1958-01-11

[Stage Direction]
Saturday, January 11, 1958


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the house that contracts were awarded on January 8 by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation covering the construction of 160 housing units and related services at Camp Borden, Ontario, the details of which are as follows: A contract for 160 housing units awarded to Grisenthwaite Construction Company Limited of Hamilton for a price of $1,563,176, and to Swansea Construction Company Limited of Toronto a contract in the sum of $171,062.64 for sewer and water services and roads.
In accordance with the government's wish to undertake as much work as possible during the winter months, these contracts have been awarded on the understanding that the work will begin as soon as possible. To this end it is planned that work will start about January 20. It is contemplated that as the work proceeds the labour force required will reach a peak of from 250 to 300 men employed directly on the site. The number of men indirectly employed in the supply of material and equipment will, of course, greatly exceed the number directly employed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That, notwithstanding the provisions of any standing or special order of the house, the hours of sitting on Wednesday next, January 15, shall be from 11.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m., with the usual intermission at 1.00 p.m., and that when the house adjourns at 6.00 p.m. on Wednesday next, it shall stand adjourned until 11.00 a.m. on Friday, January 17.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is an event being held next week in the city of Ottawa which concerns all Canadians. Under our democratic system all of us are deeply interested, as Canadians as a whole will be, in the proceedings which will take place in this city leading to the selection of a chieftain for the Liberal party in succession to Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, if I may be allowed to mention his name in that way.
Parliament, however, has been called back. Most of us had felt that the session would have been over; and no doubt that probability was in the minds of those responsible for calling and setting the date of the convention. I make this motion in all sincerity to indicate the interest of Canadians as a whole in the momentous proceedings which are to take place.
The public interest, as I see it, would not be served by an adjournment of parliament throughout the entire period of the convention. I say this to my hon. friends opposite; that in no way has it been suggested to me by them that this house should adjourn at any time during the convention. What I am proposing, in the motion that has been referred to by Your Honour, is to be done in the interest of Canadians as a whole and of hon. members in all parts of this house. Certainly we on the government side of the house realize that above everything else in our system of government a strong opposition is necessary.
The nominations for the selection of the leader, according to the agenda as published in the press, will be made on Wednesday evening. Then throughout Thursday there will be a number of meetings culminating finally in the choice of the new leader of the Liberal party who, in consequence of that selection, will become leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
In order to show the attitude taken by the government with regard to the importance of this occasion and to enable hon. members to participate in that most important duty- the selection of a leader-I move this resolution, and say to my hon. friends opposite that if during the progress of the convention there are any matters on the agenda of parliament which they feel are of such a controversial nature that they ought not to be discussed in the absence of any of the members of the opposition, I shall do my part to comply with any requests I may receive. It is in that spirit that I move this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John George Diefenbaker: That Monday next, January 13. shall be a government day and the provisions of standing order 15 (3) shall be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: The motion in question is selfexplanatory. There are eight days allotted

Business of the House
for private members during the session. Six of these are Mondays and two are Thursdays, and I point out this circumstance, that according to the rules these private members' days take into consideration a normal session which under ordinary circumstances today runs to six months or more.
The first private members' day, Thursday, November 21, was by unanimous consent given over for government business in order to complete the address. The second Thursday was November 28, and this was taken up under public bills, on a bill in respect of industrial relations.
As far as Mondays were concerned, the first Monday was November 25, which was taken up by a private member's motion to instal a system of simultaneous translation in the House of Commons. The second, December 2, was taken up entirely by a motion to extend the hours of sitting, which was debated, and also by the motion of the hon. member for Essex East to adjourn the house on an urgent matter. The third was December 9, which was taken up by a motion respecting the Canadian centennial. The fourth, December 16, was taken up by a motion in respect of increased pensions for some superannuated civil servants. The fifth Monday was January 6 and was taken up by a motion with respect to human rights.
There is only one further day and I would suggest-and I am going to ask for support of this motion-that having regard to all the circumstances and the very important legislation still on the order paper, the house accept this motion. It is not made with any desire to limit private members' days or private members' rights, but I feel sure that hon. members generally will agree that having regard to the time already taken on private members' days within the comparatively short period of this session, the request is a reasonable one, and I present it in that respect.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, following the attitude of co-operation adopted by our leader during the early part of this session we on this side of the house will raise no objection to the adoption of this motion.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I merely point out that the result of this motion, if it carries, will be to cut out private members' day on this coming Monday with respect to a motion that would have been moved by a backbencher on the government side.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I see no objection to supporting the motion. It does seem to me that if we are

to finish up the business of this session in a reasonable time we have to do something of the sort.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence but in his absence, since the question is of major importance, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, as recorded at page 3123 of Hansard, the hon. member for Kingston asked the Minister of National Defence whether United States aircraft were permitted to carry nuclear weapons over Canadian air space. In reply the minister said that occasionally this did happen but that no blanket authority was given, and a specific authority had to be given for each flight.
Is the Prime Minister aware of a story carried in the Toronto Telegram last night originating from Washington, contradicting the situation described by the minister by saying that specific flight permission was not necessary, that the international defence agreement gave them blanket flight authority; and also that far from these flights being occasional they are so frequent that they are regarded as routine? If so, will the Prime Minister reconcile these two conflicting statements?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no reconciliation necessary. One is an observation in the press and the other was a statement by the responsible minister. I might say with respect to the statement made by the Minister of National Defence that, as in the past, so now, there are no crossings of American aircraft into Canada conveying atomic or nuclear weapons without permission having been secured in advance.


James Sinclair: I should like to ask a supplementary question about the nature of the flights. There are two types of flights, namely the actual transportation of inactive bombs to Alaska and to other foreign bases, and then flights of the strategic air command bombers which are always in the air to be able immediately to retaliate in case of attack. These aircraft, of course, carry live bombs. Are such flights of the second category, by strategic air command bombers carrying live nuclear weapons, permitted over Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know of no distinction between the two types of

flights in question. Indeed, I would like to point out the fact that apparently the course now being followed was the course followed by the previous government, namely that permission was at all times secured.
If any further elucidation is required in this connection I would suggest to the hon. member that he await the presence of the Minister of National Defence, so that if there is any question whatsoever that has not been answered the minister who is in charge will be able to answer it in detail. In making that suggestion I do, however, point out once more that the course being followed today in regard to the need for permission to be secured is unchanged from the course followed by the previous government-I believe properly.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. I am concerned about the reply I received yesterday and the answer the hon. member for Coast-Capilano received a few moments ago. I understand that there are approximately 1,000 planes of the strategic air command that are airborne. Is the minister informing the country that none of these planes are above Canadian territory; and if they are above Canadian territory, that in case of an emergency in order to deliver a knockout blow they would have to return to their bases to pick up nuclear weapons because they only have slingshots?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood from the answer given by the Prime Minister earlier that he requested hon. members not to pursue this matter until the responsible minister is available. I take it, therefore, that the answers on that subject are complete for today.



REQUEST FOR SETTING UP OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's last statement that the situation is unchanged from that which existed under the previous government. I know I cannot suggest that we set up a defence committee at this session. May I say to the Prime Minister that I think the policy advocated by his party when in opposition should be carried out and a defence committee should be set up. May I ask whether the government has this in mind, because the defence department is one which is so veiled in secrecy, and has been through the years, that neither 96698-2024
Inquiries of the Ministry this house nor the country knows precisely what the defence department is doing in any particular field.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think at the moment the question is a hypothetical one because, as the hon. member states, there is no question of the committee being set up at this session. When the next session is called certainly the representation made by the hon. member, since it is in keeping with views expressed in all parts of the house, will receive immediate attention.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, this question is quite a comedown from nuclear weapons being carried over our country today, but sometimes I think it is more important. I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he received recently a communication from the president of the Saskatchewan poultry association, pointing out to him the collapse of egg prices within that province? If so, what action does his department propose to take to see that the price of all grades of eggs is supported at a level which will ensure the egg producers a fair return for eggs?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a telegram from the Saskatchewan co-operative in connection with eggs, and I took immediate steps which I hope will ensure that the egg producers in the prairie provinces will receive the same amount as they received in the past, namely 30 cents a dozen to them under the 38-cent support price, starting at the beginning of next week.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of some opinions that have been expressed as the result of an answer given yesterday, might I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether or not it is correct to presume from the answer given that eggs will be purchased by the agricultural prices support board in Toronto on the basis of 38 cents, grade A large?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Eggs have been purchased on that basis whenever they have been offered. There has been no cessation of the purchase of grade A large eggs at 38 cents in any part of the country. The difficulty which has arisen in western Canada is that the produce people apparently felt that the spread of 8 cents

Inquiries of the Ministry between 38 cents-the price which they get for grade A large eggs when they deliver them to storage for the agricultural prices support board-and the 30 cents paid to producers should have been and it was necessary to be more than had been the common differential for several years past. That is the matter upon which I have been trying to get some arrangement made with the produce people.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, my question, Mr. Speaker, did not have reference to western Canada. It really had reference to the western part of Ontario, and the report has been that they could not sell their eggs in Toronto to anyone for more than 35 cents. I just wanted to be clear that the same practice is still being followed, and that the agricultural prices support board is prepared to buy these eggs if delivered to them at 38 cents.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is no question whatever about that, and there never has been.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the statement he made a moment or so ago relative to the support price on eggs. In the course of his statement the minister said he had made arrangements to ensure that the producers would get 30 cents a dozen for eggs. I wonder if the minister would elaborate on the nature of those arrangements.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member misunderstood me. I did not say I had made arrangements. I said I had taken steps which I hoped would result in an arrangement so that egg producers in western Canada, beginning early next week, would receive 30 cents for grade A eggs.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Would the minister advise the house what these steps were?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker, not at the moment.


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baillefords):: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister consider that a floor price of 30 cents for grade A large eggs, even if it goes to the producer, represents anywhere near a fair relationship to his costs?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the floor price for eggs is not 30 cents; it is 38 cents. There is, of course, the collecting of these eggs and the delivering of them to the storage point over which, as I have just said, there has been some difficulty during the last few days which I hope we will soon have ironed out.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the minister. Has the minister or the government received protests from egg processors in the province of Alberta with respect to the unfair conditions under which egg products from the United States are marketed in central and eastern Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any protests along that line.



ONTARIO FLUE-CURED TOBACCO-ASSISTANCE TO MARKETING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Oni.):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister given any assurance of financial assistance in any form to representatives of the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers' marketing board?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, when these gentlemen were here to see me some time before Christmas I told them that if they wished to make an application under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act they would be eligible for financial guarantees under that act, in the same way that other farmers' co-operatives are able to secure funds in order to finance their operations.


Edward Blake Huffman: I understood that the representatives were here only this past week. As the marketing board is not a co-operative association, is there any assurance of assistance of any kind by this government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the
marketing board in question is under the jurisdiction of the provincial government; is that not the case? If so, it seems to me that it would be improper to ask that question of the federal Minister of Agriculture.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may say that the tobacco people have set up a co-operative, and they are therefore eligible to come under the co-operative marketing act.



STORAGE OF FOOD AT STRATEGIC POINTS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: would like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which notice has been given. Has the government given consideration to the establishment of storage facilities in strategic population centres of Canada for the purpose of storing therein food, especially grain, as a national precautionary measure in the public interest; and has any decision been made in this respect?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question, and I appreciate his interest in taking precautionary measures in regard to the storage of food.
At the present time no special measures are being taken. There is an adequate supply of food in Canada, for which we can be deeply grateful, and our transportation facilities are such that in case of emergency, food could be moved very rapidly from point to point. Nevertheless I shall take under advisement the suggestion contained in his question.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister in a position to advise the house as to the results of the meeting between himself and Hon. Mr. Keirnan, minister of mines of the province of British Columbia, which was held yesterday with respect to the possibility of the early signing of an agreement regarding the Stewart-Cassiar road?


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, discussions and correspondence have been under way for some time with the province of British Columbia about the final agreement to be signed between that province and the federal government concerning this road. I did meet the minister of mines of the province of British Columbia yesterday and we discussed for some time some of the points of difference about which we have been corresponding. I am afraid I will not be able to make any further statement until the agreement is consummated.


Mr. Lesage:: Has agreement been reached as to the definite route of the road?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to that question is no.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I do not need to remind him of his promise with regard to the South Saskatchewan dam or the fact that seven months have now elapsed
Inquiries of the Ministry since the election. Has he anything to tell the house about the promised start on that project?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the unusual interest of the hon. member for Rosthern-


Mr. Mcllraith:: Not unusual.


John George Diefenbaker: -with respect to a matter about which he was silent for so long. I point out this fact, that negotiations are continuing between the Saskatchewan government and this government to the end that the commencement of the dam will not be long delayed.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF FEDERAL POLICY TO SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question in this general field. Can the Prime Minister say whether discussions are now going on between his government and the government of Saskatchewan with relation to bringing Saskatchewan into the federal government's power policy, particularly with respect to thermal plants?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think that question falls within the field of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I think I can state at this time that at the meeting we had with the premier and provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan following the dominion-provincial conference an informal submission was made by the premier of Saskatchewan to the members of the government, and I believe it was stated that a formal submission would be following. That is the extent of the correspondence and communication I have had officially with the government of Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do I take it from the minister's answer that the federal government is prepared to extend its current power policy in the Atlantic provinces to the province of Saskatchewan or any other province?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I believe the statement of the Prime Minister on page 1405 of Hansard makes clear the answer of the government with regard to extension of the principle of providing help with respect to hydro power in other provinces in Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: In that case I wonder whether I can ask the minister if he can say when he expects an agreement will be reached with Saskatchewan; because I know Saskatchewan is very anxious to receive the same treatment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



STATEMENT ON REPORTED PRINTING OF PENSION CHEQUES IN U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre asked the following question:
Is the minister aware of the fact that on a pension cheque stub of the Canadian National Railways . . . there appears in very fine print the words "printed in U.S.A."? Is it necessary for a Canadian public utility to have its employees' pension cheques printed outside of Canada?
I said I would make inquiries, and have now been advised by the management of the Canadian National Railways that when the machine accounting system was installed the specialized punched cheque was not available and could not be produced in Canada. Arrangements have since been made to have these specialized forms printed in Canada, and when the stock on hand is exhausted the Canadian produced form will be used.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex Easi):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can tell us now if all commonwealth countries have accepted the proposal for an economic and trade conference, and can he at the same time indicate to the house whether there is any reason to believe the conference may take place much earlier than expected, as I understand was suggested in a London paper this morning, perhaps some time toward the end of March?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, definite acceptances have been received from nine of the eleven commonwealth countries, and the other two have indicated that they are favourable, as were their ministers of finance at the time of the Mont Tremblant conference. A definite answer may be expected from them very soon.
As to the second part of the question, I am not aware of any report from London about expediting the plenary conference. What is being held in London early in February is the first of the meetings of officials in preparation for the plenary conference. According to present plans, preliminary meetings of the officials will be held in two stages, one early in February in London and the other probably in May. As to the date of the plenary conference, it has not yet been finally determined, the preference of some countries


varying depending on their local circumstances. One cannot be positive yet, but it looks as though the conference will be held in September or October.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: Can my hon.
friend say whether or not that would be before or after the next federal election?


Mr. Fleming:: If my hon. friend will be good enough to tell me When that will be I shall be glad indeed to answer his question. I gather from some statements he has made that if certain events transpire according to his wishes next Thursday he will be coming out of his corner fighting.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: My hon. friend may be assured of that.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingale):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it would now be possible for him to table the correspondence between the federal and provincial governments, to which reference was made on Tuesday? There are several of us who would like to have that correspondence available for the debate on Monday which was forecast by the Minister of Public Works yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: They will be tabled today, all of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister ask to have the usual arrangement made to have them printed as an appendix to Hansard?


John George Diefenbaker: That is a matter for the house to decide.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the house should decide that when the documents are tabled. Is it the suggestion that a decision be made in advance? Is the house agreeable to this course being followed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of documents referred to above, see appendix, pages 3227-30.]



OIL-ALLEGED DUMPING OF SUPPLIES FROM VENEZUELA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce

which should have been asked of the Minister of National Revenue, with respect to the dumping of oil in Canada from Venezuela. Can the minister tell us whether that situation has been investigated and, if so, what he has found?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Crude oil comes in free of duty if it is brought in for the purpose of refining in Canada but it is, of course, subject to dumping duties if it is established that the oil is dumped in accordance with the terms of the Customs Tariff Act.
Investigations are being carried out from time to time, in any event, with regard to these various matters, but allegations to this effect have been made and officials of my department are investigating this particular matter at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: But the dumping is somewhat due to the underpaid labour or the exploitation of labour by these powerful United States and international corporations.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course the hon. gentleman will realize that dumping has a technical reference dealing with domestic prices as distinguished from the prices laid down here.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the needs of the city, and in view of the growing numbers of unemployed, could the minister tell me if a post office is going to be built in the city of East Kildonan?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I know that every minister has in mind the unemployment situation in Canada and is doing what he can to assist in obtaining fuller employment. However, such decisions must also take into account the actual needs of the country, so that whatever action is taken will both contribute to employment and will meet such needs.
When I was in Winnipeg last fall, knowing the interest of the hon. member and others, I personally took a look at this situation so I would be informed on it. I do realize the desire of East Kildonan for a post office since, while East Kildonan is part of greater Winnipeg, it is also a separate city, and most communities feel that an important part of their community facilities is the provision of their own post office.
Inquiries of the Ministry
On the other hand, the primary concern of the Post Office Department itself is the provision to all communities of the best possible postal facilities; and sometimes, when a community is part of a greater metropolitan area, as is the case with East Kildonan, it will mean that a postal station will be erected to serve two or more communities.
East Kildonan is served under these circumstances at the present time, and it has an excellent postal service. It has letter carrier delivery to the homes, it has three subpostoffices which give all postal facilities to the people of the area, and not very far distant from its municipal boundaries there are postal stations serving this entire area of Winnipeg.
The department will continue to review the situation so that-


George James McIlraith: How about observing the rules in giving your answer?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -immediately the postal service would be materially improved through the provision of such a building one would be provided or would be recommended, but at the moment there does not seem to be any immediate need for it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Postmaster General a related question. Is the minister satisfied with the postal facilities in Wesley-ville, where it is often not possible for both the mail and the patrons to be in the office at the same time; and would he urge the Minister of Public Works to get on with work on this building in order to provide badly needed local employment?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has raised this question with me on one or two occasions, and I am glad to inform him that I hope to be able to make good his great neglect of this community during the period while he was a member of the former government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman most sincerely, and I know my constituents will understand.


