1961-06-03

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I am happy to announce, Mr. Speaker, some significant developments with respect to the discovery by Imperial Oil Company Limited of a gas well in the Arrowhead river area of the Northwest Territories. This well has now been tested and has established an absolute open flow potential of 24 million cubic feet per day. There is every reason to believe that when it goes into actual production the sustained flow will be approximately one third of the absolute open flow, depending on the engineering.
It is anticipated that six more exploratory wells will be drilled during the present season in this general area. If similar success is achieved, as there is good reason to expect, it should not be long before there is an economic basis for pipe line facilities to carry the production of gas wells in this area to market.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that because of the geological evidence of substantial resource potential in the general area in which the well lies, there is provided in the estimates of my department for this year the sum of $100,000 for a location survey for a development road to open up the area and encourage its early development.


Mr. H. W. HerTidge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group may I say that we appreciate the minister making the announcement in this house and giving us officially exact, important and current information.



FARM CREDIT ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to increase the capital of the farm credit corporation from $8 million to $12 million.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask whether he is in a position this morning to give the house some indication as to when he will bring down his budget.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that the hon. member for Laurier would have been duly impressed by a headlined statement that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 24, which purported to announce in categorical and authoritative terms the intention of the Minister of Finance in this respect. I will read from the text of the article:
Finance minister Donald Fleming will introduce the federal budget in the House of Commons on June 6, it was learned here today.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Laurier should betray a measure of scepticism about a report in the Ottawa Citizen that purports to be so firm, clear and altogether authentic.


Lionel Chevrier: I would appreciate an answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: However, Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to relieve the interest and curiosity of the hon. member at an appropriate date.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that on Monday the minister will be asking for interim supply, a measure which always requires careful attention by this house, does the minister not consider that he should give some indication to the house as to when his budget will be brought down?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the two subjects are not directly related. There will have to be a vote of interim supply to provide for the normal necessity of the government to pay salaries, wages and other current obligations. The budget deals with broader questions, as I do not need to remind the house, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hellyer:: Such as where the minister is going to get the money.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the two subjects hinge on one another. I have indicated to the hon. member for Laurier that an announcement will be made on an appropriate date.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I may be permitted a further supplementary question. The house leader indicated last evening and I think on a previous occasion that he would like to see some co-operation in connection with interim supply. So far as we are concerned that cooperation will ensue, but it will ensue much faster if we have some indication of when the budget will be brought down. Certainly one is not unrelated to the other. That is why I put the question to the Minister of Finance. I had hoped the minister would have agreed that there was not only an indirect but a direct relationship between the two subjects and that he would have given the house some information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member offers co-operation, as he has, I would like to meet him half way. Perhaps I may go this far at the moment; I do not propose to bring in the budget next week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister notice of which I have given him. In view of the allegations that United States battleships are moving in preparation to evacuate United States citizens from the Dominican Republic because of possible danger to them, does the Prime Minister wish to comment as to the situation with respect to the safety and welfare of Canadians in that country?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs has been in touch with our embassy in the Dominican Republic, and Canadians there are reported to be in no immediate danger. There are some 160 Canadians, of whom two thirds are Protestant and Catholic missionaries. The rest are businessmen and their families. If at any time it becomes apparent that they are in any danger, immediate action will be taken to ensure their safety.


[Stage Direction]
P.E.I. CAUSEWAY-CHIGNECTO CANAL; REQUEST FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTS
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise the house when he expects to receive reports


on the feasibility studies in connection with the Prince Edward Island causeway and the Chignecto canal project?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I had been hoping to receive reports on both those projects before my estimates were considered. Replying to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate several months ago, I took it for granted that I would have the reports by this time. However, I have not received the reports yet. I have done my best to hurry them up, but I cannot say exactly when they will be received. As I say, I had hoped to have them before my estimates are considered, but now I do not know whether I shall or not.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gaie):: I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, and ask him whether the department is yet in a position to announce whether the assistance promised to the potato growers of Prince Edward Island by his minister in April has been determined and what form it is to take.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: This is a matter of government policy to be announced in due course.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: On Wednesday the hon. member for Essex East asked me whether the batch of Salk vaccine recently tested in Australia had been tested in the laboratory of hygiene in my department prior to shipment.
I understand that the Connaught medical research laboratories had previously shipped 100,000 doses of Salk vaccine in finished vials to Australia, and to the best of my knowledge these have already been used. Because of Canadian and other commitments, the Connaught laboratories could only send a further shipment to Australia in bulk, and I believe it is this second lot which was the subject of the newspaper article referred to. To expedite the Australian program, this more recent shipment was sent prior to testing so that all necessary tests could be completed at the same time in both countries.

My department's information is that the Australian tests for safety were unsatisfactory because of illness from another source in their test animal colony, so detailed information was requested from the Connaught laboratories on their own tests. I understand the Connaught tests here were satisfactory, and their results are being sent to Australia. The Connaught laboratories are submitting the details of their tests and samples for this batch to the laboratory of hygiene. Such details are sent to Ottawa only after all the manufacturers' tests have been satisfactorily completed and the vaccine placed in vials. All the laboratory of hygiene tests are carried out on the finished product only.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if he has yet received a reply from Mr. Finlayson, president of the Canadian Marconi Company to the letter sent by the minister regarding the so-called nonfraternization clause in the contracts of employees of the company and, if so, whether he would be prepared to table it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have as yet received no reply.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet received the report of the O'Leary commission and, if so, whether he expects to meet the deadline set for its publication, which I believe is June 5.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not expect it will be possible to meet that deadline. I think there will be a delay of several days before the report can be tabled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the report been received?


John George Diefenbaker: I think that question was asked by the hon. gentleman's leader several days ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not here.
Supply-Secretary of State NATIONAL DEFENCE



STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and Bona-vista-Twillingate yesterday, I should like to comment as follows.
In view of the fact that the distant early warning system for the defence of North America against attack from the air will be improved by the extension of the D.E.W. line across the north Atlantic all the way to England via Greenland, it has been found that three radar stations located at Baffin island, Resolution island and Redcliffe, Newfoundland, as well as six gap fillers, do not fill the role for which they were designed, and do not justify the high cost of operation involved in maintaining the stations. Consequently these three radar sites, as well as the six gap filler sites, will be closed.
The improvement to the early warning capabilities of the D.E.W. line is such that the limited additional coverage provided by the three prime radars and the six gap fillers, all manned and operated by the United States, does not warrant the high cost of operation. The discontinuance of these radar installations will have no effect on the work load of any other radars which will remain in the system.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could reply to the question I asked in regard to Sydney.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have not that answer as yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask the minister if he would indicate whether there is any contemplated extension in the activities at the Point Edward naval base in Cape Breton?

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE Office of the chief electoral officer-
46. Salaries and expenses of office, $83,685.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, before this item carries, while it is perhaps not always necessary to go extensively into the consideration of the elections act and its administration because that subject matter is reviewed by the standing committee on privileges and
5806	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State elections, I should like to place on the record, as has been done during past sessions in this committee, as well as in the standing committee on privileges and elections, a question regarding absentee voting.
I should like to draw a distinction here between absentee voting and advance polling, because in some quarters the difference is misunderstood. The procedure of absentee voting is designed to allow an elector to cast his vote on election day in a polling division other than the one in which he is registered. This procedure is provided for under the provincial elections act of British Columbia, and allows electors whose names appear on the voters' list to vote in any polling division in the province, including the polling division in which the electors are registered, regardless of whether the same or a different constituency is involved.
This is a right which I, and I am sure many others, would like to see included in the Canada Elections Act. I realize this is not just a simple matter of saying, "Let us include it in the federal absentee voting arrangements", because there are other complications which flow from the idea itself, one of which is the question of cost to the taxpayer of instituting such an arrangement. Perhaps this is not the session when we can deal with amendments to the Canada Elections Act, but at some time in the future-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Order. There is a noticeable and continuous current of conversation competing with the hon. member who has the floor, which I am sure is making it difficult for the Hansard reporter to hear and report the speech of the hon. gentleman. Therefore I would ask hon. members to quieten down, if they would, and oblige both me and the hon. member who has the floor.


Frank Howard: That is very kind of you, Mr. Chairman. I express my thanks, and I am sure the Hansard reporter also expresses his thanks.
One of the principles we should keep in mind is that an individual should not be denied the right to vote in an election because of the fact that he happens to have a vocation, or because of some other circumstance, which causes him to be away from his home polling division on election day. This is what happens to many workers of the country who are employed in industries which are perhaps seasonal, such as the heavy industries of mining, logging, construction work, and so forth. This applies also to the activities of salesmen and lawyers who have occasion to be away from their homes from time to time attending courts and so forth. I mention this only as indicative of a group of people 

who for one reason or another beyond their control are ofttimes absent on election day from the polling division in which they are registered and are thereby denied the opportunity of casting a ballot.
There is some saving feature now, in that the Canada Elections Act was amended at the last session to expand the class of people who may vote at advance polls before election day. The group was expanded from three classes to include everyone who is an elector, but it confined the advance polling to two days. This does not meet entirely the difficulties encountered by many people in the country.
As I said, one of the reasons advanced in opposition to this particular proposal is the cost of instituting a foolproof system of registration of electors which will guarantee that some of the dishonesty and skulduggery which takes place in elections in some parts of Canada will be eliminated as far as possible, thereby assuring that such dishonesty will not become rampant throughout the country and people will not be elected by crookedness at the polls rather than by the honest votes of the electors themselves.
I think these safeguards, of course, must be placed in the act, just as there are many safeguards in the act now to ensure that elections are conducted with honesty and that this is the prevailing factor during the campaign and in the preparation of the electoral lists. I think if we approached the problem from this point of view of not denying the elector the right to vote when he is absent for reasons beyond his control, we would be adopting the correct attitude.
In years past there has been some demand that electors be permitted to vote at the advance poll in order to take care of this problem of absentee voting. I believe there is still some demand for this. I think at the next general election and subsequent elections, depending upon the time of year at which these elections are held, many people will find that the advance poll system will not afford them the opportunity of casting their ballots on election day as they thought might be the case. I am sure that in the years following elections, when people find they are denied the right to vote by reason of being away from their poll on election day, some pressure will be brought to institute a system of absentee voting. Perhaps the system could be similar to that which exists in British Columbia. I do not say this is a foolproof or guaranteed system, but it is a system of absentee voting, and I am talking in terms of something similar to that or similar to the systems they have in Saskatchewan and the United Kingdom.

I should like to see the day come very quickly when members of parliament will think in terms of the right of the individual to vote as the paramount principle that should be considered, and when members of parliament will be willing to find the necessary extra money to institute a system of absentee voting containing the necessary safeguards against abuses. This will ensure every voter in Canada the opportunity to cast a ballot. He will not be denied the right to vote, as many are now, by virtue of his occupation or other circumstances beyond his control.
Since the Secretary of State has been in office only a short period of time, perhaps I could say publicly now what I have said to him privately, that I extend to him my congratulations upon his elevation to the cabinet.
I wish him success in this particular post as long as he stays there. I do not mean to imply that he is going to be fired or anything like that, but elections do come along from time to time and the mortality amongst elected representatives is somewhat high. Despite the fact that the minister has been in office only a short time, I should like to have from him some indication as to the government's attitude toward this suggestion and perhaps some estimate of the cost, in order that we might ascertain whether or not such a system may be brought into effect in the near future.


Mr. Fisher:: Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, you ruled out of order any discussion on redistribution, and particularly any interpretation of the forthcoming redistribution that will follow the census. I am not going to try to abuse that ruling, but I should like to ask the minister if he will check with his chief electoral officer and tell us how long it took for the chief electoral office to carry out the changes in terms of constituency maps, instructions to returning officers and all that sort of thing, following upon the last redistribution. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that would be in order. I want to get some idea of the time involved.


Mr. Dorion:: It took about 10 months to get the maps ready.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Do I understand correctly that it took 10 months from the time the actual constituencies were struck by the parliamentary committee?


Noël Dorion: It took 10 months to get the maps printed, but the chief electoral officer was ready to hold an election within two months after the bill was passed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was trying to get the
sequence. It took 10 to 11 months in 1952 to get the constituency lines drawn following
Supply-Secretary of State the return of the census information, and then two more months in 1952 in order to have everything prepared for the election; is that correct?


Noël Dorion: After the bill was passed, we were ready to have a general election within two months.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think if we have the pattern repeated all hon. members will understand the bounds within which we are operating at the present time.
I want to turn now, Mr. Chairman, to some questions relating to the by-elections that have been held, and ask whether the chief electoral officer has found that any of the changes which have been made in the act in the last few years or in any of the regulations have not worked as effectively as expected, or whether there were any untoward results flowing from the changes that had not been expected.


Noël Dorion: The chief electoral officer has not received any official report as yet, but all indications he has received are to the effect that the changes were satisfactory.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is there any present member of this house who has not completed all the necessary steps that must be taken by a victorious candidate following a general election?


Noël Dorion: Every member of this house has filed the regular return for the last election. In so far as the by-elections are concerned, we have not received those returns. The candidates have two months within which to file them.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know they have two months in which to file a return. What I am wondering is this. First of all, I am assuming that all the successful candidates in the last general election have filed returns. Can the chief electoral officer bring us up to date on those candidates who were not successful and who have not completed all the necessary forms?


Noël Dorion: The responsibility of the chief electoral officer is to make his own report to the House of Commons. He made his report, and I am informed that at that time some of the defeated candidates had not made their reports. However, when the chief electoral officer himself has made his report to the House of Commons, he has discharged his duty. It is then for parliament itself to decide what shall be done.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As I understand it, a candidate who does not complete the proper form within the stated period, or whose agent does not do so, is liable to some kind of prosecution
5808	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State or action. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether any prosecutions or actions were launched in consequence of failure in that regard.


Noël Dorion: To the knowledge of the chief electoral officer, no action was taken. I speak on the information I have received, and I am sure this information is correct. Anyone may take proceeedings against candidates who did not make their own reports. However, the report of the electoral officer was made to the House of Commons and it is now a question for parliament to decide.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The only point I wanted to underline was this-


Noël Dorion: May I add that I believe the time has now expired.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In other words, it is too late now. The only point I want to make in relation to this matter is this. It is something that I wish had received more emphasis in the committee last year which was examining the Canada Elections Act and making changes. I refer to the fact that so much of the statute and so many of the regulations are honoured in the breach rather than the observance. This is one example. Since one anticipates an election in the not too distant future, I might point out that there have been, as you might say, a considerable number of infractions in this particular regard. I wanted to turn to another section of the act-


Noël Dorion: May I reply now on this point?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Noël Dorion: The hon. member will understand that at the time the report was made to the House of Commons it would have been appropriate to suggest the action to be taken.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My point there is this. I am quite aware of the fact that no one party has a monopoly on either virtue or rectitude in this particular matter. I think all parties are guilty. I was not trying to raise this matter from the point of view of knifing any particular one. I am sure that candidates in our party have been as remiss in this regard as those in any other party. However, I think it emphasizes the fact that many parts of the act are not paid much attention and consequently that more candidates should be aware of this provision.
I want to turn to section 66 of the act and underline the dissatisfaction that I feel on this particular point. Section 66 states as follows:


66. (1) Every person is guilty of the corrupt practice of treating and of an indictable offence against this act punishable as provided in this act, who, corruptly-
Again, for the second time, we find the use of the word "corrupt" or "corruptly".
[DOT]-by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or causes to be given or provided, or is accessory to the giving or poviding, or pays or engages to pay wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing any meat, drink, refreshment or provision, or any money or ticket or other means or device to enable the procuring of any meat, drink, refreshment or provision, to or for any person for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote at such election-
And so on. Further down in this clause, which does not go much further, the word "corrupt" or "corruptly" appears again. It seems to me that it is almost impossible to enforce this particular section. I should like to have some information as to what proceedings have been taken in the last two general elections as a consequence of this particular section.


Noël Dorion: To our knowledge no proceedings at all have been taken. However, I should like to remind the hon. member that the responsibility of the chief electoral officer is limited to clause 70. It is not within his province to determine whether, in certain cases, action should be taken against any person who has violated section 66 or any other section. Generally speaking it is the privilege, if I can so state it, of any candidate to proceed against another candidate and take proceedings if there is a violation of the act. In other words, everyone has that right. The chief electoral officer, in virtue of this act, has nothing to do with that question. The situation is the same with regard to the Secretary of State, who is only the channel between the chief electoral officer and the House of Commons.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am sure the chief electoral officer is the person who keeps a record of prosecutions that take place as a result of the act. It seems to me that I have seen returns filed in the past. That is why I asked the question.


Noël Dorion: With regard to actions taken, he keeps a record; yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In relation to this particular section, the part that follows allows an official agent or any other person to provide sandwiches, cakes, cookies and drinks such as tea, coffee, milk or soft drinks at a meeting of electors. It does not expressly forbid alcoholic beverages, but I imagine that matter was in mind in that they were not inserted here.

However, the boundary line here is so narrow, it seems to me, depending upon the Puritanism of the interpretation as to what is corrupting about a tea party.
I know that at least two of the parties have sent out instructions on how to organize. I know the Conservative party have done so, for I have seen their publications in the past. They advise building the whole campaign organization upon the tea party, the coffee party and so on, the idea being to have these meetings in as informal and as friendly surroundings as possible in order to get people in.
In this kind of situation, with which I do not see anything wrong at all, the whole idea of the first part of section 66, it seems to me, does not make a great deal of sense. How are we going to arrive at the conclusion, when you move over a boundary line, that you are corruptly influencing people to procure their vote? This section is totally nonsensical. If the words "bribe" or "bribery" were included it would make more sense than the adjective "corrupt". I cannot see any merit in the inclusion of that word in this context.
I turn now to a list found at the back of the by-election instructions provided to returning officers, issued in January. Schedule 3, page 276, lists electoral districts in which the nomination day is the twenty eighth day before polling day. All hon. members will realize that this has reference to large constituencies with scattered populations. Has the chief electoral officer given any consideration to recommending extension or narrowing of this time?


