1958-08-21

[Stage Direction]
Thirteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.
Eleventh report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the house if reports are accurate that the conference of atomic scientists at Geneva has reached agreement on practicable international machinery for the detection of nuclear explosions, thereby making possible effective international arrangements prohibiting such explosions for the testing of nuclear weapons, something which I think we all agree is both desirable and urgent.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The scientific experts in Geneva, Mr. Speaker, as has been reported in the press and as is known to the Leader of the Opposition, have arrived at agreed conclusions. However, these decisions have not yet become part of the public domain and will not until the experts agree upon their final report. Dr. Solandt, the representative for Canada, will be returning in the next day or so and he will then report to the government. For that reason I would prefer not to deal with this matter at the present time, except to say that having regard to the general situation and the considerations that have been determined by the experts, my hope is that there will be an eventual international agreement on the suspension of nuclear tests. I couple with that the hope that it will be at a reasonably early date.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I have a supplementary question I should like to ask the Prime Minister arising out of the very welcome report of agreement among scientists as to how atomic explosions can be detected and prevented. Is the Prime Minister able to comment on the news report that the
United States is about to announce or has announced a temporary suspension of its own nuclear tests? This report was on television last night.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course the hon. gentleman will realize that such announcements could not be made by way of anticipation in the House of Commons.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY AS TO LOCATION OF HEADQUARTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grani Campbell (Stormont):: Would the Minister of Transport care to comment on an article which appeared in last night's Ottawa Journal to the effect that the St. Lawrence seaway headquarters will remain in Ottawa?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for indicating his intention to ask this question. I got in touch with the president of the authority and he has advised me as follows. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act provides that the head office of the authority shall be at Ottawa or in such other place in Canada as the governor in council may designate. On inception of the authority, head office was set up at Ottawa and so-called "headquarters" at Montreal.
In reply to a recent inquiry from the press, the president of the authority indicated that approximately 125 employees would be moved to Cornwall as circumstances permit and as the construction phase ends and the operating stage is reached. The staff at Montreal consists of the engineering personnel and the administrative employees recruited for the construction period. The authority has determined that it would be disruptive and uneconomical to move the engineering and allied staffs until construction is practically completed.
The number of employees mentioned, namely about 125, is a preliminary figure based upon proposed establishments. It is considerably less than the 200 to 300 mentioned some years ago, but that figure was not based upon a detailed study of the organization required.
From inquiries which have been made, particularly by employees who have in view moving to Cornwall, it appears doubtful that

Inquiries of the Ministry there is satisfactory housing available at Cornwall at present for the influx of a large number of employees.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that during the course of the election campaign the minister made a statement that the headquarters building would be at Cornwall, and that it would house from 250 to 300 men?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of the telegram I sent during the election campaign, and it reads as follows:
A decision was made several years ago to establish the headquarters of the St. Lawrence seaway at Cornwall and over $1 million has been spent to provide office accommodation. There has been no change in this policy and I know of no reason why there should be.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for making that statement, but would he answer my questions, which were two in number? Did he not state during the election campaign, first, that the headquarters of this authority would be at Cornwall, and second that the number of employees would be 250 to 300?


George Harris Hees: As I stated, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that is not the type of question to be asked on the orders of the day.



WELLAND CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I stated in reply to a question by the hon. member for Welland that the Welland ship canal would come under the authority of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, and in a supplementary question the hon. member asked if this also applied to land. I said it was my impression that it did but would make further inquiries.
I have now confirmed that the Welland canal lands will be transferred to the seaway authority.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I wonder if I could ask the minister a question arising out of his answer. Will the employees on the Welland ship canal continue as civil servants with their present rights?


George Harris Hees: I know of no plans for any change.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that some months ago, on January 24, 1958, the Prime Minister indicated that Professor Huson's resignation was accepted because it was most urgent to have the report on the United States old age pension system in three or four months, would he table Professor Robert M. Clark's report on this matter before we consider the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the interest of the hon. gentleman in this prospective report. I have been in communication with Dr. Clark with respect to this matter. He has worked very hard and diligently and is doing his best to achieve a report at the earliest possible date. He has given intensive study to this question and indicates to me that, as far as he can foresee, there is no prospect of that report being available before early in October at the soonest. He has done everything possible to bring in a report within the period which I believed would be sufficient, but I am sure we would expect him to bring in that kind of report which will be as complete and comprehensive as are the terms upon which he was appointed.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingaie):: I would like to ask a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister feel this report, which was considered on January 24 as being very urgent, has within the last three or four months lost its urgency?


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the feeling of urgency on the part of the hon. gentleman, but I seem to remember that the party to which he belongs promised health insurance back as far as 1919.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the government's recent commendable action in protesting the execution of the former Hungarian premier, will the government consider sending a plea to either the President of the United States or the governor of Alabama

to spare the life of Jimmy Wilson, who has been sentenced to die on September 5 for robbing a white woman of $1.95.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is trying to extend the jurisdiction of the ministry a little beyond what is warranted. I understand his question relates to something which has taken place in the United States.


Erhart Regier: What I am asking is whether the government intends to register a plea on behalf of this man.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the hon. member that it is not any part of the public duty of the government to administer the criminal law of the United States.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon George H. Hees (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I replied to a question by the hon. member for Assini-boia regarding the progress being made in the equalization of freight rates. By way of a supplementary question the hon. member for Laurier asked if other classifications of rates will be equalized. As the house knows, equalization of class rates, which is the basic structure of freight rates in Canada, was accomplished with effect from March 1, 1955 by the transport board after extensive hearings and study.
On September 18, 1957, after further hearings and study, the board issued a judgment disposing of the equalization of the following commodity mileage scales to be effective January 1, 1958: Brick and tile; sand, gravel, crushed stone; clay, field stone, fuel wood; scrap iron or steel; fertilizer; ice; sawdust and shavings; horses; cattle; and potatoes.
In the months March to June of 1958 the board held hearings in Ottawa and in western Canada on commodity mileage rates covering coal and lumber and rates on fruits and vegetables. The board is now preparing its decisions in these cases. Further hearings are scheduled to commence in Ottawa on September 29 on cement, paper and paper articles, wood pulp and pulpwood, and on October 6 on 76 scales covering a variety of commodities, half of which are applicable in western Canada only and half in eastern Canada only.
It is hoped that the work following these hearings will be concluded by the board by or near the end of 1958. When this work has been completed the board considers that, except for individual cases arising by complaint, its work on equalization under order 57071-3-245
Inquiries of the Ministry in council P.C. 1487 and pursuant to section 336 of the Railway Act will have been completed subject to further examination of rates on domestic grain, on which proceedings are necessarily in abeyance because of an appeal pending to the Supreme Court of Canada.
At the same time, the hon. member for Assiniboia asked if the hearings mentioned in my reply to his question would be held at various places or in Ottawa. The board advises me that the hearings scheduled for this fall on equalization are to be held in Ottawa. Hearings outside of Ottawa have already taken place in connection with the equalization of class rates and earlier in 1958 on certain commodity rates. No application has been received by the board for further hearings outside of Ottawa. Should the necessity for such hearings arise the board will, of course, arrange to hold them.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The question arises out of an article in this morning's Gazette by the financial editor, John Meyer, entitled "Higher Gold Price Empty Hope". The question is, in view of the vital interest of the gold mining communities at the present time in this question, could the minister inform the house if he favours the broader use of existing world monetary agencies rather than a higher price for gold as a solution to the problems of the gold mining industry?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member's question lies entirely within the realm of policy. I leave it to the minister to decide whether he feels it is one to be answered, but in my view it is not a proper question to ask.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare before we reach his estimates. Would the minister tell us if he has received recently an indication from the government of the province of Quebec as to their intention to join in the hospitalization insurance scheme?


Hon. J. W. Monieilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.

Supply-Privy Council


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the minister tell us if he has lately contacted the authorities of the province of Quebec, whether by telephone or telegram, to that effect?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES CANADA COUNCIL    CAPITAL GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to the Canada Council. In view of comments made by the Auditor General in the report tabled yesterday on the division of Canada Council money for university residences, could the Prime Minister advise the house whether consideration is being given to setting out possible limitations on capital grants for this specific aspect of university expenditure?
Right Hon.	J. G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): I do not want to give an answer to that question offhand. There has certainly been no consideration given as yet to the question raised by the hon. member.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may	I direct a question	to	theMinister of National Health and Welfare or to the Minister of Finance, whoever is the appropriate minister in this case. Would it be possible to have an answer to question No. 145, which has been standing in my name since July 1,	before	the estimates	of	the
Department of National Health and Welfare are brought before the committee of supply?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I shall be glad to look into this and see if I can get this information immediately.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
PRIVY COUNCIL Federal District Commission-
314. To provide a supplement to the sum of $300,000 granted by chapter 112, R.S., for construction, improvements and operation of the parks, parkway system and other works under the control of the federal district commission and to authorize the payment of an honorarium at the rate of $10,000 per annum to the chairman of the federal district commission notwithstanding section 8 of the Federal District Commission Act, $600,000.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall item 314
carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a short general statement in regard to these estimates, and I believe the general statement would also cover pretty well the various points in connection with the several estimates in respect to the federal district commission. In point of fact we covered a great portion of this during a recent discussion in this house, and for that reason I am just going into a general outline which I feel will explain the estimates as they are presented.
The amounts required by the federal district commission for its regular administration and operations as distinct from its construction program and acquisition of properties are provided from three sources. One of these is a statutory grant of $300,000 provided under the present Federal District Commission Act. We are proposing to discontinue this grant under the new legislation. That, of course, has already been before the house and is presently before the other place.
The second source of moneys for operations and administration is the revenue earned by the commission from the rental of properties under its administration or from other operations such as the sale of nursery products to government departments and the provision of services to government departments for which payment is made to the commission. A nominal vote is included in the estimates to ensure that there is adequate statutory authority to use this revenue, as there is some doubt as to whether the present statute authorizes it. It is intended that this should be made clear in the revised statute.
The third source of moneys for operations and administration is items 314 and 316. As hon. gentlemen know, under the new statute these two items will be consolidated in one. Vote No. 314 for $600,000 is to enable the commission to carry out its statutory duties in the maintenance of operations and administration of the parks and parkways system and other works under its control, to enable it to carry on the maintenance and improvement of grounds surrounding government buildings in the capital area, and to meet the expenses of the national capital planning committee. These go beyond the purpose for which the commission was originally established and are responsibilities that extend beyond its own properties. In future it is proposed that these two votes may be grouped together as one for the purpose of simplifying the accounting and the work of control in connection with the appropriations.

As to construction programs, the acquisition of property and certain grants to municipalities under agreements to assist them in construction projects are met out of the national capital fund and more recently out of loans obtained from the crown for the acquisition of properties in advance of the time they are used by the commission for works of the commission. The national capital fund was established by vote No. 809 in the estimates of 1947-48. Since that time the sum of $2,500,000 has been included in the estimates each year to be put into the fund in accordance with the intention as stated by Right Hon. Mr. King at the time the fund was set up.
Last year that amount was included in the estimates but only $2,083,334 was actually paid into the fund. The reason the full amount was not paid in was that in the payment of moneys into this fund it was questionable whether it could properly be undertaken, in the circumstances, by governor general's warrants. Consequently parliament is being asked this year to revote this difference of $416,666 in the supplementary estimate, vote No. 590, together with an additional $400,000 which is being included to permit the acceleration of the construction program of the commission as an employment measure this year and particularly during the coming winter.
The main estimates, vote No. 317, provide for the eleventh instalment of $2,500,000 to be paid into the national capital fund. When the new legislation has been passed and the national capital commission has reviewed the program with the government, consideration should be given to deciding what future instalments should be paid into the national capital fund.
Another source of funds for the acquisition of properties by the commission consists of loans made from the crown under the authority of appropriations included in the category of loans, investments and advances in the estimates. Vote 509 in the main estimates this year proposes the granting of authority for the advancing of some $3 million to the commission for this purpose. These loans are designed to be used for acquiring property to be held by the commission which is not immediately needed by the commission for its projects; and when so used, for example in the creation of parks or the building of parkways or projects of that nature, the cost of the property must be charged to the national capital fund or other account for expenditures and the loans repaid.
With regard to the amounts of the votes requested this year and the nature of the programs for which they provide, questions 57071-3-245J
Supply-Privy Council were asked in this regard by the hon. member for Ottawa West. The main request, as found in vote 314, is for $600,000 to supplement the statutory grant of the commission, and this amount compares with some $307,648 last year. The reason for the increase is not the increase in expenditures of the commission for administration and the maintenance of parks and parkways; rather the chief cause of the increase is that there is not available for these expenditures this year much in the way of rental revenues from properties administered by the commission. As the committee knows, in the past this was an important source of funds for expenditures of the commission, but the accumulation made in earlier years has largely been used up and the revenues expected this year are only about the amount required to meet interest on the loans incurred by the commission to which we feel these rental revenues should be applied. This change in the revenue available for operating expenses accounts for some $215,000 of the increase in vote 314 over last year.
Of the actual increase in expenditures on operation and maintenance of parks and parkways, the increase is chiefly due to the increase in basic wages for the men working on the grounds maintained by the commission as well as additional areas under the control of the commission, including notably such things as the park at Hog's Back.
It will be noted that the vote for maintenance of government grounds adjoining public buildings is increased by some $42,000 over last year. The reasons for the increase here are similar to those to which I have already referred, namely the increase in wage rates of seasonal labourers in the area and also the additional amount of government property being looked after by the commission. Among these there are the grounds around the new government buildings in Hull, the post office and the printing bureau.
I should like to say a word now about the construction and property program of the commission. In that connection it is convenient to consider the expenditures from the national capital fund, including those made possible by the supplementary estimate as well as by vote 317. We are budgeting this year for a total expenditure from the national capital fund of some $4,045,000, This compares with budgeted expenditures from the fund last year of $3,053,000 and actual expenditures of $2,722,451.
I am not going into details with regard to the building program. The largest item, however, is the expenditure on the Gatineau parkway for which $1,400,000 is budgeted

Supply-Privy Council this year compared with $800,000 last year. This program has been accelerated for employment reasons particularly in the winter time, as some of the work is suited to that period of the year. The work planned for this year on this project is to continue the development of a new stretch of the main parkway from Gamelin boulevard to join the Fortune lake parkway, to grade a section of the parkway from Old Chelsea to the Fortune lake parkway, to provide access to the latter and to survey and grade stretches of the road beyond the Fortune lake parkway as a continuation of the western arm of the Gatineau parkway system.
The next largest item of expenditure is that for the relocation of railway facilities in Ottawa and vicinity. It had been hoped to achieve agreement by this time with the railway companies for the joint operation of railway facilities in and around the city of Ottawa. Negotiations for this purpose have not yet been completed, as the committee knows. The $500,000 included for a limited program is about all that is possible this year pending the main agreement. Most of the other items in this year's budget are continuations of projects that have been in process for the last year or several years, and for that reason I do not intend to refer to them.
However, there are two new projects which I think I should bring to the attention of the committee. The first is a contribution to the city of Ottawa toward the cost of the Bronson avenue bridge across the Rideau canal and the F.D.C. driveways along that canal. Agreement has been reached with the city under which the F.D.C. will contribute 40 per cent of the total cost of this project, or approximately $640,000 of the total estimated cost of $1,600,000. I think the committee will agree that this is a fair division of costs bearing in mind the responsibilities of the federal government both in relation to the driveways and the canal over which the bridge must pass.
There is a further new project involving an amount of $75,000 for the first section of the eastern parkway. This is a major project, most of which will not be constructed for some years but the property for which has already been largely acquired. The commission has decided that it would be wise to construct as soon as possible the section between the Montreal road and the Ogilvy road to assist in solving the serious traffic problems in that general neighbourhood which have arisen partly as a result of the development of federal buildings in the area. It will also enable effective use to be made of the eastern end of the Queensway now under construction.

Another item of construction involving an amount of $100,000 is for water and sewer facilities for lands owned by the commission in the industrial areas near Hurdman's bridge. Eventually some $500,000 will be invested in facilities for these industrial lands, and when they have been serviced the lands will be sold for industrial purposes or exchanged for lands owned by industries or businesses relocated in pursuance of the national capital plan.
Finally, there is an item involving funds to be loaned to the commission under the authority of vote 509 to acquire lands for parks, parkways and industrial sites in and around Ottawa and Hull, these lands being required to carry out the agreement reached among the commission and the federal government and the province of Ontario and the city of Ottawa for the construction of the Queensway, as well as for lands to be purchased in the green belt.
When the new legislation has been proclaimed, if passed by the other place, and the acquisition of property in the green belt proceeds in accordance with the policy which I placed before the house on June 18, it may be expected that the expenditures for such land will increase substantially. Additional lending authority is being asked by a further supplementary estimate to which I made reference when questioned the other day on this matter. The additional amount is $4.5 million in supplementary vote No. 509 for the purchase of property, and the additional appropriation is to provide for interest during the current year on these loans pending the determination of the rentals to be received by the commission from the leasing of these properties.
I have made this rather complete statement on the items with which I have dealt so the committee will have reasonably full information, the fullest I have been able to give, respecting those items which in particular are different from other years.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: In view of the discussion on August 14 when the legislation dealing with the establishment of a new national capital commission was before the house, I do not have a great deal more to say today. There are one or two small points on which I desire some information, and I think it would be as well if I asked the questions I had in mind on item 314, which is the one now before us.
I wanted to be clear, first of all, about the latter part of the Prime Minister's statement this morning when he referred to item 509. As I understand it, that further supplementary estimate to which he made reference, but which is not yet before the committee,

makes the total amount available for the acquisition of properties, particularly with reference to the Queensway and the green belt, $7.5 million in this fiscal year?


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


George James McIlraith: Then I wanted to clarify one other point about the Bronson avenue bridge. The Prime Minister made reference to the contribution of the federal district commission being 40 per cent of the cost of the bridge and approaches. Was I correct in that understanding?


John George Diefenbaker: It is 40 per cent of the total cost of the bridge.


George James McIlraith: And the approaches, too? They are rather lengthy and costly approaches.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman says, the commission shall pay to the city 40 per cent of the cost of the Bronson bridge and of the cost of its approaches thereto.


George James McIlraith: Now, then, is the federal government, through the Department of Transport, making a contribution as well? I understand it is?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Then I wanted to address myself to one other problem. The green belt area, as announced by the Prime Minister on June 18 and to which reference was made in the debate on the legislation, is now clearly defined by a plan revised as of June, 1958 and printed. What I want to know from the Prime Minister at the moment is, has that plan been registered and expropriation proceedings commenced covering the green belt area?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


George James McIlraith: Then that brings me to the elaboration of a point I raised at the legislation stage. I shall try not to repeat the same point, but there is something more I want to say on the subject. I want to point out that with all the publicity given to the green belt and this announcement by the Prime Minister on June 18, 1958, it has become impossible for most persons residing in the green belt area, other than farmers, to use their land. The owners of these lands have been effectively stopped from using them, particularly those persons who are using their lands for subdivision developments. It will be recalled that this whole problem resulted from the unsupervised development of housing in that area.
I was going to ask the Prime Minister, now that a decision has been taken with respect to the filing of a plan, to proceed with the
Supply-Privy Council settlement of claims as quickly as it is possible to do so because the financial hardship suffered from what is in effect, from the point of view of the owners, an expropriation that has taken place without any settlement is quite severe. This is particularly true if the price of land continues to rise and these people are left without compensation for the lands taken from them. It simply means that those who do not have other financial resources cannot relocate and continue their business activities, thereby suffering heavy financial loss that is not contemplated or provided for by the expropriation legislation, and for which compensation cannot be made under the expropriation law. I should like to have some assurance from the Prime Minister that this point will be borne in mind, and that whatever action can be taken to prevent this occurrence will be taken in the immediate future.


John George Diefenbaker: I can certainly say to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that with reasonable dispatch his views will receive support.


George James McIlraith: Then there are two particular questions about which I want some information. In his statement the Prime Minister referred to the decrease in rentals in this fiscal year. Would he tell the committee just what caused the decrease in rentals?


John George Diefenbaker: The reason is that the accumulated surplus in earlier years has been used up.


George James McIlraith: What I am getting at is this. Is the annual revenue from rentals decreasing, or is it that the fund which has been accumulated is decreasing?


John George Diefenbaker: It is the latter.


George James McIlraith: 
John George Diefenbaker: I hope, at the earliest possible date we shall be able to proclaim and proceed under the new act. In so far as the chairman of the commission is concerned, no consideration has been given to that matter.

Supply-Privy Council General Kennedy, throughout the period of his service, has given well to the city of Ottawa and this country.
The question, however, as to the position of chairman has not received final attention as yet.


George James McIlraith: Has the question as to whether or not it will be a full time position received attention, or is that matter still unsettled?


John George Diefenbaker: That matter is still uncertain. But expressing my own view on the subject, having regard to a visit that I made to various parts of this area and the widening sphere of activity in connection with the commission, my own opinion at the moment- and I am not going to be bound by this in the future-is that it should be a full time job.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I have just one more remark that I want to make on these items. It has to do, of course, with the employees. I will not repeat the remarks I made at the legislation stage when the national capital commission bill was before the house and the committee, other than to say that I regret very much that the government did not see fit to retain the legislative provision which would have provided for the new commission taking over the employees of the federal district commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans, Investments and Advances-Federal District
Commision-
509. To provide for loans to the federal district commission (hereinafter called "the commission"), for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital district that is not immediately required for the purposes of the commission; the loans to be made in such amounts and on such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, except that when a property so acquired has been commenced to be used for a purpose of the commission, an amount equal to the cost of acquisition of the property shall be repaid from the national capital fund or other fund or account from which expenditures may be made for the purposes of the commission, $3,000,000.
Erhart Regier: I wonder whether the Prime Minister could inform the house how much has been lent to the federal district commission and how much is owing by the federal district commission at the present time to the federal government?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not those particulars at hand, Mr. Chairman. I will have to communicate with the officials. Toward the end of the consideration of these estimates I will have them. In the meantime we might proceed to other items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Federal District Commission-
590. To authorize further payment to the special account in the consolidated revenue fund, known as the national capital fund, established under vote 809, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1947-48, $816,666.
George James McIlraith: As I understand this item, it merely carries out the provisions of last year's estimates because of the legal doubt as to the authority of the governor general's warrant to provide that $2J million. Is that correct?


John George Diefenbaker: That is correct; and the acceleration of the construction program.


George James McIlraith: How much of it is for acceleration?


John George Diefenbaker: 

Item agreed to.
308. To provide hereby, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $15,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on item 308 I have some questions I should like to raise. I do not know whether or not the Prime Minister wanted to make a statement on this item. If he wanted to do so I would of course yield to him at once.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to postpone the pleasure that I anticipate from the questions and observations of the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, but there was one announcement I wanted to make. It has to do with vote 313, which connected with the emergency defence measures organization. I commence by saying this. What we have done in this connection and what we are suggesting should be done does not in any way-and I emphasize this-indicate our greater fears of the possibility of war. But the responsibility rests with the government to assure that should that dread possibility take place, the organization of government has been planned for and assured in advance.
On May 13 last, when the estimates were tabled in the house, I made a brief statement on the work being done within the privy council office on measures to ensure the continuity of government and to meet the needs of the civilian population in the event of hostilities. I said then that if a major war occurred this continent would likely be under heavy attack, the war would reach maximum intensity almost immediately and in the civilian field as in the military there

would not be time then to prepare the defence measures needed. It is only prudent that we should make plans in peacetime for carrying on government should war come, and prepare the measures which will be necessary under such circumstances in order to supply our people with the necessities of life and to keep the nation together as an economic and political entity.
The vote provides $150,000 for preparatory work, not within the fields of particular departments, on emergency defence measures. At the time the estimates were tabled I undertook, within the limits dictated by considerations of security, to give the house further particulars about this item when it came up for consideration. Our main planning effort is at present concentrated on making plans to ensure the continuity of effective civil government in time of war, since the nature of specific measures to deal with the consequences of an attack on this country depends essentially on arrangements for necessary governmental organization to carry them out.
There are a number of functions of government that would be particularly essential in the early, intense period of nuclear war: general direction of the defence forces; conduct of foreign relations concerning the war; general direction of civil defence activities; preservation of law and order; provision and allocation of housing accommodation; provision and distribution of food, fuel, power and other essential supplies; provision and control of essential medical and public health services; maintenance and control of transport and communications facilities; basic management of public finances and whatever emergency financial measures are necessary to maintain the population and a workable economic system; direction and control of the production and distribution of various essential materials and services, including control of prices; and reemployment of manpower in accordance with emergency priorities.
In that connection I might say that the division of responsibilities among the various departments may be summarized in this way. The Department of National Defence would be concerned with the employment of the defence forces in aid of the civil authorities, particularly aid to the civil power; assistance to civil defence and assistance to the R.C.M. Police; bomb location, radiation monitoring, fall-out forecasts, and generally communications for these purposes.
The Department of External Affairs would be, of course, concerned with the conduct of
Supply-Privy Council foreign relations in war; wartime arrangements for foreign diplomats accredited to Canada, and in all cases communications for these purposes.
The Department of National Health and Welfare would be concerned with emergency health services including medical manpower and supplies; and under civil defence there are, of course, various headings which I am not going to place on the record unless asked to do so.
The Department of Justice would be concerned with legal action, legislative or executive, required for the preparation of emergency measures in peacetime and their implementation in war, as well as the necessary defence of Canada regulations. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has as its responsibility the usual preservation of law and order, the prevention of sabotage and the apprehension of subversives.
The Department of Transport, of course, covers those matters peculiarly coming within the requirements of rail, air and water transportation, fuel requirements and procurement, the allocation and control of radio frequencies, and technical advice to other departments and to the emergency organization with respect to emergency communications generally.
The Department of Trade and Commerce will be concerned with the supply and distribution of those commodities which are of the essence; the Department of Defence Production, of course, with the procurement action to meet supply requirements. The Department of Agriculture will be concerned with agricultural production and the movement of food from farms into commercial channels and the protection of farms, crops and livestock against wartime hazards such as radiation; the Department of Finance with the general financing in wartime as between federal, provincial and municipal governments and moratoria problems and foreign exchange transactions; the Department of Labour with manpower, excluding medical personnel, and its allocation and movement; the Department of Public Works with emergency accommodation for government purposes, which matter is now receiving consideration by a committee set up for that purpose.
That in general summarizes some of the problems which will have to be met in connection with emergency planning at the present time. Then there is a further question which requires consideration, and that is the matter of censorship. An advisory committee of press and radio representatives was set up, I believe about 18 months ago, and plans will have to be made for censorship in a national emergency. Preparations

