1954-05-07

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
BEING THE 96™ SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1954

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] t
[DOT] £4	[DOT]' [DOT]

.
[Stage Direction]

: : .
[Stage Direction]


Friday, May 7, 1954

Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all hon. members will want me to wish the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) a happy birthday and many happy returns.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say, on behalf of all those who sit on this side of the house, that the sentiments you have expressed are those of each and every one of us. We frequently have exchanges and even clashes of ideas on all that concerns the public service of the country, but I am sure that those are always the result of the honest endeavour of each and every one of us to discharge to the best of his ability the responsibilities placed upon him by his fellow citizens. I think those clashes strengthen rather than lessen our respect for each other and our rejoicing on an occasion like this in the opportunity to express good wishes to each other. I can assure the hon. gentleman that those I express for the members who sit in this house are sincere. We wish him a long and happy life and many more years of public service to his fellow citizens.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this was an occasion when I hoped the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would express congratulations not only from those who sit on his side of the house but from all of us all over the house. We join heartily in the sentiments he has expressed.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not look forward to birthdays coming to me, but I look forward to their coming to other people, not just because I want them to grow old so that we can vanquish them but rather because it gives us an opportunity to express to them our good will, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) did this afternoon. On behalf of the group I represent I want to join with him in the expression of good will. We want the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to know that we should like to see him enjoy a good many more birthdays and useful years of living.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I express to you my appreciation of the kind good wishes that you have extended. May I say that they. come with particular significance in view of the fact that it is so short a time ago that you yourself were receiving similar compliments, although not in relation to the same figures connected with the day. May I say that I am deeply grateful for and deeply moved by the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and of the leaders of the other parties in the house who have expressed their good wishes today.
I think it is a wonderful thing that here in this house, where we have real differences of opinion, the Prime Minister could put into words the thoughts that I know most of us would wish to share at all times, namely that out of the vigorous exchange of ideas there grows an increasing respect for the sincerity behind the different points of view that are expressed. There is always something a little bit, shall I say, forbidding about it when you see these years in increasing numbers being marked up on the board. However, I am always encouraged by the recollection of a birthday party that was given to Sir William Mulock in Toronto on his 90th birthday. I still remember the thrill with which, as a much younger man, I heard Sir William on that occasion, with straight back and high head, assure his audience that he was still looking forward to the hills of enchantment ahead of him; and he in fact went forward for many happy years. Perhaps it is too much to follow the words of Shakespeare and to suggest that "this day shall change all . . . quarrels into love"; nevertheless I express my appreciation of the generous and, I know, sincere good wishes extended by the Prime Minister and those who have joined him on this occasion.



TRADE MARKS ACT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest which has been expressed in the house on one or two occasions, and particularly on April 26 last by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I am tabling a copy of the

Inquiries of the Ministry order in council, approved yesterday, authorizing the issue of a proclamation to bring the Trade Marks Act into force on July 1, 1954.
I am also tabling another order in council revoking the trade mark registration regulations now in force, and substituting therefor the trade marks rules, with effect on July 1, 1954. A copy of the new rules is annexed to this order in council.



REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In presenting the question I do so without having given notice to the Prime Minister because it is based upon a telegram I have received regarding the effect of the subject matter of the question. Have representations been made to the government of the United States with respect to the possible effect of the tariff changes that were announced as likely to take place in connection with fish, zinc and lead, having particular regard to the effect that would have not only on the metals that are being exported but on our fishing industry in Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces?
Righl Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister): I am quite sure there have been conversations, but I will take the question as a notice and have an investigation made to be in a position to say exactly what was done in that respect.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether the minister is aware that imported new potatoes are now being served in the parliamentary restaurant. If so, will the minister explain the import regulations on these new potatoes in view of the surplus of potatoes now on hand in Canada?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I obtained some new potatoes in the parliamentary restaurant so I presume there are some being served there. The arrangement between this country and the United States in connection with this matter is that seasonal duties are imposed on different vegetables,

including potatoes, that apply from one date to another. In the case of potatoes a higher duty is applied from June 15 to July 31. In other words a higher duty is imposed when our new potatoes come on the market. At other times the duties are lower, so that American potatoes do come in at this time of the year.
I would suggest it is not a bad thing either from the American point of view or from ours. At least, it has not been considered to be during the twenty-four or twenty-five years that these seasonal duties have been in force. Their potatoes and vegetables of different kinds come in fresh to this market at a time when we do not have them to put on the market. Then at a later date, when our products come on the market, there is a higher rate of duty on the United States products which tends to prevent them coming into this country during the period of time that our own products are being marketed. Therefore I have no doubt that we are eating American new potatoes at present, but I am sure there would be a great outcry from the housewives of Canada if they were compelled to prepare for their tables only old potatoes of last year.



STATEMENT AS TO DISPOSAL

[Stage Direction]
of 1953 crop
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Sluart (Charlofte):: I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he give the house any figures with respect to carload shipments of potatoes from the maritime provinces and other parts of Canada to the United States since last season?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that 1 can give figures to indicate the carload shipments of potatoes. Yesterday the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton asked me a question and I had some information prepared which I might read to the house. I do not know that I should read all of it, because there is quite a bit; but there will be copies available for any member who desires to have one.
The general summary of the statement is as follows:	Based on April 1 figures of
storage stocks of potatoes in Canada, it would appear that if sales remain at about the same level as in 1953 there will be a market for most of the potatoes remaining in eastern Canada. The stocks less 1953 marketings from the maritimes, less seed for use in spring seeding probably on a reduced acreage, less expected shrink, will leave few, if any, 1953 potatoes in eastern Canada by June 30.
Part of the problem at the present time is pressure by producers on the buyers to

accept deliveries immediately when the marketing should be spread out from now till June 30. The boards in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have set up policies to provide for the orderly marketing of potatoes throughout the remainder of the season. In New Brunswick producer allocation is being carried out. No doubt there will be considerable complaint since each producer will consider that his potatoes should have top priority, but the government considers this is a matter to be worked out by the boards concerned in their respective provinces and does not propose to interfere.
The meaning of that is that the boards that have been set up are, we think, marketing the potatoes in a reasonable way. While this statement does not include the exact figures asked for, it does include the results, namely, that there are not any more potatoes being offered from the two provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick this year than were offered last year, and if sales this year down to the 30th of June are as good as they were last year the potatoes will be pretty well marketed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES General services-
129. Departmental administration, $315,090.


The Chairman:: Hon. members will find the vote on page 21 of the blue book and the details on page 187.


Mr. Pearkes:: Would the minister care to make a statement?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: I could make a statement now or speak on each item. If hon. members would rather have a short summary of what has happened in the last year, perhaps we could go on from there.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think it would be helpful if the minister would make a statement.


James Sinclair: Perhaps I should start off, for the benefit of the new members, by just touching briefly on the division of jurisdiction between the federal Department of Fisheries and the provincial departments of fisheries because there is some doubt in some members' minds about that point. Under our constitution the federal government has complete jurisdiction over fisheries, but over the years we have worked out with the provinces what is a very satisfactory arrangement under which they usually administer sport fisheries, which are of course of primary value to them 83276-285i
Supply-Fisheries
in recreation and the tourist trade, and we handle the commercial fisheries, especially those of the two coasts. The federal government passes all regulations concerning fisheries, even for the sport fisheries of the provinces, and of course do the research work, and the inspection of fish for interprovincial trade or for export.
Last year, when our estimates were before the house, our principal concern was about markets because the market for fish was quite depressed which, of course, reacted through to the industry and to the fishermen. Here in Canada we are on the front doorstep of two of the greatest fisheries in the world. We produce a great deal more than we consume, so actually between 75 per cent and 85 per cent of our fish is exported. We are, therefore, very vulnerable so far as changes in price or changes in export trade are concerned.
Last year we had a carryover of about one million cases of salmon on the west coast. Salmon is our most valuable fishery. Last year it netted the fishing industry about $47 million. Over and above that carryover, we had a prospect for a very large pack of salmon from the incoming rims.


Mr. Macdonnell:: What percentage would it be?


James Sinclair: It is about one-third of the total value of the fisheries of Canada, that is the west coast salmon.
You will recall that we had a very difficult situation in the maritimes in connection with the sale of filleted fish, which is their great export, to our best market the United States-because there was a great influx of fish from. Europe. There was a boundary dispute between Britain and Iceland and as a consequence a great deal of European fish had been diverted to the United States. This was one of the causes of the tariff hearing mentioned earlier by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). Of course, this had a bad effect on our exports of fillets.
Newfoundland, where the principal product has been dry salt cod, experienced great difficulty in its traditional markets. Even those markets in which we could compete in price were blocked to us as a result of currency and other difficulties. As a consequence of these circumstances, this time last year the whole fishing industry was in a quite depressed condition.
I am very happy to report today that there has been a great improvement since last year. So far as salmon on the west coast is concerned, we have cleared off this million case carryover. We had as well the record pack we expected, but today there is no surplus salmon in British Columbia. We have

Supply-Fisheries
been able to get back into the British market in a substantial way mainly, as I told the house earlier this session, through the efforts of the fishing industry on the west coast. They stepped up their purchases of British equipment to enable the British to earn the . dollars to buy more salmon.
As a result of the activities of the Minister of Finance at the commonwealth conference at Sydney last fall, we are back into both the Australian market for $500,000 worth of fish this year and the New Zealand market for $600,000 worth of fish this year. We have heard that there is likelihood of another commonwealth country opening its doors again to the product their people want, British Columbia salmon. We have had increased European sales in some of our markets there such as Belgium, France and Italy. We have had increased sales in the markets of the United States. Generally, they depend on their own salmon out of Puget sound and Alaska. There has been quite a decline in the Alaska fishery, and because of that we have had the largest sales in recent years to the United States. Above all things, we are proudest of the great increase in salmon sales here in Canada as a result of an aggressive merchandising campaign by the '* industry, helped by the lower price of salmon. This year we have sold nearly one million cases of salmon in Canada, and that is about twice our pre-war sales in Canada.
So far as salt cod is concerned, it is another one of our major fishery products. There has been quite a change there, too. Salt cod is produced in Newfoundland and sold in export trade. It is produced in Nova Scotia substantially, and to a lesser extent on the Gaspe coast, in Saguenay and New Brunswick. The largest single block of salt cod on the markets of the world comes out of Newfoundland. Under the commission form of government, a single selling agency had been set up. There was a good reason for that, because almost all the countries to whom Newfoundland sold had single buying agencies. The agency was called the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited, and down there it is known by its initials, NAFEL.
When Newfoundland entered confederation one of the terms of confederation was that NAFEL be continued as a single selling agency for five years. When I became minister some changes were made in NAFEL. For the first time we put representatives of fishermen on the consultative committee. When Newfoundland was a separate country the Newfoundland fisheries board controlled export to Canada through NAFEL, but when Newfoundland came into confederation that was a barrier to interprovincial trade to

have a single selling agency controlling sales to other provinces. We had that changed a little last year in that we allowed mainland firms to go into Newfoundland and buy wet fish directly from the fishermen at competitive prices.
We were able also for the first time to have the industry offer the fishermen firm prices. It is a practice on the west coast, of course, where the fishermen will not go to sea unless they know what price to expect for their fish. In Newfoundland we tried to model policy rather after the policy used on the prairies to sell wheat, by having the trade give the fishermen an initial payment of what we could reasonably expect would be about 80 per cent of the final sale/price, and then a share in what was realized beyond that. This was quite an innovation in Newfoundland and it took some explanation. Some fishermen still are not convinced it is a good thing to do. Fortunately, it has worked out quite well. This week the fishermen and the industry are discussing opening firm prices for the coming year. This policy has brought a stability to the industry that it had not known before.
On April 1 of this year the condition in the terms of union that export marketing of salted fish should continue under the joint supervision of the federal and provincial governments for five years came to an end. From that date forward the federal government has the sole responsibility for the export of fish from Newfoundland. Because of this situation, it was no longer right that I, as Minister of Fisheries, should be in the position of controlling export trade. The management of salt fish export, therefore, has been turned over to my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who will handle the export of fish just as he handles all other export trade of Canada.
During the year we were able to strengthen the market for salt cod by two gifts of salt fish, bought by the government at commercial prices to two markets that have always asked for salt cod, Korea and Greece. The earthquake in Greece caused great suffering there, and the Greek government asked us to help with food. The food they wanted was salt cod. In the rehabilitation of Korea food was requested from this country, and all told we have supplied these two countries with $950,000 worth of salt cod purchased at commercial prices through the usual trade outlets in Newfoundland, the maritimes and Quebec.
As a result of the success of our trade commission on salmon to Britain last year, members from the maritimes asked me whether or not a similar commission should not go

to the traditional markets for salt cod, the Mediterranean, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. My colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, saw value in this suggestion. A group of our trade experts are now in Portugal and Spain attempting to negotiate a treaty. Next week, my colleague the Minister of Public Works will go with my deputy minister and a trade official to those countries to negotiate trade agreements that will, we hope, expand our markets for salt cod. The Minister of Public Works is not going as Minister of Public Works. He is going as the son of the skipper of a Lunenburg banker, and a man who has lived in a fishing town all his life. He is a man who can certainly speak well and understandably about the problems of the maritime fisheries.
One of the things we are now pressing in Newfoundland is the improvement in quality of salt cod. Up until now the processing of the salt cod has been largely in the hands of individual fishermen. In our Newfoundland development program we are trying to stress improved processing, packaging and quality. We have two pilot plants down there that are engaged in artificial drying instead of sun drying, and better methods of curing and packaging. We hope this will result in a more attractive product, which in turn will mean a better return to the fishermen.
Now the maritime provinces, of course, have export trade in products in addition to
Supply-Fisheries
lobsters, which there is very little difficulty in marketing. The market for cod fillets and haddock has developed over recent years. The housewife demands that the food she uses be put up in as presentable a fashion as possible, and in a manner so that it is easily used. The old sale of round fish maybe is going out, and the consumer can now get fish without the head or tail and without the skin on, in filleted form. The market for fillets has substantially strengthened over the last year, and the fishing industry is in a better position than it was a year ago. I think perhaps the best evidence of that is contained in a weekly bulletin we issue to the fisheries trade of Canada on the prices of all the principal species of fish found on both coasts. We have this information for the current week, the previous week and for the corresponding week a year ago. I feel that hon. members would find it interesting and, if I have the permission of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask that it be incorporated at this time in Hansard, so that hon. members may see for themselves the steady improvement that has taken place in the price of fish to fishermen in the last year.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the minister leave to place this information on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: The information is as follows:



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Mid-Week Prices Received by Fishermen-1954
Atlantic Coast	Current week to May 1st	Previous Week to April 24th	Corresponding week last year to May 2ndCod (Market)- Halifax (offshore price)	3| 31	(cents per pound] 31 - 31	3St. John's, Nfld	21	21	2Haddock (Large)-	51	41Yarmouth	51	Halifax (offshore price)	5	5	5Ramea, Nfld	31	31	31Roseeish-	Louisbourg (offshore price)	2 - 3	2 - 3	2 - 21Halifax (offshore price)	2J - 21	21 - 21	2Ramea, Nfld	2	2	21Plaice- Halifax (offshore price)	
St. John's, Nfld	3 - 31	3 - 31	2121	21	21Sardines-Herring-	21	Black's Harbour	21	2Lobsters (Market)- Yarmouth	45	60	55Scallops- Digby	26 - 28	26 - 28	35
Supply-Fisheries
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Mid-Week Prices Received by Fishermen-1954
Pacific Coast	Current week to May 1st	Previous Week to April 24th	Corresponding week last year to May 2nd
		(cents per pound;	
Salmon- (Redspring)			
Vancouver (dressed)	30 - 35	-	30Prince Rupert (dressed)	25 - 40	25 - 40	25New Westminster (round)	30	30	25[DOT] (Whitespring)	Vancouver (dressed)	25	25Prince Rupert (dressed)	20 35	20 - 35	20New Westminster (round)	25	25	18(Steel head)	. New Westminster (round)	22	22	18Herring (fresh)-	Vancouver	10	-	6 - 8Soles (for freezing or fresh)-	Vancouver	7 - 9	7	6 - 8Prince Rupert (Lemon and Rock)	31	31	31New Westminster	7	7	9Lino Cod-	Vancouver	51 - 12	12	8 - 9Prince Rupert	4	4	4New Westminster	11	11	9Gray Cod-	Vancouver (dressed, head on)	5	5	3 - 5Prince Rupert (dressed, head on)	2	2	2New Westminster	5	5	5Flounders-	Prince Rupert	2	2	2
There is one more new development in the fishing industry which most certainly has captured the imagination of the industry in this country, and even to a greater extent the imagination of the industry in the United States. Last week I attended the meeting of the National Fisheries Institute, which held its annual meeting in Cleveland. That is a meeting of the entire fisheries industry, including fishermen, fish processors, fish distributors and fish retailers of America. The head of the largest frozen food corporation in the United States, in opening the forum concerning this new development, said that it was the greatest revolution in the industry since the process of the quick freezing of food was first developed. I am referring to the development of fish sticks. One of our Newfoundland processors was among the first in the business. One of the difficulties in connection with other forms of fish has been overcome. Housewives have found difficulty
fMr. Sinclair.]
in cooking fish of different sizes and thicknesses; and the trade, which includes hotels, restaurants, schools and the like, which buy fish in large quantities, have always found difficulty in controlling the amount of servings.
Two or three years ago one of the American firms discovered a solution by developing a method to freeze small portions of fish in a solid block, which stays solid when thawed. One of the Newfoundland processors-one of the most imaginative processors in Canada- saw a great market for that in disposing of the small cod of Newfoundland. It is a tasty fish, but it is too small for salting and drying, because nothing much is apt to be left but skin and bones. These small fillets were difficult to market; but they are available in great abundance, and they are cheap.
Under this new process, producers fillet fish mechanically with a filleting machine. Then these small fillets are washed in the

solution and placed on trays about one yard square and one inch thick, and quick frozen. Then they are shipped in blocks to markets in Montreal, Detroit, Cleveland and New York, where the process is completed.
This is also an entirely mechanical process. These blocks of solid frozen fish go through saws which saw them into strips an inch wide. Then the slab is turned and they are sawn at right angles, ending up in sticks of fish four inch long and an inch square weighing about an ounce and a half. These are quickly dipped in batter and then breaded. Then one of two things happens. Either they are immediately cooked and refrozen, or they are frozen with the batter on them uncooked. Then the housewife has-or the institution, if they are being used by institutions-one solid piece of fish. There is no waste to it. It is of superb quality, because its quality has been controlled all the way through. If it is pre-cooked, she just puts it in the oven for a few moments. If it is quick-frozen she can fry or deep-fry it, broil it or bake it, in six or seven minutes. This is of great advantage for institutional use also. A restaurant which wishes to serve fresh fish need only have a supply of this in a freezer. It can be served very quickly, in uniform amounts, with absolutely no waste.
Just to show what has happened in connection with this revolution in the fishing industry, last year in the United States six million pounds of these fish sticks were sold. This year the average has been a million pounds a week, and last week in the United States 1,700,000 pounds of these fish sticks were sold. Our Newfoundland processor, who has his own finishing plant in Cleveland, finds difficulty in maintaining a supply on hand.
One of the most interesting facts in connection with this development has been that this increase in fish sales has not been at the expense of other fish sales. We have moved into our traditional competitive fields-the fields held by the farmers-where we are in competition with pork, poultry, eggs and other dairy products.
Major James William Coldwell: What happens to the fish that is sliced off?


James Sinclair: I am glad you asked that.


Major James William Coldwell: Does it go to waste?


James Sinclair: No-and that is a most interesting thing. Under the old state of affairs, especially in connection with small round fish such as perch, rosefish, small cod and the like, they were sold whole to the housewife. She gutted and cleaned them, and the fish heads,
Supply-Fisheries
tails, and intestines were thrown away. But under this fish filleting plan the situation is different. It will be understood that some meat is left along the bone, and then of course there is the head and the tail. These are taken immediately to another part of the plant, the fish-meal plant, which produces one of the most important ingredients in cattle and poultry food. There has been great demand for this product in recent years. In this new process we save both the residue of the fish and the fish. So the entire fish is used in the process of making fish sticks. It is very economical in that you are no longer shipping to distant markets heads, tails and intestines which have no value to the consumer. They now go through the plant, come out as fishmeal, and command a good price.
So we get full value out of the fish, fishmeal for the farmer and a more economical food product which has great appeal to the housewife. Our sales in Canada are not yet as great as those in the United States, but they are developing. These new fish sticks are now available in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and other areas.
The next point about which I wish to speak is our own domestic market. Fish, of course, is a highly perishable product. Therefore the best market for fish is the market closest to the supply of fish. Our own Canadian market should be our target. I am happy to report that the per capita consumption of fish in Canada is steadily increasing. One of the important factors in that is better inspection by the department so as to ensure a high quality in the fish sold. We are increasing our inspection staff, not only in respect of the actual fish but, more important, for the plants in which the fish are processed. I feel that part of the reason for increased sales of processed, canned, smoked, and cured fish, and fresh fish as well as frozen fish in Canada, has been the steady improvement in quality.
And while I am on my feet I should like, as Minister of Fisheries, to pay a tribute to the new chef in the parliamentary restaurant. Those of you who use the restaurant may have noticed that there has been quite a change in both the quality and the preparation of the fish, with the result that there has been a great increase in the consumption of fish in our restaurant.