Noël Dorion: No suggestion has been made concerning adding names to that list. The chief electoral officer believes that the list is complete and in order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members of the committee to this list. Extra time is given in these particular constituencies because of the difficulty in arranging for electoral matters due to the size and scattered nature of the districts. This is another point that reinforces some of the suggestions made in the past to the effect that in setting constituency boundaries, and in making up your mind about whether you are going to have any ratio between rural and urban voters, this is a factor that should be taken into account. Very few of these constituencies are what might be called rural agricultural constituencies. I think of Cochrane, Kenora-Rainy River, Port Arthur, Chapleau, Saguenay, Bonavista-Twillingate, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and Hum-ber-St. George's. These are not rural agricultural constituencies.
Supply-Secretary of State
I wish to underline the difficulty encountered not only by the candidates in these constituencies but by the chief electoral officer. After the election of a candidate in these constituencies he encounters especially difficult circumstances. This is another factor we need to examine closely. Under the Canada Elections Act, in this schedule, we have confirmation that there are added or exceptional difficulties in important constituencies in Canada. For this reason I should like hon. members in the next few months to again scan the constituency maps, and if they do not represent constituencies of this nature I urge them to develop some sympathy for hon. members who represent constituencies of the nature of Athabasca, Jasper-Edson, Peace River and others. I hope all hon. members will keep this factor in mind, whether at election time or at a time when we may have to make decisions relating to the holding of elections.
Has the Secretary of State sought to obtain from the chief electoral officer any information that would be useful and relevant to any consideration with respect to increasing the number of constituencies represented in this house? Has he done that in the last year or two?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I have not raised a point of order arising out of the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur because I believe it is valuable to have suggestions from hon. members of this committee, even if they are sometimes advanced in an irregular way. However, I cannot answer the question the hon. member has just asked. I believe the hon. gentleman will understand that it is a matter of government policy, and it would not be in order for me to answer that question. Redistribution is not a question to be decided by the chief electoral officer or by the Secretary of State who, after all, is the channel, as it were, between the chief electoral officer and the House of Commons.
With respect to the other questions raised by the hon. gentleman, let me recall to his mind the fact that last year certain suggestions advanced by him and by the hon. member for Skeena were fully discussed in a committee of this house but not accepted. For that reason those suggestions are not reflected in the existing law. The government is always interested in receiving suggestions from hon. members, some of which may be of assistance in introducing future amendments to the act. It is not my privilege to answer questions of the nature raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I can only make my suggestions to the cabinet when a question is raised about amending the act.

Supply-Secretary of State
Before taking my seat, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the hon. member for Skeena for the kind words he said about me a few moments ago.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I feel I must rise at this time to correct any misunderstanding, misinterpretation or exaggeration that may arise out of the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I do not want anyone to think that C.C.F. campaigns are based on thousands of cups of tea and coffee. They are based on a challenging philosophy, on broad humanitarian principles and on programs supported by dedicated people; and the C.C.F. is represented, in the riding in question, by a candidate who is a personality.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, as a footnote to the discussion that has taken place with respect to amendments to the Canada Elections Act, and specifically the one referred to by the hon. member for Kootenay West, may I comment that whether or not the amendments made last year to the Canada Elections Act had anything to do with it, the results of the recent by-elections were much better under the amended act than under the old act.


Frank Howard: About half an hour ago I fell into the error, occasioned by practice, of seeking to make inquiries about matters of government policy, and advancing suggestions. As I say, I fell into this error in raising the question of absentee voting and inquiring as to government policy. I confess my error now. I think the government has its finger in too many pies, and that it has too much authority over the affairs of parliament. I should have known better than to fall into that trap of words, as it were, in trying to give to the government authority over decisions on balloting matters or changes in the elections act when this is a question primarily within the control of parliament itself and of the standing committee on privileges and elections, which traditionally has considered these amendments and proposed changes to the act in a non-partisan way as far as possible. 1 felt I had better clear the record with regard to that particular error of mine before the government decided that this was another matter in which it could become engaged and upon which it could make statements of policy from time to time.
However, that does not preclude the opportunity of using the House of Commons as a forum, as it were, where particular matters such as the absentee vote may be discussed. It is true that in the committee last year I was a minority of one, I think, when this question of the absentee vote was considered; but no matter by what majority a man has his views rejected he should, in my opinion,


continue to press those views on every occasion because it is the little drop of water that wears away the mighty stone. Persistence brings results. I was a minority of one then, but perhaps I am in a better position here where I have colleagues close to me; by using this forum I am increasing my support.
To me, absentee voting is a vital matter, and I believe people should not be denied the right to cast their ballots on election day because of circumstances beyond their control such as the nature of their employment. Perhaps I can expand this theme now and indicate to the committee an area where additional difficulties will arise depending on the time of the year in which, specifically, the next federal election is held, though my observations will apply to other federal elections as well.
I mention the next federal election specifically because it will be the first general election at which our native Indian people will have the right to vote as a group. It is true that in the past, because of service in the armed forces, some Indian people have had the right to vote, and others have had the right to vote by virtue of the franchise. It is also the case that in at least two of the constituencies where by-elections have been held, native Indians have taken part in the voting. However, as I say, the next general election will be the one in which they will be casting their votes for the first time, at least for a number of years. I believe it was in 1918 or 1919 when they last had the right to vote in a general election.
On the west coast of British Columbia the absence of any provision for absentee voting could cause a great deal of misunderstanding and, possibly, anger directed against the government, the returning officers and everybody else concerned including the candidates. In British Columbia, as I have said, we have a provincial system of absentee voting. An elector, if he is on the voters' list, can cast his ballot in any polling division in the province. I should explain that a high proportion of the native population on the coast is engaged in the fishing industry, and during the salmon season the great majority of them are anywhere but at home in their own villages. They travel from their home villages following the fish. They move down from the interior to work in the canneries and fish out from the canneries.
When a provincial election is held-and native people have had the right to vote in provincial elections since 1949-these native Indians can vote by virtue of the absentee voting provision. If a federal election is called to coincide with the fishing season, most of these native Indian people who will

be voting for the first time at a federal election and who have become accustomed, in five provincial elections, to a system of absentee balloting, will find themselves denied the opportunity to vote by virtue of their occupation. This would generate, I am sure, a great deal of antagonism on their part, an antagonism which in my view would be understandable. A good deal of explanation would be necessary to convince them that the law is different in its application to federal elections.
I cite this one group of people only as a case in point in order to show that there will be confusion and anger created. I think there will be an increasing demand on the part of the electorate after the next general election for a system of absentee balloting to be carried into effect. Even though, as I say, I was a minority of one once, perhaps by continual argument and complaint on this question sufficient public and parliamentary support will be generated to ensure that this system shall come into effect and that all the people shall have the right to cast their ballots on election day.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The last point I wish to bring up for the consideration of the committee and the Secretary of State has really nothing to do with elections. I should like to ask hon. members to consider the whole matter of election expenses and the declaration of expenses. If they will check forms 62 and 63, the official agent's declaration as to expenses and the candidate's declaration as to expenses, and read through them in all seriousness they will find, I think, that if they are completely honest they will have a most difficult time signing these forms.
Perhaps I could give a few indications at this point to underline the difficulty of putting one's name to form 63, although most of us do so; all the successful candidates. This is what the candidate swears:
I do hereby solemnly declare that I have examined the return of election expenses transmitted or about to be transmitted by my official agent to the returning officer at the said election, a copy of which return is now shown by me and signed by the officer before whom this declaration is made, and to the best of my knowledge and belief that return is correct.
I further solemnly declare that except as appears from that return I have not, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no person, nor any club, society, company or association has, on my behalf, made any payment, or given, promised, or offered any reward, office, employment or valuable consideration, or incurred any liability on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the said election.
The saving words which appear here are "to his knowledge or belief". I do not think anyone campaigning in a fairly large constituency would have much hope of knowing
Supply-Secretary of State this as a certainty. I suggest those individuals would have as much hope of being sure in this particular regard as I would have of being elected in the province of Quebec, and the odds involved there are pretty poor.
Section 3 of form No. 63 reads in part as follows:
-I have paid to my said official agent the sum of-and no more for the purpose of the said election, and that except as specified in the return, no money, security, or equivalent for money has to my knowledge or belief been paid, advanced, given or deposited by anyone to or in the hands of my official agent or any other person for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred on my behalf on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of the said election:
I suggest that is fantastic. In order to emphasize the point I make I should like to refer to a specific case involving one of my own supporters, who went out on his own and raised $1,000 for our campaign. The largest single donation he received was $10. He went from door to door and other places for these donations. Technically my official agent should have had a list of all those contributing individuals together with their addresses, and the money the individual brought in should have been listed under his name. However, would that have been a correct listing? Actually we did show on our return that we were advanced that amount by the C.C.F. riding association of Port Arthur. Had we followed the technical practice in regard to the collections of donations made by that individual, we should have had to hire a stenographer or stenographer accountant for several days.
The point I make regarding these expenses is that it is a very very mixed bag, and that I have grave doubts concerning accuracy of statements of expenses prepared by candidates following an election. I shall not recount some of the anecdotes which have been told by successful candidates and others regarding election expenses, but this does seem to me to be a situation which warrants serious consideration.
I should now like to refer to some suggestions made by Senator Douglas when he was in Canada not long ago, as appeared in the Globe and Mail of February 23, 1961. He is reported to have said that one of the greatest electioneering problems confronting politicians would be solved if campaign expenses were paid from the public treasury. He also believed that political parties should develop a wide basis of financial support rather than derive their funds from a small number of contributors. He said that some of the big contributors were idealists or sportsmen who enjoyed seeing politicians run, as other sportsmen liked to watch horse races. He suggested the majority were investors who expected to be paid by special favour. He believed that

Supply-Secretary of State the public should pay for campaign expenses, because they would be much better off than paying in the form of special privileges given to those major contributors.
The point I make is that electioneering will become more and more expensive. I suggest it cannot help but do so. Some of my colleagues have checked the rate cards provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the committee on broadcasting with respect to the cost of television appearances, and if the expenses in that regard are an indication of the expenses involved in television appearances wherever television reaches-and we have indication now that it does reach 94 per cent of Canadian homes-the total expenses are rather fantastic.
With regard to this particular subject I suggest we should consider two features. First, perhaps a ceiling could be applied to campaign expenses, such as has been done in Britain; and second, to adopt the suggestion of Senator Douglas, at least in regard to television appearances, to provide the expenses out of the public treasury. If such a system were adopted appearances could be based on a sharing arrangement, thereby removing this feature of campaigning from the public realm.
The difficulty involved in setting a ceiling, of course, would be that a great deal of hawkshaw work would be involved over a long period of time in order to make it apply across the country. Great Britain seems to have a tighter control on public morale than we have, and I understand, from information I have received from the head offices of the different parties, that they consider this has worked fairly well there, without too many abuses. I do not know whether this would be practical in Canada, but it might be a step we will have to take. We should then at least have some guide for the consciences of candidates.
The suggestion made by Senator Douglas regarding the running of election campaigns at the expense of the public treasury may seem fantastic when we consider that the total expenses of candidates' campaigns during the last election amounted to more than $2 million in relation to the individual constituency campaigns only. I am convinced that there are many hidden expenses which if added to this total, would at least double or triple it. When I say "hidden" I do not mean deliberately hidden, but certainly associated with the election campaign. If the cost of the national campaigns carried on by the different parties were included-for example, full page advertisements in magazines such as Weekend, with a circulation of one and a quarter million, and the Toronto Star

Weekly, with a circulation of 800,000 to 900,000 and other national magazines-the total expense would be fantastic. The figures regarding the cost of such advertisements could be readily obtained from the editors and publishers of the magazines.
The difficulty of paying the cost of campaigns out of the public treasury is a practical one, in that a ceiling would have to be set. In view of the enormous expenses involved the amount of campaigning would have to be cut down, with the result that the voters would be very disappointed because of the lack of the kind of commercial spot announcement campaigns, hammering upon the issues, with which they have become familiar in recent times. If something of this nature is not done, however, the major parties in Canada will have tremendous advantages in terms of being able to find money to meet the election campaign expenses, while the minority parties will have a much more difficult task. That situation may not have applied during the last election campaign, and perhaps will not apply to the next, but I suggest it will apply more and more to future election campaigns as the expenses involved skyrocket.
I suggest this is a subject which should be of interest to all hon. members, and I hope many of them will give consideration to it; because I have a hunch that this will certainly be a major problem in future years to the democratic political policies of North America. Since in the United States certain limitations have been set in respect of expenses, with regulations requiring the provision of more information regarding amounts spent by national parties, it seems to me that this problem in our country, which in many ways is greater because of our lower economic base, as well as the fact that fewer politicians must cover a much greater area, must be seriously considered in the near future.
I realize that some consideration was given to the problem at the Liberal rally which took place in January. I was not present, but it is my interpretation of what took place there, having read the articles covering that rally which appeared in newspapers, that the discussion in respect to this problem was made from an objective point of view until someone dragged in a subject concerning Allister Grosart, the national organizer of the Conservative party, and the Liberals went chasing off down a trail regarding the activities of that particular gentleman.
It was interesting to me to find that the topic loomed so large with the Liberals at their convention, but I was disappointed to find no reference to it as a topic at the rally held by the Conservative party in March. I can only assume that when you are a winner these things are not important. I am sure that

those people in the government party who are receiving money for the next election campaign will begin to see the relevancy of this whole question of expenses and the need for possible reform. It is for this reason that my remarks have been so extended. I hope that the organizations which have to do with election matters on behalf of hon. members will give some thought to this very complicated matter.


Frank Howard: Before the item carries I should like to say a few words. I am indebted to the hon. member for Port Arthur for raising this particular matter. There is one subject connected with it that I should like to deal with in so far as it affects election expenses or, more particularly, election contributions. Whenever this particular section of the Canada Elections Act has been dealt with, parliament has either re-enacted the provision or has said it is desirable that candidates of political parties make known to the public contributions which they have received, and also their source.
I say that in essence parliament has made a decision in this regard by reason of its enactment or re-enactment of the provision. I do not know when the provision first became part of the Canada Elections Act. Form 61, which deals with the return of election expenses, contains form No. 63 which sets out what the official agent is supposed to do. The hon. member for Port Arthur referred to a book which contains instructions for returning officers with respect to by-elections. I assume they would apply also to general elections. On page 265 of this book, under item No. 1, we find the following:
1-Receipts.
(a) Money or its value received.
There are accurately set out hereunder the name and occupation of every person (including the candidate) and of every club, society, company or association, from whom any money, securities or the equivalent of money was received in respect of expenses incurred on account of or in connection with or incidental to the above election, showing in the case of each person the amount or value received as a contribution (including subscription or gift), loan, advance, deposit or otherwise.
In essence parliament has decided it is desirable that the official agent of the candidate shall make known to the public the amounts of money, the loans, the gifts, the bequests, the securities, or anything else of a similar nature, contributed toward the expenses of the candidate in a particular constituency. Although parliament has decided that it is desirable for the public to know where this money comes from, this requirement is not met because of the existence of provincial or national associations of political parties. If, for argument's sake, 90205-6-367
Supply-Secretary of State my official agent, or any candidate's official agent, receives the sum of $5,000 from the national or provincial party, the entry he makes on the return is: "Name, C.C.F., provincial, British Columbia, or Yukon section," or whatever it may be. "Address, British Columbia; occupation, political party," I suppose. The source of the $5,000, whether it is from a company, association, society or the like, is not revealed; it is hidden.
If parliament has decided that it is a desirable thing to make known to the public the contributions toward election expenses, in so far as the official agent is concerned, then to me it is an equally desirable thing, or even perhaps more desirable, that parliament should enlarge this and say it is also in the public interest to make known the contributions which are made at the national or provincial level as well. Otherwise, although parliament has decided it is desirable to do this sort of thing, a loophole would exist so that anyone who wanted to make a contribution with strings attached, as Senator Douglas and others have pointed out has happened, as a sort of prepayment for favours expected, could do so.
Anyone who wished to engage in this sort of contributing with strings attached, could easily evade the provisions of the Canada Elections Act as passed by parliament by making the contributions initially to some person other than the official agent. He could make it to a national association, or a provincial association, or even to a constituency association. On the return the agent could say that the money was received from some general source within the party. This gets around the provision of the Canada Elections Act which parliament decided was essential when it said that the public should have knowledge of most of the contributions made toward election expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil service commission-
66. Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the suggestion award plan of the public service of Canada, $4,486,681.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this item which relates to the civil service commission. I noted in the Gazette of this morning a further reference to Dr. Chaput and his case. The article reads:
Chaput says he'll reply in few days
Dr. Marcel Chaput, vice president of a Quebec secessionist movement, yesterday said he will reply within a few days to an invitation that he quit his defence research board job.
He said he will issue a statement replying to Dr. J. E. Keyston, vice president of the board. Dr. Keyston said Thursday Dr. Chaput's "political activities" are incompatible with his work as a federal government civil servant.
5814	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State
Dr. Chaput, 42-year old chemist for the defence research board, has been in federal service for 17 years.
There were rumours that a group of Progressive Conservative M.P.'s would ask Prime Minister Diefenbaker to see that Dr. Chaput is not forced out.
Dr. Chaput Wednesday night addressed a meeting of "le reassemblement pour l'independance nationale". He said that Quebec will secede from confederation before 1967 if the secession movement continues to expand at the present rate.
Jean-Noel Tremblay, Progressive Conservative member for Roberval who was one of three government members attending the meeting in Hull, said he had not heard of any project to approach Mr. Diefenbaker about Dr. Chaput's job.
I rise to say a few words on the question, because I am concerned on two grounds.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman, I believe, is talking about an employee of the defence research board. The defence research board is in no way under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission, and the employees are not civil servants under the commission. Normally, in my submission, it would not be appropriate to discuss the matter under this item, but it would be appropriate under an item of the Department of National Defence estimates.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been informed that this gentleman has been a civil servant for 17 years.


Richard Albert Bell: The employees of the defence research board do not come under the civil service commission.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Perhaps the minister could inform the committee whether he is a civil servant.


Noël Dorion: No, he is not.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then it is not in order for me to discuss the matter under this item?


Gordon Campbell Chown: may intercede at this point, I would say the matter does not appear to come within the administrative responsibility of the department under discussion. Inasmuch as the estimates of the Department of National Defence still have to come before the committee, I think the hon. gentleman should defer his comments until that time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If I have definite assurance that this gentleman is not a civil servant, I shall defer my remarks.


