1953-01-28

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1954, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: In view of the importance of the matter, Mr. Speaker, may I make a brief statement to the house concerning the present railway dispute. Since the short statement I made a week ago today, hon. members will have seen reports in the press of the various meetings on the part of the negotiating committees in Montreal. They will have noted also from these reports that serious efforts were being made to find a solution to the problem. You will note that last night wires were sent to me from both groups of committees, outlining the discussions yesterday which indicated that some progress had been made but stating that they were not able to continue negotiations last night.
In acknowledging those wires this morning I decided that, rather than do so by sending a wire, I would telephone the leaders of the negotiating committees and ask them again if they could not find a solution by free collective bargaining. If I may be permitted, sir, I shall read to the house my summary, which I think is a fair one, of the message I conveyed, on the one hand to Mr. A. J. Kelly, who is associated with Mr. L. C. Malone on behalf of the men- Mr. Malone was near Mr. Kelly when I telephoned-and on the other hand to Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways, who was in consultation with Mr. W. A. Mather, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, when I telephoned between 11 and 11.30 this morning. My summary is as follows:
Your wire of 27th January is acknowledged and I am making further reports on the whole matter to meeting of my colleagues this morning. In meantime a review of reports on your negotiations yesterday would indicate that a good
deal of progress was made in finding common grounds in respect to matters other than wages. Before asking cabinet to consider what attitude the government should take, as Minister of Labour, I would like to feel that every means for free and unhampered negotiations have been considered and reconsidered. Will the heads of your committees please confer by telephone or otherwise as soon as possible and I shall telephone by 2 p.m. today to learn results. I am anxious that full advantage be taken of the resources of unhampered collective bargaining.
I did telephone Mr. Gordon and Mr. Kelly at about two p.m., Mr. Speaker. They told me that a meeting had been arranged for three o'clock this afternoon. I indicated to them that I should like to get in touch with them before the house closes at six o'clock so that we might expect to have a report on any progress that might be made.



QUESTIONS


NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What sites were inspected in connection with the proposed brigade training area for Canadian troops?
2.	What are the names of the persons who made the inspections?
3.	Has a report been made in each case to the Department of National Defence?
4.	If so, will the report be made public?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	With the expansion of the Canadian army, since the beginning of hostilities in Korea in June, 1950, and the contribution of the Canadian forces for the defence of western Europe under the North Atlantic treaty, it has become increasingly necessary to have an area in Canada large enough to permit the training in active service operations of a brigade and even larger formations. If possible, this area should be on the Atlantic seaboard so that it could be used for mobilization, final training and embarkation of formations that might be sent overseas to take their place in the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to prevent or stop aggression. Such an area should be located in a place where the climate permits training all the year round and where the ground has the characteristics that might be found in western Europe, with roads and other physical features permitting the employment of armoured and other vehicles and artillery and other weapons. Using existing information and also the results of new examinations, sites were looked
13S6

Questions
at in various parts of Canada but particularly in the maritime provinces, including areas in the neighbourhood of Guysborough, Annapolis and Lunenburg in Nova Scotia, Tracadie, Sussex, Utopia and Gagetown in New Brunswick.
2.	These inspections were made by officers of the Canadian army and officials of the Department of National Defence.
3 and 4. The reports which were made to the Department of National Defence were intended for the confidential advice and action which resulted in the selection of Camp Gagetown as having more of the desired characteristics than any other area and also as involving the displacement of less persons than any comparable area. In accordance with the established practice they will not be made public.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	How many car loads of scrap wood and/or firewood were sold or offered for sale, by the Canadian National Railways, at or in the vicinity of Moncton, New Brunswick, during the years 1951 and 1952?
2.	Was such wood sold by tender or otherwise?
3.	At what price per car load was such wood disposed of?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Year 1951-81 cars.
Year 1952-53 cars.
2.	Sold by tender.
3.	It is not the policy of the company to make public the amounts tendered for the purchase of company material sold as a result of calling for tenders.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence publish a booklet entitled Canadian Army Journal?
2.	If so, who is the editor?
3.	How many copies of each number are issued?
4.	Are the copies paid for, or are they issued free?
5.	If any copies are issued free, how many?
6.	How many persons are employed in the preparation and issuance of this publication?
7.	What is the cost, annually, of the Canadian Army Journal?
8.	What were the numbers of each issue printed for the months of October 1952, November 1952, December 1952, and January 1953?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	There is an editorial board of army officers. At present the editorial board consists of the director of military training, the

director of administration, the director of operations and planning, and the director of public relations, army.
3.	Each issue consists of 19,000 copies.
4 and 5. Each issue of the Canadian Army Journal is distributed free of charge to all active and reserve force officers; C.O.T.C. contingents; cadet services of Canada (officers and instructors); to unit libraries (active and reserve force); officers, N.C.O.'s and men's messes; secretaries of the dominion of Canada rifle association and provincial rifle associations; military institutes; corps associations; to public libraries to be available for officers of the supplementary reserve; external affairs (for high commissioners, embassies, legations etc.); war office, United Kingdom; United Kingdom army schools; editors of U.S. armed forces journals; to members of parliament on request and to members of the parliamentary press gallery.
6.	Three.
7.	The total annual cost of publishing the Canadian Army Journal is $35,000.
8.	Although normally published monthly, a consolidated issue is made when it is not possible to publish monthly. The issues for October, November and December of 1952 were consolidated into one issue of which 19,000 copies were printed. The January, 1953, issue is now being prepared and will be issued in the same quantity.



CENTRAL MECHANIZATION DEPOT

Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many tires for cars are stored at central mechanization depot, London, Ontario, and when were these purchased, by years?
2.	How many tires for trucks are stored at the above-mentioned depot and what years were these purchased, by years?
3.	How many tires for other vehicles are stored at central mechanization depot, London, and when were these purchased, by years?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	The total number of tires for cars stored at central mechanization depot, London, as at 31 December, 1952, was 565. Of this total, 492 were new tires, 49 were reconditioned (these are issued before new tires), and 24 were non-serviceable returned by units to be reconditioned in the army tire plant. All the new tires were purchased during the calendar year 1952.
2.	The total number of tires for trucks and vehicles using truck tires such as buses, station wagons, trailers, and artillery equipment stored at central mechanization depot, London, as at 31 December, 1952, was 20,130. Of this total, 15,944 were new, 3,900 reconditioned and 286 non-serviceable. Of the new

Questions
tires, 1,928 were purchased prior to 1949, 1,616 in 1949, 4,503 in 1950, 1,728 in 1951 and 6,169 in 1952.
3.	The total number of tires for other vehicles stored at central mechanization depot, London, as at 31 December, 1952, was 4,021. Of this total, 3,620 were new, 342 reconditioned and 59 non-serviceable. Of the new tires, 568 were purchased prior to 1949, 410 in 1949, 1,647 in 1950, 256 in 1951 and 739 in 1952.



KOREAN FORCE PERSONNEL


Mr. Shaw:: 1.	Were members of the Korean force stationed at Camp Borden in the month of December, 1952, granted Christmas or embarkation leave during December?
2.	If so, was provision made by the Department of National Defence to pay the railway and berth fares between Camp Borden and the homes of said members?
3.	Were service personnel granted such leave obliged to provide any undertaking respecting the repayment of sums provided to cover the cost of the berths and tickets?
4.	If so, what was the nature of such undertakings?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Personnel stationed at Camp Borden in the month of December, 1952, warned for duty in the Far East, were granted Christmas or New Year's leave, except for a small number who were not eligible for a variety of reasons (in detention, in hospital, etc.). A number of personnel combined their Christmas or New Year's leave with their embarkation leave.
2.	Free transportation, meals and berths were provided for those who took embarkation leave. Free transportation is not provided for Christmas or New Year's leave. Personnel who did not take embarkation leave at Christmas or New Year's will be eligible for it at a later date.
3 and 4. No.



OIL EXPORT BY PIPE LINE

Mr. Goode:: 1.	Has any oil company asked permission to export oil by pipe line to the United States, west of the Rocky mountains?
2.	If so, has permission been granted?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	No. An application has, however, been received for the construction of a pipe line for export purposes.
2.	Answered by 1.



DEFENCE ORDERS, 1951-1952

Mr. Nowlan:: What was the total value, by provinces, of contracts and defence orders placed by the Canadian
Commercial Corporation and/or the Department of Defence Production for each of the calendai years 1951 and 1952?


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to answer this question orally. At various times in the past questions such as this have been placed on the order paper bj hon. members, and the minister, the formei parliamentary assistant, and I have explained in this house why it is not feasible to table an answer. The most recent statement ol this position was made by the minister or May 30, 1952, and appears at page 2771 of Hansard as follows:
A question has been raised as to why we do no' publish figures showing the value of projects placec in the various provinces. The simple answer which I have given on several occasions, is tha' we see no value in giving such figures inasmucl as they in no way reflect the impact of the defencf program on the various sectors of the country They do not take into account the large proportior of subcontracting which is inherent in this type o: work. They make no allowance for the source o: raw materials going into the contracts, and ir many cases they are misleading because contract: placed at head offices in Ottawa or Montreal ari often carried out in company plants which may bf located as far away as the east coast or the wes coast.	*
This explanation applies directly to th< present question. I should also point ou that full information regarding the letting o all contracts over $10,000 is made public b} the publication every two weeks of complete lists of contracts awarded. This informatior is available to all hon. members.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Were any cabinet ministers, deputy ministers government officials, or any other person or per sons, permitted to see a copy of the 1952 report o the Auditor General, at any time prior to its beinj tabled in the House of Commons on Monday after noon, January 12, 1953?
2.	If so, what are the names of such persons ant on whose authority were they permitted to see thi report?
3.	On what date or dates did any such person: see this report?
4.	Were any cabinet ministers, deputy ministers government officials, or any other persons, given j copy of the 1952 report of the Auditor General, o any digest or summary of its contents, at any tim< prior to its being tabled in the House of Common on Monday afternoon, January 12, 1953?
5.	If so. what are the names of such persons, an< on whose authority were they given a copy of thi report, or any such digest or summary?
6.	On what date or dates were such persons givei a copy of this report, or any such digest o summary?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, this ques tion relates to a document prepared by thi Auditor General, who is not a governmen official but an officer of parliament. Since thi report is printed under the authority of thi Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and i:

Questions
tabled by that minister, it is of course obvious that it must have been seen by officers of his department before it was tabled in the house.
I do not think it would be appropriate for the government to address to the Auditor General the questions raised by the hon. member with respect to other departments. The Auditor General is always available to appear before the public accounts committee when his presence is desired, and it is open to any hon. member to address to him any question he may see fit to put to him directly.
However, with respect to this question the, Auditor General, on his own initiative, has sent me a memorandum which I perhaps might read to the house in order to supplement this answer. It is as follows:
Ottawa, January 26, 1953 Memorandum to the Prime Minister:
Re Question No. 61 of Order Paper for January 26.
Mr. Knowles asks a series of questions with respect to the handling of copies and "any digest or summary" of the 1952 audit report to the House of Commons. The Minister of Finance is out of town today; therefore I address this memorandum to you.
The report is bound with volume I of the public accounts. Before the book was tabled on January 12, copies were delivered by the printing bureau to the Department of Finance, the audit office and, perhaps, to the joint parliamentary distribution branch. In addition the queen's printer distributes to the official mailing list and also stocks copies for sale. Consequently, a number of departments are involved.
Audit Office
The statutory direction is to make a report to the House of Commons. Consequently, all copies of the printed report which are delivered to the audit office are safekept by the assistant auditor general and myself until the Minister of Finance tables.
Annually, during the preparation of the report, numerous copies of the draft are in circulation throughout the audit office and, as a matter of established routine, supervisors of audit discuss some paragraphs with departmental and treasury officers in order to make certain that:
(a)	the text is factually correct; and
(b)	notice is being taken of all material facts.
I do not expect departments to concur in my views, but I endeavour to make certain that a fair statement of facts is given to the House of Commons. Paragraphs are brought to the notice of departments by use of clippings from either the draft text or printer's proofs. Whenever a supervisor thinks, after discussion, that a change in text should be considered, he discusses it with me and I decide.
Between August 25, 1952 (the date when I put a draft in circulation throughout the audit office) and October 27 (the date when the order to print was given) various paragraphs were brought to the notice of departmental and treasury officers. It was fortunate that we did so because, after the report was printed, a mistake was discovered by an officer of the Department of National Defence in paragraph 53 (page 23 of printed report). This paragraph deals with contributions to the services

pension account and stated that a total of $7,225,000 was in arrears. The national defence officer pointed out that the correct figure was $1,225,000, and this had the effect of making certain audit comment inaccurate and also some observations in paragraph 61 (page 25), which refers to the same subject. The queen's printer co-operated by reprinting four pages and pasting them in the already bound books. As a result, corrected figures and comment appear in the report as tabled and distributed.
No one likes to refer to his mistakes, but in this instance I'm particularly appreciative of the action of the national defence officer because some paragraphs in the report may be regarded as critical of national defence methods and it would have been easy, by keeping silent, "to put me over the barrel" by reference to the mistake after the report was tabled.
If the decision is to give a composite answer to No. 61,-
That was the number it had the first time it appeared on the order paper.
-so far as the Auditor General is concerned, replies are:
1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Selected paragraphs in draft form were brought to the notice of officers, of agriculture, crown assets disposal corporation, external affairs, finance, national defence, national gallery of Canada, national research council and the treasury between August 25 and October 27. 1952.
5.	A verbal direction of the Auditor General to supervisors of audit is to make certain, through discussions with accounting and administrative officers, that facts are accurately and fairly stated, and for that purpose they may show drafts of selected paragraphs to treasury and/or departmental officers.
6.	Answered by No. 4.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask a supplementary question? If the memorandum answers it the Prime Minister may draw that to my attention. Do I take it from the memorandum which the Prime Minister just read that, in the case of any department to which relevant paragraphs were referred, all of the paragraphs pertaining to that department were referred thereto?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; I take it that it is paragraphs about which information from the department as to the accuracy of factual statements is required which are shown to the audit officers or treasury officers of the department, and that if as a result of that the supervisor finds that any change might have to be made he discusses it with the Auditor General, who decides whether or not a change will be made.



IRRIGATION


Mr. Argue:: 1.	Did the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, or any other member or official of the government, either by letter, telegram or verbally, instruct officials of the P.F.R.A. not to appear before the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river project?
2.	If so, for what reason?


