1955-06-23

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Croll.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many provincial divisions are there of the community planning association of Canada?
2.	Who are the directors in each of the divisions, and what is the manner of appointment?
3.	What are the occupations and associations of each of the said directors?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1. 2 and 3. The community planning association of Canada is not a government agency. It was incorporated under part II of the Companies Act.
A representative of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Mr. H. Carver, serves as a member of the national council. Otherwise the information requested is not a matter of government record.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	How many appeals to the minister against assessments of succession duties under section 37 of the Dominion Succession Duty Act have been taken in the last five years to date?
2.	How many of these were in connection with
estates filing returns in the following succession duty district offices respectively:	(a) Toronto:
(b) Ottawa; (c) Kingston; (d) Hamilton?
3.	Of the appeals covered in part 2. were any taken by trust companies as executors? If so. what companies, and how many by each company?
4.	Was the Hon. J. J. McCann the minister in question during this period?
5.	Was the Hon. J. J. McCann a director of any of the companies named in the answer to part 3? If so, which one?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I told the hon. member_ for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden), in response to a question, that as soon as I had received a report with respect to certain allegations in the German press as
to the conduct of Canadian soldiers in Germany, I would make a statement. I have now received a report and I am glad to say that it does not bear out the lurid statements which have been published.
The Canadian brigade is at present engaged in exercises at Sennelager training area, 50 miles from its base, and two incidents took place in that area recently. The facts of these two incidents as reported to me are as follows:
First, on the night of June 16, a number of Canadian and British soldiers became involved in a brawl in a tavern on the edge of the area and some windows were broken. The arrest of three Canadians by the provost corps followed.
Second, on the night of June 19, a joint Canadian provost corps-German police patrol was searching for a missing motorcycle and in the course of their search entered a tavern near Sennelager just at closing time. Three Canadian soldiers in the tavern refused to leave when requested and were then ordered by the Canadian provost corps to the police car outside. These soldiers called to their friends to help them, which a number of them endeavoured to do, and, in the rough-house which ensued, some uniforms were torn and a Canadian provost lance-corporal suffered a minor cut on the head. Some of the German police, who are always armed, fired their revolvers in the air and the men immediately dispersed. Six soldiers were arrested by the Canadian provost corps and are now awaiting trial.
No German civilians were involved in either incident. The relationship between the Canadian troops and the German population is, and continues to be, friendly and cooperative. This was confirmed, as hon. members may have noted, in Ottawa Tuesday by Dr. Puendor, former burgomaster of Cologne and a member of the Bundestag, who was reported to have said, in relation to these incidents, that Canadian troops are generally considered very friendly and well-behaved, and the newspapers which originated the report are known to be of a sensational variety.
[Later:!


REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to

Inquiries of the Ministry press dispatches of today, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the statement issued with regard to the percentage of men in the army who are combat troops is a statement issuing with his authority?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not know to just what figures the hon. member refers. In answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), when the estimates were under consideration the other evening, I gave a break-down of the three services into their different components. Those figures were supplied to me by the department. I do not know whether or not those are the figures to which the hon. member is referring.


George Alexander Drew: I am not raising this in any way as a surprise question. The only reason for raising it was that in this morning's press the number of troops was rather prominently shown. It may be that it referred back to the answer given but it appeared to be a new statement. I did not know whether a new statement had been issued in connection with the matter.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No. No new statement has been issued. I have not seen the article to which the Leader of the Opposition refers, but I will look at it.


PARLIAMENT HILL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. I think it comes under his department. Every year, and sometimes two or more times a year, platforms are built out in front of the building. My question is this. Why do they not build sectional platforms so they do not have to buy new lumber at $150 a thousand every year? This is continual, and a waste of the taxpayers' money.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, that is a perfectly good observation. The present platform is partially of the type that can be knocked down and used again. In fact most of the lumber that is used in it is used again. In the meantime a completely replaceable platform is being designed, so it can be used as many times as it is required.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask a
supplementary question? When will the new platform be ready?


Robert Henry Winters: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Is that the Liberal platform?


REFERENCE TO CONDITION OF LOOKOUT SHELTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: On a
local issue, Mr. Speaker, may I address another question to the Minister of Public Works. When is his department going to do something about either repainting or replacing that monstrosity they have at the northwest corner of the grounds?


Robert Henry Winters: It will be repainted very soon.



TEXTILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance if they are aware of the recent permanent closing of yet another Canadian textile mill in St. Catharines, Ontario, on the ground that the government policy makes it obvious that the domestic textile industry is expendable? If so, can the minister indicate to the house that the government proposes any action to relieve this situation?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the report to which my hon. friend referred, but I will have a look at it and comment on it later.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Perhaps I might be permitted to ask this question now so the minister can get the information before we reach the discussion of his estimates. In view of Mr. Donald Gordon's statement that the contract between the Canadian National Railways and R. F. Welch Limited was to be cancelled in May, will the minister ascertain whether that contract has been renewed or whether consideration has been given to the work in question being done under the direction of the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I shall take note of the question raised by the hon. member.



JUDGES ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 505, to amend the Judges Act, and the judicature provisions of the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 22, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Harris-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act, the Railway Act and the Tariff Board Act to provide for increases in the salaries of the members of the income tax appeal board, the board of transport commissioners and the tariff board.
Mr. Macdonnell:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Walter Edward Harris: The resolution states in full the purpose of the bill which will follow. The decision to increase the salaries of the members of the various boards follows logically upon the decision to increase the salaries of the judges. It is for the purpose of carrying out a decision which was made consequent upon the other decision.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, there are few occupations in the world pleasanter than raising people's salaries when a proper case is made for so doing. But at the same time it must be done with a sense of responsibility and that, of course, involves full information.
I think we must also bear in mind the fact that not everybody in Canada at the present time is finding his income going up. There are certain areas where that is anything but the case. I think that consideration puts on us an even greater onus to act with a sense of responsibility.
I therefore wish to ask for full information as to the history of the salaries, what the salaries have been, the last time there was a raise and what the raise is now. I do not
Public Service
think we should too easily assume that these people necessarily are on all fours with each other or that they are necessarily in the same category as the judges. I think various questions enter into the matter. While I certainly am not wishing to oppose the resolution I wish to reserve all rights of consideration until we have full information. The relevant information seems to me to be first of all a brief history of the salary in each case; second, a statement as to the qualifications of those engaged, how long they have been there. Some of them are professional people, I believe, and others not. In general would the minister give us the full information which any responsible person needs to have when considering this question?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the board of transport commissioners consists of six members. As I think the committee knows, the chairman and deputy chairman are required to be a judge, a retired judge or a barrister of 10 years' standing. At the moment the salary of the chief commissioner is $16,000 and that of the assistant chief commissioner $14,000. The salary is $13,000 for the deputy chief commissioner, and $12,000 for the other three commissioners. It is proposed to increase the salaries as follows: The chief commissioner, $18,500. I should add that is automatic upon the Judges Act being assented to because the statute provides that he will be paid the same salary as the president of the exchequer court. The assistant chief commissioner will receive $15,500, the deputy chief commissioner, $14,500 and the other commissioners, $13,500. It will be seen that only the chief commissioner has his salary increased by the amount of the increase given to judges. The other increases are $1,500 each.
As to the income tax appeal board, in this case there are certain qualifications required by statute as far as the chairman and the assistant chairman are concerned. At the present time the chairman receives $14,400, the assistant chairman $13,000 and the other two members $11,000. It will be seen that the salary of the chairman is that of a judge of the exchequer court. He is being increased to $16,900, which will be the salary of a judge of the exchequer court under the amendment to the Judges Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that statutory?


Walter Edward Harris: That is not a statutory provision. The assistant chairman is receiving an increase of $1,500 to $14,500 and the two members are receiving increases of $2,500, from $11,000 to $13,500.

Public Service
In the case of the tariff board, the chairman is now receiving $15,000, the vice-chairman $12,000 and the member $11,000. The intention is to increase the chairman to $16,900, an increase of $1,900, the vice-chairman to $14,500, an increase of $2,500, and the member to $13,500, an increase of $2,500.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In respect of the income tax appeal board and the tariff board would the minister give us the length of service and tell us whether there are professional qualifications?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not in a position to give the details of the length of service of the members, but I think I can do so on second reading. The names of the various members of these boards are of course well known. In the case of the board of transport commissioners and the income tax appeal board the requirement, as I have already said, is that the chairman and the assistant chairman shall be a judge, a retired judge or a member of the bar of 10 years' standing. These qualifications are of course held by those now in these offices. In the case of the board of transport commissioners, as my hon. friend said a while ago, some of the members are civil servants of long standing and many years' service in the public service. In the case of the income tax appeal board the member most recently appointed is the assistant chairman who has had something like two years' service. The other members have been there for some time. In the case of the tariff board the same thing is true. Of course, the chairman has been a civil servant over 35 or 40 years and the vice-chairman and member have been on the tariff board for some time as well. I can give the exact date, if my hon. friend requires it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This resolution, Mr. Chairman, makes me feel that I should start off by saying, "here we go again". Perhaps I should say that whether or not the government is thoroughly familiar with scripture, at least those across the way seem to be familiar with the verse that says that to him that hath shall be given. Here again we have increases in salaries proposed for people who, I admit, are in very responsible positions but nevertheless whose salaries are already at a level which most Canadians would consider to be more than adequate. I know how unpopular it is for me to make these repeated references to the failure of the government to do something about the position of those of our people who are in the lower brackets, with respect to income tax exemptions, with respect to the position of old age pensioners and other groups.
fMr. Harris.]
As I said at the start, "here we go again". We cannot seem to get action from the government on behalf of the people in this country who are really in need. Yet, it seems very easy for the government to bring in resolution after resolution, bill after bill, increasing salaries in cases where the levels are already reasonably adequate or, in the view of many Canadians, more than adequate.
I wish to point out also, Mr. Chairman, that in the case of all of these positions but one, that is in the case of all those on the board of transport commissioners; in the case of all those who are members of the income tax appeal board and in the case of all those who are members of the tariff board except the chairman, there have been increases during the last four years. As a matter of fact, in the case of the income tax appeal board there were substantial increases two years ago. In the case of the tariff board, there were substantial increases to all except the chairman two years ago. In the case of the board of transport commissioners, there were substantial increases to all the members four years ago. In the meantime it is many years since some people in this country, whose case we plead, have had any improvement in their position. I suggest a better perspective should be taken of matters of this kind.
The minister said that these increases follow logically upon the increases granted by this house to the judges. Well, if that is the case it follows logically that we feel as we did about those increases, that before they are granted increases should be provided for some of those in this country, our old age pensioners and others, who really need increases. When I made this reference yesterday the hon. member for Eglinton suggested that these things should be treated separately on their own merits. That is a good argument; it is very plausible. The only trouble is that in the case of those who already have sufficient, their case gets considered on its alleged merits but the case of these other groups is delayed and delayed.
Like the hon. member for Greenwood, I recognize it is a very pleasant position for the Minister of Finance to be in to be raising salaries. It is a pleasant position for anyone to be improving the lot or the security of any of our fellow citizens. But I ask for a little perspective, I ask for concern for those of our Canadian citizens who really need consideration rather than this constant stream of increases for those who are already up in the income brackets enjoyed by less than 1 per cent of the people of this country.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, briefly I should like to indicate that we should exercise a

little caution when considering this resolution, and perhaps should have more information. The mere fact that the resolution follows an increase in the salaries of judges, and the fact that that subject was given considerable thought yesterday, would not justify our rushing it through. Nor would the fact that it is offered late in the session give us cause to hurry.
I have had an opportunity only to look into the increases in salary for the board of transport commissioners, and some thoughts come to my mind in this connection. First of all let me say that I believe the board of transport commissioners is doing a good job, and that we have good men on that board. They seem to be discharging very well the important duties placed before them. I had a personal experience before the board this summer when they were considering the discontinuing of a railway line in the maritime provinces, and I felt that, while their judgment may not have appealed to me in that instance, they did look carefully into the matter, and operated in a fair and judicial manner. Even though nowadays they may be performing their duties better than they were performed at some other times I do feel we should be most careful that we do not apply exactly the same reasoning in their case as we did in connection with the judges.
It is true that the salary of the chief commissioner is fixed in that it is joined to that of the president of the exchequer court. Nevertheless, when one looks back to the increases that have occurred since 1947 in the salaries of the chief commissioner, the deputy, the assistant chief and others, he must see some inconsistencies in those increases. For example the increases have not been exactly the same in all four instances. The salary of the assistant chief and the other commissioners remained the same on two occasions, following which they were jumped to a point where they occupied the same relative position. I admit they are in that position today.
I should like to know if these increases are justified, and if they are computed on exactly the same basis as those for the judges. For example it was pointed out that the judges should have salary increases because the bench required strengthening. It is true that the Turgeon report said the board of transport commissioners should be strengthened. But has it not now been strengthened, and should there be further increases?
At this resolution stage I would leave the thought that the members of this party have shown consistency in being wary of increases. While we did support the increases in judges' salaries, definite reasons for those increases 50433-327
Public Service
were advanced when it was pointed out that good men had indicated they did not wish to go on the bench because of the lower salaries paid. And we also took note of the fact that there seemed to be some agreement that the bench in some respect was weak.
I do not know if the same reasons apply in the present case. I understand that in 1946 the Gordon report recommended that the board of transport commissioners should have an increase of about $2,000 over the salaries received by the members of other permanent boards in a comparable position. I should like to know if that principle is being maintained. I would also reiterate the fears expressed by the previous speaker when he said that the approach to this whole matter does not seem to be as it should be. Are these across the board increases, or are they given because there will be a discrepancy in the salaries of the other members with the chief commissioner automatically receiving the increase being granted to judges?
I view the whole measure with some apprehension and I should like to be given more definite reasons why these increases should be made at this time.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said most of the things I would have said had I spoken earlier. All I can say now is that I agree with everything he has said. I noted his reference to the scriptures, and possibly as a layman I may be allowed to draw attention to the other half of the quotation he referred to. The hon. member said the government was at least fulfilling the scriptures in giving to those who already had, but by the same token we are fulfilling the other half of that quotation by taking away from those who have not even that which they hath. Every time we increase wages or salaries we add to the spiral of inflation. If we are not taking care of those at the bottom as well as those at the top then we are taking away the little which those at the bottom have. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce is taking note of my remarks and will look into this matter of fulfilling the scriptures and have a word with the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):: The
hon. member has been referring to the scriptures and I wonder if it would be out of the way if I asked him to turn up Micah 6, verse 8, which I think will provide an answer to all these questions.


Donald MacInnis: What I said yesterday
applies also to the resolution now before us. I do not know whether the members of the government have noticed, but for some time

Public Service
the press of this country has been drawing attention to the fact that possibly the wage structure has gone up high enough. As a matter of fact employers are increasing their resistance to requests for increases in wages, and at times are even proposing reductions in wages.
When the government proposes to increase the salaries of people who are already receiving very substantial salaries I see no reason in the world why trade unions should withhold their hands in any way. They should go out after everything they can get because we are setting an example here.
I remember last year the chairman of the board of transport commissioners criticized the railway employees for seeking higher wages. Following that I put some questions on the order paper as to the salary of the chairman and the salaries of the members of the board of transport commissioners. I found that those salaries were quite substantial then, and we are now going to add to them.
As I said yesterday, we are building up a top-heavy society by adding to the wealth of the few at the top and taking away from those at the bottom. Every society which has been built on that basis has destroyed itself and the same thing will happen to ours unless we mend our ways. There is no reason in the world for these increases. People who today are getting over $10,000 or $12,000 a year have a very good living, particularly when their years of retirement are provided for with an adequate pension.
I do not suppose anything I say will have any effect; I suppose the government will go on and look after those who are already looked after and fail to look after the old age pensioners and those who retired from our railways, the civil service and other employments on very low pensions. I do not believe that hon. members of this house have any understanding of the struggle which so many people in this rich country have to go through day after day trying to make ends meet on inadequate incomes.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that salaries, wages and dividends are going up year after year, with the exception of the income of the farmer which has been going down year after year. The main burden of these increases will fall upon our farm population.
The point I am particularly interested in in trying to decide whether or not these increases are justified is the yardstick used by the government in coming to a decision of this kind. It is very hard for us to decide whether there is any justification for increases of this type. There must be some yardstick
fMr. Maclnnis.]
used by the government and I wonder if the minister would tell us what that is.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Finance opened the debate this morning he made a remark which I think pinpoints the whole problem we are facing. He said that these increases follow logically on the increases in judges' salaries. I should like to have a little further clarification from the minister on that point. I should like to know just how he justifies a statement of that kind and I propose to make a few comments before the minister replies. In doing so I shall refer only to the salaries of the members of the board of transport commissioners.
Before I go on to do that may I point out that if the policy of the government is that increases follow logically then I am afraid there will be no end to it; these increases will go right down the line.


Walter Edward Harris: Just on that point, the reverse is true. Instead of going down the line, this is bringing them up the line. The salaries of civil servants in the senior brackets were increased in July of last year; these salaries were not increased at that time because legislative action was required. These salaries are now being increased because the salaries of senior civil servants were brought up. The salaries of judges have been brought up and these are being brought up for the same reason.


Howard Charles Green: I was not referring only to the civil service, I was referring to people across the breadth of this country. If this is the basis on which the government is to work, that increases follow logically, then everyone else in the country will be entitled to demand an increase. I think the Minister of Finance is setting off a chain reaction. In so far as the board of transport commissioners is concerned, I cannot see how their salaries tie in at all with the salaries of the judges. It is true that the chief commissioner and the assistant chief commissioner must have been barristers or advocates of at least 10 years' standing.


Walter Edward Harris: Are they not all courts, every one of them?


Howard Charles Green: All courts?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: I do not understand the application of the minister's remark. I believe that the only member of the board of transport commissioners who has been a judge is the chief commissioner.


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: He is very well taken care of under the Railway Act because he automatically gets the salary of the president of

the exchequer court. When the salary of the president of that court goes up, pursuant to the bill which received third reading early this morning, the salary of the chairman of the board of transport commissioners will go up to the same amount. Furthermore, section 10 of the Railway Act provides that the chief commissioner, should he not be reappointed at the end of the 10-year period, automatically becomes a judge of the exchequer court. There is no discretion given in the act; he automatically becomes a judge of the exchequer court. In these ways there is some connection between his salary and the judges' salaries, because he automatically gets one of the highest salaries paid to any judge in the country.
When the minister goes further and says the increased salaries payable to the other members of the board follow logically on the increases under the judges' salaries act, I see no strength whatever in that argument. I think the assistant chief commissioner is a lawyer or an advocate by training. I do not know whether or not any of the others are, but certainly some of them are not. I think their salaries should be dealt with on the merits, and not come in as an appendix to a bill which increases the salaries of the judges.
I point out that these salaries have already been increased twice since the war. In 1947 the salaries of the ordinary commissioners were increased from $8,000 to $10,000 a year. Then in 1951 they were increased from $10,000 to $12,000 a year. Now we have this proposal to increase them to $13,500. My understanding is that the members of the board have the full pension rights of regular members of the civil service, although these board members are not appointed by the civil service commission, but are appointed by the cabinet.
We are entitled to have a further explanation from the minister as to why he is urging these increases at the present time and also as to how he ties them in with the increases to the judges. Personally I do not see how he is going to stop the members of the other governmental boards from getting increases. Surely they are in exactly the same position as the members of the board of transport commissioners.


Walter Edward Harris: What other boards have you in mind?


Howard Charles Green: There are various other boards, under the Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, and many other boards which could be cited. It is not as though the recommendations contained in the Turgeon report of 1951 had been followed. That has not been done. Mr. Turgeon and his associates 50433-327i
Public Service
recommended that the board of transport commissioners be given jurisdiction over shipping and also over aircraft, but that recommendation has never been followed at all. There has really been very little change in the functions of the board in the intervening years. I would ask the minister for a further explanation of his resolution.


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Chairman, going back over the comments that have been made, I did omit the other explanation which I shall now supply to my hon. friend from Vancouver -Quadra, that we are in this case doing what I think we are called upon to do, because of the two situations rather than the one I mentioned. I mentioned the judges' increases for the obvious reason that I think it is logical that this follows upon it, since both are statutory and both require action of parliament. In the case of the other senior servants of the government, we made increases last July. These people had to await a decision with respect to their salaries following upon that which might be made with respect to judges, since there has always been a similarity in the payments given to the three boards I have mentioned because of their judicial work. If there has not been always complete similarity in every detail, nevertheless there has been a general pattern which assimilates the salaries of judges and the salaries of certain of the officials of the boards I have mentioned.
In the case of the chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners, as has been pointed out, his salary is fixed as being that of the president of the exchequer court. In other words, no amendment is needed with respect to his salary because, upon the passage of the Judges Act, his salary does go up without further legislative action. Nevertheless I would expect that most hon. members would feel that, when the salary of the chief commissioner was increased, there should be an increase in the salaries of the commissioners who were dividing the work with him. That is being done accordingly. We were maintaining a wider margin, as a matter of fact, between his proposed salary and that of the assistant chief commissioner than exists at the moment. At present there is only a $2,000 gap. There will be a $3,000 gap after the amendments are carried, if they are. In the case of the deputy chief commissioner and the commissioners, there is a similar widening of the gap, which only shows that we are not judging these increases automatically having in mind the increase being granted to the chief commissioner.
In the case of the income tax appeal board, as I pointed out in my preliminary explanation, the salary of the chairman is, up to the

Public Service
present time, that of a judge of the exchequer court. That is not unintentional; it is the manner in which the salaries have been fixed, though I agree not by statute, but that relationship is being maintained. In the case of the tariff board, I agree that there has not been precisely the relationship, largely, I think, because of long service and other services, as a matter of fact, of the present chairman of the tariff board. His salary has been higher up to the present time than that of a judge of the exchequer court, but that is because of his services rendered over the years and his other salary increases in the nearly 40 years he has been with us. However, now the salary of the chairman is being assimilated to that of the chairman of the income tax appeal board, as being that of a judge of the exchequer court. I agree with the hon. member for Saint John-Albert that one should look at the salaries of those other than the chairman and judge them on their merits. There must, however, be some reasonable variation in the salaries of the junior members of a board to that of the senior members. We have tried to establish that by the present rearrangement. If there is one principle I should mention it is this, though I do not know that this needs to be a matter of argument or dispute. The fact is that when the proposed changes are carried out the salaries of the junior members of the board-that is the members-will be at the rate of that of an assistant deputy minister. So we have tried to put them in that class, the chairman being in the class of either a judge of the exchequer court or the president of the exchequer court. That is the reason for the present variation in the salaries proposed.
There must be some relation between those salaries and those of senior civil servants in other departments of government. You therefore really have the two forces operating. You have the judges' salaries in the one case and you have the senior civil servants' salaries in the other. We have attempted to place those in their proper relation to other circumstances. I repeat what I said a moment ago. Had these not been statutory salaries they would undoubtedly have been increased 12 months ago; but because they are statutory, and because they are all in connection with courts of record, we felt they had to be judged on the merits at the time that an increase in the judges' salaries was decided upon. That decision having occurred, we are now making this recommendation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister think any of the arguments used for increase of the judges'

salaries, such as refusal to take an appointment or strengthening of the board, apply in this case or is it just a straight routine increase because of the other implications he has mentioned?


Walter Edward Harris: My recollection is that the last appointee to the board of transport commissioners was Mr. Matthews who had been the solicitor at the Department of Transport and who had been particularly concerned with transport matters. In that case I do not think there was any question as to whether or not one could find suitable material. I think the decision was not to go outside the public service but to use his obvious qualities. I cannot say whether or not' there has been any difficulty in getting persons to serve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister indicated that the salaries of the junior members of two if not all three of these boards were being assimilated to the salary rate paid to an assistant deputy minister. Since he made that statement I have not had the time in which to look them all up but I discover that the assistant deputy minister of agriculture- a fairly important department-has a salary of $9,500 and that the assistant deputy minister of labour-another important department-has a salary of $10,000. I have not had the time in which to go through them all; no doubt there are others with a different figure. But those salaries that he said were assimilated to that of a deputy minister are of the order of $13,500 and $14,500.


