1964-09-24

Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-124, to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act (affirmation).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, although I realize that this bill is unlikely to reach second reading this session, I feel it is of sufficient importance to all Canadians and to hon. members in particular to warrant introduction at this time.
The main purpose of the bill is to declare the right of Canadians and those who want to become Canadians to freedom of conscience in pledging allegiance by providing that any person in Canada may affirm his allegiance as well as swear to it. A second purpose is to enlarge the pledge specifically to include Canada as well as the sovereign. A third purpose is to validate oaths that have been taken in the past, as well as those that may be taken in the future, by persons without religious belief. A fourth purpose is to validate affirmations of allegiance that may have been administered in the past where by law an oath of allegiance should have been administered. Finally, the bill would bring the Oaths of Allegiance Act into conformity with the Royal Styles and Titles Act.
The bill would amend the British North America Act to provide that Senators and members of the House of Commons may swear the oath of allegiance with the words "so help me God" or may affirm it. Also, as this bill would be a Canadian act there would be an official version of the oath in the French language.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with standing order 26, I should like to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), that this house do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the discriminatory attitude of the C.B.C. toward political minorities in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this is a definite and urgent matter. I do not intend to discuss it, only to mention it. Here it is. How can the C.B.C. allow two political parties to make themselves heard on a nation-wide hook-up, at public expense, when the three other political parties, representing over 2 million voters, are refused the same opportunity?
That, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of public importance. Now, in the past when motions for adjournment of the house were brought forward, no definition was ever given of what constituted a matter of public importance. Did it have to be important in itself, because of the very essence of the subject to be discussed, or by accident? That still has to be defined. Therefore, we have to go back to motions which have already been accepted, in order to determine whether our motion is important enough to warrant an adjournment of the business of the house.
Since 1962, two motions to adjourn the business of the house have been entertained. On January 31, 1963, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), then leader of the opposition, moved such a motion in regard to a statement made by the American secretary of state. Recently-


Mr. Speaker:: I think I get the gist of the hon. member's motion. Is he proposing to move
8374	HOUSE OF
Free Time Political Broadcasts a motion at the end of his remarks? I do not believe he should go into a long debate at this time. Is it his purpose to move that the house adjourn under standing order 26?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have already introduced my motion and, at present, I am in the act of explaining why in my opinion this motion is urgent and of public importance, and this has always been permitted in the past for all those who wanted to move similar motions.
I can recall-


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of order. My point of order is that the hon. member is dealing with C.B.C. programming, and that is something that is not within the jurisdiction of parliament but is within the jurisdiction of the corporation. I would ask you to rule immediately that this motion and these remarks are out of order.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I maintain that the C.B.C. comes directly under the laws passed	by	parliament	and	if parliament
wishes to make any change in the way the C.B.C. operates and administers its networks, I think the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) is wrong.
Furthermore, in my opinion the question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is quite in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I insist on being given the privilege of establishing that my motion	is in order.	That	privilege	wasgranted	in	the past to	hon.	members	who
presented similar motions, and I maintain that I should be given the same privilege.
I presented my motion and I was saying that since 1962 two motions for the adjournment of the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member that he move his motion if he cares to do so.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I proposed my motion. In fact, I have even sent you a copy and I am now trying to prove that my motion is in order today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to cut the hon. member short, but I do not think 

there is any particular difficulty in dealing with this matter. Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100, paragraph 3 reads as follows:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
On Monday of this week we had a supply motion and the opportunity was presented, I believe, to debate the matter at that time. That opportunity was not availed of, and at this time in view of the several departments up for discussion I do not see any particular urgency of debate. In my opinion the matter is not one coming under standing order 26.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is true that we could have debated this matter on Monday, at the time the supply motion was brought forward, but at that time we had brought forward, but either from the Prime Minister, or from the C.B.C. Now, I am of the opinion that there is as much urgency today as there was on Monday, but we do not have today the opportunity to consider that corporation's estimates which would enable us to discuss this matter of public and urgent importance for the whole house.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the matter is important, but it is more in the nature of a grievance than a matter requiring immediate discussion. In my opinion urgency sufficient for the proceedings of the house to be set aside so that the matter be discussed immediately does not exist at this time. An opportunity to debate it will be provided very shortly; therefore I do not see any occasion to set aside the ordinary proceedings of the house.
Orders of the day. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in that case, could I-


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of order. You had already called orders of the day when the motion was made; therefore, to begin with, the motion was out of order. You called on me twice, and I hope now I will be allowed to ask my question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, before the house met I sent you a notice to the effect that I intended to raise this matter today; now, here is my question of privilege.
After studying what happened in the past and more particularly, with reference to a precedent established when the leader of the official opposition or any other hon. member introduced a motion to adjourn the business of the house, I noticed that the Speaker always allowed the mover to put forward his argument to show that his motion was important and urgent.
Today you say that the matter is not urgent without even giving us an opportunity to put forward our arguments to demonstrate that the matter is urgent.
That is why I say your decision flies in the face of our privileges in not giving us an opportunity to put forward the proof that the matter is important and urgent.
Besides, I should like to refer to Beau-chesne's-
{Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Far from
preventing the hon. member from making a statement, I think the Chair has been rather lenient. The decision still stands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State possibly I should direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the completion by Dr. Andrew Stewart in the near future of his first term as chairman of the board of broadcast governors, has the government received any indication from Dr. Stewart regarding the question of reappointment; and has any matter been raised with him that there has
Inquiries of the Ministry been interference by the government in connection with the processing of applications for licences or transfers of licences?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago I received a communication from Dr. Stewart in which he indicated that he did not intend to continue as chairman of the board of broadcast governors. It was a personal communication, but I would be very glad to inquire of Dr. Stewart to see whether it could be tabled, or a similar communication which would give an indication why he does not wish to continue for purely personal reasons.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: May I ask, as a supplementary question, has the government come to any policy decision, and particularly has it forwarded a recommendation to the B.B.G. that multiple station ownership of Canadian broadcasting stations is something to be encouraged? I ask this question because it may fit in with the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and also because of the decision by the B.B.G. to give Mr. Stirling one more station for his multiple ownership?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into that, but I think I can say there is no relation between the two questions.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the fact that the Fowler committee is not holding public hearings, and in view of questions which have arisen both with regard to the decision of Dr. Stewart not to serve again as chairman of the board of governors and the apparent emergence of a privately owned radio network, would the Prime Minister consider setting up the House of Commons committee on broadcasting so these surprising developments might be investigated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I will be glad to give consideration to that question in the light of the observations made by my hon. friend.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet reached any decision regarding an independent investigation into the
8376	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry disturbance which took place at La Macaza, Quebec, in connection with a peace demonstration held there some two weeks ago?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with the Minister of National Defence, who has been in touch with those concerned. An investigation is being made, and the minister will be in a position to make a statement in a day or two.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Can I ask the Prime Minister whether any interviews are being held with those who have made complaints to the press that they were ill treated during this disturbance? It seems to me that a further investigation by the officials of the Department of National Defence hardly meets the situation. I would have hoped from the minister's reply more than a week ago that an independent inquiry would be made as to whether a full investigation should be conducted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: An inquiry is being made by the minister, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the minister's report on the matter will deal with the points raised by my hon. friend.



NON-PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN NAVAL EXERCISE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Canada fulfilling her obligation to NATO by failing to participate in the NATO naval exercises that are now under way?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: My hon. friend knows that Canada is a country that has fulfilled its obligations to NATO.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. Has Canada some commitment to the United States that takes prior claim over her obligation to NATO?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a former minister of national defence my hon. friend knows the answer to that is clearly no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the Minister of National Defence, what is the nature of the naval exercises now being carried on by Canada in conjunction with the United States?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: They are naval exercises for the purpose of improving the co-operation which exists between our two countries, which


has worked so well in the past and will work even better in the future.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why are we not joining in the NATO exercises?



COLD LAKE, ALTA.  CONTRACT FOR AIRPORT HEATING SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, so far as welcoming the Queen is concerned, the fact that the house is in session will give more members an opportunity to meet and welcome the Queen than if the house were not in session. So far as a recess is concerned, I think we will have to wait and see what progress we make on the measures now before the house.']
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Sirathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell us whether the department is about to make changes in the heating system at Cold Lake airport and, if so, if this work is being put out for tender?