Supply*-Privy Council in respect of these plans have been under way in the privy council office for the period mentioned. The basic plan is intended to provide for the control of mail and telecommunications entering and leaving Canada in the event of war so as to assure security with respect to information likely to be of value to the enemy in obtaining intelligence for wartime purposes, in connection with matters coming within the purview of the censors. In the field of press and broadcasting the basic plan provides for voluntary censorship at the outset on much the same lines that were followed during world war II, but flexible enough to meet new conditions.
As this is basically a security and intelligence function involving contacts with similar planning groups in the United Kingdom and the United States, all I have been able to give at this time is a very limited account of this aspect of our planning. If such a war should end shortly after this early shock period, then there would have to be a period of rehabilitation and reconstruction during which the functions of government would be more varied and complex as the immediate tasks gave way to those with longer term aspects. If war continued, however, the problem of government would be very difficult, particularly having regard to the necessity of allocating our surviving resources, if I may use that expression, among competing civilian and military demands.
To permit the government to adapt itself to the variety of contingencies which might arise in another major war, it is also necessary to develop organizational arrangements which, as I said a moment ago, must be flexible. Considering the possibility that there would be little or no warning of attack and having regard to the vulnerability of our communication and transportation facilities, the normal peacetime arrangements for government would be inadequate in the event of a major war. There is therefore a need, in our opinion, for the development of a decentralized federal system of emergency government with central, regional and some zonal elements. We intend to provide for a suitable central authority and to establish provincial, regional and zonal organizations through which a large amount of the work of the federal government could be carried on in time of war by the necessary delegation of authority to federal officers. We recognize, of course, that the assistance and co-operation of provincial and municipal governments will be necessary in the development of the regional and zonal organizations, and I expect very shortly to approach the provincial authorities and provincial governments in this connection.
In so far as the central authority is concerned-and the plans are still in a flexible 
state-that authority would be based on a nucleus of ministers, officials, military officers and others at Ottawa and would operate, if necessary, with provision being made for such necessity through a number of dispersed locations outside of Ottawa.
As to the regional and zonal elements of organization, I think all hon. members will appreciate that it would be inappropriate, before discussions have been held with the provincial authorities, to say more than I have said in so far as the details are concerned.
The intention generally, however, is to have the federal regions correspond with the provincial boundaries as far as that is possible and practicable, and to recruit for each region on a stand-by basis a small staff of federal officers, mainly from the field organizations of the various federal departments who, in the event of war, would work in close co-operation with the essential elements of the provincial governments.
The zonal organizations may not be required everywhere in the country, but in the larger provinces at least there is a need for a level of wartime government to cover smaller areas than provinces but larger than the limits of one municipality. The zonal organization would require a mixed staff of federal and provincial officials as well as some representatives of elements of municipal governments within the zone.
Finally I would say that this concept of a decentralized federal system of emergency government, in which the provincial and municipal governments would be closely associated, will be sufficiently broad to accommodate considerable variation in its application to the differing situations across the country. It would also permit adjustment to whatever changes in civil defence policy arrangements might be considered desirable following the survey by General Graham as to civil defence requirements, announced to this house on June 11 last by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I think that in general represents a rather particular statement concerning a matter of which I gave the barest outline earlier this session. I dislike to repeat what I said at the beginning, but I feel that when announcements such as these are made there are some who might regard them as conveying potentialities which are not present. At the same time, the course of reality demands on the part of government the assurance to the people that should nuclear war come, government can be carried on.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has introduced into the quiet atmosphere of this committee a matter of-what shall I call it- almost cosmic importance. He has faced us

with a problem unprecedented in the sense that we have never had to face it before, and unprecedented also in the horrible possibilities involved in it. It is well, I think, that he should have done this in order that we may in this house and in the country be aware of the realities of the situation which faces us at the present time.
He has not only indicated the necessity of planning against this horrible eventuality, but he has also indicated that such planning is taking place. I have had some association with that planning in other years. Nothing could be much more important in the realm of government than to carry it forward; and while we all shrink from the possibility that these plans might have to be used, it is well that we should know about them in general terms-and that is the only way we should know about them, because no one in this committee wants to ask questions with regard to details which would contravene security.
The fact is that the plans with which some of us on this side were associated until a short time ago must be considered now, as in some respects at least, out of date. I presume the government and its advisers are aware of the developments which have made them out of date.
The Prime Minister has divided them into broad categories; plans for carrying on civil government in the emergency of nuclear war and-perhaps this is an aspect of the first category and not something to be repeated separately-plans for such things as the control and censorship of the press, radio and communications in time of war or war emergency. As far as these latter matters are concerned, those plans were drawn up a good many years ago after the second world war, and I suppose they have been kept up to date. All arrangements were made so they could be put into effect in those days, and I am sure that is true now, at a moment's notice. All details had been worked out so far as possible.
But the other plan, the far more important plan, for carrying on civil government itself in a time of nuclear warfare must, I am sure, have been altered in recent years because of the great increase in the capacity for destruction of weapons that could be launched against us. I have no doubt that the increase in this vote is for the purpose of altering, elaborating, and perhaps in some respects changing the nature of these plans, and as such I think this item should receive our support.
When I talk about an increase in destructive capacity in the last year or two which may have necessitated changes in plans, I need only say to the committee- and this shows what we should be up against
Supply-Privy Council were it to happen-that it would be possible now to drop one bomb or to launch one missile carrying as much destructive capacity as all the bombs or missiles dropped in the second world war by all the armies of both sides. If half a dozen of them were dropped on Canadian soil it makes one almost despair of the possibility of carrying on any form of government. We should not, of course, yield to that kind of despair, and for this reason plans are being made to deal with even that kind of emergency.
The Prime Minister has also mentioned plans for the restoration and rehabilitation of our country after that kind of attack. It is also wise to plan for that. Here again one almost falls into despair at contemplating the work of rehabilitation and restoration that would be required if this should ever happen. Nevertheless, as I have said, we have to plan for these things, and it is well that we should know what we are facing. I think the Prime Minister's remarks this morning are-perhaps "welcome" is not the right word-but perhaps it is as well that we should have had the opportunity of hearing them.
I should like also to suggest that those who are engaged on this essential work should keep in close touch with other governments, such as those of the United Kingdom and the United States, who are facing this problem and who have done perhaps as much as, if not more work than we have been able to do and who have greater resources for that purpose, so that we may benefit from their planning and from their experience. So far as experience is concerned, the United Kingdom had more of this, unhappily, than any other government on our side during the last war and they learned a great deal during that war.
When I was exposed to some of these bombing situations in world war II-and at times I was more uncomfortable than I was in the first world war-I learned to appreciate and admire not only the fortitude of the people of London but the way in which the government there had planned against that kind of emergency and were able to put those plans into effect. Of course that is all changed now, but I know they are changing their plans, too, and I am sure we are keeping in close touch with them.
Of course it is possible to make even the best plans which do not always work out in practice. Members of the committee will forgive me if I cite a personal illustration of this. At the beginning of the last war I was stationed in London when war was declared that fine September Sunday morning and the world changed. All arrangements had been

Supply-Privy Council made in advance for the evacuation of the civil departments from London and for the evacuation of certain offices such as Canada House to the country. Two men in each office, the high commissioner and his secretary, had been given information as to what to do when the emergency occurred. However, we were given it in very guarded terms, and we were only told that when we got a signal we were to send an advance party to a certain spot on a map and they would get further instructions then where to go.
Our advance party was ready within a couple of hours of the declaration of war. We received a telephone call and sent the advance party to point X on the map, where they were to get further instructions; but the ordnance map was of 1921 vintage, and the pinpoint for further instructions had been made on that map. When our advance party got to this particular position the pinpoint, which was a house, was not there. It had disappeared some years before.
So there can be hitches even in the best of plans. That was a simple operation compared to that with which we will be faced if this dread emergency ever occurs now. It is well that we should be planning for it, but it is more important that we should be working in our respective ways to prevent a situation that will ever require these plans to be put into effect.


Douglas Mason Fisher: These plans are certainly worthy of the comments made about them by the Leader of the Opposition. One point which I think is worth bringing to the attention of the Prime Minister at this time is that last week there was a meeting in the United States, I believe in Vermont, to go into all the effects of atomic radiation. I know that the meetings of scientists at Geneva in connection with detecting the testing of nuclear explosions were very important, but it was most disappointing to me to learn that Canada had no official representatives in attendance at the meeting considering the effects of atomic radiation. I understand there were only two government observers in attendance, but their role was that of observer.
In plans for the future concerning how civil government will continue one assumes that a major aspect of the problem will be instruction with regard to radiation and the effect of fall-out. The failure of the government to have an official representative at the Vermont meeting seemed to me an indication that in this area the government was not following things perhaps as closely as one might wish.
I wish to bring up a point which at first glance may appear to be rather petty and

ticklish. It was noticed last year when statements were made in the United States that reflected on the political tenets and loyalty of the secretary of the privy council there were very sharp replies forthcoming from the Canadian government, which were quite appreciated, dismissing the whole idea and protesting against the views that were expressed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is embarking on another subject I wonder if we cannot dispose of this subject on which I yielded to the Prime Minister, in order to dispose of it. I am not seeking to interrupt the hon. member for Port Arthur, but I had the floor first in committee and yielded to the Prime Minister to make a statement on this particular subject.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On the particular subject about which I am speaking?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you still speaking about the subject of future planning?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was my point.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will yield the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, what has been said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is correct. I want to hear the hon. member for Port Arthur as he explains his views in this connection at the conclusion of the discussion of this matter.
I wish to say to the Leader of the Opposition I appreciate the benefit of his ideas and the recital of his experiences. He suggested there should be very close co-operation and communication with the United States and United Kingdom, and I may say in reply that we are in close touch not only with the United Nations, the United States and the United Kingdom but with NATO as well. Canadian officials concerned with these matters visit London, Washington and Paris on these questions, and United States officials have come to Ottawa at our invitation to discuss relations between their plans and ours. In consideration of the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition I thought I should point out that action in this regard is being taken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may make a suggestion to the Prime Minister. I thought the item called was item No. 308. That is the item on which I wish to speak. But if the Prime Minister would wish you to call item No. 313 first in order that it might be passed that would be quite agreeable to me.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, 313 could be called and passed.


The Chairman:: Is the committee agreeable to taking item No. 313 before discussing item No. 308?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
313. To provide for preparatory work, not within the fields of particular departments, on emergency defence measures, $150,000.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, before we pass item 313 may I say I share completely the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that he hopes, as we all hope, that everything possible will be done to avoid the need for putting into effect the planning that has been done. My question deals with powers. We have to realize that if an emergency of the type to which reference has been made occurs, there may be no one available to grant any authority. There may not be a governor in council or a privy council in existence, and there may not be any senior officials of any of our armed forces. That possibility exists. I therefore feel it is safe to say that in order to have any comprehensive value the plan requires that authority be granted in advance in peacetime in order to proceed with the plan under certain conditions. I should like the Prime Minister to tell us what legislation exists at this time under which such authority could be granted.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. gentleman realizes that powers cannot be granted in anticipation of an emergency. There is, of course, the War Measures Act which is still on the statute books of this country, under which provision is made in time of insurrection, war or the like for the necessary declaration; and naturally the effectuality of any assignment of jurisdiction would be subject to the declaration of that act or similar legislation.
Following the war there were successive statutes passed including the transitional powers act, the emergency powers act and the like which contained certain emergency powers during the period of reconstruction following the last war. But all action being taken by those concerned with the matter of providing in advance the necessary organization to assure a maximum degree of preparation would naturally be predicated on the declaration or proclamation of the War Measures Act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall item 154 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I thought it was understood that after item 313 you were going to call item 308.
Supply-Privy Council
308. To provide hereby, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,5C0 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $15,000.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall item 308 carry, then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions I should like to put to the Prime Minister. This item seems to correspond with an item that appeared in the further supplementary estimates, No. 2, that were presented in the only session of the last parliament, which item was never called during the course of that parliament. However, since the estimates for this year show an amount of $11,668 I assume that some expenditure was made by virtue of the interim supply bills or the appropriation acts based on them. To put the three questions at once, I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell us when those expenditures started, whether they have been carried on continuously since that time, and at what intervals payments are made.


John George Diefenbaker: Payments started following the passage of interim supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be on October 17.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 308 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, there were two other questions. Have they been made continuously since that time, and at what intervals are they made?


John George Diefenbaker: The payments were continued so long as supply was available, and thereafter they were continued under governor general's warrants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So there has been continuous payment out of the vote last year, governor general's warrants, interim supply voted, speaking from recollection, on the fourth day of the last session and, since this session began, once more under an appropriation act. I thought that would be the correct information, but before making any observations I wanted to be quite sure that was the actual, factual state of affairs.
I have looked at the statement made by the Minister of Finance on October 17 in introducing the first interim supply motion in the last parliament. I cannot say that I have gone through it with a fine-tooth comb,
3872	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council but I have gone pretty carefully through Hansard and I cannot find that the minister drew our attention to this item at any point. In other words, it was to be found in the estimates by those of us who were alert enough to see it, but anyone who was not alert enough did not have his attention drawn to this item by the Minister of Finance.
It is true, of course, that once the Appropriation Act was passed and this item was included the government had a perfectly valid, legal warrant for paying this money to these two gentlemen who had already been sworn of the privy council. There can be no question but that was the fact, even if one were not alert enough to notice the item. I draw attention to the fact that this is the kind of legislation to which one former member, who was considered distinguished enough to be offered the speakership by the Prime Minister, took exception over the years in other parliaments.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman is speaking about me, I at no time ever offered the speakership to anyone.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not to Mr. Knowles? I was referring, of course, to Mr. Knowles. In any case, this is really beside the point.


John George Diefenbaker: It is also beside the fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not in the least concerned about getting into any controversy with the Prime Minister on that point, but I think it is an undoubted fact that over the years Mr. Knowles took exception to legislating by this particular means. I always thought his concern about the matter was exaggerated, but I have some grave misgivings about whether such concern is exaggerated in this particular instance, because here we are asked to do something which has always been done in the past by statute. When successive governments have sought to provide for additional members of the cabinet and their remuneration it has always been done in a very formal way by amendment to statutes or to the Salaries Act, though in the case of the Department of Defence Production my recollection is that it is done in that act and that the minister's salary does not appear in the Salaries Act.
But here a provision was made which is not and, of course, could not be of continuing effect because it lapsed when the interim supply lapsed and the legislative authority for making these payments lapsed. Therefore on January 31 when, if I am not mistaken, the supply voted by parliament lapsed, there was no further authority to pay salaries to the hon. member for Greenwood or the hon. member for St. John's West. Parliament had


made no provision for paying salaries to these two ministers of the crown. The Prime Minister has told us that their salaries were subsequently continued through the use of governor general's warrants.
It seems to me, sir, that that in itself is a very extraordinary provision. We amended the Financial Administration Act the other day, and that time our attention was drawn rather particularly to the clause therein which states the reasons and circumstances under which these warrants can be used. We took out a rather antiquated reference to accidents to public works and so on, and I am not going to make anything of that because I thought the amendment was a perfectly sensible one. I am not seeking to debate this point, but merely to point out that under the amended section governor general's warrants may be used in these circumstances:
Where a payment is urgently required for the public good when parliament is not in session and there is no other appropriation pursuant to which the payment may be made, the governor in council, upon the report of the minister that there is no appropriation for the payment and the report of the appropriate minister that the payment is urgently required for the public good, may by order direct the preparation of a special warrant to be signed by the governor general authorizing the payment to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund.
I do not think by any stretch of the imagination it can be argued that this was an unforeseen situation. These gentlemen were already ministers. They were already drawing these allowances, and I suggest that there is very grave doubt that this was a proper use of governor general's warrants. In fact, sir, I would go so far as to say that it seems quite evident to me that it was a highly improper use of governor general's warrants.
The Prime Minister told us this morning how scrupulous he was about payments into the national capital fund, that he hesitated to use governor general's warrants for that purpose although in fact there was a statutory provision of a continuing nature that had been on the statutes for some considerable time. But, sir, that is not all. We have a payment not authorized in any way by parliament being made to two gentlemen who subsequently became candidates in a general election.
I would draw your attention, sir, to the provisions of the Canada Elections Act setting out the conditions of eligibility for parliament. Of course, as everyone knows one of the provisions respecting ineligibility as a candidate embraces the following persons:
Every person accepting or holding any office, commission or employment, permanent or temporary, in the service of the government of Canada at the nomination of the crown or at the nomination of

any of the officers of the government of Canada, to which any salary, fee, wages, allowance, emolument or profit of any kind is attached-during the time he is so holding any such office, commission or employment.
Of course there is an exception. The exception is:
-a member of the Queen's privy council for Canada holding the recognized position of first minister, any person holding the office of president of the Queen's privy council for Canada or of Solicitor General, or any member of the Queen's privy council for Canada holding the office of a minister of the crown.
Then, of course, the specified offices are included in the Salaries Act. Of course this proposed provision in the appropriation act would not appear to me to have been necessary if these other provisions had been made.
Then, sir, this would appear to be not only an infringement of the Canada Elections Act, but it would also appear to be an infringement of the independence of parliament for those gentlemen to be sworn as members to sit in this parliament while receiving emoluments which were not provided by statute, and a statute which explicitly stated that they were exempt from the general provision. The general provision is contained in section 10 of the Senate and House of Commons Act, which reads:
(a) no person accepting or holding any office, commission or employment, permanent or temporary, in the service of the government of Canada, at the nomination of the crown or at the nomination of any of the officers of the government of Canada, to which any salary, fee, wages, allowance, emolument, or profit of any kind is attached-
Then some of the exceptions are spelled out, and in section 14 of the Senate and House of Commons Act it is provided also that anyone specially qualified by law to do so may hold such office. It seems to me, sir, that unless there is some statutory provision of which I am not aware-of course there might be, because I do not profess to have the learning of the Prime Minister or of the leader of the house in these matters-the provision by governor general's warrants of emoluments to a candidate for parliament, even though he was sworn of the privy council and perhaps even more so because he was sworn in as a privy councillor, disqualifies him from being a candidate at a general election according to the Canada Elections Act. I think if there might be any faint doubt about that there would not be the least doubt about the disqualification to sit in this parliament which is provided in the Senate and House of Commons Act.
I should like to say, before I continue with this matter, that I am not seeking to unseat the hon. member for Greenwood or the hon.
Supply-Privy Council member for St. John's West. I am not seeking to do anything other than point out what a dangerous thing it is to depart from the accepted precedents in these matters. As everyone knows, in King William's time and the early years of Queen Anne's reign this was the accepted way by which the king himself and later on the queen and her ministers could control parliament; that is, appoint as many members as possible to places of profit under the crown. It was in order to ensure the independence of parliament and to ensure that parliament could not be influenced in this fashion that the famous statute of Queen Anne was passed which made it necessary even for a minister of the crown to seek reelection after he had accepted a place of profit if he was already a member of parliament.
It will be recalled that in 1925 Mr. Mackenzie King was defeated in North York and was unable to take his seat. He subsequently got a seat in Prince Albert. He was, of course, the prime minister at that time. Later in that year, when Mr. Meighen accepted the governor general's request to form a government, he vacated his seat and was out of parliament at the time his government was defeated.
Since the amendment that was made at the instance of Mr. Bennett in 1931 it has not been necessary for a member of this house, who has been duly elected, to go back and be re-elected by his constituents after accepting a place of profit provided by law. I do not believe that is the kind of legislation that would likely have been introduced by a Liberal government, but it has not been repealed. It is the law.
Again, I am not seeking to divert the argument from the main point. In my experience, and it goes back now for quite a long time, on every occasion on which there has been any change in the ministry involving the provision of any kind of emolument that has been done by following the proper procedure. It is quite true that members of this house may become ministers without portfolio, and there were many cases in which that happened under previous administrations, but such a minister would not vacate his seat because he received no emolument. It is the receipt of the emolument that is the disqualifying feature.
I am not aware that there was ever any provision made whereby any emolument of this character could be paid unless there was a statutory provision therefor. I admit at once that there was a statutory provision of a very questionable character, and I mean questionable not in law but constitutionally questionable. If there has been any negligence,
3874	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council then I have to take some share of the responsibility, and I do. If by passing these successive interim supply bills and making them into statutes we were giving any countenance to this kind of practice, then we have to accept responsibility. I do not question the legality of the payments that were made between October 17 and January 31. I do not think there is any question about the complete legality of those payments. I do very seriously question the constitutionality of that form of procedure.
I remember, sir, the great care with which Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Mackenzie King introduced legislation into parliament covering any changes in the ministry. I recall how amendments were made to the Salaries Act and everything was kept regular and proper so there would be no doubt about who was receiving emoluments under the crown. In the light of that earlier practice I believe this was a very questionable procedure to have followed. As I say, I have to take some share of the responsibility for not having noticed it, not having brought it to parliament's attention last October. To the extent I am to blame, I accept that blame. I must say, sir, that it was only very recently, in looking over this item that it suddenly occurred to me to wonder what could be the foundation for the continuation of these payments.
It is one thing to ask parliament, even in this manner, to approve of a procedure which really does not tell us what is being done. The government can say that at least it was in the estimates; we were shown it. It is one thing to tell parliament that these things are going to be done and get some kind of limited sanction from parliament for doing them, but it is another thing to provide additional emoluments, for the governor in council to provide additional emoluments to two of its members by governor general's warrant after parliament has been dissolved in a summary fashion, and when there was no supply whatever for carrying on Her Majesty's business.
The financing of all Her Majesty's business in the months of February and March was being carried on by governor general's warrants, by order in council. Every dollar that was spent in the months of February and March was spent by a government which at that time did not even have a majority nor parliamentary backing. Of course it is very easy for the Prime Minister to say that they got away with it and that they obtained a huge majority; that is true. For three and a half months they carried on the business of this country by order in council and spent the people's money by order in council.


For these gentlemen to hand out money to two of themselves, to two members of the council by order in council, without any legislative sanction whatsoever, without any statutory foundation for it that I have been able to find, seems to me in itself to be an extremely serious abuse. But for those two gentlemen in receipt of those amounts to become parliamentary candidates in apparent defiance of the law is a matter for comment; and I say "apparent" because I do not want to be unfair; if there is something I have neglected my face may be a bit red and I shall have to take the consequences. For those two gentlemen to be accepting emoluments which they handed out themselves by order in council at a time when there was no parliament in this country, and then to become parliamentary candidates while they were in receipt of emoluments from the crown in defiance of the Canada Elections Act seems to me an extraordinary procedure.
I do not suppose for a minute that the hon. member for Greenwood ever thought of this situation. I am perfectly certain that if he had ever thought of it, it would have worried him very much indeed. I am sure the same is true of the hon. member for St. John's West. It may be-and I say it again-that there is some legal explanation of this matter of which I am unaware. However, I have tried very hard and have been unble to find any.
But then, Mr. Chairman, it is not only that matter to which I direct attention. These gentlemen were elected to parliament by, I believe, substantial majorities. I am not seeking to upset those elections at all. Those gentlemen are here now. However, they came into this house and they took their oath as members of the house in apparent-and again I say "apparent" because there may conceivably be something about which I do not know-disregard of the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Mr. Chairman, in these circumstances and in view of what has happened in this case, even if there is some obscure provision somewhere in the law that somebody has dug up in an attempt to justify this rather underhand method of procedure, this rather extraordinary way of carrying on; even if some kind of obscure sanction or apparent sanction for it can be found, it seems to me that it is still highly objectionable from a constitutional point of view.
It seems to me that if there is to be that responsibility to the legislature which is the foundation of our system of responsible government, and which differentiates our system of government from that of other countries except those who have copied our system,

even if there is some obscure justification for this procedure it is still very bad indeed constitutionally.
If the government at the beginning of the session last October had come in and introduced a bill to provide salaries under the Salaries Act for two ministers without portfolio, there might have been a few days' debate about the matter and some question might have been raised as to whether this unprecedented increase in the number of cabinet ministers was really justified. I also think some of us from the province of Newfoundland would perhaps have wondered why the minister from that province should not have a portfolio, something which I think he should have and which I think he is well qualified to hold. I do not think there is much doubt that if that had been done the government would have been successful in getting parliamentary approval for such an amendment to the Salaries Act which would have made this whole procedure regular both then and in the future.
But it seems to me that, in the first place, it was an extraordinary thing. As he always does, the Minister of Finance, when he spoke on October 16, made a great deal of how he was not hiding anything, of how everything was being brought out into the open and all our rights were being safeguarded. I should like to draw attention to two references. One is to be found at pages 65 and 66 of Hansard. I have the unrevised edition but I imagine that the pages are the same in both editions. The Minister of Finance said:
We intend to be jealous to preserve the rights of the house with respect to the control of public expenditure. I assure the committee that it is not, by the measure to be introduced today, being asked to give final and complete approval to any item.
I stress that language:
-is not . . . being asked to give final and complete approval to any item.
He continued:
In this respect I would remind the committee that there were a few items which were finally approved by the old parliament.
That is not of significance. He continued:
Those, of course, are law today and they will not be reopened. But with respect to all the other items the house is not being asked to give final approval to the total amount involved in any item-
I do not think I need go beyond that; I would just be trespassing on the time of the committee. Then as found on page 84 of Hansard, when he was replying to something that had been said by Mr. Sinclair, he said:
I simply make this observation in passing, that no item is being passed finally today. If the measure the government has introduced passes there is no final decision on any item.
Supply-Privy Council
Hence by no stretch of the imagination can it be argued that any parliamentary approval was given to this practice except in the very limited sense that in the former parliament there were repeated supply bills the financial provisions of which all expired on January 31. As I say, I do not make too much of that matter. What I really think is objectionable is this: first, the use of governor general's warrants, of payment by order in council; second, the gentlemen being candidates when they were receiving emoluments under the crown; and third, becoming members of parliament when they were receiving emoluments under the crown which do not appear to be founded in law.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has raised an interesting argument, though he did not do so with the certainty which ordinarily characterizes his speeches. As I listened to him I was reminded of the prime minister in respect of whom he is about to write a biography, a prime minister he served so faithfully and well for so long and who upon occasion raised these constitutional arguments, once with tremendous success, namely at the time of the Byng incident.
It was interesting to follow the hon. member as he surrounded his statements with an aura of disclaimers and qualifiers. He loaded his argument with escape clauses, but he was not quite as certain of the stand he took as he would lead us to believe. Indeed, he was in the position of having himself belonged to a government which approved a similar provision to that contained in item 308, and this necessitated a rather apologetic attitude when he raised this constitutional issue.
I will have to go back quite a long way because the hon. member has invariably spoken in the highest terms of the legal capacity and attainments of Mr. St. Laurent, in which respect I agree with him. I have here the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1956, and have particular reference to item 199 thereof. Hon. members will have noted that one of his arguments was that the item in question today, item 308, is wrong in principle. It reads-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might save the Prime Minister a lot of time by saying that I attach no great importance to that argument.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to hear that.

Supply-Privy Council


An hon. Member:: He attaches no importance to any principle.


John George Diefenbaker: Then we begin to realize exactly what is his position. He attaches no importance to that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: My position is that a statute is a statute.


John George Diefenbaker: He attaches no importance to anything in respect of which he finds himself in the position of having been a major offender, if indeed there is any wrongdoing involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Item 308 reads:
To provide hereby, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year.
He says that is wrong, and to do it that way is unconstitutional, but when he was a member of the former government that is exactly what they did. As a matter of fact I ask hon. members to look at item 199 in the estimates of 1956, which apparently the hon. member overlooked-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that for the year 1956 or 1957?


John George Diefenbaker: The year 1956.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would point out that the fiscal year is either for 1955-56 or 1956-57.


John George Diefenbaker: The estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1956.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is 1955-56.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I am glad my hon. friend is becoming more careful about these finer details. Item 199 reads:
To provide, notwithstanding anything in the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Financial Administration Act or any other act, for payment of indemnity during the present and subsequent fiscal years, on the recommendation of the board of internal economy and in such amount as the treasury board may direct, to or in respect of a member of the House of Commons for each day on which that member did not attend a sitting of the House of Commons because of public or official business-[DOT]
And so on. Then it goes on to say that the person concerned shall now receive his payment, and the total amount of the estimate was $2,120,000. So when the hon. member complains about this item in its present form

-and I followed his constitutional argument with interest-I have but to turn to the item in question for 1955-56 to find that exactly the same course was followed as that which we are now following.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us pass on to the next point. I listened with interest when the hon. member spoke with real feeling about the maintaining of parliamentary traditions. He says we must not depart from parliamentary traditions, but if ever a member belonged to a government which did much in that direction, that member is the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. As he spoke I thought of Mary I, who said that when she passed away, Calais would be written on her heart. Parliament and the derogation of the rights of parliament will certainly be written on the heart of the hon. member, because with his constitutional knowledge he knew better, when over and over again he allowed the traducement of parliament.
In what we have done we have followed the accepted practice, and if there is any question as to regularity then there is a simple way in which to determine the answer, and that is through the courts of the land. No one can finally determine, without recourse to the courts, the meaning of these expressions in the Senate and House of Commons Act. I have in my hand the provision in question which was read into the record by the hon. member today, namely section 14, which reads as follows:
Nothing in this act renders ineligible, as aforesaid, any person, member of the Queen's privy council, holding the recognized position of first minister, president of the Queen's privy council for Canada, minister of finance, minister of justice-
And so on.
-or solicitor general, or any office that is hereafter created-*
Mr. Chairman, it has never been defined that one who holds the position of minister without portfolio, under circumstances similar to the case under discussion, does not come within the meaning of those words. The courts of the land can determine the answer finally and absolutely, and I therefore say that in connection with the provision of salaries for ministers without portfolio the payments under this item in the estimates represent the course which was previously followed and, to a large extent, the wording used in the case of parliamentary assistants, whose legal position is somewhat analogous to that of ministers. The practice of providing for such officers of the state was initiated, as I recall, by Right Hon. Mr. King by means of an item in the estimates.