Howard Charles Green: I only hope they will.


Major James William Coldwell: representations are being made, I would draw the attention of the minister to the likeness to the black hole of Calcutta in Davidson, Saskatchewan, where in the summer employees of the post office have to work under conditions which must do harm to their general health.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about black Monday and black other days

Inquiries of the Ministry of the week from the C.C.F. party. Now they have a black hole in Saskatchewan somewhere. But I will be glad to look into that situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the Postmaster General satisfied with the postal facilities at Kelligrews, Newfoundland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure hon. members all want post offices in their constituencies and if we take them seriatim we might spend the rest of the day dealing with the subject. It seems to me that some of these inquiries might properly be put on the order paper or taken up directly with the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not in my constituency.



HULL, QUE.    STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION WORK TO BE UNDERTAKEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Hull asked me the following question:
On January 9 the city of Hull passed a resolution following one of July 23, asking for the demolition of a building at the corner of Maisonneuve and Reboul streets which has been expropriated. Could the minister tell us when the work of demolition would begin, because the city has some projects to carry out around this corner?
The answer is that the building on this particular corner is currently being declared surplus to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, and a vacation decision has been set for February 1. What will be done with the building after that date will depend on the action of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation; probably it will be offered for sale in the usual manner.



WINNIPEG-OPENING OF NEW POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Minister of Public Works or to the Postmaster General. I assure you, sir, that this is not another request for a post office. Can we now be told what is to be the date of the opening of the new post office which has been built in the city of Winnipeg.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the exact date escapes my memory at the moment, but it would be in the middle of March-March 14 if I remember correctly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Postmaster General be there on that auspicious occasion?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: believe it is the hope of both the Minister of Public Works and myself to play some small part on this very important occasion.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me about the opening of the post office a few moments ago I thought he was referring to the post office in Vancouver. I now find that he was referring to the post office in Winnipeg, and I think perhaps we had better scrap my previous answer. I will be very glad to give him whatever information I can obtain. There is a very definite date for the opening in Vancouver but the opening in Winnipeg will be somewhat later than that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps when that information is obtained the minister could also tell us who will be there to open the new Winnipeg post office.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is it customary for the Postmaster General's department to take over six months in appointing a postmaster?


William McLean Hamilton: That will depend upon the circumstances, Mr. Speaker. Very often in smaller communities there is some difficulty in finding a person who has both the facilities, the building and the interest in being postmaster.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: And the proper political allegiance.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister report to the house the result of drilling operations in the Cape Tormentine area of Westmorland county, New Brunswick, which were made to find material for the Prince Edward Island causeway?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question by either the hon. member for Westmorland or one of the other hon. members from the province of New Brunswick some days ago, and the situation remains the same; I am not yet in a position to give a report.

Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS	INQUIRY FOR RETURN



PAYMENT OF PENSIONS TO ALLIED VETERANS RESIDENT IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether he has any intention of bringing before the house during this session any amendments to the veterans legislation to make provision for the payment of pensions to allied veterans of world war II who are now residents of Canada.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I should like to take this question as notice. There are certain benefits in force at the present time which apply to allied veterans and if the hon. member would be more specific as to what veterans he has in mind I will give him a more definite answer.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of reports in the press this morning that the province of Quebec is now prepared to sign agreements with the federal government to participate in increases in various pensions which were approved at this session of parliament, can the minister say whether this completes the roll? In other words, have all the provinces now agreed to participate in these higher pension rates?


Hon. J. W. Monieiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I cannot say for certain, but I am inclined to think it does.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he would make representations to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation to see whether anything can be done to reduce the rather long and trying delays now met in making telephone calls to Newfoundland? The service is excellent when one gets through, but it is difficult to get through day after day.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to do that.



HUNGARIAN REFUGEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorklon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when I may expect a reply to my question with regard to Hungarian refugees passed as an order for return on November 20, 1957?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I regret that the hon. gentleman has not received a reply, and I shall look into the matter to see that one is brought down as early as possible.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house of the results of the talks between officials of the new West Indian Federation and the Canadian government relating to economic cooperation between the two nations? Was Canada asked for a loan or other economic assistance, and can the Prime Minister say what action Canada is considering to help the newest member of the commonwealth?


John George Diefenbaker: This is a rather comprehensive question, notice of which was given me just before the opening of the house; and as this is Saturday it has been impossible to communicate with the officials. As soon as that communication has taken place an answer will be given.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Would the minister issue instructions to his department to take immediate action to provide mail facilities and thereby relieve the 100 families of Shippegan Gully, Gloucester county, who have to cover a distance of over eight miles to the nearest post office in order to get their mail, a matter which I brought to the attention of the minister earlier this session and which in fact is reported in Hansard of October 17?
31S6

Supply-Fisheries


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very delighted to look into the situation, which was probably left by my predecessor.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DELIVERY QUOTA SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he prepared at some date in the near future to make a statement in regard to the delivery quota situation with respect to grain in the various prairie provinces?
Two days ago it was suggested that this question be put on the order paper, and the reason I am asking the question at this time is that I accepted a somewhat similar suggestion on November 22 with regard to an important question like this and I still have not received an answer. Therefore, coupled with the question I have now directed to the minister, I would ask him if I could reasonably hope to receive an answer some time in the near future to the question I asked on November 22, to be found on page 19 of the orders of the day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, hope springs eternal. The estimates of this department will be up for discussion in the course of a very few days. Perhaps my hon. friend would like to raise the question then and I will have an answer for him.


Walter Adam Tucker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the house to take it that if this information can be made available to the house it will be held up until the minister's estimates are brought down?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES General services-
139. Departmental administration, $319,700.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, just a moment ago I had handed to me a copy of the Chatham Daily News which contains an item to the effect that in Tokyo several housewives screamed and fainted in the fish market when a fish seller cut open a shark and found the partly decomposed body of a man inside. I just express the hope that such sharks are not found in proximity to Canadian shores.

We are now discussing and reviewing the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, the activities of which department are of vital concern to the people of British Columbia including many of my own constituents. In opening my remarks I wish to express to the Minister of Fisheries my appreciation of his courtesy in inviting the members of parliament from Vancouver and the surrounding area to an informal meeting in that city shortly after the minister assumed office. This meeting gave us an opportunity to become better acquainted with the minister himself and to discuss our problems in an informal and friendly atmosphere.
We are pleased with the sympathetic consideration that is being given by the minister and his officials to all the problems that are brought to his attention, and we are looking forward to a continuation of that attitude on his part throughout the days ahead. I wish to assure him that to the fullest extent possible we will co-operate with him in an endeavour to resolve these problems which are of concern to each and every one of us.
The hon. member for New Westminster will participate in this debate and perhaps will go into greater detail than I with respect to some of the problems that will be presented. We regret very much that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond will not be here to participate in this debate. He is vitally concerned about these issues, but he has been in hospital for some time and is still hospitalized.
Some time ago questions were raised on orders of the day relative to the importation of Japanese salmon into Canadian markets, and also with respect to the marking of the labels on these particular products to distinguish them from purely Canadian products. This brought into focus one of the issues that are becoming increasingly important, the activities of the Japanese fishing fleets on the high seas; and questions have been raised with regard to this as well.
One question has been raised by some fishermen, and I ask the minister and his officials to investigate the matter. It is the question of the ownership of this fishing fleet and whether or not Canadians, or Canadian companies, may have investments in those vessels or in the activities of the fleet. I think this would bear some study because if it is so, or if it is not so-I will put it that way-then possibly it would allay some of the fears and doubts which are in the minds of some of our fishermen on the west coast of British Columbia.
I should like at this time once more to raise the question of the closure regulations as they affect the Fraser river between the

Pattullo bridge and Mission City. This matter was given very extensive consideration in debates in other years, especially when it was brought to our attention that the minister was contemplating the imposition of those restrictions above the Pattullo bridge.
At that time we raised strenuous objection and backed up our representations by the statements of the fishermen concerned. We endeavoured to point out to the then minister the fact that the proposed measures would not accomplish the purpose for which they were intended. If I remember correctly, without going into any great detail, one of the reasons given for the closure was that it was a conservation measure. I may say that at that time the fishermen were of the opinion that it would not contribute substantially to the accomplishment of the objective.
Another factor introduced was the matter of quality. The hon. member for New Westminster and myself made representations to try to point out that as far as this area and the proposed closure regulations were concerned the matter of quality did not actually come into the picture. I was speaking to a delegation of fishermen when I was home for the Christmas recess, and I asked them whether they were still convinced that the regulations imposed were neither necessary nor effective. They assured me they were more convinced than ever that those measures had not resulted in the achievement of the objectives contemplated at that time.
This matter has been brought to the attention of the minister. I hold in my hand a copy of a paper containing the full text of a telegram to the Minister of Fisheries with respect to a public meeting held at Langley on Saturday, September 7, composed of fishermen and others interested. This telegram brought to the attention of the minister the matter of closure, and made certain recommendations.
I regret that I was not able to attend that meeting because I had a previous engagement to open one of the fairs in my area.
I communicated to officials of the fishermen's union the fact that I could not be there and asked them to make that clear to the meeting, but I understand it was no done. However, the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond were there and supported the recommendations.
I am not going to take time to read the telegram, but I shall refer to it and ask the minister to continue to give it his serious consideration. I understand the matter is still under active consideration, and I do 96698-203J
Supply

Fisheries
hope the minister and his officials will, as they review the whole matter, come to the conclusion that in this instance the fishermen are right and that a relaxation of those regulations is fully warranted in the future.


Erhart Regier: Will the hon. member permit a question at this time. Has any fishermen's organization, or any fishing interest, ever made representations to him endorsing the action taken by the government in applying the closure?


Alexander Bell Patterson: To endorse the regulations?


Erhart Regier: Yes.


Alexander Bell Patterson: No, I have had no representations to that effect. All of them have been to the contrary. Perhaps I could put on the record the latter part of this telegram:
Resolution has full support united fishermen and allied workers union, George Hahn, M.P., Tom Irwin, M.P., George Mussallem, Maple Ridge board trade, George Parkinson, Fort Langley board trade, Ted Kuhn, Reeve Poppy, Eric Flowerdew, Langley council, all of whom were present.
I have just been reminded that Mr. Ted Kuhn was the Conservative candidate who ran in opposition to my hon. friend from New Westminster.
There has been considerable discussion on other occasions, Mr. Chairman, and the matter of the development of the Fraser river for power purposes has been referred to in this debate. My friends from across the way have succeeded in injecting into the debate references to the Wenner-Gren proposals for the development of the Rocky mountain trench. It was introduced in a hit and run fashion just a few days ago in the course of another debate, and I should like to suggest that the statements made in this respect are apparently based upon a false premise. Therefore I suggest that those statements and those implications must have had a political bias attached to them. I should like to ask the members who have heard those reports to take that matter into consideration when they are thinking along those lines.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, the time has come when a diligent attempt must be made to reconcile the two factors of fish and power as far as British Columbia is concerned. There is a wide divergence of opinion and, I may say, very vocal defences of the respective positions at the present time, with one side stoutly defending the position of the fishery interests and the other side contending that sufficient progress has been made in the matter of assisting fish on their way to the spawning grounds and protecting the fing-erlings on their way to the sea that further delay in the construction of power sites on the salmon streams is unwarranted.

Supply-Fisheries
I am not in a position to argue which one is right, from the technical point of view. I regret that I have not received as yet the evidence given by General McNaughton, chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission, before the committee on external affairs. I believe the references in that discussion to fish and power are very pertinent to the matter before us.
One of the most extensive problems with regard to the development of power in British Columbia is the possibility of the development of power sites on the Fraser river which, as all hon. members know, is the major salmon river left on the North American continent. In the course of the debate on this particular matter the chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission placed on record a summary of certain views, and in order to give the proper picture I think I had better read first the question put to General McNaughton by myself. At page 264 of the report of the proceedings of the standing committee on external affairs I find the following:
By Mr. Patterson:
Q. I agree with you in that, but there are some other factors that enter into it, I think, that have to be considered.
A. Yes, I would like to see everything considered.


The Chairman:: There is one thing that is certain, that if General McNaughton was not born in British Columbia, he most certainly talks like it.
The Witness: Well, I lived there for a time. X had the privilege of commanding the military district there in the old days, sir.
By Mr. Patterson:
Q. I hope you can convince the members here of the wonderful prospects we have in British Columbia.
A. With your permission I shall quote from this examiner's report of the federal power commission in the United States. This was on an examination by Mr. Marsh, in what he calls a decision in the Mountain Sheep and Pleasant Valley case, (Pacific North West Power Co.), filed on July 23, 1957. That was a case in which there was a controversy, and wide public interest in the question of salmon versus power in the Columbia river basin.
Mr. Marsh and his colleagues went thoroughly into the existing situation. This is what he came up with, and this is what now is the policy of the federal power commission as we understand it.
I am going to omit the quotation as it is rather lengthy and simply read the summation of the decision which General McNaughton gave. After reading from the report General McNaughton stated:
That, gentlemen, is the opinion of the examiner of the federal power commission. It means that after many years of controversy and discussion of the question of whether dams are to be built in the upper waters of the Columbia and along the Snake and so on, the federal power commission decided that high dams would be built, and they put biologists and other fishery engineers to work to find ways to get a reasonable proportion of fish up and down, and they have expressed their confidence as to the progress and what could be done.

No doubt these are the views of the power interests and I should like to place opposite them one or two statements made by those who are vitally concerned with the fishery problem. I should like to read from the annual report of the fisheries research board of Canada, 1956-57, page 100. Under the section, "Problems of Getting Migrating Salmon Past Obstructions", I find the following: No prospect is yet seen of placing dams on a river such as the Fraser, without so delaying or damaging the migrating salmon as to lead to the destruction of the large runs on which the fishery depends.
I make the observation, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the importance of both these factors, power development on the one hand and the protection of our fishing industry on the other, those who are concerned certainly ought to get together and find out in a definite way what progress has actually been made from the technological view with respect to the problem.
Can they get together and somehow harmonize their views, or must some continue to say there is absolutely no possibility yet of maintaining our salmon industry and having power sites developed on the one hand, as opposed to the view expressed on the other hand that we can go ahead and that there is no further need for hesitation because the problem has been resolved? I think it is very obvious that one view is not exactly according to the facts. I am not putting myself in either position because I do not know, but I am saying that these two contrary views must be resolved in the light of the importance of the two issues.
Further debate is continuing as to the relative values of the two industries, power on the one hand and fish on the other. In reading past debates I note that the former minister of fisheries when speaking on this matter made it very clear that at all costs the salmon industry must be conserved in the province of British Columbia. I could quote others as well in that respect. However, I am not going to go into any further detail on the matter, but I say again that the two groups concerned should get together and find out what point science has reached in the development of ways and means of protecting our fisheries in the light of power developments on salmon rivers.
I referrred to the fact that while I was home for the Christmas recess I met a delegation of fishermen from the Fraser valley. They were representatives of the gill netters, and in the course of our discussion we considered the suggested regulatory and administrative changes that have been circulated.
I have here the British Columbia fishery regulations, 1957, suggested regulatory and

administrative changes, and I should like to refer to two or three that we discussed. Proposal No. 5 has to do with the maximum length of salmon purse seines in areas 19 and 20, Juan de Fuca strait. The proposed change is that the maximum length of salmon purse seines permissible in areas 19 and 20 be extended from 300 fathoms to 350 fathoms.
It was brought to my attention that this would have a serious effect upon the smaller boats engaged in the fishing because the small boats could not carry the length of net suggested here, and therefore would be in a very difficult position in competing with the larger boats that could carry the maximum length of net. It was also suggested in this connection that in view of the attempts constantly being made to conserve fish and the industry it was rather contradictory at this time to suggest that the permissible length of net should be increased. It almost seemed as though it was a contradiction so far as these objectives were concerned. This delegation, therefore, was of the view that this particular change at least should not be made in the fisheries regulations.
With respect to the suggested change regarding the discontinuance of sworn declarations for commercial fishing licences, the change suggested is that commencing January 1, 1958 the affidavit required of every applicant for a commercial fishing licence to the effect that he is a Canadian citizen and that sale of the catch is intended, be abandoned; and that all applicants be required to produce proper proof of Canadian citizenship in order to obtain a licence. The delegation was of the opinion that this regulation should not be discontinued but that teeth should be put into it. It should be enforced, and in that way we could accomplish the purpose for which it had previously been intended.
These are the only two of the amendments to which I shall refer at the present time. With these observations, Mr. Chairman, I believe I will leave the discussion of other problems and factors to my colleagues who will be participating in this debate.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak quite briefly on this first item. I am not the spokesman on fisheries for the official opposition. My colleague the hon. member for Charlotte is, and he is particularly well qualified for that post, having been either a commercial fisherman or a fisheries officer all his life. He has covered most of the points which I would normally have covered. I am going to speak rather as a British Columbia member about two phases of fisheries which are of special concern in British Columbia today, questions which have already been
Supply-Fisheries
mentioned by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Fraser Valley.
The first problem is that of the sale of Canadian fish in the United States. We have had a great deal of discussion this session so far about trade with the United States and the government's proposal to divert 15 per cent of present Canadian purchases from the United States to Great Britain. If there is one industry in Canada which is tremendously dependent on the United States market, and for which no other market of that magnitude exists, it is the fishing industry.
The reasons are quite obvious. We are on the shores of the two greatest fisheries of the world, the north Atlantic and the north Pacific. We have managed our fisheries well, so we still have abundant catches on both coasts. Because of this fact, and our small population, we produce a very great surplus of fish which must find foreign markets. Fish, of course, is an extraordinarily perishable product, so the best markets are those which are closest to the place of catch, and that means either the Canadian domestic market or the United States market. It is for this reason that over 50 per cent of our fisheries products are sold in the United States.
In recent years there has been a clamour in the United States congress for protection against foreign fish, which means principally Canadian fish. The reason is easy to discover. The United States have not managed their fisheries as well as we have, and the fisheries off their own shores have diminished so their fishermen must go greater distances to find the fish they want. They move northerly and fish off our shores. The result is, of course, to increase their costs and they have, too, the increased costs which come from competing for labour in the United States industrial market. We find, as a consequence, that United States senators and congressmen from the New England states have been speaking in congress and have been supported by a very powerful lobby, promoting the idea of quotas and tariffs being imposed on Canadian fish.
Twice such recommendations have gone forward and twice President Eisenhower has vetoed these recommendations that the tariff be raised on Canadian fish and quotas applied. If these recommendations had not been vetoed a crippling blow would have been struck to the fisheries of the Atlantic coast, the great lakes and the prairies, and a very severe blow, not quite as crippling but severe nevertheless, would have been struck to the fisheries of British Columbia.
I was interested in reading Hansard this morning to find that the hon. member for

