1956-03-09

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
Government House Ottawa
7th March, 1956.
Members of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the address that you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament. I thank you sincerely for this address.
Vincent Massey



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform hon. members of the decision to increase the maximum interest rate on insured loans under part I of the National Housing Act from 51 per cent to 5J per cent. Corresponding increases will take place with respect to rates applicable to the other types of loans under the act. These rates are ceiling rates. Lenders are, of course, free to make loans at lesser rates if circumstances so warrant.
The statute authorizes the governor in council to fix the maximum rate of interest that may be charged for various types of loans. In respect of insured mortgage loans, the interest rate cannot exceed the yield on long-term government securities, plus 21 per cent as of the time the rate is fixed.
It is the expressed policy of the government to adjust the mortgage interest rate from time to time within the provisions of the statutory formula so that the lowest rate will be established which will attract on the market adequate mortgage funds. In accordance with this policy the rate was reduced from 5J per cent to 51 per cent in February, 1955. It is now felt that rates under the act should revert to their former levels.
Actually, the interest rate on long-term government bonds would have justified an 67509-124
increase from 51 per cent to 5J per cent last August, but the flow of funds to housing then, and until quite recently, has been good, with the result that no such action has been taken. Bearing in mind the continued high level of interest rates in general and the anticipated demand on investible funds in 1956, an increase is necessary now so that builders and home owners will have continued access to mortgage funds under the National Housing Act in the year ahead.
The change in the interest rate will have effect Monday morning, the 12th of March.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? Will applications that are in before that date come under the 5-j per cent?


Robert Henry Winters: The rate becomes effective Monday morning, March 12. It will depend on the stage of the application being processed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If they were processed before that date, Monday morning, they would then come under the 51 per cent; is that right?


Robert Henry Winters: It depends on what date the application was approved. I do not wish to express myself particularly on that point because there are several stages in the processing of an application. Where Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has given an undertaking to insure before next Monday the 51 per cent rate will apply.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a supplementary question? Will the government be introducing any liberalizing amendments to offset this restrictive change?


Robert Henry Winters: I think hon. members are aware that there is already a notice of motion on the order paper to amend the National Housing Act.	[DOT]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 167, to amend the Criminal Code (payment of fines).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: The object of the bill is to provide that when a fine is imposed under the summary conviction provisions of the Criminal Code there shall be mandatory action taken by the court to assure, subject to certain necessary reservations, that a warrant of commitment shall not issue for imprisonment forthwith of the person on whom the fine has been imposed in the face of the financial inability of that person to make immediate payment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali- Saanich):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who I presume is acting as Prime Minister today in the absence of the Prime Minister? Will he issue a suspending order to prevent the aircraft assigned to the Egyptian air force being shipped from Halifax tonight? I understand that the Dutch freighter is due in Halifax this afternoon and after loading will sail tomorrow. This, therefore, is a final appeal to the government because if the government does not intervene-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Randolph Pearkes: -I am afraid-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize the importance of the question and the genuine desire of the hon. member to have something done with respect to the matter he has just raised, but this is not the time to make an appeal to the government and to try to prove why an appeal should be made. This is the time to ask questions. Having listened carefully to the question asked by the hon. member, it seems to me that the very same question was asked yesterday and dealt with at length. Replies were made by the government then to each and every question asked.


George Randolph Pearkes: I wonder whether I might explain to Your Honour that this is not the same question in that I am asking for a suspending order whereas yesterday we asked for prohibition. This is different. A suspending order was issued before, and if I may I should like to direct my question to the minister and ask that a suspending order be issued at this time. That will be my final appeal.


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Prime Minister made it quite clear in answering questions yesterday

that the government does not intend to intervene in the matter of the shipment of
Harvard planes.
1Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in respect of the question asked by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. What possible harm would be done if the shipments of these planes were at least delayed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question for the purpose of eliciting information.


Howard Charles Green: I submit that that question is asking for information.


Mr. Speaker:: May I submit to the hon. gentleman that, in my experience, there has never been any hon. member standing at this time to ask a question who did not firmly believe that his question was one that should be asked on the orders of the day.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position to give any report regarding the apparently critical situation in the Middle East, and when he is replying will he tell the house and the country why the government adopt different principles in regard to arms sold by a contractor to the Egyptian air force than in sales by a government corporation dealing with Israel?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, though I did not receive notice of this question I rather anticipated that it might be asked, or one like it, and I therefore welcome the opportunity of making a statement on the matter referred to by my hon. friend, namely the situation in the Middle East.
The situation in that area, particularly the relations between Israel and her Arab neighbours, has been tense and the cause of potential conflict since the first day of Israel's existence.
There have been ups and downs in the position, but it has always been disturbing and worrying. Events of last week have added to our worries. However, there have been in the last year more immediately disturbing developments, such as the El Auja and lake Tiberias incidents, which did not result in conflict, and we must hope that not

only will conflict be avoided now but, more
important, that the cause of conflict will be
removed.
The situation, Mr. Speaker, seems to have eased somewhat in the last few days following the shock caused by the abrupt dismissal of Sir John Glubb from the Arab legion of Jordan and there have been somewhat reassuring statements from Middle East leaders.
Hon. members will have noted that Premier Ben-Gurion said on Wednesday: "This government will not start a war". At the same time, it was stated in Washington, from what are referred to as official sources, that there was nothing to indicate that an attack from either side was imminent.
The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France have been in consultation with a view to doing everything possible to avoid armed conflict in the area, and we ourselves are keeping in close touch with -these governments on this and other matters almost -daily.
Hon. members will also have noted that the Secretary General of the United Nations, a careful man not given to exaggeration or overoptimism, has recently stated his considered view, in reply to a question as to whether the Middle East was on the brink of war, that "We have moved away from the brink". He did not believe that there would be war, and he added that it was "even a little premature in his opinion to say that an arms race had developed".
It is true that during the week there have been disturbing reports of border incidents, but it should also be noted -that neither Israel nor her neighbours have -considered these serious enough, or as representing a dangerous enough development to warrant a request that the United Nations security council be called to deal with an imminent threat to peace; something that they have not hesitated to do in the past.
My view, therefore, is that the situation, while tense and difficult, as it has been for years, and while giving no ground for -complacency and much for anxiety, is not such as to warrant interference in the shipment by a Canadian company of a few training planes which were equipped with no -arms whatever and could not be made structurally effective for that purpose without at least two months' factory work. Such a shipment should not add to tensions or dangers in the area and could not upset any balance of armed strength between -contending parties, nor does it represent in any way favouring one of those parties against the other. The record of the government in this matter over the years sufficiently disposes of that idea.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat, and to emphasize what has already been said in this house, that neither Israel nor any of the Arab governments concerned can hope to gain anything from a resort to arms to settle their present differences. On the contrary, war would be disastrous to all concerned. It would result in the mobilization of world opinion, in the United Nations and elsewhere, in condemnation of the aggressor and in support for the victim of aggression. I cannot believe that this is a situation which any country in the Middle East desires to bring about. I can give this house and the country an assurance that the Canadian government will play its part with other friendly governments in efforts, especially through the United Nations, to avoid -any such disaster and in helping to bring about peace and stability in that area.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we welcome these statements of the minister which reveal more optimism than was apparent in the debate in the British House of Commons a day ago.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: I repeat that the house and the country will appreciate the minister's optimism. I would now like to ask him if his unprepared text would permit him to answer the question I asked in addition to the one he has already answered. Why does the government of Canada apply different principles in connection with the sale by a private contractor of arms in dealing with the Egyptian air force than it does in the case of the government agency dealing with Israel.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did not give me notice of his question so he would probably allow it to stand and I will take it as notice. I wish, of course, to reject the assumption that there is any application of different principles in this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. If notice of this question is being asked to stand, would it not be a good idea to suspend tonight's shipment of planes to Egypt?


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise what is really a question of privilege. I hold in my hand a copy of sessional paper No. 174B dated Tuesday, February 21, which I have looked over

Inquiries of the Ministry carefully. The return asks for a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and [DOT]other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the governments of any of the provinces since January 1, 1954, regarding proposals for the building of the trans-Canada pipe line. In going over the return I find that in a letter to the Prime Minister from the provincial treasurer of Ontario, dated November 7, 1955, there is an indication that the provincial treasurer of Ontario handed the Minister of Trade and Commerce the preliminary report from Mr. Grant Glassco on certain aspects of the trans-Canada pipe line, as well as sending one to the Prime Minister. This is not included in the order for return and I think it should be. The final report of Mr. Glassco is properly included as one that was sent to the Prime Minister by the premier of Ontario on November 25.
Then, in a letter from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Ontario provincial treasurer dated September 17, 1955, we read:
During our recent discussion about the trans-Canada pipe line, I left with you copies of a letter to me from the vice-president of the company, Mr. Coates, dated September 1, 1955, together with a revision of the proposal upon which Trans-Canada's letter was based.
This letter is not included in the order lor return and I take it this is a document -exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario. If not in my return I would have expected to find it in the return for the hon. member for Dauphin, which return was for a copy of correspondence, etc., exchanged between the government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, but it is not there either. Having searched the records, I am asking that these documents be included.
Highi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): With regard to the preliminary report of Mr. Glassco to the provincial government, may I say I received a telephone call from Mr. Porter in which he said certain errors had been discovered in Mr. Glassco's report. He asked me to return the report to him and said that he would replace it by the report which was tabled. Naturally, having been asked to return the *document, it is not in my possession. I had it but I do not have it now. As far as the letter referred to is concerned, I will have a search made today and see that it or any other letter that has not been tabled is tabled.


Major James William Coldwell: I take it that the document you returned was corrected and is in the file?
fMr. Coldwell.]


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: And the other documents will be looked after by the minister to see that they are tabled, if available?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.



HARBOURS


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the national harbours board to proceed at once either to rebuild or to replace shed No. 27 that collapsed recently owing to the unusually heavy fall of snow in Halifax?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I have been advised by the
national harbours board that this matter has received prompt attention and that steps are being taken either to repair or to reconstruct the shed and that it will be put back into operation as soon as possible.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether I could ask another question in order to clarify what I had in mind yesterday. It concerns the province of Quebec where certain labourers were specially trained to perform certain agricultural services. Would these people, for instance, be under, shall I say, the practice of the co-operative idea? Will the two governments, provincial and federal, pay the transportation charges if they were asked to go to, say, Ontario to engage in those special services?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to look at my hon. friend's question. Perhaps if he would be good enough to give me information on a special case I would be better able to give him an exact reply. In replying to his question generally I should like to say that the practice of assistance to workers, whether they were trained prior to going or were already fit, to move from one place to another, has been done sparingly, as my hon. friend will understand, and subject to a means test.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I have just a short supplementary question. Yesterday the answer of the minister applied to winter.

Would the same practice apply, say, to spring or any other season of the year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. It does not apply to any particular season of the year.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increased assessments on homes taking place in Winnipeg and in many other municipalities across Canada, will the government consider amending the section in the Old Age Assistance Act regulations which sets the income value of an old age pensioner's home at 5 per cent of the assessed valuation, so that the pensions paid under that act will not be reduced because of this action by municipalities?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As my hon. friend knows, this is a matter over which I as Minister of National Health and Welfare would have no control. It is a matter that involves consideration by the provinces as well. I will give my hon. friend's question some further consideration to that already given. The matter is one that does not rest with the federal government alone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the regulations are
federal regulations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. The regulations are not federal regulations. The regulations are devised by all of the provinces and the federal government. This is a good opportunity to tell my hon. friend that he should not persist in giving that information to the public, as I know he did on at least two occasions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then will the minister take up with the provinces the desirability of making such an amendment to the regulations?


Mr. Sluder:: Take back what you said.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Since evidence at a recent trial in British Columbia disclosed that a package containing $44,500 was placed in a wastepaper basket for safekeeping-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: An hon. member asking a question is entitled to give enough facts to make his question intelligible.


William McLean Hamilton: Since evidence at a recent trial in British Columbia disclosed that a post office package containing $44,500 was placed in a wastepaper basket for safekeeping and subsequently stolen, will the Postmaster General take steps to inform his branches that such a procedure is not advisable?



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the coming debate on the Trans-Canada pipe line, can I expect an early answer to question No. 94 on the order paper, which deals with the price of natural gas?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is ready and it will be in Hansard either today or Monday.



USE OF STILBESTROL IN POULTRY AND LIVESTOCK FEEDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it now legal in Canada to use the drug stilbestrol in poultry and livestock feeds?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this matter, I have already indicated to the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) and the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman) my intention to make a reply to this question perhaps early next week.



REPORTED OUTBREAK IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Haldimand);: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that I have not had an answer to the question I asked on Wednesday with reference to the serious outbreak of rabies,

Supply-Fisheries
are we to take it that the government is not yet sure of its policy in regard to this rather serious matter?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: No, the department is being very careful to ensure that the figures that are given are absolutely correct.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I have not given him, but if he cannot reply now perhaps he might take this as notice. Has the Minister of National Defence a report available on the reported collision and destruction of four R.C.A.F. planes in Europe recently?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, not in any more detail that we have read in the press. It so happens that the destruction of the four planes in question was observed only by a number of civilians and there have been great discrepancies in their stories. Therefore a most careful investigation of the remains of the planes and a most careful examination of the witnesses is now under way. Until we receive a detailed report I do not think it would be desirable to make any further comment.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
General services-
135. Departmental administration, $301,000.
Mr. Stick:: Mr. Chairman, last week when the adjournment of this debate took place I was speaking about fishery problems. May I now join with the other hon. members of this house in welcoming the minister back to his seat. I do so because this department needs a head and when the head is away it does not get the consideration it should.
Many questions have been raised during this debate regarding territorial waters and our jurisdiction over them. May I say that in the debate in the committee on fisheries in 1953 we examined a bill entitled "an act to protect the coastal fisheries". That was on February 13, 1953. An extended examination of that bill took place. For the benefit of those hon. members who do not appear to understand what the three-mile limit
means I wish to quote from the proceedings of the fisheries committee dated February 9, 1953. At that time the minister was replying to some questions on this matter and he said this:
It was this matter of territorial waters to which most of the debate related. We have had such debates on previous occasions when fisheries bills were up. The desire of most fishermen in Canada is understandable, that our territorial waters be extended out as far as possible to preserve the inshore fisheries.
In reply to a question which I asked him the minister made this reply:
The French and the Americans still have certain rights on the Newfoundland coasts; but fishing on the Grand Banks is probably a very good example of the fact that in the background the British, in respect to having freedom of the seas, as do many nations, feel that they have a historic right in the fisheries which are not within our three mile limit, but which may be upon our continental shelf.
On that occasion I quoted the judgment of the international court at The Hague. Without going into too much detail, I should like to put on record some of that judgment. This is what I said at that time, as recorded on page 11 of the minutes of proceedings of the committee:
The 20th day of October, 1818-Convention signed at London between Great Britain and the United States on the 20th day of October, 1818. That was the first. That dispute was taken before The Hague court, and now I will read the judgment. The judgment of the court at The Hague was as follows:
In case of bays the three marine miles are to be measured from a straight line drawn across the body of water at the place where it ceases to have the configuration and characteristics of a bay. At all other places the three marine miles are to be measured following the sinuosities of the coast.
Here is the judgment:
Now therefore this Tribunal in pursuance of the provisions of Art. IV hereby recommends for the consideration and acceptance of the high contracting parties the following rules and method of procedure for determining the limits of the bays hereinbefore enumerated.
1.	In every bay not hereinafter specifically provided for the limits of exclusion shall be drawn three miles seaward from a straight line across the bay in the part nearest the entrance at the first point where the width does not exceed ten miles.
2.	In the following bays where the configuration of the coast and the local climatic conditions are such that foreign fishermen when within the geographic headlands might reasonably and bona fide believe themselves on the high seas, the limits of exclusion shall be drawn in each case between the headlands hereinafter specified as being those at and within which such fishermen might be reasonably expected to recognize the bay under average conditions.
Then it goes on to specify certain bays. It specifies Fortune bay, in Newfoundland and, as may be of great interest to my friend,

the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, is specifies the bay of Fundy. It goes on to say:
It is understood that nothing in these rules refers either to the bay of Fundy considered as a whole part from its bays and creeks or as to the innocent passage through the Gut of Canso, which were excluded by the agreement made by exchange of notes between Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bryce dated February 21, 1909, and March 4, 1909; or to Conception bay, which was provided for by the decision of the Privy Council in the case of the Direct United States Cable Company v. The Anglo American Telegraph Company, in which decision the United States have acquiesced.
Now we come to the crux of the whole matter of the three-mile jurisdiction. After the international tribunal at The Hague made the ruling on the three-mile limit, that was not found satisfactory over a period of years. The matter was debated by the league of nations, but no decision was arrived at there. It was taken from the league of nations to the United Nations, with the same result, so that today the three-mile limit is recognized by certain countries and not recognized by others. It may be interesting to note which countries favour three miles and which countries favour 12 miles. I was quoting from Sessional Papers, Volume XLV, No. 24, 1911. I also quoted from the Digest of International Law by Hackworth, Volume I, chapters I-V, page 628:
Various points of view with reference to the breadth of the territorial waters were expressed provisionally or in principle in the second committee of the Conference for the Codification of International Law held at The Hague in 1930, at its thirteenth meeting held on April 3. The delegates of certain states were in favour of the acceptance of the principle of a zone on the high sea contiguous to the territorial sea in which the coastal state would be able to exercise certain control. The views as expressed in the meeting of April 3 on these subjects were summarized as follows: Union of South Africa, 3 miles; Germany, 3 miles; United States, 3 miles; Belgium, 3 miles; Great Britain, 3 miles; Canada, 3 miles; Chile, 6 or 3 miles; China, 3 miles; Colombia, 6 miles; Cuba, 6 miles; Denmark, 3 miles, Spain, 6 miles; Finland, 4 miles-
-and perhaps what is more important to us in Newfoundland-
-Italy, 6 miles; Poland, 3 miles; and Portugal, 12 or 6 miles.
So you will see generally from this that the matter has not been finally settled yet.
It was interesting for us to note that Portugal favoured a 12-mile limit, because Portuguese trawlers go out year after year fishing on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland and also fishing in our territorial waters outside the three-mile limit. We in Newfoundland believe that the Grand Banks are the breeding place of the codfish that come to our shores in such numbers year by year and we believe that, as a result of this intensive fishing that is going on at the Grand Banks at the present time, there are signs
Supply-Fisheries
of depletion and if it is continued year after year it will affect the inshore fisheries in Newfoundland. If that is so, this question of territorial waters and of international agreements regarding conservation should be taken up and continued vigorously by this government.
I have spoken on this before and I cannot emphasize too strongly today, as far as the future fisheries of the codfish in Newfoundland are concerned, particularly on the southwest coast and certain parts of the northeast coast, that this matter will have to be pursued with the governments of Spain, France and Portugal so that some international agreement may be reached and some form of conservation may be agreed to between the countries. I make this plea this morning because I think that in the course of time we shall have to do something about it.
With regard to the territorial waters, again it may be interesting to note that quite lately Peru and Ecuador extended their jurisdiction over the territorial waters up to 200 miles. They seized fishing boats well off the coast, about 200 miles out, and brought them in to port. They were released only after a fine had been paid. It may be interesting to note also a statement by President Truman in 1945 regarding the continental shelf. I quote from page 16 of the report of the proceedings of the committee on February 9, 1953:
In 1945 President Truman made two declarations on a statement of policy of the United States government. One of those declarations related to the continental shelf in which the United States claimed sovereignty over the subsoil resources in the continental shelf and at the same time made it very clear that the character of the waters above it remained unaffected.
This means that the United States claims jurisdiction over the continental shelf but not the waters above it. It may be interesting to note also that the United States has certain fishing rights on the south coast of Newfoundland. The Grand Banks are part of the continental shelf off the coast of Newfoundland. Now that the United States has claimed jurisdictional sovereignty over the continental shelf, it may be that in the course of time there will be one step further, that they claim jurisdiction over the waters above the continental shelf. If this takes place, Canada will be in a position to claim jurisdiction over the Grand Banks.
The time has come, in all this confusion in international law about the three-mile limit and whether it should be three miles, ten miles or 12 miles, for a decision to be arrived at by someone. Somebody has to take the lead in this matter. I advocate now without

Supply-Fisheries
any reservation that Canada, which in international affairs is playing its part so brilliantly, now take the lead and notify the other powers that it will extend jurisdiction over its continental shelf for the full 12 miles. That is quite a statement for me to make, but I am convinced that somebody must give the lead and I believe that Canada is the proper one to do it. This government must take its courage in both hands, make that announcement and stick by it. I believe that if we do that other nations will follow our example and, instead of having a three-mile territorial jurisdiction, which is in dispute so often, we would settle the matter once and for all, and most of the countries in the world would accept the 12-mile limit. That is all I have to say regarding the territorial jurisdiction over our waters.
There is one point in this discussion on fisheries that I think is very important. I have studied the set-up of the fisheries organization of the federal department in British Columbia. Let me say right here that as a result of my visit, there a few years ago I was amazed at the efficiency of the officials, their grasp of the situation there and their control over the fisheries of British Columbia. I discussed this matter with Mr. Mayhew, who was then Minister of Fisheries, and said, "We want that kind of organization on the east coast of Canada." Our fisheries are being organized, it is true, and many improvements have been made in the last three or four years, but until we have such an organization on the east coast as they are on the west coast of Canada our fisheries are going to suffer. Let me give you my views of an outline of fishery prospects for the whole of North America. On the Pacific coast all or practically all fisheries are regulated. They are regulated because if intensive fishing takes place depletion will also take place and to preserve the fisheries on the west coast of Canada conservation measures must be taken and have been taken in conjunction with the United States of America. Therefore if you cannot catch any more fish-I use the term "fish" in its broadest sense

on the west coast without depletion you can understand that you cannot increase your catch there very much. The same situation has taken place on the fishing banks off the New England coast. The same thing is true off the Nova Scotia coast.
Therefore the only natural fishing resource left in the whole of North America today is Newfoundland, Labrador and possibly Greenland. You have 170 million people in the United States and Canada with a natural increase of about 4 million a year. These people have to be housed, clothed and fed.

