1956-03-02

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on August 3,
1955,	I made an announcement with respect to the government's purchasing policy for uranium. In that announcement I stated that, while Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, the government procurement agent, has a commitment to purchase all acceptable uranium concentrates which are offered under the published price schedule up to March 31, 1962, Eldorado has no commitment to purchase all uranium which is offered at prices higher than those contained in the published price schedule. In the circumstances, it seemed desirable that the mining industry and the public should be informed as to the future policy with respect to purchases under the special price arrangement. I stated that uranium purchased under the special price arrangement was being supplied to the United States atomic energy commission, and that there was a limit on the amount of uranium which would be so purchased. Since it was not possible for security reasons to express this limitation in terms of quantity, it was decided, as an alternative, that Eldorado would not negotiate contracts after March 31,
1956,	and that such contracts would not be negotiated unless there was satisfactory evidence that production could commence not later than April 1, 1957.
It has now been decided to modify these arrangements as follows:
Eldorado will continue to receive applications for special price contracts up to and including March 31, 1956. On or shortly after that date Eldorado will notify those applicants which are considered to be eligible for the negotiation of contracts. In making the selection of eligible applicants, the following criteria will be used. First, there must be satisfactory evidence that the applicant has an economic ore body and, second, there must be definite assurance that the property can be brought into production not later than September 30, 1957. There will be no change 67509-1104
in the present provision regarding deliveries. Deliveries under all contracts must be completed by March 31, 1962.
These modifications have been adopted because it has become quite evident in recent weeks that certain of the properties which were considered to be potential producers last August will not be able to meet the production deadline of April 1, 1957. Consequently, it is not anticipated that the total quantity of uranium which will be produced under the special price arrangement, by reason of the extension of the production deadline from April 1, 1957 to September 30, 1957, will be greatly in excess of the quantity which it was estimated might be purchased when the original production deadline of April 1, 1957, was established.
In my announcement of August 3, 1955, I also stated that the government would take under consideration the establishment of policy covering the sale of uranium which might be surplus to Canada's requirements and the commitments entered into with the United States atomic energy commission. Because of the war potential of uranium, the government must establish its export policy with due regard to security provisions. This is one of the reasons that Canada is taking an active part in the discussions of the draft statute for an international agency for atomic energy, which are now under way in Washington. It is considered advisable that any announcement as regards the establishment of export policy should await the outcome of these discussions.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I ask the minister a question arising out of his statement. I noticed that he mentioned deadlines in 1957 and in 1958.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, 1956 and 1957.


Howard Charles Green: I thought he said extending one deadline to 1957 and the other to 1958.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the deadline for receiving applications is March 31, 1956, and the deadline for beginning production is September 30, 1957.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean, in effect, it is the policy for the period of a year?
1740	HOUSE OF
Uranium-Purchasing Policy


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the only policy we have.
IL ater:l
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberl):: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of his announcement today regarding uranium, be prepared to say that that means in effect, with the amount of uranium already on hand in stockpiles and the expected production of the mines that will give notice, that they will have until a certain date to give notice and that beyond that it is not expected that any further extension in the production of uranium will be necessary to meet demands in the immediate future?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was not the
nature of my announcement. I said that Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited would take delivery of uranium up to 1962 at the published price of uranium, which has been in effect for some years.


John George Diefenbaker: But does that mean-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like even a "yes" or "no" answer as abrupt as the one a moment ago. Does this mean that in the expected production in the future, of those mines now in existence and those that will give notice up till the 31st of March, all the needs for uranium production in Canada will have been met?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That I cannot say. The bulk of the uranium under contract goes to the atomic energy commission of the United States. When the contracts are completed, the contracts that are filed before the 31st of March this year and approved by Canada and by the atomic energy commission we are informed that the foreseeable needs of the atomic energy commission of the United States for uranium from Canada will have been fulfilled.



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES


Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the following members:	Messrs. Blair,
Byrne, Cameron (Nanaimo), Cannon, Decore, Deschatelets, Dupuis, Fleming, Garland, Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Hees, Henry, Jutras, Martin, MacEachen, Macnaughton, McLeod, Power (St. John's West), Robertson, Starr, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stuart (Charlotte), Thatcher, Trainor, Tucker and Yuill, shall constitute the membership of the special committee on estimates, as provided by the resolution passed by the house on February 29, and that standing order No. 67 be suspended in connection therewith.


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members wish me to read the names?
[Mr. Green.l


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton Wesl):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether or not he has received a request from the committee in charge for financial assistance for the Canadian Olympic trials to be held in Hamilton this year?


Right Hon.  L. S. Si. Laurenl@Prime Minisler: No such request has recently come to my attention. I will take the hon. lady's question as notice and I will make sure whether or not there has been at any time a request received.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina Cily):: Has the
Postmaster General received a request from the Hamilton branch of the federated association of letter carriers for an independent board to investigate labour conditions in the Hamilton post office? If so, can the Postmaster General assure the house if such a board will be set up?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Poslmasler General):: A few weeks ago I did receive-I believe it was around the 10th or 12th of February- a telegram from this association asking for the setting up of such a board. The request followed the suspension of one particular employee in the Hamilton post office. Upon receipt of this telegram, I sent senior officers of the department to investigate this particular case and upon receiving their report I came to the conclusion the setting up of such a board was not warranted.



QUEBEC SOUTH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank G. Power (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Public Works? Has the minister now received a resolution from the city of Quebec regarding the site of the proposed post office in the constituency of Quebec

South? If so, what is the nature of the resolution and what action, if any, is contemplated by the minister?
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I have now received a letter from the city clerk of Quebec, enclosing two resolutions, both signed by the city clerk. One is a resolution of the conseil de ville and the other is a resolution of the comite administratif.
Both resolutions express objection to the site that has been chosen on Henderson street for the construction of a new postal building.
In selecting this site and developing our plans we have worked in close and friendly co-operation with the city authorities. The site has been acquired and cleared and plans are at the stage where we are ready to invite tenders for the foundation. Any change of site now would involve considerable delay and probably additional expense in getting this building under way.
I have informed the mayor that if the city council and the citizens of the city of Quebec are willing to have this project deferred, we will be prepared to receive any representations he may care to make and to participate in discussions with respect to an alternative site which it is presumed the city would arrange to make available in exchange for the one we now own and on which we are ready to build.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he be prepared to tell the house the attitude the government is taking regarding the expected repudiation by West Germany of its liability for occupation troops? And in respect of the Canadian troops stationed in West Germany, what are the hopes of the present conference that is taking place between certain NATO countries and West Germany towards altering West Germany's expected stand in this regard? Would the minister also say how much more will have to be paid by Canada with respect to the occupation troops during the coming year if Germany persists in the stand?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has raised a very important question on which I may be able to make a statement a little later when the discussions with the government of the Federal Republic of
Inquiries of the Ministry Germany, to which he has referred, have proceeded a little farther. Meanwhile, I should say at once that no repudiation of the type which he has indicated is anticipated on the part of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany in respect of obligations which it has assumed. But I hope I shall be able to amplify this reply a little later.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Prince Albert asked about a reported offer of atomic materials by Canada to European countries. The short answer to the first question is: no such specific offer was made by our representative who was attending as an associate member the meeting of the OEEC council now taking place in Paris. However, Mr. Speaker, this meeting of the OEEC council did consider and approve a report setting out proposals for co-operation among the member countries in the development of nuclear energy. Our representative, having regard to the fact that many of the European countries concerned do not possess supplies of uranium, mentioned in his statement that Canada is an important producer of this material and would welcome the opportunity to market uranium within a suitable international framework.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman give some indication' of the type of agreement that Canada is supporting in order to maintain security and at the same time provide a market for uranium?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, a suitable international framework will have to make provision for the kind of security that my hon. friend has mentioned; and, as my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just said, discussions are now proceeding in Washington with a view to working out a statute for an international atomic energy agency which was approved in principle at the last United Nations assembly. That statute, I am quite sure, will contain appropriate provisions for security to be adopted by those taking part in these discussions.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada has in contemplation any plan for the sale or lease of uranium to the "have-not" nations similar to the plan announced by the President of the United States?
1742	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the plan announced by the President of the United States was to make available by sale or by lease uranium 235, a material which is not produced in this country at all. But provisions for the sale of uranium to all friendly countries, "have" or "have-not", is one of the things that will be discussed by those taking part in the conference in Washington to work out an international atomic energy agency which would, among other things, deal with this question.


[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO VISIT TO CANADA On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether Canada may hope this year to have the honour of a visit from Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I have heard of no plans for a visit of Her Royal Highness to Canada this year.


[Stage Direction]
.REFERENCE TO CREDIT OF BANK OF CANADA
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should
like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) whether the credit policy made public by the governor of the Bank of Canada la'St night might have the result of curtailing construction and other activities, and whether such a policy is advisable in view of the present substantial unemployment?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the governor of the Bank of Canada is expecting to come before the banking and commerce committee for the purpose of discussing the annual report and I presume this particular aspect of their activities last year will be included in the discussion and my hon. friend will be able to ask him that question.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell the house whether any steps are being taken by the government to ascertain whether the federal district commission or any other CMr. Green.]

government agency or any government department is still renting any substandard houses such as the one owned by the federal district commission and declared to be a firetrap by the Ontario fire marshal, in which five children were burned to death on January 11?


Hon. Roberi H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, a copy of this question has just now been handed to me and I have therefore not had an opportunity to look into the details of this particular aspect of the disastrous fire but I cannot imagine that the government owns and rents many such dwellings. The only basis on which I think they would be acquired would be under expropriation proceedings and where there are already people living in the houses but where it is the intention to have the property used at the earliest possible date for the purpose for which it was expropriated. In the meantime there are always short periods during which the tenants of the houses are allowed to remain before they are asked to vacate.
I should imagine those are the circumstances, and I assure my hon. friend that it is not the government's intention to have people continue long in occupancy in premises such as those.



LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING PROJECTS- CONTINUATION OF POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters). Is it the intention of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to continue making repayable loans in respect to limited accommodation for single aged persons in hostels beyond June 30, 1956?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I know of no change in policy there. I think the hon. member is aware of the formula that applies across the country, and has had particular application in Saskatchewan, which provides for a certain number of units for single accommodation in limited dividend housing projects.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works arising out of the answer he gave to my question a moment ago. Why has June 30, 1956, been advanced as the cut-off date for applications to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for hostel type accommodation?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not know at the moment. I shall have to find out.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY EXPROPRIATION OF PART OF CAUGHNAWAGA INDIAN RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) inquired as to the amount of the settlement which the St. Lawrence seaway authority has agreed to pay as compensation for the property expropriated from the Caughnawaga Indian reserve.
In reply to this question, I wish to say that so far no agreement has been reached as to the compensation to be paid.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the negotiation being carried on between the department and the Indian band, or is the negotiation between the minister himself and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are being carried on by the authority with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.



INQUIRY AS TO MATERIALS COVERED BY TRADE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell hon. members of the House of Commons what goods or materials will be sent to Canada by Russia under the favoured nation agreement announced in this house the day before yesterday?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I answered the same question a few days ago. I said that my crystal ball was out on loan and I had not the faintest idea of the answer to the question.


Mr. Knowles:: Who has it?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate if we got answers that were not intended to be smart like that one. The answer that was given was not the answer that I asked for. The answer that was given was in regard to a question relating to the dollar value and it was then that the Minister of Trade and Commerce showed reluctance to estimate the amount. I believe that this house is entitled to know what goods and supplies are contemplated as a likely exchange for the wheat which it has been said would be sent to Russia.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the exchange of wheat is an exchange of wheat for dollars. What Russia will be able to sell here is something that I suppose she is as doubtful about as we are. There has never been a large trade between Canada and Russia and I do not know what Russia will succeed in selling here. I am unable to mention anyone who might know; I do not think anyone knows.


George Alexander Drew: Will the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce say that in the three weeks of discussion which took place here there was no discussion as to the goods and supplies that would be sent from Russia to Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not hear any discussion along that line.


George Alexander Drew: That is not the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not attend the meetings and no such discussion was reported to me. The only imports that we have obtained are certain furs which are not produced in Canada and a certain amount of manganese. There may be other commodities which Canadians will And it desirable to buy, but I do not know what they are.


George Alexander Drew: Will the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce say that the Russian trade representatives who were here asked no questions in regard to the goods or materials which we might be inclined to buy under a trade arrangement of this kind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They certainly asked no questions of me. They are well aware that this government does not buy anything. This is a free enterprise market and I think they are well aware of the fact that their ability to sell here will depend on the price and quality of their goods and their salesmanship.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce assure this house that the officials to whom he entrusted the negotiations did not discuss with the Russian trade representatives the goods and supplies which it might be expected Russia would send to this country under the favoured nation agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, any discussions which the officials may have had with the Russians were without authority from me. Whether there were discussions or not, I do not know. If I did know I would gladly tell my hon. friend, but unfortunately I do not know.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce if he

Inquiries of the Ministry will make appropriate inquiries from his officials to inform himself so that he may tell hon. members of this house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is no.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Am
I to understand that the wheat will be paid for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, in dollars.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to ask the same thing. Did I understand the minister to say the other day that the trade agreement would be brought before this house for discussion? When that is done, will the house resolve itself into committee of the whole or will the agreement be sent to the banking and commerce committee? If that is so, then an opportunity will be given later for a full discussion in respect to the questions which have just been asked?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A motion providing for the approval of the agreement will be put on the order paper. The disposition of that resolution will be, I suppose, considered by the leader of the house and by hon. members.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO DELIVERIES TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
the Minister of Trade and Commerce how soon he feels deliveries of wheat and exports of wheat can be made to Russia, following the signing of this very welcome agreement, and whether exports can take place quickly after it has been agreed to by parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that negotiations are in progress for the purchase by Russia of 400,000 tons of wheat, and I understand that the purchase arrangements provide that the ships will be furnished by Russia. I understand that the wheat will move as soon as Russia can arrange for the transportation of the wheat. I expect that sales will be completed within a very few days.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, arising out of the statement made on Wednesday by the


parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence in response to a starred question standing in my name? Is the extension of the five day week to further categories of government employees, and eventually to all categories, under review? If so, will any such extension be made in the near future?


Walter Edward Harris: The civil service federation, in its presentation to the government last fall, did advocate a course of gradual adoption of the five day week, and we are considering it along with all the other representations that it made.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the chairman of the public accounts committee has been appointed, will the government take appropriate steps to arrange for the calling together of the public accounts committee as soon as possible?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is a matter for the house and the committee. The committee has been established. It has now been organized, and I would expect that the chairman would give notice at an early date for a meeting of the committee.


George Alexander Drew: I feel sure he would welcome a suggestion from the Prime Minister as to the speed with which he should do so.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES General services-
135. Departmental administration, $301,000.


Mr. Sinclair:: Mr. Chairman, in the last two years when I reported on item 1 of my estimates I gave quite lengthy reports on both the functions and the activities of each of the branches of the department. I think it will be unnecessary today to cover most of that ground again, so I will confine my remarks today to the developments of significance during the last year in the fishing industry in Canada. Naturally the most important

things to the fishermen of the country are the size of the catches and the price they receive for those catches.
Therefore I will start, as I did in other years, with a short review of catch and market value and then offer the committee these short tables showing this year's catch and markets compared to last year's. In our salmon fishery on the west coast we had a disappointing year because last year was one of the low years in the four-year sockeye salmon cycle. However, that was more than compensated for by very large runs of pink salmon. The salmon situation as far as a market is concerned is a satisfactory one. As a matter of fact, the whole fish market situation at the present time is quite satisfactory. We have no surpluses, and in the case of canned salmon I believe the operators are actually allocating salmon to their customers.
The herring catch this winter on the west coast is now over 200,000 tons, one of the greatest catches in our history, and will probably finish by being the record of all time. Halibut on the west coast fell in price. A year ago we had the greatest catch in our history and that did have a softening effect on the market price. On the east coast the distinguishing activity has been the continued transition in the cod industry away from salt cod towards fresh and frozen products for the United States and Canadian markets, a very healthy development. As far as salt cod is concerned, markets are good and all stocks on hand will be disposed of by the end of the market year.
The other great fishery of the east coast is, of course, the lobster fishery. It is a very closely regulated catch but we are happy to report very high prices compared to earlier years, and that industry is in good condition. I have tables that I have put on the record in other years, first of all a weekly summary which we prepare showing prices of the principal fish in the various fishing areas and the prices of those fish a year ago. This table shows that in almost every species there is a measurable increase in price at the present time over conditions a year ago.
The second table is a summary of the landings of the principal fisheries in pounds in Canada, by species and by areas. The third table is the landed value, that is, the proceeds to the fishermen of these catches. The fourth and fifth tables describe exports to countries and the type of exports to those countries. If the committee is interested and I have their permission I should like to have these tables inserted in the record.
Supply-Fisheries


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: The tables are as follows:
Department of Fisheries Weekly Prices Received by Fishermen 1956
Current Corresponding Week Week last year to	to
Atlantic Coast	February 18 February 19
Cod (market)
Halifax (offshore	price)	31	35North Sydney ... St. John's, Nfld.	(steak	(1)	(1)& market, offshore) ..	21	25Haddock (large)	Yarmouth 	6	55Halifax (offshore	price)	51	5North Sydney ...	(1)	U)Ramea, Nfld	21	35Rosefish Louisbourg	(offshore price)	-	25-21Halifax (offshore	price)	21	21Ramea, Nfld.	(offshore price)	21	2Plaice	Halifax 	31	3Ramea, Nfld	25	25Sardine-Herring	Black's Harbour	21	21Lobsters (market)	Yarmouth 	70	60Grand Manan ..	65	-70	(i)Scallops	Digby 	50	48Smelts	Richibucto 	8	7Chatham 	10	(1)Summerside 	8	10(1) No reports.	
Pacific Coast 1956
Current Corresponding Week Week last year to	to
Pacific Coast	February 18 February 19
Salmon
(Redspring)
Vancouver (dressed) ... New Westminster	38	35(round) 	
(Whitespring)	(1)	30Vancouver (dressed) .. New Westminster	25	25(round) 	
Herring (fresh)	(1)	20Vancouver 	
Soles (for freezing or fresh)	~	~Vancouver 	
Prince Rupert	6-8	8(Lemon & Rock) 	3-35	31New Westminster 	
Ling Cod (dressed, head off)	(1)	8Vancouver 	-	-Prince Rupert 	
Gray Cod (dressed, head on)	4	4Vancouver 	5	5Prince Rupert 	25	2New Westminster 	
(1) No report.	(1)	5
Supply-Fisheries
Landings
1955	1954
(million lbs.)
All Canada	
1,747	1,944British Columbia	
493	600
of which:
Salmon	
129	178Herring	
305	361Halibut	
19	25Maritimes and Quebec	
720	698
of which:
Groundfish	
432	399Lobsters	
44	41Herring	
157	144Sardines	
11	33Newfoundland	
535	626
of which:
Groundfish	
499	538Lobster	
5	5
Landed Value
1955	1954
($ 000)
All Canada	
77,599	85,949British Columbia	
28,200	35,264
of which:
Salmon	
18,342	23,579Herring	
4,170	4,565Halibut	
2,469	3,984Maritimes and Quebec	
35,872	35,011
of which:
Groundfish	
13,272	12,940Lobsters	
15,160	14,222Herring	
1,414	1,559Sardines	
241	679Newfoundland	
13,527	15,674
of which:
Groundfish	
10,368	12,212Lobster	
1,353	1,331