Supply-Fisheries
Charlotte obviously knows a great deal, not only about Atlantic fisheries but more about Pacific fisheries than does the hon. member for Vancouver South. The hon. member for Vancouver South interrupted the hon. member for Charlotte when he was speaking about the importance of the United States market to Pacific fisheries as well, and made the following remark, as reported at page 3180 of Hansard for January 10, 1958:
No, no. I am sorry, my friend, but may I interrupt you for a moment. We sell no salmon in the United States whatsoever.
I may inform my fellow British Columbian, whose riding incidentally overlooks the largest salmon cannery in the world, that sales of salmon to the United States are extremely important to the British Columbia salmon industry. We do not sell very much canned sockeye salmon to the United States; that is sold mainly in Canada and the United Kingdom. However, there has been an excellent market, and a growing market, for sales of our canned pink salmon, some chum salmon and for occasional sales of canned cohoe salmon. Then, so far as sales of fresh salmon are concerned, fresh and frozen and cured salmon are all sold in very large quantities right down the Pacific seaboard. Most of the big fishing companies have refrigerated trucks which run each day carrying these products to the United States markets.
The government of which I was a member did manage to have the United States reduce the tariff on canned salmon and on fresh and frozen salmon, which helped this industry immeasurably. The tariffs and quotas which are requested by the United States congress are mainly on fresh and frozen fish and on filleted fish. Since this is not a major part of the salmon sales to the United States it would have, as I say, not quite as crippling an effect as this plan would have on the east coast, but nevertheless the effect would be very serious.
I therefore urge the Minister of Fisheries to use every means he can to continue the pressure on the United States government so that if the tariff commission again recommends an increase in the tariff on Canadian fish, and quotas cutting down the amount that may be imported, the President will be in a position to again veto such recommendations.
The other problem I wish to raise is one which was dealt with at some length by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and that is the matter of the conflict between fish and power on the Fraser river. The government of which I was a member had made its position quite clear on this problem in British Columbia, and it has been discussed many times at length in this house. We believed that if possible we should strive to have both

fish and power. In spite of all the scientific work which has been done in many countries so far, and very able work, it has not yet been possible to find any satisfactory way of moving adult salmon up over the high dams or of moving the fingerlings down over the high dams, so we felt we should have an interim policy until these problems had been solved.
This policy was that no salmon stream should be dammed until every non-salmon stream had been used for power purposes. When all the non-salmon streams had been exhausted, then very careful study should be given to the relative economic costs of power from other sources, power from thermal methods whether that be coal or gas or oil or even nuclear sources, before one of the greatest fishing resources of the world should be destroyed.
I am happy to say that this is one of the few fields in which Premier Bennett of British Columbia and I are in complete accord. He, as spokesman for his government, has repeatedly stated that in public, and more than that he passed an act in his legislature to support the Fisheries Act of Canada in the control of the construction of dams.
This matter has come to the fore because of the statement made by General McNaugh-ton, to which the hon. member for Fraser Valley referred. General McNaughton, of course, is obsessed with the need for power in British Columbia. He is a very distinguished engineer and a very distinguished scientist, but he seems remarkaby blind to the repeated studies which have been made by distinguished scientists in many parts of the world and by the United States corps of engineers on this problem of passing salmon over the high dams. He apparently still believes it is a problem which could very easily be solved; but he has only to look at the Columbia river, which is so dear to his heart, to see that a great salmon fishery on that stream has been ended because of a series of high dams on the United States side.
I would like to point out further to General McNaughton that the Fraser river is not an international river, as is the Columbia, and does not therefore come within the jurisdiction of the international joint commission of which he is the senior Canadian commissioner. The Fraser river, so far as power is concerned, is entirely within provincial jurisdiction.
So far as fisheries are concerned, there is of course federal jurisdiction to ensure the passage of fish through the river. I would urge the minister when he makes his statement in reply to make the position of the new Conservative government very clear on this

matter as to what it regards as the best utilization of the Fraser river. The other three parties in this house at various times and in various ways have made it very clear that they believe the greatest service of the Fraser river to the people of British Columbia and to the people of Canada is as the mainstay of the great salmon industry of the west coast.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all hon. members will understand why the estimates of the Department of Fisheries are of more fundamental interest to me, as a member of parliament, than those of any other department. Although I have never examined the matter statistically, I should think it is probable that a higher proportion of the total number of constituents in my constituency make their living in the fisheries industry than in any other riding in Canada, with the possible exception of the Magdalen islands.
The greatest item in the Newfoundland fishery industry, the historic item, is codfish, which was the first industry in North America and may indeed have brought the Europeans to this continent. There are many people who believe it did, even before the official discovery by Columbus. The Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. John's West, may even have participated in the recent celebration of the first Portuguese visits to St. John's in about the middle of the fifteenth century, although the historical records on this subject are of course incomplete.
My constituents, and I imagine the committee, would be much more interested in my discussing what is going on at the present time than in entering into this interesting historical speculation. I feel, however, there is another matter which does not constitute an historical speculation which the committee may permit me just to mention; and I notice with relief that the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond is not in the house at the moment; because I am going to say that Bonavista is the oldest place in Canada. It was the landfall of Cabot and the beginning of our country, and I am naturally very proud to represent that place in this house.
I am sorry the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is not here to listen to my plea but I do hope it will not be long before this excellent policy initiated by his predecessors and which he is following will be carried out and that we will have an historic park at Bonavista.


Mr. Cardiff:: We are getting sick of that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: However, I realize that I am trespassing on the time and possibly on the patience of the committee-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Certainly on the patience.
Supply-Fisheries


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the hon. gentleman who represents a great fishing riding may not be interested-


James Sinclair: Fishing for votes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but most of the members of this committee are interested in fisheries.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Talk about fish then and not about politics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps if the hon. gentleman would, on just one occasion in his long and distinguished parliamentary career-


James Sinclair: Question mark.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -rise to his feet and make his own speech instead of muttering when other members are speaking, his riding might be represented in a more distinguished way than it has been in the past few years.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The hon. gentleman does not know how much he has got to know in order to know how little he knows.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest the hon. member should use his spare time to submit that sentence of his to grammatical analysis.
I must say, sir, and I apologize to the hon. member who is the senior member for Queens and is now the Minister of Fisheries, that I had intended to begin by congratulating him upon holding this office which I regard as one of the most important offices in the government of Canada, a portfolio I confess I would very much like to hold myself. If the circumstances had been different it might just have been possible that my ambitions would have been realized.


George Clyde Nowlan: Were they going to fire you, Jim?


James Sinclair: I am afraid they were.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I want to say that although I have heard and read criticisms of the new minister on the ground that he is a farmer who has never caught a fish, I do not echo those criticisms because I have never been a fisherman myself. I have always up to the present-and I only fail to do so now because the hon. gentleman is himself a farmer and therefore I do not think he can compete very well-concealed on the east coast the fact that over 40 years ago my father was a fish merchant. It is true that he bought the products of lake Manitoba which would not be regarded as fish on the east coast but, like the products of the east coast of Canada, those fish found their market mainly in the United States.
I would like to echo what was said last night by the hon. member for Charlotte and what was said again this morning by my hon.

Supply-Fisheries
friend from Coast-Capilano about the concern we feel on this side of the house, particularly those of us who represent Ashing ridings, with regard to this reckless and feckless proposal of the Prime Minister to divert trade from our best customer. If the United States is the best customer for Canadian products generally, as it is-not only the best customer but the most reliable of all our customers, as statistics over the years will show-that is even more true in the case of our Asheries.
I am quite sure the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Fisheries or the hon. member for St. John's West would not dissent from the view that no greater disaster could overtake the east coast Asheries than to have any interference with the United States market. There is no question, as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano said a few moments ago, but that upon at least two occasions in the last three years it was only the inAuence and the effective intervention of very senior members of the Canadian government which prevented such interference.
I wish I could feel the same conAdence that the interventions, even those made by the Minister of Finance when he is roaring like a lion to try to prove he is a bigger man than Mr. C. D. Howe, would be listened to in Washington and would be more effective than the representations of Mr. Howe. But I have not, and I am sure practically no other Canadian would have, that conAdence.
Now, sir, I think the sooner this unrealizable nonsense about the diversion of trade from our best customer is abandoned by the government the better it will be for Canada, and certainly those of us who represent constituencies where the livelihood of the people depends on this American market do not like to hear any talk about anything which would jeopardize that livelihood.
The other great markets for the cod Ashery are, of course, the Caribbean and the European markets. The European market is a market that is important primarily to Newfoundland; the Caribbean market is a market that is shared between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, in the main, though it is of some importance, of course, to some of the other provincial Asheries as well.
I think all of us in this house without distinction as to party, rejoiced when on January 1, 1958 the new British Caribbean federation was established; and I am going to make a plea to the Minister of Fisheries and his colleagues in the government who are in the house today to urge strongly upon the government that when the new parliament of the federation is elected a parliamentary mission be sent from Canada. And

I think we would feel it desirable to have a perhaps disproportionately large representation from the east coast on such a mission, though other areas should not be excluded, because the Caribbean is an historically important market for many Canadian manufacturers, as well as Ash. But it seems to me that we should make this gesture of good will, and I should be very happy to see any of the ministers from the Atlantic provinces who now grace the treasury benches heading such a mission, should they still be there when the new parliament of the federation is elected.
I hope such a mission will not go empty handed. I hope the government will soon reach a conclusion as to the policy it intends to pursue in order to develop closer economic relations with this federation. I believe that if we can give effective help to this area we will be primarily helping ourselves, and in no respect more than in building up a secure, stable and, I would add, an inevitably expanding market for our Ash. Because as hon. members know, the Caribbean area is one of the few areas in the world in which the population is increasing even more rapidly than it is in Canada.
I should like also to say a word about the concern felt by many of us in Newfoundland with regard to the European market. We do know that both in the Caribbean and in Europe there has been increasing competition from other producers of salt Ash outside Canada; that the French, in particular have made inroads into the traditional Canadian markets in the West Indies, and that they have made even more serious inroads into the Italian market. Since the European common market was established among the six nations of western Europe on January 1, it seems to me the government should be giving particular attention to the protection of Canadian interests and to doing everything possible to assure the continuance of Canadian exports of salt Ash to Italy, because it could well happen that within this common market, of which France and Italy are members, we might, unless great care is taken, And ourselves under new disabilities which could be very serious for Newfoundland-difficulties which would also, of course, be very serious for the whole codAshing industry of the Atlantic coast. Obviously if we lose one market there is increasing pressure on other markets, and greater difficulty in disposing of the whole catch. I would say, therefore, that the minister, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce who perhaps has a greater responsibility in this matter, should keep constantly before them the problem of maintaining these markets in Europe.

I must say I was somewhat surprised when 1 read in the St. John's Daily News an account, which was rather more extensive on this one point than the accounts which appeared in most of the mainland papers, of the Prime Minister's famous press conference on his return from London last July. The hon. member for Charlotte put this on record during the debate on the address, referring to the Prime Minister's comment on the proposed European free trade area that, as long as agriculture was excluded, the Canadian government had no anxiety about it. The Prime Minister was asked about fisheries, and said he thought the fisheries did not matter.
I am not trying to misconstrue what the Prime Minister said; I do not think for a moment he meant that the fisheries did not matter at all. What he meant was that he considered no fishery interest was involved. I am not sure that that was not a rather hasty judgment with regard to the common market, and I would therefore urge the minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to look into this matter.
And now I should like to say just a word about one or two observations which were made in this house during the debate on the address by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, an hon. member of this house who has probably not had very much experience, and who did me the great honour of thanking me for the assistance I gave him in his election. I assure the hon. gentleman that any assistance I gave him was entirely involuntary; if I did assist him I did not mean to, and I will try my best to undo it on the next occasion.


Mr. Chown:: Everything you do is
involuntary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not, as the hon. gentleman would appear to be, a Marxist or any other kind of determinist. I am one of those who believe in freedom and free will. However, we had perhaps better not become involved in philosophical discussions. As I say, the hon. member suggested that I helped him to win his election. I am not going to argue further with him about that, but if I did I did not mean to do so, and I will do my best not to do it again.
What did rather shock me about what the hon. gentleman said was his reference to one of the factors which, he said, was responsible for the fate of his distinguished predecessor, who even as a young member made his mark very quickly in this house. He suggested that because his distinguished predecessor had supported certain developments of the Department of Fisheries in
Supply-Fisheries
the province of Newfoundland, and particularly, the establishment of the experimental salt fish plant at Valleyfield, which happens to be in my constituency, this had helped the hon. gentleman to get elected.
Well, sir, I have a higher opinion of the hon. gentleman's constituents than he seems to have. I have visited his constituency on many occasions. I shall never forget my first visit to his constituency, because it was my first visit to Nova Scotia and it took place something over 20 years ago. I crossed Nova Scotia from Windsor to Chester and went into a part of the hon. gentleman's constituency, and that was at a time when we had just finished enjoying five years of Tory government.


Mr, Sinclair:: Enjoying?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, of course, the hon. gentleman is anticipating. We had just finished enjoying five years of Tory government, and in that constituency at that time I did not see a single painted building. I went back there again after the war and I have been back there since, and there is no part of Canada that looks more prosperous today than the county of Lunenburg.


An hon. Member:: How many are painted in your riding?


Mr. Crouse:: You are stating that you visited Lunenburg county and did not see a single painted building. At what time did you visit it? In 1938?


James Sinclair: In Bennett's time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was well over 20 years ago.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: That must have been in Mackenzie King's time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was in the year 1936. I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman was born then.


James Sinclair: The way he behaves suggests that he was not.


George Clyde Nowlan: He is not as juvenile as you, anyway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: However, if the hon. gentleman will talk to his neighbours who were adults in 1934, 1935 and 1936 and ask them how conditions at that time would compare with conditions when he was elected to parliament last summer, I know perfectly well what answer he will get.


James Sinclair: Tory times are hard times.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? What has this to do with the estimates of the department before us?

Supply-Fisheries


James Sinclair: Queens-Lunenburg is a fishing riding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has been most helpful by his question. What I am suggesting is that after 20 years of Liberal government a great fishing community like the county of Lunenburg gives every evidence of prosperity and well-being today. That is precisely the point I was trying to make, and I thank the hon. gentleman for making sure that I made it in the way I wanted to.


William Joseph Browne: Not a painted house in 1938; remember that.


Mr. Maclnnis:: What about Bonavista-
Twillingate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I am coming to. My friend the hon. member for Coast-Capilano when he was minister of this department and his predecessor before him from the time of confederation in 1949 have been working hard to bring about conditions in Bonavista comparable to those in Lunenburg.


Donald MacInnis: And working hard to close the mines of Nova Scotia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And that is exactly what the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg was objecting to. He was objecting to the fact that we were trying to give the people of Newfoundland the kind of benefits his constituency enjoys. If that is what elects people in Lunenburg county it sounds to me like a narrow conception of Canadianism which I do not believe is true of his constituents, many of whom, including one of his predecessors in this house, were Newfoundlanders themselves.


Donald MacInnis: Just like you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not even going to put the question to the minister, because I am convinced that he does not feel that the building of this experimental salt fish plant at Valleyfield was any injury to the province of Nova Scotia or that it was any injury to the fishing industry of Canada or a mistaken thing to do. I think the sooner we get away from this idea that helping one fishing community is harming another, and the sooner we achieve on the Atlantic coast the same kind of attitude that hon. members from the prairies-


James Sinclair: And British Columbia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and from British Columbia have of supporting, regardless of party, the industry on which their constituents depend for a livelihood, the better it will be.


