1960-06-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron) presented the eleventh and twelfth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the twelfth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the house that I have today signed an agreement with the commissioner of the Yukon under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. This is the eleventh such agreement to be completed, and will permit the commencement of operations on July 1, 1960. By assuring residents of the territories access to hospital and diagnostic services on the same basis as other Canadians, the program should be of tremendous value to the Yukon in achieving full partnership in the nation's progress.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: May I ask
the minister if he will take notice of the announcement by the premier-designate of Quebec that he proposes not to delay action in this matter? I hope the federal government will likewise be ready to meet him and discuss the matter without delay.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to point out that the federal government has been most co-operative with all provinces ever since the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was enacted.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this is a welcome announcement which demonstrates that very soon all Canadians will have the advantages of the provisions of the national hospitalization act. Now that this agreement has been completed I hope the government will lose no time in expanding its health benefits in the direction of a full national health insurance program by providing legislation, in co-operation with the provinces, for prepaid medical care for all citizens.
79951-0-349



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958, has any medical doctor attached to, or working under the jurisdiction of, any department of government made a special request that the Department of Veterans Affairs purchase a pharmaceutical known as chlorathiozide from Merck Sharpe and Dohme?
2.	If so, what is (a) the name of each such
doctor:	(b) the reasons for each such request;
(c) the date upon which each such request was made; (d) the amounts for each such pharmaceutical purchased upon such request?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member is not present. The answer to this question has entailed a lot of extra work and correspondence, and I apologize to the hon. member for having taken so long in obtaining the information. I might also point out that the answer is quite detailed and of considerable length. Therefore I feel I should request permission to hand it in and have it appear in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to have the answer appear in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	Yes, under the trade name "Diuril".
2.	(a) All drugs of this nature are requisitioned by the various chiefs of service, medicine, in each departmental district. Chiefs of service, medicine, are:	Newfoundland,
Roberts, Dr. J. B.; Halifax, MacDonald, Dr. R. M.; Saint John, Tonning, Dr. H. O.; Quebec, Morin, Dr. J. Eus.; Montreal, Halpenny, Dr. G. W.; Ottawa, Mirsky, Dr. S.; Kingston subdistrict, Brown, Dr. Malcolm; Toronto, Macdonald, Dr. R. I.; Hamilton, Peacock, Dr. H. A.; London, Lewis, Dr. J. A.; Winnipeg, Kilgour, Dr. J. M.; Regina, Rodger, Dr. D. E; Saskatoon, Hilliard, Dr. I. M.; Calgary, Tuttle, Dr. M. J.; Edmonton, Hamilton, Dr. K. A.; Vancouver, Baird, Dr. M. M.; Victoria, Kenning, Dr. S. G.
(b)	Chiefs of service, medicine, of this department have the responsibility of requisitioning the particular drugs which in their medical judgment are required for the treatment of departmental patients under their medical control. This is the reason that these doctors requisitioned diuril.
(c)	Since January 1, 1958 there have been 100 such requests. Of these, there were 71 made during the year 1958 and 29 during the

Starred Questions
year 1959. During the first five months of 1960 no such requests have been made.
(d)	The total quantities purchased as a result of the above requests since January 1, 1958 have been 815,400 tablets, of which 541,400 tablets were purchased during 1958 and 274,000 during 1959. There were, as previously mentioned, no purchases during the first five months of 1960.
Note: Until December, 1958, chlorothiazide was manufactured only by Merck, Sharpe and Dohme under the trade name of diuril. Since then other firms have manufactured chlorothiazide and, following a period of trial during which these other products were proved to be satisfactory, this drug has been purchased by tender under its generic name.


IVANHOE LAKE, ONT., DAM
Mr. Godin: 1.	Did the federal government assist financially in the construction of the dam on Xvanhoe lake near Foleyet, Ontario in 1931? If so, to what extent?
2.	Was permission required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the construction of the dam? If so. did the Department of Public Works satisfy itself that the structure was safe?
3.	Has the federal government received any request for assistance in replacing the dam? If so, what reply has been made to such request?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Nickel Belt the answer to the first question is yes. At the request of the Ontario government the federal government contributed one third of the cost, which was divided among the provincial government, the Acme Lumber Company Limited and the federal government, each on a one third basis. The federal share was not to exceed $13,300, approximately.
The answer to the second question is yes. It is assumed the Department of Public Works was satisfied with the design of the structure, because of the federal contribution.
The answer to the third question is no.


SALE OF HUNTING AND FISHING LICENCES, CUSTOMS OFFICES, B.C.
Mr. Macnaughlon: 1.	Are employees of the customs offices in British Columbia authorized to sell provincial hunting and fishing licences?
2.	If so, has any arrangement been worked out between the federal and provincial governments by which federal employees are engaged and remunerated for providing this service?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	My department, at the request of the department of recreation and conservation,

province of British Columbia, has for several years permitted the sale by customs officers at several ports of entry in that province of provincial hunting and fishing licences, for which service these officers are paid on a commission basis.



AGRICULTURE


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the necessity of an early meeting between the government and the western farm liaison committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The urgent matter of public importance, for which the hon. member foi Essex East asks leave to move the adjournment of the house so that it may be discussed, is the necessity of an early meeting between the government and the western farm liaison committee. I recall that references to such meetings have been made from time to time in the house, and before exercising the duty which is mine initially I would appreciate it if there were some representative views expressed as to whether this subject is one on which the rule can be invoked at this time. I will hear the hon. member who makes the motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour is correct in saying that you have heard some references to this matter in this house during the course of the present session. It is true that questions have been put by hon. members to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the possibility of such a meeting. Your Honour will recall that the replies given to those questions were always of an indefinite character, and indicated no definite arrangement in so far as the declared policy of the government is concerned.
It cannot be argued that there is any other procedure open to us in order to urge the government to arrange a meeting with the farmers of western Canada, because the agriculture estimates have been disposed of. It is true that while those estimates were before the house I took advantage of the opportunity to raise this matter, but the replies of the Minister of Agriculture were of the same order as the replies given to the members of this house by the Prime Minister to questions put on the orders of the day. The matter cannot be dealt

with on the next supply motion, because a supply motion dealing with agriculture has already been disposed of this session. This matter, therefore, that is now well over a year and a half old and that has not been finally dealt with, surely should be discussed in this house at this time, particularly when we are about to prorogue.
Your Honour will recall that this matter arose a year ago last May, when a delegation of some 1,000 farmers from western Canada came to see the government concerning a solution which they proposed for the distressed agricultural situation. The government, after carefully listening to the representations that were made by those farmers, said the matter would receive careful consideration. We were told, indeed, by the Prime Minister several days before the conclusion of the last session of parliament that the matter was still engaging the attention of the government, and that before the session terminated we would receive a definite indication of government policy.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask a question of the hon. member in order to bring my problem into clear focus. Reference is made to a western farm liaison committee. I should like to know whether that is an ascertainable group. I would also suggest to the hon. member that he confine his remarks to the urgency arising since the last time this matter was discussed in the house, because any events prior to the supply motion to which the hon. member referred, if they dealt with this subject-and I presume they did-would in my view not be relevant to the point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps Your Honour would consider it relevant only because I was seeking to establish an answer to the very question which Your Honour put to me a moment ago, as to the identification of the western farm liaison committee. It was after this meeting with this group that the western farm liaison committee was established, and the results I have indicated attended questions put to the government in this matter by hon. members in this house, the same response that was received to the main representations made by the larger group. We have persisted in trying to get some indication as to when the government would meet with this western farm liaison committee. I have before me the Leader-Post of June-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: May I rise at this point, Mr. Speaker, and say that usually the courtesy is shown of giving a copy of any such motion to the leader of the government or to one of the ministers. That has not been done in this instance.
79951-0-349J
Government Meeting with Western Farmers


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the Prime Minister for what he has said. I thought a copy of the motion had gone over to him. I am sorry that it had not.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, surely. Thank you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the Prime Minister feels that he has been in any way aggrieved I shall be glad to take a moment off in order to allow him to read it.


John George Diefenbaker: Lack of courtesy has been shown.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The Prime Minister speaks of courtesy. I have said that I regretted that it was not sent over to him. I want the Prime Minister to know that if we are to have lessons in courtesy, I am not going to take them from the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: You have to learn from somebody.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: I have before me a statement which appears in the Regina Leader-Post of June 23 and which I think points up the urgency of the matter. This is a Canadian Press story which reads as follows:
Roy Atkinson, vice president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union said Tuesday that Prime Minister Diefenbaker and his government are "stalling an early meeting with the western farm liaison committee" to discuss farm problems. He told the
S.F.U. district 13 meeting here that stalling seemed to have become the Prime Minister's favourite dodge in the last two years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member realizes that he should not debate the matter which would be under debate if the motion were allowed. I think he has satisfied the point which I raised, and I should like to hear any contrary opinion, if there is any.


Murdo William Martin: You were asking about urgency, Mr. Speaker, and I am pointing out the statement made-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Murdo William Martin: I know hon. gentlemen do not like it when we champion the cause of the farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: In my view the hon. member has dealt with the point which it is necessary to have dealt with for a decision to be reached, and that other discussion would simply be anticipation of debate. I would ask him to allow me to hear some contrary view on this matter. I will hear the Minister of Justice.
5530	HOUSE OF
Government Meeting with Western Farmers


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: think there are three grounds upon which the propriety of the motion can be questioned. The first two relate to the matter of urgency, that is to say whether it is of that urgency which entitles it to be moved at this time as a matter requiring immediate debate.
In that connection I should like to point out the first of the two grounds on which I suggest it is not urgent, namely that it could be discussed on a supply motion. I understand that there have been some discussions with regard to the final supply motion that remains to be introduced. I also understand that it was indicated that that motion would be called on Monday if desired. That being the case, if my hon. friend wished we could discuss this matter on Monday on a supply motion.
In that connection I will just refer Your Honour to page 90 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, where paragraph 4 reads as follows:
(4) A motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26, for the purpose of discussing "the serious situation in which farmers of Manitoba are at the present time, on account of lack of feed for cattle and seed grain and no satisfactory result can be obtained from the government for relief", was ruled out of order, because the subject matter thereof could be discussed either on the motion for the house to go into committee of supply or on a certain bill then on the order paper-
The second of those grounds does not apply here, but the first does apply.
This matter could also be discussed on a motion for the house to go into committee of supply, which I understand will be coming up on Monday. If hon. members wish it to be discussed then, they could indicate that they wish to change the plans for dealing with the supply motion and this matter could be discussed on Monday. Therefore I submit that the urgency of debate is not of sufficient measure to warrant setting aside the present day's appointed business to debate this matter, since it could be debated on Monday.
Second, on this question of urgency, I would like to stress what Your Honour has already pointed out, namely that the matter has been discussed on a number of occasions during this session. There was opportunity for discussion on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and nothing has been said yet, I submit, which indicates that it has acquired that sufficient extra degree of urgency since it was last discussed which would warrant an interruption of the business appointed for this day. So on those two grounds I submit that the motion does not meet the requirements of urgency of debate which is a prerequisite for the allowing of the motion.
The third ground is one which I raise with some reservations, but I think it should be put


forward although in my submission the first two grounds are adequate. The third ground is the question of whether the matter raised by this motion in the form in which it has been presented is within the administrative responsibility of the government. As I recall the motion it simply said "to discuss the urgent matter of the desirability of meeting with the members of the farm liaison committee". It makes no suggestion as to what action within its administrative responsibility the government should take. It seems to me that in order to meet this requirement of the rules it should make some recommendation or suggestion or criticism with respect to what the government should do as a matter of administrative responsibility within one or other of the departments that are empowered to deal with farm problems. I raise as a very real question whether the mere arranging of a meeting with a group which is not of a governmental nature and which is not made up of members of the government or of any government can be said to fall within the administrative responsibility of the government in the sense in which those words are used in paragraph 100 on page 89 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.
For those three grounds, but as I say primarily on the first two grounds relating to urgency, I submit that this motion is not in order at the present time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words in reply to the points of order raised by the Minister of Justice. I agree with the Minister of Justice that the motion would have been strengthened by the inclusion therein of a subject matter such as deficiency payments or acreage payments. In that case it would clearly be within the administrative purview of the government. However, I do feel that this motion which has been presented by the hon. member for Essex East is one that clearly comes within the rules of the house.
I feel that this question has taken on a good deal of urgency in recent days. Many negotiations have been taking place between farm leaders and the government as to a possible meeting, but the farm organizations have now come to the conclusion that the government is giving them an evasive reply. They have issued a statement under date of June 27 in the Manitoba farmers' union news letter which bears on the question of urgency, and I wish to read from it only one sentence:
We are receiving a lot of double talk, evasive actions, excuses, delays (five months) since the federal government and farm leaders had a meeting)-
These are the words to which I wish to draw particular attention-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should not proceed to advance the arguments which would be made if this question were allowed.


John George Diefenbaker: Before you make a ruling, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not making a ruling.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue-


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to interrupt, Mr. Speaker, but before you make a ruling I should like to have an opportunity to reply to these extraneous matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will give the Prime Minister an opportunity, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition may wish to say something too. I do urge hon. members not to get into the subject matter which would be discussed if this motion were allowed. The objections to the motion were clearly put by the Minister of Justice. If there are facts that bear on recent and new urgency I would be interested to hear them, but I must say the course the hon. member for Assiniboia is following is not really that. It is rather to press the argument which would be made if this motion were allowed.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to point out that I had not completed that sentence. There is a statement which I feel has a bearing on this very matter. The house should extend me the courtesy of allowing me to finish the statement.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: The sentence reads-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear hon. members calling order. I have not made any pronouncement on this particular quotation except to indicate that it seemed to me to be tending in the direction of an argument.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why does not the hon. member hand it up to Your Honour to see whether it is in order?


Mr. Speaker:: I want the hon. member, if he wishes to continue, to direct his remarks to the impossibility of having a meeting. That is the only thing that would suggest any urgency.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to complete the sentence.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: The sentence reads:
-and now arbitrary rules of procedure from the federal government.
29, 1960	5531
Government Meeting with Western Farmers
What we are discussing now are the rules of procedure; that is why I wished to complete the sentence. I submit there is urgency because of the temper of the farm organizations at this moment. That has not been the position up until this time. Because we are in the concluding days of this session I think it is essential that this meeting be held so parliament could receive from the government a clear announcement of government policy. I believe this is necessary because the producers of western Canada have had good reason to expect an announcement from the government. They have had reason to expect it both from statements of the cabinet and of hon. members of the government party. For these reasons I feel that this matter urgently requires debate and discussion by parliament.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should hear the Prime Minister who has said that he wishes to speak.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal only with the questions raised by the Minister of Justice in regard to the administrative responsibility of the government in this matter and to what he called the extra degree of urgency, if any, which attaches to it.
So far as the minister's doubts about the administrative responsibility of the government to deal with this matter are concerned, that is a very strange argument indeed for the minister to advance in view of the fact that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, instead of taking responsibility himself on behalf of the government, asked this liaison committee to produce ideas and make proposals. Perhaps this is a denial of administrative responsibility in one sense but it is certainly an admission that this committee has a special interest in the matter and that the government would like to hear from it in regard to it.
In so far as urgency is concerned, the minister said there is no extra degree of urgency since the matter was last discussed. It is because of the delay of the government in doing anything about it that the extra degree of urgency has developed. When the minister says that we can have a supply motion next Monday, on which occasion this could be discussed, perhaps he does not know that the business of the house so far as we have been informed has been determined and a supply motion could not be introduced next Monday. However, if one were introduced next Monday under which we could discuss this matter, no doubt the minister would be the very first to rise in his place and say we were out of order in introducing this
5532	HOUSE OF
Government Meeting with Western Farmers subject because on February 22 last a supply motion which dealt with agricultural policy was introduced and debated.
We therefore would not have recourse to that particular method of discussion. On these two counts-the administrative responsibility of the government to do something about this, and the extra degree of urgency which has developed from the fact that the government has done nothing about it-I submit that the motion is in order and should be discussed at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want first to join in support of the contention of the Minister of Justice that this is not a matter of particular urgency within the rules. I am not discussing extraneous matters when I say that. Under the rules this is not a matter of urgency. Every opportunity has been given for the discussion of this matter throughout the months. Indeed, it has been a subject of continual discussion, and nothing has been advanced that would in any way indicate any extra urgency at the moment.
However, it was not in connection with that point that I intended to rise. Your Honour allowed a very wide field of discussion and statements quite, I submit, beyond what normally would take place on the discussion of a motion such as this. In fairness I must point out the facts. Reference was made by the hon. member for Essex East to some statement made by a vice president of a farm union in the province of Manitoba.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Province of Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course that was done designedly, not for the purpose of advancing any argument in favour of the motion on a procedural basis, but simply in order to place on the record the expression "stalling". The hon. member for Assiniboia followed a like course of plagiarizing a statement made by some other person.
Let me make this clear and definite. The hon. member for Essex East pointed out that the farm delegation had seen the government in March of 1959, I believe. Subsequently, some months ago, it was made very clear that the request of the liaison committee of the farm organizations for deficiency payments was not one that could be accepted. It was then made clear to the liaison committee that if it had an alternative to offer, the government would give it immediate consideration. That alternative has not been placed before the government. All that the government has received is a repetition of the arguments in favour of deficiency payments. We asked those organizations to bring their alternative, not alternatives, to the attention


of the government. As soon as they can agree among themselves as to what the alternative
is,	and it is submitted by this committee, composed as it is of representatives from various farm organizations, the government will immediately meet the committee without one minute's delay.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: I wonder whether I can say a word about the point raised by the Prime Minister, that there has been no suggestion of any extra urgency. Those were the words the Prime Minister used. I think, sir, I can satisfy you out of the mouth of the Minister of Agriculture that there is extra urgency; because on June 14 the hon. member for Assiniboia raised a question about the government receiving this delegation. I do not intend to read all of the exchange. He raised the question with the Prime Minister who left it to the Minister of Agriculture to answer. At page 4883 of Hansard the hon. member for Assiniboia said:
Can the minister say whether negotiations are taking place for a meeting at an early date, as indicated by the Prime Minister on June 9?