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: I have the answer here. It is as follows:
1 and 2. The royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river development was established to determine "whether the economic and social returns to the Canadian people on the investment in the proposed South Saskatchewan river project (central Saskatchewan development) would be commensurate with the cost thereof" and "whether the said project represents the most profitable and desirable use which can be made of the physical resources involved".
In pursuing their inquiry, the commissioners were afforded by their terms of reference, as is usual in references of this kind, such assistance and co-operation from all the departments of the government as they thought they might need. That they received such assistance from the P.F.R.A. throughout the whole of their inquiry is evident from the numerous acknowledgments contained in their report. Hon. members can refer, for instance, to pages 9, 43 and 45, where the commissioners make it clear that their task would have been impossible without the material and researches of the P.F.R.A. and the help of P.F.R.A. officials.
This commission was established to get information which the government did not already have and to make recommendations to it. As the commissioners had access to all the records and technical advice of the P.F.R.A., it was not necessary for them to have formal appearances by federal officials at public hearings. The government shared this view and gave this opinion to the officials of the P.F.R.A.
In reaching that conclusion, the government had in mind the fact that it would not be fair to place civil servants in a false position by requiring them to appear publicly and express opinions on matters on which the Minister of Agriculture and the government as a whole had subsequently to reach decisions.



IRRIGATION-SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER   ACTIONS OF P.F.R.A. OFFICIALS

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Did P.F.R.A. officials leave Regina while the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river project was in that city?
2. If so, for what reason and on whose instruction?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS



DEFENCE PRODUCTION-TRUCKS, TRACTORS AND PARTS

Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	Did the Department of Defence Production call for tenders for a contract for trucks, tractors and automotive parts placed between November 17 and November 30, 1952 with the International Harvester Company?
2.	Were companies submitting tenders required to tender on entire contract or on trucks, tractors and automotive spares, separately?
3.	If so, houi many trucks were purchased in this contract?
4.	What firms were invited to tender on these trucks?
5.	What firms submitted tenders for these trucks?
6.	What was the price quoted for these trucks by each firm that submitted tenders?
7.	Were any or all firms which submitted tenders asked to submit a second tender on these same trucks?
8.	If so, for what reason?
9.	Which of the firms submitting tenders were asked to submit tenders a second time?
10.	What price was submitted in the second tender by each firm that tendered a second time on these trucks?
11.	Was the contract let to the lowest bidder?
12.	If not, what was the reason for rejecting the lowest tender in favour of a higher one?



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many contracts were let for neckties for the armed forces from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?
2.	How many neckties were contracted for and at what cost?



CF-100 AIRCRAFT

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	When was the decision first taken to design and produce an all-Canadian jet aircraft?
2.	When was the first step taken by way of retaining engineers, designers, etc., or by way of entering into contract for the production of such aircraft?
3.	What were the terms on which such services were retained and what were the terms of the contract?
4.	When was the first CF-100 complete airframe produced?
5.	How many CF-100 complete airframes have been produced to date?
6.	How much money has been advanced to Avro Canada for the design and/or production of the CF-100 (if not possible to separate advances for CF-100 and for Orenda engines, what is the total for both)?
7.	Have any requests been received from any other country or firm to build CF-100 airframes or complete aircraft under licence? If so, from whom?
8.	Have any contracts allowing such construction under licence been awarded?



ORENDA JET ENGINE

Mr. Fulion:: 1. When was the decision first taken to design snd produce an all-Canadian, jet engine?

Orders for Returns
2.	When was the first step taken by way of retaining engineers, designers, etc., or by way of entering into contract for the production of such engines?
3.	What were the terms on which such services were retained and what were the terms of the contract?
4.	When was the first Orenda jet engine produced?
5.	How many complete Orenda engines have been produced to date?
6.	How much money has been advanced to Avro Canada for the design and/or production of the Orenda engine (if not possible to separate advances for CF-100 and for Orenda engines, what is the total for both)?
7.	Have any requests been received from any other country or firm to build Orenda engines under licence? If so, from whom?
8.	Have any contracts allowing such construction under licence been awarded?



CANADIAN JUNK COMPANY

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the Canadian Junk Company obtained (a) shirts; (b) any other goods or supplies, from Canadian army sources, or from any government department or agency, at any time since January 1, 1948?
2.	If so, what quantities of such supplies were obtained, and at what prices?



ARMED SERVICES


Mr. Lennard:: What were the total purchases, giving cost and quantity of (a) face cloths; (b) towels; (c) tablecloths; (d) mattress covers, purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?



ARMED SERVICES-PURCHASES OF NYLON PARKAS, ETC.

Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases giving cost and quantities of (a) nylon parkas; (b) nylon wind pants; (c) combat smocks, for all branches of the armed services, during the period from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?



ARMED SERVICES-PURCHASES OF FOOTWEAR

Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases giving cost and quantity of (a) leather footwear; (b) rubber footwear; (c) other varieties of footwear, purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?



ARMED SERVICES-PURCHASES OF KIT BAGS

Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases giving cost and quantity of kit bags purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?



ARMED SERVICES-PURCHASES OF SUITCASES AND TRUNKS

Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases giving cost and quantity of (a) suitcases; (b) trunks, purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?



ARMED SERVICES-PURCHASES OF RAINCOATS, ETC.

Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases giving cost and quantity of (a) men's raincoats; (b) men's waterproof coats; (c) men's greatcoats; (d) women's raincoats; (e) women's greatcoats; (f) women's jackets, purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?



ARMED SERVICES


Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases giving cost and quantity of haversacks purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?




Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases, giving cost and quantity of (a) battledress blouses; (b) battledress trousers; (c) summer trousers; (d) summer jackets; (e) socks; (f) handkerchiefs; (g) winter underwear; (h) summer underwear, purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?




Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases, giving cost and quantity of (a) leather belts; (b) canvas belts; (c) canvas and leather belts, purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?




Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases, giving cost and quantity of (a) carving knives; (b) serving forks,, purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31,. 1952?



ARMED SERVICES-PURCHASES OF BERETS, HATS-AND CAPS

Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases, giving cost and quantity of (a) berets; (b) field service caps; (c) winter peaked caps; (d) women's berets; (e) women's hats; (f) cooks' caps; (g) anti-blast helmets, purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?



ARMED SERVICES


Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases, giving cost and quantity of (a) floor rugs; (b) underfelts for rugs;
(c)	carpets; (d) ozite rug cushions; (e) door mats, purchased for all branches of the armed services,, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31,. 1952?




Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases, giving cost and quantity of (a) boudoir lamps; (b) bridge lamps; (c) table lamps; (d) trilight lamps, purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?




Frank Exton Lennard: What was the total cost of packaging and marking depot stocks for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?



ARMED SERVICES-PURCHASES OF OVERALLS, GLOVES, ETC.

Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases, giving cost and quantity of (a) men's overalls; (b) women's coveralls; (c) mitts; (d) gloves, purchased for all branches of the armed services, during the period January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?



ARMED SERVICES


Frank Exton Lennard: What were, the total purchases, giving cost, quantities, varieties, and from whom purchased, of razors for all branches of the armed forces, during the period from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?




Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases, giving cost, quantities, and from whom purchased, of shaving brushes for all branches of the armed forces, during the period from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?




Frank Exton Lennard: What were the total purchases, giving cost, quantities and from whom purchased, of dishcloths for all branches of the armed forces, during the period from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1952?


John Horace Dickey: With respect to questions Nos. 22 to 36 and 41 to 43 inclusive, on today's order paper, Mr. Speaker, may I say that by these questions the hon. member seeks information regarding total purchases of a wide variety of items. Collection and compilation of this information will entail a very large volume of clerical work both in Ottawa and at the district offices of the Department of Defence Production located in all parts of Canada. The starting date selected, January 1, 1950, antedates the organization of the department on April 1, 1951. It would be possible to secure the information requested for the period January 1, 1950, to April 1, 1951, from records of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. This would, however, require reference to records no longer
Orders for Returns
in active use and involve very protracted delay in answering the questions. I have discussed the difficulties involved with the hon. member and he has agreed to amend all these questions by substituting the words "April 1, 1951" for the words "January 1, 1950" wherever they appear. Subject to this amendment, the questions may be passed as orders for returns and the answers will be brought down as promptly as can be arranged.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions Nos. 22 to 36 inclusive and 41 to 43 inclusive, orders for returns in accordance with the statement made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey).



BEAUCE COUNTY LAWYERS AND NOTARIES


Mr. Poulin:: 1.	What are the names of the lawyers and notaries residing in the county of Beauce, who have acted as agents for the different departments or boards of the federal government for the fiscal years 1947-48, 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952?
2.	What amount of fees has been paid to each of them for each of the above-mentioned years and in connection with what services?



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


Mr. Tustin:: On December 10 a question in my name was made an order for return. I wonder whether I may have that information soon.


Mr. Bradley:: I will make the necessary inquiries and get the information here as soon as possible.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Frank Exton Lennard: For a copy of all correspondence, quotations, and other documents, in connection with tenders A18-22A-40/1, August 29,	1951 and A18-22A-44,
February 12, 1952, for Royal Canadian Air Force personnel buttons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have received the information I desire. I ask that this motion be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: For a copy of all correspondence and recorded communications exchanged between the Auditor

Fisheries
General and the (a) Department of Finance; (b) Department of National Defence, from the first day of April, 1951, to date.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion which asks for the production of correspondence of the Auditor General with various departments of government. I have a note from the Auditor General in which he points out that it is the first time in his experience that correspondence of the Auditor General has been called for. The mover of the motion has indicated to my parliamentary assistant that the terms of the order are very much wider than he really desires; that it would call for a great deal of correspondence in which he is not especially interested. My understanding is that he is quite satisfied that the motion should be' dropped and reworded.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



WOODFALLE SCHOOL, ROCKCLIFFE

Mr. Robichaud:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government, or any department thereof, and any person or persons, in connection with the teaching of religion and French to the French-speaking pupils at Woodfalle school, Royal Canadian Air Force station, Rockcliffe, Ontario.



FISHERIES


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of investigating the economic condition of the fishing industry in Canada with a view to recommending legislation designed to render assistance to the industry comparable to the legislation already enacted to provide assistance for agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution appeared on the order paper during the last session, but I did not have a chance to introduce it in the house during that time; consequently I took advantage of the fisheries estimates to go into the matter to some extent in June of last year. At that time in reply to the remarks I had made the then minister of fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) placed certain statements on Hansard which, in my opinion, did not in any way reply to the criticisms that I had placed before the house. I want to read a short portion of the remarks Mr. Mayhew made on June 19, 1952, as they appear at page 3435 of Hansard: This is what he had to say:
Well, I am not going to say that we are doing everything for the fishermen that we would like to do. I suppose the Minister of Agriculture would say the same about agriculture. But we should at least remember this. The total value of the fisheries to Canada last year, including Newfoundland, 
was $200 million. On the other hand, the total value of agriculture to Canada is $2 billion. There is a vast difference. If you compare the $10 million that we have-
That was the expenditure of the department. I continue:
-with the $60 million that agriculture has, you will see that it is not too far out of line ....
That statement would, in my opinion, indicate to the house that the Minister of Fisheries at that time was of the opinion that the assistance which was given agriculture was in no way much greater than the assistance which was given to the fishing industry. I explained that in my opinion there was a vast difference. I made a breakdown of the moneys that were voted for each department, which I mentioned on page 3426 of Hansard of that same day. As I say, I made a breakdown-perhaps estimated-of the moneys that were voted for the Department of Fisheries, and this is what I had to say:
The total vote for the fisheries department this year is nearly $10 million. If that figure is broken down it will be found that five-sixths of it or approximately $8,500,000 go to the employees of the department, leaving one-sixth, or $1,500,000, for other purposes connected with the industry; and five-sixths of this remainder, of $1,500,000 does not apply in any way to the province of New Brunswick. I refer to $700,000 for seal skins; $342,500 for bait service for Newfoundland; $240,000 for fisheries support board, Newfoundland, which leaves $160,000 for bounty payments for all the maritime provinces and $150,000 for the construction of drag-gers in all of the maritime provinces. With regard to the province of New Brunswick, my estimate would be that we would receive less than $100,000, including the bounty payments which, cost the taxpayers of this country not one single penny.
In reply to a question which I placed on the order paper some time ago with regard to loans under the farm loan board and the fisheries loan board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1952, I received the following reply on June 4 from the Minister of Finance: Under the farm loan board, $4,238,400; under fisheries, $800. In other words, for every single dollar fishermen were granted, agriculture was given $5,298.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Why not?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: This may be considered to be a fair distribution by some people in this country but I am sure the great majority of Canadians would not look upon it in that light.
I would want it distinctly understood that I do not favour a subsidy because, while in many cases subsidies are beneficial, the benefits go to the processors rather than to the primary producers. I mention that because I have seen it happen. But I do wish strongly to recommend floor prices

which have never applied in New Brunswick in respect of fish products. The only application was in wartime, and at that time instead of a floor it was a ceiling. That ceiling

was placed there to protect the canners, not to protect the primary producers.
I firmly believe that if that ceiling price could be maintained in a time of war-and it was maintained rigidly-then the fishermen have every right to expect the maintenance	of a	floor price	under	similar
circumstances. Again I assert most emphatically that I do not believe in subsidizing the fishing industry, whereby processors or canners might take advantage of such subsidies, rather than have the benefits going to the primary producers.
I wish to place on record again some of the assistance that has been given to agriculture.	When	I spoke last	June I	did notplace all these	details on record, but I believe at	this time I shall	do so.	I have
here a table showing agricultural assistance in the post-war period. This is printed by the Department of Agriculture and gives the information to the end of March, 1949, the latest I could get. The table sets out subsidies and assistance to agriculture as follows:
Feeds: Freight assistance policy; Feed assistance-plans A and B; Coarse grains; Drawback payments; Processing feeds; Sugar beet pulp.
Fertilizer and lime: Fertilizer subventions and freight allowance; Lime.
Dairy products:	Fluid and concentrated milk,
butter and cheese; Cheese export; Cheese premium and factory subsidy.
Livestock and livestock products: Hog premiums; Hog freight assistance; Hog breeding; Bacon export; Freight assistance on feeder cattle and lambs; Sheep raising; Wool; Egg export.
Fruits and vegetables: Apples; Berries for jam; Vegetable canning crops; Potatoes; Potato storage warehouse construction; White and yellow-eye dried beans; White beans; Dehydration.
Seeds; Compensation to farmers for cultivation of milkweed; rebate on flax scutching machinery; the wheat acreage reduction program; the prairie farm income payments scheme; the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; cold storage warehouses; honey.
Then, in addition to all these I have put on record, I believe it was in 1951 that S65 million was paid by the Department of Agriculture to the Canadian wheat board for distribution among the farmers of western Canada. Then, there were payments made in connection with the Fraser valley flood which, again, amounted to a large sum of money.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, come off!