Walter Edward Harris: Just a moment. May I first correct what 1 said to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert a moment ago. I had the wrong Mr. Matthews. The gentleman I was speaking of went to the air transport board. This other gentleman as well was a member of the staff, in the accounting branch.
In answer to my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, may I say that I must have been thinking of my own department. The assistant deputy ministers in the Department of Finance receive $13,500.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words this figure is being assimilated to the highest salary paid to an assistant deputy minister?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


William Alfred Robinson: Carried on division.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


Mr. McCann (for Mr. Harris) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 507, to amend

the Income Tax Act, the Railway Act and the Tariff Board Act in respect of the salaries of certain public officials.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES General services-
128. Departmental administration, $307,840.
The Depuiy Chairman: Hon. members will find this resolution at page 25 of the main estimates, the details commencing at page 204.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: 
The Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed that
the minister has consent to put the table on the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: The table is as follows:



FISHERIES-LANDINGS AND VALUES, BY AREAS AND PROVINCES, MAIN SPECIES,

[Stage Direction]
-	1953	1954	Landings	Landed Value	Marketed Value	Landings	Landed Value	Marketed Value'000 lb.	$'000	$'000	'000 lb.	$'000	S'000Grand Total-Canada	1,847,885	90,257	174,227	2,018,997	96,146	183,499By Areas-	542,279	31,780	66,260	600,170	35,044	70,699Maritime Provinces and Quebec...	096,057	34,347	66,707	694,772	34,989	68,000'503,336	12,015	24,000'	614,755	14,913	28,000'Freshwater fisheries	106,213	12,114	17,260	109,300'	11,200'	16,800'British Columbia	542,279	31,780	66,260	600,170	35,044	70,699186,914	21,848	47,936	178,862	23,579	50,284Herring	
Halibut	298,241	3,678	6,519	360,962	4,565	7,34024,882	3,661	5,721	25,200	4,092	5,965Maritime Provinces and Quebec	696,057	34,347	66,707	694,772	34,989	68,000'Cod 	189,296	5,166	13,897	191,587	6,090	-58,477	2,545	5,391	74,730	2,973	-150,123	1,514	4,355	143,603	1,558	-37,212	619	3,244	33,159	680	-Lobster	41,920	14,570	19,719	41,181	14,172	~Nova Scotia	367,583	21,862	40,012	383,619	22,696	41,000'Cod	116,259	3,739	10,035	129,323	4,528	-52,791	2,306	5,036	67,457	2,677	-Herring	46,006	767	2,004	29,089	392	-4,049	95	41	1,995	26	-Lobster	23,646	8,917	9,822	22,971	8,838	New Brunswick	187,778	6,764	17,376	198,905	6,936	18,000'Cod	20,689	442	1,438	25,319	722	-3,345	144	205	4,188	172	-52,314	438	1,617	75,828	859	-32,734	497	3,175	30,926	643	-Lobster	8,630	2,810	6,470	7,953	2,572	
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries

[Stage Direction]
1953-1954-concluded
Prince Edward Island.
Cod	
Haddock. Herring... Sardines.. Lobster...
Quebec.
Cod	
Haddock. Herring... Sardines.. Lobster...
Newfoundland.
Cod	
Lobster... Haddock.
Freshwater Fisheries.,.
Whitefish	
Trout	
Yellow Pickerel.
1 Estimated.
- Not available.
Landings
'0001b.
31,854
3,059
2,329
5,443
6,998
108,842
49,289
46,360
2,646
503,336
341,301
4,477
14,489
106,213
25,571
5,658
15,975
Landed
Value
[Stage Direction]
Marketed
Value
[Stage Direction]
24,000>
17,260
6,502
1,569
3,708
Landings
'000 lb.
32,830
4,700
3,055
4,386
7,349
79,418
32,245
34,300
2,908
614,755
458,339 4,923 44,928
109,300'
Landed
Value
[Stage Direction]
Marketed
Value
[Stage Direction]
I now touch on our export markets. Canada has rich fisheries on both our coasts. We have a comparatively small population and we are very poor fish eaters, which means that exports of fish are very important to the industry. Here again I am very happy to report a substantial increase in exports last year, up 17 per cent over 1953 from $114 million to $133 million. I am also happy to report increased diversification of these exports. The United States is still our biggest and best market. We have no currency problem there of course. They are a great market and prices are good. That is true, I suppose, of most products as far as the American market is concerned.
There is another aspect of fisheries, however, which makes the American market especially important to us. Fish is a very highly perishable product and so, of course, the best markets are the ones closest to the source of supply. The United States share of our exports declined from 72-7 per cent to 67-8 per cent, and the shares of other countries increased accordingly. I think that is a healthy sign because we do not want to have all our fish in one basket. United Kingdom exports doubled from $5-2 million to $12 million. Canned salmon is worthy of special note because, there, overseas sales increased from $14-6 million to $24 million. This increase is due to the industry's buy British program, an aggressive sales policy,
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries
competitive prices and good quality. I have here a table of fisheries exports to all our customers in value and percentage, and I suggest it might be helpful if it were put on the record.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed that the table shall go on the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: The table is as follows:



FISHERIES PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
1952	195S	1954	sooo	%	$000	%	$000	%117,206	100-0	114,389	100 0	132,651	100-087,705	74-8	83,194	72-7	89,790	67-85,131	4-4	5,841	51	6,652	5-02,599	2-2	3,309	2-9	3,708	2-8412	[DOT]4	428	*4	506	0-4653	[DOT]6	681	[DOT]6	716	0-51,071	[DOT]9	1,001	*9	1,162	0-9396	*3	422	[DOT]3	560	0-411,879	10-1	9,603	8-4	9,214	6-94,747	4-0	3,784	3-3	2,910	2-22,917	2-5	2,052	1-8	2,298	1-71,710	1-5	1,633	1-4	1,696	1-31,450	1-2	1,068	1-0	1,377	1-01,055	*9	1,066	[DOT]9	933	0-79,094	7-8	13,673	12-0	21,250	16-01,312	11	5,248	4-6	12,005	9-12,577 788	2-2	2,643	2-3	2,559	1-9[DOT]7	593	*5	530	0-42,666	2-3	2,088	1-8	2,643	2-0736	[DOT]6	950	-8	1,123	0-81,015	[DOT]9	2,151	2-0	2,390	1-83,397	2-9	2,078	1-8	5,745	4-3994	[DOT]8	675	[DOT]6	2,475	1-9497	[DOT]4	72	[DOT]1	1,550	1-2608	[DOT]5	71	12	383	*3	472	-4	158	0-1158	*1	72	[DOT]1	188	0-199	[DOT]1	91	All other countries	757	*7	617	[DOT]5	1,271	1-07,437	6-3	11,764	10-3	14,480	10-9
The $90 million of fish which we export to the United States is, of course, of very great importance to the fishing industry. It is two-thirds of our exports, and our exports in all are about 75 per cent of our fisheries production. I should like to pay tribute here to the very close co-operation which exists between the two fisheries associations of Canada and the United States, the fisheries council of Canada and the national fisheries institute of America. These associations are composed of all producers and wholesalers, the people who handle fish in both countries, and through their committees they have been able to work out very close co-operation in such things as quality, standards and types of packages. The federal government and the United States department of fish and wildlife have of course
assisted in this development. It is very interesting to see the increased American participation in the Canadian fisheries council through ownership of plants up here and the greatly increased Canadian participation in the American institute because of our interest in their market.
I should now like to make the announcement to which I referred with regard to salt cod. There are some 15,000 fishermen in Newfoundland, Quebec and the maritime provinces who are dependent on the production and sale of various types of salted fish, cod, haddock, pollock, hake and cusk, for the major share of their incomes from fishing. These fishermen are generally in the lowest income group in the fisheries, their products being sold in the low price markets of the Caribbean and southern Europe.
[Stage Direction]
Because of this condition, these fishermen have at times asked for assistance under the Fisheries Prices Support Act.
The Fisheries Prices Support Act was never intended to supplement general low prices on world markets. It was intended to compensate for sudden drops in market prices which seriously affected fishermen's returns, and to assist by purchasing fish for which no markets were available. The act has been used for both these purposes in the past. I will submit the record of assistance since the passage of the act if requested to do so when item 153 is under consideration.
In 1953 there was a decline in the world price of salt cod, and price support of $1.12 a quintal, 112 pounds of dried fish, was paid on Newfoundland shore-cured fish. No price support was paid on the fish produced on the mainland. This year the Newfoundland fishermen's organizations applied for price support on the 1954 production. The price received by the fishermen was a little higher than the 1953 price without price support. For one of the commonest grades, Madeira, they got $10.05 this year against $9.85 last year on the market. The 1954 catch was 20 per cent greater than the 1953 catch, however, so fishermen's income in 1954 was greater without price support than it was on 1953's smaller catch with price support.
No real problem exists in marketing the 1954 fish and no unsold surplus of any consequence is anticipated. The mainland fishermen and producers, those in the three maritime provinces and in Quebec, fish in the same general area and their fish is sold competitively in the same markets. They have not applied for price support and feel that if price support is paid to the Newfoundland fishermen it will mean unfair competition by way of a government bonus to their competitors.
A further complication is the close integration of the fresh and frozen fish trade with the salt fish trade, many fishermen producing for both markets. Any suggestion of price support or subsidies on fish exported to the United States would immediately raise a cry for countervailing duties on our fish. They have the sort of legislation we discussed here the other evening for putting extra duties on any product which is subsidized for export in the country of origin. As I have pointed out, the United States is very much our largest customer for fish of all sorts. Therefore it has been decided not to pay price support on the 1954 production of Newfoundland salt cod.
It is, however, appreciated that the salt cod industry does need assistance in the
Supply-Fisheries
present transitional period. Such assistance, however, should be extended to the whole Atlantic salt cod industry and not just to the industry in one province. Undoubtedly the best way is to assist in the most important outside ingredient in the production of salt cod, namely, salt. These fishermen have tremendous resources of fish available to them, but the only way they have of preserving these fish in many areas is to salt them for the market. The cost of the salt in the more remote areas in relation to the price of the finished product has forced many fishermen to leave the industry. A rebate on salt has been suggested as a temporary measure until the department's industrial development program to modernize these fisheries reaches these fishing areas.
The government is therefore proposing to proceed with an arrangement to pay a rebate to fishermen and others at the rate of 50 per cent of the cost of the salt delivered to the point of production in the calendar year 1955. The payment will be based on the proof of purchase and the proof of the use of such salt in the production of designated fisheries products. The designated product will include salt cod, haddock, pollock, hake and cusk. The fishermen this year will, for this purpose, not have to take any action now other than to be sure to save their records of salt purchases and sales of salted fish. Detailed instructions will be made available as soon as possible. Fishermen will submit only one claim application form which will be provided at the end of the production year. These forms will be available in September.
During the coming year careful study will be made to see whether the present methods of purchasing, packaging and distributing salt can be improved so as to further reduce the cost for the fishermen. The co-operation of the provinces in this matter will be welcome. On the basis of this study, recommendations will be made for a continuation or a change in this assistance in future years. Computed on the basis of estimates currently available, the over-all assistance at 50 per cent rebate would be as follows: Newfoundland, the number of fishermen engaged in salt fishing there is 9,000, the rebate will total $375,000 or about $42 per fisherman; in Nova Scotia, 2,500 fishermen and a rebate of $80,000 will work out at about $32 per fisherman; New Brunswick, about 1,000 fishermen in the salt cod industry and a rebate of $22,500 works out at $22 per fisherman; Prince Edward Island, 500 fishermen and a $3,500 rebate works out to $7 per fisherman; Quebec, the Saguenay and Gaspe shores, 1,500 fishermen and a $19,000 rebate works out at $13 per fisherman. The total number of fishermen affected will be around 15,000 and
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries
the total cost to the government in the current year will be about half a million dollars. As no funds for this purpose are available in the present estimates, the Minister of Finance will present a supplementary estimate for the approval of parliament.
Now, proceeding with the report of the main activities of the department, I come to our program of fisheries management and development which is of course primarily dependent on fisheries research. I will discuss the general activities of the fisheries research board on the item for that board, but I might say that they have made satisfactory progress on many fronts. One of the many interesting problems they are now studying is the matter of the utilization of dogfish. We have countless numbers of dogfish on both coasts. They give our fishermen considerable trouble. During wartime their livers were a very valuable source of vitamins and a good industry was built on both coasts on fishing dogfish for their livers. The development of synthetic vitamins after the war, of course, ruined that market. Great use is made in England of dogfish.
The English, of course, eat about three times as much fish as we do. Over half of that fish is consumed through the fish and chips shops, the equivalent of our hamburger and hot dog stands. At least half of the fish used in fish and chips shops is dogfish. We, in this country, have never made much use of it. We have conducted experiments on trying to make fishmeal out of dogfish. One of the difficulties is the high ammonia content of the flesh. However, experiments have gone far enough ahead now for one of our commercial companies on the coast to put in a pilot plant this year, and they will see whether or not economic use can be made of dogfish. It will be a great boon to the fishermen in two ways. First of all it will reduce the great number of dogfish which prey on other fish in the sea, and it will also provide another source of income for the fishermen.
The other interesting thing is the steady expansion of our scientific work in the field of oceanography. Fisheries scientists have always realized that one of the secrets of the movement of fish is linked with the great tidal and seasonal movements of the oceans of the world. Both our research stations at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and Nanaimo in British Columbia, have oceanographers who are pursuing this work. The navy, and the hydrographic section of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, have assisted us in this work because these studies are very important to them, too.
We have had a very interesting example of how practical even such an abstract study 
as oceanography can be. The British Columbia electric railway company laid the first under-water high tension power line from the mainland to Vancouver island. The engineers of this company came to our department to ask for the services of our oceanographers in charting the best route for the cables and to give them data on water levels, tides and salinity. This company paid for the use of these people, but they were so pleased with the results that they have voluntarily made a gift of $5,000 to the institute of oceanography at the University of British Columbia as a tribute to the work of our men in his field.
We help our fishermen in a more direct way so far as locating fish is concerned. This is done in two ways, that is, exploratory fishing, finding new fishing grounds, and demonstration fishing or trying out new gears, new inventions and perfecting them before recommending them to the fishermen. Fishermen have always been low income workers generally, and therefore cannot afford to venture very far away from the grounds where they know from past experience the fish are going to be found, nor can they venture large sums in new capital equipment unless they are pretty sure that capital equipment is going to work. One of the functions of our department is to do both exploratory fishing and demonstration fishing. On the west coast most of the exploratory fishing has been done by the industry itself because that is the most prosperous and most advanced section of our fishing industry. However, we have done considerable exploratory fishing out there for shrimp. Shrimp are in very great demand in North America, and are one of the few fish we do not obtain in sufficient quantities to supply the Canadian demand. We have to import them from the United States. We have encouraged commercial fishermen to fish these new grounds, both by trap and by trawl, and are very happy to report a substantial increase in the production of shrimp as a consequence.
On the east coast we have now finished a complete mapping of the great cod banks, the fishing grounds surrounding Newfoundland. Some of these banks have now been fished for almost 500 years, so you would think they were all well known. The fact remains that many of the inshore grounds have not been developed. We did this by a combination of engaging experienced fishermen and their vessels to do regular patrol explorations under the direction of our scientists and by the use of our own vessels. One of the most significant developments has been

the finding of excellent grounds near Bona-vista, the riding represented by my colleague the acting minister of fisheries, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Today there are 15 longliners based on Bonavista which are fishing these grounds discovered by our exploratory fishing. We have also done a great deal of tagging of codfish along the shores of Newfoundland to get more information on the actual migration of the fish from year to year.
In the maritime area our most significant exploratory fishing has been for scallops. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has in his riding the great fishing town of Digby which until recent years was the source of most of the scallops used in Canada. There is a good market for scallops so we did exploratory fishing in the banks, out in the gulf and in the ocean and discovered excellent grounds on the St. Pierre bank and Brown's bank. As a result of that, in the last four years the production of scallops in Canada has trebled from half a million pounds a year to a million and a half pounds a year. First discoveries had an unfortunate effect on the market, so far as my hon. friend's fishermen are concerned, because the increased production dropped the price; but the price is now back at a reasonable level.
We have also done a lot of work on trying to devise more effective drags for scallop fisheries, and here we had the co-operation of the navy, which lent us deep-sea divers to watch the underground operations of these draggers as they scraped the sea bottom for scallops, to note the effectiveness of the gear and what damage was done to the beds, and what immature scallops were left.
We are continuing discoveries in a field of research in what is commonly called the great herring mystery in the gulf of St. Lawrence. We have a large and successful herring industry on the west coast. Our scientists have done a remarkable job there in forecasting the size of the runs and the time of year in which they will appear, and the quotas which should be established, to assure that we are going to have perpetual fisheries.
There is a very fine herring and sardine fishery of course in the bay of Fundy, mainly in that area represented by the hon. member for Charlotte. But in the gulf area itself there is a tremendous stock of herring which is very hard to locate. There have been very large catches, and then years will go by with very small catches. This spring a disease hit these herring, and the large herring population was shown by the very great numbers of dead herring washed up on the beaches, and scraped up by trawlers fishing for cod
Supply-Fisheries
and for haddock. We have had extensive research done there. We are not yet able to predict with any accuracy, as we are on the west coast, where these runs will occur. However, our research was far enough advanced that this year an English fishing firm from Lowestoft, England, a firm experienced in herring fishing, has come to Nova Scotia, and with the assistance of the provincial government has launched a fishery for herring in the gulf, using the drift net method of the North sea.
Thus far they have had quite good catches, and we hope through their experience, plus our research, we will solve the problem and establish the east coast herring fisheries on a basis as regular and as lucrative as the herring fisheries of the west coast.
So far as demonstration fishing is concerned,
I think our-
James Ralph Kirk: Before the minister proceeds to discuss demonstration fishing, I take it the company was fishing in the north part of Nova Scotia. I believe they have come down to what we call the southwest part of Nova Scotia, and have left the north or the Northumberland strait and the gulf of St. Lawrence, down to what we call the southwest, on the Atlantic ocean.


James Sinclair: The reason this took place is quite clear. They thought herring were more likely present in the southwest. It is because this company has had experience in herring fishing. They are conducting large-scale exploratory fishing, on a commercial scale.
Keturning to the subject of demonstration fishing, one of the most interesting things we have done in the last year is in connection with dories. In the days of the old fishing schooners, such as the Bluenose, there was a tremendous fleet of schooners fishing the Grand Banks, and those schooners were loaded with dories-one-man or two-man dories. Those are the small rowboats which were put over the side each morning from which the fishermen operated, both with long lines, along the bottom, and with hand lines.
But, over the years, it was found more and more difficult to get fishermen to fish in dories. Perhaps this was the most dangerous phase of fishing, where men in these small rowboats would be a hundred miles at sea, out on the Grand Banks where the waters of the gulf stream meet the waters of Davis strait, an area of storm and fog.
And as conditions improved in the fishing industry it was found that fewer and fewer men would go dory fishing. As a matter of fact the only fleet on the Grand Banks using dories today are the 62 Portuguese ships,

Supply-Fisheries
which usually carry 75 one-man dories. We have a good fleet of bankers which were not being used because of the lack of men for these small dories. So our experimental station devised a larger powered dory. The other dories, of course, relied on the use of oars. The power does two things. It makes the boat safer and gives greater mobility, and also provides mechanical power for the lifting of long lines quickly and safely. Four of these dories can be carried on one banker.
Our experiments thus far have been quite successful, in fishing, but trouble has been encountered launching the heavier dories in rough water. The single-man dory was much easier to launch. The results have been very encouraging, however, and we are proceeding with this project.
On the west coast a group of fishermen in 1950 began to work on a mid-water trawl. In Canada most of our fishing is done close to the surface with lures, with gill nets or with seines, or right on the bottom with trawlers scraping the bottom. With modern electronic recording devices and echo-sounders it is easy to locate the fish at various levels between the bottom and the top. So a lot of work has been done to devise a satisfactory mid-water trawl which can be fished at every level fish are found. Fishermen on the west coast started work on this, themselves. By 1953 they had encountered many obstacles, and had asked for help from our west coast experimental station. The work thus far has been very successful. These trawls are making catches of between 10 and 30 tons per drag; and we are looking forward to quite a development in such gear, once it has been fully perfected.
One other step forward has been the development on the west coast of the use of refrigerated sea water for holding fish in fishing boats and fish tanks. Today the common procedure is to put fish in the hold, spread ice, then more fish on top of that. The result is that the fish in the bottom become badly bruised from the pressure of the other fish on top. A ship also has to carry sufficient ice on the outward journey to do for the whole trip. Our engineers on the west coast have rigged up ships with cooling systems which use sea water, cooling down that sea water and using it for refrigeration with the result that the fish are no longer crushed. They are suspended in water and arrive in first-class condition. More and more of our packers are using the refrigerated sea water device, which was invented by our department.
On both coasts the modernization of our fleets is going ahead steadily. This is seen mostly in mechanization. On the west coast 
gill nets are put out and taken in on drums, rather than putting out the gill nets by hand. In the last two or three years our big seiners have found similar but larger drums effective in laying their heavy seines. This has resulted in a situation where, instead of having crews of six or seven, the ships carry crews of three or four.
Nylon nets are now being used everywhere on the west coast and their use is increasing on the east coast. The government's part on the east coast in the improvement of the fleet is done mostly through subsidies we pay to the classes of draggers and long-liners, designed mainly by our naval architects, and put in service on the east coast. We pay a subsidy of $165 a ton to fishermen who construct these improved types of boats. So far we have encouraged the construction of 77 draggers and 125 longliners, and paid a total subsidy of about $800,000.
We have a very effective engineering branch in our department, which has tried to show the world that in this country we can have fish and power, and fish and industry. There is a sorry tale in most countries, that when industry or power entered the scene, fishing operations declined. That is one reason why more and more of the older countries send their fleets so many thousands of miles to other grounds.
In this country we have fisheries under federal control. The Fisheries Act does give us power to insist that before any obstruction, such as a power dam, is placed in a stream, provision must be made for the passage of the fish using that stream. The same is true in connection with pollution by industry. We have power to insist that proper steps be taken so that the effluent from industrial plants shall not poison a stream.
We have a most imposing list of engineering accomplishments in this field, including the building of fishways around dams, and the building of fishways around falls to ensure that salmon especially shall have the easiest possible access to the spawning grounds. And we have a good record, too, in connection with the prevention of industrial pollutions. We try to look to the future to see the trend of industrial development before it actually starts because that is the easiest way to assure necessary fishery precautions. For example, last year we had an engineer and a biologist up in northern British Columbia and the Yukon to look at this great, new Frobisher development, which will start up there in the next two or three years, to see what the effect will be then on the fish population up there. The fish population is not too important commercially but it is of great importance to the Indians

and other residents there. I can discuss this in more detail on the item covering our engineering services.
One of the most vexing matters in connection with fisheries is the question of territorial waters. Countries which have rich fisheries off their coasts naturally want those fisheries kept for the use of their own nationals, while other countries which have no fisheries or which have exhausted their fisheries want the right to fish in such waters. The historic three-mile limit has no relation at all to fisheries. That was the distance the old-fashioned cannon could fire so ships kept further out than that. Fisheries conservationists around the world are agreed that it is impossible to have an adequate conservation policy if it is going to be limited to a three-mile strip and if other nations can come up to that boundary and exploit without any rules or regulations the fish which the country having the coasts has maintained.
This matter has been before the United Nations for some years and a special committee was struck to discuss it. Each country concerned is making a report. Our committee has been working now for two years, headed by Dean Curtis of the law school of the University of British Columbia. Its report has been submitted to the minister of external affairs who mentioned it at a recent meeting of the committee on external affairs. The whole problem will be discussed at the 1956 meeting of the general assembly.
This spring in Rome a conference was held of 55 fishing nations of the world to discuss the whole problem of the conservation of the living resources of the sea. The meeting was told specifically not to discuss this matter of territorial waters, but that number of nations simply could not get going without discussing what is a most difficult problem. The nations were divided almost equally between what are called the coastal states, those nations such as our own which have rich fisheries on their coasts and which naturally want their control extended, and freedom of the seas states, countries which have no fisheries on their own shores and who are anxious to come in and fish other waters on the historic right of freedom of the seas.
The matter has been brought very much to a head by the action last year of three South American countries in arbitrarily extending their boundaries 200 miles out to sea and picking up and arresting whaling ships and United States tuna clippers which were fishing in that area. There is no question that the fishermen of our country would welcome such a declaration here in
Supply-Fisheries
Canada. Hon. members from the maritimes will recall that a 200-mile extension off Newfoundland would include all the Grand Banks areas which have been fished now for 500 years by one nation. This summer in St. John's the Portuguese celebrated the 500th year that they have fished the Grand Banks. This nation claims that they had established historic rights to these high-seas fisheries long before there was a Canada.
However, we have not waited for a decision on this matter. We have tried another approach to conservation by international agreements on the high seas and today Canada is almost ringed with these most excellent international commissions which do a wonderful job in bringing about intelligent international co-operation and control to assure that there is going to be enough fish for all the nations fishing there. Our commissions have done such an outstanding job, this past year especially, that I think I should say a word on each of them when the particular item comes up.
However, there are two of our fisheries which are not covered. The first and most important is the pink salmon fishery on the west coast. We have five kinds of salmon on the west coast, six really if you consider the red spring salmon and the white spring salmon as being different species. The most important is the sockeye salmon, a four-year fish. The two least valuable have always been regarded as the pink salmon, a small two-year fish, and the chum salmon. In 1930 a fisherman was lucky if he got two cents for the whole of a pink salmon, but under this year's agreement he is going to get 8f cents a pound for pink salmon and the value of the Fraser river run will be about $4 million.
While we have had since 1937 an international salmon agreement to control and develop the sockeye salmon resources on the Fraser and to divide the catch equally between the United States and ourselves we have no such commission for the pink salmon. We Canadians have always got a much smaller proportion of the pink catch, mainly because the Americans were in a much better position to catch these salmon. They come in from the open Pacific, sweep down the south tip of Vancouver island, and then pass through United States waters before coming up past the mouth of the Fraser and entering the Fraser.
For years we have asked for a pink salmon commission similar to the sockeye salmon commission, but there has been a certain reluctance on the part of the United States fishing industry to have such a treaty because they were getting 80 per cent of the catch while we were getting only 20 per cent. In