If the fishing industry is to supply the increasing population and the big demand of these 170 million odd people for fishery products, they will have to go further afield and look for the natural product. The only place left for them to go is Newfoundland and Labrador.
Evidence of that has been plainly shown during the last two or three years when we have had Nova Scotia merchants coming from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland to buy our salted codfish in its raw state. That tendency is going to increase. Therefore it is necessary in my opinion that a complete survey of the fishery prospects of the whole of the east coast of Canada be undertaken without delay. It will be too late when depletion takes place. The time to begin that is now. In that connection I should like to point to the Atlantic salmon. Many years ago we used to catch Atlantic salmon in very large quantities, but the catch has been decreasing year by year and the need for preservation of the salmon and for conservation methods has reached such a state now that something drastic will have to be done.
Last year I also mentioned our herring fishery. The herring used to come into Fortune bay literally in millions. For some reason or other they left Fortune bay and about a year or so later they struck into bay of Islands. In the last two or three years they have been leaving bay of Islands. Nobody knows where the herring go or the reason for this coming and going. In answer to a question of mine last year, the minister said that the lack of fishery scientists was the cause of the delay in making a survey of the herring fishery. I do hope that in the coming year something definite will be done so that we may know more about our herring, where they go and why they do not come into our shores regularly. Our herring fishery has become a very important fishery. The demand for our herring is increasing and prices are good. When the minister is replying perhaps he might say something about this matter.
I was very glad to hear the minister say the other day that the salt codfish industry is beginning to look up. It is only two or three years ago that we had a depression in the industry. I am glad to see that the methods adopted by the Department of Trade and Commerce in the marketing of our salt codfish are beginning to have beneficial results, and I must give credit where credit is due. I am very glad to hear that we have no surplus of salt codfish this year. In fact, prices are beginning to become better. This is a matter of great satisfaction to our fishermen because they have been fishing under very adverse conditions for a number of years. This will

encourage our fishermen to continue their calling and go out on the high seas to earn their daily bread.
The parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General, who comes from a fishing community in Nova Scotia, made a statement the other day with which I wholly agree. He appealed for wharves and breakwaters to protect our fishermen in the different places from which they fish. I agree wholeheartedly with what he said, and I should like to give one example now of what happened in my riding in a place like Whiteway where they never had any protection or wharves. They asked me whether I could get them a wharf. So badly were they in need of a wharf for protection that they offered to work on it if the timber could be supplied. The wharf was built. It is a wharf and breakwater combined. The very day that the wharf was completed 5,000 pounds of mackerel were landed on the wharf. That was early in September and from September until November, when the mackerel fishing season ended, 250,000 pounds of mackerel were landed on the wharf. That is encouraging, and we want more encouragement.
We like to see our friends from Nova Scotia come and buy our fish. We place no restrictions on them. It creates competition with our own merchants and the consequence is that our fishermen probably get a better price. But how long the people from Nova Scotia will come there to buy our raw material is a matter of doubt because what has been happening is that they come there, buy our raw fish, process it and sell it in the markets in which we sell it. The time is coming when we are going to process our own fish.
This makes it all the more important that there should, as I said a moment ago, be conservation. The fisheries must be regulated on the east coast as they are on the west coast. Some control must be exercised, some organization must be set up similar to that on the west coast, and I think the time to do it is now. There is not much more I can say regarding the fisheries on the east coast except that reference has been made to the number of fishermen decreasing. When the minister replies I should like him to give me statistics for the last five years as to the number of fishermen so that we may know definitely one way or the other whether our fishermen are leaving the industry or whether they are staying with it. Some people think our fishermen are leaving the industry, and in some places they may be. If this is a fact, then it is all the more reason for regulations and for encouragement to our fishermen to carry on their vocation in life 67509-125
Supply-Fisheries
so that this industry, which is becoming more important to Canada day by day may, be preserved.
I am not going to talk any more about the nutritious food which comes from the sea, but it is increasingly evident to me in Ottawa and other places I visit that the people of Canada are becoming more fish conscious than ever. If we are to supply the demand we must preserve the natural elements of our fishery products so that Canada may get the food which is required and so that our fishermen may get the returns which are so justly due them.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I would be very ungrateful, Mr. Chairman, if I did not first say how much I appreciate the courtesy of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) last Friday when he said he would hold over an item in the estimates dealing with lamprey control until I was present. I am very glad, too, that he indicated 'to the house I was speaking to a group on Friday night and dealt to a great extent with the efforts of this government, in partnership with the United States government, in connection with conservation. I should like to tell the minister, too, that the group was much larger than I expected, numbering some 450 as a matter of fact, who were conservation conscious. I was amazed that in that little area in southwestern Ontario people should gather in such large numbers because they were concerned about fish and wildlife and other aspects of conservation.
In the course of the discussion afterwards, and even prior to the meeting, it became quite apparent why they were so vitally concerned. I think I should make a point of this when I deal with the lamprey situation, and I should like to deal with that now rather than wait until that particular item is called in case I am not here then. All you need to do is to look at any good map of Ontario to note the number of streams that flow into Georgian bay, lake Huron and lake Superior which are infested with this curse of the fishing industry, the lamprey, to note how seriously it will affect fishing in these areas. The point I should like to emphasize just now is that this will seriously affect the tourist revenue of the Dominion of Canada. Three or four years ago I wondered why some people were not going back to areas in northern Ontario in which there was good fishing, that is speckled trout and other types of trout. I have learned since that it was because the lamprey had gotten into the streams and into the lakes and, as a matter of fact, had made sport fishing a bygone sport in those particular areas. I think that is a viewpoint we must not overlook because after all is said and


Mr. Macdonnell:: What size are they?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Oh, about four, five or six pounds. If that happens, the lamprey will destroy the commercial fishing industry in the great lakes. The point I should like to emphasize is, as I said a moment ago, that this job that faces the international joint commission is much bigger than we expected. Here is a department of fisheries report and I think I should put on the record what it says at page 52. It shows to what extent efforts have been made to eliminate this curse of the fishing industry, and what vital efforts must be made now and later to rehabilitate the industry in those areas. Now, this deals with lake Superior:
The lamprey control program which is presently confined to lake Superior, the last stronghold of the valuable lake trout in the Great Lakes system, was forwarded by federal funds and the co-operation of provincial personnel of the Department of Lands and Forests. Approximately 600 streams tributary to lake Superior on the Canadian side of the lake were surveyed and assessed as potential lamprey spawning streams.
Mr. Chairman, it is going to be a terrific challenge to man to combat this predator because if there are that many spawning streams on the Canadian side there may be that many on the United States side or even more. Last session it was suggested that effort would be confined to lake Superior to hold the line. I disagreed with that idea and l still do. I quarrel with the suggestion of the provincial department of government on this idea of having hatcheries and restocking the lakes. I think we all agree that if it becomes necessary to assist nature to rehabilitate the fishing industry, it can be done only through hatcheries. Some argument developed last fall between myself and the fishermen on one side and an official of the Ontario government on the other side who contended that

restocking the lakes and keeping the hatcheries open was like spitting in the ocean. At that time I said and I think it is worth while repeating-that they had had a grand experience in that activity because that is all they have been doing over the last several years, namely spitting in the ocean.
Just recently, as a matter of fact, a statement came out from much higher authority in that particular government saying how successful they were in stocking some inland lakes with trout and so on. But the stocking of lakes or the restocking of them is a sort of relative term. You can stock a small lake with maybe a few thousand trout and it would be a successful operation. But a few thousand trout in lake Huron or in lake Superior would be like spitting in the ocean, and it would be a small spit if we bad that many dumped in the Atlantic or the Pacific ocean. It is therefore a relative term. If we are going to accomplish anything in these commercial fishing areas, the figure must be in the millions or billions of finger-lings.
I am going to emphasize here my own opinion which is substantiated by the fishermen in my area and, I am sure, by other fishermen. In the first place, let us make a joint attack. Let us make the attack in lake Huron as well as in lake Superior. The other day the minister indicated that United States scientists had perfected a jelly or some poisonous substance which could exterminate four or five generations of lamprey while they are still in the mud. That was certainly good news because, as we know, these lampreys stay in the mud for four years before they ever go out to the great lakes. When they go out they are four or five inches long and when they come back to spawn they are 20 to 24 inches long. That is the growth in one year, and indicates the amount of food they have consumed and the damage which they can do. I therefore submit that we must gamble a little bit.
In the first place we must get more money for this project to eliminate this curse to the fishing industry not only in lake Superior but in the other inland lakes. We must get more money to enable the joint commission to make that joint attack. If we wait, with respect to lake Huron, until the lamprey is exterminated in lake Superior, that will be at the earliest-if all the lampreys can be exterminated-a matter of four or five years. I think that is recognized as being a fair estimate. It might be 8 or 10 years before they are exterminated. In the meantime the lamprey will have become so injurious to the industry in lake Huron and in the other lakes below that there will not be any fishing 67509-125J
Supply-Fisheries
industry left and it will be a terrific job at that time to kill the lamprey unless some new means have been devised whereby there can be made an attack which will be much more effective than what we anticipate even at the moment.
I understand three hatcheries have been opened in Michigan or are being opened there -and the same in Wisconsin-in order to restock these lakes. They apparently realize that restocking is necessary. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if we can start now on a real effort to restock these lakes with these small fingerlings, in four, five or six years they would grow to the extent that they would be commercial fish, and by the time we had the lamprey under control the trout industry would be re-established. The lampreys, as a rule, are not going to attack small fingerlings. As a rule they will not attack until the fish are three or four years old. I urge that this extremely important industry receive the encouragement of the individual members who are interested in the problem and also of those on the treasury benches to whom the ministers must submit their estimates. I appreciate the extra amount that the minister obtained this year for this particular job. When he replies to the various arguments of the different' members, I hope that he will state how much is the United States contribution and also whether individual states are making special efforts.
I have noticed some items in the press- as I think I said when I spoke on this subject some time ago this year-to the effect that the state of Michigan appropriated some $500,000 to rehabilitate the fishing industry, with regard to both commercial and sport fishing. That was a project over several years. There is an item-I am sure the minister has it- from Washington. I do not know what' publication it is in. It may be that it is an Associated Press item. I cannot give the date. I hope I may just quote from it. It says that about 5,000 poisons have been tested and several of them appear to be promising. This is in connection with a substance to extermi-minate and kill the lamprey. The other item I want to refer to is this. It is an item out of Washington. I think it is last April, Mr. Chairman. It is as follows:
Warren F. Looney, State Department official who helped negotiate the treaty last fall, said it was estimated that it would take six to eight years to bring the lamprey under control. The measure has strong support in Canada and is assured of passage in the Canadian parliament . . .
Senator Charles Potter (R. Mich.) urged ratification of the treaty and said Canada is spending as much on lamprey control as the eight U.S. states fighting it in the Great Lakes.
I do not know just what he meant by that statement. I had in mind that he may mean

Supply-Fisheries
what the eight U.S. individual states are [DOT]contributing, but I am not quite sure. I have noticed other items indicating that some of the individual states were making great contributions. I know the minister has this matter under consideration. I do not hesitate to express my own view. On the United States side they have lake Michigan, whose waters are all in the United States. I am hoping that their contribution will be pretty well in proportion to the area of the lakes themselves.
I do not intend to take up a great deal of time on this subject. I have dealt with it at some length. I think the public is fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which represents Canadian chambers of commerce from coast to coast, passed a resolution at their last meeting in Winnipeg. I know the minister has a copy of The resolution, which is pretty much the same as others which have been forwarded to him. As hon. members might suspect, that resolution of course was prompted by the Sarnia chamber of commerce at my suggestion. The Canadian chamber of commerce had no difficulty in accepting it.
I am going to say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the people to whom I have spoken, who are in the commercial fishing industry, are more satisfied today than ever before that the necessary steps will be taken by this joint commission, through their respective governments, to rehabilitate the fishing industry. I am glad to make that statement because I personally have confidence in the ability of the minister to execute progressive measures with respect to this problem.
Uike the fishermen of all those great lakes, I regret that the setting up of this commission was not proceeded with years ago. It is unfortunate for this country and unfortunate for those who border the United States, and for the people of both countries, that the eight states bordering on the great lakes and our own province were so dilatory. They knew the challenge before them and yet they made picayune attempts not only to curb or destroy the lamprey but to rehabilitate an industry which they knew was dying because of the lack of co-operative efforts to exterminate this curse of the industry.
As one of the members of the committee-I was not a member at first but I was put on purposely with this particular project in mind, and I hope that if another committee is set up I shall be given the same honour, and there are others whose constituencies border on the great lakes who are equally interested-may I say I feel satisfied in my own mind that
tMr Murphy (Lambton West).]
because of the many representations made to the minister, which he can forward to his associates in the government, more money will be made available for this purpose. It is going to take more money. I think the minister himself will say that. To be frank about it, we cannot fight this menace with $1 million a year from both governments, nor can we even curb it, let alone exterminate it. I have no doubt in my mind that when one considers the number of streams that flow into lake Superior alone, apart from those that flow into other lakes-we know now that they spawn in lake Erie-it may take $3 million, $4 million or $5 million a year before this menace is exterminated. But even if it does take that amount of money, we shall be re-establishing an industry that today is losing $5 million a year. If we do not exterminate the lamprey and they start feeding on pickerel and whitefish we shall be crucifying an industry which means probably $15 million or $20 million a year to both countries, and that is not peanuts.
I have every confidence that under the present setup, together with the encouragement that has already been given, every step will be taken to exterminate this curse. I do hope that the minister will take it under his earnest consideration and indicate to the joint commission that joint efforts must be made to exterminate the lamprey by not only holding the line in lake Superior and exterminating them there but also continuing intensified efforts in the other lakes as well.


Mr. Michaud:: Mr. Chairman, I should like at this time to make a few observations in relation to the fishery industry as applied more particularly to my own part of the country. Before I do so I also wish to express my delight at the clear indications of the minister's improving health. It was gratifying indeed, during the course of his address last Friday, to be able to observe that he is now on the road to full recovery of his former good health and aggressiveness.
During his remarks the minister made some reference to the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act which was passed by parliament during last year's session. I am personally interested in this measure because I expect many beneficial results from its operation. However, I remain somewhat apprehensive that one probable drawback in this connection will be the over-caution with which the banks will avail themselves of this legislation. But, as happened with the Farm Improvement Loans Act, it is hoped that, in due course of time, the banks will again realize the advantages of these government-guaranteed loans. Indeed, it is important that this legislation be

made wholly operative if it is to provide all the assistance which it is intended to provide to our fishermen.
Following the introduction of this legislation in the house last year, we recall that an amendment was introduced enabling credit unions to participate in this loan project. This amendment followed representations made by the credit union associations before the fisheries committee. The opportunities requested in these representations were granted, and I trust our credit unions will now avail themselves of these new opportunities of serving their members who wish to take advantage of this policy. We must acknowledge that a great number of credit union members live in rural areas, where they have not been accustomed to deal with banks. We know, of course, that in many instances lack of capital may prevent the individual credit union from engaging freely in these transactions. We would expect, however, that through their federations suitable arrangements could be made to obtain the necessary capital to meet this purpose.
On different occasions in this house, Mr. Chairman, I have spoken of the urgent need of restoring the oyster industry along the southeastern New Brunswick shores. In the Buctouche-Cocagne-Grande Digue area alone at one time this industry represented an annual net income of over $30,000. It was similar in importance to the Richibucto area.
I wish to repeat now what I have already stated on other occasions in this house, that within the past few years our oyster beds have become completely unproductive. I know that the officials of the department are aware of these conditions and are endeavouring in every way to restore the productivity of these oyster beds. It was my privilege last summer to accompany two of these officials on a survey to secure new data on the situation. I only hope that these endeavours will be maintained. The restoration of the oyster industry along our shores is of great significance to the general economy of our fishing population.
I believe I should now stress before this committee the importance of having an educational program for our fishermen. I again recall with satisfaction the experiment undertaken two years ago among our lobster fishermen. This, I can assure you, has been greatly beneficial. It is remarkable that many of those fishermen who took exception to the scientific principles expounded at that time are now endorsing those self-same principles.
Supply-Fisheries
I believe it is reasonable to assume that further beneficial results would accrue from a well sustained and well adapted educational program.
I must bring to the attention of this committee the necessity of providing our fishing centres with more freezing and storage facilities for fresh fish. A few of these plants are now operating along the shores and the results provide positive evidence of how-profitable it would be to possess more of these plants. I am pleased to note that a co-operative enterprise at Richibucto has recently laid plans to engage in this modern process of fish conservation. I refer to the Cartier Co-op. which last year purchased a large, all-equipped plant, ready for operation. The project involves a number of fishermen from the northern part of Kent county. These fishermen must be commended for their foresight, courage, and endeavour, and they are well deserving of every assistance in the pursuit of their plans. This government is already informed of the organization of this project and will be expected, through its various service branches, to lend its full support and assistance.
Mr. Chairman, the question of the opening date for smelt netting in Kent county has always been a matter of great contention. Prior to 1955 the opening date for all nettings was November 1. About this time last year representations were made by groups of fishermen in my riding to have the opening netting date for gill nets advanced to October 15. I made representations to the department and three days before October 15 I received word confirming that the date I had requested, October 15th, had been granted not only for gill netting but for all nettings. Of course, I should not like to say anything against this measure of generosity exhibited by the department. However, for some reason or other it seems that certain classes of fishermen did not like the idea of having October 15 as the opening date for all nettings. They thought it was a little too early and since they were not entirely satisfied I was the one who heard about it.
Following my arrival here for the opening of the session I intended to make further inquiries about the matter, and submitted those to the parliamentary assistant. He was kind enough to give me a reply to my inquiries yesterday, and for that I want to thank him. I should like to insert in the reports of this house the table which the hon. member submitted to me. It is headed "Smelt Fishing Seasons in the Gulf of St. Lawrence", and gives the opening and

Supply-Fisheries
closing dates for gill nets, box and bag nets in the various areas. The table is as follows:
Smelt Fishing Seasons in
Gulf of St. Lawrence
	Gill nets		Box and bag nets	
County	Open	Close	Open	Close
N.B.				
Restigouche 	Sept. 15	Feb. 28	Sept. 15	Feb. 28Gloucester 	Sept. 15	Oct. 15	Northumberland	Oct. 31	Oct. 31	"Kent 	Oct. 15	Oct. 15	[DOT]*Westmorland ..	Oct. 15	Oct. 15	N.S.	Cumberland ...	Oct. 15	Oct. 15	Colchester 	Oct. 15	Oct. 15	"Pictou 	Oct. 15	Oct. 15	"Antlgonish 	Oct. 15	Oct. 15	"Inverness 	Oct. 15	Oct. 15	"P.E.I.	Prince 	Oct. 1	Oct. 15	Queens 	Oct. 1	Oct. 15	Kings 	Oct. 1	Oct. 15	"Quebec (Except Magdalen	Is.) 	Sept. 1	Feb. 15	Nov. 25	"Quebec	(Magdalen Is.)	Oct. 1	**	Oct. 1	
I gather from this that the intention of the department in fixing these new dates was to have more uniformity in the opening date. I assume we must subscribe to this principle.
The activities of the Department of Fisheries, Mr. Chairman, are of great interest to the people of the maritimes. Many depend upon fishing for their livelihood. It is true that the standard of living of our fishing communities has been greatly improved during the last few years, but a still greater measure of economic stability is essential. I urge upon the government, through its Department of Fisheries, that it use every means and put forth every effort to promote this aim.