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Then, assistance was given in connection with wheat it was not possible to harvest in the fall of 1951. Let me say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), who has just interrupted, that I am not mentioning these things in any critical sense. I put the facts on record only so that hon. members may compare the assistance given to these two industries.
Fisheries
I am not making any criticism in respect to the assistance given in the Fraser valley or in any part of Canada. Indeed, I endorsed that assistance; I stood in the House of Commons and voted for it.
Then, assistance was given to the owners of cattle affected by the foot-and-mouth disease last year in Saskatchewan. We see that $20 million has been given to the apple growers of the Annapolis valley in Nova Scotia. I placed on record on the earlier occasion the fact that half a million dollars is given to the maple sugar producers of this country, by way of an annual grant.
I have read in the press recently an announcement that consideration is being given to a higher floor price for eggs. Again let me emphasize that I have not placed this list on record in any critical sense whatever. That assistance is being given, and it is beneficial to each and every one of us. I have voted that assistance of this kind should be given, and I would vote again to have it given, if I were called upon to do so.
I use these facts only for purposes of comparison, and to show, by the figures, that the fishermen of this country have received very little consideration, when compared with those who are engaged in agriculture. The only thing I ask is that they be considered in the same way.
Then, with regard to the problems which fishermen encounter from day to day in the province of New Brunswick, and particularly in my own county, I feel certain that a great percentage of those problems might be solved without the payment of a single dollar of subsidy, and without its costing this country one dollar.
Again in this connection I wish to quote from Hansard of June 19 where I explained the difficulties encountered by these fishermen in this day and age. Some of them are great problems, and mean the difference between keeping our young men at home, and in the industry, or having them go away to seek employment in other parts of Canada. That is the part that worries us most. We all like to keep our young men at home, in our own province or county.
On this earlier occasion, after I had set out some of the conditions, I said, as reported at page 3430 of Hansard of June 19, 1952:
I firmly believe that if anyone is prepared to criticize he should be in position at the same time to offer some constructive solution to the problem involved. For that reason I shall now suggest what in my opinion is the only course to follow in order to bring some semblance of stability to an industry which is now in a depressed condition and whose future is most gloomy indeed. In
1404

Fisheries
doing so I am confident that the course I shall suggest will be endorsed by every sardine fisherman in southern New Brunswick and in the state of Maine.
These sardine fishermen on both sides of the border must insist that the fisheries departments of the United States and Canada, together with the canners in both countries, get together immediately so that an opportunity will be provided for representatives of these fishermen to present their views and work out a plan whereby fishermen would be given a fair return for that which they produce. This has been accomplished in the past during the world wars and it was the only period in fifty years when fisherman and canner alike knew where they were going.
A stable price would benefit not only the fishermen, but the canners as well, and many canners I am sure will agree with that statement. A stabilized price would not cost the taxpayers of either country a single dollar.
During the periods I have mentioned, when prices were regulated by government action, no subsidies were paid by the government of either country. For example, the margin to the ultimate consumer as between sardines at $10 per hogshead and $20 per hogshead would be approximately 50 cents per case of 100 cans, or one-half cent per can. That differential would appear to be insignificant in so far as the consumer is concerned. It is a fundamental principle from the standpoint of the producer that this differential may mean the difference between stability and prosperity, on the one hand, and depression and chaos on the other.
That reminds me of a movement which has recently taken place in Saint John and Charlotte counties. These fishermen are attempting to form some kind of union. The movement has been in evidence during the last four weeks. They believe that collectively they will be in a better position to approach the Department of Fisheries and the government for some assistance in the way of floor prices in order to stabilize the industry. In my opinion that idea just will not work and I should like to explain why I have formed that opinion.
The particular section from which I come depends upon United States markets for the sale of two-thirds of what we produce. If we on the Canadian side of the border have a set price and try to compel United States canners to pay that price, they may resent that action being taken here. We have seen years when they were able to buy their total requirements from their own waters. Sardines are caught in the state of Maine just the same as in the counties of Charlotte and Saint John. If we had an established price the fishermen in the state of Maine would take full advantage of that. If there was a plentiful supply of sardines they would go to the Maine canners and say, "We are prepared to sell our sardines cheaper than the price set by the Canadian government." That would completely deny us our United States market.
For that reason I want to refer to the paragraph which I just quoted from the speech I

made last year, that the only way that this problem can ever be solved is internationally. Fishermen in the state of Maine are just as desirous as those in Canada that this action be taken. I want to impress upon the department and the government that this has been long delayed. I believe it is something that could be brought about without a great deal of trouble. The officials of the two fisheries departments could meet with the canning operators and discuss this problem and I believe firmly that the matter could be adjusted so that those who year after year have continued in this business without any stability whatever might know where they are going.
It is most discouraging to these producers to start up in the spring, put the last dollar they have back into the water and have to borrow some on which to go along to make preparations for another season, and then before those structures are completed to have the price of sardines drop by 50 per cent and in some cases a great deal more.
There is another problem facing the fishing industry to which I should like to refer, the cost of food servicing. It is quite apparent from my experience that those who have never produced a single ounce of wealth in this country expect unreasonable profits from that which is created by the sweat and labour of our primary producers. This applies to the agricultural as well as the fishing industries and to many other industries as well. I should like to refer to an article from the Lethbridge Herald which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of January 21, only a few days ago. This reads:
Egg Price Spread
Should it require 21 cents or 611 per cent to get a dozen grade A large eggs from the farmer producer to the city consumer? Egg prices have dropped lately and producers have been wondering. In Edmonton the producer gets 34 cents a dozen for grade A large, the wholesalers are charging 44 cents to retailers, and the retailers are charging 55 cents to consumers. We suppose if eggs dropped to 21 cents to consumers the producers would have to give them away in order that the costs of wholesaling and retailing might be paid. We're wondering if we're not going a little bit crazy in this matter of food servicing costs.
That is a matter that could be debated at some length. This problem is faced not only by the fishing industry but by the agricultural industry and many others. Only a few days ago I picked up a drug journal which indicated that the profits offered were nothing less than fabulous. Headlines guaranteed 42 per cent or 44 per cent profit on certain lines. The article I have just read indicates a 61 % per cent mark-up on a dozen eggs from the time it leaves the producer until it is in

the hands of the consumer. There is something wrong somewhere when it costs so much to merchandise an article.
I want to emphasize that those who reap that benefit in nine cases out of ten have never produced an ounce of wealth from the day they were born. But they are ready to take out every single bit of profit in order to crowd that farmer-producer down as far as it is possible to get him. I mentioned this same condition when I spoke last year and perhaps I should quote a short portion of my speech as reported at page 3432 of Hansard of June 19, 1952. After making several suggestions as to how assistance might be given to the fisheries, I then had this to say:
At the same time a full scale investigation into the spread between prices paid fishermen for groundfish such as cod, pollock and haddock and consumer prices might be in order. That might also apply to the prices consumers are obliged to pay in all parts of Canada for fish products. The great spread between the prices paid the producer and those paid by the consumer is something that should have been investigated long ago. The variation is too great between what the producer receives and the price that is being asked today of the consumers in this country. Such an investigation, I am sure, would bring to light a differential of most unfair proportions.
Two years ago fishermen in the county of Charlotte were catching pollock, one of the best fish we produce in Canada, and selling them for one-half cent per pound. The following winter I paid seventeen cents a pound for the finished article in my own home town. Many hon. members and many people may argue: If there is that great range of profit between the raw material and the finished article, why is it more fishermen do not finish the article themselves? I can say without any thought of contradiction that the great majority of these fishermen have not facilities for taking care of the fish. It means quite an investment in fish sheds, hogsheads, tons of salt and all that goes with it. In a great many cases you would have to wait at least three, four or five months before you received a single dollar because it would take that length of time. By the time the fish are split, salted and ready for sale three, four or five months have passed. It is utterly impossible for fishermen to go that length of time without any recompense. Again I want to make the point that in nine cases out of ten where I have asked for assistance to build fish houses by way of loans, in order that the fishermen might do the very thing I have described, the requests have been turned down completely. Year after year I have tried to have some provision made whereby fishermen could be given assistance 68108-901
Fisheries
in cases such as I have outlined, and in nine cases out of ten such requests have been ignored.
I might also add that as a rule it is the little fellow who has been turned down. If any assistance was given it was extended to those who perhaps might have been able to get by without it; but those who actually needed it, those who were producing, were the ones who did not receive the assistance to which I believe they are entitled. There are many fishing villages down there where after a bad storm the fishermen have lost their fish houses and every bit of gear they had by which to make a livelihood. When the storm was over it was all gone. Perhaps the boat was gone too. But there is no provision whereby I can come to the government and get any assistance. It is just not granted. If they go to a bank for money and have no security it is utterly impossible to get assistance there. That is the position in which they are placed. I want hon. members to compare that situation with what has happened when terrible things have occurred in the field of agriculture. In every case- and I support it 100 per cent-assistance has been given. A way has been found to get the farmers out of their trouble.
I am glad that a way has been found. I do not mean to be critical in any sense of the word, but I do feel that discrimination should not be shown. Look at what has been done for the gold mining industry. I have supported such action and have never criticized it. In every other industry where primary producers have been involved, with the exception of fishing, a way has been found to help them out of their difficulties. The fishing industry, however, has been ignored over the years. I have every hope that conditions may improve and that we will consider that fishermen should be treated in the same way as other primary producers.
I should like to refer briefly again to fishermen's insurance and to quote briefly from page 3427 of Hansard of June 19, 1952, when the estimates of the Department of Fisheries were before us and I spoke on this matter. On that occasion I said:
During this session we have heard many suggestions with regard to some type of insurance to protect all types of fishing equipment. Before I get too far away from my main subject, I should like to suggest a way in which an insurance plan might be established, which would give the fishermen some protection, and at the same time the fishermen themselves would be contributing. In no way would this place any financial burden on the taxpayers of this country. I refer to the $160,000 which is paid in bounties and distributed among thousands of fishermen each year in payments ranging from $5 to $10, regulated of course by the number eligible for payment and by the number of applications received. This bounty is of little assistance to the industry, and although H

Fisheries
am not familiar with insurance rates I am convinced that $160,000 would pay the premium on an enormous amount of insurance and give those fishermen a protection which is considered very necessary in other industries but has never applied to the great part of the fisherman's property used in his hazardous calling.
It might be necessary for the government to supplement this payment by some amount, but I suggest it to the department for their consideration, and also to get the reaction from the fishermen themselves. I believe it would be a move in the right direction, and would be endorsed by the majority of the fishermen in the maritime provinces.
After I made that statement the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) spoke on the subject at some length and endorsed the statement I had made. Then the Hon. Mr. Mayhew, who was then minister of fisheries, replied, and his remarks can be found at page 3435 of Hansard of June 19, 1952. He had this to say:
The hon. member for Charlotte brought out the idea-and it was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South-that the $160,000 that is paid as a bounty should be used for insurance purposes. In the hon. member's own riding there are 146 boat owners and 181 fishermen working on the boats, or a total of 327 men, in the county of Charlotte who are getting some of this money. In the whole of the maritime provinces there are 14.358 men. It would be very difficult to get all of these men to agree to cancel their right, which amounts to a little more than $6 apiece; it amounts to $9.55 each. That is what it amounted to last year.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South said that it was a variable amount. It is not exactly a variable amount; it is the interest on $4 million. That is the amount on which the interest is based. I think it would be difficult to get an agreement from the 14,358 fishermen that their money should be used to pay for insurance-
It would be very interesting to know whether, at the time the arrangement was made for bounty, payments to fishermen, all the 14,000, if there were that many at that time in the maritime provinces, were interviewed collectively or otherwise to secure their permission to use this money for that purpose. From the minister's statement it would seem that it would be utterly impossible at the present time to use the money for any other purpose without the permission of the 14,000 fishermen in the maritime provinces. The amount is on the record for the little county of Charlotte from which I come, and in the particular year referred to by the then minister of fisheries the fishermen of that county received about $3,000. That sum would not pay for one small boat if it were lost tomorrow. Surely there must be some way that members of the House of Commons can amend the regulation so that the money can be used for insurance rather than for the purpose to which it is being put at the present time.

I agree that if the majority of the fishermen were opposed to the idea I would not support it myself. I offer it as a suggestion. It seems absurd to me to think for one minute that in order to amend the regulation each individual fisherman in the maritime provinces will have to be consulted. I believe that is the job of members of parliament and I believe we have every right to do so if we wish.
The men who follow this hazardous calling are proud, independent citizens seeking a livelihood from the harvests of the sea. They do not ask for nor accept assistance from any source if conditions are such that a fair return may result from their long hours of toil. Owing to the lack of organization, which has been attempted on many occasions without success, and the complete failure of the old law of supply and demand to solve the problem, I most sincerely appeal to the Department of Fisheries and the government to regard the problems of these rugged individuals in the same light and with the same sympathetic consideration and understanding that has been accorded other primary producers in Canada. Let us as Canadians make every effort to have these fishermen included within that group whose standard of living has been so greatly improved by the guidance and assistance of this federal organization.