Supply-Fisheries
recent years our fleet has stepped up its catch and has now reached the position for the first time where it is getting almost 40 per cent of the catch.
I have encouraged our fishermen to make an all-out assault on this fishery this year. Two years ago in order to encourage deep-sea fishing we permitted the entry of 15 large deep-sea seiners from the United States and as an encouragement promised the Canadians who brought them in that half the duty would be remitted at the end of the first year's deep-sea fishing and the other half at the end of the second year's deep-sea fishing. I am quite sure that with these boats and with our own seiner fleet operating in outside waters this year our fishermen, catching the fish before they enter United States waters, will be able to pass the United States share of the catch. I hope the United States will then be more amenable to having a conservation treaty similar to the sockeye treaty, than to continuing a policy of each nation trying to out-fish the other.
Our fishermen are certainly convinced of the need of a pink salmon treaty and at last the United States fishermen are also convinced. The unions in the state of Washington and the province of British Columbia had a joint meeting this spring which was attended I believe by the hon. member for New Westminster. At that meeting they both endorsed the idea of such a treaty. Once again I have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to officially raise this matter with the United States.
Our fishermen do not care so much whether the new treaty is under the international North Pacific commission or is attached to the present international sockeye salmon commission. On the whole they would prefer the salmon commission because .of the excellent work that commission has done in rehabilitating the Fraser run.
The one other fishery which is not specifically covered by an international commission is our seal fishery. Of course seals are animals, but sealing and whaling are generally referred to as fisheries. For many years we had an item in the estimates dealing with the Pribilof fur seals. This was purely a revenue item and it has been removed from the estimates and put under the financial administration vote. At one time there were great resources of Pacific fur seal but ruthless hunting by ships of many nations on the high seas reduced the herd to about 150,000. Canada, the United States, Japan and Russia entered into a conservation treaty which was later abandoned by Russia and

Japan. But as a result of conservation under this treaty there are now somewhere between two and three million seals. The killing is done on a share basis, and we get 20 per cent of the catch. This year the government of Canada grossed $1,002,221 from the sale of 12,776 skins.
We now have a problem created by too great an increase in the number of fur seals. The fishermen of all four nations fishing the north Pacific say that they are doing too much damage to their fisheries. Our scientists calculate that the fur seal herd eats twice as much fish in one week as all Canada eats in one year. This fall the four nations are having a meeting to review the whole problem and a scientific study is being made to see whether the rate of killing should not be increased to decrease the size of the herd. On the east coast we have another great herd of harp seals which come down each spring from Davis strait and whelp off the coast of Newfoundland and in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Last year there were only four vessels that went out sealing from Newfoundland. Three of them were lost in the ice. There was, fortunately, no loss of crews. A century ago there were 400 vessels out of Newfoundland engaged in this industry. This year we had 12 vessels out of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and none were lost. They killed 140,000 seals, and about 60,000 seals were killed by landsmen, men operating from shore in Labrador, Newfoundland and Quebec. The total value was about $150,000. At the same time there was a Norwegian fleet operating off Labrador, and their kill amounted to about $230,000. That kill is close to the limit which our scientists say this herd will support. We have not an international treaty, but we have an understanding with Norway on the opening date of the season.
I normally would not mention this except that this spring there was considerable publicity given to protests against the inhumanity of seal hunting. I received a great number of letters from the humane societies across the country and from individual people asking whether it was true and what could be done about it. This sealing is probably the most dangerous and ill-rewarding occupation in all the fishing industry. The seals killed are of two types. One is the small white coat, a baby seal less than 30 days old, and the other, adult seal about a year. The white coat is killed by a hard blow with a club at the back of the neck, in the same way as the three-year-old seals are killed on Pribilof island. The adult seals are killed with high powered rifles. Any killing, whether it is in the slaughter house, by the hangman or the killing of seals, is brutal. We aim, of course.

to have brutality cut down to as little as possible. I think that the report originated mainly in the fact that when the baby seals are killed they are skinned immediately. Apparently the observer noted that the carcasses were still quivering after they were skinned and thought the little seals were skinned alive. Our scientists state, and farmers will understand this, that it is the same as when a chicken has its head cut off. Though the chicken is dead it will still run around the farm lot, because its nervous system is still in operation. We try to watch this killing as closely as possible. The minister of provincial affairs in Newfoundland called a committee meeting in Newfoundland to discuss the matter. He is also head of the humane society in Newfoundland. We have agreed that this coming season we will watch this matter very closely.
One of the last things I should like to mention is the matter of fishermen's education. We have in our estimates, and have had for some years, a vote to assist in co-operative education at the St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere in Quebec and the University of British Columbia in British Columbia. They have done a good job in teaching the fishermen to help themselves and in organizing the credit union movement about which so much has been said favourably in the banking and commerce committee in recent days.
We have, however, given more help than that. Our research board is carrying on certain projects with the universities. We have given them $20,000 to carry out certain research with their graduate students which we would otherwise carry out in our laboratories. We have a new vote of $25,000 for scholarships. We are having difficulty in recruiting the type of scientists we would like for our fisheries research board. Today when a young man graduates in physiology, zoology or biology, there are so many openings for him to go into industrial science where the pay is high that it is becoming more and more difficult to recruit the type of scientists we want for the fisheries research board. Many scholarships are open to graduate students in other fields but few in fisheries. This year we are offering through the national research council graduate scholarships to students who are proposing to go into the fishing industry as a career to enable them to get assistance in their graduate years. This is confined to graduate students. We shall also guarantee them work in summers as student assistants, and in the end work with our research board.
One other thing we have done, which I think is a significant step forward. We have
Supply-Fisheries
no fishermen's school in Canada. The way a boy learns to be a fisherman in Canada is by going to sea with his father and watching him fish. Fishing used to be a rather primitive matter, on a boat with sails and a simple net; but with modern mechanization of fishing and the long range of our boats, better education is needed today. Most of the great fishing nations of the world such as Portugal, Norway, Britain and Russia have very good fishing schools. This spring, as an experiment, we started at the University of British Columbia a school for professional fishermen, not for boys. The course was devised by the fisheries department, the university extension department, the fishing companies, the fishermen's union, the native brotherhood, which is the Indian union of fishermen, and the fishermen's co-operative organization. The course of studies is an excellent one and it is well worth while putting it on the record, because I am sure there will be requests from other parts for similar courses:
Oceanography, by our scientists who study oceanography.
Conservation of each of our major fisheries, by the experts from our research board..
The use of gears, ropes and fibres, by a man experienced in the field.
Mid-water trawl, by a scientist working on that subject.
Maintaining quality of fish, by our inspectors.
Navigation, by the head of the navigation school in Vancouver.
Engines, by representatives from the major engine companies.
Electronics-and a modern fishing boat is almost like an aeroplane in the number of electronic devices it has in its wheelhouse- by representatives of the various electronic companies.
First aid by the St. John Ambulance Association.
Search and rescue, our form of coastguard, by the air force officer who heads that branch.
International law as applied to fisheries, by the dean of the law school at the University of British Columbia.
Off-season employment, by the head of the selective service.
Meteorology, by the Department of Transport.
Finance, loans, etc., by a bank manager of Vancouver.
International agreements, by a commissioner of the international salmon commission.

Supply-Fisheries
Income tax and record keeping, by a man from the income tax department.
Marine insurance, by the treasurer of an insurance company.
Economics, by one of our economists in the department.
Markets and distribution, by the sales manager of one of our largest fishing companies.
Boat design and construction, by a naval architect.
Panel on fisheries education in Japan, because the Japanese are our great competitors in the north Pacific.
The course was so successful that the fishermen's unions and industry have all asked for a larger course next year and requests have now come from other areas for a similar course to be given to their fishermen. Cost of the course was $3,000, the department providing free tuition, transportation and board.
The last thing I should like to touch on is something which is not generally spoken of in fisheries debates in the House of Commons, the sports fishing of Canada. The B.N.A. Act gives the federal government complete control over fishing in Canada but over the years we have worked out a very satisfactory arrangement for eight of the 10 provinces whereby they administer the sports fishing in conjunction with their game departments. It has worked out well. It is hard to estimate the value to Canada of sports fishing. We have had a tremendous increase in the number of sports fishermen. We see it best perhaps through the sale of sports fishing gear, which is greater than the combined sale of all gear for golf, tennis, and winter sports. We, however, control sports fishing in tidal waters, and in rivers of the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and British Columbia, on what are called the anadromous fish, fish that come in from the sea to spawn, of which salmon is the principal one.
On the west coast we have great sports fishing for salmon in the sea. We have big salmon derbies and competitions by people in rowboats. The biggest one had 15,000 people go out for a one-day fishing for prizes. Last year we had 144 of these salmon derbies sponsored by clubs, unions, boards of trade and towns. The total catch of salmon by sports fishermen approaches a quarter of a million fish, as far as we can estimate. It is an excellent thing as far as creating interest in the whole fishing industry. We have reserved certain areas for sports fishermen. Relations between the commercial fishermen and the sports fishermen are excellent. On the west
[Mr. Sinclair.!
coast we have two or three special areas reserved entirely for sports fishing. These are three areas where the tyee salmon, a very large form of spring salmon, is the principal fish. They are Campbell river, Phillips Arm and River inlet. The River inlet breeds the largest race of salmon in Canada. I was there last summer one day, and in that day 94 salmon, averaging 43 pounds, were caught. The largest was 86 pounds.
On the east coast the salmon is not nearly as numerous but it is even more highly regarded as a sporting fish. In the last two years we have formed a committee of our department and the provincial departments to conserve and extend the Atlantic salmon fisheries. There are great problems in connection with it such as the increase in industrialization of the east coast, power dams, industrial pollution and spraying for spruce budworm. I hope the spraying is killing the spruce budworm as effectively as it kills all insect life in the streams in which the baby salmon live.
I realize that I have not covered all the activities of the department, but those matters not covered can be raised on the individual items.


Mr. Rowe:: I do not want to interrupt the minister but may I ask him whether there is any indication that what is being used to combat the spruce budworm has affected the fish at all?


James Sinclair: Yes. For instance, in the South Miramichi the company that sprayed there-I will not mention the name of the company-used half a gallon of DDT per acre. Our scientists examined the streams and found that the spray had killed completely all insect life in the streams. There are no nymphs, larvae, worms or small flies, as a consequence of which the small Atlantic salmon which live in these streams the first three years all die of starvation. Mind you, if these areas were not sprayed for spruce budworm the trees would have died and there would have been no cover for insects anyway. It is one of those things that have to be done. Our job is to restore the fisheries once the spraying is over.
To summarize the statistics of our department, may I say that this year's estimate is for $12,044,963, down $344,211 from last year despite salary increases and the application of the 40-hour week to our 75 patrol vessels. Our revenue is $256,473 out of licences and confiscation of fish plus the $1 million from seal skins. Our staff is composed of 1,562 permanent, 736 seasonal and 17 part-time employees, making a total of 2,315. That is up 55 from last year, mostly seasonal, in our inspection and in our protection services.

I should like to close by paying tribute to the staff of the department. This year we lost Stewart Bates who had been deputy minister for 10 years. He did a magnificent job in organizing the Department of Fisheries. When he left he was chairman of the North Pacific commission, chairman of the North Atlantic commission and he would have been chairman of the great international fisheries conference which met in Rome this spring. He was a good man and he trained a good staff. The promotions to deputy minister and assistant deputy came from within the department. I am proud of the type of person we have in the Department of Fisheries. They do not get as big pay as those mentioned in the bills we were discussing but these scientists of ours and officials are men who-to use the phrase used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-find that their vocation is their avocation. They are happy in their work. It is great work, scientific research, engineering, protection, marketing. They are close to nature. They are conserving a great national resource. I can tell you as Minister of Fisheries that I am glad to head the department and that, in my opinion, for a person of my inclinations, my job is the best one in the cabinet.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, whatever else one might say of the minister or in the way of criticism of his administration of his department, I am sure that no one could ever criticize the manner in which he delivers his opening report on the first item. He has a colourful and dramatic manner of delivery and he seems almost to make the report live. I am sure he must have been born within sight of the sea and that he must have read Joseph Conrad a great deal as a boy because you can almost smell the salt air and sometimes even get the smell of curing fish as he describes the work of his department.
As it is virtually one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, before I start to discuss the particular matters raised by the minister, may I ask you to call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to review at any length the statement made by the minister because I think, as he said, most of these matters can be dealt with more effectively when we come to the various headings of his department. But I should like to discuss the department generally for a few minutes, and with particular reference to one or two matters which,
Supply-Fisheries
frankly, are of special interest to the fishermen of eastern Canada. I am perfectly prepared to admit I have no special knowledge-in fact, I have no knowledge whatsoever except that which one gets from reading the newspapers-of fisheries in western Canada and on the Pacific coast, and I would not attempt to deal with them in any way at all.
The minister did make an interesting statement and announcement of policy this morning with respect to the subsidy or drawback which is going to be given to what one might call the salt fishermen, those who are using salt in the processing of their fish. I am glad he did that at that time because I had intended to speak for a little while about the policy that has been followed by the department up to now. We had some special subsidies paid to the salt fish trade of Newfoundland and, as the minister knows, that caused some criticism in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. As I said, I had intended to speak about that but now it is not necessary because we have the announcement of a different policy entirely. I do not intend to discuss that policy now because I have not had an opportunity to consider it. However, I understand from the minister there will be a supplementary vote with respect thereto, and we can deal with it at that time.
I am very glad to see that this has been done. With all due respect to the fish trade of Newfoundland, no matter what arguments may be used in support, the fact is that it is not helpful to have special benefits applying to one province as against other provinces competing in the same trade. I know the fishermen of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were somewhat critical of that last year. If there is any danger now of Newfoundland seceding from Canada it is probably just as well that we do not pay them any money because if we have to lose them we do not want them to take our money with them. The minister has adopted a fairly happy expedient to get away from that.
As he has told us, there was a larger catch of fish last year, and on the whole I think the fishing industry is in a relatively satisfactory condition. Bearing in mind what he said, in my opinion the fishing industry in the east is one where the men risk more, work harder and get less than in any other trade or industry in which they could engage. If there is some slight increase in their standard of living or degree of prosperity, then it is certainly one they have earned and one which they well deserve.

Supply-Fisheries
I think there are two main problems in the fishing industry. Some of us listened in another place yesterday to the discussion of the plans for rehabilitation of the fishing industry. I may refer to that later, but generally speaking there is the problem of conservation and the problem of marketing. The minister referred to the various international treaties and international commissions through which so much has been done during the last few years towards the conservation of the fishing industry. I think much more has to be done. I think the minister deserves credit for what has been done this year in connection with the great lakes international convention. I think it will go a long way towards the conservation of the fishing industry of the great lakes. It is simply an experiment at the moment. We are starting out on something which is badly needed and which we trust will result in satisfactory dividends in the long run.
We have, of course, the northwest Atlantic *convention dealing with the fisheries in the northwestern Atlantic. But when we read the reports of the fisheries research board, Dr. Needler's statements and others, I think we are all impressed with the fact that there is a threat even to the fish population of that tremendous body of water which, as the minister said this morning, has been fished for over 500 years. When you get foreign trawlers coming there, dragging in pairs, catching young haddock and engaging in various other fishing enterprises which are certainly inimical to the life of the industry, I think something should be done and the minister should see to it that the various nations engaged in that industry should, through conventions or otherwise, do more towards the safeguarding of it than is being done at the moment.
On the marketing end I know that we have engaged in advertising to a substantial extent. We also have a household economics branch in an adjacent building where most valuable work has been done in trying to induce the people of Canada to use more fish by showing them how well fish can be prepared. I am sure if all the people of Canada had the opportunity to go to the household economics kitchens in the west block and taste fish as it is cooked there, part of the problem of the fishing industry would be solved very quickly. One sees there what can be done, and unfortunately it is not being done throughout Canada as a whole. Why, I cannot understand.
I know that the Canadian National Railways is making an effort in this direction and that "Canex" fish, specially treated fish, is
(Mr. Nowlan.]
being carried on their trains at the moment; but there is something about it that apparently does not appeal to the Canadian public. It is an unfortunate circumstance that we, a nation bordering on the Atlantic and the Pacific and having the greatest fishing industry in the world, still eat much less fish than almost any other people in the world. Surely there must be some way in which this challenge can be met. I believe the minister told us last year that if only a few more pounds of fish per head of population could be consumed by the Canadian people the future of the fishing industry would be solved, but with the advertising, with everything else that is being done, we still have not solved the problem. I know it is a challenge to the minister and I suggest to him that something more must be done. I am not trying to make concrete suggestions. Frankly, I do not know what they are any more than the minister probably does, but I do know there is a challenge there and an opportunity, and we should pursue the matter further than we are doing today.
On the other side there is, of course, our export market. The minister mentioned this morning that our sales to the United States had fallen off slightly. He condoned that and said that it is a very good thing because we do not want to have all our fish in the one basket. That is perfectly true, but nevertheless the United States market has been a tremendous market for us, and it should be. Last night I happened to glance at the minister's optimistic speech of a year ago, and it was an optimistic speech. The minister always makes optimistic speeches. In his speech last year he emphasized particularly the development of the fish stick phase of the industry. He told us what wonderful possibilities there were in that and how he hoped it would go a long way towards solving the problems of the Canadian fishermen.
What is the situation in that respect? I notice that he did not tell us anything about that today. My understanding is that as a result of the imposition of a tariff by the United States that promising market which the minister foresaw last year has been largely closed to us.


James Sinclair: Would the hon. member permit a correction? I did give the very great increase in the production of fishsticks totalling altogether 33 million pounds last year.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of fillets?


James Sinclair: Of fillets in frozen blocks.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is quite true. As I was going to say, we are undoubtedly sending

fillets into the United States for manufacture into fishsticks, as the minister has said. It is a tremendous outlet for us but what we were talking about last year, and what the minister was talking about was the possibility of exporting the fishsticks themselves to the United States. We are faced with a situation now where there is a tariff of 30 per cent, I think it is, on the cooked fishsticks and 20 per cent on the uncooked fishsticks. The rather terrifying thing is that a year ago the United States tariff commission received representations from the New England fishing industry that a tariff should be imposed against us. The President of the United States refused to implement that recommendation. We are told now that congress has passed legislation which will impose a duty of 30 per cent on the cooked fishsticks and 20 per cent on the uncooked and that, subject to certain negotiations, so far as Canada is concerned that tariff will be effective against us. Of course, it is effective today because the Canadian fishing industry, knowing that a tariff is overhanging the situation like a cloud, has wisely decided they cannot meet it.
As the minister says, we are now engaged in sending the fillets into the United States rather than the fishsticks themselves. We are thankful for the market for fillets. However, I get somewhat tired, Mr. Chairman, of hearing someone say all the time that we must not do anything to antagonize the United States; that we could lose the market for Canadian fish. Certainly we do not want to lose that market, but I doubt very much if there is any great danger of that happening. After all, the United States is becoming more and more dependent every year upon Canada for raw materials and some manufactured products. The commission which recently reported to the United States government emphasized that fact. Therefore, I do not believe, provided we act reasonably, we have to worry too much about retaliation. We should stand on our own rights. We got a reduction in the tariff on pickled herring, which is of some importance, from one-half cent a pound to one-quarter cent a pound. Then, we had the imposition of the duty on fishsticks as against that.
In so far as fillets are concerned, what are they paying? I believe the duty is one and a quarter cents per pound for a certain quota and two and a half cents per pound above that quota. We are not getting any free access to the United States market at all. Frankly, we are paying through the nose. We are paying a cent and a quarter a pound on the price the fisherman gets for that fish, which is a relatively high tariff. As I said,
Supply-Fisheries
I think that is one of the problems with which the department has to deal. We have to try to develop the export market even more than it is today. Certainly, if the United States fishing industry had its way they would erect a tariff against us as high as Haman's gallows, as they proved last year when the New England fishing industry made these representations to the United States tariff commission. The situation is different today from what it was a few years ago. I think our government can take a stand with respect to that, and I think the minister has the courage to do that. It is something that I think needs to be done in the future.
Something was said this morning about the rehabilitation of the industry. Of course, there are two phases of this rehabilitation, as I see it. I look at this through bifocal glasses because I am living in a territory where we have inshore fishermen, the ones who are going out in the morning and coming back at night. They are my constituents. They are the ones I know personally, and the ones I know best. Their problem is not so much that of rehabilitation, as the minister explained yesterday to the committee on banking and commerce when we were dealing with another matter. In so far as the offshore fishermen are concerned, it is true that they need larger boats and better boats and some of the equipment of which he told us this morning. I think this bill to provide loans to fishermen is a step in the right direction. It has been needed in the past by these fishermen. Yesterday representatives of the fishermen and the fishermen's credit unions from all over Canada appeared before the committee. Certainly, those who had not met them before were impressed by the character and ability of these men who have done so much towards the financial uplift of the fishing industry. I think of organizations like the united maritime fishermen, the credit unions of Nova Scotia and the co-operative unions; they all fought for the fishermen 20 years ago, and the position in which the fishermen and the fishing industry find themselves today is the result of their work. As these loans are made available, larger boats and better equipment will be bought. Then, these fishermen can undoubtedly do a better job in this modern and highly industrialized industry than was the case before.
The inshore fishermen still use the methods which were used many years ago. They have to do that because fishing there is somewhat restricted. They live in little villages, go out in the morning and come back at night. They have not the high seas to contend with. Their problems are entirely different. They are

Supply-Fisheries
faced with the challenge of this industrialization; they are faced with the problem of the trawler and the dragger. Some day I hope to have the minister along the shore visiting these fishing villages and listening to the bitterness with which the fishermen refer to these trawlers that come in and, as they put it, ruin their fishing grounds and destroy their livelihood. There may be some overemphasis; there may be some bias in their point of view. The offshore fishermen say that old methods must give way to new, but these people in these villages, who have lived there generation after generation, should be given more protection than they were in the past.
A short time ago I noticed that the minister or his department issued regulations restricting the use of trawlers in St. Margaret's bay off Halifax. There were protests galore from fishermen and from one or two organizations. I believe the minister went down there just before the provincial election. I might say he almost ran into a barrage of rifle fire from these people who were-


James Sinclair: It was a coincidence.


George Clyde Nowlan: It was no coincidence, without any question, that I was there two days before the minister came; it was an amazing political coincidence. At any rate, we all sent protests and the department substantially restricted the operation of trawlers in that bay.
I say to him now that the same thing should be done in St. Mary's bay, which is no larger. The Acadian fishermen living along the borders of that bay say their livelihood is being completely destroyed by these trawlers.
I have here-I am not reading any newspaper article, Mr. Chairman-certain newspaper stories. I have one, for instance, from Tiverton, which is in my constituency, to the effect that a short time ago three fishermen lost their gear in one day, not only because of United States trawlers operating within the 12 mile limit but also because of Canadian trawlers operating within that limit. They lost their trawls and all their gear. According to this newspaper story they say they are going to take rifles out into the bay of Fundy in order to defend themselves against the depradations of these trawlers. One would think that we were away back to the days of Captain Kidd and the pirates of old, of the old Spanish main. We have the strangest situation in the world down there. As we know, Canadian trawlers over 65 feet long are supposed to stay out more than 12 miles from the Canadian coast line. They have to meet our regulations. On the other hand, American trawlers are allowed to come within three miles of our coast line. How can you explain an inconsistent situation like that? It cannot be done.

So far as our inshore fishermen are concerned, they want them both out 12 miles, for their own protection. The Canadians are kept beyond the 12 mile limit and the Americans are allowed within three miles- and on a dark foggy night they may come in within 300 yards of the shore, and sweep up the lobster traps along that shore, as has happened time and again. No wonder the fishermen are irritated.
This morning the minister referred to the international law commission of the United Nations. I was glad he did, because in my opinion that is the most important thing which has developed this year, so far as the fishing industry is concerned. If a good catch of fish this year is to depend upon Providence and the Minister of Fisheries, then the minister is responsible to some extent for the fishing industry; it is between him and Providence. The Social Credit government took responsibility for the oil industry in Alberta, so the minister and Providence may take the responsibility for the condition of the fishing industry. But the one thing that is important is the report of the international law commission. As I understand it some United Nations organization some time ago-I am not sure when-appointed an international law commission to consider the problem of the shore line. It was to decide what were coastal waters and what were not coastal waters.
As the minister said, we know that certain countries extended them, and they got into trouble with the United States. Perhaps the result was that they lost markets. Our government, wisely I think, has waited for the report of the commission. I see in the newspapers of the last few days that that commission has reported, but I have not yet seen a copy of the report. I presume the minister has it, and I would hope that he would make it available.
According to that report the international law commission recommends that the coastal waters should extend 12 miles from all coast lines. I trust that means from headland to headland, rather than following the indentations of shore lines. As the minister has said, some years ago we had an interdepartmental committee working on that matter, and I believe Dean Curtis was chairman. I presume that committee has reported to the government and the minister. I suggest the minister should tell us what the report of the committee is, and should place before us the recommendations of Dean Curtis. We would like to know the stand the government will take with respect to it, because on that depends, I think, the future of at least our

inshore fishermen. And since we now have the authority of an international association such as the United Nations, and since a committee of that organization has recommended-apparently unanimously-that coast lines be extended to 12 miles, then I am suggesting to the minister that our government should take action. We should not wait to have it adopted by the United Nations; because, after all, the United Nations is composed of large and powerful groups. It is a somewhat ponderous organization, and perhaps the mechanism which it would bring into play would be even more ponderous than some think is that of the House of Commons.
With the authority of that international organization, and with the study of our own interdepartmental committee-if that study is along the same line-I think our minister should instruct our Secretary of State for External Affairs to approach the American government with a view to instituting negotiations now, so that we may have the situation clarified in the relatively near future.
Because this situation cannot go on. It is an impossible situation when you have Canadian fishermen kept out beyond the 12 mile limit and the American fishermen coming within three miles-and the inshore fishermen being ruined by both. So far as I am concerned, representing the inshore fishermen, while I would not wish to see the Canadian trawlers suffer any injustice, I would with all my strength fight any proposal that either should come within the three mile limit. Both of them should be kept out beyond 12 miles, and then we can give some protection to the inshore fishermen.
The hon. member for Charlotte and I look at the subject from the standpoint of the bay of Fundy fishermen. If we had an agreement stipulating a distance of 12 miles, headland to headland, the situation in the bay of Fundy would be much different from what it is today. This is something which should receive the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-because I am sure the Minister of Fisheries is familiar with it, and the record is there. According to our contention the bay of Fundy is a coastal water, anyway. Discussions were carried on around 1840 or 1850, before we became a nation, at which time the secretary of state of the United States said that the bay of Fundy was part of the high seas. The colonial secretary for Great Britain said that they were coastal waters. Many long letters passed back and forth, and they finally agreed to leave the matter as an open question.
Supply-Fisheries
Neither would admit the other was right. And the situation still stands at that point today.
Therefore, as I said, this is a most important matter-the most important step taken in the last while which could be of assistance to the fishing industry. I hope the minister will see to it that we do not have to wait for a very long time, until the conclusion of interminable discussions before the United Nations. The Americans are fair and sensible. Their officials are reasonable. The minister told us that last year-he said that he found that when they sat around the conference table they were fair and reasonable. I have no doubt about that at all.
Since they are fair and reasonable men, and since this is a problem with which we are confronted, and since we have the authority of the commission behind us, I am sure the minister and his representatives will be able to work out some modus vivendi whereby all the trawlers will be kept out beyond the 12 mile limit until such time as the United Nations Organization makes some definite finding in the matter which will be appropriate beyond peradventure.
I said at the outset that I did not wish to speak long. There is only one other matter which the minister did not touch, but which I think should be mentioned. Again, this is a matter of peculiar importance to my own constituency, where the fishermen go out in the morning and back at night. They have sailed those waters for three generations, and they do not go out of sight of land. Ships are sometimes lost in big storms, by act of God, but this does not happen often.
It now seems that they are to be subject to the possibility of action on the part of the Department of Transport by way of imposing regulations in connection with the inspection of boats. I know those regulations have been modified to some extent, and I know that studies are still going on. I have been supplied with copies of the new regulations. I understand that the boats of the scallop fleet, to which the minister referred this morning, will come within the purview of those regulations. It seems to me that they should not be compelled to adopt standards which are presumably applied to the boats which sail out on the high seas, when they go out in the morning and back at night. I hope the minister will keep a sort of jaundiced eye on this situation. I must say in passing that I give full credit to the officials of the Department of Transport who have been most reasonable in listening to the representations made. However, the regulations are still there, and the reply we

Supply-Fisheries
received was, "We will consider it." But we have to face this thing sooner or later.
We do not want to face it; because for a man to have to put in a copper water tank to go out on the bay of Fundy and back again is ridiculous. He has probably used a boat on those waters all his life, and his grandfather before him. For instance, to have to double the diameter of the drive shaft does not seem to him necessary at all. I was told by one of them, "If the drive shaft should break, we can always hoist a blanket and get ashore in 12 hours, as we have done many times." This is just an instance of, I was going to say bureaucracy, but that would be unkind; they have not been bureaucratic in their approach. On the contrary, they have been reasonable. But the matter has been hanging over their heads, and I want the minister to look into it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has not a man the right to risk his own life?