Mr. Mclvor:: Brain food.


James Sinclair: I now leave marketing and wish to refer to the factor which is most important, as far as the end result is concerned, from the standpoint of the Department of Fisheries, the conservation, protection and development of fisheries in Canada. The basis

Supply-Fisheries
of conservation, protection and development is, of course, knowledge-knowledge as found by scientific research. We have here in our department the fisheries research board of Canada. It is not run as an agency of the department, or staffed with departmental men. We have tried to incorporate in it all those groups who are interested in fisheries in Canada.
On the board the fishing industry is represented. The universities of Canada are also represented, because after all they are the source of most of our research in Canada. Our departmental officers are on the board because they have the job, in the end, of carrying out the regulations. We have advisory representation from the great international commissions which help us conserve our deep-sea fisheries on both coasts.
Last year we made a change in the board. Formerly the chairman had been elected from among these members, who were not fulltime members. We have felt however that the work of the board was so important that it deserved a full-time chairman. I am happy to say that we were able to secure the services of one of the outstanding men, if not the outstanding man, in connection with fisheries research in North America. I refer to Dr. J. L. Kask. He is a graduate of the University of British Columbia. He was in the same year as I was actually, out there, but he went on to work with the international halibut commission, the international salmon commission and the international tuna commission, then to the fish and wildlife survey of the United States federal government. He is now heading our research board as permanent chairman.
Our research falls into two parts, the biological part and the technological part. The division is as to whether the fish is living or dead. Our biologists try to learn as much as they can about the movements, the habits, the breeding habits and the life cycle of the fish in the sea. Then our technicians take over from the moment the fish is landed on the deck of the fishing vessel. Their job is to advise industry as to how best to keep that fish in as fresh shape as it is there, on to the housewife's table. Fisheries research is a very difficult field. I do not suppose there are many fields of science where research is more difficult. There is certainly no comparison between fisheries research and agricultural research. At our experimental farm our farm scientists have the crops in the field under their control completely. In the barns they have their livestock. They can feed and crossbreed at will. Our fisheries scientist is, very different. He is trying to study fish which move in with the seas and move away, how 
they feed, why they come, what is the relation between their movement and the time of the year, the temperature of the water, the salinity of the water. These are things which can be learned only by the most patient biological research.
In the other part, the technical part, we are dealing with organic chemistry. The many sorts of fish we produce in this country are very difficult to study; the main problem, of course, is spoilage, why fish deteriorates. All living animals at death begin to disintegrate. This is a still more difficult field of study, but we try to guide our research as best we can to industry. That is why on our research board we have leaders from the fishing industry of Canada.
There is another basic problem in research. Last week in Cleveland I heard an excellent speech from the president of the United States fisheries institute on the need for research. He quoted the famous Kettering of General Motors, who had pioneered the great research program of that corporation, in which he said that research ought never to be tied down to specific projects; it should be to hunt for general knowledge over the whole field of learning, because out of that general knowledge often came discoveries which had never been suspected, with practical results. I am afraid our fishery research program is not seeking general knowledge quite in that way. We have so many immediate fisheries problems, that we are trying to direct our research pretty well along lines which we think will bring immediate results to the fishing industry. That is why I want to speak with a little detail on some comments which have been made in this house recently about our fisheries research program.
On the other side, the technological side, our scientists are concerned primarily with fish spoilage. They are concerned, too, with the developments in processing, better ways of freezing, glazing and curing, drying, salting and canning. Our inspection service is on top of this work at all times. The fishermen in the small communities cannot be expected to do that work for themselves; but they have been extraordinarily co-operative with our biological research stations and our experimental stations in this work. A lot of this work is done also in our universities. That is why we are happy to have the university representatives on our research board. They have good facilities for research, they also have the eager young students doing research work, who are very happy to have their research theses tied in with major industry here in Canada, and have their works published in the journals of the fisheries research board.

One other very important thing in research is international co-operation in this field. It is such a big field that it would be very foolish for every one of the fisheries nations of the world to be running their own independent show. That is why there is, happily, a very free exchange of work, of reports of scientific studies under way in the laboratories in the other great fishing nations of the world, Britain, France, Denmark, Norway and Japan, to mention some of them.
That is another reason why we must publish, in very limited form, of course, the current work of our scientists, so that scientists in other lands will know what we are doing. We send it to them and they send us their current proceedings, so we avoid duplicating their work. It is a real measure of economy, avoiding waste by duplication of effort just through limited publication of our current investigations.
Hon. members know why I am mentioning all this. Earlier this session the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace-I am sorry he is not in his seat at the moment-and the hon. member for Moose Jaw, who I hope is in his seat-he is out temporarily-drew attention to some of the publications issued by our research board. The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace went through a long list of scientific publications published over the last thirty years by our fisheries research board to draw attention to a few titles which he thought were indicative of scandalous waste of energy and money. I find this very difficult to understand, because in his speech on the budget two or three days ago he dealt for some time on the sort of concessions he wants the government to make for research in manufacturing lines. Both these hon. members could very easily have telephoned our research board, when they saw these titles which excited their curiosity, and found out why those publications were made. That was too easy, and of course they would not have got the publicity they wanted if they had done that.
I cannot describe the work of our research board better than by taking the list of publications the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace put on record in Hansard to show the type of work we are doing and why we are doing it. The first two publications he singled out were on the technical side. I suppose it was the titles that interested him. I said that organic chemistry is a very difficult thing. The title of the first one is: "The Effect of pH on the Enzymatic Reduction of Tri-methylamine oxide". It consists of one page. The second one is: "Bacteriostatic Action of Hydroxylamine". In our labs in Halifax we 83276-28G
Supply-Fisheries'
are continually trying to find some wash which will kill bacteria or, if not kill the bacteria, retard the bacterial growth which immediately starts in any organism the minute it has died. We have done a great deal of work in that field for the fishing industry. One of the things that has been successfully developed is a very mild wash used on the lobster before canning which keeps the lobster meat from discolouring in the can. This is a very important development as far as the trade is concerned. The two studies mentioned are in this class. These studies were the effect of slight acidity in a chemical which was commonly used for this purpose. They are very technical. But the industry understands them and why they were done. The cost of each one when published, just to show how expensive they are, was five cents. One was published in 1945 at the Pacific research station and one in 1949 at the Atlantic station. Circulation is limited to the scientific institutions who give us documents and to our universities, and there is a small number left over for independent scientists. Thirty-two of the first one are left, and at five cents a copy that amounts to $1.60. Twenty copies of the second are left, and at five cents a copy that amounts to $2 or a total of $3.60.
No matter what the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace thinks the important thing is that the fish filleting industry in the maritime provinces thinks this work is important. They are the people who urge me to have more and more money spent on this very valuable type of technical research.
Of course, the next one is much better, "The Moon, and when to eat Mussels". Obviously this is silly to the hon. member. Well, mussels are a very important shellfish. In Europe there is a great market for mussels. Here we are so rich in shellfish that there is not so much of a market for mussels. But many people do eat mussels.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


James Sinclair: I hear, "hear, hear" from New Brunswick. There was however a myth about mussels, that there is a time in the month when they are poisonous. We told one of our scientists to turn out this little short paper on mussels. If the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace had read it he would have understood why it was published. Mussels spawn at full moon. Therefore the time to eat them is a week or so before a full moon, not when they are spawning, and certainly not a week after they have spawned, at which time they are spent. It also points out that mussels are only toxic when they are in a toxic area. These all

Supply-Fisheries
cost five cents and we have 91 copies left which means that we have a $4.55 stock of this bulletin to inform the people of the maritime provinces of the truth about mussels.


Mr. Stick:: Ruining the country!


James Sinclair: The next title is "Ling cod". If the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace had been a westerner he would have known that the ling cod is the second most important kind of ground fish on the west coast, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich knows, second only to halibut. In the interests of our fishermen and our industry as a whole we had to gather together into a single pamphlet the work of our scientists on ling cod, particularly as regards their feeding and breeding habits, their movements, and the type of gear used to catch them, together with investigations into the type of processing required and whether they should be killed immediately or put into tanks for transportation to the markets. All that information is incorporated in this bulletin, at a cost of 25 cents. There was a great demand for this publication. We issued many copies but we now have sixteen left which at a cost of 25 cents amounts to $4.
Now an even better title of course for the hon. member's purpose is "On Themisto Libellula in Baffin Island Coastal Waters" at 20 cents a copy. We have 24 copies left which makes a total of $4.80. This study was actually made by McGill University at the request of the Arctic Institute, and was published by our board. Again, if the hon. member had read this pamphlet he would have easily found out why it was done and why the Arctic Institute thought it important enough to ask McGill University to carry out this work. The key sentence is:
There is no doubt that in the eastern arctic of Canada this is one of the most important organisms in any habitat, terrestrial or aquatic.
Fishermen have described this as the grass of the arctic. It is a small plankton, a tiny little shrimp, on which the different fish feed. The Eskimos and residents of that area feed on the fish. They depend very heavily for iheir existence on the fish population. When this plankton disappears then the fish population also disappears as of course it is their primary food upon which they must depend. The Arctic Institute therefore asked that this study be made and McGill University carried out the study and we published this little pamphlet at what the hon. member feels is a scandalous waste of public funds. As I have said, we now have 24 copies left at 20 cents each.


Mr. Hodgson:: But the minister has not told us the full story. Tell us how many were published and mailed out.


James Sinclair: That is the most interesting thing of all. Usually about two hundred or so are printed. The important point as far as waste is concerned is the amount which is surplus. There is this small residue of 24 copies left on this study on the grass of the arctic on which life in the arctic depends so much. I would emphasize again that this was a scientific study carried out by our own universities at the request of scientists and scholars who wanted information on this particular aspect of survival in the arctic.
Now there are two other titles in the hon. member's list. The one which excited most comment, I believe, was "The Speed of the Goldfish in Relation to Water Temperature", published in 1947. We have 13 copies of this left at 20 cents each, which means a surplus cost of $2.60. You may say, "Why in the world is the fisheries department of Canada primarily concerned with commercial fisheries wondering about how fast the goldfish swims at different temperatures?"


An hon. Member:: That is a very good question.


James Sinclair: It is a very good question. Most people in this house have not much knowledge about fisheries. If I were to say my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare had published a bulletin on the effect of tobacco tar in causing cancer in mice, probably the hon. member for Moose Jaw, who is a practical businessman, would say, "Well, suppose mice do get cancer? It would save us the cost of traps. Mice do not smoke anyhow." Others would know that this relates to lung cancer in humans. Questions with regard to this pamphlet are just about as sensible as that. In pathology medical people use, not human beings but two organisms, mice and guinea pigs, on which to conduct their primary experiments in order to determine the reaction on the research work they are carrying out. Most hon. members are aware of the study of genetics in regard to livestock. In that regard, not the cow but the fruit fly has been the guinea pig. In fisheries we use the goldfish for the same purpose. It is cheap, it is plentiful and it can be used in our laboratories as a guinea pig for our purposes. We asked the University of Toronto to carry out this study for a very good reason. We did not care much about the goldfish one way or another, but we wished to get the answer to certain important questions. We wanted to know how fish act under different

temperatures, to study the migration of fish from the Pacific into our rivers. Our international salmon commission did a remarkable job in forecasting when the fish will arrive at our coast points, which was important information. We wanted to know the effect the temperature would have on the fish movement at different times of the year.
The second problem with regard to fish speed and water temperature was also an important one. The construction of fishways such as Hell's Gate in the Fraser river canyon is of great importance to our salmon fisheries. Hell's Gate was a barrier in the canyon that choked off the Fraser river salmon and the Hell's Gate fishway was built to overcome that. It is not an ordinary fish ladder we had built in because the river rose and fell ninety feet during the seasons and such a ladder would be useless. It is a series of baffles through which the water is channelled leaving eddies behind the baffles and the salmon dart up these eddies in successive stages. This experiment was carried out successfully with sockeye salmon. However, one problem we had to overcome was how far apart each baffle should be made, what the speed of the water should be which the salmon could overcome. We wanted to have a number of baffles designed so as to allow most of the salmon to get through at most temperatures. Fish, like people, get sluggish under certain temperatures. This goldfish study was carried out in order to determine the range and cruising speed of the fish. It is true we used salmon after the pattern was established, but this was one of these cheap little lab experiments such as those carried out by the agricultural scientists on the fruit fly to establish primary facts.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw mentioned another pamphlet and if he had read the whole title he would have found out why it was published. The title he read was "The Effect of Fin Clipping on the Cruising Speed of Goldfish". That is where he finished, but the rest of the title goes on- "and Cohoe Salmon Fry". We carried our experiments by clipping the fin off the goldfish and by these experiments we were able to obtain important information with regard to the west coast salmon run.
The little fingerling starts off in the stream where it is born and is lost out in the Pacific for two years. We wanted to know where it went and if it always came back to the stream in which it was born. We cannot tag a fingerling, it is too small. What we can do, however, is clip one small fin, either 83276-286J
Supply-Fisheries
dorsal or ventral, off a number of finger-lings from our streams, and check on the adult fish that way.	.
One thing that bothered the scientists was what effect the removal of one of these rather superfluous fins had on the fingerling in its ability to swim. We used goldfish first, then cohoe fingerlings, and through our experiments we proved that this fin was as superfluous as an appendix is in most people and the removal had little effect on their ability to survive.
The last one referred to by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace was "Am-dominal Width and Sexual Maturity of Female Lobsters on Canadian Atlantic Coast" published in 1944 and which is out of print at the moment. Hon. members laugh. I do not know the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace except for seeing him across the floor of the house, but he is old enough to know about the birds, the bees and the flowers. Lobsters do it too. It is quite true that we can leave it to the male lobster to bs able to recognize when the female lobster matures, but what we have to know is under what conditions and at what size she is mature. The lobster fishery is the most important fishery we have on the east coast. All our fishing regulations must be framed around this one important point: First of all, at what time of year and under what conditions do they breed. We want to know the size of the female lobster when she reaches what I suppose in the human world is called puberty. You cannot have any rule of thumb on the matter of size, no more than you can have one with regard to people. The system dvised by one of our own scientists, which is something we will understand, is the actual pelvic width, if you will, of a female lobster in relation to her length. The effect of temperature of the water is also important. In warm waters female lobsters are bigger; it takes them a shorter time to come to sexual maturity than it does in the colder waters on the Nova Scotia coast. It is for these reasons we framed the conservation rules which the hon. member for Charlotte knows so well, as do other maritime members, in order to see that, first of all, the size is such that at least these female lobsters are going to have a chance to come to sexual maturity so that they will reproduce and so so that we shall have a continuing harvest. So much for research.
The other two things which are of major concern in fisheries are first of all conservation. Unless we conserve our fisheries as well as we can without impairing the chances of an equal harvest being taken next year,

Supply-Fisheries
then we shall have dwindling fisheries. On the east coast we are concerned with two problems. One is the decline of the Atlantic salmon. The Atlantic salmon is not as important in dollars as is the west coast salmon commercially but it is of great importance in the life down there commercially and as a sport and tourist attraction.
The provinces have been concerned about the steady decline in Atlantic salmon. This is in great contrast, of course, to the west coast where, since the thirties, our salmon run, because of our conservation, has steadily increased. As I pointed out, the provinces have been concerned about sport fishing. This spring we had a happy meeting here in Ottawa with the Atlantic provinces, and agreed for the first time on uniform conservation laws. We closed down on the season. We closed down on the catch allowed to sport fishermen. Instead of being regulated by provincial boundaries we now have regulations for scientific boundaries of three main areas, the Atlantic area, the bay of Fundy area and the gulf of St. Lawrence area. I cannot speak too highly of the co-operation we received from the provinces concerned, including associations down there such as the Atlantic salmon association, and a group I met yesterday, the Miramichi salmon association. They are agreed with us on the value of this work. It is going to be tough for the first three or four years because shorter seasons are going to mean less fish and there are few enough fish now. But we feel very keenly that we can bring back the Atlantic salmon fisheries as we have brought back the west coast fisheries.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask the minister this point whether he is doing anything about seals, which are supposed to be quite a menace to the Atlantic salmon?


James Sinclair: Yes. Federal study of this
problem indicates two things, increased protection of the rivers to cut down poaching, because the scarcer the salmon the worse poaching is, and then increased action in the other field on other predators such as the harbour seals and hair seals. We pay a bounty on them. We stepped it up. Our own officers kill these seals, but we do not pay any bounty on what they kill. But the worst predators are the mergansers. There is a variety of uncouth names which are usually attached to them. These migratory birds feed principally on salmon spawn and small smolts. We had a little bit of difficulty in getting permission to kill them because they are protected under the migratory game birds act, but we have now extended our program of killing off mergansers. The program in
fMr. Sinclair.]
one river has been so successful that an increased number of fingerlings has been noted for the first time.
But on the east coast the main problem is the lobster. Studies of this sort which refer to lobsters are slow and painstaking. The lobster grows about 50 per cent each year for the first five years. We have to determine the period of sexual maturity in order to allow at least one breeding season. Thus our aim should be to have the fishermen catch the lobster when it is at its best size, from the point of view of growth and the point of view of marketing. As hon. members know, we slightly increased the size for lobsters on the east coast only last year. That action has met with understanding in almost all parts of the maritimes except two areas, where the fishermen feel that we are crowding down on them. One or two years' enforcement of the larger size is going to result in larger size. They will see the reflection in their catch. I may say that the Nova Scotia fishermen are completely in favour of this regulation. As with all conservation regulations, it is difficult at the time you enforce it; but in the end, when the fishermen see that they are getting bigger catches, they understand what we are trying to do.
Out on the west coast we have an entirely different problem in conservation. We can pride ourselves that, over the years, the Department of Fisheries has done a good job on these fisheries, which produce almost half the dollar value of all the fisheries in Canada. We have three main species out there, namely salmon, halibut and herring. All of them are what we call controlled fisheries. They are under complete scientific control. We have done enough work on them to know exactly how much we can get each year, and exactly how much we must allow to go upstream to spawn in the case of salmon, to spawn in bays in the case of herring and to spawn on the banks in the case of halibut. More and more fishermen have been getting into the fishing industry on the west coast, using better and better gear, bigger boats, better nets-nylon nets-and better and better electronic gear in order to find the fish faster. The trouble is that there are still only so many fish. We have more and more fishermen using bigger and bigger gear and only the same number of fish. What happens there is easy to understand. The annual catch per fisherman goes down. In order to survive he tries to catch a higher price per unit of fish. Fish in the end have got to compete with farm products, so that there is no easy solution by driving up the price of salmon, halibut or herring.

