1963-10-24

[Stage Direction]
program:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in my presentation to the special committee on defence on June 27 last I stated that current procurement programs were being reassessed to determine if they would interfere with the exercise of future policy options. Included in the projects under review was the general purposes frigate program.
This project was approved early last year at an estimated cost of $264 million. This was only the cost of the ships themselves. A more detailed analysis of the cost of these eight ships, including support equipment for them, has resulted in a current estimate of $452 million. Even this figure would not likely be final, however, as some of the weapons systems proposed are still in the developmental stage. Certainly this means that some modifications would be inevitable.
While the cost of these ships has been a very important consideration, our review has taken into account other aspects. These ships were designed to provide in one type of ship an anti-submarine capability, an air defence capability for the fleet and the capacity to carry and land a limited number of troops and light equipment. Necessarily, in order to design all of these capabilities into one ship only modestly larger than the latest antisubmarine escort, it has been necessary to limit the capabilities in each field from those that could be achieved by more specialized ships.
As an anti-submarine ship the general purpose frigate would not be as effective as the latest R.C.N. anti-submarine escorts capable of operating and carrying the HSS-2 heavy helicopter. This helicopter can carry both a dunking sonar and a weapons delivery system. The general purpose frigate would carry a light helicopter which would have a weapons delivery capability only.
One of the central and most costly features of the general purpose frigate system is the provision of air protection for the fleet. This capability involves an estimated expenditure of $100 million for the missiles and associated equipment. The rate of technological change
in these missile systems is considerable, and the next few years may see improved systems available at less cost measured in relation to effectiveness.
The general purpose frigate would have only a small troop carrying capacity. If it should be decided that troop carrying capacity is a requirement of the Royal Canadian Navy, it could be provided by more economical and effective means.
The immediate effect of this program in respect of employment in the shipbuilding industry is not great, because the first keel was not scheduled to be laid down until December of next year.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the government has decided not to proceed with the general purpose frigate program. I would hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that this does not mean the end of our ship requirements for the Royal Canadian Navy. On the contrary, we are carrying out studies to determine both the roles and tasks which will be assigned to our navy in the future and the most economical way of implementing them. In the anti-submarine warfare field, for example, we are studying the relative effectiveness of all known systems, including aircraft, surface ships and submarines. Our review is concurrent with the NATO review authorized at the ministerial meeting held in Ottawa in May.
In the meantime, we are aware of the necessity of keeping alive the skills which have been developed in our shipbuilding industry. We are considering accelerating the major reconversion program of the Resti-gouche class ships, after sea trials of operating heavy helicopters from the Assiniboine, one of the St. Laurent class, have been satisfactorily completed this winter. In addition my colleague the Minister of Transport has an announcement of importance to the shipbuilding industry.
On our part, we will complete our long range plans as quickly as possible in order that the placing of orders for future requirements will not be subject to undue delay, and in order that the Royal Canadian Navy will have the best equipment we can provide to carry out its tasks effectively.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to the statement of the Minister of National Defence, and we are very pleased

Cancellation of Frigate Program that he has made the statement in the house instead of letting it out through other channels, as has happened during the last several weeks.
We are rather disappointed that this very important matter could not have been discussed by the minister with the committee on defence which was set up for the purpose of considering policy, although the minister did say that we could discuss and talk about policy after he had decided it. With that committee sitting twice on Tuesday and twice on Thursday, it is astonishing that the minister could not have appeared before that committee today and given us this information. Perhaps he will appear this afternoon and give an explanation to the committee.
What the minister has decided and announced constitutes a crippling setback to the navy program. I do not know what effect this is likely to have on the Canadian navy and on its morale. Certainly the impact on the shipbuilding industry of this country will be very severe indeed, because plans had been made for the construction of frigates and the whole question of maintaining the shipbuilding industry is just as vital as providing the ships; it is part of the war effort which a nation has to put forward if it is to be effective.
I wonder what the minister will have to say now in this connection, on the cancellation of this tremendous program, when he recalls to his mind some of the things he said in this house when the aircraft program was altered a few years ago in connection with the Arrow. The hon. gentleman was at great pains to express himself then at considerable length. The committee on defence has now got the truth before it from the former chairman of the chiefs of staff committee.
We shall have to examine in detail the lengthy statement which the minister has made, but I think we can only express regret than an immediate alternative for the Royal Canadian Navy has not been presented today.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I do
not intend to make any comment on the wisdom or lack of wisdom attaching to the particular decision which has been announced, but I should like to join with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in protesting against the way in which this announcement has been made.
The defence committee has been sitting. Ministers have appeared before it. This very matter was under discussion. Yet the Minister of Defence completely ignores the existence of the committee in his announcement today. It seems to me that if the minister


had said something about this decision to the committee he would at least have been extending some courtesy to its members.
It seems to me that the hon. gentleman's approach is part of the wrong way of doing these things. What has happened, apparently is that a piecemeal decision has been made with respect to one aspect of Canada's defence policy. It seems to me announcements of this sort ought not to be made until the over-all scene had been reviewed-and I understood the defence committee was set up to carry out such a review-so that we might determine whether or not a particular program would fit in with over-all strategy. The advantage of this approach would be that alternative programs could be discussed.
We believe greater consideration should have been given to the over-all effects of an announcement such as this. We should have been told what the government had in mind to take the place of the former program and what arrangements, if any, were being made to reabsorb the workers who are likely to be turned out of work as a result of the dropping of this program.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: We
also are perturbed by a number of factors relating to the announcement which has just been made by the Minister of National Defence. One very important point to which reference has been made is the relationship of the defence committee to the whole program of national defence and defence policy. During the past weeks there have been a number of occasions when announcements have been made or reports have been circulated as to changes in defence policy and plans having regard to matters that have been discussed in the committee and about which we received no answer there. Yet we find that in a few days or a short time later public announcements are made regarding these issues.
Along with other members I protest against the way in which this whole matter has been handled by the Minister of National Defence. It seems to me that the committee is being pushed aside and pushed around. It is given some very minor issues to consider, and decisions are made on major issues before the committee can bring in its recommendations.
We have had the assurance this afternoon that the employment factor is being given very serious consideration. I would urge that no interruption in employment be permitted if this change is effected. We recognize that there will be reviews of all these programs from time to time, but we must see to it that the labours and skills of those who are engaged in these programs are used to the maximum advantage not only of themselves but of Canada as a whole.

I believe reference was made to an announcement to be made by the Minister of Transport perhaps tying in with this matter, and we will be interested to hear what he has to say in this respect.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, from the statement made by the Minister of National Defence, it appears that decisions are made by the department, by the minister himself, without the knowledge of the national defence committee. That committee is made up of members representing the various parties sitting in the house. If the minister ignores the national defence committee, what could justify the setting up of that committee?
The purpose of that committee is to inform the minister and help him make decisions. The minister should not come here with statements and decisions arrived at without the knowledge of that parliamentary committee which should have its say in those decisions. And particularly, a department as important as the national defence department, which has to make decisions once in a while for the whole of the country, should not act that way.



On the orders of the day:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence to give him the opportunity to reply which he did not have when we were on motions. Would the minister inform the house why he did not refer to the committee on defence for consideration and advice the plan he announced today for torpedoing the Royal Canadian Navy?
If the minister is unable to answer that question I might direct another one to him. Does the minister intend to refer any of these problems to the committee on defence before he makes a decision?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, first of all I will be glad to answer appropriate questions. Second, may I say I deny categorically the allegation which was inserted into the question of the hon. gentleman. May I remind the hon. gentleman and other hon. members that at various times I have volunteered to go before the committee and give evidence at any time the committee so desired. I have learned that the committee does not wish me to interfere in any way with their deliberations or their plans, and being a true parliamentarian I have tried to abide by this wish. I have tried not to interfere in any way. But my offer still 28902-5-251
Statement on Shipbuilding Program stands. If the committee would like to have me appear there again in due course it would, of course, be very easy to arrange.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. All I am asking is, will the minister answer the question I put to him? Will he refer his plans to the committee for its consideration and advice before he makes a decision?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: This was to be a policy committee.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This question is very similar to one asked some days ago, and the situation has not changed in any respect since that time. If the committee wishes to give advice on any of these matters their advice will be most welcome and will be given very careful consideration.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: A supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister make available at some appropriate time the full story as to the impact that this decision is going to have on the workers in the various shipyards throughout the country who have been counting on this work?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would hope, Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement made today by my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and other plans which the government will implement in due course, that the impact would not be too severe.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question. Does the minister not realize that an entirely different type of work, which is of an electronic nature, is required in naval shipbuilding from what is required for transport activity?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not wish to carry on a debate at this time, Mr. Speaker, because there will be other opportunities for debate, but we are very much aware of this and as I announced today the major reconversion plans may be accelerated, subject to satisfactory trials this winter with just this point in mind that has been raised by the hon. member.



TRANSPORT


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a
statement regarding the shipbuilding program of the Department of Transport over the next few years. The department has completed its review of vessel requirements during this period and is proceeding with the implementation of a program for new ship construction which will cost close to $110 million

Statement on Shipbuilding Program and which will involve the letting of a series of new ship contracts during the years 1963, 1964 and 1965.
Planned new contracts during 1963 are as follows: New weather ship for the Canadian coastguard Pacific ocean station, contract already awarded to Burrards of Vancouver, estimated cost $9 million to $10 million; second new weather ship for the Pacific ocean station, tender call autumn of 1963, estimated cost between $9 million and $10 million; new automobile-truck ferry to operate between Nova Scotia and the east coast of Newfoundland, expected tender call autumn of 1963, estimated cost approximately $14 million; new triple screw icebreaker for the Canadian coastguard for use in Arctic, Atlantic and gulf waters, estimated tender call late 1963, estimated cost $18 million.
Proposed new ship construction contracts for 1964 will be as follows:
New ferry for the Borden-Tormentine service to Prince Edward Island; the estimated tender call is early summer of 1964 and the estimated cost $14 million; new ferry vessel for service between Sydney and Port aux Basques, presently in the planning stage, for which cost estimates are not final but possibly will be between $5 million and $10 million; the estimated tender call is late 1964; four additional vessels for the Canadian coastguard service to replace the old vessels Saurel and Chesterfield, and provide in addition certain smaller tender vessels for use at marine agencies. The new vessels would include two new supply and buoy vessels having icebreaking capacity for eastern Canadian waters, at a total cost of $13 million to $14 million, and two smaller tender vessels, one for the lakehead and one for Saint John, New Brunswick, at a total cost of between one and a half and two million dollars.
It is also expected that a further series of seven marine agency vessels, required by the Canadian coastguard, would be put out to contract in 1965. These vessels, which would be somewhat smaller in size, would involve an expenditure of between $10 million and $15 million.


John George Diefenbaker: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the areas that are going to receive the consideration referred to by the minister will be happy. However, it should be pointed out that this policy is again just a continuation of the policy of the previous government in this regard. We have so many opportunities to congratulate this government for following in the footsteps of the government that they criticized when we were in office.

Beyond that, I might say this is a mere palliative when compared with the announcement just made by the defence minister. That announcement was contemptuous of parliament and showed the arrogance of this government; because they set up a defence committee and then bypassed that committee so it had no opportunity to discuss the matter which it was set up to discuss.
In so far as the present announcement is concerned, I was interested in the ferry announced for Prince Edward Island. I should like to know what has happened to the causeway.


George James McIlraith: The former government did nothing about it for six years.


John George Diefenbaker: So far as the ferry is concerned, that is something we had undertaken, but they will have to proceed with the causeway which they undertook, with us, to complete.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: the announcement made by the Minister of Transport was given in relation to the announcement that had been made a few minutes before by the Minister of National Defence; if it was intended as some consolation for the cancellation of the $450 million frigate program, it will fall far short of an appropriate remedy. In the first place, it will provide less than one third of the amount of employment. Even more to be kept in mind is that many projects which the minister announced are projects which would have been undertaken anyway in the normal course of events. Therefore if the Minister of Transport was supposed to be supplying salve for the wounds inflicted by the Minister of National Defence, it is rather inadequate medication.
I suggest to the Minister of Transport that if the federal government is going to save very large sums of money by discarding the frigate program, it ought to spend this money in the construction of merchant ships. I have never been able to understand why a country which boasts of being the fifth largest trading nation in the world should have an almost non-existent merchant marine. When we consider some very small countries in the world, such as Norway and Sweden, whose ships sail the seven seas, we realize that Canada should be devoting some of this money which has been saved to developing a Canadian merchant navy.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, we are reminded of the saying that we ought to be thankful for small mercies, because it seems that the announcement made by the Minister of Transport falls into that category when we consider it in relationship
[Mr. Mcllraith.l

to the program that has been cancelled. I believe that considerable attention should be given and must be given to the continued expansion of our shipping fleet, our merchant fleet and so on because, as has been pointed out today, we brag about our position as far as world trade is concerned but as far as shipping is concerned we have very little with which to carry on that trade.
I believe that a program of this kind could be related to our defence program, because we were reminded in committee that there will still be need for shipping, for transports and so on, in some eventualities. Therefore, while we appreciate what is being done, we urge an expansion of the program to assist in this way and also to assist in our continued employment program.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it sounds strange to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) announce a decision which will hold back the development of ship building in Canada and entail a decrease of some $300 million in expenditures and that, at a time when the number of unemployed is about to rise substantially.
Mr. Speaker, while the country is facing a very serious economic situation, the government is still making decisions which are directly contrary to pledges made by its supporters not so long ago, that is hardly six months ago.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) just said, the Canadian merchant navy needs help and should be developed, but the government does not seem to realize that.
I therefore draw the attention of the Minister of Transport and of the government to that situation which can be adjusted and which could, in some degree, help restore the balance of the Canadian economy in holding unemployment in check, in creating new jobs and in developing what we can develop ourselves, in our own country.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: 
George James McIlraith: A study of this whole project, Mr. Speaker, is being made at the moment, as I think I announced in the house some time ago. The matter is receiving attention.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport prompted by the statement he made today. In his statement the hon. gentleman mentioned the construction of ships to operate between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. This is, of course, a continuation of the aggressive policy undertaken by the previous administration. My question to the genial Minister of Transport is this. Whereas the minister specifically spelled out the Newfoundland port from which these vessels would operate he only vaguely mentioned the province of Nova Scotia. Am I to understand that North Sydney, Nova Scotia, is not now to be the mainland terminus, as was decided upon and announced by the previous government?


George James McIlraith: I must thank the hon. member for the kindly adjective he used with reference to me; it is quite different from some of the others which have been applied in the last few weeks. The announcement to which he referred spoke of Nova Scotia and the east coast of Newfoundland. I do not know how specific that is, but I can assure him it means Cape Breton.


Robert Muir: The minister mentioned Port aux Basques but he only referred generally to Nova Scotia, not North Sydney which it was previously announced would be the terminus.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps the hon. member would look at the statement again. In any case, I may tell him I hope to announce a contract very shortly.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26 [Translation]
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 26, I move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a problem which has been making the headlines these past few days and which is a definite matter of public urgency.
However, before making my motion, I should like to state my reasons for doing so and say a few words about the present financial situation of farmers in eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, several reasons prompted me to make that motion today.

Position of Eastern Farmers
First of all last week the Catholic farmers' union submitted to both the federal and provincial governments a report on the present needs and problems of farmers in the province of Quebec and in the other eastern provinces.
At their convention which was held in Sorel during the week end, the delegates of the Catholic farmers' union delivered an ultimatum to the Quebec premier and threatened to stop paying taxes if agricultural problems were not solved.
Much publicity has been given to the situation in the press these past few days. For instance, on October 23, La Presse stated:
For the first time in its history, the province of Quebec is faced with a collective move to act in defiance of fiscal legislation, as the 45,000 members of the catholic farmers' union informed Premier Lesage by telegram today, from their convention, that they refuse to pay land taxes.
And in this morning's Le Devoir we find an item entitled:
"The farmers tell Lesage: Change the land tax or else in six months we shall refuse to pay municipal and school taxes."
La Presse of October 22, also published an item under the following title:
-and with regard to feed grain, they want satisfaction and fair play.
In a brief submitted last Friday to the Minister of Agriculture, the Catholic farmers' union and the federated co-operative of Quebec asked for the establishment of a feed grain agency for eastern Canada.
The Catholic farmers' union adds that the agency's general task would be to get satisfaction and justice for this most interesting, permanent and ever increasing market, which our eastern farming industry represents for western Canada.
In the same edition there was another item entitled:
Alleged refusal of farmers to pay tax.
And, in this morning's Globe and Mail:
Lesage faces tax strike by farmers.
And, again on October 23 La Presse published a report in which farmers were said to have decided to stop paying taxes.
Mr. Speaker, there is another difficult situation in existence which differs from the one mentioned in those news items and commentaries, and it is this. In the province of Quebec crops are decreasing in a proportion of 45 per cent, which results in a very precarious financial and economic situation for the Quebec farmers.
Mr. Speaker, the prices of western feed grain are too high when the farmers of the province of Quebec have to buy some.
The western farmers sell their grain at the moment at a price-


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) has the right, of

course, to ask for the adjournment of the house. According to standing order 26 he is allowed to mention briefly the reasons why he wants that adjournment. But it is my opinion that the hon. member for Megantic is now giving the speech that he would make if the adjournment of the house had been granted. In my opinion, he is not allowed to do so and I suggest that you call him to order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), I suggest that the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) has the unquestionable right to state his reasons for making his motion.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I was coming to my motion. I am aware that this situation has been prevailing for a long time, but at this stage it is deteriorating, and I believe it the duty of the house to discuss the matter and find a solution in order to prevent the hardship and hunger now facing both the province of Quebec and all the farmers of eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, here is my motion:
Seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), I move the adjournment of the house, in accordance with standing order 26, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is the necessity for the house to take immediately the necessary steps to help the farmers in eastern Canada before the St. Lawrence seaway is closed to navigation by the ice, which will make it impossible for western feed grain to reach the eastern provinces at a price that would give the farmers advantages they are entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the house- [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other members who wish to offer suggestions to the Chair before I rule on whether this motion is in order?
The motion asks for leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purposes of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and according to the various authorities often cited in this house since the 30th of September 1963, urgency means urgency of debate, and opportunity of course means the opportunity to debate the subject under discussion.
I rely in particular on a decision of Mr. Speaker Michener given on June 27, 1961, which will be found at page 7105 of Hansard for that date, when he said in part:
I accept the proposition that this is an urgent and public important matter to which the Leader of the Opposition draws attention. It is a definite matter of public importance. However, that is not the criterion in determining whether standing order 26 should be applied. The criterion is whether there is an opportunity to debate this matter in an effective way.

Now it seems to me that both on Monday and Tuesday of this week we had a supply motion, and I am informed that again on Monday and Tuesday of next week we will have a supply motion. This matter, although very important and having elements of urgency, nevertheless has-if I may use the expression-been under way for some considerable time, and the member could perhaps have raised it last Monday or Tuesday. I presume the hon. member will also have the opportunity of raising this matter next Monday or Tuesday.
It might perhaps be of interest to the house where I refer to citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which gives the essential element or reason for standing order 26 as we know it here. In citation 100 (8), although it refers to the United Kingdom, the principle is the same. It states:
Standing order 10 of the United Kingdom house, in force since 1882, also provides that a member may propose the adjournment of the house "for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance". On the 13th of April, 1894 a member asked leave to make that motion to discuss "the neglect of the government to take measures for the relief of agricultural depression during the present session". As forty members rose in support of the motion, debate was allowed, but on its conclusion, the Speaker said: "I do not think that, under the standing order of 1882, a motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency either in home or in foreign affairs. But I do not think it was contemplated-if the house would allow me to state my views-that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the house, because, if that was so, we might have repeated motions made by the opposition of the day, not so much in the direction of censuring the government for action which had been taken or not taken, for bringing to notice some grievance demanding instant remedy, as in the direction of wishing to introduce legislation on some particular subject. That is not the purpose of the standing order of 1882, and would, I think, cut at the root of the order".
In view of these authorities and what I have just said, I regret that in my opinion I cannot accept the motion.


Raymond Langlois: Because of the fact that Your Honour mentioned that the matter could be raised on Monday or Tuesday, in view of that reservation I will not appeal the ruling of the Chair but will wait until Monday or Tuesday to discuss it further.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Labour give a report on discussions
Inquiries of the Ministry that have taken place since the trusteeship was set up, and will he be able to give the glad news to the house that Hal Banks has been brought to heel and will now obey the law?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Well, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Banks has been brought to Ottawa, at any rate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Did he come on his own?


Mr. Nowlan:: Did he come or was he brought?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am glad to report to the house that the trustees held their first meeting last night, and as a result of that meeting they issued an appeal to the members of the
S.I.U. to return to work. They have also asked all the presidents of the affected unions to come to Ottawa, where the trustees will have an opportunity to enlist their co-operation in their activities.
I have not had any indication from the trustees as to the results of the conversations they have had with the union presidents, but I am told all the presidents have attended or intend to attend on the trustees.


John George Diefenbaker: Since the appointment of the trustee board does the minister consider it proper that the Department of Transport should be giving orders and directions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Department of Transport did make a request to the ship operators, that is the employers' side of the situation, and did not in any sense trespass upon the responsibilities assigned to the trustees by parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Did not that direction by the Department of Transport ask the shipowners to tell the crews they were to go back to work? Is not that the duty of the trusteeship board?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that on the one
hand the trustees, in their position as quasiunion officers, have requested their membership to return to work. In this instance the Department of Transport, as I understand it, is now encouraging the employers to request their employees to return to work.


John George Diefenbaker: It is pretty little encouragement.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question either to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Transport in relation to the telegram sent out by the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that getting the men back to work ought to be the function of the union through its



Inquiries of the Ministry trustees, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he consulted with the trustees before he sent the telegram to the shipping companies?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. I consulted with the Minister of Labour, but there seems to be a misconstruction put on the telegram by the hon. member, and I am sure this was done inadvertently. The telegram was sent by the Minister of Transport to 28 shipping firms operating ships on the great lakes. Among other things it asked them to "proceed yourself with arrangements to move your ships with your regular crews."


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that the minister is reading part of the telegram, perhaps he would read all of it to the house.


George James McIlraith: I would be very glad to read all of it. The telegram reads:
You are aware that government has established trusteeship over maritime unions. Action is now essential to restore movement of Canadian shipping.
It is government's request that you proceed at once to draw this situation to attention of your crews, directing their immediate return to duty, and also proceed yourself with arrangements to move your ships with your regular crews. Assure you that if needed, full protection will be accorded to personnel involved. Please inform me of action you are taking.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, would the minister not consider that a directive of that kind to the shipping companies would call for some prior consultation with the trustees before being sent?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. The union contracts involved are made between two parties, the unions and the owners.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the point.