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


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: There is considerable apprehension in Edmonton labour circles that the department is negotiating this, and I think it would relieve public-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona was asking a question that we think is very important, which affects the same city I come from. Communications I have received from Edmonton indicate that a $2 million contract will be awarded in the next day or so to a contractor in the Cold Lake area, and that contractors in the city of Edmonton have not been given an opportunity to bid for this work. Surely we can expect an answer to a question as important as that on orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that I did not quite appreciate the urgency, and the matter of two days makes it reasonably urgent. Perhaps if the minister has the answer he could give it.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to see the Minister of National Defence has this drawn to his attention.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: If I might be allowed, when I was speaking and trying to explain the question, Your Honour started to say this was a question for the order paper; and while I was trying to explain the urgency Your Honour recognized someone else. I sat here for half an hour trying to get the floor while Your Honour recognized member after member further down the chamber. While I do not want to make an issue of this, it does

seem to me that when it takes so long to get the floor Your Honour should give us some kind of recognition when we have a point.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the acting minister of foreign affairs in Cyprus announced today that within four or five days Russia will be signing an agreement whereby arms and military equipment will be given to Cyprus; and in view of the fact that we continually hear reports of meetings held by the United Nations but of no decision so far as the situation in Cyprus is concerned, cannot the minister give us some information as to what is actually taking place?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the solution of the problem in Cyprus and the current meetings in the United Nations must be clearly understood. The proposal for a solution is one which rests with the mediator and is altogether independent of the discussions which are taking place in the security council. It is expected that the security council will reach a decision today regarding the renewal of the mandate, which has been the subject matter of discussion in the security council for three or four days now. The announcement regarding the purchase of arms from the Soviet union is something I would first like to examine before making any comment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. Could I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, in the process of renewing the mandate, Canada has made any representations to the secretary general of the United Nations asking for some commitment by all members of the United Nations not to sell arms to the government of Cyprus during this very troubled period, in order that the United Nations force may carry out its responsibilities with a minimum of friction?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We certainly have made representations along these lines, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the
Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether the Canadian government is now satisfied that the United Nations force in Cyprus does have genuine freedom of movement? I ask this as a supplementary question in view of the fact that the Cypriot government has apparently alleged that this problem has been solved. Is the minister satisfied that there is freedom of movement?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Yes, sir.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is related to questions asked earlier today concerning Cyprus. In view of a report from the United Nations in today's Montreal Gazette that the United Nations has given no indication that it in any way agrees with the statement of the government of Cyprus that the problem of the freedom of movement of United Nations troops has now been settled, does the Canadian government take a different view of the matter from that of the secretary general? As I understood the minister a few moments ago, he said the Canadian government was quite satisfied that the United Nations force had complete freedom of movement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to change my answer. I think my hon. friend has perhaps confused it with the statement made by the secretary general in the current debate on his report.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Has the Prime Minister been asked by the Canadian junior chamber of commerce to intervene in order to prevent la Federation des jeunes chambres du Canada from being recognized on an international level?
If so, what was the Prime Minister's reaction?
[ Text]


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I received no such request to intervene in this matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Prime Minister in his capacity of reporting to parliament on federal-provincial affairs. In view of the statement of the Minister of Forestry to the economic association of Montreal on Tuesday last, in which he said that the ten provincial governments, together with the federal government, must now establish goals and economic priorities, is it the intention of the government to press for a conference with the provinces as soon as possible in order to establish economic priorities and priorities in the field of social action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with this matter in the reply which I made to the communication from the premier of Manitoba. I would add that in the conference which is to take place in a few weeks we will be discussing the establishment of a tax structure committee, and that will have a bearing on priorities.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How does the right hon. Prime Minister reconcile that with the concrete suggestion of the Minister of Forestry that it is immediately imperative that economic priorities be established with the provinces as soon as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to read the speech of my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker. It has not been brought to my attention up to the present time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Can he tell us whether his colleague for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) finally convinced Hon. Rene Levesque, of the Quebec government, of the merits of co-operative federalism?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in a few days the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska will have won over every right-minded citizen to the cause of co-operative federalism.
[Mr. Pearson.)


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Minister of Justice suggesting that if the Quebec minister of natural resources is not convinced, he becomes, by the same token, a citizen who is not right-minded?


Guy Favreau: It is not up to me to explain statements in public.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have there been any communications whatever between a member of the government of British Columbia and any member of the government of Canada, or any officials of any department or branches of those respective governments, with respect to Premier Bennett's proposal for the annexation of the Yukon and part of the Northwest Territories?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I doubt it very much, but because I esteem my hon. friend so highly I shall make the inquiries he seeks.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I ask a
supplementary question. When the minister inquires, I wonder if he would convey to Premier Bennett the suggestion that was made by the then sitting Liberal member, Mr. Simmons, that the Yukon extend her southern boundary to the 54th degree of latitude in the province of British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the fact that the pay increases for members of the staff of the House of Commons announced last week were said to be related to pay increases in the civil service, can the President of the Privy Council tell us why certain sections of the staff, notably the protective staff, the messengers and the tradesmen have not yet had any increases?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The reason is that the groups to which the hon. member has referred would be related to what is known as group D, under the cyclical pay

review plan, which is a pay group of the civil service. They would presumably receive any increase in salary at the time the group D cyclical review was decided upon and made applicable to the civil service at large.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say when that will be, and to what date any such increases will be retroactive?


George James McIlraith: It is very difficult at this stage to give a date when the determination will be made, but I would think that in the normal course it should be late this coming winter or early next spring. The group D pay changes are effective as of October 1, 1964; but I should add that some of the related groups in the House of Commons staff may have different effective pay adjustment dates. Therefore that pay date should not be taken as applicable to all the groups in the House of Commons; it should only be taken as the applicable date for the civil service.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the President of the Privy Council mind informing the house why on some occasions when he is asked questions about salary increases for the House of Commons staff he answers them, and on other occasions he indicates that it is not his responsibility to answer?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to do that. I can do so by reading to the hon. member citation 184 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads this way:
Standing order 39 does not allow questions addressed to the Speaker. If however members write to the Speaker and inquire about matters placed under his control, he is bound to give the information required.
Bearing in mind that rule, I have tried not to abuse it; but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was able, in framing his question, to sufficiently relate it to the cyclical pay reviews of the civil service, which is a matter of my responsibility as a minister, to put his question in order, and I therefore answered his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But these people will have to live a long while to get their increases.
Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?
Has the Prime Minister read the report of the royal commission set up by the provincial government in which the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Asselin) is accused of having realized an illegal and unreasonable profit out of a transaction with the Protestant school board of the city of Montreal?
Does the Prime Minister intend to carry out the recommendations contained in this report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is out of order. It was ruled upon by the Chair I believe at least a month ago.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Prime Minister is in a position to give an answer, but in view of the fact that the Queen's visit will begin very shortly and naturally he and other hon. members of the house would be desirous of participating in welcoming the Queen in Prince Edward Island, in Quebec and also in Ottawa, has the government given any consideration to a few days of non-session by this house; or is it his purpose to continue the session right through?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, so far as welcoming the Queen is concerned, the fact that the house is in session will give more members an opportunity to meet and welcome the Queen than if the house were not in session. So far as a recess is concerned, I think we will have to wait and see what progress we make on the measures now before the house.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct, a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Not having

Inquiries of the Ministry received an answer from the minister to a series of questions I have put to him over the past few months with respect to the emergency application of the benefits of the P.F.A.A. to western farmers, can the minister now say, in view of the large scale damage to western crops due to frost and continuing rain, what is the government's policy with respect to the special application of this act similar to that taken by the former government in 1961?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, these things are all under consideration at the moment, and as soon as we have something definite we shall be glad to announce it.



REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OP EASTERN FEED GRAIN AGENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On September 22 I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture which I directed to the Prime Minister, who told me he would refer it to the Minister of Agriculture. So today I am directing to the Minister of Agriculture a question which I asked a year ago. My question concerns a feed grain agency for eastern Canada. At what stage are negotiations, and is it the intention of the government to go through with this as soon as possible this fall?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, eastern feed grains now come under the responsibility of the Minister of Forestry.


Raymond Langlois: I have a supplementary
question. I hope when forestry comes under the minister's responsibility he will let us know about that.



REPORT OF EASTERN CANADA FARM SURVEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture following a statement made by the minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec to a group of supporters last week, when he said that he was expecting a report from the federal government on the situation of agriculture in eastern Canada.
Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether the federal government intends to publish this report in the near future?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would mind repeating his question. I did not get it.


Clément Vincent: My question arises out of the statement made by the Quebec minister of agriculture who said to a group of supporters that he was waiting for a report from the federal government on the situation of agriculture in eastern Canada before taking steps about agriculture.
Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us if such a report will soon be made public by the federal government?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, there are many programs in the Department of Agriculture involving forestry and redevelopment which we are discussing with all provinces. I suppose this is what the hon. member has reference to. When anything specific arises out of these discussions it will certainly be announced in the house at the appropriate time.


Mr. Vinceni:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that the federal government will not make any specific report to the province of Quebec about eastern agriculture? I am thinking in particular about the kind of report the Quebec minister of agriculture mentioned over the week end at the congress of the Quebec Liberal federation.


Harry William Hays: I would suppose that we were discussing problems with Quebec at the moment, in so far as ARDA programs are concerned. We are in consultation with them on some new legislation we are proposing, and if this is what the hon. member is referring to, this will be announced at the proper time.


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the d.b.s. statistics which show that farm income for the first six months of the year has gone up in comparison with last year, would the minister inform the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: -would the minister inform the house whether dairy farmers in general, and Quebec farmers in particular, have shared in this increase in revenue?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that, important as this question is, it requires a long and detailed answer and is not the type of question that should be asked on orders of the day.


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think this question has been before this house quite a few times. We know the Minister of Agriculture is a busy man, and we have very few opportunities of asking this question. The Quebec government is waiting for a decision by the federal government, and we are trying to get it out of the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Forestry. If an answer can be given it would certainly be nice to have since we have been waiting for it for several years.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question dealing with the Canadian farmers' income which, according to the September 23 bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics, shows a 13 per cent increase, which is a satisfaction for our friends opposite.
If the farmers' income shows an increase of 13 per cent for Canada as a whole, could the Minister of Agriculture tell us why the income of the Ontario and Quebec farmers has decreased by $46 million?


Harry William Hays: This is not quite correct, Mr. Speaker. I suppose the hon. member got these figures from the d.b.s. report. I also read those particular figures. If I may, I should like to refer the hon. member back to page 3 of the d.b.s. report, which indicates that the income figures from dairying for 1963 cannot be compared with those in 1964.
What has happened is that the production data used for the 1964 income figures have been adjusted downward on the basis of the last census, but these downward adjustments have not been made for the figures for 1963 and preceding years. The d.b.s. had planned to show the adjustments for earlier years only in the year end statements of farm income.
The comparable figures for the two years, adjusting the 1963 production to the 1961 census as has been done for the 1964 data, are as follows; Quebec, 1964, $74.6 million;
1963,	$72.6 million. The Ontario figures are,
1964,	$100.4 million and 1963, $93.4 million. Possibly the largest reason for the increased income is the increased price of milk. As you know, Quebec has sold most of its cheese
Inquiries of the Ministry to Great Britain at prices in the neighbourhood of 37 cents a pound, which is 2 cents a pound more than Ontario cheese sold for in Great Britain.


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister still feel, in the light of those figures, that the dairy farmer is better off today than he has ever been for the last 15 years, a statement he made in this house a short time ago?


Harry William Hays: If the figures mean anything I would have to say yes, although we are not happy with the position and we intend to make it even better.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: May I ask a supplementary question. What would be the minister's explanation for the reduction in revenue of Quebec farmers in the amount of $9 million for the first six months?


Harry William Hays: I just might explain these d.b.s. figures, Mr. Speaker, but it will take some time. I shall be glad to do so, however.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Once more I must say this is the type of question which should be put on the order paper and not be asked at this time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Can the minister advise on the success of his department's efforts to find alternative employment for the workers of the Enamel and Heating Company plant at Charlottetown, whose work on defence production has now been terminated?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in spite of our best efforts we have not been successful in finding alternative work for the Enamel and Heating Company workers at Charlottetown, or work in addition to that which they are now doing.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question

Inquiries of the Ministry for the Secretary of State but as he is not here I will put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he ask the C.B.C. to have an investigation carried out regarding certain C.B.C. announcers who allegedly intend to refuse to cover the forthcoming visit of Her Majesty to Canada, and, when the investigation has been completed, have the results reported to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to convey my hon. friend's question to the C.B.C., Mr. Speaker.



CONSULTATIONS WITH PRIME MINISTER RESPECTING FREDERICTION CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house what consultations-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: I take it my hon. friends have missed me while I have been conferring with Premier Bennett and Governor Egan of Alaska about the Yukon. My question to the Prime Minister, sir, is will he inform the house what consultations took place between himself or any officials in his office and the C.B.C. with regard to the coverage of the recent Fredericton conference on national goals for Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend had been here in recent days I think he would have found there had been questions about that matter, but there have been no such consultations in my office.


Erik Nielsen: Is the Prime Minister saying he had no conversations on this subject with Mr. Norman DePoe of the C.B.C. two days after the second broadcast over the C.B.C.?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would indeed. I would have been very glad if the C.B.C. had given even more publicity than it did to this particular conference at Fredericton. It would have been in the interests of everybody to have heard what went on at Fredericton.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to


direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with an article by Greg Connolley appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of September 22, entitled "Two flags to fly on Hill" which states in part:
St. John's, Nfld.-Prime Minister Pearson hopes soon to see a distinctive new Canadian flag and the union jack flying side by side on parliament hill.
He envisioned this historic event taking place in Ottawa as the culmination of the work of the Commons committee now studying a distinctive flag for the nation.
Is that a correct report of what the Prime Minister said in Newfoundland?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a concentration of what I said. I gave more details to my right hon. friend the other day.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was no detail given regarding the Greg Connolley article, and I am asking whether the Prime Minister in this cavalier way dealt with a matter that is before a committee, and whether he now believes that we will have two flags on parliament hill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with this matter, and not in a cavalier way.


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like the Prime Minister to-


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has a question of privilege.


Raymond Langlois: I now
rise on a question of privilege, as I did two days ago, and as did the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam a week ago. I am under the impression that neither Mr. Pearson nor Mr. Diefenbaker want a Canadian flag at this moment in this country, as evidenced by their attitudes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that type of specious question of privilege does not deserve a reply.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, on a question
of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege in that respect.


John George Diefenbaker: I have asked whether it is a fact that the Prime Minister said in Newfoundland that he looked forward to

seeing two flags on parliament hill, the union jack and the so-called distinctive flag. Surely he can answer that question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I answered the question the other day. I do not intend to debate the matter with my right hon. friend on orders of the day.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not asking for a debate; I am asking for an honest answer from the Prime Minister as to why he says one thing outside this house and a different thing inside this house.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry in respect of something other than the flag. In view of the continuing press reports that the government's automotive parts incentive program is, in the words of one of the members of the press gallery "all but doomed", and in view of the widespread concern that such reports are creating in various business circles, can the minister on behalf of the government assure the house that the government has adequate alternate plans prepared to prevent any dislocation in the event the said program is upset by any decisions or actions taken in the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member will recognize that his question is slightly unfortunate in that it presupposes that the case being considered now by the United States commissioner of customs will be decided in a manner adverse to Canada. We cannot anticipate lack of success in this field, and I can only reassure the hon. member that the government, and my department, are devoting considerable thought to all possible contingencies that might arise, and to the steps which might be needed in the future to meet them.



POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL INCENTIVE PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Industry. In view of the announcement made yesterday by the Quebec minister of revenue, Mr. Kierans, that the province of
Inquiries of the Ministry Quebec intended to grant special income tax abatements to the companies who would settle in the depressed areas of the province of Quebec, does the Minister of Industry intend to meet with his colleague in the provincial government in order to discuss with him, and come to an agreement about the areas that will be so designated to avoid having some areas designated by the federal government and others by the provincial government, which would certainly cause confusion?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in short, the answer is: yes, we had talks on this matter during the last weeks with the government of the province of Quebec and we hope that both programs will proceed together and without any conflict.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement by Professor Shepherd of University College, University of Toronto, that the Canadian student loans plan is unsatisfactory in principle and ridiculously complicated in practice, does the minister not think the government should fulfil its 1962 and 1963 election promise in respect of 10,000 scholarships per year of $1,000 each so that students might have a choice?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I did see the report in the Globe and Mail this morning, the substance of which seemed to be an accusation by one Mr. Gary Perly, that the rate of interest charged under the plan was greater than it was stated to be. I welcome this opportunity to emphasize that the interest rate payable by students under the plan is as stated, 5f per cent per annum; that is simple interest, payable only on the unpaid principal amount of the loan. This is clearly stated in the regulations under the act, in the loan agreement between the student and his bank, and in all official information, pamphlets and advertisements on this plan.
The writer of the article in question, however, has based his argument on what interest rate would be involved if $1,000 were repaid in 60 monthly blended payments. The example given for repayment in five years

Inquiries of the Ministry in our brochure, which was issued in connection with this plan, is calculated in tact on 54 payments commencing in the seventh month after graduation and thereby retiring the loan by a date five years after graduation. So I am grateful for this opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding on the substance of the article.
With regard to the specific question of government policy an announcement will be made at the appropriate time.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the repayment of a $1,000 loan is on the basis of 54 months, why was that not made clear in the literature? It certainly indicates here on page 3 that it is on the basis of 60 months. It says that on a $1,000 loan the repayment rate will be $21 a month for five years, and on a $3,000 loan it will be $46 a month for seven years. This is the literature that the department is sending out.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the facts are generally understood, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question related to the subject matter of his answer. Has the minister been told of a racket that has developed among some students of borrowing money they do not need, buying government bonds with it, collecting interest on the bonds and at the end of the time paying back the loan to the federal government without having had to pay any interest on it? I say this in view of the fact that many students are talking about this technique, and I would think they should be warned of the dangers of fraud and all the other things that go along with it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, under the act the provincial authorities are responsible for assessing the needs of a student before a loan can be granted, and I would not think any provincial authority would grant a loan to a student to indulge in the kind of fancy financial manipulations that my hon. friend has suggested. I think hon. members will appreciate that a great deal of work had to be done quickly in order to get the plan in operation in time for the beginning of the present academic year, and it is possible that in some provinces the forms, for which the province itself is responsible, may not have been as detailed and as complete as I am sure they will be once we have gained a


little experience with the plan. I am sure there would be only a very few students, if any, who would try to take advantage of a plan of this kind. I think they are running the risk of interfering with a plan that is of tremendous value and has been very well received by the great majority of students in the country.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the federal government through the Department of Finance planning to check with the provinces on their techniques of investigating any possible abuses?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. We have been in touch with them and we are in continuous touch with them. I am grateful for the suggestion, but I can assure my hon. friend that we are in touch now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Having regard to the type of financial manipulation that is alleged, does the minister not think he should try to get these students into the Department of Finance as soon as they graduate?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Judging by the author of the article, Mr. Speaker, they would fit better into my hon. friend's political party.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not think these fancy manipulations are just a straight application of Social Credit principles?


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Surely it should be possible for a student who has obtained a $1,000 loan to invest the money in savings bonds or in any way he sees fit until he is ready to use the money. Will that not be the case?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at that question. The purpose of the loan fund is to assist students to pay for their university education and their living costs while there. It is not intended to assist them in the beginning of a financial career.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Finance in connection

with the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. In view of the numerous requests by the Canadian people for the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials to be used in centennial projects, will the minister not give serious consideration to these worthy undertakings by the people and make it much easier for them to carry them out?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have already
answered questions of this character, and I would not like to start repeating myself in the house.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Minister of Labour, and it is in two parts. Did he have an interview yesterday with the right hand man of Hal Banks, Mr. Heinikey, and would he be prepared to tell the House of Commons what was the nature of the interview that took place in his office yesterday afternoon, I believe?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did see Mr. Heinikey in my office for a few minutes yesterday afternoon, just as I attempt to see all representatives of trade unions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the question of election of officers of the S.I.U. discussed, and was that the purpose of the meeting between the minister and the man in question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That was not the purpose, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Was there discussion in that regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice having to do with a federal inquiry into juvenile deliquency which was set up in 1962. I ask this question on orders of the day because on November 20 last his parliamentary secretary indicated to the hon. mem-
Inquiries of the Ministry ber for Saint John-Albert that a report could be expected in April 1964. I am wondering if the minister can now say whether the report of this important committee can be expected soon?


Guy Favreau: shall be pleased to inquire of the members of the committee and report to the house as early as possible.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Justice. Can either minister now make a statement with regard to the refusal of citizenship to a professed atheist?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, on this question as to whether citizenship has been refused because two applicants refused to take the oath, I must answer that in fact there has been no such refusal. In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Bergsma the court declined to recommend to the minister the granting of an application because the judge found that on all the facts of the case, inter alia the fact that the person concerned- and I do not care to discuss the decision- was an atheist, that person could not be found to be of a good character within the meaning of section 10 (lHd) of the citizenship act. Therefore the question of oath really has not arisen, because the oath is taken only at the time the minister decides to grant citizenship upon the recommendation of the court.
However, in relation to a second question that was put in relation to the same matter, as to whether in those cases statutory affirmation instead of an oath may be taken, my answer is in the affirmative. It is my own view that even in the case of applications for citizenship an applicant may choose to make a solemn and statutory affirmation, instead of an oath on the Bible, with the same consequences. This is my interpretation of section 15 of the Canada Evidence Act, and I must report to the house that I have now so advised the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


William Dean Howe: As a supplementary question, as a result of this decision would the minister consider allowing the Bergsma case to be reviewed before the normal time, which involves a waiting period of more than a year?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no discretion vested in the minister in this respect, although I must say I am sure my learned colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will want to consider the matter further. However, as to the purport of the decision itself, I know the house will agree that as a member of the executive it would not be proper for me to comment on the propriety or otherwise of the interpretation given to the statute by the judge concerned.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: For
the benefit of those of us who are not legal experts, was the minister suggesting that there was any other reason but the religious attitude of the applicant which led the judge to make the decision he did?


Guy Favreau: If I left that impression, Mr. Speaker, I must correct it, because I did not say there was necessarily any other reason than this one. All I said was that on the basis of that finding the judge came to the conclusion that in his opinion the applicant could not be said to be of good character within the meaning of the act; and I repeat, although I have my own personal and firm opinion as to the legal import of the section, that it would be improper for me to comment on its particular application in this particular case.


William Dean Howe: Could the personal opinion of the judge not have been influenced by the atheistic feelings of the applicant in question?


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I cannot quite follow the minister's explanation. Is he telling us that although in his opinion the affirmation section should have no bearing on the ability of these people to receive citizenship, notwithstanding his view and notwithstanding the fact that a grave injustice may have been done to the individuals in question, there is absolutely no redress within the jurisdiction of the minister?


Guy Favreau: All I said was that I do not think it would be proper for me to comment on the actual decision made by the citizenship court in this particular case. However, I said-and I know he agrees with this-* that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will want to reconsider the matter and be advised thereon. I added that aside from the ministry-or at least I implied this -if there was any action that the person


concerned wanted to take to have the purport of the section tested, there are surely judicial remedies such as certiorari. This is aside from the possibility of the minister giving further consideration to the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Under the bill of rights isn't a person entitled to have whatever belief he wants to have? Isn't he entitled to hold whatever religious view he cares to have; and whether he is an atheist or an agnostic does not detrimentally affect his character within the meaning of the citizenship act.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that I have not agreed or disagreed with the decision itself. As to the application of the bill of rights, I suppose the right hon. gentleman will have noted that what it purports to protect is the freedom of religion. It is a moot question as to whether under the bill of rights-I do not say under the decision of the court-the freedom not to have a religion is protected.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh?