EXPORTS OF FISHERY PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
1955	1954
($ 000)
TOTAL	 128,843	132,651
By Forms:
Fresh and Frozen	 73,523	71,952
of which:
Pacific Salmon	
5,736	7,185Pacific Halibut	
2,956	3,892Atlantic Cod Fillets	
9,821	9,071Atlantic Haddock Fillets	
6,088	4,894Atlantic Lobsters	
16,714	13,697Freshwater, dressed	
12,497	12,830Canned	
20,200	27,835
of which:
Pacific Salmon	
16,238	23,965Atlantic Sardines	
1,667	1,585Atlantic Lobsters	
1,843	1,921Salted	
19,109	18,299
By Markets
United States	
91,975	90,072Caribbean Area	
17,171	15,957European	
14,829	21,250Other	
4,868	5,372

Output of Specified Products
		1955	1954
Pacific Canned Salmon	000 cases 1,365	1,743Pacific Herring Meal	tons	27,510	31,065Atlantic Groundfish Fillets	000 lbs.	102,959	97,419Atlantic Groundfish Blocks	000 lbs.	44,880	33,419Fish Sticks	000 lbs.	5,190	1,880Lobster, Frozen Meat	000 lbs.	3,642	2,457In shell	000 lbs.	28,920	27,306Canned	cases	26,080	40,492Cod, Salted (wet salt basis)	000 lbs.	184,584	244,053of which:	Newfoundland	000 lbs.	138,064	205,954Maritimes and Quebec	000 lbs.	46,520	38,099
The domestic consumption of fish is slowly rising. I think that is due partly to the efforts of the industry and our own department to make known the advantages of fish as a food and also to the improvement both of transportation facilities and cold storage facilities across this country. Last year saw a substantial increase in the number of cold storage units which is, of course, a help to the fishing industry. Because of the condition of the industry it was not necessary to apply price support to any phase of the Canadian fishing industry last year.
On the east coast we did introduce last year a salt subsidy as a measure of encouragement to those fishermen who are engaged in the salt cod industry. It has worked out quite well and it has been, of course, of maximum aid to the fishermen in the more remote parts of the Atlantic provinces. On the west coast there is a problem which is now under consideration to improve the position of the fishermen, and that is the matter of the very great number of dogfish present in the west coast waters. These are small fish of the shark family which have a great nuisance value as predators of other fish. During wartime their livers were valuable as a source of vitamin oils. Fishermen could make money fishing dogfish just for their livers, and that kept down the number of these predators. But since the war the price of liver oil has declined because of the development of much cheaper synthetic vitamins, and on the whole it is no longer economic for the fishermen to fish dogfish in the off seasons for their livers.
A year ago the fishermen's union out west asked me whether we would pay a floor price for dogfish carcasses to be made into fish meal for which there is a reasonable market. Dogfish is not as good a source of fish meal as herring or whale, but we had an experiment conducted last year by one of the fish plants to see if dogfish could be used, and the fisheries prices support board has conducted a further study this winter. They have now assembled their information and it looks as though at least 50,000 tons of dogfish a year could be taken on the west coast in the off season. The ordinary herring reduction

plant is not quite fitted perhaps to process dogfish, but the whaling plant on the west coast and other plants, with some modifications, probably could. That matter will be discussed by the fisheries prices support board at their meeting this month.
Since we last met the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act which was passed by this parliament, has been proclaimed and the first loans have been made under it. As I predicted last year from the experience we had gained with the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the initial number of applications and approvals is small. The Farm Improvement Loans Act took at least a year or two to get really under way, but I think that the fishermen of the country are appreciative of this new source of credit through government-guaranteed loans.
Our country is one of the major fishing countries of the world, and we are particularly blessed with rich fisheries on our coasts. Some of these fisheries, lie beyond our own territorial waters, and over the years we have devised a number of very excellent international commissions to control and conserve these high-seas fisheries off our coasts. We have treaties now covering the northwest Atlantic, which includes the ten nations that fish the northwest Atlantic. We have treaties on the Pacific, the north Pacific, Japan, the United States and ourselves, and also the international salmon commission and the international halibut commission. We have the international whaling commission covering the 17 nations of the world which have whaling operations.
I think that the work of two or three of these commissions is very important this year. The first is the commission which has just been established to conserve the fisheries of the great lakes and to proceed with the extermination of the parasite sea lamprey there. Parliament approved the convention last year and we appointed our commissioners last fall. The Americans have only recently appointed their commissioners and the commission will have its first formal meeting some time late this month or early in April. We of course have not awaited the actual setting up of the commission to start work on the extermination of the lamprey. Two years ago we made our first appropriation of about $165,000. Last year we raised that to $330,000. There were a number of members from Ontario who suggested that this should be still more, but at that time I explained that money was not the limiting factor, it was our ability to secure the scientists and equipment for this lamprey control work.
We had a very good season last year in this work, and you will see in your estimates 67509-111 J
Supply-Fisheries
this year that the amount has been increased by $130,000 over last year's appropriation. We think we can find the staff to carry out extended work. There has been one interesting development during the course of the year, the development of a poison which seems to be quite effective in destroying the larvae stage of the lamprey during the four years that they are buried in the mud. If that works out successfully it will speed up a great deal our program for the extermination of the lamprey. All Ontario members from the great lakes area have been keen on this but the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) has spoken about it on several occasions. Actually he is away today with our films and our lamprey specimens addressing a game club on this problem. As a result of that, when we come to item 152 I propose to have it stand until some time later in the month when he will be here so he can speak on it.
The next commission in which hon. members have a special interest this year is the international Pacific salmon commission. This commission was formed by Canada and the United States and controls the great sockeye fishery of the Fraser river. This is the weakest year of the four-year cycle of the sockeye salmon, and as a consequence the salmon commission, at their recent meeting on the west coast, approved the most stringent control regulations which they have yet asked us to implement. They point out that not only is this the weakest of the four-year cycle years, but they also point to the very great improvement in the fishing efficiency of both the Canadian and United States salmon fleet, with the most modern of boats, nylon nets, drum seines, power blocks and all these other improvements.
One of the proposals made by the salmon commission, and one which was mentioned in a question earlier this session by the hon.
member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), was the proposal that all fishing be stopped in outside Canadian waters. It is only in recent years that we have actually begun to fish those waters. Before the sockeye would swing around the end of Vancouver island into the strait of Juan de Fuca, where the United States fishermen would get their half of the fish. The sockeye would then go into the gulf of Georgia and up the Fraser river where our fishermen would get their half of the fish. In recent years, especially since the last war, we have encouraged the fishermen to get out to sea and establish historic rights on the high sea fishery, and also to put us in a little better position. In the past, we got the second half of the fish.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries
The salmon commission has been extraordinarily successful in dividing the catch. I think there was a difference of less than a fraction of one per cent over the last 10 years. Nevertheless, we were always in a position of getting the second half of the fish. I though it would be much better if we had the first crack, then the United States got their share and we topped off by fishing in the second Canadian water. So far as the other four species of salmon are concerned, which are not covered by this commission, the outside fishing is most important. Unless we fish out there the United States fishermen get the first crack at these fish as they pass Puget sound on their way to the Fraser river. It was for that reason that two years ago I encouraged the fishing industry to bring in 15 big deep sea seiners so we could build up our share of this fishery in outside waters. It is for this reason that the suggested closing of these waters is of particular importance to the Canadian fishing industry.
This proposal, I am informed by my legal advisers, is in direct contravention of the commission treaty which was approved by this house in 1937. Article 4 of the treaty says that if any of the Canadian waters are to be closed, all the Canadian waters are to be closed; if any of the United States waters are to be closed, all the United States waters are to be closed. It is quite true that over the years there may have been minor variations in that we did agree upon closing inside areas for week end closures of different lengths, but never have we agreed, in violation of the treaty, to a complete closure of a very important Canadian fishing area. I have, therefore, written the chairman of the international commission telling him, first of all, that this is in contravention of the treaty approved by this parliament, and while I have the power as Minister of Fisheries under the Fisheries Act to order such a closure, I was not given the power by this parliament to exercise it under the terms of the international Pacific salmon convention. I have asked him, therefore, to reconsider the proposal and see whether the same conservation results can be achieved without this precedent of completely closing an important Canadian area, an area which is of very great importance to us in other fisheries as well as in the sockeye salmon fishery at the moment.
I told the chairman that the Canadian people are most appreciative of the magnificent job the commission has done in reestablishing this great fishery. I said that if, over the years the commission has found from its experience that certain articles of the convention are hampering its work, then we in this parliament certainly would be

very glad to hear its recommendation for change, and that would be the proper way to do it.
One other important issue in connection with the Fraser river is this matter of fish and power. The Fraser river salmon fishery is the most important single fishery in Canada. It is the greatest single salmon fishery in the world. The landed value and the market value of this one fishery exceeds the landed and market value of all the cod, for example, on the east coast or of all the lobsters on the east coast. It has been saved, as I said, by the very wise management of these scientists and the administrators of the international salmon commission. The present average market value is about $25 million. The salmon commission feels quite confident that within the foreseeable future they can double that to $50 million a year. Of course, that is welcome news to the fishing industry of British Columbia.
On the other hand our province-when I say "our province" I am of course a British Columbia member-is growing at an extraordinary rate, especially in the development of industry. Industry in this country is always hungry for power. In British Columbia we have both public power and private power and those agencies have, since the war, engaged in a great program of expansion. I think, for example, that our province was the only province which did not have brownouts or blackouts because our public and private power agencies were able to keep ahead of the times.
Now the point has been reached when they are beginning to look towards the Fraser river in their search for more sources of power. This, of course, has alarmed the fishing industry. There are two general proposals. One is that 10 low level dams could be constructed, four on the lower Fraser and six on the Thompson, which would be capable of a very large production of power but which, in the opinion of the fishing industry, would do practically irreparable damage to that industry. The other suggestion is for one very high level dam, a dam of over 700 feet, on the main stem of the Fraser. The position taken by the fishing industry and the Department of Fisheries on this matter is a very simple one. We feel, first of all, that every non-salmon stream in the province should be developed for power before a salmon stream is touched. In that respect we feel that, before the Fraser is touched, that part of the Columbia river in Canada should be exploited to the full. At one time the Columbia was a great salmon stream but the construction in the United States of six big dams impaired the fishery and the construction of the enormous Grand Coulee dam

ended all movement of salmon above that dam into Canadian waters.
At Mica creek on the Columbia there is a possibility of tremendous power developments. A year ago some power people were saying that Mica creek was too far from Vancouver and Victoria, from the industrial area of British Columbia, to be economically possible. Last summer on my way to Russia I stopped off at Norway and Sweden to see the fisheries people there, and I was especially interested to find that in Sweden they ship power 600 miles from northern Sweden down to the industrial area around Stockholm. The distance from Mica creek to Vancouver is around 300 miles. It is true they use different techniques in Sweden, very high voltage, 800,000 volts, and a different type of conductor, bundle conductors; but there is no reason why exactly the same technique should not be used in British Columbia to bring Columbia power into the Vancouver area.
The second position of the fishing industry in British Columbia and of our department is that even when the known salmon streams are exhausted there should be no dams built on the Fraser until we have discovered how we can safely pass the adult salmon over the dam on the way to the spawning ground and the more difficult thing of passing the salmon fingerlings down over the dam on the way to the sea. Since this is probably the most important fishing problem which we are going to be confronted with in Canada for the next two or three years, I would like to take a moment or two to tell hon. members from other parts of Canada the essence of the problem.
The five species of west coast salmon, as they enter the river to spawn, stop feeding. Unlike the Atlantic salmon, when they have spawned they die in the river they do not return to the sea. And so these salmon enter the streams in tremendous numbers with this as yet unexplained blind instinct which brings them up back to the little creek in which they themselves were spawned two, four or five years before to spawn and to die.
The sockeye salmon, our most valuable salmon, is the one in which that homing instinct is most developed. It is also the salmon which goes the farthest. Some of these salmon go 700 miles up the tributaries of that great river to find their spawning grounds. These fish live off their bodies during this long and difficult passage, and any delay by a dam or by any other obstacle, by a natural obstacle of a falls or by high water making the speed so great that the salmon cannot breast it, any delay like that means that the salmon has not got enough energy
Supply-Fisheries
stored in his body to get to the spawning ground in time to spawn. Each of these series of ten dams of course means ten delays, which in this case would result in the greatest of all salmon runs, the Adams river run, a small tributary of the Fraser, being met with these ten delays.
The actual passage of adult fish up over dams is not too difficult. We have had this problem for quite a number of years on both coasts. Dams are getting higher and higher but it is still possible to bring them up. There is another problem which arises, and that is the difference in water temperatures. Instead of having an even flow in the river you have these great storages of water with a limited spill over the dams at certain times; therefore, there is a change in water temperature.
One of the ways in which the salmon does find its way is by constantly breasting the current. Some of these dams will create enormous lakes behind the dams, so even when the adult salmon is up over the dam he is then at a loss. Instead of breasting the strong stream and forging his way on he is lost in a lake in which there is very little current. The other point, of course, is that these great lakes formed behind dams raise the water level in the lower stretch of the flooded area and cover spawning grounds which have been used by the salmon in the past.
As far as the fingerlings are concerned, they of course move in very much greater numbers. They have a much more difficult time. They can either go over the top of the dam or go through the turbines. If they go over the top of the dam damage is done in two ways. Either the fingerling touching the concrete face of the dam gets its very tender skin abraded off, or it dies of shock as it hits the pool at the bottom.
The turbine is another hazard, as one could well expect. The penstocks drawing the water for the turbines will suck the small fish down. They sustain the first damage as they pass through the whirling blades of the turbine as they go through. Much the greater damage, however, is done through the tremendous changes in pressure on the sides of the turbine. A 100-foot penstock has a water pressure of 45 pounds per square inch. On this side the fish is whirled through suddenly, and there is no pressure other than air pressure on the other side. It is like the way in which they make puffed wheat. They put grain under great steam pressure and suddenly release it and the wheat blows out in a puffed form. When that happens to the little finger-ling it ruptures the blood vessels and the fingerling dies.
What have we done to study these problems? Our own department has been working
[Stage Direction]
Supply-F isheries
on this problem almost since it was formed. Scientific research has been working on it pretty constantly since 1921. On the United States side the state of Washington, of course, was the most concerned. The United States army engineers have done work on the dams on the Columbia on the United States side. In Norway and in Scotland, where they have runs of Atlantic salmon, they have done quite a bit of work on this, but their problem is very different from ours in that they are dealing with fish whose numbers are in the hundreds and we are dealing with fish whose numbers are in the millions.
Last summer, in Russia, after the whaling commission meetings were over my main interest in getting to Siberia was to see what the Russians had done on this problem. We have not been able to have very much of an exchange of scientific documents with them until the last four or five months, but we knew they had the same problem because they have a great Pacific fishery, of the same types of salmon as we have, along the shores of Siberia, in the Amur river, and Kamchatka. We knew that they had done a great deal of work on electrical fishing, using electricity as a means of fishing, and of electrical pumps for the transportation of fish. But when I got up there I found that part of Siberia still almost a virgin wilderness. There is very little industrial development there, and in the first 1,500 miles of the Amur river there is not a single dam. In the sea of Okhotsk and Kamchatka fisheries there are no dams at all; therefore, the Russians have not had to grapple with this problem yet. In some of their western rivers, the Volga and the Don, they do have the problem of moving up sturgeon and other river fish around their power developments. It is a very different problem because these fish live in the river and feed in the river, so are not destroyed by delays. Their number is small and they are slow-moving fish.
Well, in the last 30 years our department has solved these dam problems as they came up by building fishways and by building fish ladders. The highest dam built so far in British Columbia on a salmon stream is in the Capilano river in my riding, a 350 foot dam. It is too high for any fishway that we had knowledge of. So there we actually trap the fish at the foot of the dam and take them around in tank cars, several miles around the dam, to where the stream enters the back of the lake above the dam, so they can start on their way again. But the problem in the Fraser is a much greater one. In the Capilano, for example, they move about 6,000 fish a day that way. At Bonneville dam on the Columbia the United States

army engineers have devised a means which can carry a maximum of 200,000 fish a day. But to get salmon in the Fraser to the head of the spawning streams, our facilities will have to carry at least 750,000 fish a day on the lower Fraser and above the junction of the Thompson half a million in the Thompson, and a quarter of a million a day on the upper main stem of the Fraser.
In the last few years the salmon commission and the two departments of fisheries of Canada and of the state of Washington have conducted a lot of practical experiments. At one high dam, the Baker dam in the state of Washington, a dam of about 100 feet, we found that 70 per cent of the fingerlings going over the top were killed, and 30 per cent of the fingerlings going through the turbines were killed. But over and above that there is a mortality of the fingerlings who survived either the great drop over the dams or the passage through the turbines because, although they are still living when they have got through, they have been damaged and they are not as lively as if they had not had that experience. Because of that they undoubtedly fall prey much more easily to predators in the river, the trout, or the predators in the sea, and therefore the losses are probably even higher than that.
We have done a great deal of work in the matter of the diversion of the fingerlings before they reach the dam. The numbers are probably 50 times as great as the adult salmon going up. As far as the spillways are concerned, we insist on these dams on salmon streams having a smooth surface on the spillway face so abrasion is cut to a minimum. Instead of having the fish hurled down into the pools, all the new dams have a lip at the foot like a ski-jump, so the fish are carried up in a spray before dropping into the pool at the base.
On the Capilano dam we do more than that. We had a serrated edge put into the base so the ski-jump effect goes off in different levels, but even then the mortality is still high. As far as the penstocks are concerned, that can be solved with very high dams. The fingerlings are mostly in the top 100 feet of the river or lake and are very seldom below 200 feet, so if you put the turbine penstocks more than 200 feet down the fingerlings will not be drawn through the turbines.
On our rivers, we have tried in many ways to divert the fingerlings just as they come down the stream before entering the pool above the dam. We have tried screens and light, we have tried air bubbles, we have tried electrical impulses, we have tried electrical fields and we have tried a curtain of chain

'which seems to be the best at the moment. We have also tried scent, both the scent of seals and human scent from which the little fish are instinctively turned away, and we have also tried colours. Some of these things have been quite successful in the lab but when you transfer these experiments from the lab to a river such as the Fraser, none of these things are strong enough to withstand the surging current carrying logs and roots which sweep away any type of barrier.
Another problem is to divert enough water to the sides of the lake to carry the finger-lings. There are proposed 10 dams of less than 100 feet in the Fraser. Our officials say this means the end of the salmon run in this part of the river. There will be ten delays on the fish getting up to the Adams river, for example. If the mortality of fingerlings coming downstream is just 50 per cent for each dam, that mortality is a geometric progression. With ten dams and a 50 per cent mortality it means you have a one thousand and twenty fourth part of your fingerling salmon at the end of the last dam, and that ends the fishery. These dams would have to handle five species of salmon and these species have different migration periods. Since the dams are all less than 100 feet we will have a mortality from suction through the turbines as well as death from going over the top of the dams.
I understand that the power company most interested in the Fraser now proposes to build just one low level dam on the Fraser which will carry them along until such time as the Columbia power can be brought down.
The Moran dam is a very different problem. It will be one of the highest in the world, over 700 feet high. There will be no penstock trouble because they can be situated below where the fingerlings are. The problem is how to get the migrant fingerlings down the 700 foot drop. The engineers are suggesting a lip just below the spillway to divert the fish down the side by tubes, but it will take a long gradient, otherwise the fish will go down just the same as over the top.
The other difficulty at the Moran dam is the enormous lake which will be created behind it. I have read it will be 164 miles long, so the salmon which gets over the dam instead of encountering the river current will be lost in the lack of current in an enormous lake. This lake will also mean the flooding of many spawning beds.
What are we doing about it? We are stepping up our research program on fish migration. Mr. H. R. MacMillan, one of the members of the salmon commission, gave a grant of more than $100,000 to the fisheries institute
Supply-Fisheries
of the University of British Columbia for research and the British Columbia electrical power company, one of the companies involved, has given a grant of $50,000 to the university. These grants to the university will of course enable them to do more research but much of the research has already been done by the fishery scientists of the salmon commission and the department. What the university will be able to do will be to assemble all known data on this problem of the movement of fish over dams, and place it before the proper authorities.
The Chairman:: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the minister but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Nowlan:: I am sure the committee would want the minister to proceed.