Albany M. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I could not allow this opportunity to pass without rising to reassert my entire support of the fishermen of the maritime provinces and particularly of my native county of Gloucester. I wish to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), on presenting this resolution to this house, and I must tell him at the outset that I am entirely in accord with it. It pleases me a great deal to be once in a while on the same side as the hon. member for Charlotte.
This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is of particular interest to my constituents and to me, for several reasons. First, it is of interest because of the importance of the fishing industry in our economy; second, because of the great losses suffered by the fishermen throughout the years in gear, vessels and men. Finally, it is of interest because this resolution is patterned, at least in its broader lines, on certain remarks and suggestions which I made in my maiden speech in this house on June 19 last, which remarks I repeated in my speech of December, 1952. I have always championed the cause of the fishermen. As I said in my maiden speech, I am a descendant of French Acadian fishermen, and I am proud of my

Fisheries
ancestry. I have always classified the fishing industry as one of the most important, if not the most important, in my native county of Gloucester.
In view of the new gigantic mining development in the vicinity of my town of Bathurst in the county of Gloucester, just lately come to light, I feel that in the very near future I may be able to stand in this house and mention the new Gloucester zinc, lead, copper and silver mines, not only as the most important industry in my constituency and my province of New Brunswick but as the biggest discovery in its line in the whole history of Canadian mining. Nevertheless, the fishing industry will continue to be a most vital cog in the economic gears of my county and province. I fully agree with the following paragraph in the last bulletin of the fisheries council of Canada, and I quote:
Unlike most of our basic resources, our fisheries of sea, lake and stream are self-renewing, and will provide work, wealth and food in perpetuity if carefully managed and protected.
I have stated the main reason for my support of this resolution, and that is because of the importance of the industry in my constituency.
At this stage, may I be permitted to digress from my main thought by saying that when I came to this house last June I had a great preconceived admiration for the western members of this house, and I still entertain that same admiration. Why? Because, Mr. Speaker, long before coming into this house, through reading Hansard and by following the newspapers, I found that the western members, be they Conservative, Liberal, C.C.F. or Social Crediters, whenever there was a question of interest to the agricultural industry in the west, always jumped in the same dory and rowed together until they made port. I congratulate them on so doing. Although I am a young member here and a novice and perhaps should not make any suggestion, yet may I be permitted to suggest to the hon. members from the maritime provinces, notwithstanding their political affiliations-and I appeal also to the members from the Pacific coast without any reservation as to political affiliation-that they join together in presenting a united front so that eventually we may be able to obtain from this house some of the things the member for Charlotte has suggested. I repeat what I have said before, that the fishermen of the maritime provinces particularly are the forgotten children, the orphans in the family of Canadian confederation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have underlined the importance of the fishing industry in my constituency. I shall not repeat what I have
said before along those lines. May I, however, quote from the best available information as to the value of our fleet. We have a fleet of new dragger type vessels operating from the county of Gloucester consisting of 31 class 50 feet and class 60 feet vessels, at an aggregate value of $682,000 and with a total complement of 133 sailors. We have also about 850 motorized and sail schooners and smaller boats, of an aggregate value of $212,000 with a total complement of 1,700 sailors. Hence, we have vessels to the value of almost $1 million, with a complement of 1,833 men employed as sailors or fishermen, operating from my county. This figure does not take into account the thousands and thousands of dollars invested by our fishermen in lobster traps, in our famous oyster fishery, in our nets for herring, salmon or mackerel; nor does the figure of 1,833 men employed as sailors take account of our young men employed in fishing our famous oyster farms and beds, in clam digging, or the hundreds of men and women employed in our fish processing plants such as our lobster canneries, our clam canneries and our freezers. These figures, and the addition I have made to them by referring to the rest of our fishing population, will give this house some idea of the importance of the industry to my county.
Passing now to a subject which has been touched upon by the member for Charlotte, I should like to mention the losses sustained by the fishermen of Gloucester county. I have mentioned this subject to the house whenever the opportunity arose. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) is in the house. I am pleased to say to this house that I have had nothing but co-operation from the minister and his department in the probably all too numerous demands I have addressed to him. It is impossible to give a complete picture of the losses sustained by our fishermen throughout the years. There were no statistics kept 25 or 30 years ago, whereas our fish inspectors and fish supervisors in my county are doing a good job in keeping track of everything now. I believe that we have now the best available information so far as all branches of our fisheries are concerned.
May I also say-and this may be of interest to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) -that conditions have changed over the years. In former years, Mr. Speaker, all or practically all of our vessels, schooners and fishing boats, were owned by companies- such as Robin, Jones and Whitman or such as the Loggie companies-and the schooners and fishing boats were rented to our fishermen, fully equipped. They were rented to our fishermen for a certain annual rent or

Fisheries
consideration. Hence the companies were assuming all risk of loss. When there was a broken cable, a torn sail or even when there was a total loss, the whole thing was absorbed by the owners or the companies. But there has been a marked evolution in fisheries in our county.
Through the help of these co-operatives and, through strict economy on the part of our captains and of our sailors, I think I can safely say that today our fishermen own most if not all of the vessels and fishing gear in my county. We are now faced with the situation that when we have a loss, either minor or major, the captain or the ship owner must bear the loss. Someone may say: Why not carry insurance on those ships against marine risk and against fire risk? My reply would be that if you would just take the trouble to consult the table of standard rates of insurance on those ships, you would immediately conclude that our fishermen simply do not have the means to do so.
May I refer to some of the major losses in the Gloucester county fishing fleet since the turn of the century. In 1900 we had, in the gulf of St. Lawrence, this awful storm which caused the Gloucester county fishing fleet the loss of nine fishing schooners and of thirty-five fishermen who were drowned at sea. In 1914-the year of the outbreak of the first war-there was another terrific storm in the gulf; and again our Gloucester county fleet was penalized by the loss of six big schooners and twenty-two fishermen who lost their lives on that occasion. Of course in those days no claim was ever filed for loss because, I suppose, nobody knew how to do it. In any event, no claims were filed and consequently nothing was ever paid to these fishermen.
In 1921, Mr. Speaker, an incident occurred whilst I was attending college and during the summer holidays while I was myself on a schooner owned and captained by one of my late uncles. While we were attempting to make Shippigan gully during the height of a storm in June, I personally witnessed a spectacle which I shall never forget; I cannot forget it. At the very entrance of Shippigan gully, at the bar-that is the sand bar but it is called "the bar" in fishermen's language -I saw a St. Simon schooner hit the bar and break in two with the resulting loss of the lives of Captain Doiron and his crew of four.
Now that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is in the house I make to him a special appeal for the necessary credits so that the famous Shippigan gully will be properly dredged at the earliest possible opportunity. If the Minister of Public

Works will only consult with the officials of his department, he will find that this important entrance in the northern part of the province-it is really the funnel or the link between the gulf and Chaleur bay-has not been touched by a dredge for at least thirty years.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Albany M. Robichaud: During the Christmas recess several captains of draggers were at my office and they said to me: Robichaud, you must come with me next summer-and I will-out of Shippigan in order to see for yourself the pitiful conditions with which we are faced. Some of these draggers-in fact most of them-oftentimes have to come in from a distance of eighty to ninety miles at sea, in the dark, during the thick of a storm and enter Shippigan gully, which is a narrow one. You may not appreciate as I do the danger with which such trips are fraught; but I am making to the Minister of Public Works a special appeal that this Shippigan gully matter be fully investigated and that the necessary dredging be done at once so that we shall not have any more casualties amongst our fishing fleet.
In the years 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952, according to the best available information, I am told that our total losses in fishing gear, nets, lobster traps and so on amounted to $24,800. Last year our bay inshore fishermen suffered extensive damage to their fishing gear. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Department of Fisheries and I must thank the Minister of Fisheries for the ruling which has recently been made. I wish to refer to the damage caused by the dragging operations of our draggers in Chaleur bay to the fishing apparatus and gear owned by the inshore fishermen. Last year and the year before, Mr. Speaker, our inshore fishermen lost thousands and thousands of dollars in gear which was swept away when draggers came too near to shore and dragged everything away, including nets, trawls and lobster traps. In all fairness and justice it seems to me there should be some way or means of remunerating these inshore fishermen for these losses. They lay their trawls, set their nets, set their lobster traps, mark them with buoys and a post which is six or seven feet above water; and these draggers come along, drag all along the coast and carry everything away. Is this encouragement to these hardy toilers of the sea, our inshore fishermen?
At the end of December, 1952, or the beginning of January 1953, there was a big fire at the Blanchard machine shop in Le Bou-thillier P.O., in the parish of Caraquet. This

machine shop is the only place to which our dragger captains and owners could bring their motors or the parts of their motors or dragging gear to be repaired during the lay-off in the winter season. I have here a list of losses sustained by our dragger owners and captains on account of that fire and amounting to over $20,000. The lowest figure on this list is $150 and they go as high, for one dragger captain, as $4,000, which means that he lost his diesel motor completely. Again it may be said: Why do the captains not insure against fire? Again I repeat-and I know whereof I speak-that our captains simply cannot afford to pay the standard rates of fire insurance against their boats, vessels and gear.
I should like to cite another concrete and specific instance of loss which our fishermen sustained and for which they were never compensated. Some two years ago, during the height of a storm in Chaleur bay a big boom of pulpwood was broken by the storm. Hundreds and hundreds of cords of pulpwood came ashore. The nets of our salmon fishermen in Petit Rocher, Beresford and Nigadoo suffered damages amounting to thousands and thousands of dollars. Their claims were submitted to the pulp mill companies who owned the pulpwood, but of course they put up their hands and pleaded that it was an act of God and that was the end of it.
I submit that facts like these, matters like these, damages such as I have related to this house, which are not the result of my imagination, but concrete, specific cases which have occurred in my own county, should be considered by the Department of Fisheries whenever any agency is set up such as has been suggested by the hon. member for Charlotte.
Hon. gentlemen will recall that last year I rose in my place in this house as a green member-I am still quite green, but not as green as I was then-and I put a question to the then minister of fisheries, the Hon. Mr. Mayhew, and asked him whether any claims had been filed, or whether there was any possibility of our fishermen getting any remuneration for the losses they had suffered through storms. Reference to Hansard will reveal that the answer given to me by the then minister of fisheries was to the effect that no claims had been filed. I now bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and particularly to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries, a particular instance of a claim, and a big one, which was filed in due form in 1950. Of course that was before the present Minister of Fisheries occupied his position.
Fisheries
It was filed by the fishermen of Northumberland county, which is our neighbouring county. I am sorry that the hon. member representing Northumberland, N.B. (Mr, Mc-William) is not in his seat today, because I feel sure he would corroborate what I am about to say. The total losses suffered by the smelt fishermen of the county of Northumberland during December, 1949, and January, 1950, amounted to the gigantic sum of $81,256. This was substantiated in toto, Mr. Speaker, by a detailed statement of fifteen pages containing the names and addresses of all the fishermen who had suffered damage; the number of nets, the size of nets, the number of leaders lost and the total of each individual claim were submitted to the Department of Fisheries in the summer of 1950. A suggestion was also made at that time by the central committee of the Northumberland county fishermen that a special commission should be set up by the Department of Fisheries consisting of a chairman appointed by the federal government, with representation on the commission from the Department of Fisheries, and one member to be appointed by the fishermen themselves.
The purpose of the proposed commission was to inquire into the then existing conditions of the fishing industry of the neighbouring county of Northumberland. It was also further suggested that one of the commission's first duties would be to inquire into and decide whether the enormous losses suffered by the Northumberland county smelt fishermen during the season just past were the normal hazards of the trade, or whether they might be considered in the nature of an act of God. My information is that the proposed commission was never set up; nor were the Northumberland smelt fishermen ever compensated for their great losses of smelt fishing equipment in December 1949 and January 1950.
The attitude-and this is what I want to bring to the attention of the house-the attitude of the Department of Fisheries at that time was one of the so common pass-the-buck attitudes which I have had occasion to observe on the part of the government during the few short months that I have been here. The decision rendered in the late summer of 1950 by the Department of Fisheries was to the effect that whilst the losses were unquestionably serious to the fishermen, the said losses-and mark these words-the said losses do not appear to have reached the extent which could be classified as a calamity of national significance, and that any compensation which might be paid would fall into the category of relief which, generally speaking,

Fisheries
according to the ruling we received from the Department of Fisheries, was purely a provincial responsibility.
I was very much surprised to see that word "relief" in the departmental ruling, because I thought that this government looked upon the word "relief" with holy horror. But what astounds me, Mr. Speaker, is that no consideration is given by the departmental authorities to claims submitted for losses by fishermen unless and until they reach the stage of a calamity of national significance.
As the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) has suggested, why should we not be put on a par with the western farmers? He has voted in favour of assistance to the western farmers, and if I have the opportunity to vote to assist the western farmer I shall do so. But we are simply asking this house to give our fishermen fair, just and equitable treatment, and not make fish of one and flesh of another.
May I now deal with the question of more recent losses. I am glad that my colleague, the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger), is in his seat. May I refer to the Evangeline, our French newspaper of Moncton, N.B., of January 20. I find an article relating to the losses of the smelt fishermen of Buctouche in the county of my hon. friend. According to this article the smelt fishermen of Buctouche bay have lost more than 60 nets carried away by the ice through Northumberland strait. The minimum loss, according to the article in the newspaper, is set at $6,000, with a possibility of reaching a maximum of $10,000. These figures, Mr. Speaker, are in addition to the losses of the catch before the nets can be replaced.
I have attempted to give concrete evidence, specific instances, of losses suffered by our fishermen by storms and moving ice. Ice does not give any advance notice before it moves. These losses have been suffered by our fishermen not only of the county of Gloucester, but in the neighbouring county of Northumberland and some in the sister county of Kent.
I now come to the resolution itself. My analysis of this resolution, which I heartily support, reveals that its object is to obtain legislation to render to the fishing industry assistance comparable to the legislation already enacted in favour of agriculture, and to attain this end some investigation must be carried out, as the resolution suggests, and it ought to be conducted into the economic conditions of our fishing industry. In my opinion the investigation mentioned in the resolution should not be carried out by a commission or
[Mr. Robichaud.l
a fact-finding board or a board of inquiry, call it what you may, composed solely of departmental employees.
I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for the biologists and the technologists of the Department of Fisheries. They really have performed, in the field of fishing, feats which border on the miraculous. As concrete evidence of my assertion may I refer to an article in the same French newspaper of New Brunswick, the Evangeline. I do not know whether any of the hon. gentlemen have read this article. I find in this French newspaper of New Brunswick, in its issue of January 20, 1953, an article which deals with the treatment of trout with aureomycin. This article reveals that recently the piscicultural establishment at Jasper national park has produced a more vigorous trout by adding to its ordinary food this magic drug known as aureomycin. It is reported that during thirteen weeks in the Jasper national park fish hatchery small quantities of aureomycin were given to some 3,000 small, young trout. After that period of time the young trout which had been thus treated were, on the average-and this is very interesting-a quarter of an inch longer than those which had been provided only with their customary ration. Moreover, according to the article, the normal death or loss rate among the latter group was three times greater than among the young trout whose food had been treated with small doses of aureomycin. This is one more instance of the miraculous feats performed in the study of fish by biologists and technologists in the Department of Fisheries.
In my submission, however, in order to conduct a thorough and practical investigation into the economic difficulties of the fishing industry of Canada, the Department of Fisheries would be well advised to have representatives of fish dealers and some practical and experienced fishermen serving on a board of inquiry or commission, to work alongside departmental experts. Great care should also be exercised in order that every important branch of the fishing industry in Canada may be represented, and properly represented, on such a fact-finding body. I contend that the cod fishermen or the salmon fishermen can give no practical assistance to the sardine fishermen, and vice versa.
Granted, therefore, that every important branch of the industry be properly represented, with due regard to the particular problems attendant upon each major producing area in our dominion, I feel we would at last have a real, practical and sensible board of inquiry or investigation.