William Dean Howe: Does this mean that a person only comes under the bill of rights after he has gained his citizenship?



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES REQUEST FOR INTERIM REPORT BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question which I should like to ask the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he can give the house any indication when we may expect an interim report from the royal commission on bilingualism and bieulturalism.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the commission in question hopes to make an interim report before the end of the year, but I will make inquiries to see if I can get more definite information.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that a large number of veterans in the Fraserview

housing project in Vancouver have refused to sign new leases at increased rents and are requesting a public hearing, what action does the government propose to take?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question. I might say that I cannot accept his premise that a large number of veterans have not signed; a substantial number, yes, but a relatively small percentage of the total number of tenants. A similar question was asked of the Acting Postmaster General last Friday by the hon. member for Vancouver East, and even if I had not received notice of this question today I would have given this answer.
In my statement on August 25 dealing with the Fraserview project I stated that the effective date for the change in the rentals on the project would be October 1. Whether there will be any default will not be known until that date. If there is default, Central Mortgage and Housing will take its usual action having regard to the circumstances of each individual case.
I think I should also say I have been informed by the officials of central mortgage and housing earlier today that 85 per cent of the tenants involved have either signed, or have indicated their intention to sign before the end of the month, new leases at the adjusted rentals. About 40 tenants have purchased houses; so that out of 601 houses involved approximately 40 have been purchased, 462 renewals have been arranged, and nine tenants have given notice of intention to vacate. There are approximately 90 or less uncommitted tenants involved, and C.M.H.C. will deal with those on an individual basis after October 1.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I am wondering whether he can tell us where we stand in connection with the Indian claims commission.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I received the report of the Canadian council of Indians; it was the last major report on the amendments to be made to the bill concerning Indian claims.
Supply-Fisheries
We will consider those recommendations within the next few weeks with a view to ascertaining the amendments which could be made. We intend to put before the house the bill concerning Indian claims as soon as possible.



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



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in estimates, $1,159,000.
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, as other hon. members have done, and as I have done in the past, I should like to laud the officials, scientists and administrators of the Department of Fisheries for the work they have done over the years, their attitude and devotion to their position and activities. I know the people in the fishing industry also have the same feeling of appreciation for the people engaged in public service who work in the Department of Fisheries.
At about the same time last year when we were considering the estimates of the Department of Fisheries I had occasion to make reference to the recent appointment of Dr. Needier as deputy minister, and I indicated the hope, with all due respect to his predecessor the late Mr. George Clark, that with the rise of Dr. Needier, a scientist, to the position of deputy minister there would be brought into play in the policy decisions of the minister and the government that depth of knowledge which can only come from one who has himself engaged over the years in scientific activities; and this appears to be the case.
Yesterday I listened with interest to the extensive remarks of the Minister of Fisheries concerning the variety of research projects, or research-type projects, being entered into by the Department of Fisheries either by itself or in conjunction with the various provinces. I myself think a great deal of the credit for this type of activity and work goes, and should go, to the officials of the department, and I hope it continues.
A great many people have had the thought that because a great number, in fact the vast majority, of the decisions of the Department of Fisheries are based on scientific knowledge rather than political expediency there is no need for a department of fisheries

Supply-Fisheries
or for a minister of fisheries in the political sense; that we might better approach the whole question of fisheries from the biological or scientific point of view if we did not have a department with a political head, but instead have a board or commission charged With the responsibility of doing things in the most scientific way possible. However, I still wish to indicate on behalf of the many fishermen and people engaged in the fisheries industry their appreciation for the unstinting work and devotion of the people who work in the Department of Fisheries, especially those engaged in the biological field.
The other day I had occasion to come across a book which had recently been published entitled "Politics and Conservation", by one Richard A. Cooley. It is an historical account and analysis of the decline of the Alaskan salmon fishery, which as many people know has gone downhill year after year over the past few years. I highly commend the book to anyone interested in the fisheries of Canada, especially the salmon fishery on the west coast.
Without giving any quotations from the book itself, or any other references to it, I think the experiences of Alaska with respect to their salmon stocks could very easily be repeated, and perhaps in some instances may be being repeated, in the British Columbia salmon industry. This may give us some opportunity to learn by the mistakes of others. I know that with the astuteness of the Department of Fisheries they have knowledge of this work not only in its present form but in the form the various reports took before they were compiled by Mr. Cooley.
The essence of this work is, I think, simply that regardless of the political attachment the government may have to the theory of capitalism or the theory of free enterprise, it would be a most disastrous thing for our fishing industry if that industry were to be operated under the principles of untrammelled free enterprise. This is the experience which the people in the Alaskan salmon industry have had. So, Mr. Chairman, it is vitally important for us to have some control or some regulation over the operations of the fishing industry; for if we did not, within a very short period of time there would be that rapaciousness which is inherent in free enterprisers and we would very soon find our fisheries stocks depleted, our rivers and streams denuded or destroyed as far as fisheries are concerned, and the fishing industry gone downhill.

I only mention this, Mr. Chairman, as a prelude to raising a question with regard to conservation. This is the thought which I am sure is uppermost in the minds of everyone in the Department of Fisheries; I am sure it is the guide post which the minister himself follows, namely the necessity of keeping a watchful eye regularly, day after day, on the conservation practices engaged in by the Department of Fisheries, and upon the exploitation practices engaged in by the fishermen or the companies in the industry itself.
We must guarantee that there are fish left for future generations. We must ensure that we only exploit the fisheries resource within the bounds demanded by conservation itself. This does not only involve conservation from our immediate nationalistic point of view; it also involves-and perhaps this is becoming more apparent as each year goes by-conservation from the point of view of international relationships. We are not the only nation engaged in fishing outside our own territorial waters or our own fishing zones, as they are now designated. More and more nations are searching the seas for foodstuffs for their own people, and more and more we are faced with the threat of other countries exploiting the fisheries on the high seas to such an extent that it interferes with the conservation practices which we may engage in at home.
This is one of the directions in which we must look if we are to have an economic, self supporting and progressive fishing industry here in Canada. There is not much point in spending millions upon millions of dollars in order to c'onserve the fishery ourselves when other nations might be able to steam within a few miles of our shores and exploit that fishery to the fullest extent possible, even to the extent of destroying it entirely.
When the bill to establish the 12 mile fishing zone was before the committee on marine and fisheries, the minister there admitted that the effect of the bill in so far as protecting, for instance, the west coast salmon and halibut was concerned was practically nil, because the fish themselves would not respect or even know about any arbitrarily designated 12 mile fishing zone. Their migration habits are such that they range far outside this line of demarcation; in the case of salmon, many thousands of miles out into the mid-Paciflc.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is vitally important not to place too much reliance or