Erhart Regier: I too, Mr. Chairman, am very pleased to see the minister in his seat and again performing his functions as Minister of Fisheries. I think I can safely say that, so far as the people of British Columbia are concerned, as long as we must have a Liberal government we would rather have the minister who is now occupying this post occupy it. I believe he has proved himself as able a cabinet minister as the people of British Columbia have ever had in Ottawa. His responsibilities are tremendous indeed. When he took over the Department of Fisheries the department was in for a rough ride from one end of Canada to the other. Fortunately we seem to have overcome most of the major problems for the time being that faced the fishermen in British Columbia.
However, as was pointed out a short time ago the fishermen on the great lakes still have that great problem of the lamprey and there

is the problem of the rehabilitation of the whole fishing industry in the maritimes and in what I understand is supposed to be called the Atlantic province of Newfoundland. I am pleased to see that some progress is being made towards this rehabilitation of the eastern fisheries. However, I should like to call the minister's attention to a few other matters. I know that the Minister of Public Works is responsible for all major construction efforts of the federal government. However, I believe the Minister of Public Works, from the statements he has made, relies to a very great extent on his colleagues in the cabinet for informing him of the needs of their particular departments. I am hoping that the Minister of Fisheries will soon speak to the Minister of Public Works and outline to him the need for a fairly large number of rather inexpensive wharves suitable for the fishermen in the lower mainland areas.
I know that a great new fishermen's wharf is being built at the city of Vancouver. However, I have been given to understand that that wharf is already overcrowded before it is completed. Many of these fishermen live in the rural areas around the city of Vancouver and if small wharf facilities could be supplied to them, say, along the shores of Burrard Inlet or the Fraser river or Pitt river, I am sure these facilities would be very much appreciated.
I should like to call the minister's attention to another fact, though he may be already fully aware of it. I feel that some more public relations work might be done to develop closer understanding among the fishermen on the west coast of the intentions of his department. The fishermen of the Fraser river are not yet convinced of the need for the closing of the fishing above Westminster bridge. Some of them have lived there 40 or 50 years, have their homes there and are well established far away from the deep sea fishing. The minister's efforts thus far to convince them of the need in the interests of conservation to limit their ability to fish in the districts where they are used to fishing have thus far not been too successful and have not been as successful as they should be. Either his argument is very weak or not enough effort has been put forth in explanations to the men.
I should also like to reiterate the demand that others have made, I believe, in this house from time to time, that some move be made to establish our territorial waters in British Columbia from land's end in the north to land's end in the south, if I might put it that way. The people in my constituency feel that those waters that would be enclosed by such a line ought to be rightfully claimed as our own waters.

I was very pleased to read the minister's statement on page 1748 of Hansard, in connection with power development, in which he said:
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.
I hope the minister is very keenly aware of the fact that unless the federal government, which last year assumed some responsibility for power development on the Columbia river, undertakes some initiative in the matter of early development of power in the Columbia basin, the federal government may find the provincial government making a deal that will completely frustrate the good intentions of the minister. Because of the failure of initiative on the part of the federal government, we may see the British Columbia government take some action that most Canadians might have reason to regret.
I am pleased to hear the minister report that some progress is being made in the means that have been initiated by his department to aid fishermen and that loans are now available. I hope the use of these loans will be more actively advocated by the minister's department. I believe the insurance feature is coming into widespread use, and I know that the department has given serious consideration to making all fishermen eligible for unemployment insurance. There is a demand, as the minister well knows, all over Canada for the inclusion of fishermen under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I hope that a year from now some satisfactory means will have been found.
The section of the house to which I belong, the C.C.F., will always support any Minister of Fisheries in any conservation measures that he will undertake. Within the limits of adequate conservation measures, we do, however, adhere to the philosophy of full production for the people of our nation, and going along with that, and equally necessary, is a policy of complete and full distribution of what we are able to produce. This applies to the fishing industry as well.
We are pleased to see the minister playing a very active role in his department in the field of international co-operation as regards the fishing industry. I should like at this time to express my appreciation of the fact that, as I have noted in the report on the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the department came to the aid of the cod fishermen and also to the aid of hungry people in the world in that they supplied over $900,000 worth of codfish to the hungry peoples of Greece and
Supply-Fisheries
of South Korea. Only this morning I again had a look at the mail, which I receive so very often from people in my riding asking me to do what I can to see to it that Canada's surplus foodstuffs are used to feed the hungry people of the world. This action on the part of the prices support board, which is under the minister's jurisdiction, was a most notable one and will receive the hearty endorsation of the Canadian public at large. I note that the fisheries prices support board paid half of the cost of this large gift and the Department of External Affairs paid for approximately the other half. We could well have many more such programs.
However, the cause of Canadians using their surplus foodstuffs in the interest of aiding world peace, I feel, has been harmed somewhat by the deal that the fisheries prices support board made in the case of herring bloaters, and I should like to spend a few minutes on that. The report states that herring bloaters were purchased through the prices support board to protect the 1954 herring industry. Those who held unsold stocks of herring bloaters were advised to submit their offers by June 30, 1954. I notice as a result of the offers received the board purchased, under the authority of an order in council passed on June 30, 1954, a total of 72,929 boxes for which they paid 80 cents or 55 cents a box, depending on grade. These prices were paid, in the words of the report, "at producer's plant or in storage." According to the report, these herring bloaters were not sold at prevailing market prices because one of the reasons for the purchase was to preserve the stability of the market and therefore it was considered inadvisable to sell them at a reduced price. Eventually the bloaters were sold to a reduction plant to be used for the manufacture of fertilizer, and these 18 pound boxes of herring bloaters were sold at 9 cents a box.
It is to be noted that the freight charges on the herring to the reduction plant exceeded $9,000 and the net returns to the prices support board from the sale were slightly in excess of $6,000. One is rather inclined to ask why the government would pay $9,129.56 to haul a lot of herring to a reduction plant and sell them there for the sum of $6,563.61. It seems that not only were the fish given to the reduction plant for nothing but the government added some $3,000 in order to deliver the fish at the doors of the reduction plant.
When I received the report I put a question on the order paper. Question No. 73, as found at page 1190 of Hansard, reads:
Before the passing of order in council P.C. 1934-931, June 30, 1954, authorizing the sale of


Mr. Sinclair:: I do not like to interrupt but I am so surprised that they should be called choice. Would you tell me again where they are described as choice?


Erhart Regier: If the minister will look at page 8 of the report he will see that in the first paragraph it says:
In all, 72,929 boxes were purchased by the board. Of these, only 257 were choice grade of the 1952 pack.
That is all it says, and it also says that with respect to 1953 production purchases were to be of standard grade.


James Sinclair: That is right.


Erhart Regier: I think the minister will have to agree that his reply was not very accurately worded. Possibly that is more or less a minor matter. However, the minister goes on to say in his answer:
The Department of Trade and Commerce did make inquires in the Belgian Congo where the product is known, but no interest could be developed.
I was a little surprised when I saw that because I have never heard of the people in the Belgian Congo being very hungry and I had asked whether any attempt had been made to supply these choice and standard quality fish to some of the hungry people of the world. Therefore I asked a further question. I asked at what time and in what manner were these inquiries made

and were any replies received. I got a reply from the Department of Trade and Commerce saying that on December 1, 1953, an airmail letter was dispatched to Leopoldville and a reply was sent from there on December 14, 1953, saying that no interest could be developed in the Belgian Congo.
My quarrel with the answer is that the date supplied me here as to the time of the inquiry indicates that this was merely a routine piece of information supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce to the trade commissioners, certainly the trade commissioner in Leopoldville, as to the possibilities of finding a market where we could sell our herring. That was completely evading the question I had asked, namely, whether any attempt had been made to find any place where we could dispose of these admittedly good fish as a gift.
A few moments ago I endorsed the actions of the fisheries prices support board. When we have surplus fish, by all means let all taxpayers share the cost of helping the industry, protecting the price and using the fish as a method of expressing our good will to needy people in whatever part of the world they may live. However, I feel that in this case somebody blundered somewhere because these herring were bought with the taxpayers' money at 80 cents and 55 cents per box and at a subsidized rate were sold for reduction purposes at 9 cents a box. I do not think such action helps the cause of the fisheries prices support board or the intentions of the minister with respect thereto. It may be that the minister does not have enough funds available to supervise adequately what may be relatively minor operations in his department. In looking at the amount of money in the estimates for the various ministers for the coming year I notice that, next to the Secretary of State, the Minister of Fisheries receives the least of all.


James Sinclair: Very economical.


Erhart Regier: I notice that he is even getting less money this year than he got last year. I do not know why he is asking for less money. Possibly the Minister of Finance may have been particularly harsh with the minister when he spoke to him. I think an amount of $12,753,283 out of a federal budget of $5 billion is hardly adequate for the fisheries industry in relation to the value of that industry and the great need on the Atlantic seaboard. I fully sympathize with the minister and I only hope that the cause of using surplus food supplies to help needy people in the world and thereby also help-

more because of deals such as the one involved here in the giving away of these herring.
(Translation) :


Mr. Cannon:: Mr. Chairman, I would not like to let the debate on the administration item of the Department of Fisheries estimates go by without speaking on behalf of the people of Magdalen islands.
On behalf of my electors and on my own behalf, may I first tell the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) how glad we are to see him back in his seat. It is always a pleasure to hear his voice and see him in action. We have been quite worried over his accident and we have missed him very much during his absence. We are most happy to see him back among us and I hope that we will have many an opportunity of admiring his warm eloquence and of seeing that he has recovered his customary energy.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the committee would be interested to be told of the output of the Magdalen islands fisheries in 1955. I am quoting from A pleines voiles (At full sail)-a very fitting name for a publication dealing with fisheries-figures pertaining to the total production of Magdalen islands for 1954 and 1955, showing the quantities as well as the commercial value of the products of the islands. I am pleased to inform the committee that in 1955 the total value of the products of the islands amounted to $2,609,000, while in 1954 it was but $1,602,000; it has therefore increased by over a million dollars. That very significant increase is due to the fact that fish production on Magdalen islands is undergoing great changes at present.
We used to concentrate nearly all our efforts on the processing of smoked or salted fish, but since 1955 we have been manufacturing frozen fillets. In addition, we export cod and frozen fish to the United States where it is used in making up the famous fish sticks.
An examination of those figures shows that 1,093,932 pounds of fillets have been frozen in bulk in 1955, while no such processing took place in 1954. If we look at the value of those products, we find that, precisely, the greatest increase was in cod, the production of which went up from $377,758 in 1954 to $545,137 in 1955. There was also an increase in plaice and sole, whose production has reached
Supply-Fisheries
$133,635 in 1955 against an insignificant quantity in 1954, and these are the fish used in making frozen fillets.
As I do not wish to overtax the patience of my colleagues by reading all those figures, I would like to have permission from the house to place them on the record.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Here are the figures:
Total Production of for the years 1954	the Islands and 1955 Different	
Species Lobster:	products 1955	Quantities 1954Crates of sterilized cans .. Half-crates of frozen meat,	6,072	8,342sealed cans 	
Pounds of lobster shipped in	9.833	3,114the shell 	
18 lb. crates of smoked	829,360	707,233herring 	
260 lb. barrels of local and	146,166	109,887foreign bait 	
Herring:	37,706	2,27625 lb. boxes of frozen herring 100 lb. barrels of pickled	44	104herring 	1,303	83Tons of herring meal 	2,220	nilTons of herring oil 	
Cod: Pounds of salted boneless	88	nilfillet 	1,538,850	1,507,900Pounds of salted raw cod ..	26,000	788,231100 lb. crates of dried cod .. Pounds of bulk frozen	1,100	2,215fillets 	
Mackerel: 200 lb. barrels of pickled	1,093,932	nilmackerel 	
200 lb. barrels of pickled	9,682	4,047fillets 	
100 lb. barrels of pickled	1,354	1,649mackerel 	
Crates of round canned	296	nilmackerel 	
Crates of canned fillets of	nil	378mackerel 	
Lbs. of frozen fillets of	3,200	nilmackerel 	
Lbs. of frozen whole	5,808	nilmackerel 	nil	40,248Lbs. of fresh mackerel on ice Harbour Seal:	10,000	nilUnits 	
Smelt:	nil	3,590Frozen, in lbs	
Plaice and Sole:	9,120	53,900Lbs. of frozen fillets 	445,450	1,190Lbs. frozen round smelt .... Haddock:	nil	4,400Lbs. frozen fillets 	
Miscellaneous: Tons of fish waste meal	140,922	nil(Gorton Pew) 	300	nil
Here now is a table showing the main kinds of fish with their respective market value:

Supply-Fisheries
Species	Market value 1955	1954Lobster	
$ 897,318.00	$ 853,003.00Herring	
586,288.00	210,135.00Cod	
545,137.00	377,758.00Mackerel	
273,882.00	127,715.00Plaice and	Sole	
133,635.00	negligibleMiscellaneous	
173,719.00	33,398.00Total	
$2,609,979.00	$1,602,009.00
This development, Mr. Chairman, is due to the fact that recently new industries have been set up in my constituency, whereas an older well established firm, the Gorton Pew Company, which operates salt fish plants on the islands, has turned one of these into a frozen fillet plant. Moreover, I am told that this company, which operated its plants at Grindstone, plans to build a new one at Amherst. There is also in my constituency a company by the name of Canapro, which produces fish meal.
I am glad of this improvement and diversification of our production but, at the same time, I wish to point out that the change should not be too radical. We should not produce frozen fillets and fish meal only. We should continue also to produce smoked herring and salt cod, as we did in the past, because we must keep our traditional outlets for these products and, as the old proverb says, we should not put all our eggs in the same basket.
If we carry out too radical a change and if our market for frozen cod fillets and fish meal should slump, we might find ourselves in a very bad situation if we did not carry on with our salted and smoked products industry as we have done up till now.
The figures I have just quoted to the committee, Mr. Chairman, amply show that progress is being made in the Magdalen islands. I am glad to point them out and to express my appreciation to the government, as well as to private enterprise, for all they have done towards increasing the yield of the island fisheries. However, there is still much to be done in this field and, merely to give the committee an idea of how much remains to be done, I shall quote a paragraph from a letter which has come to me from one of my constituents:
To give you an idea of the average income of the islands cod fishermen, here is the case of two associated fishermen of my acquaintance, whose catch for the last fishing season amounted to 40,000 pounds of fresh cod and 12,000 pounds of salt cod, sold for a gross income of $1,800.
If you deduct from that amount the costs of equipment, upkeep of the boat, fuel, salt, etc., the individual net income is less than $600. The situation is such that a great many young men who

like fishing have to go outside the islands to find a trade far less interesting but far more profitable.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I submit that we must continue to help our fishermen-
(Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I hope this is convenient for the hon. member. I would point out that it is one o'clock and I do now leave the chair.
(Translation) :


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I will continue after recess.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock I was saying that the income of the Magdalen islands fishermen was very low and that we should continue to try and help them increase it. I would have a few suggestions to make to the department in that connection.
During the last session of this parliament we passed an act to help fishermen to get loans in order to buy equipment. That act is now in force. However I have received complaints from my electors who claim that it is not much help to them on the ground that in order to be able to borrow from the banks on part of their equipment they have to pay in cash at least 30 per cent of the purchase price for new equipment and 40 per cent for used equipment. They tell me, on the islands, that these terms are not favourable enough and that they do not really help fishermen.
Those who have the means to pay such large cash amounts can deal directly with the merchants who are ready to sell them their goods for 30 or 40 per cent down. If we really want to have a law which will help the fishermen to buy the equipment they lack, through loans from the bank, the minimum down payment should be reduced.
The hon. minister said in his speech that the number of applications for these loans was comparatively small. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this shows the value of my argument and that the rather small number of applications is due to the facts I just mentioned to the committee.