Noël Dorion: That is true.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: That concludes the estimates of the Department of Secretary of State.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
131. Departmental administration, $473,500.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there are several matters of a general nature about which I wish to say something on this first item of the Department of Fisheries. The most urgent is a matter which I mentioned in connection with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I am not sure whether or not the Minister of Fisheries was in the committee at that time.
I am referring to the surplus of salt fish which is overhanging the market, and the grave uncertainties in the markets for salt fish resulting from the Cuban revolution, as well as the economic difficulties facing the government of Cuba. Notwithstanding the enthusiasm for Cuba shown by the Minister of Trade and Commerce some time ago, he seems to have repented more recently of his earlier enthusiasm. Of course recent events in another market for our salt fish give us no cause to feel confident that there will be the kind of political stability in that area which would give us an assurance of the maintenance of the market.
The plain fact is, sir, that the market for salt fish in the Caribbean is, on political grounds, not as good as it was. As the minister knows very well, the market for salt fish in Europe is not being completely satisfied because fish of the right quality is not being produced in adequate quantities. The minister knows very well that for some time I have been an exponent, and I am an unrepentant exponent, of the view that serious steps should be taken to retain that market. In order to forestall the question, "Why didn't you do it", I shall say at once that I urged his predecessor to do so, but without success. I think a mistake was made by the previous government in not taking action when we were in office. I think that mistake is being perpetuated at the present time.
I do feel that during the period while we are developing the necessary technical knowhow to produce light salt fish of Italian and Spanish quality in sufficient quantities to meet the market, an incentive bonus should be paid to the fishermen in order to keep the market alive. I feel this could be done in exactly the same way that the government, before the second world war, provided a bonus for quality bacon in order to maintain and expand the British market.
I regret that no steps of that kind have been taken. I feel that such action is all the more urgent because, as the minister is well aware, there has been an increasing tendency in the last two or three years to produce more and more heavy salted fish which cannot be sold in Europe but can only be sold

in the Caribbean at a time when, for political more than economic reasons, the market in the Caribbean is not as good as it was.
I know the minister is thoroughly aware of this problem. I think the matter is sufficiently serious that, if we are going to have any assurance of a market at all at a decent price for this year's catch and the salt fish that will be made this year, then the surplus from last year should be taken off the market and used somewhere else outside our normal commercial markets. This has been done, of course, over and over again with farm products. This government has been fortunate in that it has not had to take such action so far as salt fish is concerned since it came into office. Action of this nature was taken on one or two occasions when the previous administration was in office.
The minister is very familiar with the speech given at Charlottetown on February 27, 1958 by the Prime Minister, of which I have reminded him every year since and which I think ought to be on the record again. This was one of those "Let no one suffer" speeches by the Prime Minister. The first paragraph of this report by Mr. Bruce Macdonald, who was then correspondent of the Toronto Star, reads as follows:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker intimated here last night that a Conservative government will place a floor price under fish and contended the agricultural support bill passed last session will provide "crash insurance" for all farm products.
I read the whole sentence, and for this reason. The agricultural prices support board, as the minister knows-it is now called the stabilization board, I think, but it is the same thing-has spent millions and millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money supporting farm prices, but nothing whatever has been done so far as salt fish is concerned. Happily, up until this year, nothing has been needed in any critical sense. This year action is needed. The fishermen are not going to be very well pleased unless they are treated with the same consideration-I do not mean sympathetic consideration, either; I mean action-that has been given in respect of farm products on many occasions.
This is a crisis or an emergency. There is only one way in which it can be met, and that is by taking the surplus off the market and disposing of it somewhere else. It is good food. There are many people all over the world who are starving. The cost of dealing with this situation would not be very great. The funds are available. The Fisheries Prices Support Act is there. The funds are there. All that is required is a decision and action by the government. I am sure that we can expect the minister, before the conclusion of his estimates and probably on the item 90205-6-367J
Supply-Fisheries
relating to the fisheries prices support board, to give a considered statement on what the government intends to do to meet this urgent problem.
At the same time I wish to say something about another matter; about which the hon. member for St. John's East had something to say the other day. I was a little surprised when I asked the hon. gentleman if he had ever been to Valleyfield, after he had criticized the operation of the experimental station there, and he admitted that he had never been there. He also suggested that it was so remote that it was not reasonable to expect him to go there. I may say, of course, that the view taken by the hon. member for St. John s East is a view that is taken by a good many others in St. John's about the rest of Newfoundland, namely that the places are so remote that nobody could be expected to go there.
But I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of Fisheries that in those areas in which is caught a great part of the fish that is made into salt fish-that is, on the northeast coast-Valleyfield is not as remote from the fishery as is St. John's geographically. It may be true that it was more remote before the road was built, when one had to travel by boat or by aircraft, but today you can drive from Gander to Valleyfield in, I suppose, three hours. Valleyfield is centrally located so far as the fishery on the northeast coast of Newfoundland is concerned.
I have talked to a great many of those who are interested in the work being done at Valleyfield. My experience has been that those engaged in the salt fish industry, not merely in Newfoundland but in the other Atlantic provinces as well, have been keenly interested in what has been done at the Valleyfield experimental plant.The only regret many of us have is that more is not being done, and that there is not an even bigger program. The department has had an admirable staff there. They have had one man, a scientist, who I think was close to being a genius. We were sorry to see him leave Valleyfield in order to serve the department somewhere else, but already a great many useful things have been discovered there. If the minister will continue to give that experiment the support and encouragement he has given to it up until now-and I commend him for it and if he will not be discouraged by observations made by people who have never taken the trouble to go to see the place, I am quite sure that it will pay great dividends over the years to our fishermen.
There is no doubt whatsoever that if we are to maintain a proper balance in the cod fishery and not depend entirely on a single market, namely the United States market,

Supply-Fisheries
we shall be obliged to continue to produce salt fish as well as fresh fish and fresh frozen fish. If we allow the salt fishery to decline steadily it means that the fishermen will have only one market, as was pointed out earlier in the discussion of these estimates by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. We shall be dependent entirely upon what the United States market will take.
There is an opportunity for an admirable balance between the two markets. If we can maintain our market for salt fish and our markets for fresh fish, it is unlikely-it has rarely happened, except in great world depressions like that in the thirties-that the markets for both kinds of fish would go down at the same time. One year you get a good year in the fresh fish markets and more fish can be sold there. Another year you get a good year in the salt fish market and more fish can be sold there. That diversification of markets is of great advantage to the fishermen and to everybody engaged in the fisheries. It is a position that we ought jealously to guard and also to encourage in every possible way.
We know that in the British West Indies great changes are taking place. We know that in Puerto Rico great changes are taking place, and that there is an improvement in the economy of both those areas. We have reason to hope that improvement will continue. In both those areas we have seen the practical effect of the kind of aid to underdeveloped areas which this country has pioneered and which is bearing fruit there. But what that means is this. As the standards of living and the income of the people in those areas improve and, we hope, will continue to improve, they are going to want a better kind of food product. I think they are still going to want salt fish. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I am no expert on these nutritional problems, but I am told that in those hot countries salt is necessary in the diet, and that salt fish is going to continue to be required.
However, we should be preparing a better kind of product, a better packaged product, and should be experimenting with every kind of improvement so that as the standard of living rises in those areas, we can continue to satisfy the demand.
Of course the more we do in aiding the development of this area, the better; particularly in the West Indies Federation which is on the verge, one hopes, of becoming another member of the commonwealth and a united one. We know that there is a great problem there at the moment. We have high hopes of that. It seems to me that there is no area in the world outside the borders of Canada that
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
is so closely connected by historical, traditional, geographical and economic ties with Canada as is that particular area. Not just for the good of the salt fishery but for the good of this whole hemisphere and for the economic advantage of Canada itself, we should seek to foster closer relations between Canada and that area; I refer particularly to closer financial and economic relations. We are natural complements of one another economically. It seems to me that we should particularly seek to conserve and to exploit, in the best sense of that word, the market there for our Canadian products, and particularly for the traditional product that we have exported to that area over the years, namely salt fish. In order to do that I suggest that marketing and production research and research of all types will be required.
I have said on many occasions in the last two years that there are many areas in which the market for salt fish could be extended right here on the mainland of Canada. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has not followed in my footsteps in many respects, but in one she has. The hon. lady has continued to permit the entry to Canada every year of many thousands of Italian immigrants, all of whom are fish eaters, and most of whom are salt fish eaters. I do not believe the Department of Fisheries or the fish industry have made an adequate effort to maintain a market for our salt fish products among these new inhabitants and future citizens of Canada. Some are no longer future citizens. Most of those I admitted are now qualified for citizenship by the efflux of time, and I assume that by next year all of them will be qualified to be citizens.
Here we have a large section of our population concentrated to a very great degree in three or four metropolitan areas, Toronto, Montreal and Hamilton being the most conspicuous, accustomed to shops run by their own people, with a press of their own. It is a market that should be easy to reach and develop if we have the initiative and energy to do it. I suggest that here again there can be that combination of public and private initiative which has been characteristic of the Canadian economy in every dynamic period we have had in our history, and which is needed in this field as it is in so many others.
I dwell a great deal on the salt fish industry simply because I represent a constituency, as do most of my colleagues here from the province of Newfoundland, in which perhaps more persons are concerned with the salt fishery than with any other occupation, even the woods industry, which is the other big source of employment in Newfoundland.

I wish to say something about unemployment insurance in relation to the fisheries. I shall not talk about those aspects of unemployment insurance for fishermen that are properly the concern of the Minister of Labour. I recognize, of course, that the Minister of Labour would have to sponsor any amendments to the unemployment insurance regulations or to the act itself. I do not think amendments to the act are needed to accomplish what I am going to suggest should be done, but I do think amendments to the regulations are needed, and I believe the Minister of Fisheries should be urging these changes upon the Minister of Labour because they are changes which affect the balance between the fish that goes into the salt fish markets and that which goes into the fresh fish markets.
As the minister very well knows, a fisherman who makes his own salt fish is allowed to average his catch over the whole season and get stamps in proportion, but those who sell fresh fish to the fish plants are not allowed to do that. There may be occasions when the earnings for a two week period are averaged, but not more than that, and generally speaking the earnings of each week have to be treated separately. This has the effect of interfering with the proper economic distribution of the fish as between fresh and frozen fish plants, and the making of salt fish or the selling of fish as salt bulk.
I know from my experience in my own riding that in one or two promising areas where there were fresh fish plants, those plants have been closed because the fishermen would not sell to them due to the fact that they could not get their unemployment insurance stamps, whereas they could obtain stamps by selling salt bulk to be sent to Nova Scotia to be processed there. I have no objection to the Nova Scotians buying salt bulk in Newfoundland. There is no doubt but that it has helped a great deal to keep up the price of fish and has contributed to the income of the fishermen. But I do say it is a shame to have fish plants closed in Newfoundland which are willing to pay the same price and perhaps an even better price than that paid for salt bulk, but which the rigid regulations of the unemployment insurance commission make the fisherman unwilling to sell to them.
I know there are those who go about in a sneering way-most of them seem to come from areas a long way from the Atlantic region-and say that all the fishermen have done since they obtained unemployment insurance has been to fish for stamps. I say that is a libel on a hard working section of our population. The fishermen, like working men in other sections of the population, want
Supply-Fisheries
reasonable protection under unemployment insurance. I know this is not very well understood in many other parts of the country, but let me say that the fishermen want unemployment insurance and not some other form of social security, because, with unemployment insurance, they are able to continue working in periods when they cannot fish and thus, by getting additional stamps, build up their social security. There are those who say that instead of unemployment insurance there should be a special scheme for fishermen, but that would not suit the fishermen in that it would mean they could not go to the woods when the fishery is over to earn their living with the continuing advantage of unemployment insurance. What they want is to have the two kinds of employment under the same unemployment insurance scheme.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Macdonnell:: I wonder if I may ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a question. If I correctly understood him, he said this morning that a certain type of fish is not being so produced that the best quality is reaching the various markets. Would he please say something further on that subject before he resumes his seat?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The situation is this: there are certain markets in which only what is called heavy salted fish is acceptable. There are other markets which insist on light salted fish. Of course, light salted fish is a product, almost exclusively, of Newfoundland. I say "almost exclusively'' because I see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries looking at me, and I believe the only other place where it is produced is in Gaspe. There is no market for heavy salted fish in Europe. The market is only for light salted fish of a high quality.
I was saying this morning that there was not enough of this high quality fish being produced to satisfy the demand. No one has yet found a way of processing light salted fish in mechanical dryers cheaply enough to enable it to be produced successfully for export. There was an experiment carried out at Bonavista which proved that Italian fish could be made successfully, in artificial dryers, but it cost more to make it than it would sell for. The problem is one on which the department is working at the present time particularly in Valley field and in co-operation

Supply-Fisheries
with cetrain fish processors and those engaged in this work are hoping to find a process of making light salted fish at a cost sufficiently low to enable the product to be sold at a profit. Meanwhile, production of the light salted fish now going on to the market depends on the fishermen making their own fish on the flakes-the expression "making" means drying and curing. Increasingly, the fishermen are reluctant to do this work. If they can sell their fish for practically the same price as fresh fish or as salt bulk to be made into heavy salted fish, they prefer to do that, and catch more fish, than to make light salted fish themselves. What I suggested was that we should pay an incentive bonus in respect to this light salted fish made by the fishermen until such time as we have overcome the problem of making light salted fish in mechanical dryers economically, as I am sure, in time, we shall do. That is the nature of the problem.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thank the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At one o'clock I was speaking about unemployment insurance for fishermen and about one of the problems which had arisen because of the different methods of allowing stamps in the case of fresh fish and the case of salt fish. I was suggesting that because the regulations as they now stand have the effect of encouraging fishermen to sell fish as salt fish, particularly in some parts of the country, we should adapt the regulations to the economic problem instead of aggravating the economic problem by maintaining the existing regulations. I felt I must enter a caveat at that point, and that is what I was in the process of doing when we reached one o'clock. It is this: I hope the government will not consider for one minute the abandonment of unemployment insurance for fishermen.
There are many advocates of the abandonment of unemployment insurance for fishermen and the substitution of what is called a special scheme. The fishermen do not want this. They want to continue to be covered by unemployment insurance in order that they may cumulate the stamps they get through fishing with the stamps they get through other kinds of labour. Fishing nearly everywhere in Canada is a seasonal occupation and it is very difficult to get enough stamps during the season, in many places, to qualify for unemployment insurance. Contrary to what many people suggest, most fishermen do not want to qualify for benefit if they can get jobs. If the employment service is able to offer them work I believe, speaking for the people that I represent, that they would be very glad to take a job rather

than the insurance payments. But they must not be allowed to fall between two stools. In the days when unemployment insurance was introduced in 1957 it was still relatively easy for fishermen to get jobs in other occupations. In the preceding five or six years there had been a tremendous exodus from the fishery. The introduction of unemployment insurance halted that exodus. It kept the fishermen in the fishery during the season; they realized that when the season was over they could get work in the lumber industry, or in carpentry and get stamps which would qualify them for a short period of benefit if they became unemployed. Unfortunately, it does not work that way now, because work has been so scarce.
I was pained to read in the Toronto Star on April 21 an account of the statement made by the minister before the Fisheries Council of Canada in Toronto. I am sure that if the minister is not satisfied with the way he has been reported he will say so. I should just like to quote from a story which appeared in the Toronto Star of April 11, 1961 which reads as follows:
Hon. J. Angus MacLean, Minister of Fisheries, said the government is looking for a new approach for unemployment insurance for fishermen-
I do not mind that part of the statement at all, because I think there should be a new approach to this situation as long as it is within the ambit of unemployment insurance. Then the article reports the minister to have said, and this is in quotation marks, the following:
"-to remove the incentive which appears to he so prevalent in some areas to fish for unemployment insurance stamps."
I do not think the minister meant that in the way it sounds. I feel that fishermen naturally want to be protected by unemployment insurance just as everyone else who is covered by it does. That is not dishonourable on their part. It is not dishonourable at all. Fishermen should certainly receive the benefits of this great social security measure. The implied suggestion that fishermen just fish to get enough stamps to live without work is, I think, quite wrong, and certainly quite contrary to any experience I have ever had. I receive letters every fall from individuals who have been fishing, who are looking for jobs in the woods, in Labrador, or anywhere else so that they may earn a living for their families. I think that is the general experience in this regard.
I suggest we change the regulations so as to rid them of some of these anomalies, but let us not contemplate for a moment the abandonment of unemployment insurance for

fishermen, I hope the minister will reassure us, when he speaks, that he intended no such thing.
I should now like to say a word in commendation of the government regarding two things it has done. First, the portable bait freezers have been very successful, and I am very glad to know that one is going to be placed in my constituency this year, but I could inform the minister of six or seven other places in my constituency which have a need for these freezers which is almost as great, if not as great, as the need of the community that is receiving one. I understand these portable bait freezers cost in the neighbourhood of only $15,000 to $20,000 each.