hope upon the establishment of the 12 mile fishing zone in so far as the protection of our fisheries is concerned. In fact I might say that the declaration by the parliament of Canada regarding a 12 mile fishing zone has in reality done more to protect the fishing interests of United States fishermen than it has to protect the fishing interests of Canadians; because within that 12 mile zone we are going to continue forever, as I interpret the attitude of the government as expressed by the minister, to permit United States fishermen, on the west coast particularly, to continue to fish within not only the nine mile fishing zone but even, in some instances presumably, within the three miles of the territorial sea which we will be declaring shortly, I hope.
I use these remarks to lead to the meetings which currently are taking place here in Ottawa between Canadians, Japanese and Americans. I believe this is the third series of meetings in recent years of the north Pacific fisheries commission. This is a meeting that is seeking to re-establish or continue in operation a tripartite treaty which was signed some 11 years ago involving Japan, Canada and the United States. This treaty concerns the salmon, halibut and herring fisheries in the Pacific ocean. We all know from public declarations that the Japanese government is demanding a relaxation of the abstention principle, or in other words an increase in the access of Japanese fishermen to the fishery stocks of halibut, salmon and herring in the Pacific when those stocks may be propagated in what we call our waters. In other words, Mr. Chairman, it is a demand of the Japanese fishing industry to fish our fish, as the saying goes.
They have made no bones about stating that; there has been no hesitancy on the part of the Japanese government to indicate that this is its desire. This is its sole purpose at the moment in entering into these discussions, namely to seek a relaxation of that abstention principle so the Japanese fishing fleet will be able to range further into the mid-Pacific and closer to our shores in order to fish the halibut, salmon and herring stocks which are propagated within what we consider to be our territorial limits.
Unfortunately the Canadian people do not know what has been taking place at these meetings, because the minister has been reluctant, unable, or has thought it unwise to communicate to parliament and the Canadian people what is taking place and what is Canada's position in respect of these meetings. I think we can assume that the 20220-5311
Supply-Fisheries
United States and Japan are virtually deadlocked in respect of fishing for the so-called red or sockeye salmon in the Bristol bay area of Alaska.
Statistically and biologically I am sure the Japanese, by fishing for sockeye salmon in the mid-Pacific, have had a very detrimental effect on the conservation practices of Alaskan or United States authorities in respect of the sockeye salmon which propagate in Alaskan waters. I suggest there is perhaps even greater concern in this regard at this time than will be the case after the election is over, because this is a presidential election year in the United States. In fact, that may be one of the reasons why we may not be able to reach an agreement during this round of meetings in Ottawa. If there is any result from these meetings that is adverse to the United States, President Johnson will not publicize that adversity until after the election because it might damage his chances of re-election. If there is any result which is adverse to the United States it will be adverse as well to Canada, although to a different extent, because we have salmon stocks which propagate in our waters and intermingle in the midPacific.
An article in this regard appeared in the Globe and Mail on September 30, 1963. It was a Canadian Press association dispatch from Tokyo, and in part states:
The United States has proposed a substitute section to the international north Pacific fishery treaty to replace the so-called abstention principle that has had Japan at loggerheads with Canada and the United States over renewal of the fishing act.
Perhaps there has been a mistake made here, and it should say "fishing acts" rather than "act". The article then states:
Japan had demanded that the abstention principle be removed from any new agreement and when the three nations failed to reach agreement at meetings in Washington in June new private talks were held here.
Japan has argued here that the original convention was drawn up while she was an occupied country and that it was, in effect, an unequal treaty.
Another paragraph of this article reads:
U.S, negotiators here have seen the merits of this argument and have agreed to drop all mention of Japan abstaining from fishing for salmon and halibut.
That article outlines a result which could very easily develop at the discussions now taking place. Uppermost in the minds of Canadians and the members of the commission, as well I presume as in the minds of the minister and the officials of his depart-

Supply-Fisheries
ment, is the fact that after ten years any signatory to the north Pacific fisheries treaty can terminate it upon one year's notice. That ten year period expired last year. I am sure that the Minister of Fisheries, his officials and the officials in the United States are apprehensive about Japan stating that if she cannot get her way in respect of abstention she will not sign or participate in another treaty. Japan does not contribute, except perhaps to an infinitesimal degree, to the salmon stocks in the north Pacific, and if she does not volunteer to abstain from fishing these stocks, having free access to the high seas she may continue rapaciously and without concern for conservation to fish those stocks of salmon that we consider belong to Canada and the United States. This may have the effect of destroying this important fishery on the west coast.
That fear and apprehension was expressed publicly by officials of the Canadian government, which I think was an error in judgment because it will have an adverse effect in relation to the establishment of a line of demarcation in the mid-Pacific. However we will have to wait to find out what the results of the discussions will be. I hope whatever concession is given to Japan to get her to sign a new treaty will not be one that will have the effect of destroying the fishing industry in the Pacific as far as Canada is concerned.
There has been a marked failure on the part of the government or the commission, if the government does not wish to assume responsibility, in that one other major fishing nation, fishing in the north Pacific, has not been invited to participate in these discussions, and I refer of course to the Soviet union. The Soviet union has an extensive fishing fleet and it does carry out research work in the north Pacific. Their fishing and research boats have been sighted very close to our shores, off the west coast of British Columbia. There is nothing whatever in the way of an international agreement, or otherwise, to prevent the Soviet union from directing their huge fishing fleet right up to our 12 mile limit to scoop up all the fish coming to spawn in our waters. I feel that is a regrettable situation. The Liberal party promised the fishermen of Canada that the Soviet union would be invited to join any new north Pacific fisheries treaty that might be signed. I must now conclude that in reality that party does not consider it has to fulfil promises it makes before an election. I think this is an insult to the fishing industry on the

west coast; but apart from that, the government should bear in mind that we can only conserve this important fishery by international agreement. In view of the rapid growth in the population of the world, and the increasing demand for high protein foods, resulting in greatly increased fishing activities, this fishery is virtually doomed unless we can negotiate an agreement among the major fishing nations of the world. I think it is a gross failure on the part of the government not to have invited the Soviet union either to take part in these current discussions, or to sit in as an observer.
During the course of the meetings of the committee on marine and fisheries, I moved a motion to the effect that the estimates of the Department of Fisheries be referred to that committee for study. I postponed pressing that motion to a vote because I and other members of the committee were given the assurance- I am not going to indicate by whom and do not want to-that this was going to be done in any event. We were told that discussions were being held with the minister which were proceeding favourably, and that he was in agreement with the idea that the estimates should be referred to the committee. So we did not push the matter to a vote. I think it is regrettable that the committee was misled and did not press the opportunity to ask formally that the estimates be referred to the committee. However we have them before us now and I suppose there is not much we can do about the matter.


Mr. Robichaud:: Would the hon. member wish me to comment on that point now? The hon. member has said that he was told the estimates of the Department of Fisheries would be referred to the standing committee. I must admit that some weeks ago it was my intention to refer these estimates to the standing committee on marine and fisheries. However, in view of circumstances which have arisen since involving the length of the deliberations now taking place on the north Pacific treaty, to which the hon. member has just referred, and the number of meetings we face in connection with the 12 mile limit it was decided it would be impossible to have the senior officials of the department appear before the standing committee. I must add that we have other commitments with the provinces involving committees to study fisheries matters and these will take us well into the month of December. I do not want to apologize but I want at least to state the facts and explain to the hon. member why

these estimates were not referred to the committee this year. I also want to give the undertaking now that at the next session of parliament it is my intention to have the estimates of the department referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


Frank Howard: The minister's statement is appreciated. I hope that next year nothing will interfere with the minister's desire.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I hope so too.


Frank Howard: When I say "nothing" I am excluding the possibility of an intervening election and the defeat of the government, because I would not want to assume that he would be the minister after the next election or that the present government would still be in office. Apart from that, I hope that nothing else interferes with the intention of the minister.
You will be aware, Mr. Chairman, that for a variety of reasons not only the Department of Fisheries but other departments of the federal government have been given only a very cursory examination by parliament in the last few years. I would say this is not the fault of anyone. It is certainly not the fault of the Minister of Fisheries. We will recall that there was a federal election in 1962. Elections interfere with the operations of the government and, in fact, the government stops thinking policywise for at least five or six months at such a time. There was also an election in the spring of 1963 which likewise interfered with the thought processes of government. In fact, I doubt very much whether their thought processes have got back on an even keel yet. Nevertheless, there was interference with what is considered to be the normally responsible way of considering and inquiring into the estimates of expenditures of any department, and of course the Department of Fisheries was so affected.
Last year in fact there was a very earnest desire on the part of members of the house to rush through the estimates, because it was then October. The hope was that if we could get last year's estimates out of the way quickly enough we would be able to get back on an even keel and be able to study the current year's departmental activities in a better way than had been the case in the past. Unfortunately, however, we now find ourselves nearing the end of September, and we are still in the midst of the estimates even though more than half the money has already been spent. Again there is a desire on the part of members to rush through the esti-
Supply-Fisheries
mates and get these expenditures out of the way, because after all the year is almost over. This is a regrettable state of affairs.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether you looked upon the intervention of the minister as being an interruption in the speech I originally started to make and whether I am now embarking on another 30 minutes but in any event I have no intention of doing so.
When the minister introduced his estimates yesterday he gave a very glowing report about conditions in the fishing industry. If one were to accept his statement he would think that we really do not need to think about these matters at all, because things are so excellent in the fishing industry that there is no need for us to express our views. However there are a number of matters I should like to leave with the minister in closing on which I should like him to comment, and perhaps explore in a bit more detail as we proceed through the estimates item by item.
At the United Nations conference on the law of the sea held in Geneva from February 24 to April 27, 1958, four vitally important fisheries conventions were adopted, one on the territorial sea and contiguous zones, another convention having to do with the high seas, a third convention having to do with fishing and conservation of the living resources of the high seas and a fourth convention concerning the continental shelf. I may not be correct but I understand that Canada is not a signatory to any of these conventions and has not taken the formal step of adopting, endorsing or ratifying them, whatever the formal step may be, to indicate that Canada is in agreement with them. I should like to know why we have not taken action to endorse the principles contained in these four conventions, particularly in view of the importance to Canada of fisheries activities on the high seas and on the continental shelf.
The salmon industry of British Columbia has been in difficulties for some years. If one wants to boil things down, I suppose the problem is too much gear, too many fishermen and not enough fish. Proposals have been made for licence limitation. A study was made by Dr. Sol Sinclair a few years ago about which nothing has been done so far as I know. This year however we discovered that gillnetters on the coast had taken out trolling licences. They did so because in past years they had found that their gillnet activities had yielded a very low return. They were only able to get up to a four day fishing week and they wanted to go trolling