Mr. Harkness:: No negotiations are taking place. Several of the separate member organizations of the western liaison committee have written asking for this meeting. A date has not yet been set for
it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a further supplementary question. Is the government prepared to meet the liaison committee?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the previous answer it seems to me that the question becomes hypothetical.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no information in the minister's answer as to whether the government is prepared to meet the delegation, and the Prime Minister said this was the case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think it has been made clear in this house on several occasions in the past, Mr. Speaker, that the government is willing to meet organizations of this sort at any appropriate time when the matter can be arranged and any useful discussion can be held.


Mr. Churchill:: Very good.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the Prime Minister also said that this organization was asked to provide the government with a policy, which it did not have itself-


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: That is completely untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is getting into a debate on policy. That is not the issue before the Chair. I have allowed the hon. member wide latitude, and perhaps I have gone too far, to find out whether there was

any new circumstance in connection with the matter between the government and this committee which might be a matter of urgent public importance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I was coming to. I was going to say that this committee has been asked to make proposals to the government respecting the policy of this country. We in the opposition feel that we are entitled to have those proposals made before the session ends so there will be an opportunity to debate this matter during the current session. Since we know the session is nearing an end, it makes a condition of extra urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Stormont on his feet.


Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency mentioned in the rule has nothing to do with the matter before us. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 100 (3), reads:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
As the Minister of Justice clearly stated, the opposition obviously will have an opportunity on Monday on the motion to go into supply to discuss this matter further. I think this is an effort on the part of the official opposition to force legislation upon the government, and I think-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I have heard sufficient to make my ruling. I must say that when the hon. member proposed this motion he made a point which I feel has substance to it and deserves the consideration of the house. I refer to the difficulty of initiating new matter at this stage of the session for limited debate. However, the method he has chosen-I am not going to discuss the other methods which are open to him; I express my sympathy with the view that there is difficulty-is under rule 26. Whatever other opportunities may be open to him, my duty is to interpret rule 26 as it reads and as it has been put into operation in the past. It calls for the interruption of the business of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.
The matter proposed is the necessity of an early meeting between the government and the western farm organizations' liaison committee. It was because of the indefiniteness of that proposal that I perhaps asked for more argument than would be warranted, because I was not clear on what the hon. member wished the house to debate. It is obviously not the fact of a meeting, because that has no
Inquiries of the Ministry significance in itself. It is a meeting with respect to farm policy, I assume, that would give this motion any urgency.
In fairness to the hon. member I have tried to see some change in the relationship of the farm organizations toward this house and the government, and it is the government in this case that is referred to, which would warrant our taking the matter up again as a matter of urgency of debate.
Regard must be had to the substantial amount of time that has been spent in dealing with farm policy in the course of this session, whether it be deficiency payments or any other item of farm policy which might be discussed at the meeting which hon. members wish to urge on the government. Whatever the policy for discussion, it is a broad problem which, like the unemployment problem, cannot be the subject of a motion of this kind, in my view, unless there is some specific change, happening or event which has arisen since the general discussion in the house. There have been ample discussions in the house on farm policy, and I assume there will be further discussion in the house.
On those grounds which have been put forward and debated, I think, very fully, it seems to me the rule is not satisfied.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 121-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, resolutions and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the Saskatchewan teachers' federation concerning federal aid to education, since January 1, 1959.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has made any representations, and if so in what form to the United States government against the proposals now before the United States congress to increase the duty on Canadian lead and zinc.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this question arose two or three days ago, and instructions have been given to the Canadian ambassador in Washington to make protests there.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Would the minister inform the house at a later date of any developments with respect to this matter, which is of serious concern to the lead and zinc producing areas?


Howard Charles Green: The government is very conscious of the importance of the move made in Washington, and I will be very glad to keep the house informed of any developments.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to reports that persons on the Walpole island Indian reserve allege that Michigan state troopers came into Canada to arrest certain persons belonging to that reserve, and whether he has any comment to make.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are making inquiries, which are actually under way at the present time. There are several departments involved, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration because these persons are Indians, and the Department of Public Works which has charge of the actual undertaking.
I am not yet in a position to say what the facts are in this case. If it should be established that the two Indians were arrested on the United States side of the boundary for an infraction of United States law, it would appear that there would then be no occasion to make representations. If, however, it should appear that the apprehension of these two Canadians took place in Canadian waters then representations will be made, of course, through whatever channels are most appropriate and expeditious.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on June 22 the hon. member for Vancouver East asked me the following question:
Can the Prime Minister make any comment on the report that the Vancouver city council has requested him to convene immediately a conference of federal, provincial, municipal, employer and union leaders to consider the present serious unemployment situation in British Columbia?


To which question I replied as follows:
I will examine the record to see whether or not representations have been made, and then give the hon. gentleman a reply.
As a matter of fact he was two days ahead. It was not until June 24 that a message to that effect was received by me in the late afternoon. So far as the answer is concerned to the several matters arising in consequence of this representation by the city council of Vancouver, the Minister of Labour will make the reply.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister received a request from the Vancouver city council to call a conference on unemployment in British Columbia. Certainly the advice and suggestions of provincial, municipal and labour leaders is always welcomed in the matter of finding jobs for Canadians and in maintaining employment.
Provincial authorities particularly are in an advantageous position, as they are more familiar with the situation in a particular province and possibly are aware of developing circumstances in that province which may alter or improve the situation. In this instance I might point out that at least one province has acknowledged its responsibility in this matter; that is the province of Quebec.
The federal government called a conference in July, 1958 dealing with the question of seasonal unemployment. That conference was attended by provincial, municipal and industrial representatives, including those of labour. As a result the federal government put into effect a municipal winter works plan which was responsible last winter for stimulating needed municipal works in the amount of $75 million, and in two winters provided more than 90,000 jobs on site.
At the present time the causes leading to manpower surplus in an expanding economy are under investigation in the other place, and the services of an outstanding economist have been engaged. Dr. Deutsch and his staff will continue to amass information during the recess in order that the committee of the other place may carry on its deliberations in the light of all the facts. Certainly the situation in each province will come under careful scrutiny. A number of organizations will be asked to submit information and suggestions to this committee, and some of them certainly will be from British Columbia.
In the Department of Labour studies are being carried on dealing with the effects of automation in industry. That department's research branch is keeping a close watch on the manpower situation across Canada.

Certainly the government is in close touch with what is going on, and such policies as may be invoked to deal with the situation will be announced at the proper time. Meanwhile all suggestions are welcomed, from whatever quarter they may come.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Prime Minister whether the investigation in the other place referred to by the Minister of Labour is the same kind of investigation requested in this house and turned down by the government?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer, of course, is in the negative. The other place is a part of parliament, and the actions taken in the other place in this regard are in keeping with the assumption of a responsibility on the part of the Senate which indeed is theirs, but which in the past, particularly under the last administration, was never exercised.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of what he has just said, which is at variance with what the Minister of Labour said earlier, will the Prime Minister agree to the setting up of a committee of this house either to work on its own or in conjunction with the committee of the other place so that the elected representatives of the people, as well as the members of the other place, may have an opportunity to discuss and study unemployment with the aim of arriving at a solution to this serious problem that confronts Canada at the present time?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hear so many complaints from the other side of the house with regard to setting up committees. Indeed, there has been one continual objection raised. We must always take into consideration their opposition to anything in the nature of committees.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: You were not here the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Pretty cheap.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the hon. member for Ottawa West something to say? I just looked up his record on committees. In the case of one committee which had three sittings he had a good record, and in the case of the other two committees of which he was a member he attended about 10 per cent of the time.


Mr, Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, surely it is not within the right of any member of the house, including the Prime Minister-
Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: To misstate the facts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to comment on the conduct of the hon. member, inasmuch as there is no more devoted member than the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Mr. Speaker:: A point of order has been raised and, of course, the record now bears the statement objected to. I agree that the Prime Minister went beyond answering the question.


John George Diefenbaker: I was interrupted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Prime Minister has just said, may I ask whether he is not aware that a request was made in the house last February that a committee be set up to study unemployment, and that request was turned down by the government?


John George Diefenbaker: I am aware that from time to time that question has been brought before the house. I am also aware of something which I am very happy to have learned, that the premier-designate of Quebec has stated that the responsibility for unemployment rests on the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question? Does that mean that he now repudiates the statement of the Minister of Labour to the effect that the federal government is responsible exclusively for the solution of the problem of unemployment?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement alleged to have been made was, of course, never made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Labour can speak for himself in that regard, but I am glad to have support for the stand taken by the Minister of Labour in the position taken by the new premier-designate of Quebec, who throughout the campaign, made it absolutely clear that the responsibility for unemployment rested on the provincial administration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the Prime Minister not give some members of the house who did not hear him the opportunity of hearing him confirm the statement he has just made, that the federal government has no responsibility for unemployment?


John George Diefenbaker: I said no such thing.


Michael Starr: Since my name has been brought into this discussion may I say that, on several occasions, I have said on behalf of the government that we have a responsibility

Inquiries of the Ministry in the matter of unemployment. We do not shirk it. But at the same time I have said, time and time again, that in order to carry out the responsibility and in order to solve the problem of unemployment co-operation is needed from provincial, municipal and, yes, even labour bodies and other interested organizations in this country.


An hon. Member:: And a little help from the opposition.


Michael Starr: The statement made by the hon. member for Essex East is, as usual, irresponsible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour has suggested that my statement is irresponsible and I leave that to him, but I also want to point out that his statement is wholly inaccurate.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I will hear the hon. member's question of privilege.


Michael Starr: I said that the hon. member's statement was irresponsible, and I want to refer you to Hansard-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is about to justify his statement, that would not be a question of privilege. I thought perhaps he had taken offence at what the hon. member for Essex East had said.


Michael Starr: I did.


Mr. Speaker:: Then perhaps the hon. minister will state his question of privilege.


Michael Starr: I said that the statement was inaccurate and irresponsible, and I want to bring out what he said as reported in Hansard for May 23; it is also misleading.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister rose on a
question of privilege, but it appears that what he wishes to do is make a debating statement and that would be out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I may ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Now that he has reflected on the Senate, on a member of this house and on the premier-designate of Quebec, could he answer the question as to whether there will be a joint committee of both houses of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: As usual you ignore the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the hon. member, but I heard enough to realize that he was not asking a question nor was he

referring to the question of privilege. I trust hon. members will observe the proprieties of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege. The question I was asking was, would the Prime Minister say whether the government would agree to a joint committee of the two houses to study unemployment.


Mr. Graffley:: You never asked that question.


Mr. Speaker:: This question has been put on previous occasions and has been repeated in various forms today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And not answered.



ELLIOT LAKE-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the serious unemployment situation, could the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house when the committee set up on May 9 to inquire into methods of assisting the uranium community is likely to report to the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The committee will report in due course.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give the house any assurance that the committee will report before the end of this session?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not able to predict the date of the end of the session.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the government has given the approval necessary for the Rio Tinto Corporation to take over the uranium contracts of the Stanleigh corporation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That has been done, Mr. Speaker, and the Stanleigh mine will, according to the newspaper report, cease operations soon under an orderly method of reducing employment there and, alternatively, the Mil-liken and Panel mines will be remaining open.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether, in the last two months, there have been any meetings between federal representatives and the government of Ontario to discuss assistance to the uranium communities in this province?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There have been consultations on several occasions between representatives of the two governments.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Apart from unemployment conditions in Canada, can the minister inform the house whether any other reasons are responsible for so many German immigrants leaving Canada, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are not aware of German immigrants leaving Canada. My department does not keep records of those immigrants who leave.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister ascertain and inform the house-I am sure she would not have the figures right now-how many able-bodied immigrants are at the present time receiving assistance from her department?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the hon. member might put the question on the order paper, but I will have the information compiled.



FOLEYET, ONT.-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN REPAIRING DAMAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the answer he gave earlier to my starred question, that the federal government paid one third of the cost of construction of the Ivanhoe dam near Foleyet where the flood damage occurred, would he advise the house whether his department could make an investigation of the damages there and possibly find ways and means of assisting in repairing the damage occasioned by the breaking of the dam constructed partly by the federal government?


David James Walker: I would be glad to look into the matter.



ODE TO THE GOVERNMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry whether he is aware of the fact that one of our colleagues in the house has written a song about the government, and has had it recorded with a simultaneous translation.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that we have reached the popular song stage of debate and think we should proceed with orders of the day.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: If the Prime Minister does not know about that song I should like the privilege of sending him a record of it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have many opportunities of presenting the song privately.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister care to comment on the latest developments relative to the Bomarc program?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Yes. If the recommendations of the joint committee are accepted and approved, then the weapons for the two Bomarc stations which are designed for Canada will become available. As soon as these stations are established they will add materially to the strengthening of the deterrent against war, thereby helping to preserve peace in the world.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of National Defence not regret that the United States congress, under pressure, restored these votes to the detriment of some higher priority projects in respect of our mutual defence?


George Randolph Pearkes: I know of no pressure being placed from Canada on the United States congress.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any comment to make on the statement made yesterday in Geneva by Mr. Eaton, that the latest United States proposal which was to have been discussed prior to the walkout by the Soviet union, had been approved by the United Kingdom and by

Inquiries of the Ministry France. Will the minister say whether or not the Canadian government expressed its approval?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member for Essex East saw that report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In yesterday's New York Times.


Howard Charles Green: It escaped my notice, but I do not believe it is an accurate report. The Canadian reaction to the Russian proposal of June 2 was similar to the United States plan. As yet there has not been a final western plan drawn up, although there are discussions under way with that as an objective. The hon. member will have noticed that representatives of the five western nations met yesterday and representatives of the five eastern nations failed to appear. After a statement by Mr. Moch representing France, the meetings of the committee have been adjourned. I expect further steps will be taken shortly. Just as soon as I am in a position to do so I shall report to the house.
In the meantime perhaps I could have permission to have printed as an appendix to today's Hansard the speech which was made by the Canadian delegate, General Burns, at the meeting which was held last Friday. I referred to that speech in my answer to a question by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) on Monday, June 27. I believe it would be helpful if this speech, which was in effect the last important speech made during the meetings, could be printed in today's Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a supplementary question, and it is this. Has the government considered initiating a proposal by which the full United Nations disarmament commission might now be summoned to meet in New York to discuss the sabotage by the Russians of the committee work in Geneva?


Howard Charles Green: I am not in a position to make a statement on that question at the present time, Mr. Speaker. If I were to do so I think I might do more harm than good.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs leave of the house to have General Burns' speech printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of speech referred to above, see appendixJ


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


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
128. Departmental administration, $411,500.
The Chairman:: This item will be found on page 29 of the blue book, the details at page 195.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman, in the hope of expediting the work of this committee, as in previous years I shall attempt to summarize for the committee the highlights of the fishery and the work of the department for the year 195960, the fiscal year just ended. I know you will realize that in order to achieve brevity I must leave out much of importance to particular areas; also, I shall be obliged to make generalized statements which may not always apply in particular cases.
First, I think the committee should recall the extraordinary hazards faced by our fishermen and the tragic loss of life experienced in so many families in the Northumberland strait area of New Brunswick last June. Earlier in the year there was the loss in Newfoundland of the trawler Blue Wave with all its crew. This spring severe storms off Nova Scotia have added to the toll. This list is not complete, but it brings home the hardships associated with reaping the harvests of the sea.
From a production point of view, 1959 was generally a good year, although of course not all areas showed increases over 1958. For the Atlantic region, dominated by the groundfish and lobster fisheries, the total value of the landings was the highest ever recorded. The preliminary total of $59.1 million was 16 per cent over 1958 and a 10 per cent increase over the five-year average of 1955-59.
The Newfoundland inshore fishermen who experienced a very short catch in 1958 enjoyed an exceptionally good year in 1959 in almost all areas. The draggers operating in the gulf and the deep sea vessels fishing out of ports in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland also had a very successful season. On the other hand the small line fishing boats had a poor year, particularly along the Gaspe coast and elsewhere in the gulf of St. Lawrence.
The situation as to markets for the products of the groundfish fishery was somewhat unusual last year. It was the salted fish branch of the industry which experienced a strong demand, while the frozen fish trade was less buoyant. Salted fish production was

substantially higher than in 1958, but a low stock position at the beginning of the marketing year, together with-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister would mind my interrupting and just suggesting to him that if he came forward and sat opposite the other microphone he would be a good deal easier to hear. He is between two microphones.


John Angus MacLean: I thank the hon. member very much for his suggestion, and I will adopt it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We really want to hear this minister.