Mr. Carter:: No, $5,000 to $6,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My friend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo informs me they cost much less than I understood. He says they cost $5,000 to $6,000. It seems to me that, in view of the small expenditure of money required to make the fisheries so much more efficient, we ought to have a blitz and situate them, all in one year, in every settlement where they are required. I do not suggest they be placed at every place along the coast, because there are some communities where only two or three fishermen operate. However, these freezers are portable and, if a mistake is made in placing one, that mistake is not irrevocable; the unit can be moved to another community. Why does the government not spend $250,000, if it is even that much, and put these fishermen in a position to fish with much greater efficiency, and thereby increase their income?
I should also at this time like to say a word regarding community stages, which have already proven to be very successful.
I admit they are not portable, and it is very important that they be placed in the proper areas.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is there unanimous consent in this committee to allow the hon. gentleman to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate that very much because I think in five or six minutes I shall be able to say everything I wanted to say of a general nature, and the body of my remarks will then appear on the record in one place instead of in bits and pieces.
Regarding community stages, I merely intended to say that where they had been
Supply-Fisheries
well located-most of them have been so placed, and some have been exceptionally well located-they have increased the productivity and profitability of the fisheries of the community out of all recognition. I am sure that within a relatively few years the increased returns to the exchequer alone, to say nothing of the returns to the economy as a whole, will pay for them.
Again I say that I do not know why we do not do this job thoroughly rather than just building two or three, or six or seven stages per year. I feel that they should be placed immediately everywhere they are needed to stabilize the fisheries and thereby place the fishermen in a position to make a better living, under more satisfactory conditions and, incidentally, to make it possible to produce a better product. These community stages, with a reasonable water supply, with greater sanitation and so on, do result in the production of a better product than is produced by the use of the old stages of individual fishermen.
I must say that I was rather disappointed when I asked the minister a couple of weeks ago if the government was contemplating any legislation for the fisheries comparable to the legislation introduced by his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I refer to the rural rehabilitation legislation. The rural rehabilitation legislation is, of course, designed for the improvement of the rural economy in those areas which need rehabilitation. It is certainly true that, as far as the east coast fisheries are concerned, there is just as much need for community rehabilitation, for the improvement of fishermen's gear, boats and other implements of production, as there is in any rural area of this country. I urge the minister and the government to seek to do something comparable in respect to our fisheries. I admit that such a program would be carried out on a long term basis and would have very little immediate effect. That is of course true of the rural rehabilitation program. However, this is a patrimony that we ought to seek to preserve.
It is very extraordinary that we have, off the coast of Newfoundland and the east coast of Canada, the greatest fishery in the world; a fishery that has been exploited for 500 years by the Portuguese, the French and the English, and which is being exploited today, not merely by the historic fishing nations, but by the Russians and the Germans, all whom have to cross the Atlantic, making voyages from 3,000 to 4,000 miles, and who feel there is an economic advantage in doing so. Here we are right at the front doorstep of this great fishery and yet the fishery is perhaps the most depressed of our industries. Surely that

Supply-Fisheries
is not a situation we can regard with satisfaction. Surely we should not throw up our hands and say that we have developed such a high cost economy and such a high standard of living in this country that we cannot take advantage of that great natural wealth at our doorstep. We cannot take advantage of it by using nineteenth century methods. It is impossible to do that. Technological advances have enabled other countries to maintain their fisheries.
This is the most ancient of all our industries, and one which is of great importance to a large segment of our population living in the five eastern provinces, as well as, of course, in the province of British Columbia, where the fisheries are rather different, and about which I would not attempt to speak because of my lack of direct knowldge. This is the industry from which many of the people living in the five eastern provinces derive their livelihood. Surely no industry is in more urgent need of the kind of consideration that is being given to those agricultural rural communities which need rehabilitation.
I suggest this is one area where there is a demand for vision and for action.
Mr. Chairman, since I have been transgressing on the time of others, that will be my last word regarding this subject at this stage of the estimates.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on the general item, I should like to state that I have no intention of unnecessarily holding up the minister's estimates. However, I feel that in view of the importance of fishing to the constituency which I represent, and in view of some of the observations which have been made by hon. members in this committee, certain information should be placed on the record.
The fishing industry, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate, is very old. Long before there was any western Canada we had a fishery on the east coast. As a matter of fact, history discloses that one of the first commercial companies was given the exclusive right to the sea and inland fisheries of Canada on certain terms.
I was quite interested in the observation of the hon. member relating to codfish in Newfoundland. This interest arises also out of the statement made by the premier of that province that the codfishery of Newfoundland was on the decline. We sometimes wonder whether the decline is due to the lack of markets, improper methods of curing or even the dearth of improvement in the method of catching fish. Be that as it may, I agree

with the hon. member that codfishery is a very important part of the economy of eastern Canada.
When we consider the importance of the fisheries of Canada, I think we should give careful consideration to the problems facing the fishermen, particularly on the east coast.
1	am not going to say anything about the fisheries of the Pacific coast, of which I know very little, but sometimes hon. members, and possibly the country at large, get the impression that the only segment of our economy of any importance is the farming industry of western Canada.
Let me assure hon. members that we have our problems on the east coast. Perhaps because we are a little more independent and a little more self-reliant we do not ask the government for the same amount of assistance as do our brothers in the western provinces. Nevertheless, we have problems and it is about some of them that I should like to speak for a few minutes this afternoon.
Every year Canadian fishermen take some
2	billion pounds of fish and shellfish from the salt and fresh waters off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Those fisheries are valued at approximately $200 million. Therefore, it can be seen that they are of vital importance to the economy of Canada.
The primary fishing industry in Canada supports the families of over 80,000 fishermen and also a number of people connected with the industry in various activities, and this number is increasing every year. This fact should be taken into consideration when we are talking about the per capita income of the various kinds of fishermen. Although there has been an increase in the gross production of fish there has also been an increase in the number of fishermen employed in the industry.
The extent of our fishing activity can be appreciated when we realize that Canadians have access to three of the world's five oceans. Together with its coastal islands, Canada has a sea front of 60,000 miles, which is more than twice the length of the equator. Even more remarkable is the fact that 260,000 square miles of lakes and rivers, one half the fresh water supply of the whole world, are located within Canadian boundaries.
The history of the canning industry in Charlotte goes back a great many years. We find that many years ago sardine canning originated in Eastport in the state of Maine. In the constituency of Charlotte we have the largest sardine factory in the British commonwealth. At St. Andrews we have the largest live lobster pound in the world. On the Atlantic coast groundfish, especially cod and haddock and also lobsters, are the mainstay of the fisheries, while herring, mackerel

and other fish add to the value of the industry. The annual Atlantic herring catch, including sardines, is around 225 million pounds, about one third of which is used in my constituency in the canning industry. In addition to this we have smokehouses, pickling plants and the lobster fishing industry. Each of the canning industries, which up to a few years ago operated only a matter of a few months each season, now operates about 10 months of the year, and during the peak of the season the sum of $100,000 to $125,000 is paid out each week for fish, wages and so on. This has been made possible by the improvements made in methods of fishing, type of gear, and in the packing systems and plants.
I do not intend to go into the history of the canning industry, but during the past few years the largest and practically the only packing plant in my constituency, namely that of Connors Brothers Limited, has been packing annually over a million cases of sardines which are sold in all parts of the world. When we consider the number of individuals employed directly or indirectly in this industry, the number of boats operating, the new ones built and old ones repaired and maintained, the number of fishermen and factory workers employed, it will be realized that the fishing industry is a pretty important one in the southern part of New Brunswick. I have some figures which indicate the value of this fishery, and this applies only to the constituency of Charlotte.
In 1959, 97,498,000 pounds of sardines were taken, valued at $1,528,000. In 1960 the quantity had risen to 103,964,000 pounds valued at $1,700,000. These sardines were caught in various types of gear. Of that amount 61.2 per cent were caught in what is known as weirs; 35.6 per cent in purse seines; 2.6 per cent in beach seines; and 0.6 per cent in other types of gear. Therefore, hon. members can see that there is a wide diversification in the type of gear used in this particular industry.
In addition to the herring industry, lobsters provide an excellent and large source of cash income. Most of the catch is marketed alive, fresh boiled or as fresh or frozen lobsters, and sent to all parts of Canada. Recently lobsters have been shipped to Holland by air where they are commanding an excellent price. Let me give an illustration of the value of this particular fishery. In 1959, 879,000 pounds of lobster were taken, valued at $440,000. In 1960, the catch had risen to 1,081,000 pounds, valued at $496,000.
A large scallop bed was recently discovered off the state of Maine. In 1959 nearly 5 million pounds of scallop meat were produced in the area and this development is providing a further source of income.
90205-6-368
Supply-Fisheries
In connection with the fisheries, a fisheries research board is operated at St. Andrews. In 1958, this government opened a large addition to this board, which has provided excellent service to the fishermen of the area. I am sure this service is appreciated by all my constituents.
This fisheries research board was established at St. Andrews in 1899, and now employs a large number of technicians and scientists, all under the careful guidance and excellent leadership of Dr. Hart. This board not only provides great assistance to the fishermen in my area, but is a source of employment in an area which might otherwise experience difficulty in providing employment. In 1955-60, there was spent on new construction in this area, $417,617; on repairs and maintenance, excluding the fleet of boats, nearly $5,000; on salaries and wages, excluding the crews of the vessels, $527,208; on vessel operations, including the salaries of the crews, $178,928, or a total for that fiscal year of $1,172,190.
The 30th annual report of the Department of Fisheries, which is available to all members, sets out in some detail the value of the fisheries in the maritime provinces and Quebec, and the amount of money expended in the various stations of the maritime area for scientific investigation and protection of the various fisheries. I do not intend to give these figures in detail, but I should like to refer briefly to some of the figures put on the record by the hon. member for Gloucester.
The hon. member for Gloucester represents a riding which is primarily a fishing riding, like my own, although his interests are particularly related to groundfish and not sardines. If the hon. member will examine some of the figures and make some comparisons, I feel he will realize that his criticisms of the Department of Fisheries are unjust and unfair. He indicated, if I interpreted his remarks correctly, that we are not getting a proportionate increase in the value of the fisheries for the amount of money expended by this department.
In 1953-54, we spent on protection in New Brunswick, $485,000, and in 1959-60, $568,000, in round figures. Now, in the same year, 1953-54, we spent on assistance for the construction of vessels, only $57,268, while in 1959-60, we spent $110,335. This indicates that in this period we have doubled our assistance to the fishing fleet. The recent announcement by the Minister of Transport indicating that an increased subsidy would be granted on the construction of fishing vessels was received by my constituents with appreciation. There are several vessels now being completed, and several more are contemplated.

Supply-Fisheries
As an indication that the Department of Fisheries is keeping in touch with developments, I would point out that in 1952 the value of fishing gear in Canada was $106 million. In 1958, the latest figures available to me, the value of this same gear had reached over $114 million. The landed value of sardines in the maritimes in 1952 was $1,797,000, while in 1959, only seven years later, it amounted to $3,186,000. Although there was only a slight increase in the value of the cod catch, the lobster catch for the maritimes, excluding Newfoundland, in 1953 was $13 million and in 1959, it was $16 million. Although there has been an increase in the expenditures of the various departments over the intervening years, I think that these expenditures have been justified and have been worth while.
The department is now spending a considerable amount of money on research on the improvement of methods of catching fish, and rendering every possible assistance to the fishermen of Canada. I think at this time I should pay tribute to the minister and, through him, to his officials, for the work done by the department in the investigation of the Passamaquoddy power project. The Department of Fisheries carried out a long and careful survey of the project and formed a part of the two engineering teams that laid before the international joint commission the findings on which the commission based its report. Whether or not this power project is eventually undertaken is not now under discussion but the fact is that the Department of Fisheries, through the fisheries research board, carried out an excellent survey and gave real leadership to that commission.
I think I should make some comments on the unfair discrimination between fishermen in so far as unemployment insurance is concerned. At the present time a very unfair and unjust discrimination is exercised as between the fisherman who catches fresh fish and the fisherman who cures fish. The man who cures fish is able to spread his contributions over a greater period of time and therefore receives greater benefits from his unemployment insurance credits than does the fresh fish man. I would suggest to the minister that some changes might be made in the regulations in order to correct this anomaly. I should like to mention also that, especially in areas where there are a number of fishermen operating at different times of the year and with different types of cure, the regulations should be looked at from time to time in order to ensure that each particular segment of the industry receives a fair opportunity for catching fish. I realize that this is difficult because we have overlapping seasons. However, in so far as the 
government is able, it should endeavour to provide regulations that will ensure that no group is unjustly discriminated against. I think I should at this time also thank the minister and his officials for the co-operation and assistance given to the people of my area during the past few years.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, I am especially interested in the welfare of the great lakes fisheries; and I wish to say that the fishermen, sportsmen and many others interested in the great lakes fisheries are looking forward with satisfaction and anticipation to a visit to the Georgian bay and upper lake Huron area of the Minister of Fisheries. His proposed visit is an indication of his desire to secure firsthand information on the problems at present facing the fishermen of these waters.
Despite the fact that some success in lamprey destruction has been achieved, we still have a long way to go in the restoration of our fisheries to any degree of normalcy. Our biologists and researchers are highly respected authorities on the measures that should be taken in this program of rehabilitation of the great lakes fisheries industry. However, the men who man the fishing boats, many of whom have spent their working years on the lakes, have a wealth of knowledge and information that would also be useful in solving the big problem that confronts us. I therefore suggest that meeting with them will be time well spent and could bring to the fore some good practical ideas.
Several streams flowing into Georgian bay were treated with lampricide last year. It was evident that this treatment of these waters was attended by some success, as many young lamprey were destroyed and seen floating along with the current. We may have reached the point where we can control the lamprey, provided that we continue to treat their spawning beds periodically. It can hardly be expected that they can be completely eliminated from the great lakes. But then will this be the last barrier to lake trout production? Shall we find that the smelt has also taken his toll and that control of this predator will also be required before we can build up our lake trout and whitefish populations? With this thought in mind, I would continue to recommend the planting of sockeye and spring salmon fingerlings in the upper great lakes at the earliest convenient opportunity. These fish have proven their ability to survive in these waters and prospects are favourable to the development of a reproduction cycle.
The lake trout, whitefish and pickerel population of the great lakes was never lower than it is right now, nor was there ever a time when we had such an overwhelming population of predators and undesirable fish. There should be no hesitation on the part of

the great lakes fisheries commission in using some of their funds for the removing of these undesirable fish from our lakes. The removing of large quantities of these undesirable fish is required if we are to create the proper environment for the propagation of more valuable and desirable fish. Hundreds of fishermen whose boats are now idle would welcome the opportunity to work on such a project.
I should also point out that the majority of the fishermen have reached a time in their lives when they are not acceptable to other industry, but have years of good service ahead of them in their chosen field. These men could be employed on this clean-up program until the desirable fish population was restored to a point that would warrant their return to usual routine of reaping a just reward for their labours.
Seventy two streams on both sides of the border have been treated with lampricide. All these streams flow into lake Superior and lake Michigan with the exception of six flowing into lake Huron and Georgian bay. To make a check on lamprey population during their spawning season of 1960, 4,810 of them were taken by the electrical barrier method on the Canadian side of lake Superior, and more than 39,000 adult lampreys were taken as they entered United States streams. The 1961 program calls for the operation of 39 electrical barriers to measure changes in lamprey population in lake Superior.
While on the matter of destroying lamprey, I should like to put on the record something about an operation that is worthy of mention. On April 20 two former natives of Latvia pitched their tent at a site on the Saugeen river for the purpose of trapping lampreys. They have trapped lamprey at this location for five years and last year they were successful in securing over 10,000, which were roasted and canned for a Toronto market. They anticipate that this year's catch will be a similar quantity. This operation indicates that lamprey are plentiful in lake Huron.
In the great lakes much of the fish population that we wish to reduce does have some commercial value. Mink ranches in the great lakes area are finding it difficult to secure enough codfish racks from the coastal regions to supply their needs; therefore many tons of certain types of lake fish would find a ready market close by.
Now that equipment is available to take alive fish such as suckers, catfish, sunfish, rock bass and perch, another method of marketing has recently developed. These fish can be sold alive to buyers who convey them in tank trucks to private lakes or ponds in the U.S.A. where people pay for the privilege of angling for them. Such establishments are 90205-6-368i
Supply-Fisheries
making their appearance now in Canada and a noted development in this field can be expected.
Lake trout in years past were prominent in rewarding sport fishermen. Now that these beautiful game fish have fallen on evil days, our sportsmen in the days ahead will, of necessity, have to rely to some extent on man-made ponds and their production. This is an example of private enterprise stepping into the breach created by negligent handling of one of our great resources. Like any other form of wealth, this inheritance of ours has been misspent to quite some extent. It has been abused and can be ruined for want of care, or it can be wasted by miserly failure to use it fully.
From a conservation viewpoint, the great lakes fisheries are perhaps the most poorly managed of all our natural resources, first, because we do not know enough about the resource itself, and second, because the departments, in their undertaking of the phases of investigation necessary are often hampered by the problem of insufficient, and often inadequate, personnel.
The restoration of our great lakes fisheries will require several years of earnest effort and intelligent planning. Canada and the United States should pool the knowledge of all studies made on both sides of these lakes through all interested and contributing groups so that a directed program could be developed to eliminate the cost and waste of effort in conducting parallel or like projects. This procedure in time, should lead to the development of good management techniques based on this knowledge. In that way we could best utilize this valuable natural resource and hasten the day of restoration.
It is fallacy to think our fisheries, if restored, will be self-perpetuating. The fishing industry is now equipped with modern fishing gear that can locate fish and take them from the water with greater efficiency. This is as it should be. It is one more indication of progress. This is one of our renewable resources and there should be no hesitation in exploiting every possibility that would lend itself to the over-all program of putting this great natural asset back into production of lake trout and whitefish, or the equivalent thereof in quality and demand.
When the great lakes fisheries have been restored to their rightful place in our economy, the knowledge gained during the process should be sufficient, if used wisely, to assure the perpetuation of the industry at a level of high production. I will venture to say that natural production will fall far short in supplying stock of the desirable species. Therefore, artificial processes will be the means of

Supply-Fisheries
assuring the proper balance. Modern hatcheries will be needed with rearing pond facilities where fry would be fed and protected until they are able to fend for themselves with a reasonable chance of survival.
Perhaps we will also find that some artificial protection will be needed at various points where fish are found to congregate and feed in their early life. Off the coast of Florida a reef was built up of old car bodies which serves this purpose. The interiors of the cars form caves which promote the growth of natural food for the fish as well as providing shelter for small fish so that they have a better chance to survive to adulthood. The use of this idea would be of twofold benefit, in that we could clean up many unsightly areas in the countryside while promoting our fisheries. Perhaps our researchers could discover some cheap material that could be placed in the water at these locations to promote algae and plankton production so that food would be plentiful.
Most of our fish hatcheries in the great lakes area are producing fish for the stocking of our streams and inland lakes. Therefore the basic requirement for the restoration and maintenance of our great lakes fisheries is hatcheries. So I would propose to the minister that at least two modern hatcheries should be provided on the Canadian side of the lakes.
Plans are now under way for the construction of a hatchery at Jordan, Michigan, which is estimated to cost $892,000. This would indicate renewed vigour in the United States effort.
Before I conclude these remarks I want to reiterate that our great lakes fishermen are in trouble. Twenty five fishing boats left Kingsville a few weeks ago and returned with only enough perch to fill fifteen 60-pound boxes. In 1959, 11,000 pounds of lake trout were taken from lake Huron, and in 1960 only 200 pounds were taken during the year.
A few days ago a 100-pound box of lake trout and whitefish arrived at Meaford from northern Saskatchewan and the express was in excess of what these same fish sold for a few years ago, when Meaford was a noted lake trout centre.
Now, sir, after having been in close association with the great lakes fisheries for over 25 years, and during that period having used hundreds of tons of fish for food on our mink ranch, I believe I am in a position to make some pertinent observations in respect to this industry. In that time I have seen a thriving, renewable resource descend from prosperity to the depths of poverty. During this transition those charged with the welfare of the industry were indifferent to a variety of factors contributing to the decline of the industry. This deterioration has

been more pronounced since the lamprey and smelts appeared on the scene; but these are not completely responsible, mismanagement must be included.
With this thought in mind, sir, I would suggest that it is hard for any business to prosper under dual control. Therefore I am of the opinion that this work of restoring and maintaining one of our great natural resources, which we share with another country, should be under the complete control of the federal government, and thereby we would eliminate any duplication of effort in management or administration of this, the largest body of fresh water in the world.
In conclusion, I would further suggest that the great lakes fisheries be given prominence at the resources for tomorrow conference in Montreal next October.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make just a few comments about two or three specific items before the minister replies and answers the various questions asked. I do so in order that all the minister's comments may be in one place rather than being scattered throughout Hansard.
The salmon fishery in British Columbia normally accounts, I think, for 65 per cent or 70 per cent of the landed value of fish in that province. Accordingly, from an economic and other points of view it is the most valuable fishery we have on the west coast. There has been a notable decline in the salmon catch over the last few years.
For instance-and these figures are in five-year periods-from 1951 to 1955 the salmon catch was 860,080,000 pounds; in the period 1956 to 1960 this dropped to 625,140,000 pounds. This represents about a 25 per cent decline in the quantity of salmon caught, or a decline of over 200 million pounds in that period.
I understand that the salmon catch of last year was the lowest it has been during this century; the total was a little over 75 million pounds landed. Apart from the loss to fishermen of income and the loss in food value to the population, I think one can speculate about some of the reasons for the decline in the salmon fishery.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member mind repeating the first figure, which I think was 700 million or 800 million pounds, and then it came down to a figure of 75 million, if I remember well. Over what period of years was that drop?