An hon. Member:: You did not say that about Beechwood.


James Sinclair: He wanted a Beechwood in Newfoundland. He moved an amendment.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member made reference to the support given by former ministers to the industry on which the people in the maritime provinces largely depend for a livelihood. My question is one that has often been raised in this house. What support did the hon. member for Coast-Capilano give the coal industry when he suggested that the mines be closed down?


James Sinclair: Perhaps the hon. member would be specific and tell me when I am alleged to have made that statement.


George Clyde Nowlan: It has appeared in a good many newspapers.


Donald MacInnis: It was carried in Canadian Press reports on or about May 23, and if there is any denial of it I would suggest that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano take up the question with the Canadian Press.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, I will point out that I addressed a meeting of 600 people at St. Francis Xavier University when the whole economy of subsidies was discussed by the professors and students, a discussion which probably would be a little over the head of the very juvenile member who raised the question.


George Clyde Nowlan: He certainly put you and the whole Liberal party in Nova Scotia into water that is over your heads.


Lionel Chevrier: Are you going to offer a fight, too? There are nothing but fighters on the other side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have felt no ill will at any time toward the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. He seems to be a very estimable young man with a great deal to learn, and I hope he will learn it in time. I also hope that one of the first things he learns is that if we are going to have the kind of prosperous codfishery both he and I want, and I give him full credit for wanting it, we will have to work together to make it a single harmonious Canadian industry. That is what the Department of Fisheries has been trying to do over the years, and that is what I am confident it will continue to do under the hon. gentleman who is now the minister.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Most certainly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would you agree that the location of this plant is advantageous to

encourage scientists and men of learning to go to that area and locate there so they may conduct proper investigations? Is that the best location for that plant, in your estimation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose the hon. gentleman would expect me to say that my -constituency is so remote it is not a nice place to go, but I do not agree with him. There is no place in Canada that I would rather be than in Bonavista-Twillingate, any part of it.


An hon. Member:: What about Ottawa?


George Clyde Nowlan: You will soon have a chance to prove that statement.


Henri Courtemanche: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock I was making some observations about the experimental salt fish plant at Valleyfield in Newfoundland, and I had been asked by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg if I thought that this was a suitable location for such a plant. I replied that I was sure the hon. member would not expect me to say that it was not a suitable place, any more than I would expect him to say that anything situated in his constituency was not suitably situated. I am sure that persons other than myself and other residents of my constituency might think that that is not a conclusive answer and therefore, sir, I shall try to give an answer that is more objective in character.
The purpose of the plant at Valleyfield which I know a good deal about because I was a member of the government when it was decided to build it, is not, as the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg implied, to compete in the commercial field. The purpose of this plant is to experiment with new ways of curing and processing codfish, with packaging and with preparing it for market in the hope that we can expand the total Canadian market for fish. The reason it was put in Newfoundland is, I am sure, quite obvious to the hon. member. Newfoundland is the biggest producer of codfish in Canada; it produces a lot of the codfish that is processed in the hon. member's own constituency, as he knows, since the late government changed the regulations to permit the processors in Nova Scotia to buy salt bulk fish in Newfoundland. This
Supply-Fisheries
has been mutually beneficial to both provinces and it did seem to the government of the day-I am sure the Minister of Fisheries would agree with this view-that the right place for an experimental station of this sort is where the fish are. The essence of dealing with fish, as I do not need to tell the hon. gentleman who has probably had a much closer association with fish over the years than I have had, is to keep it as fresh as possible and to do the processing as soon after they are caught as possible.
It is true that, at the time this plant was established at Valleyfield, the north side of Bonavista bay was relatively inaccessible because of the lack of roads. But I am happy to say the provincial government is doing a good deal to improve that situation, and by the end of next season, if all goes well, there will be a road into Valleyfield. Of course, the whole road development program in Newfoundland would be speeded up if this government would only make up its mind to get ahead with the grants to the Atlantic provinces that they talk about, and if they would make them available for the current fiscal year.
I do want to make a suggestion to the Minister of Fisheries which I have made previously to people in the trade but which perhaps is rather difficult for those in the trade to carry out, since most of them have not very much excess capital. We should try to tap a new home market for salt fish. It so happens that during the three years that I was minister of citizenship and immigration about 75,000 Italians came to this country to settle. That is about the same rate at which the settlement had been for some years before that. These people in their own country have been consumers of Newfoundland salt codfish, Canadian salt codfish, over the years, and it does seem to me that most of them live in a relatively densely populated area, in Toronto, Montreal, the Niagara peninsula and in Hamilton. They have a press of their own which has a wide circulation. It did seem to me that here was a real opportunity for an experiment with a concentrated potential market to try to see whether we could not create right here at home a bigger market than we now have for salt fish. I know everyone appreciates how important it is to have the widest possible diversity of markets, and I would commend this suggestion to the minister as one that it might be worth while to follow up.
I have one or two specific things that I should like to refer to in the course of the discussion of the minister's estimates but I feel I have taken up sufficient time of the committee now and I shall take my seat.

Supply-Fisheries


Mr. Morris:: Mr. Chairman, no Atlantic
provinces member on this side of the house with any serious concern for the way our fishermen were treated in the last 20 years could or should sit silently in this house and not rise to try to refute some of the statements and the policy-if that is, in fact, what it is-which were enunciated on the first item of the Department of Fisheries estimates by the hon. member for Charlotte, and then to a lesser degree by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I must say I am sorry the hon. member for Charlotte did not stay in his seat in the house during the whole debate. He stayed only long enough to hear his own speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to be unfair. The hon. member for Charlotte told us last evening that he had a long standing engagement which would prevent his being here today.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Then I withdraw the remark immediately, Mr. Chairman. I did not hear that observation by the hon. member for Charlotte. What I want to ask is, is it not symptomatic of the nature of the erratic Liberal policy for the fisheries that its spokesman for fisheries in the house is now to be, not the hon. gentleman who was its minister of fisheries until last June-you might expect that-but no, the fisheries critic for the opposition now is to be the hon. member for Charlotte, though we have had-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He could tell you a great deal about fishing that you do not know.


Edmund Leverett Morris: You would think that the hon. member who occupied the position of minister of fisheries would continue to give us the benefit of his experience.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did.


Edmund Leverett Morris: We have now had an admission from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that he has his eye on the position. If it should happen that the opposition should come back to this side of the house-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It will.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -and the usual practice follow, the hon. member for Charlotte might very well become the minister of fisheries, and I think we must judge his remarks by his hopes.
What is the policy he would set for the Atlantic coast fisheries? I suggest to you that it is largely one of fear of or hate for the United States. I sat here and listened to his words very carefully. I did not interrupt him. He has had a long experience with the fisheries and I am interested in his remarks.

He said that we had no better friends than the United States. He said that Canadians have never had a better president than Franklin Roosevelt. But unsuspecting members on this side of the house need to know that this remark derives from the Roosevelt family connection with Campobello island and the hon. member's constituency. Having said these things, he went on to say that if we were to augment our Canadian trade with the United Kingdom or with other overseas markets it would anger the United States into retaliation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What a perversion!


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Chairman, that does not sound to me like a very confident friend.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman quote the phrase from the speech of the hon. member for Charlotte?


Edmund Leverett Morris: It is on page 3176. Apparently the United States does not have an enemy in the hon. member for Charlotte. It is just going to be cordially disliked by its very dear friend. When he prophesies a vengeful retaliation which is as hypothetical and about as unfriendly a thing as he could have alleged-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the Globe and Mail that did that.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -is he not proving exactly why it is that we had better expand our area of trade instead of keeping all our trading eggs in one basket and leaving ourselves, by his prophecy, open to every shift or whim of one single export market? If the United States could ruin our fisheries industry and if the hon. member really believes so little in the United States despite his protestations of friendship-and he is the official opposition critic on fisheries-that is a clear indictment of Liberal trade policy which would put our fishermen, if you believe him, in the position where a whim of vengeance in Washington would be sufficient to ruin our Atlantic coast fishermen. Possibly that was true under the previous administration. It is interesting but I think not wholly confirmatory to have the hon. member's unintended admission that it was true but it is not likely to be true under a new government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about oil?


Edmund Leverett Morris: His statement is not a policy, Mr. Chairman; it is simple fear-mongering. It is divisive and it seeks to separate the fishing community from the rest of Canada. It says to us for the people in the west, "Go get markets for wheat", but it says to the people of the east, "don't dare; it will ruin the fishing industry." It ignores the fact that

fishermen in the Atlantic provinces will share fully in the greatly augmented prosperity of that region presaged for the Atlantic provinces in Conservative legislation during the present session of the house.
I think we have to meet these remarks head-on, and as a private backbencher on this side of this house I accept the challenge that a diversion of trade would ruin the fishing industry, a diversion of trade from complete reliance upon the United States to a lesser reliance. A diversion to the United Kingdom and other overseas markets will be beneficial to the Atlantic provinces and in that benefiting the fishing community will share. We do not seek to separate them from the rest of the maritime society.
Is it true to say that things were always so bad in the fishing industry in the 1930 era as we would be led to believe? Last night the hon. member for Charlotte mentioned 1930-they always do-but he did not tell us that between 1930 and 1936, despite an adverse United States tariff, there was rapid growth in the development of an important market for Nova Scotia fish in the middle west of the United States. I do not say an adverse tariff is a good thing at all, but the other economic factors survived it and overcame it and the market expanded in that area. It expanded despite this adverse United States tariff.


Mr. MacEachen:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would the hon. member care to tell the committee the decrease in the value of the fisheries production in the province of Nova Scotia during the years to which he has referred?


Edmund Leverett Morris: I do not have those figures but I am delighted that the hon. member took the bait. I want to quote a passage to him from the report of the Gordon economic commission, and this is your government's idea of the economic prospects of Canada, not ours.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am asking for the figures of fish production during the years to which the hon. member has referred, particularly in eastern Nova Scotia?


Edmund Leverett Morris: I am going to give you the answer-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There was an unparalleled decline in fish production.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -if you will restrain yourself long enough to take your seat. I should like to quote from the Gordon economic commission report on the commercial fisheries
Supply-Fisheries
of Canada. Last night the minister recommended that hon. members read it but apparently the hon. member has not taken that advice. In the report I find the following:
The Canadian Atlantic fishing industry lagged in development on the basis of the innovations just described.
These were filleting at the source of production and quick freezing.
This may be attributed to several causes: (a) the lack of a mass market close at hand, (b) the conservatism of the business community involved and the scarcity of venture capital for investment in the industry, and (c) political opposition to modernization . . .
Nevertheless, especially in Nova Scotia, some progress was made. In that province, the development of the fresh fish trade in the inter-war period fell into two phases. In the first, up to about 1930, it depended almost solely on expansion of sales in central Canada; in the second, aided by favourable rates on the Canadian railways, an important market was opened up in the middle west of the United States. In the latter phase, growth was more rapid, despite the adverse United States tariff between 1930 and 1936.
What in fact has been the practice in the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast in the last 20 years? The policy of the late administration was to enshrine decadence in our fishing communities and describe it on postcards as picturesque. It was the suppression of dissent with the stock reply that it would take time to repair the fishing industry. Take time indeed! It certainly will take time now after years of neglect. The late government did not take time to repair it. It impinged upon eternity. Under the laws of chance that policy might, given an eternity of government, by trial and error have hit upon a solution. But, Mr. Chairman, so might a monkey if you trained it how to punch the keys of a typewriter ultimately produce a play by Shakespeare.
Next week there is a Liberal convention and no doubt we will get the same pious platitudes on the fisheries. In the 1919 Liberal convention resolutions fisheries received five words, "Net, twine and fishermen's equipment." The idea was to lower the tariff. In 1948 another leader was chosen and we got this resolution:
The Liberal party will support the institution of new programs designed to widen the domestic and foreign markets for fish .	. . low cost fishing
equipment, establishment of adequate landing facilities, of safe anchorages, adequate aids to navigation and encouragement of improved fishing practices.


Mr. Mclvor:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Hear, hear is right. Let us check out this resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member
permit a question?

Supply-Fisheries


Mr. Bell (Sain! John-Alberi):: The old
squidjigger.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman now read to us the resolution on fishing adopted by the Conservative convention in 1956?


Edmund Leverett Morris: If I could be allowed to defer that I will do so later. I have not brought it with me. However I should be glad to enter it into the record as quickly as I can after my speech. I have not it with me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, the hon. member came in without his own resolution?


Edmund Leverett Morris: That is correct. I came in without a lot of resolutions on a lot of other things-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is self-evident.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -adopted by the Conservative party and the Liberal party. Let us check out this record of achievement in the fishing industry. In 1954, the value of production in fish processing establishments in the Atlantic region of less than $199,999 totalled 83.9 per cent of the total of all production. On the west coast, in the Pacific region, these plants of a similar productivity value accounted for only 51.2 per cent in their area. In so far as the gross value of sales was concerned, 25.1 per cent in the Atlantic region was under $200,000; in the Pacific region, only 2.8 per cent.
Let us check out the number of fishermen, a good test of the effect of policy. In 1944 there were 64,200 in Canada, excluding Newfoundland, and in 1950 there were only 700 more. Let us check out employment in the fish processing plants in the maritimes and Quebec. There was exactly the same number employed in 1954 as there was in 1917. From 1944 to 1950, employment actually dropped by 100.
Let us check what the Liberal administration did in respect of price policy for fish. Here, Mr. Chairman, is chapter 120 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, which is the Fisheries Prices Support Act. This act was passed in 1944 but not promulgated until 1947. How much was done under that act which contained wide powers? The Fisheries Prices Support Act empowered the board to purchase directly or by means of agents any fishery product if such product on inspection met standards as to grade and quality prescribed by or under the act, and to pay to the producer of a fisheries product directly or through such agents the difference between a price prescribed by the board for such fisheries product and the average price as determined by the board.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate who described the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg this morning as a juvenile might bear in mind that this young man who sits right ahead of me was fishing with a handline from a dory when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was pushing a pencil in the civil service and waiting to get into politics. This is the hon. member who is so concerned about our attitude toward fisheries. On June 8 last, fish prices at Halifax were as follows-this is 48 hours before the election-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Forty-eight hours?


Edmund Leverett Morris: These figures were published on June 8, and that is 48 hours before June 10. I am sorry I am being interrupted in making these things clear which are so apparent. The prices are as follows: cod steaks, 3J cents per pound-prosperity for fishermen -cod scrod, 1 j cents per pound; haddock, large, from 4 to 5 cents a pound. Those were the prices fishermen were receiving just before the election. Let us look at the situation today. The price of cod steaks is 3| cents per pound, up 15 per cent; cod scrod, 1.75 cents, up 15 per cent; haddock, large 6 cents, up 20 to 50 per cent. We do not say this is all the result of government policy, but there must be something going on to increase fish prices.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member who pretends to know so much about fishing know that in the winter months there is only about 10 to 20 per cent of the fleet fishing and the prices for ground fish always go up?


Edmund Leverett Morris: That is unquestionably and undeniably a sizeable factor. I am not denying that. We are not taking all the credit for this situation. I am quoting facts. I am quoting from page 5, column 6, of the Halifax Chronicle Herald for January 9, 1958 and from page 14, column 2, of the same newspaper for June 8, 1957. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says that everything was fine in the fishing industry under the previous government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where does the hon. gentleman find that statement?


Edmund Leverett Morris: In the 1955 tax year, in Nova Scotia there were only 330 fishermen out of our total force of fishermen who had taxable incomes. They paid to the treasury of Canada an average tax of $4.11 per week. Prosperity. In this report the province of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, which deserves a much better fisheries policy, is marked with a hairline. This report is the Department of National Revenue, taxation

division, taxation statistics for 1955, page 63. An asterisk indicates less than $100, but for Newfoundland there is a stroke line, which indicates even less than that. Apparently no fisherman in Newfoundland had taxable income in 1955.


Mr. McCleave:: Except the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I do not mean to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the problems of the fishing industry are easy of solution. I am not blaming the former minister of fisheries for all the things that are wrong with the fishing industry. I am not going to say that everything can be fixed overnight. I am not a fisherman, but I have a good fishing constituency and I have gone fishing with the fishermen and I know some of their problems. I know, for instance, that since June 10 we have taken out three rotted Liberal wharves in my constituency; we have barricaded three others as being unfit for human travel. A few days before the election somebody tore out the last piles under the wharf at Lower Prospect, which used to be one of our finest fishing communities. On the 1957 voters' list there were 91 people listed, compared with 200 to 300 in former years. Of the 91, only three fishermen under the age of 60 were fishing out of Lower Prospect last June.
Since June 10 we have made repairs of one sort or another to fishermen's wharves, breakwaters or facilities at Indian Harbour, Sambro, Sandy Cove, Portuguese Cove, Herring Cove, MacNab's Island, Three Fathom Harbour, Turner's Island and Ecum Secum. We propose improvements or surveys for Carter's Point, Cooper's Point, Ecum Secum, Port Dufferin, West Quoddy, Boutilier's Point, Bayside and Lower Prospect.
Mr. Chairman, without attempting to bring forth derision, because I know what the hon. member will say about these things, I want to say that we have set up a royal commission to examine, among other things, the prices of food products including fisheries prices. I know something about how that came to be done. That at least will establish some basic factual material of benefit to the fisheries. In the Liberal administration the fisheries were supervised by a group of well-padded snoopers. I found in my constituency that fishing licences were being granted only after consultation with the local Liberal chairman. That has stopped in my constituency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whom do they consult now?