John Angus MacLean: When I was interrupted I was saying that salt fish production was substantially higher than in 1958, but that the low stock position at the beginning of the marketing year, together with some relaxation of trade restrictions in important markets, resulted in higher prices for the increased supply.
In the case of frozen fish, on the other hand, the relatively strong market of 1958 encouraged increased production and pressure of supplies on the United States market, with the result that inventories increased and prices declined. However, the situation has eased somewhat in recent months and the long term prospects are considered good.
The lobster fishery, only slightly less important than the groundfish fishery to the Atlantic coast, was late in starting in 1959 but was generally productive throughout the summer and fall, and on the average prices were somewhat higher than in 1958. In spite of heavy gear losses and a slight decline in price, the winter and spring seasons have been the best for many years.
The fisheries of British Columbia failed to repeat the record year of 1958. This was anticipated, as 1958 had included the high cycle year for sockeye salmon on the Fraser river. As a result the total pack of canned salmon was slightly less than 1.1 million cases as compared with 1.9 million cases in the 1958 season.
The market for frozen as well as canned products of the salmon fishery remained strong throughout the year, and prices were high. A productive season has been forecast for the 1959 winter herring fishery in British Columbia, and from a start in early October until the Christmas layover catches were running well ahead of those for the same period the year before. The rapid expansion of fish meal production, particularly in Peru, resulted in a sharp decline in world prices for this product. This problem with its serious effect on herring and whaling operations is of
Supply-Fisheries
major concern to and study by this department as well as by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
In 1959 the catch in the halibut fishery was a little higher than that of the preceding year, although prices were slightly lower. As the result of this development the total value of landings in British Columbia declined from $52.5 million in 1958 to $35.4 million in 1959. However, the 1959 figure was only slightly below the five-year average of $36.7 million.
Looking to the future, I think we may be confident that the long term prospects for the salmon and halibut fisheries are bright. There are problems in these fisheries, particularly with respect to production costs and conservation measures, but the market demand for a limited or gradually expanding production should continue strong.
Discussion of the Canadian fresh water fisheries in general terms is especially difficult because of the vast extent of the region included, stretching from Great Slave lake to the St. Lawrence. Within this territory over 600 lakes are fished commercially. In some areas there are distinct summer and winter fisheries, but for the region as a whole these tend to merge one into the other.
In the spring of 1959 an unusually late break-up delayed the start of the summer fishery in most areas until the middle of June. Catches thereafter were reported to be better than average everywhere except in Ontario, where a fall in the catch of pickerel and in the price of perch reduced the total value of landings quite seriously as compared with previous years.
Winter fishing operations got under way toward the end of November, and results were generally satisfactory. A declining trend in fishing intensity on Great Slave lake, evident for several years past, continued. It is attributed to the difficulty of recruiting crews for the arduous work of winter fishing and to other factors tending to raise production costs. On the other hand, for the first time an experimental winter fishery with trawl gear for smelts was conducted on lake Erie. In general, with rising prices at the turn of the year the outlook for the fresh water fisheries in 1959-60 improved, and total returns to fishermen close to the annual average of approximately $13 million were indicated.
The success or failure of the fisheries in a particular year is, of course, the result of a wide range of factors. Many of these factors are beyond the control of the fisherman. The role of the various services of the department is generally speaking to maintain and where possible expand the resource, and to encourage fishermen to take the greatest possible advantage of the opportunities available to

Supply-Fisheries
them. In the field of conservation and improvement of the productive capacity of the fisheries we cannot guarantee increased runs every year. Indeed, it is necessary in some instances to restrict the catch today for the benefit of tomorrow.
In the maritimes our chief worry is the lobster fishery. We continue to be confronted with the activity of the small minority who refuse to accept the necessity of regulation, but I am glad to say that it would seem that more and more the fishermen engaged in the lobster industry are realizing that the regulations under which they must operate are based on sound conservation principles and that it is to their own benefit to observe them. Co-operation in this regard has always been high, and I am glad to say that the exceptions are, I believe, becoming less and less. In any case we are continuing our efforts toward achieving complete support for sound conservation of this most important branch of the industry.
The department's information service is continuing its educational program among the lobster fishermen in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Well attended meetings have been held in a number of fishing communities, with special speakers and films. Radio is also being used in this program.
In British Columbia, as I have indicated, the year 1959 was one in which the low cycle for most species of salmon occurred. Under strict management practices, however, escapement to the spawning areas was generally good. We were particularly encouraged by the apparent building up of certain runs of fall fish.
Fish culture, designed to overcome the effect of advancing civilization and industrialization, is one of the important phases of conservation. The year 1959 was important in this respect.
In the maritimes the transfer of 10,000 barrels of disease-resistant oysters from Prince Edward Island to stricken areas of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia was completed. To date the results have been good. The transplants have shown only normal mortality, and normal mortality is 7 per cent or 8 per cent or less. These oysters have grown well and have spawned, and it looks as if they will be a continuing race in this new environment in which they have been placed. We were also fortunate in having a year of very heavy oyster spatting, in Prince Edward Island especially. Our collectors produced over 600 barrels of small oysters, and this represents a tremendous amount of seed oysters which will be used to the greatest benefit of the industry when they become available for distribution.
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1
We continue to be pressed with problems from hydroelectric power developments, yet it is good to be able to report solutions in most cases. In Newfoundland, for example, the transfer of Atlantic salmon continued successfully from Little Rattling brook, blocked by a power dam, to Great Rattling brook. We are opening up the exploits system with new fishways, and we are continuing to check other developments and clear rivers of manmade and natural obstructions.
In the fisheries in the western part of the country the problems are manifold. We can, however, report success in the fishway at the Whitehorse dam in the Yukon, the removal of the rock slide on the Skeena river, and new fishways at Indian Falls. A study at Meziadin Falls on the Naas river has indicated how a natural obstruction may be overcome. Meanwhile the many fishways already installed continue to function well. Gradually the rivers are being opened up to more efficient migration.
During the year we had the opportunity, with more experienced staff, to turn our attention to other methods and wider applications. Construction of a 2,500 foot controlled flow spawning channel at Robertson creek, Vancouver island, gives us a chance to increase salmon spawning efficiency. Associated with this is a test flume which will be used by the department to test water intake fish deflector devices and by the fisheries research board to continue long term studies on salmon behaviour. Experimental rearing ponds have also been built to study problems of this nature associated with multiple water use projects. In addition we are developing a lake spawning beach.
A major item in the 1959-60 estimates covered the acquisition of a new large patrol vessel to replace the M. V. Cygnus which has operated in the maritime area for several years. The new Cygnus was commissioned late last year. The estimates before you contain a substantial item to provide for a similar vessel to be delivered in 1962 which will operate in Newfoundland waters.
The fisheries research board continued its nation-wide research activities throughout the year. This organization is being pressed more and more for information on fundamental problems and answers to current practical questions. The first full year's operations of the board's deep sea research vessel, the A. T. Cameron, fully demonstrated the value of this vessel as a tool for biological and oceanographic studies on the Atlantic banks and adjacent waters. One of its important cruises covered Davis strait and Baffin bay and into Canada's Arctic waters. Much of the work of the A. T. Cameron, as

well as that carried out at the biological stations at St. John's, Newfoundland and St. Andrews, New Brunswick, has been directed to the groundfish investigations required by the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries.
On the Pacific coast a major effort is being put into salmon and herring studies by the board's station at Nanaimo, in response to recommendations by the internatonal north Pacific fisheries commission. Among other activities in this area was an extensive tagging and recovery program on pink salmon migrating through Johnstone strait, carried out in co-operation with the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission and workers from the state of Washington.
A new and important field of investigation by the board was a "blitz" survey of the fish resources of the larger lakes of the barren grounds in the districts of Mackenzie and Keewatin. This investigation was carried out by teams of researchers operating under the direction of the board's Arctic unit operating out of Montreal.
To complete this hasty sweep of the board's activities from coast to coast, I should also mention its activities in the great lakes region. Here the board is acting as the Canadian agent of the international great lakes fishery commission in carrying out experiments on lamprey control under contract from that commission. The board has also initiated biological studies of the fisheries of lake Superior.
Another highlight in the expansion of the board's facilities for research was the opening of the new technological laboratory on the campus of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. These improved facilities will undoubtedly enable the board to make an even greater contribution in this phase of its activities to all branches of the industry.
Significant progress has been made during the past year in the field of fisheries industrial development. Important achievements in this connection have resulted from the increasing degree of co-operation among the department, the provincial administrations, the fishing industry itself and many private industrial concerns, seeking a potential outlet for their products in the modernizing of the fishing industry. The recent addition of industrial engineers and fishing gear specialists to the department's industrial development service has added greatly to the advice and assistance that can be made available to the industry right across the country.
The department's fish processing experimental plant at Valleyfield, Newfoundland,
Supply-Fisheries
has been directing its main effort to problems associated with the salt fish industry, and has succeeded in developing a new salt fish product which shows promise. Samples have been sent to many parts of the world, and the first reactions are most favourable. New fish splitting machinery has been acquired and modified to meet specific Canadian requirements, and new techniques for curing, handling and drying fish have been developed in order to improve the product and reduce processing and handling costs.
The introduction and demonstration of new fish catching equipment and methods to areas where they were previously unknown is having significant and advantageous effects on fishing operations in many parts of Canada. The short term hiring of fishermen who are highly specialized in the use of specific types of fishing gear has been introduced with considerable success, with a view to accelerating the introduction and demonstration of catching equipment in areas where it has not been in use.
Work on the design and development of improved types of fishing craft is going forward at an encouraging pace and the first vessel, featuring a multi-purpose function, has been built in co-operation with the government of Nova Scotia and already launched.
In the field of inspection the highlight of the year was the "Canada Inspected" program which began on April 1, 1959. Under this program any plant processing fresh or frozen fish can be granted continuous inspection of its products by departmental officers, provided that the plant meets rigid requirements in respect of construction, equipment, sanitation and operation. Similarly, comprehensive standards were developed for the product. All frozen fish meeting these standards, which have to do with freshness, workmanship and freedom from defects, may be marked with a maple leaf design containing the words "Canada Inspected", while fresh fish may bear a similar design containing the words "Processed under government supervision". I might say that the products which bear these labels have a considerable advantage as far as the marketing of fish products is concerned, because it increases very considerably their acceptability to the consumer of food products.
By the end of February, 1960 a total of over 30 plants had been approved under this program. Limited advertising on the part of the department has met with very good consumer response.
In order to ensure that the fish processing industry benefits from the latest advances in quality control, new equipment and the findings of biological and technological research,

Supply-Fisheries
the department convened courses lor fish plant foremen at Halifax and St. John's, with courses being planned for other centres.
During the year the inspection service also assumed inspection responsibilities in the province of Quebec, and a new administrative area was established to discharge these responsibilities. Most of the personnel involved were taken into the federal civil service from the former inspection service of the province of Quebec, and I must say it speaks very highly for their qualifications to say that the transfer was carried out with a minimum of difficulty and delay.
Despite difficulties in recruiting qualified home economists there was a considerable increase in the amount of television and radio work by the consumer service during the year, as well as the regular demonstrations that are carried on by these specialists for women's groups, schools, institutions, restaurant associations and so forth. The consumer service together with the information and education service issued a new fish cook book which has won critical acclaim from food editors as well as from house wives. The first run consisted of 10,000 copies in English and 3,000 in French. The book sells for $1. The first issue has been completely sold out and a second run is now on order with the Queen's printer. The rerun will consist of 10,000 copies in English and 5,000 in French. The department is continuing its general consumer advertising and will also enter into a limited campaign in grocery magazines with particular emphasis on the availability of government inspected products, which is an excellent selling point.
The economics service continues to study economic problems that are brought before the department affecting the Canadian fishing industry and fish trade. In recent years, for example, many difficult problems of management have arisen in the salmon and halibut fisheries of the Pacific coast. In response to requests from representatives of fishermen and fish buyers the economics service has carried out an intensive investigation into these problems. Field work of the investigation, under the charge of a consultant from the University of Manitoba, was completed some time ago. In preparation for an investigation into the lobster fishery of the Atlantic coast, where a similar management problem exists, the economics service in 1958-59 carried out a survey of all primary fishing enterprises in the maritime provinces to obtain background data for a detailed study of such questions as the interdependence of lobster-ing and other fishing operations, of lobster-ing and farming, etc. The study will be initiated in this current fiscal year.
fMr. MacLean (Queens) .1
The economic service has concerned itself with the improvement of statistical services and the solution of problems of industrial development or modernization. A number of projects in these fields are still in hand, and among the reports released in 1959 was one on costs and earnings in assisted fishing enterprises and one on production costs in mechanized fish curing operations.	The
major current project, however, is a study of the economy of the Canadian fresh water fisheries production and distribution.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, the market situation throughout 1959	was
generally satisfactory; but I said also in my opening remarks, of course, that this is a generalization. There are exceptions. In only a few cases were we requested to investigate the possible use of price support legislation, and in no case was such action necessary.
The rebate of 50 per cent on the cost of salt to fishermen was continued and is again continuing in the estimates before you. The program of building 20 community stages in Newfoundland, initiated as a constructive income supplement following the catch failure of 1958, has now been largely completed by the Department of Public Works. At the same time the bait service carried on by the department in Newfoundland has been expanded and its efficiency improved. The vessel insurance plan continues to grow and provides more and more protection to small boat owners. At the end of March of this year more than 5,400 vessels valued at over $16 million were covered under this plan.
In the course of these remarks I have had occasion to mention several of the seven international fisheries commissions on which Canada is represented. Members of the committee are familiar with them, so there is no need of my outlining them now. The results to date show clearly that international cooperation and co-ordination in the field of fisheries conservation are a prime requisite to offset the deleterious effects of increasing range and efficiency of fishing fleets. As time goes on and world population increases it is inevitable that the fishing pressure on the living resources of the sea and of inland waters will increase proportionately or even at a greater rate.
While the estimates before the committee today, of course, are confined to those of the Department of Fisheries, I might point out in passing that there are activities carried on by a number of other departments of government which directly affect the fishing industry. I will not attempt to list them all, of course. I should like to acknowledge that the department does service a great deal of useful assistance from other department of government.

A major contribution is made to the fishing industry by the Department of Public Works in the construction of wharves, dredging, harbour development, breakwaters, and so forth. Similarly, the marine service of the Department of Transport is of vital significance to the fishing industry. As another example, the Department of Finance administers the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the Department of Labour, of course, administers unemployment insurance as it applies to fishermen and also co-operates in technical training programs in co-operation with provincial governments. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources also co-operates with us fully, especially in questions of water resources and Arctic development generally as far as the fishing industry is concerned. The very heavy dependence of our industry on export trade brings us in close contact with the Department of Trade and Commerce, particularly the trade commissioner service, and there are many others; but I will not bore the committee by listing them further as they are not directly concerned with these estimates. I think, Mr. Chairman, I probably would be out of order in discussing them, strictly speaking, but I wanted to make this explanation because these are matters that are frequently brought up on the fisheries estimates by hon. members of the committee.
Members of the committee will note that there is a slight reduction in the estimates of the department of this year, a reduction of $1,393,277, to be exact. This has been achieved without any reduction of essential services. This may sound contradictory on its face, but that is not so. The reduction has been achieved chiefly by three sets of circumstances. There have been instances where increased efficiency has been achieved and correspondingly a saving in money. There are other instances where relatively new programs have been developed recently, and this year it has been possible more accurately to forecast costs in regard to them owing to the experience that has been gained over the last couple of years. Then, perhaps I mill not say the largest but one of the largest items of saving is this. Several large construction programs have been nearing completion, and the annual costs in some of them have been greatly reduced as a result.
On the other side of the balance sheet, of course, there are increases in expenditures such as increases in wages, especially with regard to crews on vessels, and the annual automatic increases in pay of civil service employees, and so forth.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the committee, but I feel that
Supply-Fisheries
perhaps a general review of this sort may form a basis on which orderly discussion can take place. I shall be pleased to try to answer as accurately and as concisely as I can any questions hon. members may have, and I will listen with great interest to any suggestions hon. members may make as to ways in which benefit can be created for the fishing industry of this country.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by thanking the minister for his very comprehensive review of his department and of conditions that obtained in the fishing industry during the past year. In particular I should like to thank him for the human touch in his reference to the hazards which fishermen have to contend with, as was exemplified by the disaster in the Northumberland strait and by the loss of the Blue Wave which, incidentally, touched my own riding very much because the entire crew of that vessel was from the riding which I represent.
I do not suppose there is any department of government which is of such great interest to the Atlantic region as that under the minister's administration; and particularly, of course, to my own province which, perhaps more than any other province, is dependent upon the resources in our coastal waters. The references which the minister made to the work of the research vessel A. T. Cameron, to the biological laboratory at St. John's, Newfoundland, to the work being done at Valley-field and the problems which are being overcome in connection with the successful transfer of salmon up river systems are all of intense interest to my own province.
I am only going to take time to deal with three or four points mentioned by the minister. He ended his remarks by stating that there had been a slight reduction in the estimates but that this would not result in any reduction of essential services. I say at once that I know of no one who has any complaints to offer about the minister's department and the way it is administered. I think we are all very happy with the work the minister is doing, the capability of his staff and the intense interest and sympathetic co-operation which I am sure everybody experiences with regard to problems they put before the department.
However, perhaps I might correct the minister's figures slightly. He said that the estimates were down by $1,393,000, but the situation is not quite that bad; because I think he left out the figures in the supplementary estimates. When they are taken into account we find that the actual estimates for this year total $20,344,090, which is a little less than $1 million below the figure of $21,332,867 for last year.

Supply-Fisheries
But, Mr. Chairman, I must express my own disappointment that this reduction has taken place, because on examining the estimates I see that the bulk of the reduction has been made in two very important items. There has been a decrease of $604,180 in the industrial development item and a reduction of $107,160 in the Newfoundland bait service item.
In his closing remarks the minister referred to the completion of the community stage program and I gathered from what he said that 20 stages have now been completed.


John Angus MacLean: No, the program is not really complete. There still are three, I believe, to be completed.