Now, the federal government allows the fishermen a grant of $165 a ton when they build new fishing vessels. We even find in the estimates an amount of $200,000 to that effect. Unfortunately, the act is not administered by the federal government, but by the governments of the various provinces, and there is not enough co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in the selection of those who are entitled to these grants. The decision is up to the provincial government. Well, without going into details, it can easily be understood that the choice the provincial government of Quebec makes with regard to the people entitled to the grants is not always the one I would make myself. I therefore suggest that the federal government control the allocation of these grants and decide as to whom they should be made.
As a matter of fact, this situation brings about some extraordinary anomalies. For instance, if a fisherman wants to get a grant of $165 for his fishing vessel, he has to go through the provincial loan office and borrow from the provincial government, even if he has enough money to pay the difference. In other words, our fishermen of the Magdalen islands cannot get the federal government grant of $165 a ton without having to borrow from the provincial government, even if they don't need to do so. Then, what happens when a fisherman has all the money he needs, except for the $165 a ton grant, is that he borrows $1 from the provincial government in order to qualify for the grant.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that we have here an anomaly of which we should rid ourselves. I understand that, when this grants policy was agreed upon, the Department of Fisheries didn't have as many employees, and its administrative services were not as well organized as they are now, but I feel that with its increasing importance, the greater number of its employees, its improved administrative services, it is time this department look after the distribution of these grants.
Mr. Chairman, I wish also to deal with the matter of lobster trap insurance. This insurance brought good results in my riding. Some 30 per cent of the lobster fishermen have taken insurance; you may think that this figure is very small, but, as a matter of fact, it is the largest figure obtained in all Canada. I am told that among fishermen, those on Magdalen islands have been the most num-
Supply-Fisheries
erous to avail themselves of this insurance. On the other hand, I have heard it said that the possibility of abolishing this kind of insurance may be considered in view of the small number of fishermen who use it. I wish to warn the department against such a step, because I believe that this insurance act affords a valuable service and that with a little advertising among fishermen in other parts of the province of Quebec and the maritimes, it would be possible eventually to convince them of the necessity of this insurance.
I was pleased to hear the hon. minister state that fish consumption was increasing and I congratulate him as well as his department. I am positive that this increase is the result of the enlightened efforts made last year to popularize the consumption of fish. As a matter of fact, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the efforts made by the Department of Fisheries when we were invited to relish the delicious dishes prepared with the products of our fisheries. I want to mention, not only the meal then served to us, but also the new recipes given to our housekeepers. I know that some of these recipes were given to the wives of our members of parliament and some of my colleagues have confessed that the results were simply marvellous. I congratulate the minister and his department and I hope that they will continue to popularize the consumption of fish.
Mr. Chairman, in order to encourage such consumption, to provide further education for the fishermen and to foster modernization in general, I submit that larger amounts should be spent on education, the opening up of markets and the political economy of the Department of Fisheries. I note with surprise that the amounts for those items have decreased somewhat this year. In my opinion, such savings are not wise; they will not give satisfactory results. I submit the amounts should have been increased rather than decreased, in order to open up new markets and help the work of the department.
Now, I read with satisfaction in the minister's speech-I do not know whether it was in last year's speech or in the one he made this year because I read both-about the investigation work he has ordered, to find new fishing banks or new scallop beds. Scallops are quite popular and there is reason to believe that if more intense research were done, new scallop beds would be found in

Supply-Fisheries
the gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as other herring banks; we know that there are large quantities in the gulf of St. Lawrence, but their exact location is not known.
While I am on the matter of the gulf of 3t. Lawrence, I would like to mention the problem of territorial waters. Several hon. members have referred to this matter and the minister himself spoke briefly on it, which shows that it is an important problem. I believe that Canada, at the United Nations and elsewhere, should insist on the settlement of that matter of vital importance for our fishermen and should demand that the limit of territorial waters be set at at least 12 miles.
In this connection, may I suggest that Canada should insist that all the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence be considered as Canadian territorial waters. A line should be drawn from the southwestern tip of Newfoundland to Cape Breton and it should be laid down that within this line all waters are to be Canadian territorial waters. After all, the gulf of St. Lawrence is surrounded by Canadian territory and we would be justified, I think, to designate that part of the gulf of St. Lawrence as Canadian territorial waters reserved to the fishermen of this country.
I could not bring these remarks to a close, Mr. Chairman, without returning to the subject of unemployment insurance for fishermen. The house knows that ever since I have been sitting here I have unceasingly attempted to obtain unemployment insurance for the fisherman. Last year I managed to have myself temporarily named to the committee on industrial relations and to have adopted by this committee a very precise recommendation according to the terms of which the house was requested to extend unemployment insurance benefits to fishermen, as quickly as possible. It was even recommended that salaried fishermen be immediately allowed to come under this act, and that the question of what could be done for the others should be left for later consideration. I know that it is not under the direct jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries, but it is a matter in which fishermen are interested and I feel sure the Minister of Fisheries will look into it actively. It is to be hoped that this situation will not last too long a time and that we shall soon see practical results.
Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that there should be closer co-operation between the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Transport and the Department of Public

Works, which I often have to approach to obtain the construction of harbours and breakwaters. It seems to me that, if the Department of Fisheries saw fit to give us its support, we would be a little more successful, and that is why I suggest greater co-operation between those departments.
Incidentally, I take this opportunity to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Fisheries to the urgency of digging a channel at Oyster bay and of putting up a breakwater at Grosse Isle North and another one at Havre aux Maisons as well as at Anse Milterand, Anse a la Cafoane and Anse au Ruisseau. A breakwater would be a great help to the fishermen of those three localities. We also need a breakwater at Premier Etang. Once again, I lay before the hon. Minister of Fisheries these requests from the fishermen of the Magdalen Islands and ask him to make every effort to have those works undertaken as soon as possible in the interest of the fishermen.
In conclusion, I once more congratulate the hon. Minister of Fisheries on the remarkable way he got over his injuries and wish him, on behalf of my electors of Magdalen Islands, a complete recovery as soon as possible.
(Text) :


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express the good wishes of this group to the Minister of Fisheries who is back with us once again and looking well. I sincerely hope that no further complications set in and that he will continue to take his usual place and look after his department, as he has so ably done in the past.
This morning the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam indicated he hoped that some further expenditures would be made on wharves and that the minister would talk to the Minister of Public Works to see whether or not something could be done in that way. I would like to echo those sentiments because in my riding there have been a number of instances where from time to time fishermen have found it difficult to get their boats to the wharves owing to dredging that needs to be done on the Fraser river.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam did make a statement which I am sure he did not expect me to pass by without comment. He said: "The federal government may find the provincial government making a deal that will completely frustrate the good intentions of the minister." He was referring to the building of power dams on the Fraser river. I should like to assure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that he need not

have any fear along that line. I am sure he should be satisfied by now that there is no man who has the interest of British Columbia industry-and the fisheries industry is one of those, and a major one, I might say-at heart so much as has the premier of British Columbia. I believe the Minister of Fisheries himself made reference to that when he spoke last Friday, although it was not my privilege to be present to hear him. He said, as reported at page 1751 of Hansard:
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 am sure that if the Minister of Fisheries is satisfied that the provincial government of British Columbia will not hinder our fishing industry, certainly the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam should take that as evidence that nothing will take place in that regard.
Before carrying on with the text of my comments, I wish to thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley for taking my part in the debate the other day when the minister first spoke; but I must say there is a certain advantage in speaking at this time. I have had the opportunity to discover what the minister himself had to say on certain questions and the advantage of knowing that many of the questions I would have asked have already been answered. This gives me the opportunity to revise my remarks in the hope that I shall not be repetitious in the debate.
There is one thing that should be emphasized, though, and it has been brought out particularly by several hon. members, including the hon. member for Fraser Valley, who asked that unemployment insurance be made available to the fishermen. I know this does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries, but he should use his influence, as he has in the past, to try to get a greater number of fishermen under the terms of the act. It is a fallacy to say that no fishermen are under the act, because certain part-time fishermen who do qualify for part-time insurance are entitled to it and they are getting unemployment insurance at this time provided that they fall within the group that was taken care of under section 119 as revised by the Minister of Labour earlier. However, I am satisfied that the minister is cognizant of the fact that this provision is not sufficient in itself, and that ' section 45(2) should be changed, or its complete deletion should be striven for at this time.
I feel that it would be to the advantage of the fishermen themselves and the Department of Labour if it were made possible to
Supply-Fisheries
extend the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act to cover a certain section of the country to which I shall refer later. I think an effort should be made to see whether or not it would be feasible to make these workmen recipients under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, with slight modifications, of course.
There is one matter which I think I should mention and that is the co-operation I have always experienced in my dealings with the Department of Fisheries and the minister of that department. I must say it is one department which sends out information bulletins regularly and I seem to get my share of them. If I have ever required information I have never failed to get it; all I have to do is ask for it, although I must admit that I sometimes find it a little difficult to reconcile what appears to be conflicting information. I shall refer to that more specifically in a short while.
One of these bulletins interested me very much. I do not think the minister touched upon this matter and he might wish to comment on it later. I refer to the December 1 issue of a bulletin issued by his department through the office of Mr. Campbell. This has to do with the progress report of the fishermen's indemnity fund. It says:
Benefits under the fund were increased in British Columbia in December, 1954, when the basis of payment of total loss claims was increased from 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the appraised value of the vessel. At the same time the deductible percentage was lowered from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.
Both of these factors are important and highly commendable.
There was one factor in the report, however, that did give me some concern and that is the fact that certain areas were not paying their way, one might say. I do not wish it to be construed that I am suggesting each area should pay its own way because insurance does not work on that premise. However, I found it interesting to note that of the boats that were insured, British Columbia stood highest in the group; the value was much higher in British Columbia than in any other province. At the same time British Columbia was the only province which made a profit; something like $32,694. Each of the other provinces lost money; an over-all deficit of $28,807. The bulletin does say, however, and this is very important:
It should be pointed out that losses on the Atlantic coast have been unduly severe as a result of two hurricanes: one in 1954 and one in 1955.
I was hoping the minister would comment on that matter, but not specifically on the monetary loss. More particularly I hoped

Supply-Fisheries
he would comment on the loss of life in connection with the losses of vessels. I am satisfied that too many people in Canada today have the impression that fishing is a pretty easy way of life for a man and I would like the minister to comment on that. If no loss of life has occurred in this connection possibly the minister could give us an indication of the loss of life of fishermen at sea.
I mentioned earlier that the reports I received gave me considerable concern because they did not appear to agree in some instances.
I have here a report dated February 9 which was also issued by the Vancouver office of the Department of Fisheries concerning salmon spawning. I intend to read just one paragraph from the first page:
Outstanding feature was the failure of the chum run to almost every section of the coast. Immediately evidence of this condition could be perceived, drastic conservation measures by special and early close-down of net fishing operations were applied. The run proved to be not more than one third of normal and definitely was the lightest return in the history of the fishery. Despite the drastic regulatory restrictions-
I would like the minister to comment on that phrase, "despite the drastic regulatory restrictions".
-the escapement for reproduction purposes was, with few exceptions, exceedingly light, and with present information the situation definitely will require special conservation measures four years hence in an effort to rehabilitate this particular cycle. The spawning escapement of the cycle year 1951 was such that a normal run was to be expected; and because of its coastwide character it can only be assumed that the failure was the result of very unfavourable survival conditions either in the fresh water or later during existence in the ocean of the progeny of the 1951 brood year.
I would ask the minister to comment on that particularly because during the past two years it has been the privilege of the hon. member for Fraser Valley and myself to draw to his attention certain changes he proposed in the regulations with respect to closures on the Fraser river. I should like to again repeat the question the hon. member for Fraser Valley asked the minister earlier. Does the minister feel that the closure of the Fraser river above the Westminster bridge is the answer to the problem? I am satisfied that he will have had sufficient opportunity by this time to have studied this problem at great length. That is the question which I think requires an answer. If closure is not the answer to the question, I wonder if the minister would consider ia modification of his earlier proposals made in the past two years.
There are other questions that enter into the subject of conservation in which I am vitally interested. I wonder if the minister could define for us the number of fish that

were caught by gill netters in the season during which the river was open for fishing above Westminster bridge in former years as compared with this year and last year, let us say, in order that we may have a more complete picture. I am not aware whether or not the department differentiates between the number of fish which gill netters and seiners catch, but in view of the fact that such a conservation scheme is in effect and because there was such violent opposition to it in past years, I think the fishermen are entitled to know what change has taken place in the net result. I think, too, that we are entitled to this information.
In his address the minister touched on the question of fish caught in Pacific waters, but that is another matter with which I wish to deal. As I understand it, as a result of the meeting at Tokyo a certain understanding was reached with the Japanese and United States fishermen. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on this particular question and tell us what has transpired since that time.
In view of the minister's visit to the U.S.S.R., at which time he was unfortunate enough to have experienced an accident, I would ask him to comment on what view we hold towards U.S.S.R. and what their view is towards us in relation to fishing practices and what is proposed to be done about the matter. I raise this question because I notice that the fishing vessel owners' association recently intimated their desire for equality of catch between gill netters and seiners, if r properly interpret the account set forth in the February 1956 bulletin of the association.
I said earlier that reports form the Department of Fisheries conflicted with what certain other parties had in mind. One thing that has come to my attention particularly, in respect to a matter that gives us great concern and also causes great concern on the Pacific coast, is mentioned in the fisheries magazine and has been mentioned in many other bulletins issued by the department, that is the flood conditions that take place on the Pacific coast in the spawning area, which virtually wiped out some 60,000 pinks and 30,000 early chum salmon in the Chehalis river. That was not the only river affected. The report states:
The Chilliwack river system including the Vedder river suffered less disastrous results, but even here losses of up to 50 per cent of pink and early chum spawning will likely materialize.
The gravity of this situation cannot be overemphasized. We cannot have fish if we do not have the spawn to begin with. If they happen to die en route, it is just as bad if they die as the result of excessive rainfall as

if they go over the top of the dam. So I should like the minister to comment on that phase and relate it, as he is so capable of doing, to the question the hon. member for Fraser Valley raised with respect to the bulldozer helping the fish to return home to spawn.
There is another point in the same article from which the hon. member for Fraser Valley quoted. It is the following:
Even though the Fraser river is navigable for fish for hundreds of miles, there are comparatively few places which salmon choose for their spawning grounds.
In one of the other articles, we find a notation that on the Capilano and Indian rivers, because of the forest cover along the rivers, the spawn were not lost to the same degree as along the Chehalis, where the trees have been taken away from the mountain. Because we realize that the spawning grounds are not so plentiful, I was wondering whether any thought had been given to conserving the woods of those areas where we do not have the fish spawning, and having those particular areas kept wooded at all times so they will not suffer from excessive wash coming down the mountainside.
There is a conflict in the reports, however, in regard to the fact that a certain Vancouver publication-I believe the Vancouver Sun-mentioned the precarious position of the coho salmon spawning and in this instance the fisheries report-and it was part of the same one that I mentioned earlier-made reference to that on the 9th of the month. I received a follow-up from the minister's office explaining the complete story, in so far as the public was concerned at least. It was indicated that the coho situation really was not too bad. It took the northern coast, for instance, from Smith inlet north to the Alaskan boundary, including the Queen Charlotte islands, and it said that the spawning generally was satisfactory. It said that in the Butedale area the seeding showed a marked decline and in the lower Queen Charlotte islands it was light. In the Vancouver island area, it said that some areas fared better than others. Then, breaking that down, it said:
Alert bay area, Cowichan area and Kyuquot area were above average. Pender Harbour was satisfactory; Quathiaski and Comox fairly good, but less than the brood years. Barkley sound, Nootka, Quatsino areas were light. Nanaimo was very light. In the Fraser river system, however, several of the areas showed a marked increase over the brood years.
This is very interesting in view of the fact that we have this statement made by apparently responsible individuals outside the
Supply-Fisheries
organization itself who went into the coho situation. It goes on:
These included Kamloops, Yale-Merritt and the Mission-Harrison and Chilliwack. Unfortunately a good early seeding in the lower sections of the Fraser suffered extensive damage from the phenomenal rainfall in early November and resulting flood conditions.
Breaking that down into areas, I find there were five areas. One was satisfactory, which I consider to be a normal year. I do not know whether or not my definition of the term "satisfactory" is proper, but that is what the minister's department calls it, and I should think that is in order. One area showed a marked decline. Another was light. Then there was the statement that some areas fared better than others. I find only one of those indicated as being satisfactory. In the group about which it is stated that some areas fared better than others, only one is satisfactory and all the others range from light, fairly good, and less than the brood years, to very light. I would not call that whole area satisfactory, under those circumstances.
Then there was another area with a marked increase over the brood years. That was the last area I mentioned, in the Fraser river system. However, from the earlier report I read to you in respect to the area that was flooded, I find that the Chilliwack region, the Harrison lake region and the Pitt river region were all in that area-one-half of the area, actually-and the spawn there was from 50 per cent to 90 per cent lost. That would indicate, then, if my analysis of the situation is right-and probably the minister can show me where I am wrong, because he has all the facts and figures at his command-that we are not warranted in suggesting to the fishermen that we do not face a serious condition in so far as the elimination of our cohoe fishery is concerned. I am somewhat concerned about that.
Possibly my conclusion may be wrong, but I think we should be privileged to get more information from the minister on this. I should like to ask the minister to comment on this aspect in view of the fact that there seems to be a notion abroad among the fishermen that there is a confidential report that has not been made public with respect to this matter. I am not accusing the minister or his department of withholding information. I just think we have the right to know, and I shall look forward to hearing his reply to that particular question.
There is just one other item with which I wish to deal at this time. I intend to spend more time on the power dam situation and its effect on the fisheries on another occasion,

Supply-Fisheries
but now I turn to a release from the dominion bureau of statistics in its daily bulletin of Monday, 6th February. It is headed:
Catch of Sea-fish Down Nine Per Cent In Volume and Ten Per Cent In Value In 1955.
It goes on to say:
Canadian sea-fishermen landed nine per cent less fish in 1955 than in the preceding year and the value of the catch fell about ten per cent.
Here again we have a primary, industry that is losing some of its cash returns. It is somewhat different from the agricultural situation. Here it is not a matter of surplus, but we have a difficulty in catching sufficient fish to keep our stocks, as we would like them, at a maximum. In his address, the hon. member for Fraser Valley mentioned that we are pleased that we do not have a surplus of fish on hand and we are able to get rid of our stocks and our canned supplies. I do not necessarily agree with that point of view. I always like to have a few cases of things on hand just in the event of next year not being too good. In this instance it would not help the fishermen in any event because they would not get any greater cash return. However, the fact of the matter remains that as one who was in the grocery business for many years and saw my customers denied the right to buy a tin of sockeye salmon I feel that a few *cases of sockeye kept on hand are not going to hurt at all. We should not have too much difficulty disposing of them. Let us not make it too much of a practice.
In the next paragraph I find the following with respect to the declines:
In 1955 the values of all three major Pacific fisheries declined appreciably from their 1954 levels: salmon by 22 per cent . . . halibut by 38 per cent . . . and herring by 9 per cent . . .
I believe those are the three chief fisheries of the Pacific coast and as such they are bound to have their effect on so many people not only in my community but also in the community of the Minister of Fisheries. For that reason I think we should put greater and greater emphasis on the need of a greater degree of co-ordination and co-operation between the minister's department, the Department of Labour, the Department of Public Works and every other department that might have anything to do with the matter in order that these people may continue to get as big a return as possible from their investment. The fishing vessel owners association have indicated that they feel they have some responsibility to the gillnetters and I believe the department should also realize that it is not only the fishing vessel owners who are faced with a problem with respect to the gillnetters which they want to resolve but that the department also has a duty in this regard.