Edmund Leverett Morris: They do not consult anybody now. Now they are hired civil servants, free of political domination. I have seen
Supply-Fisheries
fisheries inspectors or fisheries officers throw traps back into the water with only one button secured so that the fisherman, if he caught anything, would lose it. That has stopped too.
Things were not very grand for the fishing industry under the Liberal administration. I have a letter here which would show you just how bad they were. It reads:
Dear Mr. Morris:
I understand that some funds from the government have now been authorized for the construction of an outhouse on the wharf at Sheet harbour east.
Mr. Chairman, under the Liberal administration the fishermen were denied even that elementary facility.


Mr. Cameron:: It would appear that the fish in the Atlantic ocean are extremely political animals, much more political than our undeveloped fish on the Pacific coast which, I imagine, would view the prospect of being caught under the auspices of either a Liberal or Conservative government with distaste. However, it has been interesting to note the way in which the codfish of the Atlantic ocean have been wooed by the former government and by the present government and we can only hope that they will cast their ballots in the right way when the election takes place.
On the Pacific coast we have perhaps a rather less well developed point of view- we are a primitive people of course-and we look at the matter in a more or less objective manner, as to the best way to develop our fishing industry, without too much regard to the political auspices under which that development takes place.
In fact I can recall only one instance in recent years where politics have entered into a discussion of fisheries and that was during the campaign of my friend the hon. member for Coast-Capilano when at a meeting one of his opponents was asked if he did not agree that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano had made an excellent minister of fisheries, the opponent very quickly said, "Oh yes, I think he did and if I were a salmon I would certainly vote for him." However, by and large we do not pay very much attention to the political aspects of the administration of the fisheries department. We have the idea that sometimes the department is not wise, but we do not make the mistake of imagining that it is a shortcoming in the higher political echelons.
I should like first of all to express my very real appreciation of the courtesy of the new Minister of Fisheries this summer when he was in my constituency in coming out to visit me at my house before going to the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member

Supply-Fisheries
for Comox-Alberni. In many years of sitting as an opposition member, both in the legislature and in the House of Commons, I must say this is the first time a cabinet minister has considered it important enough to call on me as an opposition member.
I have a number of specific matters which I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. I discussed during the Christmas recess with officers of the fishermen's union in Vancouver, and I imagine the minister has already been made aware of this point, the question of the re-institution of the bounty on dogfish. The dogfish population on the coast appears to have been increasing very rapidly in the last year or so and has been causing very great damage, both to the fish and to the nets, causing considerable loss to the fishermen.
1 can understand the difficulties with which the minister may be faced in re-instituting this bounty because, of course, the history of the way in which the bounty was taken advantage of by certain fishing companies does present problems. As soon as the bounty was instituted the price paid by the companies for dogfish was reduced by that amount. In a very adroit way, of course, the fishing companies succeeded in having the federal treasury pay for half the dogfish they bought.
There is a similar matter I would like to bring to the minister's attention and that is the question of reducing the population of sea lions which has become very acute once again on our coast and the fishermen with whom I have discussed the matter are of the opinion that the government might well take some action at the rookeries of these animals to reduce the population sharply.
They have also been concerned for a year or two with the question of whether or not Japanese fishermen in the Pacific are actually catching fish which had their origins in Canadian rivers. I understand there was a sort of expedition made from the biological station of Nanaimo a year or so ago into the western Pacific waters in an attempt to solve this problem and to get some factual information about it. Some of the fishermen with whom I discussed the matter are of the opinion that expedition did not go far enough and that they would have been better advised to have made arrangements to go out with the Japanese fishing fleet. I believe the union in fact asked permission for one or more of their members to be sent on such an expedition so they could report to the fishermen on the coast as to the evidence that might be found with regard to this matter.
I have also received a letter from the northern branch of the fishermen's union at
' Mr. Cameron.]
Prince Rupert which is connected with this question and this letter sets forth the present position with regard to territorial waters and suggests that the present three-mile limit is wholly inadequate to protect Canadian fisheries from foreign fishing in what are virtually, so far as fishing is concerned, our own territorial waters. I would like the minister to take note of that matter although, of course, that particular question does not come within the purview of his department.
Another matter was discussed by me with the union of which I was reminded by the hon. member for Halifax when he was speaking. He was citing as a black mark against the Liberal administration the fact that the numbers of fishermen engaged in fishing in his part of the world had been steadily declining. Our trouble in British Columbia is the exact opposite-the numbers of fishermen have not been declining nearly enough to make up for the modern gear and methods of fishing that have been instituted. The fishermen's union in discussing this matter, twice have told me they thought it was time the government was beginning to consider the question of some method of limiting licences without imposing unfair penalties on bona fide fishermen at the present time, but that there should be a program of progressively limiting the number of licences. As licence holders die or leave the industry the licences should not be replaced in order that the fishing fleet might be reduced to a size where there would be an adequate livelihood for those engaged in the industry, without endangering the conservation methods. I might say that all the fishermen with whom I have spoken are in hearty support of such conservation methods and I believe this is evident in the very short fishing seasons now permitted in the waters between Vancouver island and the mainland. These have been progressively reduced in recent years by conservation methods in order to preserve the fishing industry and I feel that probably one of the reasons this has had to be done is the size of the fishing fleet. With such an enormous number of fishermen engaged, the limit of the catch which the conservation policy will allow is reached within a very short period, and this, I think, is a matter which the minister should seriously consider, namely the possibility of rationing the industry and reducing the number of commercial fishing licences issued during the fishing season.
Several hon. members have spoken of the conflict between power and fish in British Columbia, and I should like to underline what some of those who have spoken before me have said. I feel it is a very dangerous

attitude to take at the present time to say that power must take precedence over fish, and my attitude is not dictated entirely by purely economic reasons, either. I remember that last year when I was speaking on the fisheries estimates the then minister of fisheries made the comment-not at all an offensive comment, but a pleasant one, I thought-that I had placed this problem on a more fundamental basis by pointing out that we have in the world today a tremendously dangerous development in our thinking which would subordinate life and living things to manufactured goods of every kind and for every purpose; and I believe it is very important that we should be as cautious as possible about taking any steps which would destroy one of the major miracles of nature to be found in our country, namely the mysterious return of the salmon from the ocean every four years to spawn in the streams of the Pacific coast, a sight which cannot but impress anyone who sees it.
To destroy this in order to produce more aluminum, more this or more that, would seem to me to be an offence against the very purpose of life. In view of possible power developments in the future which might make installations of the present kind uneconomic it would seem to me most injudicious and most unwise to relax for one moment our determination to maintain the fisheries based on the rivers of our country. I think we should feel extremely regretful in 10 or 15 years from now, if having destroyed the fisheries on the Fraser river, one of the great fisheries of the world, we found that the hydro development there was no longer an economic project in the light of new developments in the use of atomic power. There have been indications from Britain in recent weeks that such developments are within measurable distance of achievement. I hope the Department of Fisheries will maintain the rigid determination that has been shown in the past to avoid any rash destruction of fisheries in favour of a short term advantage in the generation of power for manufacturers.
These are some of the matters which fishermen on the coast wish to have brought to the attention of the minister. I think most of these fishermen take the position that no matter what government is in office these matters will, and must be, attended to. They will be watching very carefully of course just what action the present administration will take in these matters, but their criticism will, I think, in the future as well as in the past be directed rather to the actual administration of fishery policies by civil servants of the department than to anything else. I hope the new minister will examine some of the actions which have been taken and
Supply-Fisheries
perhaps review them and take heed of the views of the commercial fishermen on the Pacific coast who, I think by and large, are well seized of the necessity of careful conservation measures with a view to maintaining the industry on which the livelihood of so many people depends.


Mr. Hahn:: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment to his present post in charge of the Department of Fisheries. I think this is a recognition of the fact that he has always taken an active part in discussions on fisheries matters and shown a keen interest on many occasions, not merely in the fisheries problems of the east but also in those of the west coast. I was particularly pleased that the new minister should have taken the time, while he was on the Pacific coast studying the fisheries question in that area, to call on myself and others-not just on members of his own political party-in order that we might discuss with him some of the problems which affected our constituents.


Mr. Cannon:: On a point of order, I wonder whether the shorter member for Halifax is still in the chamber or whether he left after he had delivered his own speech, as he accused the hon. member for Charlotte of doing.


Frederick George Hahn: I am, frankly, not amazed at what has just taken place in the committee, but I certainly wonder what the hon. member for Halifax has to do with the member for New Westminster, except that we both have the problems of the fishing industry on our minds. I trust that in future any interruptions which may occur will have something to add to what I have to say, or that they will seek to show that the arguments I am making in respect of the fishing industry on the Pacific coast are incorrect.
I certainly agree 100 per cent with a few of the points which have been raised today. The hon. member for Nanaimo has just referred to three important problems: the bounty on dogfish, the reduction in the population of sea lions, and the question of territorial waters. I think these are three matters of which the minister should take very careful note because they are matters which much concern the fishermen on the west coast. I do not wish to add to the hon. member's remark on these subjects at this time; but I wish merely to point out that these are questions which have been drawn to my attention as well as to his and, no doubt, they have been placed before each of the hon. members representing constituencies on the Pacific coast.

Supply-Fisheries
Mr. Chairman, there remain several matters which have not been mentioned in the committee today but which have been drawn to my attention, possibly only because the constituents whom I have the honour to represent live along the Fraser river. One of these questions has to do with the equalization of the time allotted for catching fish. The gillnet association members have a particular complaint in this respect. They complain of the fact that the fishermen in the Johnston straits area who are permitted to fish five days a week with seiners, are being treated much more fairly than the corresponding fishermen on the Fraser river who are only permitted to catch fish during two days of the week. The reason for their complaint is well founded. They say it is exactly the same run of fish which is in question, the same fish comes up the Fraser river as passes through the straits and, therefore, they think they should be given the right to fish for as many days as the fishermen in the seine vessels. There is a certain feeling that a particular group is being favoured, and they do not think this should be the case.
It is a grave problem this year, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour announced that there were some
698.000	unemployed as of December 26. While he did mention the fishermen, I would say that a good many of those he mentioned are undoubtedly from the Fraser valley and they cannot qualify because they do not have a sufficient number of weeks devoted to fishing to qualify them for unemployment insurance benefits under the regulations.
Another question that has disturbed this group of fishermen is the division of time which is proposed under the regulations dated December 5, 1957. The first of these regulations reads as follows:
That a split fishing day for salmon purse seines and salmon gill nets be established in area 6 (Butedale) area 7 (Bella Bella) and area 8 (Bella Coola-Namu), whereby during each fishing week salmon purse seines would operate from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. daily, and salmon gill nets from
6.00	p.m. each day to 6.00 a.m. of the day following; provided that the opening day (Sunday) of each week would be exempted from this arrangement; also it would not quite apply to Burke Channel above Kwatna, nor to Dean Channel above Edward Point.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this does not relate exclusively to my own riding but it does concern fishermen. The regulation continues:
It is represented that such arrangement would aid in the ever-increasing problem of conservation of salmon runs in these particular areas; also that separation of the two types of gear would assist in orderly and effective operations by each and would be generally advantageous.
(Mr. Hahn.]
Then there is this particular note:
Note: If there appeared to be doubt that such a regulation could be applied successfully to the whole of each area, there is the alternative suggestion that the proposal be implemented on a trial basis for the 1958 season by confining its application to particular waters of the three areas, i.e. Whale Channel, Matheson Channel-Kynoch Inlet, Seaforth Channel, Fisher Channel-Fitzhugh Sound.
The observation made by the gillnet fishermen in this respect is that the time allotment is completely in reverse of what they think it should be. The fishermen cannot gill at night and if this proposal is put into effect the seiners would have the full advantage of getting the bulk of the fish.
The hon. member for the Fraser Valley raised the question of the ownership of the Japanese fleet. I asked the former administration about deep-sea fishing and the former minister of fisheries, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, as recorded at page 1711 of Hansard of February 27, 1957, had this to say:
It may be that there is some slight mingling in the centre of the ocean-it is a very big ocean- between the salmon which have left the Siberian streams and the salmon which have left our British Columbian and Alaskan streams.
These hon. members who were here might recall that at that time I raised the question as to whether Japanese fishermen were catching salmon which might have spawned in the Fraser river or upstream from the Fraser and had gone out to sea and were being caught by Japanese and other fishermen. In his reply which I read a moment ago the minister said that there was perhaps some slight mingling in the middle of the ocean but he went on to say:
As far as the pink salmon is concerned it is highly unlikely, because they are only a small five-pound fish at maturity and they cannot go that far. The sockeye are out there for four years and the springs may be there for five years, so it is possible that the big ones may get that far. Some of the Siberian fish may turn up over here and some of our fish over there.
The question I would raise, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Hahn: We have suddenly been plunged into darkness, Mr. Chairman, because the lights have all gone out.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The Hansard reporter will be unable to continue in the dark.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, do you wish me to continue or shall I wait for a few minutes to see if the lights come on again.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea):: If the hon. member wishes he could take his seat for a moment until we see if the power failure can be corrected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be pointed out that this once happened under the Liberals, too.


Mr. Slick:: You can rest assured there will be no chance of having it happen under the C.C.F.


Mr. Herridge:: A Social Credit member was speaking, though.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can
the Minister of Fisheries not produce an electric eel?


Some hon. Members:: Page the hon. member for Vancouver East, the electrician.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. May I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house or later this day, whichever the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



SITTING SUSPENDED

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Department of Public Works is to blame for this tragedy this afternoon.


Mr. Hodgson:: They might as well take the blame. They are blamed for everything else.


Howard Charles Green: I think it is the Ottawa hydro.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no; well, that is a Tory organization.


Howard Charles Green: However, it has been agreed by the representatives of the parties that we should suspend the sitting until 4.30 and if by then the lights are not on we will consider the house as adjourned until Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the sitting shall be suspended until 4.30 today or, if the lights are not then restored, it shall be taken as adjourned until Monday at 2.30 p.m.?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 3.50 p.m. the sitting was suspended until 4.30 p.m. this day.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 4.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, the house will resume the business which was interrupted earlier today.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
139. Departmental administration, $319,700.
Charles Edward Rea: The hon.
member for New Westminster.
Supply-Fisheries


Edmund Leverett Morris: I wonder if I might interrupt the hon. member on a question of privilege?


Charles Edward Rea: Will the hon. member for New Westminster allow the hon. member for Halifax to interrupt on a question of privilege?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Shortly after my remarks
earlier in this debate, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine questioned whether or not I had left the chamber. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman and the committee that I had not left the chamber. I was in behind the curtains providing a reference in my speech for the Hansard staff.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested to me since the lights went out that it was the vigour of my speech that caused this to take place. I am sure that everyone recognizes, because I am suffering from a cold, it is impossible for me to speak with much vigour. However, other factors might have caused this situation. One such factor is the shadow of Liberalism which hangs over us, and another one is, as was suggested to me, that the Conservatives failed to pay the light bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps they were trying to pay the bill with Social Credit money.


Frederick George Hahn: If they had not accepted the socialistic principle of public ownership I am sure we would not have run into the same problem, because private enterprise would have seen to it that we had an auxiliary plant.
When I was so rudely interrupted, Mr. Chairman I was discussing the tagging of salmon on the high seas. I questioned whether the Japanese were getting more of our salmon than they were entitled to. Possibly when the minister replies later today he will make a statement on the results of our tagging, with relation to the origin of these fish. I do understand that some results are being shown at this time.
Another problem which has been raised in this house from time to time is that of fish versus power. I do want to say a few words on this issue because I find a great deal of interest being shown in the matter on the Pacific coast. When I was home for the Christmas recess I had drawn to my attention an article in a British Columbia newspaper dated December 18, which is entitled, "Dam Plan Gaining Support".


An hon. Member:: Whose plan?


Frederick George Hahn: The plan for the Moran dam; it refers to the damming of the Fraser river in any shape or form. This article expresses some of the fears of the different groups. In fairness to the power interests it should be

Supply-Fisheries
said that they have suggested we can have fish and power. On the other hand, the fisheries interests suggest that having the dam will eliminate our great salmon industry. The former minister of fisheries, in speaking to the house last year, as reported on page 1707 of Hansard, indicated that the value of the salmon industry to the people of British Columbia was about $50 million a year. This figure seems to be in dispute. General Mc-Naughton, when speaking to the external affairs committee last year, indicated that the value of the salmon industry was about $12 million. Senator Reid, in speaking to this question following the announcement made by General McNaughton with respect to the value of the fishing industry, indicated that the value of the fishing industry was something like $75 million. However, whether it is worth $12 million or $75 million is actually an immaterial factor. The truth of the matter, as was indicated by the hon. member for Nanaimo, is that we have here a question of keeping an industry alive which is going to supply food for a great number of years to come.
While it is true that the former administration indicated that it was opposed to creating a dam on the Fraser river until such time as all other sources of power were explored and utilized, and the C.C.F. also indicated they favoured maintenance of the fisheries industry rather than power on the Fraser river, as did we, it remains for this government to state its position on this matter. I would urge the minister to say something about it in his reply.
There is one question that has arisen in the course of the debate which was touched upon by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. He spoke as a result of certain statements made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and earlier statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, concerning the Rocky mountain trench and the possibility of developing power in that region, thus keeping our fisheries industry intact. There is no denial of the fact that there are other sources of power in British Columbia. The question of whether or not power could be developed from this area is a debatable one, and might better be discussed outside this house. It was suggested by the former member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who was a highly respected gentleman and who certainly took a very active interest in these problems, that it might be named the Rocky mountain trough. I am just drawing the attention of the C.C.F. group to that fact. I take no exception to that terminology for it connotes that everybody may eat from the trough some day, certainly everyone in

British Columbia might be expected to do so at some time or other. They might well look into that matter.
I should like to draw to your attention also the fact that throughout all the discussion with respect to this particular power development no one has come out and told us how they would finance the scheme. I am satisfied that the hon. member for Nanaimo, who is the financial expert of the group, has from time to time indicated that the tight money policy was necessary. He certainly has not endorsed any suggestion that a huge expenditure of this nature might be financed through the public treasury.