That is my recollection. There seems no doubt about the legality of providing for these salaries by means of estimates. For many years parliament has passed items having legal effect as well as having a purely appropriating effect. To what extent this practice should be carried is a matter of judgment and what I might call parliamentary good taste. We felt that past practice had sanctioned the judgment we exercised in this case, as similar action had been exercised in the past by others who were then in power. If I had had any doubt as to the constitutional situation I certainly would have ensured an examination by the law offices of the crown.
I think the hon. gentleman in raising this argument realized that there are two sides to it. I believe that in fairness to him it can be said that he realizes that this course had been taken in the past and that it had not been challenged in any way. The effect is that of a pathway which in the intervening years has become a regular highway. But if there is any weakness in this regard I am sure none of us would wish parliament to follow a course taken in the past unless it is correct. It could be very simply ascertained, then, and the necessary statute could be brought into being to cover the situation.
If the hon. gentleman's stand is correct, then for a period of several years 13 or 14 members of this house holding positions as parliamentary assistants during those years and in each of those years automatically place themselves in the position of being unable to establish their eligibility as members of the House of Commons and, indeed, would have forfeited their seats in the house.
That is why the hon. gentleman was so careful, and why he had good reason to say, "Remember, my face may be red if there is anything that can be brought up which will cast doubt on the formula I am advancing." I simply say that I would expect his face to be red, because we have only followed the course which his government followed over the years without any challenge heretofore, particularly by anyone like the hon. gentleman who is such constitutional authority and who for so many years was associated with Right Hon. Mr. King, whose constitutional knowledge was, indeed, one of those things of which he was most proud.
It will be noted that the wording of the item includes specifically a safeguard to ensure that the payment shall in no way render a member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons. While there may be some doubt as to whether this exact wording is strictly necessary in the light of section 14 of the Senate and House
Supply-Privy Council of Commons Act to which I have already referred, none the less out of an abundance of caution this insertion was included with regard to this item in the estimates.
Of course, having gone that far in his argument the hon. gentleman had to go the full limit. He then raised the question of the position of these ministers as candidates under the provisions of the Canada Elections Act. He pointed out that if they had accepted payments after the dissolution of the house on February 1 and if they had received payments under the provision of governor general's warrants, they would find themselves in a difficult position. I am not going to argue that, because of the fact that they were not paid under governor general's warrants in the months of February and March. No payments under governor general's warrants were made to them because of the very point he has suggested with regard to their eligibility being subject to challenge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: In just a moment. No payments were made until after supply was passed in due course in the month of May.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister will perhaps recall that I asked that very specific question before I embarked on my argument, because I did not feel it would have been proper to have trespassed on the time of the committee before doing so. If the Prime Minister had told me what I asked him at the beginning it would have been a different matter, but the Prime Minister told me, I think, that these ministers were paid under governor general's warrant. If he had told me they were not I will admit there would not have been much to my argument.


John George Diefenbaker: I correct that to this extent, because of the answer I gave the hon. gentleman a few moments ago. Payments were not made in April and May. I am glad the hon. member brought this to my attention, because I had the wrong two months when he spoke a moment or two ago, and I am glad of that question because he cleared it up in accordance with the point he now makes and the answer which I gave him this morning.
Going further, the hon. gentleman has raised the question of the position of these ministers as candidates under the Canada Elections Act. Why did he not challenge that position? He has the courts. If this argument is other than a debating argument, very simple action can be taken with regard to it.
I am not here for the purpose of saying whether or not the controverted elections

Supply-Privy Council act does cover a situation such as this, or whether it is within the actual time limit, but it is for the courts to determine the question of eligibility in this situation. Eligibility cannot be determined on the basis of arguments in the House of Commons, and I suggest to the hon. gentleman that while payments were made in February and March there would be no contravention whatsoever of the Senate and House of Commons Act because during that period they were no longer members and, therefore, any payments which were made would in no way effect their eligibility. They became members following the election of March 31, and after that date, as I said a moment ago, payments were made following the vote of supply.
In February and March there could be no contravention, since those concerned were not members. I say this to the hon. gentleman. On the basis of the experience of the past, certainly the records indicate that a similar course was followed. Where is there any basis whatsoever for statements such as he made in the course of his argument? I think he had been working on this. He said it was underhand. There is nothing much underhand when you set it out in detail giving full particulars. Nothing was concealed. I have never known of underhand conduct where the fact is advertised in full detail in the estimates, as it is on this occasion.
I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he made a very good speech. He loudly vociferously upheld the prerogatives of this parliament. I want them upheld. I was interested in his argument. It is a matter for the law officers of the crown. Now it is a matter, of course, for the courts of the land. If there is any foundation, the hon. gentleman has his recourse.
But, you see, he will not take that course. He says it is wrong. He says he is shocked. His finer sensibilities are acerbated at such conduct, but he says, "Remember, I want the hon. member for Greenwood to remain. I do not want him put out. I do not want the hon. member for St. John's West put out. It is all wrong. Parliament has been travestied. All I want to do is make an argument. I do not want to act, either through the courts or through parliament."
The reason for that attitude and that stand was simply this. The hon. gentleman either knew that the same course was followed in the past by the government of which he was so distinguished a member, or he had forgotten. I care not which of the two stands he takes. If he forgot, I am sure that having had this brought to his attention-and apparently he did not know about it because he wanted it particularized-he will agree he is answered by what he himself did as a

member of the government in the past. I know him well enough to say that.
He is an hon. member whose parliamentary capacity I value highly. His presence here is something which I must say is always most helpful and beneficial in discussions of these intricate matters. That being so and the hon. gentleman now realizing what was done in the past, I am sure he will not press unnecessarily the expression of the viewpoint he voiced this morning; because, after all, he realizes that his argument was a little weak in view of the fact that every paragraph has within it an escape hatch through which he can find his way provided this side of the house should be able to produce the experience of the past as an answer to the practice of the present.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with even more than my usual admiration to the Prime Minister's effort this afternoon. I can easily see, sir, why I can never hope to emulate the Prime Minister because I am one of those simple, plain people who seems to be rooted to the facts and who in pursuing an argument sticks to the argument. It seemed to me that as the Prime Minister moved from one irrelevancy to another, from one diversion to another, he realized he had no argument at all.
I gave the Prime Minister an opportunity when he first started to speak by saying I attached no particular importance to this question of legislating in supply bills. That will be found in Hansard. I said there was no doubt that what was done in the last parliament was legal-and this, too, will be found in Hansard-and that up until January 31 there was no doubt that these hon. gentlemen were legally paid by a means of legislation, and I apologize for the word, sir, if it is not parliamentary and if it is I will substitute something for it-which I repeat I think was put over us in a rather-underhand fashion. I think the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance should have drawn particular attention to this item last October. I know that Mr. St. Laurent introduced provisions for salaries for ministers who had never been provided for before on several occasions, and I also know Mr. King did it, but they never did it by bringing in a supplementary estimate and saying nothing about it and throwing on the opposition as the Prime Minister has done in his speech the responsibility to find that out for themselves or, if they could not, to have it overlooked.
I took my share of the blame for overlooking it, but it seems to me the first responsibility of any prime minister, and particularly of one who has made the professions the present Prime Minister has of devotion

to parliament and to our parliamentary institutions, is surely to draw attention to any change in the emoluments of the ministers. Ministers are not like parliamentary assistants. It is the ministers who advise the crown, who determine these matters and who decide what they will recommend to parliament as what they shall get themselves. What they were doing here was recommending that they be paid an additional salary which was never drawn to the attention of parliament except by being printed in the further supplementary estimates No. 2 last year.


John George Diefenbaker: What were the terms that were so underhanded? Does the hon. gentleman have it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the Prime Minister is objecting to the word "underhand" I shall withdraw it.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I do not, but I am interested in knowing how the terms failed in setting out full particulars.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe I have the item.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman read the terms and tell us how they concealed the facts?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall be happy to read it. I believe the terms are precisely the same as in the item before us. I do not appear to be able to locate it on my desk, but in any event I believe it is in the same terms as the present item, and I admit the perfect legality of it. On that point there is no disagreement between the Prime Minister and me.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman this question. He admits the legality of it. Does he not also admit that in the supplementary estimate last fall it was stated that the additional amount was for salaries for ministers without portfolio?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, quite.


John George Diefenbaker: Pardon?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no quarrel on that between us, Mr. Chairman.


John George Diefenbaker: Then what did we conceal from you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the Prime Minister would let me proceed to explain.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that this is not a simple matter.


John George Diefenbaker: No.
Supply-Privy Council


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure he will agree this is not an easy matter and it is not easy for a novice like me-


Mr. Ricard:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to have to argue against so eminent a counsel as the Prime Minister.


Mr. Harkness:: We know something of your simplicity, but don't emphasize the fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, sir, I believe there are more interesting things to talk about than me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I agree.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said and I repeat, sir, that I think this was an undesirable way of legislating, but it was a legal way of legislating and I never questioned that. I did say that Mr. Knowles had questioned this kind of legislation and I thought he had gone much too far. I also said I thought that in respect of remuneration for a minister of the crown it should not be handled in this fashion. Moreover, this committee or the committee of the previous parliament never discussed this item. The Prime Minister knows that. There was never any discussion of it. There was never a vote for the whole year. There were only fractions until January 31.
I objected to several things in principle. On one of these the Prime Minister has completely satisfied me; that is the point about the second governor general's warrant after April 1. If there was no payment after April 1 then my case on that point falls to the ground. I endeavoured to find that out from the Prime Minister before I began my speech, because I did not wish to waste the time of the committee on something that was not relevant, and his assurance since then satisfies me completely on that point.
But what was the most serious thing of all in my opinion was that on February 1 the previous parliament was dissolved without this item ever having been passed. Fractions of it were passed but the whole item was never passed. There was no legal basis for paying ministers without portfolio from February 1 on. There was no legal warrant, and parliament had done nothing to justify paying them after midnight on January 31. We had parliament dissolved, of course, in a fashion that might have been more difficult if Mr. King had not taken the stand he did in 1926. Since the Prime Minister referred to it, I refer to it. But in any case, as I say, I do not want-


John George Diefenbaker: I wish the hon. gentleman would-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I am sure the Prime Minister does, and I am not going to respond

Supply-Privy Council to his invitation. The Prime Minister would much prefer me to talk about something else than about this matter. Here is the situation, and I am going to use, as nearly as I can, the same terms that I used before lunch. On February 1 and from then until March 31 these gentlemen who had dissolved parliament, who were spending billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money by order in council, also dished out by order in council a further sum for two of their members when there was no statutory basis of any description for such action.
The Prime Minister did not say anything about it, but I also read the passage from the Financial Administration Act justifying governor general's warrants. Under that provision a minister has to certify that the payment is urgently required for the public good. There might have been some difference of opinion whether it was urgently required for the public good that we should have ministers without portfolio at all, but I suggest that is really a matter for parliament. There was no appropriation for payment, and the Prime Minister certainly would not have asked for a governor general's warrant if there had been any. There must be a report from the appropriate minister that the payment is urgently required for the public good.
Well, sir, if the Prime Minister did not think it was urgently required for the public good-he told us earlier today that he thought there was some question about it-to make payments into the national capital fund when parliament was not in session, even though the fund had been in operation for a number of years in a statutory way under the same kind of statute as this, it does not seem to me that there was any kind of excuse under the law for these payments under governor general's warrant to two members of the government.
The Prime Minister has produced an analogy, of course, on which I am not going to waste any time because it is not an analogy at all. The item he dug up in the estimates for 1955-56 has no more relevance to the subject before the house than the phony precedents we had the other day when the hon. member for Ottawa West brought up the question of the F.D.C. employees. I do not accept it at all.
There is perhaps a little argument in the Prime Minister's reference to the provision for parliamentary assistants. I should like to recall to the Prime Minister's mind in that context that when parliamentary assistants were first provided for, Mr. Mackenzie King did not appoint them on the basis of voting one-twelfth of the amount. They were not

appointed until the full estimate had been debated and approved in parliament, and was a statute for one year.
It is quite true that the remuneration was voted from year to year and that there is no continuing statutory provision for parliamentary assistants. I am speaking from memory now, but I think that has always been true. However, I may say that neither Mr. St. Laurent nor Mr. Mackenzie King ever asked parliament to vote sums of money as we were asked to do the other day when we were ineffectual in our attempt to reduce the amount, that could not properly be spent in this field.
What I am saying is that it is the use in the first place of governor general's warrants to pay ministers, with no statutory foundation for it whatsoever, as the Prime Minister admitted was done, that is perhaps the most serious of all the objections I have. Second, I am still of the opinion-and the fact that the Prime Minister skated all around this point makes me more confident than I was right before lunch-that the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for St. John's West were probably-I say "probably" because I do not like to pretend to be certain of things about which I am not certain- in contravention of the Canada Elections Act because they were receiving emoluments from the crown under governor general's warrants at the time they were candidates.
I say "probably", and I welcome the Prime Minister's offer to get an opinion from the law officers of the crown on this point; because while I have no intention and the Prime Minister knows I have no intention of taking this into the courts-I do not really think that argument was quite worthy of the Prime Minister-


John George Diefenbaker: Is that not the place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, that is not the place. Here we are in what the Prime Minister's predecessor as leader of his party used to describe over and over again as the highest court in the land. Personally I know that the parliament of Canada is not a court. The parliament of England is a court but the parliament of Canada, particularly this house, is not a court. The Prime Minister knows that, and I do not think he has ever used the words of his predecessor that the parliament of Canada is the highest court in the land. However, certainly it is the highest assembly in the land and the historic basis of this assembly, the reason its ancestor in Britain was called together in the first place, was the desire of the crown to get funds from the subjects to carry on the government.

The crown today is represented in this house by the crown's first minister, and he is now craving our support for an item of $15,000 as remuneration for two members of his government who have no statutory basis for their remuneration. That is what we are being asked to do in this item. We are being asked to provide funds until March 31, when there will again be no statutory basis. We, the elected representatives of the people, are being asked to vote this money.


John George Diefenbaker: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I do not know the answer to this myself. Did he not say a while ago that there was a statute creating parliamentary assistants?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no, not at all, except to this extent; that there was an appropriation act, which is a statute, but I did not make the statement to begin with. I said that the appropriation for the full year had been passed, not just a fraction of it as happened last fall in this case, and it was done after a full debate in the house, which I remember personally though I was not in the house. Therefore there is no analogy there.
I come back again to the fact that we are being asked at this time to vote $15,000 to pay these two very estimable gentlemen who are members of the government and for whom the previous parliament had made no continuing provision. That is what we are being asked to do. That is what the Prime Minister has us here to do at this moment. What I am saying is this. The government anticipated two things. They anticipated that they would want to continue to pay these ministers and they anticipated correctly that they were going to win a victory at the polls. Therefore they paid these two gentlemen by governor general's warrants.
I say that was something no government should have done, that the last thing a government should do without parliamentary authority is to make payments to its own members. That is what was done by these governor general's warrants. That is the last thing a government should do. To make payment to their friends would be bad enough but to make payment to themselves is much worse, and that is what they were doing. They sat there in cabinet meeting some time between February 1 and March 31 and said, "Well, we will give these fellows a little dividend to help them out until the election." That is what happened. Perhaps I have put it rather crudely, as some of our constituents might have put it, but that is what happened and there is no getting around it.
On the point of whether this disqualified the hon. member for Greenwood from being a candidate, it is my opinion on reading the
Supply-Privy Council statute that it would appear to have done so. But I welcome the Prime Minister's offer to get us a formal opinion on the subject from the law officers of the crown. I will not say anything more about it until we have that opinion, because I certainly would not wish to set up my opinion against theirs.
Now, sir, if the hon. gentlemen were improperly elected because they were unqualified to be elected, and if at the time they were elected they were receiving an emolument from the crown, as has been admitted they were, it would appear to me that there would still be a pretty strong argument that, even if they did not receive any further emolument between the date of their election and the date of the passing of the first interim supply bill, they were nevertheless improperly elected and should not have been here. There again I am not going to pit my opinion against the opinion of the law officers of the crown. I would very much welcome, because I think this is a very interesting and important constitutional point, having that opinion.
One thing upon which nobody needs an opinion, one thing that is within the jurisdiction of this house, is the question of whether or not we are going to condone the practice of the members of the government handing out sums of money to themselves by the use of governor general's warrants at a time when there is no parliament. As the Prime Minister has told us, that is what did happen in this case. I think it casts very grave doubt upon the position of both hon. gentlemen in the house. About this one point there seems to be no controversy whatever. It does seem to me that the sooner the government introduces proper legislation to regularize this situation and bring any remuneration that is paid to ministers without portfolio under the Salaries Act, as is done in the case of other ministers, the sooner we will remove any chance-


John George Diefenbaker: What about parliamentary assistants?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think if we are going to continue having parliamentary assistants we can say that the experimental phase, from 1942 to 1958, is over and that we might now take the risk of having permanent legislation on this subject. Since the Prime Minister has mentioned the subject, I might say that it appears the experimental phase is not over. We have the absolutely preposterous situation, and I am glad the Prime Minister reminded me of it, of $56,000 having been voted by this committee to pay parliamentary assistants who do not exist and who cannot possibly receive a good part of that sum. However, the government insisted on ramming that through over our objections. On the
3882	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council other hand we have two ministers receiving money that has never been voted by parliament. It seems to me this is really worthy of Alice in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before we leave this particular point, I think it has been made quite clear, in view of what has been said and the argument that has been developed, that there is some doubt as to the legality of the procedure adopted for the payment of these ministers without portfolio. The Prime Minister himself has indicated that there is doubt as to the proper application of the act in this connection.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, if that is true the best way of removing that doubt is not to follow the suggestion he made-he could not have made it very seriously-that we take a case before the courts. Surely the best way to do that is for the government itself to get the views of the law officers of the crown on this matter. If that legal opinion justifies the position we have taken-and it is an important and serious matter affecting the privileges of parliament about which the Prime Minister has talked so often over so many years-then it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to regularize what has happened and prevent it from happening again by taking the necessary legislative action.


John George Diefenbaker: If it had not been for the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition I would have said nothing further, because the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pretty well covered the entire situation. By the time he concluded I thought he had pretty well proven everything he had set out not to prove. In other words he had established the validity of the stand taken by the government in this connection.
So far as the regularity of what has taken place is concerned, there has been nothing said here that in any way would lead anyone looking at the matter objectively to conclude that what was done was in any way a derogation of parliament, and with that I rest.


Lionel Chevrier: The matter I should like to take up with the Prime Minister is not along the same lines as the one which has just been discussed. Strictly speaking, Mr. Chairman,
I am perhaps not in order, but in view of its importance and in view of the fact that it concerns the Prime Minister I hope he will allow me to bring it to his attention at this time.
This matter has to do with a suggestion the Prime Minister has made, I believe, on more than one occasion concerning the census and the fact that an individual should not be required to state his ethnic origin. I thought 

perhaps I might say just one word in connection with it today. I should like, as objectively as possible, to state the reasons why I should like to bring it to the Prime Minister's attention. The matter is one which has been of particular interest to my compatriots in Quebec, and also in other provinces in Canada.
It has seemed to them that if that suggestion were put into effect it might well work not only a hardship but great difficulties. I know the Prime Minister's attention has been drawn to this subject by a number of organizations across Canada. For instance, I believe that la federation des associations de parents et d'instituteurs de langue frangaise d'Ontario have written the Prime Minister, as have l'association canadienne-frangaise d'education d'Ontario, and the point they made and the point which I should like to reiterate on their behalf is that it is not felt by them that the leaving in of the ethnic origin is a matter which will be conducive to disunity. On the contrary, they feel that it will be conducive to unity. They say, and have so asserted, that they are quite favourable to union and unity of all Canadians of all origins, but always in diversity. They say that what makes the strength, grandeur and originality of our country is the respect for the diversity of origins and various cultures which develop loyalty to the country and to the crown.
They also make the point that the slightest attempt or the slightest infringement of the spirit of the constitution and of the program they have set out for their people would be, in their opinion, a source of difficulty. They go on and state that they have in the past relied a great deal upon information of the ethnical origins of their people from one end of the country to the other. There are, as the Prime Minister knows, associations like the ones I have mentioned in practically every province of Canada save perhaps one or two.
While I am not speaking for all of them, I think I speak for the group that brought this matter to my attention. They state that the information they get from the national census has been of tremendous assistance and importance to them in the development of our traditions, our customs, our culture, and in a comparison of these things with other groups across Canada.
Then I should like to state that in a letter which was addressed to the Prime Minister by l'association canadienne-frangaise d'education d'Ontario they point with particular emphasis to a paragraph contained in the report of the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences, which can be found at page 4. It is difficult for me to translate it without more

time so if the Prime Minister will allow me to do so I should like to read it as it is. It is as follows:
(Translation):
That it is desirable that the Canadian people should know as much as possible about their country, its history and traditions; and about their national life and common achievements; that it is in the national interest to give encouragement to institutions which express national feeling, promote common understanding and add to the variety and richness of Canadian life, rural as well as urban.
(Text):
From those two statements, the one which I took from la federation des associations de parents et d'instituteurs de langue frangaise d'Ontario and the other from the royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences in Canada, it would appear that valuable information would be taken away from these groups if in the future it were not possible to obtain the ethnic origin of the citizens who are registered under the act. In making that statement I speak, I am sure, not only for many of the members of the opposition but equally for many of the members of my hon. friend's party. I know I have had the opportunity to speak not to all of them, of course, but to some of them, and I think they feel as strongly as I do and as strongly as these associations on the matter.
I do not want to overstate the case, because the Prime Minister has been good enough to listen to what I have had to say notwithstanding the fact that perhaps I am not strictly in order. All I want to do is state that while this matter may not be determined for some years, nevertheless I appeal to the Prime Minister to give consideration to what I have said and to the representations that have been made by these associations. I feel that he will do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not know the basis for this discussion, and the hon. gentleman quite frankly admitted that he was out of order. However, I am one of those who like to hear things discussed in parliament. Particularly when the opposition has anything to advance, I would be the last one to rise and object to discussion, even if it was irrelevant.
As far as any references to myself may be concerned, may I say that I do not know the basis upon which they were determined. There has never been any discussion of the matter. That is a matter for the Secretary of State. There has never been anything whatsoever done or said which would indicate any basis for this discussion at this time. I am glad the hon. member, speaking with obvious conviction, placed his viewpoint before the committee. I am sure the manner
Supply-Privy Council in which it was presented would certainly be such as to commend itself to the listeners as it did to me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Privy Council Office-
309. General administration, $470,046.
Douglas Mason Fisher: When I yielded the floor three hours ago, Mr. Chairman, I did not think that is was going to take so long to get it back, but it was a very pleasant diversion.
I am sure we all enjoyed the exercise in parliamentary wit or brilliance. The point I was making, Mr. Chairman, to the Prime Minister was in connection with the quick reply of the government to United States allegations that might have called in question the position and attitude of the secretary to the privy council. What I want to raise has something to do with a domestic matter, but I think it is just as important because it is along the very same line. I have in my hand something which was circulated to all members of parliament and which is entitled.
Comments by CHWO on "This is Your World Today", 6.40 P.M.-Wednesday, August 6, 1958.
This is an attack upon the so-called lobbying activities of the Canadian broadcasting league in its attempts, I suppose, to put forward its position to the government. This attack is by a radio broadcaster, and I suppose it is from the point of view of the broadcasting people. There are a number of statements in this document which are in very bad taste in the matter of the Queen's first representative in this country, and the fact that it is hinted-


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. gentleman who produced this document? I do not know what the document is.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It has been produced by radio station CHWO at Oakville, and copies have been sent to all members of parliament. The references to the Queen's first representative indicate that he has supposedly financed this radio league. There are inferences here or implications, as I take it, that he seems to be still exerting an influence. But we can leave that matter aside. On page 2 this attack against the Canadian broadcasting league gets down to this:
Meantime, two other names are often used by people in reference to radio league influence in high places. One is cabinet secretary J. R. Bryce. The other is Mr. Dunton himself-
And it goes on to rail against them. Then the concluding part of this particular broadcast that has been circulated states:
The remarkable thing about the radio league- the broadcasting league-call it what you will-is that party labels have held no special terror for it.
3884	HOUSE OF
Supply-Privy Council The organization has worked as assiduously to influence Conservatives as Liberals. It is doing so today.
Perhaps this thing should have been allowed to lie or to be forgotten, but the suggestion has been introduced by this propaganda that somehow through the secretary to the cabinet there is a means of influencing the government with regard to radio policy in the interests of this particular lobby. It seems to me that makes upon the holder of the position and the link he has with the cabinet a reflection that needs a denial, that needs some statement by the government that this is nonsense. It seems to me that as long as this particular legislation is before parliament and until the new set-up gets going, there will be a continued campaign by the private interests against some of the aspects of it.
If this is a part of their campaign it is a part that calls in question, I would say, the loyalty of and suggests bias on the part of the cabinet secretary. That is most unfortunate. I do not know what anyone can do about the way in which it comments upon the first representative of the crown in this country, but I certainly think the Prime Minister should be in a position to deny completely any suggestion or implication that the cabinet secretary has been influential in giving the Canadian broadcasting league any special "in" with respect to influencing the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the whole thing answers itself, Mr. Chairman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It certainly does.


John George Diefenbaker: I am really not in a position to police the thinking-and I hope we never arrive at the point where we do so-of people within the civil service of this country. I cannot follow this at all; I do not understand what is the essence of the document or of the representation made. I feel that more attention has been given to it

and I am sure the hon. gentleman agrees with me-than is merited by the article in question, or the representation that was made in some document produced here.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind being brought up short by a sort of suggestion that it is almost useless to raise this matter. I say that there has been a comment about a man who is very close to the cabinet. When we are considering these estimates I just thought the point ought to be made-and I am just making the point that it is wrong for this kind of statement of propaganda to stand; not that you can stop it, but surely trying is worth while.


Mr. Herridge:: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a rather delicate question. I hope he will not misunderstand my attempt to be helpful as he misunderstood me on a recent occasion. Would the Prime Minister tell the house the date when the details of the arrangements for Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret's visit to Canada were made?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not have that information, Mr. Chairman, but I must say if I were in the position of having such information I would be possessed of something far and beyond my memory's capacity. I have no records in that connection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just on that point, might I ask a second question. In view of the fact that Her Royal Highness, during her farewell address, expressed regret that she had not had the opportunity of visiting the provinces of Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and in view of the fact that information given to me indicates that these arrangements were made some time ago, could the Prime Minister tell the house the reason why arrangements were not made for her to visit those three particular provinces?


John George Diefenbaker: I am unable to answer that question. A hospitality committee was set up and the arrangements were made based upon the desire to ensure Her Royal Highness of a suitable and satisfactory visit to Canada. The fact is that not only were three provinces omitted but many urban centres which would very much have liked a visit from Her Royal Highness were also omitted. The hon. gentleman will recall that in the latter part of her remarks when she spoke to Canada the Princess said that she would look forward to coming back and to visiting these three provinces. At that time, I am sure, every opportunity will be given to her to see those parts of Canada which on this occasion, because of the limitation of time, she was unable to visit.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is one point which I previously tried to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister in an attempt to find out something about the possibility of a discussion or any other sort of debate at some time with respect to the Canada Council and its activities. As the Prime Minister knows, we cannot really even ask questions about the council-it is rather out of order-but I do know that one of the main reasons for the way in which the Canada Council was set up was that it should be removed from all political interference.
There are, however, a number of interesting points which have arisen-at least in my mind-in connection with the council. I am thinking specifically of the institutions which

the council recognizes as being eligible for grants and I wonder whether the Prime Minister could give us any information on this point.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot see any opportunity to discuss this question on the item under consideration. The hon. gentleman was very fair in his presentation of the situation, which he seems to fully realize.
I have been thinking this matter over since the occasion some time ago when it was raised by the hon. member, and while there is every endeavour to maintain the council, under all circumstances, free from any considerations which might imply political interference of any kind whatsoever, I suggest that at the next session an opportunity might be given for such a discussion. I say this because I am sure that the hon. member is not anxious to start an investigation of this matter at this time although, if he is, I am sure hon. members would immediately fall into line and would say they would be very much in favour of so doing. However, at the next session I would suggest that the annual report be submitted to a committee of the house.
I feel that the viewpoint of the hon. gentleman is one which deserves consideration and I, for one, would be willing to agree, if the house consents, to the setting up of a committee to consider the annual report of the council, which I think would be beneficial to all.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his remarks. This is a matter which may not be of great importance to many members, but I do think this would give an opportunity to those of us who are interested to find out more about the council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
311. To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on energy policies including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $250,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister, although I know he has dealt with this matter previously, if he could give us any more recent indication of the date when this royal commission on energy policies is likely to make its interim report and how long he thinks the work of the commission will extend beyond the date of that particular report? I am quite sure that the chairman of the commission is anxious to bring his work to a conclusion at as early a date as possible.
57071-3-246
Supply-Privy Council


John George Diefenbaker: I regret that I cannot furnish the Leader of the Opposition with any information in addition to that already given. As the committee knows, the public hearings began in Calgary in February and subsequent hearings were held in Victoria, Regina, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal. In view of the urgency attaching to the current problems of the petroleum industry, including natural gas, the commission decided it would concentrate in the first instance on those sections of its terms of reference dealing with these subjects.
The public hearings terminated in Montreal on July 23. Further hearings of the commission, as I have already said, I believe, on one occasion in answer to the hon. gentleman, will begin in the early fall of this year, or the beginning of the new year. I am not saying that this is when the resumption will take place, but in the meantime it is hoped that a report on the above mentioned subjects will be ready by this fall.
Very intensive study is being given to the problem, which is one which has brought about a very large number of submissions by representative bodies across the country, including oil and gas conservation boards, petroleum companies, oil companies and others. In general, in those provinces where the commission has met, a very great many representations have been made because of the intricate nature of the problem and the need for representations to be made in order to provide a sound basis for the expansion and development of the oil industry, which has become one of the major producing industries in Canada.
I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition that the fullest consideration will be given to the interim report. Once that report is furnished, then parliament will be in a position to give that consideration to the problems which the basic information and the recommendations of the commission will make possible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I just ask the Prime Minister whether I understood him correctly to say that when the interim report has been completed there would be an opportunity for parliament to discuss it even though the final report might not be ready?