George James McIlraith: I sent the telegram to one of the parties. An announcement had been made by the trustees to the other party that they were calling the men back to work, and the telegram sent by me went out to the ship owners, and the ship owners followed this up in some instances by announcements of their own.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that under the direction of the Minister of Labour trustees have been set up to get the men back to work, does he not feel that the Minister of Transport is interfering with the functions of the board of trustees by directing them through the management of the companies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I think both activities are consistent with a co-ordinated effort to encourage the crew members to return, who in one instance are in the relationship of union members to the trustees and who in the other are in the relationship of employees to the employers, to whom the Minister of Transport directed his communication.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton Wesl):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the Minister of Labour sought an assurance from the leader of the S.I.U., or has he received an assurance from that individual, that no more members of the S.I.U. will be directed to leave their ships as these ships dock at their destinations as time goes on?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I sought an assurance from the president of the S.I.U., when he was in full authority of the union, that he would use his influence to have the members return to their ships; I thought that was the first step. In view of the fact that I did not receive any assurance that the men would return to their ships I did not think it worth while to ask him for an assurance to keep men on the ships, because I did not think my request would be any more effective.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. A headline in the Ottawa Citizen says "May summon forces to get ships back". Is it the policy of the government to summon forces to get the ships moving on the great lakes at this time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we have taken the normal precautionary measures one would expect with respect to an emergency which we hope will never arise.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Another supplementary
question to the minister of defence. What are the steps which were taken? Will he disclose them to the house?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the importance of moving grain at this particular time, has the minister taken any steps to get ships to take grain out of Churchill? I am told the last ship left Churchill on Sunday evening and that the port is ice free and that there is grain in the terminal elevators there. If the government, by guaranteeing the insurance, could move this grain it would seem to be a very effective method of dealing with the present situation. I ask the minister, is the government making any effort to move grain out of Churchill?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the government made all possible efforts to get additional grain out of Churchill. As the hon. member knows and understands well, insurance for ships in that area is no longer available, and it does not seem possible to get any shipping in there at this time because it is too late in the season.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Did the government give any consideration to offering to underwrite the insurance if ships would go in at this time?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, because there was no indication that we could get any ships to go in at that time. We did make every effort to get more ships through before the deadline for the insurance was reached.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Justice, whichever is the appropriate minister. In view of the reports of violence against a number of Canadian seamen and further threats of violence, what steps are being taken to provide protection for S.I.U. seamen who are continuing to man their ships, and other seamen who may be engaged to serve on ships now without crews due to the walkout of S.I.U. seamen?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question is to be found in the telegram which the Minister of Transport has just read to the house, the latter part of which indicates that full protection will be accorded to personnel involved under those circumstances.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question. The minister says full protection will be given, but this situation is very serious and it seems to me there should be some further explanation to the house of what this means. Certainly the lives of men are involved. Not only that, there is the threat which hangs over their probable willingness to co-operate.


Lionel Chevrier: I believe everyone on this side of the house realizes how serious the situation is-


An hon. Member:: What about this side?


Lionel Chevrier: And on the other side as well-and understands what is meant by the words included in the telegram sent by the Minister of Transport.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: A supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Justice whether he is investigating the circumstances concerning the beating of an
S.I.U. member aboard a train last Monday
Inquiries of the Ministry night, the man in question having to be taken off the train and put into a hospital at Smiths Falls?


Lionel Chevrier: That matter has been brought to our attention; I have directed the attention of the R.C.M.P. to it, and the matter is now under investigation.



NORRIS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the department reached a decision on prosecutions arising out of the Norris report as a result of the study made for the department by Mr. Robinette and Mr. Martineau?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I might say that as to prosecutions, I can assure the house that this aspect of the matter is being attended to and in no way being lost from view. The steps which are being taken will become apparent in due course, so I think it would be undesirable for me to say any more about the matter at this time.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It has just been drawn to my attention that an East German seaman, one of the crew of an East German freighter in the port of St. John's, who was thwarted in his previous attempt to gain entry to this country, is again on Canadian soil. I wonder whether the minister will consider granting this man temporary entry to the country so this whole matter can be investigated?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say in answer to this question is that this morning my attention was drawn to a report in the Gazette concerning this incident, and instructions have already been given for an investigation to be made. I might be in a position to report tomorrow.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister
394S	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of Industry? Does the minister still intend to bring forward his program to encourage the manufacturing of automobile parts in Canada in spite of the threat of reprisals made the day before yesterday by the secretary of commerce, Mr. Luther Hodges?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry might I be permitted to answer the hon. member's question on the minister's behalf. He has every intention of making an announcement in the house tomorrow.



REPORTED INTENTION TO ESTABLISH PEUGEOT PLANT IN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
[Later:'}
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the automotive industry, and I would like to direct it to the Minister of Industry.
Last week the Minister of Industry took as notice a question of mine which had to do with the Peugeot industries.
Could the minister tell the house if his plan pertaining to the automobile industry takes into account the establishment of a Peugeot subsidiary in Ontario, following the preferential treatment which the federal government is said to have offered to that firm if it decided to settle in Ontario rather than in Quebec?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, we have not been contacted by the Peugeot firm with a view to establishing a subsidiary company in Canada for the manufacturing of cars.



REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Translation}
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. On October 22 I asked a question to which the minister replied that the price of sugar was determined to a great extent by international conditions over which Canada had no control whatever. Does he have another answer to give in view of the fact that, yesterday, the Montreal confectioners' association stated that the Canadian government should intervene without delay in that matter? They claim that the inquiry


on sugar held a few months ago immediately brought about a sharp decrease in the price of sugar.
Could the minister tell us whether there is collusion or not between Canadian dealers and whether he intends to take action?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware of the situation, I am sure, but as I said earlier, the price of sugar in Canada depends to a large extent on the international price.
As for the director of combines investigation, he is keeping a sharp eye on the situation. If he thinks that an offence has been committed, he will immediately initiate proceedings against the guilty parties. As far as the representations that the hon. member has just mentioned, I am not aware of any at all.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
With regard to the increase in the retail price of sugar, could the minister tell us whether he intends to follow the suggestions made in Great Britain, namely that refineries should be subsidized in order to prevent a gradual increase in the retail price?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Quebec East.
[Translation}


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: The Minister of Justice has just answered my question.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce In view of the lamentable situation which now prevails in the sugar market, would the government support the building of sugar-beet refineries in eastern Canada, especially in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: This is surely a question for the order paper.


Gérard Chapdelaine: A moment ago I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and it seemed that he did not answer my question because he did not understand the translation. Can he tell me if he intends to grant a subvention to sugar refineries in order to offset the rise in the price of sugar

at the retail level so that the consumer will not suffer from this unusual condition in the sugar business?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: As the hon. gentleman probably knows, the government has no authority to pay any such subvention.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
Can the minister tell us if the government is still considering the possibility of setting up a national power grid and will he have further statements to make soon in this connection?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have nothing to add to what I said when I made my announcement.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if it is the policy of the government to extend family allowances beyond the age of 16 for boys and girls who remain in school.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, that remains the policy of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Will it be brought up this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will be brought up as soon as it can be arranged.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The morning paper carries a report of a death in Montreal which has been linked with a certain food product which her department has ordered withdrawn from the stores. The director of the food and drugs administration says that some cans of food may contain a poisonous substance.
Inquiries of the Ministry I am simply asking the minister if she has launched an investigation to see how it was possible for this food to evade the inspection service of the food and drugs administration. If she has launched such an investigation, will she be reporting to parliament on the matter?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: This most unhappy circumstance resulted in my department issuing a warning in Montreal, by radio and by press, in respect of a particular name brand of liver paste. The department does not, contrary to what the hon. gentleman appears to think, inspect every tin; obviously this is impossible. There is a spot check only in respect of a very limited group of products.
I did ask, when this was reported to me, whether a very careful laboratory check had been made, and it had of course been done before the department moved at all. I asked in addition whether it was possible to trace the store from which it was purchased, but the tin had been thrown away and it was not possible to even obtain a sample. However, the public was being warned about this particular brand in case any one might have a potentially lethal substance, and asked to destroy whatever stocks they had. The hon. member and the country may be assured that the Quebec department of health and the federal department are working very closely together to make sure that this cannot happen again and there may be no possibility of repetition.



INQUIRY AS TO PROBABLE PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises out of press reports that the price of bread is likely to increase 1 cent a loaf partly because of the rise in flour prices following the Russian grain sales. Is the minister in a position to assure the house that the grain sales to Russia will not result in increased flour prices which, in turn, would lead to higher bread prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot give any such assurance. The price of wheat has gone up a few cents a bushel and I have no doubt the price of flour has gone up somewhat also, but I hope it will not lead to an increase in the price of bread. However, this is not a matter over which the Canadian government has any direct control.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Is the minister suggesting that because the price of wheat has gone up the price of bread should go up, too?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the interpretation many western farmers will put on his statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: If they take that interpretation it is because they listen to the hon. member and not to me.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of the decision to keep the Haines road open. Have negotiations yet been completed with the United States government with respect to its offer to bear the cost of keeping this road open and backbill our government?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know whether or not that is the case. My colleague the minister of northern affairs is co-ordinating this effort on behalf of the several departments of government involved.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder if I could direct that question to the parliamentary secretary-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -or to the acting minister of northern affairs. May I direct the question to the acting minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that if his question is not answered at this time there must be a reason. I did not think it necessary to go into the reasons for not waiting for an answer.


An hon. Member:: Absenteeism.


Mr. Speaker:: I beg your pardon; I did not hear. It seems clear to me that the question asked could not be answered at this time; and that is why I did not insist.


Erik Nielsen: Neither the minister of northern affairs nor his parliamentary secretary are in their places. I saw the acting minister rise to answer when he discovered that his two colleagues were not in the house.


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No notice having been given, I can only say I will be pleased to try to give the hon. member an answer tomorrow.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
view of the uncertainty with respect to civil defence policy, and the changing situation, is the government reviewing civil defence policy and, if so, when can we expect an announcement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The policy is being reviewed. I am not sure when an announcement will be made. I will be glad to look into it and take the matter up with the minister responsible.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the good exercise you let us have on this side of the house.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister tell us which means he intends to take to find the required amounts to meet the government of Canada bonds-which reach the tidy sum of one billion dollars-falling due on or about November 15, 1963?


Mr. Speaker:: This surely is a question for the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: My
question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister ready to tell the house why western farmers receive $1.30 for 100 pounds of oats while Quebec farmers have to pay up to $6.00 for 100 pounds of oats?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: I shall first answer the question the hon. member asked yesterday. The government has instituted a program under which it will reimburse buyers for the cost of winter storage of western feed grains in licensed eastern elevators during the period from October 15 to April 15. This policy is designed to assist in providing an adequate and orderly supply of feed grains for winter needs and it is serving that purpose.
Second, I am assured that adequate space will be available in eastern elevators for


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has answered the first part of the question I asked yesterday, but I should like him to answer the second part as to the price to be paid. Who gets the profit as between western and eastern farmers on these wheat sales and oat sales?



APPEARANCE BEFORE COMMITTEE OF STABILIZATION BOARD OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Mr. Speaker, yesterday on orders of the day the hon. member for Chapleau asked me the cost of the shipment of skim milk powder made available by the government for use in areas affected by hurricane Flora. The agricultural products board's export price for skim milk powder is 7 cents per pound. Therefore the total cost of the donation, presuming all the skim milk powder offer is taken up by the organizations in question, would be $80,500."]
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question directed to me yesterday by the hon. member for Rosthern regarding the appearance of officials of the agricultural stabilization board before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, I can assure the hon. member that I am agreeable to having the officials of the board appear before the committee if the committee wishes.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the answer given by the minister a few minutes ago to the question I asked yesterday. We have had similar answers on a number of occasions to inquiries regarding the standing committee on agriculture. I want to protest the deliberately cavalier manner in which the standing committee on agriculture has been prevented by the present government from fulfilling completely its proper role in parliament.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on agriculture and colonization last met on July 4, 1961 and made its report to the house on September 26, 1961.


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader a question. When is it the intention of the government to reconvene the standing committee on agriculture, particularly in view of the remark just made by the Minister of Agriculture that the committee has not met since 1961? I ask this question in light of the fact that many of us realize there are a number of important agricultural problems that should be looked into. Today several questions of major importance have been asked, and there was also a motion to adjourn the house to discuss an agricultural problem. I think the house would like to know whether the committee is going to be reconstituted almost immediately because it is not enough to say that the Conservatives did not do so either.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do hope it will be possible to make our questions a little more crisp and save the time of the house.


William Arnold Peters: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. These remarks have been made in this relationship, and I am not one-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but will he please resume his seat while I am on my feet? There is no question of privilege. The hon. member must know that questions of privilege are extraordinary incidents in procedure and should be carefully used for real questions of privilege. There is such a thing as a grievance, of course, and opportunities are provided for raising grievances.
I am suggesting to the house, in view of the volume of questions and the desire expressed by all the leaders to shorten the question period, is it not possible for hon. members to state their questions directly, crisply and very much to the point? I did not stop the hon. member because of the motion to adjourn under standing order 26 and because of the rather long statement by the Minister of Agriculture, but I am sure the house could easily apprehend the desire of the hon. member for Timiskaming that the committee be set up as soon as possible, and there is no need to debate the question at this time.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the committee was set up weeks ago by this house. The matter is no longer one for the house, and the time of the house should not be wasted with it. Any member of the

Inquiries of the Ministry committee can have the committee called together any time he will take the trouble to do so.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, yesterday on orders of the day the hon. member for Chapleau asked me the cost of the shipment of skim milk powder made available by the government for use in areas affected by hurricane Flora. The agricultural products board's export price for skim milk powder is 7 cents per pound. Therefore the total cost of the donation, presuming all the skim milk powder offer is taken up by the organizations in question, would be $80,500.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning the efforts made at the United Nations by the non-aligned powers of the Geneva disarmament committee toward extending the nuclear test ban to its completion by covering underground tests. Would the Prime Minister care to say what action the Canadian delegation is taking in respect of this important initiative?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, not offhand, but I will try to answer my hon. friend's question tomorrow.



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does he intend to put on the coming federal-provincial conference's agenda a proposition to amend the Criminal Code, so as to authorize provinces to hold lotteries if they so wish?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, first, I wonder if this is an urgent matter.
Moreover, as the hon. member knows, many questions of that type have already been answered.

There is in the Department of Justice a committee which studies the amendments to be made to the Criminal Code and, in due course, if these amendments are approved by the government, they are submitted to the house. I do not think, though I shall check the opinion I am now giving, that it is the usual practice to submit to a federal-provincial conference amendments to be made to the Criminal Code.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: I shall try to comply with your wishes, Mr. Speaker, by putting my question crisply, and I hope it will not be considered impertinent. I saw the beautiful display of flags on parliament hill today, and does the Prime Minister not feel a little bit ashamed of the fact that we have not got one for Canada?


An hon. Member:: We have one.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Last night the house leader said that on estimates tonight we would have as a stopgap after fisheries either public works or transport. Can he now tell us which one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be public works tonight if it were needed, and transport tomorrow night.



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon for second reading of Bill No. C-95, to amend the Income Tax Act.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the other day we had a statement by the Minister of Finance on the introduction of the income tax bill for second reading. I might say, sir, that it had been my expectation the bill would rather closely follow the resolution which had been introduced. There were certain things indicated in the resolution to which I will refer later, particularly certain allowances for depreciation in distressed areas, and I refer to the figure of 95 per cent ownership in the plant as well as certain other things, which were not included in the bill. One must say that what appears in the bill is certainly a lot more restrictive than what appeared in the resolution or what was said during discussion of the resolution. However, I shall discuss that in greater detail later.

I do not intend to refer to any particular clause, Mr. Speaker, but I noticed clause 7, which I would have thought by now the minister might have included in any resolution because it has acquired a certain quality of semi-permanence. This has to do with certain allowances in lieu of family allowances, that are made to immigrants entering the country, and these allowances are then in the same category as family allowances for the purpose of income tax. This practice has been in vogue, I think, for about eight years. I am wondering whether it would not have been deemed that this is a regular feature of the Income Tax Act. Should we have been told quite frankly that this is going to be limited, or are we going to be faced with the re-enactment of this provision from year to year? I recognize that this is a carrying forward of something that existed in previous years, and it comes under yearly review.
I gather that the main burden of the minister's speech was that Canada faces a very serious problem of deficits on international payments. It was the view of the government -and this was nothing new, because he indicated it had been the view of previous administrations-that the best means of tackling this problem was in Canada selling more abroad. He said that the scope for increased sales seemed to be primarily in the United States; in actual fact I believe he used the term "the North American continent". If that was the objective, I wonder why greater emphasis was not placed on the providing of incentives for increased sales. In fact the one incentive that appeared in the Income Tax Act which was introduced a year or two ago is now being removed. I would like to hear from the minister why, after only a short experience, section 40(a) of the act is being repealed. Even if there has not been the expected advance as a result of this incentive, I think it has been in effect too short a time to show its full impact. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should give us an answer in this regard when he makes his closing statement.
I rather think, though, that if the purpose of the changes in the act is to provide incentives, and in certain cases some disabilities, in order to change the nature of our balance of payments position, the bill now before us will do much less than was indicated at either the budget or resolution stages. First of all, we know that as a result of certain steps indicated at an earlier stage, investment in Canada received a rather serious shock, not only because of promised
Income Tax Act
action on this side of the border but because of action on the other side in the United States.
The minister was quite frank in telling us that at the present time it is virtually impossible to obtain money from the United States in any, shall we say, substantial quantities. There may be exceptions to this, but I know that businessmen who had plans for expansion or promotional opportunities in western Canada have said that at the present time these programs are absolutely dead because of the fear of action which may be taken in the United States. These programs of expansion and promotion are being put aside because of the uncertainty that exists with regard to the precise action that may be taken in the United States.
If it is the case that there is a drying up of money coming into this country, the minister's hopes of changing the nature of investment from equity into bonds will probably not come to realization. It will certainly not come to realization in the foreseeable future, because it will take some considerable time to restore a climate of confidence. Until this climate of confidence is restored there will not be the investment from the United States or other sources into the fields hoped for by the minister.
The other objective the minister hoped to achieve was the changing of the nature of investment from equities into bonds. There are certain incentives to try to change, shall we say, the nationality of investments. I am very disappointed in this bill, Mr. Speaker, because in spite of the difficulties that were pointed out at the resolution stage with regard to investment by Canadian residents, this problem has not been dealt with. Frankly, "Canadian resident" means nothing. What do we mean, when we say "resident in Canada"? Do we mean the 180 days usually envisaged in regard to the Income Tax Act, or do we mean the normal definition given to "resident" in everyday language, that a person makes his usual residence in a country? This is one point of uncertainty.
Again I come back to the point I made during the debate at the resolution stage, that "Canadian resident" means nothing in the context of capital inflow into this country. If the minister had the courage of his convictions in this regard, I think that as he was aiming for a 25 per cent Canadian ownership he should have said "Canadian citizen". I think he would then have been working toward the goal he desired; he would have been taking a step in the right direction. But he has not given any indication of even a first step in this regard in using the expression "Canadian resident" because there are scores

Income Tax Act
of situations in which this does not mean a thing. You have resident managers of subsidiary companies who are subject to recall, and who will hold shares in trust for the parent company abroad. This has been done in many cases. There are many ways in which shareholdings may be in the hands of Canadian residents but this may not mean anything, because behind the shareholding there is a trust agreement which provides that the shares are held on behalf of a foreign principal.
Therefore, in effect, if shareholdings are in the names of Canadian residents who are actually citizens of a foreign country and are here on posting by their foreign principals, I can assure the minister that the majority of them will be on the basis of trust agreements; the beneficial ownership will not lie with the Canadian resident. If the minister thinks that the Minister of National Revenue is going to go looking into all these things, the Minister of National Revenue will have to double his staff. The minister will really be creating an awesome task for his colleague.
I think it would have been better, and the minister would have received much more credit from financial critics and others in this field, if he had in this bill provided for that which he wished to achieve; that is, ownership in the hands of Canadian citizens. After all, 25 per cent means nothing in the majority of companies. In large public corporations it is a major minority holding which may give one effective control if the shareholdings are widely dispersed. But how many companies in this category would be affected by this type of legislation? I suggest to the minister that the majority of companies in this category would be private companies in the nature of subsidiaries-closely held private companies-in which a 25 per cent holding means nothing. There is no influence in a 25 per cent shareholding in companies of this kind.
I raise the point at this time, Mr. Speaker, because regretfully I do not believe the minister's objectives will be achieved with this this type of legislation.
We come now to the question of the withholding tax. I would like to know from the minister whether he has received advice from the law officers of the treasury board, or whether he has received assurances from the United States authorities that with the coming into force of this act with the provision- although it is to be effective only late in 1964 or in 1965-this will not be deemed to be an abrogation of the tax conventions between Canada and the United States. Further, if the effect of this is deemed to be an abrogation of the tax agreement, then does this mean that the full United States tax comes in at up to 30 per cent?

This is a problem on which the minister-should give us some information. He should tell us whether he has got these assurances; because if what I have said is to be, then with the stroke of an amendment, with some sort of a stick which is the counterpart of the carrot that he has provided with respect to this changing nationality of invested capital in Canada, he is wiping away a great benefit enjoyed by those people whom we have attracted with investment to Canada in the past. As I say, this is a very serious problem, and I hope the minister can give us the appropriate assurances. Otherwise he should withdraw his bill.
On the previous occasion I also spoke about associated companies, and I again regret that the minister has seen fit to bring forward this complete blanketing of related companies. While there has been abuse-and I agree there has been abuse in the sort of departmentalization of integrated businesses whereby it is sought to get the benefits of the so-called smaller companies at the lower tax rate-yet this is an essential feature of encouraging local capital and local management, particularly in western Canada. A man who has capital, and who is interested in investing it on an equity basis in developing businesses, will now be entirely discouraged because he cannot go to a small businessman who has got a good thing going but requires some capital, and invest 51 per cent in that business leaving the local man to manage and develop it.
I have seen this done in many instances, and I know of fine Canadian businesses developed in this way. Now, however, everything is going to be lumped together in the hands of the man who is providing the investment capital. The net result is that he is going to keep his capital at home uninvested. He is not going to use it in this way. Certainly he is not going to help the local individual to try to develop his business if the profits are going to be taxed at the 51 per cent rate, because it is not possible to differentiate between the share of profits of the local individual, the minority holder, and those of the majority holder. All profits go in at the same rate.
I suggest to the minister that this whole problem should be reviewed. I am not going into the question of the different tax rates. I am trying to remain within the principle of the bill, but I put it to the minister that I think a mistake is being made, and that in trying to plug certain loopholes he is shutting the door on much more.
This brings me to the further point, and I thank the minister for acceding to my suggestion, that an appeal from the discretion of

the minister with respect to associated companies and the dividend stripping provisions of the bill may now be made to the tax appeal board, though I say this with many great reservations because I do not think this appeal means anything. I would draw to the minister's attention the fact that the Canadian Bar Association also unanimously agreed it does not mean a thing. I am sure the minister has received a copy of the resolution adopted at this year's meeting of the Canadian Bar Association held in Banff, which incidentally I attended. I can tell him there was complete unanimity at that meeting in condemning the reintegration or reinsertion of the discretionary powers of the Minister of National Revenue within the Income Tax Act. The meeting felt that this was a retrograde step, and I can tell the minister there was no political partisanship in this because political supporters of the party to which he belongs were among the loudest in their complaints about it. There was no question of politics at all. It was a matter of principle by the lawyers of Canada that this was a bad feature and should be withdrawn.
After all, all the tax appeal board and the exchequer court can do in this regard is to examine that the minister has exercised his discretion in the manner prescribed by the act, that he has done nothing administratively wrong, but neither the appeal board nor the exchequer court will substitute their discretion for his. We know this as a matter of legal principle, so that the appeal provision is a complete nullity and I am sorry to see the reintroduction of ministerial discretion into the legislation. I know dividend stripping is a really difficult problem, but I wonder whether we are not here paying too high a price for the revenues which the minister deems he is losing through dividend stripping.
There are some comments I would like to make with respect to the increased depreciation incentives which the minister is providing for new industries in the areas designated under the Department of Industry Act. Here, Mr. Speaker, I must crave your momentary indulgence to refer to the fact that these words are used in the bill:
*-the capital cost of all machinery, equipment- and buildings situated in the designated area that were owned by the person-
I come to the question of what is meant by "owned". Is this owned outright? Has it been purchased on time? Is the beneficial ownership with the taxpayer? What is meant by this term "owned"? If I have bought machinery and equipment on a two year basis, simply paying 10 per cent down, do I own the machinery within the meaning of this term?
Income Tax Act
I may have bought it under a conditional sales agreement where ownership remains vested in the vendor until the purchase price has been paid. To all outward appearances I am the owner of that equipment, but in law I am not. The same may apply to buildings and property bought under an agreement for sale. I think we need an explanation in general

we can discuss it in greater detail when we go into committee-with regard to the proposed new section 71 A.
There are a number of other items, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to discuss, but this would be more appropriate at the next stage of the bill. Therefore I will conclude these observations on the principle of this bill by saying that I regret very much that the bill as put forward does not hold the promise indicated at the time of the budget. It is much more restrictive. I would say that the carrots and the incentives, in the tradition of ministers of finance, hold much less promise than do the sticks which may be waved.
I realize that the minister faces a very serious problem, but I think there are means still open to him to accomplish his objectives somewhat more effectively. As I indicated before, if he wishes to repatriate capital he should get it into the hands of Canadian citizens. If you have the courage of your convictions, then why not say so? If you are going to be hung for a sheep, as the minister certainly is at the present time, why come in as a lamb?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this legislation with regard to the Income Tax Act I should like to concentrate primarily on this very difficult problem of foreign ownership and control in this country. We need capital from outside, and we need it badly. We need foreign capital to assist us in our economic development and the attainment of a high rate of economic growth. On the other hand we certainly need a substantial measure of Canadian ownership and control in order to ensure our political survival.
So we have a very difficult problem to deal with, one which, on the one hand, advises us in economic terms that we should encourage the influx of capital from all possible sources outside the country, and on the other hand requires us to discriminate in some way in favour of Canadians, in favour of greater Canadian ownership, and in favour of individual participation by Canadians in the industrial future of the country.
Canada, Mr. Speaker, is a vast country, a country which has tremendous resources in respect to materials. But what it lacks is