We are therefore faced with trying to obtain a controlled fishery and control over the fishing operations. There are four ways that can be done. The first and most obvious is licence limitation. We have a limited fishery. We should limit the licences. Today the only limit is that the holder of the licence must be a British subject. This year we are going to change that to a Canadian citizen. Then British subjects who are not yet Canadian citizens will be unable to get a fishing licence. But that is only scratching the problem. Licence limitation means that we will quickly get rid of two groups who are nuisances. One is the sport fisherman in British Columbia who takes out a commercial licence in order to get by the catch limit. The catch limit is six. He can catch 300 or 400 with a commercial licence. The other one is the part-time fisherman who at the time of the big run on the Fraser river gets a boat, a couple of hundred feet of net, goes down there and gets a good share of the fish which properly belong to the man who fishes the year round and the years round.
The objection to licence limitation is that those who have a licence are in preferred positions. The licences which cost only a dollar become things of value. The real worry is this question: How do young men who want to begin in the fisheries get a licence? The best source of fishermen, of course, is from among the sons of men in the business. This year we are going to make a thorough study of the situation. The second way to limit the catch is by means of gear limitation, or limitation on the size of the gear or on the type of the gear. We have eliminated traps in all but one area at Sooke. We have made restrictions on the size of gill nets, on the size of seines, on the size of mesh and the areas that they can fish in. In general, in order to prevent a tremendous drop in the fish population, we want to get the fishermen as far away from the spawning areas as we can. On the Nass river, on the Skeena river and Rivers inlet, we have constantly pushed the boundary further and further out to sea to give the fish a better chance to get in and spawn.
Then, the last thing, and the thing we use most of all, is season limitation, both a long closed season and then weekly closures. We have had forty-eight hour, seventy-two hour, ninety-six hour closures, four-day closures, in a week. More and more gear just means a five-day closure or a six-day closure, and the fishery is going to become more and more uneconomic because the people cannot expect to make a living with expensive equipment when just working one day in the week.
Supply-Fisheries
During this next year there is no question the most important matter facing our department on the west coast is to attack this problem of trying to match fishermen and fishing gear with the limited fishery which we have under scientific control. There is one special problem which has been mentioned by several members, the hon. member for Vancouver East, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, the hon. member for New Westminster, the matter of the closure of the upper Fraser which I announced when I was speaking to the fishermen's union in Vancouver. For the benefit of those nonfishing members who are kind enough to listen to us fishermen during our one day in court, let me explain the movement of fish in the salmon streams, especially the Fraser.
We have six kinds of salmon. There is the sockeye salmon, a little salmon of five or six pounds which is our richest fish and is all canned. Then we have the spring salmon, with red and white flesh, our largest species, the biggest one on record being 121 pounds. Then there is the cohoe salmon. The last two salmon take bait. The others do not take bait. Then we have the pink salmon and the chum salmon. These latter salmon are just two-year salmon. They go down the river, out to sea, are lost and come back again in two years. The other salmon are four-year salmon. The salmon are lost out in the Pacific and then they return almost like clockwork.
Our scientists can pretty well forecast when they will first turn up off the south end of Vancouver island. They sweep around through Puget sound on the American side, then up into the gulf of Georgia on our side and mill around the mouth of the Fraser river. They start up the Fraser river and by some uncanny instinct they go to the little creek where they were born. It may be 500 or 600 miles up but they are able to find it by some device that our scientists have as yet been unable to detect.
The sockeye salmon comes in first. It is our finest salmon. It is a very rich fish. In its years in the Pacific it has stored oil in its body, but the moment all these fish hit fresh water they stop feeding. From then on they are living on their own bodies, which means they are wasting. The sockeye has the farthest to go and it is in there first. When it comes in the river it is still in pretty good shape. However, the two late runs, the pink and the chum salmon, are different. They are coarser fish. The pink salmon weighs around five pounds and the chum possibly ten pounds. Most of them spawn very close to the mouth of the Fraser. By the time they

Supply-Fisheries
come into the Fraser they have stopped feeding. They are feeding oil their own bodies and the quality of the fish is going down very rapidly. They become very ugly fish with splotches of colour showing all over their bodies. They get to the spawning ground, spawn and then die.
Since we have had a fishery in British Columbia the problem has been how much fishing we should allow on the Fraser river. In the old days there was no restriction at all. Fishermen fished as far up the river as their boats would go, to Sumas, almost seventy miles up the river. The quality was poor. The fish were then dying. They were on their way to perform their last function. In the early days the canneries would not accept either pinks or chums caught in the river. They would not accept any sockeye which had any colour on it at all.
In 1905, because of this condition, a royal commission was appointed to investigate the problem of fishing on the river and it sat for two years. When the fish are in there they are at the most valuable period to Canada of their whole cycle. These are the little finger-lings that went to sea, survived all the hazards of their years of life at sea, fought their way back through all their enemies around Vancouver island, avoided all the nets in the river and headed up to their spawning ground. These are the ones which are going to perpetuate the species. They are in a narrow stretch of the river and in a most vulnerable position to be caught with nets right down to the bottom and right across the river.
Before the royal commission which conducted this investigation from 1905 to 1907 the scientists recommended that the fishing be closed at Westminster on the grounds of both quality and conservation, but other witnesses before the commission presented the argument on compassionate grounds that above Westminster there were settlers clearing land of timber, that these fish were food for them and that they could sell clean fish to the canneries. As a concession the royal commission said that fishermen above the bridge who lived there could fish in that stretch and only in that stretch.
In 1905 there were forty-two of them. In 1912 there were only seventy. They were still settlers. In 1922 there were 112 and last year there were 611 fishermen in this thirty miles of river going after these salmon heading to their spawning ground. The quality is poor. There are more fishermen there today than there were in the days when the royal commission investigated conditions in 1905. All connection with clearing land has gone. These are fishermen who never go to sea,

who fish two or three days a week for a period of three or four months in that narrow stretch of river and expect to make a living. Our other fishermen range the whole coast from Oregon to Alaska. They fish the year round. They catch the salmon at sea when it is in first class shape. I would ask those hon. members who are farmers what they would think of a farmer who did not harvest all his wheat at the proper harvest time but waited until the fall when the wheat was frost killed to harvest it. That is just about what we are doing with our salmon when we allow salmon, which are first class salmon in the sea, to be caught up the river when the process of deterioration has started.
It is for that reason that our scientists and officers recommended, with respect to these slow moving fish, the pinks and the chums, that fishing above the bridge be stopped in the future. I announced to the fishermen at the union meeting in Vancouver that we would stop that fishery on September 16. That would mean they would still get spring fishing and summer fishing for sockeye salmon which go much farther up the river and are in better shape, but not for the pinks and the chums. Naturally a great protest was raised by the people who were affected. They said that they could not go to sea, that they did not have the gear or the boats. I met the union, I met the gill netters, I met the local mayors and reeves and pointed out that we were interested in quality and conservation. When I met them I promised to look at the question again. Their main point was that this might be the right thing to do but I was doing it too quickly, that I should take it in steps.
Since I came back to Ottawa we have discussed the matter again with our research people and our officers, and it is probably right that we are doing it in a little too big a sweep. Therefore we have changed the closing date this year from September 16 to three weeks later, October 8. They will have the tail end of the sockeye and the first of the pinks and the chums. The hon. member for New Westminster applauds. I want to tell the committee that next year it will be September 30 and the year after it will be September 15 because it is felt that in the interests of quality and conservation we must close this fishery. But because of the reasons put forward by these people for a little more gradual closing off, we have agreed to make that change.
There is one other point which was raised by the hon. member for New Westminster, the question of whether we are going to have fish or power in British Columbia. The Columbia river down south was as great a

river as the Fraser in its day, but the construction of the Bonneville dam, the construction of the Grand Coulee dam and the Libby dam, has greatly reduced the fishery there. We are determined that is not going to happen in British Columbia. We feel, and I think we have proved, that we can have fish and power, that all these power developments can be designed to allow the passage of the fish up the river and the fingerlings down.
Since 1945 our department has come in conflict-I use the word "conflict" but I do not really mean it-with every major industrial concern on the coast of British Columbia except the telephone company over power, over pollution of rivers, over obstruction of rivers, and in every one of these cases we have been able to work out a harmonious solution with one single exception. This case involved one small run of fish up a river where there was a drop of 1,800 feet. We had a look at the power development but there was no practical way of getting the fish up that height. We tried to transplant the small run instead.
But aside from that we have been able to work out a solution to all these problems in British Columbia. Our Fisheries Act does give us that power. If after a dam is completed we find that it interferes with the fishery we can order changes. Actually that is a little late. Out of experience the companies that build these dams generally come to us first and say: What sort of a dam should we build so that we will not have trouble with you afterwards? I am very happy that the government of the province of British Columbia, of which, incidentally, I am not a supporter, passed complementary legislation on this power question at its last session. In this way, before permission is given for the construction of a power dam, provision has to be made to satisfy the fisheries department that the fish will get by. The fishing industry of British Columbia now feels quite a bit safer, and feels that between the two of us we certainly have the power to see that any obstruction to the fisheries that is planned will make provision for saving our fisheries. I hope that the provinces on the east coast that have similar problems will follow this line of introducing complementary legislation.
The last thing about which I want to speak is this matter of international conservation. There is not much point in our trying very hard to conserve our fisheries in our own territorial waters, and build up stocks to make sure that our fishermen are going to have a perpetual harvest, if just offshore on the high seas other nations come in and
Supply-Fisheries
ruthlessly exploit these national stocks. Over the years we, and our neighbours to the south, have been pioneers in international co-operation on the high seas. The halibut treaty of 1923 was the first act Canada ever signed by herself. It was the first fisheries act for the high seas ever signed by any country. In 1923 the halibut catch had fallen down to less than 30 million pounds and it took the fishermen of both nations a year to catch it. Following 30 years of international co-operation and control we have doubled the catch, and we catch it in one month.
Last year I told you that there was one weakness about these joint commissions, in my opinion. We have our scientists, industrialists and officers on these commissions, but we have never had a commercial fisherman as a member of these bodies, a man with the practical experience that comes from daily contact with the industry. I said that at the first opportunity I would appoint a fisherman to these commissions. Two opportunities did come. The first was the halibut commission, when I was able to appoint Harold Holland of Prince Rupert, who had been fishing with his own boat for 20 years, as one of our own members on this commission.
Incidentally, I refer to the sockeye salmon commission, the most extraordinarily successful example of international co-operation. When this commission was established the salmon run was just about through, and last year we had the greatest catch on record. All this was brought about by the joint efforts of these governments through this commission, to the mutual profit of our fishermen and their fishermen.
This has been so successful that our fishermen are very anxious we take another stride and establish such a commission for the pink salmon. We have not the same control over the pink salmon which sweep in from the sea and enter Puget sound. The United States fishermen therefore get the first crack at them and our fishermen in the gulf of Georgia then get their crack at the broken schools before they go up the river to spawn. We have never caught more than 5 per cent to 20 per cent of those fish that spawn in our rivers. We have not very big boats on the west coast because most of our fishing is in sheltered waters, but we encouraged some of our big boats to go out and get these fish before they got to the American waters. For the first time in history our fishermen picked up 40 per cent of these fish. We are going to have more boats out there this year, and by the time the fishery is in balance we will be able to

Supply-Fisheries
work out a joint treaty with our friends in the United States similar to the sockeye salmon treaty to control this fishery.
One of the oldest international conventions is this one about which the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich told us a story last year, the international sealing convention. By 1914 the seal population in the Pacific had fallen to 150,000 because of ruthless killing. We now have a convention to protect them, and there are between 3 million and 4 million of them up in the Pribilof islands. Each summer the cows and their puppies come all the way from California by sea, and the bulls are up in the Bering sea in any event. We get 20 per cent of the annual kill, and we clear about a million dollars a year from our share in that operation.
One problem that arises is that when you have between 3 million and 4 million seals in the north Pacific eating fish at the rate of at least 20 pounds a day, a great deal of fish is consumed. The two seals we had in captivity at our biological station consumed 20 pounds of fish a day. At this rate of consumption the 3 million seals consume more fish than the population of Canada. The Japanese are very exercised about that, and want study made to ascertain whether or not it would be more economical to have fewer seals and more fish. That is one of the things we are looking forward to studying this summer.
The northwest Atlantic fisheries treaty is a new one, including 10 nations, and it covers what is, after 400 years of fishing, still the greatest fishing grounds in all the world, the Grand Banks. We are one of the 10 nations in that commission. This summer a new nation has been seen off the Grand Banks, when for the first time two Russian trawlers were sighted. As yet, Russia has not joined the northwest Atlantic commission. We are very proud of the fact that our deputy minister of fisheries, Stewart Bates, has been chosen as chairman of the northwest Atlantic commission. We are just as proud -I do not know if it was because he was the chairman-that the commission selected Dalhousie University in Halifax as its base of operations. It will be a good thing for the fisheries school down there and a good thing for the maritimes to have this great commission based in Halifax.
In the north Pacific we have a new treaty which was passed by parliament last year, the north Pacific treaty. It includes Japan, the United States and Canada and is concerned with the conservation of the great fisheries of the north Pacific. Here again, I was able to appoint a fisherman, a fisherman

who was the son of a fisherman and the grandson of a fisherman, and who has fished over the entire coast, James Cameron. He has already attended the first meeting and has done very well. This appointment has given the fishermen of our province an increased confidence in that they have a direct voice in the proceedings of this international commission.
Here again I am even prouder to announce that the same Stewart Bates was selected as chairman of the north Pacific commission. Once again the pattern repeated itself and it was a Canadian university, the University of British Columbia, that was chosen as the permanent base of this new scientific commission to control the fisheries of the north Pacific.
One other treaty is the international whaling convention, and we are one of the 17 nations belonging to it. We have had, at various times, a number of whaling stations on the Atlantic coast. Whaling in the north Atlantic has greatly diminished, but we have one whaling station on the Pacific coast at Coal Harbour. Last year they killed 539 whales. The next meeting of the commission controlling whaling on the high seas, and which sets the methods by which whales can be killed, is going to be in Tokyo. It is of special interest to us because the north Pacific is the only area in which we do any whaling, and we share that whaling industry with Japan and Russia. There are two things of interest to us. There is the recommendation that, for the first time, a limit be put on the number of whales to be killed in the north Pacific. This is a matter of concern to our fleet.
Secondly, the meeting is going to discuss whether or not helicopters can be used to kill whales. Helicopters are now used to spot them, but as to whether or not they will be allowed to carry harpoons and kill whales is a matter that is on the agenda for study. This is of interest to us because we do not operate any large whaling boats but our operations are land based and might be suitable for helicopter operation.
In telling about the success we have had in working out these international treaties to conserve the fisheries on the high seas, I might mention one inland fishery that is extremely valuable and that is the great lakes fishery which we share with our neighbour, the United States. In recent years there has been an alarming decline in that fishery, and the reason for it has been an incursion of sea lampreys which feed by sucking the blood of the other fish. The lamprey is spreading throughout lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron and Michigan, and is

now just entering lake Superior. The commercial fisheries in Ontario are under the control of the Ontario government. They have been very anxious that we help.
We approached the United States government with the thought that we would have another international treaty for the purpose of getting rid of the lamprey and building up these fisheries as we have done on the two coasts. Unfortunately, there was jurisdictional trouble in the United States because the fisheries there are primarily under state control. I think there are seven different states along the lakes, there. Apparently some one or more of the states were not too willing to surrender jurisdiction to the United States federal government. Whatever the situation was we could not sign a treaty, but the federal government here with Ontario and the government in Washington have undertaken a parallel program, the sort of thing we carry out together, on a program of lamprey control through scientific research.
Our scientists think that it is not just the lamprey, but that it is the introduction of a great number of less valuable fish in the lakes, which have taken food away from the valuable whitefish, lake trout and pickerel. In this program the government of Ontario has joined with us and I am pleased to say that we have had the most pleasant relations with the fisheries branch of that province. We have a joint vote of $30,000 to begin a scientific study of the fish population in the lakes.
In the matter of lamprey control, we are doing the work ourselves. We have $150,000 in the estimates this year for the commencement of lamprey control at the entrance of lake Superior, where they are just beginning to show up. I am hopeful that in the next year or two the program carried put on both sides will convince everyone of the need for a similar international treaty to restore this great fishery. It is a great fishery, not only because of the value of the fish, but because it is one of the few fisheries in the world immediately adjacent to a high concentration of population. The market is right there. It is the heaviest concentration of population on the continent-which makes it all the more important for them and for us that we arrange an international treaty which will bring back these fisheries.
Mr. Chairman, this short review is now ended.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the minister for the most interesting review he has given of the work of his department. I am sure the committee will feel it was well worth while listening to him while he made his report. I am glad I
Supply-Fisheries
asked him to do so, rather than bring it out in a piecemeal fashion in reply to various questions. Actually, I think time has been saved, because many of the points I had intended to raise have now been answered.
I am sure all hon. members who represent seaboard constituencies will be delighted to hear of the improved conditions in the industry. A year ago the minister had to report that the industry was in a depressed condition. Everybody knew that; we all had representations made to us. Now, partly through the efforts of the industry itself, and partly because of the assistance given by the minister and his department, he has been enabled today to report improved conditions.
I should like to say a few words regarding the industry on the Pacific coast. I shall not touch the Atlantic coast, because I have not had the opportunity of visiting the fisheries there recently. My remarks will not be in the form of criticism of the policy followed by the department, but rather to urge a more concentrated and a greater effort on some of the endeavours the department is now taking in order to solve the problems facing us in connection with our west coast fisheries.
I think those problems can be summarized under three main headings. The first is that of conservation, the second is that of the methods of taking the fish out of the ocean, and the third is that of marketing. The minister has described fully some of the research work that has been carried out. This has been going on over a number of years, and has been concentrated mainly-and I say "mainly" because there is other work going on as well-on our salmon run, our halibut and our herring fisheries.
As a result of those investigations there have been a number of international agreements. Government regulations have been laid down to prevent the depletion of our fisheries. As the minister has said, had it not been for the international salmon commission, our sockeye run might actually have been wiped out some years ago. A great deal of time has been spent in the study of the habits of this species of salmon, with results extremely beneficial to the industry.
The desirability of a similar commission being set up with reference to the pink variety of salmon has now become evident. I am glad the minister has made reference to this point, and I am going to urge him to proceed with the utmost vigour toward the completion of whatever steps have been taken to ensure the completion of some agreement with the United States for the preservation of the pink salmon run. Because if that is not done, the pink salmon will be in exactly the same position as were the sockeye salmon a few years ago.

Supply-Fisheries
As the minister said, the pinks enter Canadian waters through the strait of Juan de Fuca, and then pass on into Puget sound, and up into the Fraser river. I believe that only a few years ago American fishermen were taking three pinks for every one our Canadian fishermen were able to obtain. However, because of the trend which has taken place, and the encouragement given by the Department of Fisheries, there has been a movement of the fishermen farther out to sea. This affects my own constituency because such ports as Sooke and Port Renfrew have now become the habitat, if I may say so, of the seiners, whom I have seen in increasing numbers in the last two years fishing for the pink salmon long before the pinks have reached fresh water.
What is going to develop, if some international agreement is not reached, will be a race between American and Canadian fishermen to catch the pink salmon as far out at sea as possible, and in as large quantities as possible. With the larger boats and the improved gear available this will mean that the pink salmon will be caught long before they reach the Fraser river.
What will be the consequence of this? Either the department will have to close right down on any gill-netting by a fisherman who, with his son, may go out in a boat-it will have to close down on the small fisherman in his small boat, or else it will have to allow them to go on fishing with their gill nets, with the result that in a few years time the whole pink salmon run will be depleted.
Hard as it may be on the traditional fishermen who for many years have been fishing in the Fraser river, there is no question that the fish are in better condition when they are caught further out to sea, and it is more economical to use modern gear and bigger vessels in order to catch the fish before they have used up their body oils when they come into the fresh water. Therefore, I do say that in order to preserve the means of livelihood of the gillnetter and to preserve the pink salmon, it is imperative that in the very near future an agreement be reached with the United States in order to preserve that pink salmon run.
I make this suggestion at this time, not as a special pleading for my own constituency. There is a need for harbour facilities for our fishermen along the south coast of Vancouver island because we are going to fish beyond Port Renfrew. Sometimes fall storms do come and fishing vessels have to seek shelter. At the moment the harbour at Port Renfrew is very exposed and the harbour at Sooke needs considerable development. I hope the

minister will make representations to his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, regarding that point.
Since we are talking of conservation, I was interested to hear of the steps which the scientists are taking in regard to their methods to control those various agencies which prey on the fish. I have thought in the past that perhaps sufficient attention was not being paid to that type of conservation, and we were spending most of our endeavours on trying to conserve the fish themselves when they went up to spawn. But continual and constant warfare is carried on on all marine life. The commercial types of fish are attacked by animals, by birds, by reptiles, by other fish and by various parasites. I believe we can do much to conserve the catch in the future by further investigation along the lines of exploring to see how we can control those pests.
I am going to say just a word about my pet aversion, the fur seal. The time has come when we have got to reduce the herds of fur seals. The fur seals spend most of their winter off the coast of British Columbia, from about the month of November until June; and, as the minister was saying, the experiments which have been carried out show that these animals eat from twenty to thirty pounds of fish every day, but they destroy from thirty to fifty pounds each day. And where you have herds of four million seal destroying thirty to fifty pounds each a day you can see the havoc which is being wreaked on our fish. We do give a small bounty for the destruction of the hair seal on the west coast. Well, the hair seal and the fur seal are really the same animal, and they both live on fish.
A very interesting article was written not very long ago by Captain M. E. Lohbrunner, who has spent a lifetime with the seal-fishing fleets. He was very emphatic that thousands of pounds of fish are destroyed yearly by the herds of fur seal while they are feeding off the coast of British Columbia. A few years ago the pelts were considered of the greatest value, but there are so many other forms of fur used-and synthetic furs are used for apparel-that I do not believe it is so essential to maintain such large herds of fur seals as are extant. I hope that an international agreement-it would have to be an international agreement-will be entered into which will provide for the depletion-
I do not say complete elimination-of those herds of fur seals.
The next group of problems come under the question of the methods by which the fish are taken out of the ocean. The minister

again referred to this set of problems. An attempt is being made now to control them by limiting the season and limiting the number of licences which are being issued. As more and more efficient means of catching the fish are brought about, if no more fish are to be taken out of the ocean, then of course the season has to be limited, and the result is that there are fewer and fewer fish for each man to catch. Until our methods of conservation are developed much farther than they are now, it will not be possible to increase the total catch.
The minister referred to the sport fishermen. He called them sport fishermen or holiday fishermen. It is immaterial, but there are more and more, professional men, businessmen and people who have seasonal unemployment during the fishing season, who do augment their incomes by going out and catching fish commercially, not only in the Fraser river, but also on the high seas. Some of these people have very expensive gear and they do add materially to their income. I know one professional man who goes out regularly every summer and enjoys his holiday fishing commercially. He goes out with his son. He sells his fish commercially and it is not really considered an essential part of his income. He enjoys the life. Of course it is not easy to say that he must not go fishing. The oceans are open to everybody, and the minister will have to be careful how he limits these licences. The elimination must be such that it does not play in favour either of the unions or of the fishing industry. A very large number of licences, an unlimited distribution of licences, would result only in competition between the various packing houses in order to get the fishermen to deliver their fish to their packer. A few licences would inevitably mean an increase in the price. But the fact does remain that our fishing industry on the west coast is overcrowded at the present time, particularly in so far as the salmon industry is concerned. It may happen to other types of fishing.
One solution seems to me to be an encouragement of the real commercial fisherman not to specialize solely on one species of fish but to have the gear, equipment and the type of vessel which would enable him to catch other fish. I am glad the minister is limiting the licences this year to Canadian citizens only. There have been immigrants, coming in from Scandinavian countries particularly, who have gone into the fishing industry in the past. They have been excellent fishermen, as have been some of the orientals who have engaged in the fishing industry, and I think it is well that commercial fishing licences should be
Supply-Fisheries
limited to Canadian citizens only. I would like to ask the minister whether the price of a commercial licence is not too low? The fee is very small and I am not certain that the smallness of that fee may not encourage more people to go into the commercial fishing industry. I would like the minister to tell me whether consideration has been given to the advisability of increasing that fee, which might have the effect of eliminating the tourist and holiday fishermen, whereas the commercial fishermen would still be in a position to pay perhaps a larger fee.
As regards marketing, the minister's remarks were most encouraging. We were all pleased to learn that there is now no carryover of the pack and as the new pack comes in there will be other markets opening up. A year ago the industry sent representatives to the United Kingdom and made what might be called a bilateral agreement, which was not exactly in the form of a barter, but under which the United Kingdom authorities were prepared to take some of our canned salmon if we would do our best to purchase more fishing gear, fishermen's clothing, tinplate and that sort of thing from the United Kingdom. That has worked out very satisfactorily. That arrangement showed great initiative on the part of the industry itself and I must pay the minister credit for having contributed his part to that agreement. I am not a supporter of the government of which the minister is a member, as he well knows, but there is no question that this agreement assisted the industry.
I would like to stress the importance of a more thorough inspection not only in the canning plants but also on the boats themselves. The fishermen sometimes become careless in regard to the way in which the fish are handled in the catcher boats and in the packers and I believe that perhaps the quality of our fish might be still further improved if there was more rigid inspection. We realize that that means more money and also means employing more personnel on patrol services, but if anything could be done to encourage the fishermen themselves to take more care in the way the fish is handled I think that would be of advantage.
Lastly I would like to deal with the problem to which the minister himself made reference, and that is the question of international agreements and the control of the fisheries in those waters which are immediately adjacent to our coast. A year ago the minister informed us that a commission had been set up under Dean Curtis to consider the definition of our territorial waters.

