canada Air Lines. On the other hand, it is not a service of the type which Trans-Canada Air Lines is equipped to give. The question was whether Canadian Pacific Air Lines should be allowed to provide that service even if they could carry passengers between Vancouver and Calgary.
I think my hon. friend will agree that is a question worthy of study, and it was for the air transport board to decide whether it was consistent with government policy. The question was examined, and it was decided that there was no deviation as far as that route was concerned.
The application for transcontinental freight service is for freight only between Toronto, The Pas, and Edmonton. Whether that is a matter of deviation from government policy is something the government will decide after it receives a report from the air transport board. I understand that the board is now considering the situation, and that no report has been made as yet to the government.
However, the statement of policy given by Mr. King, which has been read by the hon. member, as far as I am aware is still the policy of the government.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good idea to add these two directors to the board of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and I would make a very brief suggestion for their consideration and for the consideration of the other directors. When I was in the United States a little while ago I had occasion to make several air flights. I found that most United States air lines have instituted a coach flight which costs only about two-thirds the regular first-class rate.
I flew from Chicago to Los Angeles first class, and it cost me $114. While I was out there I found out about this coach flight, and I flew back coach class, and that cost me only $76, or two-thirds of the first-class fare. The airplanes used in the coach class flights are exactly the same as those used for first-class flights. Their time schedule is the same; the service on the airplane is almost identical; there is the same stewardess service, and the only difference is that meals are not served. That is not very difficult to overcome because it is easy to take a box lunch aboard, and those are just about as enjoyable as the meals usually served on aircraft.
The only other difference is that the seats were slightly narrower and, in fact, there were five rows of seats instead of four. I was on the aircraft for nearly nine hours, but I was just as comfortable in the coach-class seats as I have been in first-class seats. They

Trans-Canada Air Lines Act have the same lean-back facilities, and I could see no difference at all.
While I was out there I inquired about the economics of these coach-class flights and I was informed by air line officials that the return on the coach-class flights is just as satisfactory as it is on the first-class flights. The reason is that the extra row of seats is substituted for the freight which, I understand, is usually carried by large United States aircraft; and that gives a better pay return. Also, the coach-class flights are usually filled to capacity because of the much cheaper rate.
Many people who would otherwise not be able to travel by aircraft are able to travel coach class, instead of having to go by bus or train. First-class flights are very often only partially filled, and that is a very important factor. As I say, the air line officials with whom I talked told me they received just as good a return per flight on the coach class as on the first-class flights.
I believe this is something which deserves a great deal of attention by the Trans-Canada Air Lines directors, and I sincerely suggest that we introduce this kind of service into Trans-Canada Air Lines, because I believe it would bring air travel much more within the reach of people who otherwise are not able to travel by aircraft.
At present the only people who can afford to travel by air are businessmen and government officials who are on expense accounts, or people in the middle or upper income brackets. People in the lower income brackets simply cannot afford to travel that way. I think we should remember that Trans-Canada Air Lines is owned by the people of this country, and we should do everything possible to bring that service more within the reach of the shareholders of the line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Might I just say one word here, and I will not delay the committee. We know all about coach travel, of course. Its introduction into Canada is being studied. There are, however, substantial differences in that density of travel is much greater in the United States. I suppose that coach travel there carries about one-fifth of the passengers that travel by air.
If we had ten services across the country we might put two of them into coach travel. However, we are building up our traffic and there is no resistance at the moment to the fares which Trans-Canada Air Lines charge. My hon. friend says the ordinary man cannot afford to travel on Trans-Canada Air Lines. If he can afford to buy a berth on a train he can afford to travel by Trans-Canada Air Lines because, after he pays for his berth and