Chesley William Carter: What concerned me was that when the minister spoke his words seemed to indicate that when these 20 stages were completed that would be the end of the community stage program. I sincerely hope this is not going to be the case, because I think the community stage program is one of the best innovations that have been brought into existence since the minister took office. It is certainly a very beneficial program and one that I feel should be not only continued but expanded. In Newfoundland it is of special importance in the efforts we are making to concentrate the fishermen in larger settlements and to get them to use joint facilities instead of each person having his own stage, thereby establishing conditions under which a better quality product can be produced.
There is still another reason why the community stage program should be continued. It affords the fishermen of my province a safeguard against price control. The fresh fish plants do not always compete as to price for the fisherman's product, and the existence of a community stage affords him protection in that he always has the choice of selling his fish fresh or selling it salted. This has two results. It ensures that the fresh fish price will not go below what the fisherman might realize if he salted his fish, and it also provides another safeguard in that very often when the school is at its peak and the catches are extremely large, the fresh fish plants cannot handle all the fish and unless the fishermen had facilities for salting they would be obliged to sell their fish for meal.
The minister's remarks today indicate that the prospects for meal prices going up in the future are not very good. We all know what has happened since Peru entered the market, and we know the effects on our herring industry and on the whaling industry. I think it would be a serious hardship to many of

our Newfoundland fishermen if they could not salt the excess catch which the plants are not able to absorb. I hope the minister will reconsider any idea he may have of discontinuing this program.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock I had reached the point where I was urging the minister to reconsider the continuation of the community stage program. I had pointed out that it is very essential to the welfare of the fishermen of my province that this program should not only be continued but should be expanded. The community stage program has so much merit that I think it should not be confined to the province of Newfoundland but should be a general program which would embrace any part of Canada that was in a position to take advantage of it.
In urging the minister to continue the program I will say that I think there is room for improvement in the policy which governed the program which is about to be completed. I do not know what the position is at the moment, but I do know that last year there was a time when we had three different kinds of programs in connection with community stages. There was one which was provincially inspired and financed. There was one which was totally federal, to which the fishermen made no contribution at all. Then there was another one which was financed partly by the federal government and partly by the donation of labour by the fishermen themselves. I feel from these three different programs it should be possible to develop one single program to be made applicable to all of Canada.
I drew the minister's attention to the fact that the industrial development vote had been reduced by $604,000 from last year. While we appreciate the necessity of paring expenses and doing everything to balance the budget, it could be false economy when that saving is achieved at the expense of the development of our resources. I do hope that next year we will see this industrial development item not only restored to its former size but greatly expanded to take in all phases of a larger program of industrial development for the fishing industry.
I was very much interested in the minister's remarks concerning the pressure on our fisheries which is resulting from the intensification of fishing and by an increase in

the number of countries that are sending fishing fleets to our fishing grounds and particularly to the Grand Banks. There was a time when the fisheries of the Grand Banks were held to be inexhaustible. I do not believe any thinking person could hold that view any longer. Certainly it is most urgent that steps be taken before too late to make sure that our fisheries resources are not depleted. I realize that provisions governing areas outside of territorial waters require international agreement, and international agreements are not easy to come by; I realize also that international committees are working on this problem but progress seems to be very slow and unless results are speeded up it may well be that action will be taken too late.
It is my own opinion that the method of catching fish by draggers is a wasteful one and steps should be taken to find less wasteful methods to substitute for it. The draggers which tow these huge nets along the bottom of the ocean destroy a tremendous amount of young fish which are killed in the process of being hauled to the surface, just as small children are very often killed and trampled on in a mob. The pressure created by the tremendous weight of fish over them when the fish are being hauled in destroys a lot of young fish which are not of commercial size. Some fall out of the net before they get into the boat, while others that are taken into the boat are thrown overboard because they have no commercial value. I believe if agreement could be worked out under which all the nations would agree to use a different method of fishing, perhaps even going back to the hook and line method, as much fish as should be caught under the circumstances would be caught. Certainly this method would prevent large numbers of fish from being destroyed and wasted.
This problem of conservation is closely related to the limits of our territorial waters. I think it was a tragedy when the United Nations law of the sea conference at Geneva failed to reach agreement on this problem by a single vote. At the present time there is nothing but chaos. There is no accepted law of the sea either as to the extent of territorial waters or as to the extent of the coastal waters which any country can claim as a preserve and monopoly of its own fishing fleet. I think we have now reached the point where it is possible for Canada and the United States to reach an agreement as far as the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards are concerned and work out a joint agreement fixing the limit of 12 miles for our own territorial waters. If agreement cannot be reached, then I think Canada would be well justified in taking unilateral action and proclaiming her own limit
Supply-Fisheries
which would extend the control of the fisheries to 12 miles offshore.
These problems of conservation of our fisheries and the extension of our territorial waters are related also to our patrol service. I am glad to learn from the minister that a new boat has been built to replace the old Cygnus and that these estimates contain provision for a new boat for the patrolling of Newfoundland waters. But if we are going to have an effective patrol service we need many more boats than we have at the present time.
Most of my fishermen are complaining-and this is the situation not only on the south coast which I represent but on the northeast coast as well-that at night huge concentrations of foreign trawlers are gathered together in such great numbers that they look like a floating city. We must have a sufficient number of boats to be able to patrol these areas at all times. You cannot rush one small boat, however fast she is, from one spot to another spot three or four hundred miles away. There is need for at least three boats on our coasts in order to do an efficient patrol service on our coastal waters.
This encroachment on our inshore fishing grounds is proving to be a tremendous handicap and a hardship to our own inshore fishermen. The fishery on the east coast of Newfoundland this year is very poor and some fishermen think that one of the reasons is that these grounds have been dragged over by foreign draggers. I hope the minister next year will be able to provide for at least two more patrol boats in increased estimates. If we had more of these patrol boats they could also be used as rescue boats in the winter time for the coastal service and for those ships that are engaged in the winter fishery.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is the bait service. I have already noted that this year there is a decrease of $107,000 in that item. I realize how difficult it is to administer the bait service. I realize all the problems that are connected with it and I realize that the problems are made perhaps more difficult by the fact that this particular service is confined to the province of Newfoundland as part of the terms of union. However, I think it is possible for the federal government to work out a bait program which could be applicable to other provinces as well. I do not understand what the need of this service is on the Pacific coast. However, there must be communities on the Atlantic coast which could benefit from a similar service although from personal experience, I know that the need is not so great as it is in Newfoundland.
This year I think we are providing for five units. From a rough calculation which I have

Supply-Fisheries
made I would think there is at present a need for about 50 of these small portable bait units which have proved to be so successful during the past few years. But if we supply these units at the rate of only five a year it means that it is going to take ten years at least before the needs of the fishermen are supplied; and by that time some of the earlier ones will need replacement. I believe that the time has come when we can perhaps take another look at our bait service policies and can work out something a little bit different from what we have at the present time.
I should like to see worked out an arrangement whereby the fishermen themselves would be able to own and control these small portable bait units. When I say that I am thinking not only of fishermen in my own province but of fishermen in other provinces as well. I understand that these units cost about $6,000 at the rate at which they are supplied, which is about ten or 12 a year. Fifty of these units would cost about $300,000. If they were purchased in quantity or were manufactured in quantity the price perhaps would be considerably less than that. But taking the total value at, say, $300,000, I think that would supply all the bait requirements we have at the present time in Newfoundland.
The provincial government of Newfoundland has a fund which it is holding in trust for the fishermen. If the federal government were prepared to make an offer of providing these units at half price it might be possible to work out an agreement whereby the provincial government would place at the disposal of the Newfoundland fisheries federation some of this money which could be put out on loan to fisheries locals and small co-operative groups of fishermen who would be able to purchase their own units and repay over a period of perhaps ten years. It would not be a very big sum if they had to pay say $3,000 over a period of five years or ten years. They would then have the benefit of being able to administer the small units themselves and to work out whatever particular scheme is most suitable to the conditions under which they are obliged to operate.
I would think, though, that the federal government also should supply technicians to train the operators to look after these units and also perhaps maintenance men to keep them in order. If that could be done then the federal government's role would be mainly the maintenance of central depots from which the smaller depots could be supplied and I think that would be a proper federal responsibility. In addition, of course,

there would also need to be some bait carriers for the purpose of carrying the bait from the central depot to the smaller ones.
This is only a brief outline of an idea which I have had. I think it is feasible and I also think that where there is a will, there is a way. If everybody concerned would put the interests of the fishermen first, it should be possible to work out a system which would remove a great many of the disadvantages and difficulties with which the federal department is now obliged to contend and which would at the same time improve the service to the fishermen.
I was disappointed on one count in the minister's presentation this morning.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry but I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Winch:: I am sure we all listened with a great deal of interest to the resume of the minister on the operations of his department during this past year, and also his views on the state of the fishing industry at the present time. I want to say that I was most disappointed at the brevity of the remarks of the minister regarding the state of the industry in British Columbia, particularly the herring industry and the whaling industry. As the minister knows-as a matter of fact he commented on it-the British Columbia whaling industry is perhaps the most recent casualty of the fishing industry.
I have noted that the fisheries association of British Columbia, in putting forward the reasons why there is no whaling industry in British Columbia, point out three factors. They are (a) the whales which are available off the British Columbia coast are much thinner than those found in other whaling areas, and consequently the unit yield per whale is lower; (b) they state that the distance of British Columbia from principal market areas creates a substantial freight cost as a handicap; and (c>
the fisheries association stated that the level of all production costs was high in British Columbia compared with competing sources of whale products, namely Japan, Russia, Norway, Holland and Great Britain.
I would point out that these conditions are outlined by the fisheries association of British Columbia have always obtained and they most certainly have obtained in the past ten years when the British Columbia Packers Limited have been persisting in their endeavours to operate a continuous annual whaling industry.
So it is with a great deal of regret that circumstances have brought about the situation where there is no whaling industry in British Columbia this year, and that is having an impact on British Columbia. Because it

must be recognized that the whaling operation now closed means a loss, I understand, of approximately $600,000 annually in wages and hundreds of thousands of dollars lost to such supply and service industries as petroleum companies, the shipyards, rope works, vessel outfitters and so on. So this is a serious matter to the fishing industry of British Columbia and I had hoped that the minister would have had more to say other than just to comment upon the fact that these industries had closed, that it was of serious concern to his department and that studies were being made of the situation.
Hand in hand with the closure of the whaling industry in British Columbia we have the closing of the herring industry which affects a great many more people than does the whaling industry. As was mentioned by the minister, there was a very good catch in the ten weeks preceding Christmas when I understand there was a record catch of some 166,000 tons. Yet around Christmastime there was a closure of that industry and according to the newspapers it is being continued this year. The fishing companies in British Columbia point out that one of the reasons why they have had to shut down operation is the fact that in 1958 the price for herring meal was $2.70 a unit and nine cents a pound for herring oil, but now these prices have declined to $1.48 a unit for herring meal and six and one half cents a pound for herring oil.
They also point out that there are other reasons which have brought about this situation, and one is the appearance of large new producers in South Africa, Angola and, above all Peru. We have heard a great deal about the entrance of Peru into the herring market. There is a unique point here of which I think some mention should be made, and it is that at the same time the fisheries association of British Columbia have put a closure on herring on account of the low prices for meal and oil, and because they say they cannot stand the competition from Peru, the largest of the fishing associations of British Columbia, out of its profits made along the coast of British Columbia, has established itself in Peru and is using its past and present profits from British Columbia to build up this industry in Peru, as I say supplied by British Columbia capital, about which condition the associations of British Columbia complain and maintain they cannot meet. I think that is not only a paradoxical situation but one which requires some very considerable attention.
I also note, that the fisheries companies in British Columbia point out that one reason for the closing of the herring and whaling industries fishing off the Pacific coast is the competition they are now facing from edible
Supply-Fisheries
oils. They state that the Canadian industry has encountered severe competition in the Canadian market because of the greatly increased production of animal and vegetable oils, and they name soybean, sunflower and rapeseed.
This brings up another question. It is a serious one and I believe one upon which we should have some comment from the minister. The whaling and herring industries are shut down in British Columbia because they cannot meet the increased competition in Canada of the edible oils which are available at lower prices for the manufacture of shortening and of margarine. Yet it is a fact that the very producers who have brought about this situation are those which are subsidized by the federal government. I know that last year we had the subsidy to the soybean growers. Last week we had an announcement from the Minister of Agriculture that the subsidy to the soybean growers is going to be continued in the next 12 months. So we have that peculiar situation of a lowering of prices and where the herring meal or whaling meal or the marine oils can no longer compete because the price has been forced down by subsidized agriculture in Canada.
We know that help has to be given to agriculture, but we have the situation, which I think all should note, that a government subsidy on the one hand has killed an industry on the other. That gives an idea of the sort of thinking and planning which has to be applied to our economy. I think I should point out that if certain phases of agriculture get into difficulties the government and parliament come through with subsidies. If the railroads are in difficulties we come through with subsidies. If coal mining is in difficulties we help them. But if fishing in British Columbia is in difficulties and certain phases of it are being closed down there is no help whatsoever. At least I do not know of any except that the matter is of serious concern to the government and a deep study is being made of it.
I think that is rank discrimination. Financial help is given to industries of varying kinds across Canada yet we have not seen any action taken to help those two important phases of the fishing industry in British Columbia which are not just in difficult times but are completely shut down, affecting, I believe, some 225 to 250 employees in the whaling industry and I believe between 1,200 and 1,500 in the herring industry.
I admit it is not enough to raise these matters and point out what I am sure is already known to the minister, the impact this is having on the fishing industry in general

Supply-Fisheries
and the economy of British Columbia in particular. I feel that under this item we are entitled to have from the minister more than a comment to the effect that the situation exists, is of deep concern to him and his department and studies are going on. We are entitled to know what type of study is being conducted and what approach the departmental officials are taking to this serious problem.
I was interested in reading that South Africa also feeling the impact of Peruvian competition sent a delegation to Peru to see if it were possible to work out a marketing, pricing and production agreement. I presume they were not successful but at least an effort was made. Does the department have any such idea? Has the minister heard the results obtained by the South African delegation sent to Peru?
I was also interested in learning that the fishing industries of the United States, the United Kingdom and South Africa asked their governments to convene a meeting of all nations interested in fish meal protein to study the problems that have arisen. I am advised by the fisheries association of British Columbia that they asked the government of Canada to participate if such a conference were convened. Has the minister been in touch with other countries that have a concern similar to that of Canada to discuss the possibilities of there being convened a conference of the major countries concerned with fishing for the purpose of resolving existing problems? If no action has been taken yet will the government take the initiative in this respect? If the government cannot take the initiative in attempting to bring together representatives from the nations concerned conditions will get worse. The situation will worsen if corrective action is not speedily taken.
Before the item carries I sincerely hope the minister will take us more fully into his confidence with respect to the situation in the whaling and herring industries and concerning the studies now being carried on, and will tell us when he thinks it might be possible to make constructive, progressive and corrective announcements.
Will the minister also say something more about Canada's position regarding the 12-mile limit in relation to fishing. This is of keen interest to the maritime provinces and British Columbia. I believe it was the view of the government that it would have liked to see a general agreement on the 12-mile limit. The government was unsuccessful in presenting that view or in achieving a compromise at the meeting held in Geneva because of the lack of one vote.
I know that the fishermen and the fishing industry and unions on the west coast are

concerned about the question of territorial rights and authority in relation to offshore fishing. Would the minister speak about the Canadian position concerned the three, six or 12-mile limit? With respect to the three-mile limit will he explain if it is from headland to headland? That makes a great deal of difference on the coastline of British Columbia as the hon. gentleman knows.
I hope I have said enough to indicate the seriousness of the situation as outlined. I trust that the minister will give us some hope that in the near future the whaling and herring industry in British Columbia will resume operations.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with other hon. members in commending the minister on the excellent attention he has given to the fisheries in all parts of Canada. I should like to make a few observations and suggestions in the interest of the fisheries of the great lakes area. In doing so, I fully realize the fact that the Ontario provincial government has jurisdiction over these waters with the exception of international problems but I consider the restoration of suitable commercial fish to the lakes an international problem.
Our federal fisheries department is making a determined effort toward the betterment of fishing through the efforts' of the great lakes fishery commission in lamprey destruction; however, to date only lake Superior has received any attention in this respect. Lamprey are numerous in all the lakes. Therefore their destruction is a tremendous undertaking and scientists and others in charge of this work feel best results can be obtained by concentrating on a specific area for a certain time. Even providing the program works out to expectations there is not much hope of completely exterminating the lamprey and, furthermore, much time and money will be expended in the effort. However, I feel it is a worthy project but it seems to me that other angles should be considered and some action taken.
We know the lake trout have almost become extinct and the population of rough fish in the lakes has increased at a rapid rate. Most of these fish are maintained on the same food as that needed for trout production. Therefore I would recommend that necessary funds be made available for the removal of as many as possible of these fish from our lakes so that lake trout and other desirable fish are given the best possible opportunity to re-establish themselves when the lamprey menace is to some extent removed.
Such a program would provide a livelihood for quite a number of the idle fishermen,

and with the exception of Georgian bay could be institutd on a co-operative basis with the United States. A market could be established for certain varieties of these fish and I believe sufficiently large quantities of such fish are available to produce enough revenue to take care of at least one-third of the cost of the program.
When I spoke during the 1959 session in the interest of the great lakes fisheries I suggested the introduction of sockeye and spring salmon into these waters. This idea met with the approval of many people, especially the fishermen. However, according to press releases appearing at intervals since our scientists left the impression that such a program would not be feasible, but their reasoning was not too convincing.
In support of my suggestion I will take as an example our experience with the rainbow trout which were introduced into the great lakes from the Pacific coast. Their increase in numbers has not been phenomenal. However, a satisfactory steady growth in their population has justified the soundness of their introduction. This past spring rainbow trout were observed going up every suitable stream flowing into Georgian bay to spawn and in the largest numbers since their introduction into the great lakes.
They are now supplying our sportsmen with very good fishing. Some excellent catches have been made during the past few weeks, with individual fish weighing up to 12 pounds. The rainbow trout is not considered a commercial fish. However, they are making a worthy contribution to the rebuilding of tourism which at one time was attracted to our district by lake trout.
Worthy of mention is the fact that very few rainbow were carrying scars from lamprey attack. With this apparent resistance to lamprey, the rainbow trout provides a promising future for sportsmen and tourism.
To support my claim that Pacific salmon do hold some promise for commercial fishing in the great lakes, I relate the incident of the taking of three salmon at three different locations in lake Superior late last summer. The fishermen were unable to identify these fish but the fisheries research office of the Minnesota division of game and fish identified them as pink or humpback salmon and they were mature fish. It appeared a mystery for a time as to how these fish came to be in lake Superior. Some time later it was established that in 1956 a few small fish escaped from a hatchery at Fort William where they had been incubated from eggs from the west coast. The establishment of a salmon run in the rivers of Hudson bay was the purpose of this experiment. However, it now
Supply-Fisheries
appears that there was a greater survival from the few that escaped into lake Superior than from the 200,000 fingerlings that were planted in Goose creek, a tributary to Hudson bay, as there is no record of any survival there. Consequently it would be logical to presume that others of those escapees into lake Superior also survived and continue to thrive in the fresh waters.
This incident bears out the claims made by Tasmania fisheries and the department of fisheries of New Zealand that they successfully transplanted spring and sockeye salmon to their inland lakes and a satisfactory cycle has beeen achieved. Furthermore, the sockeye salmon which became isolated in British Columbia inland lakes have established themselves there and have continued to reproduce. I believe the coast salmon have an advantage over lake trout from the standpoint of survival, considering present day conditions in the great lakes. We have not only the lamprey menace but the smelt which many fishermen feel may be a greater enemy of our desirable fish than is the lamprey.
They are a small fish and much of their diet is very small fish and the spawn of larger fish. Consequently I would suggest that fish such as rainbow, sockeye and other coastal salmon that spawn in the headwaters of our streams would have a very decided advantage in respect of survival. The lake trout and splake which deposit their spawn on the shoals where the smelts and suckers are frequently swarming are constantly losing their reproduction to these predators.
Thus when one essential condition of environment has reached a limiting level which prevents a species from flourishing but still allows survival, a very minor deterioration in this condition will suddenly decimate the population. Conversely, a slight improvement in this condition of environment will be followed by an upsurge in population. Therefore the removal from the lake of as many of these predators as possible could influence a favourable balance for lake trout production.
Second, the introduction of a new species of fish, such as the sockeye or other suitable commercial salmon, which would spawn in the headwaters of our streams, could result in a successful production which would satisfy our needs should our efforts to re-establish lake trout or splake fail.
The introduction of splake, a cross between lake trout and speckled trout, into the Georgian bay has been given much publicity. According to figures released, almost 300,000 fingerlings have been planted in this area since 1956 with some apparent success. Evidence of any production could not be expected