George Clyde Nowlan: We presume that is one of our privileges. I shall not take the time of the committee any longer. There are other matters which we will take up when the individual items are before us.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, in the relatively short time during which I have been a member of this house I have tried wherever possible to make myself familiar with the operations of the Department of Fisheries. Quite frankly, as one who sits on the opposite side of the house from the government, I think it is quite proper wherever justified to offer constructive criticism of the operations of the department. However, I believe it is also the responsibility of a member on the opposite side to give credit when he believes that credit is due.
My opinion is that most of the steps which have been taken by the Department of Fisheries since I became a member of the house have been in the right direction although there may have been times when they did not go as far as I would have liked. At the outset of my remarks, which will not be too extended, I should like to say that the opinion expressed earlier by the minister in regard to the type of people he has as officials in his department is shared by me as a result of such contacts as I have had with them. The minister mentioned particularly some of those in senior positions in the department, but if I were going to supplement his remarks in that respect I would say that I have found the officials in the field with whom I have come in contact to be genuinely interested in doing a good job. They have been ready to inform one as a member of parliament of the problems they were

facing. I think it can be said that generally speaking the morale throughout the whole Department of Fisheries is good today, and I agree with the minister's suggestion that the recently retired deputy minister had much to do with this.
I join in the remarks of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings in his reference to the test kitchen operated by the department. Hon. members may recall that on one occasion when I had returned from sampling what could be produced there I drew to the attention of hon. members particulars of what could be done. I agree with the hon. member when he says that there is still a great deal to be done to instruct the people of Canada in the further use of our various fish products.
I had occasion fairly recently, in a place which shall remain nameless, to sample lake Superior lake trout, a fish which had been suggested during the hearings on an international convention to be the prize fish of the great lakes. I must say that after that sample I was moved to make the facetious remark that perhaps we should .let this fish go back to the lamprey eel. I must say again that I do agree with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that there is a good deal to be done in showing the Canadian people how they can best use the resources of our seas.
I think because of the very richness of those resources, as was suggested this morning by the minister, we have as a nation failed to appreciate the tremendous resource that we have. Perhaps that is partly true because of the richness of the land heritage which we as a small nation of people have in our hands, and perhaps it is partly due to the fact that except for that portion of our population which has been living immediately adjacent to our seashores there has been little appreciation of that value during the years of Canadian history. We have at this stage of our history a better opportunity to utilize that resource to greater advantage over a longer period of our history than might otherwise be the case.
I think most hon. members will agree that Canada is not likely to remain a country of empty spaces forever. As we move on into the future more and more of our land resources which are easily available will tend to be fully utilized or partially exhausted and we will perhaps come to rely in a much more basic degree than we do at the present time upon the resources of the sea.
I imagine that other hon. members have seen a recent issue of Maclean's magazine which featured the celebration of their fiftieth anniversaries by the provinces of Alberta

and Saskatchewan. Hon. members may have been interested, as I was, in that part of the issue which described the building up of the prairies from a geological point of view. One point which struck me more than any other was that the great wealth of our prairie provinces had come almost in its entirety from the sea, of course over a period of many millions of years. I have been thinking that while we inherited that accumulated store of richness out of the submergence of that area under the sea at various periods of geological time, as we exhaust that perhaps we will have to become increasingly aware that all around us lies that same sort of richness in the living sea where it will be renewed from year to year, provided we are prepared to make proper use of it.
1 have been glad to note that during this session of parliament more of the legislative program has been devoted or related to the people who toil to bring in our fish. Perhaps that is an indication that there is a more general recognition across the country of the real importance of our fisheries to Canada as a whole. As a member of the industrial relations committee I was interested in the sessions that were held in connection with unemployment insurance for fishermen, and I think out of that discussion there arose within the membership of that committee a better understanding of some of the problems faced by the people who make their living in this industry. Behind the statistics of the number of pounds of fish caught, the market value of the production, the percentage of the production going into export and the need for greater home consumption must be a realization that the fishing industry is really the people who do the fishing.
The interest that was shown in the industrial relations committee in respect to those people, I felt to be a very encouraging sign. That also, I feel, applies to the bill presently under discussion in relation to making it easier for fishermen to obtain the necessary credit to improve their operations. The discussion in the banking and commerce committee, which was referred to by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, in respect to making use of the fishermen's own credit unions was a very encouraging sign, particularly because of the general appreciation that seemed to come from members from all quarters of the house in that connection.
Like other members, I was very much interested in the rather complete outline that the minister gave us of some of the activities of the department, relating as they did, among other things, to the program of research and the attempts at conservation being conducted by the fisheries research board. I noted that
Supply-Fisheries
he made mention of the mid-water trawl development on the Pacific coast. During the luncheon recess I happened to notice an item in that connection in one of my local newspapers. Perhaps an indication that the department in this field of research development is reaching out into the unknown was the fact that this idea of a mid-water trawl is still so new that the headline of the newspaper read, "Mid-winter trawl", where it should have said, "Mid-water trawl".
I have been quite interested, too, in the continuing program for the improvement of the facilities of our migrating salmon to reach their spawning grounds. Naturally, as the member for Comox-Alberni, I was greatly interested in the recent opening of the new and improved fishways in the Stamp falls section of the Somass river system. That particular river, I understand, is the most important salmon spawning stream which enters the ocean on the western coast of Vancouver island, and undoubtedly that improvement will be welcomed in years to come by the fishermen who make their living from the fish that spawn in that river.
I was interested in the remarks the minister made this morning in connection with the co-operative effort to use our rivers both for purposes of power and as salmon spawning streams. That, of course, has been a subject of considerable interest in another committee of this house during the current session and is certainly one that is going to be of great continuing interest to all members from the province of British Columbia. I can agree with the minister that, generally speaking, there is recognition of the importance of that co-operative consideration being given in respect to the establishment of such major projects as power dams. On the other hand, it has appeared to me from pieces of information I have picked up here and there that whilst that may be the case, that in respect to salmon spawning streams along the British Columbia coast, many of which are comparatively small and yet still make a substantial contribution to the over-all plenitude of salmon in our Pacific waters, some of our spawning ground opportunities are going by the board. Perhaps this is partly due to the general ignorance of the manner in which those streams are used by the salmon. I have heard of cases where people, quite unaware of the fact that they were doing any damage, would remove gravel from stream beds which had been carrying salmon eggs. I know, of course, that the officers of this department, wherever that sort of thing comes to their attention, take the necessary steps to correct the situation. On the other hand I sometimes

Supply-Fisheries
wonder whether or not the divided jurisdiction which exists is causing us to lose some of our salmon spawning ground as a result of the logging activities that take place in British Columbia.
The minister mentioned that fishing is under federal jurisdiction, and we all know that our forest resources are under provincial jurisdiction. From bits of conversation here, and observations there, I am forming an impression that in many ways, whilst the power of the Fisheries Act, as I understand it, is there to prevent spoiling of salmon spawning grounds through logging activities, in many cases a good deal of damage is done before any officer of the department is aware that it has been done. The minister has referred to the field of education, and I have wondered whether there is not room for exploration of the possibilities of more education among the people of the logging fraternity of British Columbia on this question. As I understand it, in the prairie provinces officials of the provincial governments receive appointments as federal fisheries officers. I am wondering whether some arrangement could be made whereby our British Columbia forest service officers, for whom I personally have quite a high regard, could in effect be made fisheries officers also. Perhaps more than I am aware has been done in that direction. Nevertheless, if some arrangement of that kind could be worked out, there might be a greater sense of responsibility for directing logging operations in such a way that the drying up of the smaller spawning streams and the creating of obstructions in them would not be as common as it has been reported to me is the case.
Speaking of the field of education, I should like at this point to say that, as one of the members who saw the other day the production of the fisheries department through the national film board, that is a type of educational undertaking of which I certainly approve most heartily. To all members who have . a taste for lobster I would recommend that they avail themselves of any opportunity to get a bird's eye glimpse of the private life of the lobster which that film affords. I might also say that I have heard some favourable reports of the program of education to which the minister referred and which has been carried out in British Columbia. The syllabus he gave was much more complete than I had realized it to be. From various things I have read and heard I know that some of the courses have been well received by many of the fishermen.
In his remarks with regard to sports fishing, the minister referred to the fact that in much of the British Columbia coastal area we have
important sports fisheries on the salt water and he also made the remark that the relationships between the sports fishermen and the commercial fishery interests were excellent.


James Sinclair: Except in one part of your riding.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That may be quite true, generally speaking, but nevertheless I think the minister will agree that on occasion there are some exceptions and that problems arise which create certain conflicts of interest in that direction. He mentioned the fact that certain areas have been set aside exclusively for sports fishermen. He is probably well aware of the fact that from time to time, as our tourist industry in places like Vancouver island increases, the demands for increased sports areas create certain problems that are not always too easy to resolve. I raise the point because I feel that it is important that such difficulties be equitably resolved before the occurrence of any real break in that relationship which he described.
I was interested in the minister's brief reference to the operations of the fisheries prices support board. I understand that he may have something further to say on that matter when we come to that particular item. I think I might perhaps make one or two references to the subject now in order that the minister may be informed of what is and has been in my mind in this connection. In order to do that, I should like to preface my remarks by reference to some figures which I have gleaned from the 1951 census. I realize that the picture presented there has been modified somewhat since then. But I also understand that the 1951 census gave a much more complete picture of the fishing industry than had ever been given before. I therefore assume that it is considered to be a good basic reference for fishery statistics, at least until the next volumes of the census appear.
I have done a bit of gleaning from the pages of the volume on fisheries and I feel that the figures presented there reveal some rather interesting contrasts within the fishing industry and also in its relationship to the general economy at that time. I think that some of the steps that I agreed have been in the right direction that have been taken since 1951 have probably modified the situation somewhat for the better.
I was interested in noting that in that year the landed weight of grey cod-which I take to be the cod which is caught on the Atlantic shores-was 746,089,000 pounds and that in the same year the landed weight of Pacific salmon-the total of all species, I take it-was 169,098,000 pounds. That would

indicate that the Atlantic cod fishery was a much larger and perhaps much more important fishery than our Pacific salmon fishery. However, if one relates those figures to the landed value of the product, one gets a rather surprising result.
To me it was slightly startling to discover that the landed weight of Atlantic fish- which is between three and four times as large as that of our Pacific salmon-was valued at only $18,574,000 whereas our 169,098,000 pounds of Pacific salmon were worth $24,887,000.
If my calculations are correct, they reveal that the approximate value per pound of the cod was 2i cents whereas that of the Pacific salmon was about 14J cents. These figures explained to me many of the things which I observed when I was for a time on the Atlantic coast in the province of Newfoundland last fall, and they revealed to me why some of the problems that I heard of as being the problems of Newfoundland were what they are.
I was also interested to note that, according to the same census figures, the number of fishermen in Newfoundland was 19,556 and that the landed value of all the fishery products was $15,177,000 whereas in British Columbia there are shown to be 6,715 fishermen, with a landed value of all fishery products of $33,991,000. Nova Scotia is in between with 10,504 fishermen, and with a landed value of all fishery products of $21,308,000. Again, if my feeble arithmetic is correct, that means that in Newfoundland the average return per fisherman was $770 in that year, in Nova Scotia, $2,028, and in British Columbia, $5,061. These figures reveal to me an interesting contrast. I point out immediately, of course, that these figures, as I understand it, do not represent only the actual wage return to that number of fishermen. To me at least they reveal that in British Columbia a much larger proportion of the landed value of the catch goes into the mechanized equipment and the other costs of operation to which the minister was referring this morning.
There are 53,995 persons listed as engaged in the fishing industry across the country. The landed value of their catch totalled $109,136,000 and there was other income in the industry amounting to $18,831,000, making a total of $127,967,000. Taking these figures, the gross income per fisherman works out at $2,370. Deducting from gross income the amount of $43,552,000 for expenditures, we have a net return of $84,415,000, or an average return per fisherman of $1,567 across Canada. Again, I would point out that this figure does not represent only the amount 50433-328
Supply-Fisheries
received in wages by the fisherman but is comprised of wages and the profits taken by the various fishing enterprises, large and small.
Therefore it appears to me that these figures substantiate the statement that the fisherman has not been getting his fair share compared with the average return received by Canadian workers. I think these things should be borne in mind when one considers the operations of the fisheries prices support board. It may be recalled that in connection with the study of unemployment insurance the suggestion was made in the brief of the commission that perhaps some further consideration should be given to making greater use of the fisheries prices support board principle. I think perhaps some of the deductions that can be made from the figures to which I have referred indicate that is the case.
I recall that earlier this year when we were debating the amendment and renewal of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act I drew attention to the fact that there were approximately the same number of workers employed in the gold mining industry in Canada as are engaged in fishing in the province of Newfoundland. I referred to the fact that a direct government subsidy of around $14 million was being paid to the gold mining industry, and that one of the arguments advanced at that time was that such payment would assist in maintaining employment in that industry. Perhaps that is not altogether relevant, except to support my contention that the fishermen have not been getting more than their fair share by way of return for their work.
The figures I have quoted suggest that, relatively speaking, the fishermen of British Columbia are perhaps better off than their cousins on the Atlantic shores. Yet I know from my own experience that apart from the particularly successful individual, the fishermen of British Columbia have in many cases not been making more than a decent living, and in many other cases a good deal less from their work in the industry. When the minister suggested this morning that the Fisheries Prices Support Act was never intended to supplement general low prices on the world market I was interested in his statement, because it seemed to me to be somewhat at variance with statements found at the beginning of the annual report of the fisheries prices support board for 1953-54. The opening paragraph of that report reads in part as follows:
The act which came into force in July, 1947, gives the fisheries prices support board the usual powers of a government corporation; provides a working fund of $25 million . . .

Supply-Fisheries
In dealing with the $14 million paid to the gold mining industry in the debate on the amendment to that act, I pointed out that the further supplementary estimates for the year 1954-55 contained an item of $744,382 to recoup the fisheries prices support account to cover the net operating loss for the completed program of the fisheries prices support board as of March 31, 1955. Therefore both in relation to the $14 million in connection with the gold mining industry and the working fund of $25 million of the fisheries prices support board, the actual scale of operation of the fisheries prices support board would appear to have been comparatively small. The report of the fisheries prices support board sets out that there are two methods that may be used to support prices of fisheries products, and goes on to say:
These methods are (a) the purchase of any fisheries product at a prescribed price and (b) the making of deficiency payments to producers of a fisheries product equal to the difference between a prescribed price and the average price at which such product was sold during a specified period. The act furthermore directs that in prescribing prices the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for fisheries by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from fisheries and those from other occupations.
The last phrase in particular, "and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from fisheries and those from other occupations", suggests to me that there is a difference between the policy stated there and the statement made by the minister this morning that the Fisheries Prices Support Act was never intended to supplement general low prices.
From the little personal observation I have had the opportunity of making, and from the picture revealed to me by these statistics- particularly the contrast between the price for Pacific salmon, 14J cents a pound, and the price for cod, 2J cents a pound-and even with the contrast between the price fishermen on the west coast get for such fresh cod as they do bother to bring in and the existing situation under which fish fillets from Newfoundland and the other maritime areas are sold, I believe more might have been done through the medium of the fisheries prices support board than apparently has been done. Now, that is not to say that I do not agree-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I had not been watching the clock as closely as I should. I was on the point of concluding.

I was going to say that I agree with the outline the minister gave of the steps that are being taken to develop better markets, better products and all that sort of thing; but without an improvement in the existing price level, and expecting fishermen to have resources out of which they can improve their own equipment, I feel that perhaps greater consideration could be given to the use of the fisheries prices support board set-up.


Mr. Patterson:: I should like first of all, Mr. Chairman, to thank the minister for the very able and interesting manner in which he presented the review of the activities of his department, and also commend him for the energy and diligence with which he fulfils the responsibilities that are his. I say that, of course, with this reservation, that even though we recognize the diligence and the energy he applies and the interest he takes in the work of his department, there are some things with which we do not altogether agree.
I should like to say how much we appreciate the films that have been shown during this session of parliament. They certainly have enabled some of us who live in one part of the country to gain some understanding of the nature of fishing operations as well as the problems facing fishermen in other parts of the country. Personally I have appreciated that opportunity of gaining information along those lines. It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to go into the details with respect to the administration of the department or criticisms of the department. I should like to make a few general observations on the fishing industry.
In the course of his remarks this morning the Minister of Fisheries reviewed some of the various treaties and conventions that had been put into operation to safeguard the fishing industry and to develop our fish resources. He mentioned as well the fact that we are reaching the point where we are pretty well ringed with these treaties.
I believe the success that has been achieved by these various agreements and treaties has certainly indicated that they have been worth while. In so far as the agreement concerning the sea lamprey menace on the great lakes is concerned, with which we dealt a short time ago, we recognize the tremendous need for such an agreement. We certainly urge the speedy implementation of any of those projects which will assist in the eradication of that menace.
Another item that has been of great interest, and I might say was a very welcome piece of legislation this session, was the measure concerning fishermen's loans. We are not

discussing that in this debate, of course, but I do feel it is something that is very much needed, considering the fact it is expected that some of the fishermen who operate in my area will be forced to go out into deeper water very soon. I trust this measure will enable them to make the necessary conversion of their gear and equipment in order to carry on their fishing operations.
It seems to me there is an increasing understanding of the importance of the fishing industry to the economy of our country. This has been shown in the different debates last session as well as this year, and it appears that a greater emphasis has been placed on these particular matters. Looking through the report of the Department of Fisheries and studying the various tables that have been included, the thought has come to my mind that there are many ways in which this industry is vital to the economy of Canada. I find that the number of fishermen stands at almost 80,000, and certainly that is a very important part of our population. I would feel, therefore, that anything that is done to promote and safeguard the industry will be in the best interests of the national economy from the viewpoint of employment.
Then, too, the figures the minister gave us this morning relative to the income from this source would make it appear that very real importance should be placed upon the fishing activities of our nation. From the viewpoint of fish as a source of food, when we consider the amount of fish that has been taken during these past several years, and the fact that it is increasing from year to year, one realizes it does constitute a very important part of the food supply not only of our own country but of other countries.
We are happy over the fact that some of the marketing problems have been overcome during the past year. The minister has stated that there are no worrying surpluses at the moment. This sounds better than the situation in previous years, when there was a substantial supply of canned salmon, for instance, that could not be disposed of on the market.
I was interested in the remarks that were made in connection with marketing fish from the eastern part of Canada, the cod prepared for market as fish sticks. It seems that these are developments that should greatly increase the demand for our fisheries products, and we certainly welcome any of these things that assist in this respect. I feel that there is a real necessity for the development of our home market as well as the export markets.
I did not have the opportunity to verify this figure, but in my reading the other day it was brought to my attention that 60 per cent
50133-328J
Supply-Fisheries
of our fish is sold on the export market. I would feel that greatly expanded markets for fish in our own country would be of great value to this industry.
One of the problems that has been emphasized both this session and last has been that of conservation. The very first paragraphs in the report of the Department of Fisheries for the year 1953-54 are as follows:
One of the important responsibilities of the Department of Fisheries is to maintain and develop fish stocks in Canada. Unless the proper safeguards are taken, large-scale capture and other factors, such as water-use projects, pollution, etc., reduce fish populations and result in lower annual returns to the industry.
Certain species of fish, such as Pacific salmon, Atlantic lobster and Atlantic salmon, are more valuable than others. To ensure that annual yields will continue at maximum levels, the department spends large sums of money each year to prevent the fishermen from taking too many fish and to implement measures leading to the production of larger stocks.
We fully recognize the necessity of conservation programs. I was just wondering, while the minister was making his statement this morning, whether he had given any further consideration to the proposed closures on the Fraser river which were announced last year. He did not make any reference to them. I trust, however, that as he has time to investigate the situation and consider the alternate proposals advanced by fishermen's unions and other interested parties, he will find it possible to change the proposed plan and still allow fishing in that part of the river between the New Westminster and Mission bridges, as in years past.
The matter of hydroelectric development concerns us particularly. The minister referred this morning to the necessity of having both fish and power. In view of the proposals, studies and surveys conducted in British Columbia I do not think it is necessary to urge the minister to exercise great care and study the situation from every viewpoint, so that as a result of these discussions he will be able to take steps which will ensure the preservation of our fishing industry.
The other day in another debate I referred to an article in one of the newspapers in which the Minister of Fisheries was quoted as saying that he did not know whether or not to be alarmed by some of these proposals. As I say, I believe he is aware of the situation and the dangers, and that he will give serious attention to these matters.
I was interested as well in his references to the research that is being carried on. We had reference to this matter also in the study of the convention on the great lakes fisheries, where research was being carried on to try to find uses for the more than 100 species

Supply-Fisheries
of fish existing in the great lakes for which, up to the present time, a market has not been found.
I was also interested in the minister's reference to the possible use of dogfish. This, as well, will be of great interest to the fishermen; and when the matter is worked out and uses are found for these particular species of fish it will mean much to the fishermen from the standpoint of income.
The reference to the fisheries course being given at the University of British Columbia was something of which I had not heard before, no doubt because of my own failure to study these various matters. There is no doubt that the fishing industry is being revolutionized. Certainly those proposing to make it their. vocation would do well to avail themselves of the facilities offered by such a course, so they may prepare themselves adequately for efficient participation in the industry. I am just wondering if there could not be an additional course for chefs, because certainly, as we go across the country and stop in at various restaurants, cafes and eating places, we are led to the belief that if such a course were made available, and used, the consumption of fish would greatly increase.