Frank Howard: Perhaps I could give the figures again. There are a number of different periods involved here. In the period 1951 to 1955 there were 860,080,000 pounds of salmon caught. In 1955 to 1960 inclusive, there were 625,140,000 pounds caught. This is a decline in one five-year period over the other of 234,940,000 pounds, or about 25 per cent. The 75 million pounds figure I used was the catch for 1960, just the one year. In fact, it was more than 75 million pounds; the actual figure I have here is 77,590,000 pounds. I used the figure of 75 million in round terms.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If you multiplied it by five, it would again be a big drop.


Frank Howard: Yes, but multiplying it by five would not give us an accurate picture for that five-year period, because this 1960 figure of 77 million pounds was the lowest catch since the turn of the century; so if we multiplied that low figure by five it would really put it a bit out of balance, I think.
I think there are a number of factors contributing to the decline in the catch of salmon and the decline of the fishery over this period of time which requires some examination.
We are a participant, as I mentioned earlier, with Japan and the United States in the international north Pacific salmon fisheries commission and agree with those other countries as to areas in the north Pacific for fishing so that immature fish will not be caught.
In recent years-and I should like the minister to bring us up to date on this matter so far as the knowledge of his department is concerned-we have known of Soviet ships being in that general area. As I understand it, a few years ago at least they were searching or fishing for bottom fish, or halibut, rather than salmon. This does not preclude the possibility of those ships fishing for salmon in those waters and it would account for some decline in the numbers of fish returning to the spawning grounds. There has been some disagreement as to whether the line of demarcation with the Japanese fishery is in the right place and the question has been raised whether or not the Japanese fleet has been catching Canadian salmon in that area. The Department of Fisheries and the commission has said this is not so and that no Canadian fish have been caught by Japanese vessels. In any event I think this is an area for examination, especially from the point of view of the Soviet fishing fleet, so that we may learn whether or not these factors are contributing to the decline in the numbers of Pacific coast salmon.
Supply-Fisheries
Another factor contributing to this decline is the use of insecticides when spraying operations are conducted in forest areas. It applies also to the east coast where different fisheries are affected. One such spraying operation was conducted recently on Vancouver island and another in the Queen Charlotte islands area. There have been further instances. Insecticides, though carefully chosen after consultations between the various departments interested, including the Department of Fisheries, do have a deleterious effect on the fry. They are a poison to them. This has undoubtedly contributed to the death of some of the young salmon in our streams. The logging industry on the west coast is an important part of our economy and its operations range from the southern extremity of the coast to the northern boundary of Alaska. The entire coastal area is the scene of logging operations by companies of various sizes. Their work leads, to some extent, to the denudation of our forests and consequent soil erosion. In addition, debris from the logging industry piles up in rivers and streams with a further detrimental effect on the salmon fishery. Water pollution obviously presents another threat to the salmon fishery. In Kitimat a while ago where there was a construction project in progress gravel was removed from the Kitimat river to mix with concrete, though I know there are laws which prohibit this sort of thing. Salmon spawning grounds have been destroyed in some instances through the removal of gravel in this way. Hydroelectric development has also had an adverse effect in some cases on the ability of salmon to reach their spawning grounds and on the spawning grounds themselves.
All these factors, in addition to others, have contributed to the decline in the salmon fishing industry and I am sure the difficulties will not be overcome merely by shortening the season or by imposing closures from time to time. It seems to me that the provision of a special fund to deal specifically with situations arising in the salmon fishery would prove of great advantage. Such a fund might be used in conjunction with the province of British Columbia to encourage reforestation and to ensure that salmon streams are not blocked, even temporarily, by logging debris. I think, also, that we might engage in the building of storage dams along the lines recommended in the report of the Fraser river board to ensure a regular flow of water through our salmon streams.
Stocks of salmon are also being depleted by predatory fish such as dogfish. An extensive program of destruction coupled with a research program into the economic use, for

Supply-Fisheries
example, of dogfish, would also help to arrest the gradual decline of the salmon fishery over the years. It has been suggested that sport fishermen should not be allowed to fish inside the fishing boundary and that by fishing inside the boundary they are contributing to the decline of the salmon fishery. I raise these considerations in a general way at this time hoping that the minister will be able to make some conclusive announcement concerning the activities of his department in this regard because, as I have said, the salmon fishery in British Columbia is not a minor one; any decline in that industry has a serious widespread effect.
The last time I spoke on this subject I made reference to the report of Dr. Sinclair on the question of licence elimination. Since that time I have received from the united fishermen and allied workers' union a resolution which was passed at the union's recent convention held in March this year. This dealt with the Sinclair licence limitation report and passed a couple of resolutions one of which resulted in a telegram being dispatched to the Minister of Fisheries and to the Prime Minister. The resolution reads as follows:
Therefore be it resolved this seventeenth annual convention strongly and urgently demand immediate action by the government of Canada, and in particular the Minister of Fisheries, to introduce legislation imposing a five year moratorium on the issuance of new licences and providing that any licence that has not been renewed in any year or any licence which is not utilized in commercial fishing in any year be cancelled.
Be it further resolved the foregoing legislation provide that commercial fishing licences in 1961 and continuing until 1965 shall not be issued to any person who did not hold a commercial fishing licence in 1960. The only exceptions to this rule should be:	(a) the holder of a licence in
1959 who was unable to fish in 1960 due to proven illness (b) sons of fishermen who came of age in 1961 and have applied for licences with serious intent (c) any other special circumstances with all such cases being reviewed by an impartial board consisting of representatives of the united fishermen and allied workers' union, native brotherhood of B.C. deep sea fishermen's union of Prince Rupert, Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association, and the Vancouver and Prince Rupert vessel owners' associations and the government.
I should like to ask the minister to tell the committee what answer has been given to the wire which was sent with respect to this resolution, in order that the public may understand what action the government has undertaken with respect to this particular report and the suggestions made by the fishermen's union.
That convention also passed a resolution regarding the Sinclair report in respect of licence limitations. I should just like to quote the resolution to which I have reference. It reads as follows:

Therefore be it resolved this seventeenth annual convention demands of the government of Canada and the government of the province of B.C. an immediate start on a thorough study of costs, earnings, price fixing, capital accumulations, export for capital, reinvestment of capital, financing systems and earnings of individuals directing and employed by the fishing companies and a thorough study of the costs, earnings and capital accumulation of private vessel owners employing two or more men in the fishing industry. The reports, when completed, to be released in the same manner as this Sol Sinclair report, but without the unnecessary delay of fifteen months experienced in release of this report.
Those two resolutions were passed at that convention, albeit a short while after the Sinclair report was released. It may well be that the resolutions passed were not worded in such a way as to cover all the possibilities arising out of the Sinclair report, nevertheless, this represents action taken in resolution form. I hope the minister will enlighten us and bring us up to date in regard to these particular methods.
I should like to mention one other subject before I sit down. Mr. Val Gwyther, a few years ago, wrote an imaginative article which appeared in the B.C. Professional Engineer, and also in the U.B.C. Chronicle. There have been reprints of his article appearing elsewhere. The gist of the article was that it was possible to develop the Fraser river for hydroelectric purposes, while at the same time retaining it as a fish river. When this article appeared in 1958, practically everyone in the fishing industry, as well as the engineering field, apart from British Columbia electric employees, who have a definite interest in this matter, suggested that Mr. Gwyther was attempting to put across propaganda in favour of the power industries in British Columbia. This suggestion has been refuted by subsequent writers, engineers and fishery people, and Mr. Gwyther has not been deterred from engaging in the promotion of the so-called multiple use of the Fraser. Within the last week or two, as a matter of fact, he made a speech or wrote an article, in which he stated that, following studies made over a period of two years, proof had been obtained of the feasibility of using the Fraser for the purposes of developing hydroelectric energy, while maintaining it as a salmon spawning river.
I should like the minister to comment in regard to what has been done in this field, and tell us what the results are of the engineering studies, if any, which have been made.
My own personal opinion in this regard is that Mr. Gwyther, in stating again that the Fraser river can be used for this dual purpose, has indicated he did not know what he was talking about in 1958. However, this

is of vital importance to the fisheries on the west coast, with particular reference to the salmon fisheries of the Fraser, which is the most important fish river in British Columbia. In order to ensure that commercial hydroelectric companies, such as the B.C. Electric Company, and other industries in this field, are not successful in their ventures to use the Fraser river for this dual purpose, they should not be allowed to issue propaganda under the guise of studies which indicate the river can be successfully used for that purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I should leave the subject at that, with the hope that other hon. members interested in it will place their remarks on the record.


Mr.   Ballen@: Mr. Chairman, up to this point in the discussion of these estimates we have heard a great many references to many phases of Canada's fisheries. I should like to begin by making a few references to research in the fishing industry.
The minister in making his statement of May 11 referred at some length to the research activities of his department, and stated that across the country important research projects were going forward as a basis for expansion and development of our fisheries. I think everyone knows that Canada is not a country which is noted for the amount of research being done, particularly in view of the fact that this is a country with many valuable natural resources. This is as true of the fishing industry, as it is true of every segment of our economy. Research projects in the fishing industry now in progress are indeed important and worth while. However, I believe that more intensive work is required if Canada is to remain in a competitive position in the northwest Atlantic region.
In the province of Newfoundland limited fisheries research has been going on for almost three quarters of a century. Over 70 years ago Adolph Neilson initiated a form of fisheries research which was continued up to and during the 1930's. Thereafter, Harold Thompson commenced a project financed jointly by the governments of the United Kingdom and Newfoundland. A good deal of worth-while information resulted from this research and, over the years, some of the information has been used to great advantage.
The present Newfoundland research committee, an organization which is over seven years old, paid special attention to the marine resources of Newfoundland at its meeting held during the early part of April of this year. In my opinion this committee is making a contribution to the fund of information concerning the fishing industry as a whole. However, what is needed is a pooling of the research facilities of both the federal and
Supply-Fisheries
provincial governments in order to define a new approach to the problems of production, processing, marketing and conservation.
There was a time when the fishery of Newfoundland was the foremost industry of the province. Over the years other industries have come into being and have expanded to such an extent as to replace fisheries, in terms of employment, or revenue and maybe both. The activities of the newsprint industry, as well as of mining production, have placed the fishing industry in a relatively less important position. Let me hasten to add, however, that the industry, for a long time to come, will be an important source of employment for many of the Newfoundland people.
The marine resources of Newfoundland represent a great part of the economy of that province. The part it represents could be increased, but this will be accomplished only as a result of a co-ordinated policy of research and expansion, and such a policy will cost money. But improvement in any industry in any part of Canada adds to the national economic picture. Central Canada is not so far removed from the economic success or failure of the fishing industry in Newfoundland. When one considers the fact that the the province of Newfoundland buys from the Canadian mainland commodities having an annual value of $250 million it becomes obvious that a large proportion of our dollar added to the value of fishery products provides labour for workers in other parts of Canada. In view of this I submit that research in the fishing industry in Newfoundland should be intensified and conducted by the Newfoundland research committee, the fisheries research board and the national research council.
The demands for research services are unlikely to decrease in the years that lie immediately ahead. There are not only pressures as a result of the domestic picture, but also demands owing to Canada's responsibilities under international agreements. Indeed, there are even local problems to which attention should be given. For example, in my own area I should like to know how extensive is the source of halibut off the west coast of Newfoundland. If there are sufficient quantities, how best can this type of fish be harvested, processed and marketed? Another problem is the need to improve methods to transport five lobsters to market. In the area from Bonne bay to St. John's bay on the west coast of Newfoundland-and I used this area as an example-about three quarters of a million pounds of lobster were marketed last year. In 1960, only 72.5 per cent of the quantity shipped arrived at the point of delivery in first class condition. The remainder was made up of 6.3 per cent of culls; 14.2 per cent were weaks; and 17 per cent unsaleable.

Supply-Fisheries
One can well imagine the loss to the fishermen when over 25 per cent of their catch fetches a reduced price or no price at all.
I point this out as a problem of local concern but none the less important. What is the reason? Are the lobsters taken from the Newfoundland area less durable than the lobsters taken from any other areas? Are the methods of holding awaiting shipment such as to be detrimental to the lobsters? Are the actual transportation conditions too rigid for the lobster to survive the ocean trip? These are questions which need expert investigation to determine the best corrective methods in order to give the fishermen the greatest possible return for their labour.
I mention these as local problems, Mr. Chairman, because they are problems that require practical solutions based on information already acquired or to be acquired by scientific research.
I should now like to make a few comments of a more general nature. The hon. member for Charlotte referred to a statement made by the premier of Newfoundland, implying that the fisheries of the province of Newfoundland were declining. No such statement is true, of course. When he made his statement the premier was referring to two things, first to the number of fishermen employed in the industry in Newfoundland; and second, to the importance of the industry when compared with some other industries. Now obviously, or I think it is obvious, in any composite whole one component may increase in absolute value and yet decrease in relation to its percentage of the whole. To me it is just a simple application of Engel's law. I would say to my hon. friend that while it may be true that the number of fishermen engaged in the fishing industry in Newfoundland may be fewer than they were in years gone by, the actual value of the fisheries is not decreasing. I hold in my hand the Atlantic provinces statistical review of April, 1961. I note that the preliminary figures for the year 1960, as compared with the figures for 1953, of total landed values show an increase of 33 per cent. The landed value of all sea fish in Newfoundland in 1953 amounted to slightly over $12 million. The preliminary figures for 1960 show $16 million, or an increase of roughly 33 per cent. This in fact is slightly higher than the increase for the Atlantic provinces as a whole.
The total landed value for the four Atlantic provinces in 1953 was $43 million. The preliminary figures for 1960 are $56 million, or an increase of 30 per cent. Our problem in Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman, is that the fishing industry is not maintaining its place in an expanding economy. What we need are more research, more investment, better quality products and larger markets. One of

the great difficulties of the fishing industry in Newfoundland is that in a large sector of its activities it is almost impossible for the fisherman to make a living wage when he is employed in that industry alone. There are many reasons for this, included among which are low prices for the product, too low a production particularly of those types of fish which fetch the highest prices, and the inability of fishermen to work for long periods of the year.
As far as low prices for the product are concerned, the solution does not rest entirely in our own hands. Markets will determine the prices to be paid on factors over which we have no control. Prices paid may be relatively high in relation to the general economy of the area in which the market exists, but relatively low in relation to the general economy of the area in which the commodity is produced. In any industry in Canada I think we shall find it increasingly difficulty to maintain Canadian wages on European prices, but we do have in our own hands the possibility of improving the situation to some degree. The fact of producing specific articles of the highest quality for specific markets may be one way of doing this. An example is light salted cod. It is possible to attain further improvement in the position by endeavouring to produce more of those fishery products which bring higher prices. It was for this reason that earlier in my remarks I referred to the possibility of producing and marketing a larger amount of halibut and attempting to increase the percentage of first class lobsters arriving at the marketing points.
The average price of all sea fish landings in the year 1960 was lower in Newfoundland than in any other of the Atlantic provinces. For example, in 1960 Prince Edward Island landed 3.4 per cent of the total landed weight of the four Atlantic provinces. Prince Edward Island had 8.2 per cent of the total landed revenue at an average value per pound of 10.9 cents. For the same year the percentage of the total landed weight of the four provinces for Nova Scotia was 34.4, and the percentage of the landed value was 46.5, at an average value per pound of 6.1 cents. New Brunswick, in the same year, produced 18.1 per cent of the total landed weight and had 16.4 per cent of the landed value at an average of 4.1 cents per pound. On the other hand, Newfoundland produced 44 per cent of the total landed weight and received only 28.9 per cent of the total landed value, at an average value of 3.0 cents per pound.
It is my contention that these figures support the view that we should strive to produce a higher quality commodity and, at the same time, attempt to increase the production of