William Alfred Robinson: Does the committee agree that the minister proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: I have only one little piece left. I was going to say that the other thing which makes the situation easier is the very harmonious relations there have been between industry and the fishing groups in British Columbia over the years. Up until now we have been able to have fish and power in British Columbia and the attitude of the British Columbia Electric Company in making money available to study this problem is an example of that kind of feeling. The provincial government has also been most helpful. They have announced that no licences will be granted on the Fraser river for a power dam until the problem of the movement of fish has been solved.
I was going to raise the matter of one other international commission which is probably the one which has always intrigued hon. members the most. I refer to the fur seal convention to cover the fur seals of the Pribilof islands. Originally there were four nations participating, Japan, Russia, Canada and the United States, which had agreed to end the high seas hunting of these seals and keep a reserve to restore them. Japan and Russia dropped out and the United States and Canada have carried on alone for the last 15 years. There has been a great achievement in the restoration of the species which in 1911 seemed to be on the point of extinction. Our problem now is that fishermen say there are too many fur seals which destroy fish which they use as food. We get one-fifth of the kill on the Pribilof islands in return for abstaining from killing them off the coast of British Columbia. Last year our receipts from that were $1,214,331, about $200,000 more than the previous year. The

Supply-Fisheries
average price received for the skins was $94.80. The Japanese and Russian fishermen in recent years have also been unhappy about the number of fur seals in the north Pacific
and so a meeting was convened in Washington last December to see if we could arrive at a new four-power treaty to solve this problem. Seals of course are animals and this is not a true fishery matter, but it is an interesting industry.
Negotiations have proceeded very slowly but we hope that in the end we will have a treaty which will be acceptable to us, by which we will have a closer control over the numbers and which will still return to us about $1 million a year.
I thank the house for giving me these few extra minutes. I shall simply close by saying that generally the fishing industry is in pretty good condition. As I said last year, fishing is still probably the most dangerous and the most ill-paid occupation in Canada, but to the men engaged in the industry it is more than that. It is a way of life, and as long as the fishing industry is a little better this year than the previous year' the fishermen are reasonably happy and like other fishermen, either sport or commercial fishermen, they are always optimistic that the next catch is going to be the big one.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that those of us who have listened to the minister's opening statement this morning, as on similar occasions, have been pleased with the casual and yet interesting and almost dramatic way in which he deals with some of the phases and activities of his department.
I am quite sure when the time comes for the minister to retire from public life he need not worry about his opportunity to earn a living because he will certainly be able to write novels about the sea from which he will probably earn far more money than he earns today.
I want to say most sincerely that the minister makes his department most interesting. Possibly there are very few departments in the government where that opportunity is presented, which may be one explanation. As the minister said in his concluding remarks, this is a way of life for many people. It is a hard way of life. I think all people who know the fishermen-this certainly applies on the east coast-will agree that they are among the poorest paid for the hardest work of people engaged in any occupation in Canada today. Yet few of them would change. They love the life and have developed a type of citizenship and outlook which permits them to make a contribution which is well worth while.
,
Taking it in all, I submit that this department warrants more interest than has been shown in the past. It may be merely a coincidence or an accident, but I am certainly glad to see the estimates of this department being brought down at this relatively early stage in the session. Back over the years I have found that the fisheries estimates have been brought down in the latter part of the sessions. Last year I think they were brought down on June 24 or 25, and the same with other years. It is good to see that we are to be given a little more time in which to consider these matters and I think also to emphasize the position of this department in the economy of Canada rather than to have these estimates considered as being something to be got on with whenever it was convenient, more particularly when the weather was hot and we might not be ready to spend so much time talking about these matters.
Perhaps I should say at this point how delighted we all are to see the minister back again apparently restored to health. We were all shocked and I think I can say frankly worried at the reports we heard of his accident and consequent injuries. It is good to see him in his present shape. I am sure that if during these estimates he finds he is being asked too many questions or is being bothered in any way we will be only too glad to have him remain seated. I would hope that before we finish with his estimates the minister will find it possible to refer to what he saw in the Scandinavian countries and even in Russia and to make a comparison between their methods of fishing and industrial production with our own.
Before I was diverted to making a personal reference, I was saying that this is a most important industry. There are all these people engaged on the east and west coasts, in the central part of Canada and the great lakes, and in the north on Great Slave lake and others. I profess to have no knowledge whatsoever of the fishing industry except in a most casual way and that only with reference to the east coast. As the minister has said, the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) has taken particular interest in the fisheries of the great lakes. I was glad to hear the minister say that if this particular item were reached it would be allowed to stand until that hon. member was present. There are other hon. members from Ontario who no doubt will be speaking today, and there are also members from the west coast who will be dealing with the fisheries on the Pacific.
I checked yesterday to find the relative value of the production of this industry as

compared with other industries in Canada. The 1955 figures for other industries are not available as yet, so I took the 1954 figures. As the minister said this morning, the landed value of fish for 1954 was $86 million. That is not a tremendous amount, but it is fairly substantial. The 1954 market value, which is a fair criterion, and which would be the value of the product when frozen, processed and ready to move from the plant, not the retail value, was almost $192 million for 1954.
We hear a great deal about the tobacco industry in this country, but it might be interesting to note that the production of that industry for 1954 was just about one-quarter of the market value of our fisheries. We hear a great deal about our farm implement industry and the tremendous exports of farm implements, but the total 1954 production of that industry was $113 million as compared with $192 million for our fisheries. Even the gigantic motor car industry showed only a total production value of $559 million, or roughly two and a half times the market value of our fisheries. I could go on and make other comparisons, but I bring forward these figures in order to bring this industry into a clearer focus than it has been in the past.
I submit that this industry deserves more careful attention and consideration than it has always received in the past. It is a unique industry. During the past few weeks we have heard a great deal of discussion in the house about wheat, and the production of other crops has been discussed, which is proper and right, but this industry is unique in that there is no ownership in it at all. Not only is it public domain, but it is a watery public domain and no one has any vested interests in it, except in so far as territorial waters are concerned.
I sometimes wonder that people have the courage to spend substantial sums of money developing plant and investing in equipment without any assurance that the industry will be protected and with the possibility that nationals of other countries or even our own nationals who are not to well controlled may come in and destroy the very basis of the industry. As I say, in that respect it is a unique industry.
As the minister said, there are two basic problems confronting the industry, the problem of marketing and the problem of conservation. As he said also, the problem of marketing seems to be a little better this year. At least we do not have to have floor prices. As the minister has said, the surpluses are going to be disposed of and from that standpoint the industry is in better shape than it has been in prior years.
Supply-Fisheries
I think a great deal of credit should go to the economics and marketing divisions of the department. Personally I rather regretted a reduction in these items. It is true the reduction is not large, but I submit that more money should be provided for the marketing and economics divisions of this department. Those activities should be stressed.
The fact is that we still eat too little fish in this country. Not enough emphasis has been placed on the eating of fish. The minister has indicated that the industry is cooperating in an advertising campaign. I think the industry should be encouraged to spend more money on advertising and the department should be prepared to co-operate by supplementing that advertising. Better packaging, improved curing methods, faster freezing methods and quicker transportation have increased the demand for fish. The people of Canada should be encouraged to eat more fish, and I am thinking of the Nova Scotian finnan haddie that we have from time to time in the parliamentary restaurant. If more people knew of that product the consumption would increase tremendously. I suggest that you cannot find a better cured fish anywhere in the world. That is just one example of the improvement which has been going on consistently in this industry.
Because of these improved methods and because our population is increasing and will continue to increase, we hope fairly rapidly, there is no doubt that the demand for fish will increase as well. I think this demand could be spurred if there were more direct assistance from the marketing branch than has been the case heretofore.
Then there is the problem of our exports. I am speaking now purely for the east coast where our exports other than to the United States and forgetting for the moment lobsters and a few special products such as that, take the form of cured and salted fish.
The minister has said in other years that that was a very uneconomic way of disposing of this, and that of course the emphasis should be laid on the development of the fresh fish consumption. That is true, but, after all, we have to have the cured fish outlet in order to take care of surpluses, because fish is not a product which can be stored indefinitely. There has to be a cured fish market. I know that many fishermen in my own constituency, perhaps carrying on in a small way, when they find that fresh fish sells for only 1| cents a pound, do the curing themselves and hold it until the fall when they can get a much higher price than on the fresh fish market. Therefore I do not think we should overlook the importance of

Supply-Fisheries
maintaining and developing the market for our salted and cured fish. At one time that was the principal one, of course. There was an extensive market in Spain and other parts of Europe, in the Caribbean, in South American countries and so on. That has been widely restricted today. The demand is less today, but there is still a substantial demand in the Caribbean. I noticed the other day that the republic of Haiti have sent a trade delegation here to negotiate or discuss the possibility of amplified trade arrangements between our two countries. When we entered the British West Indies trade agreement in the early 1920's, it was undoubtedly a good thing, but I think it did create prejudices and frictions with other Caribbean countries which were at that time buying tremendous quantities of our salted and cured fish. I urge on the minister that he lose no oportunity whatsoever in attempting to develop in every way possible those other markets in the Caribbean and in South America in those products.
Of course, the trouble down there is that for the most part those people have a very low purchasing power. They are among the poorest paid in the world and they cannot afford to buy an expensive product. We shall have to have manufacturing and processing carried on in this country so that we can afford to put those products in those markets at prices at which those people can buy them. If that is done-and I believe it can be done-and the industry restored to some extent to what it was many years ago, it certainly will be of assistance to those of us who represent the fishing industry in the eastern part of Canada. I shall say nothing more about marketing at the moment. There will undoubtedly be much more said about that subject as the day goes on, but I simply say again that this Caribbean market is a traditional market for the Atlantic provinces. I am not minimizing the fresh fish trade. Gradually, as fresh fish production is improved more and more, that market will perhaps play a less and less important part in our economy, but it still is an important factor and should not be overlooked.
The matter of conservation, to which the minister referred, is the other important phase of the department to which we all have to give a great deal of attention. We have the bifocal problem, shall we say, of our territorial waters and the high seas. In the territorial waters there should be no problem. We have control of those waters. We make the regulations, and it is simply a matter of enforcing them. The responsibility for that is our own. But when we get beyond those territorial waters on to the high
[Mr. Nowlan.l
seas, there you get the problem in its very essence, and today it is, I think, a pressing problem.
Think of the changes that have taken place in the methods of fishing in the past few years. Almost all of us in this chamber have memories of the times when fishing was carried on by means of the schooner and the dory. That was the method that had been carried on for 500 years. When the Portuguese said last year that they had been fishing on the banks for 500 years, that was true historically. That was the method that had been employed. Then came the evolution from the schooners to the great voracious trawlers. In a lucky day, I should say, a trawler would haul out as much fish as a schooner would get in a month. In the old days, of course, we had the hardy men of the sea, such as the Minister of Public Works has in his constituency, going out in the fishing schooners, the Bluenose and the other champion craft which were built for the international competitions. That day, unfortunately, is gone. That was part of the colour and the drama, and it went with the coming of the mechanical trawler. With the mechanical trawler has come a greater threat to the fish as a whole, because today you have the trawler with its trawls and its equipment-with the most modern electronic equipment with sounding devices enabling them to move along, as I understand it, and pick out very accurately where the schools of fish are located. There are also, of course, ship-to-shore telephone communications, by means of which they can receive instructions from hour to hour as to their movements. Altogether, although the banks are very large and the fish, you might say, are very small, their chances of avoiding those trawlers today are getting less and less as the days go by. It has become a highly scientific and technical procedure, though still very dangerous and rough on the men taking part. As a result of all this-and when you remember that there are more ships on the banks today from other countries than there are from Canada, that they come in there from Portugal and other parts of Europe, from the United States and from all over the world-you might say that fishing in that area, with these modern devices and equipment, has made the necessity for conservation even greater now than it ever was before.
The minister says, quite properly, that the only way you can deal with this is by international conventions. We are very happy to have made great progress along the lines of international conventions within the past few years, but they move painfully slowly, as the minister indicated almost as

an aside in what he told us about one of the great lakes commissions, when he said that only in the past three or four weeks one of the contracting parties had found time to appoint personnel to that commission.
I was just reminded of the province of Nova Scotia, a small province. I wonder how many hon. members outside the fishing industry realize that the average landed catch for that province within the past two or three years has been in the neighbourhood of 375 million pounds of fish per year. That is over one million pounds of fish a day, on the average, being brought in to the wharves of that one province. When you amplify the picture by considering all the fishing countries in the world that are searching for and catching fish over the areas of the banks today, I suggest to you that the time has come when a much more radical approach must be made to the problem. I know the minister is hoping that through the commissions there can be evolved regulations that can conserve the fish, and it must be done.
Yesterday, in reading a report of his department, one of the research bulletins, I was struck with the fact that when the lobster fishermen first began catching lobsters in the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec almost 100 years ago, that lobster fishery developed in a few years, so that 75 years ago they were catching over one hundred millions pounds of lobsters a year. Of course, they were large and heavy lobsters. From that the fishery dropped to approximately 20 million pounds. Now, through conservation and control, it has been kept roughly in balance between catch and production and we are at around 35 million pounds again. I think that is approximately the situation. It shows what conservation can do and it also shows what will happen, that there is a rapid fall if there is no conservation. So I say that we need to put more emphasis on that.
These waters are at our front door. One does not want to become provincial, one does not want to become perhaps supernationalist, but we have a greater interest in them than any other country in the world and they are being exploited by all the countries of the world. I think the time has come when our government will have to take more stringent steps and make a firmer approach to the matter than has been the case in the past. It is going to be slow, it is going to be laborious, it is going to be tedious. You are going to be stymied by one country after another which wishes to avoid being involved in too stringent regulations. However, as I have said, I think the time has come when
Supply-Fisheries
there must be more emphasis put on the matter than there has been in the past. I know that the minister entirely approves but he of course is faced with the difficulties of international negotiation and the slow tedious process of dealing with commissions. Besides, he has many other things to do.
But we can easily get disease or pestilence in our fish. Take what happened last summer with the herring when suddenly overnight hundreds of thousands of herring were found dying in the waters because of some disease or pestilence that had struck and which virtually extinguished them. At the same time, of course, pollution was created in the waters which made the life cycle of other fish much more difficult. There again there is a necessity for such action.
As I said, there are two approaches to the matter. One is the international approach which the minister suggested and urged and which I suggest he pursue still further. Then there is also the approach of control of our own waters. I know the minister can say that he knows exactly what I will say because I said it last year. In fact the discouraging thing about it is that last night I looked up what I said last year and I thought I could almost say the same thing over again word for word. It is rather discouraging but nevertheless I think it is important because the problem of our territorial waters is an important one to many members and I think to the country as a whole.
I am not going to weary the house by repeating things I have said before on this phase of it so far as my own constituency is concerned. Perhaps when the specific items are before us later today I will elaborate on the matter a bit. But you have the situation where under the old law that exists today international law recognizes the three-mile limit as territorial water. Historically, of course, that is based on the old theory of the cannon shot. History tells us that the old cannons could fire three miles out from shore. Therefore you could exercise control over those waters and beyond that was the high seas. If that theory was sound then, it has certainly got to be reviewed today in the light of present developments. Where you would apply the limit no one of course knows because today it is not a question of three miles. With a bomber I suppose it is 3,000 miles or with an intercontinental ballistic missile it might be 5,000 miles.
No one wants to suggest extremes such as those, but there are those who have suggested 10, 12 or 20 miles. I understand that some South American countries extended the limit last year to 200 miles, and altogether

Supply-Fisheries
the situation is most uncertain. I believe the question was referred to the international law committee of the United Nations, and last year the minister told us that the committee was about to report and that the United Nations would take some action thereon. But we know how dreadfully slow and tedious any action on the part of the United Nations can be.
The minister also told us last year that an interdepartmental committee had been set up of which Dean Curtis formerly of Dal-housie law school was either the chairman or the technical advisor. I have forgotten which. Dalhousie law school is of course where he really got his educational foundation although he may have moved away temporarily to the University of British Columbia.
We will not debate that, Mr. Chairman. I know where he got his training in the days before he was exposed to the vagaries of British Columbia.
What I want to say, and I realize that my time is running out, is that the minister told us last year when I mentioned this matter that Dean Curtis' report had been submitted to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and that he understood that after the government had considered it it would be made available to parliament. That was a year ago. Perhaps I should not say a year ago because this year the estimates are before us earlier, but it is nine months ago and I am sure that the government has had time to consider the report. I should like the minister to tell us if he will make the report available to parliament because I think it is a most important thing.
We need to know what the policy of our government is with respect to international control of our own territorial waters. Before the estimates are through I think the minister should clarify the position with respect to the report of the interdepartmental committee and also what position the representatives of the government are prepared to take when the matter is considered further by the United Nations this fall. Certainly the time has come when the whole set-up must be reviewed. I could make references to my own constituency but I am not going to do so because, Mr. Chairman, I see that you are looking apprehensively at the clock.
But we have this situation with respect to trawlers. The minister knows it and the anomaly of the problem must irritate him more than anything else. I presume that sometimes he feels frustrated and helpless about it and would like to throw the problem out the window. I suggest that he throw the 
trawlers out the window. Of course, from the standpoint of my constituency that would be a delightful way of solving the problem. However, as the committee has been told before, under international law any United States trawler can come up to within three miles of our coastline. When I say "within", that is really euphemism, because in a fog the three miles becomes constricted to about 30 yards if the water is deep enough. All the fishermen in my constituency can certify that is so because of the lobster traps, trawls and everything else that they lose to some of these American trawlers. Despite their sonic equipment and everything else they suddenly become lost and wander up along the coast. On the other hand, Canadian trawlers over 65 feet long, manned by Canadian crews and built with Canadian money, are required to stay outside the 12-mile limit which I think is the rational approach to the matter. If the minister will say that we are going to have a 12-mile limit, our government is going to insist on that limit and we are going to take that position with the United States right away and we are going to urge a 12-mile limit before the United Nations, I think it would clarify the air.
But at the moment you have that conflict between international law and our own internal regulations. No wonder everyone is frustrated and angry about it. Certainly Canadian trawlers feel they have the right to go up to the 3-mile limit if the Americans are allowed to do so. On the other hand, the inshore fishermen do not want to see the trawlers nearer the coast than they can help. I should like to see the situation worked out so that all trawlers would be kept 12 miles off our coasts. That would protect the inshore fishermen who perhaps are not the most important in this industry from an economic point of view but still have that way of life to which the minister referred. There are scores and scores of villages and thousands of people involved, some of them,
I presume, in the constituency of my friend, the hon. member for Charlotte, some in the constituency of Saint John-Albert in New Brunswick on the other side of the bay, and all up and down the coast of my constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings.
Of course the minister has power with respect to this matter. You may remember that I twitted him a bit a year ago in that he had taken unto himself the power to draw a line in St. Margaret's bay and say thus far shall you go and no farther. He barred the trawlers from crossing that line. Of course, that happened to be just before the last provincial election.