Income Tax Act
capital, the mechanical means and the knowhow with which to put those great resources to work. One of the most substantial reasons for our high rate of economic growth and high level of income is the fact that we have had a great deal of assistance from outside in terms of low cost capital. A Canadian putting up money for industrial development today will ask for a return of something like 6 per cent interest on his investment. Foreign capital in recent years, including both foreign held bonds and equity participation, is asking something less than 3 per cent. This is cheap capital, and we need low cost capital in order to develop our country more rapidly.
But more important still, we have year by year been paying out interest on bonds; hence when the over-all return is 3 per cent to these foreigners, obviously the return on equity is down in the order of 1 per cent. The foreign investor in Canada's future has been taking out of this country less than 1 per cent return on his investment here. This is cheap capital. It is the cheapest possible capital Canada can get for the development of its resources, its industries, and for providing more jobs for Canadians. So there is in economic terms an overwhelming case for the encouragement of foreign captial in this country.
The result of this massive investment in Canada by way of low cost capital is impressive in statistical terms. Whereas roughly 40 per cent of Canadian industry was in foreign hands as far as ownership and control was concerned in the late 1940's, the proportion now is more like 60 per cent and it is steadily rising. Two thirds of the primary and manufacturing industries in this country are owned and controlled by non-residents. Roughly two thirds of all the workers in these industries are working for foreign owned and controlled concerns. No other country, at least in modern times, has had such a large proportion of its ownership held outside its domain.
Reference is sometimes made to the position of the United States prior to world war I. Then roughly 15 per cent of its annual income equivalent was owned by foreigners. In this country the proportion is more like 100 per cent. The parallel also breaks down in another respect; much of that foreign investment in the United States was in the form of bonds which would progressively and inevitably be repatriated. In Canada a large proportion of this investment is in equity and ownership and so resides, as long as Canadian law prevails and Canada continues to exist as a responsible nation in foreign hands.
Furthermore, the principal growth industries-oil, chemicals, electronics, and so on-

are in the hands of non-residents. These industries are growing at rates of 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent a year. Only the industries in relative decline to the rest of the economy by and large are still in Canadian hands. This suggests that this proportion of foreign ownership will continue to rise. The big firms, the really large corporations which engage in industrial research, intensive market studies, and so on, are largely foreign. They are growing in size and the great majority are exclusively owned by non-residents. Only one out of four of the large corporations operating in this country sells any equity stock or ownership stock to Canadians.
I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member for Edmonton West, who criticized the 25 per cent ownership provision in the present bill. He said there was no guarantee that Canadians would end up owning much of this stock. Well, at least as a result of this provision there is an opportunity to participate in the equity ownership of large corporations which will take advantage of the tax incentive provided in the present budget.
What should we do in order to effectively repatriate at least part of the ownership of our industries? Repatriate them over the long run, slowly, measurably and in a straightforward, honest and predictable way. We might look to other countries. We might see the examples there. By and large the controls of other countries have taken direct forms. Legislation, for example, with regard to incorporation of firms requires that a sizeable percentage of the equity stock always resides in the hands of the residents of those countries, and legislation requiring that a large percentage of the directors be residents of those countries. The legislation frequently focuses on the resource industries, the basic processing industries and the utilities. These are the areas which are apparently of greatest concern to these other countries which have enacted legislation with respect to foreign ownership and control.
In most of the cantons of Switzerland no foreigner may own land. No foreigner may own registered equity stock. Obviously there is far more stringent legislation in Switzerland with respect to foreign ownership than there is here. France has always been concerned about the participation of non-French nationals in French industry, and in recent years France has endeavoured to convince her fellow members of the European common market, the OECD and so on, that legislation along these lines should be made uniform in all the western European countries with which France is affiliated. In Sweden, legislation provides that not more than one out of every three directors of a company can

be non-resident, and those who are nonresidents must receive the approval of the Swedish board of trade, which corresponds to our own Department of Trade and Commerce. In the United Kingdom, the bank of England scrutinizes each individual transaction with respect to take-over arrangements or alterations to the financial structure of corporations. Changes in ownership involving ownership passing from the United Kingdom to non-residents have not been frequent and before they are approved they have to pass severe tests in the light of the over-all interest of the United Kingdom, politically, economically, and otherwise. In Japan, no non-resident may own more than 50 per cent of the equity interest in industrial enterprise.
In the United States there are numerous examples of control. I will mention just one which is very much in the minds of some of those who operate tugboats, freighters and other vessels on both our coasts. No one who is not a national of the United States may own ships engaging in the coastal trade of the United States. Because of Canada's liberal legislation in this sphere, it follows that United States ship owners can operate up and down the coast of the United States, into Canada and up and down the coast of Canada. They can qualify for the 40 per cent subsidy with respect to shipbuilding and equip themselves with modern vessels with the assistance of the Canadian government; but no Canadian concern can carry on its operations both north and south across the 49th parallel. Thus this type of legislation favours United States ownership and control, and militates against the expansion of Canadian shipping on both our coasts and on the great lakes.
Also, Canadians have come off second best when they attempt to set up natural gas systems, electric power grids and works of a similar kind in the United States, due to the exclusive arrangements which exist below the border. They never receive a hearing; they have no chance of obtaining franchises. In this country, on the other hand, among the remaining utilities there is a sizeable participation by United States interests.
In respect to defence contracts in the United States, which engage much of the industrial capacity of that nation, foreigners are always on the outside track. This is another way in which foreign ownership of United States industry is kept within low limits.
I might mention some statistics which indicate the order of magnitude of Canadian investment in the United States. It is merely a fraction of 1 per cent of all the industry
Income Tax Act
there. It is true that the distilleries, the farm machinery concerns and some other enterprising companies do have substantial investments in the United States, but they are small in relation to the 60 or 70 per cent interest which United States corporations have in our industry here. Canadians have invested several billions of dollars in the United States, but United States firms have ten or 15 times as much invested in Canada.
We must obviously approach this awkward problem with moderation because we need access to this low cost capital. We must not bring in irresponsible measures, but we should at least be prepared to do something to provide an opportunity for Canadians to have greater participation in the ownership of industry in this country. I can think back to the time when my father was a young man in this country. The chance then was less than one in ten that he would work either for big government, that is, for a government department or a crown corporation, or for some big foreign owned corporation. In terms of expressing his own opinions the chances were better than nine out of ten that he would not be inhibited in saying anything he wanted to say. In my own generation the chance is one in three, or less, that a young man will be employed by big government or by a big foreign owned concern. When one works for government one must be circumspect with regard to the expression of political opinions. Large foreign owned corporations do not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of Canada and they definitely frown on their executives expressing opinions, matters of a controversial nature. If things continue to develop in the way they are developing, by the time my children are of age the chances will be 50-50 that they will not be able to speak as freely with respect to political and other matters in this country as I am, and as my father certainly was.
Let us consider the concepts of free enterprise on the one hand and of government initiative on the other. Canadians, in the face of the mounting degree of foreign ownership and control, will, I suggest, instinctively favour government enterprise because it will seem to them to be a Canadian communal effort, an effort having identity with themselves. I suggest they will tend instinctively to discriminate against free enterprise because they will inevitably come to think of it as being foreign dominated, something in which they have no vested interest, something from which they derive no obvious benefit. This hurts our Canadian image, in the sense that Canadians like to think of themselves, I believe, as prepared to take chances, to go out on their own and for opportunities' sake,

Income Tax Act
to forgo the security which usually follows from working in large government corporations, as civil servants, or for some large foreign enterprise.
There is need for some discrimination in our approach to this problem but there is also a need for legislation along the lines I have suggested. We need the capital, and so we must proceed in a thoroughly predictable way, a step at a time, with regard to this aggravating matter of foreign ownership and control. I should like to think that on this continent we continue to have a relatively free market with respect to capital-that goods and services can move freely, with the passage of time, between Canada and the United States; that people can continue to move freely and that money can move freely back and forth. We need this flexibility for our economic advantage but I think we would do well to remember what President Jefferson said many years ago.
His words had reference to King George III. He said:
You can never give to others the power to do something for you without also giving them the power to do something to you.
This is very important, and Canadians must remember this. We obviously have to weigh two great and desirable objectives. One is faster economic growth through capital assistance from outside, and the other is our independence as a meaningful political identity. I am sure we will manage it in a predictable, thoroughly responsible way and I would certainly urge the adoption of this legislation as one significant step down the road toward attaining these twin objectives.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of this bill is to give corporations more scope and more tax concessions. I should like to deal today with only one aspect with regard to which I think Canadian corporations have already been given too great concessions and where in my opinion the departments responsible are not using enough care in examining what corporations are doing. I refer to the right of corporations to make contributions on a deductible basis to organizations which are of a non-profit or charitable nature.
It is not my intention or desire to interfere with contributions made by corporations or individuals to legitimate charitable and nonprofit organizations, but in my opinion this type of exemption is being abused widely. Two examples of what I consider to be real abuse came across my desk, and I presume across the desks of other members of parliament, in the last week or two. I should like to discuss these today.

One organization is known as the Equitable income tax foundation. As far as I can gather, the organization is made up mainly of people who are in the retail business. The president is Mr. David A. Gilbert of Toronto. The vice president is J. C. Munro of Winnipeg and the directors come from Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. I want to read a few sentences into the record from the letter dated October 11 which I am sure all hon. members received as I did. It reads in part as follows:
The Equitable Income tax foundation proposed today that co-operatives and credit unions should be placed on the same tax footing as ordinary investor owned companies. In a submission to the royal commission on taxation the foundation stated that co-operatives and credit unions, primarily because of their preferred tax treatment, are rapidly expanding their share of total business in Canada.
I want to bring this to the attention of the minister.
The foundation, a non-profit organization formed in 1962 to promote the principle of equity in taxation, stated that in the entire field of taxation in Canada it had found nothing to equal the discrimination existing under the present income tax law in favour of credit unions and co-operatives.
They also included a press release dated October 11 and I want to read a few paragraphs from it.
The Equitable income tax foundation proposed today that co-operatives and credit unions should be placed on the same tax footing as ordinary investor owned companies. In a submission to the royal commission on taxation the foundation said that co-operatives and credit unions, primarily because of a preferred tax position, are rapidly expanding their share of total business in Canada and have now reached a size and a level of efficiency that offers formidable competition to ordinary companies.
They also set out their recommendations to the royal commission as follows:
Taxation of co-operatives on net income before deduction of patronage dividends.
Abolition of the tax exemption of new co-operatives in their first three years.
Abolition of the tax exemption of credit unions and caisses populaires, and a requirement that they pay taxes on net profits before patronage dividends.
And tax treatment of patronage dividends in the hands of co-operative members on the same basis as dividends paid by corporations.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I do not question the right of the members of this organization to their views. I do not question their right to make submissions expressing their views to the royal commission on taxation, the government, the Minister of Finance or anybody else, but I disagree completely with their view on the desirability of taxing co-operatives as I believe the majority of the people of Canada do, and certainly as the majority of members of parliament do who

represent rural constituencies in which cooperatives have become so important as a way of helping rural people to make a living.
I believe this organization has a right to its opinions, but I certainly believe it is completely wrong that this organization, which has such partisan political views, should be able to receive contributions on a deductible basis. I think it is the height of arrogance for such an organization in such a fortunate position to be criticizing legitimate organizations like co-operatives.


Mr. Benson:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North aware that contributions to the Equitable income tax foundation are not deductible as charitable donations under the Income Tax Act?


David Orlikow: I can only go by the information I have. I have in front of me a pamphlet issued by the Canadian economic foundation and I can supply the hon. member with a copy of it if he wishes. On it I find these words: "Canadian economic foundation, a non-profit foundation, contributions are deductible".


Mr. Garland:: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of my ground here in dealing with something which is the subject matter of a question by the hon. member on the order paper and which is in the process of being answered. However, in answer to his question, whether the Equitable income tax foundation was given the right to receive contributions which are deductible for income tax purposes and, if so, on what basis was this granted, may I say that the answer, without reservation, is no.


David Orlikow: If the minister would supply the answers to questions when he has them a member would not make a mistake. If I am wrong, then the information I have is incorrect. I put my question in good faith and I do not think I am in a different position from other members. I have questions which have stood on the order paper for close to three months without being answered, although not that one.


John Richard Garland: This question was put on the order paper on October 22.


David Orlikow: I said, not that particular question. I put it on the order paper as soon as I had the information. We have had answers to questions on the order paper twice this week and that question was not answered. If I am wrong, I am sorry; but that is the information I was given.
The second organization, which I have already mentioned, is the Canadian economic foundation. Its head office is at 42 Charles
Income Tax Act
street east, Toronto 5. As I have already said, right on the pamphlet I have in front of me are the words: "A non-profit foundation; contributions are deductible". If that is incorrect, then the foundation is misrepresenting itself to the people from whom it is seeking contributions. The Canadian economic foundation seeks to undermine the labour movement and to thwart social progress with a Madison avenue type of propaganda imported from its United States affiliates, the American economic foundation and the American free enterprise productions, Morton Grove, Illinois.
The Canadian economic foundation is an operation which exists mainly to extract funds from reactionary and gullible employers who desire to fill the minds of workers in Canada with anti-social free enterprise propaganda. This organization has been used by two companies which have contracts with the United Steelworkers of America, namely Joy Manufacturing of Galt and the Toronto Iron Works. It has been used by the Dominion Rubber Company of Kitchener with very disastrous effects on the rubber workers union.
One of their pamphlets boasts that its techniques were used to settle a month old strike in three days. This included explaining the true economic facts of the situation in their plant. In another industry where employees were similarly informed, seven unions agreed to continue working under their old contracts for a period of 36 months without revisions or wage increases.
Now, none of the staff of the Canadian economic foundation are economists with professional training. They claim to be experts in communication, with simplified explanations of economic problems and simple solutions. For example, the Canadian economic foundation blames unemployement exclusively on high wages. It opposes social insurance such as pensions and health insurance that would take business away from private companies into government operated schemes.
This organization moved into Canada only within the last two years, and it is expanding very rapidly. It is now preparing to carry its economic study materials into all Canadian schools. It has already established a strong group in Saskatchewan to fight socialism. It would not be surprising if it were found to be preparing to play a big role there in the next general election. I do not object to that, Mr. Speaker. The government of Saskatchewan has fought the doctors, the insurance companies and many others. I do not object to any other organization, no matter what its name, going into Saskatchewan. However, I certainly object to this organization being classified by the government as a non-profit organization so that contributions to it are

Income Tax Act
tax deductible because this means that taxpayers, including people like myself, are being forced to subsidize this organization.


John Richard Garland: Would the hon. member repeat the precise name of the organization?


David Orlikow: It is the Canadian economic foundation. I shall be glad to send to the minister this pamphlet and other pamphlets which are to be put out very shortly.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have only mentioned two examples. I wonder how many more examples there are in this country? I do not want to burden the department, but I am tempted to put a motion on the order paper requesting a list of all organizations in Canada that have been given this kind of exemption. Then, we could ascertain what is taking place. I know there are many worth-while, legitimate organizations which cannot get this exemption. There are citizens of Canada, trade unionists, making contributions to the organizational fund of the international confederation of free trade unions. This fund is used to develop democratic trade unions in the underdeveloped countries. Contributions to that kind of organization are not permitted as deductions from income tax. I think it is time the government had a very close look at this question of the organizations that are permitted this kind of special privilege, and ascertained how much money this is costing Canadian taxpayers.


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, when he introduced Bill C-95, to amend the Income Tax Act, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) explained that the future of Canada was at stake in view of the state of economic inferiority in which we find ourselves at this time on account of our economic situation. He concluded his remarks with a warning which expressed both his fear concerning the foreign control of the Canadian economy and his hope that such a control would soon be removed so that Canadians would be masters in their own house.
On the other hand, as reported in La Presse for October 23, 1963, the Minister of Finance stated in Hamilton:
Canada must be more independent of foreign capital.
The minister added that we must learn not to depend on foreign capital.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit members are happy to see that the Minister of Finance is so well disposed and especially that he intends to take a step in the right direction. However, he is wrong to think that he will achieve his end merely by establishing a new fiscal policy.

The economic growth of our country is delayed by the heavy burden of taxes which must be lightened. Distinguished Canadians who are not in politics entirely agree with Social Credit on that point. For instance, according to Le Devoir, the president of the Canadian chamber of commerce Mr. Victor Oland, stated last October 8:
Proportionally to national income, per capita taxes have nearly doubled in a little less than 30 years. The strenuous efforts which are being made to remedy this economic malnutrition and which consist in giving transfusions of the patient's own blood, will end up in failure.
There, Mr. Speaker, you have a statement that our own Social Credit group is glad to support, and I do hope that the intentions of the Minister of Finance are along the lines of those of Mr. Oland.
Until now, the present Liberal government and its predecessors have acted as if they were expecting financial miracles to happen so that Canadians could become masters of their own economy.
I am amazed by the fact that politicians who are called upon to take over the destinies of our two nations can be so simple as to believe it is impossible for Canada to create the capital it needs to develop its natural resources.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. In keeping with the understanding reached last night by the different party leaders, may I suggest to the hon. member that he move that the debate be adjourned?


Maurice Côté: I so move, Mr. Speaker.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue) moved:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, communications and other documents received from the government of the United States of America, or any of its departments, or exchanged between the government of the United States of America and the government of Canada, or any of their respective departments, concerning the sale of wheat by Canada to the U.S.S.R., other communist countries and Japan, or pertaining to any representations made about the price of wheat sold to these countries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is for the production of certain documents, correspondence and papers that have been exchanged or may have been exchanged between the government of the United States and the government of Canada or any of their departments concerning, specifically, the sale of wheat by Canada to the U.S.S.R., other

communist countries and Japan, or pertaining to any representations made about the price of wheat sold to these countries. I might point out to Your Honour that I consider the most important part of this motion to be the last section pertaining to any representations made about the price of wheat sold to these countries.
The basis of my motion is published reports appearing in the press to the effect that the United States has strongly protested fixed price sales. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the Globe and Mail of October 10, 1963, carrying a dispatch from Washington. This article reads in part as follows:
The United States has lodged a strong official protest with Canada over the sale of wheat at fixed prices.
Department of agriculture spokesmen, who disclosed the protest yesterday, asserted that recent Canadian actions in the sale of wheat had jeopardized traditional Canadian-U.S. consultations and had undermined the world commercial market practices based on supply and demand.
Parliament is of course vested with the power of ordering to be laid before this house all documents that may be necessary in the view of its members for their information. Mr. Speaker a few days ago laid down a few guide posts concerning the production of documents. He quoted from May's sixteenth edition, from Bourinot and also from rulings made by Mr. Speaker Michener. One of those rulings was that the confidential nature of a document does not constitute a valid objection to its production. The other day when this motion was raised-I believe it was yesterday-the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) invoked the confidential nature of the documents and also stated that the filing of such documents would be a departure from normal practice and contrary to the public interest. With regard to the first point raised by the minister *-that is to say, the departure from normal procedure in regard to documents exchanged between two countries-I submit very respectfully, Mr. Speaker, that in this case there has been a very marked departure from normal practice in the fact that spokesmen for the United States department of agriculture have revealed, first of all, the fact of the protest and, second, have charged that Canada has fixed the price of wheat and has not complied with agreements made on that subject. By that action on the part of Washington, by their departure from normal practice by revealing to the press details that are normally confidential, I submit that it becomes, not contrary to the public interest but in the public interest that all these documents be tabled so that parliament and the people of Canada may have before them the full story.
Canadian Wheat Sales Abroad
The minister himself admitted that there has been a leakage, and certainly he does not take that very lightly. He has also denied that there has been any price fixing. That may very well be so. But at the same time we do have statements from the authorities in Washington to the effect that a protest has been lodged. We also have the statement to the effect that the Canadian government has given assurances to Washington that there will be no further departure from the agreements. We want to know, first of all, whether such a protest has been received, and if so, in what language was it couched? Third, has the Canadian government replied to that protest; and finally what assurances, if any, have been given by the minister and the government in regard to future sales of wheat by the Canadian wheat board
These, Mr. Speaker, are the motives which provoked my calling for the production of these papers. I think their production is completely within the power of parliament. There are precedents for the production of documents exchanged between Canada and other powers. I think possibly the latest precedent was created when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a request last year for the production of correspondence concerning the drug thalidomide. At that time the government agreed to the motion, with the reservation that the permission or consent of the other power be first obtained. As a matter of fact, I think a good deal of correspondence was tabled as a result of the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to which the government agreed. Then again, because of the particular circumstances referred to above, it is certainly in the interests of this house to know about the details of the international wheat agreements and the agreements pertaining to the price of wheat. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that this house should concur in the motion as made.
Before resuming my seat I wish to assure the minister that if he would agree to the motion, subject to reservations in regard to obtaining the permission of the United States government, its department of agriculture or any other department, as far as I am concerned that would be perfectly agreeable. There may be the question that no such documents exist. If these documents do not exist, I would like the minister to give a complete assurance in this regard. I would also like to be given specific assurances in respect to the protest which authorized spokesmen for the United States department of agriculture say was lodged and which they described as a strong protest.

Canadian Wheat Sales Abroad


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was made on October 23 I replied, as the hon. member who has just spoken said, that to table confidential information of the kind requested by him would be both a departure from normal usage in the intergovernmental exchange of confidential information and would not be in the public interest. For these reasons I respectfully requested him to withdraw his motion. Now, for the reasons he has stated today, he decided not to do so and the motion is down for debate.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that an important question of principle is involved here, and it is not a question that I would speak about in quite the same terms as my hon. friend. He cited instances in which these documents had been revealed by the government on request. I can imagine there are circumstances, and have been circumstances, in which it has been in the public interest for documents exchanged between governments to be presented here in the House of Commons, or otherwise revealed. My argument is that these exchanges on a subject such as the sale of wheat and the pricing policies of the respective governments are not the kind of documents that it would be in the public interest to reveal, because it would have an adverse effect upon the Canadian interest and upon the operations, in particular, of the Canadian wheat board.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a question at this point. Does the minister consider that there has been, or has not been, a departure from normal practice by the fact that spokesmen for the department of agriculture in the United States have made the statements they have made, to which I referred a few minutes ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that certain information which we regarded as confidential has been revealed, and I must take it from what appeared in the newspapers that this information was revealed by the United States department of agriculture. But I do not really think, and I am sure my hon. friend would not suggest, that for this reason we should on our part reveal information that it would not be in the interests of either country to reveal.
It may be that the United States officials thought it was in their interest. I do not think it was in their interest, and it certainly was not in ours; and I therefore do not intend to participate in the contest by revealing information that can only be embarrassing to both sides.