Supply-Fisheries
as well. So we have had an invasion of the trolling industry by gill-netters.
This resulted in the Pacific trailers association writing to the minister on August 20 last to complain about the duality of activity of gill-netters in becoming trailers and interfering with what they considered to be the traditional activities of the salmon troll fishery on the west coast. We would like to know something about what is happening in this regard. I see you are about to rise, Mr. Chairman. I have a few other questions I should like to pose to the minister but I shall leave them until later.


The Chairman:: Perhaps the hon. member will have the consent of the committee to complete his remarks. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: That is very kind. I express my appreciation and I will not in any way abuse the generosity of the committee. On October 18, 1963 a price probe committee consisting of three federal and three provincial federal civil servants was established. Could we have some indication of what the committee is doing and how it is getting along? Has it made a report and if it has not will its report be made available when it is made?
There is also the question of dogfish on the west coast. The dogfish is a predator. At one time there was a dogfish liver subsidy in effect. On March 31 of this year the minister wrote to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, and indicated in his letter that discussions would be held between representatives of the industry, the fishermen and scientists of the fisheries research board to look into the development of a dogfish fishery on a commercial basis. I would appreciate having some information about that.
There is the vitally important question of river and water pollution in British Columbia. We are on a kick now about building pulp mills, and where they are going to be built. I understand there is to be one at Houston in northern British Columbia. In that area there is the Morice river and Kidprice lake which are important salmon spawning areas. We are certainly interested in what pollution control is going to take effect there. A pulp mill is contemplated in Kitimat, and this is also a fish river. Then there is the one at Prince George in the area of the Fraser, which is a fish river. We should like to have some indication of what is to take place there.

We should like to know what the Fraser river board is doing about the proposal for flood control in the upper reaches of the Fraser and the Stuart lake area, which are also salmon spawning areas. We should like some indication of what program exists in connection with the rehabilitation of salmon streams. I have particular reference now to the Queen Charlotte islands, but I should like some information generally about the rehabilitation of former salmon streams on the west coast. I look forward with anticipation to a favourable response from the minister in connection with all these things.


Mr. Otio:: Mr. Chairman, I see there are a few of us left here, a few of us fisher folk. The problem of the fisheries, Mr. Chairman, is not necessarily restricted to those people from the maritimes. You know, I come from the riding of York East in the heart of industrial Ontario. However, there are none of us here who pass the time of day talking to other members, especially those from the maritimes or the west coast, who do not recognize that there are serious problems in connection with our fishing industry. This is rather a tragedy, I think, considering that this industry is the producer of food, which will become more and more precious as time goes on.
If you consider what is called the population explosion as we all have, I think you will recognize how very important food is going to become. I have considered this problem, and I have talked to many members. I have lived in the maritimes for a time. It is a tragic thing that these men engaged in fishing cannot make a decent living. Is it possibly the result of a lack of resources? Is it a lack of fish? Well, Mr. Chairman, foreign fishing vessels from all over the world come to our shores to gather this harvest. Is it because we are not hard working men? This of course is not so. There is no one, no class of people in Canada, who works harder than the fishermen. I admire these maritimers who are so rooted to the land that they will stay there, knowing there are much greener pastures elsewhere. There is something that keeps the maritimer tied to the soil, and that is a wonderful thing.
What is the answer? The minister will recall that about a year ago on a television broadcast he used a word that caught my imagination. He said he was going to "nau-tilize" the fishing industry. In my opinion the minister has not pursued that course. As the hon. member for Skeena pointed out, we have seen factory ships come to our

shores. I have seen factory ships the like of which most members would never believe. These foreign vessels have on board office equipment that would compare favourably with that in an insurance company office. They have freezing plants, drying plants and canning plants. I even saw one ship that contained a factory to make the cans right on board. These factory ships sweep our seas like giant vacuum cleaners, taking everything there is. What de we do? We send out small boats to try to compete against these fantastic vessels.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the fault is not necessarily the minister's. I believe one of the members opposite pointed out that this department seems to be the orphan of all our government departments. It should not be so; it should be the most important department. The Department of Fisheries and the Department of Agriculture are both great departments. The fault is largely ours. We seem to be satisfied with having a mediocre fishing industry. We cannot imagine that we can do better. It is up to the minister, up to the members, to take the lead and convince ourselves that we shall have the greatest fishing industry in the world. We must convince ourselves that we shall harvest more fish and have a more efficient industry than any other nation in the world. We shall pay the fishermen the highest rates. We have to convince ourselves of these things. Is there any reason why we cannot do this? Of course we can. However, without that conviction, without this minister and this department taking the lead in a vigorous, enthusiastic approach toward this industry, we will get nowhere. We will sit here with this department as an orphan of all departments.
I would just remind the minister that it was he who coined the word "nautilize". 1 hope he continues with that vision. We should put every effort, all the money that is needed, all the research that is needed, all the resources at our command, into developing this fishing industry into the greatest fishing industry in the world.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Minister of Fisheries will be surprised to see a member from an inland province like Saskatchewan rising to speak on these estimates. In my area fishing is only conducted in some of the lakes and the biggest one we have out there is lac La Ronge in which we fish for trout. This is good for the tourist industry.
However, my reason for rising at this time is that, being so far from the sea, we are
Supply-Fisheries
not really given an opportunity to enjoy delicious salt water fish. I should like for this reason to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that there should be more publicity in these inland provinces with regard to salt water fish. I think the fishing industry would benefit to a large extent and the consumers would benefit by enjoying salt water fish. I do not mean the minister should think of commercial displays, but we have the C.B.C and I am sure the C.B.C. could give information concerning the preparation of some of these fish dishes. If this were done I am sure the people in these areas would benefit greatly from it.
I have been told, as the previous speaker pointed out, that our fishermen are in a desperate position so far as their incomes are concerned, but I believe if the minister pays attention to what I have said, and follows my recommendation, our fishermen will be in a better position.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, for over 450 years the fishing industry was the mainstay of the economy of my province, Newfoundland, and though in recent years it has been surpassed in dollar value by the paper industry and some mining enterprises it is still one of the most important factors in the provincial economy, and from the standpoint of the number of people employed it is the most important.
Some 75 to 80 per cent of my constituents depend upon the fishing industry for their livelihood, and I would be very remiss in my duty if I did not stand in my place today and make a few observations about it. Yesterday the minister referred to the poor fishery Newfoundland has had this year. He expressed the hope that the fall fishery would compensate for it somewhat, and that this year's increased prices would make up for the loss of production. I think we must keep in mind that not only is the fishery poor this year but it was poor last year and the year before that. As a matter of fact we have had poor fisheries for the last three years.
While it is true that the price of fish is higher than ever, due to the effect of supply and demand, this year's price is not so much greater than last year's, and a 10 per cent increase in price cannot compensate for a 50 or 60 per cent fall in production, which is the case in many parts of my riding. Furthermore, under the system we have of providing stamps to fishermen for unemployment benefits, because the amount of fish caught this year is so small this will prevent many fishermen from qualifying for unemployment benefits