James Sinclair: Pure coincidence.


George Clyde Nowlan: That year it was a coincidence. By another coincidence there is another provincial election in Nova Scotia this year, and I think it would be a fortunate coincidence if he would make the same ruling with respect to the coastline of the bay of Fundy as he did three years ago with respect to St. Margaret's bay and say that all trawlers, big or small, must keep outside that line. That would not only be a coincidence but it might accomplish miracles for him because some miracle such as that is needed if his political friends are going to achieve the results they want.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the second phase of this matter to which I want to draw his attention, the conservation and control of our own territorial waters. I am not going to develop it further at the moment but I hope that before the item passes the minister will clarify the position of his department and the government with respect to this matter.


Mr. Kickham:: Mr. Chairman, I should like first of all to thank members wishing to speak on the first item of the fisheries estimates who have given way to me because I will be away this afternoon and for the next few days. I should like to say that I am greatly pleased to see the Minister of Fisheries taking an active part in administering the affairs of his department. I followed very closely the serious injuries he received in Russia last year. I think most hon. members in this house realized that the minister possessed an abundance of mental and physical energy, much more than many of us in this house possess. I feel it is quite possible that this abundance of energy stood him in good stead. He has made a partial recovery at least and I hope that in the very near future recovery will be complete.
Since taking over the administration of the Department of Fisheries, the minister, I feel, has displayed a great interest in his department. We had evidence of this only last week when he invited members from the Atlantic provinces to meet with him and exchange views on the administration of his department. He afforded Liberal members from the four Atlantic provinces an opportunity of expressing their views and making suggestions with regard to the administration of his department. This procedure is contrary to an editorial f read in Maclean's magazine, the issue of March 3. I quote what the editor said:
Anyone who has been glancing lately at Hansard or at a reasonably good newspaper must have been reminded that parliament has ceased to be the chief official critic of the nation's conduct and its conscience. Much worse, the parliament of Canada has ceased to be. in any real sense, the government of Canada. It still has the power to
Supply-Fisheries
govern. Nevertheless, it continues to acquiesce blindly in all cabinet actions and pronouncements- voting almost as dependably on its party lines as that final horror of legislative horrors, the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.
In reply to that accusation which is directly applied to all Liberal backbench members, I want to say that only recently the Minister of National Health and Welfare invited members to a study group meeting on the administration of his department. I can recall numerous instances in the past when the Minister of Trade and Commerce has also welcomed members of the Liberal party to discuss the affairs of his department. It is stated very often in the press and in this house that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is, in reality, a dictator. In my opinion his treatment of the backbench members in inviting them to discuss matters of policy in connection with his department does not savour of dictatorship.
Leaving that matter now, because I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the house, I shall refer to some of the problems of the fishing industry in our province. The fishing industry in our province has been making great strides in the past few years with the assistance and co-operation of the federal and provincial governments. In the speech from the throne at the opening of the provincial legislature, the premier of our province, Mr. A. W. Matheson, announced he will establish a department of fisheries. He is to be commended for this action. Prior to this time fishing interests were taken care of by the department of industry and natural resources. I am sure that the fishermen of our province will greatly appreciate the move to set up the department of fisheries because I think it recognizes the position of the fisherman in our economic life and that has been long overdue.
I was interested in a remark the minister made when he said that, after discussion with his officials, it might be possible to establish a floor price for dogfish. He mentioned the west coast particularly, but if such a policy can be adopted by his department I should like to see it applied to the east coast also. In the months of July and August our fisheries are very seriously handicapped by an invasion of these fish. If the livers were worth something and something could be realized from the fish through processing them into fish meal, it might be that it would not cost the Department of Fisheries a great deal to provide an inducement to fish those predators. I am sure that our fishermen, who normally fish for hake, cod, and haddock after the close of the lobster fishing season, which is June 1 in our area, would be very pleased to fish for these dogfish.

Supply-Fisheries
I should like to say a word about a problem that has confronted me particularly. It relates to a branch of the shellfish industry in our province, namely quahaugs. There are large quantities of quahaugs present in polluted waters in our province. I understand that as a result of some arrangement between the public health department in the United States and the same department in Canada, there is a prohibition against taking fish from polluted waters, and that is quite reasonable. But in the case of some mollusks, such as oysters, permission is granted to transplant them to other areas for recleansing purposes. I took the matter up with the two departments last year. Both departments are involved in this question, but evidently the stumbling block was that no scientific research had been carried on up to this time as to how long a quahaug should be placed on a beach to be purified.
The minister and his officials in one meeting suggested it might be possible to recleanse the quahaugs in pounds. I like that suggestion very much. I believe it was made by Dr. Pritchard because of the fact that it would save the cost of reraking the fish from any beaches where they might have been relaid for recleansing purposes. However, I hope we can get permission to relay. I am most anxious that we eventually will, because on the return of a heavy volume of seaweed these hard-shell clams will eventually die. There is a market for them in Canada. They are ground into meat and sold in Canada. They are not sold in the United States because there is no market for them. I understand that in the United States they use only the tender small quahaugs called littlenecks. It would give us a lot of employment. It is estimated that the industry would be worth in the vicinity of $100,000 a year to the labour employed in the transplanting of the quahaugs from those areas to other areas for purification purposes and their repossession and processing.
I know the minister is most deeply interested in this, and I hope that he shall have permission in the very near future to transplant these quahaugs.
I also like the suggestion made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), who preceded me in this debate, that it is most unfair for those who are financed and equipped with draggers by both the federal Department of Fisheries and the provincial department of fisheries to encroach on the inshore boats. They should at least keep off three miles. We have had that difficulty at home, and our dragger fishermen are now realizing why it is a great discouragement to the inshore fishing boats to

fish when their gear is being taken up by larger vessels. In that connection I should like to say that at Souris we have one fresh fish filleting plant and two by-products plants that have been in operation for two or three years. In the coming season we shall have another large fresh fish filleting plant operating at Souris. I hope that sufficient encouragement will be given to the inshore fishing boats to fish cod, hake, flounder and haddock after the close of the lobster fishing season at some fishing centres.
These inshore boats have been fishing in past years. I know of one case where fish have been trucked as far as 30 miles from where they are landed to the fresh fish filleting plant. I would like to see all the lobster inshore boats fish, as I have already mentioned, at the close of the lobster fishing season. I would also hope that the processing plants could pay sufficient money for their fish to induce those fishermen to go out and fish and have the fish brought to the processing fish centres. It would be a great advantage because dry periods are experienced by the dragging fishing vessels, and the inshore fishing boats would supplement the supply and would provide for continuous operation of the plant and continuous employment of the employees.
I have just another word, Mr. Chairman, before I close. I should like to say that because of the assistance that has been given by the federal government by way of a subsidy of $65, per registered ton for boats over 40 feet in length, and also the assistance that has been given by the provincial department, we shall have about 15 draggers owned and operated in our own province this year. I think that with the intake from the inshore boats we can keep both of these processing plants and both of the by-product plants in full operation.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I believe there is just time before I ask you to call it one o'clock to join with the other hon. members who have taken part in this debate so far in saying how pleased we are that this morning the Minister of Fisheries was able to be back in his seat and in the form he was when he gave us an outline of the activities of his department.
Like the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, I would have been very much interested if the minister had been able to give us a more extensive picture of some of his observations on fisheries while he was abroad. I realize that perhaps the estimates of his department may not be the most appropriate place for that to be done; but I do hope that the minister will keep that in mind and some time before the session is over will find

suitable opportunity to give to the house a picture of some of the things that he saw.
Would you call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock I was about to enter into some comment concerning the first item of the fisheries estimates and some of the matters that appear to me to be of interest and concern at this time.
I think the minister made it clear this morning in his opening remarks, and probably it will appear even more clear in the statistics which he put on the record, that fisheries is now one of our great national industries and that it is wise for hon. members of this house to realize that what has become rather a trite saying, "There are only two great sources of food for the people of the world, the agricultural industry and the fisheries industry" is indeed true and that we in this country are blessed with a very rich heritage in both those fields of food resources.
Like the Minister of Fisheries, I come from a west coast constituency. I do not intend to attempt to enter into any extended discussion of the fisheries of the Atlantic coast or of our inland fisheries except to say that as a member of this house who has some appreciation of the value of this resource I am interested in the well-being of the great Atlantic fisheries. I am also interested in the fact that much remains to be done in that area before the economic value per pound of fish caught approaches that of the west coast. Those who live on the west coast realize that even with the present relationship in the markets of the world of the value of our product to the pound caught, our fishermen by and large do not enjoy anything more than a reasonable return for their efforts.
There is one aspect of the current fishery situation which appears to me to be of equal concern to the fishermen of the Atlantic coast and of the Pacific coast. Reference was made to this by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings when he was speaking of the matter of territorial waters. I would have been glad if the minister had been able to give us a positive assurance that this particular problem was on the way towards some satisfactory solution.
Supply-Fisheries
I was quite interested to read recently in the publication of the fisheries council of Canada a report on the present situation as it exists. This is one which I feel should be brought fully to the attention of the house. This report is an excerpt taken by them from the Financial Times published in Great Britain and it makes some reference to the international law commission and to the report which it has made. The gist of this report seems to me to be that we are entering into a veritable no-man's land of international law at the present time when we discuss the situation. It makes reference to the fact that various nations have been making a variety of claims in this connection. While I generally agree that we Canadians should attempt every means of reaching an amicable international understanding upon this question, I cannot help but wonder after having read this report whether or not the time has come for us to put forward, perhaps just a little more firmly than we may have done or than on the surface we appear to have done, our own feelings and our own position in relation to this situation.
I know that the minister is aware there is a strong feeling among the fishermen in British Columbia that we should assert our rights to territorial waters lying inside our offshore islands, Vancouver island and the Queen Charlotte islands. Certainly there are indications from the position taken in some instances by our neighbour the United States that we would not perhaps be doing anything in that respect that they have not done if we were to take that position. However, I do hope that it will not be long before the international law commission's report will produce some definite international action and international agreement on it.
There is one statement which I think points up the fact that this has come into the realm where people such as hon. members of parliament should be concerned about it. Referring to the opinion of the international law commission the bulletin of the fisheries council of Canada states on page 5:
It feels that the task of harmonizing the different views, which often originate in different political or economic conditions, should rather be entrusted to a diplomatic conference.
That, I take it, means that we in this parliament should be attempting to assist our government to crystallize its point of view on this'subject. As far as I can see, and I am expressing only my own opinion on this matter, there should be little question that Canada should be willing to stand for a recognition of territorial waters, at least as far as fishing is concerned, to the 12-mile limit and that we should be behind the idea

Supply-Fisheries
of developing international recognition for the inclusion of waters which lie inside our headlands in addition to that 12-mile limit.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that since I have been coming to Ottawa I have had an opportunity of acquiring more knowledge of some of the eastern species of fish. I will even go so far as to confess that I have developed an appreciation of some of the products such as the haddock and the cod that come from the Atlantic coast. I would suggest to those who come from the Atlantic provinces that if they would only be willing to overcome the foolish idea which they try to promulgate, that there is some basis for favourable comparison between what they call salmon and what we produce in British Columbia, those of us from the Pacific coast would probably be willing to participate in an all-out sort of co-operation in developing a wider appreciation of all the fishing products that are produced.
In this connection I may say that as a result of visits that were made to the test kitchen of the Department of Fisheries my wife has been trying out on me some of the recipes that come from there and the results by and large have been quite favourable. That may have something to do with increasing my appreciation of eastern fisheries products.


An hon. Member:: By and large.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: An hon. member says, "By and large". I do not believe in being too unqualified in public praise. While I am on this subject of the different fisheries I must confess that I have been shocked in recent weeks to discover from conversations with hon. members in this house that many do not realize that we have a herring fishery on the west coast. For that reason I think I should draw attention to the fact that the minister's statistics will reveal that the west coast herring fishery is larger than the Atlantic coast herring fishery and from the point of view of total tonnage caught represents something more than half the total poundage of fish products produced in British Columbia.
There was one problem which the minister did not deal with this morning and on which I had hoped he would make a statement. Perhaps he will find an opportunity before these estimates pass to do so. I refer to the widespread concern over the mid-Pacific salmon fishing. Many fishermen of British Columbia are firmly convinced that the -salmon being taken in the mid-Pacific are immature and should properly be caught after reaching maturity by our fishermen closer to shore. They feel that something should be done in the way of immediate action to prevent the taking of these salmon, principally by Japanese vessels. I do not think the

minister will feel that it is necessary for me to expand upon the rather unfortunate implications that might arise out of a growth of this feeling in British Columbia. I think it would be worth while if we had some explanation of what is being done in this connection and also some factual information as to what the situation is from the scientific point of view in regard to the claim that we are losing a large potential salmon fishery as a result of the mid-Pacific fishing.
I was glad the minister made some reference to the problem created by the increasing depredations of dogfish. This is a particular problem facing the fishermen who fish in the waters between Vancouver island and the mainland. They are increasingly concerned over the destruction of nets and gear and the increasing effects of dogfish upon the salmon fishery. I hope that this problem will be resolved in a way which will make it possible for the fishermen to utilize to advantage some of their time during the off season for other species.
It is true, as the minister pointed out, that there was a drop in the income from our fisheries last year and this has resulted in the fishermen of British Columbia taking an increased interest in the question which was discussed last year of providing access to the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I know that this matter as it affects the fishermen of the Atlantic coast has been drawn to the attention of the committee already and I recognize also that it is not a matter coming directly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries, but nevertheless I think it would be appropriate at this time if I were to urge him to use his influence toward a solution of this problem- perhaps I should say to continue to use his influence, because he did give us some assurances along this line last year in the industrial relations committee.
There is another matter which I feel is of some concern and which is brought to my mind by the salmon spawning report issued by the able chief supervisor of fisheries in British Columbia for 1955. I raise this matter because, to me at least, it involves a question of policy extending beyond the activities of the Department of Fisheries. In the annual report of the department which we have just received reference is made to some of the activities of the protection and fish culture branches. In respect to the salmon spawning streams it is pointed out that the fishery officers of the protection branch have continued their program of fry salvage and stream clearance throughout the year. It is stated that over one hundred streams had

log jams, rocks and debris removed. That reference will be found on pages 17 and 18 of the report.
I do not quarrel with the fact that that activity has been and will be of continuing value, but I think the report of the chief supervisor of fisheries on spawning makes it clear that that program of itself is not enough. Running through his analyses of spawning of various salmon species over the past year like a refrain is reference to the fact that in many instances what might have been a satisfactory spawning situation was ruined because of flood damage. In one report, referring to the spawning of chum salmon, it states:
Here again flood damage resulting from the storm of November 2nd and 3rd caused extensive damage to the early spawning. Some damage also resulted to the moderately good supplies in the Squamish system.
Then referring to the Victoria area it has this to say:
It is estimated, however, that 75 per cent of the spawn deposition in these streams was destroyed by the November flash flood.
I bring this matter to the attention of the committee because I think it involves policies beyond those which the Department of Fisheries can exercise.
If the Department of Fisheries, which is charged with the responsibility of protecting and increasing our salmon runs, is going to be able to do the job that it should be doing there must come about a recognition that part and parcel of the policy which will make this increase in our valuable salmon industry possible is in the development of a program of stream control. Perhaps this is a subject that might very well have come up during the recent discussion on conservation introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West. In fact, had it not been that there seemed to be a great number of speakers interested in that debate, I might very well have had something to say about it then.
To me this is obviously a problem that is going to require co-operation between federal and provincial authorities. It is going to require a plan which involves our forest industry and involves almost every aspect of soil and water conservation. I bring it up now to urge that consideration of this problem beyond that merely of the Department of Fisheries be given by the government. It seems to me that the activity that is being carried on in a modest way in respect to clearing log jams, out of streams, and so on, is going to have little value unless a much broader program is developed that will result in measures being taken to eliminate the flash flooding, which, as the chief supervisor
Supply-Fisheries
has pointed out, has almost destroyed satisfactory spawning in many of the areas during the past year.
There are quite a number of other items that I have noted. I should like to bring up some of them when we are discussing the details of the estimates. But there are a few more problems here on which I should appreciate a clearcut statement from the minister.
One of the questions that has been asked of me is as to the eligibility of the Indian fishermen of British Columbia to qualify for loans under the act that was passed last year. I should hope that the minister could give a clearcut statement on that point so that there could be no misunderstanding of the actual situation.
Another question that is of concern to some of the Indian fishermen who live in the vicinity of Ripple Rock is as to what the effect upon their fishery is going to be when that big blast is set off. Some of them are fearful that not only will there be some destruction of the migratory stocks of fish that are in that area at the time but that the result of the blast will be such as to entirely wipe out the local stocks of ground fish and will leave them without access to winter subsistence Ashing, on which they rely for part of their food. I would appreciate having some statement based on the best available evidence as to what the results of that blast will be in that respect.
I think that covers all the points that I shall attempt to deal with at this time. There are one or two other matters, but I note that the time at my disposal now will not allow me to enter into discussion of them and so I shall defer them for consideration at a later time.