those types of fish which will command a higher return. I hasten to point out, Mr. Chairman, that I do not believe such goals as I have suggested are going to solve all the difficulties now facing the Ashing industry, but they are facets of the problem which cannot be ignored.
If the Ashermen are going to continue their operations for longer periods of the year, one of the things which must be done is to provide those facilities which Ashermen could not normally be expected to provide for themselves. Here, I am talking about the physical requirements and services such as wharves, breakwaters, community stages and bait depots. I recognize immediately that wharves and breakwaters are the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works and not the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries. Nevertheless, I think that you cannot dissociate the marine facilities provided by the Department of Public Works from the Ashing industry. For many areas of my constituency the men have to use fairly large boats. They have to go a long distance from the shore, well beyond the three mile limit. These boats have to be hauled up in the evening and launched in the morning. Many days' Ashing are lost because they are not able to get their boats aAoat.
There can be no doubt that, so far as the Ashing industry is concerned, protection is needed for the Asherman's gear. On the other hand, community stages and bait depots are part of the programs administered by the Department of Fisheries. I feel that the community stage program has a great deal of merit. The minister informs us that already we have 20 of these stages built in Newfoundland, and that these 20 have demonstrated the advantage which they are to the Ashermen. I suggest this advantage should be extended to other areas which are equally deserving. The minister said on May 11 that the program of constructing community stages was virtually complete. I was sorry to hear that because I do not believe this very advantageous program should be conAned to the areas which have been served to date. These community stages provide not only a convenience to the Ashermen, but they provide more sanitary landings where the Ash can be properly cured. They do have a very deAnite effect on the quality and also the stability of the quality.
However, the minister did intimate that the program might be continued at a slower pace. I would suggest to him that the program should be continued, and continued at an even faster rate, particularly in those areas where economic patterns are changing in such a manner that Ashing offers the major opportunity for employment.
Supply-Fisheries
I might make similar remarks regarding the bait service. We do need more of these units, and they need to be supplied at a faster rate. In many parts of Newfoundland, fresh bait supplies are not so readily obtained as they were a few years ago. The units being provided by the department offer a source of bait which assists our Ashermen in beginning their Ashing earlier in the year and remaining at their Ashing for longer periods. There are two areas in my constituency which would beneAt greatly from the program for community stages and bait depots. They are the areas known as the St. Barbe coast and the Port au Port peninsula. The St. Barbe coast is the western part of the great northern peninsula. The people of this area have for centuries been Ashermen and, for a great part of that time, they have had no occupation other than Ashing. At the turn of the century there was a great lumber industry developed on the coast. This, in turn, gave way to pulpwood cutting. We have reached the period now where the lumber industry is no longer as important as it was. We have reached the time when pulpwood cutting is no longer carried out to the extent it was. Fishing, therefore, offers perhaps the only opportunity which these men have for making a living. The program for community stages and bait depots, if extended would serve this area well.
Another area which I should like to mention is the Port au Port peninsula. This is a peninsula which juts out into the gulf of St. Lawrence a distance of about 30 miles. Twenty Ave or thirty years ago, nearly all the people in this area were Ashermen. Then, sometime between 1940 and 1942 the United States leased bases in the area. The men left the Ashery for work at Harmon air force base. It is understandable that, no matter how long this base remains in Newfoundland, construction in the years that lie ahead is not going to proceed at the pace which it did during the last 20 years. Employment opportunities at Harmon air force base are not as plentiful as they were. The men now have to return to the Ashery, and I believe the men will return to the Ashery only when they are provided with those facilities which they could not be expected to provide for themselves.
I have here a chart of the Port au Port peninsula. I brought this today particularly because some of the replies I have received to my questions have indicated that there are not enough Ashermen in this area. I have here a chart showing the number of Ashermen as of February, 1960, in each settlement in the Port au Port peninsula. The total number of Ashermen in the area was 403. I believe that this number could be doubled if

Supply-Fisheries
the men who are no longer able to find employment at Stephenville on the United States base were able to see that the facilities for fishing were going to be provided for them. I would again suggest to the minister, therefore, that rather than have the community stage program proceed at a slower pace, perhaps he could speed it up so as to provide some of these facilities for the St. Barbe coast and for the Port au Port peninsula.
I should like at this point to make a few brief comments regarding the seal fishery in the northwest Atlantic area. In the past few years and in recent days in the House of Commons we have heard a great deal as to the past and present methods of harvesting these resources. We have been informed that nations other than Canada are sending men with modern equipment to augment the indiscriminate killing which in time must result in the complete destruction of this form of marine life. Much has been said about the need for conservation and control measures if the seal is not to follow some other forms of Canadian wildlife into the realm of total extinction.
These expressions of opinion are not new. Intermittently over a period of 40 years people in various walks of life from the individual conservationist to the marine biologist, from the seal hunter to the businessman in the trade, from organizations at the local level to the United Nations, have expressed views as to what should or should not be done to preserve this natural resource and at the same time maintain a maximum sustainable yield having regard for other forms of marine life.
Conservationists became interested in this problem as early as 1920. Further representations were made to the Newfoundland government in 1930. The Canadian government began a survey in 1950, which was completed in 1956. In 1958, at the United Nations conference on the law of the sea the following resolution was agreed on:
The United Nations conference on the law of the sea requests states to prescribe by all means available to them those methods of capturing and killing marine life, especially of whales and seals, which will spare them suffering to the greatest extent possible.
Canada was represented at that conference and supported this resolution. From surveys which have been made and from the experience of many engaged in the industry I suggest that it is clear that some conservation methods are necessary and may in fact be well overdue. In this particular industry as well as in many other fields of endeavour there is a need for adequate scientific information upon which sound, practical and effective regulations can be based. There is also

the problem of obtaining the co-operation of all those concerned within the confines of our own country. Maybe the situation is still further complicated by the fact that a large part of the sealing operation is carried on outside Canadian territorial waters. Maybe it is fair to say that because other nations such as Norway and Russia prosecute the seal fishery in areas adjacent to Canadian waters, Canada should take the initiative in arriving at some agreement with these nations which have a direct commercial interest in the industry.
In February, 1957, the north Pacific fur seal commission was established. Represented on this commission are Canada, Japan, the United States and the U.S.S.R. The purpose of this commission is to establish regulations based on knowledge resulting from scientific research which will best conserve the fur seal herds in and around the Bering sea; including the Pribilof islands, the Commander islands and Robben island. This commission met from January 22 to February 4, 1961, in Japan. At that meeting the Canadian representative, Dr. William M. Sprules, said this:
The convention under which this commission is established contains references to several principles which we in Canada believe are essential to the rational utilization of any marine resource. These include recognition of the need for international co-operation to achieve maximum sustainable productivity of important marine resources; recognition of the need for detailed scientific knowledge; recognition of the complex biological inter-relationships existing between one resource and another; and recognition of the need to waive the right of free fishing in specific instances. The constantly growing world interest in utilization of the valuable living resources of the sea coupled with the rapid technological advances in harvesting efficiency make it apparent that the principles just referred to might be expected to form the foundation of future international agreements concerned with conservation of the living resources of the sea.
I believe these words were well spoken and I would commend them to all those who have an interest in our marine resources, not only in reaping an annual harvest but also in promoting those conservation measures which will ensure that continuing annual harvests will be possible.
Canada was a signatory to the international northwest Atlantic fisheries convention in 1949. This body does not have regulatory powers but it can make representations to the governments included in the agreement. I would suggest that at the next meeting of this commission Canada should initiate discussions leading to the proper surveys being made which in turn would result in the formulation and implementation of measures designed to conserve the harp seal of the north Atlantic. I should indicate here that I understand that a great deal of work in this regard is being

done; but since the seal fishery is prescribed in areas adjacent to Canadian waters it might be well if Canada were to give that extra impetus which this conservation program requires. It may be that efforts in this direction are further complicated by the fact that, although Russian ships have been very active recently both in the seal fishery and in other branches of the fishing industry, Russia is not a member of the international northwest Atlantic fisheries convention. Nevertheless, it may be possible to obtain with respect to the north Atlantic the same co-operation that has been experienced in the north Pacific in the hope that this form of marine life may continue to provide a sustainable annual yield by regulated methods and at the same time be protected in such a manner as to afford a maximum opportunity for survival.


Chesley William Carter: I should like to resume at this time the remarks which I was making on this item on the day when these estimates were last before the committee. I think that day was May 12. At that time I had pointed out to the committee that the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast of Canada was not prosperous. The industry as a whole might be holding its own, but it was certainly not as prosperous as the fishery on the west coast, and in many sections it was very much a depressed industry. Particularly in terms of returns to the fishermen there had not been very much improvement in the last 10 or 12 years.
To remedy that situation I urged upon the minister the need for an over-all program of fishery development for the Atlantic provinces. That program should embrace all phases of the industry in all provinces. It should co-ordinate all the different agencies connected with the fisheries in all the provinces and it should be flexible enough to make provision for individual differences in the industry as between one province and another.
The second course of action which I urged upon the minister at that time was to set up a fact finding body to get the necessary information upon which such a program of development could be based. That fact finding body could first of all, I think, investigate the clash of interests within the industry itself, that is, as between one phase of the industry and another, or between different phases of the industry in different provinces.
There is no doubt that a clash of interests does exist, and ways and means must be found to avoid future differences and reconcile existing ones. The second category of facts which I think should be investigated is the individual problems connected with the industry which are peculiar to certain provinces. My colleague, the hon. member for
Supply-Fisheries
Bonavista-Twillingate, referred to one of them this morning in connection with the light salted fish industry, which we share with the people of Gaspe but which perhaps does not obtain in the other Atlantic provinces.
In connection with the salt fish industry there is the problem of culling. Some years ago government officials attached to the department were qualified to cull fish. That particular practice was not too satisfactory in many cases and after a while the department abandoned this idea of having official cullers. But there is still a need for something to be done along this line and I think the particular problems which arise in connection with the culling of fish and the standardizing of culls is one that should be investigated in all provinces.
In connection with the inshore fishery we have a very particular problem in Newfoundland which I think is not shared by any other province. Any program for development of the fisheries in Newfoundland must certainly make provision to do something about it. The problem to which I refer is the distribution of our population along a large coast line and broken down into a large number of small settlements.
A few days ago we passed a bill in this house to rehabilitate rural communities. At that time I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there was any way in which the principles involved in that legislation could be used in connection with the rehabilitation of fishing communities. I am not going to repeat the minister's reply; it can be found at the bottom of page 5593 of Hansard; but the minister did indicate in his answer that this question was being given some consideration.
I hope the Minister of Fisheries will get together with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and work out some arrangement whereby this principle of rural rehabilitation can be applied to the fishing communities in my province. Our own provincial government has for several years grappled with this problem. They have had a program of concentration of population whereby a number of settlements have been denuded and the inhabitants have been induced to move their houses and belongings to larger settlements.
However, it has been found from experience that this sort of program is far beyond the financial resources of our provincial government; yet it is an essential part of any program of fisheries development in Newfoundland and it is something that must be done. I believe the legislation which we passed in this house for the rehabilitation or rural communities can be very well applied

Supply-Fisheries
to remedy this situation and I do hope the minister will give every possible consideration to this suggestion. 1 hope that action will be taken before too long to have this principle incorporated as part of an established program, a special program, if you like, for fisheries development in the Atlantic provinces.
In connection with the inshore fishery in my province there is another problem on which I think facts should be gathered. The other day the Minister of Transport announced in the house a program of assistance in the building of fishing vessels. That assistance was applicable only to boats over 45 feet in length. In many of our communities, particularly in the inshore fishery where the boats do not have to go more than 12 or 15 miles from land, or at the most 20 miles from land, you do not require a boat 45 feet in length. If we are to prosecute this fishery so that our production costs are kept as low as possible, we must apply that principle to every item. If a 35 foot boat will do the same job as a 45 foot boat, then the assistance given to people who want to use a 35 foot boat should be the same as that extended to those who wish to buy a 45 foot boat. I would point out that there are many harbours in my constituency where fishermen cannot conveniently use 45 foot boats because there is not room to moor enough of them. On the other hand, 35 foot boats can be accommodated. Again, a larger boat means heavier gear and heavier equipment all around with a corresponding increase in cost. If we are going to operate our fishery at minimum cost we must pay attention to items such as this.
Our experience in the province has already shown that an expensive boat does not always benefit the fisherman. Both federal and provincial governments have done a great deal to assist fishermen to get larger and larger boats, but what has happened is this: in order to obtain the kind of boat which will meet the conditions under which assistance is granted, fishermen must incur a debt running between $30,000 and $40,000, sometimes even more. It is true the owner has a first class boat, but it will not be large enough to go 200 miles offshore and fish on the Grand Banks, while it will very often be larger than is necessary to go 20 or 30 miles offshore. Insurance on the larger boats is very costly and so are running expenses. It is true the fishermen earn more money in some cases but the extra earnings are used to pay off the debt. By the time the debt is paid off, boat and engine are worn out and the fishermen are back where they started without having received any personal benefit to show for their effort.

It is my belief that the maximum cost of a boat for the inshore fishery should not be more than $10,000. That should include everything and it should be shared between two persons. We have to think in terms of minimum cost of production. I would ask the minister to get together with his colleague the Minister of Transport and devise some way of making this assistance available with respect to fishing vessels down to 35 feet, in length and possibly smaller.
One other matter which I should like to see investigated concerns the prices received by fishermen. For some reason or another our Newfoundland fishermen do not seem to be able to get the same prices for their fish as are paid to those who fish off the mainland. I can understand some of the reasons why this should be so. It is true that the mainland fishermen can sell a large proportion of their fish fresh and unfrozen. They have the advantage of transportation facilities and this enables them to avoid having to store the fish in expensive warehouses. But I am not satisfied that this is the full explanation.
There are practices-I do not have firsthand information about them; I am going by what I am told-which should definitely be investigated. I have here a letter from one of my constituents. I do not propose to read it, but I should like to draw attention to what the writer says. He and his friends were trapping codfish last summer in a trap -this, by the way, is the most economic way of catching inshore fish. He took the fish to the plant, and the plant would only pay two cents a pound for them. Other inshore fishermen catching the same quality of fish in much the same depth of water by hook and line were getting half a cent a pound more at the same plant. Once taken by the plant, all these fish were mixed together and processed, emerging as the same product. No difference was made between the fish which had been trapped and those which had been caught by hook and line. The people who had been catching fish in the traps complained to the plant management about the discrepancy in the prices paid.
What happened? Instead of the trap fishermen getting 2-J cents a pound, the price to the hook and line fishermen was cut down by half a cent. There is something wrong when things of this kind can happen and I should like to see some competent body look into the matter and decide what can be done about it.
I am told there are occasions when a plant operator uses what is called the weigh back method. A dragger may go out and fish for four or five days on the Grand Banks and come in with a load of fish. The fisherman

does not know how much he is going to be paid until the catch has been discharged on the plant wharf. Then the weigh back method goes into effect and the plant operator reserves the right to discard any fish he does not want. Of course, any fishermen on these draggers get paid only for the fish which the plant will take for processing. The discarded fish go to the meal plant, and we must assume that the operator gets something for them. But the fisherman gets nothing for these discarded fish although he may have spent a day catching them. In addition, he and the crew are charged with the expenses of unloading these extra fish, so the return he gets from the plant is further lessened on that ground. I am told these practices are prevalent in parts of my riding and I think some fact finding body should look into the matter to see that our fishermen get a square deal. I say this because the fishermen have no means of looking after themselves. If there is only one fish plant in the place or if they are employed on draggers owned by the plants they have to sell the fish to those plants or else throw it overboard. I think it is our job here to protect the interests of those who sent us to parliament and, as I say, I think the government should set up a fact finding body to collect all information relating not only to this but to other problems in connection with the fishing industry in my province so that we can work out an integrated policy for the industry in the Atlantic provinces as a whole.
Perhaps the minister will contend that we are doing just that at the present time, and in theory he may well be right. However, the result is that we end up by treating each industry in each province as a separate industry. I do not feel we will put the fishing industry of the Atlantic provinces on a sound economic basis until we look at the industry as a whole, working out a plan of development for the whole industry which, at the same time, will be flexible enough to take care of the individual problems peculiar to an individual province.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take one or two minutes at this time to mention several items which I omitted when I spoke earlier during this debate.
I should like to call the minister's attention to the desirability of looking into the possibility of developing an inland fishery in Labrador for the Labrador Indians. As the minister is doubtless aware, there exist in Labrador a number of Indians, particularly in the Northwest river area and in the area of Davis inlet. I suggest it is desirable to find for these citizens fields of employment, other than hunting. A suggestion has been
Supply-Fisheries
made that the lakes in the area could provide an inland fishery, in which the Indians could engage. Similarly, in the northern Labrador area, there exists a sea trout industry which could possibly be developed to provide increased income for the Eskimos on the coastline.
I should also like to refer to the development of a suitable type of house at a cost within reach of the fishermen. I refer of course to the desirability of embarking upon a program to create fishing communities along the coast of Labrador, and I ask the minister to give this suggestion sympathetic consideration.
Labrador requires to be exploited, in the best sense of that word, and requires a great deal of development. The waters of Labrador, lucrative as they are to many fishermen, must also become lucrative sources of employment for the people who live in Labrador on a year round basis. It is in connection with those individuals that I ask the minister to consider the possibility of embarking upon a program of developing a type of house suitable to that area at a cost sufficiently low to enable those residents to purchase them.
A further matter which has already been mentioned has reference to the desirability of increasing patrol fleets with the use of aircraft in order to retain those waters for the use of Canadian fishermen.
I should also like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo regarding the desirability of providing assistance to fishermen on the same basis as is contemplated with respect to farmers. This parliament has approved the provision of assistance to certain agricultural areas of this country and I am sure the minister will agree that one producer in Canada should be entitled to the same assistance that is given any other producer in Canada. I cannot believe that hon. members would in any way wish to see one set of standards for fishermen and another set for farmers.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred to one other subject which I believe is deserving of the earnest consideration of all hon. members of this committee. I refer of course to our trade with the West Indies. That trade is based on the supply of fish and has been in existence for many years. It is important today in the light of present circumstances.
The whole issue involved in this trade with the West Indies is more than one of the export of fish, but one involving a question as to whether we are our brothers' keepers. In the light of present day events in relation to the world we are living in today, hemispheric solidarity is more important than ever.