his meals there is very little difference, and perhaps the difference is in favour of the air line.
We have coach travel across the Atlantic, and we have no first-class service on that route. While theoretically you can put in enough extra passengers to make up the difference in fare, that assumes that you have a pressure for travel that will allow you to fill planes. I doubt if there is any route where we have that kind of pressure for travel. We certainly have not got it on the north Atlantic, for our density of traffic was just as great at the higher rate as it is at the lower. We have turned an operation that was getting out of the red and into the black back into an operation that is deeply in the red. However, we think adopting the coach service is the only thing to do considering the competitive situation on the north Atlantic.
I can assure my hon. friend that we will go into coach service just as soon as we get the type of equipment that is suitable for that conversion and just as soon as we feel that we have a volume of traffic that will allow us to fill airplanes equipped for coach travel.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would like to ask the minister a question having regard to the answer he gave to the member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is this. We do have competition between the railways, and I believe they feel it is good. The chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation spoke about the usefulness of competition. I wanted to ask the minister whether the policy enunciated by Mr. King might not be changed, and whether we might not reasonably look forward to a time when there would be enough airplane traffic for more than one company.
Actually there is competition now in bits and pieces, you might say. The minister gave an illustration of one area in which there is competition. I do not want the record left in such a way, unless the minister feels it must be left in that way, that there is no question but that the monopoly of the Trans-Canada service has to be permanent. I hope it does not have to be permanent, and that it will change with the circumstances.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is quite right. This is a thinly settled country. We have air services that are essential to the economy. However, today air transport in Canada is not competitive, or is competitive in only a few cases, whether public or private. If an air line company is assigned to a territory, that is its territory and no one else has a right to operate an air service in it. I believe that is a sound policy at the moment. If sufficient

travel develops to the point where competition is warranted, then certainly air routes may be entitled to competition.
For instance, we are spending I suppose $20 million or more at this moment on new aircraft to serve the business we know we have. Now, if we only had a chance of getting that business from somebody else, it would not be a very wise expenditure. In other words both competing air lines would be spending $20 million and perhaps competing for the same traffic.


Howard Charles Green: There is a reference in this resolution to increased powers of the corporation. Can the minister tell us in what way the powers are to be increased?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I really do not remember. There are two or three minor amendments that have no great significance. When the bill is before us we shall be able to discuss those changes more intelligently. I should perhaps know what the reference means, but I do not.


Mr. McLure:: What will be the remuneration for these two new directors?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no remuneration. The T.C.A. directors are not paid.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 330, to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD ACT


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (for the Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act to increase the membership of the board from fifteen to nineteen including the chairman: to provide for the appointment by the governor in council of a permanent chairman at such salary as may be fixed by the governor in council, and for the appointment by the minister of an acting chairman who may. if he is not a member of the public service, be paid such remuneration as may be fixed by the governor in council; and also to abolish the position of executive director.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, the fisheries research board of Canada conducts and controls all investigations into practical problems connected with the marine and fresh water fisheries. The
Fisheries Research Board Act board operates seven main stations in Canada and one substation. Four of these stations are devoted to biological work, the study of fish populations, methods of fishing, and the remaining three stations deal with technical problems of canning, refrigeration, production of meal and oil, quality control of product and so on. Each of these stations is in charge of a director, and attached to them are scientific staffs as well as seasonal scientific staffs.
Because of the wide ramifications of the board's work, involving considerable expense, it is becoming increasingly evident that the existing structure of the board requires modification. The management of the board is at present in the hands of 15 members, two from the department, two from each of the fishing industries on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and nine scientists from Canadian universities. One of these is elected chairman and another vice-chairman. The board has a small staff at headquarters in Ottawa. The chairman and vice-chairman, both being university scientists, are normally resident elsewhere in Canada and able to give only part time to the management. At its last annual meeting the board recommended that this act be amended to provide for a full-time chairman and to allow a more balanced representation on the board itself. These amendments will be contained in the bill which will be introduced as a result of this resolution.


William Joseph Browne: Is the parliamentary assistant in a position to say whether there will be any representation from the province of Newfoundland on the board, and who the new chairman is going to be?


John Watson MacNaught: At the moment I am not in a position to tell the house who the new chairman will be. Every effort will be made to see that adequate representation is given to Newfoundland.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the parliamentary assistant if he has taken note of the comment made by the general manager of Trans-Canada Air Lines the other day when he was questioned in committee about serving that delicious food called fish, in which all Canadians delight and of which we should like to see the distribution even further advanced. According to the committee report the general manager said they did not serve fish on the air lines because it was so odoriferous. In connection with research I would think the parliamentary assistant would have the board deal with this subject. I must confess that I cannot agree with the statement, because I think there is no more delicious food served in Canada than that which comes out of the rivers, lakes and seas.