On such a board, experts in biology and technology would have the opportunity to marry their knowledge with the practical experience and common-sense suggestions offered by men in the trade. Under these conditions I believe the Canadian fishing industry could naturally and logically expect great results.
Commissions composed of so-called experts and technicians, however high and numerous their qualifications may have been, have been touring Canada and will no doubt continue to do so at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer, and have always reminded me-and this long before I came to this House of Commons-of a famous saying of one of our French fabulists: "La montagne qui enfante une souris." When stated in English this means: "A mountain brings forth a mouse." I suggest therefore to the Department of Fisheries that should it give favourable consideration to this resolution-and I hope it will-it should bear in mind that the fishermen of Canada will expect concrete results and not mere empty propositions; practical effectiveness rather than theoretical deductions in the study of their problems. Perhaps when I say this I should confine my observations to the fishermen of Gloucester, and I shall do so. They will not accept any vague proposition.
The fishermen have many problems. In order to reach this goal the Department of Fisheries should therefore make a special effort to democratize any board of inquiry or commission it may consider setting up. By bringing such board or commission closer to the fishermen of Canada it would assure a report which would be really beneficial to the fishing industry throughout the country.
In order to be logical, after having offered certain suggestions perhaps I should go further-dealing always with the resolution- and amplify some of the nice points my good friend from Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) has underlined. What are the remedies for the pitiful situation of the fishermen about whom my hon. friend has spoken-as a matter of fact, the fishermen of Canada?
There may be many remedies, but I have a few I should like to suggest to the house and bring to the attention particularly of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and his department. In my maiden speech in the House of Commons on June 19, 1952, I said:
I therefore feel justified in asking the Minister of Fisheries to give immediate attention to the matter, with a view to setting up,-and this is the important point-a system of federal aid to compensate our fishermen for the heavy losses they sustain through storms.
Fisheries
Since there is no hesitation in granting aid to farmers and stock-breeders during epidemics, why not give assistance to the fishermen who are constantly victims of the worst plague there is- and I know something about it-storms at sea.
Again, speaking in the house on December 1 last I made this suggestion, as it is reported at pages 230 and 231 of Hansard:
Before concluding my remarks on the question of fisheries, may I again stress the necessity of providing fishermen with some form of remuneration for losses sustained through storms. I am informed that a plan is now under advisement by the Department of Fisheries to establish a permanent program of insurance as well as loans-interest free, I hope-to storm-stricken fishermen. May I advocate the elaboration of a system following the broad outline of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which has proved to be highly beneficial to western farmers. I am also in favour of extending the plan now under study so as to embrace some kind of cheap contributory insurance not alone on the fishing equipment but on the lives of our fishermen as well. After all, there is in my submission no more hazardous occupation than that of those hardy and courageous toilers of the sea who risk everything and face the ever-recurring dangers of storm and sea in order to develop the fishing grounds of Canada's Atlantic and Pacific coasts, which are recognized as the richest in the world. Hence special consideration should be given by our government to the welfare of Canada's fishermen; and a protective scheme of assistance and insurance is indeed long past due.
May I now refer to a system of social security which, I am told, has been in vogue in France for a number of years, a system I would advise the Department of Fisheries to study with great care. This system of social security in France is concerned not only with fishermen but also covers the young men in the merchant marine of that country.
After I had spoken in the house in June of last year a friend of mine, Mr. H. M. Rive from Caraquet, N.B., a man who, because of having been brought up in the fishing industry, is an expert in fisheries questions, a man who has specialized in that industry during his lifetime, wrote an article in our weekly paper in Gloucester, the Gloucester Northern Light in which he referred to the system in France which affords social security to the fishermen and merchant marine of that country. This article dated July 7, 1952, states-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. I must call the hon. member's attention to the fact that his time has expired.


Albany M. Robichaud: I would be only a few more minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Albany M. Robichaud: Thank you.
Referring to this system of social security in France the article states:
The first condition is that the prospective candidate for either career must have attended school until the age of 13. On applying, his name is

Fisheries
entered in a register opposite a number, which will ensure his identity for life, after he has served a month's apprenticeship.
At the age of 50, he is entitled to an annual pension, provided he has fished or followed the sea for 300 months. At his death, his wife continues to receive half the pension, and the children under 16, an allowance of so much a day, as long as the mother remains a widow.
Provision is made also for what is called proportional indemnity in case of death before 50, and for a provident indemnity in cases of sickness or injury, while engaged in his particular work. His personal belongings, also, are insured against loss by fire, shipwreck or any other cause, incidental to his occupation.
I hope the Department of Fisheries will study this scheme of social security for fishermen which has been in force for a number of years in France and which I am told is working very well.
Before resuming my seat I should like to direct attention to a recent threat to our famous lobster industry. A British United Press dispatch to Evangeline, our daily French newspaper published in Moncton, New Brunswick, states that a bill is to be introduced very soon in the Massachusetts state legislature to compel exporters of fresh lobster meat to pasteurize their product rather than to preserve it by refrigeration as has heretofore been the practice. I submit to the Department of Fisheries that most of our fresh lobster meat exporters will have to go out of business if that bill goes through.
This article of January 21 states that this same bill provides for the exclusion of Canadian fresh and frozen lobster from the Boston market, which is the most profitable market we have. I have a question on the order paper about this, but I am bringing this up at this time as I believe it is of urgent importance. I ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) to tell the house what steps have been taken to block this measure.
A similar bill was presented some years ago in the same state legislature. The fishermen of the maritime provinces organized themselves without any help from Ottawa. They hired a lawyer in Boston and the bill was blocked, but we cannot be hiring Boston lawyers every day. I think this is a matter for the attention of the federal government.
I thank the house for letting me have a few minutes extra. I am heartily in accord with the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). I hope the principles that we have underlined and the concrete suggestions which we have submitted to the Department of Fisheries will receive favourable attention. I know the Minister of Fisheries has the development, the expansion and the future of the industry at heart.
IMr. Robichaud.l


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). I am sorry that my deskmate, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), is not here because he is a member of the fisheries committee and has always been most prominent in taking up cudgels on behalf of the fishermen. I congratulate the hon. member for Charlotte upon bringing forward this resolution, which reads:
That, in the opinion of the house, the government should consider the advisability of investigating the economic condition of the fishing industry in Canada with a view to recommending legislation designed to render assistance to the industry comparable to the legislation already enacted to provide assistance for agriculture.
I want to assure the hon. member and other fishermen in the house that I am in favour of their getting as much assistance as agriculture gets. I do not think it should be only one way. This investigation would not be ahead of time because I know of many fishermen who are going broke today. The two previous members who spoke are fishermen, and I have not their experience. I have gone out on the herring fishing boats on the river Clyde as a boy, and I have been out on the lakes of Manitoba once or twice, but that does not justify me in saying that I am a fisherman.
I wonder if the hon. member who introduced this resolution intended it to apply to the prairie fisheries. As the hon. gentleman knows, fishing on the prairies is under the provincial governments but the problems there are the same. When the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) speaks in the debate I hope he will clear up that point. I should like to see the prairie fisheries included in the investigation suggested by the hon. member.
There may be some hon. members who have never been west and who may be interested in knowing that in Manitoba we have lakes over 400 miles long, where the storms are bigger than any I have seen on the Atlantic. The fishermen out there are facing difficult times. They are getting a very low price for their fish, and I think it only right and proper that some form of floor or guaranteed price be provided as is done in the case of agricultural products, so they may obtain a fair return for the services they render.
Someone may say that if a floor price is set there will be too many fishermen. That cannot take place on the lakes in Manitoba because the catch is regulated; there can be only so many fish caught each year. During the war we had a guaranteed and set price and the fishermen got a square deal, the

processors got a square deal and the consumers got a square deal. I do not think there would be any harm in bringing something like that back again.
I think the fishermen could help themselves a great deal by co-operative methods. I have suggested to former ministers of fisheries that in the grant made for co-operative education something should be provided for the co-operative education of the fishermen of the prairie provinces. Up to the present time I have never been able to get anything for Manitoba or the other two prairie provinces.
The new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) is progressive, and a go-ahead type. I will not praise him * any more because, knowing his past history, I do not think it would agree with him. However, I hope that one of these days he will give some consideration to seeing that we get a few dollars out of what is set aside for co-operative education.
I do not want to take up a lot of time. I support the motion, and if anything is done I want it to apply to prairie fishing. I should like to see guaranteed prices. As I have already said, the catch is regulated so that there would not be too many fish caught, or too many people getting rich quickly.
We have terrific storms on lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba. The fishermen there also lose their boats and gear and run into all kinds of difficulty. We subsidize people who dig for gold. I think people who produce food are more entitled to assistance than people who dig for gold. I want to endorse the resolution again, and when the minister replies I hope he will tell me whether the resolution can apply to prairie conditions.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two on this matter. I had not intended to speak, but the mover of the resolution brought the Fraser valley into the debate. As you will notice, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a prepared speech as did all others with the exception of the last speaker. Probably one reason I have not is that I understood the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to intimate yesterday that the date of the election has not yet been set. Therefore, unlike the two speakers from the maritimes, I did not come down to the house with a prepared speech in an endeavour to convince the electors of my riding that I should be returned.
Apparently one can talk about anything on this resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) who looks as young today as she did thirty years ago when I first knew her.
Fisheries
We in the province of British Columbia are proud and privileged to support this resolution because we are confident that it, or any other resolution having to do with the betterment of the conditions of fishermen, will be made effective under the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair). My main reason for speaking is that the mover of the resolution, who comes from a very small riding in the maritimes, brought up the same matter last year, and whether or not he meant it he implied that agriculture was enjoying a preferred position. I defy him or any other member to point to any member representing an agricultural riding in any province of Canada who has not supported the fishermen on every occasion.


An hon. Member:: Keep on doing so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We intend to. Incidentally, more salmon are spawned in my riding than in any other two ridings combined.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do you want to dispute that? Did you not know it? Did you ever hear of the famous Fraser river?


Albany M. Robichaud: I have seen it. That is more than I can say of you with respect to the baie de Chaleur.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to point out that we produce more fish in the province of British Columbia than any other five provinces in the Dominion of Canada combined, and the Fraser river is the spawning ground of the salmon. Maybe you did not know that. When these members come here and say that those interested in agriculture are opposing them, or intimate that they are-


An hon. Member:: No, no.


George Alexander Cruickshank: All right; you will have an opportunity to make your speech. I will make my own and I will not take 55 or 60 minutes to make a re-election speech in order to say that a rowboat must be replaced if it turns over and goes down. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when a farmer loses his manure spreader by fire he replaces it himself. He does not come running to the government to have it replaced. The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) implied that this parliament gave $10 million-I do not know whether he quoted the figure-at the time of the Fraser valley floods. Apparently the hon. member for Charlotte has never seen the great Pacific where the real fish come from that are shipped to the old country and elsewhere and not to the House of Commons.


Mr. Riley:: You never tasted good fish.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Since I came here I have seen a lot of them.

Fisheries


Daniel Aloysius Riley: We have some poor ones.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Another member from the maritimes is heard from. In particular, when I hear them talking about lobster-


Daniel Aloysius Riley: The best salmon in the world are in my riding.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I came here in 1940 before my friend was old enough to be nominated, and at that time we spent $54,000 to advertise lobster in an endeavour to clear the market. If you go downtown in Ottawa now or at any time of the year and try to buy a lobster the price is so high that if I were selling them I would be able to retire and give pensions not only to the members of the house but to the page boys as well.


Mr. Sinclair:: Are you against good prices for lobster fishermen?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am in favour of all fishermen getting their just deserts, and we expect that from the minister, coming as he does from the province of British Columbia.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: That is what the maritime members have been asking for.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Now, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is this, a party caucus?


George Alexander Cruickshank: The junior member over here, with all the geniality-


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Who loves you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -of his race and name wants to assist me, but the Minister of Fisheries happens to come not from Ireland but from Scotland, and for that reason the fishermen will get due pay for everything they produce. I want to point out something to the hon. member for Charlotte who is a very good friend of mine. I think "Charlotte" is right although I get confused because there is another Charlotte around this town whom I do not like.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have said nothing
wrong, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said that this money was spent in the Fraser valley for agriculture. I want to point out to the hon. member that the third city of Canada, the gateway to our greatest potential market, Asia, is served by two transcontinental railways whose lines were out of use for a month and a half because of the floods. The hon. member said the money was spent to aid the Fraser valley farmers. Nonsense. It is the same kind of nonsense that was uttered by my friend over here who talked about a little boat turning over and wanting the government to insure it.


Albany M. Robichaud: I should like to have seen you in that little boat.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Maybe you would like to see me in it, but I have no intention of getting into your little boat.


Albany M. Robichaud: I should like to see you
seasick.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker


Daniel Aloysius Riley: He is always seasick.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My friend may want to see me seasick, but let me assure him that I was never so near to being seasick as when I was listening to him.