Supply-Fisheries
As a matter of fact, a time may arrive very soon when such solidarity is of critical importance. I should like to ask the minister to bear in mind the importance of developing, extending and expanding this ancient trade, with a view of drawing these areas, which are of such mutual assistance one to the other, and whose friendship is as desirable as their business is desirable, closer together.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Surely the hon. member realizes that the responsibility for trade and for the marketing of our fishery products is within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, since it was taken from the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries by the previous administration?


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that trade, as such, is the business of the Department of Trade and Commerce. However, I am equally aware that the business of selling fish is at least part of the business of the Department of Fisheries.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, before the minister comments in regard to remarks which have been made today, I should like to be permitted to ask him to make a report regarding the losses suffered by fishermen in the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island resulting from ice conditions which existed during the month of May. I have reference to the loss of fishing gear, and the loss as a result of reduction in catches, which has been suffered.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I should like at this time to express my appreciation to all hon. members who have taken part in the debate on the first item in my estimates because much of what has been said will certainly be of help to my department in assessing the weaknesses and strength of the program which it has tried to carry out continuously in the interest of the fishing industry of this country.
A great deal has been said, and I should like to comment in a brief manner in respect of some of the questions which have been raised. I hope hon. members will realize that this debate has continued for quite some time, over a period of three different days, so that my observations and comments therefore will perhaps not be complete, nor cover every matter entirely. However, should I fail to comment in respect of a problem raised by any hon. member, that does not mean that problem is being ignored. Hansard has been and will be very

carefully perused so that all the questions raised by hon. members will be dealt with where action is required.
I intend to try to comment seriatim on the questions raised by the various members. On the opening day of these estimates the hon. member for Gloucester was the first speaker. He was concerned with the relative position of the Canadian fishing industry with the fisheries of the world. This is something of major and fundamental concern, of course, to the industry in Canada and to the department. But I should like to point out that most of the fish produced in the world is produced by nations for their own use and in most instances to fill a desperate need on their part for the supplementing of their national diet, which fish provides. On the other hand, Canada-and there are very few countries in this position; Iceland and Norway are probably examples-exports about two thirds of its production. When we have to compete in world markets to maintain our production this creates additional difficulties.
The hon. member for Gloucester also referred to the necessity of increasing the subsidy on wooden vessels from the figure of $165 a ton. This is a case of serendipity, because at the very time he was speaking the decision had already been made to increase the amount up to a maximum of $250 a ton and, as is well known, the announcement was made in the house by the Minister of Transport a short time afterwards.
The same hon. member asked for figures as to losses of lobster fishermen in various areas of the maritimes owing to ice conditions. The latest information I have is that in northeastern New Brunswick 27,150 traps were set and 3,300 were reported lost, or about one ninth. Certain areas from Escuminac to Baie Ste. Anne were very heavily hit and acknowledged that 3,000 of the 3,300 traps were lost. I think he also inquired about the Magdalen islands. At the time of this report some 115,000 traps had been set, and losses appeared to be very heavy. About 30 fishermen in this area had insured a total of 9,000 traps.
On the Gaspe coast some 3,600 traps had been set and losses were also quite high. I think I should also mention district 5 because hon. members from Halifax and other members in that general area of district 5 have been concerned about the losses to fishermen there. About 64,000 traps were set and of this number about 12,000 have been reported as lost. The most heavily hit areas were Jeddore, Jeddore harbour and Ecum Secum. The situation varies from place to place; it is very spotty. In some places no losses may have occurred, and at another place very close by a fisherman may have suffered very heavy

losses. At the moment I do not have figures on the lobster catch for the various areas but this is being watched very carefully by the department with a view to nothing as accurately as possible what the situation is.
The hon. member for Skeena raised the question of the Soviet union fishing fleet in the Bering sea. The situation is being kept under close review in the event that it may be appropriate to discuss these problems with the government of that country.
In the case of red China, there has been no indication that a fishing fleet has been developed, or is being developed, for operation in the north Pacific ocean. The hon. member also raised the question of reef nets used in Juan de Fuca straits by native Indians. The views expressed by the hon. member have been noted and the matter will be taken up again by the Pacific salmon fisheries commission which is responsible for conservation matters in this area and also with the appropriate United States fisheries authorities.
The question of Indians fishing for salmon for food purposes for their own consumption, and the situation described by the hon. member about pink salmon in the Queen Charlotte islands, will be investigated. It is well known, of course, that free permits are issued to native Indians to take salmon for their own use as food. At the same time, certain basic conservation requirements must be followed.
The hon. member also asked what was the situation with regard to the Sinclair report. As I said on a previous occasion, we have written to the various segments of the fishing industry on the west coast asking for their views in writing by the end of May, if possible, on the matters covered by the Sinclair report and only a few of those have come in as yet.
I covered the matter of artificial spawning grounds, which was raised by the hon. member for Skeena, in my opening remarks. I think most of the information he had in mind will be found there. He also inquired about the use of aureomycin in the preservation of fish. The use of aureomycin was developed in the technical station of the fisheries research board of Vancouver. It is being used quite extensively on the Pacific coast by the Pacific coast fishing industry as a very useful preservative; also to a more limited extent on the Atlantic coast. With the use of the proper quantities there are no harmful effects when the fish are consumed because the antibiotic is boiled off during the cooking process.
The question of more general use of herring for human consumption is being worked on and was discussed on an international
Supply-Fisheries
basis at a meeting in Rome last April, and also as a means of making a more general use of this great resource of the sea for direct human consumption.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni also raised some questions regarding an appraisal of the Campbell river area salmon stocks and suggested an examination of the possibility of artificial spawning grounds being constructed in that area.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador spoke of a scheme for small loans to fishermen. In most areas, this matter is being taken care of adequately by the various provincial fishermen's loan boards. In addition, of course, loans are available to fishermen, administered by the Department of Finance. There are the chartered banks and the fishermen's credit unions, which are also sources of credit.
I have noted the observations that were made with regard to assistance in the cost of construction of wooden boats under 45 feet in length. This matter will be reviewed, but I would point out that the construction of fishing vessels of this type is undertaken in co-operation with the provinces and the advice of the provinces will have to be considered in relation to the type of boat that should be covered. Of course, there are the obvious matters which must be taken into consideration from the point of view of the federal government.
The question of community stages was raised by a number of hon. members from Newfoundland. I want to say that I appreciate the kind words they have uttered about this program. One hon. member said he was sorry to hear me state that the program was about completed. I was referring, at that time, to the first 20 stages only. We hope to continue with other stages from time to time in co-operation with the provincial government of Newfoundland, so that this need can be met as time goes by.
The bait supply this year is adequate so far as the bait itself is concerned. There is, however, the continuing problem of satisfying the very wide demand for the bait holding units we brought into use. There is provision in these estimates for eight more of these units at a cost of $69,000, or thereabouts. I want to say that this program will be pursued as actively as possible.
The question of the production of light salted fish as opposed to heavy salted fish was raised by various members with various views on the matter. I want to say that the department has succeeded in developing a method whereby heavy salted fish can be desalted and then artificially dried to produce an excellent light salted product to meet the needs of the market in Europe. As the member for

Supply-Fisheries
Bonavista-Twillingate is aware, I believe, the question is only one of price, relative market prices.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg posed some interesting questions with regard to the oyster industry. The department is proceeding as rapidly as possible much along the lines suggested by him. In so far as clams are concerned, these, too, are receiving attention and the views of the hon. member will be given consideration. He also expressed concern about the protection of the Atlantic salmon. This is a problem which is very acute. As hon. members know the habitat of the Atlantic salmon has been decreasing in area since very early times. This is obviously because of the impact of civilization itself, especially industrialization, and the detrimental eifect on the environment in which the Atlantic salmon, and all other types of fish, live. Changes take place which may not be obvious to human beings, but are very critical so far as salmon are concerned. For example, there may be variations in the runoff, variations in water temperature, changes in the consistency of spawning beds as a result of siltation, as well as more obvious things like obstructions caused either artificially or naturally and the contamination of streams by such things as sewage, pulpwood logs and that sort of thing.
Several hon. members, including the member for Skeena, raised the question of the damage done to the salmon on the west coast by spraying. This problem is extremely difficult because hon. members will realize, I think, that if the forests are destroyed the habitat of the salmon will be destroyed as well. Nevertheless, we are able to report that the damage done to the salmon directly by d.d.t. spraying of the forests has been considerably reduced by using diluted sprays which remain effective for the purpose for which they are used, the destruction of the spruce budworm and other insects, without doing much direct damage to the salmon themselves.
In this connection there was some interesting press comment on this matter last winter when it was announced that half strength d.d.t., compared with that which had been used previously, had now proven successful and would not do so much damage to the salmon. The announcement produced a headline in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal for January 6 to the effect that we had succeeded in eliminating morality amongst the salmon. Far be it from me to eliminate morality amongst the salmon, if it is meant by that that we want to reduce in any way their capability of reproducing.

I am happy to say that we have made progress, especially on the west coast, in designing and developing artificial spawning beds. The results look very good at the present time. It will take a period of time to prove their usefulness, but the results so far have been nothing short of spectacular. I am hopeful that this development will go a long way toward compensating for the loss of natural production of salmon to which the hon. member for Skeena referred just a little while ago. He also mentioned the Russians fishing for salmon. We have no information that would indicate that the Russians are fishing for salmon in the northeast Pacific area. They do catch large numbers of salmon, of course, but in their own waters, of stocks that originate in Asia. I might say that the Russians, of course, are actively fishing for groundfish in the Bering sea area. We have been able to find no indication that the Japanese are catching any salmon of British Columbia or Canadian origin. Therefore, as far as Canadian salmon are concerned, there is no indication that they go beyond the line of demarcation agreed upon, which is 175 degrees west longitude. I am speaking from memory but I think that is correct.
The question of the resolutions passed by the united fishermen and allied workers union has been noted. I might say that this whole question is under very careful study. The resolution read by the hon. member would indicate that, if the policy they suggest were brought into effect, legislation would be required. This is not the case. The changes they recommend could be introduced, from a legal point of view, by regulation under the Fisheries Act as it now stands.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg also raised the question of construction standards for subsidized fishing vessels. This matter of improving the standards of this type of vessel so that they will have a safer vessel for fishermen to operate in is something that we are working on at the present time in co-operation with the maritime commission.
The hon. member for Vancouver East took the view that a great deal more assistance was given to the Atlantic fisheries than was given to the Pacific fisheries. I do not think that this view can be well substantiated because a great deal of assistance is given to the fisheries on both coasts. The problems are entirely different on both coasts. On the west coast the primary problem is one of keeping up the supply of the resource. In most types of fish on the east coast this problem is not so acute, especially with regard to cod and groundfish, although there is a problem.

I agree that there is a problem with regard to stocks there but it is not so acute as is the problem of the stock of salmon on the west coast. The problems on the east coast tend to be more economic ones in the sense of trying to have a reasonable return to the fishermen engaged in the industry whereas on the west coast-I am speaking now very generally and there are all sorts of exceptions to what I say-the problem fundamentally is one of keeping the resource at a level which will provide sufficient fish for those engaged in the industry.
The hon. member for Vancouver East was concerned about the British Columbia herring fishery. I am happy to report that the fish meal situation, as far as markets are concerned, has strengthened considerably and has brightened to a decided extent. As I have already mentioned, an international meeting was held in Rome under the auspices of FAO to consider this matter. I think that meeting had beneficial effects almost right away. Every attempt is being made to improve and develop new herring products for human consumption and continuing efforts are being made to seek new market outlets.
With regard to the problem of more humane methods of killing whales and seals about which the hon. member for Vancouver East was concerned I might say this. It is not correct to make the flat statement that the use of electrical harpoons at the present stage of development would be more humane in whaling than is the use of the explosive harpoon. As a matter of fact, a great deal of work is being done on the use of the electrical harpoon by the electrical companies and by the industry but as yet it is doubtful that they would be any more humane than are the harpoons now in use.
With regard to Atlantic seals may I say that my department has already taken the initiative in this matter. Along with other countries we are keeping informed on technological advances with a view to introducing them to the sealing industry if they are practical and effective. On the conservation side, we have taken the initiative in bringing this question before the international commission for the north Atlantic fisheries which is meeting in Washington next week. I might say in passing that I believe it was the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, although I might be mistaken about that matter-in any event it was one of the Newfoundland members-who went on the assumption that the U.S.S.R. which is one of the countries interested in the Atlantic seals is not a member of ICNAF. May I say that they have joined. They are now a member as they have been for about two years. Denmark,
Supply-Fisheries
France, Norway and Canada all agreed on a closing date for the sealing this year. There is therefore some progress to report in this connection.
The hon. member for St. John's East also raised the question of community stages. I have dealt with that matter to some degree already. The marketing of salt fish, a matter which he also raised, is one which is of direct concern to the Department of Trade and Commerce. However, my department is concerned also in certain phases of marketing such as helping the industry to develop more acceptable types of fish and of containers so that salt fish, especially, will have a growing appeal for a widening market.
Several hon. members, including the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Trinity-Conception spoke of the neeed for and the problem of markets for salt cod. In this connection I should like to say that production of salted cod in 1960 in Newfoundland, at about 70.6 million pounds, dry basis, was 5 per cent above that in 1959, but was approximately average production for recent years. There were no stock holdings of 1959 fish at the beginning of the marketing year, last July 1. Despite the good catch, prices to fishermen from processors, were 15 per cent to 20 per cent above 1959 levels. Strong buying by processors and exporters was presumably based mainly on the short European catches in 1959.
Fishermen's income from cod fishing were at a post-union record of $1.1 million above 1959. In marketing the 1960 production Canadian exporters had been faced with greater competition from increased European production, together with a major reduction in exports to Cuba particularly since January of this year.
Stocks at the end of April were approximately 10 million pounds above the same date a year ago, but early in May substantial shipments of salt fish went to Portugal. However, this is a matter which is under very close and active scrutiny by the department with a view to finding some means of alleviating it if this proves, in the end, necessary.
Several hon. members raised the question of the use of the Valleyfield fish processing experimental plant. A good deal of progress has been made at Valleyfield in respect of salt cod. Projects include various drying methods, brining methods, a process for the production of light salted fish by the desalting of heavy salted fish and, most important, the development of new products and improved packaging.
In order to meet present day consumer demands a salt fish block has been developed.

Supply-Fisheries
This block is made basically from fillets of cod and thus is boneless and skinless. Substantial samples were sent in 1960 to outlets in Canada, the United States, Italy and all other potential markets. The reception was so good that there is an excellent possibility of this product being produced commercially this year.
The method of producing these fillet blocks and other new processing methods and techniques will be demonstrated at several courses for salt fish plant foremen and operators this summer at Valleyfield.
I may say that we are also most anxious to receive from the salt fish industry their suggestions and reviews of technological problems so that we can do our best to meet these problems and test the suggestions for their practicability.
I may say that as far as prospects for this year are concerned, due to the rather optimistic outlook as far as the fresh and frozen fish market is concerned these are brighter. With respect to freezing operations the department has been advised that several plants on the northeast coast of Newfoundland which were not expected to operate in 1961 will be put into operation in response to the much improved market outlook. This will relieve to some extent the pressure on the salt fish market. But it is only one factor and will only aPPiy, of course, in some areas.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate also pointed out that we were dependent entirely, I believe he said, on the United States market for the export of fresh and frozen fish. I believe that is no longer entirely the case, since exports are now going to the United Kingdom market. This is an encouraging development.
I may say too that in certain cases the provisions of the agricultural rehabilitation and development act will have application to large numbers of people who are engaged in the fishing industry, at least partially. In cases where it does not apply, very careful study will be made of the situation so that proper compensation can be made in a way which we hope will be practical, along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate.
The hon. member for Charlotte and various other hon. members raised the question of the application of unemployment insurance to fishermen. The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, it would seem more in sorrow than in anger, regretted a quotation that he was forced to read from a speech which I had made in Toronto about fishermen fishing for stamps rather than for fish. 
What I said was that we wanted to remove any incentive which might lead fishermen to fish for stamps rather than for fish. I did not mean to suggest that any fishermen had yielded to this temptation, as yet at any rate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is very diplomatic.


John Angus MacLean: The hon. member for Charlotte also gave an interesting review of the fishing industry in his riding, which is a very important and, generally speaking, prosperous one. But there is still much that can be done to develop the industry in all parts of the country, provided the development will result in activities that are economically sound.
The hon. member for Grey North raised the very important question of the great lakes fishery. Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about the progress which is being made in the lamprey control program of the great lakes, but I will not make an extended statement at this time.
I think hon. members of the committee are aware that scientists have succeeded in producing a lampricide, a specific poison which will poison lamprey without affecting other forms of life. In 1959-60 more concentration was applied to the use of lampricides while still maintaining the barriers in lake Superior that were formerly used to prevent the migration of lamprey up the streams to spawn.
Finally in 1960-61 all streams tributary to lake Superior known to have lamprey populations had been treated. In addition, seven streams in lake Michigan and six in Georgian bay had been covered. In every case it is estimated that a kill of over 99 per cent of the lamprey population was obtained. As a result a reduction should be seen in 1961 from the operations of 1959, but the final demonstration will only show clearly in the spring of 1962.
It is thus crucial in demonstrating success or failure to maintain the barriers in lake Superior for checking through 1961-62. In the meantime the chemical program will be further expanded in lake Huron, Georgian bay and lake Michigan.
Concurrent with these lampricide experiments the commission has been considering and taking action on the rehabilitation of the trout population. This of course involves obtaining the co-operation of the various states and the province of Ontario since these organizations are responsible for such work. This co-operation has been gladly given, with the result that broad stocks have been substantially increased and the actual stocking was raised to over one million yearlings in 1960, with every indication of increase in

the future. Close assessment of the results of this experiment is being carried out.
In brief, the lampricide program in the great lakes appears to be promising but it is too early yet to make definite forecasts as to how successful it is actually proving. There still remains the problem of the rehabilitation of those types of fish which will produce the highest income to the fishermen of the great lakes and thus add the greater strength to the industry.
I think that is all I wish to say at the present time, but if any questions arise as we go through the various items I shall do my best to answer them.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the item carry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to thank the minister for his comprehensive reply to the various remarks which have been made by members of the committee on this the first item on the estimates of his department. I have a brief observation to make which could refer to item 131 or to the next item. I wish to make it now. A few moments ago I came across an editorial in the Ottawa Journal, June 3. It has for its title: "146.5 lbs. of Meat-Each". May I be allowed to quote a brief paragraph from this editorial. It reads as follows:
Not everyone in Canada is unemployed and those who have work or income are doing very well indeed. So well that total per capita consumption ol meat in 1960 was 3.6 pounds greater than in 1959 and more than 12 pounds above the 1951-55 average.
I wish to remind the minister of the remarks I made on May 11 when I said that fish consumption, which had reached 13.7 pounds per capita in 1950, had declined to 13.2 pounds in 1957, and called for drastic action on the part of the department to increase the consumption of fish in this country. When we realize that during the same period the consumption of meat has increased by 12 pounds per capita and the consumption of fish has decreased by half a pound-


An hon. Member:: Utter nonsense.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I heard the hon. member say "utter nonsense".