An hon. Member:: Start with our own cafeteria.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I had not intended to make reference to any particular place. I think the condition is fairly general across the country.
Generally speaking, the activities of the department are appreciated. Once again, however, 1 come back to what may be considered my pet theme in this regard. I hope there will be a reappraisal of the fishing situation in the Fraser river, in the particular area between the Pattullo bridge and the New Westminster bridge. I believe that would be greatly appreciated by the fishermen in that area.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, we who were privileged this morning to listen to the presentation made by the Minister of Fisheries heard, I believe, one of the finest displays of knowledge of the fishing industry that has been heard in the House of Commons in many, many years. I would say it was a very fine presentation and should convince those in the house who had not heard the minister discuss the subject before that the right man has been chosen to represent this country behind the iron curtain. I have no doubt he will do a first-class job for this country.
I realize that any criticism I have to offer should come immediately after what I have just said. I should like to deal briefly with

that part of the minister's remarks in which he discussed the assistance to be given those who are in the salt fish industry of this country. I agree that it is one branch of the industry which, perhaps, would need more assistance than any other branch. It is the branch in which the income is low. It involves long hours of work, and hard work. Those who cure their own fish are obliged to wait long periods of time before any income reaches their homes.
In his remarks, however, the minister stated that in 1953 the fisheries prices support board paid $1.25 a quintal-


James Sinclair: No, $1.12.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes, $1.12 a quintal on dried fish cured in Newfoundland. There is no member in the house who will criticize that action. I would point out, however, that at that time Newfoundland got almost 100 per cent of the amount set aside for fisheries support. As the minister stated at a later point in his remarks, the other maritime provinces did not ask for that support.
Regardless of whether they asked or not, the fact is that nearly 100 per cent of the money used that year by the fisheries prices support board went to Newfoundland. The table the minister presented today indicates that the salt fish fishermen of the maritime provinces will be helped to the extent of 50 per cent in the purchase of salt. This is a wonderful idea; but when I looked over the figures I found that $375,000 goes to Newfoundland. There was only $125,000 left for the other three maritime provinces and Quebec. The $375,000 works out at 75 per cent of the amount to be expended for this very worth-while purpose. That is the percentage that goes to Newfoundland. Nova Scotia gets $80,000; New Brunswick gets $22,000; Prince Edward Island gets $3,500, and Quebec $19,000.
Reference has been made today to a recent speech by the premier of Newfoundland to the effect that he would not wish what I might call the old Canadians to regard Newfoundlanders as second-rate citizens. I think if he will look over the assistance that has been provided by the Department of Fisheries for fishermen in the maritime provinces he will not find the people of Newfoundland considered second-rate citizens. Again I say that I support any assistance that is given them, but I believe a formula could have been worked out whereby the distribution would have been more proportionate.
I believe this assistance being provided will encourage more fishermen in the other maritime provinces to salt their own catch, which would be financially to their advantage. In

many cases fish that are sold in the fresh state return only 1 or 1| cents a pound, whereas if they are processed by the fisherman and held until the fall or winter they may bring 10, 12 or 14 cents a pound. I know the fishermen in my county wil be pleased with this assistance and will take full advantage of it. At the present time there is a good run of pollock in the area, while other branches of the industry are unproductive. This will encourage those who are engaged in that particular branch of the industry to process more fish in their own fish houses with the result that their income will be three times as great as it would be if they sold the fish in the fresh state.
There is one other criticism I have to offer with regard to the decrease in the amount being provided in the estimates this year for consumer services. I believe every fisherman who has knowledge of what this particular branch has been doing will regret this decrease. The demonstrations put on by the Department of Fisheries kitchen in the west block have been worth-while. I have attended two or three of the luncheons provided by that kitchen, and I know that every hon. member who has had the same experience has come away feeling they were doing a fine job for this country.
The booklets, cook books and pamphlets being put out by this department are appreciated by every housewife who has received one. I distributed quite a number to friends of mine, and in every case the answer was that there was more information in connection with the cooking and processing of fish than had been contained in any pamphlet previously issued. Originally the amount of this vote was $75,000, but it is being decreased by $13,500. Instead of being decreased this vote should have been increased by $25,000 this year, by $25,000 the following year and so on in order that the good work this branch of the department has been doing could be kept up.
One other suggestion in regard to greater expenditure is with respect to the research board. I believe they should be given every encouragement in the world to go ahead with projects which should be conducted for the benefit of our fisheries. During the past two years there has been considerable worry over the great decrease in the catch of sardines and herrings. If the canneries in Charlotte county had not been able to secure a supply of sardines from the state of Maine last year, not only the fishermen but the hundreds of people who work in the canneries would have been idle all summer. The same situation has existed this year. Eighty-five per cent
Supply-Fisheries
of the sardines being processed are being brought in from the state of Maine.
The minister referred to the importance of the herring investigation which is being carried out on the northeastern shores of our province, and he indicated that dead fish had been found on the ocean floor. This i3 a serious matter. Officials of the department have been investigating this problem and I hope they will be able to bring in a report which will be helpful. To my way of thinking this study should go on even for years if necessary, so they may come up with an answer which will be of value. I think it would be a good investment if the research board made a study of this branch of the industry, which covers the whole coast of New Brunswick, north, east, south and west. If an answer could be found as to why we have years of plenty and then two or three years with practically no herring at all, there would be great benefit to the industry. No one so far has been able to advise us or offer any suggestions as to why there cannot be a stable supply of this important fish which is in great demand.
Another suggestion I offer along these lines is that these surveys and studies would be much more helpful if they could be carried on internationally. I have always believed in international co-operation. Anything that affects our fisheries in the bay of Fundy also affects the fisheries along the Maine coast. The fisheries officials in that country have always been more than willing to co-operate and render any assistance possible, and this is one study which could be carried out in the two countries and prove most helpful. The sardine industry is a large industry in the state of Maine as well as in our part of this country.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings mentioned the Department of Transport regulations, which are bothering our fishermen to some extent. The statement the hon. member made is quite correct. I will say that the officials of the Department of Transport have been more than willing to try to adjust these differences. I should like to give one example to show what they have to contend with.
A lot of pressure is being put on to make it necessary to have a master's certificate in order to operate a boat of 10 tons or over. I have had a master's certificate for that particular type of boat, up to 150 tons, for a good many years. The examination for that certificate is not what one would call really tough. You must know the rules of the road, which should be known by anyone who

Supply-Fisheries
travels on the water. There are other regulations of which you must have knowledge, but the main thing is the eye test.
I know of young men down where I live who have been turned down completely because of their eyes. On one other occasion I stated on the floor of this house that those same persons could apply to drive a car in any province, and they would get a licence without any question whatever. Down there ladies and gentlemen of 75 years of age who must wear glasses are driving automobiles night and day in all kinds of weather without any thought that they might prove to be a hazard to traffic. But many young men in their thirties and forties, because their eyesight is not 100 per cent, are refused masters' certificates. That regulation, in so far as transport is concerned, is too rigid, or else our provincial regulations in connection with the granting of licences to drive motor cars are too easy.
The equipment they are obliged to have on board their boats is in many cases unreasonable. These men have spent their lives on salt water. They know exactly what they want for their own protection. One might say that in many cases they do not like to be told what they should have. If they have a dory with a pair of eight or nine-foot oars and the ordinary hardwood thole pins they are happy and, believe me, they will get ashore at times when it would scare anyone in this chamber. According to the regulations they have to have liferafts. If they purchased all the equipment the Department of Transport thinks they should have there would be very little room left in their boats for their fishing equipment.
I bring that to the attention of the minister because I believe it is a question of great importance and one that should be cleared up. These boats are manned by two or three men in most cases in my area. I want to say at this point that with regard to boats carrying passengers I have no criticism to offer about any regulations that are put into effect by the Department of Transport. If they are carrying passengers those passengers should be protected in every way. But the men who are going out to make a living with their own hands know what they need for their own protection. I believe their judgment in this respect would compare favourably with that of many who are trying to enforce the regulations today and make them carry further equipment.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings also mentioned export markets. Export markets mean so much to the fishing industry, particularly in the maritime provinces and, I would say, more particularly in

the area where I live because we are nearer the United States market. Everything possible should be done to keep those doors wide open. I appreciate the statement the minister made today in connection with the subsidy paid to the fisheries. It is true that the minute a subsidy is paid on a particular commodity, that commodity is barred from markets in the United States. It is felt that it would be unfair to allow a subsidized article to go into the United States competing with fishermen over there who are not subsidized, but those markets do mean so much to us.
Mention was made today of the scallop industry. This industry is carried on to a much greater extent in Nova Scotia than in the area where I live. I would hazard a guess that 85 per cent of the scallops produced in Nova Scotia are sold in the United States. There is another comparison I should like to put on the record. The Conley lobster company of St. Andrews, my own home town, are doing an enormous business. During the summer months they are shipping two or three refrigerator cars of live lobsters daily, besides the lobster meat they ship. I have the figures for 1953, but I do not have them for 1954. In 1953 over 96 per cent of the live lobsters and lobster meat sold by that company was sold in the United States. Less than 4 per cent was sold in Canada. When we depend on the American market to that extent, one should realize that we must do everything possible and use every argument possible to keep that market open to our fishermen.
There are several, I know, who wish to say a few words on these estimates, so there is just one other matter on which I shall touch before I resume my seat. I should like to congratulate the minister on the program he was able to work out with the Minister of Finance in connection with loans to fishermen. It is, I believe, legislation which will be of great benefit to good fishermen, men who really need assistance at times. This will get them over the hard spots. I hope it will be worked out in such a way that it will not be too complicated, and fishermen who can show that they are in a position to take care of their financial responsibilities will be given that assistance.
Unemployment insurance is a matter I shall not touch upon until later, when we get down to that item. With that I shall resume my seat. I shall ask some questions later on when the minister is replying, if he does, after the first item, as the result of a statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Would the minister put on the record, when he speaks, the size of the catch of Atlantic salmon for any one year

or two years, if possible? Could we have a comparison between the quantities caught commercially and the quantities caught by sports fishermen, and any figures he might have as to the decrease or increase in both catches?


George Clyde Nowlan: Can he compare the quality?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I did not like to suggest the question of quality, because the minister would be well aware that Atlantic salmon is of much better quality than any salmon to be caught in any other parts of this country.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, in looking back over the past year with respect to the fisheries department, I think we can say that there has been a little more interest in fisheries generally in the House of Commons and at Ottawa. We had a discussion on the fisheries loans, and we also had some consideration of unemployment insurance for fishermen. There have also been the movies that have been shown by the department, and the fisheries dinners. While the fisheries committee has not been sitting, I suppose for obvious reasons-reasons that make it unnecessary for it to sit-we can say that generally there is a little better appreciation of and interest in the department.
I am perhaps a little more cynical and uncomplimentary than some of the other members. I think the trip of the minister to Russia is not perhaps going to mean a great benefit to the fisheries industry in Canada. It is hard to say that the fishermen generally are much better off than they were a year or two ago, but I shall say that there is an increasing feeling around the country, and here too, that the minister is showing to the department an attitude that is a little less temporary than that of previous ministers. In that respect he should be complimented, because that speaks well of the fisheries department. It may be that various internal cabinet shuffles mean that he cannot treat it in any other way, but this fact has been mentioned by many people and it is a good sign that the minister is considering his position in a little more permanent way than his predecessors have done.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that in my own case I do not have the fisheries background of some of the members who have spoken, and I do not have day to day contacts with fishermen. I have to count on various articles and pamphlets that come out for most of my information. In this respect I find the Ftindy Fisherman, published at Blacks Harbour, very worth while. I also find the bulletins of the fisheries council of Canada very enjoyable reading, and
Supply-Fisheries
containing many good ideas. More particularly I should like to refer to a series of articles published in the Fredericton Gleaner written by Delbert Gallagher, a graduate student at the University of New Brunswick, who wrote some sort of a thesis on the fishing industry in New Brunswick. I do not know whether the very alert officials of the department have seen this. We do not have too much interest shown in this subject by our college students.
If I may, I should like to mention one or two of the points Mr. Gallagher brought out in this series of articles and in his thesis. First he refers to the fact that in the fishing industry, except for certain periods when we get abnormally high prices and when there are exceptionally good times in the good cycles, the rate of growth has always been behind that of other industries. He starts off by saying that fact must be recognized. He goes on with other points, and I have marked the points that I think are worthy of comment. He lays a great deal of blame on the fact that in the fisherman there is an inbred conservatism and individualism-that is conservatism with a small "c", I suppose, Mr. Chairman-and he presents the point of view that this fact goes to the root of the problem with which the fisherman himself is obliged to contend.
He then mentions the fact that in New Brunswick, and particularly down my way on the bay of Fundy, the part-time employment of fishermen is a problem and the fact that there is alternative employment is both a cause and effect; in other words, it is both good and bad. You have longshoremen and carpenters, etc., who take part in the fishing in Saint John harbour, for example, when the fish are running.
The problem presented in this. If they have good alternative occupations, what will be the effect of the fishing they do? In other words, if there are good alternative occupations they may forget all about fishing. On the other hand, if there are no other good occupations they may leave the area and forget about fishing entirely. That is a problem which must be faced, and it is well illustrated in this respect.
There is the matter of unions and organizations down our way, where there is smalltime fishing. The various fishermen-I refer to these part-time fishermen-have attempted to organize. They have had meetings and so on, but they have not got anywhere. There has been little success in that respect. I suppose we can say that where there are small-time fishermen like that there never will be good organization, and the benefits of union itself probably would not be too

Supply-Fisheries
great. These matters are mentioned. He mentions the industry itself. He mentions the monopoly that exists, but he also suggests that larger units are necessary in the fishing industry if we are to reap the benefits of marketing and the mass production that exists.
One problem that is well pointed out is this. When the fish are running and the large plants are operating, they tend to operate on a 10-hour day and so on, for various economic reasons. In consequence of this fact, and the fact that their production extends over just a short period, the fishermen who are counting on employment directly in the plants are left in the unfortunate position of having to do something else during the rest of the year. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I suppose there would never be the worry of the problem of a guaranteed annual wage for fishermen like these. It is simply absurd to suggest it when they have only two or three months' employment.
Before I leave this article I should like to say that it deals very well with the marketing problem. I imagine that most of the suggestions it makes are well understood by the department. However, if I may I should like to read a pertinent paragraph that commends itself to me:
Another major problem is consumer demand-* the trend has changed from the personal sale of the corner grocer to the impersonal business conducted by the freezers of the large food chain stores. Since most women buy on the impulse, the Canadian producer must pack his fish in attractive, space-saving and easy-to-open containers. If it is fresh fish, it should really be fresh. However, the basic point behind this is that producers should concentrate first on the domestic market and educate Canadians to eat fish and like it. Too long has fish been a Friday food; the time has come to bring it into the realms of respectability.
The minister referred to the fact that Canadians have a small fish consumption. This brief mentions that fact also. I leave that statement on marketing with the department.
Having reviewed this article I should just like to dwell on two matters which have not been touched upon and which, I will admit, have a local aspect as far as I am concerned. I refer first to the gaspereau fishing in the area of the Saint John harbour and Saint John river. There have been conflicting statements during the last two seasons. I know the department has investigated the matter quite extensively, but I feel that some definite statement should be made on the matter of gaspereau. One person has told the press that there has been trap net fishing in the spawning grounds at Grand lake. I understand that trap net fishing is not allowed in

the Saint John river, but that there has been trap net fishing at Grand lake and that it has depleted the stock. Another person has said

I believe it was one of the departmental officials-that the weather has been the great cause of the depletion. I feel that a complete investigation into this matter and a statement on it will help a great deal, because it is important to the fishermen in the area I represent.
Second, I refer to the salmon fishing in Saint John harbour and again in the river. The season started off slowly this year. While people are hopeful that the fishing will be much better as the season progresses, I call on the department to step up their research and investigation in connection with the salmon fishing in that area. We have always appreciated the fine salmon that are caught in Saint John harbour. A moment ago a question was asked, as to whether a comparison could be made with respect to various catches in the east and the west, and somebody interjected the question, could they compare the quality. This is an absurd statement, because everyone knows there is no comparison between the fine, pink, tasty, moist Saint John salmon and that pseudo salmon from the west.


James Sinclair: You mean in the opinion of everybody from Saint John, New Brunswick.


Thomas Miller Bell: Supply-Fisheries
members themselves do not care enough to fight and ask for fresh fish.
Coming from the maritimes, I must admit that the meat dinners we get here are a decided treat to me, but I do not think I have had fish more than two or three times. When we had a fine dinner in the home economics kitchens of the fisheries department it brought home to me the fact that there is something wrong somewhere. I suggest that the solution lies in the hands of the members themselves.
It is a strange thing. Considering the fishing industry and comparing it with wheat, a product of the west, the fishermen work twice as hard for what they get, and certainly in depression times they feel the pinch far more than the western wheat growers. Yet there does not seem to be the interest. Here we have an industry that touches in some way practically all the provinces; at least, it affects all but two or three. The wheat industry is only concerned with two or three of the western provinces.
I leave that thought with the members here today, Mr. Chairman. We can talk about the department, we can talk about the research that is being done and we can try to get publicity all over the country, but a great deal of the responsibility falls upon the members themselves. I say we have to reassess our interests here and take a more active part in the consideration of this industry which produces this necessary food.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that in the present-day world there has been talk of going to the air in so far as our defence and our commercial life are concerned. We read of the various new plans that are being made and the increasing amount of money that is being spent on air activities. I do respect that, but I think it is fair to say also that in this atomic age, in our modern civilization, both Great Britain and the United States have realized that they have to get back to some extent to the sea and ships so far as defence purposes are concerned. I suggest very respectfully that we are also going to find it necessary to get back to the sea for our food.


Mr. MacEachen:: The fisheries in Nova
Scotia and the Atlantic provinces generally are still our great undeveloped natural resource. The maritime people certainly cannot blame others. This resource has been with us for many generations and it is still in a retarded state of development. The western members have their prairies and as a result have developed a wheat industry. We maritimers have had, in the broad seas, a prairie at our doorsteps; yet we have failed

to fully develop its great wealth. I feel that the maritime people must accept the primary responsibility for the state of development of the fishing industry.
I know there have been certain historical and economic factors that have hindered the development of the industry in Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces. But these historical and economic factors are not attributable either to our geographical location, or to a hostile government in Ottawa, or to any other factor, except factors with which the maritime people themselves should have coped earlier. I may say, however, they have been faced with increasing success in the past 10 years.
For the reason that this is an industry that we expect to develop and can develop by ourselves, I, in common with several hon. members, am very optimistic about the future development of the fisheries of Nova Scotia. As a matter of fact this is the only industry in my province that has shown signs of quickening life in the past number of years.
I agree with members who have pointed out the elements entering into the soundness of the fish industry, such as research, marketing, consumer education and so on. But the real ingredient necessary for further development in the fish industry is capital investment. As I pointed out when speaking at the resolution stage of the fishermen's loans bill, this capital investment must take place in the form of catching and processing equipment as well as in the field of distribution. At that time I mentioned that in 1939 the total investment in craft and gear in Nova Scotia amounted to $5,600,000, which represented a very small capital investment in the instruments with which the fisherman had to earn his living. I may say that in 1953 the total investment in craft and gear in Nova Scotia was something like $21 million, which represents a considerable improvement.
At the same time, it might be pointed out that the value of fishing craft in the Atlantic provinces, exclusive of Newfoundland, has increased by 175 per cent in the past 10 years, from $7-3 million to $203 million. The value of fishing gear has increased by about 120 per cent, from $6 million to $14-9 million. We have evidence here that there is a definite improvement in the capitalization of the fishing industry of Nova Scotia.
Despite the fact that the industry has been working in a favourable economic climate for the past 10 years, the capital investment has not been as great as we might have hoped. I would add that this increased investment in the industry in Nova Scotia has had a very direct bearing upon the physical productivity of the industry. In the pre-war

years the annual catch of fish in Nova Scotia ranged from 250 to 275 million pounds. It reached its high point in 1946, when it stood at 420 million pounds of fish. It now appears to be stabilized at about 380 million pounds. This increased poundage of fish landed certainly reflects the fact that there is a very close relationship between the capital invested in the industry and the physical productivity of the industry, and obviously therefore the return in the form of income to the fishermen.
The progress of the fishing industry on the Pacific coast has certainly been more rapid than that on the east coast. The value of fishing craft in the past 10 years on the Pacific coast has increased by 200 per cent. If you take into account the obvious adjustments that have to be made for changes in prices, the per man investment on the Pacific coast has doubled in that period. This is reflected in the greater size of the boats, better equipment and better devices for locating fish. We in the maritime provinces still have to catch up in this very important and crucial part of the industry if we are to provide the equipment and the gear that is essential in pursuing this occupation.
In the field of processing, in the past 10 years the number of plants in the maritime provinces has increased and the number of plant workers has decreased, showing greater mechanization. The same trend is shown on the Pacific coast. We have evidence, therefore, that in the field of processing, investment is also occurring. In the field of distribution, investment has been very slow, because there is no real way to attack this problem of providing necessary investment in refrigeration and fish display, those things which are so essential if we are to attract and satisfy the central Canadian consumer of fish. It is difficult to outline clearly how direction can be given to this form of investment, but it goes without saying that this investment is very essential in the stores and groceterias across the country if we are to provide refrigerated fresh products to the central Canadian consumer.
I have mentioned the development of investment and an increase in the landings of fish both in Nova Scotia and on the Pacific coast. I must say that this has not been exclusively the result of a new lease on life on the part of fishermen or businessmen in the industry, but has been the result of a favourable economic climate under which the fishing industry has been operating for the last 10 years. Anyone who will look at the wholesale price index for fish products for the past 20 years will find there has been a very great increase in wholesale fish prices.
50433-329i
Supply-Fisheries
If we take the period 1935-39 as the base of 100, we find that in 1945 the index stood at 270. During the same time the increase in the consumer price index has been much less. So the fishing industry, and fishermen, have been working in this desirable economic climate for the last number of years. To a great extent that has accounted for increased investment, physical productivity and income of fishermen.
Already several members have referred to the importance of markets, particularly to the importance of cultivating the domestic market and increasing the per capita consumption of fish in Canada. It should be remembered that the Canadian consumer still exercises freedom of choice, and chooses among products on the basis of price and consumer tastes. If the domestic market for fish is to be properly developed, and extended in Canada, it involves first of all the type of investment which will provide facilities by way of refrigeration and display, and also the type of advertising that will induce the Canadian consumer to buy more fish.
Indeed, we have certain natural attractions in connection with fish that should recommend themselves to Canadian consumers. Fish is one of the best protein foods; with proper development in the industry it should have a wider and ever-growing market on the Canadian domestic scene.
I agree with all the sentiments that have been expressed about the necessity of extending the sale of Canadian fish in the United States market. I would mention, however, that the New England fisheries, which represent the real pressure group for increased protection for the United States product, have been facing very great difficulties. The number of fishermen and the number of boats engaged in this industry are quickly diminishing, as a result of the operation of the definite competitive advantage of our Atlantic producers. The distance from the fishing banks and the higher wage levels in the New England fisheries have brought about the great competitive advantage held by our producers. I am reasonably optimistic on this point, that for some time there will be a desire on the part of United States public men, and indeed the industry itself, to moderate the effect of these competitive advantages so the decline in the industry will not be too rapid.
Indeed, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts has suggested protection, not to maintain the New England fisheries permanently at present levels, but rather to modify the rather difficult readjustment that would be involved by a sudden elimination of this industry. I am reasonably optimistic that the future will see

Supply-Fisheries
the gradual elimination of the New England fisheries because of the competitive advantage held by our Atlantic producers, and the greater possibility of the sale of our product in the great United States market.
I might suggest that in our discussion of the fishing industry we should not overemphasize ground fisheries. I believe they deserve all the emphasis they get, but the ground fisheries sometimes can be overemphasized at the expense of other forms of sea food. For example, lobster is still our most valuable single species of fish in my part of the world. The catch of lobsters cannot be centralized. You have to depend on the catch along the coast line in many communities in the maritime provinces. If we intend to catch this valuable product of the sea, then we must see to it that the people in the coastal villages who take the lobsters from the sea are given a proper standard of living. From this point of view the Department of Fisheries should be interested not only in the economic aspects of the lobster fisheries but also the social aspects in those villages along the coast line of the maritime provinces, where this type of fisherman lives. It is very essential that he be provided with a proper standard of living.
I might say in conclusion that of equal importance to the economic factors that have affected the fishing industry in the maritime provinces has been the influence of certain individuals in that industry who have exerted considerable force in the thinking of the industry. I would refer first of all to the former deputy minister of fisheries, whose analysis of the industry and whose leadership in it have been of well recognized value.
This past winter the united maritime fishermen celebrated their 25th anniversary. It is an organization composed principally of inshore fishermen of the maritime provinces. The organization grew out of a royal commission appointed in 1928 to investigate the fishing industry of the maritimes. One of the recommendations of that commission was that a program of education and organization should be undertaken among the fishermen of the maritime provinces. To achieve that very difficult and toilsome task the government appointed Dr. M. M. Coady, who later founded the extension department at Anti-gonish, and who has since laboured constantly in the interests of the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces. Because Dr. Coady has done such outstanding work, and because he is now retired from the active direction of the extension department I felt I should link his name with that of Stewart Bates as among
[Mr. MacEachen.l
the men who have wielded great influence in the development of the fisheries in my part of Canada.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on this first item. At this time last year I was not a member of the House of Commons, but I made it my business to read Hansard of the time the minister's estimates were before the house. I have always been impressed by the way the minister handles his estimates. When he finishes his remarks on the first item he has generally cleared up many of the questions that no doubt are in the minds of different hon. members. In his statement last year the minister said, as reported on page 4499 of Hansard of May 7, 1954:
. . . 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 in recreation and the tourist trade, and we handle the commercial fisheries, especially those of the two coasts. The federal government pass 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.
That statement cleared up many of the things about which I was in doubt at the time. I have listened to hon. members who have preceded me tell about salmon on one coast or salmon on the other, but I am ready to let them keep their salmon as long as I can get Winnipeg goldeye, Winnipeg whitefish and a bit of pickerel for a change. Coming from the prairies as I do I am naturally interested in the fishing industry of Manitoba. 1 know that Manitoba looks after her own commercial fisheries as well as her own sports fisheries. I realize that there is a great deal of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments, but at this time I should like to appeal for still greater co-operation.
I feel that we in Manitoba are missing the boat by not being able to participate in the different activities sponsored by the federal government and paid for out of the consolidated revenue. When we were in difficulties some time ago in selling our surplus fish, we had the co-operation of the federal government in disposing of it. In the estimates this year there is an item of $80,000 for cooperative education among fishermen. In the past advantage has been taken of this vote by fishermen on both east and west coasts. I understand that the Department of Fisheries

has gone even further and is introducing a scheme to educate young men to be better fishermen than their fathers were before them. I appeal to the Minister of Fisheries and also to the minister in Manitoba responsible for the fishing industry for closer cooperation so the fishermen on lake Manitoba and lake Winnipeg can participate and have the advantage of this educational program the federal government is paying for.
This $80,000 comes out of the dominion treasury and is to be used by the fishing industry for co-operative education in buying and selling fish. Further co-operation would no doubt bring us under the fishermen's indemnity fund, which is a scheme of insurance provided by the federal government for their boats. I know that today no fishermen on either lake Winnipeg or lake Manitoba are able to get insurance at the rate of 1 per cent which is charged on the insurance provided to fishermen by the dominion government. It is true that insurance is provided for only 60 per cent of the value of a boat, up to $7,500.
Coming back to the money voted for educational work and the training of young fishermen, may I say that I should like to see some of this money spent in Manitoba for this purpose. The fishermen's indemnity fund is a good thing and should be available to all fishermen who have boats, either large or small. I have not before me at the present time the insurance rates applicable for lake Winnipeg, but I have no doubt they are much more than the 1 per cent, which is the rate fishermen pay under the fishermen's indemnity fund. I should like to see Manitoba fishermen have the opportunity of participating in both these schemes, that is the educational plan and the fishermen's indemnity fund for the insurance of boats. I ask the minister for his co-operation along with that of the minister responsible in Manitoba in order that these two projects, which are so valuable, may be made available to our fishermen.
The work being done by the department in connection with the control of pests such as the lamprey in the large eastern lakes is both interesting and educational. As a member of the marine and fisheries committee I had the pleasure of seeing the film which was produced, and I think the government and the department should be congratulated. I hope money can be found with which to produce other films like that, because such films educate a person much more quickly than anything he might read.
I should like at this time to congratulate the fisheries council of Canada upon their biweekly bulletin. This contains considerable
Supply-Fisheries
condensed information, it is easy reading, and no paper is wasted as it is printed on both sides. I welcome the fisherman's loan act, which perhaps I should not speak about at this time, and I do hope that when this legislation is passed it will apply to prairie fishermen.
In closing I would extend a hearty invitation to the minister to visit Manitoba's inland port of Selkirk and see not only the up to date fishing plants of the various fish packing companies but the fishing boats and the men who earn their livelihood in the fishing industry.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with special interest this morning to the statement of the Minister of Fisheries on the activities of his department. It was gratifying and encouraging to hear from the minister that the catch and market situation had improved substantially during the past year and that prospects for the present season are promising. In the course of his remarks the minister covered in interesting and instructive detail the activities of his department and of most of its different services. I want to join with hon. members who have spoken before me in congratulating the minister upon his masterful presentation.
We all recognize that one of the main responsibilities of the Department of Fisheries is to help maintain and develop fish stocks in Canadian inland and coastal waters in order to protect the annual returns to the industry. As representatives in this house of the Canadian people we must not disregard our responsibility toward the immense fishing resources of our country, which are contributing substantially to our general economy. We must recognize that the possible expansion of our fisheries is still of paramount importance to our coastal provinces, and rightly deserves the special attention of the Canadian parliament. After all, the abundant marine life of the Atlantic coast of North America has been one of the main factors in leading Europeans to their first contact with our continent. The teeming waters of the Atlantic are yielding today, it is true, owing to improved fishing methods and greater catching efficiency, perhaps almost as freely as in the days of Cabot, and are instrumental in the growth of this important primary industry.
In the course of my remarks during the fisheries estimates debate last year I stressed the urgent need for an educational program and a well prepared publicity campaign to prevent the unfortunate practice of illegal fishing, too common among a large number of our fishermen, mainly in lobster fishing.