Mr. Clancy:: May I ask the minister a question. Will he now disclose to us the price that the Russians are paying for the wheat?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I really think I ought to get on seriously with the question that has been raised by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue when he put forward his motion. Of course I do not intend to reveal these prices. I have made this a matter of principle.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: As a matter of privilege may I interrupt again. Can we assume the reports from Washington are correct?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman has not identified the reports from Washington.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: $1.74 a bushel.


Mitchell William Sharp: No. I shall not confirm that price.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason that I do take very serious objection to this motion is that I really believe it would interfere in the future with the kind of consultations that I consider ought to be going on between our two governments and which have gone on in the past to our mutual benefit.
I can recall when these consultations were begun. It is many years ago now since I was an official and had the privilege of leading the Canadian team that went to Washington to initiate the discussions and consultations on wheat policy. During those years we had very useful consultations, and there were useful consultations more recently when the government of which my hon. friend was a member was in office. I know, from having looked at the files, that these consultations were very useful, and I do not really think it would be helpful to the continuation of these very useful consultations if I were to agree to this motion and were to table documents of the kind that he has requested.
For example, to illustrate the kind of consultations that have gone on, I said in answer to some questions in the House of Commons-and I think also in statements I made on motions-that during the negotiation of the very large contract with the Soviet union the Canadian government, on its own motion, let the United States government know about the negotiations because we believed that it was part of our responsibility to let the United States know that a massive transaction of international importance was under negotiation. Later, when the negotiations were concluded, and when it appeared that the Russians might go to the United States to buy wheat to meet their requirements, the United States government asked us if they could see the agreement and the other documents relating thereto.
That was a very useful consultation. I have looked at the files, after this motion was put on the order paper, to see what documents there were relating to that particular

transaction, and indeed there are no documents. All the documents on the flies are the documents I tabled in the House of Commons when I produced the copy of the Russian agreement and the copies of the various letters that were signed at the same time. There was nothing else.
These documents were handed by our ambassador, or one of his assistants, to members of the United States administration in Washington. I could have stated, if I had wished, to the hon. gentleman that I had been unable to discover documents of the kind referred to in this motion, but I did not want to do that because I believe in principle that documents of this kind which might exist, which I have been unable to discover, which may for example exist in the files of the Canadian embassy in Washington, should not be revealed. To produce such documents would inhibit the consultations that otherwise would have gone on.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Do I understand the minister can give no assurance that such documents do not exist?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right, and I do not intend to give any such assurance. 1 am talking about the nature of the consultations that must go on. Most of them are oral; sometimes they may be written; but whether oral or written, it is only going to inhibit that friendly exchange of information if this kind of motion should be approved by the House of Commons and these documents have to be produced.
I do not think even to ask the United States government whether they would be agreeable to having these documents published would be helpful. As 1 said when 1 made my original statement to table confidential information of the kind requested by the hon. member would be both a departure from normal usage in the intergovernmental exchange of confidential information and not in the public interest. For these reasons I submit that the house should not approve this motion and I respectfully urge the hon. gentleman, when I have finished my remarks, to withdraw his motion because I do not believe it is in the interests of Canada.
However, I should like to speak more particularly about one or two questions which the hon. member put to me during the course of his remarks. He asked me whether any assurances had been given to the United States government about the pricing policies of the Canadian wheat board. I should like to assure him that no such assurances were given at any time. There were consultations, as there have been many times in the past, about the respective wheat policies of the two governments; but at no time has the
Canadian Wheat Sales Abroad wheat board or any official or minister of the Canadian government given an assurance about Canadian wheat prices.


Mr. Pugh:: With this in mind, was any price given to the United States authorities as the bargaining price?


Mitchell William Sharp: No. As far as I am aware we told the United States government exactly what I have told this house-in other words, that the Canadian wheat board sold wheat at the price posted on that day to whichever customers bought wheat on that day. That is the exact information given by the Canadian government and the Canadian wheat board to all who inquire. We do not reveal to anyone the prices at which the wheat board enters into transactions with its customers. It is very easy to look at the posted prices of the wheat board on any day a sale is made to find out the price at which a sale was made. Of course you would have to know what grade had been purchased, in what position, and so on; but if you wanted to know the wheat board prices on that day you need only look at the list.


Raymond Langlois: May I ask a question of the minister. Does he mean he cannot give the price of wheat per bushel sold to U.S. buyers?


Mitchell William Sharp: I know the price because the wheat board has told me; but I do not, because the wheat board does not, reveal that price to anybody. That is a matter of policy on the part of the Canadian wheat board. As I say, it does post prices every day at which it is prepared to sell the respective grades of wheat then on offer; but it does not reveal what has been purchased by any particular customer at any particular price.


Raymond Langlois: Is there any reason for not revealing such a price?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes; because the Canadian wheat board believes it would not be in the interests of its customers, and because it wishes to retain the good will of its customers.


Raymond Langlois: If you will permit another question, if a person wanted to compare prices of wheat for export with those on the internal market, how would he get the two
prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: The wheat board publishes its daily prices every day and he has only to look at the posting. If he wishes to know what price the wheat board sells at today he will find it listed in the Winnipeg Free Press.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the minister care to comment on the charge made by the U.S.

Canadian Wheat Sales Abroad spokesman that the Canadian wheat board sold wheat to the Japanese at five cents a bushel below the prevailing price?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to say a word about this. There seems to be some misunderstanding because of the use of the words "prevailing price". The only prevailing price for Canadian wheat is the price at which the Canadian wheat board offers it. When a remark is made that the sale to Japan was at five cents below the prevailing market price, that statement has no meaning. The fact of the matter is that the price at which the Japanese sale was made was approximately five cents higher-if you use No. 1 northern as the basis-than the price at which wheat was sold to the Soviet union. Since that time the price of No. 1 northern has risen another three cents according to the posted prices of the Canadian wheat board.


David Vaughan Pugh: What about the long term contracts?


Mitchell William Sharp: These transactions by the wheat board, as I have said on many occasions, are made at their offered, posted prices on the day on which the sale is made. Any statement that the sales to the Japanese were made below the market price is meaningless. There is only one market price as far as Canadian wheat is concerned, and that is the price at which the Canadian wheat board sells wheat.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Do the United States and Canada have, shall we say, a gentleman's agreement in that regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, there is no agreement of that kind between Canada and the United States. There is only an agreement to consult. As I said when I was explaining the policy of the Canadian wheat board, which incidentally had the full approval of all spokesmen on the other side of this house who followed me on that occasion, the Canadian wheat board decided to protect its regular customers and in pursuance of that policy did enter into a sale to Japan for delivery over the next eight months at the price which prevailed on the day of the sale.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask if in this particular case there was consultation with the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by consultation. If he means was there agreement-


Paul Raymond Martineau: The minister himself said there was no agreement but that we do consult, so I want to know whether there was consultation, or did he consult?


Mitchell William Sharp: At about the time the transaction was entered into there were consultations proceeding between the two governments.


Mr. Rapp:: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I fully approve of the methods used by the Canadian wheat board for selling grain, but with these long term agreements is there not a clause whereby, at a certain time, say every six months or every three months, the price would be reviewed by the Canadian wheat board and the party to whom they sold the wheat? So far the method applied by the Canadian wheat board over the years meets with the approval of the farmers, except in cases of long term agreements, which perhaps should be reviewed from time to time on account of fluctuating prices on the world market. Would the minister answer that question?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian wheat board is prepared to enter into contracts for early delivery and for delivery over a period of time. It is not prepared to enter into contracts for delivery, for example, beyond the end of the current crop year. It has, however, entered into some contracts extending up to the end of the current crop year, the most notable being the sale to the Soviet union and that made to Japan. The Canadian wheat board has not been prepared to enter into any sales for delivery beyond that date. That is the policy of the Canadian wheat board at the present time, and they believe it appropriate to present circumstances. There are some sales which are for much earlier delivery to other countries; but in order to protect the position of its regular customers during this current crop year it entered into some transactions in which the price is fixed for delivery during the balance of this crop year.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Do I have to go to North Dakota to find out the price at which the wheat board sells wheat to Russia, or are you going to give it to us?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think I have answered this question on a number of occasions. I would not do damage to the Canadian wheat board and I hope my hon. friend would not. I hope he agrees that it would not be in the interests of the marketing of Canadian wheat to reveal the prices at which the contracts are entered into.


Raymond Langlois: If I may ask another question, I might say I am sorry that I cannot get the price of the wheat sold to Russia. They know what they paid for it but we do not. In this transaction, was only the Canadian wheat

board involved or did any of the grain exchanges contribute to this contract, either directly or indirectly?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to that is that the Soviet government employed the private grain trade to act as its agent in its purchases from the Canadian wheat board.


Raymond Langlois: Does that mean that some of the Canadian grain exchanges contributed to the making of this contract?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, they perform services in handling the wheat as between the Canadian wheat board and the Soviet union.


Raymond Langlois: Do we know how much it costs the country for their services?


Mitchell William Sharp: The costs were paid by the Soviet union. I have no idea what they paid.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Does the minister think the devaluation of the dollar helped the wheat board to sell our grain?


Mitchell William Sharp: The devaluation of the Canadian dollar took place before we took office. My understanding of the policy of the Canadian wheat board is that it raised its price in Canadian dollars to the equivalent of what it had been before the dollar was devalued and stabilized, so it did have the result of increasing the return for the western farmers and, I believe, it did have the effect of contributing to the increase in sales.
I could go on to speak of this subject at some length but I think the time I have at my disposal is limited. I would respectfully ask the hon. member who placed this motion on the order paper whether, in view of the assurances I have given him and of the public interest involved, he would be prepared to withdraw his motion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In reply to the request made by the minister, the fact that he has given an assurance that he cannot find any such documents, although they may exist-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. gentleman speaks now I must warn the house that he will close the debate.


David Vaughan Pugh: should like to say a short word on this. It seems we are not likely to be given these documents, because the minister says they are not readily available, and in any case it is not the custom to disclose them. I am inclined to agree with what has been said. However, some good may yet come out of this discussion. It is important, of course, that consultations between Canada and the United States on these matters should be of a confidential nature. Apparently in this 28902-5-252
Canadian Wheat Sales Abroad case somebody shot off his mouth. I wonder whether any steps have been taken at this end, perhaps only in the form of a polite request, to ensure that a similar breach of confidence will not occur again. This is not the first case in which there have been such disclosures. It is not the first case where bulletins have appeared in newspapers after private consultations of an important nature, discussions which the minister himself has said must be kept secret. Why has there been this chatter from the other side of the line? It occurs to me that if the officials here were to take up this matter and lodge a protest with their counterparts in the United States, then the official concerned who made the breach in security would get kicked twice as hard. If we could get that kick across to someone in the United States the discussion today might not have been without value.


Raymond Langlois: I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken, that on a number of occasions we read in newspapers published on the other side of the line information which concerns us, first of all, and it is depressing to find that our neighbours get this information before we do.
The minister told me that the Russians had paid the grain exchanges involved in this transaction. Could the minister tell me whether the sums paid to the grain exchanges were included in the total price of the wheat or whether it was something additional that we knew nothing about.


Mitchell William Sharp: The prices at which the Canadian wheat board made wheat available to the agents who purchased wheat on behalf of the Soviet union were prices at fixed points in Canada. Those were the wheat board prices. The agents who act on behalf of the Soviet union compete with each other in offering to move the wheat from those points to the Soviet union at the lowest possible rates. The estimates I have given from time to time as to the value of this transaction were based on prices fixed by the Canadian wheat board and did not include any of the other charges paid by the Soviet union for moving the wheat.


Raymond Langlois: Was any Canadian grain exchange involved in these transactions?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I understand it, the Soviet union engaged a great many agents and these possibly included some companies which have their head offices in Canada.


Mr. Macdonald:: On a point of order, there are some members on this side who might wish to say something on this motion if the hon. member wishes to proceed with it. I
3S64

Canadian Wheat Sales Abroad wonder if it would be possible to get unanimous consent to allowing the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) to make an additional statement without closing the debate on this particular motion?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I would like to ask the minister if the Russians belong to the international wheat agreement. I should like to ask him to table in this house the price paid at the lakehead for this grain. This is important to us.


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 will be very happy to table the price list of the Canadian wheat board on the day the Soviet union purchased wheat, but I am not going to reveal here, for reasons which I have given on many occasions, the details of the transaction with the Soviet union because I believe that to do so would be contrary to the interests of the western farmers.


Raymond Langlois: We know the price set by the wheat board. It fixes the price. Is it possible to obtain information as to what the grain exchanges, whether Russian or Canadian, received in connection with this deal? If the commission were too high, that might influence some of our sales abroad. Can the minister say what the commission was? I should like to know if it is possible to get information about their profit on this sale.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the western farmers did very well out of this transaction and I am happy to be associated with it. The question the hon. member is asking is what commissions were paid to various agents of the Canadian wheat board and of the Soviet union. I am not in a position to give this information.


Raymond Langlois: Even with regard to internal transport from western to eastern Canada, we want to find out how much profit the grain exchanges made on this transaction. If it were excessive it might be one reason why some of the contracts have fallen through in the past ten years.


Mitchell William Sharp: This cross-examination must be very irregular. I suggest that these are the kind of questions which ought to be directed to the Canadian wheat board when representatives of the board appear before the committee on agriculture. I do not think it is fair to ask a minister for information in this detail on the kind of motion we have before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid I shall have to call the attention of the house to the procedure we are adopting here. I feel this is extremely irregular. Maybe we can get back to the point at issue.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask another question on this subject. I have not had an opportunity to do so and I think it is only fair and proper. Statements have been made by the minister concerning the wheat price on the day on which the sale was made to Russia. I have not got the exact Winnipeg wheat price in Canadian funds but I do have the March futures price at Chicago, which was $2.08. In Canadian funds that means about $2.20 a bushel. I should like to have the attention of the minister. Taking the price which was leaked from Washington of $1.74 at the lakehead, the difference between $1.74 and $2.20 is 46 cents a bushel.
When I came back to the house on the 30th of September I asked the minister what sacrifice had to be made in order to close the wheat deal with Russia. We all know that when a buyer walks in to buy a million bushels he will pay a certain price. He might pay the price of the board on that particular day, to which the minister keeps referring. But if he is buying 227 million bushels he will ask for a better price. I think I was perfectly within my rights on that occasion to ask the minister what sacrifice had been made in order to close the deal with the Russians.
I have given the minister the figure for the U.S. March future which, after taking the exchange rate into consideration, means a spread of about 46 cents a bushel. I would hope there was not such a spread but we are not getting any information from the minister. I think we are going to have to keep at this thing until we get some indication because the farmers of the west are asking for the information. My mail is full of questions as to what the price was and how it is related to the price of $1.74 which was leaked from the United States. I can tell the minister now that if he sold the wheat at $1.74 there will not be a Liberal elected west of the great lakes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must remind the house again that the Chair has been very lenient in the argument that has been going on. I want first to remind the house that we are not in committee at this stage. Second, I want to remind the house that this is not a question of the operation of the government or the operation of the wheat board but rather a question of whether the papers referred to in the motion should be tabled. I think we should confine our debate to the question before us.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the

Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does he remember that last year-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. If the hon. gentleman is rising to make a speech on the motion I will be pleased to hear him, but I feel I cannot permit a series of questions as if the house were in committee.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I will make a few brief remarks in the form of questions.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the fact that last year, the then minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), when asked the price of the wheat sold to China, always replied that he did not want to reveal it because such disclosure might affect the transactions of the Canadian wheat board with foreign countries. At that time, all the Conservative members strongly supported the stand taken by the minister of agriculture.
That is why, I wonder through what mental process or acrobatics those same Conservative members can insist so strongly today to know the price of the wheat, when they always refused to give such information themselves.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether any other member wishes to speak on this motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to suggest that if the hon. member is not going to withdraw his motion other members on this side of the house would like to speak. Perhaps the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue could speak on the point of order to indicate whether or not he wishes to proceed or whether it will be necessary for us to continue the debate.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rosedale, I should like to make the following remarks. First of all, I think that the statement made by the minister has been very helpful and has certainly thrown a lot of light on this situation. I wish to thank him for his statement and also for the assurances he has given in regard to the existence or non-existence of the documents. Because of those assurances I am quite agreeable to withdrawing my motion.
28902-5-252J
Private Bills


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
house agreed that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue should withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-36, respecting The Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to move the second reading of Bill No. S-36, an act respecting the Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists. In the township of Darlington at the westerly extremity of my riding we are pleased to have many members of this church, and in the city of Oshawa, only a block or two west of the westerly limit of my riding, is located the administrative offices of the Seventh-day Adventist church in Canada as well as a large modern new church and a college.
The Seventh-day Adventists are known throughout the world for their missionary work not only in the spreading of the gospel but in the practice of medicine, the administration and construction of hospitals and general assistance to mankind, both spiritual and material, in all parts of the globe. The Seventh-day Adventist church is a Protestant Christian denomination. The movement had its beginning early in the 19th century and the church was officially organized in 1860. Today members of this church are found everywhere across our nation and there are over a million and a quarter members around the globe.
Hon. members will have studied the bill now before the house and I will not go into details with respect to its provisions. The bill amends the legislation enacted in 1955 which created the Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, which is the corporate entity representing the Seventh-day Adventist church in Canada. Clause 1 of the bill changes the somewhat cumbersome name of the Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists to the shorter name of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada or Eglise Adventiste du Septieme Jour au Canada.
Clause 2 removes the limitation on the powers of the corporation to hold land. Clause 3 enlarges and clarifies the powers of the corporation in connection with the printing

Private Bills
and distribution of works for religious education, art and science. Clause 4 of the bill makes it clear that the regular general meetings of the corporation need be held only once in every four years. Thus, the general meeting may then be held at the same time as the quadriennial general conference of the church.
Generally then, Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to update the legislation, to bring it more into conformity with general corporate practice as well as with the current requirements of the corporation, if it is to function as efficiently as possible for the church which it represents in Canada.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the change in name and the acquisition of the French name, which is a simpler one than this organization had before. Could the hon. member who has just resumed his seat possibly give more information as to when this organization was started and the provisions for the acquisition of land by the corporation? Does the corporation intend to extend its land holdings, and how much does it hold now? I should like some more information about the financial aspect because the religious aspect does not concern me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I should advise the house that if the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate.


Russell Clayton Honey: I thank the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) for his question. As I mentioned previously, this corporation, the Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, was incorporated in 1955. As I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, provision was made in the act of incorporation for the holding of land by the corporation. If this bill is referred to the standing committee, perhaps I can get my hon. friend more precise information. Now, like many corporations of a religious nature, with charitable and religious objectives, there was a limitation on the power to hold land in the incorporating statute. From time to time permission has been granted by the other place for the enlargement of the land holdings by this corporation.
As I understand it now, clause 2 of this bill will make it possible for this corporation to acquire other lands and generally to extend its holdings throughout Canada without the necessity for coming back to obtain legislative authority. This will give the corporation authority to acquire and hold land.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. May I remind the hon. gentleman that the (house was warned that if the hon. member
[Mr. Honey.)
for Durham spoke he would close the debate. Therefore, I cannot allow any further debate on this question.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Mr. MacNaughi:: I suggest that by unanimous consent we call it six o'clock because it would be unfair to ask any hon. gentleman to start on his bill in the few minutes left at our disposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it
agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order, house again in committee of supply, vote No. 1, Department of Fisheries.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration. $461,000.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall item 1 carry?


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, in introducing the estimates of the Department of Fisheries this evening it is my intention to make a few remarks in connection with the work done by my department. First I would like to say a few words as to the present standing of the fishing industry. In 1953 Canadian commercial fishermen landed about 1.8 billion pounds of fish and shellfish, valued at $91 million. In the succeeding ten years landings showed an upward trend which, however, was not consistent from year to year. The annual variations within the trend were largely accounted for by the output of the British Columbia herring fishery and the Newfoundland cod fishery. Despite the rather uneven course of annual landings over this period there was a discernible growth in the value of such landings-that is, in the gross returns to fishermen-and by 1962 this had reached almost $130 million, an increase of $41 million in a period of approximately ten years, or an increase of 43 per cent, most of which was recorded in the last three years.
This satisfying expansion in gross returns to fishermen in the last few years is based,

however, upon a general increase in the prices of the important species, which in turn has resulted from the growing demand for fishery products, principally in Canada and the United States. As we all know, about 80 per cent of the production of Canadian fish processing plants is consumed on this continent, so there is no doubt of the importance of North American consumers to the Canadian fishing industry. The value of exports to the United States in 1962 was $114 million, which is about half of the plant or commercial value of the fishery products of this country. The size of the North American market for fishery products is often described by reference to estimates of per capita consumption of 13 J pounds per person in Canada and about 11 pounds in the United States at the present time. As I have mentioned in this house in previous years, I do not think we should be satisfied with such a limited consumption of fish per capita in a country where the fishing industry is of major importance. We all know that these averages have been quite stable for several years, and this stability is sometimes cited in support of the pessimistic views about consumer acceptance of fishery products on this continent.
With the north American population growing at an annual rate of about 3.5 million, however, the per capita figures obscure an absolute growth in fish consumption of 40 million to 45 million pounds of products each year. This increase in the demand for fishery products requires, on the basis of rough estimation, an additional 80 million to 90 million pounds of raw material. These estimates indicate the magnitude of the additional supply of fish and shellfish required by north American consumers each year and the need for an increased production. The strength or weakness of the continental market has an obvious implication for the Canadian fishing industry. Thus far 1963 has followed the pattern of recent years. Landings for the first eight months are estimated to be 77 million pounds larger than in the same period of 1962. The landed value, however, is about $4.5 million less. On the surface this would seem to contradict what I said earlier about the course of prices. However, the drop in value is attributable principally to the restriction of the salmon catch in British Columbia during the industrial dispute which took place a few months ago. The value of British Columbia salmon landings alone, up to August this year, was $6.6 million less than it was in the first eight months of 1962. This is also reflected in the size of the total pack, which is 1.2 million cases this year as compared with 1.8 million cases last year. This gives only a partial picture of the effect this strike had, not only on
Supply-Fisheries
the value of fish production in British Columbia but also on the total economy of that province, which it is estimated has lost well over $10 million. In the Atlantic provinces landings for the first eight months of this year were 48 million pounds larger than in the same period of 1962, and the landed value increased by $3.6 million. These figures represent a continuation of the trend referred to earlier, and which is at least part of the reason for the investment activity which has been pronounced in the region over the last 18 months. Several new plants have been built in Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, and others are under construction in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Nineteen large trawlers, over 100 feet in length, have been added to the ground fish fleet, and 11 large draggers to the scallop fleet in the same period.
The demand for fishery products has not only led to higher prices for the additional traditional Atlantic species, but also to efforts to capture and market new species such as the porbeagle and tuna. I am sure all hon. members of the house know what a porbeagle is. It is what is commonly called the mackerel shark. This trend may well continue as more and more effort is exerted upon traditional stocks of ground fish not only by the expanded Canadian fleet, but also by those from other countries.
As hon. members all know, the principal commercial fisheries in Canada are found along our extensive sea coasts. Some of the resources, such as lobster on the Atlantic coast, are localized in areas close to our shores. Others, such as cod, roam over wide areas of the Atlantic ocean in the territorial waters of Canada, as well as hundreds of miles out to the edge of the continental shelf. These fisheries on our east coast have been exploited for several centuries by the fishermen of Europe and the United States, as well as by those of Canada.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Chairman-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Similarly, on our Pacific coast the fishery resources-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: What I suggest is that the minister have unanimous consent of the house to have his speech printed in Hansard, and get on with the business of the house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Well, Mr. Chairman, 1 know the hon. member is keenly interested in the fishing problems of our country-


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I certainly am.
39S8

Supply-Fisheries


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -and I am sure he would be willing to change his mind and listen to the few remarks I have to make. As I said, similarly on our Pacific coast the fishery resources on which the Canadian fishing industry depends are accessible to foreign fishermen far beyond Canadian territorial waters. Means must be found to provide adequate protection for these resources so as to assure a sustained yield to present and future generations of Canadian fishermen. For this purpose the government has taken steps to establish a 12-mile exclusive fishery zone along the whole of Canada's coast line, and to implement the straight base-line system as the basis from which Canada's territorial sea and the exclusive fisheries zone will be measured.
Because of treaty rights of certain countries and claims to historic fishing rights of others, discussions with the interested countries have been initiated, with the view to determining the nature and extent of the rights and interests which may be affected by the action which Canada is taking.
As the Prime Minister indicated in his statement last June, it is our hope and belief that we will be able to reach agreement with such countries on mutually satisfactory arrangements.
However, as I mentioned above, resources harvested by Canadian fishermen are also exploited by fishermen of other countries or are accessible to them in the high seas many miles beyond the 12-mile fishing zone. It is therefore necessary to reach agreements with the countries concerned for the protection of these resources. In addition to several treaties which we have with the United States on management of fishery resources of common concern, Canada is a party to two multilateral conventions of great importance to the fishing industries on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada.
On the Pacific coast, the north Pacific fisheries convention between Canada, Japan and the United States, which was brought into force in 1953, has come up for revision at the request of the Japanese government. As I have already informed the house, two conferences have been held, one in Washington last June and the other in Tokyo last month. So far it has not been possible to reach full agreement on a revision which could be accepted by the three countries, but as I reported in my statement to the house on October 9, the Tokyo meeting recessed with a feeling of optimism regarding agreement on a mutually satisfactory convention. The government is hopeful that the recessed conference may be held in Ottawa next spring,

and is taking appropriate steps for that purpose. In the meantime, and I want to emphasize this, the present convention remains in force.
On the Atlantic seaboard the problems of conservation of the resources harvested in the high seas adjacent to our waters are being taken care of by the northwest Atlantic fisheries commission, composed of representatives of 13 nations who are parties to this convention. At the last meeting in June of this year of the commission, on the initiative of Canada an amendment of the convention was proposed, which would make possible the establishment of control measures in the enforcement of conservation regulations.
In the great lakes the lamprey control program of the great lakes fishery commission continues to show encouraging results. In lake Superior over 80 per cent control has been obtained and there are signs of recovery in the important lake trout population. Extension of the control program in lake Michigan and lake Huron is to be continued. Progress made by the commission since its establishment in 1955 is to be reviewed by the contracting parties this year, to determine the desirability of continuing, modifying or terminating the convention, and we are hopeful that the results so far will mean we will carry on with the work which to date has proven so successful.
I wish to speak for a few moments on the modernization, mechanization and expansion of the fishing industry. Many fishing nations are making tremendous progress not only to increase the fishing efficiency of their respective fleets and to expand their fishing operations, but to improve the working conditions of their fishermen, ensure their safety at sea and also improve their earnings.
Just as other industries are moving into the age of electronics and automation, so is the fishing industry. Today even small boats are installing electronic equipment, while the larger deep sea fishing vessels are becoming complex units with electronic navigation, fish-finding and communication equipment, as well as remote control systems and automatic pilots. This in turn means that the need for vocational training within the industry is assuming a position of critical importance.
Recently we have seen where the department's activities in co-operation with the provinces have resulted in the introduction of synthetic fishing gear on the Atlantic coast. Thousands of fishermen who have been engaged in traditional fishing methods are changing to a new type of fishing operation which is resulting in an increase in their per capita landings.