Albany M. Robichaud: You were the other night.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Leave me alone, because I am not going to take this stuff. I know I speak for every farmer member in the house when I say they believe that the fishermen should be assisted. As I understand it, the hon. member for Charlotte wants floor prices. Is that not correct? Is that not the meaning of your resolution? I understand he wants equal treatment with agriculture and everybody else. He wants floor prices.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, all I asked for was that the same consideration be given those engaged in the fishing industry that is given to those engaged in agriculture.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member that I am entirely in accord with that and will be glad to vote for it. However, I also want to point out that apparently my friend does not believe in his own motion in its entirety. He spoke of sardines, and I understand sardines require oil. My friend the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) believes we should bring in cheap oil, of all things, in which to preserve sardines. I want to quote a rather interesting article from the Ottawa Journal. It is a good newspaper if you cannot get any other. In the Journal of Monday, January 26, 1953, I find this headline, "Oleo, dynamite, in car bring arrest." The article reads in part:
Police held today a 46-year old man after his car was found here Saturday containing margarine, dynamite and detonating caps.
What a combination! You do not need to put a dynamite cap in margarine to make you sick. Here is my friend, right here in this house, stating that we should bring in this cheap oil in which to preserve this idiotic little fish called the sardine.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Does the hon. member believe in high tariffs or free trade?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Most Liberals do.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member for Fraser Valley believes in free trade all across the board, not just one way. I have heard the hon. member speaking here-but I shall be called to order if I mention these frigi-daires. I do want to say this. I have almost as many fishermen in my riding as he has in his. I am quite sure I have more than my hon. friend across the way.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We will count them. Certainly, the fishermen in my riding show better judgment in their selection of a representative at Ottawa. I want to say that the fishermen in my riding believe that your fishermen and my fishermen should have equal rights or assistance, whether by law, by subsidy or any other way, but we do not want you to go around saying the farmer is getting any more benefits than the fisherman.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: It is not
my intention to take very much time this afternoon, but on behalf of the Social Credit party I want to support in its entirety the resolution that has been moved by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). I am greatly surprised that a similar resolution was not moved many years ago. Being one of those who has lived practically all his life on the land, I am not in a position to go into details in connection with the fishing industry. But having crossed the Atlantic some years ago in one of the largest ships afloat at that time, I recall the tossing around we got. Having visited Halifax last summer in company with many other members of the house, I had the opportunity of taking a short ride around the harbour. I can understand what these fishermen have gone through when storms overtook them during the course of their daily work.
I know, too, what we prairie farmers have suffered in the past because of conditions over which we had no control, and over which we still have no control. I appreciate, as do all farmers, the assistance given us under P.F.A. and similar legislation. I do not want anyone to feel that we want that kind of legislation enacted for farmers alone. I believe the fishermen are also entitled to similar legislation. We have an entirely different set-up, of course. Having had the opportunity of seeing the fishermen at work unloading their boats, and of visiting a fish plant in Halifax, personally I would not change my place as a farmer with any fisherman along the coast. I expect the same conditions obtain on the west coast.
Fisheries
Rather than take up a lot of time, as I know there are many members who are interested in fishing and who want to speak on this resolution, I shall take my seat now and assure the hon. member for Charlotte of my wholehearted support for this resolution.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: I, too, should like to join the other members, Mr. Speaker, in offering my congratulations to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). It is gratifying to see that this session we have had two afternoons devoted to a debate on fisheries, whereas normally we just get one day to discuss the affairs of perhaps the most important department of government. It is certainly the most important department to those of us who live in the maritime provinces. We have a great many debates on agriculture around this house, but very few on fisheries. I sometimes think that perhaps the same consideration is not given to fisheries that is given to agriculture by members of the cabinet. I should like to point out to the members of the cabinet that the Lord was fairer. They will recall the miracle of the loaves and fishes, and I am quite sure they will recall that He treated the loaves and fishes in the same way. Perhaps that is a good thought for the cabinet to keep in the back of their minds.
Fishermen are very independent people, and I believe we are quite proud of that fact. Perhaps they have been too independent in the past. It seems to me that they do not realize the truth of the old adage that the squeaking wheel gets the grease. Certainly since I came down here in 1945 I have heard a great many squeaks from members representing agricultural ridings, and perhaps not enough from those representing the fishermen.
Now we have a new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair). I have the greatest confidence in him, and believe he will bring a new approach to this problem. I might just point out to him

I do not know whether or not there is anything indicative about this

that both he and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) are fortunate enough to have been named "Jimmy". Whether or not there is any connotation to that word that might have something to do with prying money loose from the treasury board, I hope he works it to the greatest possible extent.
At one time you and I, Mr. Speaker, had the good fortune to visit a prairie town in company with our good friend the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). There was not as much activity in that town as there is in the average fishing town. Fishermen always seem to have to rush around in order to make a living. On the occasion

Fisheries
when we went to this prairie town, it reminded us of Goldsmith's deserted village. We ran into our good guide and mentor who said, "I know where the boys will be; they will be down at the curling rink." We went down there because it was the only place in town completely surrounded by expensive automobiles. We went in there and met some charming people, friends of his, and also some Liberals, I think. There was a furious argument going on as to the relative merits of Cadillacs, Buicks and Chrysler Imperials, and whether they were good for hunting ducks or touring Mexico. I said to the hon. member for Moose Jaw, "Where is your statue?" He said, "There was no war around here to which we have to raise a statue." I said, "No, but surely you must have a statue of the Minister of Agriculture; surely these people would not be so unappreciative that they would not have a statue of him." He said, "No, they have not." I can tell the Minister of Fisheries that if he does one quarter as much for the fishermen as the Minister of Agriculture has done for the farmers, he will live forever in bronze in every small fishing village.
Let us take a look at pork, for instance. We got into a little trouble in the pork business a short time ago because of the United States embargo. This cabinet acted with furious speed, I thought with almost unseemly haste. They acted, first of all, to ensure that the producer of pork got a profit. That was fine, and I was glad to hear it. They made sure that the packer who canned that pork got a profit. Then the government turned around and sold that pork to the Canadian consumer at less than cost. Well, perhaps one could argue that was a virtuous thing for them to do.
What happened when the salmon canners got into the same position? We were cut out of the United Kingdom market by a virtual embargo because of the United Kingdom's lack of dollars. The government did not step in in any way to try to stabilize that market and to prevent the distress selling that actually took place. As a result one of our largest fishery co-operatives in British Columbia went bankrupt. That was an unfortunate circumstance for a large number of fishermen there. I may say that every large fishing company in British Columbia lost large sums of money this past year. After all, when a company out there loses-as many individual companies have-more than a million dollars this year, the government actually loses 52 per cent of the amount in taxes. I do not have any trouble in pointing that fact out to my friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). For a small sum of money this

government could have put stability into that market and could have prevented the distress selling which actually occurred and which created these losses as a result of which I say the treasury here lost a great deal of revenue. I think we could have been wiser in the way we handled that matter last year. With the representations that my good friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) will be able to make to the cabinet in the future, I hope such things will not happen again.
The fishing industry does not want to be spoon-fed. Those engaged in that industry are extremely independent and highly capable. But I should like to see the same consideration given to them that is given to the agricultural industry. In British Columbia we had a surplus of 500,000 cases of fish- I refer to canned salmon, the best in the world-and it is lying there as a threat to the market. In the agricultural industry, however, the Canadian government have stepped in and I believe they are now the proud possessors and owners of about 40 million pounds of butter in this country. Just the other day I read in the paper-whether I have inferred too much from what I saw there I do not know-that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) suggested that this 40 million pounds of butter be kept from the market in order to stabilize the price of butter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is that not good business?


John Lambert Gibson: I think probably it is excellent business; but I certainly wish the government of Canada owned that 40 million pounds of canned salmon in British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Get after the minister.


John Lambert Gibson: Then in case the price dropped to a disastrous level for the Canadian producer the government may say: We will hold our salmon off the market. If it is a good thing in the one case it is certainly good in the other.
I was only trying to make a practical approach. I am not trying to disparage anything that has been done for the agricultural industry or to say that it should not have been done. But at the same time I should like us to assist, if we can, the Minister of Fisheries in bringing before his colleagues the way the members from the fishery ridings feel with regard to matters of this kind.
There are many aspects of the fishing industry, and they cannot all be discussed in one short debate like this one. I apologize for having taken up this much time when I know there are many other hon. members who wish to speak. Now that we have this new Minister of Fisheries I am sure the

government will listen to his representations and do everything they possibly can for the fishing industry.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by complimenting the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) on bringing this resolution before the house. Since practically all my constituents are fishermen, I should be remiss in my duty if I did not rise in my place to support this resolution and endorse the constructive suggestions put forth by my colleagues.
I am sure my constituents would also wish me to take advantage of this opportunity to express to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), to his colleagues in the cabinet and to the officials of his department their sincere gratitude for what has already been done in their interest. Without the deficiency payments on shore-cured fish in 1951 and 1952 the families of many of our shore fishermen would have had to go without sufficient food, clothing and fuel, and the fishermen themselves would have been forced to leave the fishing industry altogether in order to seek more remunerative employment.
The bounty of $165 per ton for certain classes of fishing boats is enabling many fishermen to provide themselves with suitable vessels essential to the use of modern methods of fish production. The success of the experiments with the long-liners which were carried out by the federal government has caught the interest and the imagination of our Newfoundland fishermen, many of whom are now providing themselves with this type of boat.
The discovery of rich, new inshore fishing grounds by the fisheries research department has opened up easily accessible sources of supply hitherto unknown. This has been an added incentive to encourage fishermen to modernize their fishing methods. The research department is at present engaged in an experiment with the artificial drying of light salted fish. If a satisfactory solution to this problem can be found, and one that is economically feasible, it will be one of the greatest single contributions ever made to the welfare of our Newfoundland fishermen. Along with these there have been many lesser achievements such as the expansion of the patrol service and particularly the protection of the inland fisheries by increasing the staff of river guardians.
I think it is right to mention these things because human memory is short and we are prone to forget our benefits and remember only our needs. Though much has already been done, a great deal more remains to be
Fisheries
achieved. We need far more river guardians not only in my own riding but throughout the whole province of Newfoundland, particularly along the salmon rivers of Labrador. Our patrol service needs to be improved by the use of faster and more suitable vessels.
We also need to concentrate more on fishery research and conservation. We need to locate and learn about the movements of the large schools of herring which frequent the shores of our province and which we know to exist. The herring industry alone is capable of being developed so that its value will exceed that of all other fish caught in Newfoundland. We need more experiments with the curing of different varieties of fish, with the canning of fish and also with fancy cured fish. This will take considerable time and will require a great deal of money; but these projects are primarily a federal responsibility.
We need also more research with respect to salt-cured fish. What is a light salted fish? What is a heavy salted fish? Fishermen in various parts of Newfoundland have different answers to this question. The answer is all the more complicated because the salinity of the salt used is hardly ever uniform, even for the same grade of salt. Definite answers to these questions must be provided before standardization of quality can take place.
I am one of those who believe there will always be a market for salt-cured fish. People who live in hot climates lose a great deal of salt from their bodies due to excessive perspiration. This salt is essential to health and must be replaced. The cheapest source for replacement is salt-cured fish in which the salt is combined with high-grade protein which is also an essential to health.
Some economists advise us that the salt cod market is not economical and that we should get out of it as quickly as possible. The answer is that we cannot get out of it even if we want to; but I do not think we should want to because those people in hot countries need fish for food; and if they are poor people, they need cheap fish. I think we should put people's needs first. I believe that if we have the courage and the faith to put the motive of feeding hungry people ahead of the profit motive, then other factors will come into play which the economist does not ordinarily take into consideration and which will automatically provide the profits which the producers need.
I do hope also that some means will be found to provide unemployment insurance for our fishermen. A beginning in this direction could be made by making eligible those fishermen who are employed on monthly wages.

Fisheries
Above all, Mr. Speaker, we need a better deal for the primary producers. The farmers and the fishermen have very much in common; they are both primary producers. These primary producers are the people who run the risks, take all the hazards and endure all the hardships. Very often they risk their lives and everything they own. We want them to have as good a deal as possible. Scientific research can do much to minimize the hardship and reduce the risk, but before the fishermen can be in a position to take advantage of those benefits some capital assistance will be necessary.
The fishing industry is the second largest food producing industry in Canada, and though its market value is much smaller than the value of farm products, yet it is of sufficient importance to justify the consideration that has been requested for it today.
Again I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) for providing this opportunity to debate this resolution and to focus upon the fishing industry the attention that its importance warrants.


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to support this motion by the hon. member for Charlotte, because the underlying ideas that are expressed in it have already been mentioned by me in this house on more than one occasion. I too am of the opinion that this government should pass legislation designed to render assistance to the fishing industry comparable to the legislation already enacted to provide assistance for agriculture. I too think it would be a good idea to establish a board to investigate the economic condition of the fishing industry of Canada with a view to making the necessary recommendations.
I am particularly interested in problems concerning fishermen because, as I discovered recently when looking up some figures, although my county is not by any means the largest in the province, it is the county in the province of Quebec which has the most fishermen. All problems that concern fishermen are therefore of vital importance to my constituents.
The fishing industry is also very important to Canada, as I had occasion to point out in a speech I made in the house on April 27, 1950, as reported at page 1940 of Hansard, as follows:
The fishing industry in our country has become very important indeed, particularly in view of the fact that we now have Newfoundland as our tenth province. At least seven provinces are vitally interested in the fishing industry. There are,

of course, Newfoundland, the three maritime provinces, Quebec, also Manitoba because of the extensive fishing industry in lake Winnipeg-
I was interested to hear some of the members from the west support this resolution this afternoon because of that. I continue: -and the province of British Columbia. When seven provinces in our country are vitally interested in the fishing industry, then I say the government ought to do as much for that industry, on a smaller scale of course, as it does for agriculture. The organizations having to do and dealing with fishing ought to have the same scope of action as those which deal with agriculture.
We find in the statutes of 1944-1945 the Agricultural Prices Support Act. In the same statutes we find the Fisheries Prices Support Act. These two statutes are practically identical.
But in 1947 the government decided they had not gone far enough so far as agriculture was concerned, and in that year they passed the Agricultural Products Act, the long title of which is "An act to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products". In my speech on April 27, 1950, I said with reference to the Agricultural Products Act:
This statute gives the minister, subject to regulations made by the governor in council, authority to-
(a)	sell or export agricultural products to the government of any country or any agency thereof pursuant to any agreement made by the government of Canada with the government of such country or with such agency and for those purposes may purchase agricultural products and make such arrangements for the purchase, sale or export of agricultural products as he considers necessary or desirable:
(b)	on behalf of the government of any country or any agency thereof purchase or negotiate contracts for the purchase of agricultural products;
Paragraph (c) does not apply. I continue:
(d) enter into contracts for the storing or processing of agricultural products.
Under that legislation some very good contracts have been made with other countries for the sale of agricultural products, but I believe we should have something similar for fisheries. If we had it I say it would help in finding markets for fishery products of the country, and I am sure it would help in overcoming the low prices that fishermen now get for their output.
As has been said already in this debate, Mr. Speaker, the fishermen are primary producers, and as such they should be placed on the same footing, I respectfully submit, as other primary producers.
Amongst the fishermen in my county, and not alone amongst the fishermen-I find in talking with hon. members who have fishermen in their counties and who represent fishing constituencies that the same feeling exists amongst them-there is the feeling