Supply-Fisheries
I want to express my appreciation for the preliminary action taken by the minister and his department in this respect. I wish to assure the minister that the series of lectures and conferences undertaken in the summer of 1954 and carried on earlier this year at the lobster fishing centres of new Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have been most beneficial.
I was given the opportunity of being present at one of these meetings, which was held at Sacred Heart University at Bathurst on November 26 last, and which was attended by well over 600 persons from all sections of northeastern New Brunswick. I wish to congratulate Dr. Wilder of the St. Andrews biological station, who was in charge of those lectures or conferences. I wish to assure the minister that we are looking forward to a continuation and expansion of this educational policy.
It is most unfortunate, however, that the fisheries research board is not in a position to provide the services of a man conversant with French, which is the sole language of at least 85 per cent of the fishermen in the counties of Westmorland, Kent, Northumberland and Gloucester. If pamphlets describing the life and habits of the lobster, such as those distributed by Dr. Wilder in the course of his lectures, were made available to school children in lobster fishing centres, the effect, I am convinced, would be most beneficial.
On Tuesday evening the members of the marine and fisheries committee were given the privilege of attending the premiere of a film describing a lobster fishing operation as carried on by commercial lobster fishermen. This was followed by two short films or scripts, one on lobster conservation and the other on the factors affecting the lobster catch. These films were well prepared, and the national film board as well as the Department of Fisheries deserve to be congratulated for this most interesting and educational accomplishment. I sincerely hope the school children in lobster fishing centres will be given the opportunity to see those educational films, and that French versions will be provided in localities where the French language is predominant.
In looking over the fisheries estimates for the fiscal year 1955-56 I note a proposed decreased expenditure of $344,211. It does not seem in line with the principles of good business that a department concerned with a growing and expanding industry such as fisheries should be asked to curtail its budget and cut down expenditures. I note, however, with some satisfaction that the amount to be voted for the fisheries research board shows

an increase of $309,000. This is a step in the right direction, but this item is by far too low if we are to take into consideration the great potentialities and the needs of the fishing industry.
At the main entrance of the parliament buildings are engraved the following words, which have been quoted on different occasions on the floor of this house: "The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west". This wholesome sea offers the largest variety of fish products in the world, and Canada today is the world's leading exporter of this particular commodity. It was encouraging to hear the minister state that in 1954 Canadian fisheries exports had increased by 17 per cent.
The fishing industry, Mr. Chairman, which is also an industry whose successes or failures depend on natural causes and are subject to the elements of nature, in the past has been called upon to assume the major share of responsibility for its subsistence. Up to March 31, 1953, the agricultural prices support board showed a net cost of operation amounting to over $42 million. Just a few weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture informed this house that recent payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to 21,000 farmers in Manitoba amounted to close to $4 million, while those paid to 85,000 farmers in Saskatchewan totalled $20 million, representing in this case over 75 per cent of all the farmers of that particular province.
It is true that the fisheries prices support board, in existence since 1947, has cost the government of this country slightly over $4 million. However, the deep-sea fishermen of my province and of the Gaspe coast experienced in 1952 one of the most disastrous seasons since the end of the second world war. It has taken the two full fishing seasons of 1953 and 1954 for a large number of these fishermen to pay back the debts assumed during 1952. Their numerous appeals to the fisheries prices support board did not receive favourable consideration.
The minister explained this morning the reasons for the board's decision in this particular case. Fortunately the market situation gradually improved in 1953, but the fact still remains that thousands of fishermen had to assume the full responsibility for a most unfavourable fishing season followed by a declining market. The minister's announcement that the department would pay 50 per cent of the cost of salt used in processing some of the varieties of fish will be welcomed in the areas where fishermen are curing their own fish. It will, however, have very little effect in the province of New Brunswick.

A few weeks ago I brought to the attention of the minister a serious epidemic decimating herring in the bay of Chaleur and the gulf of St. Lawrence. Here again hundreds of herring fishermen had to bring home their nets and fishing gear after a most unsuccessful season. The lobster fishermen of this particular area are seriously affected, and in the short, two-month season of May and June a large number will not land enough lobsters to meet the heavy expenses of traps, rope and other fishing gear and equipment required to carry on their operations.
I realize the importance of agriculture, and particularly of wheat, to the general economy of this country. It is gratifying to us from the maritime provinces to hear the word "fish" added to this echo of wheat, box cars and more wheat which originates almost daily from the floor of this house, and is repeated on practically every page of Hansard. If it rains too much, we hear this plea for assistance. If we have a drought period, help is asked for. If the crop is below normal, the government is pressed for a bonus or a grant. If there is overproduction the great benefactor, this benevolent institution known as the federal government, is called upon to come to the rescue and find a market in which to dispose of this surplus crop. The poor hard-working fisherman, in the meantime, must face practically alone the hazards of the weather and the sea, and stand on his own whether or not he brings home the harvest from the ocean.
Mr. Chairman, I insist that increased fisheries research is necessary if the industry is to prosper and if the intensive export of fisheries resources is to be maintained without endangering the abundant supply of our diversified fish species. One must not neglect the importance of biological data which are today, if not almost lacking, certainly much too limited on such common varieties of fish as cod, flounder, haddock, herring and other species found in abundance in our Atlantic waters.
I should like to mention at this time the Atlantic herring investigation committee which was operated for a number of years as a joint effort of the governments of Canada and Newfoundland-this was before Newfoundland entered confederation-and the provincial governments of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Hydrographic studies were made of the herring life, and the knowledge of conditions in the gulf area was substantially increased. This committee, I understand, was dissolved in 1949 or 1950. The fisheries research board has been carrying on the investigation since then. A period of five years,
Supply-Fisheries
however, has elapsed and we are still waiting for the report of the results or findings of this most useful study.
In the meantime, in most of the fishing centres of the maritime provinces our herring fishermen are still using the same outmoded and inefficient methods adopted by their forefathers over a century ago. The lack of information concerning such an important species is astonishing, and improvement can be obtained only by an expanding research program and by the application to the industry of all available technical and biological knowledge.
In this respect, Mr. Chairman, we are all interested in receiving at the earliest possible date the full findings of the Atlantic herring investigation committee which, I understand, operated for a period of five or six years. Such a report would be of valuable assistance to our herring fishermen.
It is not my intention to minimize the importance of and the good work accomplished by the fisheries research board. However, the activities of this board are limited by restricted funds. As a result, our fishing industry is not getting the full benefit of the resources of modern science applicable to this particular field. As we all know, and as the minister stated this morning, our fishermen are handicapped by an invisible drifting of sea pasturage and a continuous migration of fish. The best knowledge of modern science is required if the effects of the shifting tides and currents are to be mastered and controlled. The sea offers an unexplored frontier of possibilities for our scientists, and our men having chemical and biological skill must be provided with the facilities required if we want mankind to benefit from these untapped treasures of the ocean. We are depending on the Minister of Fisheries to press the government to enlarge by all means the scope of the fisheries research board and, whenever possible, to make its results and findings better known and applicable in a more practical way to the common commercial fishermen, especially on the Atlantic coast.
A few years ago we had a growing and productive oyster industry on the north shore of New Brunswick. In 1949 the oyster crop in New Brunswick reached a peak production of 37,000 barrels. In 1950 it was down to 26,000 barrels and has been decreasing ever since. The last statistical report for 1954 shows a total landing of less than 12,000 barrels, or one-third of the 1949 production. In 1947 steps were taken by the fisheries research board to provide an experimental station in the Shippigan area in Gloucester county where the cultivation of oysters by


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, with New Westminster having such a vital interest in the fishing business I am satisfied that it is most important that I should have something to say in this debate. A year ago I had occasion to compliment the minister on the reconsideration of the problem with respect to the closure of fishing above Pattullo bridge. Today I listened with considerable interest to what the hon. member for Saint John-Albert had to say with respect to the minister's reason for doing such a good job with the fisheries, and I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I must be fair and say that I think the minister found a certain challenge in the fisheries department and decided to do something about it. Knowing the Minister of Fisheries as we on the Pacific coast do, rightly or wrongly you can expect that he will do something about it.
In the instance to which I referred I considered that he was wrong in his decision, and I cannot quite understand why he has not made reference to the closure of that fishing in this debate. I must therefore accept my own thought that he contemplates no change. I spoke on this question in the house on two occasions, and the minister was present on at least one. I see no reason to restate what I said on those occasions. He is fully aware how the fishermen on the Fraser river feel about this matter. The hon. member for Fraser Valley has also indicated how the fishermen in his area dislike the continuance of the closure. However, I have certain questions I should like to place before the minister with respect to this matter, and if he will answer them it may help us in some way to understand his point of view and the reasons for the closure.
In the course of his remarks this morning the minister mentioned the need for a pink salmon treaty, and he was kind enough to say that I was present at the meeting that was held. I am satisfied that something should and must be done as quickly as possible in this regard. He did say that this year the fishermen are stepping out and trying to out-fish the Americans in order to prove that we can practically force them to come to some agreement. This was indicated at the meeting, as the minister has been given to understand, and the fishermen's unions on either side of the international boundary came to a tentative agreement that they wanted their governments to do something about the matter.
Supply-Fisheries
More particularly the suggestion has been made by the fishermen, myself and others that the present sockeye salmon commission might be utilized for this purpose. Being as familiar as they are with sockeye salmon and the salmon industry as a whole, we feel that they might do an excellent job if they were also given jurisdiction over pink salmon.
One question I have has to do with catches of pink salmon. From 1933 to 1953-I do not have the 1954 catch here-the minister said the catch was on about a 40-60 basis. I believe the figures are derived from the pack figures, using an average of 12 to a case, which would indicate that in 1953 Canada caught somewhat over 4 million pink salmon and the United States 6J million, or a total of over 10J million. That would be about a 40-60 split. Actually it works out at approximately 38 per cent as far as Canada is concerned.
However, in 1941 Canadian fishermen caught 1,400,000 pink salmon and the Americans only caught 2 million, a total catch of 3,400,000. In that year Canada had about 41 per cent of the catch. Possibly the war had something to do with it, but if the minister would explain the difference and the reason for our trying to outfish the Americans it might be of interest to the fishermen. In 1951 we caught approximately 35 per cent. We caught 2,895,000 compared with 5,300,000 caught by the Americans, or a total of 8,195,000. The 35 per cent is not very far below the 38 per cent, and we did that without out-fishing the Americans.
I am not going to suggest for a moment that we should not try to outfish the Americans. I think we should. I think his plan of trying to bring them to terms is excellent, and I am satisfied that the fishermen in my area feel likewise. I should like to compliment him on instituting the program of trying to outfish the Americans with the full intention of making them realize that there is only one practical way of preserving the pink salmon-by mutual agreement-possibly on a 50-50 basis similar to what obtain in the sockeye salmon industry.
Then I have certain other questions. How have the Fraser valley fishermen failed in their attempt to conserve salmon in the past? Would he not agree that the fact they caught more salmon last year than in any other year was the result of these fishermen conserving salmon in former years and co-operating in every way, shape and form with the minister and the officials of his department who make the regulations? I feel satisfied that was done; therefore it is rather difficult for me, as it must be for the fishermen, to understand why there is need for this change if conservation is the point.

Supply-Fisheries
If it is not conservation, then it must be quality. On a percentage basis, from what fishing grounds were the greatest number of fish lost due to spoilage? I know our gill net fishermen are outfished in the straits and up the inlet, but on a percentage basis from what grounds do the fish come that are lost through spoilage? Are they from the seine vessels or from the gill netters? In this regard let us take the past three or four years. I am not interested in going further back, although I am satisfied that the same results would be obtained.
How are the regulations enforced regarding seiners fishing off the lightship in the Fraser river? The gill net vessel owners fishing downstream from the Pattullo bridge inform me that seiners come right up to within a few yards of the lightship, and the understanding is that they should be something like ten miles away from there. How are these regulations enforced to ensure that this does not happen?
Another question which actually requires the co-operation of the veterans affairs department is what compensation, if any, is being considered for the war veterans who settled above the Pattullo bridge who were given a licence to fish in that area? I understand they are now to be denied that licence, and I wondered what compensation they were to receive for being deprived of these particular fishing grounds.
I have one or two other observations to make with respect to the debate that has taken place. In so far as the marketing of our product is concerned, I would agree with those who have indicated that possibly the most important market for our fisheries industry is the home market. During a recent trip to my home I was very pleased to find one of the dining cars serving Pacific coast salmon. I was more than pleased to find that it was prepared to perfection; even the hon. member for Fraser Valley would have approved. Apparently the chef did an excellent job. Word very soon got around the dining car, and people were ordering salmon. Ordinarily we find that when word gets around that fish is not prepared as well as it might be the result is that this product does not get its share of the consumer market. This incident proved to me that when fish is well prepared there will be a demand for it.
I would go along with the idea of including a chef's course or something similar in the course the minister indicated is being offered by the University of British Columbia. When the minister was speaking I wondered whether or not this course would be available to summer students. I see he is shaking his head

to indicate that it is not. It is unfortunate that it is not. Possibly the university will see fit to broaden the course and make it available to summer students as well. Frequently we find people who are anxious to learn these things who would like to take summer courses.
I should like to make one other suggestion. Actually I might refer to what I said last year during one of the debates on the tourist industry. At that time I suggested that instead of Canadian restaurants advertising southern fried chicken we should have a Canadian dish. It might be a provincial dish, and encouragement of this idea might be given by our fisheries department. The department might suggest that restaurants advertise such things as barbecued salmon, Winnipeg gold-eye or whatever dish might be appropriate in the various provinces. Those of us who have long distances to travel find that from time to time the steward on the train comes to us and suggests that a certain fish is available; it has just been freshly brought in. We should not be dependent upon the ability of the steward alone to sell that commodity.
Of course, a great deal depends upon the preparation. It would really be a fine thing if tourists from the United States and other lands could come to Canada and be assured that the fish they obtain in the restaurants is not only of the best quality but prepared to perfection, and that it is a national dish.
I shall say no more at this time. I hope the minister answers these questions, and I may have others to put to him, depending upon what he has to say.


Mr. Ashbourne:: I should like to add my congratulations, Mr. Chairman, to those that have already been given the Minister of Fisheries upon his opening remarks in presenting the estimates of his department to this committee. I want to say a few words on behalf of the fishermen of Newfoundland, in connection with the announcement that the government has decided to pay 50 per cent of the cost of salt used in the making of salt codfish. I feel sure that this announcement will be greatly appreciated by them. It will be the means of putting some heart into them as they are about to start the fishing operations for 1955.
Last year we were blessed by Providence with a large catch of cod. As the minister said, the fish that came in were almost eating the rocks and they were the means of providing the fishermen with the necessities of life. While I do not want to take very much of the time of the committee, I should like to say that we in Newfoundland have our problems. I hope, however, that we shall

be able to make a great contribution to Canada. We have great resources in Newfoundland, and when those resources are developed they will be of great assistance to the dominion as a whole. This is my hope.
The provision for payment of 50 per cent of the cost of the salt used by fishermen will, I hope, enable fishermen to produce larger quantities of salt cod. According to the latest report it would appear that Norway and Iceland will produce as much salt codfish this year as last year, or perhaps more. There is no reason to assume that the fleets from Spain, Portugal and France that fish off the Grand Banks will get any less fish than they did last year. Because of their great mobility, they can move from the Grand Banks to Greenland and get additional catches when completing their trip.
However, I understand that the sales of salt cod in Europe this year are not less than those of last year, and may be slightly higher. It is my hope that Newfoundland will be able to enter the European salt cod markets. It is too bad that in the past we have not been able to participate in this market, because our customers over there are producing their own fish and naturally the market is more restricted. We have been practically eliminated from the Brazilian market, which in the past took large quantities of Newfoundland salt cod. This has been the result of currency restrictions and perhaps a lowering of internal purchasing power. In Newfoundland we find we have not been able to sell as much salt cod to Brazil as we did formerly.
I hope we will be able to enter this European market. At the moment Iceland sells a great deal of salt cod in Europe. It seems that the quality of our salt cod, whether it is on account of the longer ocean voyage or for some other reason, does not stand up as well as that of the Iceland cod. I think steps should be taken to ascertain the cause of that, to find out why the meat of the fish seems to disintegrate a bit more than the fish from Iceland.
We are told that our stock position is favourable. I hope the catch this year will be plentiful for our fishermen. Of course that depends to a great extent upon currents and winds and the way the fish travel. We know they are always in search of food and, as I said before, a good deal will depend upon the amount of food available in the form of the smaller fish such as caplin, to attract them inshore.
We in Newfoundland have to face the problem of looking after trap fishing. In the last two or three years we have had good trap
Supply-Fisheries
fishing. After all, it is one of the cheapest ways of producing fish, that of catching them in traps. The fishermen put out their traps. The fish come in conveniently near the traps, run along the leaders and by and by are found in the traps. It is simply a matter of closing the mouth of the trap, hauling it in and taking out the fish. However, this naturally depends upon the fish coming in to shore.
No doubt there will be a time when the fish will not come in so near the shore, and we will have to look into the matter of going out after them. This suggests the idea of providing long-liners to fishermen to go out and use trawls to get the fish on the grounds where they are located. In this connection I was glad to hear the minister this morning speak about the progress that has been made in connection with the mapping of the grounds and new banks. When he is summing up I would ask him to tell us what steps have been taken to place that information in the hands of fishermen in the different localities, because such information is very valuable. They should know where the new grounds are located.
We know conservation is very important. Mention has already been made this afternoon of the film shown the other evening about lobster fishing. The Department of Fisheries is to be congratulated on that excellent film; and I feel sure that as it is shown throughout Canada it will increase knowledge, a factor which is very necessary for those who must deal with the problem of conserving the lobster fisheries.
Loans for primary producers is a move in the right direction; and I hope it will be only a matter of time when some form of unemployment insurance will be provided for our fishermen.
Today the minister spoke about seals. Over 30 years ago I went out and caught some seals. I left in the morning before daylight carrying a gaff over my shoulder. I had my hauling line and was wearing a pair of sealskin boots. One thing I remember about the experience was that I had to wring out my socks several times before I got back that day, and was assisted to shore by the foghorn which was blowing from the top of Long Point, and which we heard as we were coming in a mile or a mile and a half offshore.
These seals are very important. I think the question of whether or not the Norwegian ships that come out here to take part in the seal fishery are being subsidized should be inquired into. When I went seal fishing the practice was to carry the gaff over one shoulder, and to stun the seal. I remember

Supply-Fisheries
killing three young hoods. I took my gaff, struck them over the head, stunned them and then of course got out my knife and took out the carcass. I hauled them in with my hauling rope. I understand that last winter even some of the women in Newfoundland went to the seal fishery. I know of one case where a search party had to go out during the evening with flashlights to assist the women to get in with their seals. This is a very important industry, and I think we should look after it as well as possible.
Then I would bring to the attention of the minister the quality of codfish. If possible something should be done to encourage people to make the best quality of codfish. I do not know whether anything can be done by way of bonuses or extra payments to encourage the making of good codfish; but something should be done, because we certainly do not want to lose that art. We know that in many industries rapid technical progress is being made, and we are looking forward to this progress being extended to the fishing industry.
We know that artificial driers are a great help to fishermen. In the past they had to depend upon the sun, and their own efforts and those of their wives and families, to spread the fish on the flakes so they would be dried and available for market. Ample funds should be provided so the work of the research board will proceed at the maximum speed possible.
I see it is about two minutes to six, and I shall have time to refer to one further matter. I have the honour to represent Labrador, with a very extensive coast line. Let me say in passing that since confederation only one wharf has been built on the whole of the Labrador coast line. I realize that this does not come under the minister's department, but the fact remains that the fishermen do need wharves. While there are not many fishermen on the extended coast line, they do need certain facilities in the different localities, the fishing settlements and outports in which they live. We look forward to the time when the Department of Public Works will provide these facilities.
There is one further matter concerning Labrador, and that is the very important salmon fishery. Salmon, which at the present time bring in about three or four dollars each, will in time become very valuable. In fact I would not be at all surprised-perhaps not in my time, but later-the time will come when every salmon will be worth perhaps $100. I know there are Americans who go to the Labrador coast now and who are prepared to invest large sums of money in fishing gear, lines, reels and all that sort of thing

in order to engage in this sports fishing. I would ask the minister to see that an additional sum of money is provided so that additional salmon guardians may be provided in Labrador.
There is one other matter I should like the minister to deal with when he speaks by and by, and that is to give a review of the industrial development with regard to Newfoundland.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks on the first item of this department's estimates, as I come from a province where fishing is the second most important industry. In the province of Prince Edward Island the annual catch is in the neighbourhood of 30 million pounds, and its landed value is something over $3 million, with the market value in the neighbourhood of $4 million.
I note with interest that the fishing industry is gradually assuming its rightful place of importance, with improved legislation being put on the statute books from time to time. I am especially pleased to see that at last action has been taken to provide medium-term loans for fishermen, as have been available for agriculture for some time. The Department of Fisheries, of course, in addition to its prime function, is also responsible for various boards and other organizations such as the fisheries research board, the fishermen's indemnity fund, the fisheries prices support board and a number of other such bodies which come under the minister's department.
I have read with interest the reports of these various boards. On reading the annual report of the fisheries prices support board I came upon two small items, both of which interested me. Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to explain them at some suitable time. On page 11 I notice that expenditures for the year 1953-54 include the sum of $6.45 for postage, which seems a relatively small amount, and the sum of $631.39 for telephones and telegrams. It would appear on the face of it that the board finds it necessary to carry on most of its communication by either telegram or telephone. Of course that may not be the true explanation. I noticed too, on page 5, a statement which struck me as being especially curious-this in a lighter vein-since the minister himself

is a Rhodes scholar. I see what appears to be a piece of rather poor construction. It says in part:
In 1953 the fishery on the west coast returned to generally normal levels of production while the Atlantic fishermen, influenced by biological and economic factors which in some instances discouraged fishing effort and lowered productivity, took from the waters a reduced yield.
I take it that the biological factors were operating on the fish rather than on the fishermen; but that is just in passing. Although the Department of Fisheries is fairly extensive, I note with interest that all the activities of the federal government having to do with fisheries are not contained in this department. Of course that may be unavoidable. But I notice that the report of the national parks branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources gives over almost a whole page to fisheries studies of various kinds which that department carries out. I would be interested to know what liaison there is between the two departments. I assume it is very close, and I assume that this work in the parks branch refers only to fish in waters within the boundaries of national parks.
In my province of Prince Edward Island the coastal fisheries, especially the lobster fishery, are of prime importance. Although dragging is now becoming important and there is a very healthy industry building up in that field, nevertheless the lobster fishery is, as yet at any rate, the most important. Here is something I should like to bring to the minister's attention. I know it does not directly concern his department; nevertheless it has to do with the welfare of the fishermen and the circumstances under which they operate.
In former years there was a very considerable coastal trade in the maritimes. As a result the Department of Public Works saw fit to provide small wharves in almost all the little coves around the maritimes. In many cases now that the coastal trade has practically disappeared, owing in the first place to the railways and then to trucking, these wharves have fallen into disrepair or have become non-existent. At the present time almost the only purpose for which these wharves would be used would be for the accommodation of local fishermen. The result is that there are many cases where wharves or shelters for fishing boats are not provided. There may be cases where wharves are provided for a now extinct coastal trade. Such wharves are no longer necessary.
I would suggest that some means of close liaison be developed between the Department of Fisheries and the Department of
Supply-Fisheries
Public Works so that recommendations could be made by the Department of Fisheries as to where expenditures should be made to provide shelters for fishing boats. I think the department should be in a better position to make such recommendations than any smaller group or any individuals, because if you have individuals making recommendations, or even small groups you have the question of local pride and the procedure of trying to establish something that may not be justified in one case but may be highly justified in another.
For example, in my own riding I know there are certain areas, especially on the north shore, where the fishermen operate under most severe difficulties. There are places where a number of fishing boats operate and where the fishermen have no adequate shelter for the boats at all. They are obliged to be on the watch all the time and if a storm comes up drag their boats out of the water by means of horses or some other means.
Having said that, I should like to turn for a few moments to the fresh water fisheries of Prince Edward Island. They are not of any direct economic importance, but they are a great tourist attraction. In most provinces I presume that much of the angling is done within the boundaries of the national or provincial parks, but in the case of Prince Edward Island the most attractive angling areas are on private property or, in any case, outside the boundaries of the national park.
I was interested to read in the Canada Year Book of 1952-53 a paragraph which refers to this particular problem in Prince Edward Island. Perhaps I shall be pardoned if I quote it just to refresh the minister's memory on the problem. It is to be found at page 577:
The streams of the province-
This is referring to Prince Edward Island. -are, as a whole, mostly spring fed and fairly constant in flow, thus providing excellent spawning grounds and nurseries for game fish, of which speckled trout are by far the most important. With such favourable conditions for reproduction the problem is to increase the production of trout of a size attractive to anglers. Comprehensive biological investigations are being carried on by the fisheries research board to attain this objective by determining the most efficient procedure in stocking, managing and cropping. The province provides the sites for these investigations and the conservation and development branch of the federal Department of Fisheries builds the necessary dams and supplies the fish required for experimental purposes.
The angling pressure in this province is continuing to increase but many of the fertile and highly productive ponds have disappeared. During 1951, the department, with a view to readjusting this situation, has repaired dams and restored