If conservation does not bring about an improvement over the situation we had a couple years ago then, while I do not necessarily say that it is necessary to go back to that situation, we should determine means whereby we can be sure of having a supply of salmon each year.
There is no object in protesting, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam did, about dams and so on if we have no fishing industry to protect. The objective is to have a fishing industry. Maybe the answer should be to let the fish go up the river and spawn first and then go out and catch all we want to afterwards.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, I too should like to congratulate the minister on his speedy recovery from his serious accident and assure him that all members welcome him back to the house. The manner in which he presented his statement when these estimates came before the committee indicated very clearly, I believe, that the Minister of Fisheries has great knowledge of his department which is of great value to those interested in the fishing industry.
During the short time the minister has headed the department a great many improvements have been made which the fishermen perhaps had expected over the years but concerning which no action was taken until recently. In that regard I refer to the fishermen's insurance plan which was introduced a short time ago. Obviously it was practically impossible for the fisherman to insure his fishing boat. The rates charged by the average insurance company made it prohibitive. With the plan now in effect almost any fisherman can insure his boat, which to him is his bread and butter. The rates being charged by the department are most reasonable, and at the same time I believe that the losses are very small. The insurance plan is a sound plan, and I can assure the minister that the fishermen in the area from which I come appreciate this very much.
Only last year a plan was introduced whereby those engaged in the salt fish industry were assisted. The federal government undertook to be responsible for 50 per cent of the cost of salt. There again I wish to assure the minister and the officials of his department that this was a move in the right direction and one which is appreciated. Not only is the contribution of 50 per cent of the cost of the salt beneficial to the fishermen but the fact is that many fishermen have been encouraged to salt their own catch. Previously they would sell their catch for 2, 3, or 4 cents a pound, but when this plan was introduced many of them decided to salt a greater portion of their

catch themselves, which means greater revenue to the fishermen. The fishermen of the area from which I come are most appreciative of this action on the part of the government.
The fishermen's indemnity act which went into effect a short time ago has not, of course, been in operation for a sufficient time to find out just what benefits the fishermen may expect. I realize that the banks in the maritime provinces have not had any experience with this type of loan in the way that western banks have had with the farm loan act. Therefore it will perhaps be some time before the scheme is organized properly, but I do hope that it will provide the assistance for fishermen for which it was intended. I am sure that over a period of time it can be worked out in such a way that it will be of benefit to all fishermen.
Another matter I wish to mention briefly is the kitchen over in the west block. In the past two or three years I have attended two or three luncheons there, and I believe that all those taking part in that organization deserve a great deal of credit. I must say at this point that in the ten or eleven years I have been here there has been a great improvement in the serving of fish in the city of Ottawa. The fish served today is far better than two years ago, five years ago or ten years ago. I believe the fisheries department should receive some credit for the improvement. The kitchen in the west block should be maintained and expanded, if possible.
I noticed in a pamphlet put out by the fisheries council a few days ago, which I had intended to bring with me, it was stated that in the city of Toronto and other places they had been given a great deal of encouragement to carry on this type of informational and educational work in connection with the fishing industry. It has always been my belief that in order for our fish to take the place they should take with the consumers of this country we must continue to produce a better article in a fresher state and see that it is cooked properly. I feel that the great disadvantage we have had throughout the whole country has been the fact that those who would have liked to have fish in their homes were not given any information as to how it should be prepared.
Until the last few years, in many cases they got fish which was not fresh and once it had been served they were not satisfied with that particular type and did not buy it a second time. With the facilities we have today for bringing fresh fish to our cities where the great bulk of the population is, I believe that every encouragement should be given the industry to produce a better article, get it in the homes and keep it there. I know
Supply-Fisheries
that encouragement is being given the industry by the fisheries department and the biological board, and I believe we are doing a very good job in that regard at the present time.
The fishermen in the maritime provinces also appreciate the accelerated effort by the department in the important field of research. They are doing a very fine job which I know is appreciated by all fishermen. Last fall I attended a meeting of officials of the fisheries department of this country, those of the United States and others connected with the industry at a place called Hinkley's Point in the state of Maine. It was one of the finest international gatherings I have ever attended. Each individual spoke very frankly. The main discussion at that time was a survey in connection with the herring and sardine fisheries on the Atlantic coast. I believe the officials of the two countries and those engaged in the canning industries of the two countries are of one mind. It is a fine thing to find the officials of the fisheries departments in these two countries ready and willing to sit down and work out these problems together, in co-operation. It will save a great deal of repetition as a result of one country doing the same work as the other one is doing. When I found that type of co-operation there, I was convinced that the survey will be a success. I know that the departments are extremely anxious that it be carried on. I have discussed with the minister a similar survey which was conducted on the Pacific coast a few years ago. According to reports that we received from that section of the country it was most successful, most advantageous to the industry and most advantageous to the department. We shall be pleased to see that type of investigation carried on on the Atlantic coastline.
By other hon. members who have already spoken mention has been made of the serious shortage of clams in that area. We all realize that the clam industry has never been a great producer of wealth. At the same time it was an industry that employed a goodly number of persons during the winter months when dollars were not too plentiful. I agree that the situation today is serious. At the same time I believe that the green crab which has infested our waters in that area during the past few years may be to a great extent responsible for the situation. Then again, the great improvement in the prices which were paid to the producers has encouraged a much greater number to be employed in that industry. I know the department is doing everything possible to try to find some answer to the problem. I hope they may be able to come up with something which may be helpful.

Supply-Fisheries
Only a few weeks ago-I believe it would be seven or eight weeks ago now-I was at the biological station in St. Andrews. At that time they put on a film strip which portrayed the dragging of scallops. I have mentioned this matter to the minister. In my opinion it was one of the finest types of work that the department could ever hope to produce which would be helpful to those engaged in the industry. The way in which the light from the ship was regulated on a sled behind the drags made it possible to sit and watch the scallops being dragged off the ocean bottom. It gave a clear picture of the way that the drags might be improved. I myself have dragged some scallops. With the information provided by this film strip I know that I could today devise a drag that would drag more scallops than those I used a few years ago. Work of that type is most helpful to the industry; it is most interesting to the industry and it means dollars to those engaged in it. We have not the scallop fishing they have in Digby and over that way, but our scallop fishing this past winter has been encouraging enough that we have had with us at least two or three boats from Digby dragging in Charlotte county area waters this winter. I trust the department will continue with this type of work because it will be found that it pays dividends and is most helpful to those engaged in the industry.
I also wish to say that the information compiled by the biological board in St. Andrews -and I take it for granted that the same is true with regard to the other stations-has always been made available to the industry. They have always tried in every way to be helpful and to encourage those who are trying to produce a better product. We have in the little town from which I come the largest exporter of lobsters perhaps on the North American continent. The assistance it has been able to obtain from the biological board has been most helpful. As a result, within the last few years, tanks have been installed in many of the larger restaurants in different parts of the United States to which fresh lobsters are shipped. They are kept alive in glass tanks. Those who come there and who like to have a lobster dinner-the best food in the world-can go to the tank, pick out the lobsters they wish, have them cooked and served to them in that restaurant. The biological board are to a great extent responsible for that improvement. I believe it will be of great assistance in building up this industry and in creating a greater demand for this wonderful food.
At the present time lobsters are being transported by trucks from the Conley lobster plant in St. Andrews as far as Florida. They

are making weekly trips with live lobsters from St. Andrews to Florida. This is something which indicates clearly that even though the lobster is a most perishable article, with the proper facilities it can be placed in the restaurants and in the homes of a great portion of the population of this continent.
I have one suggestion to make in this regard. Conley's Lobsters Limited at one time owned a small lobster pound on the small island, namely Banes island which is in the Deer island area. When their business began to grow it became necessary to find larger quarters. This small pound was abandoned and has not been used for several years. The officials of the company assure me that that pound could be placed at the disposal of the biological board at any time they might wish to take it over for purposes of experimentation. I believe the matter should be looked into carefully. I am still one of those who believe that this industry can be helped greatly by looking after our spawn and small lobsters. I should like to see the department take an interest in this pound, which I know can be taken over without any cost to the department other than that of the personnel who look after it. The experiments that could be carried on there would be carried on in a place where the fishermen themselves could see them. I believe the benefits that might come from such experiments would be worth while.
I have just one bit of criticism to offer. During the past year the seining regulations in connection with the sardine industry were changed by the department. At the outset I wish to say that I did not oppose that change. I was opposed to it but a great number felt that it was an experiment which should be tried for one year. For that reason I did not oppose it. However, I was of the opinion that it would be harmful to those who are operating sardine weirs in the area, and I am still of that opinion. Nevertheless, it was carried on during the year 1955. I received a great many protests from fishermen all over the Passamaquoddy bay area. I do not think for a minute that it is the quantity of fish they oatch that is harmful. It is the commotion that goes on all night in the areas where these weirs are built that is harmful. I am going to suggest to the minister to give serious consideration to giving these fishermen 1,500 feet or 2,000 feet protection instead of 1,000 feet. With 1,000 feet protection from a sardine weir, with this work going on all night, the commotion is most harmful. Those who build weirs place them in one particular spot and are obliged to wait until the fish

come to them. I believe this is one matter that should be given serious thought.
I was informed today-and I am not in a position to state whether or not this information is correct-that with respect to sardines that were on the north shore-that is the area between what is known as White Head or Bliss harbour and point Lepreau, a school of sardines has been there since last December. Purse seiners have been in the area all winter. They have been able to provide the canneries in that part of the county with good supplies-nearly a daily supply of sardines. This fact is very much appreciated by those working in the canneries and who were unable to work last summer owing to scarcity. This has provided a very good income for those engaged in purse seining. I do believe that that school of fish has pretty well left the north shore at this time. The report I got this morning was to the effect they had found sardines in the Passamaquoddy bay area and the seiners were in there.
I did not communicate with the minister because the house met early this morning but at one time the regulations we had governing the area in which purse seiners were allowed to operate was from White Head, near Bliss harbour not including the St. Andrews bay area to point Lepreau. The seiners were not allowed to go inside St. Andrews bay. If purse seiners are operating in St. Andrews bay today I know the telegrams, telephone calls and letters I may expect in volume. I really believe that it should be stopped. There are sardine weir fishermen in the Passamaquoddy bay area right now who are preparing their weirs for spring. There is great expense in connection with these preparations, and I do believe they should be protected. Again I would say it is not the quantity of fish that the seiners will get in that area, but it is the breaking up of the schools of herring. They may be difficult to find after the seiners have been amongst them for a few weeks.
This letter I received today is from a fisherman who has been engaged in the industry for 35 years to my knowledge. He pointed out what we may expect, and in his letter today the forecast he made has proven true. There were large schools on this north shore during December, January and part of February, but the catch during these last few days has been practically nil. Now, in my humble opinion the seiners have not caught 5 per cent of the fish that were there; I do not argue that. As I have said, it is not the quantity that they catch but it is the commotion and traffic through the places where they stay winter after winter that does the damage. I might repeat what has been
Supply-Fisheries
said to me on many occasions, that 85 per cent of the sardine fishermen are opposed to this. Again, as I stated earlier, hundreds of people have been employed in these canneries who needed the employment. It is very difficult to strike a balance and know just where to draw the line; no one realizes that more than I do. I spent several winters on that coastline in this very type of work. I realize that those who go out in the winter months to make their bread and butter on this coastline earn all they get. But the feeling is very strong in connection with purse seining, and in the opinion of a great many it breaks up the schools of fish so that when spring comes it is impossible to find them anywhere. This is a very serious matter.
Years ago the sardine fishermen in the area from Pocologan down the north shore to Bliss harbour, Back bay, Deer island in St. Andrews bay area, depended to a great extent on the spring school of herring for a great portion of their annual income. During the last few years we have not had a spring school of herring, and as I have said many believe it is the winter seiner who is responsible for it. I have not any idea myself other than I know that, before the winter seining was introduced, somewhere in the area I have mentioned we would get that spring school of fish. At that time of year stocks were usually sold out and the price was as a rule better in the spring than any other time of the year. If this regulation with regard to that area is still in effect and it is open for purse seining, I would ask the minister to look into this very carefully. The school that was on the north shore has been broken up. If there is a school of sardines, as I am informed, already in the St. Andrews bay area and the purse seiners break them up again and there are no sardines in the spring, we are all open to a great deal of criticism.
There is another matter that I want to mention and it was brought out by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne). He mentioned the serious situation with regard to the salmon industry on the rivers of the province. It would appear from his remarks and the remarks of many others that this great industry is being neglected by the federal fisheries department. I have heard this same criticism in the house directed to the federal government in connection with conservation of our forests, our streams and so on. I do not want any member of the house to think for one minute I am blaming one government more than any other, because in my lifetime we have had different provincial governments in my province. In this house I have always

Supply-Fisheries
been critical of any provincial government which will allow our raw materials to be exploited and then come to the federal government for aid. For many many years these salmon pools on our rivers have been put up for auction and sold to millionaires from outside our country. This has happened under both Liberal and Conservative governments. Our own citizens have been denied the right to fish in the pools on these rivers. However, mention is never made of the fact that the federal government provides the personnel to protect these rivers, yet every dollar of revenue from licences of any kind or from the sale of the pools goes into the provincial treasury. I believe that before too much criticism is aimed at the federal government in this regard we should clean house in our own province. Before I am accused of making a political speech, which is usually the accusation I receive, I want to say that I have said this when we had Liberal governments in my province and I say it today when we have a Tory government.


An hon. Member:: More so now.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: And not any more now; I have spoken on the same subject in this house on different occasions. I do not believe it is right for any provincial government to allow their crown lands, their fisheries or any other resource of this country which belongs to the people of the country to be exploited by citizens in that province, and then come to the federal government asking for assistance and condemning the federal government for not playing their part. I believe we have the power in our own province to start conservation measures. Now, I will resume my seat because I have taken more time than I intended. I know the minister will give these matters I have brought to his attention serious consideration. I know his health will improve and he will be able to carry on and do the same type of job as he has done since he came here as Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I would like to take this opportunity, and I am sure all other hon. members in the house join me, of saying how glad I am to see the minister back in his seat and looking so well after his unfortunate accident. You know, Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that if you tell a man often enough he is looking sick, eventually he will get sick. I think perhaps after the first item of the minister's estimates is completed that saying will work in reverse and if there is any recovery still necessary it will be completed by the time the minister's estimates are finished.

It may seem very strange to hon. members from the maritimes or British Columbia that a member from central Canada should have any remarks to make about fisheries. However, as the minister and his staff well know, and I hope many other hon. members know, the fishing industry on the great lakes is of very considerable value. In the report of the minister's department it says that the sale value of fish from the great lakes was aproximately $8 million, a little bit less, but almost $8 million. Now, the fishing industry on lake Erie, and lake Huron particularly, not only provides a source of income but it employs many persons. It is a particularly valuable industry because the bulk of the fish caught in those lakes goes to the United States and provides us with United States dollars which, because of our present balance of trade with that country, are very valuable indeed.
As I have already mentioned, this industry is very valuable and its value can be increased, although in the last few years, as hon. members know, because of the lamprey eel and other things, the fishing industry has certainly dropped off in the great lakes area. It is our hope that it will revive, increase in value and employ more people.
A fisherman's life on the great lakes is a pretty healthy one. In my younger days, when I was going to school, I used to spend a great deal of each summer visiting and sometimes working on the fish boats going out of Port Dover, which is in the constituency of the hon. member for Norfolk. Port Dover, as some hon. members may know, is the largest inland fishing port in the world. At the present time there are 25 or 30 modern diesel tugs operating out of this port. I am sure the minister and his staff are aware of this, and I do not wish to take any further time dealing with facts which they already know.
When the great St. Lawrence seaway project is completed in a couple of years a couple of problems which are now in existence will become increasingly important. These two problems will certainly have an effect on the fish population of the great lakes, particularly of lake Erie. These two problems are, firstly, the danger of animal and plant life from the ocean, which are not indigenous to fresh water, getting into the lakes and upsetting the balance of nature and possibly causing considerable harm.
With regard to the first matter, I should like to refer hon. members to what happened with respect to the lamprey eel. As far as I have been able to understand it, the lamprey eel may well have been in lake

Ontario for many thousands of years because, apart from the international rapids and the Lachine rapids, there was nothing to prevent them from getting into lake Ontario. However, Niagara falls was too much of a barrier even for the lamprey eel, and it never got into lake Erie and subsequently lake Huron and lake Superior until there was some other means of passage. Apparently the means of passage was provided by the Welland canal. Well, the Welland canal is of varying size and depth. It has been in existence for well over 100 years. First, there was a 7-foot draft canal, and then a 14-foot draft canal, and now we shall have a 27-foot draft canal. Despite the earlier canals, apparently the lampreys were never noticed in lake Erie until 1921. It is my understanding that lampreys got into lake Ontario by riding-I was going to say "piggy-back", but perhaps I should say "piggy-bottom"; that may be a better term-or sticking to the bottom of boats and going through the lakes. There is a possibility they may have been getting through the locks as they were being filled up from time to time. My colleague, the hon. member for Lambton West, dealt with this problem this morning. Lampreys have caused great depredations in the fish population of the great lakes, particularly lake trout. I understand they are now starting in on the whitefish. This should teach us a little lesson.
The Minister of Fisheries is certainly to be highly commended on the lead he has given in efforts to control and get rid of the lamprey eel. I am very glad to see that an additional $130,000 is included in the estimates this year for that purpose. If we succeed in controlling and eventually getting rid of the lamprey eel we certainly do not want them coming in from the ocean again once we have got rid of those we already have. After the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway project it might be advisable for the minister, if he has not already done so, to take steps to make sure that some type of screening process takes place to prevent, not only more lampreys from getting up into the lakes, but also other forms of undesirable ocean life. The minister may very well say: It has not come in so far. Maybe it will not come in, but after the St. Lawrence seaway is completed we shall have a 27-foot canal, almost double the present depth. There will be a great increase in shipping on the great lakes. At the present time most of our foreign ships come from Norway, Sweden and Holland. With the increased depth of the seaway we will probably have ships from all over the world which will have various things sticking to their hulls. It may be well for the minister, as I said before, to take
Supply-Fisheries
some precautions to prevent undesirable marine life, both plant and animal, from getting into the lakes on the bottoms of ships or swimming into those much larger and much deeper locks.
While the Welland canal has been in existence for over 100 years, in one way or another, yet the lampreys never got into lake Erie in any quantity until 1921, and did not cause serious damage until the late 1930's. In this regard I should like to make a couple of suggestions to the minister. First of all, I think the great lakes fisheries research committee should investigate the possibility of placing new types of ocean fish in the lakes. This is a sort of procedure the reverse of what I have already mentioned. We have had one very good example of that in the great lakes, namely, the great lakes smelts. The smelt, as hon. members from the maritime provinces know, is a very small edible fish. Smelts in the great lakes have provided a valuable source of fish food and, I may say, pleasure to individuals who go smelting in the springtime. As I understand it, smelt got into the great lakes from a small lake in Michigan which was stocked with those fish. They came down a small stream into lake Michigan and spread around. That is one explanation I have heard; there may be others. As I say, these smelts have provided a very valuable source of food and pleasure to the residents around the great lakes. It may be that other forms of ocean fish could be put into the great lakes that would survive under fresh water conditions and would not upset the present fish population, and might in fact increase, give employment and cause us to sell more fish as well. This is just a suggestion. It may be that the research committee is looking into this matter. I hope it is. If it is not, I hope it will take this hint.
When the lampreys are controlled-and we have had various estimates of the time it will take-I hope the minister's department will take the lead in making attempts to rehabilitate the great lakes with lake trout and with other forms of fresh water fish. This will probably be done by the provincial authorities, but an additional subsidy from the federal government might be very helpful.
I mentioned before-and I repeat it because I do think it is important-that once the seaway is completed, and before it is completed, some plan, some arrangement for screening the Welland canal in particular should be put into effect to prevent the lampreys at least from getting back into the lakes once they are controlled.
The second matter I would like to deal with is pollution in the great lakes, and in