Studies are now being conducted aimed at providing fishermen with an improved design of inshore boat featuring maximum safety, and which will enable a more effective prosecution of the inshore fishery. The department is encouraging the development of a commercial tuna fishery on the east and west coasts, which it is hoped will ultimately lead to the establishment of a permanent tuna fishery in Canada.
The technical services of the department are being made available to the provincial fisheries administrations and to the fishing industry in an increasing extent. Any provincial or industrial enterprise encountering problems in any phase of the fishing industry is invited to seek technical advice from the department.
In addressing the annual meeting of the Fisheries Council of Canada on April 24 last, a few days after resuming the office of Minister of Fisheries, I announced that I proposed to call a federal provincial conference on fisheries development. I then wrote to the ministers responsible for fisheries matters in all ten provinces inviting them to participate in such a conference. I asked the ministers to submit any suggestions they might have for agenda items to be considered at such a conference. I received a most enthusiastic response from all provinces and a long list of very useful suggestions. Earlier this week we had the visit of the minister of fisheries for New Brunswick and his deputy minister. This morning we had with us the minister of industry for the province of Prince Edward Island and his director of fisheries, and both have presented their views and suggestions for this conference.
On this basis, arrangements have been made for the conference, which is now scheduled to take place in Ottawa during the week of January 20, 1964. At this conference all aspects of federal and provincial fisheries administration having a bearing on development of the industry will be discussed. It will be our objective to work out with the provinces the best possible approach to provide those services which are necessary to encourage expansion and development of the industry. It will be our endeavour to overcome impediments to development wherever or whatever they may be. The Canadian fishing industry has made real progress over the last decade, but I am convinced that with a co-ordinated program and encouragement a great deal more can be done toward fully utilizing the sea and fresh water resources available to us. The business of catching, processing and marketing fish is a responsibility of private enterprise, but governments through research, the discovery,
Supply-Fisheries
testing and demonstration of new techniques, the provision of vocational training as required and in other ways, can play a part in achieving maximum results. In the meantime I have been fortunate in having had the opportunity to discuss those questions personally with most of the provincial ministers concerned. I have no doubt whatever that this first national conference on fisheries will prove extremely useful to all concerned and that the national development program which will follow will result in an unprecedented expansion for Canadian fisheries.
The estimates for the department's conservation and development service are, of course, mainly designed to cover normal supply, replacement and maintenance of the protection organization and the established programs in fish culture. These programs are essential for the maintenance of our fisheries and must be continued vigorously. I am sure that most hon. members know of the important work that is being carried out in Canada by the fisheries research board. These research activities fall into three main categories, and broadly may be summarized as research in aquatic biology dealing mainly with fish, research in oceanography and limnology, and research in fisheries technology.
Without going into the full operations of the board at this time I should like to point up some of the work that is being carried out. This year a spring survey was conducted of distribution and abundance of Pacific salmon in the open waters. This shows promise of having real value in forecasting supplies of salmon by species and area on the British Columbia coast which would be of great value to fishing operations.
Expansion of fisheries research has been possible during the past few months through the activities of the board's research vessel, the G. B. Reed, in the Pacific ocean. In its first year of operation the vessel explored potential fishing areas for ground fish and crustaceans in the north gulf of Alaska. A continuing study is being carried out of the oceans as a home for fish covering such subjects as seasonal and year to year variability in temperature and salinity, etc., and the board's work in this field is co-ordinated with other government departments and universities through the Canadian committee on oceanography.
Fisheries research presently going on in Atlantic coast waters includes bottom surveys, which are providing useful forecasts of stock concentrations as a guide to fishing places and times. Studies on the processing of inshore cod in the Newfoundland area has

Supply-Fisheries
been concentrated and given new direction. The physiological condition of fresh caught fish is found to have an important effect on the shelf life and taste of the final products. Methods of impounding the cod to avoid seasonal gluts, pasteurization by gamma irradiation, freeze drying, and a freeze-thaw-refreeze sequence are all under study.
New products, such as fish sausage and fish pancakes, have been developed from freshwater species in the technological laboratories of the board, and these processing methods are now available to processors for commercial use. A new method has also been developed for producing protein concentrate, commonly called fish flour, which has resulted in a product acceptable as human food. The raw material employed in the production of this product can be fish that are of little use at present, or materials that are now being discarded.
Only through maintaining the highest quality in fish and shellfish products can sales be increased at both the domestic and export levels. The department, in co-operation with industry itself, provides inspection services for this purpose. I am happy to report that there has been a continued increase in the acceptance by industry of the voluntary inspection of fresh and frozen fishery products under the Canadian government specification board standards. Consumers also appear to be more aware of the assurance of highest quality given by the maple leaf design on these inspected products.
The Canadian scallop industry has grown at a very rapid rate during recent years. In order that this industry may maintain its reputation for high quality, standards for scallop meat were established following consultation with industry. Compulsory inspection of scallops, including the plants in which they are processed, is now in effect. Further inspection measures have been introduced in other fields.
So that a better service can be given to the inspection of fishery products in northern British Columbia, a permanent fish inspection laboratory service has been made available at Prince Rupert. Because of the very high price attained by lobster, there has been over the years a problem of illegal fishing and processing of this species. The intensified efforts of the department's protection officers coupled with the added check by fish inspection officers appears to have greatly curtailed this illegal operation. An education program has been introduced which has had some result, but I am not satisfied that we have gone far enough. It is our intention to introduce a more practical and effective education program which we hope will reach the fishermen concerned and make them aware
that we are introducing such protective measures for their own benefit and that of future generations. The department is continuing its program of consumer education to bring about a greater use of fish and fishery products in Canadian homes and institutions, and other establishments which cater to group feeding.
Thousands of individual copies of fishery consumer publications are distributed annually by the department's home economists who are strategically located across Canada, and the large number that are requested indicate a growing interest in the use of fish in regular menus. That there is much more interest in using fishery products is also reflected in the number of Canadians who have purchased from the queen's printer the department's large consumer publication entitled "The Canadian Fish Cook Book". This book now going into its fourth printing in English and third in French is one of the queen's printers best sellers.
Audio visual aids, such as film strips and slides, are being widely used by the department to interest and educate the consumer about fishery products, and a stepped up program in this field is being contemplated. At the moment the department has over 550 consumer film strips of five different titles in circulation. The excellence of these film strips which have been produced by the national film board for the department is evidenced by the fact that three of them have won awards at the American film festival in competition with others from many other countries.
Another way in which the department continues to interest those responsible for planning menus to use more fishery products is by the attendance of its home economists at hotel, restaurant, home economic and dietetic conventions. Consumer displays are manned by home economists at these events.
The evolution of fishing and processing methods in various fisheries fields has been spurred in a significant manner by the activities of the department in collaboration with other fisheries agencies, and it is planned to speed the reporting of these new findings to the attention of primary producers through publications and by visual means when possible. Coupled with this will be a greater use of instructional and educational material among fishermen both in printed form and through displays at exhibitions and other events frequented by those in the fishing industry.
In order to keep pace with rising construction costs, the upper limit of value for vessels eligible to come under the low cost insurance of the fishermen's indemnity plan has been increased from $10,000 to $12,500. This plan

has been widely accepted by fishermen. Currently 6,634 vessels valued at $22.5 million are covered. Over the ten years of operation, indemnity payments under the vessel plan have exceeded premium revenue by $126,000 or only $12,600 per year despite the low premium rate of only 1 per cent of appraised value.
This has been but a brief look at some aspects of Canada's fisheries and the efforts that are being made to place this great industry on a sound financial footing so that it may make an even greater contribution to the welfare of the thousands of our people who look to it for their livelihood, and to the nutritional well-being of Canadians.
However, in concluding, there is one further aspect to which I should like to refer for a moment and that is the human element-the fishermen who reap the harvests of the oceans and of our lakes. It is with deep sadness each year that we see men going down to the sea never to return as both our coastal waters and the deeper depths take their toll of lives. It is a tribute to the courage and hardihood of our fishing force that their ranks continue to be strong and enduring. This is a sobering thought, but it is one that urges us to continue our efforts in those fields which will lead to development of fishing craft and gear and other vital equipment which will bring greater measures of safety, comfort and remuneration to our fishermen.
I may have spoken at some length but I felt this was an occasion to put before members of the committee some of the work which has been done by my department. We have in the Department of Fisheries a number of devoted civil servants who have the interests of the fishing industry at heart. As the estimates proceed, I will be in a position to answer the questions which will be put to me by hon. members.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman,
first, I wish to congratulate the minister upon his opening statement. I must say it is an experience one always remembers to have the first opportunity of presenting estimates as a minister of the crown, before the committee of the whole.
In his closing remarks, the minister referred to the devoted services which the officials of the Department of Fisheries have given to Canada over the years. If I may digress for a moment, I should like to point out in passing that these estimates were prepared under the direction of the former deputy minister, Mr. George Clark. It was his expectation that he would be the adviser to the minister concerned when they were being piloted through the house. We are all 28902-5-253
Supply-Fisheries
aware of his untimely and sudden death in Tokyo while in the service of the department and I think all members of the committee would wish to join with me in expressing sympathy to his widow and children. I should like to mention, also, that in common, I think, with all members of this committee I wish his successor every success in the duties which fall to him in this important field, the fishing industry in Canada. He has with him one of the finest groups of civil servants of which any country could boast in the fishing field and it is a credit to us that the chairman of the fisheries research board, who recently retired from that position, has gone on to another very important position in the United States. I wish his successor, too, every good fortune in his new responsibilities.
The estimates which have been presented and which are being examined by the committee tonight are, of course, the estimates which we prepared when I was the minister responsible for the department. They were approved by the treasury board of the government of that day as well as by the government itself. We approved them then, and I speak on behalf of the official opposition when I say we approve them now. We have no intention of prolonging the examination of these estimates on this occasion. I might say, though, that the minister is fortunate tonight, because I suspect this is the best set of estimates he will ever have the honour to present.
All this is not to ignore the responsibility and the opportunity of directing the attention of the committee and, perhaps, of the country, to the important problems which face our fishing industry at the present time. As the proceedings go on, one or two other members of this party will be making brief contributions to the discussion. We reserve the right to take full part in any debate which may develop, should the proceedings be drawn out by members of the committee in other parties.
There is another reason why my remarks will be brief. Because this is an election year we are now far advanced in this fiscal year to which these estimates apply, and eight twelfths of them have, in fact, been granted already by means of interim supply votes. Though this does not limit the right to debate them fully, it means we are far advanced in the fiscal year and the estimates for 1964-65 which are, no doubt, now in the course of preparation are really more current than are the ones we are examining at the present time. In addition, these new estimates should be before the committee, I would think, in the early winter months. At that time we will have an opportunity to examine in more detail the indications of any changes in policy which may have resulted from the views of

Supply-Fisheries
the new government and they will be judged fairly, we think, but on their merits, be they good or bad.
In passing I want to mention a general subject which the minister has dealt with having to do with the importance of the fishing industry in Canada. The fishing industry in Canada has been remaining fairly constant over the last few years, in common with those of some of the other important fishing countries of the world, but in terms of percentage of the world's fish catch Canada is dropping down. This is partly due to the natural development of some of the highly populated countries of the world. Great strides have been made in those countries in developing means of reaping the resources of the seas as a source of protein food.
But this brings into focus perhaps the most important problem of the industry. The living resources of the sea, unlike almost any other natural resource, are common resources. They are owned in common not only by the people of one country but by those of all countries of the world-in other words, by humanity as a whole. One of the great problems that has to be solved in the future is the finding of a rational and reasonable means of fair exploitation of these resources and the carrying on jointly of reasonable conservation methods by the countries of the world to preserve these common resources to be exploited by all.
In this connection, as the minister pointed out, we are a party to seven different fisheries treaties, I believe. These treaties have to be renegotiated. Conferences are constantly being held in connection with them and this puts a very great load on the departmental officials. The department is in a unique situation in this regard. It is relatively small but it has these great responsibilities. I would recommend most strongly that the government give consideration to setting up in the Department of Fisheries a special branch to deal continuously with our international obligations. It is a matter that has been given brief consideration in the past but the situation is becoming more complicated. I hope this suggestion will not be lost sight of because I believe these great responsibilities place an unreasonable load on the administrative officers of the department who have their regular duties to perform as well as safeguarding Canada's interests in this connection.
This is a very important and complex problem. Some people may believe that we can preserve our interests in this regard simply by extending our territorial waters. This is of some advantage but it does not meet the problem by any means because fish are no respecters of boundaries. Many species migrate over wide areas of the ocean.

Those types of fish which spend their entire life cycle in the high seas are, of course, a truly common resource and there is the problem of sharing them reasonably between ourselves and other countries.
But the situation is much more complicated than that. Some of our most valuable species of fish are, of course, fish that spend part of their lives in our territorial waters and part in our national fresh waters. Certain rivers are reserved to a great extent in a state that will permit the generation of new stocks of the species which then spend most of their lives in the ocean. We have the problem of establishing our proprietary interest in those stocks of fish that exist because of special measures, some of which are quite expensive, which we as a nation have taken. With respect to the north Pacific fisheries treaty, I hope it will be possible for Canada to maintain the abstention principle in this connection.
As I have pointed out, although Canada's fishing industry has remained quite healthy other nations have expanded their fishing industries at a tremendous rate. Over the last 10 years the fishing industry of Japan has grown by about 77 per cent and that of the U.S.S.R. has more than doubled. Therefore we are in a very competitive field and I am pleased that the minister has noted the importance of developing new and more efficient methods of catching, processing and marketing fish.
In this connection he also noted the expansion in the building of new types of fishing vessels on both coasts. This stimulation of the shipbuilding industry is due in part to the subsidization of the industry and I am glad it is bearing fruit as it appears to be. As is generally known, this policy was instituted by the previous government.
This leads me to the point of stating that there are many facilities and services for the fishing industry which are supplied by other departments, but I will not discuss them at the present time except to mention that the Deparment of Public Works, the Department of Transport and the Department of Labour all have an interest in the fishing industry. Taxpayers' money is being spent through these other departments to some extent for the benefit of the fishing industry, so it is not fair to assume that the items appearing under the Department of Fisheries represent the only money that Canada is spending in the interests of the industry.
I mentioned in passing the fact that the extension of our territorial ^waters is of considerable interest to the fishing industry. I believe this will solve certain problems but it will not solve others. In this connection

the government has announced its intention to extend Canada's territorial waters to 12 miles within the year. I hope the minister will take under advisement the importance of strengthening our protective service so that we can properly police the additional areas of water. I know he will have an ardent ally in his colleague, the Secretary of State, when he tries to get additional sums approved by treasury board for this purpose. In this connection I think it is even more important that action be taken to make certain without any doubt that such bodies of water as the gulf of St. Lawrence, the bay of Fundy, Dixon entrance and Hecate strait are established to be Canadian national waters and our property.
There are many other important factors and situations which I should like to discuss for a little while tonight. However, as I said, it is not our intention to prolong the examination of these estimates unnecessarily. So, Mr. Chairman, I will leave any further remarks I might have until a later time when the individual items are called or, if the committee is in a co-operative mood and wishes to pass the estimates rapidly tonight, I would be quite content to leave any further remarks I might have on this important subject until the estimates for the next fiscal year are before the committee.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I think the first thing I should do in a public way is extend congratulations to the minister upon his appointment to this cabinet position. I did that by way of correspondence on April 27 in a letter which contained a reference to other things. So far, I have not had a reply from the minister, so perhaps he should check back on his correspondence to see what happened to that letter and deal with the other matters in it.
I was interested in listening to the introductory remarks of the minister. They seemed to be composed mostly of a recitation of statistics and screenings from various departmental publications that had been issued over the years, especially this past year. When it came to an announcement of any definite policy that the fisheries department expected to promote, or what the government hoped to accomplish by its fisheries policy, we found the minister's speech just as barren as many of the fish-hooks of the fishermen when they pull them from the water. The only exception was a reference by the minister to a federal-provincial conference on fisheries matters which, if I understood him correctly, is to be held on January 20 next year. This is welcome news. I wish the Minister of Public Works would act with the same alacrity in promoting a federal-provincial conference on highways, and that the Prime 28902-5-253J
Supply

Fisheries
Minister would take cognizance of the actions of the Minister of Fisheries and do what he said he was going to do about a federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs. In any event, I hope that out of this conference there does come something concrete, something worth while, something that could point the way for this government in the years ahead in so far as policy matters are concerned.
We in the New Democratic party have had an interest in fisheries for quite some length of time, both at the federal and provincial levels. Over the years we have made many proposals, some of which were ridiculed at the time they were made. Some of them now are in the process of being accepted. The minister referred to one such proposal, namely the breadth of our territorial seas. I am sure many members of this house, if they will look back a few years, will recall when I, on behalf of this party, introduced a bill to extend the territorial sea to 12 miles on a unilateral basis the proposal was ridiculed by members in all parts of the house. Now, the principle seems to be accepted, and this is precisely what we are attempting to do.
I would remind the minister that, in respect of the announcement to extend the territorial sea to 12 miles, there was a specific campaign promise by his party that the territorial sea would include Hecate strait on the west coast. I hope the minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs remember this promise when it comes time to actually make the pronouncement. I do not think we should look upon the 12 mile limit, as it is referred to, as the solution for all problems confronting the fishing industry in Canada. Certainly, it is not. It is a solution for some species of fish, bottom fish and the like, but not for all of them. We should never lose sight of this fact.
So far as we are concerned, I think we could enunciate some of the objectives, some of the goals which the department and the minister should have in mind. These should be clearly established as the guideposts for what we do in fisheries matters in the years ahead. The first one is to look upon fisheries resources as we do upon all renewable resources, from the point of view of conservation to ensure that future generations will have the opportunity to exploit this natural resource just as we do today. Second, we should promote the extensive exploitation of these resources within the bounds established by the conservation principle. In doing this, we should take cognizance of the fact that there is this tremendous population explosion, as it has been called. This increase in population automatically creates increased pressure
3S74