Supply-Fisheries
I have previously urged that a line be drawn up on the west coast of Vancouver island and the west coast of Queen Charlotte island and that all waters east of that line, if they cannot be considered as territorial waters for all purposes, should be considered as waters over which the Canadian government through the fisheries department should exercise some control. I would ask the minister v 'hen he is replying to tell us what progress has been made by that commission headed by Dean Curtis and how far they have got and whether they have been able to submit any reports to the government or to the international committee in connection with the United Nations which is also studying that point.
I am pleased to note that commercial fishermen have already been appointed to many of these international boards. I can only say that I wish that that had been done at the time when the international agreement between the United States, Japan and Canada was being drawn up. I think such appointments would have eliminated much of the misunderstanding which existed amongst the actual fishermen when that agreement was first published and when there was so much heated discussion in the unions and in the industry itself as to those agreements. I am sure that perhaps some of the unions were themselves to blame by not taking advantage of the opportunities offered to them, but at the same time had there been fishermen more actively connected with the drawing up of that agreement I believe there would have been less misunderstanding.
In closing, and as I said at the commencement of my remarks, I believe that the general policy adopted by the minister, particularly as regards conservation and the encouragement in the catching of fish under the most favourable circumstances as well as in marketing, is in general along the right lines. I can only urge him to concentrate on these endeavours and to intensify his efforts along these lines.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich thanked the minister for the very comprehensive statement he made in introducing his estimates. I think I can go a little farther than the hon. member and congratulate the minister on making that comprehensive statement. I think it is probably the best statement made by any minister on the estimates for a very long time.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich mentioned that the minister's statement would probably shorten preliminary debates on the

first item of the estimates dealing with administration. I do not know whether it will have that effect on the hon. member but it certainly will have that effect on me because the minister has answered most of the questions I intended raising. I really would be repeating some of the things the minister said and some of the matters outlined by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat if I were to extend my remarks. I think one of the best things the minister was able to report was the improvement in the fish marketing over this time last year.
I think it is really a remarkable achievement in which I presume the fishing industry itself, as well as the government, had a part. But as I understand it, last year there was not only the one year's catch to be sold but there was a carryover from one or two previous years. It is really a most gratifying thing to know that, in this time of dwindling markets, in this particular instance we should have had such good results.
In connection with the conservation regulations on the Fraser river, may I say that I had a number of communications from persons and organizations who would be affected by those regulations. While I am pleased that the minister or the department has seen fit to extend the time, I certainly would not press the minister to do that because it is a situation in which the layman must walk warily. I do not know all the problems involved but I know the importance of conservation; and I know that it would be much better to conserve this year and next year, even to the point where it hurts, so that we may have better fishing in the years following. While I wish to thank the minister for taking this matter in easy steps-I am sure it was done after consideration-it is something that I myself would not press or plead for because, as I say, I do not know what the results would be.
I could, of course, refer to several other matters but by doing so I would not be adding anything to this debate. I will merely say again that I wish to congratulate the minister for the excellent statement he took the time to give to the committee. I know it was not such a great achievement for him because he has been talking about this thing for the last few months. He or his department was good enough to send me a copy of the speech he made when he spoke in British Columbia to the convention of the united fishermen and allied workers, and in which mention was made of these things. I thought the speech was a forthright one and that it said the right things at the right time in the right place.


James Sinclair: May I just say this, Mr. Chairman. Earlier I said that it was the hon. member for Vancouver East who had come and had the discussion with me. By force of habit I had used the name of my hon. friend's old riding. It was the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who came and had this long discussion with me about the Fraser river.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a good deal of enthusiasm and interest to one of the most enlightening talks which I believe I have ever had the pleasure of hearing, especially with respect to fishing. We in British Columbia are extremely proud, as we have been for some years, of our Minister of Fisheries.


Donald MacInnis: Do not say so publicly.


Frederick George Hahn: Yes; I will say it quite publicly. I say it because someone earlier said "This day shall change all quarrels into love". At this time I should like to congratulate the minister particularly on the fact that he put considerable effort, I know, as an individual and as Minister of Fisheries particularly, into helping the fishermen in British Columbia to get rid of the huge stockpile of salmon they had there which amounted to approximately a million cases. The research work that he spoke of so fluently and so well is, I would say, possibly more necessary than ever in this scientific world in which we live today. I should also like to make a suggestion in this respect and it is this. Probably we should have freer circulation of that type of material. Then we would not have quite the same amount of objection as was indicated by some hon. members who voiced their opinions in earlier addresses.
I am particularly pleased to have heard him announce that the closure of the Fraser river above the Pattullo bridge will not be put into effect until October 8 this year, that he has taken these steps and has at this time announced the closure for the next two years. At least the fishermen on the west coast know where they are at in that regard. I believe it is something which the fishermen have requested for a long time and which they possibly had a right to expect. Under our democratic system the minister recognized that desirability and let us have the answer to it in today's sitting.
I have one question to put to him, though, in this regard and it is this. Will full-time fishermen above the Pattullo bridge be permitted to fish below the Pattullo bridge after October 8? We are all aware of the fact that some of these fishermen are full-time
Supply-Fisheries
fishermen, though possibly not the majority of them; but the evolution of numbers in our fishing industry would indicate that since there were 611 fishermen this year in that area. Certainly they are not temporary fishermen or part-time fishermen, or sports fishermen for that matter. I should like to know for their information whether it will be permissible to fish below the Pattullo bridge after October 3. A large part of my particular riding happens to be below the Pattullo bridge. Now that steps are being definitely taken to close the fisheries above the Pattullo bridge I am interested in knowing whether or not such a move is being contemplated below the Pattullo bridge in the near future, in order that the fishermen can govern themselves accordingly.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, for those of us who are interested in fisheries, it is most gratifying to note that the minister has judged it to be advisable to introduce Iris estimates before the committee at this time. His masterful presentation this afternoon has been most educational and enlightening to all of us. An industry which yields landings of over two billion pounds annually, with a market value of nearly $200 million, deserves study and serious consideration. Our sea and freshwater fisheries are among the most extensive in the world and, with a potential still unknown, are bound to contribute largely to the world's food requirements in the years to come.
The Minister of Fisheries deserves congratulation on the vast growtn and improvement v/hich have taken place in his department during his tenure of office. His department has now passed the stage of being a minor department and its present organization is evidence of the wise management required by the ever-growing fishing industry in our country today. Various policies adopted in the last twelve months indicate the progressive advancement of the industry and the desire of our energetic and able Minister of Fisheries to cope with these developments and to be prepared for future expansion.
It is my intention, on the occasion of the presentation of the 1954-55 fisheries estimates, to express briefly my views on certain aspects related to the fisheries department, mainly on the Atlantic coast and in the province of New Brunswick. I have great admiration for the efficiency and sincerity of the fisheries officials, with a large number of whom I have been personally connected in my fifteen years of service in the federal and provincial fields, first as federal fisheries inspector and then as provincial director of fisheries for

Supply-Fisheries
New Brunswick. I realize the difficulties these men have to face as officers enforcing regulations in the protective or in the inspection fields, or acting in the markets and economics branch, or in the information and educational services. In discussing briefly these various branches of the fisheries department it is my intention to try to offer what I may call constructive suggestions which I hope the minister will accept with the same good intention and spirit in which they are being suggested.
An estimate of over $3 million is proposed to take care of the operation and maintenance of the protective branch. The maintaining of officers on land and at sea, the protection of closed seasons, restricted areas, limitation of gear, size limit of fish or shellfish, etc., necessitate large expenditures. We realize that the department has to maintain a well organized and well equipped staff for the enforcement of the Fisheries Act and its regulations. Unfortunately, in limited areas the results obtained are not always as satisfactory as one would expect. There appears to be in certain localities a lack of understanding between enforcing officers and the fishermen. These fishermen are by far the most colourful and courageous primary producers on the North American continent. They are a gallant, independent breed with pride in their heritage and in their profession. They are resourceful, adventurous, staking their all, including their lives, against the elements. They are what we would call a true picture of proud individualism and of free enterprise at its best.
It is essential that the Department of Fisheries, while allowing extensive exploitation of known fish population, must at the same time assure, through protective measures and wise management, the maintenance of production for future generations to come. Unfortunately in the discharge of their duties a small number of enforcing officers are more eager to protect by force and apprehension than by education and a preventive attitude. More efforts should be directed to educating the fisherman and making him understand the purpose and value of existing regulations. Lesser then will become the need of apprehending him and taking him into court for conviction. A fishery officer should be the fisherman's best friend. Better results can be obtained by a fishery officer through a friendly chat at the end of a wharf or even by offering a helping hand than by trying to impose himself as one too self-conscious of his authority.
I was pleased to note the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries when addressing the annual meeting of the fisheries council
[Mr. Robichaud.j
of Canada on April 28 last, as reported in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of April 29. The report reads:
Fisheries minister Sinclair Wednesday said lobster fishing regulations will be more strictly enforced this year. If this and an education program against illegal fishing does not cut down illegal catches, the fisheries department will ask that minimum fines be imposed, he told the annual meeting of the fisheries council of Canada.
It is gratifying to learn from the minister himself that lobster fishing regulations will be more strictly enforced this year. What is most gratifying and encouraging is the statement of the minister that an educational program against illegal fishing will be launched this year in certain localities where illegal fishing has become a common practice. Better public relations and co-operation between fishery officers and the fishermen are a necessity if the conservation service of the department is to prove its effectiveness. Fortunately this unhealthy situation is limited to a very few fishing communities. I feel confident, however, that if an educational and publicity campaign were launched through the public schools in co-operation with provincial or local authorities its results would be most satisfactory.
The fishermen of our fishing communities have been neglected from the point of view of education. The federal government, through its training payments to the provinces for vocational school assistance, could easily work out a program whereby fishing communities could benefit from a practical and efficient training system, as well as from a better understanding of the purpose of existing regulations.
On March 31 last, as mentioned by the minister in his statement this afternoon, the New Brunswick fishery regulations were amended to effect changes in the commercial and angling salmon fishing seasons. Similar changes were made in the other four Atlantic provinces. In an answer to a question I placed before the house on April 7 last, the minister said, as found at page 3855 of Hansard:
In recent years a decline in the Atlantic salmon fishery has been giving great concern to both the federal authority and the five Atlantic provinces. On the federal side we have stepped up our research program, have increased predator control and stream clearance and improved our hatcheries. There was also the problem of having uniformity in the length of the fishing seasons, both commercial fishing in the sea and sport fishing on the rivers of the provinces.
On March 1, we had a conference here in Ottawa of deputy ministers from the provinces who met with our officials and discussed and agreed upon a joint program which was taken back to the provinces. I am happy to say we have now received the consent of the five provinces concerned to the introduction of uniform salmon fishing regulations

in the whole Atlantic area. Instead of having five provinces all with different seasons and different sizes of catch, we will now have uniformity over the three areas: the Atlantic coast area where the salmon comes first, then the bay of Fundy, and then the gulf of St. Lawrence.
This program will involve the shortening of the open season for both commercial fishing and sport fishing. This is the type of program which has met with conspicuous success on the west coast, where we are happy to see the salmon fishery increasing each year. I am sure we shall have a similar result on the east coast. I feel I should say that we are very happy about the warm co-operation we received from the five provincial governments concerned.
I fully realize the urgent need for the introduction of protective measures to save this most important fishery from complete depletion. The commercial salmon fishermen as well as anglers have been asked to sacrifice a portion of their regular season and accept a shorter fishing period. It is not my intention to question the decision of the department in shortening the season and adopting uniform salmon regulations for the Atlantic coast. It is unfortunate, however, that the commercial salmon fishermen have been asked without warning to accept this cut in their regular season. I wish they had been given the same warning that the minister gave this afternoon to the western salmon fishermen. If angling is cut down to a period of say seventy fishing days, the sportsman or angler is still in a position to spend almost as many days as he desires with his fishing rod. Of the average of 40,000 salmon caught annually by anglers in the rivers of the maritime provinces, the larger proportion are caught in the Mira-michi and Restigouche rivers in New Brunswick. I have my doubts if a shorter season will result in fewer rod-days and a reduction in the number of salmon caught by anglers in New Brunswick rivers.
The commercial salmon fisherman, whether his system of fishing is by trap net, set net or drift net, is the one who has been asked to sacrifice, not a few hours of leisure or relaxation but a substantial part of his earnings which are so urgently needed for the support of his family. The commercial fishermen are upset by this new legislation which is being imposed on them on the eve of the opening of the 1954 fishing season. They are concerned because they have incurred thousands of dollars in expenses to prepare their nets and fishing gear on the presumption of a regular period of operation.
These same fishermen, however, understand the seriousness of the situation and the purpose of the program launched by the Department of Fisheries. Representatives of commercial fishermen from Restigouche and Miramichi areas have been here in Ottawa
Supply-Fisheries
to present their case before the department. Delegations approached me when I visited my constituency during the Easter recess and all were most sincere and logical in their claims. If the salmon are going to be allowed to go by the commercial fishermen's back door what assurance have these fishermen that these salmon will reach the spawning grounds and contribute to the conservation and the reproduction hoped for by the implementation of these new regulations.
If the Department of Fisheries and its officials are sincere, and I have every reason to believe in their sincerity and willingness to co-operate, consideration should be given immediately to the provision of adequate protection to those fish allowed to reach the upper waters of our salmon rivers. An additional expenditure of less than $15,000 a year for the next four or five years could provide adequate protection of the spawning grounds in the main salmon rivers of New Brunswick, and convince the commercial fishermen of the advisability of the department's action. I stress the importance of the minister and his department giving this request immediate consideration. Unless this protection is provided, the change in seasons could be of little advantage.
I am pleased to note that progress has been made in the concentrated study undertaken on the Atlantic salmon problem by the fish culture development branch and the fisheries research board. The predator bird control-project on the northwest branch of the Miramichi river, the survey of all salmon rivers to record the presence of obstruction to migration, or possible pollution, is a step in the right direction. I would suggest that a careful study be made of existing conditions in the Nipisiguit river to determine the possibility of salmon reaching the spawning grounds. I would suggest also that additional consideration be given to the control of harbour seals at the mouth of Miramichi bay.
Activities in the oyster culture field have been most encouraging in the last ten years. Over 450 private leases for the culture of oysters have been granted along the northeastern shore of New Brunswick, most of those being located in Gloucester county. The oyster crop for New Brunswick increased from a mere few thousand barrels in 1940 to 32,000 barrels in 1948. Oyster leases in the Maisonnette and Shippigan areas deserve all the assistance and service available from the oyster culture section. Rumours have reached me that the staff at the Shippigan substation will be reduced to a minimum. Here again I wish to stress the importance of this particular service and ask for further expansion of facilities, rather than a curtailment of the present organization.

Supply-Fisheries
An estimate of slightly over $1 million is set aside for the operation and maintenance of the inspection branch. I want to congratulate the minister and his department for the responsibility that has been assumed in assuring that the fxs'h reach the buyer and consumer in prime condition. A rigid system of inspection is necessary for raw material as well as for the operating methods and plant sanitation. Considerable progress has been achieved in this field during the last three or four years and further efforts should be made to train help in the various operations involved in handling, curing and preparing for market the various fish products.
I was pleased to see the minister, his deputy and his chief of the inspection staff attend the annual meeting of the National Fisheries Institute of America at Cleveland, Ohio, earlier this week. I am convinced, from the minister's own statement this afternoon, that he and his deputy minister came back impressed by what was said and what they saw at the National Fisheries Institute meeting concerning the possibilities for our deep-sea fishing industry. This new method of marketing frozen or pre-cooked cod fillets, known as fish sticks, could easily revolutionize our cod fishing industry. It could *easily mean an additional outlet for approximately 30 million pounds of frozen cod fillets or 90 million pounds of fresh ground fish. Here again I strongly urge the minister and his department to closely follow this new development and, through adequate controls, prevent abuses that might lead to the loss of this important new outlet.
It was with satisfaction that I listened to the minister earlier this afternoon tell the house about the improvement in market conditions for the different varieties of fish. The sending of a trade mission to Portugal, Greece and Italy should be of great benefit to the salt cod industry. His statement concerning the condition of our domestic market was most encouraging, and his department is to be complimented for its achievement in this field.
The newly created markets and economic service has added much needed statistical information on the fisheries of Canada. The department is to be commended for its activities and close attention to current events affecting the market for fish, as well as its closer relationship with the trade commission service of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The establishment of a program of insurance for fishermen's boats and gear is another evidence of the department's [DOT]determination to improve the social welfare of Canadian fishermen. Let us hope that the minister will consider the advisability of

extending this benefit to a wider field, covering additional types of gear and larger fishing vessels.
I should like to bring to the minister's attention a resolution passed at the last annual meeting of the fisheries council of Canada held in Ottawa on April 26-28 last. The resolution reads as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that the fisheries council of Canada request the government of Canada to amend the present regulations so as to permit fishing craft over 65 feet in length of Canadian registry to fish to within three miles of the coastline of Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to question the advisability of such a move. I realize that foreign registered craft are permitted to fish to within three miles of the Canadian coast line. I understand also that there is no indication that within the near future there may be international agreement on the twelve mile limit for coastal waters. I would suggest, however, that before taking any decision to amend existing regulations serious consideration be given to the condition of deep-sea fishermen along the Quebec, Prince Edward Island and northeastern New Brunswick shores.
In Gloucester county we have one of the most modern and most effective deep-sea fishing fleets on this continent. In less than eight years our fishermen, with federal and provincial assistance, have built up a fleet of 50 modern draggers valued at over $1-75 million. This fleet has revolutionized the entire fishing industry of the area, and in the last few years Quebec and Prince Edward Island have adopted our fishing methods. All these vessels measure less than 60 feet in length, and their yearly operation is limited to less than six months because of ice conditions. In view of this situation I would suggest that the interested fishermen be consulted before any decision is reached concerning this resolution.
Before closing my remarks I should like to call to the minister's attention a matter of great concern to our commercial fishermen. It is unfortunate that our fishermen cannot qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. It is true that this particular problem comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour, but I am suggesting to the Minister of Fisheries that a joint committee be formed representing the departments here to study the possibility of covering commercial fishermen by unemployment insurance. I cannot see why an engineer, cook or deckhand employed for a period of five or six months a year on a fishing vessel, cannot be asked to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund in order to qualify for benefits during his period of unemployment in the winter

months. We must not forget that the fishing season closes in October or November, and it is late for the fishermen to look elsewhere for employment. Let us hope that something will be done to remedy the situation and that we can count on the co-operation of the Department of Fisheries in this case.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister's review of the fishing industry of the country. I should like also to congratulate his deputy minister upon having been appointed chairman of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries. With that congratulation goes an expression of my happiness concerning the site chosen for the headquarters of that organization which, we are told, is to be at Halifax. It is most fortunate that it should be in the maritime provinces. I am particularly interested in this organization because its activities cover the gulf of St. Lawrence, an area in which I am directly interested.
In the province from which I come, Prince Edward Island, while perhaps in terms of some other provinces the fishing industry is not large, it is of relatively great importance. In that province our chief industries are agriculture, fishing and the tourist industry. In an indirect way the fisheries are of interest to the tourists, and serve as an attraction to them.
I was interested in what the minister had to say with regard to the conservation of fish and other marine life, but I am not too sure that some of the solutions he suggested are as simple as the figures he gave would indicate. While the minister pointed out the amount of fish required to feed one seal, and that the amount of fish destroyed by seals was greater than that used for human consumption, I would observe that before the balance in nature was artificially disturbed by the colonization of North America, especially on the east coast, there were great numbers of seals. They were present at that time in much greater numbers than at present. Yet, the whole area was teeming with fish.
This was specially true of the gulf of St. Lawrence, not only in the matter of seals but also what we call sea cows, and other marine animals which feed on the fish. If the reason given by the minister were the only explanation, or even one of the main reasons for the depletion of the numbers of fish, the supply would have been depleted at that time.
I think one of the reasons our natural wealth in fish has been depleted is perhaps a more obscure one. It is possible that it may be due to the pollution of our streams, or to other causes of that kind which are not so readily seen. I would hope that there will be
Supply-Fisheries
success in any endeavours made to restore the potential fishing wealth of the gulf of St. Lawrence to something approaching what it was a few years ago, or perhaps what it was a great many years ago.
While it may not be generally known, the fact is that when eastern Canada was first colonized, or when the coasts of that part of Canada were first fished by European fishermen, one of the greatest fishing grounds was that of the gulf of St. Lawrence, and it is said that it compared favourably at that time with the Grand Banks. During the sixteenth century the gulf of St. Lawrence was perhaps the greatest whaling area in the whole world, and attracted large numbers of whalers. As the minister has said, today no whaling is carried on along the east coast.
In the middle part of the sixteenth century large numbers of Basque sailors came annually to hunt whales in the gulf. Perhaps hon. members would pardon me if I were to substantiate this point by quoting from some early personal observations of conditions in the gulf of St. Lawrence as they are set out in volume VIII of Hakluyt's Voyages. The first has to do with a voyage of Charles Leigh and divers others to Cape Breton and the isle of Ramea who, in 1597, passed through the Magdalen islands and entered the gulf of St. Lawrence. Speaking of their first entry of the gulf he states:
In that place we caught great store of cods, which were larger and better fish then any in Newfoundland.
Later on he says:
And upon the lesse of these Islands of Birds-
And the Bird islands were discussed yesterday in reference to their use as a bird sanctuary.
-we saw great store of Morsses or Sea Oxen, which were a sleepe upon the rockes: but when we approehed nere unto them with our boate they cast themselves into the sea and pursued us with such furie as that we were glad to flee from them.
Apparently they were in a small boat.
The 16 we arrived at Brians Island, which lyeth 5 leagues West from the Islands of Birds. About this island ther is as great aboundance of cods as in any place can be found. In little more then an houre we caught with 4 hookes 250 of them.
Then in 1534 Jacques Cartier had this to say about his entrance to the gulf of St. Lawrence:
A point of land being passed about a league from white Sand, there is a port and passage found called the Islettes, a better place then white Sand: and there is great fishing.
And then again, speaking of his observations made just after leaving the baie de Chaleur, he wrote:
In the meane time wee sawe a great multitude of wilde men that were fishing for mackerels, whereof there is great store.