Supply-Fisheries
so soon. However, splake weighing up to four pounds have been taken by the fishermen and their reproduction cycle can start at the third year.
Some fabulous claims have been made as to the possibilities of the splake but I am doubtful as to how long this crossbred fish can continue to reproduce its kind when it is placed in the environment of the lake trout. My thought is that more and more of the splake eggs will be fertilized by lake trout and that the production will soon revert to lake trout.
It seems to me that if we are to create the best possible conditions for the establishment of a splake population, or the re-establishment of a lake trout population, a closed season for at least two or three years should be imposed. Splake are being fished continually and in 1959, 11,000 pounds of lake trout were taken in lake Huron and Georgian bay. If we are ever to stock our lakes it is essential that these meagre remnants of the species must be retained as breeding stock.
Worthy of mention at this point in my remarks is the recent success of the Japanese fisheries in crossing Pacific salmon with trout from their inland lakes. Their scientists hope to mass produce this new fish in their lakes.
In conclusion, I would suggest that if we are to provide ideal conditions in our waters for fish propagation some immediate action should be taken to curb the constantly increasing pollution of our lakes by industry, shipping, lake bottom oil drilling and other harmful sewage.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to say how much I enjoyed listening to the minister's report on the activities of himself and his department. Second, I should like to say that I looked forward to hearing him and I moved up to the front benches to make sure that I heard him and I stayed here to make sure that he would hear me.
As often as I can, as the committee knows, I talk about the fisheries of Newfoundland and in fact the fisheries of eastern Canada because I believe that the fisheries are growing in importance as our population increases and as the need for more work, for more industry, for more people grows, so grows the importance of our oldest industry.
If I may repeat something I have said before, no nation, no matter how many new industries it develops, can afford to neglect an old industry because in a properly expanding economy all industries are necessary if the nation is to be prosperous. But today, instead of launching out and talking about what we need and the extras that we want, I should like to pause briefly and talk about some of the things which have been accomplished.

For many years the fisheries in Newfoundland were conducted in the same way as they were shortly after John Cabot discovered Canada and returned to England with the story that the waters around the new found island were full of fish. For many years the fishery was conducted, using the same type of gear, the same type of boat, in other words the same type of equipment, with very few changes. That was not so bad during the years when progress was comparatively slow and when the industrial revolution had not been heard of; but when modern times came and practically every other industry became modernized, the lag in the development of the fisheries became very serious indeed.
During the first decade before Newfoundland entered confederation-and I am speaking just of Newfoundland now-changes began to take place. It was then that the fresh fish business began to grow. After we had entered confederation all of our economy got a very great boost and fishery development was speeded up. New fresh fish plants in addition to those already existing began to be built and older ones began to be enlarged. It was recognized at that time that the fisheries of Newfoundland needed several things. Production had to be increased and the method of curing had to be improved.
By and large over the years much improvement has occurred in the fishing industry. There is a much greater degree of industrialization today than there was 10 years ago. Artificial drying has reached a stage that we would have been very happy to have had ten years ago. At this point I should like to refer to the report of the Newfoundland fisheries development committee, known as the Walsh report, which was issued in 1953 and which makes excellent and informative reading even today. Only seven years ago it was stated in that report:
Along that coast development should, In the view of the committee, be by centralization of the salt fish industry at a number of plants located at suitable places in large areas of production in the inshore fishery and near grounds on which long-lining can be successfully carried on. The operations in these plants would be as fully mechanized as possible and the aim should be ultimately to produce light salted fish by mechanical drying.
That was seven years ago and I am very happy to say that since that time much improvement has been made and mechanical drying has to a marked degree-I was going to say to a large degree-supplanted the old expensive method of sun curing and the handling of the fish by the fisherman and his family for which they received very little. Their labour was practically free.


I960
[Stage Direction]
Production and the means of production have been improved as well. The establishment of experimental stations has been of tremendous value. I should like to comment in this regard that I think it is a pity that the public know so little about the great work being done quietly by the experimental and research stations. Their work probably is not of a type that commands headlines or is surrounded by glamour but it is very vital work and has a great and important bearing upon the future of the fisheries. Its importance will make itself felt in more dollars and cents in the pockets of the fishermen which after all is the purpose. The department can be proud of the work it is doing and I should like to see it intensified and broadened. These are some of the things which have been done; industrialization, mechanization and the development of the means of production.
Many of these things were incorporated in the report issued by the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland in 1953. The program since then has been by and large a broad and beneficial one but I think that time shows up the weaknesses in any line of endeavour and is probably showing now where the gaps in the program are. Without pretending to be an expert on the matter, I should like to mention several gaps which seem to me to be obvious. First, I think more attention should be given to the Labrador fisheries. I believe that with industrialization is coming a greater demand for fish and this at a time when there are probably fewer fishermen than there were in 1953.
I have no figures for Nova Scotia but I have reason to believe that the fish plants of that province depend largely upon Newfoundland fish for their raw material. Industrialization has brought about a greater demand for fish and the result is that more and more attention is being focused on Labrador by people in the fishing industry. I should like to see the resumption of the Labrador fisheries, not necessarily the old floaters which, although they served a good purpose in their time, were not the most economical method of producing fish, but a Labrador fishery tailored to meet the needs of the times and designed to fill the need which is beginning to exist already and will certainly exist to a greater degree within the next few years.
Before the Labrador fishery can be improved as it should be something must be done to help those fishermen living on the Labrador coast already and who throughout the years after the floater fishery failed continued the fishery on the Labrador coast. It is their product which is more and more in demand. Like many other small businessmen 79951-0-350
Supply-Fisheries
regardless of their line of endeavour one of their great needs is capital. They may have all the knowledge in the world as to how to catch fish but unless they have proper boats and good gear they are not going to be able to catch the amount of fish they should. It is evident that the fishermen need better equipment in order that they may prosecute the fishery off the Labrador coast. Therefore I should like to ask the minister to keep in mind the need for some means by which fishermen can get small loans in order to replace and repair equipment, some means by which the federal government can assist the fishermen directly to replace fishing gear and property lost from time to time by storms. I believe that once this property is replaced, once they have the gear, they will be able to operate on their own, but they need help in order to get started. I would ask the government to look into that matter.
I would also ask the Minister of Fisheries to consider carefully the possibility of increasing the bounty on boats and broadening the whole scheme so that small fishing boats will come within the limits of the bounty and fishermen who wish to build small trap skiffs will be able to obtain some assistance from the government in the form of bounties on small boats.
The minister mentioned bait, and here there is another hole in the program which must be plugged. I am very glad to say that improvement in the bait service is already evident but nevertheless this is one instance where the improvements of today are still not sufficient. In most places along the Newfoundland coast there is a perennial shortage of bait and thousands and thousands of quintals of fish which should be caught and sold to the benefit of the fishermen and the people of Canada are left in the water because the fishermen have no bait. Therefore I would ask the minister to continue and enlarge the bait program.
Whereas bait depots are good things and holding plants to supplement the bait depot service are perhaps a better thing, I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, that small holding plants or freezing units should be available to the fishermen. I think these could perhaps be provided in connection with community stages better than in any other way but even where the fisherman has his own property a method should be found by which he will be able to buy freezers for his bait.
May I enlarge for a moment upon the bait situation. I should like to go back to what I mentioned before-this is something for the minister's research department-and that is the possibility of developing artificial bait.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries
I maintain that if as much attention were given to the development of artificial lures for codfish as there is to the development of lures for trout we might be able, to a large extent, to do without frozen bait. For instance, squid is undoubtedly the best form of bait that the fisherman finds. It is certainly not the shape of the bait which attracts the codfish because the squid are cut up in shapeless chunks and put on the hook. Then the fish go for it. I do not know whether it is the taste or the smell that attracts them. I was wondering if a liquid could be devised which tasted or smelled like squid-what I might call essence of squid-and put in drums. These drums could be shipped around to the fishermen who could bait their hooks with a piece of sponge or something like that soaked in this liquid which would carry all the aroma and taste of squid. Then the fishermen's bait problem might be solved. I should like the minister to ask his officials to look into the possibility of developing artificial bait in a form which could be shipped around in cans. Then instead of making one big jump ahead into frozen bait, we might make one big step back into the canning age and see if we cannot can this essence of squid.
I believe that if the program which has been followed for some time, were rounded out so that the small fisherman who operates independently with a small boat and with a limited amount of gear could be helped to get his boat and his gear into condition so that he could fish effectively, then we would have taken a long step forward.
I would refer the minister to the report of the Newfoundland fisheries development committee of 1953. I believe this report served an excellent purpose and was used as the basis of much that has been done. This is a good thing because so many reports, once they have been printed, seem to be put to one side and are forgotten. Then later another royal commission is appointed which produces another report. I would suggest that this report, which obviously has not been forgotten, be looked at again very carefully. It is eight years old and an effort might be made to bring it up to date. Certainly there must be some weaknesses in the forecasts. After all, the commission that made the report had to make it on the basis of the knowledge they had at that time. If the report were gone over carefully today it could be revised on important points and used as the basis for a more up to date and more complete program. I should like to see that done. Undoubtedly the minister has read the report, and I should like him to consider the possibility of having it revised. I am sure that if he does he will see that his

program, good as it is, can be enlarged and, in some cases, speeded up.
Canada produces only about 10 per cent of the world's production of salty codfish. I feel it is a shame that we who have the best fishing grounds in the world should be catching so little. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo mentioned territorial waters. I should like to endorse what he said. The waters around Canada are being exploited regularly by the ships of foreign nations. Not too long ago a whole mess of trouble was stirred up because a plane flew across the territory of another country. Foreign ships operate regularly off the coasts of Canada and when the minister mentioned he was having a new boat constructed I was tempted to suggest that she be so equipped that she can drive off these poachers.
In so far as community stages are concerned, I have said in this house before that the community stage program was a wise and enlightened one. I hope it is continued and I hope that it is extended so that some community stages will be built in Labrador. If I may refer to Labrador for a minute, I would say that more ships are fishing there now than heretofore. I believe it was sometime around 1840 when the fishermen from Conception and Trinity bays in Newfoundland began to fish the Labrador coast. They found the European fishermen were there ahead of them. We find they are still there today. There seems to be a tendency for the fish to move northward, and if that is so then we must depend more and more on Labrador for the fish to keep the fish plants of the Atlantic provinces in operation.
Not only do we want the Labrador fisherman equipped so that he can be an efficient fisherman, not only do we need community stages, but we badly need communications so that the fishermen can communicate with one another along the coast and with the rest of the world. Communications are essential to the proper development of the fisheries. I was very glad to hear the minister refer to the work being done at Rattling Brook and the Exploits river and the fish ladders there. I was pleased to note that such progress has been made and I hope it is continued because I do think there is a very great spawning ground there for salmon.
In conclusion, I should like to again stress the necessity for increasing salt fish production and fresh fish production. I do hope that the fishermen themselves will share more in the profits of the industry. The fresh fish business seems to be in a healthy condition and it is my hope that the fishermen will share in the profits of that industry. In so far as salt fish are concerned, we are going

to have that industry with us for a long time. Mankind has been using this stable product since time immemorial. I should like to see more salt fish plants in northern Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly the cod fishery can be increased. It is pretty well known, I believe, that the fish are there and that more of them can be caught without jeopardizing a constant supply. One of the best ways in which we can assure that there is increased fish production in Canada is to see that the fishermen themselves are able to catch fish, have the means to catch it and the places in which to work once they have done so.
As to the minister and his department, may I say this, and of course any remarks I make are divorced from any, shall I say, political position which the minister may have. But in so far as he is the Queen's minister of fisheries and in his work as he guides the Department of Fisheries which is one of the most important departments in the government of Canada may I say: more power to your elbow.
Mr. Crouse:: I welcome this opportunity to speak briefly on the fisheries estimates that are before the committee at the present time. I should first like to commend the minister on the detailed report he has given of the work that has been undertaken by his department. I might say that it is a report which clearly indicates the concern of the government over the problems at present faced by fishermen. I was most interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador when he spoke of the need for perfecting an artificial lure. I might add that there is one available at present. It was perfected in Norway and it is called the Norwegian jig. It is approximately eight inches long, is shaped somewhat in the form of a spoon and is most effective when used in catching cod, haddock or any other groundfish.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman come up and join the rest of us near the centre of the chamber-as it is permissible to sit anywhere in committee-in order that we can hear him. We are interested in what he has to say.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I think I can speak loudly enough. I have a few notes here. I will speak a little bit more loudly so that hon. gentlemen can hear me.
During the Easter recess and at a recent special event in Nova Scotia I had an opportunity to speak to many of the fishermen
79951-0-350i
Supply-Fisheries
and also to the executives of fishing companies in my riding. These discussions brought a number of points forcefully to my attention and I should like to mention them for I believe they are worthy of consideration by the minister.
At the present time it would appear that the problem causing most concern among the fishermen on the east coast is the age of the existing ships in the deep-sea fishing fleet and the fact that these ships are not being replaced with modern up-to-date fishing trawlers. The average age of these wooden trawlers is approximately 12 years. Some of these trawlers are already obsolete when compared with new trawlers that are built by other nations. Accommodation for the captain and the crew falls far short of the comforts provided fishermen on new trawlers built by other countries. But aside from this point, there is among fishermen a growing fear that when the present ships are worn out or require expensive repairs in order to keep them operating they will be unemployed because of the lack of provision by the industry for the replacement of these existing ships. In the event this should happen we must ask the question: how important is the fishing industry to Canada?
The annual report of the Department of Fisheries for 1958-59 answers that question for it begins with this statement and I quote:
With an annual catch of all species of fish and shellfish amounting to nearly two billion pounds, worth about $116 million to approximately 80,000 men engaged in commercial fishing, Canada ranks as a leading producer and exporter of the world's fishery products.
To me that sounds like quite an important industry. The export value of the 1958 catch was $155 million, about two thirds of which came from the United States and most of the remainder from the United Kingdom, continental Europe and the Caribbean countries. In my opinion the fishing industry makes a great contribution to correct our imbalance in trade, especially with the United States-It is an industry that has for years stood: upon its own feet without too much assistance from government. But today it can no longer absorb the increased cost of production while selling its products in competition with state subsidized producers.
I was pleased to note in this year's estimates that continued assistance will be provided groups of fishermen desirous of constructing small draggers or long-liners up to 65 feet in length. However recent studies would indicate the assisted fleet at present accounts for about 20 per cent of the total groundfish landings on the east coast, with the company-owned deep-sea and the inshore boats providing the remaining 80 per cent.