Canadian Forces Act
I should like to have some comment from the parliamentary assistant. I know that if a member on this side of the house were to make such a statement it would be a fullblown political issue from now until the next general election. I hope the parliamentary assistant is not going to allow another department to make such a statement and remain completely silent.


John Watson MacNaught: I am very pleased that the hon. member for Peel does not agree with the statement made by the general manager. I am sure that if the hon. member for Peel and the general manager were to pay a visit to our test kitchens they would find that fish can be cooked without any odour whatever.


William Joseph Browne: As I asked the question of the general manager as to why they did not serve fish on board on Friday, may I say I am grateful to the hon. member for Peel for bringing up this matter this afternoon. May I suggest that the parliamentary assistant invite members of the board of Trans-Canada Air Lines to his test kitchen and let them consume some of the delicious fish they can have there. It might change his opinion.


John Watson MacNaught: I can assure the hon. member for St. John's West that full consideration will be given to his suggestion to invite the members of the board of Trans-Canada Air Lines to the test kitchen.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier (Hull) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 331, to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN FORCES ACT


Brooke Claxton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Defence Act in respect of certain offences committed by members of the forces out of Canada, to provide for the custody of members of the forces found guilty by civil courts in Canada or by civil or military tribunals of countries other than Canada, and to provide for the disposition of certain classes of appeals; also to amend the Defence Services Pension Act respecting the service that may be counted for purposes of the act and to make pensions payable to the widows and children of persons to whom section 46E of the act applies; and also to amend the Canadian forces voting regulations respecting the completion of statements of ordinary residence.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, the bill which would be introduced in consequence of the adoption of this resolution would amend the National Defence Act, the Defence Services Pension Act and the Canadian forces voting regulations.
The first of these acts would be amended by making provision that Canadian military personnel serving out of Canada who commit offences punishable by foreign law might be tried and punished under Canadian service law. I believe the committee will agree it is desirable that we do everything possible to have Canadian servicemen who are accused of committing offences in foreign countries tried before Canadian tribunals wherever possible. The need for this has arisen in connection with the greatly extended operations of the Canadian armed forces, and was brought home by a definite case which arose where two Canadian sailors were accused and convicted of an offence in Hong Kong. We would like to be in a position to have tried them in respect of the offence, and also to have taken them into custody, through arrangements of course with the Hong Kong authorities.
The second amendment to the National Defence Act is somewhat similar in nature. It would make it lawful for a Canadian serviceman sentenced by a foreign court to undergo his punishment in a Canadian military or civil institution. In this case we are attempting, through diplomatic representations, to secure the delivery to us of these Canadian sailors so that they will finish their sentence in a Canadian service institution. It is greatly to be desired, particularly where the climate and practices of local jurisdictions differ very much from ours, that this be done.
The third amendment would enable the court martial appeal board to exercise the same discretion the court martial had in the first instance of finding an accused guilty of an alternative offence. In a number of cases the court martial appeal board has had cases before it where it would like to have found accused persons guilty of some alternative offence, as is done in respect of criminal appeals in the criminal courts. This, however, was not provided for in the original provision for the court martial appeal board, so the board found it necessary in these cases to order new trials. In the case of offences arising in Korea or Germany it is almost invariably impracticable to have new trials because, by the time the court martial appeal board has delivered judgment, witnesses have been posted to other countries.

Then we also would propose amendments which would provide for expeditious procedure for the disposition of appeals for which no substantial grounds have been shown, or which have been abandoned. This provision exists in connection with appeals of criminal cases in the civil courts, and we would like the court martial appeal board to have power to make regulations to dispose of cases where appeals have not been proceeded with, within a reasonable time, and where such appeals have been made obviously for the purpose of securing delay.
Then there are two amendments to the Defence Services Pension Act. One of these would remove the difficulty now found in fixing the time of service of service personnel who have qualified for pension under the Defence Services Pension Act, where part of their service has been with the forces of another commonwealth country. At the present time it is difficult to determine when this service ends, and this would permit that being done by regulation.
The other amendment to the Defence Services Pension Act would remove an injustice which now exists in respect of a class of contributor for whom special provision was made in an amendment passed in 1951. That class of contributor consists of persons who have had combined services with the active and reserve forces for a total of twenty years. And we should have provided, expressly at the time of passing the amendment, for that part of their pension which would have been payable to their wives being paid to those wives. It was subsequently found that this was omitted, and that it was necessary. Now we want to correct that gap in the law. I understand there are also two or three pending cases which would be affected.
Finally the bill contains certain minor amendments to the Canadian forces voting regulations. It will be recalled that when the Canada Elections Act was referred to the special committee of the House of Commons, that committee made recommendations regarding regulations controlling the voting of service electors. It was provided by those regulations that the service electors had to register by September 21, 1952, and it has been found that a number of service electors have not completed the registration forms. I am sure it is the wish of all hon. members that they should not be disfranchised, so that provision will be extended.
There are also two minor technical errors which the chief electoral officer has pointed out in the regulations, and which it is proposed to correct. None of these appears to be controversial. All are intended for the benefit of our service personnel, and I am 68108-2251
Canadian Forces Act
sure will receive favourable consideration by hon. members.