Mr. Patterson:: I am sure it has been an inspiration to all members who have listened to the introductory remarks of the Minister of Fisheries today as he outlined the work of his department. I remember that on other occasions when he has made the opening speech in connection with his estimates we always felt that he gave a very vivid outline of all the activities that come under his jurisdiction. He has the happy knack of not only giving information but imparting some inspiration with it as well, and certainly his remarks today have been no exception to that rule.
I should like to join with the other members who have extended a welcome back to the Minister of Fisheries. We followed with concern the reports of his accident and illness and we were in hopes that the time would not be too long before he would be back here to

Supply-Fisheries
assume his responsibilities in the department and in the house. So 1 join with the others who welcome him back and wish him continued health. I should be very much interested to hear of his impressions and his observations on his recent trip to Asia. I am sure he gleaned a great deal of valuable information and, when the opportune time presents itself and he does speak on that matter, I am sure it will be of real interest to all members of the house.
I should like to say that I regret that the hon. member for New Westminster is not here today to take part in this debate. He was called away because of death in his family; otherwise he would have been participating on this first occasion in this debate. I am sure his analysis of the situation and his outline of the problems would have been much more detailed than I shall be able to give today, but he may be back in time to participate before the conclusion of the debate.
We have been reminded of the continued and increasing importance of the fishing industry to the economy of Canada. We have learned a great deal since the opening of the session on the importance of the agricultural industry, and we who come from non-wheatgrowing areas listened with real interest to those debates. Now we hope that the members from the prairie provinces will bear with us as we discuss some of the problems relevant to the industry that is very vital to us, namely, the fishing industry.
Last fall there was a great deal of concern over the fact that first reports were to the effect that the salmon industry was going to suffer some severe setbacks, but we were encouraged again to read further reports that what had been lost through the depletion of the catch of the sockeye was being made up to quite an extent by the catch of pinks. I shall just refer to a brief article in the Vancouver Daily Province of September 22, 1955:
Big Run on Pinks Aids Salmon Trade.
A huge run of pink salmon at the last moment has saved the British Columbia fishing industry from one of the worst years on record.
Eventual catch of pinks by the end of the season is expected to nearly equal the record catch of one million cases set more than 25 years ago.
A. J. Whitmore, chief fisheries supervisor, said the result has been that this has become "a good average year".
I met some of the fishermen at about the time when their prospects were rather dark. They were very much concerned over the situation and wondered how they were going to be able to carry on operations and finance their domestic programs through the coming year. Another matter of real concern is the damage caused by floods to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has referred. This was emphasized in one of the local papers 
in my own area, the Fraser Valley Record of November of last year. In that paper it is stated:
A preliminary review of potential damage caused by the recent storm and record rainfall in the lower mainland areas shows that many important salmon spawning areas suffered severe losses. Most seriously affected was the recent pink salmon spawning in lower Fraser streams; in several instances the results almost suggest a state of disaster and where the local fisheries officers feel that 10 per cent survival of a large spawning is the best that might be hoped for.
In connection with the spawning areas, I should like to refer to a brief article that was handed to me. It is taken from the New York Times of February 28, 1956. It is rather strange that the information as to this particular project should come to me from New York, but no doubt it is because of my inability to keep up with all the reading material that we receive from the different departments. The article is entitled, "Salmon Eggs Aided by Canadian Science". It is a Canadian Press report from Nanaimo, British Columbia, and reads:
Reduction of the losses of salmon eggs on British Columbia spawning beds is the aim of scientists at the Pacific biological station near here. Field tests on a strip of the Fraser river resulted in reducing mortality rate to 35 per cent from an average of 90 per cent, one scientist reported. Ability of water to flow through gravel and provide oxygen to eggs while removing noxious substances from egg clusters is under close study. The findings are expected to disclose the type of gravel best suited to spawning beds and may lead to creation of artificial spawning beds in streams, the scientist said.
This brief article concludes:
One expert said the day may come when bulldozers will prepare spawning beds with specified gravel on a gradient sufficient to provide a predetermined flow of water through the gravel.
When the minister concludes the debate on this item perhaps he might refer to that matter and enlarge upon it for our benefit.
We were very happy to hear the minister state today that domestic consumption of fishery products is rising. I remember participating in the debate on another occasion when I referred to the assistance that might be given in the matter of training chefs. I do not know whether or not that has anything to do with the situation. Culinary techniques may be improving, but we are glad that there is an increase in the domestic consumption of fish and this no doubt will reflect itself in the industry.
We are also glad that there are no surpluses on hand. I believe this is very encouraging for the fishing industry. The minister referred to the various international commissions that had been set up and made particular mention of two of them. One of them was the commission set up under the great lakes convention. We were interested

to learn that the Canadian government has already taken action to set the machinery in motion in this respect, and we wish the commission every success as it tackles the problem of the lamprey eels about which we heard so much last session. We hope that its efforts will result in the rehabilitation of the fisheries on the great lakes.
At that time we were privileged to see some films provided under the auspices of the fisheries department. One of them had to do with the lamprey eel, and there was also one on the lobster fishery. I was wondering whether it would not be possible this session to have further films shown with respect to our fisheries and fishery activities. I am sure they would be of tremendous interest and of great benefit to us in getting a better picture of the entire fishing industry. If it is possible we would certainly be happy to see that done.
Reference was also made to the international Pacific salmon commission and to the stringent regulations that have been recommended by way of a conservation program. Whatever steps may be necessary to conserve this vital industry will, I am sure, receive the co-operation of the industry when such steps have definitely been proven to be necessary and their efficiency has been established.
There is one matter to which reference was not made and which was not mentioned by the minister. I have not heard anything recently respecting the efforts to secure an international treaty on pinks. It may be that something has been done in this connection but I have not had any report brought to my attention, or if I have I have forgotten it. Perhaps the minister might refer to that matter and bring us up to date on the efforts that have been made and the negotiations that have been instituted. I believe I remember that last year the minister referred to the fact that now that there has been more or less of an equalization of the catch between the Canadian and United States fisheries the United States might be more willing to agree to such a convention.
I should like to refer to the fisheries on the Fraser river. Our fishermen have had their difficulties in the past, and on different occasions we have had the opportunity of bringing various problems to the attention of the minister and the house. Some of them still continue. An announcement was made to the effect that earlier closures were to be instituted on the Fraser river as a conservation measure and also to safeguard the quality of fish being caught. I understand that this year closure is to go into effect on the 15th of September.
Supply-Fisheries
There are two questions I should like to ask the minister in this connection which he might answer a little later in the debate. First of all, I should like to know if the minister is absolutely convinced that the results obtained have justified the action taken with respect to earlier closure on the Fraser above the New Westminster bridge. Second, is the minister contemplating any further changes in these regulations, either by way of modification or to make them even more stringent than at present? In this connection I might say that some of the fishermen are under the impression that this is the last year that fishing in that area is to be permitted. I hope the minister will clarify this matter and also let us know whether any other regulations are being considered in this regard.
Of real concern, of course, to those in the Fraser valley and in other sections as well is the discussion that is at present going on with respect to fishing and power, and to which the minister referred in his address. We all know somewhat of the proposed development of the power potential of the Fraser river. I think all concerned are in agreement on the necessity of protecting the valuable fisheries industry. The minister referred to the harmonious relations existing between all concerned in this matter, the fisheries department, the provincial government and the power industry.
I have the report of the fisheries association of British Columbia the "Facts on Fish",
dated January 24, 1956. The first two paragraphs are as follows:
Recognition that the Fraser river is primarily a salmon stream and should be protected as such was the gratifying conclusion to be drawn from the recent announcement of the formation oi Western Development and Power, Limited, a subsidiary of the British Columbia Power Corporation.
The announcement by Dal Grauer, President of British Columbia Power Corporation, declared the two principal functions of the newly formed company would be
"(1) To develop hydroelectric power on the Fraser river to the extent that the maintenance of salmon spawning will allow and on the Columbia river where there is no salmon problem, and (2) To study industrial opportunities in the areas which can be served with this power and to bring in new industries to use it."
The fishing industry commends Mr. Grauer and his company for their aims and ambitions.
The fourth paragraph in this report is as follows:
In a public statement following the announcement, Mr. E. L. Harrison, Vice Chairman of the fisheries association declared the B.C. Power Corporation's announcement was of the greatest significance to the future welfare of British Columbia. It put into sharp focus the principle that preservation of the salmon resource for the benefit of all

Supply-Fisheries
Canadians is of top priority in the planning for the future by governments and most interested industries, he said.
Then this report refers also to the gift that has been made to the University of British Columbia by the power corporation for research work in this connection. I am reminded, too, of the statement made by the minister that Mr. H. R. MacMillan has made a contribution of $100,000 to the same research program. The Vancouver board of trade, as revealed in this same report from the fisheries association of British Columbia, lends its support to the attitude taken by the various authorities.
On page 2 of the report we find this:
A resolution which reflects the sentiments of the influential Vancouver board of trade was submitted to the provincial government last month and its contents was of great importance to the fishing industry. Following a preamble which pointed up the need for preservation of the fishing industry the resolution stated:
I am just going to read the first three items because they refer specifically to the matter under discussion.
1.	The board endorses the policy of the provincial government which is to expand the industrial output of this province, to develop the interior and northern areas and to wisely use and conserve our natural resources for the overall benefit of the people of British Columbia.
2.	The board endorses the policy of the provincial government that no hydro developments will be permitted on commercial salmon producing rivers until it is proven that such developments will not adversely affect the salmon fisheries in any serious degree.
3.	The board believes that the present and potential water of "non-fish" rivers should be utilized for the development of hydro-power before applications are considered for the use of water for such purpose on fish streams in order that increased hydro-power may be available while scientific work continues on the still unsolved problem of up and down stream migration of salmon past dams.
The view of the provincial government, as referred to by the Minister of Fisheries, was that no licence should be issued until this problem is overcome.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. I am just going to refer to it, and I am not going to spend any time enlarging upon it. I should like to mention the suggested diversion of the flood waters of the Columbia river into the Fraser. No doubt we have read the statement made by the chairman of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission in this connection. Apparently he is very hesitant about placing any approval whatever on such a program. He refers to the different problems which must be overcome such as water temperature, content of water and so on, all of which could be seriously affected by the diversion
(Mr. Patterson.]
of glacial waters into the Fraser river. I want to refer to an article in the Vancouver Province of Thursday, December 8, 1955, written by Alan Jessup. In this article we have a reference to this proposal, and I quote: Furthermore, the suggestion of increasing the Fraser's power potential by diverting the head waters of the Columbia into the Fraser, also makes salmon interests shudder.
Fishermen argue that changes in water temperatures in spawning rivers have a direct effect on the survival of fingerlings. They contend that to divert waters on one river into another with subsequent changes in temperature could cause untold damage. It is further suggested that the Columbia, fed from ice fields, may be colder than the Fraser.
Fortunately fishing and power interests have graduated from the initial intolerance each displayed toward the other. Both are anxious to reach a compromise. But on the cold, hard facts of the salmon's life cycle there is not too much room for compromise.
I am sure every safeguard will be taken and this matter will be thoroughly investigated before any action is taken.
I should like to make just a brief reference to the matter of fishermen and their relation to unemployment insurance benefits. I have a letter from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union dated August 11, 1955. I should like to quote one paragraph which has a special reference to this matter.
As you are no doubt aware, our union has been campaigning for a number of years for unemploy ment insurance to be provided to all commercial fishermen. We were very disturbed to find that parliament did not move more forcibly in the direction of unemployment insurance for fishermen at the last session.
We noted there were promises made to the effect that there would be further investigation and hope expressed in the near future commercial fishermen would obtain coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, these promises and hopes will not answer the critical problems facing the commercial fishermen of British Columbia this year. That is why we are writing to you at this time and urging you to take immediate action on behalf of the fishermen.
I had the privilege of attending a very large meeting of the fishermen last fall in the city of New Westminster where this was one of the matters under discussion and consideration. At that meeting we were requested to give our support to their proposals and their request for unemployment insurance benefits. In this connection, it was suggested that in order to assure the coverage of fishermen by this act coverage should be extended to all bona fide commercial fishermen whether they were gill netters, seiners or trawlers, and also for the purposes of the act the buyer of the catch should be classified as an employer.
I believe it is one of the problems that was mentioned, to designate the employer relationship.
At that meeting a certain survey that was conducted by the unemployment insurance

commission in 1951 was referred to. I have not seen the report, but it was referred to in that meeting. In that survey it was stated that the problem of establishing employer relationship would not be insuperable. It also suggested that the obvious person would be the purchaser of the catch. I just pass these suggestions along from this meeting of the fishermen which I had the privilege to attend. I am sure that in the consideration of this matter the unions would have other suggestions which would be of assistance. I hope the minister will make some reference to this matter when he closes the debate.
These are some of the matters that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister at this time. I repeat, we are vitally interested in this industry; we know the Minister of Fisheries is also vitally interested in it. His enthusiasm and energy are appreciated, and I trust that in the further continued administration of his department every possible way will be explored to extend the value of this industry in the economy of Canada.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, before coming to the remarks which I wish to make on this item I should like to associate myself with the sentiments that have been expressed by previous speakers and say how glad I am to see the minister back in his seat again and restored once more to his usual health and vigour. I should like also to compliment him on the clear and concise exposition which he gave us this morning on the introduction of his estimates, and also on his vivid and graphic description of the problem facing his department, particularly on the west coast.
May I also say how pleasant it is to hear the word "fish" once more after sitting continuously for days on end and hearing nothing but wheat, wheat, wheat for the past three weeks.


William Gilbert Weir: Order.


Chesley William Carter: In his remarks this morning the minister indicated that the over-all general picture was a little better than that of last year. This, of course, is not true in my own riding, and I do not think it is true in the over-all picture of my own province. The production was spotty, particularly in the shore fishery, and our production of light salted cod, our traditional product, was about 200,000 quintals lower than the previous year.
The minister expressed gratification at the continued expansion of fresh fish production. Continued expansion, of course, is good only if markets are available to absorb the surplus catch. There is a very great danger of over-production which would result of course in a softening of prices and lower returns to the fishermen.
Supply-Fisheries
As far as Newfoundland is concerned, continued expansion of fresh fish production at the expense of salt fish production would be little short of a calamity. In my opinion we have already proceeded too far along this road. The fresh fish industry alone cannot bring maximum prosperity to our Newfoundland fishermen for the simple reason that when the fish are running the fresh fish processing plants cannot handle the amount of fish that the fishermen can catch, and consequently their production is limited to the capacity of the plant.
In Newfoundland, expansion of the fresh and salt fish industry should go hand-in-hand so that the surplus fish which the plants are unable to handle could be put up in salted or pickled form. Our two greatest needs in Newfoundland are expansion of markets and outlets and a greater diversification of our fisheries and fish products so that the fisherman can be employed continuously at his occupation and at the same time be able to sell all the fish that he can produce.
Personally, I am a great believer in the future of the salt fish industry. In spite of the difficulties now being experienced, I believe that from the long-range point of view it can become more stable and less vulnerable than the fresh fish industry. There will always be a market for salt fish because it is an essential food and a valuable source of protein and salt which are essential to the health and nourishment of peoples who live in hot climates.
I believe the time will come when our own traditional markets, our traditional Mediterranean markets, will expand once more to their former proportions. In the very nature of things, as a result of industrial forces such as automation, as well as of other forces, sociological and ideological, the time must come when the people of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece will enjoy a much higher standard of living than they do today. That day may be long delayed, but it is certain to come, and when it arrives our fish will then be more competitive in those markets. I also look forward to the day when we shall once more be sending salt fish to Brazil, which at one time took as many as half a million quintals from us. Brazil is a country blessed with tremendous national wealth and the day will come when that wealth will be developed and Brazil will be on her way to economic recovery. Anything that we as a nation can do to hasten that day \trill be of great benefit to Newfoundland because Brazil can absorb practically our total production of salt fish.
The recovery of the salt cod industry is, of course, dependent upon quality production. I had hoped that the minister would have made some reference to bonus payments for

Supply-Fisheries
choice and prime Italian and Spanish cures to encourage quality production for those markets.
The minister referred this morning to the salt rebate which he announced last year. On the whole I believe that the salt rebate has been fairly successful although of course in the minds of fishermen it has not been anything like the cash equivalent of the price support payments or deficiency payments which they had formerly received. There is, however, one aspect of this salt rebate question which is worthy of consideration. Because the amount of salt used in producing heavy salted fish is almost twice as much as that which is used in producing light salted fish, one effect of the rebate has been to encourage the production of heavy salted fish at the expense of the production of light salted fish. It is estimated that possibly we could have sold 200,000 quintals more of light salted fish than what was produced. Light salted fish is, after all, our traditional product. History tells us that the light salted fish in Newfoundland goes back to the days of the Napoleonic wars when the British fleet had blockaded the coast of eastern Europe and supplies of salt were not available. Necessity became the mother of invention and our people developed the process of curing the fish with about half the amount of salt they would normally use. This came to be a very distinctive product of Newfoundland, one that was specially favoured in Mediterranean markets and one that we must endeavour to keep at all costs.
If we are to encourage the production of light salted fish and offset the effect of the present salt rebate we should have a different rate of rebate for light salted fish from that which we have for heavy salted fish. In fact, to equalize the two, the rebate should be doubled or practically 100 per cent on light salted fish. It certainly should not be less than 90 per cent. This would also benefit the fishermen of Nova Scotia because it would prevent an oversupply of heavy salted fish which would tend to soften the prices in the Nova Scotian markets.
While I am speaking about the salt rebate, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that the forms drawn up in connection with this rebate are far too complicated for the ordinary fisherman to cope with; indeed, one would almost require a college degree to be able to fill them out correctly. Some of the fishermen in my own constituency had great difficulty with these forms and they were very resentful of the fact that after having received assistance from the teacher, the priest, or the magistrate or whoever came along, these forms were returned

for correction after considerable delay and in some cases the amount of salt that they used was questioned.
In transactions involving the purchase and selling of salt fish there is a great need for much more uniformity in weights and measures than exists at the present time. For example, in Newfoundland 1 hundredweight of fish is 112 pounds. In the maritimes 1 hundredweight of fish is 100 pounds. The Newfoundland fisherman who sells his fish by the hundredweight therefore has a loss of about 12 per cent on his transaction as compared with his counterpart on the mainland. To solve this problem I would suggest that regulations should be drawn up which would compel that fish be sold everywhere by the pound.
There is also a wide discrepancy in the way fish are measured which has a very distinct bearing on the cull. In Newfoundland the length of a fish is measured as the distance between the hollow part of the nape and the small part of the tail. On the mainland the length of the fish is the total over-all length from the peak of the nape to the tip of the tail. Thus an 8-inch fish which would be classed as a small fish in Newfoundland would be considered well over a 12-inch fish on the mainland. Similarly an 18-inch fish which would be considered as medium in Newfoundland would be classed as being over 22 inches in the maritimes, which results in a much greater return due to the difference in cull.
I should also like to see established the practice of selling and using salt by weight instead of by volume. In this way I believe we could develop a much more definite and precise line of distinction between fish classed as heavy salted and that which is called light salted. At the present time, with salt being used by the volume, there is a great deal of overlapping and different degrees of heavy and light salted fish, which is not in the best interests of quality production.
I said a few minutes ago that our greatest needs are more outlets and greater diversification. More imagination is needed in the development of fish products. In addition to the different ways in which salted and pickled fish can be processed I believe more attention should be given to the canning of fish, both fresh and salted. For example, fish cakes can be made either from fresh or salted fish and in each case they are delicious when served with onions and potatoes. I believe a product could be made up which would prove most acceptable in the domestic market. I hope that in time it may be possible to develop a food product made up of a blend of fish proteins and wheat, something which is causing so much trouble for our friends

on the prairies. We would thus be able to kill two birds with one stone.
I was glad to hear the minister refer this morning to the extension of the domestic market and in this connection I should like to pay a tribute to the Canadian National . Railways for the lead they have given in the development of the Canex container. Now anyone who travels on the Canadian National Railways can enjoy a meal of delicious fish made possible by the use of this container. I hope that samples of this fish will be made available in our parliamentary restaurant and perhaps the minister could arrange with Mr. Donald Gordon to have samples cooked up in the Union station restaurant and at other stations along the railroad. He might consider also giving out samples to advertise this quality product.
Since the Newfoundland minister is the minister of immigration perhaps samples of Italian cured fish could be made up and presented to Italian immigrants when they come to this country. On second thought, perhaps it would be worth while to ship samples overseas to be distributed to prospective applicants before they even consider coming to this country.
I have said before that our two chief needs are markets and outlets and diversification. I give those two prior position over the means of production because I think it is unbusinesslike to consider improving the means of production until we have found a way to dispose of all we can catch with the means of production we now have.
However, there is considerable interest in the mechanization of our fisheries in Newfoundland and in this connection I should like to point out to the minister the need of a more flexible system of bounties than we now have. Many of my fishermen are not taking advantage of the federal bounty because in order to do so they must build a boat which they consider is far heavier than they need. Being far heavier it would be more expensive to handle, to keep up and maintain, and when the planks became waterlogged after a few years she would be heavier in the water and therefore more difficult to propel. I would suggest that the present system of bounties be revised so that they would be available for much smaller boats than is now the case. I think perhaps there could be two or three classes, perhaps for boats of ten tons and boats of twenty tons.
I should like to say something about the bait service but I shall deal with this matter at greater length when that particular item is before the committee.
Supply-Fisheries
I was disappointed this morning when the minister made no reference to unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen. When the prices support item is before the committee I hope to say a few words on that subject and discuss the problem of stabilizing the fisherman's income.
Before I close I should like to say a word about the fisheries development program. I believe that what we need is an over-all program which would embrace, not only Newfoundland but all the Atlantic provinces. I think we are making a big mistake in going about our fisheries development program piecemeal without any correlation or integration. We have plenty of competitors in the world markets without having to spend time and energy competing among ourselves. I believe that if we take this approach to the problem it will be much better in the long run, not only for the fishermen of my province but for all the fishermen of eastern Canada.