John George Diefenbaker: At the moment I can see no reason why there should not be discussion of that, because in securing an interim report the desire of the government is to have solid research information available to the end that problems of immediate incidence and importance may receive the earliest attention on the part of parliament.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to bring one matter to the attention of the Prime Minister

Supply-Privy Council under this estimate pertaining to the expenses of the royal commission on energy, and it applies to other royal commission reports. Under the present system we are supposed to check off on the daily check list those publications we would like to receive, and, strictly speaking, if we fail to do this within 10 days we are required to pay for them. But hon. members are very busy indeed, and it is quite easy to overlook some of these important reports. I find that in some cases members do, in fact, receive them without making application while in other cases there is an extension of the 10 days period, and so on. I suggest that when it comes to questions such as reports of royal commissions, these reports should automatically go to every member of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot disagree with the hon. gentleman. Indeed, I was under the impression, having regard to the number of reports which came to my office when I was a private member, that reports of royal commissions were made available as a matter of course. Certainly, such reports should be made available to all members, for unless they are studied by hon. members they become worthless in so far as intelligent discussion in the house is concerned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I find I have made a slip. The reports are received by members, but not the studies, unless application is made.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to take the same position with regard to studies because there is a vast amount of material and, I presume, I am one of those who does not like to study all the evidence upon which the reports are based. I take it that on the submissions presented, a royal commission makes recommendations supported either by a preponderance of evidence or the circumstances peculiarly available to the commission. It has never been my understanding that the representations as such, and the preliminary studies, were made available to hon. members. I am sure that if any hon. member desires to have them he may do so, but most members-and I belong to that class -do not possess that desire to be overwhelmed with detail such as would be the case if a complete study were to be made, comprehensively, of all the bases upon which royal commission reports are furnished.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
312. To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on price spreads in food products including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks, or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $150,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a similar question on the royal commission covered by this particular item, the royal commission on price spreads in food products. I should like to know how it is getting on and when it is likely to report. I know that once a commission gets into this particular subject of price spreads it can go on and on and on. I realize that the members of this commission are men of intelligence and industry, and that they are doing admirable work, but I was wondering what limitation the government is putting on this study and when it is likely to be brought to a conclusion. I recall in the thirties starting off as secretary of a parliamentary committee on price spreads. Incidentally, that committee was a parliamentary committee which began its work in an atmosphere of excitement and partisanship and which was transformed into a royal commission when it worked more constructively-an interesting precedent. I know that when this committee began its work it felt it could be completed within a few months, but it went on for two years.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. Leader of the Opposition says, this is a very difficult assignment which has been given to this royal commission, and the Leader of the Opposition speaks with authority beyond that possessed by any other member of the committee, for when Mr. Bennett set up the royal commission on price spreads the hon. gentleman was the secretary of that body and he has full knowledge of the difficulties of investigation and the ramifications of the problems.
The research program conducted by the staff of the commission, with assistance from government departments, began along three lines:
(a)	Analysis of price data and measurement of over-all aspects of the commission's problem, including changes in consumer expenditures on food, changes in receipts of primary producers from the sale of food products, and changes in the over-all cost of processing and distributing food products over the period from 1949 to 1958.
(b)	Studies of particular aspects of the marketing of food products in relation to price spreads, including transportation, storage, packaging, advertising, wages and productivity, the effects of co-operatives and marketing boards, and the nature of competition and profitability of firms engaged in food marketing.
(c)	Commodity studies, covering those that make up a large part of the consumers' expenditures on food and those that are most important in the incomes of producers.
I know of no commission which is more important than this one so far as agriculture and fisheries are concerned for, after all, the primary producer, the farmer and the fisherman, has certain costs which are basic, and the larger the share of the consumer dollar

expended for the particular commodities which becomes available to the primary producer the better the return to the farmer and the fisherman. This is one of the major facets in agricultural policy; in other words, that within the limits of a fair and reasonable return for the intermediary, the wholesaler and the retailer, assurance should be given that the producer shall not suffer as a result of improvident and excessive advantage to intermediaries between the producer and the ultimate consumer.
So important is this that I feel that the members of this commission have a most responsible and exacting task. Over the years this type of investigation has been requested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, by the farmer's union and also by fish producers. I cannot say when the report will be available. The commission is applying itself very diligently but I am unable to give the hon. gentleman even an approximate date. In this case I was of the opinion that a matter of three or four months would pretty well cover the responsibility. I was assured by the chairman that my views in that regard were too optimistic because of the ramifications of the problem and the various facets that are faced from day to day. I can only say they will make a report at the earliest possible date.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, it is certain that the problem to which the Prime Minister has referred, namely of reducing the spread between the prices paid to the primary producer and those charged to the retailer, is a very important one. Agricultural producers are looking to this royal commission in the hope that following its report and the subsequent action flowing out of the report the trend which has been prevalent for some years will be reversed. The trend to which I refer is that which has meant the producer has received a decreasing part of the consumer dollar spent on food. There is no doubt that the whole field into which this commission is inquiring is of great importance but the inquiry is of importance itself only if it leads to some concrete action. We shall look with interest to the report that is made and we shall look with even more interest to the action taken following the report.
I do not believe it is necessary to wait for the report to do something in the interests of the agricultural producers of this country. I refer, of course, to the necessity of improving the prices that are paid to producers. Following the report that may be made by the royal commission I believe the government should consider the whole
57071-3-246i
Supply-Privy Council question of price controls. While the government does not provide a system of price controls at the retail level, nevertheless every positive action it may take by way of price legislation to help producers is by way of management or control or in other ways influencing the prices paid to the producers. I refer, of course, to the Agricultural Stabilization Act, to initial payments that are made by the Canadian wheat board and to other measures that are adopted from time to time.
We shall await the report of the royal commission with interest and shall press the government for whatever action the commission may recommend that may bring about this very desirable result. Important as the report will be it will require subsequent action to meet the important problem that farmers face of receiving year after year a constantly diminishing share of the consumer dollar.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to stop my own estimates going through but I do believe that the actions taken by this government have indicated its desire to assure agriculture of a fair share of the national income. The steps taken so far have been progressive steps. The first was to provide financial assistance through cash advances and that has worked out exceptionally well with little or no loss to the state. The second step was the broad plan of a price stabilization establishment in respect of various agricultural products. I am not exhausting what has been done when I mention as a third step the setting up of this royal commission which was established because of the general request through the years on the part of farm organizations for this investigation. We do not set up royal commissions for the purpose of making findings upon which no action will in any way be taken.
I would not have said that were it not for the fact the hon. gentleman talked about price controls. I do not wish to leave any misapprehension in his mind on that question. I am one of those who believe that the price controls effective in time of war because of the mobilization of all the people in the state would be less than successful in times of a reasonably free economy. I know the hon. gentleman will not misunderstand me when I bring to his attention the fact that the government of Saskatchewan in 1946 brought in legislation which was to be established upon proclamation whereby the prices of various products would be fixed by the state and any one failing to adhere to the prices fixed by the board set up for that purpose would find himself subject to a penalty or in the alternative subject to a jail

Supply-Privy Council sentence. But that legislation was never proclaimed within Saskatchewan because if it had been, as I said on one previous occasion, there would have been only two classes of people in the province, those in jail and those waiting to get in after the others got out.
I know the hon. gentleman did not have that in mind when he spoke about fixing prices because what the state can do is to provide the means through fair and reasonable legislation whereby the farmer and other primary producers shall be placed in a position in which they will not be subject to unjust and unfair competition and that their prices shall bear a fair relationship to their costs.
I am not going to argue the case of the stabilization legislation but that was the basis of that legislation. I can tell the hon. member that in so far as this royal commission is concerned I hope that out of a multiplicity of representations will come reasonable and fair conclusions upon which parliament can act.
I give him that assurance. I was hoping those recommendations might come earlier. As a matter of fact it was the farm organizations that brought to my attention the fact it would take much longer than the comparatively short period I had in mind to secure a full and accurate summary of the situation to the end that legislative enactment might be based thereon.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the Prime
Minister has outlined some of the things the government has done by way of an agricultural program. The program of cash advances is one I advocated for many years along with other hon. members of this group. I take second place to no one, not even the Prime Minister, as an advocate of that type of policy. I share with him the general satisfaction he felt that the program of cash advances within the conception of the act has worked out reasonably well and that the excuses given by the former administration as to why this could not be done through the existing machinery, namely the Canadian wheat board, were not in fact valid and that the wheat board has been able to handle this legislation.
However, I think we should all keep cash advances in perspective as to what they really do. During the fall months they enable farmers to get an advance on expected sales of grain over the 12-month period but apart from the saving in the interest rate generally speaking they do not add to the economic position of the farmer. They do not increase his real income over a one-year period except to the extent that he is able to make a saving with respect to interest on the money obtained through cash advances.

The Prime Minister referred to the government's price stabilization policy. As far as I am concerned the price stabilization policy and the floors established thereunder have not been such as to give the farmer a fair and reasonable return or provide him with adequate parity prices as promised by the government in two election campaigns.
I have said that in order to protect the producer there must be a system of price controls by way of supports for those products that the producer is engaged in producing and marketing. I certainly stand by that statement. The Prime Minister has said that he is not in favour of the type of price controls used during the war but it is certainly a form of price control to establish a floor price for butter. It is certainly a measure of price control to say that a deficiency payment will be paid on soybeans in order to bring about a certain result. Every action that the government takes to stabilize agricultural prices is in itself a measure of control over those prices.
I have said that the government's agricultural price stabilization policy has been a disappointment to me and members of the C.C.F. and farmers generally. Although I do not have the quotation on my desk, I can bring as my witness Mr. Turnbull, second vice-president of the Saskatchewan farmers union and a member of the advisory committee under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. He has said that the act has not increased the economic welfare of the average farmer as he would like to see it improved. He has gone much further and has said that in the main what the act has done is to help the very large farmers. These are the comments of this farm union official.
We shall await with interest the report of the royal commission and any subsequent action the government may take but as far as I am concerned I want to make it crystal clear that since June 21, 1957, no adequate improvement has taken place in the position of the agricultural industry. In particular I refer to the final payments made on wheat a few weeks ago which were the smallest made for many years. I know that the Prime Minister has often said that he has under active consideration further measures to aid the grain producers of western Canada.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I believe he is straying quite a bit from resolution 312 which deals strictly with the salaries of officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service commission for services rendered to the royal commission on energy. It would be appreciated

by the chair if the hon. member would try to stay as close as possible to the resolution under study at present.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the very fine way that you have governed the affairs of the committee when you have been in the chair in recent weeks and the fact that you have made it clear that you will extend to every member of the house the same latitude that you have extended to others. It was the Prime Minister who referred to cash advances, the agricultural price stabilization policy and the general conception of price control. He even referred to Saskatchewan and spent some time on a certain act that had been placed on the statute books in 1946. I was about ready to conclude my remarks on this subject. The grain producers of western Canada are awaiting with great interest and expectation the long delayed announcement on the very important and controversial question of deficiency payments. They are hoping that adequate action may yet be taken in this regard which, I suggest, will provide another measure of price control based on the concept that the grain producers, together with people in other sections of the agricultural industry, are entitled to adequate parity and a fair and reasonable return on their production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
154. Office of the secretary to the Governor General, $202,521.
Mr.. Regier:: This morning the Prime Minister stated that he would be able to supply me with the information as to the total amount of the loans made to the F.D.C. and how much is still to be repaid. Would the Prime Minister like to give me that information now?


John George Diefenbaker: Up to date $2| million has been borrowed for the purchase of land, and $2,300,000 has been spent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: That completes the estimates of the Prime Minister.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES General services-
130. Departmental administration, $371,750.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman, in introducing to the committee the estimates of the Department of Fisheries I first want to point out that the estimates have been very carefully and thoroughly considered by the standing committee on marine and fisheries. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of that committee on their very
Supply-Fisheries
fine, constructive attitude towards the problems of the Department of Fisheries and for the contribution they made in the consideration of the estimates of the department. I may say that they showed complete knowledge of the fishing industry in the whole of Canada. That is not surprising because the committee had on it members of parliament representing all the major fishing areas of the country and many of them at one time or another have been directly engaged in that industry. Therefore I can say without reservation that all parties in the house were extremely well represented on that committee by members who contributed a great deal to its proceedings. For that reason my remarks will be brief but there are a few points I should like to mention which I feel would be of interest to the membership of this committee.
To begin with, I should like to say a word about the economic situation of the industry at the present time. So far as the economic situation of the fishery generally is concerned, the three major factors are production, price to the fisherman and export markets. Although the fisheries are carried out in all areas at all times during the year, the months of greatest production are July, August and September. It is, therefore, too early to state definitively how production will stand this year. But the figures we have indicate that across the country catches will be up to those of recent years. In so far as individual species are concerned, of course, the catch in some cases will be higher, while in others it will be lower.
One of our greatest worries arose out of the very disappointing cod trap fishery in Newfoundland this year and now because of a failure of the squid fishery it is a difficult problem to secure adequate supplies of bait to keep the cod fishery going throughout the fall. I am happy to be able to announce we have found a source of herring bait at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, which should help materially to meet this need. While herring is not as desirable as the local squid bait, it has always been used extensively throughout the maritime provinces. We hope it will be a reasonably satisfactory substitute for any shortage of squid which there may be in Newfoundland.
On the Pacific coast, we are just now entering the main salmon season. All indications point to an exceptionally large pack, particularly of the valuable sockeye species. The catch in most of the other major fisheries has been well up to average in all areas. Prices to fishermen are, of course, related to the supply situation and to the demand, both at home and abroad. In Canada, while we are still

Supply-Fisheries
relatively light fish eaters in comparison with other countries, there has been a slow but gradual upward trend in per capita consumption. The department is continuing its efforts through its consumer service, and by other means, to keep this movement going. Demand in the United States, our principal market of fresh and frozen fish, has also been strong. The current market position for these forms of fish is one example of low stocks and gradually increasing prices. For example, the price of frozen cod fillets is three cents per pound higher and that for frozen haddock fillets five cents per pound higher than a year ago in the major wholesale market at Boston.
The expected high salmon pack this year will coincide with a higher allocation of dollars by the United Kingdom, our principal market. However, it may well be that some of the expected large 1958 production will have to be carried over into the 1959 marketing year when supplies are expected to be much shorter.
Mention has been made on several occasions of the salt fish market problem. As I have indicated, there has been a very disappointing production in Newfoundland this year. Thus, while supplies will be lower there should be no great difficulty in marketing the reduced output. The large and valuable lobster fishery of the Atlantic coast provinces again gives every promise of a satisfactory year.
I do not wish to leave the impression that I am fully satisfied with all aspects of the fishery, and to suggest that there are not many old and new problems confronting the Industry and the department. One of our major problems is that of ensuring good [DOT]quality of all types of fish at all times. This is a very complex problem when we consider the diversity of the industry across the country and the perishability of the product. The government role in this field is essentially one of education and inspection, and we are stepping up our activities in both these fields. The inspection service is expanding its scope so that the consumer may be able to obtain fresh and frozen fish products inspected to conform to high quality specifications being prepared by this department in consultation with other government services and the fishing industry. The governments of the provinces have indicated their co-operation and approval of our entry into this field, so that this additional service will be truly national in extent. The government of the province of Quebec has requested that this department administer the inspection of fish and fish products for that province and steps are presently being taken to comply with this request.

Industrial development is another service of the department which has been expanding its activities in the past year. This service is designed to work with all branches of the industry in bringing new techniques into operation. The government's role here is one of testing, experimenting and demonstrating as well as giving encouragement to fishermen and the industry generally. In this field, we co-operate also with the provincial departments concerned and an Atlantic coast federal-provincial fisheries committee has been set up to provide for close liaison and full co-ordination in this field. This committee will also deal with other problems of mutual concern.
In the field of research, the fisheries research board is the operating agency and its expenditures are included in the estimates now before this committee. The activities of this organization cover not only biological, technological and oceanographic research but also there is a special unit based in Montreal concerned with developments in the Arctic area. This unit is endeavouring to learn more about the availability and life habits of fish and other marine animals in our vast northern waters.
One of the special fields of research which has become more and more urgent is that associated with hydroelectric developments in our major fish rivers. Engineering and biological studies in this field are being carried out, not only by the Department of Fisheries research board but also by such organizations as the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission. In addition, close liaison is maintained with the technical staffs of the United States fisheries agencies regarding progress and development in this important field. It should be of interest to note that expenditures for these studies by Canadian agencies in the Pacific area in the current year will be in excess of $700,000. The expenditures by both Canadian and United States agencies will total over $2 million. These totals refer only to expenditures for experimental devices and research and do not include capital expenditures for fish protective devices.
The problems under investigation range from laboratory studies of the basic behaviour patterns of juvenile salmon to large-scale field tests of devices for deflecting seaward migrating salmon into by-passes which will provide a safe passage around power dams.
Earlier I mentioned the difficulty we are having in securing adequate supplies of bait in Newfoundland arising out of the failure of the squid fishery in that province this year. I should like to point out that the Newfoundland bait service, which was taken over by

the federal department at the time of union, was designed to meet fishing conditions in Newfoundland as they existed prior to the last war. Since that time, and particularly since union, there have been many changes not only in the types of fishing being carried on in that province but also in the areas where fishing activities are of major importance. It, therefore, became necessary to reorganize the service to meet present-day conditions. Included in this year's estimates, particularly in the supplementary estimates, is provision for strengthening not only our freezing and storing facilities but also our distribution facilities so that as bait is secured we will be able to more adequately meet the needs of the fishermen in all parts of Newfoundland.
There are several other fields of activity where the Department of Fisheries and the research board are changing the emphasis to meet changing conditions in the fishery.
For example, we are undertaking to assist and expand the oyster fishery of the Atlantic coast through the development of better methods of providing seed oysters. On the Pacific coast and in the salmon producing areas of the Atlantic coast we are also undertaking major experiments in the improvement of spawning and rearing conditions, not only in the natural rivers but also in the provision of artificial spawning areas.
I have touched on only a few of the problems and plans of the department and the fisheries research board but, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we have already in the marine and fisheries committee given these estimates very thorough consideration and I trust that the committee, for the most part, will realize that that has been the case. In the committee on marine and fisheries I was delighted to find that there were no serious criticisms of the activities of my department. For this situation I take no personal credit but I should like at this time to pay a passing tribute to a very fine and dedicated group of public servants who are giving their full time and attention to the problems of the fishing industry as employees of my department. To them belongs the credit.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity publicly to congratulate the minister in the name of the members on this side of the house of the official opposition on the honour which was bestowed upon him by Mount Allison University on Saturday last. In introducing his estimates the minister stated that the fisheries estimates were considered by the standing committee on marine and fisheries. I agree with the minister that
Supply-Fisheries
the members of this committee took a constructive attitude in discussing the problems affecting the fishing industry. In dealing with the economic situation of the industry the minister stated that so far this year the catches are well up to those of previous years. At this point I must mention the fact that especially on the Atlantic coast the number of fishermen engaged this year in fishing operations is much larger than that in previous years. If present economic conditions are to prevail in the future it is expected that this number will increase in future years. In passing I wish to remark that this situation might be contrary to a part of the report of the Gordon commission which asserted that the number of fishermen would decrease year after year.
We were also pleased to hear from the minister that the prices of fish were satisfactory. He mentioned the prices of cod fillets and haddock fillets which were much higher on the United States market than they were at this time last year. We are also pleased to realize that at least some of the benefits of this increase in price have been passed along to the fishermen as the primary producers.
The members of this committee, Mr. Chairman, realize the importance of the fishing industry to the economy of our country. In the brief remarks which I intend to make at this time it is not my intention to criticize the Department of Fisheries but rather, if possible, to offer constructive suggestions directed toward improving the situation of our Canadian fishermen. We all know that the fishing industry is one of the oldest industries of our country. It has been part of Canada's pattern for over 400 years. The prolific fishing grounds of the North Atlantic led to the discovery of the North American continent. It is also of importance to realize that last year the total catch amounted to over 2 billion pounds having a commercial value of $200 million. It affected over 80,000 Canadian fishermen and a large number of workers in fish processing plants.
I also want to take advantage of the opportunity offered at this time to express my appreciation for the co-operation which we receive from the officers and staff of the department and of the fisheries research board. We understand the difficulties which are encountered by some of the officials in the field, especially those in the protection service. At this point I should like to repeat what I said when I first spoke in this house in 1953, namely that I should like to see the protective officers of the fisheries department giving more time and attention to the education of the fishermen. The protective officer could be more effective if he were to spend

Supply-Fisheries
more time at the end of the fishing wharf talking to fishermen when they return from the fishing grounds, explaining to them how to take care of their fish and showing them that it is to their own interest to protect the fisheries.
I was also pleased to hear the minister mention the fact that the inspection service of his department was expanding year after year and that the inspection of fresh fish, which this year will be on a voluntary basis, will be applied on a national scale.
I have made the suggestion that the protective officers should spend more time in educating the fishermen. At this point I want to say a few words about an education program which has been in existence in the department for some years but which should be extended. We realize that the ordinary elementary Schools have not personnel qualified or trained to be practical and to give to the fishermen the education which they need in order to carry on with their fishing operations. The modernization of the fishing fleet in recent years make it much more urgent for a new concept of this major problem.
The extensive research which has been carried on by scientists of the fisheries research board has led to the introduction of new fishing methods and new techniques resulting in greater output and greater production. However, I repeat that more emphasis should be given to the practical application on a commercial basis of the findings of the research board. This can be done only by actual and on the spot demonstrations so that the fishermen can see for themselves and be convinced of the advantages offered by those new methods or techniques.
During the deliberations in the standing committee on marine and fisheries we were pleased to hear from the minister that a federal-provincial Atlantic fisheries committee had been formed. We welcome this new committee which we understand will have as its main duty that of showing to the fishermen in a practical way the findings of the research board.
If I recall correctly, during the period 1937 to 1947 a study was carried out by the fisheries research board of the federal department in co-operation with the Atlantic provinces, and the province of Newfoundland. Notwithstanding this lengthy experiment, in many areas of the Atlantic coast our herring fishermen are still using the same outmoded methods used by their great-grandfathers. I hope the fisheries research board will make the new methods if any known to the fishermen.
I understand that this summer in my own constituency at Caraquet, for instance, they
IMr. Robichaud.]
are trying to prove the advantages and the possibility of the mid-water trawl for fishing herring, and I wish to say to the minister that if an experiment of this kind is to be truly effective it should be carried out during the entire fishing season. It should commence on April 15 and the fishermen with this new gear should look and fish for herring all through a whole season up to at least October 15. I was in my constituency about ten days ago and up to that time I understand that nothing has been done to establish whether or not it was possible to introduce a system of mid-water trawling for herring in the bay of Chaleur.
We have in Canada many schools, colleges and universities for agriculture; we have such institutions in probably all our provinces. We have, however, only two schools for fisheries, the school for fisheries at Ste. Anne-de-la-Pocatiere and the fishery school at Grande Riviere which is operated by the government of Quebec. I would again ask the minister, and through him his department, to give serious consideration to providing further and more effective assistance to our universities, especially to colleges or universities in the provinces in which fishing is one of the main industries, in order to train our fishermen to use and take full advantage of modern methods of fishing.
At this point I would like to deal with a problem which is of great concern to east coast fishermen. I refer to a support price or floor price for fish. At this very moment I realize our fishermen on the Atlantic coast may be receiving prices which are perhaps more attractive than those which they received at this time last year, but they have no guarantee that such prices will be maintained in the years to come. During the federal election campaign the Prime Minister himself made statements which I think should be placed on the record. In addressing a meeting in Charlottetown on February 27 the Prime Minister made certain statements which were reported in the Toronto Star of February 28 as follows:
He told the audience of more than 1,100 which crammed the hall above the Roloway bowling club that the government was now considering providing the same kind of price support legislation for the fishing industry as it had for the farmers, although he acknowledged there were "difficulties in the way".
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald of March 25, 1958 contained a report of statements said to have been made by the Prime Minister on March 24 as follows:
This government, he told the audience, was moving to stabilize prices for farm produce, and consideration is now being given to bring about "the application", on a similar basis, of this measure as it affects fish products.