Supply-Fisheries
lake Erie in particular. I mention lake Erie because it is a very shallow lake. I believe the average depth is around 70 feet, if my memory serves me. The deepest spot in the whole lake is only 190 feet, and it is at the end of Long Point island. In this regard, I should like to refer to a clipping from the Sentinel-Review of Woodstock, Ontario, dated Friday, March 2, 1956. I shall read just a portion of the clipping. The heading is:
Welland health director says Erie being polluted.
The paragraph reads as follows:
Dr. L. W. C. Sturgeon, director of the Welland county health unit, told the Ontario pollution board Thursday lake Erie is becoming more contaminated every year.
We have an abundant supply of good water from lake Erie, but the drainage problem in the Welland and Port Colborne areas is complicated by the abundance of heavy clay.
Dr. Sturgeon said new types of virus diseases are being encountered, such as a mild outbreak of jaundice in one district school last year.
I mention this in passing because it illustrates the desirability of looking into this matter of pollution. Pollution of necessity consists of two types. There is pollution by sewage, which is, of course, animal or vegetable waste matter which eventually would dissipate. In fact, in some cases, it might even form a type of food for some of the fish of the lakes.
The other type of pollution is caused by chemicals, and it would tend to be cumulative in effect. I refer to the type of pollution that might very well be caused by ships blowing off once a day, cleaning their bunkers of oil which goes all through the water. Hon. members know that our beaches along the Atlantic coast have been spoiled because of oil collecting on the beaches and in the water. This might have a very serious effect on the fish life of the great lakes. With the greatly increased shipping that will come with the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway, with certain chemicals being used for cleaning the decks and the holds of ships and that type of thing, this waste will be dumped in the lakes and it might have accumulative effect.
If we look far enough into the future, ships eventually might very well be powered by nuclear energy and their waste products might be dumped into the lakes unless steps are taken at this time to control this type of action. Not only will the fish life in the great lakes be endangered, but the water which may be used for municipal purposes in the states adjoining the great lakes and also in Ontario will be polluted. If pollution is allowed to accumulate in lake Huron and lake Erie it will not only kill the fish but

will present serious problems to these municipalities which will have to use this water in the immediate future.
I know this does not come under the heading of fisheries exactly, so I shall not pursue it further, but I did want to mention it in passing in order to show that the increase in traffic on the great lakes which will come as the result of the seaway will increase the possibility of pollution.
I should like now to refer to the remarks of the Hon. Lionel Chevrier who, as all hon. members know, is the head of the St. Lawrence seaway project. I wish to refer briefly to some statements he made when speaking about potential traffic on the seaway in an address he gave in Copenhagen, Denmark, on May 20, 1955:
Estimates of the traffic which will utilize the seaway in the years immediately following its completion suggest a total of 30-35 million tons of cargo per year. This may be compared with approximately ten million tons currently passing through the St. Lawrence canals.
He goes on further to say:
Overseas trade was pioneered by Norwegian interests in 1933, it expanded sporadically in the years before world war II, but was discontinued during the hostilities. Re-established in 1945, this trade has since expanded at a phenomenal rate.
By 1954, the total volume exceeded 780,000 tons and involved 14 shipping lines and 120 vessels. It is worth noting as a measure of growth that the number of shipping lines involved doubled between 1952 and 1954. This has been accomplished it must be remembered, despite the handicaps of the existing 14-foot canals.
Referring to future traffic in foreign shipping, Mr. Chevrier had this to say:
Estimates vary considerably, but there is substantial reason to believe that the present volume of this traffic (over one-half million tons) -
That is, foreign shipping coming from abroad.
-will be more than treble in the years immediately following completion of the seaway.
... It could be expanded some 25 times its current level without exceeding the tonnage of similar traffic now handled by ports in comparable U.S. coastal districts.
I mention this because Mr. Chevrier is, as I think all hon. members will agree, the leading authority on the St. Lawrence seaway project and its potentialities in this country and perhaps elsewhere as well. I think these figures should not be taken lightly by any means. The shipping and the pollution, which are already rapidly growing on the great lakes, will continue to grow at a great rate with the completion of the seaway. The problem of waste materials being dumped from ships and the problem of sewage disposal in the lakes will also increase. In deep lakes like lake Huron it may be a long time before the effect is felt, but in shallow lakes such as lake Superior, from which comes the

bulk of fish from the great lakes at the present time, the effect will soon present a problem to municipalities.
In this regard I have a suggestion which I hope the minister might consider. I suggest the setting up of a joint commission with the United States to control pollution of the great lakes. If such a commission were set up it could investigate the present sewage pollution problem and the chemical pollution problem and other factors, and could endeavour to estimate what damage if any, future pollution might cause. It might be that pollution would not be found to be a serious matter, but it would appear serious to me. This commission could investigate the type of pollution that is likely to occur in the great lakes in the foreseeable future, the amount of such pollution and the effect, if any, on the fish population.
If such a commission were set up I think particular attention should be paid to the cumulative effect of chemical pollution particularly by oil and chemicals being dumped into the lakes. If the commission were to decide that a serious problem could develop in future as the result of increased pollution, steps could be taken to control pollution before it takes place, before it destroys the fish life and renders the waters of the great lakes unliveable for the fish and unusable for the human population in the surrounding area.
There is no point in shutting the barn door after the horse is stolen. If vision and foresight had been used in the past we would not have the lamprey problem today. I feel that the Minister of Fisheries and the officials of his department have both foresight and vision. I suggest to the minister that the setting up of such a commission to study the volume of anticipated pollution and its effects should be borne in mind, and it would be my hope that the department would do something about it before it is too late.


Mr. McWilliam:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks under this general item. First, however, I wish to state briefly, but nonetheless sincerely, that I am sure we are all pleased to see the minister well on the way to complete recovery.
All phases of fisheries have been discussed since this item was brought forward; therefore my remarks today will be limited. On the whole the Department of Fisheries is making good progress. The status of the department as a component part of government continues to rise, which is a good omen for the future of the industry.
The peculiar habits of the different species of fish, the divergent views on international
Supply-Fisheries
fisheries, and the limited number of qualified biological and research workers available, are only a few of the problems that have to be faced. These are problems which I contend cannot be solved over night. Advances have been made in all branches of the department, new and improved legislation and regulations have been introduced over the years, all of which is encouraging and beneficial to the industry. Broad statements have been made about the inefficiency of the department and its officials. Statements have been made to the effect that there is a serious decline in fisheries. None of these statements has any foundation in fact.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I wish to place a few facts on record. The 25th annual report of the Department of Fisheries for the year 1954-55, on page 55, gives a general review of the fishing industry which I feel should be placed in part on the record for the information of those who have not read the report:
Canadian fishermen generally enjoyed a satisfactory year in 1954. Total landings of fish and fish products amounted to slightly over 2.0 billion pounds compared with approximately 1-85 billion in 1953. Much of this increase was attributable to substantially heavier landings of cod and haddock, in the Atlantic area. In addition British Columbia's herring fishermen recorded their first full calendar year production since 1951.
Average returns, with few exceptions, compared favourably with those of 1953. Gross landed value totalled approximately $97-7 million as against $90-2 million and the marketed value of the year's production is estimated at close to $185 million as compared with $174-2 million in 1953.
The total value of exports reached a record $132-6 million.
To those who are interested in fisheries, I suggest that they read this annual report. I am sure they will agree that the scope of the department's work is very extensive and the results obtained have been very good.
The 1955 annual report of the New Brunswick department of industry and development, fisheries branch, states in part on pages 12 and 13:
New Brunswick's sea and inland commercial fisheries reached a total of 212,450,000 pounds of fish and shellfish for a landed value of $7,186,900 during the calendar year 1954. In comparison with 1953 this represents an increase of 9-4 per cent in quantity and 5 per cent in value.
How, then, does anyone justify the statement that New Brunswick fisheries are in serious decline?
In regard to species of fish caught in the world-renowned Miramichi river, which runs through the riding of Northumberland-Miramichi, such as salmon, -smelts, oysters, lobsters and other varieties of fish-all of which are delicacies-I shall make a few comments when the particular item comes before the committee.

Supply-Fisheries
I wish to say a few words on a matter that has been the subject of much discussion inside and outside this house; that is, unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen. I realize the difficulties that are faced in the working out of a plan to embrace fishermen, owing chiefly to the fact that the majority of fishermen are self-employed.
I do not need to remind the members of this house that of all occupations fishing is the most strenuous and hazardous and, as far as the east coast fishing is concerned, the industry with the smallest financial return to the individual. The majority of Atlantic provinces fishermen find it extremely difficult to eke out an existence. They are at the mercy of the elements, and many of them spend their entire lives in the fishing industry, with very little to show for a lifetime of endeavour, through no fault of their own.
There are no better Canadians than the east coast fishermen. They carry on under all sorts of adverse conditions. They do not come begging to parliament when they have a crop failure, or a loss of boats and gear caused by storms, and they -have never witnessed a crop surplus. These hardy fishermen go back to the sea with faith and courage to recoup their losses by their own efforts. They are to be commended for their spirit. It is unfortunate that some of this admirable spirit is not shown by another group, in another part of Canada. It would have a splendid effect on the present and future morale of our country.
These east coast fishermen know and appreciate that the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Labour, whose department administers the Unemployment Insurance Act, are exploring every avenue with a view to enacting legislation that will make fishermen eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, or some other plan that will provide assistance during periods of unemployment. I know the matter is receiving most serious consideration by the two ministers and their officials. I trust that a solution will be found in the near future to provide these benefits for this group, which is so deserving of this advantage now enjoyed by most Canadians, particularly in view of the adverse conditions they must face -conditions beyond their control-which make the provision of a livelihood an almost insurmountable task.
In the matter of protection, much is heard on the east coast of New Brunswick about illegal fishing of lobsters and salmon. I think there has been a definite improvement in late years. However, I feel that additional protective services would benefit the lobster and salmon fisheries. Salmon fishing associations,

both commercial and sports fishing, have requested additional protection, particularly in the spawning areas.
At this point I should like to say a word about the dates for east coast salmon fishing. As a conservation measure the date was set ahead last year to June 5. This date was arrived at after a recommendation was received by the department from the Atlantic salmon co-ordinating committee. This was the first time all the Atlantic provinces, including Quebec, agreed upon an opening date. This date was concurred in by the department after all factors were considered, and the recommendation was put into effect, strictly as a conservation measure. It is generally felt that it was a necessary step; and when the records are compiled after the trial cycle period, the department will be in a better position to assess the future of the east coast salmon fisheries.
In closing, I wish to ask the minister if he has anything to report on the research that is being done in connection with the possibility of spawning the early run salmon at our hatcheries. I also wish to ask him if he will arrange for the showing of the films on the life and habits of the lobster to the Miramichi lobster fishermen at an early date, prior to the opening of the season in area 7B.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like other members who have spoken, I should like to extend my congratulations to the Minister of Fisheries on his restoration to good health. I am also happy to join in congratulating him on the excellence of his administration of the Department of Fisheries. I have been pleased to note some of the innovations that have taken place during the period he has been minister, including the fishermen's indemnity plan, as well as other steps he has taken to improve the lot of those engaged in this industry.
I should like to join with the previous speaker and others who have spoken in this debate and express the hope that, along with the Minister of Labour, it will not be long until he will find a way in which to bring fishermen under the coverage of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
However, my purpose in rising at this time is to say a few words not merely because of an ancestral interest in fishing but because I happen to be a member of a group that is extremely important to the fishing industry. I refer to the consumers of Canada. I join with the member for Charlotte in congratulating the department on what it has done in its kitchen over in the west block and on what it has done generally in its consumer services. But it does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is still room for a great deal

to be done by way of research, publicity and education with regard to the cooking of fish.
I do not know of any food that can be more delectable than fish when it is properly cooked. The opposite is also true. I do not know of anything I would rather stay away from than fish when it is not properly cooked. We can find examples of both extremes in this city, but I think the words of the hon. member for Charlotte were well spoken when he said that due to the work that has been done by the department there has been a noticeable improvement in the preparation of fish in Ottawa during the past few years.
When one starts to talk about the cooking of fish he realizes he is getting very close to the activities of the housewives of the country, and he must be very careful. I have in mind not so much the cooking of fish in homes but the cooking of fish in restaurants, cafeterias and other public places across the country. I feel very strongly that there is room for improvement there and I should like to make one or two suggestions to the minister.
We know, of course, of the kitchen that his department has in the west block and of the work that is done there, but I feel that the benefits and advantages of that study and work might be much more widely disseminated throughout the country. I wonder whether there has been any attempt at liaison or co-operation with the nutrition division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I am glad to see the minister nod his head in assent. When I mention the word "nutrition" I think it will be clear that I have in mind not only the desirability of fish being a delight to the taste. I have the notion that there must be a tremendous amount of nutritional value in fish which is lost because in a great many places it is not properly cooked. I believe, therefore, that not only would it be good for the industry to do some educating in this field, but it would also be good for the health of the Canadian people generally if steps were taken so that the full nutritional value of fish were made available to all our people.
As the minister and other members of the house will know, the Department of National Welfare is at the present time conducting a survey amongst Ottawa civil servants to determine whether or not they are eating adequate breakfasts. I think such a survey is a very good idea, but I suggest that if it is possible to conduct a survey of that kind among a selected group of people, surveys might be made to determine the nutritional value of fish cooked in one way or fish cooked in another.


Mr. Brooks:: Kippers for breakfast.
Supply-Fisheries


Stanley Howard Knowles: My good friend the hon. member for Royal says that kippers should be provided for breakfast for all civil servants in Ottawa. I have no objection to that, but if so I think the project will have to be extended and a good meal of lake Winnipeg goldeye will have to be provided at some other time of the day. However, I am not going to pursue that today. I was led into it by my good friend from Royal. What I was starting to say was that I think it would be worth while for some department of government, or perhaps through liaison among several departments, to conduct surveys to ascertain the nutritional value of fish and then take whatever steps are possible to make the advantages of such a survey known to our people.
There are various ways in which the advantages of research into the proper cooking of fish could be disseminated. There are a number of departments of government which are responsible for feeding a great many people. For example, I think of the Department of National Defence. There is also the Department of Veterans Affairs with its veterans' hospitals. There is the Canadian National Railways, which provides a great many meals, and there are a great many government departments that have restaurants, dining rooms and cafeterias.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, if some new ways can be found of making sure that the goodness that is in fish is always retained when it is cooked, another way in which that knowledge could be distributed throughout the country would be, I suggest, by placing it in the hands of the provincial departments of education. I do not want to raise any constitutional issue here through the fact that the provinces have control of education, but recognizing that principle I think the provincial departments of education, under many of which instruction is given in what is called home economics, domestic science or cooking, would be glad to have that information so it could be passed on to the young people who are taking these courses in our schools throughout the country.
One of the things that must be said about the Canadian housewife as a good cook is that she is always ready for new ideas, and if the department would take steps to spread such new ideas by means of publicity of various kinds I think that would be most acceptable. I recognize that the minister's department has prepared some very interesting booklets already. We have all seen and had the privilege of sending to some of our frienas and constituents that well set up little

Supply-Fisheries
book on the cooking of fish. Perhaps that particular book is a little along the highbrow line.


Mr. Lennard:: It was very simple.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe my hon. friend and I are thinking of different books. I think something a little more proletarian might have wider acceptance.


James Sinclair: We have a good selection for all heights of brows.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine. I believe I have made my point. The minister appreciates the fact that these suggestions are offered in the spirit of trying to be helpful. I think it would be good for the industry. More fish would be sold if this kind of information were spread abroad, and I think it would be good for the health of the people of Canada.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Mr. Chairman, the compliments that have been paid to the minister and his staff have been well merited, but perhaps they would not be worth very much unless they were backed up by the fishermen themselves. I believe the sentiments of the fishermen were very well expressed last Friday by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth -Clare. I merely want to add that what that hon. member said is also true of every fishing village in Halifax county.
The work of the Department of Fisheries is well and concisely laid out in the 25th annual report of the department, which is the 85th annual fisheries report of the government of Canada. There is ample evidence there of the good work the Department of Fisheries is doing, and in that I want to include not only the minister, his parliamentary assistant and all the officials in Ottawa but all the fisheries officials who are stationed in the outposts, and I suppose I might include Halifax as one of the outposts. We have always found them very co-operative.
I might mention a few of the ways in which we are benefiting greatly and concerning which there is such a decided improvement. The first is the boat insurance which the fishermen have taken advantage of and which has been of great benefit to them. Then there is the lobster pot or lobster trap insurance which in particular has helped the fisherman, for it has given him a real opportunity to fish in places to which he might not otherwise go because of the danger not only to his traps but to himself. As everyone knows, lobster fishing is a very dangerous occupation. Then there is the salt subsidy which was very helpful to fishermen throughout the country, particularly in the more inaccessible places. They appreciate it to the full.

Last year we were pleased with what happened. I do not think it was perhaps necessary for the government to go out of its way to investigate this matter and voluntarily do what it did, but it returned the customs and excise duty to the companies which had paid these taxes when they brought ships into the country. Speaking for these companies I may say that I know they fully appreciate the work that is done. In this debate it has been said that St. Margaret's bay was cut off from trawlers and draggers at a time when perhaps votes were needed. I just want to say here that was not the case at all. I wanted to say at that time, if I had been able to do so, that when we do something we do it for the fishermen, not for the sake of the votes.
Then when home recently I saw on the street a shopmobile, a large trailer in which the federal government, working with the provincial government, are giving our fishermen an opportunity to repair and maintain their engines and motors.
There are perhaps three or four things that I might suggest should be done. I remember that when I was a young person in the country we had a number of lobster factories, and each village had what they call a lobster pound or lobster car in which the lobsters were kept waiting for the boats to call for them or for a time when the price might be a little bit better. It struck me that possibly there might be some assistance given to these country fishermen.
Last Friday I was pleasantly surprised to learn from the minister that last year the export lobster catch was valued at $16,714,000. This, it seems, was three times the value of fresh and frozen salmon exports.


James Sinclair: On the east coast.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: On the east coast. I have a note here that, of course, British Columbia canned salmon export was over $16 million.


James Sinclair: How much?


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Over $16 million. Another suggestion I should like to make is this. In going around the country I see some extremely careless handling of fish just as, when you go to the Annapolis valley, you see careless handling of apples.


James Sinclair: Except in the Okanagan valley.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: The situation must have changed since wartime. I wish that all officials at all levels, when they are visiting these various places, could go to these wharves and give the men instruction on how to handle fish. You see them throwing

them out on the wharves, or forking them out. This procedure just ruins the fish. Fish should be handled just as though they were the most delicate piece of china.
Then of course we are always asking for wharves, breakwaters and shelters. While this matter is not entirely in the sphere of the Department of Fisheries, through them I think the fishermen can be helped because even if there are only two fishermen in a small village, it probably means that 10 or 12 people are dependent on those fishermen. These people cannot go anywhere else and find employment. They must stick to their last there.
In travelling around the country, every one of us has seen how fish can be ruined in so many of our hotels. I wish that your dietitians, who do such a wonderful job in your own department, could visit these hotels and tell them that the best halibut is not improved by frying it or broiling it in tomato sauce.
Then as another suggestion I would hope your department would continue its efforts to stabilize the United States market. After all, I believe they take half our Canadian fish products. Every day I know you are receiving demands for further research. I am glad to read that there is now some possibility that lobster shells will be utilized. I know that your Halifax biological station has been working on this matter for some time, and I know that if anyone can find some further use for them, they will be able to do so.
I would draw to the attention of the minister the fact that in Nova Scotia clams seem to be decreasing in number and in some places going away entirely. I should like to mention one or two places, namely Musquodoboit harbour and Ostrea lake. At one time there were two factories in that vicinity. I think now we have one working only part time. They have to go many miles-I suppose up to 100 miles-to get their clams. I am glad to hear that your department is now working on this matter and has a machine in that area and will continue it down into Guysborough county. Perhaps the reason clams die and disappear from some places might be the subject of an investigation that could be made by our maritime universities. I would not mention any special one, but they could work in co-operation with your own biological station.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I suppose some hon. members are wondering what I would have to say about fish, living as I do up in the interior of British Columbia. But of course that is where the important spawning 67509-126J
Supply-Fisheries
grounds of the salmon are. We have about 300 miles of the Fraser river in my riding. This river, with its tributaries, contributes a great deal to the fishing industry.
My reason for rising at this time is just to make one or two observations in respect of the rumblings of the battle that is shaping up as between fish and power. I should like to say that the fishermen certainly have a good case for keeping the fishing industry alive, in that they are producing food. When we consider the great populations of the world that are without sufficient food, we cannot but realize that the fishing industry is extremely important.
The thing I had in mind is this. I have read the statement of the minister at page 1920 of Hansard, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kamloops, in which he said in effect that no permit woud be given for power dams until certain conditions had been met which were laid down by his department. The thing I should like to say is this. If by any chance a dam cannot be built on the Fraser river to provide power for the interior of British Columbia, I feel that we have an alternative in the use of gas which will be coming down from Fort St. John. There might be a slight difference in the cost factor of hydroelectric power and thermoelectric power.
If a block is to be put in the way of building a dam because it cannot provide a way for the fish to reach the spawning ground- that is, if it is decided that we cannot build the dam-and if the authority which is in charge of that particular phase of the fishing industry says it is in the interests of Canada that the dam should not be built, then I feel that compensation should be given so that the cost of thermoelectric power in that area should be no more than it would be for hydroelectric power.
I feel that we must get power in that area very soon. I realize that engineers are now working on plans to see if they cannot provide some way for the fish to get up to the spawning grounds and the young fish to get back again. I am hoping that if we do find we cannot build a dam there to supply the people of the interior with power, consideration will be given to making the thermoelectric power just as cheap as the hydroelectric power would be. I do not feel the people of the interior should be asked to subsidize the fishing industry. I believe we must keep the fishing industry alive, and there may not be too great a difference between the cost of thermoelectric power and hydroelectric power. If there is some difference, I believe it should be taken care of by some sort of subsidy.