Supply-Fisheries
Then there is another very interesting reference with regard to whaling. This is in relation to a voyage made from Bristol in the year 1594 by a ship called the Grace of Bristol, owned by a man named Mr. Rice Jones. It made a voyage to the gulf of St. Lawrence at that time. He speaks first of the island of St. Pierre, which he calls S. Pedro:
In these isles of S. Pedro there is a faire harbour which we went into with our barke, and found there two ships of Sibiburo fishing for cod: where we stayed two dayes and tooke in balest for our ship.
Then a little further on he has this to say:
Then wee departed thence, and as we came out of the harbours mouth we laid the ship upon the lee, and in two houres space we tooke with our hookes 300 or 400 great cods for our provision of our ship.
Further on he had this to say, after they entered the gulf of St. Lawrence:
In this bay of Saint George we found the wrackes of two great Biskaine ships which had beene cast away three yeeres before, where we had some 700 or 800 whale finnes and some yron bolts and chaines or their mayne shroudes and fore shroudes.
Then he mentions that there was a great store of whale oil in puncheons at that time, but it had been destroyed in the meantime by the surf. That was in the year 1594. At a much later date, just after confederation apparently, the resources of the gulf fishery were still very great, and I quote from a booklet which is put out by the Canadian citizenship branch. It has this to say in connection with the fisheries resources:
Great concern was felt over the violation of Canadian waters by American fishing vessels. The extent of their operations was such that there were often "between 400 and 500 United States fishing craft in the gulf of St. Lawrence alone, with a tonnage of over 30,000, manned by over 6,000 men, taking fish to the value of over $1 million."
It would seem to me that at the present time the gulf of St. Lawrence has lost its pre-eminent place as a great fishing area. But I am pleased to see that new methods have been brought into use recently. I refer to the draggers which are now being used in the gulf. I hope the venture proves successful, and I think it has possibilities of proving successful from a marketing point of view, because of the new methods which the minister mentioned with regard to filleting of fish. A new and very energetic little plant is operating in Souris in Prince Edward Island. Although it is not in my constituency I am very pleased to say that up to now at least it seems to be progressing very well and quite successfully. The real key to the success of reviving the fishing industry of the gulf of St. Lawrence so that its potentialities can be fully realized lies perhaps in further research into the causes
IMr. MacLean.]
of fish depletion, and then of course the framing of suitable regulations to correct the cause of that depletion.
In that connection I should like the minister to review briefly, but perhaps in greater detail than he did, if I am not imposing on him too much, the success that is attending the conservation of the chief types of fish which are taken in that area, with special reference to lobsters, oysters, cod and also Atlantic salmon.
There is not too much more I want to say, but I should like special reference made to the benefits, if any, which are accruing from the new type of measurement of lobsters, the carapace method, which is brought into use and the new regulation with regard to the measurement of lobsters. I would also be pleased if the minister would give us some information on the operation of a new scheme of insurance as far as lobster fishermen are concerned. I refer to the insurance that is now available to them for insuring their gear. I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the committee just now, but I have a few questions that I shall put on the appropriate item.


Mr. Dickey:: I too want to congratulate the Minister of Fisheries on the interesting and excellent review that he gave us of the operations of the department and some of the more important aspects of the international work that is being done over the broad field of fisheries research and conservation these days, in which Canada is playing such an important and essential part. It was a good speech, and the minister deserves the compliments that he has received upon it. But I think it should be said that his speech was only an example of the intelligent and vigorous effort that the minister is putting into the carrying out of his responsibilities in this important portfolio of fisheries, and it bespeaks well for the future of the department and of the department's work that we have a minister such as the hon. gentleman who holds this portfolio at the present time.
I should also say that we all recognize the minister receives excellent support and cooperation, and I am sure good advice, from his deputy minister and the other officials who are experts in their fields, and who have over the years obviously exercised good judgment and have taken a very long range and sensible view of fisheries problems, and have made great contributions to the advances that have been achieved.
The fishing industry is one of great importance to my province of Nova Scotia, and of particular importance to the constituency of Halifax. In Halifax we have important

shore fisheries; we have a long coast line with good small harbours, and from those harbours the fishermen go out in small boats to prosecute the very important and valuable lobster fishery and also in other seasons the mackerel, herring, cod, and haddock fisheries as well. In addition, we have quite a bit of activity in the important sword fishing part of the industry, and over the last few years some of our boats have had great success in this field.
We also have in Halifax a very important concentration of the deep-sea fisheries, both the salt fishery and the fresh fish industry. The deep-sea draggers, trawlers and long-liners come in out of Halifax to land their catches at the fish plants of the salt fish producers, and more importantly at the modern and efficient plants of the several large companies that specialize in fresh and frozen fillets and other fish products of that kind.
The fresh fish side of the industry is greatly assisted in Halifax by the modern cold storage facilities which are maintained there by the national harbours board and which are used almost exclusively by the fishing industry. Recently these facilities have been modernized and extended to the great advantage of the fish companies which rely on the freezing, cooling and ice capacity of this plant, and I am sure the importance of the existence of these facilities is recognized by the fisheries department as a real contribution to the expansion of the industry throughout this whole area. I might add that further extension and improvement of the cold storage facilities is required, and I am sure that in due time these additional improvements will be brought into effect.
However, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I wanted to make particular reference in my few remarks to the research activities being carried on under the direction of the Department of Fisheries at the northwest Atlantic fisheries experimental station at Halifax. The studies proceeding there are of both a practical and scientific nature. The practical studies are in the field of the techniques, machinery and other requirements for the modernization of our methods of handling and catching fish. The problems of properly storing fish which are caught on the high seas and bringing them into port in prime condition are very great indeed. The experimental station at Halifax, and the experimental station at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, have been conducting studies and experiments which have resulted in the improved design of fishing boats, trawlers, and draggers, and in the inclusion in newly-constructed boats of this nature of special
Supply-Fisheries
means of cooling and keeping fish clean and fresh until delivered at the processing plants.
So far as the equipment of the processing plants are concerned, they have made important contributions to the design of automatic filleting, skinning and cutting machines, and to the design and operation of automatic driers for the drying of fish; and of smoking machines for the production of various kinds of smoked fish. All these practical improvements and advances have been made freely available to the industry and they have been gladly accepted and put into use by the various branches of the industry to the great advantage, not only of the people directly connected, both operators and fishermen, but also of the consumers who as a result have received a better, more nutritious and more delicious product for their tables.
I was very interested in the reference the minister made this afternoon to the development of fish sticks. This is typical of the kind of advance that can be made in the fishing industry, and it certainly exemplifies the fact that if sufficient thought is given by the people connected with the fishing industry to new methods and new means of getting their product to the ultimate consumer in a form which is not only palatable but acceptable, also finished and easy to use, then their marketing problems are well on the way to solution.
Besides this work in the practical field, the experimental station also does important work on the basic science connected with the fishing industry. Studies are being conducted on the effect of the natural slime, with which the fish is encased in its natural habitat; on the keeping qualities and flavour of the fish; on the salts that are required in certain processes of preserving fish; and on the elimination of impurities and that sort of thing. All these basic and important studies are being carried on and there is no doubt they are producing information which will lead to the solution of various basic problems in the fishing industry.
The existence of this experimental station was, I believe, one of the main factors in the decision which was reached to establish the headquarters of the council of the northwest Atlantic fisheries council at Dalhousie University in Halifax. I believe that decision was justified in every sense of the word. We are all, I think, very pleased and consider it most appropriate that the permanent headquarters of this council should be in Canada. To us that was the main consideration, but so far as we were concerned in Halifax we felt that not only should it be in Canada but that the ideal place for it was

Supply-Fisheries
in Halifax. Over a period of several years many of us had brought to the attention of the various officials who were considering this serious question the reasons why it appeared to us that Halifax was the logical and best place for the establishment of these headquarters. I am delighted that our views were concurred in and that this step was taken. I hope the members of the secretariat of that headquarters are finding their stay in Halifax a pleasure, and that they will find the scientific and library facilities available to them there of great assistance in the carrying on of the important work being done by this organization.
As I understand it, the purpose of this northwest Atlantic fisheries council is to control the exploitation of what the minister referred to this afternoon as the greatest single fisheries in the world. I refer to the great fisheries concentrated around the Grand Banks in Newfoundland, and the fisheries which stretch up north into the Arctic circle in the vicinity of Greenland and Labrador, and stretch into the gulf of St. Lawrence, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Queens who immediately preceded me, and which stretch down the Atlantic coast along the banks which lie off the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia and around into the bay of Fundy and along the Atlantic coast of the United States. This whole area is tremendously productive in fisheries. More and more we are coming to realize that the best long-range interests of everyone connected with this great industry lie in the proper conservation of these great resources and the prosecution of the fisheries in a way which will contribute to their maximum productivity without damaging the long-range future of the industry.
The hon. member for Queens read to the committee from historical works a number of quotations which indicate the prolific fishery which existed in the periods to which he referred, three hundred or four hundred years ago. After four centuries of extensive fishing we could not expect that these conditions would still exist, nor should we expect that these conditions can be brought back again without an almost complete closing off of the fisheries. However, I think we can look forward to and expect a similar experience to that which has been realized in other places. As a result of policies of conservation and proper exploitation of resources of this kind I think we can look forward to establishing in the Atlantic provinces extensive modern facilities for the preparation and production of modern fish products, with an assurance and confidence that there will be maintained a fish population sufficient to provide the raw material which these great industries require.

I am sure that few members of the committee and perhaps few members of the public, even in the Atlantic provinces, realize the tremendous expansion, in terms of capital expenditure, that has gone on in the fishing industry since the end of the war. On the Atlantic coast over the last four or five years large and important new processing plants have been built in various locations such as Louisburg, Arichat, Petite de Grat. Facilities in the industry have also been modernized and increased in Halifax, Canso, Lockeport and in many other locations too numerous to mention. These capital expenditures, for their usefulness and for their productivity, depend on the maintenance of a supply of raw fish. That is one of the main objectives of the council to which I have referred. These fisheries are international fisheries and must be shared. If they are to be shared between nations the only sensible way to organize those fisheries is by a co-operative international council such as the one that has been established with headquarters at Halifax.
In this connection I should like to mention a problem that was also mentioned by the hon. member for Gloucester. A rather embarrassing and difficult situation exists in connection with the limits which are imposed upon trawlers and draggers of Canadian registry and Canadian ownership and those which ply their trade in our waters which come from other countries. The situation is brought about by a difference in ground rules, as we might say.
Under international law non-Canadian ships are entitled to come within three miles of the coast. In other words, they are entitled to drag right up to what Canada regards as her international boundary at sea. However, Canadian vessels over a certain size are restricted to twelve miles from the coast line. In other words, there is an additional nine miles of ocean. I think that this is a situation that should not be permitted to continue. I know that it is not exclusively a problem of the Department of Fisheries. It also involves our concept of international law and would involve the Department of External Affairs. I am also aware that this question of territorial waters and international regulation of the use of such waters is an extremely confused one. However, I submit that it would not contribute greatly to the confusion if Canada were to take a firm stand that would at least put our own fishing vessels on a basis of equality with those from other countries.
I was also pleased to hear the minister refer to the steps that have been taken to organize the conservation of the Atlantic salmon fisheries over the whole Atlantic area. I think these arrangements were necessary

and perhaps somewhat overdue. The Atlantic salmon is one of our important commercial fish on the Atlantic coast and its future must be safeguarded. Not only is it an important commercial fish but, as the minister mentioned, it is an important sport fish as well. So far as sport fishing is concerned, in Nova Scotia the fisheries are free to all who wish to enjoy them. Therefore when we speak of sport fisheries for Atlantic salmon, trout or anything of that nature in Nova Scotia, there is no question of thinking of something that is exclusively the privilege of those who are better off and have plenty of leisure time to enjoy this sport. It is a sport that is open to every citizen in our province; and I am glad to say that it is enjoyed by a large majority of our people. However, they are more and more coming to recognize the necessity, in their own best interests, of cooperating with measures of conservation particularly with respect to the Atlantic salmon.
The guardian services of the Department of Fisheries have been improved over the past few years to my own knowledge and to my own satisfaction. However, I think that improvements could still be made. From contacts that I have had in my own county, I am sure that the officials of the department will find ready co-operation from a vast majority of the people with whom they will have to come in contact in connection with matters of this kind. I am sure the officials in that area will report to the minister that they find that kind of co-operation.
I was delighted particularly to hear the minister refer to the steps being taken to deal with the predatory birds that are a real problem on our streams. This matter has been discussed by the fish and game associations in Halifax. They were especially concerned about it, and I was delighted to hear the minister report that arrangements have been made whereby this scourge can be at least brought under some sort of control. I do not want to detain the committee any longer at this time, but I should like to repeat my congratulations to the minister and to tell him that the east coast fishermen and fish operators are very pleased with the way that he has taken over the responsibilities of his department. We are glad to welcome a man of such knowledge of the west coast fisheries to the east coast, and we wish him well.


Leonard T. Stick: Much has been said today regarding fish, and the minister has given us a splendid survey of the fishing industry for the whole of Canada. I think he has worked hard and energetically since taking office. His report today shows just how hard he has worked and the progress that has been made since he assumed office. In no
Supply-Fisheries
sense of criticism may I say that I noticed that he spoke in greater detail of the fishing on the west coast than he did of fishing on the east. That is quite natural because he knows from a personal standpoint the problems of the fishery of British Columbia. However, we hope that in time he will familiarize himself just as much with the fishery of the east as he has with that of the west.
Newfoundland was born and spawned on fish. Over 450 years ago it was the discovery of the tremendous quantities of fish around our coasts that led to the discovery of Newfoundland and the settlements which were formed there later. Fishing has been a national problem to us through those 450 years. It is still our national problem. Anything which concerns fishing concerns the great majority of our people and the economy of the province of Newfoundland.
I was very glad to hear the minister say that the market for salt codfish is improving. I must take his word for it, but when I was home at Easter there was great concern about markets among those who export our fish. They told me that there was no improvement in sight as far as prices were concerned, and certainly they were not exporting as much as they had at the same time last year. Perhaps that situation has improved since then. If it has, I am very glad to hear it.
Mention has been made of the curing and grading of salt codfish. That has been a problem with us for very many years. May I suggest to the minister and his officials that they should give serious consideration to the grading of our fish. I suggest that instead of having a sworn culler employed by the merchant the government should take over this service and appoint government cullers so that there will be no dispute when the fishermen sell their fish as to what quality they are going to receive. The problem has been with us for many years and causes us a lot of concern. It is the cause of much dispute. I know something about the problem because I am a culler myself, and I have culled fish. If you are going to have one grade whereby the fishermen are paid according to that grade then the government will have to take over the service so that there will be uniformity of grading. I bring that to the attention of the departmental officials and I ask them to give it serious consideration.
Mention was also made of fish sticks. This is a new process for the fishing industry and it is capable of tremendous expansion. I was informed when home that one big firm in Newfoundland has had an order for 10 million pounds which it cannot supply. The hon. member for Gloucester said that this

Supply-Fisheries
market is capable of expansion to 30 million pounds. I would double it and call it 60 million pounds if we have the facilities to supply the market. We have the greatest and the best market in the world right on our front doorstep. That is the market that I think we should cultivate and go after. If we do I think many of our fish marketing problems will be solved.
There are over 170 million people in Canada and the United States and there is a natural increase of three or four million a year. These people have to be fed and they need fish. If our fishing industry is alive to the situation and its possibilities, if they go after this market, I feel sure it will solve many of the marketing problems we have on our hands today.
I am sorry to say that the salt codfish industry in Newfoundland has been in a depressed state for a number of years. This is not the fault of the fishermen or anybody in particular. The problem has been with us for many years and it is not easy of solution. So much so is the problem with us that our people are giving up fishing, and if it continues for a few more years we will have very few people fishing. An effort has been made this year, through the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to set up a different marketing system. I do not wish to speak about it because the government has not made any pronouncement with respect to it yet. However, the minister said this afternoon that there will be a guaranteed price to our fishermen, and that in itself will do much to get them fishing again this summer.
When I was home one fisherman asked me about it and when I informed him of this he said: "I am going fishing again". I am glad the announcement was made by the minister this afternoon because I think it is a very important one. I hope the price will be announced in the near future so that our fishermen will have some guarantee as to where they stand this year and some encouragement to prosecute the fishery as they have done in the past. This is very important, and I hope the minister or those responsible will make the announcement as soon as possible because in a very short time now our fishermen will be getting ready to prosecute the fishery.
I have one thing to say regarding scientific research. Much has been going on in Newfoundland and eastern Canada in the last few years with respect to research into our fisheries. There is one type of fish that I want to bring to the attention of the minister and his officials. It is a fish that we call capelin and it rolls in on our beaches in the

hundreds of millions. Nothing has ever been done with it although it is a tasty fish and one that I think has great possibilities. I do emphasize here and now that the minister should take steps to get his research department to do something about research on this fish because in my opinion there are great possibilities if proper research is carried out. At the present time it is used mostly for fertilizer in Newfoundland. This is a waste of good food, and I think it should be stopped. I think some method should be found to process the fish and market it. I believe if it gets to market people will take to it.
Mention has also been made of the trade mission to Europe of the Minister of Public Works. We have a problem that arises through fishermen from European countries coming to fish on the Grand Banks. It has been said that this is the greatest reserve of fish in the world today. The Grand Banks lie some 110 to 120 miles off the coast of Newfoundland. So much intensive fishing has been done there in the last few years that there are signs of depletion. The international commission that has been set up must look into the matter, and if these people are to enjoy the privilege of coming to our shores and getting supplies, which they do every year and which we want to continue, then they must give us something in return. This is a bargaining point which I hope will not be overlooked by the minister when he goes to Europe. I hope he will emphasize that point. We have enjoyed the friendship of Portugal and Spain in these fishing grounds off Newfoundland for hundreds of years. We want that to continue, but trade is a two-way street. We do not want to give all the privileges to them and get nothing in return.
I mentioned this fact, and I mentioned also that I hoped the personnel of this commission going over to Europe would include a representative of NAFEL. If the minister wishes to reply, I would ask him to give me the names of the gentlemen who will form that commission. I feel that it is important that a representative of NAFEL, our marketing agency, should be a member of that commission. I advocated that a year ago when the trade commission went to South America, but nothing was done. I advocate that again now, and stress the fact that I consider it essential.
Now, we come to international conservation. Mention has been made here of the three mile limit. Foreign trawlers, some of them up to 2,000 tons, come by the hundreds to fish in Newfoundland waters. They can come within three miles of our coast. There is a lot of confusion about this three mile

limit. It is not a definite international law. It came into being many years ago when Newfoundland had a dispute with the French people over the fishing grounds, and an award was made on that basis by The Hague court. I spoke about that two years ago. It is not a definite limit, and the matter was under review by the old league of nations, who did not settle the problem, and I believe it is now under review by the United Nations.
Until a definite ruling is made there is no reason why we should adhere to the three mile limit. Our shore fishermen in Newfoundland fish beyond three miles from our coast, and there are many good fishing grounds within the twelve mile area from our coast. I feel the time has come when we should review this situation and establish a twelve mile limit the same as the United States did when they had this rum row situation some years ago. It only needs a little courage to take the step. Norway has a four mile limit. If we press for a twelve mile limit we will protect our fisheries as they were never protected before.
So far as conservation is concerned, the Grand Banks are the breeding ground for a lot of our fish, and that fish comes to our shores in enormous quantities. Any depletion of the Grand Banks is going to affect our shore fisheries. For that reason I stress the point that under these international commissions we should take up this matter of the draggers going over these grounds and spoiling the spawning grounds. This is vital to us and it is a matter which must be given grave consideration.
Another matter I wish to mention has to do with the fisheries on the west coast, and the new methods of catching herring. These herring come into the Bay of Islands in the millions, but for the last few years they have not been coming into the bay. The fishermen say it is because the draggers go out and catch them in the deep water. If these operations continue the herring will be depleted. Some people say that is the cause of it, but I do not know. It is time we had a study made, a proper survey made of that important industry so far as the west coast is concerned.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that if we could have a set-up on the east coast the same as they have on the west coast, which I saw in 1950, we would have no complaints in regard to this department. They have the best organized set-up that we have in Canada. We want a similar set-up on the east coast, and the quicker we get it the better. When we get it I believe a lot of our fishing problems will be solved. We are beginning a new era so far as the east coast fishery is concerned. I have far more
Supply-Fisheries
hope today for our fishing industry than I ever had. However, it needs constant supervision; it needs the best men we can get in the industry; and it needs push and go from this department and the provincial government. It needs a strong pull and a pull all together. By doing that, I believe we can put this important industry on its feet. Then,, we will not have to come here with complaints about a depressed industry.
I bring these matters that are of vital importance to the minister's attention today, and I trust that these matters will be given proper consideration and that we will have a happy industry. I know that is the aim of the minister. We will have an industry that will be a credit to this country, an industry that will be valuable to the country, and one that will grow in value as time passes.