The Halifax Chronicle-Herald of March 26 reported the following statement made at Yarmouth on March 25:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker today promised federal price supports under fish and a firm stand on protection of Canadian inshore fisheries against foreign trawlers.
And further on it says:
The Prime Minister said "We want to do that if you want it."
I wish the Prime Minister were now in his seat, because I would ask him what he meant by those words, "We want to do that if you want it."
The same article quotes the Prime Minister as saying that the Conservative government is taking the first strong step in the matter. The Prime Minister was at that time proposing that the national jurisdiction be extended 12 miles offshore in regard to fisheries, but I will deal with that particular point in a few moments.
I have in my hand a 1957 report on primary industry studies undertaken by the Department of Fisheries economic service, concerning the operations of modern long liners and draggers on the Atlantic seaboard. It is said that these operations have been going on during the past seven years and this service has given the industry and the department most valuable information. I wish to congratulate the department upon its initiative in this regard. In order to arrive at the figures, the official of the department in charge took 125 boats, divided among the different Atlantic provinces, in order to get an average of the landings, the returns and the cost of operation for these fishermen in the year 1957.
The report shows that in Nova Scotia the 50-foot to 60-foot dragger had a deficit of $2,059; the same type of dragger in New Brunswick had a deficit of $495; in Prince Edward Island the deficit was $1,070; and in Quebec $1,767. The same report shows that in order to break even the fishermen in the different provinces should have had a minimum price for their fish and this price varied from 2.7 for a 45-foot to 50-foot dragger in Nova Scotia; 2.5 for a 50-foot to 60-foot dragger in New Brunswick; 3.074 for a 50-foot to 60-foot dragger in Prince Edward Island; and 2.0 for a 50-foot to 60-foot dragger in the province of Quebec. I also have a report for 1956, and there is very little difference in the deficit encountered by the fishermen and the average price received by them for their fish.
I have, in addition, a statement made by Mr. C. E. Desourdy, general manager of the Quebec united fishermen, and I would like to quote from the review published by the fisheries school at Ste. Anne-de-la-Pocatiere 57071-3-247
Supply-Fisheries
with respect to what he had to say on a floor price for fish:
(Translation):
The federal government must find some means of enforcing that legislation which provides for a support price on fish. Some hopes may be held in this regard although no definite decision has been reached as yet.
(Text):
The federal government must find means to introduce legislation to establish price support for fish. On this subject we may have certain hopes, but nothing definite has been decided to date. The cod fishery of the Atlantic provinces and of the Atlantic coast is very important. It represents practically 45 per cent of the total catch and it is valued at between $30 and $35 million a year. Part of this catch is processed into salt cod for the Mediterranean and Caribbean market and a small percentage goes to the United States market. A large percentage of the catch is filleted and shipped fresh or frozen either to the domestic market or to the United States. We have been told at different times that 70 per cent of our total catch is exported and that 65 per cent of these exports go to the United States market. Unless our fishermen are guaranteed a minimum price of three cents a pound for fresh cod landed it is impossible for them to carry on. They cannot operate at a deficit year after year. This is a responsibility of the government. It has been promised to them that ways and means will be found to protect them by a guaranteed price of at least three cents a pound.
At this point I should like to say a few words about the information and educational service branch of the department. The duty of this branch is to bring to the attention of the Canadian public the importance of the fisheries to our Canadian economy and, also, to supply fishermen with information relating to new developments and new techniques introduced through research by the fisheries research board. These researches are of great value to our fishermen and to the fishing industry as a whole.
Closely related to this information and educational service is the consumer branch of the special services of the department. We all approve the work that is being done by this branch of the department. Considerable work has been done in the test kitchens here in Ottawa. Recipe booklets have been distributed throughout the country; home economists and dieticians have been stationed at various points; pamphlets have been distributed, and advertising has been done through radio, television, newspapers and magazines. This work is very important because our fishing industry must not rely

Supply-Fisheries
entirely on its export market. Good advertising, a better product, better quality and attractive packaging are required if we are to increase our home consumption.
The minister mentioned in the course of his remarks that the domestic consumption of fish showed an upward trend but I would ask that more effort be directed toward increasing the consumption of fish in Canada. In 1948, Canadians were consuming between 11 and 12 pounds of fish per person. Ten years later, in 1958, notwithstanding the hard work which had been done by the department, consumption had increased to only 13J pounds. Let us try to realize, Mr. Chairman, what it would mean if this increase could go up to, say, 15 or 16 pounds. It would mean that an additional 40 to 50 million pounds of fish would be consumed yearly in our country. In Japan, for instance, the consumption of fish is a high as 65 or 70 pounds per person per year.
I should also like to say a few words about the 12 mile limit and the privileges granted to foreign trawlers which may come as close as three miles to our shores. I remember the attitude taken by certain members of this house now sitting on the government side, and I recall the remarks which were made by the present Minister of National Revenue and others. The Prime Minister, addressing a meeting in Yarmouth said, as I mentioned a few moments ago, that his government was taking the first firm stand toward protecting our Canadian fishermen. We all know that the meeting which was held last year in Geneva was organized not by the present government but by the previous administration and that it was announced in this house almost two years ago by the former minister of fisheries, the Hon. James Sinclair. We regret that no favourable or final decision has been reached at that conference.
Speaking about the rights of our fishermen I should like once again to bring to the attention of the minister the situation of our small fishermen, inshore fishermen particularly, in the bay of Chaleur area on both sides of the bay, on the Gaspe coast and on the New Brunswick side, where fishermen operating with small boats and using trawls are being interfered with by dragger operations. I would suggest to the minister that a conference be called between the federal government and officials of the provincial governments of New Brunswick and Quebec to discuss this important situation. This is a matter which has been brought to the attention of the department on many occasions and I would suggest again that a line be drawn from Maisonnette on the New Brunswick side to Paspebiac on the Quebec side, and that no draggers be allowed to fish inside of that line until at least November 1 of
[Mr. Robichaud.l
each year. This would give a chance to fishermen operating in small boats and using trawls to save their equipment and their nets.
I mentioned earlier that good work was done by the department in protection services, and one of the main fisheries which requires great activity by the department in this respect is the lobster fishery. I now ask the minister if any further consideration has been given to the suggestion which was made by certain members of the standing committee on fisheries that the department follow the example of the state of Maine in purchasing from the fishermen berried lobsters, that is female lobsters bearing eggs. In this connection I am sure the department will realize that bearing in mind our thousands of miles of shore and the fact that there are probably over 20,000 lobster fishermen, such a system would be impracticable and almost impossible to operate.
I would also ask the minister to give serious consideration, if he has not already done so, to the hour of opening of the lobster season. The present regulations provide that no fisherman shall leave for the fishing ground with lobster traps or gear before 12 noon on the day preceding the opening of the lobster fishing season. In some districts, including Westmorland, Kent county and parts of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, permission was given this year to the fishermen to leave for the fishing grounds two hours earlier. I suggest that this present regulation is unfair to certain fishermen. We have areas where there are no landing facilities available and where fishermen can only sail at high tide. In other areas there are small wharves which can only be used at high tide. And so, the fishermen in adjoining fishing communities have the advantage of being able to get to the fishing grounds hours before those to whom these facilities have not been provided. I suggest to the minister that a change be made and that lobster fishermen be given permission to leave for the fishing grounds at
9.00	a.m. of the day preceding the opening of the fishing season.
Another matter that is of concern to vessel owners on the Atlantic coast is the provision made for subsidies on certain types of long liners or draggers. During world war II, in order to increase the production of food, a subsidy program was introduced as an endeavour to modernize the east coast fishing fleet. Following the war period this subsidy program was further extended to modernize the methods of fishing especially for ground fish and to make it possible for individual fishermen or groups of fishermen to acquire larger and more efficient vessels, and to produce fish at a cost competitive

with other countries fishing on the Atlantic coast area. This program has now reached the point where substantial changes should be made in order to meet new requirements and additional costs of construction.
In 1946, for example, a 55 to 60-foot drag-ger could be built in New Brunswick for $23,000; in 1953, $39,000; in 1955, $46,000; and in 1957, although the vessels were four or five feet longer they cost $53,000 in New Brunswick and as much as $65,000 in Nova Scotia.
From 1946 to 1948, a subsidy of $165 per gross ton amounted to 25 per cent of the cost of a dragger. In 1955 it covered only 18 per cent and in 1957 it represented only 14 per cent or 15 per cent of the total cost. I realize that my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, but I could finish in three or four minutes if I had the unanimous consent of the committee.


Charles Edward Rea: Is it the pleasure of the committee to give unanimous consent to the hon. member in order for him to finish his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The figures I have given refer to New Brunswick. In Nova Scotia in 1957 the subsidy represented only between 10 and 12 per cent of the cost of the boat. As those figures will show, the cost of building a dragger equipped with modern facilities has practically doubled in the last ten or 12 years. If this program is to meet the present requirements and if it is to serve the purpose for which it was introduced it should be increased from $165 to $265 per gross ton and this at very little additional cost to the federal treasury. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to this request.
The members of the committee on marine and fisheries were pleased to hear from Dr. Kask, chairman of the fisheries research board, that a great deal of information had been developed on the use of the so-called waste or by-products from the fishery. We all recognize the high natural vitamin potency which is contained in the liver of certain types of fish such as cod. Dr. Kask informed the committee that the scientists had found what they called a liver residue or special food in these cod livers. They have also found an accessory food element in the residue which can add to the speedy growth of cattle and chickens, thus giving an additional food value to such livers. We understand that in order to be practical and economical, sufficient supply of raw material is required for such production. In most fishing districts processing plants are scattered over long areas of coastlines and 57071-3-247J
Supply-Fisheries
although the amount of waste material is quite substantial, it is in most cases rather difficult to transport and accumulate it in a central area without adding further cost to the raw material.
We all know that animal protein comprises today a big food requirement throughout the world, and while such protein has been developed on an experimental scale by the fisheries research board, further economic studies are required to ascertain if it can be made up in sufficient quantities in order that the large food firms could rely on a continuing source of supply.
We have in my constituency of Gloucester one of the largest concentrations of landings of fresh cod and related species on the Atlantic coast, a fact I drew to the attention of the committee on marine and fisheries. The 60 to 70 draggers operating during a period of five months land at three different landing points within a distance of 20 miles during that period from 50 to 60 million pounds of fresh fish. The quantity of waste from these fresh fish is one of the largest in any area on the Atlantic coast. This area would be an ideal location for a pilot plant to take care of waste products and I urge the minister and his officials to give serious consideration to such an establishment in Gloucester county.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the minister to have his department conduct more research which is needed if some sectors of the fishing industry and particularly the salt fish industry are to continue to exist. Such research is too costly to be undertaken by the industry alone and it requires cooperation from the government. As I have said, this co-operation is essential to the maintenance of the fishing industry.
At this time we must seriously examine what is going on in the United States. I wish to quote at this point, and these will be my last words, a portion of an article entitled "Now Our Fisheries Are Threatened" which appeared in the Financial Post of July 26, 1958:
There is fresh trouble brewing for the Canadian fishing industry which is the mainstay of about 96,000 Canadians. Our catch is worth around $200 million a year.
The Americans, having been thoroughly debauched by elaborate schemes for artificial aid to the American farmers (mainly the rich ones, as it turns out) may now be going in for similar schemes to aid their commercial fishermen.
A bill for this purpose is now in congress and has strong support, not just because the fishermen want to get in on the great Washington giveaways, but because they have been angered and frustrated by two Eisenhower vetoes on their schemes to impose import restrictions.
The plan is dangerous for Canada-and not only because it would spread the handout poison and tend to encourage other pressure groups to stage their own raid on the public treasury.

Supply-Fisheries
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to give extremely earnest consideration to taking measures to assist the Canadian fishing industry.


Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, I should be very remiss if I did not at this time address the committee on the estimates which are now under study. The fishing industry is the one and only industry in my riding and as such 100 per cent of its population depend on this industry as a means of survival. The sea has always been the alma nutrix of life and its fish produce plays a very substantial part in the economy of Canada.
I should like to take a few minutes in which to pay tribute to the fishermen of this country whom I regard as the hardiest, most fearless and most persistent of workers. They are the hardiest because they know of no limit to the hours they put into the pursuit of their trade. I suggest they are the most fearless because nature with all its whims and fancies does not deter them from pursuing their occupation. They are rocked and rolled not to the music of a Presley or an Anka but by the fury of the sea and wind. Now rising heavenwards, now diving to the depths, they courageously persist in a trade which has not given them a fair return for their labour. Their courage equals that of a Cartier, a Champlain or a Raleigh.
I was glad to note in the speech from the throne that agriculture would be assisted to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and rightly so. In fact, I have searched for arguments in favour of aid to agriculture which would not apply to fisheries and I must admit that I cannot differentiate the need of the one from the other so far as the cod fisherman is concerned.
The general problem is definitely one of cost of production and a low return for their produce but I am pleased to note that after a request was made by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, the hon. member for Gas-pe and the hon. member for Gloucester during the last session for an investigation into price spreads, being the difference between the price paid to the producer and that paid by the consumer, the government has taken action and is now having a study made of the problem.
The major problem, however, seems to be concentrated on the Magdalen islands where the catch of cod has fallen off very seriously and the possibility of an economic crisis exists. Although these hardy people slave at their occupation they are not catching any quantity of cod. As a result, their income is limited and they are not benefiting from the

credits of unemployment insurance stamps and will not receive any benefits during the coming winter.
I can see no alternative to this problem except, as in the case of agriculture, that a method of making deficiency payments be set up to alleviate circumstances such as these. I admit that many problems will be encountered in trying to institute such a policy but I feel confident that the present government, which is so concerned about the people in low income brackets, will find a formula suitable to the cod fishermen of the Magdalen islands, the Gaspe coast and the whole eastern seaboard.
I also wish to commend the spirit of cooperation which exists between the Department of Fisheries and the department of fisheries of the province of Quebec and their recent combined effort which resulted in locating herring to be used as bait in the vicinity of the Magdalen islands.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to extend to the Minister of Fisheries and his officials my sincere congratulations and thanks for their co-operation in assisting me whenever I require their services. The organization of the Newfoundland fishing industry has deep, historical roots. This industry developed during the period from 1750 to 1900, its mainstay or principal product from the beginning being the production of dry salted fish for export.
The market for the product of the industry has been the Mediterranean and Caribbean countries, low income areas of primary production also and subject to periodic business depressions. Because of the absence of alternative employment in Newfoundland the effects of such depressions have generally been borne by the fishermen. Since the 1870's the principal instruments of production have been the cod trap, the hook and line and trawls utilizing the inshore runs of codfish in early summer and fall. Settlement has been determined largely by the location of trap berths and adjacent offshore fishing locations along the coast. At the present time there are about
15.000	fishermen in Newfoundland and about
1.000	fishing settlements scattered over some
6.000	miles of coastline. Most of these fishermen are still dependent on the traditional industry.
I feel that at this time I am forced to speak about a campaign promise to provide floor prices for Newfoundland fishery products. This promise was said to have been made by no less a personage than the Prime Minister. It was widely circulated in my riding as well as elsewhere in Newfoundland and became a catch-cry for many candidates. Floor prices for fish, it was claimed, would be one

of the first acts of the new Progressive Conservative administration. I had expected a reference to this matter in the speech from the throne and I am still waiting. Another season of activity has just about ended. Floor prices for fish made a good election promise but as of now there is nothing to show that the plan will ever be anything but a promise.
It is not my intention to take up the time of the committee with the recounting of such incidents as can be drawn from Newfoundland's experience with the present administration. When I speak to this house about the need of a floor price for fishery products it may sound to most of you like just one more demand from one more region of Canada. Perhaps, however, you will tend to be more sympathetic to the over-all problem of the Newfoundland fishery when I tell you that in this modern era there are still fishermen in Newfoundland, many of them in my riding, who make from their calling substantially less than $1,000 a year. Often they are not fortunate enough to find alternative employment in the off-season and this year is no exception because with the apparent recession we are going through in the newsprint industry work is not going to be very easily found.
Some of the great centres of the Newfoundland fishery are to be found along the coast of my riding, and the marks of a proud history are visible to this day in the character and personality of the fine people whom I am honoured to represent. In my riding of Trinity-Conception ancient fish drying flakes exist in the very shadow of modern fish processing plants, providing a near perfect example of the ancient and the modern that is Newfoundland today. Sleek new draggers steam past the cockleshell punts and skiffs of the inshore fishermen, at places like Bay de Verde, Port-de-Grave, Little Catalina and Southport, but always the calling is the same, to reap the incredible harvest of an enormously bountiful ocean, for in more than 450 years one thing has not changed-Newfoundland's waters continue to abound with fish in a hundred varieties.
Here is a challenge to federal planners. In a hungry world, surely methods can be found to convert this teeming natural wealth into food for the undernourished millions and into a way of life for Newfoundlanders that comes reasonably close to the concept of confederation that all of us share. We hear a great deal about the untapped resources Canada possesses. Those who make such statements are referring to minerals, water power or timber. But, Mr. Chairman, it is not at all inconceivable, in fact it is quite probable that the wealth to be found in the waters of
Supply-Fisheries
Newfoundland may well turn out to be of even greater value than some of the other more readily recognized resources of a growing nation. I should like to see this government embark on a program of exploration of the great fisheries of Canada, and to pursue that avenue of development. I hope most sincerely that the fisheries will not be forgotten or relegated to a back seat in the overall planning of Canada's big and more rewarding tomorrow.
In view of the announcement of the withdrawal of the exclusive right of export of the salt cod by the Newfoundland Fish Exporters Limited, it is hoped, and I urgently impress this upon the responsible ministers, that measures will be taken with the least possible delay to set up an improved system to protect the marketing of salt codfish in the best interests of the Newfoundland fisherman and the industry generally.
The shortage of bait in Newfoundland is so serious that at this time the Department of Fisheries has arranged for a supply from the maritimes. I refer you to page 3505 of Hansard for August 14, 1958 where I asked the Minister of Fisheries if his department had taken steps to relieve the shortage, and the minister replied as follows:
This is something of which my department is very much aware, and the difficulty arises because of the failure of the squid fishery this year. I might say that during last winter the department's bait service froze more herring bait than ever before, but these stocks are now almost exhausted and a fairly critical situation has arisen.
The department, however, has embarked on a serious attempt to relieve the situation. For example, we have two helicopters under charter to the department scouting for squid. I am happy to say that a certain amount of squid has just now been obtained about 30,000 pounds, and it will be delivered very shortly to the areas where it is most urgently needed. We hope to augment this supply. In addition we have obtained 150,000 pounds of herring in the Yarmouth area, which will be delivered to the bait depots in Newfoundland as quickly as we can get suitable transports-tion for it.
I should like to commend the Minister of Fisheries for this action, although at the same time I should like to impress upon him that steps should be taken to ensure that in the future the Newfoundland bait depots will be always fully stocked with emergency supplies to guard against a possible shortage. It must be stressed that any shortage such as that experienced at the present time means a severe loss of much needed employment to our hard-working fishermen. As a matter of fact, the bait situation was so serious that the minister temporarily suspended the sale of bait to foreign fishing vessels. Again, I am glad that our fishermen got priority, but of course this is as it should be.

Supply-Fisheries
It is very encouraging to know that the Department of Fisheries has developed a small mobile refrigerated holding unit which should be of untold value in serving the many fishing communities throughout Newfoundland. Even though this will not prove to be a cure-all, it is sincerely hoped that it will go a long way towards meeting the bait servicing problems. I should like once more to commend the minister and his officials for this realistic approach to a very important problem.
The former administration, as well as the provincial government of Newfoundland, put a great deal of thought and effort into the artificial drying of salted codfish, and it is good to know that the present administration is actively continuing this important work. It is hoped that continued study will prove beneficial to our fishermen, as I am convinced it will.
As the committee is aware, the former administration saw fit to subsidize the price of salt, a commodity which is vital to our salt cod industry. This measure has proven to be very helpful, and I would urge the present administration to not only continue this helpful form of assistance but improve upon it if possible.
I mentioned earlier the serious shortage of bait in Newfoundland. This applies to squid, herring and caplin. I understand the shortage of squid because I am led to believe that they have not appeared in Newfoundland waters this year in the usual large numbers. Of course, this does not explain why the caplin were not frozen and stored, because these small fish appeared in Newfoundland waters in tremendous quantities this year. In so far as herring are concerned, there has been great concern throughout Newfoundland for many years because of their failure to appear in large schools as they have in the past. Surely, in such an important branch of the fishing industry as herring, as well as squid, the fishery research board should put a great deal of effort into research work and exploratory fishing in an attempt to find the cause of the failure of these fish to appear or to locate the schools wherever they may be.
Newfoundland's fisheries rank among the richest and most important in the world, and many Newfoundlanders, directly or indirectly, gain their livelihood from fisheries or trades allied thereto. Many fishing craft of all sorts and sizes are engaged in the shore and bank fishery. Salted codfish is not an unwanted article of food. As a matter of fact, world consumption has increased and the departments of fisheries and trade and commerce

must see that we maintain our present markets as well as obtain new ones, and make sure that our fishermen get a proper return for their efforts.
Our fresh fish industry has witnessed a remarkable development. In 1938, we exported approximately 500,000 pounds of fresh fish and in 1957 we exported approximately 53 million pounds. A great deal of the byproducts of this industry have been utilized as offal. We hope to see our fresh fish industry continue to grow and expand and to maintain its high standard in the export field.
(Translation):


Mr. English:: Supply-Fisheries
I am especially interested. I have always been interested in the Gaspe population which is made up mostly of fishermen. I myself come from a family of fishermen. I have carried out an on-the-spot survey of fisheries organization in the province of Nova Scotia. I attended St. Francis Xavier University for a year in order to study co-operative organization. I was the founder of the very first fisheries co-operative in my constituency. All this indicates that I am concerned with this problem.
Mr. Chairman, many requests are made to the government for a solution to unemployment. To my mind, a good way of doing so would be to help fishermen. In this way the number of unemployed in the cities would be reduced. Many people have been leaving the fishing industry, of late, because it is no longer a paying proposition, and have gone out to cities to try to make a living there.
Mr. Chairman, I see that I have been speaking longer than I had meant to. I did feel however I should make these few remarks in the house. I thank the Minister of Fisheries and his staff. I am convinced that they will continue the splendid work they have been doing so far and that eventually they will find a satisfactory solution to the problem that face not only the fishermen of my constituency, but those of all other parts of this country.
(Text) :


Mr. Howard:: I would like to join other members who have spoken in this debate in expressing appreciation for the helpfulness and the general attitude shown by the minister and his officials when they appeared before the standing committee on marine and fisheries. I am sure this committee gave some of us an opportunity to learn more of the details of the complexities in the fisheries industries of our country and to better assess the effect of the actions of the department on fisheries in all parts of Canada, not from a provincial or parochial point of view but from the point of view of the effect upon Canada as a whole. I have but one or two comments to make at this time and one or two questions to pose because I think the bulk of the work was done in committee, undoubtedly in a very excellent way. The answers given were complete and detailed.
The population of Canada, as in many other nations, is slowly increasing in size, and history has shown that generally speaking when countries increase their population beyond

a certain point there is a greater tendency to use the products of the sea as foodstuffs. Some nations do so perhaps because of a decline in the richness of the arable land and others because their arable land may be insufficient to provide the per capita requirements of food. They consequently look to the sea for a supplement to their diets. We know that fish is a high quality and high protein food. I personally am more partial to fish than to other protein foods, although this partiality may not be shared by many people. In the years to come I am sure, however, that we in Canada will be in the same position as that of other countries in the past, having to look to the ocean for additional foodstuffs, not only for domestic use but also for use as exports to other nations.
We must make sure that our present fisheries are maintained and must also enhance them and attempt to guarantee that other industries and interests do not enter in a detrimental way into the fisheries of our nation. I am thinking particularly of the hydroelectric interests in so far as the province of British Columbia is concerned, where we have had a fish versus power controversy for some time. So far as I know, not too much damage has been done to the fisheries as yet, but there is a possibility that in the future, if the power interests are allowed to have their way and are given the right to develop fish rivers for hydroelectric purposes, this will have a detrimental effect upon the fisheries of British Columbia, particularly the salmon fisheries. I know that the attitude of the minister and his departmental officials as expressed in the standing committee is one which will ensure to the greatest possible extent that our fish rivers are protected and that our migrating fish, particularly the salmon, are not interfered with by the development of these rivers for hydroelectric purposes.
We must do everything we possibly can to ensure that none of our fish rivers is harmfully developed for hydroelectric purposes although our power requirements are met. Within the next decade or thereabouts we will in fact probably have protected our present fish rivers and to the greatest possible degree will have met the demands for power for it is to be hoped that by that time sufficient research and engineering work will have been done with respect to nuclear energy that we may channel nuclear power into the generation of electric power.

We have in British Columbia very large potential hydroelectric sites which in no way will affect the fisheries of the Pacific coast. I refer particularly to the Columbia river also to the so-called Wenner-Gren project in the northern part of the province, and I hope the department will be able to maintain the position it has held over the years of protecting our fish rivers, and also that other parts of government, the federal government and the provincial government in British Columbia, will be able to co-operate in such a way that these potential hydroelectric sites may be developed so that the fullest possible service can be given to the general public. I am sure that if we operate in that light we will be meeting the hydroelectric requirements and doing so in such a way as to guarantee that the operation of these sites and the distribution of electrical power will serve the interest of the public to the greatest possible extent. We will also be laying the ground work for the possibility of using nuclear power in the years to come, and we will have the best of both worlds, as it were, arising out of that sort of action.
I should like to mention also to the minister a matter which comes under the Department of Agriculture. If it has not already been drawn to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries, if he would look at Hansard for August 1, beginning on page 2964 he would find on that page and on a number of pages following a discussion between the Minister of Agriculture and myself with respect to the granting of subsidies under the Cold Storage Act. I think that a few months ago the policy of the government was that they would make a grant of one-third of the cost toward building public cold storage facilities. Recently, the regulations have changed so that a maximum of $50,000 was placed on this one-third of the total cost, and the information we were able to get from the Minister of Agriculture in this regard, very briefly, was that the reason behind the imposition of this $50,000 limit was, apparently, that there were sufficient cold storage facilities in some areas as not to warrant additional subsidies on the part of the government and that these cold storage facilities were, in the main being used only to the extent of 50 per cent of their capacity. If the minister would read Hansard of August 1 he would be able to get a far more complete picture than I am able to give at this time and one which can only be obtained after reading all the questions and answers as they developed.
I directed some questions to the Minister of Agriculture on that occasion, asking if
Supply-Fisheries
he could give me some statistical information about the number of cold storage facilities which handled fish products, the number which handled agricultural products and the number which handled foodstuffs of a mixed nature, but the minister did not have those facts available in detail on that occasion. Subsequently he sent me a letter and I should like to draw it to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries. It amplifies the information which was given me on August 1 and it says, in part:
My department informs me that there are 249 warehouses in Canada which store exclusively, or in the main, fish or fisheries products and 1,969 which store in the main agricultural products and, in addition, 849 warehouses which are classified as general, i.e. storing a variety of products.
The view we think should be taken with regard to the operation of the Cold Storage Act is this: there are approximately, as shown in this letter, eight times as many agricultural products cold storage warehouses as there are fisheries products cold storage warehouses, and I think it would be more advantageous to meeting the need that exists at least in some parts of the country-and in one case with which I am particularly concerned-if we could divide the consideration of the application of this subsidy as between fisheries products cold storage needs and agricultural products cold storage needs. If we do that I am sure the fishery requirements would not then be affected by the conditions which exist in the agricultural products field.
I hope the minister will undertake to consult with the Minister of Agriculture from the point of view of attempting to consider separately the requirements of fish cold storage facilities as opposed to agricultural cold storage facilities. If the minister does that and has, correspondingly, more say in the granting of such subsidies I am sure we will be able to reverse the decision of the Department of Agriculture which, I think, is not justified as it applies to fish cold storage facilities, and revert to the provision which existed previously, namely a one-third subsidy having a $50,000 limit.
I have one or two other questions to ask, and it may well be I could pose them now since I have a few minutes left before six o'clock. Perhaps the minister could get additional information, if it is required, during the supper hour and answer them at eight o'clock.
One relates to a specific vote concerning the operation of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission. I understand there is a meeting, which may still be in progress, of a committee of the Pacific salmon fisheries commission which is being held in

Supply-Fisheries
Hawaii. I wonder whether the minister is able to impart to this committee any information as to the conclusions or recommendations which have been made arising out of the meeting in Hawaii of this tripartite committee.
In addition, I again wish to raise the question of the conflict which exists with respect to this research work which is being done in the north Pacific about salmon-who gets them, where they intermingle and so on. There has been quite a bit of controversy over this in years past, and in this regard I directed a question to the minister on May 21, and the answer which he gave, if I may quote it in part, was this:
The Canadian part of the co-ordinated research program in 1958 consists of having two large vessels make two cruises each, one in March and one in August, north of latitude 45 degrees north just east of longitude 175 degrees west.
I wonder if the minister is in a position to indicate what information this cruise that was made in March has produced, or whether it is more desirous to wait until the research program of August is completed and until the spot fishing tests which were to be made from mid-May to mid-September are completed so we will have a complete look at the information those vessels are able to procure.
The attitude of the department with respect to previous research trips into the north Pacific area based on the data they were able to compile was that no Canadian fish had been caught by Japanese fisheries in that area. There are two reasons for the conflict concerning whether or not Japanese fisheries are catching Canadian fish in the high seas in the mid-Pacific and one reason is this. In the past Canadian research vessels did not travel beyond the 155th degree of west longitude which is 20 degrees of longitude or roughly 750 miles west of this line. The other reason is that we in Canada have relied upon information collected by United States research vessels that were supposed to have been in the area between 155 degrees west and 175 degrees west. The contention is that by relying on the information collected by the United States vessels we did not have an opportunity to see in full detail the statistical information that was compiled but rather we relied only on the interpretation placed on that information by the United States officials involved. Also, the studies of the United States research vessels were primarily directed toward gathering evidence for the protection of the Bristol Bay sockeye and other Alaska salmon and not toward gathering information with respect to our own Canadian salmon.