William Joseph Browne: I have no doubt the minister can explain why this resolution covers two or three acts. Is it customary to do that?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, we have done that in connection with amendments. The National Defence Act was enacted in 1950, and at that time we incorporated in the one bill a great number of provisions from other legislation. We have decided, and the house so far has concurred, that it would meet the convenience of hon. members, as it does very much that of the armed forces, if all amendments to existing legislation relating to the armed forces were contained in a single bill each year. In consequence the Canadian Forces Act, 1950; the Canadian Forces Act, 1951; the Canadian Forces Act, 1952 have been enacted. All of these amended a number of different statutes, and this follows that precedent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a question I should like to ask the minister. When speaking about the desirability of having Canadian military personnel come before Canadian tribunals he said "wherever possible". My understanding is that here in Canada, and vice versa in the United States when there are visiting forces, the army personnel are subject to the laws of the country in which they are visiting. In other words, if a United States soldier in Canada commits an offence against the civil laws he is not tried in an army court but in a civilian court. Am I right in that?


Brooke Claxton: The law which applies to this situation was passed by parliament in 1947 and is called the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act. Under it United States military tribunals have been given jurisdiction to try United States service personnel in respect of service offences and also in respect of civil offences where the attorney general of the province concerned does not choose to exercise civil jurisdiction. This is a right which we already had under their common law.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: So in
practice it has happened here. Does the attorney general turn them over, and is the actual practice that they are tried in their courts?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, in everything except
serious offences.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister says "wherever possible". Does that mean we just try to negotiate that where we can?

Canadian Forces Act


Brooke Claxton: Yes. In the case of the
North Atlantic treaty nations we have signed an agreement with them called "the status of forces agreement", and we have implemented that agreement by passing legislation in December, 1951. Most of the other countries have not yet implemented this agreement by legislation and we have not yet proclaimed our legislation, but we are doing so now that we can benefit from it.
In the case of the United States our relations are governed by the common law of the United States, which gives us the same rights that we have given them by the statute to which I referred a moment or two ago. In the case of other commonwealth countries, we have reciprocal legislation called "the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act." In the case of Japan, however, we have no agreement, and we are still trying to negotiate one. Consequently it is particularly with regard to Japan to which my qualification "wherever possible" applies.


Mr, Browne (St. John's West):: Is the
minister familiar with the arrangement the United States forces had with England during the last war, which was that the judges of courts had the power to say whether a man should be turned over to the army courts or whether he should be tried in the civil court?


Brooke Claxton: That is very frequently done by magistrates here, too.


George Harris Hees: I understand that by recent
regulation a young man entering a service college or other educational institution to qualify for a commission is now allowed to count the time he spends in that educational institution as service time for pension rights. Has anything been done to permit a man who had graduated from one of the service colleges or educational institutions before this regulation was passed to count the time spent getting his education as service time for pension rights?


Brooke Claxton: No, they are not covered.
The difference in the two cases lies in this, that those who were in the service colleges before were not members of the armed forces. They were cadets, and if they qualified and were selected to have commissions and chose to join the armed forces they did that subsequent to receiving their education. However, since last year we have instituted a new system under which cadets in service colleges and undergraduates in universities may join the armed forces and agree to serve for three years if they qualify for commissions; so that they are in exactly the same position as men in the ranks who were
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1
receiving commissions and they should of course count their service for pension and seniority.


George Harris Hees: Will the government give consideration to allowing men who had graduated before this regulation went into effect to count their time?