Mr. Barneii:: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, like other members in various parts of the house I found the preliminary speech delivered this afternoon by the Minister of Fisheries a most interesting and fruitful one. I must say that on the basis of such knowledge as I have been able to acquire in the relatively short time I have been a member of the house I find myself in agreement with most of the policies of his department, as he outlined them this afternoon.
That is particularly true in reference to his remarks in connection with what is being done by the department in the field of conservation, and of national and international work to protect our fishing resources. I was particularly pleased to note that he mentioned the appointment of Dr. Kask as permanent chairman of the fisheries research board, because I feel from such knowledge as I have been able to acquire that the most important thing about knowledge in connection with fisheries is the somewhat astounding lack of knowledge of mankind concerning this subject, even though fishing is one of the oldest means of providing a livelihood.
There was one item the minister mentioned, about the real significance of which I have been wondering. I wish he might have expounded a little more upon it. When referring to British Columbia, as I recall it, he said that we could have our power and our fishing, too. He is probably as much or more

Supply-Fisheries
familiar than I am with the various suggestions advanced from time to time as to the development of the power potential of the Fraser river system; and he has probably seen more than I have of those diagrams showing the Fraser river with a long series of dams and lakes. I am wondering whether his statement means that actually it has now become possible for the full power potential of the Fraser river system to be developed and, at the same time, not interfere with our Pacific coast salmon fisheries.
He made mention of the experience in connection with the Columbia river system. I recall having read some time ago the suggestion that it was discovered in connection with that system that the principal problem was not that of getting the salmon up the stream to spawn as much as it was one of getting the young fish down. As I gathered from the article I read on the subject, when they first made power installations on the Columbia they had not realized that that was going to be the problem it eventually became, or that they were going to lose the young fingerlings as they went through the mill-races of the various power plants.
I am under the impression that some research has been under way in regard to that particular problem, and I would hope that before the discussion is completed the minister would clarify for us as to whether that research has reached the point where we have the techniques which would make it possible, as it is there, to use the full power potential of the Fraser river system and at the same time be assured that our fisheries resources could be preserved.
There is only one other point I should like to mention. I wished the minister might have said something more with respect to the plans he has in mind concerning the recently inaugurated fishermen insurance scheme. I think it is important that some consideration be given to this matter. This is particularly so in the light of the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance in which he proposes amendments to the Income Tax Act which, if they become law, may affect adversely the fishermen's co-operative insurance scheme operating on the Pacific coast at the present time.
Certainly I know, as the minister probably does, that the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Mutual Marine Insurance Company is somewhat concerned about item No. 6 in the resolution where the amendment to the Income Tax Act is proposed. I would suggest that if that particular amendment does go through, and has the adverse effect the organization fears it may have, there may be need for increased consideration to be

given to the extension of the present form of insurance. I realize this is not the place to debate in detail proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act. However I do feel there is a very definite connection in view of the fact that the fishermen on the Pacific coast have themselves developed a cooperative insurance plan to assist in protecting them from loss in connection with their boats and gear.
I believe that concludes all I have to say at the moment.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I must admit this evening that I have not spent much time during this session speaking on behalf of the fishermen in my own riding or in any other part of the country. The reason is that I have more or less left it up to the hon. member for New Westminster who, on a number of occasions has presented various arguments and made pleas on their behalf. I have lent my support to these statements as he has made them on different occasions. This afternoon I too enjoyed very much and benefited very greatly from the speech made by the Minister of Fisheries and I feel that I understand a little better the problems of fishing and fisheries than I did this time yesterday.
I was thinking that there must have come to the minister a sense of satisfaction when he listened to all the verbal bouquets that were handed to him. He has done very well in comparison with some of the other ministers who have preceded him. I fear that some of them did not receive too many bouquets. However, I am reminded of the fact-and I should like to mention this- that when the proposition regarding the closure of the Fraser river above the Pattullo bridge was first advanced I asked two questions on the orders of the day. The first one was, as reported at page 3029 of Hansard:
Will the minister state whether or not a decision has been reached with respect to the closure of the Fraser river above the New Westminster bridge to commercial fishing?
At that time the minister replied:
The answer to his question is no. I hope to be able to announce a decision before I meet the fishermen's union in convention next week in Vancouver.
I asked a supplementary question on that same occasion as follows:
Before any such decision is made, will the minister consider the possibility of giving the fishermen in that area one year's notice so they will have an opportunity to dispose of their equipment, if they so desire, and secure a livelihood in some other occupation.
The answer of the minister to that question was that my question was not quite applicable because all they were considering

was a little earlier closure on two species of salmon in that area. Later on, a definite announcement was made that the closure was going to be put into effect. This brought forth a great many objections on behalf of those engaged in the fishing industry. I received a letter from the Albion local of the united fishermen's union protesting the measure, and there were some other submissions which set forth alternative proposals. But we are very happy to hear that the minister has given further consideration to this matter, and instead of setting the date in September as he had already stated, it is being placed at October 8 this year. I trust that before next year's closure date is reached circumstances will be revealed that will make it unnecessary to shorten further the fishing season in that area.
Although we are very appreciative of the action that has been taken by the minister, and we want to express our appreciation to him for that consideration, we trust, as I say, that further consideration will be given and some new facts brought to light that will enable him to allow the fishermen to continue fishing operations in the area between the New Westminster and the Mission bridges.


Mr. Goode:: I do not know whether it is in a spirit of surprise or not, but everyone seems to think that the Minister of Fisheries has done an exceptional job on his estimates. I think the final conclusion is that he comes from British Columbia.
In regard to fishing between the New Westminster bridge and the bridge at Mission, may I point out to the hon. member for Fraser Valley that I would not say too much to my people at home about the Minister of Fisheries not doing what he says. He has been very kind this time, and I think very reasonable, in allowing these chaps to have another year, but I do not know that I would agree that fishing above the New Westminster bridge should be continued after this year.
But again I must take the proposition brought up by the hon. member for New Westminster this evening when he said that some of his people would be down in my territory to fish. The Minister of Fisheries and I will have to have a consultation about that, I hope, before the next fishing season comes around, because we have too many fishermen at Steveston now. These men are full-time fishermen. We have very few parttime fishermen. Most of my people own $6,000 to $12,000 boats. They do not do anything else but fish. That is their livelihood, and that livelihood should be protected. If you are going to allow part-time fishermen from the Fraser valley to come into the lower 83276-287
Supply-Fisheries
part of the Fraser river and fish, then I think the member for Burnaby-Richmond will again be on his feet making the same kind of fight for his people.
There is a suggestion regarding licences on the Fraser river that I hope the Minister of Fisheries will take into consideration. 1 am fully in agreement that there are too many people fishing on the river. The difficulty seems to be this: What are we going to do about it? Why not do this? Why not create a different type of licence for deep-sea fishing and for fishing in the Fraser river? Why not make this a solution to the whole matter, that a man must be a full-time fisherman, using that phrase "his only means of livelihood" before he can get a fishing licence. Let us stop those sport fishermen from getting commercial licences. Too many men running small cruisers are working in Pacific waters or waters adjacent to Vancouver catching more fish than they should.
As an example, perhaps I am one of those at fault. I have a small boat, and in 1952 I went to the fisheries inspector of Steveston and got a commercial licence to see just what you had to do to get one of those important documents. All it meant was that I paid $1, signed a piece of paper and I was a commercial fisherman. I do not say this to the minister in a spirit of criticism, but it should be looked into because every Tom, Dick and Harry with an outboard motor can have a commercial fishing licence.
I want to bring this to the attention of the minister. He and the Associate Minister of National Defence were kind enough to assist, and in fact did most of the work in getting the new fishing harbour at Steveston which will take care of most of our small boats during southeast gales. There is a matter, though, that I wish to bring to his attention and that is the matter of $70,000. That amount of money represents the difference between the amount in last year's estimates for this fishing harbour and the amount that was finally awarded to a contractor on the lower mainland. That $70,000 would just about take care of floats for the men at Steveston. And if the Minister of Fisheries will kindly speak to his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, and get that $70,000 spent on floats for the fish harbour at Steveston I know my people would be very happy.
I want to say something about the trade delegation that the Minister of Fisheries spoke about this afternoon. Again I think my riding can take a little credit. Mr. Ken Fraser, who is manager of the Imperial cannery at Steveston, led that delegation. In conjunction with other executives of the fishing industry of British Columbia, and

Supply-Fisheries
with the very great help of the Minister of Fisheries, certain negotiations were conducted in Great Britain and, as we know, a contract was given to Canada for $5,200,000 worth of canned salmon for this year. I do not think too much can be said for Mr. Fraser and his associates. That work was done by an industry working for itself and for the fishermen on the river. Too few industries in Canada try to do this work on their own behalf.
Usually when an industry gets into difficulty they come to the government for assistance. I have taken my part in this house in asking the minister to do something about canned salmon stocks in British Columbia to the point where, at one time when things were desperate, I asked for some type of subsidy. The Minister of Fisheries did not agree with me at that time and I think the reason why he did not agree with me was because he had this other arrangement prepared whereby representatives of the industry were to go to Great Britain. They did a wonderful job there and I think Mr. Fraser and his colleagues are to be highly commended and I offer my compliments to these gentlemen.
I do wish to say in conclusion, and I am keeping my remarks brief because I do not wish to speak at too great length, that there is a matter I would like to bring to the attention of the minister and that is the problem of poaching in Queen Charlotte. The minister this afternoon mentioned that a helicopter service is being used in the Atlantic. It seems to me that the problem of dealing with poachers in the mouth of some of the small rivers in Queen Charlotte could be handled in the same way. Poachers cannot be tracked down entirely by fisheries patrol boats and I believe a helicopter should be used to great advantage and I hope the minister will consider that suggestion.
I would like to mention one other thing. The minister's department has a man by the name of Mr. Rothery who is the inspector in charge of part of the river at Steveston, and I would like to say to the minister and his deputy that that man is doing a very fine job there. Things at Steveston are very good fisherywise, and I think this gentleman is responsible for the very fine relationship which exists there between the industry and the fishermen on the river.
In conclusion, I would again compliment the minister on the finest presentation of the work of a department I have heard in this house since I first came here.


Mr. Ashbourne:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to add my congratulations to those that other hon.

members have proffered the Minister of Fisheries for the very excellent review he gave us this afternoon on the work of his department. His speech was extremely interesting and it seems to me that rather than being like a fish out of water he was entirely in his element. He has certainly obtained a very fine grasp of the problems of the fishing industry since he became the minister in charge of this department. However, being aware of his great capabilities and knowing of the success he has already achieved in the field of finance this was not altogether surprising.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is all to the good because the Department of Fisheries is very important and we are all very proud that the minister is making such a great success of his job. We believe that as time goes on the industry will see the great benefit which will arise as a result of the aggressive work already carried out by the minister and his officials in the Department of Fisheries.
In this regard, sir, I would like to say how glad the people of Newfoundland were last year to receive a visit from the deputy minister of fisheries. He spent some time in Newfoundland and I believe that from now on we shall see a great improvement in fishery development in that province. There was perhaps a little misunderstanding in Newfoundland last year with regard to the broadcast the Minister of Fisheries made at that time, but that has now been cleared up and I understand that definite plans have now been made as regards improved marketing facilities for the sale of codfish so that the producers will obtain increased benefits from their products.
Five years have now passed since Newfoundland entered confederation and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I might have the indulgence of the house in saying that all hon. members from Newfoundland, and we have seven in this house, are delighted to be here and I think I can speak on their behalf in voicing sincere thanks to other hon. members for the courtesy and friendship which they have shown us. I would also like to express the hope that the progress which has been evident since confederation will continue to be satisfactory and continue to be to our mutual advantage.
I would like to address myself to some of the problems facing our people today, with special regard to our fishermen. We are still, so to speak, in a transition period and we are grateful for the progress which has been made. We are very glad that an insurance scheme has been incorporated in the plans which have been brought into existence

so that fishermen can obtain some compensation for the loss of gear and boats due to the ravages of storms which in the past have caused great distress.
However, there is one other aspect of the insurance scheme which I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. I have no doubt he and the Minister of Labour already have this matter in mind. I refer to unemployment insurance and I would like to emphasize that this is one thing fishermen lack. During autumn when fishing comes to an end and the fishermen have to hang up their nets they are unemployed and have no claims for unemployment insurance. I believe though that this matter will receive the minister's full attention and I have every confidence that in time something will be worked out to assist our fishermen.
In Newfoundland we had in the past three different kinds of fishing. We had inshore fisheries which were carried on by shoremen; then we had bank and deep-sea fisheries carried on by the men who sailed the bankers. Then we had the Labrador fishery which was operated by shoremen who went to Labrador and also by floaters. Unfortunately since confederation we have seen a great decline in some of these fisheries, particularly in the bank fishery and most particularly in the Labrador fishery.
The shore fishery is dependent upon the winds and the tides. We know, of course, that fish must eat and that they have to go in search of food. Sometimes it happens that the winds are onshore winds. Just at the moment, on the northeast coast I believe there is quite a blockade of ice on account of the prevailing northeast winds that are operating down there at the present time. The fish, of course, have to depend on the winds, the tides and the currents. Generally speaking, when you have a lot of inwind it brings in food upon which these fish feed, thrive and grow. Then we get a good inshore fishery.
But sometimes when the winds are offshore the food on which these fish exist is taken far out into the deep water. Then these fish, of course, have to go out into the deeper water. Then there is not so much profit, return or proceeds from the catch because the fishermen have the toil of hauling their nets, and oftentimes they do not take many fish. Thus the necessity for going out after these fish is today more evident than it has ever been in the past. We realize that it has been necessary for fishermen to get long-liners, draggers and other vessels which go out and get the fish from the fishing banks.
83276-287i
Supply-Fisheries
In the past I think Newfoundland has suffered from the fact that too little capital has been available for investment in the fisheries. Today we realize that more fish plants are necessary. There is a need for modern fresh fish plants which will take the fish from the fishermen as they come in, split them, freeze them and get them ready for the most productive market, or in other words the market which would produce the largest number of dollars for our fishermen. To us, of course, that is the great United States market.
There was a time when Newfoundland was producing over a million quintals of codfish, most of which was salted. Today, however, we realize that many of our customers who used to buy our fish are producing their own. That has been especially so since the war. Of course, during the war there was little difficulty in disposing of fish. The. greatest problem in those days was transportation. It was easy then to sell fish, provided the transportation was available. We now see that these people who used to buy our fish in days gone by are, as I said before, producing their own. They come to the Grand Banks and look for fish. The result is that we are not able to sell such a large quantity of fish as used to be sold in days gone by.
As far as the Labrador fishery is concerned, I think something special will have to be done. This is not the first time that I have brought to the attention of the minister of fisheries-not the present minister but his immediate predecessor-the need for something being done for the Labrador fisheries. There is a long section of the Labrador coast line where there is an abundant fishery. In fact, as to the fishery around the island of Belle Isle-a large producing area-I understand that at one time in Paris, France, berths for Belle Isle were drawn. That fact shows that in those days when the French were fishing on the French shore-the treaty coast, as we call it even today-there was an abundance of fish around this section. It is still a large-producing section. We realize that those who go there in schooners have gone to great expense in providing themselves with vessels and gear, and that they get an abundant harvest of fish. But the market for the Labrador fish is not what it used to be. Costs of twine, netting and other equipment have gone up to such an extent that there is not much money in fishing. The result is that many people have given up fishing on the Labrador.

Supply-Fisheries
As Labrador is in my riding I should like to mention another matter of which I learned during this past summer when I was visiting the Labrador coast. I refer to the great scarcity of salt which existed during last year. I think something special will have to be done in the way of providing salt depots for the Labrador. I believe this is a matter which will have to be looked into. As we know there was the royal commission on fishery development which was investigating fisheries and which brought in its report last year. This report is being implemented. I hope that something will be done to see that salt depots are provided so that when the fish are at hand the fishermen will have a ready source of salt which will enable them to preserve the fish. In that way they will be able to have some earning power. Fishing, of course, is practically the only means of employment they can have in the summertime.
At La Scie, at which I believe a large plant is to be installed, there is also available a large catch for the fishermen. In the past they have had to salt their catch, thus getting, so to speak, a much smaller earning power than would be available to them if a filleting plant were in operation there. With the implementation of the recommendation of the report of the Walsh fishery development commission I believe that there will now be installed in Newfoundland some of these up-to-date plants which will look after, not only the filleting of the fresh fish, or the utilization of the fish in the fresh state, but will also, by modern up-to-date dryers, take care of some of the salt fish which requires to be cured.
There was a time in Newfoundland when most of the fish drying was done on the flakes, a great deal of it being done by the women of Newfoundland. In those days there was quite an art in making good fish. I noticed that this afternoon the minister emphasized the quality of fish. In those days, provided the weather was good and the climate favourable, there was no lack of good merchantable fish. But, unfortunately, it seems that in the last few years the export of merchantable fish, the best quality fish, has fallen off to a considerable degree.
The fishery, which means so much to our fishermen and which, as I said before, is the only means of livelihood for many of these people, is being looked after, and I think the provision of loans for fishermen is most necessary. These men do not have a great amount of money. They need dollars in order to procure gear and fishing boats, and an opportunity should be afforded them to obtain loans more easily in order that they may equip themselves to catch fish.