Supply-Fisheries
This modernization program carried out by the fisheries deparment has contributed substantially to the replacement of small boats, and has provided greater opportunity, more security and a higher scale of living for the inshore fishermen. However, the industry as a whole depends on the larger trawlers and draggers for a constant supply of fish, and it is this type of ship, 100 feet in length or larger, that provides steady employment on shore in the fish plants and afloat for the fishermen, especially during the months from November through to April when the weather is inclement and the inshore boats cannot operate or operate only sporadically.
Ultimately therefore the burden of modernization, replacement and expansion will fall on the company-owned fleet of deep-sea fishing trawlers. Money for this replacement cannot be secured by raising prices, for two thirds of the industry's sales dollar-wise are to foreign markets, in competition with fishery products from nations with a lower cost structure. At the present time many of the materials and much of the equipment used by the industry are admitted either free of duty or at a low rate of duty, and within certain limits trawlers can be purchased outside this country. Perhaps this problem is of more direct interest to the shipyards than to the fishing industry.
However, most Canadian deep-sea fishing captains and their crews prefer wood to steel in a trawler or dragger 100 feet in length or even up to 125 feet in length. This is owing to the greater buoyancy of the wooden ship. Something needs to be done if our shipyards are to provide and be in a position to undertake even necessary refit work. Increased depreciation allowances to existing operators would encourage more venture capital in the industry and I would suggest that the government give serious consideration to this problem. It is a problem calling for bold, imaginative steps; and unless building costs of fishing trawlers in Canada can be reduced, or investment in this highly venturesome industry can be made more attractive, we will shortly have a fleet of obsolete ships incapable of providing steady employment or maintaining our position in world markets. For the benefit of the committeee, I might say that recently the President of the United States-it was on June 12-signed the fisheries assistance act of 1959. The bill provides: (1) a fishing vessel subsidy of up to one third the cost of construction, if built in a U.S. shipyard under approval of the department of defence.
I should like to point out there that what our friends to the south of us are doing

apparently is that they are co-operating through their defence and fisheries departments and are building ships that would be suitable in time of war.
The federal subsidy shall be $2.5 million per year for three years; eligible are those building vessels operated in a fishery for which escape clause relief had been recommended by the tariff commission but denied under the trade agreements assistance act and to certain fisheries found by the secretary of the interior to be injured by increased imports of fish or shellfish products.
I am not advocating that we take that type of action but I would point out the action which has been taken by the nation to the south.
In what other way can we help our fishermen? I believe we should give serious consideration to repealing the law which discriminates against our east coast fishermen who are competing with foreign vessels. At the present time we have a 12-mile limit, and other speakers this afternoon have mentioned this problem. This does not mean 12 miles of protected ocean for our Canadian fishermen; on the contrary it means nine miles of protected fishing rights for all other nations except Canada. Our fishermen using ships up to 65 feet in length can fish with all foreign fishermen up to three miles of our coast, but any Canadian fishermen in ships larger than 65 feet are unable to start fishing operations until they are 12 miles off shore.
This three-mile limit apparently came into general use around 1793 when it was adopted by the United States as the limit of its jurisdiction for neutrality purposes. During the nineteenth century many maritime states, inspired by British and United States practices, came to use the same limits, but it never won enough universal acceptance to become a rule of international law. In the absence of any uniform practice with respect to the width of territorial waters modern international law can be said to lay down no rule except that every state is entitled to claim at least three nautical miles.
After world war II the international law commission, organized under the auspices of the United Nations general assembly, selected in 1949 the question of the territorial sea as one of its topics for study and report. The commission's deliberations on this subject disclosed, however, that many of the difficulties encountered in 1930, when the question of territorial waters was discussed under the leagues of nations at The Hague, still presented major obstacles to any agreement. The claim to a 12-mile limit has met with such widespread opposition from other countries

that it will probably never be universally accepted, for we have seen this proposal again rejected this year at the conference called in April at Geneva.
A recent incident points out the absurdity of the present situation. The Canadian fishing trawler Sea Hawk was fishing in North bay near cape St. Lawrence in company with a fleet of some 15 or more Spanish and Portuguese trawlers. They were fishing approximately seven miles off the tip of Cape Breton and the operation of the draggers was so extensive in that area that the Canadian fisheries patrol boat Cygnus had to thread her way through this foreign fleet in order to get to the Canadian trawler and bring her to port, where the captain and owners were fined $50 and costs for fishing inside the 12-mile limit.
In my opinion there was no doubt a time when we were trying to build up a case for a 12-mile territorial coastal belt that this action made some sense. However, since the failure at the Geneva conference for the second time in two years to reach international agreement on the law of the sea there is no sound argument left for continuing this law and I would suggest that it be repealed. Canadian fishermen as taxpayers help provide wharves, harbour facilities and deep water channels for the convenience of foreign draggers and trawlers. In my opinion these Canadian fishermen are entitled to equal fishing rights with deep-sea fishermen from all other countries.
At the present time the most vigorously expanding shell fishery in the maritime provinces is that of the sea scallop. During the past year combined landings of scallop meats from Canadian and United States fishermen amounted to 23 million pounds. Of this total United States landings accounted for 18.7 million pounds and Canada produced 4.3 million pounds. Percentagewise the United States landings were up 25 per cent while the Canadian landings increased to 54 per cent over 1958. The increase in landings was the result of increased efforts by offshore boats fishing the Georges bank off the Maine coast and brought to the fishermen of the maritimes earnings in excess of $1,600,000.
At the request of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries joint experiments are being carried out with a large mesh scallop drag in an effort to find a way to reduce the numbers of small, unmarketable scallops which are damaged and wasted by handling on board fishing vessels. The government is to be commended for its action in this regard.
However at the present time there is very little knowledge available about the manner
Supply-Fisheries
in which scallops breed and multiply. I would suggest the fisheries department give consideration to studying this problem with special attention given to studying the early free swimming larval stages. This information is vitally important when endeavouring to determine the densities of future scallop populations, and this information would of course be most useful to the fishermen presently engaged in this industry.
There is some indication at the present time that the size of the scallops landed represent a particular year class. The current high production will no doubt deplete these stocks of older scallops and could result in a levelling off and lower production due to smaller scallops being landed in 1961 and 1962. Because of these facts and the economic importance of this industry I hope the fisheries department will give further study to the items I have mentioned.
I would like at this time to commend the minister and his staff for the gratifying progress that has been made in overcoming problems which for many years have beset the oyster industry in the maritime provinces and to mention in particular the results in curbing the epidemic which by the end of
1958	had ravaged almost all the main oyster beds in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The 3,200 barrels of disease resistant oysters from Prince Edward Island transplanted in
1959	and the balance of the program of transplanting 10,000 barrels this year will go a long way toward re-establishing this profitable and worth while inshore fishery. It is also gratifying to note that in all areas examined the transplanted oysters have suffered only normal mortality or less and continued good growth has been demonstrated.
At the present time the fishing industry is beset by many problems. During the past year the production of fresh and frozen ground-fish products, chiefly fillets and fish blocks, was considerably above that of the previous year. However, demand for these products had begun to weaken, resulting in a downward pressure on prices at both the primary and secondary stages of production. The deterioration of the Canadian fish trade position in the United States market, where some 85 per cent of the total production is sold, has been attributed to the increase in imports from Iceland and other European countries. At the same time there is evidence that total supplies have tended to exceed export requirements over the past ten or 15 years and this has acted as a continuous depressant on the market. This price structure has been further aggravated by the action taken by Peru in glutting the fish meal market, a by-product which helped maintain

Supply

Fisheries
the groundfish price for Canadian fishermen. As a matter of record, production of fish meal in Peru last year amounted to a figure between 300,000 and 400,000 tons. While this has had an effect on our east coast fishermen I know from the comments made by hon. members from British Columbia that it completely crippled the herring and whaling industries on Canada's west coast.
However, despite these setbacks the fishing industry can still look to the future with optimism. Canada has the sea at her front door on both coasts capable of supplying large quantities of highly edible protein seafood. We have, for instance, our great lobster fishery which though late in starting last year was generally productive throughout the summer and fall. Although there were some losses in equipment the season was considered the most successful for many years.
In the maritimes and Quebec our total fisheries products were valued at approximately $33 million with lobsters making up over $14 million of the total. I have already mentioned our scallop industry and its great potential in the maritimes. At the present time efforts are being made to include scallops on the menus for the personnel of our armed forces and if approved by the joint services food and nutrition committee this should add greatly to our marketing of this delectable sea food. I checked with the Department of National Defence and ascertained that over a recent 12-month period according to the information provided by the armed forces there has been procured for issue to units in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island a total of 85,788 pounds of fresh frozen halibut, haddock, sole and scallops as compared with 53,714 pounds of fresh frozen salmon. Some 400 pounds of scallops were purchased at the special request of the United States air force personnel in the area.
I submit to the committee that if scallops are good enough for the United States services they are good enough for our Canadian armed forces personnel. The joint services food and nutritional committee has been requested to add scallops to food lists provided that the price is not excessive in relation to other similar commodities. I would hope they will be found acceptable and that this will provide a new outlet for our scallops.
Our oyster beds have been restocked and are improving and there is still a good market in the United States for our swordfish, a branch of the fishing industry that has grown to great proportions in the last ten years and annually provides increased income for our east coast fishermen. I might add that swordfishing is practically a by-product of the department's efforts to improve the lot of the

inhore fishermen by subsidizing long-liners. It is a very profitable industry for long-liners during the months of June, July, August and part of September when ground fishing is not too profitable. These long-liners are equipped with a stand containing a pulpit that protrudes some 20 feet in front of the boat. A high mast and steering equipment are arranged. These long-liners geared for swordfishing range the coast from the banks of Maine to Sable island and off the coast of Cape Breton. The catch is almost entirely sold in the United States markets and it adds greatly to the earnings of our east coast fishermen.
Marketing problems still must be resolved but the work carried out by the department's home economists throughout Canada in preparing recipes and in promoting the use of fish with women's groups, church groups, hotel and restaurant associations and institutes has helped considerably to make Canadians aware of the value of fish.
The second phase that has been helpful is the amount of direct advertising carried out in connection with the consumer work of the home economists. The advertisements placed in daily and weekly newspapers and in mass circulation magazines plus the work of the consumer branch has been most helpful in increasing the consumption of fish in Canada. However, in my opinion most Canadians seem to be pretty well fed and our job is to replace other food with fish. Here I must throw out a word of caution to the Department of Agriculture and point out the desirability of putting an end to artificial price supports which cause over-production in the competitive food field. For example, recent offerings of canned pork on the domestic market at less than cost have the effect of encouraging consumers to buy the subsidized product while the fishing industry must sell its products on the basis of quality and nutritional value.
Although the problems I have mentioned require continuous study by the Department of Fisheries and the industry I believe that the present diversification of our fishing industry plus the vast markets opened up by new methods of transportation and refrigeration offer greater opportunity than ever before to Canada's fishermen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that the hon. member for Gloucester has not yet returned from a rather successful fishing expedition on which I understand he has been engaged for some days-


An hon. Member:: I thought he was a coal miner.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -because if he had been here I would not be speaking at this stage

of the debate. It is perhaps unfortunate that all the speakers from the Liberal party at this time should be from Newfoundland but perhaps that is symbolic of what might be described, in the light of recent events, as a wave of the future.
I listened with a great deal of interest and,
I must say, in most cases with approval to what was said by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, and I do not always approve of everything that hon. gentleman says. Of course, it does not affect us in Newfoundland but I believe that what he said about the application of the 12-mile limit to Canadian trawlers when under the existing state of the international law we apparently-and I underline that word-cannot apply it to foreign trawlers is, to put it mildly, antiquated and absurd. I certainly would join my voice with that of the hon. member in the appeal to have this law changed. Perhaps the hon. member who no doubt has more influence with the Prime Minister than I have might suggest to the Prime Minister that he make an amendment to the bill of rights and include this in the bill so that Canadian fishermen will have the right to fish off the Canadian coasts where foreigners have the right to fish.
I must say I was interested and intrigued by the new vision given to us today by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. I am sure that a government which had lots of vision three years ago but which is apparently in need of a new vision now will be interested indeed in promoting "essence of squid" because it is quite obvious that this government needs a new lure today. Speaking seriously, Mr. Chairman, I was interested in what the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg said about what the Norwegians have been able to accomplish in this field and I endorse what the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador said about the desirability of research into this field of artificial bait.
I was very appreciative of the references the minister made to the work being done at the experimental station at Valleyfield in my constituency. I have a great deal of pleasure at least once each year and often two or three times in visiting that establishment and in seeing the really remarkable enthusiasm which is shown by the staff there for trying new things. I know that some of the things they have tried have been of very real help to the fisheries and even now they are just scratching the surface. Everything we can do in this field and also in the field of market research is of the utmost importance.
There is one comment I have made only in the committee and which I should like to make now in this chamber.
Supply-Fisheries
We have a considerable number of Canadians, and people who are well on the way to becoming Canadians, who come from the same country that the original discoverer of Canada came from-I mean Italy-and those people in their home country are consumers of salt codfish. I am afraid they are being lured into eating subsidized canned pork and other products of that kind in Toronto, Montreal and in the other places where they settle. It does seem to me that the department, in conjunction with the industry and perhaps with the Department of Trade and Commerce, might give consideration to promoting some experiments in the sale of salt codfish in Toronto, Montreal and Hamilton, to taking advantage of the Italian language press and of shops that are run by Italian Canadians with a view to selling this product to Canadians who are better off in the main than any other customers we have for salt codfish, and where we might develop, maintain and increase a good and productive market.
I know there will be some difficulties about doing this but I do urge this idea very strongly upon the government.
I do not think there was anything more important said in the debate-and I must say this is almost a love feast, as the estimates of the Department of Fisheries nearly always are-than what was said by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg about fishing vessels. I am not going to recommend to the government any particular method; I am going to draw to the minister's attention-I do not need to draw it to his attention but I am going to do it so that it will be on the record-a resolution which was passed unanimously at the last meeting of the fisheries council of Canada in Vancouver in May on the importation of fishing vessels, which reads:
Whereas some processors of fish are suffering severely from lack of suitable fishing vessels; and
Whereas the federal government restricts the acquisition of the desired craft in the foreign markets through:
(a)	The necessity of having to secure permission from the Department of Transport to import a vessel-a restriction which we do not believe exists in the case of instruments of production in any other Canadian primary industry;
(b)	Heavy duties levied on vessels up to 100 feet in length when imported from most favoured nation countries; and
Whereas experience has shown that larger vessels are going to play a more important part in production in future years;
Therefore be it resolved that the fisheries council of Canada request the federal government to remove these hindrances to the adequate building up of the Canadian fishing fleet.
I do not think these are the only hindrances. I think the hon. member and some other hon. members who have spoken have put their fingers on other things.

Supply-Fisheries
In this parliament we have established a new agricultural bank to provide credit. It is true it is a successor to the old farm loan board, but it has a wider scope and at least it is supposed to do the job much better than the farm loan board did. In the fisheries improvement loans legislation we have the equivalent of the farm improvement loans legislation but we have nothing to compare with the agricultural development bank. I think we should have a fisheries development bank. I do not say it should be set up as a separate institution. Perhaps we should make it a branch of the agricultural development bank, because I do not want to see a whole lot more money spent in overhead; but there is no more reason why the people of Canada should subscribe the capital for loans to farmers than there is that they should subscribe it for fishermen. Indeed, both these primary industries, and the fishery even more than many branches of agriculture, have to compete on world markets at world prices, as hon. members have pointed out, largely without any kind of support, and the fishermen have to buy everything they buy in a largely protected market.
As the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg pointed out, this does create a real disability because the fisherman cannot raise his prices. He cannot raise his prices because the price is the price in the world, and if we were to try to raise our prices for our salt fish or our fresh frozen fish, or anything else we produce, somebody else is willing to sell it and we lose the market. We can make the industry as efficient as possible, and that is very important, but we also are faced in almost every branch of the fisheries in the world today, and this is particularly true of salt fish, with subsidies of one form and another to every one of our competitors in the world.
For example, the hon. member referred to the most recent legislation in the United States having to do with assistance in building vessels. I do think that our whole bounty program needs to be looked at again and looked at again in the light of world conditions and of the balance between the fishing industry and other industries. To my way of thinking the whole business of bounties, the whole business of loans of all kinds on fishing craft, small craft as well as larger craft, needs to be looked at.
The other thing is that at the end of the war this country removed all the taxes on agricultural implements so that agricultural implements could be bought at world prices. Surely if we can do that for the agricultural

industry we should do it for the fishing industry, and get rid of all the red tape that has existed in the acquisition of vessels in the past.
I do urge the government to take a bold step. The minister may perhaps have to knock the Minister of Transport on the head a few times, but he ought to have help from the Minister of National Revenue who ought to know something about this and who, as a matter of fact, collects some of those imposts that ought not to be there at all. I do hope that something quite serious will be done in this field.
There is another field-and here I speak more of Newfoundland perhaps than of any other part of Canada-in which something could be done. What is very desperately needed in Newfoundland, and what is going to be very hard to get except with the spread of rural electrification, and that is taking place, is some imaginative assistance in the establishment of local cold storage facilities which would not be used merely for the storage of fish but could also be used for the storage of vegetables and other foodstuffs sort of on a community basis, perhaps on a rather smaller scale than under the Cold Storage Act for agriculture. There is no doubt whatever that one thing that could be done that would vastly improve the standard of living in those fishing settlements would be to establish facilities for preserving food, for refrigeration, so that all food except fish itself would not be so costly and so that fish itself could be preserved in the community in a way which would make it palatable for the greater part of the year. I believe that an immensely greater amount of fish could be consumed in the fishing areas of Canada and all through the maritime provinces. I had occasion to visit Nova Scotia not so long ago -I do not recall this with any particular satisfaction although I had a very good time -and it was remarked to me there what we know to be true in Newfoundland and what I have found to be true in nearly all those fishing settlements, that if you want to go out to buy a fish to eat it is often a major operation. There really does need to be a lot more done than is being done now to get the people right around the places where the fish are caught to enjoy what is as good food as any food produced in this country.
In that context I should also like to say that I was very pleased to hear the minister say that the department had produced a new cook book, that the first edition was already sold out and that he is producing a second edition. But in order to create a real interest right here near at home I suggest that the minister send a complimentary copy to every

member of the house when the second run comes out with a little note that we take them to our wives with his compliments, or those of us who have not got wives, like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, could perhaps find someone that they might attract in this way. It might be a lure.
I think one of the big problems in getting the consumption of fish in this country up to the level it has reached in almost every other country is that most people do not know how to cook fish and how to make it attractive. It is something that has to be learned like everything else. I shall never forget the story, which I am sure was not true, about those charitable Nova Scotians who during the depths of the depression in the thirties sent a carload of salt codfish to Saskatchewan to help the farmers who, as a result of a combination of all the dreadful circumstances there were then, were having a very thin time indeed. Some time afterward the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix published a recipe for cooking this codfish and this was the recipe: Nail the codfish to a board, boil for three hours, throw away the codfish and eat the board.
That story does no credit to Saskatchewan because there is nothing better than salt codfish as a food if you know how to treat it. But that is not the way to treat it and it should never be treated that way. That is why I say it is most important to carry on this work of promotion. The fishing industry, as all of us know, is in many ways a marginal industry. It is marginal because it is carried on on the coasts. It is marginal because on the whole the staple product of the fishery is, unfortunately, sold in low price markets. It is marginal because the mark-up is small. It is marginal because in the main the product is not processed by great combines in the way that canned pork and some other things are. Therefore, in order to be put on an equal level with some of our other industries it does need perhaps a little more careful assistance, not as a permanent crutch but in order to stimulate the market because, as the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg has said and as we who represent fishing communities all desire, we want the industry to be strong and self-supporting.
We know from all the evidence around us that in the next few years we are going to have, because of the very rapid growth in our population, a large number of young people coming on the labour market every year, and we need to conserve and stimulate and build up in every way possible in order to employ our people productively. The last thing we want to see is a decline in this the oldest historic industry of our country. But 79951-0-351
Supply-Fisheries
unless some of the things are done that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg have already suggested today, this is not going to happen. It is not just going to happen of itself. I say that what we very much need for this industry is a new initiative, a new vigour. I do not think that the lines on which it is operating are wrong but there needs to be a little more push behind it than there seems to have been in the last few years.
I am only doing what the minister did and I will not transgress on the time of the committee long, but I wish to appeal to the minister to keep on the tail of the Minister of Trade and Commerce all the time, because we know that this year is a very critical one for our markets. The GATT negotiations that are going to take place in the autumn and the proposed new tariff for the common market which could be disastrous for the entire fishery are both matters that are on the carpet, and I trust that the government will be more successful in this field than it was at the Geneva conference on the law of the sea.
I recognize that the minister's position in this field is only marginal, but I do suggest that he urge upon his colleagues that they give earliest possible consideration to trying to get those countries that were willing to sign the agreement at Geneva to agree as a common effort to the putting in of the six-mile limit plus an extra six miles for the fishery inasmuch as they were willing to agree to that. If we cannot do that, we know that the Norwegians are now going to act unilaterally as the Icelanders already have. I would hope we would not have to go to that extreme, but this is an urgent problem and for the fishing industry one that comes pretty close to its survival. If we are going to have every country in the world fishing up to within three miles of our shores we are just not going to have the fishery to which we are historically and in every other way properly entitled. I do appeal to the minister to use all his weight and influence and to make a thorough nuisance of himself with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his other colleagues in order to see that something definite is done about this matter in the next 12 months.
I should like to say a couple of other things of a more strictly local character. I am very glad that the salt rebate is being continued. It has certainly been of help and it is well justified. I echo what has been said by my colleagues from Newfoundland about community stages, and I hope this program was not just a one-shot affair. I can assure the minister it is going to be just as badly needed