Supply-Fisheries


Mr. Robichaud:: 
Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I point out to the hon. member that the new government did not
Supply-Fisheries
take over the day after the election; it was some days after. They do not change immediately.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I might tell the hon. member that the fishermen were aware then there would be no objection from the provincial government, in trying to protect the interests of the inshore fishermen. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that those inshore fishermen must be protected, and it might be advisable to enforce, by regulations, the gentlemen's agreement which existed up to September, 1952, in connection with certain sections of the bay of Chaleur.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he not know that the federal government, not the provincial government, has control of trawlers?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member had been listening he would have heard that I said this was done by a gentlemen's agreement, and that representations were made to the federal government to protect the waters of the bay of Chaleur. I might also inform the hon. member that the deputy minister of the department of industry and development and the director of fisheries of New Brunswick were here in Ottawa in January-I think it was January 15, 1953-and made representations to the Department of Fisheries against the protection of the waters of the bay of Chaleur for inshore fishermen.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes; again I want to keep the record straight. This was in 1953. The hon. member said the day after the new government of New Brunswick was elected. That was in 1952, not 1953.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Again I want to make clear to the hon. member that after September 22, 1952, there was no one in New Brunswick to protect the interests of the inshore fishermen.


Mr. Nowlan:: Where was the Minister of Fisheries?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The Minister of Fisheries received recommendations from the fisheries division of the department of industry and development of New Brunswick.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You are just trying to talk politics.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: During the course of the debate on the fisheries estimates last year I brought to the attention of the house the situation of the herring fishermen on the Atlantic coast. Again I want to mention at this time that our herring fishermen are still using the same outmoded and inefficient methods adopted over a century ago. Would the minister advise the house as to whether

Supply-Fisheries
the Atlantic herring investigation committee, which was operated as a joint effort of the government of Canada, the government of Newfoundland before that province entered confederation, and the provincial governments of the maritime provinces and Quebec, has completed its investigation, and if a report has since been published, as this committee, I understand, was dissolved in 1950.
The herring fishery on the Atlantic coast has reached an importance which calls for full consideration by the fisheries research board and the government. Our fall run of herring in the gulf of St. Lawrence waters is considered to be of the best quality available, and is comparable to any production of its kind originating in any European countries. It is generally recognized that the herring resources of the Atlantic coast are not fully used. If new fishing methods have been discovered by the fisheries research board these methods, if practical, should be made known and made available to the individual fishermen. Further efforts should be made to develop a method of catching herring which could be made adaptable to the large number of inshore fishermen all along the coast of the maritime provinces and particularly in the gulf of St. Lawrence area. In New Brunswick alone in 1954 the herring catch exceeded 52 million pounds.
In the last 10 years additional herring plant facilities have been added in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the demand for food purposes, as well as for the meal and oil industry, is increasing every year. A dependable source of supply, an extended fishing season, and more knowledge of the characteristics of herring populations have become necessities if we want this particular phase of the industry to expand as it really should. Much greater developments in this industry are possible, and I ask the minister to assure us that every effort will be made in order to carry on with, the initial surveys, undertaken in the last three years, for the success and benefit of this particular industry.
New Brunswick, with its 30-odd varieties of fish and shellfish, and a total production of close to 200 million pounds of fish a year, is a heavy producer of oysters. Gloucester county alone produced in 1955 over 11,000 barrels of this delicacy, or one-third of the total production of oysters in the maritime provinces. This particular fishery, which is well established in certain areas of my constituency, depends largely on research work and on special methods of production and conservation to meet its current problems and provide for further expansion.
The department, through its research board, has centred at Ellerslie, Prince Edward Island,
[Mr. Robichaud.l
its activities in this respect. A substation for oyster research and for the study and application of methods of oyster culture has also been established at Shippigan. Last year in the course of my remarks I brought to the minister's attention the fact that the staff of the substation was being reduced, and that very little is being done there to revive this gradually vanishing industry. Unless proper conservation methods are enforced and new production methods are introduced, the declining yield which has been so evident in other areas could easily extend to Gloucester county.
We now have in the oyster-producing areas of the maritime provinces a total of about
1.500	oyster leases covering approximately
3.500	acres. A good portion of these leases, or privately-owned oyster farms, are located in my constituency of Gloucester. Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge the minister to increase the staff at the Shippigan substation in order to carry out further investigations to improve the position of the oyster industry in the area. Collection of spats and test-planting should be done on a much larger scale. I even suggest that one of the scientists from the Ellerslie experimental station be stationed at Shippigan for the summer months' in order to direct on the spot an activated and more elaborate survey of the situation. Additional help is available locally, and an educational program should be launched without delay to introduce lease-owners to practical methods of spat collection and oyster farming.
In this respect, I do ask the department to have, sometime in late April or early May, a demonstration course at Maisonnette, an area where oyster farming is being done on a large scale. I look forward to this course in April or May of this year.
Last year the department saw fit to change the minimum length of oysters for market from 3J to 3 inches. This measure has resulted in an unusual increase in production in certain areas, and furthermore has had an adverse effect on consumer market conditions in central Canada. If such a measure had to be introduced for the benefit of the industry, a reduction of one-quarter of an inch the first year would have been advisable and would have prevented a glut of small oysters on the market which resulted in a substantial reduction in prices paid to fishermen.
An oyster committee appointed by the Montreal fish merchants' association has protested vigorously against this measure, and is seriously disturbed and annoyed over the fact that the firms in Montreal dealing in oysters were not consulted before such a change in regulations was adopted. They are not concerned mainly over the additional

quantity of oysters involved, but rather by the large percentage of small oysters which are being offered the market.
Another change in regulation which could be very detrimental to the oyster industry is the introduction of an early season in many parts of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Under the new regulations oyster fishing is permissible on private leases from August 15. Any one familiar with the oyster industry and with weather conditions in the maritimes should know that the temperature of the water at that time of the year is such that it is not advisable to remove any quantity of oysters from their natural bed. It is true that the fishermen do not have to rake the oysters as from August 15 and offer them for market. The opening of a season, however, is an incentive or an inducement to lease owners to participate at once in the revenue which they may expect from the harvest of their oyster crops.
As a result, oysters which are just about over the spawning period and are still feeding heavily are removed from water at a temperature in the vicinity of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and are transported to markets in Montreal or Toronto in outside temperatures ranging from 60 to 75 degrees. Oysters in very poor condition are delivered and offered for sale, and these could easily affect market conditions for the entire season. If the owners of oyster leases as well as public-bed oyster fishermen were consulted, I am convinced that an overwhelming majority would oppose the opening of the season before September 15 for private leases and September 25 for public beds.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Minister of Fisheries that a survey be made in this respect by officials of his department in order to give the whole matter the attention and consideration it deserves. I sincerely hope that the activities of the research board in this field will be accentuated, and that every possible effort will be made to increase the availability of seed stock for seeding and planting purposes.
It is generally recognized that companies and individual fishermen engaged in harvesting fishery resources cannot control or regulate the source of their raw material. It is therefore the responsibility of the government to conduct necessary research, impose conservation regulations and negotiate when necessary with foreign countries on controls to perpetuate stocks. We realize that oceans do not lend themselves readily to scientific study, and that progress in fishery research will be slower than similar experimentation with land crops or any agricultural product.
Supply-Fisheries
We welcome an increase of 25 per cent in the amount provided in the estimates for the fisheries research board. This is a move in the right direction which will meet with the approval of the primary producer as well as management in the industry. I %urge the government to provide the minister with a sufficient appropriation to maintain an efficient organization for carrying out federal policies and regulations, such as inspection of plants and products and all other activities pertaining to the development and future of the industry.
The presence of fish, of an adequate supply of raw material, alone is not sufficient to maintain a healthy industry operating on sound and solid principles. The primary producer, whose fishing occupation is a way of life, must be assured that his remuneration will provide a very important share of his family cash income. In order to give this assurance, the fish processor and buyer should be in a position to keep their prices at a level which will enable the fisherman to meet his obligations. It is the responsibility of the government to see to it that both domestic and export markets are supplied with quality products which will gradually increase consumption and provide necessary outlets to take care of increasing production.
If we take for example the cod fishermen or the flounder fishermen, we find as the result of economic surveys that a landed price of at least 3 cents per pound must be paid for his catch in the fresh state in order to provide sufficient income or revenue to meet his obligations and for him to maintain a reasonable standard of living in comparison with other classes of society.
As we make provisions to protect the dairy farmer in regard to his butter, the wheat grower in regard to his wheat, the labour class by unemployment insurance and fair wages, the civil servant by security and pension funds, we must also find means of protecting the fisherman by assuring him of a minimum price on certain commodities of fish. As cod fishing is the basic occupation of the large majority of full-time commercial fishermen on the Atlantic coast, I suggest that a minimum price of 3 cents per pound should be obtained for this particular variety.
However, under existing conditions with rigid inspection, careful processing and packaging, together with well planned marketing, it is possible with the co-operation of all concerned, including the primary producer, the industry and the government, to assure the cod fisherman of an adequate and satisfactory return for his production without having to introduce a floor price or some kind of assistance or subsidy.

Supply-Fisheries
Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize once more the need for the continuation of an educational program and a well-prepared publicity campaign to prevent the unfortunate practice of illegal fishing among lobster fishermen. In the last three years tremendous progress fias been accomplished in this field, and all branches of the department concerned must be congratulated for the results obtained. I wish to assure the minister that we are looking forward to a continuation and further expansion of this educational policy.
I would suggest, however, that more consideration be given to the large number of fishermen on the east coast of New Brunswick whose only language is French and by whom instructions in any other language cannot be properly understood. I would suggest that more use of the press be made for publicity and educational purposes, including French daily newspapers whose circulation is very popular in most French speaking fishing communities on the New Brunswick east coast.
I was amazed to learn that the Halifax office had notified the department that no French posters and no application forms in French were required for Gloucester county fishermen in connection with the rebate applicable to salt used by fishermen in the processing and curing of certain varieties of fish. The department should be made aware of the fact that out of approximately 800 fishermen in Gloucester county 75 per cent, or approximately 600, are French speaking and cannot understand or speak any other language.
Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the house I could conclude in two or three minutes.


The Chairman:: Has the hon. member leave to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Thank you. Some members have made mention in this debate of the brief submitted to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects by the fisheries council of Canada. I agree that this brief is excellent and well prepared and covers many aspects which could face the fishing industry in years ahead. There are two recommendations, however, which I would approach with great caution.
First is the suggestion put forward that the government should consider the emigration of fishermen to Canada. Before acceding to this request I suggest that we should first consider the possibility of improving the situation of our own Canadian fishermen. We in the maritime provinces are complaining that our young men are deserting our industries for the central provinces. Before

considering increasing our fishing force with immigrants, let us first make this profession more attractive to our young generation; let us prepare them through proper education. Then and only then will we be in a position to keep in the maritimes the large number of young men who are now forced to move out in search of a better situation.
Another recommendation in this brief which I would approach with caution is the question of government control on vessel importation and the existing import duty on vessels up to 100 feet in length from most favoured nation countries. We have too many shipyards scattered all along our shores seeking business to hamper them further by allowing the duty-free importation of the type of vessels which they have been supplying the industry for many generations. The skill, ability and craftsmanship of our Canadian shipyard workers is so eminent that they should be given every opportunity to take full advantage of Canadian outlets for their products.
I am in full agreement with the remarks made with regard to bringing our fishermen under unemployment insurance benefits. I will reserve my observations on this subject until we consider the estimates of the Minister of Labour.


James Sinclair: I wonder if I could have the indulgence of the committee for just a moment, since it is obvious that item 1 is not going to be carried today. First of all I should like to express my personal thanks for the many kind things said about my own health. I think the hon. member for Oxford put it very neatly when he said that with all these expressions of good wishes in regard to my health I certainly should feel much better.
I am also glad that for the first time the fishing members have had a chance to have the estimates of the Department of Fisheries first discussed. I think the participation of members from every part of Canada and from every party will show the fishermen of Canada that there is an increased interest in fisheries.
The other thing I should like to mention is the fact that quite a number of members have suggested that when I do reply I make some mention of my own experiences in the field of fisheries in the Scandinavian countries, in Russia and in China last summer. I do not think that would be quite appropriate in a discussion of the estimates of the Canadian Department of Fisheries, but I have written to the chairman of the standing committee on marine and fisheries informing him that, if it is the desire of that committee,

I will be very glad to appear before it and report on my experiences over there and be questioned by the members of that committee.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are a number of private bills at the committee stage on the order paper, namely, items No. 36, No. 37 and No. 38, and also Nos. 39 to 169 inclusive, the latter being divorce bills. Under standing order 54, shall these bills be considered under one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, are you including Bill No. 146 and Bill No. 147 in that, one an act to incorporate the Canadian Equity Insurance Company and the other an act to incorporate Interprovincial Trust Company?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, he did.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Should we not have some report on these?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The bills have already been reported from the standing committee and are now going to the committee of the whole for consideration. This is merely a matter of the committee of the whole dealing with all these bills on the same motion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 146, to incorporate the Canadian Equity Insurance Company.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 147, to incorporate Interprovincial Trust Company.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 122, respecting the General Synod of the Church of England in Canada, the Missionary Society of the Church of England in Canada, the Woman's Auxiliary of the Church of England in Canada and the Church of England Consolidated Trust Fund.-Mr. Carter.
Bill No. 11, for the relief of George Francis Alford Yuli.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Joyce Ethel Jacques Horgan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Jean Thomson Duquette.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Rosa Straub Gehlsen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Cecile Bezeau Barnabe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Dora Gina Costello Dash.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Fernand
Desmarais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Elsie Abbot Marsden.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Freda Ethel-winne Henders Jacobson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Hazel Loretta Noseworthy Johnston.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Veronica Iris Collier Horvath, otherwise known as Veronica Cross Horvathj-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Maria Romano Bove.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Nora Marian Tilley McBain.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Marguerite Tremblay Nathan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Dolores Marion Zolov Karpman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Rosalie Rosetti Acason.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Edmund Joseph Cochrane.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Edna Hannah Keene Newberg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Charlotte Jean McAndrew Boyd Thompson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Wilma June Keast Noel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Patricia O'Neill Primiani.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Evelyn Nellie Keemer Mein.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Pierre Roger Vuille.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Marie Gertrude Antoinette Hotte Ouellette.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Euphrosina Kowalyk Whalley, otherwise known as Rose Kowalyk Whalley.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Matilda Stoner Adams.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	37,	for	the	relief	of	Gertrude
Bailiss Goodlin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	38,	for	the	relief	of	Leokadja
Laura Rozycka Haber.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Teofila Kurjata Marciniak.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Shirley Gelber Kaufman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	41,	for	the	relief	of	Margaret
Pounden Greenstien.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Gaston Maille.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Mary Dufresne Cosco.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Julienne Mar-chesseault Jasmin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Helen Mary Farrell Hickey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Hazel Mair Grant Mander.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Joseph Roland Gaston Charette.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Beulah Sybil Chapman Maus.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of John Elwood Way.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Thomas Charles Desmarais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of John Caldwell Scriver.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Marie Therese Provost Lapointe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Margeryann Williams Farrow Chesney.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Kathleen Birdie MacPhail Morgan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Sylvia Colato Le Pottier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Antonina Dieni Choumanchuk.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Rena Amelia Duncan Chenier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Stanley Edgar Barnes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Molly Joyce LaPlante Baggott.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Jean Dorothy McLean Lewis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of John Walter Thoburn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Panorea Dela-porta Alivizatos.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of William James Stoddard Edington.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Audrey Hilda Voysey Beaudoin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Frederick Howard Blaikie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Muriel Tetreau St. George.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Patricia Colleen Hewitt Nelson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Ruth Mildred Thompson McBain.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Joseph Theophile Lambert.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Lillian Baron Goodman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Madeleine Erna McArthur Blais.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 75, for the relief of Queenie Molly
Wolfson Phillips.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Annie May Elizabeth Godson Brooks.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Ada June Mannard Wilmoth.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Rose Florczyk Greenwood.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Beryl Grace Leaper Shufelt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Ralph Patrick Dowling.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Alice Guernon Peladeau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Elizabeth Baird McDowall Whitlock.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Adrien Patrick Dicaire.-.Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Jessie Altha MacBride Burnside.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Marianne Adorjan Balogh.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Helene Marguerite Peck Cooper.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Una Margaret Prower Douglas Heubach.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Hilary Hope-Hawkins Hardie Henders.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Marie Arthemise Marguerite Denise Laperriere Mercier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Harry Hood.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Delima Chali-foux Prevost.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Frances Raven Sherman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Constance Louisa Kelly McKenna.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Jean Mailman Greenleaf.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Grace Elizabeth Davidson Alexander.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Frederick Arthur Waltho.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Jean Decary.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Sylvia Barbara Murphy Simon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Amy Elizabeth Torrance Fraser Walker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Margery Cooper Mason.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Caroline Scortaru Ungariano, otherwise known as Caroline Scortaru Ungar.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 105, lor the relief of John Joseph
Rahilly.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of William Ross Gould.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Morris Gilbert.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Margaret McDonald Williamson Gebbie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Gwytha Olwyn Lillian Pring Evans.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Georges Durand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Mary Rose Kenny Deline.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Katherine Marie Saretski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Rose Juliana Evelyn Kedroskie Quincey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Jeannette Morin Parent.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Mona Ruth Davis Goldberg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Ruth Goodman Silverstein.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Simonne Auger Boule.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Leslie Archibald Hood.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of George Hugh Wadge.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Martha Bailly Maher.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Helena Roy Buckland.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Marion Mildred McKnight Newman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Marie Laura Francoise Lamothe Newcome.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Frances Cap-lan Sirota.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Joyce Smith Gwinnell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Joan Sheila Rosser Roland.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Shprintza Gelber Shildkraut.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Sabina Rosenzweig Rosenblum Faust.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of William Eugene Chabot.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Joseph Charles Sylvio Demers.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Florence Ethel Bigelow Hamilton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Amy Katharine Newman Cowans.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Sara Martin Lesser.-Mr. Hunter.
2003
Private Bills
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Annetta Smith Marchand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Sybil Violet Godfrey Russell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Dorothy Mary Humphreys Pepper.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Roslyn Yagod Kivenko Belkin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Hilda Sarah Twyman Gagnier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Jessie Mac-Farlane Boyle Roberts.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Donald Henry Emslie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of John Wesley Hamilton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Lillian Hannah Maxwell Gallant.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Gordon Mac-Kay Butler.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Eleanor Jodelis Milius.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Marie Madeleine Rachel Gregoire Shank.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Shirley Mildred Glazerman Wolfe.-Mr. Hunter. '
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Dorothy Jean Midkiff Desnoyers.-Mr. Hunter.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 160 (letter G-5 of the Senate), intituled "An act respecting Personal Finance Ccmpany of Canada".-Mr. Lefrangois.
Mr. Weir:: Stand.


Mr. Carrick:: Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Lefrangois), I move that this bill be read the second time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member the consent or request of the sponsor to move second reading of this bill? I understood it was going to be allowed to stand in the absence of the sponsor.


Donald D. Carrick: I did not get my instructions directly from the sponsor. I received them indirectly, but I believe he consents to my speaking to the bill on his behalf.


William Gilbert Weir: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that a more or less tentative agreement was reached that these bills would stand today when the sponsors were not here and we would proceed with other orders on the order paper. On that understanding, I hope we can carry out that arrangement.


Donald D. Carrick: That is quite satisfactory.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Under the circumstances Bill No. 160 will stand.