Supply-Fisheries
to find additional sources of food. This increased demand for food is automatically pressuring nations into searching the sea for the additional food that is required.
Recently the United Nations released some figures in respect of this, and perhaps I could refer to them very briefly. In the period from 1948 to 1960 the increase in the supply of meat was 19 per cent. During that same period, the increase in the world supply of fish, as distinct from meat, was close to 50 per cent. This indicates the tremendous increase in the world supply of fish within a 12-year period. It also indicates the tremendous increase in the catch and in the interest of other nations.
As the minister has just indicated, other countries are developing bigger fishing fleets, bigger boats, floating canneries, and so on. All of these things create increased pressure upon the fisheries resources that are available throughout the world. Different species of fish are influenced in different ways by this. Some of our species, for instance salmon and herring, migrate out to sea, while others stay close to the shore where we are able to protect them. Our salmon and herring, being migratory, are vulnerable to the increased activity and pressure on our fisheries by other nations. Perhaps one nation concerned is a nation involved in the north Pacific fisheries commission to which the minister referred.
I think what we must do, having in mind this increased pressure on the fisheries of the world, is to bend our efforts towards a concentration of activity on international agreements to ensure that the conservation measures we engage in at home are not destroyed by wanton fishing on the high seas by other nations, to ensure that throughout the world there is some sense of reasonableness in the exploitation of our fisheries. I should like to make some comments on the north Pacific fisheries treaty itself, and, specifically on the recommendation which the commission made about a year ago to the effect that Japan should be permitted to fish for herring off the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands and the eastern Bering sea.
I think it is very regrettable that after all the discussion and the interest that brewed up over this particular question the Liberal party, by a sleight of hand process, agreed to those recommendations in the manner in which they did. The impression was at least left, if it was not specifically stated, that this subject matter and this question would be referred to the marine and fisheries committee so that a thorough investigation could be made into it before the recommendations were dealt with one way or the other. But on the eve of parliament meeting-about a week before-by a secret method, and not by an

open, declared order in council, this government put into effect the recommendations of the commission of last fall and announced them by telephone, not by way of any formal communication. It is unfortunate that at the very moment the minister was in Vancouver meeting and discussing with delegations from the various sections of the fishing industry this vitally important question, in the back of his mind he was preparing the way to proceed in order to recommend the acceptance of these recommendations. We would like to have in these matters some above-the-table dealings, some confidence in the government in this regard, so that the people of this nation and especially this parliament know just what is taking place. Specifically we would like to know about the north Pacific fisheries negotiations and what steps are being taken to deal with other nations of the world in agreements relating to the fisheries of the world.
One of the specific campaign promises of the Liberal party

another one-was that the Soviet union would definitely be brought into the north Pacific treaty. We know that the Soviet union contributes to the fishery stocks of the north Pacific; we know that she has a high seas fishing fleet; we know that she ranges a long way over to this side of the Pacific ocean in her fisheries and research work. There is nothing whatever to stop the Soviet union cruising in to within three miles of our shore, as it is now, or 12 miles when the 12 mile limit is established-it does not really matter which it is-and lying in wait for salmon which are waiting in our waters to come home to spawn, scooping them up and leaving nothing for future generations. The only thing that deters Japan, for instance, engaging in this sort of activity is, as the minister stated, the north Pacific fisheries treaty. The Liberal party realized this during an election campaign period, made a specific promise about it, and so far we have not heard a single, solitary word about what steps this government is taking to put into effect what was a reasonable, legitimate and sensible campaign promise.
We inquired of the minister about it earlier this session. His answer at that time was generally to the effect that maybe this matter was being discussed in Washington, and perhaps he should not say any more about it until those meetings were concluded. We would like to know, the people of Canada would like to know, and I am sure the people of the world would like to know what is taking place with respect to getting the Soviet union into the north Pacific fisheries treaty; because if we do not, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Soviet union, because of the pressure from people demanding food in that

country, will be looking for further sources of food supply from the sea and will automatically look for salmon which is not of their own origination, in order that their salmon can come back home again and spawn for the years to come.
I do not understand why the Soviet union will perhaps not enter into an agreement such as the north Pacific fisheries treaty, if they were approached on this subject and asked about it as long ago as 1957 or 1958. I am given to understand that Japan and the Soviet union have had a convention relating to the salmon fisheries of the Asian area, and there is no reason why the Soviet union would not be interested in engaging in a similar sort of treaty in which we and the United States were involved. We would like to have a very clear indication from the minister as to whether the campaign promises which his party made in the election campaign really mean anything now. We ask him what he is doing, has been doing or intends to do about seeing them put into effect.
A vitally important field, I think, is leading or getting this government to point itself in the direction of international agreements and high seas conservation measures, to ensure that future generations have fish for their children as we desire to have this food for ours. When it comes to matters that concern us more directly in a national or domestic way, I think we all realize that the east and west coast fisheries differ; that there are different species of fish on these coasts; that there are different methods of catching them, and there are different economics, and so on, involved as between the east and west coasts. Since 1957 we have had, at least from the practicalities of administration point of view, an orientation toward the east coast. The hon. member from Queens, when he was a member of the Conservative cabinet, was the minister of fisheries. He is, of course, from the east coast, as is the present Minister of Fisheries. Without casting any reflection upon the ideas or attitudes of ministers, it is an automatic fact of politics that one's hometown induces the greatest pressure to do things, as distinct from communities which are further away.
If we look at this year's estimates, for instance, just as one example, without going into the details in a way contrary to the rules, we see that vote 155, which involves a very important field, namely educational work in fisheries techniques and co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, concerns a total amount of $120,000, with the east coast fisheries receiving ten times that of the west coast. I am not saying they should not, because this is a vitally important contribution; but it does show that there is
Supply-Fisheries
heavier emphasis, even in that one vote, given to the east coast than there is to the west. I am not saying this is wrong in so far as the east coast is concerned.
We find that the Fisheries Prices Support Act has its greatest, if not exclusive, application to east coast fishermen and is practically unused on the west coast. The Newfoundland bait service is, again, directly connected to the east coast fisheries, and salt fish assistance and the like. Perhaps the only act under which the west coast fisheries might have some advantage is the Cold Storage Act, which allows for subsidies to be given for the building of cold storages. Unfortunately this is not under the Department of Fisheries; it is in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, which is an extremely sad state of affairs not only for fishermen but for agriculturists as well. In addition to that, subsidies under this act have been suspended, so what advantage fishermen on the west coast might have had in receiving cold storage subsidies has gone, because there is no more to be obtained under that act.
On the order paper there is a resolution to appoint two ministers of agriculture, one for the east and one for the west. I understand that one of the ministers has already appointed himself to this particular position and is merely waiting for the formality of the measure going through parliament, if it gets that far. But if it is sensible or reasonable, and this government thinks it is a correct thing, to have a minister of agriculture for the east and one for the west, it is even more important to have two ministers of fisheries, one for the east and one for the west, so that west coast fisheries can receive the fullest possible consideration from the federal government.
We would like to make some specific suggestions to the minister and his department. These suggestions are at this stage along rather broad lines, because they involve what we consider to be questions of policy connected with the principles we enunciated earlier, namely those of conservation, exploitation and a recognition of the growing population of the world and the importance of fishery products as a source of protein.
We think that the research attitudes in the Department of Fisheries should find their way into the levels of discussion on policy. In this regard, without any reflection upon the individuals concerned, we find that the present deputy minister, Dr. Needier, a scientist in the field of fisheries, is likely to bring into the policy level of the department the attitude, concept and ideas of a research scientist.

Supply-Fisheries
This contrasts somewhat with the attitude which existed previously when the late Mr. Clark was the deputy minister.
This is no reflection whatsoever upon Mr. Clark. He was a very able, competent, personable gentleman in this field and he administered the department very effectively; but Mr. Clark was a practical man from the industrial side of fisheries. He was an administrator, not a scientist; and now we hope that the attitudes, opinions and research ideas of the people in the department will have some bearing on what is decided upon from a policy point of view, because research is essential to develop not only the fisheries of Canada but those of other countries.
We may have to pump extensive amounts of money into the research side of the department's activities. We should no longer look upon the fisheries research board-a wonderful organization

as being just an organization that exists and carries on from day to day. We think it should be more adequately financed, and that more direction and freedom should be given it in order to find ways and methods of increasing the catch, processing, and consumption of fishery products. If I may in passing, I would like to make reference to Dr. Kask, who left the chairmanship of the fisheries research board early this year. I am sure the minister and his predecessors in the department found Dr. Kask and his associates invaluable in the work which they did.
There is an interesting sidelight to the activities of the fisheries research board, and that is that throughout the year it produces a number of publications and documents based upon the research studies which it conducts. It is interesting to realize just who reads these publications and documents the most aptly, and who accepts them as guideposts in fishing. It is a well known fact that fishing skippers and captains of the Soviet union fishing fleet look upon the research department's publications as their bible in exploiting our fisheries on the high seas. It is unfortunate that our own fisheries people do not do the same thing, and that our fishing industry does not follow the activities of the board with such fervour.
The minister mentioned the development of fish flour for human consumption. I think much greater activity must be devoted to this field, to process fishery products which are not presently edible because they are not exotic enough, and to process what is now more or less considered to be waste from fish plants. These should be processed into protein concentrates for human consumption. The board should also be concerning itself with the possibility of the plant life of the oceans being processed for human consumption, because it is also a source of food.

We should look ahead to the time when the world's production and consumption of fish will be perhaps two or three times what it is now, ranging upwards of 100 million tons a year, something which we could not conceive of some ten or 12 years ago. The policy of the department and the government must be directed towards preparing for this, through early planning of our investment in fisheries, in catching fish, processing them and distributing them to the point where we will remain a prominent power in world fisheries in years to come. We are that at present, but we will not be in the future if we keep fumbling along on a day to day or year to year basis.
We should also be promoting extensive use of artificial or man made hatcheries for fish because, even though we may not like it, I think in time to come we will see a greater multiple use of lakes, rivers and waters, and we will find that pesticides, insecticides, sewage and pollution coming from industries, cities and towns will increase as time goes on and will take their toll of the natural spawning grounds in lakes and other waters.
In this regard I was very pleased to note that the minister, the deputy minister and a couple of other officials-Dr. Pritchard for one comes to mind-appeared before the committee on food and drugs just the other day, and dealt with the question of the effect of insecticides and pesticides on marine life and fisheries. Unfortunately I do not think that committee, because of the complexity of the subject before it, will be able to come up with any scientific, technical and worth-while recommendations in this particular field.
If I may digress for a moment, this is one committee, perhaps more than any other standing or special committee of the house, that should have an extensive research staff provided for it, so that it can deal with the various bits of scientific and technical information presented to it, analyse that information and then, when it makes recommendations, it will know what it is doing. Without that, a great deal of the activity of the committee will be a waste of time.
As I said earlier, we must get into the field of expansion in our relations with other countries concerning international fishery conventions. We must also think in terms of the promotion of fishery colleges and enticement of more people into scientific research in those fields which relate to the ocean and to the plant and animal life therein. If we do these things, if the minister keeps them in mind from a long range and short range policy point of view, and if he takes steps to implement them, we will continue to be one of the leading fishery nations of the world.

In closing I would like to make one comment in the nature of a commendation. As I know them, and as they are known by people in the fishing industry, the officials, scientists and officers on the staff of the Department of Fisheries are respected and admired. They are doing a tremendous job. We would like to see them get on with it, and be provided with the money and policy directions that will enable them to continue to do a remarkable job.


Mr.   Pailerson@: Mr. Chairman, following the example of those who have preceded me in this debate, I intend to be relatively brief in my remarks. This is not because the Department of Fisheries or the fishery industry is of small concern or of little value to our nation. The contrary is true; but unfortunately I am afraid many people across the country are not aware of the true value of the industry, not only to the hundreds who are directly involved in it but also to the provinces in which fish resources are found, and to the national economy.
The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Skeena that it might be advisable to have two ministers of fisheries, one for the east and one for the west, and to bolster his argument he referred to the proposal to have two ministers of agriculture. Personally I am not convinced that it is wise policy in either department, because once we set the precedent we may find that we end up with two cabinets, with ministers of this and that, and another group for east and west, until instead of having about 20 ministers, as we have now, we have 40. I do not think this would be too good for the country. Possibly we are in too great a danger of fragmentation as it is. I have always taken the position that as far as national policy is concerned it should be a national policy, and if any adaptations are necessary with regard to specific areas they can be worked out. I believe policy should be evolved which will apply as far as possible right across the nation. I do not think it is necessary to have two ministers if the minister would just become aware that Canada is Canada from coast to coast and that his sights do not just rest on the one side but also are set on the other. I am inclined to think the minister could improve his position substantially if a little closer attention were given to problems on the west coast and to the representation of the fishermen on the west coast.
We appreciate the announcement tonight that the minister is proceeding to set up a dominion-provincial conference on fisheries. This was forecast in the speech from the throne; we indicated at that time our pleasure
Supply

Fisheries
at the announcement and that we were looking forward to the setting up of that conference. We are now pleased to hear it is scheduled for the month of January. Here again, I believe it is a matter of co-operation between the federal and provincial administrations. Perhaps we should remind ourselves of the importance of a department which would take care of many of these things having to do with dominion-provincial relations. We trust that from the conference which is held policies will be evolved and programs will be developed to the advantage of the fishing industry in every part of Canada.
There is one strenuous objection I feel I must make in connection with the lack of meetings of the committee on marine and fisheries. There was a discussion on orders of the day in connection with the committee on agriculture; it was pointed out that the committee has not yet started its work for this session. In defence of government laxity in this matter it was indicated that there had not been a meeting since a year ago last summer, some 12 months or more. I do not think that is any standard for drawing comparisons, but as far as the committee on marine and fisheries is concerned it has not sat at all this session; and it has not been made use of to its fullest possible extent for some time.
On a number of occasions the united fishermen and allied workers union of British Columbia has made recommendations and suggested that meetings of the marine and fisheries committee be held at which full discussion could be had of various problems. I do not know why the minister did not see to it that this committee was set up and put into operation. I do not know why these requests were turned aside. But the fact remains that the fishermen of the west coast have been unable to meet with the marine and fisheries committee to present their views and put before this parliament their recommendations as far as the fishing industry is concerned. I suggest, as I suggested before, that if the Minister of Fisheries wants to prove to the fishermen on the west coast that he is interested in and concerned about them, he will have to give more attention to the recommendations and requests which come from the fisheries unions on the west coast.
Many discussions have been held with respect to the north Pacific fisheries treaty. It was pointed out by the previous speaker that this has caused considerable concern, especially to fishermen in British Columbia. They are very interested in the program of conservation, but I do not think they are interested in any program which is going to deplete the resources and bring them to a

Supply

Fisheries
position of diminishing return. They are just as interested or perhaps more interested in the continuity of this industry than many others across the country, and they are not going to go out on a limb and advocate policies which are going to work against the continuation of this industry. They would be very foolish to do so, and I do not think they can be branded with that charge.
However, they are very concerned about the programs of conservation which have been carried on, and some of the actions which have been based upon this principle. In this connection we think of the renegotiations of the treaty which are going on or have been going on in Tokyo and which will be continued later on. The fishermen's unions have made representations on this behalf and they are very concerned, first of all with the fact that the recommendations of the commission were accepted and put into operation, apparently without their having an opportunity to voice their strong opposition to the situation, and second, because it opened the door for further demands on the part of Japan for additional concessions. Their fear is that bit by bit, piece by piece, the rights of the Canadian fishermen and the interests of the Canadian industry will be sacrificed and they will end up with nothing at all. That is why they are so opposed to some of the actions of the minister and his department in this connection.
I was going to refer to the leaflet put out by the united fishermen and allied workers union under date January 25, 1963, but this goes into detail on a number of very important aspects of the fishing industry and also deals with the north Pacific treaty and the insistence of the Japanese that the abstention principle be deleted from the treaty. They have, of course, voiced their strong objection to anything along this line. Recently, in answer to questions, the minister made a statement, on motions I believe, dealing with the negotiations which were carried on in Tokyo. He assured us that the Canadian delegation was standing firm as far as the principle of abstention was concerned. He thought there might be a different way of expressing it. I pointed out at that time that we are not too concerned perhaps with the way it is expressed, but we are certainly concerned that the abstention principle should be incorporated in the treaty in the course of these renegotiations.
Also with regard to conservation I should like to refer to the closure regulations as they affect the Fraser river and other areas of British Columbia. The minister is aware that just at the time he was leaving for Tokyo a meeting was held by the fishermen in

Steveston. There were several hundred fishermen gathered there to make representations in connection with the north Pacific treaty, and they also met in a special way to deal with the closures imposed on the Fraser river, which was one of the main concerns at that time. There was a feeling that the method by which the closures were implemented was most unfair. Let me say again that they were not opposing the principle of conservation. They recognize that it is essential to the welfare of the whole industry. But the fishermen of the Fraser river, especially, felt they were being discriminated against because, for
them,	they faced what amounted to a total closure of the river. It is true it was opened up one day a week but I think there were some weeks when no fishing at all was allowed. Meanwhile, those who fished off the coast enjoyed almost unlimited freedom; they were allowed to fish several days a week.
The fishermen of the Fraser valley had a legitimate complaint. They were almost completely barred from engaging in fishing in their own areas. They were not equipped to fish off the coast; their boats and gear would not permit them to go so far. So here were men who depended on fishing for a living, yet could not take advantage of the fishing in the Fraser river basin for themselves and their families. A serious endeavour should be made to see that fishermen in every area have an opportunity to share in the resources to the conservation of which they have contributed. It may be that the conference which is to be held will lead to the solution of some of these problems. Perhaps it will lead to better relations between the fishermen, the industry in general and the government at various levels. As I say, I believe this is one of the important resources of the nation and one which makes a substantial contribution to the economic welfare, not only of those directly concerned but of Canada from coast to coast.


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Chairman, I feel bound to express in this house the views of the inshore fishermen of the Gaspe peninsula and to deal with two matters pertaining to fisheries. First of all, the establishment of fishing limits for trawlers, as well as international limits, and
then,	the report of the committee of inquiry on the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the recommendations of the same committee with regard to fisheries.
Mr. Chairman, in the last few years, the inshore fishermen of the gulf of St. Lawrence and of part of the Baie des Chaleurs have been at war with trawlers which, apart from plundering the inshore fishing territories usually reserved to fishermen who go in for fishing on a small scale, damage fishing

tackle and are guilty of offences that are termed as acts of piracy in some places.
Mr. Chairman, most commercial fishermen of the Gaspe peninsula, namely about 85 per cent, are inshore fishermen who operate in a strip, a few miles wide, along the coast of the Gaspe peninsula. Their fishing trips last only a day; they start very early in the morning and come back around noon. In addition, their fishing season lasts only six months a year, and it is also necessary to take into account the days lost as a result of bad weather.
The main species of fish taken is the ground fish, among which cod is the most common. And there seems to exist in my constituency a long term trend towards decrease in the fishing volume and in the number of fishermen.
But this year, at least at the beginning of the season, the number of small fishermen increased in the Gaspe peninsula, because of a certain stagnation in the field of employment.
Unfortunately, so far, the quantities of landed cod have been 20 per cent smaller than last year, a factor which certainly will not encourage newcomers to become full time fishermen.
Even if we take into account the natural fluctuations which cause the catches to vary, we still have to admit that in that area the fish stock diminishes, and that the size of the fish seems to be shrinking.
We are confronted with unmistakable signs of over-exploitation of stocks, and the culprits are not exclusively the 60 to 65 feet long trawlers which operate along the Quebec coast, or in the maritime provinces, and more particularly in New Brunswick.
It seems that foreign boats operating inside the gulf of St. Lawrence have a direct influence. Figures have been mentioned in respect to the catch of those foreign boats, and they were about 100 million pounds per year. It is impossible to get more details on that matter, indeed it is rather difficult to compile accurate data, since those boats from various countries do not submit reports on their activities.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, in the gulf of St. Lawrence only, foreign boats took over 100 million pounds of cod, according to a report published by the d.b.s. Now, in 1962, the cod catch in eastern Canada, including Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, amounted to 585,643,000 pounds. And in the Gaspe area only, in the gulf of St. Lawrence, foreign boats have caught a hundred million pounds of cod a year.
Supply-Fisheries
In view of this situation, I am of the opinion that it is urgent that the 12-mile limit be put into effect; this should close completely the gulf of St. Lawrence to foreign boats.
Moreover, we must consider that the fish population of the gulf of St. Lawrence is the same as in the northwest Atlantic, on the banks of Newfoundland, on the banks of Nova Scotia and on the north coast as far as Greenland.
Let us come back to the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Chaleur bay, where stocks of fish have been replenished. Coastal fishing should be extended to other areas, and I wish to mention now as an example the island of Anticosti for the fishermen of the north coast of the Gaspe peninsula. If coastal fishing was thus extended, more intensive research should be done in order to vary fishing techniques and design suitable boats, such as trawlers.
We should aim for diversified ways of catching fish and try to add new techniques to the existing ones. It would be necessary also to step up research to find out the extent of our resources; there are ways to catch other kinds of fish besides ground fish like cod. In the area of Anticosti island-I will use it again as an example; it is a high point because of the possibilities it offers- there are banks of shrimp, lobster, scallops, crab and other fish like halibut, which have another commercial value and are far from being used in full.
To round up the research work that needs to be done, it would also be advisable to have the research board draw up fishing maps giving indications on the nature of the fish banks, on the movement of water caused by tides or currents, which would determine the fishing conditions in the area.
Mr. Chairman, I am coming to the reason for those explanations. Those maps will have to show also the areas reserved for inshore fishing.
I understand the situation with regard to the federal jurisdiction on fisheries, and that of Quebec as well as of New Brunswick as regards those interprovincial limits is somewhat confused, but the Minister of Fisheries said last summer, in the Magdalen islands, that an investigation is being carried out with the help of experts from Ottawa, Quebec and Fredericton, and personally, I hope that a settlement will be reached in the spring of 1964 so that a strip of a few miles may be reserved for inshore fishermen or private fishing on a small scale.
I even suggest-I admit that would be something new-that a license or permit costing $1 or $2 be required from fishermen so that they might enjoy some privileges and be obliged to follow some regulations.

Supply-Fisheries
The road map that the fisherman will receive with his licence would serve as a guide to him. In my opinion, that coastguard squad should be increased and should see that the regulations are enforced in those fishing areas reserved for small fishermen. The fisherman who would violate the regulations might lose his permit for a period set by the law.
Finally, it seems important to recommend assistance plans for the construction of fishing boats now in effect. That assistance should be extended in order to include fishing boats 35 feet long instead of 45 feet.
That sector of coastal fishing will grow more important and will certainly be selfsupporting, because on the basis I have already mentioned, with a somewhat larger territory, with a wider variety of fishing techniques, fishermen will be able to depend on various kinds of fish instead of limiting themselves to cod.
In that way, the fishermen could secure a much higher income and depend for their livelihood on fishing alone, without resorting to social welfare benefits.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, a question which is inspired by the numerous requests of the fishermen of my constituency.
Those people feel that unemployment insurance benefits coming to them next winter will be nothing but peanuts, because the landings of fish have been 20 per cent smaller than the previous year. One can only too easily understand their worries. Actually, I know families with eight, nine or ten children, who will collect no more than $20 a week, because their contributions have been smaller than last year.
We have to admit that the fishing industry is riddled with serious problems. Quite a number of fishermen suffer from chronic unemployment, and are incapable of maintaining, without outside help, a decent standard of living.
In the report of the inquiry commission on the Unemployment Insurance Act, the commissioners recommended the following:
That a separate plan be established for the benefit of Independent fishermen and that such a plan be more consistent with their situation and their requirements than the general unemployment insurance plan could be, and that the Department of Fisheries be vested with the responsibility of administering that plan.
In conclusion, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Did the officials of the Department of Labour ever meet with those of the Department of Fisheries in connection with that recommendation of the commissioners?
[Mr. Cyr.i