Mr, Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer briefly and generally to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects and the treatment that it gave to the fisheries field generally. Someone has said that if the Gordon commission did nothing else but get Canadians to imagine what their country will be 20 or 30 years from now it will have justified its existence.
Fisheries were referred to in the excellent brief presented by the fisheries council of Canada, and I understand also that some of the provinces dealt with fisheries in their own briefs. I have not had time to read and study the fisheries council brief in detail, but I should like to refer briefly to four or five points which were mentioned as being of importance. Significantly they are points that have future consideration which I think is most important in the fisheries business today.
The first reference was to immigration. I think it would be an excellent idea to consider the immigration of fishermen to Canada. This could be handled somewhat like the agricultural worker. These men could be induced to come here with their special training and thus add something to our culture. There would be limitations upon what could be done with them. I suppose it would be necessary to insist that they stay in their intended occupation and perhaps some assistance could be given. It is an excellent idea and I do not anticipate that there would be much difficulty with the present minister of immigration, who appreciates the sea and fishermen and all that is connected with them. The minister of immigration has a further interest in the sea now that he is the owner of a small vessel.

Supply-Fisheries
In their brief the fisheries council dealt also with power plants constructed on our streams and rivers, and their effects upon the fishing industry. The Minister of Fisheries has gone in considerable detail into the problems out west. We have exactly the same problem on the Saint John river. I shall not mention that, but there is a further problem that is of a slightly different nature. That concerns the power dams that are being discussed now with regard to the bay of Fundy itself. Of course, as has been mentioned in the past, the future of the fishing industry will have to be seriously considered if this dam takes shape in the bay of Fundy.
I was interested to hear the minister mention that out west experiments have been made in training the fish to follow various scents at dams. I do not remember whether the minister said they followed noise or sounds, but I read in the newspaper a short while ago that at Bowdoin college in Maine they have been able to train fish or cause them to follow various musical notes, and they expect that in the future a pied piper going up and down the banks of the river will lead the fish through the various obstacles that may be there.
Third, mention was made in their brief, and rightly so, of federal aid for research. Last night I managed to squeeze in a few remarks regarding fisheries research in the discussion on the research committee. Most of the members took the opportunity to get into the atomic field, but I feel-and I know the minister agrees-that it is very important that federal aid and federal research generally be discussed and stimulated through this new field that is open to us now.
In regard to the Saltonstall-Kennedy hearings in the United States which I mentioned last night, with which I know the minister is quite fapailiar, it was not the legislation, perhaps, that was important; it was the fact that so many experts attended and so much publicity was given to the hearings when the committee was considering this bill in 1954. I feel that would tie in with future needs, the stimulation and interest that would be given in our research committee if fisheries were on the list of subjects.
I do not wish to say any more on that except to repeat what I said last night, that I realize the minister is research-conscious.
I also know that the fisheries department has a very commendable research program now. It has about a half or three quarters of the landed catch invested in research but, after all, we do need more money and better research. The investment will be returned in the future.

Fourth, the United States markets were mentioned. I was quite pleased to see the fisheries research council mention this, because we are very much concerned about those markets. I do not want to go into a discussion of tariffs in general here, but I feel that in the maritimes now we have something good in the fish sticks, something the United States market wants. We feel it is a hardship to be taxed so heavily by tariffs that it is almost impossible to get finished sticks into the United States market. We are always going to have an unfavourable balance of trade with the United States, as things look now. Why not take cognizance of that fact and compensate for it by recognizing that we have a product here that the people in the United States want? It could not possibly disrupt any other markets. We want to ' encourage this industry, and it would help us to be able to export one of the few finished products we shall ever have.
Those are the remarks the fisheries council made. May I just refer briefly to the New Brunswick brief presented to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, which dealt briefly with the fishing industry in that province. Some early history was mentioned at the beginning of their brief, and they brought the picture up to the post-war period when they were, quite rightly, hopeful of the future. The capital investment and the general catch has been good since 1945, and they made note of that.
The consumption was mentioned. The consumption of the maritimes generally is quite low. I have noted a discrepancy in their figures. The minister has stated on previous occasions that the maritimes have a consumption of about 15 pounds a year, but the New Brunswick delegation stated in their brief that we have a consumption of up to 35 pounds. I do not know whether that applies only to some cities or whether it is general, but I feel it is important to know who is consuming the fish in Canada.
In Canada generally consumption is about 13 or 14 pounds per year, and much can be done there. Perhaps the minister can comment on that. Of course, the competition maritime fish products meet in the central Canadian markets is tough and always will be tough. We have to fall back on our luxury fish such as oysters, lobsters and the fine maritimes salmon.


George Clyde Nowlan: We have good codfish, too.


Mr. Bell:: Yes. After the remarks that have been made in a good vein, I must say with regard to the parliamentary restaurant, that there has been a notable upward trend in the quality and quantity of the fish on its menu, and it deserves a great deal of credit for that.

Reference was also made to the biological interest that we have in New Brunswick regarding the fishing industry. I should like to mention the fact that we have a biological station on the east coast at St. Andrews. There is a smaller facility of the fisheries department at Saint John. Recently there have been certain moves and discussions regarding the possible transfer of two departments, I believe, from St. Andrews to Halifax. I appreciate the difficulty the minister has there. I should imagine his experts and those who know what can be accomplished by that concentration have told him that it would be better to move some of the departments to Halifax. I believe he has promised to consider this matter and has said that for the time being these changes will be dropped, but I would suggest to the minister that there is quite a need for biological study in the bay of Fundy. We have the Saltonstall-Kennedy legislation, which I have mentioned. I understand that vessels are being provided out of these funds and are going right into the bay of Fundy itself. It is essential that co-operation should exist, and this interest in the bay of Fundy should be continued.
Then the New Brunswick economic brief dealt with some suggestions which I should like to mention here today for the consideration of the department. First of all it mentioned that our fishing units are small, and there must be a trend toward larger units. That is difficult to accomplish. I understand that there would be difficulties owing to personal connections; but I feel-and I think nearly everybody will agree-that any concentration or centralization is desirable, and the interests of the individuals are probably looked after by the co-operatives and the other small units. In other words we do not have to fear a monopoly in the fishing industry, because these other factors limit any of the dangers of a monopoly.
Conservation has already been dealt with today by the minister himself and by other speakers. In my area there are three species of fish that are worthy of special consideration. The clam has its problems. The green crab is always bothering it; but the new clamdiggers and other inventions will in the future help us to preserve this valuable fish. Lobster is also a delicacy and enjoys quite a good market, but there are many problems connected with it. The lobster industry now has the new steel traps which are a hope for the future.
Conservation measures in the lobster industry are very controversial. I understand that a member of the department recently said, and I was quite pleased to hear him 67509-112
Supply-Fisheries
speak out, that the closures in the season have not been proved definitely of value, and there is certainly more room for experimentation there.
As the minister said, the salmon constitute our greatest challenge, and I think he meant that particularly with reference to the east coast because we are faced with a tremendous problem there. I am not sure of my information, but I read a while ago that the New Brunswick regional supervisor had retired and I understand that his replacement still remains in Halifax. While I realize that he may be just as capable an individual, we feel that an on the spot, experienced man who could give attention to the particular requirements of the salmon industry would be desirable.
Having said that much about salmon, I simply wish to say that I believe a strong decision by the department, tough as it may be, is necessary. We are coming to the day when somebody has to be hurt in the protection of our salmon interests down there and, as I say, a strong stand is necessary based on what the experts feel is best for the future of that industry. Otherwise we will just be like any other area that becomes industrialized. It will be the end of the salmon. I read the other day that the Don river in Toronto was once one of the greatest spawning grounds in North America, and I could not help but think that we are really up against time more than anything else as far as the future of this specialized industry is concerned.
Transportation has been mentioned by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, and again I should like to urge consideration of this matter. It was also mentioned in the New Brunswick brief. We need refrigerated cars and attention to these matters so that the competition we meet in the central market will be lessened and fresh fish will be enabled to go into that and other fields.
These are my thoughts, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the briefs and other information given to the Gordon commission are definitely of interest to us. I know that the department has probably taken considerable note of them, particularly the fisheries research council, and these are our hopes for the future. My own personal thoughts are somewhat the same as those of the previous speaker. I think there are little matters as far as the department is concerned that can be looked into and that research, conservation and other problems can be furthered. What we need in the fisheries field today is a little more stimulation and imagination, which the research committee could give. That would create interest

Supply-Fis heries
throughout Canada, bring about improvement with respect to our salmon, and the future of the fisheries would be secured.
In this connection I should like to say finally that in my opinion the minister's trip to Russia was certainly stimulating and imaginative. While it may have been costly, it was the kind of advertising I mean because everybody was aware that the minister was over there on matters having to do with fishing and whaling, and the trip had its good effects. We are pleased to see the minister in good health, and look forward to discussing in detail the further items of the estimates.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to add to the congratulations that have been showered on the minister. I am sure he has had enough, and at any rate he comes from British Columbia and has merely displayed the ability that we expect from a cabinet minister from British Columbia.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that one of the first matters to engage the attention of the first government of Canada was the question of protecting our fisheries from the encroachments of foreign fishermen. I suppose that struggle has gone on to some extent to the present day.
I am glad to take part in this debate because for one thing the Pacific biological station is situated at Departure Bay on the outskirts of Nanaimo, and I should like to pay tribute now to the staff of that station for the excellent work they have been doing.
A very encouraging development lately that I have come across has been the growing appreciation on the part of fishermen of the work of the scientists at the Departure Bay station. It has replaced the former rather sceptical attitude, the attitude of the practical man to the trained professional scientist. That point of view is now changing and I think this is quite largely due to the work of the staff members there. I noted last year that they went to the trouble of establishing a very interesting display at the fall fair in Nanaimo, which attracted a great deal of attention and large crowds. I have also noted the manner in which the staff members have made their services available to various local organizations through lectures on their particular subjects. It is to be hoped that the funds made available to this station will certainly not be decreased and will, if necessary, be increased. As I say, the fact that the fishermen are now realizing the value of the work will give added support to it.
I was relieved and reassured by the statements of the minister with regard to the problem of power versus fish. Whether or
fMr. Bell.]
not there is a final ultimate solution to the problem I do not know. I do not know if anybody does, but I am always rather reluctant to see sources of food supply endangered for any other purpose whatever. One of the first things we have to do is eat, and to destroy a source of food supply for a possible advantage in another field is, I think, a very shortsighted policy. I was relieved to hear the minister say that those who are interested in the development of power have how reached the conclusion that they must adapt their operations to the maintenance of our large fishing industry on the Pacific coast.
There are one or two matters I want to bring to the minister's attention at this point because I can see no other place in the estimates to do it. During his address this morning he mentioned the fact that the department has been encouraging the fishermen to fish in the deep sea waters, the open waters off the shore. I have had quite a number of discussions with fishermen in my constituency on this question. Whether or not the suspicion is well grounded I do not know, but I am reporting it to the minister. Many of them seem to feel that the department is pursuing a policy intended to result in having more of the fishing conducted on the Pacific coast by the newer type higher-powered vessels than has been the case in the past, and that one of the methods by which the department is seeking to encourage offshore fishing is by imposing ever more rigid closure seasons on the inside waters. Many of the gill netters and the trollers feel that they are in effect going to be squeezed out of the industry.
I realize, of course, as the minister does, that there is and always has been this battle of the gears going on, more efficient methods driving out less efficient methods, but on the other hand I think we have to remember what the minister told us this morning, that for many fishermen it is not merely a means of livelihood but a way of life. In that regard I know that many of them feel, whether or not it is justified, that the department's policies are endangering their continuation in that way of life.
I have also heard some complaints with regard to the effect of the beam trawlers on certain species of fish. I have heard definite complaints that they have had a most destructive effect on the ling cod supply in the enclosed waters and also on the ground-fish that my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, mentioned earlier today; that these deep trawlers are scraping the bottom of every living thing and that much of it is being destroyed. Again, that is a matter on which one would have to have expert evidence. I am reporting these things to the

minister for his consideration because these are complaints that I have heard.
There is another matter which affects not merely the Department of Fisheries but also the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I am rather glad the minister is in his seat. This matter concerns the fishing rights of Indians on rivers. I met with the council of the Cowichan band of Indians before I came east to Ottawa. They placed before me their complaint in this regard. I may say they were able to back up their claim with documentary evidence in the form of agreements signed many, many years ago, which provided that they were to be permitted to continue using weirs on the river, particularly on the Cowichan river, as had been their custom from time immemorial.
This right was abrogated, but in return they were to have certain other fishing rights which they claim they have not been granted. Many of them feel they would like now to go back to the old weir system. I tried to persuade them that was an impossible policy and would be a contradiction to any proper system of fisheries conservation. I do suggest, however, that these Indians have a legitimate grievance and there should be some compensation paid them for the forfeiture of these ancient rights which have been prescribed in definite agreements.
Those are the matters I particularly wanted to bring to the minister's attention. I was hoping that we might have heard from him, and perhaps we may hear on a later occasion, some information with regard to his inquiries into the fishing industry in Russia. I believe that would be of great interest to us. I realize it has nothing to do with the administration of his department, but I should like to express the hope he will seize the first opportunity to give us some description of the sort of industry he discovered there and his opinion as to whether or not their methods could be adapted to our own fishing industry.


Mr. Pearkes:: I cannot resist the desire to congratulate the minister on his return and restoration to good health. I am certain that his department still needs a guiding hand. There is a great deal of work to be done for the fishery industry of this country. I am sincerely delighted to see him looking so well.
During his speech this morning the minister referred, as I did on February 21, to this all-important question of power versus fish on fish-producing streams in British Columbia. This problem overshadows all other problems in so far as the fishing industry of British Columbia is concerned. The minister called attention to the value of our salmon fisheries industry, $25 million to $50 million, 67509-112J
Supply-Fisheries
but we are faced with the fact that other industries which will be developed from the power produced on our rivers exceed that amount by many, many times.
As I pointed out previously, only a very small proportion of the horsepower which is available in British Columbia is at present being utilized. There are power-hungry industries crying out and straining every nerve to find additional sources of power. Now, we can either sit down and do nothing about this, or else inaugurate a very active and vigorous program to find out how to pass the fish up and down stream over, around or through these various obstacles. There are diverters with which experiments are being conducted; there are different types of spillways, fishways and so forth. However, the problem has not so far been solved. Whether it is by light, electricity, sound or scent, a solution must be found and we cannot take half measures.
I do not think any reasonable amount of money expended in the search for a solution will be money wasted. Of course we are pleased to hear of the very generous donations which have been made to the University of British Columbia by industry to assist the federal government and the universities in finding the answer to this problem. But again, the federal government cannot sit back and leave it entirely to industry to solve the problem. I believe that under the Fisheries Act the minister has certain powers. Well, it is not the use of prohibitive powers we want, it is positive work that we must have. Having referred to this matter previously, I do not intend to pursue that subject any longer. Again I stress that it is the most important of all the problems with which we are faced.
The minister referred to the closure of San Juan strait, and that is a very serious problem for the fishermen of my constituency on Vancouver island. The fishermen from Vancouver island have been following the policy which the government suggested and have been operating farther and farther out to sea, thereby catching a better quality of fish. Now, why should we surrender that advantage? At first we thought we would have to surrender the right to fish on the Canadian side and have only fishing on the American side. I am glad that has been adjusted. I do not see why the right to catch the best quality of fish should be given up in order that second rate fish may be caught in the straits of Georgia or elsewhere. Surely some other form of conservation could be used. I am quite certain that the fishermen of

Supply

Fisheries
Vancouver island are just as anxious to conserve the fish as any other part of the industry, but that they should be asked to carry all the load is something which seems to me unfair.
Then 1 would raise this question. If you are going to put on this closure on the sock-eye, is that going to apply to the other species, the cohoe and the pink? It is extremely difficult to separate those various species because the runs are, in part, simultaneous. A person may be out fishing for pinks and inadvertently catch a spring because the runs overlap. I say, therefore, it is extremely difficult to permit the catching of one type of salmon and prohibit the catching of another type at the same time. I feel that there must be some other way in which conservation can be enforced.
Then I should like to ask whether that is going to apply to the sports fishermen as well. During the fisheries estimates last year I discussed the question of licences. There was an order in council passed which limited the type of individual who could apply for a commercial licence. We are faced with the fact that a good many people take out a licence to supplement their normal means of livelihood by catching fish commercially during a short period of time. They are business and professional men. They take their summer holidays, take out a commercial licence and go fishing. But, then there is the straight sports fisherman. Is he to be barred from fishing in those waters? If so it may have quite a serious effect upon our tourist industry. The attraction of being able to fish during the summertime in those waters brings many people to the district.
When the minister replies I wonder whether he can tell us how many licences were issued last year. According to the order in council which was passed, I believe the licences were limited to Canadian citizens or ex-members of the armed forces, and there had to be a certificate to the effect that they were engaged in catching fish for sale. These were the general qualifications. There were some other exemptions regarding British subjects who had previously been fishing and men who had been helpers.
When the minister replies I wonder whether he can give us information as to the effect of that order in council, whether the number of licences issued has been reduced in any way; whether he has found that there have been any large number of applications from people who were British subjects but not Canadians, and whether the helper clause has been conducive to getting young men to

come and enter the fishing business, sons of fishermen and so forth, which is almost a sort of apprentice class.
There is just one other point I wanted to raise. The minister referred in his final sentence to the question of the pay which fishermen receive. He called attention to the fact that fishermen were one of the more poorly paid classes of people. I am going to be unkind for a moment; I am going to tell him to look at the mote in his own eye, because his fishery officers are the poorest paid officers in any of the departments. I happen to know some of these young men who are acting as fishery officers in British Columbia. I know they are extremely conscientious and hard-working. They are out in all kinds of weather and under circumstances which are quite trying, on account of the fact that often they have to get wet, and go through the bush and up and down the streams at all times of the year, sometimes in very severe weather.
I want to call the minister's attention to these figures which I jotted down this morning. I have taken only one of the junior grades, grade III fishery officer. His salary ranges from $3,870 to $4,260. A grade III commissioner in the civil service starts at $4,290. In the Department of Citizenship and Immigration a grade III officer runs from $4,750 to $5,500; whereas a grade III field officer in the Department of Agriculture, which is somewhat similar, starts at $4,110 and goes up to $4,500, and in another branch of the same department from $4,170 to $4,920.
Perhaps the minister would take that up with the civil service commission. I bring to his attention the fact that his own officers are poorly paid. I know they do good work. I speak feelingly in connection with that. Perhaps if he can bring his field officers in line with the field officers of similar grades in other services it might stimulate an increase all through the industry. We have to raise the standard of the fisheries department and the fishery industry, and not have it regarded as a depressed and poorly paid industry. We cannot make progress if we continue to accept that condition.
In his remarks the minister did not give us the conclusion which had been reached in connection with the prolonged meetings which have been going on in Washington or New York regarding the fur seal. We do not seem to have received any answer. I am glad that after all these years it is now recognized that there are others who feel that perhaps there are too many fur seals. I called attention to that some years ago and I did not get very favourable response. I am pleased that this has been noted.