Emphasis was placed this afternoon on the question of conservation, and it is most essential. The international treaties are of mutual advantage. The Grand Banks are and have been throughout the centuries a most important reservoir of food and we should realize that there is great need for conservation of the supply so that throughout the centuries to come the fish will be available that are so essential and necessary to provide the protein that our people need.
Then there is the question of the great seal herds that come south each year and are found off the strait of Belle Isle. During the past few months several vessels have been prosecuting the seal fishery. Unfortunately there have been some losses and the catch this year was not very good. We are very thankful that the government has provided an aerial survey so that statistics can be gathered respecting the quantity of seals available. I should like to point out the great loss to our nation in the past through allowing carcasses of seal meat to go to the bottom of the ocean when they could have provided good edible food for our population. In fact the kidneys and livers of young seals are very nutritive. I think that there should be further study of the sealing industry in order that there may be utilization not only of the pelts, the seal oil, fat and skins which in the past the fishermen have been in the habit of bringing to port, but also of the by-products so that the greatest possible benefit may be derived from these materials which are our natural heritage and which in the past have gone to waste.
Today the oil markets are depressed. The demand for oil seems to be very small. We realize also that the introduction of plastics has affected the production of leather goods. Air travel has created a need for very light luggage. This of course has reacted against the leather trade and has brought into being new synthetic materials. This has affected the livelihood of those people who engaged in catching seals for their pelts and skins and to whom the industry meant so much.
I should also like to refer to the whaling industry which is also practically extinct in Newfoundland. However, I think that perhaps a closed season is all to the good. When whale oil is so low in value it is better to let the whales go and allow them to increase until the market for oil becomes better. The territorial limits for our fishermen need to be extended and the interests of our shore fishermen protected to the utmost extent.
The delegation which will be going to Europe will be trying to bring about additional sales in our codfish markets of Portugal, Spain and Italy. We are glad to know

that the Minister of Public Works is going along and we believe that he will do a good job. There was a time when we used a lot of Spanish salt to salt our fish. When I was a boy it was a common sight to see barques, brigantines and other vessels, some of which had been built in Wales at Portmadoc, coming into port with cargoes of salt from Cadiz in Spain and from Cagliari in Italy, but today we get a lot of our salt from the West Indies rather than from European countries.
Then there is the matter of nets and Italian hemp. As we know, nylon is quite expensive. It makes a good net and good cordage, but in the old days we used a lot of Italian hemp. Perhaps that is a matter that the delegation will look into to see whether or not we might not be able to get more of that hemp from Italy because, as we are all aware, rope is a very important article in the catching of codfish. It seems to me that we must be prepared to utilize the great resources that lie at our doorstep. Today we see Russian trawlers coming to our banks to fish and Norwegian steamers steaming to our icefields. We see the value of the harvest which nature has so bountifully provided for our use slipping away from us to be used to provide products which will enter into competition with our own exports, thus further restricting the markets which we can supply.
At this point I should like to say a word to the fishermen of Newfoundland who endure such hardships in the fisheries. I would point out that so far as the Newfoundland fishermen are concerned-I do not suggest this is limited to Newfoundland-their interests are being well looked after by the Minister of Fisheries. In addition we have as our cabinet representative the Secretary of State. I am assured that everything possible will be done, in co-operation with the minister who is responsible for Newfoundland's cabinet work, to assist our fishermen in every possible way.
The prosperity of the fishing industry is dependent upon exports and world trade. Our home market is relatively small, and the loss of the world markets would deal a severe blow to the industry. Thus we see that we are in need of a more aggressive trade policy. The marketing problem is not an easy one. We are extremely thankful for the great work that has been done by the fisheries department in the marketing of the catch of Newfoundland fish, in co-operation with NAFEL. We realize the serious problem presented in the sterling area where so many of our competitors have sterling balances by means of which they can exchange their products and get other products as well. Today in Newfoundland we are dependent
Supply-Fisheries
upon the Canadian dollar. When our customers are short of dollars, we find it is not so easy to market our fish.
The expansion that is envisaged in the Newfoundland fishery is not a mirage. It is there, so to speak, right on the horizon. The transition from salt fish to fresh fish is being realized today, and we are aware of the additional revenue that will place in the hands of our fishermen. As we get more plants, we realize there will be more employment and our fishery will have an increasing export value. We shall have an increased ability to compete in the world markets. The export markets we are able to supply are limited because of exchange difficulties, when compared with other countries that have no currency problem.
As I said before, the frozen fish markets are more lucrative markets and with the improvement in technique and lower costs we shall be in a better position to compete with other people. We are only too anxious to supply those markets that we regard as necessary if our fishermen are to maintain the standard of living we feel is necessary for them. Unfortunately, in Newfoundland there is too little hydro power. If there were a greater hydro development I feel we would be able to instal more mechanical fish driers and thus lower our costs. It would also relieve the fishermen from so much of this backbreaking work of spreading the fish on their flakes. I feel that we can be most optimistic in our outlook for the fisheries.
Personally, I have great faith in our fisheries. While in the past there have been problems which seemingly would engulf us, today we are in a better position. We can look upon the future with more hope and a better realization of our great heritage. We must put forth a united effort in striving towards this goal, with a firm faith in our ability to achieve success and full prosperity in the great fishing industry.


Mr. Gillis:: While listening to this discussion, Mr. Chairman, it struck me that within the past few years our fisheries have become rather important to the government, and have received considerable attention. I can recall the time in this house when there were perhaps two of us, and I was one, who took part in this debate. The reason was that up until the appointment of the Hon. Mr. Mayhew I thought that the fisheries department was a place in which a member was put to get him ready for appointment to the cabinet sometime if he showed promise. The result was that not much was done about fisheries.
Listening to the minister this afternoon, with his comprehensive survey, it was rather

Supply-Fisheries
encouraging. He has taken hold of a department with which he was unfamiliar when he started. Today he exhibited a good grasp of the subject, to the extent that I feel he has disarmed practically everyone who had some criticism to make. While the minister is entitled to all the credit we can give him, we must not forget that the minister cannot do the job alone. A good minister, and a smart minister, will always have smart men around him. The smart men around him, like the deputy minister, cannot do very much either unless the minister has some intelligence and some flexibility. It appears that the fisheries department is now fortunate in having that combination. They have a team that is working. There is no doubt but that the whole industry will benefit from this.
Listening to the last speaker I was struck by the fine speech he made and I want to agree with him about expanding the Unemployment Insurance Act to take in the fishing industry. We have had this subject up in the house on a good many occasions. The Minister of Fisheries does not have jurisdiction in so far as that question is concerned, but he could use his good offices and his persuasive powers upon the Minister of Labour to make sure consideration is given to bringing these fishermen under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The last speaker made a good survey of the fisheries in Newfoundland. He said he could look forward with a great deal of optimism to the future. I do not want to be a wet blanket but it is going to take more than optimism to solve the problem for the fishing industry.
For the past number of years the fishing industry has been going through much the same change as most industries in Canada, and that is a technological change. The fishing industry is becoming a mechanized industry, and that is true all over the world. There is more and more fish being produced. Before the minister puts his estimates in final form, there is something I should like him to look at and comment upon.
A good deal of our fish production goes to the United States. This evening's news indicates that the United States is giving authority to those responsible for imports and exports to set up quotas and/or tariffs on fish. Well, it is going to take more than optimism to get around that. If a country that takes a large share of our fish is arriving at the conclusion that it can solve its problems by fencing itself in, by putting up tariffs and embargoes against imports from this country, such action of course can be followed only by retaliation and chaos so far as international marketing is concerned.

Before the conclusion of his estimates I would ask the minister to take a look at the proposals made within the last few hours by the United States to see how it will affect our industry in Canada. I am concerned about this because a large share of the fish caught on the east coast goes to the United States. While my own home town is recognized as a mining town, there is also at that point a large sword fishing industry valued at about $2 million a year. Almost the total catch goes to the United States. I am wondering if the attempt in that country to fence themselves in, so far as fish, lead, zinc and other commodities are concerned, will militate against the continuing of the industry as it is today, to say nothing about its expansion.
That was my principal reason for speaking at this time. In the final analysis the minister and his department are up against the question of world trade. While he has done an excellent job in making the people of Canada fish conscious, more can be done. I believe it is correct to say that more information has been disseminated among the people of Canada from his department during the past couple of years than has ever happened before in the history of this country. That has been good work, and there can be no doubt that while we wish to build up our own home market we depend largely upon the export market.
With trends as we see them today there is a possibility that we may run into some difficulties. Many valuable things have been done by the Department of Fisheries during the minister's term of office. The finalizing of the agreements in the Pacific and the Atlantic, and the setting up of these commissions were things that were badly needed. It was also a great honour for Canada when the deputy minister of fisheries was selected to head one of these commissions. I believe this is an indication that perhaps Canada is paying more practical attention to the problem than any other country. I believe it is generally recognized and appreciated that our deputy minister is just about the last word, so far as a knowledge of fisheries is concerned. Of course there is a very good reason for that: He got most of his practical education from the standpoint of administration in Nova Scotia. Then, like many others from that part of the country, he has had to go far afield to demonstrate his ability. A good job is being done in formulating the kind of organization that not only protects the industry and assists in marketing, but also adds to the general education on the subject. The machinery is in good hands, and it is clear that some planning is being made in connection with the whole question of production and marketing, as well as technological changes, and all that sort of thing.

However all this is not going to do much good unless we can sell the fish we catch. I would appreciate it if before we finish discussion on the fisheries estimates the minister would give an analysis of what is going on in the United States, with particular reference to its relationship to the future of our fishing industry.


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: Mr. Chairman, in view of the discussion that has taken place, and the comments made by so many hon. members, I shall endeavour to make my comments brief. However there are two or three observations I should like to make.
May I say at the outset that a year or so ago the Minister of Fisheries visited the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare; in fact he visited on two different occasions. On each occasion he made an excellent impression, not only on the members of the fishing industry but also upon the fishermen in the boats. He talked with many of them, and they felt that there was at the head of the Department of Fisheries a man who was really interested in their problems. I do feel the excellent presentation he made this afternoon, when he gave a resume of the work of the department during the last year as well as an outline of future plans for expansion, research, inspection and the like, was such as to make hon. members realize more than ever how fortunate we are that the Minister of Fisheries is a man of the calibre of the present incumbent.
Last year when we were discussing the fisheries estimates those of us from the fishing constituencies were extremely worried about the marketing situation. However we went through that bad period. We know the situation has been getting better, and we know also that right now it is much better than it has been for some considerable time. When I was home at Easter, and on another occasion three weeks before that, I talked with many persons engaged in the fishing industry. They told me that some of the markets were improving, that others had improved a great deal, and that they looked for improvement in other directions. There was an altogether different spirit to that I had noted in the previous year. Those of us from Nova Scotia are particularly pleased that it should be our own Nova Scotian minister (Mr. Winters) who should be heading the delegation to the Mediterranean countries with a view to improving markets in that area.
I was greatly pleased by the description the minister gave of the method of manufacturing fish sticks. I know many people are asking what these fish sticks are. His explanation was clear, brief, and concise,
Supply-Fisheries
and I believe it will mean that people throughout Canada who will read about the speech he has made will have a better idea of what this product is, and that it will lead to further sales. It appears to us that the manufacture of fish sticks is going to mean a great deal in increasing the consumption of fish.
I recall that two years ago when speaking in this debate I was very much upset about the loss of fishing gear, particularly boats and lobster traps. I remember that on that occasion members in all parties spoke about the need for some form of insurance or indemnity plan. Last year, when the estimates were discussed just before the close of the session we had very little time to speak about the matter, other than to thank the minister for having introduced the plan. I would like to say that although it was received with some doubt, as is usual in connection with any new plan, I have found upon talking to fishermen in my constituency that more and more are accepting it, and are finding it most helpful. I would appreciate it if, before the discussion is completed, the minister would give us some idea of the number of fishermen who have applied for coverage, and those who have applied for an indemnity because of losses they have suffered. I believe that in a free enterprise economy the setting up of some sort of indemnity plan is by far the best procedure.
I do know that many fishermen in my area are pleased with it, and I am sure that as time goes on we will find most of them will seek this form of coverage.
I speak of the insurance plan particularly as it covers boats and lobster traps. I would ask the minister if at a later time he would give us some idea of the success of the new metal lobster traps. I know that in the first instance there were fishermen who felt that lobsters would not enter a trap unless it was made of laths. I am now given to understand that the lobster is not so particular, and that he will enter a metal trap if it is the right shape and the right size, provided it contains the necessary bait. I know experiments have been carried on, and I would appreciate his telling the committee as to their success or otherwise, and whether the cost can be brought down to a point where metal traps would compete with traps made of laths.
I mention problems concerning lobsters particularly because the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, which I have the honour to represent, is the constituency which does an exceptionally large lobster business. In fact, it is in that constituency in the course of a year, during those months of the lobster season from December 1 to May 31, that about 10 million pounds of lobsters

Supply-Fisheries
are caught, which are shipped to the United States. The net return to the fishermen is $4 million or more for that amount of lobsters, and it is new money that comes into the country. Not only that, but it is that constituency-I may be pardoned if I mention such a fact-in Nova Scotia which in point of production, that is in poundage and dollars, does a larger fish business than any other constituency in the province.
On other occasions when I have spoken on the fisheries estimates I have referred to this anomaly which we have on the coast of Nova Scotia because of our two limits, the three-mile limit for draggers of all other nations but our own, and the twelve-mile limit for our own draggers. This means that there is an area of water from the three-mile limit to the twelve-mile limit; in other words, there is a nine-mile preserve for fishermen of every country but our own. I have discussed this with departmental officials; X have read articles about it; I know of the troubles of defining territorial waters, but I do hope that the studies that are being carried on at the moment may lead to some solution to this problem so that our fishermen are not penalized as they are at the present time. In other words, it appears as though all of us should have a twelve-mile limit, or all should have a three-mile limit.
There is one other point that always comes up when draggers are mentioned. The inshore fishermen continually complain of the wastage of draggers. I know that in the past I have been told that the wastage is only 5 per cent or 10 per cent, but the fishermen tell me that sometimes it runs as high as 50 per cent. I do not know how one can prove the percentages. The larger meshes that are being used will of course make some improvement. I understand a great deal of that is being done voluntarily, but to the best of my knowledge there is no international decision that there shall be an increase in the size of the mesh.
I promised to be brief, Mr. Chairman. May I ask the minister when he speaks again to tell us of the success of the steel traps, and make some comments about the problem, particularly along our coast, with respect to the three-mile and the twelve-mile limit. Then, I should like him to give us some idea as to the success of the insurance or indemnity plan for traps and boats.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, it is a very bold thing for a man from an inland town to try to venture into a talk on fisheries. We have some water in Greenwood. We have a little river that runs through it called the Don, and some of you have passed over it, but I 
would not willingly give my Liberal opponent in the next election any fish that came out of the water to which I have referred.
Really the only excuse that I have for getting to my feet is to come to the protection of the minister. I come to his protection before he is completely swamped, flooded, overwhelmed by the avalanche, the cataract, of praise which he has received. But it is not because I could not join in it. I was not able to hear the minister's speech but I went and read it in Hansard. I found it very interesting. But I think there is really a limit to everything, and I thought I would at least give him a few minutes' respite. He thanks me, and I am grateful that he does.
There is another thing that occurred to me, too. It is a matter of regret that I see that the Secretary of State is not in his seat. It seems to me a great pity that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is not going to take part in this debate because we have heard sagas of his election. We have heard echoes of his addressing audiences on the shore with a heaving stomach from heaving ships, and I do feel that he should be heard. It seems to me it will be too bad if he does not speak in this debate. Why, it would be as if a man from Toronto did not refer to the subway; as if an hon. member from Saskatchewan did not speak of the Saskatchewan river and the pollution thereof; as if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not take part in a debate on pensions.
Having said that, I just want to come back for a minute not to criticize but really on the minister's behalf to express relief that apparently there is still something left for him to do. As I listened to some of the speeches I felt that he was like the Creator with nothing left for him to do except to survey his work and say that it was good.
As time went on I began to see that there are things to do, and it greatly relieved me because I am sure the minister is industrious and he does not want to have time hanging heavy on his hands. As I listened to the speeches I felt sure at first the situation must be that the price of fish had ascended inconceivably high; that the costs had gone inconceivably low; that the profits were inconceivably great. I am not quite sure that is so. The minister will tell us when he comes to speak further.
I have gathered, as I listened to the speeches, that there are some things still to do. I gathered that the kidneys and liver of young seals still need some study. That is a matter for the minister to concern himself with. I gathered the price of twine is not all that it might be, and I did gather also that there is such a question as international trade,

and it is on that, that I should like to ask the minister just one question. I read his speech carefully enough, and I did not observe that he said anything in it about Brazil. He mentioned several other countries, but he did not mention Brazil. I noted also that the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay did point out that the trade in Newfoundland was not nearly as great as it used to be, and I gathered that Brazil used to be one of its great markets.
In that connection I just want to raise the question in general so that the minister can explain it to us. When he comes to that he might perhaps in his stride explain the statement which was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who I gather has now taken over the trade aspect of matters, in a speech made last February, in which he said something that I could not understand and which has never been explained yet. The minister said, as reported at page 2105 of Hansard:
Today I was reminded that our sales to South America are off, and it was suggested that my trip may be the reason.
Hon. members will recall that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a trip to Brazil early in 1953, and most of us had the idea that he went down there in order to try to increase trade with Brazil. It is a fact that when he came back there was a rather remarkable falling off. The minister explained that in a way which was really something. I pass this on now to the Minister of Fisheries who is a very resourceful man and I am sure therefore he is going to have a very good answer to this:
Today I was reminded that our sales to South America are off, and it was suggested that my trip may be the reason. May I say that the reason I went to South America was that our markets at that time were abnormally high. Since then dollar difficulties in several of the South American countries, particularly Brazil, have caused restrictions of exports from dollar countries.
I am going to be commendably brief, too. I shall be glad if the minister will make a note of that and perhaps comment on it later. He will no doubt deal more particularly with the question of prices, and include that among the other things which he comments on in his reply.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman, hon. members who have spoken tonight have tried to be brief, and although it seems a little doubtful that we might finish with fisheries estimates today I shall try to be brief myself. I would wish, however, to congratulate the Minister of Fisheries on the presentation he made here today. I am not going to be a bit backward in doing that because I feel 83276-288
Supply-Fisheries
it was the finest presentation of fisheries that I have heard in the House of Commons in the nine years I have been here. At the same time I also wanted to say I believe that in the short time that he has been at the head of this department he has gained the confidence of those in the industry, including the tens of thousands of fishermen right across this country. They believe he is doing a good job, and I believe he is doing a good job.
In his remarks today the minister hit on one thing with which I would like to deal for a few minutes. The minister referred to the quality of fish being produced today and compared it with the quality of fish produced a few years ago. That, to my mind, is the key to the whole situation. In years gone by we did not have the equipment and were not in a position to send high quality fish into the cities in this country and in the United States, but with the help of the research board and other branches of the Department of Fisheries there has been a great improvement over the last few years. I believe that the inspection service which has been set up is doing a very good job in this regard. The thing for us to do now is to fight for better quality and when we do get that better quality there will be better markets, and I am sure we will have much happier fishermen.
I would like to address myself briefly to the situation within the industry generally and just emphasize a few points which the minister, in the short time at his disposal, did not have time to deal with. One hon. member a few moments ago pointed out that last year the fishermen were not looking forward to a very bright future. But I believe we have passed over that period and at the present time it would appear in the maritime provinces that the stocks of fish are practically cleaned off the shelves and out of the warehouses.
In the sardine industry, in which I am particularly interested, the only thing we have to worry about now is catching the sardines. The stocks that were on hand two years ago are completely exhausted but the price today is very reasonable and the demand is good. If we can now catch the sardines for the canneries I am sure our sardine fishermen will be happy once again.
On two occasions since I came to this house last November I have brought up the matter of loans for fishermen. I realize that this is an immense problem for the minister of the department in endeavouring to work out a plan which would provide loans for fishermen in all parts of Canada. However, I know that the minister has taken this matter under

Supply-Fisheries
consideration and I hope he may be able to devise some plan whereby these particular primary producers, when they find the going a little tough, will be able to borrow sufficient to enable them to carry on in that business that they, their lathers and forefathers have been in for so many years. We have had short periods of prosperity in the fishing industry, but to a greater extent we have had those periods when it is nothing but long hours, hard work, and insufficient returns for the amount of work and worry involved.
There is one other subject I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and I hope he will be able to give it his serious consideration. I believe that on the Atlantic coast line, in the bay of Fundy area particularly, we should have a scientific study to see if we can determine the cause of the great variation and irregularity in the catch of sardines such as we have had over the past few years. It may be a problem which is nearly insurmountable, but it is one which I believe can be solved. I am not going into this matter in detail, but I was in the sardine industry as a very young boy and I remember 1917 was a year of scarcity all over the bay of Fundy. We had an average year in 1918 and it carried on like that until 1923 when we again had a year of scarcity when we caught practically no sardines at all. We have had periods of plenty and even longer periods when we were unable to get sufficient sardines to take care of our costs.
Oil engines were first introduced when I was a boy and I remember that the fishermen in those days were convinced that the oil engines were responsible for the great decrease in the catch of sardines. Then as time went on other electrical devices were introduced into the sardine industry such as sounding equipment and some fishermen were convinced that they were responsible for the great decrease in the catch. Others are firmly convinced that winter seining is responsible for the great decrease in the catch in other years. But during the last sixteen months the catch of sardines in that area has been well below average and at the present time it is a great worry to the fishermen and to the canneries also who employ hundreds of men and women on that coast line.
If we could get some assistance from the fisheries department and from the research board in this type of survey I know it would be much appreciated by those in the canning industry and by the fishermen themselves. I am not criticizing the fact that we are furnishing funds in other parts of the world to make studies of a similar nature. I think they

are wonderful investments and I support them one hundred per cent. But I believe this is one particular branch of the industry which should have a thorough investigation and I believe it would be well worth while.
I would just like to refer briefly to a statement made in this house a few days ago by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. His name has been mentioned here today already. But in the speech he made when he set out to save many millions of dollars for the Canadian people he mentioned and criticized the fact that this government had-but perhaps I should read his remarks. He said as reported at page 4333 of Hansard:
In the year 1952-53, according to the public accounts, 20,000 Canadians were treated under the provisions of the act-
That would be the sick mariners act, as it is known on the coast line.
-and 89,000 foreign seamen. That year the cost of the service to the taxpayer was $588,000. Yet, the revenue collected on duties was only $340,000, or a net loss of about $250,000. Perhaps there are reasons why my suggestion would not be feasible, but it seems to me that it would be logical to increase the duties which are charged for this service until they cover the cost. If that could be done I suggest that the taxpayer could be saved in the neighbourhood of $250,000 a year.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw goes on to say that this would constitute a great saving which could be made for the Canadian people. I want to be fair at the outset and state most sincerely that I do not believe that the hon. member's statement meets with the approval of the majority of the members of the C.C.F. party.


Mr. Herridge:: You are quite correct in that statement.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: But nevertheless the statement was made, though I do not believe the hon. member stopped to consider that this is a reciprocal agreement. If we had Canadian seamen in some foreign port without a dollar in their pockets and in need of hospital care or a doctor's attention then it would be provided under this agreement. I paid into this sick benefit fund for many years and I was fortunate enough never to be obliged to seek benefit under it and for that I am thankful. However, I do believe this is one matter the hon. member for Moose Jaw might well have left alone, particularly in view of the fact that he has strongly supported the building of the South Saskatchewan dam at a cost of well over $100 million. He has supported that project in the House of Commons even though competent engineers have decided that they could not make a favourable report on that project.