The Alaska Sportsman of April 1958 carried an interesting article on this question. Whether or not the conclusions drawn in the article are based on scientific studies is beyond my knowledge but the fact is that publicity has been given by an Alaskan magazine to the question of research conducted in the north Pacific. The article states in part:
-American salmon mingle with salmon of Asiatic origin. At 175 degrees west longitude, stocks are 90 per cent American and 10 per cent Asian. Even at 170 degrees east the ratio is 40 per cent American and 60 per cent Asiatic salmon.
The article then goes on to make reference to catches and other matters but the point is that the United States research vessels as indicated in this article have conducted their research with relation to American or Alaskan salmon and not to Canadian salmon as indicated by the references to the ratio of the catch.
I have not seen all the statistical information gathered by Canadian, United States and Japanese research vessels and indeed even if I had I would not be able to interpret it or know precisely what it means. But there is this difference of opinion as to whether or not the Japanese are catching our salmon on the high seas. For that reason I was interested to learn what the minister said on May 21 to the effect that our research vessels this year are to move out in the area up to 175 degrees where we had not ventured before. I hope as a result of this move and the information collected from the studies made we will be able to state as a definite scientific fact whether or not the Japanese are catching our salmon or, as a result of that, we will be able to agree with the members of the tripartite commission that a certain non-fishing area should be declared there. I believe it is a proven fact that to catch salmon on the high seas means catching them before they are fully grown. In effect this does not allow the salmon to mature and has a detrimental effect on our entire fisheries interests.
In making these remarks I had to digress to a certain degree and deal with a matter that perhaps more properly could have been dealt with when the specific vote is called but I thought it necessary to include that topic in my general remarks. I hope the minister will be able to deal with the questions I raised when he rises to reply on this vote but if he desires to hold over some aspects of the questions and answer them on specific votes that will be perfectly satisfactory.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, the fishery is the oldest industry in Canada and probably ever since there was a fishery there have been problems connected with it. But no one can say the fisheries did not get off to a good start. When John Cabot discovered the new world he made his voyage of discovery looking for gold, silver and precious stones. Instead he found codfish but over the years the fisheries he discovered have brought in more wealth than his backers could have ever hoped to find in the form of gold mines or diamonds. But since its inception this ancient industry has run into peculiar and serious problems from time to time. These problems are not peculiar to modern times alone. A great Canadian statesman revered by all, perhaps particularly so by a large section of this house, and who at one time, I believe, occupied the offices now occupied by the Minister of Fisheries, Sir John A. Macdonald, had this to say in writing on May 1, 1878 to Sir Stafford North-cote with respect to confederation with Newfoundland:
Lastly, it is of importance to imperial interests that Newfoundland should be added to the dominion. It would complete the great scheme of British North American confederation begun in 1867-it would relieve the colonial office from the trouble and responsibility of the direct government of the island, and it would throw upon Canada the burthen of its defence. And that defence would necessitate the creation of something like a naval force by our government. But more than all, in any future negotiations with the United States on the troublesome question of the fisheries, the subject could be dealt with as a whole.
Later in 1890 he again referred to the fisheries when he said with respect to Newfoundland and the Dominion of Canada:
At present the policies of the two governments on commercial, fishing and other questions are often divergent.
I think that even today the problems which Newfoundland has and those of the rest of Canada are sometimes divergent. But it is not for want of constant reminder that we have not yet solved the problems of the fisheries of the east coast. I would be the last one to say that nothing has been done because a great deal has been done to improve the fisheries in my native province. The provincial government, with its policy of assisting industry, has helped to bring about what may well be described as a revolution in the fisheries, particularly in its assistance in the industrialization of the fisheries; while on the other hand the impact of confederation on Newfoundland was perhaps nowhere more marked than in the fishing industry because the government of Canada, through
Supply-Fisheries
its Department of Fisheries, has been giving excellent service to the province of Newfoundland.
But the whole problem, although bit by bit it is being attended to, has never been completely solved nor has a way yet been found to place the fisheries upon the same basis as the other great industries of Canada. The fisheries of this country are without doubt one of our great national resources. We talk of spending huge sums of money on the development of various parts of our great nation but I do not think that relatively we are spending either enough effort or enough money on the development of our fisheries. I might use a scriptural phrase in describing all the laudable attempts being made to develop and exploit our industries and resources-"these ought ye to have done but not to have left the other undone".
It is no longer a secret that the ships of at least 10 nations are fishing off our shores. While those concerned with the defence of the country are somewhat worried over the presence of large trawlers in our waters, I do not think that comparable worry is evinced over the trade which fishing fleets of foreign nations are taking away from us. Instead of being the foremost fishing country in the world we are being pushed back from that position and we shall soon lose our lead completely.
For years I have heard scientists and economists tell us that the greatest fishery ever known, the trap fishery of Newfoundland, was doing the fisheries more harm than good. I cannot subscribe to that opinion. It is true that vast quantities of fish come in during the short season and are trapped. They must be caught and processed quickly and it has been difficult to find a way to do that other than by the old methods used since John Cabot discovered Newfoundland. But if the great canning plants of this continent can deal with fruits and vegetables which have short seasons I see no reason why the scientific ingenuity available in this modern age cannot look after the surplus fish that come to Canadian waters during what we call the trap fishery.
Again, while large fleets of ships are in Newfoundland waters comparatively few of them are Canadian ships. We have three large trawlers, the largest being approximately 400 tons. Then we have a total of 50 other trawlers and 13 draggers above 100 tons and five between 75 and 100 tons. Perhaps more than anyone else I am aware of the need to extend help to the small fishermen, the need for small harbours, dredging work, navigational aids, salt assistance and loans
3S04

Supply-Fisheries
to these fishermen, but at the same time I do not think we should overlook the need for a large deep sea fleet.
There appears to be nothing we can do to prevent our competitors from fishing off our shores on the Newfoundland banks but certainly there is something we can do to compete with them by bringing about greater and cheaper production and better markets. While the fresh fish industry is growing and thriving the salt fish industry, which is really the basis of Newfoundland economy, is dwindling. But the salt fish business is still the basic industry of the country. Of a total of 16,000 to 17,000 people in the fisheries about 12,000 are employed in the salt codfish business.
The salt cod fishery is really the foundation of our economy and is a sort of buffer industry which takes up the slack when other employment fails. This is particularly noticeable this year when there has been a falling off of construction work and woods employment and perhaps nearly 2,000 more men have returned to the fishery.
However, the time is going to come when they will not be able to do that. A farmer can become a miner and a miner can become a woods operator, but a deep-sea fisherman has to be bred to the sea. Let the young men who normally prosecute the fisheries get away from them or not go into the fisheries in the first place and it is doubtful if they would be able, even if they were willing, to return to the salt codfish industry or the deep-sea fishery later in life. There are many men, to my own personal knowledge, who would rather be fishermen if they could make the same living as fishermen as they can as mechanics. However, the return from the salt cod fishery is so low that they choose other work, although as a vocation they would much prefer to be fishermen.
One thing that would help the fisheries considerably would be a direct shipping line to the West Indies. Since Newfoundland is an island she cannot exploit the mainland markets and should be given assistance in getting fish to the market at the same cost as her sister Atlantic provinces. Again this year there seems to be a shortage of bait and a shortage of salt and both of these factors adversely affect codfishing. Then, too, we have to compete with subsidies. For instance, the Icelandic government subsidizes its fishermen sometimes paying as much as $360 per fishing boat per day. The French subsidize their fishermen. I believe the Portuguese government pays a subsidy as well. It is true that Portugal does not compete with us in foreign markets. At one time, Portugal was a market for our fish, but as she produced more and more herself we could not sell any

more there. The payment of these subsidies makes it extremely difficult for Canadian fishermen to make a living and still sell their fish cheaply enough to compete with these other nations.
All in all, the present position is that there seems to be a steady decline in the amount of salt codfish produced. I am not sure that the contention that we produce a product expensively to sell to poor markets is altogether true. Where is there stronger buying power, except in the United States, than in Puerto Rico, Cuba, Jamaica, Brazil and such countries?
A few minutes ago I mentioned that there were the fleets of ten nations operating on the grand banks. I, myself, have seen fleets of white-painted ships standing out of the harbour of St. John's in all their magnificence, but they were not Canadian ships. I have seen throngs of fishermen on the streets of St. John's, but they were not Canadian nationals. The fruits of the sea which these sailors were harvesting represent a loss of trade to us. Earlier I referred to the fact that Iceland subsidizes its fishermen. It is interesting to note that Newfoundland lost the Jamaican market to Iceland recently. It is interesting also to note that yesterday it was announced that Russia is lending Iceland $3.5 million for the construction of fishing boats. It is worth noting that the Canadian trade with Jamaica is as much as 2| to 3 times in our favour, and that sugar from the West Indies is coming in under a protective tariff which will possibly put the New Brunswick refineries out of business. I rather think that is turning the other cheek a little bit too often.
The removal of the exclusive right of NAFEL to export fish is something which I should like the Department of Fisheries to consider very carefully. It is true that there should be free trade between our own provinces, but I should like to point out that the fish produced in Newfoundland is produced by virtue of the plants that already exist there, the stores, the wharves and so on, all of which cost a lot of money and represent capital invested in Newfoundland by the local fish trade. If the product which that investment makes possible is to be processed by a sister province which has no risk capital involved, it places the whole structure of the local industry in jeopardy.
The oldest industry in Canada, Mr. Chairman, can I am sure become even at this late date a profitable one. We pride ourselves on the size of our nation. We are proud of the fact that it extends from sea to sea. We are proud of the motto that the wholesome sea is at the eastern and western gates of Canada. But if we confine our efforts to the

exploitation of the land and stop at the seashore, there is really little reason for us to take pride in the rolling billows. The proper development and exploitation of our great and wealthy country should not stop at the seashore but should extend into the waters which surround us, waters which are ours, waters which have in them the wealth which for hundreds of years has provided a livelihood for many of our best citizens and supplied Canada with an export trade of great value.
Certainly, it is to the interest of all to develop the whole of Canada, including the wealth that is in the sea. With the capacities we have today, natural and acquired, with our native ingenuity, scientific skill and commercial force, we can inject into this ancient industry the virility which is the hallmark of Canadian enterprise.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Legere:: Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure and I deem it an honour-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the hon. member for Queens-Lunenberg has the floor.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -representing Queens-Lunenberg and living in the town of Lunenberg, the home of the largest deep-sea fishing fleet in North America, I feel it is only proper that I should make a few remarks on the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
First, I should like to congratulate the minister on the high honour that was bestowed upon him by Mount Allison University last Saturday. I shall try to make my remarks as brief as possible, but there are a few points that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. Many of my constituents are directly concerned with the fishing industry and any changes that affect this industry have a direct bearing on their earnings.
In recent years there has been a gradual change taking place within the fishing industry and this change is quite evident when you travel the south shore of Nova Scotia. You will see along the coast small wharves and fish sheds, and long rows of fish flakes which are deteriorating In the sun. Formerly fish were landed at these small wharves and were washed there by the fishermen and their wives. But today as we have progressed in the industry, modern fish dryers have been installed in the larger plants, and also automatic fish washing machines, thus eliminating the need for the old fashioned method of drying fish in the sun. However, there are many who will argue that sun dried fish are of higher quality; and as a matter of interest I may say that the Gaspe cure does have a preference in certain markets
Supply-Fisheries
throughout the world. However, those within the industry are today mostly concerned with the marketing and catching of fish.
For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the fishing industry I should like to point out that it is divided into two sections. There is the salt fishing industry and there is the fresh fishing industry. Of late, we have heard a good deal about the salt fishing industry owing to the loss of one of its most important markets in Jamaica. The control of fish imports in this British West Indies island rests with trade minister the Hon. Wills O. Isaacs. We have recently seen this island of Jamaica buying some 3,000 tons of salt cod from Iceland on the grounds that the price is about one half cent a pound below that quoted by the Canadian trade.
Trade should be a two-way street. We buy a good deal of sugar from the island of Jamaica. In fact, in 1956 Canadian refineries bought 36 per cent of Jamaica's 1956 sugar production or 132,000 tons. If this sugar had been bought from a non-commonwealth producing country the Canadian treasury would have collected additional import duties of approximately $2,900,000. In that same year the total value of all the salt and pickled fish that Canada sold to Jamaica was approximately $3,255,000. In other words, by virtue of this sugar preference the Jamaican sugar industry obtained from Canadian refineries between $2J million and $3 million more for the sugar sold to Canada in 1956 than would have been realized if this $1 per one hundred pounds preference did not exist. To reduce this situation to a point of being ridiculous, may I say that the Canadian government would have lost out financially only to the extent of $355,000 if we had donated all the salt and pickled fish that Jamaica purchased from Canada in 1956 instead of giving the sugar preference.
In spite of these facts, and in spite of a public statement by the Jamaican minister Mr. Isaacs that the Canadian sugar market is vital to Jamaica's existence, no consideration was given this country by Jamaica when purchasing this 3,000 tons of dried salt codfish. I believe the time has arrived for the Canadian government to speak plainly to the Jamaican government. I do not feel that it would be at all unreasonable to point out to Jamaica that if they want to continue to enjoy the Canadian sugar preference along with tariff preferences on liquor, et cetera, they must decontrol the price of salt cod and let supply, demand and competition prevail. Only in this way can our Canadian salt fish exporters be given the assistance in marketing their product which is so urgently required by this basic industry.

Supply-Fisheries
Assistance to our fresh fish industry is also required. This assistance should take into consideration the increased cost of boats and equipment today as compared with costs say ten years ago. At the present time fishermen receive practically the same prices for their catch as they received ten years ago, this despite the fact that it takes $2 today to purchase what $1 would buy in 1947. The effect of all the scientific advances with regard to refrigeration of fish and improved marketing facilities which have increased sales of this product have not brought an increase of one per cent pound to the fishermen themselves in the last ten years.
The reason that this condition exists is sometimes attributed to larger catches by more mechanized boats, but the truth of the matter is that, regardless of catches, or rates of United States exchange, or shortage of fish, there is no improvement in price to the fishermen. Dominion bureau of statistics figures show a drastic drop in the stocks of fresh and frozen fish in reserve. There is a terrific shortage of ground fish on the banks-I refer to certain types of ground fish such as cod and haddock-and the new regulations with regard to mesh size imposes further hardship on our east coast fishermen who must catch fish each trip to sea or starve. They have no big reserve of capital built up when prices were high, for prices have never been high for this basic food commodity to the primary producer. They have no guaranteed salary and work only in anticipation of their share of the catch.
It is true that they are living and existing but only by working exhausting hours. In fact, men have been known to stand on the deck of a ship dressing fish for some 24 hours at a time, stopping only long enough to eat. They must do this at times in order to clear the deck of fish. But whether the catches are fair or poor, the price remains almost static over the years. This does not apply only to fresh fish but also to the salt fish industry. I believe that some form of assistance must be considered in order to encourage men to continue in this industry.
The department is contemplating further research. I should like to suggest to the minister that further consideration be given to investigating the scallop beds. I have been looking at the new Canadian fishing vessel the A. T. Cameron built for the fisheries research board of Canada. It looks like a very capable ship of a size that will be a credit to Canada and a credit to the men in the department who had a hand in designing this ship. It is a draggers style ship which should certainly be seaworthy.

I should like to suggest that some consideration be given to investigating the scallop beds. This shell-fish now provides a most important source of income to the Atlantic coast fishermen. In fact the 1956 production in the maritime provinces was in excess of $1 million, and production has been growing rapidly. The tremendous improvement in this fishery can be realized when we consider the fact that the catch was valued at less than one-quarter of a million dollars in 1951. The scallop fishery, prior to 1953, was carried out principally by small boats fishing inshore banks close to port. The only exception to this was in the Digby and Northumberland strait area where these fisheries are relatively stable and somewhat larger boats are used, ranging up to 65 feet in length. However, in recent years much larger boats have been used in this fishery, ranging from 90 feet to 95 feet in length, and these boats fish far from their home ports on George's bank close to the coast of the United States and also on the offshore banks of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
It is, however, agreed among these fishermen in my riding that continuous research is necessary in the scallop industry to assist them in locating new beds which, so far as the offshore fishery is concerned, have a tendency to shift with changing water temperatures. I would like to suggest that this information regarding new scallop bed locations be widely advertised by the fisheries department so that all those in the industry may avail themselves of the opportunity to make use of the findings of the department as new beds are discovered. The scallop is highly nutritious and can be conveniently stored, and I would like to suggest that the government further assist this industry by increased advertising and promotion and suggested uses for this fish on Canadian trains and in government institutions.
From information supplied to me by sea captains on the east coast who fish out of my home port of Lunenburg, it is my understanding that stocks of shrimp are on the increase on the offshore banks of Nova Scotia. We are all aware that this shellfish is a delicacy and is what we in the industry call a high priced fish, bringing a return to the fisherman which is comparable to that from lobsters, scallops, halibut and swordfish. In my opinion the fisheries research board should give immediate consideration to investigating the supplies of shrimp which are available in the hope that the quantity of the shrimp on the Nova Scotia cost should be determined and so that the fishermen may be advised whether this fishery could be economically established.

To further greater participation by the fresh fish industry, I would like to suggest that the government increase the present subsidy payment on ships built up to a length of 100 feet. Those who live in the Atlantic provinces realize that in the sea, we have at our front door a great natural resource. This fact is also recognized by France, Portugal, Italy, Spain, the United States and Iceland, to name but a few of the countries and, as the population of the world grows and the amount of arable land diminishes, we must turn to the sea for our food supplies. The encouragement of the construction of draggers up to 100 feet in length would, I believe, be of great importance not only to the fish industry but, having in mind that we no longer have a large merchant fleet, these ships in time of war could be an invaluable asset to the nation.
I would suggest that this government, through the Department of Fisheries, should give serious consideration to extending the present subsidy of $165 per ton, which is limited to ships of up to 65 feet in length, to ships up to 100 feet in length. Further assistance which could be provided to the fresh fishing industry would be the paying of the cost of the ice used by these fishermen. We do assist the salt fish industry at the present time by paying a proportion of the price of the salt used by that industry, and I believe that in keeping with the department's views with respect to having the fish landed in prime condition this assistance could be extended in respect of fresh fish in the manner I have just outlined.
The United States government has, as stated by the hon. member for Gloucester, planned some assistance for their fishing industry, and I believe the time has arrived when consideration must be given to our basic industry in Canada and I hope in this regard that the proposals I have made will be carefully studied for the benefit of the Canadian fishermen.


Felton Fenwick Legere: Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure, and I deem it an honour to rise to speak in this house for the first time. I wish to tender my congratulations to Mr. Speaker upon his re-election to the high office of Speaker of this House of Commons, and may I also congratulate the hon. member chosen as the Deputy Speaker.
On this occasion, with your kind permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the electorate of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare for having bestowed upon me the high honour of representing them in this House of Commons. May I be able to represent them with
Supply-Fisheries
honour, integrity and devotion throughout my tenure of office as a member of this house.
I would like to point out that I do not wish to criticize the political tactics of the opposition, for I know that March 31 was sufficient punishment for their political sins. They and they alone must live with their guilty political consciences.
The constituency I have the honour to represent is located on the southwestern coast of Nova Scotia, where its scenic beauty is a household word-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What kind of fish is this?


An hon. Member:: Red herring.


Felton Fenwick Legere: -and where tourist attractions are many and varied. This area was considered by the rest of Canada as a depressed area for many years. The phrase "We never had it so good" could certainly never have been said of Nova Scotia, particularly the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare. However, after the election of June 10 better things were in the offing and before long we were promised that we would at last be recognized as part of this great country of ours. We in the maritimes greeted this change with open arms and we have already felt the beneficial effects of the theme of our Prime Minister, namely, justice and equality for all.
(Translation) :
Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure, and I deem it an honour to rise to speak in the house for the first time. I wish to tender my congratulations to Mr. Speaker upon his re-election to the high office of Speaker of this House of Commons, and may I also congratulate the hon. member chosen as the Deputy Speaker.
On this occasion, with your kind permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the electorate of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare for having bestowed upon me the high honour of representing them in this House of Commons. I hope I may be able to represent them with honour, integrity and devotion throughout my tenure of office as a member of this house.
I would like to point out that I do not wish to criticize the political tactics of the opposition, for I know that March 31 was sufficient punishment for their political sins. They and they alone must live with their guilty political consciences.
The constituency I have the honour to represent is located on the southwestern coast of Nova Scotia, where scenic beauty is a household word and where tourist attractions

Supply-Fisheries
are many and varied. This area was for many years considered by the rest of Canada as a depressed area.
The phrase "We never had it so good" could certainly never have been said of Nova Scotia, particularly the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare. However, after the election of June 10 better things were in the offing and, before long we were promised that we would at last be recognized as part of this great country of ours. We, in the maritimes, greeted this change with open arms and we have already felt the beneficial effects of the theme of our Prime Minister, namely, justice and equality for all.
(Text):
When the first white men came to Nova Scotia it was for one main purpose, to fish. They found that the waters which surrounded the Nova Scotia peninsula were swarming with fish, and year after year they continued to return filling their ships from the bounty of the sea.
Now, four centuries later, fishing is still the main attraction and essential industry, the sole means of livelihood for many, many of my constituents. Fishing is a major and essential industry in my constituency. Therein lies, in my estimation, the Liberal's Waterloo. They were unaware of the necessity for the furtherance of the economy of my constituents. They encouraged them to fish, but neglected to better their lot by providing them with the necessities that are part and parcel of every endeavour. Just drive down from Weymouth, Nova Scotia to the end of Shelburne county and you will be amazed at the scenery, the neat rows of wooden lobster traps, the picturesque Cape Island type boat; but you will also see, in vast numbers, wharves in disrepair, no docking facilities where they should be, inadequate harbour facilities for those who go down to the sea in search of a livelihood. There, in my estimation, lie the relics of Liberal neglect, mute testimonials of their good will, perhaps, but also of their laissez-faire attitude. It is one of the cross-currents that shipwrecked them on the 31st of March.
Already, we of the maritimes are feeling the beneficial effects of the public works program, and I wish to commend the government for its encouraging attitude toward better harbour facilities, a step which, as time goes on, will lengthen its stride, thereby giving the toilers of the deep a means of disposing of their fishery products more quickly and more efficiently, and resulting in better quality.
However, along with the necessity of better harbour and dock facilities to ensure

a high quality of fishery products, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to add a plea that additional transportation means be provided to maintain the renowned high standard of my constituency's lobster and fresh and salt fish, for after this summer we of the town known as the gateway to the maritimes are not assured of the services of the S. S. Yarmouth Castle. In order to fill the breach caused by her departure for other ports, I would urge that the government take under consideration the building of a new ferry to handle the ever-increasing shipments and the mounting tourist trade for, indeed, the latter has increased by leaps and bounds since our friends, the Americans, have become aware of the attractions many and varied offered by this province known as the ocean's playground where one may dip contentedly in the briny deep, and enjoy restful breeze-kissed evenings which ensure peaceful and pleasant slumbers.
Motels and private homes dot the highways where once bushes and alders grew. The national housing loan board, through its ever-increasing expansion and government foresight, makes it possible to meet the growing needs of tourist trade. May I, Mr. Chairman, commend the government for its awareness of the people's problems along this line. We all know that the construction of federal buildings and of private homes means more pay cheques and better trade.
Security for the home-owners and their families naturally springs from the ability of each and every one to earn a decent living wage. However, this does not mean that unemployment-although it is decreasing-does not exist in my riding. It would be foolhardy to deny it. At this moment, nevertheless, I appreciate what the Conservative government has done and is doing to ameliorate the situation, to step in and supplement seasonal lay-offs and lack of work with not only one but two extensions of benefit periods, which in many areas throughout my constituency are a godsend. I know that this is not a cure-all for unemployment ills, but I am sure the hon. members of this committee will agree with me that it is a step in the right direction, and led on by many more steps of this nature, we will, eventually, come to the promised land of peace, prosperity and contentment.
Mr. Chairman, with your kind permission and begging the indulgence of the house, I wish to illustrate the dire need for fishery protection craft, adequately manned and strategically located to assist fishermen in distress. Twenty years ago a near tragedy occurred which forcefully illustrates the lack of adequate search and rescue vessels, and if

hon. members will bear with me, I shall endeavour to substantiate my assertion with a story.
On the 15th of December, 1938, after three days of wintery weather, the sun greeted the village of Pinkney's Point with the promise of a perfect fishing day. The turbulent and angry sea of previous days lazily and reposingly invited the fishermen to venture out and retrieve the lobsters which had crawled into their unmolested traps. As they gladly left the wharf on this eventful morning, no one thought that before another day dawned nerve-wracking tension and heart-rending anxiety would disturb the serenity of this village. For throughout this day, so calm and peaceful, the boats flitted about on the vast expanse, and there the men happily hauled their traps, all the while speculating on the good catch that was theirs. And as the sun slowly sank in the west one by one they returned to the safety of their home port.
However, due to the large quantity of traps, one lagged behind unaware of the impending storm gathering on the horizon, unmindful of the snow that began falling; the men thinking only of the many needed items that their bountiful catch would provide for their beloved ones, thinking, as they worked on, of the rejoicing there would be in their homes that evening as they handed to their wives the day's pay cheque. So absorbed were they that they noticed not the wind's mournful tone and its increasing intensity. Finally the last trap was hauled, and then they compass-pointed the prow of their boat homeward.
However, fate dealt them a cruel hand. The shafting had broken. Hastily, preparations were made to ensure safety while waiting for rescue, but in an hour's time the storm had so intensified that it was impossible for the fleet to venture out. The men of the village remained on the wharf and spoke in hushed tones, knowing that if rescue was not imminent, chances of survival were small. I will not attempt, Mr. Chairman, to describe the gamut of emotions that were part and parcel of that night. The beloved ones lingeringly thought that their morning's kiss would be the last one they would ever have from their beloved husbands.
And on the storm-lashed sea two men fought valiantly for their lives. Their frail craft, tossed about by mountainous seas, happily weathered the storm, and next morning to the rejoicing of all they were towed back to the haven of their home port. The harrowing experience remains indelibly etched on their minds. Thankful that they had been spared, and promise-bound, the next Sunday they came to the village church, garbed in their fishing clothes of black rubber, and as they kneeled at the foot of the altar
Supply-Fisheries
and offered prayers of thanks for having been saved, the congregation also prayed. All eyes bedimmed by tears lifted toward heaven, imploringly pleading for the establishment of rescue service made possible through specially built and crew-manned coast guard vessels.
May I at this point say that in past years many village churches have witnessed such scenes; however, with a slight change in scenery. The congregation and relatives have gathered to pray, yes, but also to mourn and pay their last respects to a loved one lying in a watery grave. For 19 years this plea has fallen on deaf ears and nothing has been done to allay the fears of those who daily pit their skill and daring against the whims of mother nature.
Mr. Chairman, I have endeavoured to present before this committee the wish of every fisherman along the entire sea coast of Nova Scotia. I have also, though perhaps awkwardly, endeavoured to present the wish of every widow and child of those who found a watery grave as their final resting place and on their behalf I respectfully and humbly urge that provision be made for the building of adequate coast guard cutters for the protection of a vast fishing fleet that is part and parcel of Nova Scotia's primary industry.


Mr.   Carier@: Mr. Chairman, it is usual to congratulate an hon. member on his maiden speech and I wish to convey my congratulations to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare who has just taken his seat although I must confess I was somewhat concerned when I noticed the huge string of red herrings with which he started out. Once he disposed of these, however, he did very well and I am sure he deserves our congratulations.
These estimates have already been very thoroughly discussed in the standing committee on fisheries and I should like at this time to pay tribute to the hon. member for Gaspe who acted as chairman of that committee, and who conducted the discussions with such great harmony and, I think, with great profit to all of us. I hope that all hon. members will make a point of reading the minutes and reported evidence of that committee because it is very enlightening, particularly for those hon. members who may not be familiar with the fishing industry.
I should also like to thank the minister and his home economics branch for the very fine luncheon which he tendered to that committee. The only thing that concerned me was that I noticed Newfoundland salt fish was relegated to a rather minor role on the menu. I believe this was the third time I have enjoyed a luncheon under the sponsorship of the Department of Fisheries and if my memory serves me correctly on

Supply-Fisheries
each occasion we have started out with salt fish chowder. I do hope when the next fisheries luncheon comes around Newfoundland salt cod will enjoy a much more prominent place on the menu. I would suggest to the minister that it might be worth while to have luncheons organized on a provincial basis. We could put up a very nice luncheon of. Newfoundland fish products alone and I am sure the same could be done by Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces. This would give us a chance to learn something about the fisheries not only of the east coast but of the west coast and even of the central provinces. We could have 10 luncheons a year with samples of the fisheries products from one province at each luncheon.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has already referred to the traditional importance of the Newfoundland fisheries. Historically the fishing industry has been the mainstay of the economy of Newfoundland. In the old days Newfoundland had a single crop economy based entirely on the production of salt cod. In rather recent years, as late as 1914 when world war I started, we got another basket for our eggs when we began to develop the fresh fish industry. And then, of course, as time went on the products of our forests and mines began to have more dollar value than did our fisheries but even then the fishing industry was still of major importance because it gave employment to the greatest number of people. Now that we in Newfoundland are experiencing a bit of depression, with unemployment more than double what it normally is, more and more people have been forced to return to the fisheries and so the industry is once more assuming its prominent historic importance as a major source of employment.
My friend the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare tried to make out that nothing had ever been done for the fishing industry. I would be the last to say that enough has been done for the fisheries or that as much has been done for the fisheries as for the farming industry and yet I would point out to my hon. friend that nevertheless a great deal has been done for the fishing industry. I refer him to our price supports, to the salt rebate, to fisheries loans, to insurance on lobster traps, to bounties on fishing vessels, to unemployment insurance for fishermen and, in Newfoundland, to the bait service. All of these things were done by the Liberal government. When you total them all up they constitute a substantial amount of assistance to the fishing industry although, as I said, I believe still more is required. But the tragedy of it all from my point of view is that substantial as the assistance has been very little of it has been able to trickle down

to the fisherman who is the person we really wish to help. With the exception of insurance on lobster traps and unemployment insurance practically none of this assistance has been of any material benefit to the ordinary fisherman.
I have in my hand a publication put out by the economics service of the Department of Fisheries entitled, "Operations of Modern Longliners and Draggers-Atlantic Seaboard -1957" which has been compiled by John Proskie. This is a veritable gold mine of statistical information with respect to the fishing industry. If we look through the report we find that as far as Newfoundland long-liners are concerned the break-even prices for codfish are as follows: For longliners 30 to 40 feet in length the break-even point is 1.66 cents per pound; for longliners 40 to 50 feet long the break-even point is 2.087 cents per pound; and for longliners 50 to 60 feet in length the break-even point is 2.489 cents per pound. Therefore a Newfoundland fisherman must get well over 2 cents a pound to break even on his fish.
If we look at the average fish prices for 1957 we find that the Newfoundland fisherman fishing out of a 30 to 40 foot boat received 2.08 cents per pound for codfish, which is by far the largest production of the Newfoundland fisheries. He broke even by less than half a cent a pound. The operator of a 40 to 50 foot boat did not break even. He only got 2.03 cents a pound whereas he required 2.08 cents to break even. The operator of a 50 to 60 foot boat had an even bigger deficit because he received only 2.01 cents a pound for codfish whereas he required 2.89 cents to break even.
Three days ago fish prices in Newfoundland were published in the St. John's press and looking over the Daily News of August 18 I find that the price for cod varied from If cents a pound to 2J cents a pound in the different localities throughout the island. In Englee, which is in the riding of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, they only got If cents a pound for large fish while in the first instance the If cents was for small fish. The going price for haddock three days ago was 2 cents a pound for small to 2J cents a pound for large. For rosefish, which is quite a delicacy, the price was If cents a pound for small and 2-J cents a pound for large. For flounder the price varied from 24 cents to 3 cents a pound. For halibut, which is a high-priced fish when you buy it in a store, the price varied from 10 to 12 to 15 cents a pound. These are the fish prices that were being paid in Newfoundland just three days ago.