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries and as the representative of Queens-Lunenburg, a riding in which is located the largest deep sea fishing fleet in North America, I wish to comment briefly on some of the problems relating to the fishing industry. I should first like to congratulate the minister on his appointment to his portfolio. I know that his experience in the house and his prior experience in the fishing industry will serve him well in carrying out his present responsibilities. I also know that as a maritimer he will give careful consideration to all problems pertaining to the fishing industry and especially those pertaining to the Atlantic provinces.
Canada is today the seventh largest fishing nation in the world and the fifth largest trading nation, possessing the world's longest coast line. A few years ago we knew very little about our continental shelf, but as the world's population continues to grow we shall have to look to the sea for increasingly larger amounts of edible protein.
At the present time the fishing industry is in some ways at the stage at which primitive man was many centuries ago. We hunt the fish that nature provides, just as our ancestors hunted animals for food. We have not yet begun to herd fish or improve their quality, but I believe that one day in the not too distant future we shall be forced to farm the sea as we do the land. In order to do this we shall have to give increased emphasis to our oceanographic research. We shall have to study the organic matter dissolved in sea water which activates the whole growth process. After all, on land the strain of cattle has been improved by careful breeding and at the same time the productivity of the soil has been increased by weeding and by fertilizing. It is almost certain that a similar approach to the sea will enable us to harvest a much larger crop of fish, instead of worrying as we do now about protecting our fishing rights from the depredations of fleets from other nations.
We should be able to produce plenty of edible seafood for everybody, if we discover and apply good methods of sea husbandry. A start has already been made along these lines. It was made by the previous administration under the leadership of the former prime minister. An oceanographic institute, the first of its kind in Canada, was opened last year at Bedford basin near Halifax. While this institute was opened under the auspices of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, still it has a branch for the fisheries department. As a result our

marine laboratories are expanding. Graduate students are being trained in all aspects of oceanography. New research ships are carrying out scientific investigations along our coasts. We can, therefore, expect rapid development in the next few years. We are not alone in this work, for all major maritime nations are now taking part. Throughout the world roughly 50 research ships are constantly at sea carrying approximately 600 technicians and trained people.
Through this increase in scientific effort we hope to plug a big gap in our knowledge concerning the earth on which we live, and we hope to learn more about the habits of the fish, which are part of the food resources which automatically renew themselves. In its natural state, acre for acre, the sea is producing as much as the land; yet man is only taking about 1 per cent of his present food requirements from the ocean. When we come to farm the ocean we can expect it to produce a much greater quantity of desirable food, just as scientific farming on the land has improved the production of grain and vegetables. Through the proper management of the ocean, we can greatly increase our well-being on the land, but this will have to be done by international agreement. Some countries have already made a start along these lines. Japan is trying out salt pond farms in the inland sea, where yellowtail are raised and dumped into the adjacent sea when grown. England is farming plaice somewhat in the same manner as trout rivers are restocked, and we are raising oysters in Prince Edward Island to help re-establish that industry. I must give due credit for this to the officials of the department, some of whom are present with us tonight.
In my opinion, research along these lines should be expanded. We are not doing enough to restock our rivers and our lakes with trout and with salmon, especially in the Atlantic region and in my own province of Nova Scotia. If further developments were carried out along these lines, these fish would not only provide a valuable source of food but they would also encourage tourists to visit Canada in greater numbers, thereby bringing greater economic benefits to everyone. I would, therefore, urge upon the minister to give consideration to the scientific development of our fisheries when he sits down to review plans for next year's estimates.
I know this government and the present minister are greatly concerned over conservation. I listened with interest on June 4 when the Prime Minister made a statement to the house on the law of the sea and his plans to unilaterally establish a 12-mile exclusive fisheries zone along the whole of the
Supply-Fisheries
Canadian coastline somewhere about midMay, 1964. This action, of course, will be beneficial to our inshore fishermen, but it will not materially affect the landings of our deep sea fleet. It will create problems with France and the United States, both of whom have treaty rights in some of the areas affected. It will also create problems with Portugal, a country which has a traditional fishing right on our coast. It is regrettable that this action had to be taken unilaterally. Although it will provide exclusive fishing zones for our inshore fishermen, it does nothing about our major problem which is the conservation of our fisheries resources on our offshore banks. As a result of our Conservative shipbuilding program, there has been a boom in the construction of large deep sea fishing trawlers in Nova Scotia. In fact, in 1962 a total of 98 ships of various sizes were constructed in that province alone. The fishermen manning these ships are now in a position to make larger catches of fish and to have greater earnings without endangering their lives.
As an example of this, I should like to put on the record figures provided by the dominion bureau of statistics. The cumulative fish landings in the maritimes during the first nine months of 1963 amounted to 556.6 million pounds valued at $38.4 million. Figures for the similar period during 1962 were 542.1 million pounds valued at $34.6 million, and during 1961, 515.6 million pounds valued at $30 million. In other words, in the first nine months of 1963 the income of all our east coast fishermen increased by $8.4 million when compared with their income in the first nine months of 1961. I submit some credit for this increased earning must go to the former administration, which so wisely assisted in a program for the building of larger fishing trawlers.
This increased fishing activity on our offshore banks is creating other problems. We do not have a cold war on our east coast today, we are having a fish war. The greatest problem facing Canada's fishing industry at present on our east coast is the over-concentration of ships from all nations on our offshore banks. One of the peculiarities of the fishing industry is that it functions in an area that is international in character. This was commented upon by the former minister of fisheries. The means of production, the sea, is not private property. Apart from territorial waters, it is not subject to the law of any state. For this reason, many fisheries problems have to be dealt with internationally because unilateral measures generally have far reaching consequences for the industry in other

Supply-Fisheries
nations. It was for this reason I stated that it is regrettable unilateral action is to be taken on the 12-mile fishing zone.
The minister, in his statement, said that the 12-mile limit was imposed as a conservation measure for sustained yield in the fisheries of our country. However, our fish do not spawn within 12 miles of our shores. Our main breeding grounds are Georges and Browns banks, Sable island bank, Banquerau, St. Pierre bank, Bradelle bank and Grand bank, to name a few. None of these areas come within the 12-mile limit; yet it is here that conservation measures should be carried out. This, I submit, can only be done by international agreement. At the present time, the fishing fleets of 13 nations, including Canada, all members of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries, are operating on our east coast banks. The greatest increase in the number of fishing trawlers in recent years has been in the Russian fleet and it is estimated that over 150 large Russian trawlers operate on a year round basis on Georges bank and the Grand bank off Newfoundland. These large trawlers often snag nets of Canadian ships or ram smaller boats in the fog. However, the chief cause for concern is the fact that the Russians, as members of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries, signed and approved an agreement on a minimum mesh size but apparently have disregarded this agreement.
For example, I read from an article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald which is headed, "Reds Using Illegal Fish Nets". It reads in part as follows:
The president of the Atlantic fishermen's union reported Wednesday what he described as the first solid evidence that Russian fishermen off New England are using nets ruled illegal under the international convention for the northwest Atlantic fisheries.
The president, Capt. James Ackert, said he is filing protests with the convention in Halifax and with the U.S. state department.
He displayed what he said was fishing gear made in the Soviet union, brought to the Boston fish pier by the American trawler Massachusetts which found it in the Georges bank fishing grounds, off Newfoundland. He said it consists of netting of less than half an inch mesh used as an interliner in an approximate four inch mesh net.
"Even a sardine couldn't get through this mesh," Capt. Ackert said.
International conventions limiting the mesh size of nets under certain conditions are designed to conserve the supply of fish.
Later, on Friday, August 23, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald carried this article:
A spokesman for the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries said yesterday a Russian made net with one half inch mesh found by United States trawler on Georges bank, southwest of Nova Scotia, may have been legally used for catching herring.

The ICNAF spokesman here said Georges bank is in a division of the northwest Atlantic designated sub area 5 where the minimum net mesh size for cod and haddock is 41 inches. He said there was no minimum size limit on nets used to catch herring.
"The Russians fish for herring on Georges bank", he said, and added that it was possible the net taken to Boston had been used for this purpose.
Mr. Chairman, in a situation of this kind it is difficult to say whether the Russians were fishing for herring or ground fish. We do know the Russians have a different motive for fishing than Canadians. They fish for food, while Canadians fish for profit. The Russian ships are equipped with modern machinery and their fleets roam far from their homeland in search of a good catch. They lead the world in oceanographic studies and research. In view of the progress they have made they should be well aware of the need to practice conservation methods, even on the high seas. If the Russians on Georges bank were fishing for herring rather than ground fish such as haddock and cod, they must also realize that the small mesh net being used destroys the little herring. Herring are the natural food of many ground fish, and when they disappear all other species become scarce.
Conferences on these problems have been called, but for one reason or another they have broken down in a stalemate without many of our conservation problems being solved. There have been three international conferences on the law of the sea and international fishing limits since 1930, but each time there was disagreement on the territorial limits to be established. As a result, Mexico claims nine miles, Chili, Peru and Ecuador 200 miles, and Ireland and Canada 12 miles. This causes international feuding, because more and more the ocean is recognized as an important source of food for a world faced with the prospect of overpopulation. In my opinion multilateral agreement among the fishing nations of the world for deep sea fisheries conservation will help guarantee this continuing source of protein. I would urge the minister and the government to give some consideration to convening another international conference so that conservation may be further discussed by all interested nations.
I was pleased to hear the minister's announcement that a federal-provincial conference on fisheries will be called on January 20, 1964, and at this conference all aspects of problems pertaining to the fishing industry will be discussed. I believe that at this conference priority should be given to calling an international conference, and I suggest to the minister that this is something he should discuss with the provincial ministers with

whom he will be meeting at that time. I say this especially in view of the fact that the European common market is contemplating setting up a base in the French possession of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and the Japanese are considering establishing a base in Newfoundland. If and when these countries follow through with their plans, the present overfishing will be further intensified, and I cannot stress too strongly the necessity for further international consultation on our deep sea fisheries conservation problem.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, as 75 per cent, or more, of my constituents are fishermen I should like to make a few remarks on the estimates of this department. But before I continue I should like to extend my compliments to the Minister of Fisheries on the first presentation of his estimates in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do you want them to pass tonight?


Mr. Monteith:: No, they don't.


Chesley William Carter: I should also like to pay my tribute to the former deputy minister, Mr. George Clark, who was a great personal friend of all of us, certainly of all of us from my province. With his death Canada suffered a great loss, as did also the fishing industry of Canada. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I should like to extend my good wishes to his successor.
Fishing is the oldest primary industry in Canada and is one of the most important of our primary industries. Yet I think it can be said without contradiction that it is the most neglected of all our primary industries. Canada is fortunate in having a great, natural, self-perpetuating resource right on our doorstep. But we are 20 years behind the times in exploiting it. Other speakers have already pointed out that others come from countries thousands of miles across the ocean and make a better job of exploiting our fisheries than we do ourselves.
The minister spoke of a federal-provincial conference which is to be held on January 20, 1964. Personally I think it is unfortunate that this conference has been delayed so long. From my own point of view, Mr. Chairman, I am not too optimistic that this federal-provincial conference can produce anything that is going to be of any worth-while benefit to our fishermen next year. I think it would have been better and we would have obtained quicker results if the national conference could have been preceded by a series of regional conferences, because as I see it the east coast fisheries and the west coast fisheries are just as different as are eastern agriculture and western agriculture. They
Supply-Fisheries
have very little in common; and the inland fisheries are different still. We have a national program of fish inspection and we could probably have a national marketing program for fish, as we have for wheat. But our main problems on the east coast have to do with production and processing. That is why I think it would have been more beneficial if regional conferences could have been held before coming together at a national conference, to work out a national policy.
The minister spoke of improvements in technology, more mechanization, more automation and a greater use of electronic equipment. But in spite of this our fishing industry on the east coast is a sick industry. While I find it easy to agree with most of the things said by my hon. friend from Queens, I must disagree with one statement he made this evening when, if I heard him correctly, he complimented the minister and said this would be the finest set of estimates that he would be presenting. I disagree with this, because when I look at the estimates and see that they are $1 million less this year than they were last year, in the face of the depressed condition of our industry and the need for rehabilitation, I find this decrease most disconcerting.
A national policy should not be too difficult to work out because we have already developed a national policy of assistance to the farmers. What we want is an adaptation of that policy to the fishery. There is a great similarity between the needs of the fisherman and the needs of the farmer.
The fisherman's needs are quite simple. In the first place, the fisherman wants a better price for his fish. In this connection we must recognize that in the maritime provinces a great deal of money has been spent by the provincial governments on the fishing industry, but in spite of this expenditure the fisherman is little better off today. The money that is spent does not seem to benefit him. The prices which our fishermen in Newfoundland get are sometimes 50 per cent lower-certainly 25 per cent or 30 per cent lower-than fishermen on the mainland get for the same size and type of fish, and that difference cannot be explained fully in terms of geography.
The fishermen in Newfoundland who were lucky enough to get a decent catch this year are getting a fair price, but that is not attributable to any policy of the federal or provincial governments. I say those fishermen "who were lucky enough to get a decent catch", because in many places there was a catch failure. This fair price is due to catch failures in European countries, especially Scandinavia, and in Iceland. These countries

Supply-Fisheries
produce a lot of salt fish, and in consequence of this failure the demand for salt fish this year is greater than the supply, and the price for it has gone up almost to the highest levels in our history. Further, the fact that salt fish is getting a high price has kept up the price of fresh fish.
From time to time there is strong advocacy of the idea that we should forget about the salt fish industry in Newfoundland, and indeed throughout North America. But it will be a sorry day for our fishermen if that industry disappears because there is no real competition, at least in my riding and I think in the whole province, between the various fish plants for fresh fish. The real competition is between salt fish and fresh fish, and so long as the Newfoundland fisherman has a choice of either selling his fish fresh or salt he will have a measure of protection. However, if we let the salt fish industry disappear, that protection disappears with it, and then God help the fishermen.
The salt fish industry is mainly a phase of the inshore fishery, and in this connection my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg had a lot to say about conservation. I agree with a great deal of what he said, because if we do not conserve the offshore fishery on the Grand banks the time will come when there will be no inshore fishery. The hon. member pointed out the difficulty of getting different countries to agree to obey the rules, and he cited the case of a Russian trawler which had a large net with a small mesh lining inside it.
The whole process of catching fish with draggers is wasteful. It is not only the Russians who do it; we do it ourselves. I have heard of cases, and have personally seen some, where fishing ships have steamed for miles and miles through young fish floating on the surface of the water. These fish were brought up in the dragnets, and the pressure of water killed them. When they were hauled up they were thrown overboard because they were not big enough to be of any commercial value. If we are going to tackle this problem of conservation we must tackle the problem of the draggers.
The fisherman's second need is credit, or money, some form of financial assistance through loans, grants and bounties, to enable him to catch more fish, to do that more easily, and with less hardship and danger. There is not much use in setting up a loan board and saying to a fisherman, "We will give you 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the money you require," because the fisherman who is down, who needs this kind of assistance, has not even 1 per cent of the money he needs. The fisherman must have easier credit and access to cheap money. He wants to get

better boats, better gear and better engines so that he can operate at less cost, and to do that he must have some form of financial assistance.
The hon. member for Queens set us a very good example tonight. He promised, and carried out his promise, to keep his remarks brief. I intend to do the same. For that purpose I have spoken in general terms. I could talk for hours on the individual problems of the various phases of the fishery in my province, but following the example of the hon. member for Queens I shall leave that until we come to deal with next year's estimates.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with the other hon. members of the committee who have spoken in congratulating the minister on his appointment to the fisheries portfolio. I trust that he may give this department energetic and diligent leadership.
I was pleased to hear him mention the great lakes fisheries and the international fisheries commission through which he is able to provide some influence on these fisheries. At the outset I want to say I am going to be very brief. However, I do want to make representations on behalf of the great lakes fishermen, who look upon me as their friend and supporter with respect to federal responsibilities in the great lakes fisheries.
It is my hope that the minister will show the same awareness and consideration as did his immediate predecessor in respect to the problems of the great lakes fisheries. The almost complete disappearance of lake trout from the great lakes is now common knowledge, but the definite cause of this phenomenon is not certain.
Over the years sea lamprey have been blamed, but many fishermen maintain that the smelt is also involved, not to say anything about exploitation by the fishermen themselves. Nevertheless, it is necessary that constant research be carried on so that lake trout or other suitable fish may be restored to the great lakes.
I should like to read a short editorial which I feel is appropriate at this time. It is taken from the Ship-Shore News, and it states:
Only a few years have passed since "lake Superior trout" was a featured food item on railway car diners travelling on the main lines through northern Ontario. Out of the window of his car the passenger could see the sparkling cold waters of the world's largest fresh water lake with an area of 31,820 square miles. Only a few hours previously the fish that graced his plate had been netted in this lake. A dish fit for a king.
A. B. Wood, head of the fish division of the Michigan department of conservation, has broken the news that 1961 may be the last year that nets are set out for trout in lake Superior. For all practical commercial purposes the trout have declined to the point of no return for the nets. In

1952 commercial fishermen in Canada and the United States took out more than 4,000,000 pounds of trout from lake Superior. Last year the catch was 576,000 pounds and the estimate for this year is less than 300,000 pounds.
The doom of commercial fishing in the great lakes was forecast by conservationalists and commercial fishermen more than 20 years ago, perhaps nearer to 30 years. Those were days of exploitation of natural resources and the governments of the day were tone-deaf to the voices in the wilderness protesting that natural resources were not forever unless controls were imposed.
The great lakes fisheries commission on which the federal government is represented has continued over the years since its formation in 1954 to do much research. It appears that their belief is that the lamprey is the culprit causing all the trouble, and all their efforts have been directed toward its destruction. Their program in this regard has met with considerable success since the streams used by the lamprey for spawning were treated with lampricide. Now that these measures have been taken as the necessary preliminaries to coping with the problem, the fishermen feel that the commission, in cooperation with the provincial government, should press forward with a progressive program of restocking. In fact, the sports fishermen's clubs, commercial fishermen and members of several chambers of commerce in the area of Georgian bay have formed the Georgian bay fisheries association. It is their intention to press for more action in the restoration of our fisheries.
The urgency of this is illustrated in an excerpt which I am going to read from the Toronto daily Star, which illustrates what is happening in all the fishing centres of the great lakes in my area. This article concerns the fisheries in Tobermory, at Georgian bay. It says:
The fisheries at Tobermory on the Georgian bay have never been so low. In 1953 there were 11 boats operating with a catch in excess of $800,000 maintaining 60 families. In 1957, only one boat was operating. In 1959 there were only two boats with a catch valued at less than $40,000 to provide for eight families.
I might say that the only fish they are catching at the present time in this port is herring, and they are not catching $40,000 worth.
I have attended most of the meetings of the Georgian bay fisheries association. They have many dedicated people in their membership who should be given some tangible encouragement in their quest for the restoration of an industry that means much to our economy. The tourist industry in the lake Huron-Georgian bay areas is of major importance, and lake trout was once our greatest attraction. Mr. Chairman, our good Minister of Fisheries may be wondering how we feel
Supply-Fisheries
he should fit into the picture. I believe he could become the toast of the great lakes fishermen. In my opinion, the time is ripe for the injection of some new blood and some new ideas into the great lakes fisheries commission through our federal representatives. Give this program of fisheries restoration some new ambition, some new energy and more money if necessary. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will see fit to make good use of the extra $130,000 voted over last year's estimates for the use of the great lakes fisheries commission.
If we cannot restore the lake trout, let us introduce the sockeye salmon. I have come up with this idea for about six years now, I guess, and have seen no action yet, but I hope that our new minister will follow the trend of things and give us some sockeye salmon. Salmon has been successfully transplanted to other waters. I have two clippings here which bear out that fact. One is taken from a Port Arthur paper and the other from my local paper at Owen Sound. It appears that a few years ago, I believe in 1959 or 1960, the department planted about 300,000 fingerlings from the fish hatchery at Port Arthur in Goose creek, which is up in the Hudson bay area. To my knowledge nothing has been heard of these fish since, but in cleaning up the troughs and containers in which the fish were kept previous to their transplantation about 60 escaped into lake Superior. According to these two articles, three of these fish were subsequently caught at widely spaced points in lake Superior and they had grown to maturity, weighing two and a half to three pounds, which illustrates that fish can be introduced into the great lakes and live there. Therefore I hope the minister will do something along this line of experimentation.
I should also refer to the excellent success with the rainbow trout since its introduction into the great lakes. These, of course, are a sporting fish. Nevertheless their spawning habits are the same as the salmon, which takes place in the headwaters of the streams and rivers. It is my contention that one of the reasons we have difficulties with lake trout is because they spawn in shoals in the great lakes and the predators there destroy great numbers of fish eggs. This is one reason that I think fish which go to the headwaters of rivers to spawn would have a better chance to survive. I feel that if our Minister of Fisheries would show some initiative through the great lakes fisheries commission, our young, progressive Ontario government, his partners in the administration of the great lakes fisheries, would not hesitate to jump on

Supply-Fisheries
the bandwagon, and before too many years we would see satisfactory results in our great lakes fisheries program.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I should like to join with others in congratulating the Minister of Fisheries on his first presentation of the estimates of his department. At an earlier time during the course of debate in this house I had occasion to make some reference to the disparity between the government's approach to western agriculture and its approach to the fishing industry.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: May I ask a question. How does western agriculture come into fishing?


Richard Joseph Cashin: If the hon. member bears with me perhaps a little enlightenment will come his way.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Let us get on with the debate.


Richard Joseph Cashin: At that time, Mr. Chairman, I made reference to a number of matters which I felt should be part of any national policy for the development of our fisheries. My colleague from Burin-Burgeo has already pointed up one of the great problems, that of maintaining price. When we look at agriculture we see a great disparity between the measures taken by government to maintain price certainty and the measures designed to help our fishermen. Even taking into consideration the fact that there are eight and a half times as many farmers in Canada, it is interesting to note that the fishermen receive only about one seventh of the price subsidies received by farmers. This is a great disparity and any development program which did not take this into account would be doing a disservice to the industry. As the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) has said, the price paid to fishermen in Newfoundland is very low. There are those who say the fish plants could afford to pay more. I do not have the evidence to support that statement, but it remains a fact that present prices paid for fresh fish in Newfoundland are too low, and unless there is some increase I fear for the future of the industry.
In the field of agriculture, various measures have been devised to reduce the uncertainties attaching to production and sale. There are those who say that fishing is so dissimilar to agriculture that the application of programs such as crop insurance, or their equivalent, to the fishing industry would not be possible. But to my knowledge no real attempt has been made to see whether or not it is feasible to develop crop insurance for the fisheries, though I think this is an important ingredient in any plan for the development of the industry. I feel it would be a great induce-

ment to the fishermen when they are planning their work for the year if they could feel there was an insurance scheme of this type in effect. Of course, improved technical knowledge and improved equipment would also reduce the risk.
A further consideration which should be borne in mind in any program for the industry is marketing. Marketing development is most important, particularly with respect to the salt fish trade. It has been suggested that a body somewhat similar to the Canadian wheat board could be used to market our salt fish. The wheat board has an excellent record of developing world markets for western grain, but no action has been taken to set up a similar organization to help look after the interests of the fishing industry.
A fourth important measure which I believe would be an ingredient of a good fisheries program would be means of expanding credit facilities. When we compare the credit made available to our fishermen with the credit facilities at the disposal of agriculture, we again find a great disparity. Perhaps I might be allowed to put some figures on record. In 1962, approximately $1.2 billions was paid out under the Canadian Farm Loan Act. This is approximately one thousand times greater than the $1.3 millions paid out under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Under this act, since 1955, there have been only 12 loans in Newfoundland, I understand, to a total of something in the area of $16,000. The reason for this situation is that the act is not suited to the needs of inshore fishermen in Newfoundland. Proper financing has never been part of the life of the fisherman there. The outdated credit system under which individual fishermen operate is much the same as it was centuries ago. I believe a great challenge faces the minister here if he wishes to do something of lasting benefit for the fishing industry, particularly in Newfoundland.
The hon. member for Skeena correctly called attention to the differences between the fisheries on the east coast and on the west coast. There are also important differences between the fisheries in Newfoundland and in some of the maritime provinces. In Newfoundland we have a much larger inshore fishery-fishermen with limited equipment engage in the fishery and trawler operations and dragger operations are not as great. Far more individuals are involved. Basically, what is needed is a substantia] addition to the thinking of the federal government in its approach to fisheries policy. The present approach concentrates on inspection, regulation, research and the provision of physical facilities to a limited extent. It also provides facilities for vessel construction and, to a

certain extent, for fisheries improvement loans. There is still an absence of a comprehensive development policy. There is still a serious disparity between the provision made for the fishing industry as opposed to the provision made for agriculture. This problem will not be met by mere additions or improvements to the present system. I think there must be a fundamental admission that the federal government has never involved itself in this segment of the economy to the degree it is capable of doing. If ever a government was justified in intervening in the economy it is justified in the case of the fisheries of this country.
The fisheries of Newfoundland have not changed very much over several hundreds of years. I feel there is an unrest, today, among the fishermen. Geography and a great many other factors have brought about the slowness to change, which we have seen up to the present; but today the time is ripe for this government to take positive action and to depart from the traditional approach. This may involve a great deal of change in our thinking, but I believe it is necessary. Until now, I do not believe we have had a Department of Fisheries which has been prepared to tackle this problem. This is the task which now faces the present minister and I have confidence that during his term of office a great deal will be accomplished.