Supply-Fisheries
for employment in the next 12 months as it was when it was initiated and that there are still many places in Newfoundland where community stages would make a real contribution to the efficiency of the fishery, would add something to the income of the fishermen and would also provide that measure of insurance that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo so nicely illustrated when you give a man two chances of selling instead of just one.
Undoubtedly the small portable bait holding depots have been very popular where they have been established but they are needed in quite a few more places. The west coast of New World island in my constituency is one of them. The minister is putting one at Herring Neck for which we are very grateful but at the other end of the island there is unfortunately no place near at hand where fishermen can get their bait without going to Twil-lingate. If the minister has ever gone to Twillingate on a really stormy day, as I did once when his friends called an election at an inconvenient season of the year, he would realize that it is quite an impediment to the fishery not to have a holding unit somewhere in one of these settlements on the west side of New World island, perhaps at Bridgeport or Cottle's island. Bridgeport is perhaps the biggest fishing settlement there and it might be the most suitable place. There are certain other places where holding units would also be very helpful.
Finally, I want to say again it does seem to me that if the minister really wants to make a name for himself-I know he does- he should do his utmost to concentrate, perhaps more than anything else, on this problem of fishing vessels, of getting taxes off them and getting costs down generally so that our fishermen can be equipped with modern vessels so that they can hold their own in the fishery on our own coast.


Mr. Nielsen:: Supply-Fisheries
with regard to all other departmental employees who are now serving the government in the north.
The idea that one can arbitrarily cut these allowances without having reference to the true facts, without making any accurate survey in the north, or without having any regard to the hidden factors which come to bear on the increased cost of living in the north is completely unacceptable. If such a trend continues I am afraid the recruitment of the type or calibre of person that we all want to attract to the north for the development of that part of the country will be seriously retarded.
One of the factors, of course, which bears directly on the cost of living in the north is transportation. It costs more to transport goods into the north; it costs more to transport goods out of the north. If we are to establish any industry up there, including a commercial fishing industry, those costs must be pared to just as low a point as they possibly can be pared. The imposition of additional load limitations on our territorial roads certainly is not helping to pare those costs.
I was informed, for instance, with regard to the mining industry, that the imposition of the load limitations, if they were enforced, would increase the cost of transportation of the product of Cassiar Mining Company by $200,000 a year. Similarly, if the regulations were enforced they would increase the cost of transportation of the product of United Keno Hill mines by $300,000 a year. We can see immediately the effect which these increased costs would have on the establishment of any commercial fishing industry in the Yukon. If an industry were established there the cost of the product would be simply uncompetitive with other fisheries products in the markets to the south. I think the load limitations are seriously retarding our development in the north and I urge the minister to consult with his colleagues in an effort to have them removed. They can be removed simply by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources giving instructions to his commissioner in the Yukon to revoke the regulations.
The other matter I wanted to raise in connection with the establishment of commercial fishing in the north is that perhaps some assistance could be given by the minister and his department to the establishment of commercial fisheries in the far northern areas of Yukon around Old Crow, Aklavik and other remoter northern areas. Perhaps these areas could also be taken under consideration by the minister and his department. I am not sufficiently expert on the subject of fisheries to be able even to suggest that these

areas offer any commercial possibilities. However, I am of the firm belief that a good commercial fishing potential exists in the more southerly area, particularly in the Yukon around, as I say, the communities of Kluane lake and Teslin. I am sure that if Mr. Elliott gets the required assistance, he will be enabled to submit reports which bear out that belief. I would also urge that the minister and perhaps one or two of his officials travel to the Yukon in order to have a look for themselves. I do not know whether any of them have been there previously, but it would certainly help if they had first hand knowledge of at least how much water there was in the Yukon that had fish life in it.
Before concluding, I wish once again to urge the minister to consult with his colleagues and to do as much as he can to convince them that these two matters which I have raised, namely the reduction in the cost of living allowance and the supplementary cost of living allowance in certain areas in the north among the civil servants there and the imposition of load limits are matters urgently deserving of the greatest consideration by the government. To state the position again in summary, the reduction in the allowances to which I have referred is not going to help the minister or any other department in the government to attract that kind of individual that is so much required for northern development; and the continued existence of the load limitations which have been placed on our roads in the north are extremely damaging to the economy of the Yukon. I think if the limitations were enforced you may as well not consider the establishment of a fishing industry there at all because transportation costs would be such as would place the cost of the product produced there completely out of the selling markets of southern Canada.
In my view the maximum permissible loadings and their effect on the problem of transportation are most important in developing a primary industry there. We must sell the products that we produce in the Yukon at competitive world prices despite the inherent cost of their production. In the north of Canada our highways are the counterpart of the railroads which serve industry in the most densely populated areas. We must regard them with equal importance to our economy. I would be most grateful for anything the minister could do to remove these suffocating and needless regulations.
The question of isolated post allowances could be cured, I am sure posthaste, if the true facts were known to those who have the authority of making these recommendations to treasury board, and I refer again to the interdepartmental committee on isolated post

regulations. If these people would make an accurate survey of the true cost of living there instead of working on supposition, guesswork and arbitrary estimations, they would find that the reductions which have been imposed are completely unjustified.
So before any commercial fishing industry in the Yukon is even considered these two things have to be looked at first. It is my hope that any efforts made by the minister to alleviate these two situations will bring about a favourable consideration of the problems I have mentioned with regard to the establishment of a commercial fishing industry in the north, and I hope that these proposals will bear fruit.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment or two on this particular item. Perhaps first of all I may be allowed to express my feelings with regard to one of the officials of the department who will shortly be retiring, namely Mr. Whitmore who is the director of fisheries in the Pacific area. Mr. Whitmore has been in the department for some 40 years now or a bit longer, having held various positions, and as an indication of the degree of respect and admiration which exists for him throughout the entire fishing industry perhaps I should make this slight reference to the words of praise and commendation which have been made of Mr. Whitmore by various organizations interested in the fishing industry on the west coast.
The fisheries association of British Columbia honoured Mr. Whitmore not too long ago, as did the united fishermen and allied workers union and the native brotherhood of British Columbia; and also more recently the department itself made a presentation to Mr. Whitmore for his long years of dedicated service. The fisheries association and the united fishermen's union I would say in normal events disagree with each other, because one represents the industry and one is a union; but this is indicative of the respect that Mr. Whitmore has generated over the years so far as his attitude and his administration of fisheries on the coast is concerned. I would hope that even after his retirement he will remain in a position where the department will feel free to call upon him for any advice, and that he will remain a member of the international salmon fisheries commission so that his years of experience will not be lost entirely to the department and to the agencies and commissions which function within the department.
I would also like to make a brief comment with respect to the Fraser river and the salmon industry on the coast. The Fraser
Supply-Fisheries
river, of course, is the most important salmon river which exists either in British Columbia or anywhere in the world and its value to the economy of the province is well known by everyone in British Columbia and to the departmental officials. Some thought has been expressed, mostly by those people in our economy who are more concerned with hydroelectric power than they are with the fishing industry and the products derived therefrom, about attempts to build hydroelectric and flood control dams on the Fraser river. Some of the dams which have beeen proposed range up to 700 or 800 feet in height, and I think it almost goes without saying that even although a tremendous amount of research work has been undertaken in recent years in an attempt to overcome the bad effect of dams on fish and to make sure the fish maintain themselves and that the river is not destroyed, this attempt is only effective to a slight degree. If dams like the Moran dam, which stands some 700 feet, were built it would completely destroy the Fraser river as a fish river. The minister need look no further than the Columbia river, which runs partly in Canada and partly in the United States, where hydroelectric storage dams have been built. Regardless of the $150 million odd which has been spent in the United States, I understand, in an attempt to retain the Columbia as a fish river, the efforts have been practically ineffectual so far as the fish are concerned.
One of the very fine things in this regard for the fisheries interests are the discussions which are presently taking place between the Canadian government, the British Columbia government, and the United States so far as further development for hydroelectric purposes on the Columbia river are concerned. This, coupled with the possibility of a hydroelectric development further north on the Peace river, has already gone a great deal of the way toward diminishing the demands and the insistance of the hydroelectric interests to build dams on the Fraser river. I hope that by the time nuclear energy becomes economically competitive or even less costly than hydro development, by the time we reach that age of nuclear power we shall have developed sufficient non-fish rivers for hydroelectric purposes and that we will no longer-need to worry about the Fraser river being; ruined as a fish river. That is my hope and I am sure it is the hope of the Department of Fisheries. This needs re-emphasis and reinforcement from time to time by the people interested. The Fraser river and other fish rivers on the coast should be protected at all possible cost and the energies of the electric power people should be directed toward other

Supply-Fisheries
means of producing electrical energy instead of ruining these great rivers and the contribution they make toward our economy.
This question of the Fraser river and multiple use of it was studied and is still being studied by an agency established by joint participation of the federal and provincial governments, upon which agency the Department of Fisheries have representation. I refer here to the Fraser river board. While this board is established under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources I think it still has some bearing on this particular department because the river with which it deals is a fish river and the interests of the department are involved one way or the other.
This may be the time to communicate to the minister, as has been done on other occasions, the need for him to press as hard as he can with his colleagues, especially the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, for some sort of flood control activity on the Fraser river. I refer to control that would not have a deleterious effect on the fishing industry on that river.
I have in my hand a report dealing with multiple uses of the Fraser river and the question of flood control by building a series of dams in the upper reaches of the Fraser and employing other methods of control in the lower reaches. I believe our efforts should be bent toward developing a diking system in the lower reaches of the Fraser rather than concentrating on building storage dams in the upper reaches where they will interfere with the spawning activities of the fish.
To illustrate the value of diking as opposed to building storage dams I will refer to the report. This approaches the question from the point of view of economy without reference to the fishery aspect. The report indicates that the building up of the present dikes in the lower reaches of the Fraser to the point needed to meet the flood level of 1894 which is the highest point of which they have knowledge would cost $17 million plus annual operating costs as compared with $520 million for the building of reservoirs and star storage dams. We are not dealing with the question of flood control specifically so I will not violate the rules by pursuing this subject.
I turn now to the conflict of interest that exists between the fisheries and forests. From time to time in the forests of Canada we have insect infestations. The forestry people wanting to ensure the continued growth of forests have embarked on programs of spraying the trees with insecticide the use of which results in killing not only the insects but fish

because of the toxic effect of the insecticide. It washes down the hillsides with the soil and is carried into the streams containing fish. This problem has occupied the attention of the Department of Fisheries which has studied the question and attempted to find an innocuous insecticide that would not be harmful to fish. I am not aware that they have met with success in their research but I hope their efforts will continue.
There is a conflict of interest here. One must either choose between seeing damage to forests or damage to the fisheries or one must seek to strike a balance. Both the federal and provincial forestry people have sought to achieve a balance. I urge that there be a continuing intensive research program in this field.
In the supplementary estimates there is an item in the amount of $150,000 for the destruction of dogfish and other predators. This is the third year to my knowledge that there has been an item for this purpose. I appreciate that in the last couple of years many difficulties have been encountered in effectively implementing the program. I will not deal with the problem other than to say it has not been as successful as it might have been. The fishing industry on the west coast has been critical in several respects of the approach to the problem adopted by the department. I appreciate that it is difficult for the departmental officials to ask the treasury board for approval for further monetary provision in this field when all the moneys allotted have not been expended but I earnestly hope they will persevere in their efforts in years to come.
The attitude of the treasury board would be something like this. You were here two or three years ago and we gave you $250,000. You spent hardly any of it. Last year we gave you another $200,000 and you did not use that. Now you want some more money. How long is this going to continue? The treasury board will have to have results for any money allocated, and this is the thing we should look for if we do not embark on an effective dogfish killing program so that these predators are eliminated to the greatest possible extent.
I should like to make reference to another matter which involves the Department of Agriculture. I refer to the subsidies paid under the Cold Storage Act. As hon. members well know this is under the Department of Agriculture. Fish products cold storage warehouses are built from time to time and a subsidy is payable on those fish products warehouses by and through the Department of Agriculture. Two or three years ago the Department of Agriculture saw fit to place some limitations upon the amount of subsidy

paid. The reason for doing that was that there was, as it were, a glut of cold storage warehouses in Canada and to continue to pay one-third of the cost as a subsidy without limitation on the total amount merely meant that the federal government would be paying money in the form of subsidies to build more and more cold storage warehouses at a time when there were too many of them already in existence. The arguments were that the bulk of cold storage warehouses in Canada are for agricultural products. This tends to work out to the advantage of the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural industry but it places the fishing industry at a disadvantage because it has its activities curtailed by the activities in the agricultural field.
We have asked a number of times for the transfer of jurisdiction so that subsidies payable for fish cold storage warehouses would be used to build cold storage warehouses under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries. We feel that the Department of Fisheries are able to do a much better and a more efficient job in the building of those warehouses and in the paying of the subsidies than the Department of Agriculture. As I say, this has been dealt with a number of times in the past. We have asked questions of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Minister of Fisheries. The answers which we have received on each occasion in the past have been, "Well, we will consult about this". If I am not mistaken, I think the Minister of Fisheries said in the marine and fisheries committee when the estimates of the department were being considered that the suggestion I had made at that time sounded like a sensible one and he would give it sympathetic and earnest or some other type of consideration; that he would have a talk with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, about it, to see if some arrangement could be worked out. I should like to have an indication from the minister of the results of those discussions. What plan, if any, has been worked out to bring this matter under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries in so far as fish products are concerned so that full and proper consideration can be given to any application for a subsidy for the erection of a fish products cold storage warehouse so that the fisheries industry will not be placed at a disadvantage because of the activities in the agricultural products field? This, I submit, is the situation at the moment.
I have one other point, and this again I think is something which in reality could more properly be dealt with by the Department of External Affairs. Nevertheless, it does concern the fishing industry and the Department of Fisheries because our offshore
Supply-Fisheries
fishing rights are involved in the territorial limits of the country extending out into the ocean.
The so-called proposal for a 12-mile limit has been discussed at international conferences. It was discussed at the recent one, just a month or so ago; it was discussed at the United Nations general assembly and prior to that time at another conference on the law of the sea. There were suggestions from different countries as to what those territorial limits should be. So far we have come to no conclusion on them.
The latest proposal of Canada for a six and six arrangement was defeated, I understand, by one third of a vote or something like that, but it was just defeated and that was all. This would make one wonder whether there is any great sense in going further and further into international conferences on this particular question because I think Canada, in its desire to reach agreement on the question of our territorial limits, did depart from our original thought that there should be a 12-mile limit when it suggested six and six. I think Canada went a bit too far in that regard in an attempt to reach an agreement. I do not think it would be wise for us to go any further in that direction. Perhaps the most appropriate thing to do, so far as our general limits are concerned, is to take unilateral action and declare as Iceland has declared and as others are considering now, that our territorial limits for all purposes are 12 miles, and that is that.
This would overcome, of course, what I consider to be an extremely ridiculous situation on the east coast which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and other members from the Atlantic provinces will have more intimate personal knowledge of than I. I refer to difficulties which arise from having two sorts of limits, a three-mile limit and a 12-mile limit. This affects our fishermen. Some of them have to go out beyond our 12-mile limit in order to fish while foreign fishermen can come inside the 12-mile limit and fish. By unilateral action on our part, which I think is the only course necessary, we would overcome this problem without too much difficulty. Of course, in so doing we might create other difficulties such as impairing our relations with the United States. This is primarily why Canada has been weak-kneed and weak-hearted in this particular field. But none the less I think it is about time we did realize that it may be necessary to incur strained relations once in a while in order to reach that goal which is just and fair.