I might point out that these prices are lower than are being paid in Norway by the fish processing plants there which I understand are not subsidized by the government. In any event, when we compare the fishing industry of Canada with that of other countries we find that the Canadian fisherman, whether he is in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia-I cannot speak about British Columbia; I believe the fishermen are all wealthy on the west coast-is worse off than his counterpart in Norway, Great Britain or the United States. In my opinion this chaotic condition is going to continue until the fishermen themselves do something about it in the same way the fishermen of Norway did. I do not think it will be sufficient for the fishermen to organize in any one province or part of a province. They will have to organize on a nationwide scale, certainly on a scale large enough to embrace all the Atlantic provinces if they are going to be able to organize their sales and get the benefit of a decent price for their fish.
The price of salt fish is always based on the price of fresh fish and is usually a little lower than that of fresh fish, particularly when you take into consideration the extra expense of buying salt and the additional work in handling the fish. We are all happy to learn that a commission is inquiring into the price spreads on fish and we hope that when their report is made it will contain concrete recommendations to show how the fisherman can get a little better price for his fish. Whether it is on the production end or on the marketing end does not matter because if the fisherman can get one cent more per pound for his fish he will be substantially better off.
Lord Bacon once said that the fisheries of Newfoundland contained more wealth than all the mines of Peru. He was probably right because the mines of Peru can be worked out but our fish resources are self-perpetuating. What we want is a little more of that wealth to trickle down to the ordinary fisherman because today he is not getting the share of that wealth to which he is entitled.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Mr.   Carier@: Not yet. Before I sit down I want to say a few words about the bait service. This service applies only to Newfoundland because it was one of the obligations which the federal government assumed as part of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada. We all recognize that the bait service is a very difficult service to administer and we were delighted to learn in the committee that a new portable bait freezing depot is going to be tried out, one which we understand can be built for
Supply-Fisheries
approximately $5,500, which can be added to one unit after another and which can even be moved from one place to another. That is the type of unit we need for our particular requirements in Newfoundland where the fishing industry is changing very rapidly.
Our present bait service was instituted by the Newfoundland government many years before confederation and was started as a form of insurance for the fishermen. It cost money and never paid its way but nevertheless it yielded dividends because it enabled the fisherman to produce wealth that benefited the whole province and which could never have been produced without that service. There is no use in having a bait depot unless we have bait to put in it and that is where we need a much more flexible policy than we have at the present time. The appearance of bait in Newfoundland waters is a seasonal phenomenon and it does not always come with uniform regularity. The people on the spot must have the authority to take advantage of the squid and other types of bait when they appear because the run may only last a week and then they are gone. If we do not do it they do not return and we are left without bait.
Some hon. members have referred to the fact that a great deal of our bait is sold to foreign trawlers which produce fish to compete with us in our salt fish markets. While we are anxious to co-operate as much as we possibly can with the other nations of the world, yet I think charity begins at home. We must look after the requirements of our own fishermen before we permit bait to be sold to the fishermen from other countries. I think that is fair and reasonable. I think that is what other countries would do. I am sure we would find it very difficult if we had to go to another country to buy bait for our fishermen when they did not have enough to supply their own requirements. I urge the government to look at this problem and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the bait requirements of our Newfoundland fishermen will be met before bait is sold to our competitors.
The bait service is important, not only for bait to catch cod, haddock and other ground fish, but it is important also to our lobster fishery. The lobster fishery is a very important fishery and one that is subject to management with resultant improved returns to the fishermen. Very often in the early part of the year our lobster fishermen are handicapped because they cannot get bait. We may not, at all times, have sufficient bait on hand to provide for that industry. Not only must we have bait, but we also must have refrigerated boats to take the bait from one large depot to another. At the moment we have only one

Supply-Fisheries
small boat which is antiquated and will soon have to be scrapped. What we need are three new ships specially built for the bait service. In the winter season particularly, when these boats cannot be used along the north shore because of ice conditions, they could very well be employed in the rescue service along the southwest coast. As the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare pointed out they are urgently needed in New Brunswick, and the need is no less urgent in Newfoundland.
With respect to the administration of the bait service, I would hope the government would give consideration to the cancellation of these leases to private interests. To my knowledge, the private firms who have leased these depots have not lived up to the terms of their agreement, and I know that a certain amount of discrimination has resulted. Fishermen in one area have an advantage which is denied to those in other areas. Furthermore, certain fishermen have not been permitted to get bait from these depots at the regular price unless they agreed to sell their fish to the person who owned the lease. This is all contrary to the original terms of the lease and I think these things would justify the cancellation of these leases which are really becoming a source of great annoyance.
The best way, in my opinion, to administer these bait depots is to put them under the local authorities. Our time in Newfoundland is about an hour and a half ahead of that of Ottawa. At 3.00 p.m. on Friday in Newfoundland it is 4.30 p.m. in Ottawa and should a problem arise by the time we get in touch with the department in Ottawa by telephone most of the officials have gone for the weekend. Then, we cannot do anything about it until Monday. If it is a long weekend, we might not be able to get in touch with them until Tuesday. During that time a lot of things could happen.
I want to give you one illustration. Last year, like this year, there was no bait late in the fall. In one particular place there did appear a school of what we call whitefish which fishermen do use as bait in an emergency. However, it happened that these white-fish were in a little arm of the bay and there was a regulation somewhere on the federal statute books which prevented the fishermen from taking those whitefish on that date because they were in that particular spot. What we wanted to do was to get permission from Ottawa to get these whitefish which were so urgently needed for bait and which are not taken for any other purpose. Ottawa was closed down for the weekend, as it was a Friday afternoon, so we could not get permission. On Tuesday the whitefish had gone and the fishermen were still without bait.

This is only one illustration. There are hundreds that could be given to emphasize the need for leaving more discretion in the hands of the people who are on the spot.
I hope that if these new bait freezers prove successful the fishermen themselves will be encouraged to own them, either on a co-operative basis or on a community basis -even by private industry. The more the fisherman can control the administration of the bait service the better for the fishermen and the better for the department because they will have less headaches with which to contend.
Before I sit down I want to mention briefly two other topics. The first topic is the continued exploration for the main school of herring. We know that the department has been carrying on this investigation for a number of years and that it is a long term operation which may last as long as 10 years. However, it is vital to the economy of Newfoundland that we discover this source of wealth as quickly as we possibly can. I urge the minister to spare no effort in intensifying this investigation as much as possible.
Then, I want to deal with the appearance of international fishing ships on our inshore fishing grounds. I believe this point was mentioned by my colleague the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador or by one of my other colleagues who spoke this evening. The bulk of our fishermen in Newfoundland are what we call inshore fishermen, which means they fish from tiny settlements in tiny boats. They go to small fishing grounds which are from 10 miles to 20 miles offshore. These fishing grounds, of course, being 20 miles off our shores are in international waters, they are outside of our territorial limits. They are small grounds, perhaps 20 miles long by 10 miles wide. The fishermen are absolutely dependent upon these grounds for their livelihood. If they cannot fish there with their equipment, they cannot fish anywhere else. If a foreign drag-ger comes and scrapes over the bottom three or four times, the fish are driven away or caught and it takes a long time before they return, perhaps three or four weeks or months. As a result of this, our fishermen are deprived of their livelihood. They suffer tremendous hardships.
The objection is not to these fishermen in these international waters. We recognize they have a right there as well as we have. However, we want them to recognize that these grounds are vital to our fishermen. What we object to is the particular kind of fishing operation they conduct, I mean drag-ger fishing. If these foreign fishermen would fish with a hook and line they would not

destroy the ground. They might catch some of the fish, but they would not drive the fish away. There is no reason why our fishermen could not' fish there as well as the Spaniard or Portuguese, if they would use a hook and line. This is a matter for international negotiation.
I hope the minister will use every available opportunity to explore what can be done to get some kind of a gentleman's agreement or some kind of understanding whereby we recognize their right to fish there and they recognize how vital these grounds are to our fishermen, and work out a sort of "live and let live" proposition whereby the grounds can be used to the mutual advantage of both foreign ships and our own.


Mr. Macdonald (Kings):: Along with previous speakers, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks on the fisheries estimates in general, also as they pertain to our province, and in particular as they apply to the county of Kings which I have the honour to represent. First of all, 1 should like to pay a high tribute to the excellence of the work done by the minister and his department. I reflect his view expressed in speaking on the estimates in the last parliament that there is a great future for the fisheries industry. I might say that the amount of $17J million which is proposed to be expended in this department will no doubt be put to the very best possible use by the minister and his officials towards the further development of this very important industry.
Our island province is almost completely surrounded by good fishing grounds which can still stand a good deal of expansion. The heaviest catches landed in nearly all varieties are in Kings county, and it might be noted that almost 70 per cent of the landed value is in lobsters. To the fisherman of Prince Edward Island lobsters are what potatoes are to the farmer. They both provide a speculative high cash return.
In that regard I might mention a few considerations which have been brought to my attention by those engaged in that branch of the industry. First, inquiries have been made with regard to the possibility of establishing a lobster hatchery in our province. Second, our fishermen are very much interested in the experiments being carried out with aluminum traps and other more durable metal traps than the wooden ones more commonly used today. Third, fishermen in some of our areas are becoming more and more interested in programs of trap limitation and in several localities have expressed the wish that such a program be instituted. I realize that this must be an almost unanimous voluntary move on the part of the fishermen in the area, and
Supply-Fisheries
trust that the government would provide assistance where any group wished to proceed along these lines. I wish to bring these points to the attention of the department and I know we can expect their assistance in the satisfactory solution of the many problems related to them.
In addition to the some 2,500 fishermen using about 1,400 small-type boats, we have the dragger fleet which operates out of Souris at the eastern end of my riding and supplies the two large fish plants which operate there. The smaller-type draggers in use there have been quite successful, and it is now felt that a larger and more powerful type of dragger, which can go farther and operate in deeper waters, could also fish from this area and be a big asset in the extension and expansion of the fisheries of the northeastern section of Prince Edward Island. In this program the provincial government assists very materially, and it is hoped that there will be mutual co-operation with the federal government in doing everything possible to help in this field.
I could mention, too, the great usefulness of the public works program in our county which touches practically every fishing harbour this year. I should like to thank the Minister of Public Works and his most efficient deputy, Major General Young, for the co-operation and consideration shown to our fishermen in the planning and execution of the large public works program for our county.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, at this stage I would like to say a few words in French. Unfortunately I have lost my onetime facility for expressing myself in this beautiful language, for I have hardly spoken it since I left college twenty years ago. At that time, I was fluent in both official languages owing to my contacts with students from the province of Quebec and because of extra studies. I hope my effort will be received in the same spirit in which I make it.
I think there now prevails in our great country a feeling of national unity even stronger than that inspired by my great namesake, Sir John A. Macdonald, at the time when the principles of unity so necessary to the merging of two great peoples into one and the same nation, were originally laid down and firmly established. While there will always be, on both sides, extremists and all-out nationalists, the happy balance will always be struck by the many who are tolerant, realistic, fair and generous in their relationships with individuals regardless of

Supply-Fisheries
race, colour, religion or other factors. I am by no means alone in deriving pleasure from the fact that whereas the first group is dwindling, the second is expanding very noticeably.
The blending of two great cultures and two fine sets of old-world traditions can give rise, in the new world, to a society which should eventually achieve a higher standard than could be hoped for with one culture and one set of traditions.
There can be no doubt that we all love our country, and want to see it prosperous. This can only come about if we have a strong feeling of national unity which we, members of the House of Commons can, I am sure, do much to foster and develop. During the second world war, many of us fought beside French Canadian regiments; I am thinking in particular of the Regiment de la Chaudiere, which formed part of the division I served in, and in which I counted many friends. Splendid soldiers they were, and fine comrades in arms.
We believe that under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), national unity has made much headway. Mr. Diefenbaker has said he has a single policy for all of Canada, and Canadians in general, and Quebecers in particular, have shown their faith in him, and have associated themselves with his sincere hope for the tightening of the links between all parts of the country so as to make Canada a greater and mightier force in all respects. Let us again do all within our power, as members of parliament, to foster and develop a deeper and stronger spirit of national unity throughout our beloved country.
Fishing was one of the first industries in the province of Quebec, and was introduced by the maritime Acadians at the very dawn of our history. Let it then be said, in all fairness, that our French-speaking fellow citizens were the joint pioneers of the fishing industry. Nor do I hesitate to say that they still play a decisive role in that industry, and will continue to work with us in co-operation and harmony, with all the zeal and skill they have shown in the past, for the expansion of this important sector of our economy.
(Text):
I feel quite safe in saying that our island fisherman is an efficient producer, yet sometimes prices are not as good as they should be, especially during the peak landing season. This makes it difficult for some fishermen to recover their costs unless they have continuously high catches. In this regard more
[Mr. Macdonald (Kings).'*.
than one packing firm has requested that additional financial allowances be provided so that more working capital would be available, thus allowing them to hol'd the pack until market conditions improve. This is probably a matter for the Department of Finance, but I know the minister and his department will give consideration to the difficult marketing problems which sometimes arise in this industry and I would further suggest that a study be made in this regard.
The department now carries out more extensive work along that line than most people realize and in closing I would strongly urge that special attention be focused during the coming year on this all-important phase of the fishing industry-namely that of assisting the fishermen to obtain better market prices for their product.


Mr. McWilliam:: The international aspects of the fisheries industry have been covered by previous speakers, as has also the ground-fish phase of the industry. I will not, therefore, take up the time of the committee by repeating what has already been said on these two very important matters. My remarks will be centred around the inshore fisheries in the Miramichi waters. May I broaden the scope of the rules and the terms of reference at this moment by offering my congratulations to the Minister of Fisheries on being conferred with a doctorate degree by his alma mater, Mount Allison University, on Saturday last.
I wish to express my thanks to the minister for his statement covering the activities of his department and to express the thanks of the Miramichi fishermen to the minister and to his departmental officials, both here in Ottawa and in the field, who are engaged in the administration, research, protection and marketing of fish, for their efforts in trying to solve the many problems with which the industry is faced. Not all the problems have been completely solved, but many improvements have been brought about as a result of the research and experience gained by the department and by the industry itself. This has gone a very long way toward improving the lot of the prime producer and assisting the distributors and processors.
Our fisheries are of prime importance. The opinion has been expressed that this department of government has not been given recognition in accordance with its importance to our economy and that the allotment of the public funds for the fisheries industry is insufficient to carry out services to the desired degree.
The constituency which I represent, North-umberland-Miramichi, produces many species of fish, most of which are in the delicacy class,

including lobsters, oysters, salmon, smelts, clams and quahogs besides many other species. Fishing provides a livelihood for many residents of this constituency both in the commercial and sports fishing fields. I do not intend to present a history of the Miramichi fisheries but we have had problems and some of these problems still exist. These problems bring forth divergent views from the many different classes of fishermen and from the buyers, even within the scope of the production of one specie of fish. This divergence is most prominent among those engaged in the salmon fishing industry and particularly applies to the fishing season dates for drift net, set net and fly fishing. The matters of the protection of spawning areas for the spring fishing of black salmon, the hatchery spawning of the late run salmon against the spawning of the early run salmon are among the phases over which there is no general agreement as to the best course to follow.
The chief concern of the department and of the fishing industry in general is that of conservation to make sure that in future sufficient stocks are available as is essential and desirable in respect of this valuable food product and that our fisheries are preserved in order to provide a continuing livelihood for a large segment of our population.
I would like to say a word as to the effect of the budworm spray on the fish and animal life in my constituency, which has been the cause of much concern. An adverse effect is expected to be apparent in the fish population during 1960 and 1961. While the protection of our forests is important, it is the earnest hope of all concerned that an effective spray solution can be found which will not be injurious to fish. The department's estimate that spraying may be completed this year was most welcomed information.
In July the Minister of Fisheries announced the establishment of a federal-provincial Atlantic fisheries committee to consider fisheries problems common to the five Atlantic provinces. The personnel of that committee comprises the federal deputy minister of fisheries and the deputy ministers of the provincial departments of fisheries of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The committee will consider proposals and recommendations on fishery matters of common interest to all Atlantic provinces and will make recommendations to the respective governments for the implementation of programs and projects designed to assist in the development of methods and techniques and fishing equipment. It will study and report upon the economics of fisheries in order to ensure
Supply-Fisheries
that any proposed program of development is based upon sound principles. In that respect I trust that the fishermen's organizations will make extensive studies of their particular problems and will present their findings and recommendations to the respective provincial deputy ministers for study and action by the federal-provincial Atlantic fisheries council.
I turn now to matters which directly affect the Miramichi fisheries. Oyster fishermen of Miramichi suffered a severe loss when disease became prevalent among their oysters. Action was taken by the department in re-seeding these beds with disease-resistant oysters which were transplanted from beds in Prince Edward Island. By natural processes this disease should eventually be eliminated, likely within 20 to 25 years. By re-seeding with disease-resistant oysters it is estimated that oyster fishing can be resumed in five to eight years. In the meantime it is essential that every care and protection be afforded these transplanted oysters and that the best men available be engaged.
The Miramichi salmon fisheries consists of three types of fishing-drift-net fishing, set-net fishing and angling. There is considerable difference of opinion among these groups and some difference of opinion within each group as to the most favourable fishing dates.
Combined meetings in the past failed to bring about a mutually agreed set of fishing dates. This situation should be the subject matter of a special inquiry by a committee comprised of officials of the federal and provincial departments of fisheries, representatives of the three groups and representatives of the buyers.
The view has been expressed that the erection of a causeway between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island across Northumberland strait will have an adverse effect on alewives fishing and will affect the fishing of some other species caught in the Miramichi waters. If the causeway is erected, every precaution should be taken to permit the natural flow of fish. Smelt fishing is a very important phase of Miramichi fisheries. These smelts rank the highest in quality. Here again there are divergent views as to the best fishing dates due to weather conditions and market conditions. Due to the change in climatic conditions over the years to milder winters, fishing off the ice has become hazardous. The ice is late in forming and after it has formed, unseasonable run-offs occur causing extensive loss and damage to nets and gear.
Requests over the years for the inclusion of smelt nets under the fishermen's indemnity insurance plan have not brought

Supply-Fisheries
about the desired results. The department's study of the situation found that no practical way can be found to assess the losses and keep the insurance premium at a moderate rate. I make a further request for continued study by the department towards setting up insurance coverage against loss of smelt nets and gear similar to that in effect for fishing boats and lobster traps. As a measure to alleviate losses it is suggested that regular surveys of ice conditions be made by helicopter through arrangements with the R.C.A.F. station at Chatham, and that an adequate warning system of sudden break-ups and run-offs of ice be set up using the local radio station and other means to warn the fishermen.
Lobster fishing is another important phase of Miramichi fisheries. The catch varies from season to season, and the catch varies each season in the different lobster areas within the Miramichi estuary. The protection of this species has been a continuing problem to some degree. Many reports are heard about undersized and berried-mother- lobsters being landed. The department is urged to concentrate its program of conservation on lobster fishing.
There is a splendid film showing the life and habits of the lobster which should be made available for all lobster fishermen to see. I made a request three or four years ago when this film was documented to have it shown in the different lobster fishing areas of the Miramichi. To date to my knowledge this had not been done. The showing of this film would, in my opinion, do more towards the conservation of lobsters than many protective measures now in force. I request the minister to arrange for the showing of this film in the Miramichi area with both English and French commentaries available as required.
A practical change was made this year in lobster fishing district No. 8. The hour set for fishermen to leave shore to set their traps was advanced from 12 o'clock noon to 10 o'clock a.m. I have not seen a copy of the change in regulations. However, I trust the change will apply to district 7B next year.
In the field of fly fishing many reports are heard about wholesale slaughter of fish. Reports state that fishing parties go to the headwaters of the rivers and streams and illegally net fish on their way to the spawning grounds. It is alleged that fishing parties take canning outfits into the woods and can their illegal catches on the spot. If there is any truth in these reports-and it is claimed that fish and game protective associations have certain facts-then consideration should

be given, following investigation, to closing off the spawning areas and other areas where this kind of illegal fishing is engaged in.
In the matter of salmon protection on the southwest and northwest branches of the Miramichi river and for certain other tributaries, opinions have been widely expressed that adequate protection is not provided, particularly at vulnerable periods. Protective measures are governed by the amount of money available, an economy restriction which is recognized. However, it might well be that this economy is defeating in no small measure the salmon conservation program. The Miramichi commercial salmon fishermen's association, the local fish and game protective association, and the Miramichi salmon angling association have raised this matter many times over the years. It is suggested that the minister have a complete investigation made at which time all data be collected, following which the whole field of protection can be re-assessed to ascertain if more protective measures are required for the Miramichi river and its branches to assist the Atlantic salmon conservation plan.
In the matter of providing facilities for commercial fishing, there has been much dissatisfaction expressed about the basis that is used in deciding if the construction of facilities are to be authorized. The decision is made by the economic study branch of the Department of Public Works. The decision is made solely on the amount and landed value of the fish taken at the respective area. The department of fisheries supplies the data on the fish catch and in most cases makes no further representations. It is my contention that other factors should be seriously considered and have a bearing on the decision to construct facilities such as wharves, breakwaters, small landings, extensions to existing facilities and also dredging. The reason why the landed value and size of the catch is not higher is due in large measure to the lack of facilities. These other factors concern the human energy that must be expended by the fishermen, due to lack of facilities to land their catches ashore, protection needed for boats and gear against storms, distance from existing facilities and distance from the fishermen's homes to the existing facilities.
Some of the smaller fishing areas of the Miramichi area are without facilities of any kind and catches must be man-handled to the shore and taken to the nearest access road or some considerable distances over water. The Department of Fisheries should make the decision as to the need of facilities for the fishermen, keeping in mind the hardships

faced and the benefits that would be gained in preserving the quality of the fish and increasing the volume and landed value.
The selection of personnel as fisheries officers on a permanent basis comes under the civil service commission with veterans preference recognition. This same recognition should be standard procedure for non-civil service appointments, other qualifications being equal. For seasonal employment such as patrol service and guardians, experience should be the prime qualification. To build up an adequate protective and conservation service and as a reward for good services rendered in the past, personnel who satisfactorily performed past services should be re-engaged. With regard to salaries paid seasonal and part-time fisheries employees, an increase is warranted. They should be paid on a par with comparable work at the existing prevailing wage rate.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I again suggest that the Department of Fisheries should be raised to a higher level of importance among the departments of government and that a larger share of the public funds be allotted to carry out in a fuller measure the duties of this most important branch so necessary to our economy and vital to the livelihood of those Canadians who toil the hardest for the smallest remuneration.


Mr. Batten:: Mr. Chairman, on an earlier occasion in this house I took the opportunity of expressing my views on the fishing industry in Newfoundland and the problems facing the industry in that province. It is not my intention to repeat those statements at this time. I do not wish to unduly delay the passage of the minister's estimates but I do wish to make a few brief remarks.
First of all, I should like to commend the minister for the excellent work that was carried out by him during the discussion of his estimates in the standing committee. I appreciate the fact that he was present at all meetings of the committee and gave of his knowledge in answering the questions that were put to him. I take that as a measure of his interest in the department which he heads, an interest which I believe augurs well for the future of the fishing industry in Canada. And while I wish to offer the minister my congratulations for his work and also to extend congratulations to the officials of his department and the chairman of the standing committee I wish also to extend my very personal congratulations to the minister for the honour which was conferred on him last Saturday by his own university, Mount Allison.
I believe that if the fishing industry of Newfoundland is to take a prominent place
57071-3-248
Supply-Fisheries
among the primary industries in Canada some price supports will be needed for the produce of the industry. I believe, too, that if we are going to maintain our markets for particular types of produce, such as light salt fish, or to provide a type of fish that is required by a certain market it may be necessary not only to provide further price supports but to provide a bonus for products that will be acceptable in the various markets of the world. I would suggest to the minister that very serious consideration be given to this problem.
Within the last few days we have heard that the exporting association responsible for exporting Newfoundland fish, an association commonly known as NAFEL, is reaching the end of its life and has only another year to operate. I would hope by the time the present year has expired and NAFEL is no longer an exporting association for Newfoundland fish there will be provided by the federal government some form of association, commission or board that will bring some order to the marketing of fisheries products in the province of Newfoundland. When I refer to the marketing of fisheries products I do not mean only the actual marketing process within the province itself but also the marketing processes that take place in the markets of the world. While I am not here making any plea for NAFEL I do indeed make a plea for some organization that will take its place when NAFEL no longer exists.
It is indeed somewhat difficult to discuss the fisheries industry in Newfoundland without discussing as well the facilities which aid the fishermen to carry on their work.
I know the estimates of the Minister of Public Works have already been passed but I should like to make a brief reference to them and say that on the section of the coast which I represent we have some harbours that are large and some that are small and on straight shore. We still need a great many structures for the protection of fishing equipment such as small private wharves and fishing boats. I hope that in large areas where a considerable quantity of fish is produced such as in St. George's bay the time will not be too far distant when we can have those facilities that will enable the fishermen to carry on their work in the way in which they would like to carry it on.
Reference has been made a number of times today to a problem that exists in my province and it is so serious in the riding I have the honour to represent that I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without making a few brief comments concerning it.

Supply-Fisheries
I refer, of course, to the need for an expanded bait service. I appreciate that the minister and his officials have been making a very serious study of this problem in Newfoundland. I know, too, they have come up with a solution which they are hoping to conduct on an experimental basis. This bait service is of extreme importance to the fishermen who live along the coast. In the first place it enables them to get to work earlier in the year and it enables them to fish longer during the season with the result that their productivity is increased. It also enables them to increase their annual earnings so they can raise the level of their income to a status more comparable with wages earned in other industries. In addition to this it provides employment in Newfoundland at a time when in various other fields employment is not as plentiful as it was a year ago.
I hope the experiment which the minister intends to conduct in the province of Newfoundland shortly will be productive of worth-while results. I have already suggested to him several places where the bait service should be expanded and I shall now give him another list and suggest to him that bait depots should be provided for the following places: Codroy, St. George's bay, Port-au-Port bay, bay of Islands, Bonne Bay, Cow Head, Daniel's Harbour, the St. Barbe area and the Flower's Cove area. Along that coast it is a distance of 300 miles in a straight line but more nearly 1,000 miles by following the coastline and on that whole coastline there is but one bait depot in a distance of approximately 1,000 miles. It is not possible for these men to carry on their industry, an industry from which they could make a good living, without being able to obtain the bait so necessary to them. I hope that the minister will continue to give very serious consideration to this problem, as I know he has already.
During the proceedings of the standing committee the minister was not able to provide us with the number of freezing units that would be built nor was he in a position then to give us the locations of these units. When the particular item is before the committee later in the discussion I hope the minister will be able to give us that information. I have a number of questions but I shall present them to the minister when the various items are before the committee.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister is going to answer, I have a few observations I should like to make.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the committee so desires, we are quite prepared on our part to go on for some time after ten o'clock to facilitate the passing of the first item of the minister's estimates.