that our fishermen are not getting a fair deal. There is a feeling that they are not getting a fair share of social security. Everybody in this country, apart from the fishermen, seems to be getting a fair share of social security. The fishermen feel that they have been let down so far as that is concerned. For instance, they have no catch insurance. Catch insurance is something that would be parallel to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It should be possible to start up some kind of contributory insurance that would permit the fishermen to insure themselves against a bad catch in any year in the same way that the prairie farmers can insure themselves against a bad crop.
It is very difficult for fishermen to get equipment insurance; they can hardly get it at all. I have made a suggestion to the Department of Fisheries, and I think it is a good one. There is a fishermen's bounty that is given to the fishermen every year under an old treaty with the United States, under which they get a bounty of about $9 a year. That $9 a year is of no practical use, but it could be used, along with a government contribution, as a contribution towards fishermen's equipment insurance.
We have a prices support board. When I came into the house as a new member, representing a fishermen's constituency, I had great faith in the Fisheries Prices Support Act and in the board. I thought now we have something that will help me overcome the problem that the fishermen are always complaining about, namely that the prices are not high enough. I pleaded with the board several times. I had special hearings of the board. I went before them and pleaded the case as well as I could, but I never succeeded in getting anything tangible from the fisheries prices support board. In 1951 I held out some hopes to the fishermen of my constituency. I said to them in a debate on the 24th of April, 1951, as reported at page 2363 of Hansard:
According to the information I have, the fisheries prices support board has not yet exercised its powers to set floor prices for fish and to make payments to fishermen. X respectfully suggest to the minister that the time has come for the board to exercise those powers.
I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the survey which is now being made in Newfoundland by this government will warrant setting a floor price for fish and that the first request of the fishermen will be granted.
That was never implemented. There was never a floor price set for fish, and the fishermen of the Magdalen Islands are still waiting for some help from the fisheries prices support board. Here is something the fisheries prices support board could do right away. Even if they cannot set a minimum 68108-91
Fisheries
price for all fish, the price of cod should be set because cod is the biggest catch in the Magdalen islands, and the price has always been low. It would take someone more versed in economics than I am to explain why, when prices have been going up, when the cost of living has been going up, and meat and vegetable prices have been increasing, fish prices have been going down or have remained stationary. The problem of the fishermen in my county is the price of cod.
Most of the cod produced is not sold fresh; it is sold smoked or salted. If the fisheries prices support board cannot support the price of all cod, let them at least support the price of smoked and salt cod, which are exported to countries in which the people are not very well off, and who are able to pay only low prices. This would be an opportunity for the support board to step in and do something about this problem.
Then with regard to unemployment insurance. The fishermen feel that they have not been getting their share of social security. One of our forms of social security in this country is unemployment insurance. Away back in 1951 I held out the hope to the people in my county that they might get unemployment insurance. At that time I said this:
As early as last spring, one year ago, I made representations to the unemployment insurance commission and the Department of Labour in order to bring fishermen under the act. The unemployment insurance commission began a nation-wide survey to secure the necessary information and data before reporting on this request. I understand that the report is in preparation and hope that the government will be able to include fishermen in the benefits of this legislation which has already been extended to lumberjacks.
I mentioned lumberjacks particularly, because they are seasonal workmen. That was in 1951. A report has been made, and it was negative. Nothing has been done about it. The report stated that in the United States and England they have unemployment insurance for fishermen, but they pointed out something about administrative difficulties which would have to be overcome.
I say that administrative difficulties are not a sufficient reason for not extending that form of social security to fishermen in this country. I am sure that if the Department of Fisheries will put its shoulder to the wheel, if members of the staff in that department will put their heads together, they will be able to find a way to overcome these administrative difficulties that have been overcome in other countries.

Fisheries
I insist again, as I feel it my duty to do, that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be extended to fishermen. And I say again that perhaps the first step would be to extend it to fishermen who are on wages or salary, fishermen's helpers particularly. There is no reason why they should not benefit from unemployment insurance, inasmuch as they are employees receiving wages, just the same as do other employees in Canada who earn wages.
One thing that would help the Magdalen islands particularly would be the export of fresh fish. To export fresh fish refrigeration ships, or a refrigeration ship, would be required. It would not be fair to put the whole burden on the federal government, because in my province the administration of the fisheries has been taken over by the provincial government. I make an appeal today to that provincial government, to the premier and to the minister of fisheries, and ask them not to forget the fishermen of the Magdalen islands. I would ask them to see that the necessary moneys are appropriated to supply refrigerators and the refrigerated ships required in the export of fresh cod. If this were done it would solve our problem to a great extent.
I call upon the government to give a new deal to the fishermen, particularly those on the east coast. I understand those on the west coast have their very valuable salmon crop, and I do not think there is any problem so far as they are concerned. Their economic conditions are good, when compared with the less favourable conditions of the fishermen on the east coast.
Let it not be suggested that fishermen are a forgotten race or a forgotten group of people. Let us see that they get what they are entitled to, the same as the other inhabitants of this great country of ours. They are a hardy race. They go out every day, courageously, wresting their living from the sea. They risk their lives to earn a living for their families and to supply food to the people of Canada. I say we should show some regard for these people, that we should show them at least the same regard we extend to the agricultural producers. I call upon the government to do its best for the fishermen of the Magdalen islands in particular, and of Canada at large.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who introduced the resolution this afternoon made reference to a reply he received last year in a similar debate. It was pointed out to him by some speaker on behalf of the government that the annual value of agriculture was very much greater than the value of the fisheries.

I do not think anyone can deny that agriculture is a most important industry in Canada, because it is so varied and so extensive in its operations. It has increased in importance in the last few years. There can be no doubt that it is of tremendous value to Canada.
It would be very difficult, therefore, to make an exact comparison. But that is what is being done when we compare the amount of money that is being voted by parliament to assist agriculture, and the amount being voted to assist the fisheries. It has been shown that last year $11 million was voted for the fisheries and $74 million for agriculture. It was pointed out that agricultural production was ten times as great, and that therefore the fisheries are receiving all they should receive.
It seems to me it is not desirable to have comparisons of that kind in our arguments. Are the fisheries getting the attention they need? That is the point we must consider. Everyone has paid tribute to the brave and hardy fisherman who risks his life and faces such hardship on the rolling deep. Anyone who has seen a fisherman come in from the banks in the wintertime, on a vessel caked with ice, must know the hardships that fishermen must endure. Anyone who has seen the small man in his dory, rocking in the cradle of the deep, must know something of the danger that the fisherman goes through.
Anyone who has seen, as I have, men from different parts of Newfoundland rallying in great numbers, as they did in 1939 and 1940, to enlist in the Canadian navy and in the British navy to defend the shores of this country, must realize that those men are deserving of the greatest consideration, because if we did not have the fisheries we would not have suitable men to man the ships of the navy.
I know that help has been given to the fisheries beyond that set out in the estimates for the department. The large amounts that are voted annually for the construction of wharves and breakwaters are in the interests of fishermen, and those expenditures are appreciated very much indeed.
Well then, is there any need to help the fishermen, more than is being done at the present time? I submit that there is. I have been in settlements occupied almost exclusively by fishermen, and I have seen the poor circumstances under which they live. It may be that fisheries cannot be carried on economically in those places. But whatever the circumstances are, the conditions one sees there show that these people are not receiving the attention they deserve. At

the present time in Newfoundland a joint committee has been appointed by the federal and provincial governments to investigate the fisheries of that province. So I suppose the resolution is really answered, so far as Newfoundland is concerned.
Therefore I can speak only in a general way in the debate this afternoon. I feel Newfoundland has a special problem because only a few years ago the fisheries of that province were such an important factor in its economic life. Those fisheries have declined tremendously. We look forward with great interest and hope to a solution by this joint committee. A royal commission which investigated conditions in Newfoundland in 1932 found that there were 65,000 fishermen, while last year it was shown that there were only about 22,000. This is a decline of two-thirds in the number of people prosecuting the fisheries. There must be some reason why such large numbers are leaving this industry. They have left to go to work in Greenland, at Goose Bay, and at Seven Islands, the gateway to the mines on the Labrador-Quebec boundary. There was a bad year in 1949; another bad year in 1950; a not too good year in 1951. What is the use of men staying in the fisheries?
The new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) is young, he is aggressive, and I am sure he is interested. Let us hope we are going to get some help that will put the fisheries back into the place they should be occupying in the economic life of the country. Other speakers have referred to unemployment insurance, which is most important, and to the fisheries prices support board.
The question is at what stage the powers of this board should be invoked. Should we wait until there is a calamity? In 1951 I contended that the powers of this board should have been invoked, but that was not done by the government. There has been an interesting development in connection with the fisheries in Newfoundland. The fishermen have formed themselves into a federation with provincial government assistance. I recommended in this house that the federal government should give assistance for this federation, but that was not done. This federation of fishermen has been making fair progress, but I do not know just how far an organization of that kind can go in a short time. It needs a great deal of wise direction and guidance. I do not know whether ultimately it is going to be a success but it certainly deserves to be.
I come now to the important question of marketing. The principal agricultural product produced on the prairies, wheat, is marketed through a board. It does not
68108-91J
Fisheries
appear in the estimates, but the assistance given the farmers in the marketing of this product is tremendous. None of them would want to go back to the system which was in existence before. We have an organization in Newfoundland known as the Associated Fish Exporters Limited which has to do with the marketing of fish. The federation of fishermen have recently been invited to become a member of that body. I do not know whether that is the solution.
I think it was the mover of the resolution who drew attention this afternoon to the small amount of money the primary producer received for his product as compared to the amount the consumer had to pay. Along the way between the producer and the consumer are several middlemen, and a considerable sum is absorbed in profits, commissions, transportation charges and so forth. Those charges may be well justified, but the fact is that there seems to be a large gap. There is no reason why that gap should be so great; there is no reason why the fisherman should not get a larger share of the ultimate price paid for his product by the consumer.
It must be realized that the decline in the number of men engaged in the fisheries in Newfoundland is a serious matter, because we have always looked upon the fisheries as our most important industry. Despite the value of the pulp and paper industry, despite the value of the mineral industry, the fishing industry because of its extensive nature, because it is carried on by people living in 1,300 settlements around the island, because it spreads prosperity over the whole island to a greater degree than any other industry, is considered to be the most valuable.
I do not want to take up too much time this afternoon because I know several other hon. members wish to speak, and the minister wifi wish to reply. I should like to conclude by quoting the words of Oliver Goldsmith:
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroy'd, can never be supplied!
That applies to the fishermen of Newfoundland.


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at any length regarding the problems facing the fishing industry as I, like most hon. members, am anxious to hear the new minister reply. Therefore I gladly forgo any opportunity I may have to speak at any great length. I shall not repeat the many points that have been raised this afternoon, nor shall I refer to the many new items I had in mind. If the minister replies to all the matters that have been raised he will certainly need 35 or 40 minutes.

Fisheries
When he does reply I should like him to deal with the problem oi the dragger regulations. As he knows, there are three points ot view with regard to this matter. There is one group who contend that they should be kept beyond the three-mile limit. Another group want them kept beyond the twelve-mile limit. Then we run into the international problem. Norway has been in difficulty and Greece is now operating draggers. Russia wants to change her former line. Norway has suggested that this line be changed, and I believe this matter is now before the international court.
Will the minister explain to the house, and thus to the country, the difficulties which would arise because of the international situation should we try to change the three-mile limit now recognized by Canada as being the international limit, and extend it twelve miles out, which Canada recognizes as the limit for her own nationals. I gladly forgo dealing with the rest of the matters I have in mind in order to permit the minister to reply.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk) I had prepared rather lengthy notes in anticipation of having an opportunity to engage in this debate this afternoon, but like the hon. member I am most anxious to hear what the minister has to say and perhaps learn something of his plans for the future of the fishing industry in this country.
Like all maritimers I have been greatly interested in the career of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair). When we in the maritimes received the news of his appointment it was with a deep sense of satisfaction because of our knowledge of his past achievements in public life. That has led us to believe that he deserves to be cast in bronze so that for years after his mortal remains have been interred those who participate in the fishing industry may realize that here was a great Minister of Fisheries, here was a man who. put all his energies and all the great talents which he possessed into protecting and improving this important basic industry.
I was interested in hearing what the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) had to say with regard to maritime fisheries. He seemed to concentrate on the maritime fisheries because for some reason or other he delights in heaping upon the heads of the maritime members a great deal of adulation. I know he feels that in his part of the country they produce more fish, but I suspect a tinge of jealousy on his part

because of the quality of the fish produced in the maritimes.
The hon. member referred to lobsters, for which I know he has a great fondness. But he does not seem to like to pay too much for them. I know that in an unselfish manner he would like the fishermen to get more money for their lobsters. If he does not enjoy paying 50 or 60 cents a pound, perhaps he would feel better if he knew that the fishermen were getting a fair return for their labours. When he was standing there engaging in a humorous dialogue with members on the other side I tried to envisage him leaning over the gunwales of an open boat about two miles from shore in the bay of Fundy on the 13th day of January, pulling in 150 or 200 lobster traps. I am sure if the hon. member for Fraser Valley were to have that experience only once he would stand in his place here and demand that the Minister of Fisheries put a floor price of $2 a pound under the delicious crustaceans which these men down east harvest.
I want some assistance for our fishermen.
I agree with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), who has asked consistently on the floor of the house that greater -consideration be given to rendering a fair measure of assistance to these men who risk their lives day after day in order to produce for the people of the country those products which are the responsibility of the new Minister of Fisheries.
There is one thing I must say with respect to the speech of the hon. member for Charlotte, and it has to do with these mechanized spiders that are hanging from the rafters or from the cobweb which is strung under the ceiling of this chamber. The hon. member for Charlotte has a clear, ringing voice. Normally he -can be heard in every corner of this chamber; but I noticed that when he spoke today the hon. members in this part of the house were unable to hear him clearly. I think that the idea of hanging these mechanized spiders from the ceiling is a good one. It is good for the people who sit in the galleries, for the visitors who come here from all parts of the country in order to hear what their representatives have to say. They do not want to have to strain their ears too much in order to hear the debates that are taking place. But I have noticed that even listeners in the galleries are not hearing the voices of the members as they should. I wish I had the talent of Len Norris, the famous cartoonist of the Vancouver Sun, because day after day I could draw cartoons of people with their necks stretched out of position

trying to hear clearly what is going on in the house, through the little speakers on the backs of the seats. I think that is something that should be given more consideration. The system may be sound in principle but something should be done in order to ensure that voices like that of the hon. member for Charlotte are heard as they should be heard in every corner of the house.
I have only one word to say about fisheries and the assistance given to fishermen. Last year there appeared in the estimates appropriations for a couple of breakwaters in the bay of Fundy, in my constituency. One was at Chance Harbour and the other was at Lorneville. These breakwaters were to be established, as the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) know, to provide a safe harbour for fishermen who are risking their lives day after day. But the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne)-


William Joseph Browne: On a question of privilege, I did not criticize the grants to these places, but I pointed out that the amount of money spent at these places was far greater than what was being spent in places in Newfoundland where there were more fishermen.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West must be a clairvoyant. I did not say I was going to say anything about him.


William Joseph Browne: No, but you
said it before.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I merely mentioned him, but now I am going to say something about the hon. member for St. John's West and his criticism. He said: Why should these breakwaters be provided for only a few fishermen along the banks of the bay of Fundy?