Maurice Côté: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks about the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, not only because I am very fond of sea food, but mostly on account of a pleasant experience I had last summer. I then had the opportunity to visit the home town of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), and I must say to his credit that the people of Caraquet are very proud of their minister.
I found out at the same time that the people of Caraquet and from that area of New Brunswick are extremely courteous. I was even able to note a certain spiritual relationship between the people of that area and the Saguenay population of which I am a humble representative in this house.
For instance, I found out that Reverend Father Labrosse, who had been a missionary in Caraquet, had also been a missionary in the Saguenay area during the same period. This finding has enabled me to establish closer relations with the people of that highly considered area of our country who are almost 100 per cent French.
Supply*-Fisheries
During my stay in that region, I realized the importance of our sea and deep sea fisheries for the economy of Canada.
I questioned at length the inshore and the deep sea fishermen. I went aboard their trawlers and even had the opportunity of visiting their fish processing plants.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I am making these few remarks tonight is that those people, who are constantly risking their lives, those conquerors of the sea, are not making the profits they are entitled to.
For instance, I have found that even when their trawlers came in with some 75,000 or 80,000 pounds of fish, the owners could only rely on their small unemployment insurance benefits to meet their needs during the winter season.
As a matter of fact, when you realize that a trawler costs between $75,000 and $90,000 and that unemployment benefits are the only source of income its owner has during winter, you really wonder how he can manage.
Fortunately, I understand that their profits are somewhat bigger now than they used to be.
I noticed, especially in the neighbourhood of the small town of Caraquet, that people are leaving farming for fishing.
Once again, I should like to point out to the house that the income of fishermen is not adequate, in my opinion.
Mr. Chairman, I have also noticed that fishermen in the Gaspe peninsula complain because fishermen from the maritime provinces do some fishing along the north shore of the St. Lawrence. In fact, the Gaspe fishermen feel that they have to put up with unfair competition from the maritime fishermen because the latter have better equipment to fish along the north shore. I feel that such a conflict should be fairly easy to settle, and I am drawing it to the attention of the minister who, I believe, is himself a descendant of those conquerors of the sea.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the minister upon introducing his estimates for the first time, and in looking at the benches I also wish to congratulate him on the support he is getting from the Pacific coast. I think that the question I was going to ask might perhaps be better left to someone from the Pacific coast. What concessions are we giving the Japanese under the north Pacific treaty, which has just been completed?
As one who comes from Saskatchewan I deplore the fact that that delicacy, the gold-eye, is disappearing as the result of the damming of rivers, and I say to the people from

Supply-Fisheries
the Pacific coast: Let us find out if the treaty is going to hurt the salmon run. I am very glad to see the Minister of Fisheries dealing with these estimates and I am very pleased to see so many Pacific coast members here.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to join with those who have congratulated the minister on the occasion of his first presentation of the estimates of the department. I also wish to join those who have expressed their regret at the passing of the former deputy minister, the late George Clark. I wish his successor, Dr. Needier, every success and a long period of useful service in the Department of Fisheries.
The estimates of the Department of Fisheries are of particular interest to all of us, of course, from either the Atlantic or the Pacific seaboard as well as to people in other parts of Canada. My own particular interest arises because so much of my riding is on the sea and so many of my constituents are fishermen. If I were to sum up in a few words what the great need of the fishing industry is, I would simply say that it was increased productivity and wider markets; but that is too wide a generalization.
I should like to mention one thing in passing. The fishing industry, like all other old industries, has accumulated problems over the years to the point that many people refer to these problems as if they were insoluble problems, impossible to be dealt with effectively in a reasonable period of time. I am convinced that kind of thinking is wrong and nothing is farther from the truth. What is commonly referred to as the fisheries problem is nothing more nor less than a group of small problems, all of which are soluble.
Among some of the specific things that are needed is the enlargement of the bait service. From year to year in recent years a number of bait units have been placed in various parts of Newfoundland, including my own riding, and although this program is headed in the right direction I should like to see it intensified. There is a great need for bait. Every year thousands of catchable fish are left in the sea because the fishermen have no bait. The Department of Fisheries has recognized the problem and is taking steps to rectify it but, as I said, I should like to see the program intensified and the bait service as a whole enlarged.
I should also like to see a continuation of the building of community stages, as well as capital assistance for those fishermen who are unable to improve their fishing gear, or for those men who are not now fishermen but want to engage in the fishing industry.

Another aspect of the fishing industry which needs serious attention is the developing of new markets. The world seems to be becoming more fish conscious, and there must be many places that Canadian fish can be sold where now it is not. I also think that the matter of shipping fish by air from Gander, let us say, to the European market is one which the Department of Fisheries could explore profitably, because today Europe provides a profitable market for fish. Incomes in Europe are high. Traditionally, the people of Europe have been fish eaters. We, on the east coast of Canada, ought to be able to supply a greater proportion of the needs for fish in the European market. In addition to thinking of shipping fish in the traditional way, by boat, we ought to think about shipping fish by air-fresh fish, not frozen fish. Europe is only hours away from Gander. A modern DC-8 freighter, I believe, can carry 8,000 pounds. Fresh fish supplied by air, when it could be eaten within a matter of hours after being taken from the water, would command a much higher price than the frozen article. I would suggest that the Department of Fisheries look into the possibilities of developing a market in Europe to be supplied by Canadian fish shipped by air.
In passing, I would suggest that if an airport like Gander did not exist we ought to be thinking about building one. However, we do have in Gander a large modern airport and its great facilities ought to be used for sending Canadian products overseas. The hon. member for Skeena mentioned that in the coming years there would be a far greater consumption of fish and that we ought to be preparing now to take advantage of this possibility. I agree with him wholeheartedly and hope that the federal-provincial conference on fisheries will result in a great national fisheries program which will start Canada on her way to becoming the greatest fish producing country in the world.


Mr. Chafterlon:: Mr. Chairman, we on this side are anxious to co-operate with the government in expediting the business of the house. My remarks, therefore, will be very brief. Being a member of the official opposition from the Pacific coast, I think I am entitled to make a few remarks. We have heard from the members of the various provinces along the Atlantic coast and some of the members around the great lakes. I think, for the benefit of members, and to place in perspective the importance of the fishing industry to my province, I should quote just one or two figures. The landed value of fish and fish products in British Columbia in 1961 was $38 million. The next highest province was Nova Scotia with $27 million, and so on down

the list. The cash value of fishing craft and gear in British Columbia in 1961 was $56 million, whereas in the province of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island combined, it was about $43 million.
Now, Mr. Chairman, since I come from the Pacific coast I must necessarily mention the international north Pacific fisheries treaty. Although there may have been disagreement amongst the various segments of the industry in British Columbia as to the recommendations of the north Pacific fisheries commission,
I want to try to convince the minister that in one respect every phase of the industry in British Columbia is unanimous, and that is in opposition to the relaxation of the application of the abstention principle as contained in the present convention. Even the fisheries association of British Columbia, which had previously approved the recommendations of the commission, is opposed to the relaxation of this principle.
In the limited time I propose to take, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal briefly with one specific phase of the fishing industry of British Columbia on the Pacific coast. I refer to the salt water sports fishing industry. Although I enjoyed the minister's talk tonight, I was disappointed that he did not mention this particular phase of the fishing industry, because it is already an important part of our industry on the Pacific coast and is becoming more important. As an example of the extent to which sports fishing on the Pacific coast is developing, I may tell you that in one day, August 6, 1961, according to an aerial survey made by the officers of the fisheries department-I might pause to commend the excellent staff of that department-close to 2,000 sports fishing vessels were counted in the straits of Juan de Fuca and Georgia. There are, on the average, about two and a half people per boat, so that means on one morning there were about 5,000 people engaged in sports fishing on the inner waters between the mainland and Vancouver island.
Although this was in August, Mr. Chairman, and the best fishing time of the year in our province is late summer, the fact is that sports fishing takes place all year round. In so far as the tourist business is concerned, sports fishing is also important and growing in importance. It has been estimated that in 1962 there were 300,000 tourists who came to British Columbia for the specific purpose of taking part in salt water angling. It is estimated that these tourists spend, on an average, $50 per person per day. In so far as the tourist business is concerned, the sports fishing industry brings in some $15 million per
Supply-Fisheries
year to the province of British Columbia. In addition to that, it has been estimated that the total value of the sports fishing industry in British Columbia is over $50 million a year.
Many organizations on the Pacific coast have combined to promote the business of sports fishing. The organization set up by them is called the amalgamated services society. I would suggest to the minister that he seriously consider the suggestion put forward by this society for the establishment of a sports fishing commission on the Pacific coast. For one thing, this society feels that there should be a great deal more done in connection with the rehabilitation of and research in the sports fishing species, namely, springs and cohoe. A great deal has been done in connection with some species, but these are mostly in the net fishing species.
In closing, then, I commend to the minister serious consideration of the brief submitted by the amalgamated services society to the previous minister, dated February, 1963, and which was too late for him to act upon although I know he was very interested in it.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: I should like to congratulate the minister upon his appointment and also the deputy minister. I have known both of them for a great many years. The industry that I represent is the sardine industry, and it is known all over the world. The word "sardine" is the same in three languages, Spanish, French and English. If you will pay attention when reading a book in the future, you will probably see the word "sardine" mentioned.
One hon. member said tonight that the fishing industry was a sick industry. I do not agree with him as far as the sardine industry is concerned. Our sardine industry will take a back seat to no other sardine industry in the world. We can compete all over the world. The only thing we have to do is keep the government out of our hair and let's go to it. I have a few more notes here, but it is difficult for me to read my own writing.
Since coming to Ottawa I have heard that the government has some kind of a butter problem. I always say we have a sardine problem but we are not asking the government to do anything about it. We have 100 million tins of sardines on our shelves at the present time, but we are going to dispose of them through private industry. We have in our industry the seiners, the weirmen and the packers. We need the three trades in our industry. The seiners are mobile; they go after the fish wherever they are. The weirmen are stationary and the fish must come to them. Therefore we need regulation in our industry, and I would say that for five or six years

Supply-Fisheries
up to this time we did not have regulation in the industry; it was more or less chaos.
The reason we need the weirmen in our industry is that at certain times in the summer the fish need to be cleaned and kept in the weirs. If the seiners seine fish at this particular time, they must hold the fish in the seine, and if the fish die they have to sell them for fishmeal or something else-what we call the grinders. So we need the weirmen. Scientists will probably tell you that there are enough fish in the sea to keep us going; it does not make any difference how we take them out, or anything like that, because the fish are there. I agree with the scientists that the fish are there; but on the other hand it is what people think that counts. The weirmen think the seiners are disturbing the schools coming in and they will not build their weirs. If they do not build their weirs, it does not make any difference what the scientists think, because we will not be able to keep the industry and it will put the industry, the seiners and the weirmen out of business. Therefore we must have regulation.
I want to congratulate the minister upon putting regulations into effect which are going to be of great benefit to the sardine industry. Another thing about that industry is that we do not know anything about it. I have been in the sardine industry for about 40 years, and I know no more about it than I did when I went into it, as far as the fish are concerned. I can tell you all about the manufacturing end of it, I can tell you all about selling; but I cannot tell you anything about when the fish are going to arrive, how big or how small they are going to be, or anything about it. I have talked to scientists and they have told me it would take about 20 years of intense research to know about it.
In our industry we make our own cans and pile up, say, 7 million or 8 million cases of cans, with nothing to put in them. We build a warehouse; we put $250,000 into a warehouse, and have nothing to put into it. Then the fish come all at once and we find we do not have enough cans. The Department of Fisheries could give us that information through research, and I hope that money will be put into the estimates to take care of that problem.
There is another problem, about which hon. members have probably heard. I refer to the Passamaquoddy development. I do not know anything about power development, but I do know something about the fisheries. With regard to the Passamaquoddy development, at the present time the United States government is asking for 109 square miles of our water. If that water is turned over to them we will lose control of 109 square miles of

this resource. The sardine industry is located around Passamaquoddy. It has never been proven why that industry is there. It has never been proven what put the industry there. It is the only place in North America where you can have a sardine industry. This industry means a great deal to our economy; in fact, it pays out between $5 million and $6 million a year for fish, and in wages. If you cannot prove why that industry is there, then you cannot say that any dams or power developments are going to hurt it. The first thing you have to prove is why the industry is there, and that has never been proven. It is the only place in North America in which this industry can be economically located, because you have to operate six or seven months in the year to make it economical. In the sardine industry we operate sometimes 12 months a year. I think there should be quite a bit of research carried out and we should know why the industry is there. If we know why, we will know whether any dams or power developments will hurt it. But, as I say, we do not know that at the present time, and we should know it before any power development takes place on the Passamaquoddy.
Another item we have down there is clams. For many years we had clam factories around the bay of Fundy. Ten or fifteen years ago it was recommended-I do not know what government was in power at that time-that some conservation should be carried out on clams, but nothing was done about it. This went on until the clams were dug out. When the fisherman goes to work and digs clams, if they are smaller than two inches in size he has to throw them away, and the gulls and crows pick them up. So eventually our clam factories were shut down, I recommend most strongly to the Department of Fisheries that they close the beds and keep them closed for at least three or four years, until the clam industry can come back again and be given the chance once more to go into operation. I hope this will be done.
The sardine industry does business with people all around the world. Sixty five per cent of our industry is concerned with export. Therefore the industry means a great deal not only to the province of New Brunswick but to the Dominion of Canada, because it keeps the export dollars rolling in. Our export market to England was for a long time shut off because the use of the word sardine was forbidden in that country. But lately we have got around that by using the word sild and we are developing quite a market in England. It is strange when one realizes that the development of this market was helped because of Jamaicans going over to England.

For the last 60 years we have always had a very large market in Jamaica. The Jamaicans went to England and located around London and Manchester, and the first thing we knew was that we had developed a market for sardines in these areas. We found that Jamaicans were asking for these sardines. Therefore, because we put the word sild on the cans we were able to send sardines to England.
I probably could talk about the sardines for quite a while, but the hour is getting late and I think I have possibly said enough.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just want to ask the minister a question. Is it his wish that the estimates be passed tonight, or does he wish to conduct what looks almost like a filibuster on the part of his own party? They have consumed at least one hour and 20 minutes of the time. I thought the idea was that we would push on with the business of the house. We have indicated our desire to get these estimates through, and get on to the Department of Public Works.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I appreciate the co-operation which I have received this evening on the introduction of my estimates. I do not deny the fact that probably more hon. members have spoken from this side of the house than from the other side, but everyone has been very brief. It certainly is my intention, if we have the co-operation of the house, to have these estimates passed this evening. Personally I had some replies for hon. members who have spoken, but if the house agrees, I would prefer giving those replies to them individually by letter, and then carrying on with the estimates.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think that proposal of the minister's is most unsatisfactory. By providing information by letter an hon. member does not have the opportunity to query it further in public. We should like to see these things done in public, and not secretly by letter.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 1 carry?


Charles Benjamin Howard: No. Before it does, perhaps the minister could say what he was going to say in response to the various items.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As the hon. member is keenly interested in having some response to the matters he has raised, I am prepared to give it very briefly. The hon. member has referred to a letter to which he could not get a reply. I was the most surprised member of the committee to learn about this because it is not the practice in my office. So far as the north Pacific fishery treaty is concerned, I have previously said that while the negotiations are under way it would not
Supply-Fisheries
be proper for us to debate the details of the negotiations now taking place regarding the treaty between the United States, Japan and Canada.
I have stated, and I repeat it, that as soon as an agreement is reached between the three parties to the treaty, the standing committee on marine and fisheries will be called and the whole matter will be discussed in all its details, because then we would know on what terms an agreement had been reached. I can assure hon. members that we know the views of the different parties, of the fishermen's union or the association, and of fishermen who do not belong to that particular union.
The Canadian delegation has done everything possible to respect those views and to make sure the interests of the fishermen were protected. The hon. member also mentioned that it was not proper to have a home-town minister. Although I do come from a fishing community, it is not my intention to act as a home-town minister. The policies which will be introduced by this government will be national policies, and if the hon. member would take a quick look at the estimates he would see that the amounts are fairly evenly divided between the province of British Columbia and the five or six provinces on the east coast. For instance, in the item on conservation and development, out of $6,700,000 over $2,700,000 is for the west coast. For construction and equipment, out of $1,700,000 over $766,000 is for the west coast, and if he looks at votes 45 and 85 he will find that the west coast is well taken care of.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
45. Canadian share of expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates, $1,162,000.
Charles Benjamin Howard: On this item which deals with Canada's share of the expenses of a number of international commissions, we must disagree with the minister's contention that it is not proper to debate the question of the north Pacific fisheries treaty while the negotiations are being conducted. This is a most ridiculous contention because its implication is that we must remain silent, with no opportunity to get information from the department or the minister about what is taking place or what is proposed with respect to a vitally important phase of our fishery problems. The same principle would apply with respect to any discussions relevant to other treaties and conventions.
The negotiations, so-called, with respect to the north Pacific fisheries treaty have encompassed quite some time, and I gather they

Supply-Fisheries
are not complete. A further meeting is to take place in Ottawa some time next spring, which leaves us in the position of facing a blank wall, with no response to any of the queries made with respect to this vitally important question.
We hope the minister and the government agree without equivocation that there should be no relaxation of the abstention principle contained in the treaty, because that is the basis on which it rests. As the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich indicated, there is not one iota of difference with respect to it among any of the organizations or people on the west coast who are concerned with it. Yet the attitude of the government as expressed publicly has been generally one of possibly wanting to negotiate on the question of the abstention principle in order to preserve the treaty itself.
We all want to ensure that there is a treaty and that it is maintained. In fact we would like to see it expanded to include other nations, as the Liberals promised they would do. The approach of Canada, however, as enunciated in the public press, has been one which would lead the public to believe that the government's attitude is that of wanting to bargain away the abstention principle in order to maintain the treaty in existence. This is the interpretation which could easily be made, unless the minister clearly states the contrary.
I saw an indication of this in the Vancouver Province some time ago. I have forgotten the date, but it was around the time that the minister left the west coast to go to Tokyo to participate in the discussions there. There was an indication in that newspaper, and an interpretation by some people, that the government would be willing to let the Japanese people fish more of our herring on the west coast if they would only leave our salmon alone on the high seas.
I do not believe the minister would make such a statement, and I do not think it was attributed to him. He knows the industry better than that, but this is the interpretation being placed on the attitude of the government, because it has not clearly stated its concern for the maintenance of the abstention principle as it is presently contained in the treaty, and the expansion of that principle so that the line of demarcation that now exists is placed in such a position in mid-Pacific as to guarantee that our salmon, which spawn and grow in our streams in British Columbia, are not caught on the other side of the 175th west meridian. It is the particular function of the minister and his government to explain to this parliament those misconceptions which exist with respect to the treaty, without any

equivocation, followed of course by firm definite statements and approaches in various discussions taking place between the three nations negotiating the treaty. If the minister desires to deal with that particular phase of the matter I for one would like him to tell us what is happening to the promise of his party to guarantee that Russia would become a party to the treaty.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: So far as the statement to the effect that I said it was our intention to allow the Japanese to catch more herring on the west coast in return for certain protection to salmon fisheries, there is no such statement on my part. Negotiations in Japan have taken place amicably. We exposed our position and told the Japanese and the Americans what our position was. We were certainly interested in retaining the north Pacific treaty, but we knew such a treaty would be useless to us unless we had within the treaty the measures needed for the protection and conservation of our Pacific fisheries. I can assure the hon. member it is not a give-away affair on our part. As I said earlier we are fully aware of the intentions, desires and views of both fishermen and the industry on the Pacific coast, and it is our intention to act accordingly.
So far as the promise made by the party to which I belong to include the U.S.S.R. in the treaty, I assure the hon. member that this evening is the first I have heard of that promise. The matter has been under discussion, but I want to repeat what I said earlier. We do not feel that now is the proper time to have the U.S.S.R. as a fourth party to the north Pacific treaty. We have taken the matter up before with the U.S.S.R. and it has been obvious to us that they have no intention whatsoever of joining at this time. What the future holds for us I cannot say, but I hope some day we will be in a position to have all countries interested in fishing in the north Pacific taking part in a north Pacific treaty.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It is too bad the minister does not read the political propaganda put out by his own party. I have a publication in front of me called the "Liberal Challenge" published by the B.C. Liberal association, in which they offer a solution to everything. On page 7, under the heading "Wealth from the sea", there are a variety of things which are going to be done. Let me quote from it:
Other measures in the Liberal fisheries programand that is a capital "L" Liberal-
-look toward bringing Russia under the provisions of the north Pacific fisheries treaty, which now governs only Japan, Canada and the XJ.S.A.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is exactly what I said. We are looking towards that, but we feel now is not the proper time. We believe they are not prepared to join in such a treaty.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is not what the minister said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes it is.


Charles Benjamin Howard: He said a moment ago that with respect to bringing the U.S.S.R. into the north Pacific fisheries treaty, this was the first he had heard about it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, I meant the election promise.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That it was an election
promise?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, by the Liberal party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not a promise; it is just anticipation.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If the minister did not have so much coaching from the Secretary of State who is sitting beside him, we might get some straight answers to this question. In any event, whether the minister heard about it or not, and no matter how much he wants to misinterpret his own party's propaganda, he said they had had discussions with the U.S.S.R. about this matter. Can the minister tell us why he says that now is not the time to bring or attempt to bring the U.S.S.R. into the north Pacific fisheries treaty, especially in view of the fact that the whole treaty is open to negotiation, having reached its ten-year expiry date in June, negotiations having gone on in Washington and Tokyo and planned for Ottawa in the spring? Second, with whom were the discussions held; through what channels; how long did they take; what was discussed, and what was the attitude of the U.S.S.R.? I should also appreciate it if the minister, who a moment ago said that the Canadian delegation had explained their position quite clearly both to Japan and the United States, would extend that a little and be courteous enough to parliament to explain the position to parliament as well, so the people in Canada know what this is all about.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to make it clear that the Russian fishermen at this time are not fishing stocks of fish which the United States, the Japanese and ourselves are interested in. There would be no real advantage in the U.S.S.R. participating in a treaty covering stocks in which they are not now interested. I should also mention that in a certain area of the north Pacific they have a treaty with Japan; and if we studied in detail the application of that treaty to our
Business of the House problems I think we would find that in some cases it would not be too practical.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Would the minister mind telling us why it is not considered practical to have the Soviet union in the treaty? He said they are not interested in the fisheries areas covered by the treaty. I presume this means salmon fishing, which is of vital concern to us and which extends into the mid-Pacific. Is it the Soviet union which says it is not interested in fishing the fish in this area, or is it the minister's guess that the Soviet union is not interested in the particular Species of fish in that area? I am sure the committee would like to know when these discussions took place, and through what channels.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: At no time has there been any official negotiation with the U.S.S.R. concerning the participation of their country in the north Pacific treaty. The U.S.S.R. have had representatives at other conventions where we had Canadian delegates. There has also been an exchange of notes between the Department of External Affairs and the U.S.S.R. regarding the halibut fishery. I am not in a position to give all those details this evening; I do not have them in front of me. As I mentioned earlier, we feel this is not the time for the U.S.S.R. to join because they are not interested in participating. Second, they are not interested in the varieties or stocks of fish presently covered by the north Pacific treaty.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Ten thirty.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Inasmuch as the minister has said he does not have these details before him now, it might be as well to call it ten thirty so that on another occasion he might have the opportunity to provide that information, so that we may know what is going on.
Item stands.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: We have been told the business for tomorrow, but would the leader of the house put it on the record for convenience. Second, would he let us know what the business is for Monday and Tuesday? My hope is that he will space out the three remaining supply motions over the next seven weeks rather than take them consecutively.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The business for tomorrow, as has already been indicated, is the continuation of the income tax bill. If that should be completed I think we would be prepared to

Business of the House
go on with the vocational training resolution, but I imagine that is only a remote contingency, much as I should like to think otherwise.
Tomorrow evening we shall take the estimates of the Department of Justice. If they should be completed, the Minister of Transport would be available to take up those items of his which were stood over. It is our intention to have the Minister of Finance move to go into supply on Monday. I should like to have a chance to talk to hon. gentlemen opposite about the legislative plans for the rest of the week. I hope to give what indication I can tomorrow night.
It being 25 minutes before eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put.
The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $461,000.
5. Information and consumer service including grant of $3,000 to Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition, $291,000.
10. Economics service including $10,000 for grants to Canadian universities for research in social sciences, $337,000.
15. Industrial development service, $693,000.
20. Field services administration, $885,000. Conservation and development service-
25. Operation and maintenance, $6,738,000.
30. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,070,000.
30a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $231,000.
35. Inspection service, $2,038,000.
40. Fishermen's indemnity plan administration, $259,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 25, 1963