Mr. Barnett:: Would the hon. member
permit a question? Would he not be more correct if he were to suggest that the hon. member for Nanaimo said this so-called tight money policy was an illusion?


Frederick George Hahn: It might have been an illusion to the hon. member for Nanaimo but I think that certainly every merchant and everyone else in business in the country thought it was a rathef realistic thing. If my hon. friend will search through the files he will discover that businessmen generally would be more inclined to agree with me than to agree with his suggestion.
However, I do not think it is our purpose at this time to particularly discuss the question of the Wenner-Gren project or whatever one wishes to call it, because the question of the salmon industry and the effective power development along the Fraser river is one which is of such importance to the people of the lower mainland in British Columbia as a whole, a fact which was so well stated yesterday by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. His point was very well taken.
There are one or two things which I think should be kept in mind in discussing the biological problems relating to the salmon industry, should we decide to go ahead with the development of dams on the Fraser river or should we even be inclined to permit such development. It is a well known fact, as was stated by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, the former minister of fisheries, that it was found that all the salmon had been destroyed as a result of dams built on the Columbia river. I understand the United States has spent some $150 million to date in trying to re-establish the salmon industry-in fact in just trying to re-establish the pink salmon industry-on that river and they have not been successful largely due to the fact that they have created so many hazards up river to make it practically impossible for spawning fish to go up stream to lay their eggs in the proper places.

The ridiculousness of the scheme-not that the scheme itself was ridiculous-but the ridiculousness of the thought that the salmon industry will not be hurt by the diversion of waters from the Columbia into the Fraser and that they would not be disturbed is quite apparent, as was pointed out by Dr. Royal when he was before our committee last year. Certainly before any scheme is carried for-word with respect to development of the Columbia river to divert any of the excess water we might have into the Fraser river and then utilizing it there, this matter should be given very close attention and I am sure it will be found that nothing but harm could come from the carrying out of such a proposal. I am sure we would be branded as wasters of food of all time if we were to permit such a scheme. We would be depriving generations to come of the privilege of enjoying the fruits of the fishing industry which they would have a right to expect to inherit from us. That, of course, is a most important factor.
There is another question with which the hon. member for Fraser Valley dealt and with respect to which I would like to conclude my remarks. That is the question of the reopening to fishing the district from the Pat-tullo bridge or the New Westminster bridge to the Mission bridge. This question was raised in the first instance early in 1954, I believe, when it was first indicated that the department intended to close the district to fishing. After that it was changed to closure in progressive stages but today it has reached the point where it has been made practically uneconomical for fishermen along the Fraser river in that area to try to carry on. Perhaps that is a desirable result-I am not sure that it is. The former minister of fisheries told us that the quality of the fish was one factor to be taken into consideration in closing an area. The fishermen in that region have always argued that the quality of the fish was no worse than that of fish which might be caught elsewhere.
Because my time is limited I would merely direct the attention of the Minister of Fisheries to the remarks in the marine and fisheries committee report for 1957, at page 33. After considerable questioning between the hon. member for Fraser Valley and Mr. Pritchard in regard to this matter, it was pointed out that the salmon which are caught in the Fraser river have been good and in past years have been of grade A standard. They have been accepted as such by the laboratories and graded as such by our food officials. We therefore see no reason why we should deprive the fishermen in that area from carrying on that industry which is a natural one for them; namely fishing on the Fraser river by means of gill nets.
Supply-Fisheries
The fish do not show the deterioriation that one might normally expect. Perhaps one reason for this is that the canneries are so close to the fishermen and so there is no delay in taking the fish out of the gill net and getting it to the cannery-much more rapidly than would otherwise be the case. Therefore the fishermen in the Fraser river feel they are being deprived of their means of livelihood without due cause.
Another factor which has been mentioned is that closure is the simplest and best way to conserve the salmon. I find the international sockeye salmon commission has built up our sockeye salmon run very simply by conservation and by means of closure from time to time on the Fraser. Since they have been in charge they have been able to build our sockeye industry into the great industry it is today. We must also remember that the industry had fallen into a very serious state where at one time it was felt that we might lose our whole sockeye industry but, largely due to the effectiveness of the regulations enforced in that region by the commission, they have been able to build up the Canadian sockeye industry. They did that by allowing, not disallowing, fishing on the Fraser river by these gill net fishermen.
I feel, as does the hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver South will feel the same way as he has some of these fishermen in his area -that to close the fishing in the area from the Pattullo bridge to the Mission bridge at certain times is to force these fishermen to do their fishing down the river. Of course we then have twice as many fishermen down river as would normally be the case which means the fish there have that much less chance to escape.
I thank the committee for its attention.


Mr, MacLean:: As hon. members of the committee, one after another, have commenced their remarks I have been repeatedly reminded of the custom which I believe is attributed to Genghis Khan. He had a habit I understand, of feeding his intended victims a royal banquet before having them led out to be decapitated. As the debate went on, however, I realized that this thought was quite unworthy of what hon. members were saying, because it was obvious that they had good wishes toward me, that their congratulations were sincere, and that they approached these problems with the interest of the fishing industry primarily uppermost in their minds.
Some questions were raised by members of the committee which I intend to deal with briefly at this point. Later on, further answers may be given with regard to the various

Supply-Fisheries
items if there are further questions. The hon. member for Charlotte raised the question of the management of salmon for sport fishing in his riding. Of course, the hon. member is aware, I am sure, that fisheries, as far as sport fishing in inland waters is concerned, are the responsibility of the provincial governments with respect to the leasing of streams and that sort of thing, and, also that the attraction of tourists to the sport is primarily a provincial responsibility. However, the department has an advisory committee, the Atlantic salmon co-ordinating committee, which has representatives on it from the five most easterly provinces, together with advisers from associations interested in sport fishing.
The hon. member for Charlotte, also the former minister, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate all raised the question of our markets for fish in the United States and the importance of these markets. This is not a matter which comes strictly under the jurisdiction of this department, and it would more properly be discussed on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I do realize, of course, the interest of all those concerned with the fisheries in this matter and I am very much aware of the importance of the United States market. I can assure hon. members that I will take every precaution to see that our market there is not curtailed in any way, and the department, together with the Department of Trade and Commerce, is exploring every means possible of increasing the market for Canadian fish in the United States.
It should not, I think, be forgotten that there is a great imbalance of trade between Canada and the United States in favour of the United States and that efforts to lessen this huge imbalance can hardly, in all fairness, be looked upon as grounds for reprisal by the United States against Canada. Nevertheless, we do realize that in the case of fishery products the United States market is an extremely important one, and with a view to preserving that market, as well as other markets, for Canadian products, and for removing any misunderstanding whatsoever in trade relations between Canada and the United States, there is frequent consultation between the two governments. A committee at cabinet level of the two countries has already met with regard to this question. I feel sure the misgivings and fears of hon. members in this regard are unfounded.
Several members of the committee raised a question which is commonly known as the fish versus power controversy. The hon. members for Coast-Capilano, Fraser Valley,

Nanaimo and New Westminster all mentioned this subject. It is, of course, a very important question, and I should like to say in this regard that it is my intention to safeguard in every way the interests of the fishing industry. The Fisheries Act provides considerable power for the minister under section 20, I believe, and wider powers still for the governor in council under section 34.
We realize very vividly the great importance of the fishing industry especially when looked on as a long-range proposition, since this industry is one that can regenerate itself indefinitely if it is properly managed and conserved, whereas it may well be that the problem of providing more power especially from hydro sources is a passing one. There is a tendency in this direction already; there is a large thermal plant in the planning for the Vancouver area which will remove some of the pressure in this regard, and as time goes on other sources of power may be developed which will remove this threat to the fisheries completely. We hope that this will be the case. Failing that, there is a possibility -a lesser one, I think-that means can be found of having both fish and power on the same stream, but in large developments where a series of dams would be required there is little likelihood of this being achieved in the near future.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley and the hon. member for New Westminster also brought up the question of restrictions on fishing above the Pattullo bridge. This is a matter which is under active consideration. There are a great many factors which have to be considered and carefully weighed, but it is hoped that well in advance of the next fishing season regulations can be devised which will be reasonably acceptable to all concerned and which will at the same time protect the resources in that area.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley and, I believe, the hon. member for New Westminster also raised the question of the possibility of Canadian investment in the Japanese fishing fleet. We have no knowledge whatsoever which would lead us to believe that there is the slightest truth in this suggestion. We have no information which would lead us to that conclusion, and no reason to believe that it is the case.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned the importance of the market in the British West Indies to the Canadian fishing industry. This is especially true of salt cod, and I thank him for bringing this matter to our attention, though we are very much aware of the importance of this market. However, once again, this is primarily

the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We are watching this situation carefully, and any constructive suggestion such as that put forward by the hon. member is appreciated and will be followed up closely to see whether some benefit might accrue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister take kindly to my suggestion that he urge upon his colleagues the idea of a parliamentary mission.


Mr. MacLean:: It strikes me as a suggestion that might have considerable merit. The hon. member for Nanaimo brought up the question of a bounty on dogfish and sea lions and I would say with regard to the latter question that a plan is now being formulated to kill a large number of these sea lions during the present season. Also, there is a survey being made both from the air and by boat to estimate more accurately the population of sea lions on the west coast and this is being done with the co-operation of the wild life service of the United States. There was a program some time ago for a bounty on dogfish which did not prove to be very feasible because only a very small percentage of the money voted by parliament was used in this regard.
I made a statement in the house on the orders of the day regarding that problem and the situation has not changed yet but if a feasible plan can be brought forward by the industry generally on the west coast which would reduce the number of dog fish there, we would be very glad to study it carefully with a view to bringing it into effect if it seems to have reasonable possibilities.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit me to ask a question at this time? I did hear some reports to the effect that there was a possibility of a new suggestion being put forward jointly by the industry and the fishermen on the west coast. Has the minister not received any recent representations?


John Angus MacLean: No, none whatsoever as yet. No suggestion or proposal has been received recently. The hon. member for New Westminster also raised the question of the Japanese fleet on the high seas fishing salmon which are produced in Canadian waters or waters on this side of the Pacific and wanted me to say something in that regard. A great deal of very necessary research has been carried on recently, during the last two years in particular, in this regard by means of tagging salmon and by other scientific means such as the study of parasites and various other involved methods of determining the origin of salmon which are in mid-Pacific
Supply-Fisheries
waters. No evidence has yet been found which would indicate that any Canadian salmon go beyond the traditional line on this side of which the Japanese do not fish. That line is 175 degrees west longitude and no evidence has been uncovered which would indicate that fish of Canadian origin frequent the waters west of that line. There is some evidence, however, that certain numbers of fish-the percentage cannot be accurately estimated-originating in parts of Alaska may go beyond that line for short periods of time at least but on the whole the principle of abstention which the Japanese have accepted under the north Pacific fisheries treaty is of tremendous benefit to the industry on this side of the Pacific because if that abstention principle were abandoned the Japanese, as would be the case with any other nation, would have the right to fish anywhere beyond our territorial waters. I believe I have answered most of the questions that were raised by hon. members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister say a word about what the plans are for the Valleyfield experimental plant for the coming season and what his hopes are?


John Angus MacLean: I would prefer to do that when we are dealing with the particular item under which this comes.


Leonard T. Stick: May I ask the minister a question arising out of the statement which he has just made, Mr. Chairman. The minister stated that the fears held by some of us regarding the United States tariff commission recommending to the government of that country an increase in the duty on our fish are unfounded. He also stated that constant negotiations are taking place at cabinet level between the Canadian and United States governments in this regard. The minister of course knows that repeated attempts have been made by the United States tariff commission to increase this duty. Can the minister assure the committee that there will be no recommendation by the United States tariff commission to increase the duty on Canadian fish?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I said that I felt the fears of hon. members in this regard were unfounded. That is our hope. I cannot, of course, speak for the United States government and there is no means of any one in this country guaranteeing what they may or may not do. However, this is a recurring problem, one which has arisen over the years, and we hope that by bringing carefully to the attention of the United States government what the Canadian position is no rash action will be taken by the

Supply-Fisheries
United States government which would seriously affect this important branch of Canadian industry but, as I said, I cannot speak for the United States government.


Leonard T. Stick: According to your reply, Mr. Minister, you cannot reassure us definitely on this matter. It is only your hope that increases will not be made.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I also have a question arising out of the minister's statement and with the permission of the hon. member for Gloucester whom you have already recognized I will put my question now. On what does the minister base his hope?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I base my hope on the fact that there is constant consultation between the governments of the United States and Canada on all of these matters. It is true, of course, that the United States government operates on a different principle from the Canadian government and there is admittedly a strong lobby in the United States which is trying to bring about a condition which would be very detrimental to the Canadian industry. This has been going on for a number of years. Their attempts have not been successful from their point of view up until this time and there is some reason to believe that the situation in this regard has not deteriorated from our point of view. But as I said before, it is, of course, impossible for me to speak for the United States government and I should point out that this is a responsibility that is not mine, it is that of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There has been and will be very close co-operation and reference to each other on these and other matters affecting the fishing industry.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to assure the hon. member for Halifax that the members of this committee were relieved and accepted his explanation of his quick vanishing from this chamber following the delivery of his out-house speech on fisheries. I feel the type of house I am mentioning may be more appropriate for this place than the one mentioned by the hon. member.
The hon. member for Halifax during the course of his remarks stated that it was the policy of the present government not to separate the maritime fishing communities from the rest of Canada. If we take into consideration the figures on unemployment which were released yesterday as at December 26, 1957, which show that some
698,000	are unemployed we can only conclude that the situation in the maritime fishing

communities is definitely no different from that which exists in the rest of Canada.
The hon. member also stated that according to the report of the Gordon commission the number of men engaged in the fishing industry had decreased in the last few years. This is only natural following the modernization of our fishing fleet and of the fishing operations in general.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the policy of the previous government in the last 20 years, especially as it affected the fishing industry, may not have been perfect. It may not have given to the fishermen and to the industry as a whole all the benefits that it could expect; but, after all, we have seen the fishing industry progress; we have seen the construction of a new fishing fleet in the Atlantic provinces, subsidized by grants from the federal government; we have seen cold storage facilities being constructed in the main fishing constituencies; we have seen the implementation of insurance on fishing gear and this year fishermen were accepted for unemployment insurance benefits.
The hon. member for Halifax also mentioned a series of public works projects which were undertaken in his constituency in recent months; but I think if the hon. member wants to be fair all he has to do is to look up the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, and on page 65 he will find that under item No. 372 there is $2,763,500 appropriated for such projects in his province of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the remark of the minister, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment to this important portfolio. I also want to congratulate him on his statement in introducing the estimates of his department. I am sure that those who have been in the position to meet the minister on his visits to the east and west coasts to familiarize himself with the establishment of his department and of the industry throughout the country must have at different times placed before him some of the problems facing the industry today. After all, an industry as important as the fisheries must have some problems.
However, I regret that in his brief visit to the east coast of New Brunswick the minister was unable to visit the fishing constituency and fishing establishments of Gloucester county. If I am correct, the fish dealers and processors of Gloucester county were invited last fall to go to Shediac in Westmorland county in order to meet the minister. I understand, however, that the time of the minister was taken up and that

he did not have time to visit my constituency of Gloucester. However, to my mind it would have been much more profitable if the minister had made a personal visit to the large processing plants established at Caraquet, Shippegan and Lameque, where he would have seen in operation the largest and one of the most modern fishing fleets of its kind on the North American continent. I sincerely hope that in the future, and it may have to be at a very early date, he will take into consideration the advantages of such a visit. After all, Gloucester county produces a larger variety of fish, more species of fish than any other constituency in the Atlantic provinces and probably in Canada. It is not my intention to make elaborate remarks at this time in connection with the estimates now before us for consideration. There are, however, a few points which I would like to bring to the attention of the minister and his department at this time.
In its report on the commercial fisheries of Canada, the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, known as the Gordon commission, seems to indicate that along our Atlantic shores the secondary fishing, or maybe the less important operation known as shore fishing, was more or less inclined to gradually disappear. It is true that on the Atlantic coast the great fleet of dory schooners has virtually disappeared and has been replaced by a steadily growing fleet of draggers, long liners and other modern craft. It is also true that following a greater diversification of industry in the Atlantic provinces the dependence of the coastal population on fishing has been reduced throughout the Atlantic region. However, I feel that opportunities for profitable investment in this secondary industry are still open and it would be disastrous to the economy of the Atlantic provinces if the shore fishing, that is fishing with small boats within five to 10 miles from the shore, disappeared. Here is where government intervention is called upon to play a significant role and here is a problem which should receive immediate and most careful consideration and study by the Department of Fisheries.
A few months ago the fisheries research board of Canada published the report of the Atlantic herring investigation committee. This report tells of the co-operation of six governments, five provincial and the federal government, in seeking the basis for a more lucrative herring fishery in the gulf of St. Lawrence region. The discovery of new stocks of fish and of better and more modern ways of fishing and catching them is playing a large part in the expansion of the fishing industry which has shown such vigorous signs 96698-204
Supply-Fisheries
of progress in the last decade. This investigation committee, at a total cost of $281,000 to the different governments, has provided the background and impetus for the continuation of herring exploration on a larger scale by the fisheries research board. Now that this committee has attacked the problem of learning how to catch and find more and better herring, now that its findings are known and have been made public, the time has come to put those findings into practice.
We have in certain sections of the gulf of St. Lawrence a fall herring run of a quality unequalled anywhere in the world. There is a growing demand on the Canadian and United States market for this particular variety of fish processed as vinegar-cured or otherwise. We also have along our shores small settlements where fishermen cannot and will never engage in what is known as deep-sea fishing, such as is carried on in draggers or long liners. We also have settlements where the population has for generation after generation been employed in fishing operations and where the condition of the soil makes it impossible for this population to engage in farming or lumbering. These are the people whose only means of living is by fishing, and this is a class of fishermen which should receive the full protection and co-operation of the department.
I feel that the department, through its fisheries research board, should undertake at once practical herring fishing operations in the gulf of St. Lawrence-Baie des Chaleurs area in order to determine once and for all whether this spasmodic fishery can be improved and carried on economically in a practical way by individual commercial fishermen. I would suggest that the fisheries research board take into service the local fishing vessels of the small dragger type and operate them from June to November, for at least a full season. One should be equipped probably with a purse seine and the other with a substantial set of drift nets or gill nets, also with full echo sounding devices in order to determine once and for all whether the antiquated methods of herring fishing in the area cannot be improved in a sound and economical way. Here I am making an exception of the bay of Fundy area where sardine fishermen are using more modern methods to catch fish. There is a possibility that an adequate midwater trawl could provide an efficient method of catching herring in our waters.
I realize that the department, through its protective service, has done considerable work in the last four or five years, and has to some extent improved the severe problem facing our lobster industry. At every opportunity since I have been a member of this house