Charles Edward Rea: With the indulgence of the committee I will keep my eyes on my work and not on the clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Supply-Fisheries
going to get enough fish to qualify for unemployment insurance. What we are going to have a situation comparable in every way to the situation which is met by the government in western Canada through the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It does seem to me some consideration should be given to putting fishermen on a basis of equality with the farmers of western Canada in that respect, because they certainly are not on that basis now.
I want to say just a word about the bait situation. I must say I was very pleased indeed by the announcement made by the minister concerning these improvements that he is hoping to effect in the bait distribution situation in Newfoundland. I do hope that when he is putting in all these bait depots in the riding of Humber-St. George's, he will not forget one or two for Bonavista-Twillin-gate. I should like to put forward a special word for Herring Neck.
The situation in Newfoundland this year is that if we had a lot of bait depots there would not be bait to put in many of them. I know the minister is doing his best in the circumstances to try to meet that situation, but the situation is really a desperate one. We have had a poor fishery up to now. If there is not bait available for the fall fishery, even if the fish are plentiful, then the fall fishery is going to be poorer because of the shortage of bait. I do urge the minister, in every possible way he can devise, to do what he can to meet this emergency situation. I appeal to him also to try to take steps to foresee it and to meet it ahead of time. I know there have been difficulties this year. I certainly do not want to suggest the government has any responsibility for them because they have not, but I do urge the greatest possible zeal, which I am sure there will be, in trying to meet this very serious problem.
There are just two other topics that I want to mention. One topic about which I want to say a word or two is the marketing situation. I know the minister could rise on a point of order and say that he is not responsible for marketing fish but that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is. I do not believe the minister will rise on any such point of order, and for this reason: We look to the Minister of Fisheries to look after the interests of the fishermen and the fishing industry. We look to him to urge his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and his other colleagues to consider that this industry more than any other, more than the pulp and paper industry, more than the wheat industry, is an industry that depends upon exports for its life. There is no other industry that exports as large a proportion of its product as the cod fishery
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
of Canada. I do believe things could be done to increase the market in Canada. I have made suggestions to the minister in that respect which I am not going to repeat now.
We have been very upset indeed, not only in Newfoundland but all along the Atlantic coast, at the loss of the Jamaican market. It is a very serious blow indeed to have a substantial portion of our total lost to someone else who has never supplied it before, especially when we know that the Icelanders are selling fish that is subsidized to an inordinate degree. Yesterday or the day before we heard over the radio that the Russian government is lending the Icelandic authorities $3.5 million with which to build more fishing boats to compete to an even greater extent with our unsubsidized fishery. This is a problem that just cannot be allowed to drift. At the same time we know, as the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador pointed out earlier, that we provide a market for Jamaican goods which is two or three times as large as the market for Canadian goods in Jamaica. It is difficult to understand why it is not possible for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to do more than has been done to get this market back. We do hope the Minister of Fisheries will never let him rest, that he will be at him every day and at his officers.
I am going to say again that I am not going to trespass on your patience very much longer. I view with the gravest alarm this increase in the wool tariff, not so much the tariff against Britain in this respect as the threat of an increased tariff against Italy which is the best market we have in Europe for our fish. It is a very, very dangerous thing, even to be threatening to do. I do hope that all those members from fishing ridings who sit on the other side will make their views known to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister, and urge them on no account to proceed with this folly, because folly it would certainly be, and worse, for the fishing industry.
I do want to say, in that particular context, that I was rather astonished at the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to a question the other day concerning what was to replace NAFEL. The question was asked by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception and the reply is found in Hansard for August 16, page 3650. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that this was not just a federal problem but was a provincial problem as well. I do not know where the Minister of Trade and Commerce got his constitutional advice, but I would suggest he read the British North America

Act again. He will find that this is exclusively a federal responsibility, and it is an inescapable federal responsibility. It is not good enough to revoke the licence of NAFEL and put nothing in its place. If we go back to the cut-throat competition that existed before NAFEL, the whole fishing industry is going to be in chaos in a very short time. Something has got to be done, a lead has to be given by the government in this matter. I do not believe any steps will be taken unless the Minister of Fisheries takes the lead in the government. It is for this reason that I, like other members from Newfoundland, appeal to him so strongly to do something.
There is just one other point on which I should like to say a word. This is the one fly in the ointment so far as the minister is concerned. He would not expect, especially being the Minister of Fisheries, that there would not be a fly somewhere. There is one small fly in the ointment. I have here in my hand a copy of an editorial which appeared in the St. John's Evening Telegram. of May 16, 1958, which is very appropriately entitled "Wrong Party". I am not going to read the whole of it, but I should like to read an extract as follows:
A number of river wardens (or rather, a number of people who WERE river wardens) have been kicking like mules this spring because the federal government appointed a number of new wardens who are not natural-born Liberals. The ex-wardens who have been putting up the beef say that some of the wardens appointed this spring may actually be Conservative sympathizers, and they have been writing nasty letters about it to St. John's and Ottawa-
Some of the ex-wardens have even written Mr. Pickersgill demanding their old jobs back. They obviously think the Liberals are still in power, and aren't aware of the fact that it is Mr. Jed Winter, the DEFEATED (Tory) candidate, who now appoints river wardens in the district of Bonavista-Twillin-gate, not Mr. Pickersgill, whom these people elected to sit in opposition. Talk about the Age of Innocence.
When the minister gets up to speak, I know that he is going to tell us that Mr. Winter has no more to do with the appointment of these river wardens or guardians than I have. I trust he will give them and me that assurance in a completely unqualified fashion. I am one of those innocents who would expect that to be the case. I have listened to the professions made by the house leader over and over again as he beat his breast, and I cannot believe there is any truth in this editorial. I must say I had a slight suspicion there might be when the official agent, not of Mr. Jed Winter but of the Tory candidate who ran against me in 1957, became a river warden. But I suppose that was a pure coincidence, and I understand that he has since resigned.
Supply-Fisheries
Speaking seriously, I believe there are two considerations that ought to be kept in mind about these river guardians, if they have done their jobs well. Most of them were people who, in the nature of things, were not very well qualified for other types of occupation or they would have had other jobs in the days of the full employment we had in Newfoundland when the Liberals were in office. I suggest that the minister should make a special effort to appoint as wardens or guardians, as I think is the correct term, men who are veterans and who are perhaps slightly disabled and therefore not able to do more strenuous work so well. But above all, I think he should give the preference to people who really cannot leave home to work and who badly need the work. If he does find a few Tories here and there in Bonavista-Twillingate, as long as that is not the prime qualification, it will be all right with me. I certainly never inquired of anyone who ever came to me asking for assistance and looking for work who he had voted for.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I imagine the minister has never done so either. I really feel that is all I have to say on this subject at this time, Mr. Chairman; and I want to give the minister some time in which to reply.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, if the committee is agreeable I should like to make brief replies to some of the questions that have been asked by various members of the committee as they went along. If I miss some of them, we will perhaps catch them on the later items. But before doing that, I want to thank the numerous hon. members who have congratulated me on having received an honorary doctor of laws degree last Saturday. However, I should like to make this observation. Whatever help an earned degree may be to a minister when trying to get his estimates through the committee, I want to point out that an honorary degree is absolutely useless in that regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will give me credit for the fact that in my remarks I left out any mention of it.


John Angus MacLean: One question that has been uppermost in the minds of many of the members of the committee who spoke this afternoon and this evening is that of guaranteeing or seeing to it, if possible, that the primary producer in the fishing industry gets a reasonable return for his labours. Attempts are being made in that direction. One of them has already been referred to, the royal commission on price spreads. The item having to do with that was dealt with in the items under privy council this afternoon.

Supply-Fisheries
There is the question of price support. I should like to point out that there is in existence a Fisheries Prices Support Act that is functioning or is there to function whenever it is considered necessary that price support be provided. This act allows price support, using the term in a general sense, to be provided by various means such as mass purchases when there is overproduction, deficiency payments and other ways. I called together the fisheries price support board for a meeting not very long ago. They met here in Ottawa and adjourned to meet again on September 6, I believe in Halifax, and again two days later in St. John's, Newfoundland, for the purpose of considering the situation of the market for salt cod, because that is the only segment of the industry at the moment that has made a formal request for the consideration of price support.
As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate has pointed out, there are in this matter complications or difficulties that make a floor price for fish even more difficult a matter than it is for some other products because, as has been pointed out by many members of the committee, a very large percentage of our fish is exported and our market depends on export for the great majority of our production. There is the danger that with anything that might be a subsidy or a price support, there is always a certain amount of risk of retaliatory tariff action by other countries or similar action.
The hon. member for Gloucester mentioned the inspection service. I want to say briefly that we are working hard at extending that service and making it more efficient. In the not too distant future we hope to have inspection compulsory for fresh fish and frozen fillets right throughout the country as is now the case with so many other products.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and I think the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo mentioned the necessity for something approaching a mother ship for fishing fleets, some ship provided at the taxpayers' expense which would be there to render assistance of any sort necessary to the fishing fleet in a given area. This is a suggestion that I welcome and this matter is being given study. An over-all fourth service such as that in the United States-a full-blown coastguard as such-would entail tremendous expense. However, I think there is progress that can be made in further co-ordination of the efforts of the services that are already available, such as the navy, the air force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and perhaps augmented, if we can afford it, by some special vessels of some sort which might be operated by the Department of Fisheries itself.

Then there is a matter that I think was mentioned by all the members from Newfoundland who spoke. It is one of great concern, namely the shortage of bait or bait service generally in Newfoundland. Over the last number of years the department has tended, in my opinion, to err somewhat in the direction of being too careful in their expenditures with regard to this service in one connection, namely carrying large quantities of herring bait as a reserve. In a good year, when the squid come in, the herring is not considered the best possible type of bait and the fishermen will not buy it. The department is then left with a large quantity of bait on its hands for which it can get little or nothing. It may recover something by reducing this bait to fish meal. But if it is in an isolated place, it is not even worth transporting it to a reduction plant and it is a complete waste. I think the department has perhaps been a little too zealous in this direction through fear of criticisms which might be made of the department on account of potential waste in this direction.
I take the attitude that there should always be a reasonable reserve in case the squid, which is the most desirable bait, does not migrate to the shores of Newfoundland in any particular season and I would be prepared if the squid did arrive to defend the loss, whatever it might be, that the taxpayers might suffer as a result of having to dump supplies of herring which were no longer useful for bait. I might say we have at present being delivered 125,000 pounds of herring and 50,000 pounds of mackerel for use as bait in Newfoundland, which we have procured in the maritimes, and that there will be further supplies. We hope that the situation will be further relieved if the squid show up.
Something has been said about exploratory fishing and the necessity for this type of project. I welcome the suggestions in this connection but I would like to say that the department is now making efforts in this connection and has been doing so for a number of years. For example, at the present time there is exploratory fishing for herring, scallops and shrimps in Newfoundland. In Prince Edward Island exploratory fishing is being done for quahaugs, a type of clam, and in Nova Scotia a demonstration of the Danish seining out of Cheticamp will commence very shortly, while at the present time in New Brunswick demonstration and experimental work of the mid-water trawl is now in progress and will continue as long as it is considered desirable for it to do so. In Quebec there is exploratory fishing for herring at the present time in co-operation with the government of Quebec and the

mid-water trawl experiments in New Brunswick are also being carried out with the co-operation of the provincial government there. I might say in that connection that many of the most profitable scallop beds which are now being fished commercially on a large scale have been discovered by exploratory fishing and that the exploratory fishing for herring is a long-term program over a number of years. It is a process of elimination until we find the mother lode, as it were, of the great resources of herring available on the east coast generally.
The hon. member for Skeena made some remarks concerning the question of fish versus power. This expression does not particularly appeal to me because my hope is that it will never become a case of fish or power but that rather it will be a case of fish and power so far as that is feasible. His comments in this direction follow very closely the attitude of myself and of the department generally, which is one of developing power where such supplies exist and where they do not interfere with fish, and for as much research work to be done as possible to try to find the means of developing power and having fish even on fish streams and also conducting experimental work to provide artificial spawning beds besides any other program which has some hope of success.
The hon. member for Skeena also inquired about the north Pacific fisheries treaty and as to what is the position regarding this treaty which is in effect a treaty between the United States, Japan and ourselves. Furthermore, he inquired as to whether or not Canadian fish are being fished by the Japanese on the high seas. All I can say in that regard is that we have not one shred of evidence so far to indicate that fish originating in Canada are being caught on the high seas by the Japanese west of the parallel 175 degrees west, which is a provisional dividing line between the waters fished by the Japanese on the one side of the Pacific and the United States and ourselves on the other. Means of determining the migration of Pacific salmon are not limited to the tagging of salmon, although this is one of the important aspects. There are other aspects also; there is scientific research into parasites with which these salmon are infested, depending on where they come from, and it is possible scientifically to determine the origin of the fish from the type of parasite to which he happens to be host. There are minute differences in the structure of the fish originating on the opposite sides of the Pacific and there are oceanographic studies which indicate to a fairly accurate degree
Supply-Fisheries
the distribution of salmon. As further research is done in this connection this may prove to be the main means of determining the distribution of this fish.
I want to refer very briefly to the fact that there is a co-ordinating committee, as has been mentioned, set up on the official level between the five Atlantic provinces and the federal government, especially having to do with the problems that affect fishing in that part of Canada. We also have a committee to deal with the question of subsidies to longliner and dragger types of vessels, and this method is being studied very carefully. It is a fairly complicated problem because the cost of the vessel does not go up in direct proportion to its tonnage. Costs generally have gone up and there have been requests on the one hand for a subsidy on sizes smaller than is presently the case and at the other end of the scale it has been recommended that a subsidy be paid on the larger sizes because they are more efficient and economical. However, this matter is under very careful study and there will be adjustments which we hope will make improvements in that connection.
The hon. member for Gloucester mentioned the question of the opening of the lobster season, and I am happy to advise him that it has already been moved ahead two hours from 12 o'clock noon to 10 o'clock, which we hope will solve the problem.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In all districts?


John Angus MacLean: That in effect will be the case, yes, and this is especially important for these fishermen in the maritimes, the majority of whom are very careful Sabbath keepers and are faced with the situation that the season opens on a Monday and they have to put out their traps on the Saturday, whereas some of their neighbours can continue to do so all day Sunday to the detriment of those who keep the Sabbath. That is only by way of interjection, however, and the problem is in effect that unless the fishermen are allowed to put out their traps as early as possible in the day they may not finish their operations before dark, especially at this time of the year and later on when the days are shorter.
Some very good suggestions were made regarding consumer services and our advertising programs and other means of stimulating greater consumption of fish by the Canadian people. I might say that we are doing what we consider to be a very good job in this connection through advertising, movies, demonstrations, publications, through our dieticians, etc. I may say that our advertising budget is very limited, but we try to squeeze the last cent of benefit out of it in order to

Supply-Fisheries
try to familiarize Canadians to a greater extent with the benefits of having more fish in their diets. This has been true of the department over the years, so much so that virtually not one cent of money is spent in blowing our own horn, or trying to bring the work that is being done by the ministry to the attention of the public generally. Maybe this is so to a fault.
There is a story in this connection which I think may have some bearing on this. It is said that at one time there was a poor widow in the maritimes who had two sons. One went to sea and the other became minister of fisheries, and neither one of them was ever heard of again.
Several members brought up the question of the importance of international trade as it relates to the fishing industry, and I want to say that this is something which I realize to be of primary importance, because it is of no use to produce fish efficiently if we cannot sell them. I will bring the suggestions which various members have made to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I will certainly keep a very careful watching brief.
Certain observations were made with regard to the selection of personnel. I just want to say that the majority of the employees of the department are civil servants selected under the Civil Service Commission Act. Those who are not are selected and remain in employment at the pleasure of the minister, and in that connection I take full responsibility for them. However, I do want to say to some hon. members who may have some misgivings in this regard that though there is no requirement to do so I try to weigh very carefully the humanitarian aspect, such as veterans preference, and many other things.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
144.	Canadian share of expenses of the international commissions, as detailed in the estimates, $860,620.
Charles Benjamin Howard: I was not here for the full time of the minister's comments and while he did make some reference to the remarks I had to make, for which I express my appreciation, he may not have covered these other two points. I hope he may be able to give us some enlightenment on them. The first was whether he is able to indicate what results, if any, have arisen out of the deliberations of the committee of the Pacific salmon fisheries commission which is meeting in Hawaii, or which began its meetings a couple of weeks ago, and whether he has any knowledge of what the committee discussed and decided. The other point was

whether he is in a position to make any announcement with respect to the information garnered by our Canadian research vessels which are apparently going to cover areas in the Pacific which have not been covered before.


John Angus MacLean: Regarding the first question, I want to say that the meeting in Hawaii is a meeting of an ad hoc subcommittee set up to study research information which is now available, prior to the regular meeting which will be held in Tokyo and which may go on into November.
With regard to the other question I may say that so far as the north Pacific salmon fisheries commission is concerned the three nations do not operate separately; their efforts are pooled and programs are allocated by the commission itself with regard to the areas in which they operate. The primary information which is gained is made available immediately to the parties concerned, but in a case where the scientists of one country happen to be doing research with regard to a particular topic which has been allocated to them they do not wish to make their conclusions known from the information which has been gained until they are as sure as they can be that their conclusions are valid.


Charles Benjamin Howard: There is another point bearing on that. Could the minister indicate from past experience of the operation of these research vessels how long it may take before this information is available? Would it be this year, or this season?


John Angus MacLean: Most of it should be available for the October meeting. Of course, some of this research work being done at the present time, like the tagging of fish, will not produce results immediately since these fish may not be caught for a long time. But most of this information should be available very shortly.
146. To provide for the extension of educational work in co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, $90,000.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On this item I only want to take two minutes of the time of this committee. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to take very strong exception to certain comments and statements which were made during the committee stage by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. In commenting on the statement of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg asked why we should continue spending $90,000 to

set up a service which apparently is more expensive than that provided by the private operators in this field.
I take very strong exception to these remarks made in connection with the grant to St. Francis Xavier University. I wish to express my appreciation to the adult education extension department of this university whose good work has been recognized all over the world. The work of its director, Msgr Cody has received world-wide appreciation in the field of adult education and the activities of this department have proved a blessing to hundreds of fishermen and to their families. I therefore strongly support this item and I hope the minister will give serious consideration to having this amount increased so that the work might be extended in other universities who are engaged in this field.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada-
152. Operation and maintenance, including an amount of $50,000 for contributions towards fisheries research and for scholarships, $3,631,785.
Douglas Mason Fisher: This particular vote contains an item in connection with the attempt to discover means of combatting lampreys in the great lakes and to stamp them out, and since the minister is going to undertake to go after one of his colleagues I should like to give him another minister to go after in the interests of large numbers of fishermen on the north shore of lake Superior who are directly affected by this menace and at the present time, because of regulations under the unemployment insurance commission, are not able to take advantage of unemployment insurance benefits because they do not have face to face dealings but arms length dealings with their outlets in the United States and Montreal.
I would ask the minister in connection with this difficulty if he could not make some representations to the Minister of Labour, and if one of his officials or inspectors could not visit this area and get into the human side as it concerns the fishermen at Port Coldwell and Rossport, particularly, and also, to a certain extent at the lakehead. I have heard some comments tonight, especially from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, about the need for the Atlantic fishermen to get some of the things which have been given to the western farmers.
The Atlantic fishermen are getting a great deal more in terms of government support than are our great lakes fishermen. In addition to that, as far as I know, the cod is still running which is more than one can say for the lake trout in lake Superior. 1 wanted to ask the minister if he could not find out more 57071-3-249
Supply-Fisheries
about the problems of great lakes fishermen from the human side. I should also like to know what progress has been made in cleaning up the lamprey eel menace and beyond that what the program will be for restocking the fish in lake Superior?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first question raised by the hon. member I shall certainly have the matter looked into and I shall also bring it to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Labour.
Regarding the progress in trying to find ways of eliminating the lamprey menace in the great lakes, as the committee knows this program is carried on by the international great lakes fisheries commission. The research board is Canada's agent for doing the research aspect of the work in this connection. Canada's contribution to that work this year in terms of dollars is $470,000 which is 31 per cent of the entire cost. The United States contributes the other 69 per cent.
All major lamprey streams on lake Superior on both the Canadian and United States sides have electric lamprey barriers in operation at the present time. There are larger numbers of lampreys being killed this year by this means than ever before. United States scientists have been able to discover a chemical which is a lamprecide or, in other words, a chemical that will kill lampreys. It will kill them in the larvae stage as well as at maturity. This has great promise but it will be an expensive proposition and is still in the experimental stage. However, it has the advantage of being able to kill lamprey back to the larvae stage whereas supposing you succeeded in killing all the mature lamprey, you would still have to go for five years until the larvae matured before you would have them all.
The restocking is not a major problem in lake superior because there are sufficient stocks remaining in the lakes and naturally they will rapidly multiply and re-establish the lake trout stock there providing the lampreys can be destroyed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring to the minister's notice the feeling of fishermen in the area concerning the reduction in quantities of trout. I do not know if there is any real empirical basis to the idea they have but many people feel one of the factors that has not been considered yet in research into the disappearance of the lake trout and its great reduction in numbers is the tremendous growth of the smelt run in lake Superior and the competition this provides for the lake trout. I do not know whether there is any real basis for it or not and I should appreciate hearing whether any

Supply-Fisheries
study has been made of this question and if the problem could be attacked from that angle because it is one of the factors which tends to contribute to the pessimism of the people engaged in fisheries in that area.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
564. To provide lor the destruction of dogfish and other predators, $250,000.
Charles Benjamin Howard: I wonder if the minister could give us an indication, Mr. Chairman, of what efforts have been expended to attempt to eliminate dogfish or to decrease their numbers?


John Angus MacLean: This is a considerable problem, Mr. Chairman. In past years there was a method devised which did not work out satisfactorily. Under this method a subsidy was paid on dogfish or dogfish livers. We are contemplating trying direct destruction of the dogfish, fishing for them directly and killing them, to see if this will give a reasonable return for the cost involved. In the meantime we are contemplating other possibilities as well. One of my senior officials is going out to British Columbia in the immediate future to make sure we are not missing a good bet in adopting some effective method which might be used. He will be talking to those engaged in the industry and fishermen to obtain their suggestions.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I believe it has been the suggestion of fishermen themselves that an attempt be made to deal with the dogfish as predators and to eliminate them by direct destruction. That was the only solution they could envisage as being practical. Is it the intention to have higher votes for conducting this program?


John Angus MacLean: That is our present intention. It will be done in an experimental way. It may prove too costly for the results that are obtained but that will be our initial approach to the problem.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: That completes the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, before you leave the chair, I wish to express my appreciation to the committee for their working an extra hour to accommodate us. Thank you.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the house leader what the business is going to be for the rest of the week? Perhaps he could cast his mind forward to Monday and Tuesday. But before asking him to do so, perhaps I might be permitted to underline the fact that we have given great co-operation to the government tonight in getting through these estimates and I wish to express the hope that everyone will eat fish tomorrow.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful even though the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate managed to get in a half-hour speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, 20 minutes.


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall commence with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare and then take the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of National Revenue. On Saturday we shall take the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is returning to the city in order to take his estimates on that day.
On Monday and Tuesday we shall take legislation commencing with item No. 4 on today's order paper, the second reading of the broadcasting act; then item No. 3, second reading of the Customs Act; then item No. 10, a resolution concerning the South Saskatchewan river project; then the amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act which appears in today's Votes and Proceedings; then, item No. 5 on today's order paper, a bill to authorize the construction of a bridge across Lubec channel between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine; and then, item No. 6 having to do with supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, just for
clarification, I understand external affairs will be taken on Saturday at the beginning regardless of what progress is made?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the intention.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors-
154.	Office of the secretary to the Governor General, $202,521.
155.	To authorize and provide for the reimbursement to the lieutenant-governors of the provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties up to a maximum per annum for each as follows:	(a)
where the population of the province at the last decennial census did not exceed 500,000, $5,000; (b) where the population of the province at the last decennial census exceeded 500,000, $5,000 plus $1,000 per each 100,000 or fraction of 100,000 of population over 500,000, but not exceeding $12,000 in any case $86,000.
308.	To provide hereby, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of Parliament, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act IS provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $15,000.
Privy Council Office-
309.	General administration, $470,046.
Prime Minister's residence-
310.	Maintenance and operation, $25,000.
Special-
311.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on energy policies including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently' employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $250,000.
312.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on price spreads in food products including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission, $150,000.
313.	To provide for preparatory work, not within the fields of particular departments, on emergency defence measures, $150,000.
Federal District Commission-
314.	To provide a supplement to the sum of $300,000 granted by Chapter 112, R.S., for construction, improvements and operation of the parks, parkway system and other works under the control of the Federal District Commission and to authorize the payment of an honorarium at the rate of $10,000 per annum to the chairman of the Federal District Commission notwithstanding section 8 of the Federal District Commission Act, $600,000.
315.	To authorize the Federal District Commission, under terms and conditions approved by the treasury board, to expend for construction, improvements and operation of works under its control and interest charges on outstanding loans, revenues accrued or accruing to the commission from the rental of properties under its control and from other sources, $1.
57071-3-249J
Supply-Items Passed
316.	To provide for maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings at Ottawa and Hull and for expenses of the National Capital Planning Committee, $635,000.
317.	To authorize payment of the eleventh instalment to a special account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, known as the National Capital Fund, established under Vote 809, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1947-48, $2,500,000.
Federal District Commission-
509. To provide for loans to the Federal District Commission (hereinafter called "the commission"), for the purpose of acquiring property in the National Capital District that is not immediately required for the purposes of the commission: the loans to be made in such amounts and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council prescribes, except that when a property so acquired has been commenced to be used for a purpose of the commission, an amount equal to the cost of acquisition of the property shall be repaid from the National Capital Fund or other fund or account from which expenditures may be made for the purposes of the commission, $3,000,000.
Special-
589.	To provide for the expenses of the royal commission on price spreads in food products, including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as mav be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them to the commission-further amount required, $80,000.
Federal District Commission-
590.	To authorize further payment to the special account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, known as the National Capital Fund, established under Vote 809, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1947-48, $816,666.

[Stage Direction]
General services-
130.	Departmental administration, $371,750.
131.	Information and educational service, including grant of $3,000 to Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition, $187,000.
132.	Economics service, $316,900.
133.	Industrial development service, $611,365.
Field services-[DOT]
134.	Field services administration, $870,000. Protection branch-
135.	Operation and maintenance, $3,881,000.
136.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $251,140.
Inspection branch-
137.	Operation and maintenance, $1,371,700.
138.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $80,125.
Fish culture and development branch-
139.	Operation and maintenance, $1,178,300.
140.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $221,580.
141.	Consumer branch, $77,855.
142.	Fishermen's indemnity plan-administrative expenses, $219,000.
143.	To provide for the destruction of harbour and gray seals, $41,500.
Special-
144.	Canadian share of expenses of the international commissions,	as	detailed in	the	estimates.
[Stage Direction]
145.	To provide for operation and maintenance of Newfoundland bait service, $439,425.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
146.	To provide lor the extension of educational work in co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, $90,000.
147.	To provide for administrative expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, $66,030.
148.	To provide, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, for payment of assistance to producers of salted fish on products designated by the governor in council, in the amount of 5Q per cent of the laid down cost of salt used in their production, including authority to charge administrative costs to the vote in these estimates which provides for administrative expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, $600,000.
149.	To provide for assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger or longliner type, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $350,000.
150.	To provide for assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the regulations established by the governor in council, $30,000.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
151.	Headquarters administration, $181,920.
152.	Operation and maintenance, including an amount of $50,000 for contributions towards fisheries research and for scholarships, $3,631,785.
153. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,583,005.
General services-
555. Industrial development	service-further amount required, $35,000.
Field services-
Protection branch-
556.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $85,200.
557. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $586,140.
Inspection branch-
558.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $105,890.
559.	Construction or acquisition of buildings,
works, land and	equipment-further amount
required, $64,500.
560.	Consumer branch-further amount required, $2,400.
Special-
561.	To provide for operation and maintenance of Newfoundland bait service-further amount required, $274,720.
562.	To provide for a contribution towards the cost of a building for the Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, in accordance with an agreement entered into by the Minister of Fisheries, with the approval of the governor in council, the total cost to be borne in equal shares by the government of Canada and the Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition association (Revote), $19,481.
563.	To provide, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council prescribes, foi payment of assistance to producers of salted fish on products designated by the governor in council, in the amount of 50 per cent of the laid down cost of salt used in their production, including authority to charge administrative costs to the vote in the main estimates which provides for administrative expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act- further amount required, $250,000.
564.	To provide for the destruction of dogfish and other predators, $250,000.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
565.	Construction or acquisition of buildings,
works, land and equipment-further	amount
required, $452,000.
Fisheries-
656. To extend the operation of the revolving fund established pursuant to vote 542 of the Appropriation Act No. 3, 1953, to include the transportation, dressing and dyeing and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to the interim convention of conservation of north Pacific fur seals entered into by Canada, the United States of America, Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, dated at Washington, February 9, 1957, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, August 22, 1958

[Stage Direction]
Thirteenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.
Eleventh report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Fraser.