Supply-Fisheries
In this regard, I think, as I said, this is primarily an external affairs matter. Nevertheless, the fishery interests are involved and I think, taking everything into consideration, Canada should now say that our territorial waters extend to 12 miles beyond our shores. After all, if a small nation like Iceland, apparently reflecting a great deal of the courage of that government, courage which this government does not appear to have, can take such action, then surely Canada in the same light can take the same action to protect our interests.


Mr. McQuillan:: First, I want to congratulate the minister on the steps his department has taken in the field of the conservation of the fisheries on the Pacific coast. In his opening remarks this morning he spoke of a project on Robertson creek near Great Central lake on Vancouver island. I think he might well have enlarged on that a bit because it appears to be a credit to the department and so far it has been very successful.
I should like to call to the minister's attention and ask him to comment later on the necessity for a somewhat similar and perhaps larger conservation project on the Big Quali-cum river near Qualicum Beach, also on the island. I should also like to call his attention to the need for action on the Puntledge river near Courtenay. This river was adversely affected from the fish spawning point of view a few years ago by the enlargement of a hydro power project by the British Columbia power commission which at the time did not appear to give much regard to their responsibility with respect to fish conservation. In the same area there is need for further development on the Tsolum river which has been a very heavy spawning stream in years gone by, particularly for pinks. During the summer months and the early fall when the pinks go up the river there is often very low water and they cannot get up the river to spawn with the result that sometimes a pretty large crop is destroyed. I believe that the fisheries department is considering a storage dam at Wolf lake at the head of the river and I would ask that construction of the dam be expedited as quickly as possible.
There is another question I have already brought to the attention of the minister by letter and I should like to mention it again. I refer to the problem of the blackfish or killer whales interfering with the salmon fishing, especially in the gulf of Georgia and the inside waters along the east coast of Vancouver island. I know this is a difficult problem. Some interests that are concerned about it have suggested setting up machine gun posts but that would probably result in killing half the fishermen on the coast as

well as visitors and sports fishermen. It is a very difficult problem. So far as I know, the department has no real answer to it yet but I hope they will keep working on it and perhaps come up with an answer.
We had quite a little excitement in the coastal area a few months ago when there was a suggestion that a licensing system would be set up for sports fishermen. I have talked to a good many fishermen and a number of resort operators along the coast and they are of the opinion that perhaps this is necessary in order that the department can plan proper conservation programs and keep some control over the catch of fish by sportsmen or at least know what they are catching. In general the thought is, and I also feel this way about the matter, that if such a licence is required the charge should be very nominal. The feeling is that these licences may be required in order to keep a record of fishing and keep control of sport fishing in the same way that provincial forest fire permits are issued. Those permits are issued free but in this case perhaps the charge might be sufficient to cover the cost of administration of the licensing system.
The preceding speaker, the hon. member for Skeena, spoke about the Fraser river board and opposed the adoption of system A as they term it in their report. I think he left, I trust unintentionally, a wrong impression in his comparison of costs. I do not have the exact figures with me but the figure he quoted of some $500 million, if that figure is correct, also included the cost of a considerable hydro power installation on the Clearwater river above any spawning areas. No spawning grounds would be affected by this development, so I wanted to correct any wrong impression that might have been left in that respect.
In the recently presented second report of the committee on mines, forests and waters, the committee after careful study of the Fraser river board report and after hearing from the representatives of the fisheries department on the board made the following recommendation:
Your committee heard evidence from the two federal members of the Fraser river board concerning what is referred to in the board's preliminary report dated June, 1958, as system A. Since this proposed system A appears to offer the best possible chance of fulfilling the following objectives, (1) to provide flood control: (2) to be an integral part of a major power system; (3) to be compatible with fisheries; and (4) to be economically self-supporting through power production, your committee recommends that the further studies to establish the physical feasibility of projects in system A and the required additional biological studies relating to fisheries interests be actively pursued. This is in order that a final conclusion as to the merits of system A may be reached at the earliest possible date.

I think that is the proper way to approach the problem. I do not think we should come to any conclusions without proper evidence to support those conclusions.
I should also like to say a few words about the pending retirement of one of the senior officials of the fisheries department to whom the hon. member for Skeena also paid a compliment. We on the British Columbia coast have known Mr. Whitmore for many years. I believe he has served almost 45 years with the department and he certainly has been a credit to the department. We all hope that his successor will meet with the same support and be held in the same high esteem that Mr. Whitmore was.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw a few matters to the attention of the minister. First of all, I should like to take some exception to what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said with regard to the proposed licences for sport fishing in salt water. I feel that they accomplish no good purpose whatsoever. The amount of fish taken in salt water by sports fishermen is infinitesimal when compared with commercial catches. Grilse is the only fish of which any substantial number is caught and the department has a fair idea of what the take is at the present time. I cannot see sports fishermen filling out forms and sending them to the department. I do not know what the department can accomplish except to bring about more bureaucracy, and I am opposed to any such form of licensing with regard to sport fishing on the Pacific coast. So far as I have been able to ascertain, and I have inquired, there is no such licensing on the east coast, and I do not think it is necessary.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Would the hon. member allow me to ask a question? On what does he base his statement that the sport catch is infinitesimal? Nobody can possibly make a statement like that if they have examined the statistics.


Ernest James Broome: Infinitesimal, I said, as compared with the commercial catch. Certainly there is a fairly large number of fish, but I do not think that it is of the order of importance that it is made out to be.
However, that is not really what I wanted to talk about. I do want to talk about the pollution of streams and the fact that I believe the Fisheries Act needs to be overhauled and more teeth put in it to give the minister and his officials more authority to do something in regard to the control of pollution of streams. I believe the fisheries department is doing an excellent job on the west coast, and undoubtedly in other areas in which they operate. I believe the
Supply-Fisheries
staff is able and conscientious but is perhaps limited by the fact the budget is not large enough or by the lack of trained personnel.
I believe, however, there needs to be a change in the legislation in order to put more teeth in the act. I have made a few notes in this connection and I find that under section 33 of the Fisheries Act the minister is given wide powers to control and prevent the pollution of fishing waters. This control extends to ships which shall not throw overboard ballast, coal ashes or other prejudicial or deleterious substances in any river, harbour or roadstead or in any water where fishing is carried on. It extends to plants which may not discharge industrial waste which may be harmful to fish and it extends to lumbering, land clearing or any such activities in the way of preventing such activities from putting any slash, stumps or debris into water frequented by fish or into water which may flow into a place frequented by fish. A salmon stream can be ruined by a log jam, a river made poisonous to fish from industrial waste and city discharged sewage.
The penalties for infractions of section 33 bear no relationship to the harm that can be done by an infraction. The first offence carries a penalty of $20 and costs; the second offence not less than $40 and costs and not more than $80 and costs, and in addition a further penalty of not less than $10 and not more than $20 for every day during which such offence is continued. The third, or any subsequent offence, carries a penalty of not less than $100 and costs and also in addition a further penalty not exceeding $20 for every day during which such offence is continued.
These penalties are extremely inadequate to be a proper deterrent. Ignoring the fines which are quite modest, the daily penalty of $20 for continuous infraction of the law is something any industrial plant of any size would find quite easy to pay and indeed might prefer to pay rather than undergo the expense of diverting or treating their waste liquids so as to comply with the law. This penalty of $20 a day is, in fact, the maximum penalty which can be assessed against any farmer who does not maintain an approved fish grating at the intake of an irrigation ditch drawing water from a fish producing stream. The fish grating guards against the occasional fish being destroyed, but the waste from an industrial plant can poison a whole stream.
I suggest that the minister should review these penalties and adjust them upward to the point where they will prove a real deterrent. Perhaps this could be done by bringing the Fisheries Act into parliament for amendment, if necessary, or through the regulations. Perhaps it might be better to add proper

Supply-Fisheries
fisheries pollution control regulations which could be amended by the minister himself on his own responsibility.
Second, there is the matter of pollution from ships either throwing ballast overboard, throwing garbage overboard or pumping bilges while actually in a river or within a harbour. The various harbour commissioners must guard against this, but the department has a responsibility as well. Finally, there is the effect on fish bearing streams of the discharge of sewage into them. It is well recognized, however, that this type of pollution is not as dangerous as industrial waste because of the way that industrial waste destroys the oxygen content in the water. Nevertheless, the pollution of streams from the discharge of sewage is an important factor and it is becoming an important factor on the Fraser river which, as the hon. member for Skeena has pointed out, is perhaps the greatest remaining salmon fishing stream in the world since the Columbia was destroyed as a salmon river. It is imperative that the fisheries department have authority and power to guard against the break-down of our fisheries or the diminution of our streams.
The submission to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects by the fisheries association of British Columbia pointed out that commercial fishing is the fourth largest primary industry of the province, preceded only by forestry, agriculture and mining. They pointed out also that this important industry provides employment for some 18,000 persons and they estimated that another 75,000 persons were indirectly dependent upon the industry for employment. The salmon fishery of British Columbia, according to this submission, could be at least doubled within the next 25 years. We do have an intimation, highlighted by the unions I believe, that there is too much gear in the water. There is one side of the equation. You can either have too much gear or too few fish. You can build up the fish so as to support the gear and the number of fishermen who are engaged in that activity. I suggest that the experience of the fisheries department at Jones Creek and Horsefly and other places that were mentioned by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has proved the admirable work the department has done. It is simply too bad that money cannot be provided to accelerate this program because there must be at least 20 or 30 other streams up and down the coast of British Columbia which could be prepared with artificial spawning beds, which could be stocked with pinks and thus build up the runs of fish which are not as valuable as sockeye. However, a very valuable fishery could be built up to fill in the offrun years.

Again this report refers to the experiment at Jones Creek and it is stated that it has been proved now that (a) an artificial gravel bed can be built which will be as efficient or more so than the natural stream bed for the production of pink salmon fry and (b) pink salmon can be transplanted to a new area to provide runs of salmon in off years. Considering that the salmon fishery, not in the best years but in average years, is worth about $50 million; considering that by proper conservation methods the Adams river run was built up in 1958 to a run of 12 million fish when back 20 or 30 years ago it was down to a run of some 17,000 cases; considering that conservation measures can build up this resource and can provide a continuing source of God given wealth to this country and employment to the people of this country, I say that the fisheries department is perhaps one of the most important departments in the whole government. I sincerely trust that the minister will be able to secure the funds and the staff which will alow an acceleration in this program which, undoubtedly, his officials have ahead of them for the next 10 or 15 years.
In so far as the problem of dogfish is concerned, there is not much sense in adding to what has been said. However, I believe that if the subsidy is not used up I think it would be well for the government to take the initiative. Perhaps one of the reasons-this may be just an excuse that has been given to me- for the subsidy not being used up is the fact it has not been announced early enough so that the fishermen can fish for dogfish at a time when these predators congregate at the mouths of rivers when they are following runs of small herring and so on and where the fishermen could catch large numbers of them. I think the program for the control of dogfish should be announced early in the year. I believe there should be a conference between the department, the fishing companies and the fishermen and that, when agreement has been reached, the program should be set out well ahead of time so that if there is any delay in going after these predators, it can be laid right at the door of the fishermen.
I should like to make one last point and it is nothing that is under the jurisdiction of the minister. However, we will never have really effective fisheries on the west coast until labour and management learn to get together. In this particular instance the union it seems to me, is always spoiling for a fight with management and always looking for opportunities to create disturbances. As I say, this is one area in which the minister

certainly has no jurisdiction. I wish he had jurisdiction. However, these are troubles that will pass away.
My point is that we should build up our fisheries by proper scientific methods, by the methods which are being used by the department now, and should build them up as fast as possible because this is an area in which every dollar spent will return scores of dollars to the people of Canada and also as revenue to the government.


John Angus MacLean: Supply-Fisheries
of our nation as a whole, producing and contributing in every way, I think should have special consideration. I have special concern for the fishermen and the industry in Labrador.
On the question of artificial bait lures, I may say that these are being used on an experimental and trial basis and have been available for a number of years. The research board has also done a considerable amount of research with regard to fish attractants and repellants from the point of view of possible bait usage and for the guidance of fish in their migration and other possible applications.
Several hon. members spoke of the matter of the equipment of ships and of a program which will allow the fishing industry to be modernized. This is a matter that is now being studied by an interdepartmental committee on an official level, and which I hope will be reporting to the government before long. I also hope that they will be able to come up with something really constructive that will help the fishing industry and also the shipbuilding industry at the same time. But as hon. members know it is a very knotty problem indeed.
Many interesting suggestions were made as to increasing the market for fish in Canada, and one suggestion was about the expanding market for salted cod in Toronto and various other areas. I might say that the maritime salted cod producers have been exploiting this market for quite some time and are shipping considerable quantities of salted fish to Toronto to cater to this particular market.
The hon. member for Yukon spoke of the need for additional staff in that area. I wish to report that an addition to the staff will take place very shortly in the area. We could still use more staff, and if we can arrange it perhaps in the future permission will be given for additional staff there. The importance of developing the industry in this area is well known and the hon. member's suggestions will be taken into consideration and given further study.
The hon. member for Skeena kindly made reference to Mr. Whitmore's retirement, as did the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I appreciate the recognition they have given him in this regard and I must say that he is a very fine example of the excellent type of officials and scientists who are serving this department and who have served it with dedication over the years. I am delighted to see this recognition being made here on the floor of the house.
The hon. member for Skeena also mentioned the conflict in some cases between forests

and fish and the need for spraying budworms in the forests to wipe out if possible these epidemics. I might say there is really no conflict because if the forests were destroyed there would be no fish in any case. We have been doing research in this regard and we are now hopeful that a spray has been devised of a concentration which will do the minimum damage to fish and yet be effective as far as budworms and other insects are concerned.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni wanted to know about the projects he referred to on Vancouver island. I might say that as far as Puntledge river is concerned negotiations are in progress with the British Columbia power commission. The department has proposed certain fishways and other fish protective measures, and these have been referred to the British Columbia energy board. My understanding is that the board has not reported on the problem yet. The Big Quali-cum project is a comprehensive water control program which should increase very considerably the capacity of that watershed to produce salmon, and good progress is being made on it. The Tsolum river one is in the suggestion stage and proposals have been made that this would be a useful project, but up to this time it has not been evaluated. As far as sports fishing licences are concerned, I think hon. members can rest at ease for the present because no action has been taken to introduce licensing for salt water sports fishermen.
I shall be glad to answer other questions as we go along. I see that it is not quite six o'clock yet so perhaps it might be possible to get the first item passed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know whether any hon. member of any other party wants to speak on this item, but I think I could say for our part that we would not have any objection to the item going through as long as it were understood that the hon. member for Gloucester who is our spokesman on this subject and who expected to be here but just is not here would be given reasonable latitude on some other item.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Just before the item carries I would like to draw to the attention of the minister the activities taking place under the Cold Storage Act, and perhaps the minister could indicate if there have been any results to the discussions he has had with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture in this regard.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman,
there have been discussions between the departments in order to judge the practicability of the suggestions which were advanced by the hon. member for Skeena and others last year before the committee. It has not been

found that there is any practical way of dividing the operation into two or to put it under two administrations. In any case, however, we are still open to suggestions. I think the only way it could be done practically would be to duplicate the Cold Storage Act as far as the Department of Fisheries is concerned.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not want to delay this unnecessarily but may I pose this problem. The Department of Agriculture deals primarily with agricultural products and the subsidies paid under that department, and under that department the interests of the fisheries is not given full consideration. If the only solution is duplication so that the fisheries department will have an establishment to deal with this sort of thing, I submit we must do that. As I understand the explanation given to me, this has been dealt with by the fisheries department anyway. If an application is made for a subsidy for fish cold storage warehouses I understand that the fisheries department is fully consulted on the matter as to whether a subsidy will be paid or not.


John Angus MacLean: That is true.


Charles Benjamin Howard: So you already have duplication except that you do not have duplication in paying the subsidy. That results in the fisheries interests being injured or restricted because of the predominance of agricultural problems in the Department of Agriculture which have resulted in the Department of Agriculture placing a $50,000 limit on subsidies.
I suggest the only solution appears to be one of duplication. Apparently the machinery already exists and perhaps it may require an act comparable to the Cold Storage Act but applying to fishery products. Perhaps if the minister could indicate now what some of the difficulties are which he has found in his discussions, then I would not be so adamant in my approach and perhaps the problem is not too difficult.


John Angus MacLean: I would like to say that I think there might be exceptions, but generally speaking full weight has been given to the recommendation and the advice given to the department officials when grants were made under this act applying to fisheries. There is the question of the limitation, and I think this is the nub of the problem.
Business of the House
A different act or any division in responsibility would not make any difference unless this limitation were raised or eliminated.
I think that is the crux of the problem which the hon. member has in mind because it might under certain circumstances bear unfairly upon a particular project. I believe I have an idea of what the hon. gentleman has in mind. This is due to the limitation in the act itself rather than the method of administration.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It is due to an order in council which put a ceiling of $50,000 on the subsidy. It is not due to the limitation in the act at all.


John Angus MacLean: That is correct. I should have said it is due to the regulations made under the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister agreeable to the suggestion I made?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader if he could indicate the order in which estimates will be taken tomorrow and if there is anything definite he can say about Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will find it agreeable tomorrow to complete the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and then make a start on those of the Department of Justice. It is a question of the allocation of time. We will have available for discussion about 6J hours tomorrow after orders of the day are reached.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If another department was needed what would it be?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The third item would be completion of the estimates of the Department of Transport in case the house moves rapidly.
For Friday the first item of business would be the bill of rights. The question of hours of sitting on Friday has not yet been determined by the house.


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