Supply-Fisheries
I have brought to the attention of the department the expediency of an education program for the lobster fishermen of the Atlantic provinces. The program of education undertaken in certain areas may have resulted in some improvement, but there is much work to be done in this particular field. Earlier this session I placed on the order paper a series of questions having reference to the lobster production in Gloucester county. These questions and replies can be found in Hansard of October 28, 1957. My first question was:
What was the total number of cases of canned lobsters processed in Gloucester county, New Brunswick, during the months of May and June 1957?
The reply received from the department was "9,614 cases on basis of 48 one-pound cans to a case." My second question was:
What was the approximate number of cases of canned lobsters processed In the same area during the months of August and September, 1957?
I realized that this was a very hypothetical question because there was no lobster season in the area during that period, so the answer was "nil".
My third question was:
What was the total number of lobster traps destroyed or confiscated, during the period August 1 to September 30,	1957, in waters adjacent to
Gloucester county, New Brunswick?
The reply was "2,175". When over 2,000 lobster traps can be destroyed or confiscated in a period of two months during a closed season in a stretch of water of less than 25 miles there is something wrong somewhere, and the severe problem of the protection of the lobster fishery is certainly not well in hand. More constant vigilance, and more so, more practical education-I insist on the matter of education for our fishermen-is required to remedy this most unfortunate situation. It is time that the department should be more practical in the implementation of its protection program.
Earlier this session I placed another question on the order paper asking for information with regard to the number of fishermen engaged in lobster fishing in New Brunswick waters. The reply was as follows:
Charlotte	 536
Westmorland	 833
Kent	 1,062
Northumberland	 370
Gloucester	    724
Restigouche	 113
That is a total of 3,638 fishermen. A few days later I placed the following question on the order paper:
Has the Department of Fisheries published in New Brunswick's daily or weekly newspapers any ads or publications having to do with the conservation of the lobster population, during the period January 1 to September 30, 1957?

The answer was "yes". My second question was:
If so, what were the names of the daily or weekly newspapers and number of ads published in each?
The reply was:	Fundy Fisherman in
Charlotte county, where there are 536 lobster fishermen, 1; St. Croix Courier in the same county, 1; King's County Record, Sussex, 1. That is the county of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I wonder how many fishermen there are there. Then there was the Fredericton Gleaner, 1, and that is in the county of the hon. member for York-Sunbury. Also there was the Saint John Telegraph-Journal and the Times-Globe, 1; the Tribune-Post at Sackville, 2; the Commercial-World at Chatham, 6; the Gazette of Chatham, 6, and the North Shore Leader of Newcastle, 6. No advertisement was published that would reach or was bound to reach the French speaking lobster fishermen of Westmorland, Kent and Gloucester counties who number over 2,000.
There is no doubt that the lobster fishermen are becoming convinced of the soundness of the laws applied by the Department of Fisheries and in many cases are co-operating more fully in observing these laws and regulations. However, these same fishermen deserve better and more practical consideration by the department and its officials and I can find no excuse whatsoever for the department to advertise in such newspapers as the King's County Record and the Fredericton Gleaner if these advertisements are really intended to reach the lobster fishermen. The department should realize and keep in mind that of over 3,000 lobster fishermen in eastern New Brunswick over 75 per cent are French speaking and have a right to benefit from the information distributed by the government department.
Before resuming my seat I would ask the minister to give us further information with regard to the amending of the regulations enacted under the Fish Inspection Act to provide for the compulsory or even voluntary inspection and grading of fresh and frozen fish. I realize that in replying to a question which I asked the minister in this regard on Friday, November 8 the minister stated, as reported on page 1,109 of Hansard for November 14, 1957, that it was not contemplated that a committee of the house would deal with the proposed amendments to the regulations as it had been the practice of the department to have full discussion with the industry through its association, the fisheries council of Canada, and with others on proposed amendments and regulations.
Does the minister mean by this that the members of the house who have been elected and who have a responsibility to their electors and more so those who are concerned

with the fishing industry, as well as those of us who are members of the standing committee on marine and fisheries, have no right to be given an opportunity to study such important and far-reaching amendments before they are enacted? I am sure that the members of the committee on agriculture would not stand for such treatment and members from fishing constituencies should be given ample opportunity to study such important problems.
Finally, I also urge the minister to take every possible step and action to persuade Washington not to raise the present duty on fish and not to introduce any new duty on fishery products. We are all aware that pressures in that direction are already very great, as the report of the United States tariff commission indicates. I want to join in the plea of my colleagues, the hon. member for Charlotte, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate, in this connection. I am sure that all members of the committee were pleased to hear from the minister that some action would be taken and has been taken to protect the United States markets for Canadian fish and that there was constant reference between the two governments concerned in this most important problem.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question about the indemnity plan. I want to know if anything has been done about extending it to the prairie lakes. I asked this question of the former minister and his answer was that they did not have the administrative staff then to handle it. Has anything been done since in order to let us have the benefit of that plan?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, the problem in this regard is a real one. It is an administrative one which is very difficult to overcome. The objective the hon. member has in mind is indeed worth while. It is one that we have in mind as well and efforts will be made to achieve that end but I cannot promise the hon. member anything definite at the present time.


William Scottie Bryce: I am delighted to have that assurance from the minister and I hope he will do what he can because I think it is something worth while for the fishermen. In making a speech about fish I am handicapped because the only fish I can brag about are the Winnipeg goldeye and lake Winnipeg whitefish. Nevertheless, they are delicacies and salesmen tell me that they can sell more Winnipeg goldeye than anything else in the fish business.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Chairman, I am following a custom established for a number of years 96698-2044
Supply-Fisheries
in taking part in this debate as a representative of a fishing constituency. I wish, first of all, to join other members who have congratulated the minister upon his appointment to this important portfolio. I wish, not only to congratulate him upon his appointment but to also congratulate him on the excellent manner in which he has presented his estimates to the house today. I am particularly pleased that he did present his estimates in such an excellent manner because it is very likely this may be the last chance he will have to present the estimates of this department, and if he had not done well he would not have any opportunity to redeem himself.
I should like also to congratulate all the members who took part in this debate on the very useful and interesting contributions they made to it, and the high level of the debate. This was true of all the contributions except that of the shorter of the two hon. members for Halifax. At the end of his remarks he made an allusion to a certain outhouse which will permit students of parliamentary lore in the future to refer to his speech as "the outhouse speech".


William Joseph Browne: You have one on the other side now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was a most distinguished intervention.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I was particularly pleased to hear the minister's assurance that the government of which he forms a part are making representations to the United States to avoid any repetition of the recommendations that have been made by the tariff commission of the United States that the tariff on Canadian fish be increased. We all know this presents a most serious problem for all fishing constituencies. This problem is even more urgent and the danger is even greater now because there is no doubt that the attitude taken by the government that there should be a diversion of 15 per cent of our imports from the United States to the United Kingdom is not of a nature to make friends for us in the United States. I am very pleased that the government are doing all they can to prevent any increase in the tariff.
There are a couple of suggestions I should like to make, and a couple of questions I should like to ask of the minister, which he will no doubt answer when he makes his supplementary statement in this house. My first suggestion is that something should be done for fisheries along the lines of the government's action in helping agricultural products. I have always maintained, Mr. Chairman, and I believe I have been right in doing so, that all primary producers in this country should be on the same footing; they should get the

Supply-Fisheries
same sort of help from the government. I suggest to the government that they should introduce an act which would give to fish the same price support as agricultural products now receive. There is no reason why there should not be a guaranteed price and a floor price for fisheries products, just as there is for agricultural products. I submit this recommendation to the minister and to the government.
Recently it has been drawn to my attention, now that unemployment insurance for fishermen is in force, that a difficulty is being experienced in this way. Ordinary contributions made by fishermen, that is, contributions they make in occupations other than fishing, help to qualify fishermen for seasonal benefits, but fishermen's contributions do not count to qualify for ordinary benefits unless there are less than five. It seems to me this is not fair, and is an anomaly that should be corrected. There is no reason why, if contributions that are made by a citizen as a labourer or as a carpenter can count to give him the minimum number of contributions needed to qualify to draw seasonal benefits as a fisherman, a fisherman's contributions should not count to give him the number he requires to qualify for ordinary benefits. I suggest the minister should take this up with his colleague in the Department of Labour and have this anomaly corrected.
The questions I wanted to ask of the minister both deal with benefits for fishermen that were introduced by the Liberal administration. The first question relates to the Fishermen's Equipment Loans Act. I should like to know what results that act has produced, and whether loans in appreciable quantities have been made to fishermen under it? The reason I ask is that the last time I spoke on the estimates of the fisheries department I suggested that the minimum cash payments were too high. The minimum cash payment a fisherman has to make on new equipment is 30 per cent, and the minimum cash payment on old equipment is 40 per cent. The fishermen of my constituency have complained to me that this does not help much because they can find merchants who are willing to sell them this equipment if the fishermen are willing to put up 30 per cent or 40 per cent. It seems to me that in order to make this act of use to the fishermen this percentage should be reduced.
I should like to know how many fishermen, and what percentage of the fishermen who fish for lobsters, have taken advantage of the lobster trap insurance introduced by the previous government? I have a few other questions, but I shall ask them on the individual items when they come up.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the two members who spoke last for their congratulations to me; whether or not they are merited is a matter of opinion, but I appreciate them in any case.
May I deal with the last questions first? The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine asked first about unemployment insurance for fishermen. This insurance is administered by the Minister of Labour, and I will bring this matter to his attention. I might say, though, there is a meeting scheduled for next month between the unemployment insurance commission and representatives of the industry to iron out anomalies in the regulations, now that some experience has been had with fishermen under that act.
The fishermen's improvement loans act is administered by the Minister of Finance, and I think the hon. member will find the information he was requesting in an answer that was given by the minister on December 21 and reported on page 2761 of Hansard.
With regard to the fisherman's indemnity plan for lobster traps, may I say that up to November 30

I do not have the numbers; these statistics are in value because the traps are all of different sizes and different values in different areas-in Newfoundland the net premiums amounted to $8,611.66 and claims paid amounted to $25,000; Nova Scotia, premiums amounted to $38,007.06, and claims to $120,000 in round figures; New Brunswick, net premiums, $575.50 and claims $999.75; Prince Edward Island, the premiums were $6,932.31 and claims amounted to $21,271; Quebec, premiums, $8,170.20 and claims paid out were $12,863.85. The total for the Atlantic coast in so far as premiums are concerned amounted to $62,000

this is in round figures -and the claims amounted to $180,000. There was a net operating loss of $118,289.62.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, while I
naturally take an interest in fisheries I represent a riding which is particularly interested in sports fishing and where the famous Kamloops trout are found in considerable numbers in the Kootenay, Arrow and Slocan lakes and other lakes often reaching the size of 25 pounds. I am very glad to hear the minister say that his department is taking some interest in sports fishing.
However, on this occasion I rise to do two things. Firstly I am very pleased to congratulate the minister on his appointment and upon the industry he has shown since he has occupied his position and, secondly, I would like to extend to him the thanks of one of my constituents for a very unusual service recently performed by the minister. One of my constituents-a pioneer constituent-who formerly lived in the east has

suffered for some years from rheumatism and he suddenly remembered he was represented by a member who always paid very close attention to the needs and representations of his constituents. So he wrote me a letter to say that he suffered from rheumatism and he had remembered that the pioneers cured their rheumatism by rolling an eelskin around the joint in question and could I obtain for him an eelskin. So I took up the matter with the Minister of Fisheries who immediately said he would see what he could do about it. After a short time a tobacco tin arrived in my office containing an eelskin, in salt. I forwarded the eelskin to the constituent who is now enjoying the effects of this eelskin wrapped around his arthritic joints and he is very pleased with the minister's work in that connection. He has asked me on the first possible occasion to extend to the minister his appreciation and sincere thanks for giving attention to this detail.
Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I might say man's ability is not always judged by the large brush strokes he paints on the canvas of policy with respect to his department. Very often his ability as an administrator and as a humanitarian is also demonstrated by his attention to minor details and his consideration for the welfare of his fellow human beings.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I am grateful for the appreciation of the hon. member's constituent which has been relayed to me through the hon. member. I also want in passing to say that I appreciate the invitation of the hon. member for Gloucester to visit that very important Ashing riding. It is not only a very important one but it has a very wide variety of species of Ash produced and it is a very historic Ashing constituency, one of the most historic on the mainland of Canada. I would say indeed the most important with the possible exception of one in Newfoundland-


John Whitney Pickersgill: With the exception of
Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Angus MacLean: I made that exception-I said on the mainland of Canada.


Mr. Broome:: I do not wish to take very much of the time of the committee because I know the minister is anxious to get to his estimates. However I believe at least one government member from the west coast should say a few words on this most important industry.
Fishing ranks as our fourth industry, enabling something like 18,000 persons directly-so the industry claims-to be employed and also giving employment to some
Supply-Fisheries
75,000	persons indirectly. In 1954, and these are according to the industry's authentic Agures, the commercial Ashing industry of British Columbia was valued at $69 million. Salmon Ashing alone had a value of $50 million. It is estimated that by using known conservation methods and the new knowledge acquired by biologists that the take in the Ashing industry can be doubled in the next 25 years.
This may sound somewhat fantastic but there is the record of what has been done by the international PaciAc salmon Asheries commission on the Fraser river which has rehabilitated that river to the point where the production of sockeye salmon has been greatly increased over the output of the last three decades.
The commission however has stated in their report of 1954 that the present production is still only 56 per cent of the average of the peak years, which were from 1910 to 1913. In this year of 1958 the Adams river run, it is estimated, will approach the peak year of 1913. Some 12 million Ash will enter the Fraser river; 10 million will be taken and 2 million will escape to the spawning ground near Salmon Arm. In a stretch of river one and a half miles long 2 million Ash will be congregated at one time in October of this year. Salmon Arm will be holding a salute to the sockeye salmon which is planned as their centennial project and I suggest that any hon. members who wish to see one of the greatest sights in nature should go to Salmon Arm in October of this year.
That is what could be done all the way, to a more limited extent, up and down the coast. For instance the federal department have a plan at Jones creek whereby Ash eggs will be planted so that they will build up the runs of pink salmon in the off years to equal the runs in the on years. The planting of these eggs must be done with due care and regard to the fact that it takes salmon one and a half days to reach this spawning ground and they can only be planted in another stream or spawning ground which will take the mature salmon a day and a half to reach.
There are some 25 or 30 locations up and down the PaciAc coast which with a relatively small expenditure could be turned into Ane salmon producing streams by means of a certain amount of patrolling to eliminate log jams. The creation of artiAcal spawning beds in this way means that the Asheries can be dispersed up and down the coast.
Enough has been said about Ash versus power. I must, however, agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Nanaimo that the value of the