Brooke Claxton: No, because they were not
bound to serve.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Claxton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 332, respecting the Canadian forces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to provide that certain crown lands in Manitoba and Saskatchewan granted after December 31, 1940, be made eligible with respect to the assistance provided under the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, before making this statement, may I say that I did consult experts in agriculture, in particular the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I understand that under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act crown lands in Manitoba and Saskatchewan granted or sold after December 31, 1940, are not eligible for award. The purpose of this amendment is to make eligible the lands in the northern parts of these provinces as defined in the bill.
The second amendment would provide that a lease containing an option to sell is to be regarded as an agreement for sale. The result is that lands disposed of prior to December 31, 1940, under a lease-option agreement will be eligible for award even though the option is not taken up until after that date.


Mr. Low:: Can the minister indicate the
part of the provinces concerned? I am referring to the second amendment.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not know
without seeing the bill. I have not seen the bill, but I think the bill would contain that.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister suggesting
that he is asking us to pass a resolution upon which a bill is to be based, and that he has not seen the bill?


Alphonse Fournier: I have to admit that
I did not express myself properly. I did make a serious study of that bill; I have it in my hands, but I do not think it is proper for the bill to be given to the house before the resolution carries.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not believe this resolution will take very long. I think all the representatives from the prairie provinces in this house, regardless of party, are in favour of it. It removes the discrimination which exists at the present time, and the extension outlined in the resolution will be welcome as far as western farmers are concerned.
When the bill is before us there will be some details that hon. members may want to discuss. Since the Minister of Public Works is the only one who has studied the bill I think we may as well say that we welcome it and shall look forward to joining him in a further study of it.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to ask the minister if these are the only changes in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act that we can expect this session. This act has been under review for a considerable time by agriculture committees, and certain recommendations have been made from time to time. It would appear from the order paper that these are the only changes that will be made.
Some of us have been making certain recommendations for a long time, and we rather expected that further changes would be made this session. I refer particularly to the provision that so many sections are required before one can qualify for P.F.A.A. assistance. At the present time it is a little unfair because a farmer living outside a certain block of sections may have a poor crop and not be qualified to receive assistance, while another farmer living within the prescribed block and having a larger yield may get assistance. There would seem to be unfairness there. Some of us have urged that it should be calculated on the basis of individual farms. That is one change we would have liked to see made.
Although a farmer is compelled to pay into the prairie farm assistance fund at the rate of 1 per cent, if he also operates a little
Prairie Farm Assistance Act business it affects his eligibility for payment. Even though his yield is below the average and he is in a block of sections where assistance is paid, he will not receive anything.
There are other changes which I think should be made in respect to farmers who are hailed out. It has been suggested that this act should cover hail damage. I see nothing of that on the order paper, and I am asking the minister if these are the only changes that are to be made this year?


Alphonse Fournier: I am glad the hon.
gentleman has made his representations, and I shall draw them to the attention of my colleagues, especially the Minister of Agriculture. Even if it were the intention of the government to make further changes, even as the Acting Minister of Agriculture I would not dare announce them beforehand. They would be matters of policy. When the minister is dealing with the bill these questions can be answered. I must admit that even after the study I have made my knowledge of the matter is quite limited.


Solon Earl Low: I think when we are dealing
with the motion for second reading of the bill there will be unrestricted debate and the points raised by my hon. friend can be considered.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Gardiner) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 333, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: May I thank every
hon. member in the house for his co-operation in the proceedings today. I think we have made wonderful progress. Although we were to sit until six o'clock and then from eight to ten o'clock, I shall now move the adjournment of the house until Tuesday next at 2.30 p.m.
On Tuesday we will resume the debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance to go into committee of supply and the amendment thereto of the hon. member for Lake Centre.
I hope I can call the four departments that I announced when the motion was first made, defence production, privy council, public works and resources and development. If we get into committee, as I hope we will,
3554	HOUSE OF
Business of the House we will take up the estimates of public works, citizenship and immigration.
The next day, on Wednesday, we are going to move again to go into supply, always hoping that we will reach that stage. I would call the Departments of National Defence and National Health and Welfare.

I may say that requests were made that we try to get these departments in as soon as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish every hon.
member happy Easter holidays.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 5.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m., Tuesday, April 7.

Tuesday, April 7, 1953