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Exactly. Utter nonsense.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: These are statistics made available by the dominion bureau of statistics, and if the hon. member wants to question them he should direct his observations to the minister responsible.


William Joseph Browne: I think you should sit down.
Supply-Fisheries


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will sit down at the call of the Chair. I have as much right to make observations in the committee as has the hon. member for St. John's. This is typical of what we hear from members on the government side of the house, for no reason whatever.
When we have to face such a serious situation as this decline in fish consumption we may well ask ourselves what will happen to future generations of Canadians when such a brain food as fish is set aside.
(Translation):


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I am not taking part in this debate as an expert on commercial fishing and I imagine that members of the committee will perhaps be surprised to hear me say a few words on this subject. I should like to ask the minister to look especially into the problem I intend to submit to him and to give us some information about a situation prevailing at present in the Montreal area with regard to sport fishing. With the committee's permission, I should like to quote from an article published in the Gazette of June 2, 1961, which reads as follows:
(Text):
I shall read from this article in English as it is written in English. It is entitled: "Quebec reverses itself on minnow situation". It reads:
We told you in yesterday's column to look elsewhere in the paper for the ruling on minnows by Hon. Gerard Levesque, minister of game and fisheries. Well, you didn't find much-simply an announcement that special permits are to be issued effective immediately for the sale of minnows.
Later on in a paragraph headed: "Prime interest to Montreal" the article says:
These details will be particularly interesting to Montreal district fishermen in view of the fact that one suggestion had been that the sale of minnows should be permitted in a zone of the south shore but not on the island of Montreal which would be placed in the same category as the trout belt in the Laurentians. This would be a blow at the many thousands of anglers who depend upon minnows for fishing dore, pike and perch in local waters.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, that article was brought about by a rather radical decision taken by the present government of the province of Quebec concerning the sale and transportation of minnows.
That legislation was introduced at a most inappropriate time, that is last spring, and without any previous warning to dealers who sell not only minnows but fishing tackle.
Moreover, the provincial authorities received strong protests from certain sports associations concerning the adoption of that bill which is rather prejudicial to their interests.
5840	HOUSE OF
Supply-Fisheries
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Is the hon. member not touching on a purely provincial matter?


Georges-J. Valade: No. I am dealing with the part of the law which comes under the administrative responsibility of the federal government as I will show later on if you allow me to continue.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying a moment ago, that decision has caused serious losses to all those business people who depend on the sale of fishing gear. Representations were made to the present provincial government, which washed its hands of the matter and said it was a federal responsibility. That is why I now ask the Minister of Fisheries to clearly state the stand of the federal Department of Fisheries with regard to that legislation enacted by the Quebec government. (Text):


John Angus MacLean: Perhaps I can answer the observations which have been made by the two hon. members who have spoken.
In the case of fishing regulations which are enforced by the provinces, the regulations are made under the authority of the Fisheries Act and the order in council which brings them into effect is the responsibility of the federal government. However, I wish to make it clear that the appropriate ministers of the provinces make recommendations as to what these regulations should be and we rarely, if ever, modify them, or, if we do, we do so only after consultation with the minister of the province concerned.
In the case of regulations having to do with the use of minnows in Quebec, the recommendation was put forward by the provincial government. I communicated with the minister, who takes full responsibility for making this recommendation. He is happy with it. Therefore, it was made into law by the passing of an appropriate order in council. It is the direct responsiblity of the provincial minister concerned to make recommendations in this regard.
I was very pleased that the hon. member for Gloucester raised the suggestion that publicity should be given to the advantages of including fish in diets. In this regard I might suggest that my department is doing all it can to acquaint Canadians with the benefits arising from the consumption of fish, both from a health and economical point of view. There is a very excellent service in existence carried out by skilled young ladies who demonstrate the uses of fish to groups 

across the country, including the operators of restaurants, hotels and so on. This operation is being carried out in an attempt to familiarize Canadians with the benefits of the use of fish in diets and to increase the per capita consumption in Canada.
We have also introduced methods to improve the standard of processed fish in an attempt to establish a reputation of dependability in that regard.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I realize that every minister of the crown is anxious to have the estimates of his department passed as quickly as possible, and I suggest the Minister of Fisheries is no different in this regard.
At the beginning of the minister's remarks in reply to suggestions made by hon. members he referred to the fact that this debate had taken quite some time. As a matter of fact, he stated it had extended over a period of three days. That statement is true, in that the debate took place on three different days, but in terms of total time it has taken no longer than the number of hours this house sits on a Monday, Tuesday or Thursday approximately 8J hours. I suggest that the fishing industry is of sufficient importance to the five Atlantic provinces, as well as to that important province of British Columbia, that we should not attempt to rush through the estimates of this department simply because we are approaching a particular time of day. Should we run through and complete the estimates during this last hour, that is perfectly all right, but they should not be hastened in any way which would limit our discussion.
Earlier today I mentioned articles which had been written by Mr. Val Gwyther. At that time I was unable to locate the reference to these articles, but I have since found this reference contained in the Vancouver Sun of June 1, 1961, at page 42. I should like at this time to make further reference to the statements made by that individual so as to relate them to the location in which they were made. The article in part reads as follows:
Two university of B.C. engineers said today a hydroelectric dam can be built in the Fraser river canyon without harming salmon runs.
They said a 100-foot high dam at Spuzzum, 30 miles north of Hope, would produce 700,000 horsepower and allow safe passage of 750,000 salmon a day.
The engineers are J. F. Muir, head of the U.B.C. department of civil engineering, and Eugen Ruus, assistant professor of civil engineering.
They were speaking at the 75th annual meeting of the engineering institute of Canada-

This article then makes reference to Mr. Val Gwyther who is reported there as saying that watersheds are now open to development of both fish and power. The article then goes on to state as follows:
Gwyther said that with proper planning of fishways in conjunction with power dams, survival of fish can be increased over that in natural settings filled with predators.
I do not intend to quote further from this article because I think the essence of their approach to this subject is contained in the remarks I have quoted which were made at a meeting of the engineering institute of Canada. I should appreciate very much if the minister would indicate his opinion of the validity of these statements.
As I said earlier, Mr. Gwyther has been noted in past years for his one-sided approach to this question which would tend to serve the interests of those individuals concerned with the development of power exclusively. I think the approach presented in the report from which I quoted represents the same high pressure tactics resulting from these studies which have been financed, at least in part, by the B.C. hydro industry.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make it clear to the hon. gentleman that I did not object to the length of time being taken for the consideration of the estimates for my department, but merely pointed out that the discussion had taken place on three different days, two of which were about two weeks ago, and therefore I hoped to be excused if my remarks this afternoon were not comprehensive enough to cover every point that had been raised.
I should like to thank the hon. member for bringing this article to my attention but would suggest to him that individuals are free to express their own opinions. The best advice that I can obtain from experts, not only from my department, but elsewhere, is that there is as yet no feasible means whereby hydro development can take place on the Fraser river without serious damage to the salmon industry. I am sure that if there had been a tremendous breakthrough and discovery in this regard in recent times I should be aware of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
134. Industrial development service, $806,750.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, in respect to vote No. 134 I should like to ask the minister to briefly comment in regard to new projects to be undertaken this year.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, there are a wide number of items which are under consideration for this year. A few examples of those projects are as follows: a study in
Supply

Fisheries
regard to the use of a stern trawler, the development of a scallop stern trawler, the development of a combination dragger purse siener and a trap tender for the great lakes, the continued development of a multi-purpose 50-foot boat, and the development of a 48-foot long-liner in co-operation with the province of New Brunswick, the development of reinforced fibreglass hulls for fishing boats, the tank testing of various types of fishing vessels and fishing gear, the development of an unloading device for fishing vessels, some work in regard to hydro jet propulsion. We have also been assisting, to some extent, the development of a free-piston gasifier engine which we hope will be very useful in application to fishing vessels on the basis of a very flexible type of installation. Some hon. members may be aware of that project. Those are some examples.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Practically all of the examples the minister has given had to do with the catching of fish. This item is called "Industrial Development Service". Can the minister say whether any of the money is being spent for what one would ordinarily think of as industrial development?


John Angus MacLean: We look on the catching of fish as an industrial activity, and it is part of our industrial development work, but not all by any means. For example, there is a great deal of work, to which I have already referred to some extent, being done at the Valleyfield experimental station on the processing of fish. Another example is the development of fish processing and holding equipment; the various developments in the drying of fish, the packaging of fish, and bulk containers for fish, which are not only the large containers used in shipment but also the retail containers. A while ago I mentioned salt fish blocks which are being developed. These blocks are for the retail trade. They are blocks about the size of a pound of butter and are quite attractive. We feel they will have a very great acceptability on the market. There is such a wide field of endeavour in this directorate that it is hard to give in a few words a complete review of what is being done but if the hon. member has anything specific in mind I shall certainly get the information for him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just have this specifically in mind. The only substantial reduction anywhere in the estimates is in this item and while in general I am in favour of reducing expenditures rather than increasing them- I am an old fashioned Grit in this respect-I must say that in this particular field I do not think that reducing expenditure is the wise thing at all, because surely the most important thing is not to find new ways of

Supply-Fisheries
catching fish but new ways of processing fish and getting it onto the markets in an acceptable form, and this is where Canada is not leading the world and where it seems to me we ought to be advancing even more rapidly than we are.


John Angus MacLean: Let me put the hon. member's mind at rest right away. The general program is not reduced. This may be a bit misleading, but actually the over-all program of industrial development is being expanded as far as expenditure is concerned. The apparent reduction is due to the fact that there has been a quite sudden reduction in the amount of money being used in the building of community stages which is covered by this vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister knows that I would like to see that expenditure increased also.


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


Chesley William Carter: I have two supplementary questions on this item. The minister referred to the stern dragger as one of the experiments being carried out under this item. Is this the first year in which we have been carrying on such experiments? If not, what was the result of any previous work done in this respect?
My second question has to do with marketing. Can the minister tell the house whether any marketing research is being carried out by his department and whether it is done under this item? If not, under what item is it financed?


John Angus MacLean: With regard to the stern trawler, this is the development of a suitable design of boat that may be used specifically for Canadian Atlantic coast conditions. There has been no work done with stern trawlers in Canada up to this date.


Chesley William Carter: No, but work has been carried out on the stern trawler or the stern dragger in England, I think, and in Norway.


John Angus MacLean: Oh, yes.


Chesley William Carter: The results of that experiment should be available to us. What additional information are we trying to acquire under this item or under the program the minister referred to? Just what is the purpose of continuing the experiment when the information is already available?


John Angus MacLean: Well, the information is available in a general way, but it is a question of the design of a stern trawler calculated to meet specific Canadian Atlantic coast requirements. Our requirements for a stern trawler might not be the same as for a stern trawler which would be operating from Europe.
	-',	'


Chesley William Carter: The minister did not answer my second question about marketing research. Is anything being done along this line?


John Angus MacLean: It actually is being done but it comes under item 133.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a question to ask the minister but I do not know whether it comes under this item. In recent years the department has carried out certain experiments to locate scallop beds especially in Northumberland strait and in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Is it the intention of the department to carry on with similar experiments this year?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has any arrangement been made by the department to select certain boats or certain vessels in certain areas?


John Angus MacLean: This is being done at the present time. As far as I know certain research is being done along this line at the St. Andrews station of the research board.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When such experiments are carried on the results should be made available to the fishermen. I know that fishermen in our own areas are still wondering whether beds were found in 1959. If beds were located, what amount of scallops was in those beds, and where were they? Steps should be taken to make the results of such experiments available to the fishermen so that they could use the beds to their benefit.


Frank Howard: My question has to do really with the fishing bounty. I assume, from past practice, that we deal with statutory items where they follow immediately after a vote. In as much as it is six o'clock, I wonder whether I can defer my comment to another day?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the committee be prepared to continue for a few minutes on these items? If we are striving for the deadline of the 30th day of June, would it not be wise to complete the estimates of this department? I do not want to hurry anyone if there are questions to ask, tout the house sometimes shows that it is quite willing to take an extra few minutes and carry on. I am sure we are quite prepared to do that.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Morton):: Have we unanimous consent to carry on?


Frank Howard: There is another point. For instance, the fisheries research board becomes involved quite extensively in the next item and I have some remarks to make which would take more than a few minutes. I think we should call it six o'clock.

Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I presume there is no change from the announcement made last night in connection with next week's business?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No change is expected, Mr. Speaker.
Business of the House


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister whether, perhaps after consultation with the Minister of Finance, he is now able to tell the house when the budget will be brought down?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not in my field.


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

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

Mr. Regier: 
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What are the work hours per week and rates of pay of cooks and stewards serving aboard civilian manned auxiliary vessels of the Department of National Defence on the (a) east coast (b) west coast?
2.	What are the work hours per week and rates of pay of crew, apart from cooks and stewards, serving aboard civilian manned auxiliary vessels of the Department of National Defence on the (a) east coast (b) west coast?
Answer by: Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):
1. (a) East coast-Cook, $269 per month; cook steward, $269 per month; second cook, $238 per month; mess boy, $229 per month. Hours of work-48 hours per week, 6 days at 8 hours per day.
(b) West coast-Cook, $285, $290, $301 per month; cook steward, $290, $311 per month;
steward, $280, $290 per month; second cook, $260, $280 per month; mess boy, $231, $253 per month. Hours of work-40 hours per week, 5 days at 8 hours per day.
2. (a) Hours of work: Approved work schedules-Effective 1 January, 1960, the approved work schedule for GSOs and seamen shall be 8 hours per day from Monday to Friday with Saturday and Sunday as rest days, with the following exceptions:
Naval Fire Tug-H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland: (i) the standard work week is 56 hours; (ii) the work week shall be averaged over a 3 week cycle using the 24 hours on 48 hours off duty system.
Stand-by duty boat-H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, N.S.: (i) the standard work week is 40 hours; (ii) the work week shall be aver-

aged over a 4 week cycle; (iii) 8 days of rest shall be granted in the cycle.
Stand-by duty boat-H.M.C. Dockyard, Esquimau, B.C.: (i) the standard work week is 40 hours; (ii) the normal daily working hours per day shall be 8; (iii) two days in seven shall be rest days.
Questions
Naval fire tug-H.M.C. Dockyard, Esquimau, B.C.: (i) the standard work week is 48 hours; (ii) normal daily working hours shall be 8; (iii) one day in seven shall be a rest day.
(b) Rates of pay vary according to vessel classification.
(a) East Coast
Classification	Class 1	Class 2	Class 3	Stand-by Crew	Yardcraft$	$	$	$	$Master	5,690	per annum	5,378 per annum	4,799 per annum	5,793 per annum	4,397 per annumFirst officer	4,441	4,278 "	4,516 "	Second officer	3,974	it	3,720 "	Third officer	3,564	u	Chief engineer	5,162	a	4,882 per annum	4,562 per annum	5,162 per annum	Second engineer	4,441	4,278 "	4,124 "	4,516 "	Third engineer	3,974	a	3,720 "	3,343 "	Fourth engineer	3,564	a	Electrical officer	3,974	per annum	Oiler	264	per month a	Boatswain	269	Seamen	229	a	Quartermaster	260	a	243 per month	Donkey man	226	a	252 per monthFireman	257	Mate	
Engineer	
Master and dockyard	3,642 per annum	3,609 per annum 4,085 "pilot	5,793	per annum	Senior master	5,860	Senior chief engineer..	5,259	
Note: Rates for personnel below officer status are similar for all vessels unless indicated.
(b) West Coast
Classification	Class 1	Class 2	Class 3	Class 4$	$	$	$Master	. 6,288 per annum	6,026 per annum	5,227 per annum	5,372 per annumFirst officer	
Second officer	
Third officer	. 5,038 " . 4,596 " . 4,356 "	4,891 " 4,446 "	4,743 "	4,429 "Chief engineer	. 5,950 "	5,663 per annum	5,115 per annum	4,951 per annumSecond engineer	
Third Engineer	
Fourth engineer	
Electrical officer	
Fireman	
Boatswain	
Oiler	
Seaman	
Donkey man	
Quartermaster	
Master and dockyard pilot.... Senior chief engineer	
Engineer	. 5,038 " . 4,596 " . 4,356 " . 4,596 " . 289 per month . 289 " . 292 " . 279 " . 289 " . 289 " . 6,417 per annum . 5,982 "	4,891 " 4,446 "	4,743 " 4,378 per annum	4,951 per annum
Note: There are in addition to the above, a small number of harbour vessels on each coast carrying individual rates of pay. They are for the most part manned by an engineer officer and a crew of two. Generally speaking, the engineer's rate runs from a low of $4,193 per annum to $4,663 per annum on the east coast and from approximately $4,500 per annum to $4,951 per annum on the west coast.
90205-6-369

Supply-Items Passed [The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE
[Stage Direction]
Office of the chief electoral officer-
46. Salaries and expenses of office, $83,685.
Civil service commission-
66. Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the suggestion award plan of the public service of Canada, $4,486,681.
Public printing and stationery-
322.	Departmental administration, $767,360.
323.	Purchasing, stationery and stores, $1,212,540.
324.	Distribution of official documents, $560,521.
325.	Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $750,000.
326.	Printing of Canada Gazette, $140,000.
327.	Printing and binding the annual statutes. $35,000.
328.	Plant equipment and replacements, $250,577.

[Stage Direction]
131.	Departmental administration, $473,500.
132.	Information and educational service including grant of $3,000 to Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition, $236,470.
133.	Economics service including the expenses of an international meeting on the economic effect of fishery regulation, $373,770.
[Stage Direction]
Monday. June 5. 1961