Supply-Fisheries
Fraser river sockeye run to the people of British Columbia at the present time far outweighs the possible value of power. This is what Mr. Tom Ingledow, the vice president and executive engineer of the B. C. Electric Company has to say in a pamphlet entitled "Facts on Fish" published by the fisheries association of British Columbia which I received this morning:
-construction and labour costs for hydro developments are pricing them out of the market compared with the construction of thermal plants, since thermal costs tend to decline and hydro costs to rise.
He further declares that nuclear power is likely to be the most economic source of energy within the next ten to fifteen years and that that company is backing up this statement with a $125 million project.
I do not wish to delay the committee, but when you think of the Stewart salmon and the fact that they stop eating when they reach fresh water, and for 800 miles they fight their way up the network of the Fraser and its tributaries to their spawning grounds, and that when they reach there they die and in the next year the fingerlings come down and four years later the cycle is repeated, it will be seen that nothing must be done which will interfere with one of the greatest sources of protein foods given to us by God.
There is one matter which has not been dealt with satisfactorily, and this, perhaps, is the main reason for my wishing to speak on this occasion. I refer to the subject of pollution. In British Columbia we have a pollution control act under the authority of the provincial government under which a provincial control board has been set up with limited jurisdiction over the waters of the Fraser river below Hope and in the gulf. But this act is more concerned with protecting public health and recreational areas than it is with preventing pollution of streams and its consequent effect upon the fishing industry. Industrial waste reaches a point at which it takes up the free oxygen content of the water, and the fish suffocate to death. This is quite apart from the pollution caused by the discharge of sewage from cities. I believe the Department of Fisheries should be vested with proper legal authority to exercise a power of veto over the discharge of industrial waste into rivers. This may become a problem of vital importance a few years from now as industrial development in the west increases.
I believe also the Department of Fisheries will have to work more closely with the Department of Agriculture with regard to the spraying of forests with insecticides, because D.D.T. sprays, although they are

saving our forests and although an attempt is made to apply them under ideal conditions, are killing the vegetable life in our streams and killing the fingerlings in the bays into which the streams empty. There does seem to be a great deal of work required to be done in connection with discovering selective sprays which will kill the forest-destroying insects but which will not affect our fisheries.
The question of too many fishermen has been brought to my notice. I believe the fishermen would welcome a licensing system, though that would be in conflict with our spirit of free enterprise. With the increase in protection now being afforded, in the next 25 years if proper conservation measures are used there will perhaps be enough fish to enable us to avoid the need for licensing. But in the meantime if we do not add to the number of fish we have got to reduce the gear.
Turning briefly to another matter, with regard to markets, I regret I did not specify a remark I made. I was referring to canned salmon.
I should like, in conclusion, to read part of a report on the fishing industry of British Columbia made to the Gordon commission:
During the years immediately following the war, we were unable to restore our traditional export canned salmon markets due to their lack of dollars. Thus we saw one market after the other close its doors to British Columbia canned salmon. To meet this crisis the industry undertook a vigorous campaign to increase sales on the domestic market. Through good merchandising methods, aided by the factors of increased population and purchasing power of the consuming public, we have been able to build up the domestic market to 50 per cent of the average annual pack. Direct and sustained approaches were also made to retain at least a portion of the important market in the United Kingdom. It was recognized by the industry that the United Kingdom had to have dollars if she were to continue to purchase goods from Canada in substantial quantities. To this end, the industry worked through every available channel and received excellent government co-operation. They sent a delegation to Britain to see what could be purchased for use in the fishing and other basic industries of British Columbia. That this goodwill gesture was appreciated is testified by the number of compliments the industry has received during and since it has inaugurated this program. Its effectiveness has been substantiated by the increasing volume of British made goods being utilized in the fishing industry and by their related suppliers. During the last few years, the United Kingdom has made dollars available for canned salmon purchases of about 200,000 cases annually. Some other markets, such as The Netherlands, France, Italy, and New Zealand have continued to find the dollars with which to carry on this trade.
It has been estimated, however, that the United Kingdom market could be worth 1J million cases to us if only Great Britain had sufficient dollars available. Mr. Chairman, I did have some more I should like to have said, but I should like to close at this point.


Chesley William Carter: May I call it six o'clock?


John Angus MacLean: Perhaps it might be possible to pass at least the first item. There would be no restriction on members of the committee raising any points they might wish to raise on individual items as we go through the estimates, but I should appreciate it if there were any possibility of passing the first item.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member is
allowed to make his speech as if he had made it on the first item, I do not think there is any objection. I do not refer exclusively to the hon. member who has just risen. There are other hon. members who may wish to do the same thing.


Erhart Regier: In that case I should like to have the same courtesy extended to me.


James Sinclair: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what is the business for Monday?


Howard Charles Green: The business for Monday will be as announced last night. The first item is No. 7 on the order paper, second reading of a bill in respect of a loan to the government of New Brunswick concerning the Beech-wood power project; then item No. 8, second reading of a bill to provide assistance in respect to electric power development in the Atlantic provinces; then item No. 5, second reading of a bill to provide for stabilization of prices of agricultural commodities; then
Business of the House item No. 2, second reading of a bill to provide for annual vacations with pay; and item No. 4 on today's order paper, second reading of a bill to implement the agreement between the governments of Canada and Australia in respect of income tax.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could ask the leader of the house if he would not give consideration to the business on Wednesday, and give consideration to the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The leader of the house will remember that this morning the Prime Minister said he would be most willing to assist us in any way he could because of those three days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and it would be most useful to us if, with the approval of the other parties, we could take up on Wednesday the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are prepared to agree to any arrangement regarding the business for Wednesday which can be settled between the leader of the house and the hon. member for Laurier, provided we can be told what that arrangement is.


Howard Charles Green: I will take into consideration the suggestion made by the hon. member for Laurier and endeavour to let him know on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Be sure to let us know too.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. MacEachen: How many immigrants have settled in Nova Scotia for each year 1953 to 1957, inclusive?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
The statistics quoted below represent those persons who, on arrival in Canada, gave the
province of Nova Scotia as their destination. These statistics do not necessarily represent the number of immigrants who have settled permanently in that province:
1953 			 2206
1954 			 2207
1955 			 1841
1956 			 1639
1957 			 2405*
*The total for 1957 is for the period January to September inclusive. Statistics are not yet available for the last quarter of 1957.

Dominion-Provincial Conference



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Province of Manitoba Office of the Premier Winnipeg
December 18, 1957.
The Rt. Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, P.C., Q.C., Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Diefenbaker:
Since returning from Ottawa my colleagues and I have had an opportunity to carefully review some of the events of the conference. As is usual at these meetings, many matters were discussed in order that all of us might better understand the problems of all parts of our great country. Some subjects received more attention than others. My colleagues and I feel that it is advisable now to restate Manitoba's position on one question which, to our surprise, took precedence over even the most basic matters with which we had hoped to deal.
I refer to the financial adjustments for the Atlantic provinces that were proposed by the federal government. At the conference itself Manitoba's position was stated as well as it could be on such short notice. You will recall that it was at federal insistence that the conference found itself having to deal with two or three specific matters, including the so-called Atlantic provinces' adjustment, before the meeting broke up, while it
appeared to the Manitoba representatives that you and your ministers were unwilling, or unable, to deal with the broader question of the general financial arrangements between the federal and provincial governments.
It may be that some provinces had anticipated that the federal government was going to insist that a maritime adjustment be concluded at this two-day meeting, while the decision respecting the main issue of general dominion-provincial financial rearrangements, which our province believed to be the main reason for the conference, was to be postponed. In any event because of the insistence by you and your colleagues in the last hours of our two-day meeting that this specific matter had to be dealt with at that particular moment, we had no time to prepare a full and studied statement of Manitoba's position in this connection. We have been giving further serious consideration to the question since our return home, however, and we think our province and the nation itself would be best served if we were now to make some further statement in this connection.
As I pointed out to the full conference in Ottawa, Manitoba's main financial proposal for dealing with the fiscal arrangements between Ottawa and the provinces would have produced the following results:
Province	Present arrangements:* 10-9-50 with equalization to average of two highest-yield provinces ($38.70)	Manitoba proposal: 15-15-50 with equalization to the highest-yield province ($61.49)	Gain in potential revenues of the provinces under Manitoba proposal as compared to present arrangements$000	$000	$000Newfoundland	
16,064	25,523	9,459Prince Edward Island	
3,843*	6,105	2,262Nova Scotia	
26,887	42,715	15,828New Brunswick	
21,465	34,106	12,641Quebec	
179,130	284,620	105,490Ontario	
214,444	332,326	117,882Manitoba	
32,899	52,270	19,371Saskatchewan	
34,084	54,150	20,066Alberta	
43,469	69.060	25,591British Columbia	
54,122*	85,997	31,875Total	
626,407	986,872	360,465
* Excludes stabilization payments: $293,000 for Prince Edward Island, and $4,861,000 for British Columbia. 96698-205
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Conference
Our proposal will readily be seen to mean an extra $40 million for the Atlantic provinces. This extra assistance to that part of our nation would, under our plan, be available through a formula which would apply equally to all sections of Canada and which would mean that all Canadian citizens would be treated equally by our main tax-sharing arrangements.
However, we made it quite clear at the conference that if, after these main and basic changes in the tax-sharing arrangements were made, still further aid from the national treasury was needed by and given to any part of Canada, Manitoba would agree completely with such decision by the federal government. We also emphasized the point that adverse weather conditions or other unfavorable circumstances might place one or all of the prairie provinces in the same position and consequently that the policy should not be termed an Atlantic adjustment but one applicable to any province of Canada where the need is established.
We think, however, that you asked the non-Atlantic provinces for an almost impossible decision in the context in which you chose to place your request for our "approval" of this Atlantic settlement. You will recall that at our Tuesday discussions you and your colleagues indicated clearly that you wished the provinces to jointly (and presumably unanimously) agree that the following three programs had priority over a decision on the general fiscal settlement:
(1)	A maritime (Atlantic) adjustment;
(2)	The inclusion of mental and tuberculosis costs in the federal shareable portion of any hospitalization scheme, and finally
(3)	The new downward extension of the existing dominion-provincial unemployment assistance agreement.
You made it clear at that time that you had no intention of dealing conclusively at the November conference with the main issue of a realignment of tax-sharing arrangements that would bring benefit to all provinces and thereby to their municipalities. You and your ministers also declared it to be your policy that if the provinces agreed to any of these three specific items the resulting costs would have to be subtracted from whatever amount might be available for the future general dominion-provincial fiscal rearrangements which will most directly benefit municipalities and provinces.
In passing I might repeat what I said at the conference, viz., that nowhere in your speeches (or those of your colleagues) during or preceding the recent election campaign do we find any evidence of the mutual exclusiveness of these programs. When you promised or implied new financial relief to
municipalities and provinces, or when you and your colleagues said that mental and tuberculosis costs should be shared by the federal government in a national health plan, no attempt seems to have been made by you or them to indicate that relief and assistance given on one program would reduce the relief and assistance so badly needed on the other. At no time did you or your colleagues say, for example, that if the provinces wanted mental and tuberculosis costs included in the national health plan, the federal share of such costs would have to come out of the provincial share of any future improvement in tax-sharing arrangements.
The change in your position became evident only at the November conference-and was basically the reason why Manitoba's delegation at that meeting expressed objection to the methods chosen by you and your colleagues to arrange the Atlantic settlement which you had promised among so many other things prior to and during the last federal election.
We say again, as we have said before both at the conference and in this letter, that the basic tax-sharing rearrangements should have been established first, and special assistance formulas studied and developed after that, for use in any region of Canada which required supplementary aid.
The Kowell-Sirois commission, which made the most penetrating study in the past 25 years of dominion-provincial problems and relationships, was set up by the federal government of 1935-40. Manitoba strenuously argued the case of the less wealthy provinces before that body. In the tax suspension days of the second great war we were happy to do our part provided only that the national policy extended equally to all parts of Canada. In the post-war reconstruction and tax conferences of 1945-1947, 1950, and 1955-1956, Manitoba has consistently fought for a nationally applicable arrangement that would leave no part of the nation able to say that it has less favorable treatment than another. We have not always won, but we have consistently striven for, policies and formulas that would have national and equitable application for all citizens of our country. We in Manitoba, at all times and with all the governments of these past twenty years, have worked hard on behalf of the smaller and less wealthy provinces- including the Atlantic group in that class. For example, on a notable occasion during the negotiations respecting one of our earlier taxsharing agreements, Manitoba-and I understand, New Brunswick as well-insisted that a specially favorable arrangement which had been offered to and accepted by one of

the other provinces, or an alternative equally favorable, be offered or made available to all provinces.
We have argued over the years, as we do now, that because of tariffs, location of corporations and their head offices, geography, population densities, closeness to centres of greatest American development, etc., the national income and taxable capacity grows or exists unequally throughout the nation.
Manitoba has, therefore, maintained all these past years, and still does, that the great taxation fields which involve personal and corporate income and wealth should be so shared by the federal and provincial taxing authorities as to provide among other things:
(1)	Equity as between all parts of Canada so that all Canadian citizens in any province should benefit to the same extent by the sharing arrangements. This is surely essential if the nation is to attempt to develop the fundamental elements of a basic equal minimum of services in all provinces.
(2)	Elimination of duplication, confusion and cost for the taxpayers.
(3)	Efficiency and economy in the collection of taxes.
As already indicated, our view is that we should first provide for equality of treatment in the sharing of taxes on the wealth and income which grows so unevenly throughout Canada. Then if there are still provinces where extra help is needed, let the national government by all means provide that extra assistance. All we ask is that such additional aid should be granted on such a basis as would make it available to any area of Canada if in future years such areas may be in similar need.
Manitoba has bitter memories not yet 20 years old of her own near insolvency and starved services, even with the highest and most onerous taxation levy of any province of Canada. We have seen other western and some eastern provinces in a somewhat similar plight. For these reasons we urge that any special formulas that might be adopted to provide extra assistance to areas where additional aid is needed (applicable now perhaps only to conditions in the Atlantic provinces) should be applicable wherever in Canada a similar need exists-now or in the future. Let us not have narrow, patchwork, regional settlements. Let us have national plans embracing all parts of Canada.
It is therefore important that all provinces see and understand the working of whatever formulas may be under consideration by your government at the present time for use in the Atlantic provinces. In our opinion, copies 96698-2054
Dominion-Provincial Conference of the different proposals that may be presented or developed in this connection should be forwarded to each province. In addition, information as to the total amount your government is preparing to disburse to the Atlantic provinces under these new plans should be communicated to all provinces at the earliest opportunity. We do not recall any particular figure having been stated by you or your colleagues at the November conference. If we are able to have this information in advance, Manitoba will be better prepared to discuss the final special Atlantic arrangements which we understand you are planning to put forward for general consideration and acceptance at the next meeting of the adjourned dominion-provincial conference in January of 1958. If all the provinces are similarly informed of the adjustment formula being considered for the Atlantic provinces, our January meeting could more surely and quickly deal with the final disposition of this matter which has great importance to our friends in the Atlantic provinces now, and which may well have even greater long-term significance for other parts of Canada as well.
Yours sincerely,
Douglas Campbell.
Premier's Office Saskatchewan
Regina, December 18th, 1957.
The Rt. Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker, Q.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa,
Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
At the present time we are endeavouring to set a date for the opening of the Saskatchewan legislature. It would, therefore, be useful if we had an early intimation as to when you intend to reconvene the dominion-provincial conference.
Since many of the legislatures commence their sittings early in February, the most convenient month for us to attend such a conference would be January. However, if you have a later date in mind we could postpone the opening of our legislature for a few weeks. It would therefore be advantageous to us, and I am sure to the other provinces, if some announcement were made fairly soon regarding the proposed date for the conference which you indicated your intention of reconvening early in the new year.
Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas
3230	HOUSE OF
Dominion-Provincial Conference Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, December 21, 1957. My dear Premier:
On my return from attending the NATO council meetings in Paris, I have received your letter of December 18 in regard to the discussion which took place at the recent dominion-provincial conference.
This is only an interim acknowledgment of your letter. My colleagues and I will wish to study carefully your further submission before commenting on it. I shall merely assure you that this matter will receive our careful attention.
Yours sincerely,
John G. Diefenbaker
The Honourable Douglas L. Campbell, M.L.A., Premier of Manitoba,
Legislative Building,
Winnipeg 1, Manitoba.
Canadian National Telegraphs Y GSA208 RX 38- FD Regina Sask 3 240P MM 1958 JAN 3 PM 514
Rt. Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker,
Prime Minister of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Please refer to my letter december eighteenth Saskatchewan Government anxious to set date for legislature ending which will not conflict with dominion-provincial conference can you indicate if conference will be held during February and if so approximate date.
T. C. Douglas
Province of Manitoba Office of the Premier Winnipeg
January 3, 1958.
The Rt. Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker, P.C., Q.C., Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Diefenbaker:
Further to my letter of December 18 and your acknowledgment of December 21 on the subject of dominion-provincial financial rearrangements, it would be helpful if you could let me know as soon as possible the date
[Stage Direction]
on which the dominion-provincial conference will be reconvened. We are anxious to set a date for the opening of our legislature and it is difficult for us to do so until such time as we know your intentions regarding a further meeting.
If it is possible for you and your colleagues to make a statement at this time it would be greatly appreciated.
With the season's greetings and kind personal regards,
Yours sincerely,
Douglas Campbell.
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, January 7, 1958.
My dear Premier:
I have just received your letter of the 3rd, in which you inquire regarding the date when the dominion-provincial conference is to be re-convened.
I regret that the uncertain duration of the present parliamentary session makes it impossible for me to give you a specific answer now, but I will inform you as soon as a decision is made.
May I reciprocate your kind regards and season's greetings,
I am,
Yours sincerely,
John G. Diefenbaker.
The Honourable Douglas L. Campbell, M.L.A., Premier of Manitoba,
Legislative Building,
Winnipeg 1, Manitoba.
Canadian National Telegraphs
Ottawa, January 7, 1958.
Hon. T. C. Douglas Premier of Saskatchewan Regina, Saskatchewan.
Re your wire of January 3 I regret that the uncertain duration of the parliamentary session makes it impossible for me to give you a specific answer now but I will inform you as soon as a decision is made.
John G. Diefenbaker.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 13, 1958