The hon. member has also suggested on various occasions since I have been in this house that a federal fund should be provided to supply fresh water for the city in which he lives. He has spoken on that matter on several occasions and all I can say is that in eastern Canada when we want a water supply in the cities and villages the taxpayers in the particular locality set out to provide it for themselves.
But in this case when the men who go down to the sea in ships are protected by this insurance fund the hon. member for Moose Jaw saw fit to criticize the fact that it was costing the taxpayers of this country $225,000 per year. Let me say at this point that I stood on my feet and supported a grant of $65 million for the western farmers of Canada and I would add that it would take something like 260 years, if my figures are correct, for that same amount to be claimed by the fishermen and seamen in this great country of ours.
Another comparison I might make while I have this matter in mind is that this sum mentioned by the hon. member would be only 50 per cent of the amount paid out in annual grants to the maple sugar producers of this country for the purchase of aluminum pails. I regret that the hon. member for Moose Jaw saw fit to suggest this great saving of $250,000 at the cost of those men who go out with no other protection than their own two hands, and that he would apparently deny them the protection which they have enjoyed for a great many years under this act.
I could point to individual cases with which I have had to deal over the past year in which men were hospitalized when they did not have a dollar to their name, and without this protection I am doubtful as to whether their families would have been able to carry on. I am sorry that the matter was ever raised in the House of Commons. If the hon. member for Moose Jaw had just taken a few minutes to get some particulars, not only in this case but in other cases that he mentioned, I am sure that he would not have put on record some of these great savings that he was going to make for the Canadian taxpayers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I agree with you.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I was greatly
interested in one statement made by the Minister of Fisheries today. That was when he stated that 80 per cent of the fish and fish products of this country of ours must be exported. When my friend to my left, the hon. member for Greenwood, was speaking just a few minutes ago, I thought I might bring that matter to his mind. He and others 83276-2884
Supply-Fisheries
in the House of Commons-and I am not criticizing them for it because it is their belief-made a great plea for protection. There is a good example that I can bring to his attention tonight showing why I am bitterly opposed to protection. That example is that 20 per cent of what we produce in the fishing industry in this country is consumed in Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon member permit a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Gladly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just want to ask him
if he is aware of the fact that the party to which I belong supported GATT and the trade which it sought to bring, throughout the years ever since it was brought in?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I am not disputing the hon. member's word, Mr. Chairman. But I have seen him get to his feet in the House of Commons since last November on two or three occasions and plead for these poor manufacturers of electrical appliances in Canada who are being so terribly pushed around.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member
permit another question? Did he ever hear me ask for an increase in tariffs?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I certainly did.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the hon. member when?


The Deputy Chairman:: I think I should point out to the committee that two hon. members cannot have the floor at once. The hon. member for Charlotte has the floor.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am asking the hon.
gentleman if he will be good enough to look in Hansard. I am quite satisfied that he wil1 find no reference to an increase in tariffs made by me.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I cannot tell the hon. member the page of Hansard but when the legislation in connection with dumping in Canada was being discussed in this house the hon. gentleman to my left, standing where he stood just a minute ago, stated to the Minister of National Revenue that he was most hopeful that when this matter was under consideration those who manufacture electrical appliances in this country would not be forgotten. Is that asking for protection or is it not? I can find that in Hansard, and I shall be glad to do so tomorrow.
What I wanted to say was this. The figures put on record today by the Minister of Fisheries give a clear indication why the people down in the maritime provinces are bitterly opposed to protection. The matter was raised today by the Leader of the

Supply-Fisheries
Opposition when he was anxious to know from the Minister of Fisheries whether this statement in the press or over the radio was true with regard to embargoes that were being put on Canadian fish going into the United States. We have always enjoyed those markets in the United States. We have always had free entry into those markets in the United States. I can assure you that we appreciate them. I do not wish to see anything done in this country-and I realize that at the present time there are many people who want it-to create a feeling between those two countries which might bring about a tariff war. That is the last thing I want to see. The freer exchange of goods there is over this great boundary of 3,500 miles, the better we like it down there, This is just another example. There are many other commodities I could mention but they would not come under the matter we are now discussing. I could mention wood pulp and many other products which would be in the same category.
We are most dependent on foreign markets. For that reason we do not want to see anything done that would be harmful in any way to those markets which we have enjoyed for many years. I really hope to see the day when the barriers might be taken down completely. When that is done I believe you will see much more happiness on this side of the border. You will then see a much better chance of having a peaceful world to live in. As I have stated on many other occasions, the troubles we have encountered down through the years in too many cases have been brought about by one country refusing to do business with another. You can never have a happy and contented people when one is trying to be just a jump ahead of the other all the time in connection with tariffs.
There is just one other subject I will mention. I have now spoken much longer than I had intended to speak. In his remarks today the minister also mentioned the fact that out in British Columbia they had been most successful with the provincial legislature, the federal legislature and business generally in making arrangements which were agreeable to all concerned where rivers were being obstructed by dams for power purposes and others. This has been a problem down in our section of the country also, but to a much lesser extent than in British Columbia because our rivers are much smaller. However, I want to bring to the attention of the minister the St. Croix river which is the boundary line between the state of Maine and the province of New Brunswick, and in fact of Charlotte county. For many

years we enjoyed an extensive salmon industry on that river. Dams were built for mills that are operating there today. There was pollution which was never properly taken care of. For many years the river was neglected and it was considered perhaps to be a hopeless case. But the officials in the state of Maine have been interested in the project for quite some time and in a recent survey it was determined that the water there was "B" water, as I think it is called; at least it is water in which fish thrive without any worry.
I talked to some of these officials myself, and I have found that they are firmly convinced that this river can be made a great salmon river once again. Below the Canadian Cottons mill there is a fishway that has not been kept in repair for many years. In their estimation it would not be a costly matter to have that river put once more in a position so that salmon could go up the river. In their estimation it would mean hundreds of thousands of dollars to the citizens in that county if the river could again be opened for sport fishing. I would ask the minister to look into this matter carefully. I am sure he will find that the officials in the state of Maine are prepared to go ahead with this project at any time the department here would be interested in doing so.
I shall now resume my seat. But before doing so I again thank the minister for a most comprehensive statement. I am sure that the fishermen in the section from which I come will be most pleased to receive the story he had to tell in the House of Commons. I believe there are one or two more hon. members who wish to speak tonight; it is quite apparent that we shall not finish. However, I shall resume my seat at this time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item carry?


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Green:: Before the minister replies, I should like to ask him two questions. The first one has to do with a submission that I received-and no doubt he received it also -from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union about three months ago concerning the Japanese sending out expeditions to catch salmon in the vicinity of the Aleutian islands. It is apparently what is called an offshore salmon expedition. This submission shows that they are catching increasing numbers of salmon each year and indicates the fear that these particular salmon may be salmon which have spawned in British Columbia rivers and lakes. I should be glad if the minister would explain just

what the view of the department is on that particular question. The minister said this afternoon that the fishing is being done farther and farther out to sea. It may be just possible that this particular type of offshore fishing will affect our own coastal fishing very seriously.
The other question on which I would ask him to advise the committee has to do with the crab fishing in Hecate strait. As he knows, I raised that question last year. My information is that the Americans are taking a larger and larger proportion of the crabs from that strait. In fact one informant says that they will get 80 per cent of the crabs that are taken outside the three mile limit. Apparently Canadian fishermen cannot get their catch into the United States market without paying duty whereas American fishermen take these crabs from what we consider are Canadian waters and get them into the American market as American crabs. There is a fear that the whole crab fishery in Hecate strait will be ruined by the Americans. Apparently they are running short of crabs in their own waters and there is some danger that they will move into Hecate strait in a big way and clean out the fishery there.
I know there is a commission going into the whole question of what should be considered Canadian territorial waters, but I suggest to the minister that Hecate strait is really between two parts of Canada, the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland, and should not be considered in the same light as territorial waters on the ocean itself. It does seem to me that Canada should take the position that Hecate strait is Canadian territorial waters. Other nations have taken a similar position in recent years. I have a list here of quite a few countries. Referring to one of the bulletins of the fisheries council of Canada, I see that the Australian government, for example, apparently has imposed strict territorial control over pearl fishing in the waters on the continental shelf. Other countries have taken a stand.
The present government policy seems to be to wait for the report of the commission and then after that take up the question at the United Nations. By the time we get all that rigmarole finished there will be no crab fishing left in Hecate strait. I do suggest with regard to that particular strait that it should be possible for Canada to take the position that these are Canadian territorial waters.


John Angus MacLean: Would the minister be kind enough to permit a brief question before he answers? Will he make a statement clarifying the significance of the news report from Washington this afternoon-


James Sinclair: I have already been asked.
Supply-Fisheries


John Angus MacLean: Yes, by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but I should like clarification particularly as to what effect, if any, this will have on the export of lobsters to the United States.


Mr. Fairey:: In view of the Japan-United States-Canada treaty, perhaps the minister would like to explain to the house if anything is being done of an exploratory nature in the search for other areas of fishing on the Pacific coast.


James Sinclair: In the fifteen minutes left I will try to touch quickly on the main points raised by various members. First of all I want to express my appreciation for the many kind things said. It was refreshing to have my friend from Cape Breton and my friend, the financial critic, the hon. member for Greenwood, bring me down to earth with the remarks they made. I completely agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South that whatever has been done in the fisheries department has been due mainly to the very excellent staff in our department, in the research stations and on our international commissions.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich spoke first and asked what we were doing about the inspection of fish on boats and packers. It is quite true that that is the place where some careless handling does occur. At the moment what we are trying to do is to step up our inspection of plants. The co-operation of the provinces is necessary in that because they do the licensing of these plants, but we expect in the next year to have very much closer inspection in the plants themselves, and that of course will apply to the fish going through the plants. Perhaps at a later stage we may actually get to the inspection of the fish on the boats.
As far as territorial waters are concerned, several members have raised the question. It is quite true that we have a special legal committee making our submission to the government on the matter, but in the meantime two of the extensions in other countries to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred are being taken to the international court. It is easy for a country to shove out its boundaries and declare that their boundaries are farther out, but other countries, who have had historic rights to fish these waters protest that action. I do not think that any action will be taken until there is a decision, if the case of Britain and Iceland is taken to the international court, the case which has given rise to this whole question. A country like ours, which has valuable inshore fisheries, is naturally anxious to have more than a three mile limit.

Supply-Fisheries
That is one of the reasons we keep our own trawlers twelve miles out, to show other people that we do believe we should have control out to twelve miles.
The hon. member for New Westminster asked me whether, when the closure goes into effect on a portion of the Fraser river, the fishermen who are prevented from fishing there will be allowed to fish elsewhere. They will be so allowed. At the present time they are of course restricted to their own part of the river during the open season.
The hon. member for Gloucester asked whether or not we could not give a warning of changes in the regulations. We do that on the west coast. Every year the whole industry, fishermen, fish plants, our scientists and the sport fishermen, send their suggestions for changes in the regulations to the department. We print all those and circulate them without comment. Then the comment comes in, and at the end of that period we make our decisions on changes. We are going to start a similar process on the east coast.
The hon. member also mentioned the oyster development on the east coast. Oysters are one of the few fish which we cannot produce in sufficient abundance for our own market. We certainly are anxious to increase our oyster production in Canada in every way We can.
The senior member for Halifax and the hon. members for Trinity-Conception and Gloucester all mentioned the matter of our trawlers. We do keep our big trawlers twelve miles offshore. We do this partly because we believe that is where our territorial waters should be and also to give our smaller drag-gers a better chance inshore. Of the three members who spoke one wanted the trawlers kept out and the other two wanted the trawlers let in. However, that policy is under study today.
Several members spoke about unemployment insurance. The Minister of Labour is conducting a further study and the fisheries department of course is offering all the facilities of our department to aid in that study.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a question with respect to the twelve mile limit? I was not quite clear whether the minister said we were respecting that as a matter of principle or just for the larger vessels.


James Sinclair: As far as we ourselves are concerned, we keep our large vessels, the Canadian trawlers, twelve miles out. The embarrassing thing is that other nations can bring their trawlers up to our three mile limit because they are on the high seas. We have no control over them on the high seas,
IMr. Sinclair.]
but having control over our own ships we keep the big trawlers out twelve miles.
The hon. member for Queens asked me about the increase, if any, in the lobster catch. The lobster is like the salmon on the west coast. It is a completely controlled fishery. We think we are just about at maximum production now because of the even level of the catch in recent years. What we are trying to do now is to increase the size of the lobsters caught by a slight increase in the legal size.
The hon. member for Halifax spoke very glowingly of our experimental station in Halifax, which is one of the best in this part of the world, and on the work that has been done. He asked for an improvement in the guardian service on the rivers. We are increasing our seasonal protection staff in the Atlantic provinces in line with the increased conservation program that we are launching with the provinces.
The hon. member for Trinity-Conception seemed to suggest that I was spending more time on the west coast than I was in the maritimes. The whole fisheries department, I think, spends much more time on the problems of the east coast, especially those of Newfoundland. The west coast is a highly organized fishery. Both the operators and the fishermen are highly organized and they pretty well take care of themselves. It is in Newfoundland and on the Atlantic coast that most of the fishery problems seem to arise.
He mentioned the depressed state of the salt cod industry. It is quite true that we are taking a first class fish, processing it in a rather primitive way that has not changed much in 400 years and then selling it in low price markets of the world, the Mediterranean and the Caribbean areas. We are trying to get away from that in our development program. We are trying to get more and more of that cod turned into fresh and frozen form and sold in the highest priced markets of the world, Canada and the United States. This fish stick development will certainly be of great aid in that.
Then, there was the matter of the capelins. The capelin does come in millions, and it is a very tasty little fish in the fresh state. It is very like the eulachon. It is, however, a very oily fish and it is difficult to preserve, but it does serve as the main food for cod.
My friend asked for the names of the members of the trade delegation over in Spain and Portugal now. There is Mr. Bull, the deputy minister of trade and commerce; Mr. Schwartzman, a tariff expert from trade and commerce; and Mr. Laws, the secretary-manager of NAFEL. They are there negotiating on tariffs. The actual signing committee

which will go later will be made up of the Minister of Public Works and my deputy, Mr. Bates.
The hon. member asked also for an increase in herring exploration on the west coast of Newfoundland. We have done quite a bit of work on herrings in the gulf of St. Lawrence. There is still a great deal to be learned about the herring runs there and the sardine runs. This is one of the reasons for switching of the heads of the biological research stations. Dr. Hart, on the west coast station at Nanaimo, who has had a great deal of experience with herring and salmon, is being transferred to the east coast station at St. Andrews. Dr. Needier from there is being moved to the west coast because he has had a great deal of experience on international commissions. We want to make studies in British Columbia on ground-fish and crustaceans.
Then the hon. member for Comox-Alberni spoke about the problem of dams. It is quite true that it is not an easy problem to get the spawning fish up past the dam, but it is a much more difficult problem to get the little fingerlings down. Often in going over the dam they are dashed to death, and if they go through the spillways about 25 per cent are lost because of skin burns. Our research people and those in the United States and on the commissions have done a great deal of work on guiding fingerlings down the ladders by sound, by light and by electronic impulses. Progress is being made, although we have no certain solution as yet.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond asked me to help him with some public works project relating to fishermen. The final decision, of course, rests in the hands of my colleague, the Minister of Public Works. I hope to press forward with those developments that are of help to the whole industry, and not just individual ridings. He mentioned the hope that we would use a helicopter to curb poaching in the one area in which it is apt to be most prevalent, the Queen Charlotte islands. We have that under consideration. We are using two helicopters in Newfoundland because of the transportation trouble we have down there. If in Newfoundland we build too large a patrol boat it cannot get into the harbours, and if we build a small one it will not stand the Atlantic storms. The hon. member spoke of a good man, Rothery, we have as fishery officer. In fact, he is so good we are moving
Supply-Fisheries
him to the supervisor's office in Vancouver, so the hon. member may be losing him.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador spoke about the decline in schooner fishing on the banks on both the east and west coasts; we should like to get more of our fishermen out deep-sea fishing. For too long a time now most of our men have been shore fishermen. We have two of the greatest fisheries in the world on our coasts and if we do not fully exploit them other nations will come and fish those waters. We hope to have more offshore Canadian boats out instead of so many shore fishermen.
The member for Cape Breton South spoke about a change in fishing practices and the mechanization of the industry. He asked about the effect of the United States tariff commission announcement made public today. This problem with United States tariffs-it is just on ground fish like cod and haddock fillets-was aggravated by a territorial waters dispute between Britain and Iceland. As a result of that dispute the British fish trade refused to handle Icelandic fish, so the fish came in unusually great quantities to the United States. Our own relations with the United States have been very good. We both serve the same North American markets, have the same wage scales, and so on. I do not think the full details of that United States tariff commission announcement have been reported as yet.


Leonard T. Stick: I have heard that the Icelandic fish is now going to Russia. Is that correct?


James Sinclair: I understand some of it is, and some of it is now going back into Britain.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare spoke about the need for an insurance plan to cover boats and lobster traps. Perhaps I could answer that question when we come to the item in the estimates covering losses. He asked about the success of steel traps for lobsters. Big steel traps are used very successfully for crabs on the west coast, but on the east coast the old wooden traps which they make are still used. We are experimenting with the steel traps, but the experiments have not gone far enough to make any statement on the matter.
The hon. member for Greenwood was asking whether prices were really so good that everyone was making a lot of money in the fishing business. They are not. Everything in this world is comparative. They are just

Supply-Fisheries
better than they were last year. The fishermen, like the farmers, are optimists and as long as there is an uptrend everything is fine.
Mention was made of the fact that we used to have a good market for salt cod in Brazil. For some years the market was closed. But recently the Brazil government did again make dollars available for buying salted cod. I am sorry, but I cannot explain the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on South American trade. Perhaps he can explain the remarks he made.
The member for Charlotte spoke of the need for high quality of fish and also the need for loans to fishermen, and I shall say a word on that a little later. He dealt with the irregular catch of sardines, and that is related to the herring problem in the gulf and off the west coast of Newfoundland. I hope we will do more research on these. We have got our research pretty well in shape in British Columbia so that we can forecast fairly accurately the herring run, and we should be able to do that on the Atlantic coast.
The member for Vancouver-Quadra asked two questions about the fishermen's union's statement that the Japanese were again fishing off our shores. The main point of the new north Pacific treaty is that for the next ten years, five years certain and five years in review, the Japanese agree to stay on their side of the ocean, in so far as these species of fish which are thoroughly studied, fully exploited and thoroughly protected are concerned-the salmon, herring and halibut. Despite the traditional freedom of the sea the Japanese agreed to abstain from fishing those three species on our side of the ocean. As an indication may I say that in the peak year before the war the Japanese caught 200 million salmon in the whole Pacific, and last year they caught 7 million on their own side under the treaty.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It came down from 200 million to 7 million?


James Sinclair: Yes, that is when they fished the whole ocean, and they caught 7 million last year on their own side.
We are anxious to see this treaty a success. The only way we will know what salmon go to Siberia and Japan and the Canadian and American rivers is by a study. This study is to be made by the north Pacific 
commission of which Mr. Bates is chairman. The commission met in Washington, and their first scientific studies are starting in Tokyo this month. We hope to find the answer to where this dividing line is in the Pacific between the two stocks of salmon.
Then, there was the question of territorial waters, and I have covered it. We have always said that Hecate strait is Canadian territorial waters by the declaration of 1908 or 1909. Despite incidents, we have never taken the United States fishermen to court about it, even though they fish those waters. Probably if nationals of other countries did so, we would take them to court.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister any figures on the crab fishery?


James Sinclair: I will have them when I come back.
The last question asked by the member for Victoria, B.C., was what we were doing about fishing on the high seas. Well, we are trying to encourage our fishermen to go out to sea, but most of our fishing boats on the west coast have been suited only for inland waters. They do most of their fishing in sheltered waters because the salmon and other fish come in to the coast and rivers.
The B.C. industry said it was too great a risk to build expensive boats for deep-sea fishing which may or may not be successful. They said they could get some boats at a reasonable price from the tuna and sardine fisheries in the United States. These boats are available at a reasonable price. We have permitted our industry to bring in 15 of these boats for a trial effort, to get out to sea and catch more salmon, to find tuna and to do the sort of fishing that fishing nations should do.
If this experiment is a success, then there will probably be new boats built in Canadian yards. In the meantime our Canadian yards will get work, and it will be a lot of work, in refitting these boats for deep-sea fishing.


Howard Charles Green: That is on the east coast?


James Sinclair: No. on the west coast. We want to get our boats out to deep-sea fishing off British Columbia. That covers most of the questions raised. There are one or two specific questions I will answer when we come to the particular items affected.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Mr. Harris:: On Monday we will take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to appoint a committee on certain veterans' legislation; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport with respect to certain branch lines of the Canadian National Railways; then second reading of the bill to amend the Pension Act; then the item concerning the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act in committee of the whole.
Business of the House Mr. Green: May I ask if we will take the bill respecting the Research Council Act on Monday?


Walter Edward Harris: No.
At 10.03 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
General services-
129. Departmental administration, $315,090.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 10, 1954