Then, of course, there is the age old question of the 3-mile limit. We want that settled as far as Hecate straits and the waters around the Queen Charlotte islands are concerned. We are told again that there have been commissions sitting on it. We would like to hear the results of the commissions' work rather than the mere fact that they are sitting. We have been told that they have been sitting for at least three years. Surely they must have reached some conclusion.


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: Mr. Chairman, rather than repeat what has been said to the Minister of Fisheries I will just tell him what one of the fishermen said to me when he heard of his accident which took place in Russia, as you know, last summer. He said to me, "Tell him that just at the time when at last we really have someone who is more interested in fisheries than any other minister we ever had-" and I will leave out a few other words- "they have ruined our chances forever". I think that expresses pretty well the feelings of the fishermen of the area, and certainly it expresses the feelings of the members of the house who have spoken today.
I should like to draw the attention of the committee to one fact, and I do it particularly for the benefit of some of my fellow Nova Scotians who, because of their innate modesty-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


James Ralph Kirk: -rather hesitate-I am referring to other Nova Scotians-to refer to the amount of fish that is caught in their province or in their constituencies, or the value of the fish. But thanks to a question put on the order paper by the hon. member for Halifax it was drawn to the attention of the house that in the western part of Nova Scotia, in the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, the constituency in fact which my friend who just made the interjection is very proud of-I understand that although he did not have the honour of being born there his ancestors came from there-more fish are landed than in any other constituency in Nova Scotia, and their landed value in dollars is greater than in any other constituency in Nova Scotia. I thank the hon. member for Halifax for having brought that to the attention of the house.
There are three or four items I should like to mention, which have been mentioned by the Minister of Fisheries. I do not intend to speak at any length, but I would like to mention first of all to what our fishermen generally refer to as the insurance plan, but
Supply-Fisheries which I notice the Department of Fisheries refers to as the indemnity plan. They can call it what they like. As far as we are concerned it is an excellent plan, and our people were most appreciative when it was established. It has been very successful as far as I can find out on both coasts, and particularly in my own area in so far as insurance on vessels and boats is concerned, but it has not been so successful in so far as insurance or indemnity on lobster traps is concerned.
I have talked to a great many fishermen. Many of them have taken advantage of it and they have spoken to others about it, but there still seems to be a certain group of fishermen who do not wish to take advantage of such an indemnity plan although I do not understand why. It is an excellent plan, the rates are not high and the protection is worth a great deal. Perhaps the greatest evidence we had of that was at the time of the hurricane in September, 1954, when so many boats were damaged and so many traps lost.
I should like to say to the minister that by and large even those who have not taken advantage of this plan think it is a good one, uud I do hope that as time goes on more fishermen will take advantage of this plan.
When the minister brought into the house his bill for fisheries improvement loans he mentioned that it was impossible to do this until such time as such an insurance or indemnity plan had been established. I realize that this bill which was only introduced last June has not been in effect long enough for us to be certain what its effect will be, but here again the reports are most favourable and I hope when the minister replies to the various questions and comments that have been made he will give us some idea of how many fishermen have taken advantage of this act, and what loans have been made. Perhaps he will say whether or not he feels, as we in our area do, that its success is assured and that over a period of two or three years it will mean to the fishermen what the Farm Improvement Loans Act has meant to the farmer after the first two or three years of its operation.
So far as the salt fish rebate is concerned I am very much inclined to agree with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I think the plan has been a good one. I know that our fishermen object to some of the forms that have to be filled in-perhaps I should say the forms which have to be completed-but I have never seen anyone who has a form to complete who has not felt that the form was too long and too complicated. The main point, however, is that the idea was good and

Supply-Fisheries
it may well be that there will be a different percentage for the light cured fish.
The question concerning territorial waters, which I have mentioned on several occasions, has been mentioned two or three times today.
I do not know that any answer can be given at the present time, but I have done quite a bit of reading on the matter and I must confess that the more I read the more I realize the complications in the problem. I liked the phrase which I read in one of the fisheries bulletins which went something like this: "The legal position in relation to the breadth of territorial waters therefore remains unsatisfactory." I cannot think of a nicer way of expressing what has been the cause of a great disturbance to all of us over a period of years with reference to the 3-mile limit and the 12-mile limit and the bit of water between the 3-mile limit and the 12-mile limit which our trawlers cannot make use of but which United States trawlers can. It is some satisfaction to all of us to know that the matter is being studied, that the Curtis commission has reported that the international law commission recognizes that the practice is not uniform throughout the world, and that some attempt is being made to meet what is a difficult situation.
May I say to the minister that in my constituency there are three or four fish firms that have taken advantage of the bait freezer assistance. They think the plan is an excellent one, and I should like to see more of the smaller fishing plants in the smaller communities take advantage of such a plan. I think they would do so if they realized the amount of good that such a plan can accomplish, the number of fishermen who could make use of it and not have to travel 8, 12 or 15 miles by road or water in order to get their bait. I think there must be some way of simplifying the procedure through which we must go in order to obtain assistance for the establishment of a bait freezer. Perhaps I should not say the procedure should be simplified; I perhaps should have said that it needs to be expedited.
In talking with the fishermen at home during the last few months I have found that more and more they are becoming keenly interested in the protection service, particularly with reference to lobsters. Suggestions are being made by those in the fishing business, as well as the fishermen themselves, that this should be done and that it should be done in order to protect the lobster fisheries and in order to give a greater yield over a period of years.
Not long ago the Minister of Fisheries made an announcement concerning restrictions on the mesh size of the trawl fishing nets, and

it has met with general approval. 1 think over a period of years conservation and protection have been meeting with general approval; and what is more important than anything else, it is meeting with the approval of those who are directly concerned, that is those who are actually doing the fishing themselves.
In conversation with members of the Department of Fisheries and with the minister himself over a period of two or three years, I have pointed out to this department that it is felt on our coast where we have the largest number of small-boat fishermen of any area in Nova Scotia, that we should have at least one larger fishery patrol vessel. I know there is one fairly large vessel which covers all the coast. We have all the smaller vessels and there is no question about the work that is being done by them; but the fishermen feel, particularly at the western end of Nova Scotia, that if we could have one large vessel 125 feet long which could be used more or less as a mother vessel along with the smaller boats in that area, and which could be used in times of emergency when the small fishing boats are broken down, it would be much more effective.
At the present moment it is difficult for the 65-foot patrol boats to get out in very bad weather, and that does seem to be the time when the fishing boats break down. When we look for a navy vessel or a transport vessel they are always so far away from the scene of the emergency that they do not prove very successful at the particular time. I am suggesting that our present plan of air-sea rescue could be improved greatly if we were to have one, two or three 120-foot or 125-foot patrol boats. I think I made it quite clear when speaking directly to the Minister of Fisheries that the people of western Nova Scotia are sure that when he makes that move he will find the most advantageous place for one of these larger vessels will be at the southwestern end of Nova Scotia.
I might ask the minister, while I am directing questions particularly to him, if he will give the house some idea of the success of the metal lobster traps with which the department has been experimenting in my own constituency.
I do not think even these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, should end without making reference to the fact that the Department of Fisheries is always in close touch with the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport to find out from those departments and from the fishermen themselves their actual needs. For example, we can give assistance in protection and in marketing; we can give assistance and advice in

so far as the construction of boats is concerned, but all that is of little value to us if we do not have the proper wharves and breakwaters and the necessary dredging done in order that the fishermen can set out from those piers and wharves in order to get their catch. The same applies to the Department of Transport, which is concerned with channel marking, lights, fog alarms and so on.
I must say with due appreciation that all the officials of the departments I have just mentioned with whom I have been in contact have not only been most interested in their jobs but have been most courteous. I find in talking with the fishermen that they too appreciate the attitude of these departments. I do not think there is any better evidence of that than the attitude which is apparent from the top of the department right down to the lowest echelon. We hope that same forward looking policy which has been so much in evidence in the last few years will continue during the next few years.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to congratulate the minister upon being back safely, and hope that he will have good health from now on. I spoke to him when he came back but in case anyone should think I was missing him I do so again.
Perhaps I have no place in a discussion about fish because the fisheries in Manitoba are run by the Manitoba government, but I have always been greatly interested in fishing. I can remember back in 1900 or 1901 when I went out with fishermen on the Firth of Clyde fishing for herring, and I have never lost that desire to go out in a boat every chance I get.
I think the minister knows what I am going to talk about. I have always been interested in the co-operative fund which I know has been a boon and blessing to a lot of fishermen. I have made a visit or two to the east coast and I know the wonderful job that is being done. I notice there is an item in the estimates of $10,000 for British Columbia. I do not begrudge that in the least, but I would like to see some of this education being made available to the fishermen of the prairie provinces. It would be a wonderful thing if arrangements could be made to provide some of these educational facilities, because I know they would make good use of them.
I understood from the minister last year that fishermen's loans are now available to the fishermen of the prairie provinces. When the minister closes this debate I hope he will tell us about the indemnity fund. I know that would be a boon to the fishermen on lake
Supply-Fisheries
Winnipeg and lake Manitoba. It would be a great help to them if they could have insurance for their boats. As a rule fishermen are not great on insurance, and they have never had the opportunity of getting cheap insurance. I do not know whether this comes from the department, but I presume it would come out of the consolidated revenue fund. I should like to see this extended to the prairies. I believe the problem last year was lack of staff but perhaps that can be overcome.
When the minister rises to speak would he tell us what progress is being made with the film that was being prepared on the northern lakes, where fishing conditions are similar to those on lake Winnipeg. Has the film been completed and will it be available this summer or fall for exhibition purposes?
I may say something more on the particular items, but will conclude now by congratulating the minister upon the paper he and his officials are putting out. It is a good paper, and it is an economical paper because it is printed on both sides.
(Translation) ;


Mr. Van Horne:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to speak of an increasingly serious condition, the disappearance of salmon from our rivers, like the Restigouche and its tributaries, along the shores of New Brunswick. Salmon is deserting our rivers and the federal government is not doing anything to remedy the situation. In this case, as in so many instances, it prefers to remain inactive.
I simply ask the government to launch an immediate investigation to determine what steps could be taken to restock the rivers of eastern Canada with salmon.
I also ask the government to take at once whatever means may be necessary to remedy the situation as a result of the inquiry.
Admittedly, past investigations into the economic development of the maritimes were followed by practical and helpful recommendations. There can be no doubt that if the federal government had acted upon the recommendations made as a result of such investigations, people in the maritimes would no longer suffer from the chronic economic depression which is driving our young men away from home and which compels too many of our citizens to live in an unbelievable and pitiable state of poverty unknown elsewhere in the country.
I ask that the investigation into the disappearance of salmon from our shores and

Supply-Fisheries
rivers be made with the firm intent to implement without delay resulting recommendations.
Moreover, why is the government penalizing our fishermen, like our farmers and farmhands, by depriving them of the benefits of unemployment insurance? Would the government deny that our fishermen, farmers and bushworkers are among the hardest working people in this country? From early morning until late at night, they spare no effort. The government agrees with that, but has neither the courage nor enough sense of duty to give justice to our fishermen and to our farmers, by extending to them the benefits of unemployment insurance. I urge the government to be fair, honest and loyal towards our fishermen, our farmers and their employees by making them eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
I also ask the Department of Fisheries to put an end to its policy of discrimination as far as the restocking of lakes and rivers is concerned. I can prove that our good liberals have no trouble at all getting their lakes restocked with trout at no cost while any other group or person has to pay for that service.
I have given the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) some striking examples of that. I simply ask that the restocking of all our lakes, private and otherwise, and of all our rivers, with trout and other fish be carried out at no cost to the owners.
I also ask that a fishway be constructed at Grand Falls to allow the salmon and other fish to go up the Saint John river, which separates the United States and Canada. We all agree that the project would allow salmon to make their way to the top of Grand Falls. The minister himself, in a letter to me, apprized me of the fact that it would only be a matter of stocking the upper reaches of the Saint John river to ensure that the salmon would make their way up the river through this fishway.
I would also ask that a fish-breeding station be established immediately at St. Leonard, New Brunswick, to ensure the restocking of the lakes and rivers in Mada-waska.
I hope that the Minister of Fisheries, now that his health is improved, may be able to look after the affairs of his department more actively. I was deeply concerned by the most unfortunate mishap he had during his trip in Russia.
I invite him to make a tour, or even several tours, in my province to see for himself the pitiable and inexcusable condi-

tions his department tolerates in the northern part of New Brunswick.
(Text);
I do not wish to repeat in English what I have just said in French, save to bring to the attention of the house that our once great salmon fishing industry in our northern New Brunswick rivers is fast disappearing. I request that an immediate survey be made to determine the causes of the disappearance of our salmon, and I request that the recommendations resulting from this survey be implemented without delay.
In regard to salmon fishing, as in regard to almost everything else in the maritimes, we have been treated with the customary indifference, indolence and apathy so characteristic of the federal government. I ask the government to wake up and recognize the seriousness of this problem, which demands immediate attention and action.
For many a year the salmon fishing seasons on our famous rivers, such as the Restigouche, the Upsalquitch, the Kedgwick, were times of great activity and employment. All these rivers are heavy-laden with tradition, story and song. Many of our professional guides on these rivers enjoy international reputations. These famous rivers have played host to great anglers from all corners of the world. This once great sporting industry faces utter ruin unless action is taken, and taken now.
In this instance, as in so many others, such as in the development of hydroelectric power in New Brunswick, such as in the long overdue restoration of our confederation-guaranteed preferential freight rates, which have been permitted to rise 98 per cent since 1947, as in the building of the Chignecto canal, and as in so many other things, the government gives the impression that it considers us in the maritime provinces to be merely so many people in the way and that it would be happy to be rid of us.


An hon. Member:: What nonsense!


An hon. Member:: Only some people.


Ralph Byron Horner: Let me say this. We are a part of Canada and we will be treated as Canadians. I say again and again and again, give us a square deal or quit. If this government cannot help us in regard to this particular problem, then let it stand aside and let us pass, to claim the heritage for our people that this great country can and will provide, just as soon as we have replaced this tired, old, weary government with the type of progressive government which only the Conservative party can provide.


Mr. Slick:: I only have a few moments. I have listened to the tirade from the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, who blames this government for almost everything. When we came into confederation a certain gentleman who was very prominent here in Ottawa said to me, "I hope you do not make the same mistake those in the mari-times make who for the past 80 years, since they joined confederation, have been grousing about it."


George Clyde Nowlan: They did not join confederation-


Leonard T. Stick: May I say to the hon. member that, if he and the people of the maritimes show a little more energy themselves, probably they will get the treatment from Ottawa that they deserve.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: There are again several divorce bills on the order paper. Is it the wish of hon. members that they all be taken in one motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we should take them one at a time.



MARTHA BAILLY MAHER

Mr. C. E. Bennett (for Mr. Hunter) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 124, for the relief of Martha Bailly Maher.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



HELENA ROY BUCKLAND

Colin Emerson Bennett: the second reading of Bill No. 125, for the relief of Helena Roy Buckland.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



SYBIL VIOLET GODFREY RUSSELL

Colin Emerson Bennett: the second reading of Bill No. 139, for the relief of Sybil Violet Godfrey Russell.
Private Bills


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



ROSLYN YAGOD KIVENKO BELKIN

Colin Emerson Bennett: the second reading of Bill No. 141, for the relief of Roslyn Yagod Kivenko Belkin.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Is
it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



JESSIE MACFARLANE BOYLE ROBERTS

Colin Emerson Bennett: the second reading of Bill No. 143, for the relief of Jessie MacFarlane Boyle Roberts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Is
it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



QUEBEC NORTH SHORE AND LABRADOR RAILWAY COMPANY

Mr. Lomer Brisson (Saguenay) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 148, respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have an explanation by the sponsor?
(Translation) :


Lomer Brisson: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Lomer Brisson: -the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company was incorporated by an act of parliament in 1947. Under that act it was granted the privilege of building a railway line which was to run from Seven Islands harbour, on the St. Lawrence, to Ungava bay. Since then the said company has built a 355-mile line to Schefferville. I had the opportunity of looking over that line, and I can say that it is equal to any railway line in Canada.
The company has spent $125 million on building that railroad and another amount of $125 million on different facilities for the

Private Bills
mining of iron ore in Ungava. In 1955 the Iron Ore Company was already shipping 8,200,000 tons of ore from Seven Islands harbour and expects to ship 12 million tons in 1957.
The company has not yet completed construction of the railway up to Ungava bay and that is precisely why it is asking the house, by means of this bill, for a further 10 year delay in order to complete its construction.
I therefore propose that this bill be given second reading and that it be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, for consideration. There, members of the house wishing to have more details could obtain all information from the vice-president of the company, when he appears before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you very much.
(Text):


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the explanation of the hon. member for Saguenay with a great deal of interest but very little comprehension. However, I imagine he would be at the same disadvantage if I addressed the house in my mother tongue, which is Gaelic, so I make no apologies for not understanding him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go ahead.