Supply-Fisheries
many pends and thus opened to the public, subject to the prevailing fishery regulations, many angling areas.
I should like the minister to make a progress report, as it were, on this subject. I would be interested in knowing the circumstances under which those ponds are established, whether they are established on private property or on property that is held in the name of the provincial government, or under what circumstances they are provided. I must say that I approve most heartily of the idea but I am interested in knowing what the progress is, as are, I am sure, all the people in my province including a great many would-be anglers.
In addition, I should like the minister to make some comment on what progress is being made by the Atlantic salmon coordinating committee. A good many years ago-I suppose it is a couple of hundred years ago-the Atlantic salmon was a common fish. They abounded in the waters of eastern North America and in the St. Lawrence water system at one time as far up, I believe, as the Don river in what is now Toronto. They were, of course, common in Europe. I believe they were so common at one time that labourers, when taking employment, usually specified that they should not be fed Atlantic salmon more than five times a week or something of that sort. It had not been realized that it was such a great delicacy as it is considered at the present time, I suppose because familiarity breeds contempt. But with the development of obstructions in the streams and for other reasons, I presume, the Atlantic salmon population has gone down a great deal.
In my province of Prince Edward Island, Atlantic salmon are scarce. They do not occur at all in most streams. That, of course, was not the situation originally. When the first settlers came to that area I think most streams in Prince Edward Island abounded with Atlantic salmon. But early in our history small power dams were erected on the streams and they created obstructions for the fish, with the result that the fish which ordinarily came to spawn in those particular rivers were exterminated practically completely. Hence there have been no succeeding generations to come back.
I understand, however, that if young fish are put in a particular stream, a large percentage of them will return to spawn in that particular area, and that there should be no difficulty in restocking these streams if fish ladders could be constructed or some other means provided which would allow the fish to circumvent the obstructions which were built in the streams years ago and which still exist.
I should also like to mention a subject that is related to this problem. Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to state whether causeways which are now being built in connection with the trans-Canada highway, in the case of Prince Edward Island, are having any influence on the possible reproduction of fish in the area, or whether there are any oyster beds which would be affected by those causeways which, as I understand it, will maintain the tide upstream at a constant level. There would be other types of fish which might be affected, including smelts, of course, and trout.
There are some other things that I should like to mention but I shall not refer to them now. There are a few small items to which I should like to refer when the particular items come before the committee. However, I should like to make a reference to what has already been said by the hon. member for Gloucester with regard to poaching, especially in the lobster industry. I agree with him most heartily that if there could be put into operation an educational program which would educate the fishermen of the area as to the necessity for good conservation practices, the problem of poaching would decrease to a great extent. I most strongly recommend to the minister's consideration a careful study of the possibility of instituting a really effective educational program in that regard.


Mr. Kickham:: Supply-Fisheries
the explanations given by Dr. Pritchard, will be of tremendous value to the fishermen. I only hope these films can be brought to the fishermen along the coast. In this way perhaps the fishermen can be convinced that lobsters are not migratory, as Dr. Wilder and Dr. Pritchard maintain. These fishermen are quite intelligent, and they will see the advantage to their own industry of putting these small lobsters back into the water. Dr. Wilder said the increase in weight is 50 per cent in one year, so it is quite obvious to anyone who sees a film like that, with the splendid description Dr. Pritchard gave, that it is certainly in their own interests to put the small lobsters back into the water.
We have federal boats patrolling our coast. Many of the fishermen think the small lobsters should be brought to shore and released in shallow water. They claim that when the codfish are schooling the Northumberland strait on the north side of our province, the codfish gobble up the small lobsters. I have seen small lobsters in the maw of codfish.
In addition, I should like to suggest to the minister that we should have sufficient guardians or wardens to supervise the grading of the lobsters when the fishermen land them at the fishing centres. There are many centres in Prince Edward Island where there are always from three to six buyers, and if we had one warden located there as the fishermen were bringing in their fish they would be graded in a similar manner to potatoes when a farmer brings in a load. Potatoes are graded according to whether they are table potatoes or seed potatoes. Under the act the farmer has the protection of having these potatoes inspected at shipping points, and also under the seed certification branch. We are not prosecuted if our pack is not up to uniform standards across Canada. The cost would be very negligible.
For example, our guardians are willing to carry on that service for two months of the year and supply their own motor cars. The department pays them $145 per month, plus 9 cents per mile, I believe, for the use of their automobile, truck or whatever kind of motor vehicle they use. I note that according to the estimates of last year the department has reduced its expenditures by $344,000. In my opinion an industry as important as the fishing industry should have the estimates increased by that amount. I think we would be well repaid. I say the value of the fishing industry in Canada certainly entitles it to an increase in expenditure.
I do not believe we should have packers or fishermen prosecuted, haled into court and fined by magistrates or judges. In many cases,
[Mr. Kiekham.l
if the officer is arrogant he can prosecute any bona fide fisherman or packer. The packer employs a buyer, and he gives the buyer instructions not to take any small lobsters because if the inspectors come along when those small lobsters are on the sorting table they will not only prosecute the packer but if there are a thousand pounds of boiled lobsters on the table, large and small, they all go into bags and are taken by the prosecution officers to be distributed for charitable purposes. The packer, therefore, is subject to heavy losses. All this could be easily eliminated by giving us a few more land protection guardians and wardens. I think the value of the industry warrants it.
I should like now to say a word about the shell clam industry, which I believe could be developed to some extent. I refer to the quahaug. There is a splendid demand in the United States for what are called little neck quahaugs. There is also a good market in Canada for the hard shell or overgrown quahaugs that are available in the United States. The truck that delivers the little neck quahaugs to the United States could return with a load of the hard shell quahaugs. These are processed in Canada; they are ground up, and are one of the ingredients in Campbell's soup. This industry has been almost destroyed because of tariff restrictions by the United States.
Many of our leading packers and fishermen believe the quahaug industry could be developed tremendously by planting quahaug spat. What these people want is to be granted leases on the beaches that are favourable to the development of quahaugs. They are not asking for the privilege of exploiting the fishermen in the area who would normally drag the quahaugs when they reach a stage of development at which they can be marketed. These people are willing at their own expense, provided they obtain a lease from the department, to plant the quahaug spat and have them protected until such time as they can be properly harvested. I would like to ask the minister to look into the matter, and give it his earnest and favourable consideration.
I often recall, too, that some years ago the seagull was protected; and I think there was a very good reason for the protection of that bird because it decontaminated our shores of fish offal. The seagulls devoured the offal, thus eliminating the smells and making the area more attractive to tourists. Now, however, the situation has changed, because today no fish offal is made available to those birds; the offal is not thrown away. It is now taken to by-products plants and converted into fish meal.

I suggest to the minister that the time has come when we may have to destroy those predatory birds. Dr. Pritchard mentioned the other evening that a nine-inch lobster deposits 75,000 lobster berries, and those berries float on the surface for one month after they are discharged from the female lobster. It might be that the seagulls, which are not divers and do not bring up deteriorated fish from the bottom, could pick up large quantities of the lobster berries. I would ask the minister to look into this phase of the matter.
But in addition to predatory birds we have predatory humans, and they have come from the province of New Brunswick. Those predatory humans exhaust our shores of clams. Just in that connection I would like to read what our protection officer had to say on the subject:
There is an increase in the bar clam landings of some 107 hundredweight, a decrease in clams of 799 hundredweight and a decrease in quahaugs of over 4000 hundredweight. Most of our soft shell clam beds are depleted and it is difficult at the present time to find enough for shore picnics on beds that used to produce barrels daily. The landed value of these varieties was down by some $13,000.
So they have taken our clams. That is quite legal, of course; I am not complaining about it. However, clams are pretty poor bait.
I do not think I shall take any more time. I only wish to emphasize before taking my seat that I would like to see some more modern method of dealing with bona fide fishermen and packers, rather than the present system of prosecution. Some of these fishermen are subject to large fines. I do not know who benefits from those fines the fishermen pay. It may be the dominion government, or perhaps the province; I am not sure. However, I would re-emphasize that I am sure the minister and his deputy have the interest of the fishermen at heart, and will rectify this method of prosecution.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, during the course of this debate the majority of the speakers have hailed from the Atlantic coast. Lest there be any chance that this chamber should overlook the fact that we have an important fishing industry on the Pacific coast, I think it behooves me to make a few comments regarding the speech delivered by the minister this morning.
I do not want the committee to be under any false impression that the importance of the fishing industry on the Atlantic seaboard as compared with that on the Pacific has any relation whatsoever to the number of members who are speaking, because it must be kept in mind that the number of members speaking on this subject is governed by the
Supply-Fisheries
number of constituencies on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. It so happens there are about five Atlantic seaboard constituencies for each one on the Pacific coast.
I would call attention to the fact that the hon. member for Queens missed entirely the point in the story he told, of how years ago certain workmen had it written into their contracts that they were not to be fed Atlantic salmon more than five days a week. Of course they wanted that provision; it was British Columbia salmon they were insisting upon. And I would like my friend from Saint John-Albert also to forgo his continual praise-and in this he has been joined by others-of the anaemic salmon which come from the Atlantic seaboard. It is the red-blooded salmon we really want.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Can they vote?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, the salmon cannot vote, but the salmon on the Pacific coast are certainly Canadian babies.


William Earl Rowe: And you migh; get some suckers, too.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was very pleased to hear about the very satisfactory conditions in the fishing industry on the Pacific coast, as reported by the minister in his opening speech. I think I heard him correctly when he said there is no surplus. By this I understand there is no carryover of stock from a year ago. According to reports from the industry, on April 30 of this year there was a carryover of more than 350,000 cases. If that has been sold-and from what the minister has said, I would assume it has-that is very creditable indeed, because the industry on the west coast is highly competitive. We have to compete with the beef and other meats raised on the prairies, and we also have to compete with other nations in the fishing industry.
We have to watch very carefully the increase in the Japanese fishing fleet, and the excellent product being turned out by Japan and sold in Canada. I have no quarrel with that, because Japan has to sell its products, but we have to be able to compete with the Japanese. I am not quite certain that we should not carry out investigations to see if the style of can and the way in which our product is put up might not be improved. I know that today the skin and bones are included in the can. I suppose there are trade reasons for that, but when you empty a can of salmon I sometimes think it is not quite as appetizing as it might be.
There was another point I was pleased to note; that is, that the long negotiations between the fishermen and the canning companies had been concluded in time so the fleet could leave for the northern waters on

Supply-Fisheries
the day the sockeye salmon fishing season opened. In years gone by negotiations have been carried on for long periods of time and the fleet has not been able to get away in order to take advantage of the full season.
I want to refer to the agreement which I hope will be successfully concluded this year with reference to pink salmon, somewhat along the lines of the sockeye salmon commission. I spoke on this matter last year, and it is most important to our fishermen on the west coast. It is not only a case of an agreement being reached; additional facilities should be provided for our fishermen in order that they may catch their full quota of pinks as compared with the United States fishermen, who have the advantage of large ships and safe harbours along the southern shore of San Juan strait. We are short of harbours other than Victoria. Sooke harbour needs dredging badly; and while there is an excellent harbour at the entrance of the San Juan river, it is open to gales from the southeast which sweep right across, with rollers coming in from cape Flattery. I do not know whether it would be practical to construct some sort of shelter or cove or breakwater of some kind to protect the fishermen's vessels, but I would hope that something could be done. My information is only from local sources, but I believe the minister has had his officials look into this.
The next point I wanted to refer to was the question of the limitation of licences. I spoke about this last year, when I urged that licences be restricted to Canadian citizens and also that there should be a line of demarcation drawn between the legitimate commercial fishermen and the part-time fishermen. A professional or businessman may take holidays of two weeks to a month while the salmon run is on, and he will go out with a commercial licence for only a short period. Actually he is infringing on the legitimate fishermen. Common sense must be used in dealing with this matter, as we want to encourage sport fishing, but a limitation on licences is required.
There was one remark the minister made which caused me great concern. He referred to the investigations being carried on in connection with utilizing the meat of the dogfish. He said this might be turned into fish meal, which is an excellent idea because it could then be used on the numerous mink farms on the coast. But he went on to say that it might also be used in fish and chip shops, and then went a step further and referred to the fish and chip shops in the same breath as hot dog stands. That certainly made my hackles rise. I want to assure
[Mr. Pearkes.l
the minister that we have some excellent fish and chip shops in my constituency. If he will let me know the next time he visits Victoria I will take him down where he can have an excellent meal.


James Sinclair: May I correct that now. The fish and chip shops I was referring to are in England, where there is a large consumption through those outlets. Dogfish are not used in fish and chip shops in Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was afraid the minister was going to suggest that they might be. If you are going to introduce dogfish into the excellent fish and chip shops on Vancouver island you will have to do a very high class job of salesmanship.


James Sinclair: The English do.


George Randolph Pearkes: You had better put your research experts to trying to find a trade name for it in order to help you out. Perhaps I can help your officials in that respect. During the dinner recess I went to the library to see if I could get any help, and I found that the dogfish comes from many different families of fish. The most prevalent one in the Pacific is the squali dae or the carcharii dae. It seems to me that that suggests a trade name. Instead of calling them dogfish and chips possibly you might refer to them as a succulent squalus sandwich or something like that. There would have to be a good job of selling them done. I assure the minister that we have a number of excellent fish and chip shops there which serve the best halibut they can get.
If when closing the debate on this item the minister can give me some assurance about the commission and about the licences, we will let the hot dogfish and chips business stand for the time being.


Mr. Campbell:: Mr. Chairman, what I have to say will be brief because this is one department about which I do not know very much. My problem is not markets or canning or fishing, it is what is happening to our fish. I was glad the minister said something this afternoon about fish being killed through the pollution of our rivers. While I did not hear what he had to say, I am glad to know that he is interested in this problem and I hope something will be done about it.
When the question of the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river came up last year the minister told us he had no jurisdiction over fish in interprovincial rivers. I am hoping he will become interested enough to try to make some arrangements with the provinces so that fish in interprovincial rivers may be looked after by the federal Department of Fisheries instead of by the different

provincial departments. At present it is not possible to safeguard fish in an interprovincial river where pollution takes place in one province and the fish are killed in another. I plead with the minister to do something about these fish. We have not very many fish in my constituency except those in the lakes, but quite frequently people do go down to our rivers to fish.
There is another problem in connection with the pollution of rivers which is closely connected to but much more important than our fish population. I hope the minister will consider this matter seriously. We have had before us legislation under which the dominion government is going to take jurisdiction over international rivers. They should take a good look at this problem of the pollution of interprovincial rivers and try to arrive at some agreement with the provinces or bring forward some kind of legislation at the next session which will protect our fish population as well as our human population.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps one of the greatest tributes one could pay to the Minister of Fisheries' speech today is that someone like myself from a residential area in the middle of an island which has no fisheries whatsoever found it both interesting and informative. I do not know whether in the few minutes I have been away from this debate someone may have said this, but I want to express my personal hope that the minister has a pleasant trip to Russia and, most important, that he gets back here safely. I think there are some of us who would miss him a great deal more than we would miss others we might send.
I was not too impressed with the discussion on the relative merits of British Columbia salmon versus maritime salmon, because in Quebec we know we have the biggest and best fish in the world. At a convention in Quebec about three years ago they presented a British Columbia salmon and a maritime salmon to the chairman. We did not know what happened to ours, but we finally checked and found they could not even get the Quebec salmon through the door of the hotel.
Throughout this debate there has been running a thread of worry about the consumption of fish products in Canada, and a desire that the consumption of those fish products be increased. That is what brings me to my feet tonight. While some of us from cities may know little about fisheries, along the way we may have learned a little about merchandising products. One in that position cannot help but be impressed and disappointed on examining the expenditure-or perhaps I should
Supply-Fisheries
say the lack of expenditure-by the fisheries department in the promotion of fish as a food. I am thinking primarily in this case of advertising, exhibitions and publicity.
Let me say at once that I know the department has done what they consider and many people consider to be a good job, and certainly it is a job far in advance of that which was being done a few years ago. But when we turn to the actual items we find that their total expenditure in advertising and other means of promoting the sale of fish is to be some $93,000.
When we compare that with some of the other expenditures for the same type of operation, that is for advertising, publicity and so on, we find, for example, the post office with $192,000; we find the labour department with $245,000; we find the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with $103,000; and there are a number of others which I shall not go into. In a number of cases these expenditures on behalf of advertising, publicity and so forth can very justifiably be criticized. Certainly they should be examined with great care in the light of the use which we sometimes find is being made of the money.
In the case of the fisheries of Canada, where we have an industry worth over $200 million and where we have to provide for increased consumption and increased utilization of their output, it would seem to me that to find the fisheries department one of the lowest spenders in this field is curious when we couple it with their expressed desire to increase the utilization of fish.
For example, here we have an interesting comparison. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, which is primarily responsible for encouraging tourism in Canada, spends just over a million dollars, $1,080,000, in this field of advertising. For that expenditure they bring to Canada some $275 million worth of tourist spending. That is the 1951 figure. Yet we have a fisheries industry with almost the same volume of business, with some 83,000 people employed in one way or another, and we find them spending a comparatively small amount in this field.
Again we can make the comparison with private industry. In private industry they consider an expenditure of perhaps 5 per cent of the gross value of their products for advertising purposes not at all out of line. If you include the other sales efforts, it would be substantially in excess of that. This would indicate a budget to encourage the sale of fish products in Canada of some $10 million a year.

Supply-Fisheries
Let me make it plain at once that I am not advocating or suggesting that this should be spent entirely, or even largely, by the government. I do feel, however, that they should give leadership in this respect, and that brings me to the particular suggestion which I would put forth, having first of all presented the idea to the minister. That is that he explore with the fisheries industry, perhaps through the fisheries council or perhaps with some of the firms therein, the possibility of the government, on a matching basis with industry, subsidizing an expanded campaign to encourage the consumption of fish in Canada.
I do not think for a moment that the fishing industry, any more than any other industry, is entitled to have government money spent on its behalf without putting up some of its own money, but I do think that the government might well take the leadership in this field and perhaps thereby increase the consumption of fish sizeably.
In that connection, I do not know whether or not this story is apocryphal, but it is said that some years ago one of the canners in British Columbia was left with a great stock of salmon on his hands which had been packed in white condition for some reason.


James Sinclair: That is a fable.


William McLean Hamilton: As
we all know, salmon is usually pink. He had a great deal of difficulty in selling the salmon. Finally he got a good advertising man who advised him to advertise it as salmon guaranteed not to turn pink in the can. Within a matter of months he had cleaned the stock of salmon out of his warehouse, to his very great delight. I think we would all be happy if that type of forward thinking could come from the fisheries department to supplement the very good job they have already done in starting the campaign of public information on the use and consumption of fish in Canada.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the minister on the very interesting and comprehensive survey of the activities of his department which he gave us this morning, and also on the thorough knowledge which he displayed of all the different kinds of work his department carries on. I should like to thank him also for his announcement with regard to the rebate on salt. This is a form of assistance to the salt fish industry which I believe will be appreciated by all fishermen.
Deficiency payments may have served a useful purpose, but we must not lose sight of the fact that they have some disadvantages in

that they tend to reduce the incentive for intensive bargaining on the part of the exporters. The end result could very well be that the real beneficiary of the deficiency payments is not the fisherman himself but the foreign purchaser of our product.
I am particularly pleased that this assistance to the salt fish industry has taken this form, because I think it is a recognition that one of the major problems in connection with our salt fish industry is the purchase and distribution of salt. I am glad to know that during the year a careful study is to be made in order to determine whether present methods of purchasing, packaging and distribution of salt can be improved in order to further reduce the cost to the fishermen.
In this respect I should like to suggest that some recommendation be made whereby salt would be sold by weight in all provinces instead of by volume, as it is now sold in my own province. In Newfoundland we buy and sell salt by the hogshead, which is a unit of volume. It is a well known fact that when these barrels are filled up by people shovelling salt into them, there is a wide variation in the amount of salt that is required to fill the barrels, depending on the skill of the person shovelling it in.
There is a real need for more standardization in the salting of our fish. There is still too much left to chance; there is still too great a variation between the amounts of salt used by different individuals in salting the same amount of fish. This is true both with regard to the light salted cure and the heavy salted cure. It would seem to me that if a unit of weight were substituted for a unit of volume, it would be a simple matter to remedy this situation, because once the salinity of the salt is known it should not be difficult to carry out experiments in order to determine just what weight of salt is necessary to salt a certain amount of fish for a certain period of time, whether it be for the light salted cure or for the heavy salted cure.
In this respect I also think some experiments should be carried out in order to determine the proper heights of fish piles, because when the piles of salted fish exceed a certain height, the weight of the fish on top presses the salt out from the fish on the bottom, and we do not then have a uniform amount of pickle throughout the whole bulk. This is particularly true when the fish is salted at sea and piled up in a ship's hold. When this fish is unloaded a great deal of allowance must be made, more by guess than anything else, to average out the amount of pickle or the amount of salt in the fish being weighed.