Canada Elections Act CANADA ELECTIONS ACT



EXTENSION OF RIGHT TO VOTE AT ADVANCE POLLS

Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 121, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, as I indicated
when first reading was given to this bill, its purpose is to extend the privilege of voting at an advance poll in connection with a federal general election to any qualified voter who finds that he will be absent from his constituency on election day. As hon. members will have noticed, the bill consists of nine pages, and some may wonder if there is not more in the bill than is suggested by that simple explanation. The fact is that everything else in the bill is consequential upon the one change which is sought by the bill, namely, the extension of the privilege of voting at advance polls to all qualified electors who find they will be absent on election day.
I am sure that many, if not all, members in the house will agree with me that at least in urban areas the most common complaint at election time is that many voters who will be away on election day find that they cannot vote at 'the advance poll. This is particularly annoying to voters who are aware of the fact that there is such a thing as an advance poll and who discover that only a very limited group of people may vote at that advance poll.
As hon. members are aware, the privilege of voting at advance polls is restricted at the present time to commercial travellers, fishermen, persons employed upon railways, vessels, airships and so on, members of the reserve forces and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In recent years federal general elections have for the most part been held in the summer period and rumours are that the same will be true next time. In fact I understand that those who, like the Minister of Trade and Commerce, like to look into crystal balls when they are not out on loan are already guessing as between June 17 and June 24, 1957, for the next general election. At any rate, with elections coming in the summertime a great many people do find that they are away on holidays at election time.
Some people may find it possible to get back to their constituencies in order to vote but for many people this is either impossible because of the distance they have gone away from home or because of the cost involved. It seems to me, therefore, that it is a legitimate grievance that many people have, namely, that there exists an advance poll

but that many qualified voters do not have the right to vote at that advance poll. In my own province of Manitoba that grievance is felt very strongly at federal elections because the privilege of voting at advance polls is extended in provincial elections to all qualified voters who find they will be away from home.
I urge this amendment to the Canada Elections Act, Mr. Speaker, not only to meet a grievance which is often expressed by voters but because it seems to me that it implements a principle underlying the whole business of voting. In our democratic approach to these things we feel that people should be encouraged to vote, that every person who is qualified to vote should have it made possible for him to get to the polls and to cast his vote.
No one would suggest that a measure of this kind has any partisan motive, at least not so far as a member of an opposition party is concerned, for the fact is that if you go through the results of general elections you will find that generally speaking the winner in a constituency has also obtained the largest number of votes cast at any advance polls in his riding. In other words, although it is not a universal rule, those who vote at advance polls tend to vote in the same proportion as do the people who vote on the regular election day. Therefore in no sense is one advocating anything that is of partisan interest. Likewise, in no sense is one advocating a special privilege. Rather we are simply advocating that the principle of the universal franchise be implemented by the further extension proposed in the bill.
In addition to meeting a grievance and implementing a principle, I feel that taking this step would have the effect of removing a feeling of discrimination which does arise every time we have a federal general election. Those whose names are on the voters' lists, those who are qualified voters, who in turn discover that they cannot vote at an advance poll whereas certain groups of people can vote at those polls, feel that this is a form of discrimination. The reasons that people are obliged to be away from home on election day are many and varied. People feel that the attempt of any law-making body to decide which of those reasons are legitimate and which are not is practising a form of discrimination which is not consistent with the principle of universal suffrage.
There is another way in which people feel there is a form of discrimination. I have already alluded to it in my suggestion that some people who are away from home on election day can afford to get home in order to vote while others cannot afford to make such a trip. I therefore feel, Mr. Speaker,

that here is a chance to remove these feelings of discrimination with regard to voting at advance polls, and I urge the house to give serious consideration to this proposition.
As I have already indicated, it is generally thought that the election for the 23rd parliament of Canada will take place in 1957. One of my friends to my right wanted to put it off a year the last time I mentioned that date. But whether it is in 1957 or in 1958-


An hon. Member:: Or 1956.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are sure of 1955.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whenever it comes, Mr. Speaker, we seem to have been having considerable fun over on this side of the house in trying to set the date. The one individual who will fix the date is, of course, holding his counsel on that matter. In any event, I think it is generally believed that the election will be in the summer period. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the dissatisfaction that has been felt in the last three general elections will be felt again unless action is taken on this matter before the next general election.
If I may get back to what I started to say a moment ago without again inviting interruptions by my friends around me-


George Clyde Nowlan: Don't you welcome them?


An hon. Member:: Why use the expression "friends"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the election is a possibility in 1957, that fact makes it urgent, if a matter such as this is to be dealt with, that it be dealt with at this session. Toward that end I invite the house, particularly the members on the government side, to consider seriously and favourably the idea of approving this bill in principle by voting for it on second reading and letting it go to the committee on privileges and elections. With the number of details that are contained in this bill, it would obviously have to be gone over by a committee. If a matter like this is left until another year, it may not be implemented in time for the next election. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the time to deal with this matter is at this session, if we are going to remove the grievances to which I have referred and if we are going to implement the principle of the universal franchise to this extent in time for the next election.
Another reason for urging the house to approve the bill and let it go to committee is the necessity of looking at all the various clauses and all the various details in the bill. Purposely-not just because there is a rule against it-I am going to refrain from discussing any of the details of the bill. As I have already indicated, the bill calls for a number of changes which are consequential
Canada Elections Act
upon the primary change which is made so as to extend the privilege of voting to all qualified electors.
One of the changes involves putting the voting at advance polls on a different set of days than is at present the case. That change has been suggested so there may be a longer period between the voting at the advance polls and the voting on the general election day, in order to enable the various election officials to make the necessary deletions from the election lists and do all the other things that are necessary to make sure there will be no duplication of voting at the general election as a result of this change.
There are other changes that are made necessary, such as the date on which nominations would close and various details of that kind. If I were even to specify what those details are, I can well imagine that some hon. members would prefer one set of days rather than another for the advance poll voting. However, Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. The point at stake on second reading of this bill is this simple principle, namely that the right to vote at advance polls be extended to all qualified voters.
I have had occasion to mention a few of the details which it has been necessary to work out and incorporate in this bill. May I take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to two individuals-they are servants of this parliament rather than servants of the government-who have assisted me in drafting my bill. Those officials, as anyone would imagine from reading the bill, are, of course, our parliamentary counsel, Dr. Maurice Ollivier, and the chief electoral officer, Mr. Nelson Oastonguay. I wish to make it perfectly clear that my having mentioned their names does not mean that they are either for or against the principle of this bill; but their help, in order that I might draft a bill which would set forth the mechanics to carry out this principle, has been most valuable and I am grateful to them for their assistance.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, what is before the house is a bill-although it has details that some hon. members might like to alter a little here or there-that is more than just an abstract proposition. It is not just a pious resolution suggesting that it would be a good idea to have a wider extension of the privilege of voting at advance polls. Rather it is a bill that sets out the mechanics by means of which it can be done. On that basis I feel that the matter should receive the approval of the house and that the bill should be sent to a committee so it can be studied.
I would emphasize the point that the assistance I have received from the officials whom

Canada Elections Act I have named has enabled me to put in the bill appropriate clauses to provide against any additional corrupt practices at election time. As a matter of fact, I think it is fair to say that the necessity for that protection which results from extending this principle has resulted in producing mechanics toward this end that I believe are even better than those that are in the act at the present time.
There may be those who will feel that the exact terms of my bill extend this principle too widely. I do not think so. I do not think any law-making body, even parliament, should set itself up as the judge between two different reasons that two different persons may have for being away from home on election day. When you start to draw lines of that kind you can readily become unfair. That is the reason I have drawn my bill so as to make it possible for any person to have this privilege, provided he will take an affidavit to the effect that he has reason to believe that he will be absent on the ordinary polling day and that he will be unable to vote on that day in his own polling division.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that my bill requires any person wishing to exercise this privilege to take an affidavit. It is true it is just an affidavit to the effect that he believes such and such to be the case. Nevertheless, I feel that is a sufficient safeguard so that the right to vote at the advance poll will not be abused. I feel that, too, because of our own experience in the province of Manitoba. We have had this universal right to vote at the advance poll for many years, and it has not been abused. In the main people still find that their interest is in voting on the general election day, and that is when they vote. The numbers who vote at the advance poll are really not very great.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, if some members feel that some point should be found between the present very severe restrictions which are in the act and the very wide provision that is set out in my bill, then of course that is the kind of detail we can discuss in committee and perhaps we can reach agreement on it if the bill is permitted to go to the committee on privileges and elections. I can say, as ministers often say when they are introducing bills and trying to win favour from the other side, that after second reading of this bill I will have pleasure in moving that it be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections. I feel that a measure of this kind, though it might not affect a great many people, will nevertheless further our interest in the full practice of democracy. It will increase the interest of our people in voting at election time, and


I suggest that anything of this nature is all to the good at this stage in the history of democracy.
So, Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the consideration of the house. I hope there will be a fair amount of discussion on it during this debate on second reading, and that there will be an opportunity for members to learn what are the opinions of the people around the country. I was interested in noting that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has already written to members of parliament urging that this bill be supported. I happen to know that various labour organizations of this country also support the principle of this bill, as indeed both the chamber of commerce and labour organizations have done for some time.
As I say, I hope the principle will be discussed by interested members representing all parties, and that when that discussion is over second reading will be approved by the house so the bill can go to the committee on privileges and elections where any amendments might be made, so that before the end of this session this change in the elections act might be upon our statute books.


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: I
have listened with great interest to the remarks that have been made by the sponsor of this bill. As the minister responsible in parliament for the chief electoral officer, who administers our election act, I think I should say a few words to express my views on this proposal the result of which would produce, I think, a very serious, if not radical, change in our electoral legislation.
The hon. member has mentioned the interest of outside organizations such as the Canadian chamber of commerce as well as other chambers of commerce throughout the country, which have expressed the view that this bill ought to receive the support of the government. I have read those representations and I may say that they appear to be, as I am myself, in agreement with the principle of the proposal. However, I am sure that if they were to give careful study to the act as it now stands, and to the proposal that has been made, they might very well come to the conclusion they ought to change their views and should, as I am going to do, oppose the proposal now made by the hon. member.
I think everyone is in agreement with the principle. I have said so myself on a number of occasions. If we are to have a democracy which will produce as many of the beneficial objectives as possible, if we are to allow as free and general an expression of the will of the people as circumstances will permit, then we will all favour the principle underlined in

this bill. In other words, we will want to have as many Canadians as possible express their views on the choice of their representatives in this House of Commons. I am in agreement with the principle, but I think there are a number of reasons which, in my view, command us to be cautious in this matter and not go as far as the proposal which is made.
Under this bill the hon. member simply suggests that we ought to allow anyone, for any reason whatever, to cast his vote at an advance poll for the simple reason that he may be away from his polling division on polling day. In other words, all that would be needed to justify the establishment of an advance poll would be for someone to think he may be away on polling day and he would be allowed this privilege of voting at such a poll. As the act now stands provision is made to cover what I consider to be the exceptional cases, and those classes of people have been mentioned by my hon. friend. These classes include people who, by their occupation and not because of holidays or other reasons, cannot vote on election day.
I think if we were to go as far as my hon. friend would like us to go it would destroy the significance of polling day to the Canadian people. The whole machinery of the election act is prepared in order to allow an expression of opinion of the people on that one given day which is established and which is determined, even if my hon. friend would like to make predictions, by the government.
It is true that it is sometimes a little more difficult to exercise your right to vote during the summertime. It is true also that elections have been held during that period when holidays are being taken by the Canadian people. But I think under the proposal that is now being made, if we were to allow anyone who felt he might be away to cast his vote at an advance poll on the ninth and tenth day preceding the polling day, I would imagine a number of people would take advantage of that situation. It would tend to not only increase election costs, though that would be only every five years, but in the final result you would have established a new rule and the election day would not be the date for which the election was called.
This should be the only day upon which allowing for exceptions when they have to be made, the people of Canada will choose their administrators for the next years to come. Instead of that you would establish two other days upon which this would also be done. I do not think I would be exaggerating if I were to say that if this practice
Canada Elections Act
were established you might very well find that some day there would be more people voting at the advance polls than would be voting on election day.
I do not believe we want to allow this sort of thing to happen, for a good many reasons. Election day is fixed for a Monday. Nomination day is fixed 14 days ahead of that date, when candidates are chosen to conduct an electoral campaign. During that period of 14 days political parties expound their ideas. Candidates tell the people of Canada what they want to do to defend the interests and the rights of their constituents. During that period of time, which I believe is essential, the people make up their minds. I think that period of 14 days is essential to everyone who wants to exercise his right to vote with sound judgment. In other words this period of time, which is short enough in itself, should be completely allowed to the people of Canada in order that they may make a sound choice.
If we were to allow, as the proposal indicates, two other days to be considered also as polling days, we would find, I believe, that the significance and the importance of election day itself would be gradually reduced. I would not be surprised, in fact, to find that the interest of the people would be greatly reduced. By permitting many more people to vote at advance polls you would reduce the importance of the election itself. I believe the time would come when people would completely lose interest. We sometimes complain of the lack of interest of the public in elections. If anyone were allowed to consider that this privilege, this right, which is essential, could be exercised at his discretion on another day than polling day, then I believe you would certainly not serve the purpose that we have in. mind, which is to allow as free an expression as possible of the will of the people.
This question was considered last year in committee. There was a similar proposal by a member of the C.C.F. party. I read the minutes of evidence with care, and I believe the question received considerable attention by the members of the committee at that time. The proposal that was then submitted, and which was similar to the one we are now considering, was defeated by an imposing majority. Reasons other than the ones I have already mentioned were also brought forward.
Other reasons than those which I made known do also justify us in thinking that this measure should be opposed. There is the question of cost. We have been informed by the chief electoral officer that during the last election about 240 advance polls were established. The cost of these advance polls

Canada Elections Act
was about $100 each. The voters who availed themselves of the right to vote at those 240 advance polls numbered a little over 10,000. I have been informed by the chief electoral officer that if we were to accept the proposal made by the hon. member we would have to increase a number of advance polls considerably in both the rural and urban districts. It is his own feeling that it would necessitate the establishment of about one advance poll for every 15 polls in the urban districts, and one advance poll for every five polls already established in the rural districts.
The result would be, at the cost I have already mentioned, that it would require about $500,000 to take care of them all. I am not stating that this question of costs should in itself be considered as a very serious obstacle, provided of course that we would be able to obtain results which would be beneficial to the Canadian people. But I do not think such would be the case. If we were to establish too many of these advance polls, as I said before, interest would be lost in the election day itself.
As was mentioned in the committee last year, we would allow impersonation to take place to a greater extent than has happened in past elections, as a result of these advance polls being established. It would impose upon political parties the necessity of multiplying the number of agents in each of those advance polls. It would be very costly for political parties, and again it would not eliminate the danger of impersonation of electors.
Another important thing comes to my mind. There would be a period of nine days, according to the proposal we have here, during which the deputy returning officer would be in possession of the ballots cast. In other words, during that period of nine days an official, appointed, it is true, by the government in the person of the deputy returning officer, would have in his possession a great number of ballots-I believe the number would tend to increase at every election- that were cast at these advance polls. It would mean that during that period of time this man would be in a position to determine, not for whom the votes had been cast but what proportion of the votes that appeared on the electoral list had already been cast. It would mean that there would be a number of returning officers in those advance polls in Canada who would be able to say just what proportion of votes had already been cast and we would then be able to know during the nine days that remained, for instance, only 40 or 45 per cent of the electors had not yet cast their votes, so that the election would be of interest only to the remaining group of people in Canada.
[Mr. Pinard.l
I think that is a wrong principle. I am in favour of extending the right to vote to as many people as possible, but I believe this is a wrong approach. For all of these reasons I believe we should oppose this measure. We should oppose it because of the fact that it would reduce the importance of polling day itself; because it would increase the cost, and for that reason it would not benefit the country. Finally, it would render possible violations of the Canada Elections Act to a greater extent. For all these reasons I am going to oppose the measure.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had convinced me that his proposition was one to raise the percentage of votes in a general election, I would have been in favour of it; but he did not convince me that such a proposition would increase the percentage of votes in any general election.
My first reason for opposing it is that it would confuse the minds of the electors with respect to the propriety of casting their votes. We are all in favour of the principle of enlarging the right to vote, but in doing so we must bear in mind that the people of a democratic country are called upon to vote on a definite date, as was stated by the Secretary of State, and only those who cannot be in a position to cast their votes on that definite date are entitled to vote at an advance poll.
At the present time those who are given the right to vote at an advance poll are as follows, and I propose to read the explanatory note which is embodied in the bill:
The privilege of voting at an advance poll shall extend and shall extend only-
A list appears of the limited number of voters including commercial travellers, fishermen, and such persons as are employed upon railways, vessels, airships, members of the reserve units of the Canadian forces and members of the R.C.M.P., et al.
We know that by reason of their duties such people are not in a position to cast their votes on a definite polling date. I therefore consider that it is right to extend to them the right to vote on another date, but I am nevertheless opposing this bill very strongly,, especially in view of the clause which would extend the right to vote at an advance poll to anybody in any circumstances. This is the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to section 95 of the elections act. This section reads as follows:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member be good enough to make his point without, referring to the clause.


Maurice Boisvert: The clause in question mentions, as I started to say, that anybody in any circumstances would be entitled to go to an advance polling booth and make a declaration that for one reason or another he should be entitled to vote at this poll. What does that mean? It means that Mr. So and So from Nicolet-Yamaska, having an idea that he should make a journey-


Stanley Howard Knowles: To Winnipeg.


Maurice Boisvert: -from Montreal to Winnipeg, would go to the advance poll and say, "I intend to make a pleasure trip to Winnipeg", or to any other place.


An hon. Member:: It would not be a pleasure trip if he were going to Winnipeg.


Maurice Boisvert: Having stated that, the man would be entitled to vote at the advance poll. It would be a very easy process if any voter were entitled to vote at an advance poll as is proposed by my hon. friend, and it would disturb the election in that many people might decide that for one reason or another they had to vote at the advance poll. What would be the result? Half the population would go to vote at the advance poll and the other half would wait until they could vote on the real polling date. At the next general election perhaps three-quarters of the voters in a constituency would decide to vote at the advance poll, and we would have to change the law and eventually amend it so that everyone would be required to vote at an advance poll and we would have achieved the same result.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pretty soon you will have everyone in Winnipeg.


An hon. Member:: Will the hon. member be here then?


Maurice Boisvert: Therefore why not leave it as it is? I am always afraid of innovation.


An hon. Member:: You are old-fashioned.


Maurice Boisvert: And that kind of innovation-
Canada Elections Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member not a Liberal? I thought Liberals believed in reform.


Maurice Boisvert: I believe in reform if it is in the right direction but this is in the wrong direction, as are many of the proposals which are made in this house from the other side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends are moving to the right, all right.


Maurice Boisvert: Coming back to the proposition, I would state as a second consideration that in urging more advance polls for people who would like to vote ahead of time the hon. member is also proposing to extend the period between the polling date and the nomination date from 14 to 25 days, I believe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Twenty-one.


Maurice Boisvert: I think to do so would be to take another step in the wrong direction for a reason which I shall state. We are aware that it is extremely easy to find candidates for any general election. If we extend too much the period of time between the nomination date and the polling date it will be very difficult to find the right candidate to run in any riding in this country and I would think that enlarging the period of time is a bad move.
It would also increase the cost of elections. We find that a period of 16 days from the date of nomination to the polling date is quite an expensive proposition. Hon. members on the other side frequently claim that this is true. If we extend that period of time all parties, and even the C.C.F. party, would be faced with an expenditure much greater than the expenditure we are presently obliged to meet in general elections.
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of this debate.
On motion of Mr. Boisvert the debate was adjourned.


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