Clarence Gillis: The records of the house will show that in 1947, when the first bill was passed to permit the present company to build a railroad from Seven Islands through to Knob Lake I took objection to it on second reading. My objection was that the development of the natural resources of this country is contingent upon transportation, and as we had already decided to farm out the iron ore resources of part of Newfoundland and the Ungava region to companies largely controlled in the United States I figured at that time that the government of Canada should at least have the Canadian National Railways build the transportation line from Seven Islands up to where it is today around Knob Lake or Schefferville.
In the past our experience has been that while capital can be found by private companies to go into an area where there are natural resources to be exploited, the history of the Canadian National Railways shows very clearly that once the resource is exploited and there is no longer sufficient remuneration for the railroad to show a substantial profit, the squeeze is then on for Canadian National Railways to take over and maintain the service. We have loaded down that system with debt for a good many years, with the result that it was pretty well ham-[Mr. Brisson.l
strung until the government stepped in and accepted the responsibility. The unfortunate part of the whole thing is that when we have to take over a railroad we take over the bonds at par and assume all the financial responsibility as if it was a going concern, rather than letting it go into liquidation in the way that any other legitimate business would be treated in the event of bankruptcy.
Once you establish a railroad it has to be maintained. Service has to be given to the public whether it is profitable or otherwise to do so. The iron ore deposits are a wasting resource. All mining operations are. The ore is taken out and sooner or later the resource is depleted. If this should be the only industry or resource in the area and the time should come that the railroad is no longer profitable, then the C.N.R. will be saddled with its operation.
Part of the road has already been built. Some 355 miles have been completed and put in operation. Iron ore is being taken out, and the railroad is performing the service for which it was intended. But there are still 300 miles of the line to be completed from Knob lake to Ungava bay. Some $123 million has been spent already in developing the line that has been completed and it would appear that it will take that much, if not more, to complete the rest.
Of course exploration has not been completed in the area that the road under consideration now will serve, and no one is sure exactly what will be found. Nevertheless these people want to proceed with the line. In view of the fact that the company already has over 300 miles of line, some considerable mileage of which is in Quebec and some in Labrador, I think the government should still consider while we are discussing the principle of this bill if we should not retain some rights for the Canadian people in that area.
The iron ore deposits are in the hands of United States companies. I have talked to people who have been in the area, and these companies are doing as they like with respect to the maintenance of towns and so forth. In my opinion the future of the North American continent is based on steel, and the sections of this continent that have the basic steel industries in their hands for the foreseeable future are the people who are going to run this North American continent.
Today the Canadian people have not any stake in that part of the country. In view of the fact that 355 miles of that line are owned by United States companies and the whole resource so far as iron ore deposits are concerned is in the hands of United States companies, I think this government should consider the possibility of having the Canadian National Railways complete that end

of the line so as to retain something in that area in the right of the Canadian people.
I am surprised from time to time to hear members of this house, particularly Liberal members-and you hear this outside of this house most frequently-state that they would rather see our resources in the hands of outside interests than in the hands of the Canadian government. I would rather see our resources in the hands of the Canadian government than in the hands of United States financiers who have no responsibility in this country and are not answerable to anyone except to the extent that they are answerable through bills similar to this for the exploitation of our resources, building railroads and so forth.
I have told Liberal members, "You would rather see the resources in the hands of people who are not answerable to you." Is it not better to have transportation which is opening up a part of the country, and the resources, in the hands of men like the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Fisheries, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, who once every four years have to give an account of their stewardship to the Canadian people. If they are not doing right the people can do something about it. But when you farm out the resources for 10, 15 or 20 years and they are in the hands of people who are not answerable to the people of this country, then in my judgment you are asking for trouble and sooner or later you are going to get it.
I think transportation, as exemplified by the Canadian National Railways today, where management has to come before a committee of this house to give an account of their financial arrangements and their plans for the future, is the proper kind of development in the field of natural resources. Transportation presupposes the development of a certain section of the country. I think the section of the country about which we are now talking is going to be a very important section. We are pushing into one of our last frontiers in that particular area. I believe at least 50 per cent of the capital invested in the development of the resources and in the construction of the railway should be held by the government of this country, through the Bank of Canada, in the right of the Canadian people. Then the Canadian people would be in a position legally to talk to those to whom we farm out our resources.
I do not intend to belabour this point, because I have put it on the record time and time again. I do feel that before the bill about which we are now talking passes, perhaps some consideration should be given by the house to the advisability of the government having the Canadian National Railways 67509-113J
Private Bills
develop that new area that has not been explored as yet. Then we would at least hold a transportation line in that 300 miles in the right of the Canadian people.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 151, to incorporate Hydrocarbons Pipeline Limited.
He said: This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, to incorporate Hydrocarbons Pipeline Limited. There is nothing unusual about it. It follows the usual form of bills that have been introduced and passed from time to time in recent years having to do with the transportation of oil or gas in pipe lines. All the first directors of the company are residents of the city of Winnipeg. The head office of the new company will be in Calgary. When the bill is passed the company will come under the provisions of the Pipe Lines Act. This is being promoted by Canadians. Hydrocarbons Limited was incorporated in 1955 by letters patent under the dominion Companies Act.
At the moment this company, that is Canadian Hydrocarbons Limited, is engaged through subsidiaries in the distribution of propane and butane throughout western Canada, and in western Ontario. Canadian Hydrocarbons Limited proposes to take a substantial interest in the equity capital of the new company. The new company is to be formed for the purpose of constructing and operating a products pipe line between the province of Alberta and the city of Winnipeg in Manitoba, with a possible extension to the head of the lakes. The products to be transported will be liquid petroleum gas products such as propane and butane, and it is planned that the line will be of 6 to 8 inches in diameter.
I think it might be of interest to hon. members at this point if I outlined the petroleum scale. You have heard many pipe-line bills discussed in recent years, petroleum pipe lines, natural gas pipe lines, and now here is a company which proposes a pipe line with a much smaller gauge and transporting something a little different. At the lower end of the petroleum scale you have asphalt and heavy petroleum, varying in specific gravities up to the lighter petroleum distillate and so on until you get to kerosene. Then lighter still is gasoline with which everyone is familiar. Not many are familiar with the fact that next on the scale from gasoline is naphtha.

Private Bills
Then you come up to the borderline between liquids and gases, in which field are butane and propane. Finally, the top of the scale is dry, natural gas. The heavier petroleum products, of course, occupy the largest share in the scale and they require-I believe the Interprovincial pipe line is somewhat less than 20 inches and Trans-Canada pipe line about which we have heard so much and which will carry natural gas, is supposed to be 30 to 36 inches.
In the early days of the Turner field their production only went down as far as naphtha. There was no true gasoline taken from that field. Later on, about 1930, they struck the lower part of the scale. What came out of the ground there was a wet gas that had to be put through separating machines and the naphtha was separated out. This naphtha, without any further processing, was used in the same way that you would use gasoline. The farmers in Alberta would go to the wells and buy the naphtha which was separated from the wet gas and use it in their tractors. It was pretty hot for automobiles, but many of them used it in their cars. The remainder, which included the products I am speaking of, butane and propane, and the gas, at that time was burned and wasted in that way.
This gas would be let off through a standby pipe that would be probably 5 or 6 feet high and perhaps 3 inches in diameter, and it looked just like a big bunsen burner. That gas flame showed up like a bunsen burner flame. It shot up just about as high as the top of this chamber, and day after day the flames at nearly every well would be burning away and you could see the reflection of those flares in the sky a hundred miles away. That gas was power, and this was a waste of something that was essential to all industry. Fortunately, as time has gone by that waste no longer takes place. All the gas will be transported to the various parts of the country where it will be put to useful work. This bill takes care of the last field, that field that is, depending on the pressure, either gas or liquid.
I am sure all hon. members have seen the bottles of this product that are shipped all over for use in stoves. It can be used as tractor fuel, except that it is a little bulkier and harder to handle than gasoline, but it acts just as a gasoline. It complements the use of natural gas. It also has to be removed from natural gas before the gas can be shipped. It will be removed at the well head, stored and transported by this small-gauge pipe line to Winnipeg and later to the head of the lakes. It is expected that the
TMr. Weaver.]
line will go roughly via Edmonton, North Battleford, Saskatoon, Brandon and Winnipeg.
The investment required for the construction, together with the gathering system and storage facilities, will be between $30 and $35 million, with an additional expenditure of about $20 million for the possible extension of the line from Winnipeg to Fort William. This latter figure also includes the additional storage facilities.
Hon. members can see that when the last products of the wells' production are put to work it will mean a saving to all the gas and oil companies in two ways. It will mean that the producers will be able to get a better price for their products at the well head, and it will also mean that the processing companies, such as the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, will be able to get natural gas at a better price at the well head and everyone, both producer and consumer, will benefit from it.
As with all other private bills, this bill will automatically be sent to one of the standing committees, in this case the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Competent officials of the company will be present to answer any questions of a technical nature that hon. members might wish to pose.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, just before this bill passes second reading may I say I appreciate the fact that the hon. gentleman has moved the bill because it is standing in his name today, but it is quite a bill. When I look at the powers to be conferred by this particular bill I find they are exceedingly wide and large.
The house has been asked to adopt the principle of this bill without knowing anything about it. When I say "without knowing anything about it" I mean it is the last bill placed at least on my file. It has been before the gentlemen of the other place; I see it was passed by them on February 29, and it reached here I think today. Probably it was placed on my file this morning, so that one has not had even a chance to read the powers that are conferred. If hon. members will look at the powers they will see that they are very wide, very comprehensive and embrace almost anything that a company could wish to do, including the operation of airfields, the building of towns, the control of real estate, the subdivision of property and every other thing that is conceivable.
Personally, before I give consent to the second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that we should have an opportunity to look it over. I would

like to read, as a matter of fact, what the mover and the hon. gentlemen in the other place had to say about it. This is a bill that contemplates a $35 million project with the possible expenditure of another $20 million. This $55 million project has been brought in this afternoon without any opportunity for hon. members to read the provisions of the bill or at least study the representations that have been made.
It is true that it goes to a standing committee of the house. That is all right; but once we adopt the principle of the bill we give a certain approval to it. Before we are asked to do that, Mr. Speaker, we should at least have some opportunity of looking into the matter. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate so we may do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Is it
the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: In
my opinion the yeas have it.
On motion of Mr. Coldwell the debate was adjourned.



LILLIAN HANNAH MAXWELL GALLANT

Mr. S. R. Balcom (for Mr. Hunter) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 152, for the relief of Lillian Hannah Maxwell Gallant.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, just before this bill is read the second time I should say that I have perused the evidence very carefully and I must congratulate Their Honours who have been working on this case. His Honour Senator Gershaw was the chairman of the committee, and he was assisted by Senators Burchill, Cameron and Fergusson.
In this case, as in the case of so many of the divorces which come before us, we find that the excessive use of intoxicating liquor has been one of the main factors in wrecking this family. The petitioner mentioned that during the first year they were married everything went along very well, but her husband was away from town a good deal and started coming home under the influence of liquor and things went from bad to worse, until the case reached us.
Private Bills
I am sure that Their Honours the senators have not the time nor the facilities to do anything about this particular case, but the interest they have taken in examining the witnesses would indicate that this is a matter of real concern, and we share the sympathy of Their Honours the senators who heard the evidence of the petitioner as she appeared before the senate committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read' the second time.



GORDON MACKAY BUTLER

Samuel Rosborough Balcom: the second reading of Bill No. 153, for the relief of Gordon MacKay Butler.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



ELEANOR JODELIS MILIUS

Samuel Rosborough Balcom: the second reading of Bill No. 154, for the relief of Eleanor Jodelis Milius.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



MARIE MADELEINE RACHEL GREGOIRE SHANK

Samuel Rosborough Balcom: the second reading of Bill No. 155, for the relief of Marie Madeleine Rachel Gregoire Shank.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



SHIRLEY MILDRED GLAZERMAN WOLFE

Samuel Rosborough Balcom: the second reading of Bill No. 156, for the relief of Shirley Mildred Glazerman Wolfe.

Private Bills


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



DOROTHY JEAN MIDKIFF DESNOYERS

Samuel Rosborough Balcom: the second reading of Bill No. 157, for the relief of Dorothy Jean Midkiff Desnoyers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



LORINC ORVOS NAGY

['That items numbered 92 to 115 inclusive of the main estimates 1956-57, be withdrawn from the committee of supply, and referred to the standing\n1786\tHOUSE OF\nCommittees of the House\ncommittee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.']
Samuel Rosborough Balcom: the second reading of Bill No. 158, for the relief of Lorinc Orvos Nagy.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: 
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in support of what has been said by my colleague I might mention that the solicitor for the petitioner seemed to assume that if adultery were established the divorce would be granted automatically. At page 22 of the evidence the petitioner's lawyer had this to say:
What has it got to do with this hearing supposing her husband did beat her, the proper thing to do would have been to take a separation action before the court in Montreal.


William Alfred Robinson: If they separated by reason of acts of cruelty on his part, it is a ground for us refusing to grant the divorce.
Later on the counsel had this to say:
Supposing he did beat her once and then she left the house in 1954, would that excuse adultery? We are here before this honourable committee on a question of adultery-on a divorce matter, which is granted on adultery being proven, and unless you can prove to us that our man is not coming here with clean hands, well all right.
I understand that this is the first contested case which has come to our attention this year. The principle was established last year that we did not necessarily have to grant a divorce even though adultery was claimed and proved. I think if this wife had been suing for divorce she would have had no trouble in submitting evidence that would have warranted the other house recommending that a divorce be granted, but her lawyer did not come here with that in mind. However, the questions which he asked the petitioner I think would establish in the minds of most fair-minded people that the husband had no business coming to parliament with his sort of record and taking up the time of members of the Senate and of this house in reviewing the evidence which is available to all those who care to read it.
Private Bills
I hope that our colleagues from the province of Quebec will not merely sit out this particular vote but will support the motion for the six months' hoist.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that my hon. friends of the opposition seem to have discovered a new principle of law.


An hon. Member:: What opposition?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is only one real opposition.


Walter Edward Harris: I beg your pardon; that some hon. members of the opposition seem to have discovered a new principle of law which has been drawn to the attention of counsel for the applicant in this case. I listened to the hon. member for Mackenzie read portions of the evidence, and as far as I could follow them I have no quarrel with the statements that were made. There has been more than one case in which adultery has been proved on both sides where a divorce has been granted. Because of the nature of the circumstances the divorce was granted. It may well be that hon. members may object that where there is adultery on both sides there should be no divorce granted no matter what the circumstances may be, but I would point out that that is not necessarily the guiding rule.
From what I have heard this afternoon, there were perhaps some unhappy occasions between the two parties in this particular case regardless of the question of adultery. I was not able to follow the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in his reference to the $100 a month. I understood him to say that the husband had offered the wife this money to remain in the household but had not paid it to her until she had left the household. I am not too familiar with the nature of the difficulty there.
But let us suppose that this is a case where there has been marital trouble, where in fact the husband may be assumed to have been guilty of adultery himself. There is an undoubted right on the part of parliament to reject the application, and no one quarrels with that. But the point made by the hon. member for Mackenzie is that this man should have his application rejected because he seems to have been guilty of some form of misdemeanor, be it adultery or otherwise.
I think perhaps the hon. member is being a little premature.
Any citizen of Canada has the right to come here with a petition, and we ought to judge that petition on its merits and not on the merits of the petitioner. I think the hon. member will agree with me that that is so. It may well be that a person guilty

Private Bills
of a misdemeanour will petition this parliament in order to establish his rights, and surely my hon. friend would not suggest that because there has been a misdemeanor the petition should be rejected on that ground alone.
For that reason I wonder if the motion has been made with full consideration of what we are supposed to do in the House of Commons. Are we not supposed to pass on the merits of the petition for divorce after consideration in committee? My understanding always has been that the purpose of second reading-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question before he leaves that phase of the matter? I understand that from the minister's point of view a person guilty of a misdemeanor may seek certain rights, but is it not so that in this instance the alleged right which the husband seeks would cause suffering so far as the wife is concerned, in that she would be denied certain moneys to which she is now entitled? Do not both sides of the matter have to be considered?


Walter Edward Harris: I have never understood that in hearing a petition before parliament we would not hear arguments on both sides. If in this case the wife has a certain right with respect to moneys, as has been suggested, that right no doubt would be taken into account by the committee, and probably was taken into account in the other place. If it was not, I suppose it was because it was not presented to them. If I have not made the answer my hon. friend expected I would be glad if he would try to clarify for me what he is trying to suggest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the minister has not caught the point I was trying to make. My point is that in granting the request that has been made my hon. friends who have read this case feel that a wrong would be done to the wife. Does not that have to be taken into consideration by the house before we can entertain the minister's argument about granting a person his alleged rights?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not suggest that giving second reading here was a decision in favour of the husband with respect to the wife. I do not think anyone has suggested that second reading of the divorce bill does that. In fact I recall that in discussion, the last time we spoke of divorce bills in this house, it was said and repeated, I think, by Mr. Speaker that on second reading what we said in this house was that, assuming that subsequent investigation did in fact establish what was asserted in the petition, then we

might grant third reading to a bill. Perhaps I have not expressed it as elegantly as others might do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was an unfinished discussion. It would depend on how far one reads citation 769 in Beauchesne's third edition.


Walter Edward Harris: That may be so, but I have always been given to understand that that is the principle in second reading of private bills brought before the house. If my hon. friend wants to discuss the matter with Mr. Speaker on another occasion, I have no objection to him doing so, but while I have been here I have never thought that I was obliged, after second reading, to approve a private bill in committee, and much less was I committed to giving third reading to it by the mere fact that we had given second reading.
I would not delay the house unduly, but quite apparently the citation does in fact refer to the conditional nature of second reading.
. . . the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill-
The principle, quite obviously, is that a divorce may be granted. It goes on to say:
-conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read on.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be glad to do so:
Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the house will not consent to the second reading;
I think there has been a confusion in the thinking of hon. members opposite. Perhaps I am doing them an injustice. I know there are members in the house who in principle will not vote for a divorce bill because they disapprove of divorce as such, as a matter of conscience. That is one thing, but what is cited in the rule I have just read is a wholly different thing. What is in the rule here is the principle of granting divorce in itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Our concern is over the principle of this bill.


Walter Edward Harris: The principle of this bill is to grant a divorce if the facts are proven to the committee. It is not a decision in principle that the divorce should be granted. There is a great deal of difference between the two. I think my hon. friends opposite might sometimes just give a little consideration to whether or not they do oppose all divorce bills. I have heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre say "on division" every time we have passed a bill this session and probably on earlier occasions. I have never heard him say in this house that he

was opposed to all divorce. It he is opposed to all divorce, I can understand his action. If he is not opposed to all divorce, I cannot understand it, except on a basis which I would not impute to my hon. friend under any circumstances in this house.


An hon. Member:: What, never?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister knows to what I am registering opposition when I oppose individual divorce bills.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain for the benefit of the rest of us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration knows too.


James Sinclair: I do not know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the Minister of Fisheries knows too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure you it is a genuine desire for information on my part.


Walter Edward Harris: Could I give my hon. friend the opportunity merely to answer my question? Is this a matter of principle? Is he by conscience bound to oppose all divorce?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not capable of talking for another three minutes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am capable of speaking a good deal longer, but there is not very much purpose in speaking on this question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the minister is going to speak anyway, perhaps I can make it clear that every time a divorce comes up we are opposed to the principle of parliament dealing with such divorces.


Walter Edward Harris: On that point then, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that every member of parliament is entitled to take any view he likes about the British North America Act; that it should not be enforced or it should not be operative in parliament. I take it
Committees of the House Mr. Knowles: I am helping the minister out, because there are only two minutes left.


An hon. Member:: They are both breaking the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not aware
that other lawyers believe that the provision in the British North America Act providing that parliament would make general rules concerning divorce was made with no notion that we would be handling individual divorce cases?


Leonard T. Stick: I rise on a point of order. I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, are in the chair and we are not in the committee of supply. The hon. gentlemen who have been speaking have been talking back and forth to each other and not addressing the Chair at all.


Walter Edward Harris: I apologize at once, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that there have been two views taken of that section of the British North America Act. I suppose that as a so-called reformer he would like to undo in 1956 something that parliament has been doing for a number of years, just on the general principle that what has been is wrong and therefore it can be improved upon by something he might devise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is my hon. friend, as a Liberal, opposed to reform?


Walter Edward Harris: As a Liberal, I am confident that the Liberal party over the years has been the party of reform and the only effective party of reform in this country.


Mr. Harkness:: You deceive yourself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I take this opportunity of saying that I agreed with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick). I also hope that the discussion of the last five or ten minutes will not be taken as a precedent as to relevancy on the second reading of a particular divorce bill.
that my hon. friend-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister interpret the British North America Act in that respect as having anticipated that parliament would deal with individual divorces?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not the slightest doubt in the world that that was the thought because, from the day I started practising law, I came here to speak for divorces in the other place, when we had no divorce jurisdiction in the province of Ontario.
On motion of Mr. Harris the debate was adjourned.



Walter Edward Harris: That items numbered 92 to 115 inclusive of the main estimates 1956-57, be withdrawn from the committee of supply, and referred to the standing
1786	HOUSE OF
Committees of the House
committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Edward Harris: That the public accounts, volumes I and II, and the report of the Auditor General of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1955, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Edward Harris: to 281 inclusive, relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare; items numbered 285 to 291 inclusive, relating to the Department of National Revenue; and items numbered 324 to 327 inclusive, and 528, relating to the Post Office Department, as listed in the main estimates 1956-57, be withdrawn from the committee of supply, and referred to the special committee on estimates, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


Mr. Fulton:: May we ask the minister if he could inform us which of the four departments it is intended to take first in the special committee on estimates?


Walter Edward Harris: National health and welfare, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall have private members' day, as I think is generally known.


[Stage Direction]
That items numbered 179 to 197 inclusive, relating	six o'clock the house adjourned, without
to the Department of Labour; items numbered 244 question put, pursuant to Standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 5, 1956