I was greatly interested in the experiment with the motorized dories to which the minister referred this morning. I hope the experiment will not be abandoned or written off as a failure, because I do not think it really had a fair trial. I have discussed this matter with experienced bank skippers, and find they are of the opinion that the experiment could be successful. I think the results already obtained have proved that for the fishing days, a greater amount of fish was caught per man in this way than was caught by the ordinary method. It was unfortunate that this experiment was undertaken in the fall of the year and at a time when the weather turned extremely stormy, so that few fishing days were possible while the experiment was in progress.
We are all interested in what the minister said this morning about the conferences that are being carried out with respect to our territorial waters. We must at some time know just to where our territorial waters extend. We certainly cannot put in any sort of patrol service unless we establish definite territorial limits. I think everyone will agree that while the achieving of international agreement may be a more difficult and slower process, yet perhaps in the end it will turn out to be the most satisfactory method. At the same time I think we must not lose sight of the fact that the time may come when it will be necessary to think not in terms of territorial waters but in terms of extending our sovereignty over the sea floor. Present defence developments may make that procedure necessary, and I think we should keep it constantly in mind.
We are all happy to know that some measures are going to be studied to conserve our herd of Atlantic seals. That herd has diminished to a mere fraction of its former size, and unless something is done there is danger that it will become altogether extinct. In this connection may I say that a number of our sealers this year shipped on Norwegian vessels operating out of Halifax, and it was surprising to many of us to note the great difference in the earnings of those people who shipped on Norwegian boats as compared with the earnings of those who shipped on local boats. I wonder whether the minister, when he replies, could give us any information as to the reason for the great disparity in the earnings of the two sets of individuals, when the catch of seals was approximately the same.
I should like to support what my friend the hon. member for Kings said with respect to the operation of draggers on inshore fishing grounds. Whatever may be the effect of intensive dragging operations on the larger
Supply-Fisheries
fishing grounds, I think it has been established that the small inshore fishing grounds could well be destroyed and made useless unless dragging operations are restricted.
I should like to congratulate the minister and his department on the emphasis which his inspection service is now placing on education rather than police action. I think this is a move in the right direction and one that will bear very great results.
I hope the minister and his officials will keep in mind the need for a flexible bait service in my province. I know it is the only province in which the federal government operates a bait service, but it was one of the commitments under the terms of union, and a very necessary one born out of our experience over a great many years.
With respect to bait, I would urge the minister to place greater emphasis on the securing of squid, because squid bait is a universal bait. It can be used all the year round. It is a bait that will stand up well under processes of refrigeration and thawing, and is superior to all other forms of bait we use.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, coming as I do from the Pacific coast I would have hardly dared enter this debate if it had not been that my honourable and gallant friend from Esquimalt-Saanich had led the militant forces of the Pacific coast in voicing our importance. On the other hand, of course, the fact that in my constituency there is perhaps the most important installation of the fisheries department in Canada would lead me to enter it. As a British Columbian I would point out that it was not until the Prime Minister of Canada reached into the province of British Columbia to get a minister that we had anything in the nature of vigour or efficiency in the administration of this department.
I remember that many years ago when I was in the provincial house and the present Minister of Fisheries was a bright young man assisting a provincial cabinet minister, we used to have almost annually a day on which the members of all parties, including cabinet ministers, spent a happy hour hurling recriminations at distant Ottawa because of the fact that the Department of Fisheries did nothing on the coast of British Columbia. In fact I remember there was a serious move on foot to appeal to Ottawa either to undertake the responsibility or to pass it over to the provincial government. I am happy to agree with other members today in the view it is a very good thing that did not happen, because we have had great advances in the fisheries department.

Supply-Fisheries
There are one or two points I should like to draw to the minister's attention. He spoke in his address of his attempt, shall I say, to encourage diplomatic fishing in order to persuade our American neighbours to make an agreement with us with regard to the fishing of the pinks in the strait of Juan de Fuca. I should like to remind the minister that, while I am all in favour of doing that, quite possibly our American friends may embarrass us by reminding us of the continued existence in the strait of Juan de Fuca of the fish traps at Sooke which, as we all know, have been a sort of subdued thorn in the flesh of international harmony for a long time. I suggest to the minister that he examine our position in that regard when he is trying to get some sort of agreement with the Americans on the fishing in the strait of Juan de Fuca.
There is another matter which, while it does not really fall within the Department of Fisheries, concerns the department and the minister very acutely. That is the question of a coastguard service on the Pacific coast. I know quite well that the minister has had representations from every fishermen's organization on the Pacific coast pointing out that the present arrangements are totally inadequate to safeguard life and property. I should like to see the minister urge his colleague the Minister of Transport to reconsider the question of the establishment of a coastguard service on our Pacific coast.
Then there is another matter that directly concerns the Department of Public Works but is also of great importance to the fishermen. That is the question of harbours on the east coast of Vancouver island. Over the last 12 months I have been making representations to the Department of Public Works with regard to the extension of the breakwater at Northwest bay. I have not been successful. I did succeed in persuading the department to extend or replace the log floats they now have anchored at the end of the rock fill, but I would suggest this is a totally inadequate and rather uneconomical way of providing the kind of shelter the fishermen on that particular part of the coast require in rough weather. Again, I should like to see the minister make representations to his colleague the Minister of Public Works to reconsider the question of safe harbourage for fishermen on the east coast of Vancouver island.
We have heard a great deal about lobsters in the Atlantic. I do not suppose the minister will tell us anything about the attempt with respect to lobsters on the Pacific coast. I know it is a matter of great secrecy that they

have been planted there; there is a veil of secrecy like that over the defence estimates. We think they are still there, but we do not know. Rumours fly around. I wonder whether the minister, without giving away any secrets, can tell us just how successful the transplanting project has been, or whether his officials know how successful it has been. Finally-and it is not really British Columbian patriotism that makes me draw this matter to the attention of hon. members who are not unfortunate enough to live on the other side of the Rocky mountains-


George Clyde Nowlan: That is a good phrase.


Colin Cameron: -I would remind them of the installation I mentioned when I started, the marine biological station at Nanaimo, which is not only the most important installation of the department on the Pacific coast but one of the world's leading marine biological stations, a station of very great importance and prestige of which all Canadians should be extremely proud.
I should also like to join with the minister and other members in paying tribute to the excellent services of the officials of the Department of Fisheries. My only criticism of the minister is that I should like to see him present even more vigorously than I am sure he has done the claims of these gentlemen to much more adequate salaries than they receive at the present time. Like the minister, I am quite dubious about the relative values of lawyers and scientists. I have a very irreverent suspicion that scientists are perhaps a little more valuable to our society than lawyers, and if we are going to treat the lawyers very well we had better treat the scientists even more generously or there will be nothing with which to provide lawyers' fees.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, while I do not represent any commercial fishermen I do represent the mecca of sport fishing in the interior of British Columbia. I assure the minister I shall not be long, but I should like to take a minute or two to say a few words.
I must say first of all that I enjoyed his excellent review of the department's activities. It was most informative and interesting. The minister can be quite provocative on occasion, but I always notice that when he presents his estimates he does so in such good style that -he completely disarms the opposition and they go through with very little criticism.
However, I rose particularly to draw his attention to one very serious omission in his presentation to the house. If I heard him correctly, he dealt with the fishing derbies on the coast and rather proudly informed the

house of the fact that these extensive fishing derbies were being carried on. We are very pleased to hear that, but coming from British Columbia as he does I am sure he would wish to see the record completed before his estimates are passed. I hope that in his future representations to the house he will recognize the fact that there is a large fishing derby on the upper Arrow lakes, another on the lower Arrow lakes, and another on Kootenay lake, all conducted by the various rod and gun associations.
I just rise, Mr. Chairman, because, whether or not you are aware of it, we have an excellent sport fishing district which attracts a very large number of tourists every year, and possibly this slight addition to the record will help that business.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just let me say
a word about advertising. I only rise because of what the hon. member for Saint John-Albert had to say. He blamed members of parliament for not advertising fish sufficiently. I believe the low consumption of fish is directly related to advertising. The department publishes very good booklets containing recipes, but I do not think the distribution of these booklets is adequate. A person has to write in for them. I managed to get a few, and I distributed them. In fact I gave some of them to one of the retail fish men in Peterborough, and he distributed those booklets to the people. They asked for more.
I have one suggestion to make, and that is my reason for rising. I believe there would be a better chance of encouraging people to use fish if you just had a single sheet containing a recipe on each side which could be given to the retail fish merchant to wrap up with the fish. Perhaps 100 of these a month could be given to each retail fish dealer. In these booklets there are a lot of highbrow recipes, and there are some plain ones. What you have to do is sell the fish to the person with a small income, and the person with a small income is buying frozen fish. Many of those people do not know how to cook it properly. There may be some directions printed on the label, but people should be told of more than one way in which to cook that fish.
I believe the minister or his department should publish some better directions for cooking these frozen fillets. The dealer could wrap the fish in these single sheets containing the recipes, and I believe you would sell more fish. I know that is so, because I have heard housewives speak about it.


James Sinclair: I must first thank all hon. members, Mr. Chairman, for the very generous praise they have directed, not so much
Supply-Fisheries
at me as at the work of the Department of Fisheries, the officers and staff. The member for Kootenay West said there were times when I was provocative. If he will recall, those were the times when I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, and when the measures I was putting forward did not get the same praise from every quarter of the house. In those days I used to feel that the best defence was a quick offence.
I am going to go through the points in order, as raised by hon. members. I think when we finish those we may carry the rest of the estimates fairly quickly, because they seem to have covered most of the later items.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and many others were full of praise for the excellent work which had been done by our consumers' branch in extending the sale of fish. Our staff dietitians who visit schools, restaurant associations and women's clubs to teach fish cookery and prepare cook books, have done a good job. There was criticism from one member because the expenditure in connection with this item was lower this year. This is because last year we bought four station wagons for our dietitians in the larger cities of Canada, to enable them to visit the outlying schools. This is a nonrecurring expenditure.
It is quite true that the first aim of our department should be to increase the consumption of fish in our home market. We are doing that in every way we can. Since I have been minister I certainly have spoken on many platforms, over the radio and even appeared on T.V. trying to urge the consumption of more fish.
So far as the tariff on fish sticks is concerned, that is primarily a matter for the Department of Trade and Commerce. It was a matter of regret to us to see that increase in the tariff on cooked fish sticks. We have this close relationship with the United States industry. As the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond pointed out, more and more the United States market is going to have to depend on our fishermen for their supplies. We hope there will be an adjustment in that tariff in the not too distant future.
Every year the problem of the conflict between our own inshore fishermen, that is the fishermen in small boats who come back home every night, and our bigger boats is raised. The inshore fisherman, of course, wants the big boats kept out. Our department is trying to modernize the fleet and encourage the building of these bigger boats, draggers, long-liners and trawlers, for more effective fishing. It is rather difficult when we do that to then tell the men they have

Supply-Fisheries
to go far away from shore. There is certainly no positive answer to the problem, but we try to work out a satisfactory compromise between the inshore fishermen and the deep sea fishermen. We did put the draggers out of St. Margaret's bay, and in St. Mary's bay, mentioned by the hon. member, we confined dragging to draggers of less than 40 feet. After all, those are rather small boats.
The report of the interdepartmental committee on territorial waters is at present before the Department of External Affairs. The minister said it would be made public after it had been studied by the government. I shall certainly draw the attention of the Minister of Transport, as I already have, to the new requirements of steamship inspection of fishing boats and the qualifications for skippers and mates. It is quite true these boats do not carry passengers and should not be subject to the same rigorous standards as ships that do carry passengers. Of course, they can collide with passenger ships, so there is reason for some standards. The standards certainly should not be as severe as those imposed on people who are skippers or mates of passenger ships.
The hon. member for Comox-Albemi spoke of the damage done to spawning grounds by logging operations. That is true not only in British Columbia but right in the Atlantic provinces too. At one time there was a substantial salmon fishery in Ontario, but as the forests were logged and turned into farm lands the water was no longer held in the ground but ran off quickly and the gravel beds silted up so the salmon found it impossible to spawn. We do watch that very closely on the west coast. Last year our engineering staff cleared 135 salmon streams. We have a total of 1.600 salmon streams on the west coast, so it is quite a job, but we do watch that. We get co-operation from the logging companies and from all industry in British Columbia.
The hon. member spoke of the fact that in one part of his riding there is not the happy relation between the sports fishermen and the commercial fishermen that exists in other parts of the province. There is a conflict between the sports and commercial fishermen who operate along the east coast of Vancouver island because of the presence of the big salmon and herring seiners in that area. This summer we are going to work out a program for keeping the big ships farther off shore and allowing the sports fishermen to have the immediate offshore fisheries.
He spoke, too, about the disparity between the incomes of Newfoundland fishermen and

British Columbia fishermen. This is true, but the British Columbia fishermen are highly organized. They are catching a fish which is very desirable in the market, and so they do get better returns. My aim, as Minister of Fisheries, is to try to lift the income of the Newfoundland fishermen up to the level of the British Columbia fishermen. By that time the British Columbia fishermen will be far ahead again.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for New Westminster spoke again about the closure on the upper Fraser which I announced last year to the fishermen's union. It was enforced last year and is being enforced again this year. This is not an overnight decision at all, but has been discussed for 50 years. About 50 years ago a royal commission recommended it. It is the result of two things, the ever-increasing pressure on our salmon fisheries, and the fact that these upper river fishermen in this area are in a very privileged group. Most of them do not fish more than one day a week, the reason being that the only day worth fishing is the first day after the week-end closure. On opening day the downstream fishermen get the bulk of the fish, so few are available upstream after the first day.
To hear the hon. member speak you would think these men were out of the fishing business completely. Of course that is not so. I had a full report of the fishing effort up there made during the past year. They still have the full spring salmon fishing from February 1 to June 30. They have the main sockeye salmon fishing from July 1 to September 15. The river is generally closed on this date, anyway. The last season is the fall fishing for pinks and chums. These spawn in streams quite close to the entrance to the river, and are fish which decline in quality very quickly once they enter fresh water. They are best caught in the sea, where quality is high.
It is these fish which can no longer be caught in the up-river area. These fishermen still have the right to fish down the river in this period, or to do as the great bulk of the fishermen do-fish out at sea. The up-river fishermen still have at least three-quarters of their fishery left, and they can certainly adjust themselves to being full-time fishermen, as are the fishermen of my riding and of the riding of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and the hon. member for Skeena, and the member for any other coastal riding.


Mr.   Kahn@: And could they not use the
same gear?


James Sinclair: That is why I think today they are privileged fishermen. They fish part

of a river not much wider in places than this chamber, with small boats and nets, and expect to be given special privileges as against those other fishermen who fish the high seas in good weather and in bad.
The hon. member for Charlotte was worried about the decrease in the herring and sardine fisheries over last year in the bay of Fundy. These fish do come in great cycles, along with fluctuation during the course of a season. We are doing the thing he suggested, a joint investigation, now under way with the fisheries department in the state of Maine, because in the United States the fisheries are under state control.
Then the hon. members for Saint John-Albert and Queens asked about the catch of Atlantic salmon. So far as commercial fishermen are concerned, it has gone up steadily. In 1952 it was two million pounds; in 1953,
2,713,000	pounds and in 1954 it was 3,676,000 pounds. The angling catch has gone down, from 490,000 pounds in 1952 to 402,000 pounds in 1953; and for last year the present estimate is something less than 400,000 pounds.
There are reasons for this; increased industrialization of New Brunswick, a greatly increased number of sports fishermen down in those streams, the effect of power dams, the effect of logging so far as the run-off of the streams is concerned, and the effect of the spraying for the spruce budworm, all have had their toll on salmon which spend their first three years in these streams.
He said the poor Saint John fishermen had no powerful lobby up here to speak for them. Well, last fall I met an association of all the great fishing clubs, composed mostly of men who are very wealthy, and who lease fishing rights on the New Brunswick rivers. They complained very bitterly about the powerful lobby of these net fishermen, who had more votes than they did, and they felt I was catering to the net fishermen rather than to the sports fishermen in the fishing clubs.
However, that is not so. We want a salmon industry which will support both a large commercial operation and a large angling operation, just as we have it on the west coast; and our program of conservation now enforced will, we hope, bring this about.
He also spoke about the problem of the gaspereau. In a year when the catch of a fishery is down there always comes a request for the extension of the season so the fishermen can increase their catch. But that is the very year when we cannot afford to extend the season, because we must cut down on the fishing effort to make sure there are sufficient spawners left to build up the catch in succeeding years.
Supply-Fisheries
He commented on the relative values of the Atlantic and Pacific salmon. Well, as Minister of Fisheries of course I should be neutral. But I will say just this one thing; it is just a matter of where you eat the fish. Fish is best when it is fresh, and certainly spring salmon out on the west coast is at least the equal of any salmon down on the east coast. Here in Ottawa, Atlantic salmon generally comes fresh whereas Pacific salmon is frozen; and frozen fish or meat or fruit does not have the texture or the flavour of the fresh article. I will say, however, that after my experience last year fishing Atlantic salmon, Atlantic salmon is a better sporting fish than our west coast fish.
The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond paid a deserved tribute to the great work done by fishermen's co-operatives in the maritime provinces in helping the fishing industry.
The hon. member for Selkirk asked why we do not extend all the benefits of federal fisheries legislation to the fishermen of the prairie provinces. Well, the reason is that we have not control of those fisheries. Any fisheries legislation which needs the administration of our officers cannot be given in those areas, because we have no staff there. Because of this, many of the fishermen in these areas feel that perhaps all commercial fisheries, instead of just the coastal commercial fisheries, should be handled by the federal department. If that were so, then we could have all federal legislation apply to all commercial fisheries in Canada.
The hon. member for Gloucester spoke about the good work we are doing in lobster conservation, especially in the matter of the education of fishermen to realize that conservation is, in the long run, in their interests. He spoke about the necessity of having bilingual officers in his riding, and with that I agree. So far as scientists go, I would say to him that good fisheries scientists are so rare that we are satisfied if we get one who speaks one of the two official languages, just so long as he is a good scientist. Then we do, of course, translate all our regulations and instructions.
The hon. member for New Westminster spoke about the Fraser river closure, and asked about the variation in the pink salmon catch in the Fraser river. It is a very odd fishery, because in one year we have almost no fish at all and in the next year we have as many as ten million fish. This variation is one of the things which the scientists are studying. The large Canadian catch in 1939-41 was due mainly, I believe, to the fishing strike on the United States side. It is

Supply-Fisheries
only in the last year that we have been able in a normal season to build our catch up to 40 per cent.
He asked how we are enforcing area boundaries between gill netters and seiners out on the gulf. Well, we do it by our protective service, by taking them to police court and fining them and, if necessary, confiscating the fish they have caught and cancelling licences. We have had no complaints from the unions about our enforcement of the fisheries boundaries.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador asked how the fishermen in his area find out whether our exploratory fishing is successful. My reply would be that they find out in the easiest way known. If they see our exploratory boats come in with lots of fish, they ask immediately and follow them back to sea. Long before the results are published the fishermen pretty well know where the new banks are. He suggested the quality of salt cod would be improved if we paid a premium on quality production. That is one thing we will study this year. Premiums are paid to encourage the production of better bacon, better cheese, and so on, and it may be that it would help raise the quality of cod production.
The hon. member for Queens asked first of all about sports fishing in the national parks. That is closely related to sports fishing in the province where the park is situated. The regulations are similar, and we work together on research. He spoke about the need for improved public works for fishermen. My colleague the Minister of Public Works is the member for Queens-Lunenburg, a great fishing district. His father was the skipper of a banker schooner for many years, so he is well informed as to the needs of fishermen. When our department does put forward a proposal for public works for the fishing industry, I have found him very sympathetic.
The fresh water fisheries of Prince Edward Island are under our control. We have done a lot of work in encouraging the stocking of speckled and rainbow trout. The streams of Prince Edward Island are the most accessible of any in the country. It is the garden island and you can drive along close to any stream, so the fishing pressure of anglers on these streams is heavy because the streams are so accessible.
The hon. member for Kings asked if it was possible to cure the poaching of lobsters by education. We think the most immediate way of curing it is by police action, and we are following that by education in the hope that in the end police action will not be necessary. The hon. member spoke also about

the grading of lobsters. We have not yet found that necessary because there is such keen demand among buyers of lobsters from the fishermen, which is the best assurance that the fisherman is going to get a good price.
The hon. member, and many others, including quite a number of Conservative members, deplored the decrease in my estimates. I am glad the Minister of Finance is here. I had four years with the Department of Finance and I have listened to a number of Conservative members urge reductions in the estimates. I thought I was going to be applauded when, after having combed through our department, we were able to reduce the estimates by $300,000, but I did not get any thanks for that saving. As a matter of fact I should not be ungrateful, because hon. members have suggested that we should spend more and the Minister of Finance is present tonight and has had a chance to hear them make that sound suggestion.
The hon. member for Kings also made a novel suggestion, that we should attempt the controlling of seagulls. We do control the mergansers which do such damage to salmon spawn in the maritimes, but seagulls are protected by law because they are such great scavengers. They are graceful birds and they serve a most useful purpose in keeping the sea clean.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich referred to our record sockeye pack. We have still some in storage, but it is sold. We will have a lighter pack of sockeye this year, but a bigger pack of pinks. It is quite true that our present machine-packed salmon is not as attractive as the old hand-packed was, but with the cost of labour on the west coast the fishing industry cannot afford to pack salmon by hand in cans and still have it compete in price with Russian and Japanese salmon.
The hon. member, along with many others, referred to the need of a pink salmon treaty and also the need for better harbours on the outer west coast of Vancouver island to serve this developing deep-sea fleet. The Department of Public Works is now studying how to build a breakwater at San Juan in that exposed area.
I can assure the hon. member that I did not suggest that fish and chip shops in Canada should use dogfish. It would help if they did, for fresh dogfish is said to be edible if it is well cooked. If the English can eat it in such quantities there is no reason why we could not as well.
The hon. member for The Battlefords spoke about the pollution of rivers on the prairies. The main problem is that the administration

of fisheries in the prairies is under the three provincial governments. If a river is interprovincial it is most difficult for one province to do anything about pollution which occurs in another province. We have helped wtih scientific advice on methods of handling the problem.
The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace spoke as a representative of the consumers in Canada. That is the most important group to the fishing industry, and we wish we had more consumers in Canada, not only more but bigger. The hon. member deplored the lack of advertising by our department. I hope my colleagues from the other departments will note that I have been criticized not for spending too much, but for spending too little in the way of advertising and public relations.
We have worked out an arrangement with the fishing industry which we regard as quite reasonable. We do the public relations work by way of education through our consumer branch with cook books, lectures, film strips, institutional advertising and so on, while the industry itself undertakes the advertising of brand names. The west coast industry has been especially active. It is a highly organized industry of big companies and can do this. On the east coast there are many smaller industries and therefore they do not have the same resources to institute large brand name campaigns. The other departments of government which he mentioned, such as the post office and citizenship and immigration, are not associated with industries and so must do all their own advertising.


William McLean Hamilton: did not praise them for spending money.


James Sinclair: The hon. member did not praise me for not spending money. The hon. member repeated one of the oldest fables in the salmon industry, the fable of the white salmon. We actually have a race of white spring salmon on the west coast but they are very seldom packed in cans; they are sold fresh and smoked. It is nice to know that one of the oldest chestnuts in the fishing industry has got as far east as Montreal.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo spoke of means of improving the distribution of salt by packing it in bags rather than in these large hogsheads, and by standardizing the quality. He spoke of Newfoundland sealers being paid better wages when they work on Norwegian ships than when they work on Newfoundland ships. The reason for that is that the men on Norwegian ships get a share of the skins and the oil of the catch, while the men on Newfoundland ships share only in the oil. Perhaps if the Newfoundland men organized they might be able
50433-330$
Supply-Fisheries
to get the same conditions on the Newfoundland ships as they get on the Norwegian ships.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speak to your colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


James Sinclair: I am suggesting that the matter of organization is one for the fishermen themselves.
The hon. member for Nanaimo referred to the fish traps at Sooke. I think they are on the way out. Five licences are held, but they have not all been used for some years. The most to be put down lately have been three, because the fishing companies now find it cheaper to use seiners than to drive piles each year. The fish traps are a dying industry.
The hon. member referred to the need of a coastguard service, which is a matter of great concern to the fishing industry. The R.C.A.F. sea rescue service does a good job, but of course we have no coastguard ships out in the deep sea. The hon. member also asked about lobsters on the Pacific coast, and whether I could reveal the deep secret of what had happened to them. Our department has tried at various times to transplant lobsters from the east coast to the west coast, but two things happen. On the west coast we have a fine crab fishery with big, aggressive crabs being the dominant population on the sea bottom. Lobsters have to moult their shells once a year, during which time they are soft and defenceless and undoubtedly this dominant population of crabs attacked and devoured them during this period.
The other reason is much simpler. Those hon. members who saw the film on lobsters last night will realize that in the early stage of their life the tiny lobsters float near the surface and become very widely scattered before dropping to the bottom to begin their adult life. We have never brought more than a few hundred lobsters at a time to the west coast, so the seed of these few lobsters becomes widely scattered by tides and currents. When they drop down to the bottom the density of population on the bottom is therefore very slight, since the lobsters are so widely dispersed. So it is most difficult for a male lobster to meet a female lobster in British Columbia waters and because of that we cannot get an increase of population out there. I think that covers all the points raised by hon. members.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I would not like to have the minister leave a false impression by indicating that the Fraser river might be just a little wider than the length of this room. I am sure that hon. members will

Supply-Fisheries
all realize that no provincial or federal government would protest at having to build a high-level bridge across a river which was only as wide as this room is long. Up where I happen to live the river is well over nine-tenths of a mile wide and I would say that this room might be one-fiftieth of a mile long.
The minister failed to answer three questions which I put to him which is the main reason for my rising at this time. I should like him to answer my first question. Have the Fraser river fishermen failed to conserve the fish during the past years and at the same time built up the fishing industry in British Columbia to the point where it is the greatest it has ever been this year?
Secondly, would he please tell the committee whether the fish which have spoiled came from gill net fishermen on the Fraser river or were they not fish caught out in the ocean and brought in by seine vessels to the packing houses?
Thirdly, what compensation if any does the Department of Fisheries intend to pay to those veterans who were settled in the upper reaches of the Fraser river above the Pattullo bridge with an undertaking by the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Veterans Affairs that they would be permitted to fish on that part of the river? That right is now being taken away under this section. I know the minister explained this before, and I gave my argument in one of my former speeches which I do not intend to repeat tonight. I shall not read again the letter which I received which quoted figures to support my argument.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


James Sinclair: I can answer this very quickly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister could answer tomorrow. It is ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is after ten o'clock. If the house gives unanimous consent to the minister to answer the question now he may do so.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I thought the house had treated the minister very generously and fairly today, but after some of the wisecracks he made about the Conservatives I think we should call it ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being ten o'clock, shall I report progress?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I may be wrong, but I thought the last speaker was the only one who had a question to be answered. I realize there will be a number of other questions to be asked on the items, but if we could have the item passed that is under discussion at the moment, we will go on tomorrow with the cross-examination on the other items.


James Sinclair: I could solve this by promising to answer the hon. member on the conservation and development item, which is the proper item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with these estimates in the morning, and the justice estimates when they are completed.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
General services-
128.	Departmental administration. $307,840.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 24, 1955