William Joseph Browne: I did not
say that and I suggest-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Joseph Browne: -that the hon. gentleman look at the record and see what I did say.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I will not try again to repeat what the hon. member for St. John's West said. However, I want to say, and I hope he hears me, that the purpose of putting those breakwaters there was to protect lives and to ensure the continuance of the fisheries on the bay of Fundy. I have only to go back to a few weeks ago when one of these fishermen, whom this appropriation was destined to protect, lost his life because there were not proper harbour facilities there. We
Fisheries
are hoping before this year is over-and I want to remind the Minister of Public Works of this-that these breakwaters will be completed in order to provide safe harbours to protect the fishermen next winter.
Again I congratulate the hon. member for Charlotte on the forthright manner in which he attacked this problem. I want to commend all hon. members who have taken part in the debate, because I feel that their interest in the fisheries of the country is such that it should adequately demonstrate to the Minister of Fisheries that there is something lacking, and that some assistance must be provided in order to put our fishermen in a position where they will continue to ply their calling and not desert the nets and fishing boats for the cities and their industries.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I hope no other hon. member will raise a complaint similar to that made by the hon, member who has just taken his seat, with respect to the acoustics of this chamber.
I want to make a few remarks on the resolution which was so ably moved and spoken to by my good friend the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). I, as others have done, wish to congratulate him. So far as my riding of Vancouver-Burrard is concerned, a request has been before parliament now for four years for the granting of money to establish a seine wharfing dock. I hope that anybody who may refer to this matter in the future will not call it a fishing dock, because it is not a fishing dock in the full sense of the word. It has nothing to do with loading or unloading fish, and the people of the False creek area in particular are very annoyed at the terminology that has been used in connection with the vote of $100,000 for this project.
I must congratulate the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) because I received from him today a copy of a letter he sent to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). The difficulty involved in the voting of the money for this seining dock is that several departments are concerned, Indian affairs, national defence, fisheries and public works. Bvery hon. member knows that it is hard enough to deal with one department, but when you have to deal with four your difficulties are tremendously multiplied. This vote has been in the estimates now for three years. I believe that the completed wharf will cost in the neighbourhood of $500,000. The amount of $100,000 will go toward the purchasing and surveying of the property. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was kind enough to write

Fisheries
the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) stating that he felt that all this money-should be voted and the work completed this year. With that I am in complete agreement.
I should like to say, though, that the people of my constituency had a wrong impression about this until the time I had an opportunity of speaking to them just before Christmas. How they gained that impression is more than I can say. The fact remains that, regardless of political faith, all the people in that area are now desirous of having this project completed. It is difficult for a British Columbia member to admit, but about four years ago we had bad weather, with a lot of ice and snow. As a result of that, having no actual harbour facilities for these boats, the expenditures of the fishermen in repairs amounted to as much in one year as this whole wharfage project will cost in its initial stages.
I want to leave this thought with the house, Mr. Speaker. So far as these fishermen are concerned, they are not wealthy. They make fair money, ' but the cost -of maintenance and repair is quite heavy. Their association, together with the city council of greater Vancouver and my two ministers from British Columbia, are very much in support of this project. I make an earnest and humble plea to all members of this house that we get on with the work and complete the job.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I should
like to accept the invitation extended by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), Mr. Speaker, to those members representing constituencies in which the fishing industry plays a prominent part to add their voice to the plea that he and the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) have made today for further aid to maintain the great fishing industry of our country. I would therefore like to add a few words to the many arguments which have already been advanced today, speaking from the point of view of a member representing a constituency on the Pacific coast in which quite a percentage of the population are employed in the important fishing industry.
In 1951 we had almost a record catch of salmon.	This salmon was taken to the
cannery, but unfortunately owing to the acute market crisis which arose a very large proportion of that 1951 catch was held over. When the fishing boats put out to sea in 1952 the storehouses and the canneries were already filled. This difficulty of marketing the canned salmon, which is the predominant branch of the fishing industry on the Pacific
[Mi. MacDougall.l
coast, threatened the industry. The loss of the export market in the United Kingdom also affected the disposal of the carryover of canned salmon.
In addition to that we have been threatened with increasing competition from Japan. The Japanese tuna fleet has been putting into the Pacific ocean, and has been sending canned and frozen tuna to this continent. In fact the Japanese canned tuna or tuna caught by Japanese is also beginning to appear on the shelves of stores in British Columbia, and thus to threaten the domestic market for canned salmon.
We realize that the government, in order to help the hog industry in this country, took certain measures in connection with canned pork. Canned pork has been definitely in competition with canned salmon from the Pacific coast. The Japanese fleet has also been putting into the north Pacific ocean, and according to a dispatch from the United States embassy dated August 18, 1952, that Japanese salmon fleet had already caught over 2 million fish. This is the same species of salmon that is caught by our fishermen. It is for these reasons that the Pacific coast fisherman is facing difficult times.
There is the Fisheries Prices Support Act which was introduced in 1944. We are told in the report of the fisheries prices support board for this year of the various ways in which that Fisheries Prices Support Act could assist the fishermen. The program, as given at the end of the report, indicates that in two small instances, during the year under review, the Labrador salted codfish and the Newfoundland shore-caught salted codfish, some assistance has been given. The fishermen on the Pacific coast do feel that the time has now come when some practical means of assistance must be worked out in order to maintain the standards of living which those fishermen on the Pacific coast and elsewhere have a right to obtain.
I cannot help noting that in the main estimates, which were tabled this afternoon, there is a decrease of $1,700,000 in the fisheries estimates. I hope the fishing industry and the fishermen of this country will not be the forgotten industry and the forgotten men of Canada.
I am, therefore, pleased to add these few words in support of the resolution which was proposed by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). I do not want to take up any more time because the house is anxious to hear the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) conclude this debate.

Fisheries


Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-While Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to add my voice in support of this admirable resolution which has been proposed by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). I believe that fishermen throughout the length and breadth of Canada will realize that in the hon. member for Charlotte, since he brought this resolution forward last year and again this year, they have a spokesman of whom they can well be proud.
I should like also publicly to congratulate the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) on his appointment to that important post. This is an extremely important position, and he faces heavy responsibilities. He has large numbers of fishermen throughout the length and breadth of Canada looking to him. We hope he will be able to satisfy their many wishes and desires. Living as we do in an economic world we realize that oftentimes we do not have as much reward as we think we are entitled to for our labours. But in the present Minister of Fisheries I feel we have a man of resolute action who will help to build, on .a sound and firm foundation, a structure for the benefit of the fishermen of Canada and of this important fishing industry to which this resolution refers.
I do not think any hon. member will question the need for federal aid to agriculture, to a lesser or a larger degree depending upon the state of the industry and its ability to return to the primary producer an adequate return for his labours. As to the fisheries and other fields of industry, assistance should also be forthcoming when it is required. As to agriculture, we find that aids have been given and floor prices have been granted in many cases for commodities which are produced by our farmers. We are all in accord with and sympathetic toward help which has been given in that way. When $65 million were voted by this house to help the farmers, we felt that it was a good move. On the other hand, when the fishermen need assistance we who represent fishing constituencies are not remiss in our duty in rising to press their urgent claims.
Coming as I do from Newfoundland, which is now the tenth province of Canada, may I say we realize that in Newfoundland we have a tremendous source of food production. God in his bountiful beneficence has blessed our shores on the Atlantic ocean with countless numbers of fish of various kinds, and other foods such as birds. Of course the birds feed upon the fish, but they are a source of food for our people. As we think of the top soil of the world being gradually used up in order to supply the
needs of the growing population, we realize what a tremendous reservoir of wealth is contained in the sea. We also realize the need for conservation in order that these God-given blessings will be used to the greatest benefit, and also for the needs of the people from time to time.
As to Newfoundland, I am afraid that the benefits accruing to agriculture are something from which we are unable to profit to any very great extent. But we can and do supply our share of fish, minerals, pulp and paper and other products, which are today taking, to a considerable extent, the paramount place which in the past was occupied by the fisheries in the province of Newfoundland.
Assistance to the fishermen can be given by the Department of Fisheries in a good many ways. These have already been enumerated this afternoon by various members who have spoken, and I do not want to repeat what has been said. Hon. members have pointed out how the department has helped in the past in Newfoundland, and what assistance the department has given.
We have these bountiful banks but we notice that, coming from the other side, the trawlers from France, Spain and Portugal are fishing these banks and taking back for their people this important food. Fish which we had often in the past supplied to such important customers as Portugal, Spain and Italy is to a great extent being produced by their own people at the present time. While we cannot blame them for that fact, we realize the great distress this has caused among people who have taken up the way of life of fishermen and who now have to lay down their nets and go off in search of work as carpenters or in other avenues of employment. These people who come over from the other side and fish on our banks are sometimes encroaching, we think, upon the territory which should be reserved for our fishermen. There may be a need for the department concerned to investigate and to decide whether or not the territorial limits of Canada should not be extended coastwise.
As I represent the important riding of Labrador, I should like to say that down there we have a tremendous coast line. Unfortunately, since confederation the Labrador fishery has declined to a greater degree than previously, although that decline was apparent before we entered into confederation.
As to the long-liners with which experiments are now being made, I hope some day they will become high-liners, because the investigation carried out by the Department

Fisheries
of Fisheries has been the means of exploring further fishing grounds and of opening up other banks to which fishermen can proceed and catch a larger type of codfish; and it seems to me it is the larger fish that is in demand. We can readily understand that.
Unfortunately, on the whole, on Labrador the run of fish is of small size. It was my pleasure this year to catch some myself when I was down there. In fact, one morning before breakfast I got up and threw a jigger overboard; after a few jigs I pulled in a codfish. One of the United States tourists who was also on this ship was fortunate enough to get a codfish weighing 31 pounds. He has its head mounted. That shows what the United States tourist thinks of this fish. There is no lack of fish on the Labrador. These fish come in. It is only a matter of getting traps and fishermen and being able to take them. They come in in search of food. This year and the year before the fishery in Newfoundland was fairly good, brought about I believe to quite an extent by the inshore winds which prevailed before the fish left their feeding grounds and came to the shore. When you take into account the winds, the tides, the storms and the other hazards which the fishermen have to face, it is a calling beset, as has already been said, by great danger and also by much hard work.
I had prepared quite a speech on this resolution but I see that time is going on, and no doubt the minister wants to make a few remarks. I shall take the opportunity on another occasion to resume my remarks, but in the meantime I should like to say that since the minister is going to Newfoundland in a few days to address the board of trade down there, I wish him bon voyage. I believe he will hear from the people of Newfoundland, and since he will be there he will be able to see things firsthand and get their reaction.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) has already mentioned the Walsh report. We are all looking forward to it. It will soon be put into the hands of the government. As has been said before, the fisherman is an independent type of man. Sometimes when he is just moving along in his boat he is not looking to be rescued, but he is not moving at great speed. Then some of his friends come along and they think he should be moving a little faster, and because they have a more powerful boat they take him in tow. I think the fishing industry needs to be taken in tow by the federal government and given the assistance that it requires by research, by science and in every other possible way so that as a result the efforts of the fishermen may be brought to

fruition and their produce accrue to the greatest benefit of the Canadian nation.


Mr. R. E. Anderson (Norfolk):: Since we are considering this resolution, I would not want the minister to overlook the fact that the fresh water fish business of Canada is big business, too. Port Dover on lake Erie in Norfolk county is said to have the largest fresh water fishing industry in the world. It produces roughly $1J million worth annually. I should like the minister to keep the fresh water fishermen of Norfolk county, and of all Canada, in mind; and I am in favour of this resolution.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Before the minister
speaks, may I say a word?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has already spoken.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege, I understand that my name was mentioned, and I should like to reply before the minister speaks.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I move the adjournment of the debate?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Did the hon. member rise on a question of privilege?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes.


James Sinclair: The hon. member can scarcely move the adjournment of the debate on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: No. He does not propose to move the adjournment of the debate. I understood he had a question of privilege he wanted to put.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it we adjourn at six o'clock. I am informed by some of my friends that my name was mentioned by an hon. member, and I should like to answer him if I am not permitted to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the rules of the house the hon. member can speak only once in this debate. Is it the wish of the house that I should call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Balcom:: May I adjourn the debate?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, it was suggested during the course of the debate that if I did well in this department, at some time or other I would be cast in bronze. If I could answer

all the points raised during the afternoon, and particularly in the last few minutes, perhaps I would merit that.
I am very happy because of the course the debate took this afternoon. My only regret is that it is not Monday so that we could have the whole day on it, because it has given the members from the fishery ridings a very good opportunity to raise points in connection with the industry. I do regret that any dollar comparison should be made with the help given to agriculture, because the help should not be given on that basis. Both agriculture and fishery are extremely important primary industries, and help is given on the basis of need rather than on a comparative dollar value.
As hon. members noticed, I have taken voluminous notes of what has been said, and I would suggest that on the opening item of my estimates I might answer the points made, and thereby give members from fishing sections a chance to speak again when the actual items are called.
During the course of the afternoon very many aspects of fishing have been discussed and discussed well, and I look forward to having an opportunity to return to them on the first item of my estimates. I do thank not only the members from the fishing ridings but those members whose ridings which are not fishing ridings for the interest and the support they have displayed in the development of the fishing industry. With that understanding perhaps the hon. member would withdraw his motion, the understanding being that I will reply on the estimates.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes.
Motion withdrawn.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to revert to motions and complete the statement I made this afternoon? The two parties to the railway negotiations met at three o'clock and discussed the proposals from the point where
Threatened Railway Strike they left off yesterday. Certain clarifications were made, and at about 4.15 o'clock the negotiating committee representing the unions asked to have an opportunity to discuss those new clarifications with their larger body, and thereafter they would seek to confer again with the railway management, this day if possible.
I have just been talking to Mr. Kelly, and also Mr. Gordon. Mr. Kelly tells me that this larger committee is having those discussions now, and he will be able to tell me a little later in the evening whether or not they will seek to renew discussions with the railway management. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we might leave it there for tonight.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we will consider the following measures: First, third reading of Bill No. 45; the resolution to amend the Post Office Act, and after the first reading of that bill we will ask to revert to government notices of motions and proceed with the motion to set up a committee to consider the bill to amend the Post Office Act; then Bill No. 105, respecting the liability of the crown for torts and civil salvage; the resolution to approve the convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, signed by Canada, the United States and Japan and for carrying out Canada's obligations under the convention; Bill No. 44, to protect the coastal fisheries; and then, if we have time, we shall take up three resolutions in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development, being Nos. 21, 22 and 37 on today's order paper.


Mr. Fleming:: May 1 ask the minister whether the house is going to have an opportunity to resume the debate on the motion to set up the radio committee?


Alphonse Fournier: Not tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When is it expected?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, at an early date.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]


HOUSE OF C@MM«NS
Thursday, January 29, 1953