Supply-Fisheries
this winter. The fishing season is now well advanced, and in about three or four weeks the shore fishery in most parts of Newfoundland will be pretty well at an end.
We are all conscious of the fact that the fishing industry is capable of playing a much more important role in the national economy than it does at present. We are all conscious that, in comparison with the fishing industries of other countries, ours is rather puny, particularly in view of the great advantages we enjoy with such a tremendous coast line and with such great fishery resources on our very doorstep, resources from which the fishing fleets of other nations are able to reap more advantage than we do ourselves. Here is a problem that is crying out to be solved and we must find some satisfactory solution to it.
A national conference on fisheries was held last January, the purpose of which was to lay the foundation of a national fisheries development program to be developed along lines parallel to the national policy which we have for agriculture. We hailed that conference as the dawn of a new era for the fishing industry.
In his opening statement the minister dealt with a number of individual projects which he associated with this national development program, but as I listened to his recital I got the impression of a list of isolated projects, rather unrelated, instead of a coherent, integrated program with goals to be achieved in progressive stages. In other words he seemed to be travelling along the same old beaten track that we have been travelling for the past 20 years and longer. This is borne out by the estimates themselves. Even taking into consideration the $913,000 in the supplementary estimates for fisheries management and development, this only gives a modest increase of $424,000 for fisheries management and development in the current fiscal year.
We are only kidding ourselves if we have the idea that we can initiate a national program of fisheries development without a substantial increase in expenditure. I feel we should be thinking in terms of an increase in expenditure of not less than $50 million, and perhaps up to $100 million, over a period of five to ten years. It is useless to think about fisheries development on a national scale unless we are prepared to break away from the old established pattern and start out on a wholly new path, with new thinking, imagination and daring. In this respect I believe the minister is the most fortunate member of the cabinet because no depart-

ment offers greater scope for bold, new, imaginative thinking than the Department of Fisheries.
The January conference envisaged a national fisheries policy along lines parallel to that of agricultural policy, but if we accept present agricultural policy as a national policy then I believe we are starting out with a false premise because, as I see it, we have no national farm policy. What we have is a policy for western agriculture, and it is only now being forced upon us that our agricultural policy, though it has benefited western farmers, has been of very little benefit to eastern farmers.
The same is bound to be true of the fishing industry. While we may be thinking in terms of national goals and possibly national agencies, any policy decided on will eventually boil down to three separate and specific programs-one for the Atlantic seaboard, one for the Pacific coast and the third for our inland fisheries. These are three separate industries with very little in common, for each of which a separate solution must be provided. If we take one of these programs, for example the program for the Atlantic coast, that in turn would be broken down into specific programs for production, processing, marketing, transportation, conservation and research. I could speak on each one for a full 30 minutes but in the few remaining minutes left to me I should like to concentrate on the need for research.
In the past ten years, and more particularly in the past five years, fishing activity on the Grand Banks has been greatly intensified, and I think that the time has now come when we should have a research man look into the effects of this intensification. It seems to me that in the past we have proceeded on the premise that the fishery resources are inexhaustible; that the amount of fish taken by man is so small compared with those destroyed through natural and other causes that we do not have to worry about conservation. However, this intensification of activity is a fact, and as we look back over history we see that the shore fishery has disappeared from the Atlantic seaboard. It has disappeared in Nova Scotia, and the fishermen there have had to go farther and farther afield for fish.
Now it seems the same thing is happening to the shore fishery in Newfoundland. We have had three or four poor catches in a row and many people are beginning to wonder whether this decline in the shore fishery is due to the increased intensification which is

taking place on the Grand Banks. We should not wait too long before we look into this problem and begin to think in terms of international agreements to establish quotas and to secure agreement on the kind of equipment to be used. Because while the dragnet is a very efficient way of catching fish, it is also a very destructive way. As the net drags along the bottom it scoops up fish of all sizes, among which are a large number of small fish of no commercial value. In winching these fish up to the surface the pressure of the sea kills them, and this is a waste which should not be permitted. We must think in terms of equipment which will reap the same harvest without killing and wasting young fish.
Yesterday the minister spoke about research in the herring industry. To my mind this is typical of what has gone on in the fisheries department over the years. I remember that when I came to this parliament in 1949 I urged on the government very strongly the fact that there were great schools of herring in the ocean not far off Newfoundland which we were not reaping at all. After a couple of years of nagging the government did institute a program of research into this area, but it was on such a tiny scale that it was useless and after a few years reported a failure. But the herring is still there. Our ships are passing over schools of herring, some of which schools are 40 to 50 miles long and one mile wide-millions of tons of them. We should be able to reap that harvest, and I look forward to the day when the herring fishery will be more important to my riding than the cod fishery. We have to find those herring and know where they will be at a certain time, as is the case in the North sea. We must also learn to fish them in deep waters. This will require a sustained program of research, not a sporadic effort where a little ship will go out and do research for only one or two years.
We also have huge halibut grounds. I can remember when as a boy I saw United States bankers, as we called them, fishing for halibut right off the shores of my native village; but today there is very little exploitation of that resource. Off the west coast there is another halibut ground which could be exploited. We need a research program to find our halibut grounds and the best way of exploiting them.
About four years ago the provincial government of Newfoundland initiated a program of using nylon gillnets to take fish. These nylon nets proved so successful that many fishermen who had formerly used cod traps 20220-532
Supply-Fisheries
gave them up and started to use the nylon nets instead. However there was a fear in the minds of the fishermen that because these nylon nets captured the larger type of fish *-called mother fish-in time the fishery would be depleted. There is now evidence that those fears are being realized. Whether this is due to the use of gillnets or not no one can say, but that is a question which should be looked into.
I should also like to ask the minister to bring about a change in the legislation which will enable foreign draggers to land fish for processing in Canadian ports, particularly in my riding. These draggers are catching the fish anyway, and at the moment I do not see that this particular piece of legislation serves any good purpose. What it is doing is depriving us of employment in the processing of fish in our ports. If we do not process it somebody else will, so I cannot see why we should not have the benefit of processing this fish ourselves. There was a Japanese firm which was quite interested in establishing a fish plant in my riding, but owing to this legislation the whole thing fell through.
With respect to the shore fishery, if we are going to have a development program we must have both a long term program and a short term program. The long term program, as I see it, should be integrated with the ARDA program. In this way we can centralize people from small, uneconomic communities into larger centres where they will be just as close to the fishing grounds and can perhaps catch even more fish and have the benefits of a centralized population.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that in my riding there is a hydroelectric development project that is now going ahead. When it is completed in about four years time there will be approximately 500,000 horsepower of electricity available for industrialization. There is no reason why this electric power should not be utilized in the fishing industry. It would benefit our fish plants which now have to depend upon diesel power, and it would enable the small fishing communities to become electrified. This electric power could be used in the utilization of parts of the fish that are now thrown away. In a fish plant practically the whole fish is utilized, because what cannot be filleted is made into fishmeal and other products; but this cannot be done in small fishing villages at the present time. If we had a good program of centralization carried out under

Supply-Fisheries
ARDA there is no reason why in these small communities there should not be some small fishmeal plants put into operation. This would enable those parts of the fish that are now wasted to be utilized, to the benefit of the fishermen.
With respect to the short term program, Mr. Chairman, the most efficient way of giving assistance to the fishermen in my riding would be to provide them with a source of cheap credit. I have mentioned this matter a number of times and I am going to keep on repeating it. There are many good, hard working fishermen who could produce ten times as much as they are now producing and could make a much better livelihood for themselves and their families, but they are prevented from doing this because there is nowhere they can go to obtain cheap, long term credit. A fisherman-this happens quite often as a result of our heavy winter storms-has his whole fishing premises swept away; his fishing gear is lost, and even his boat. There is nowhere he can go to obtain the money with which to build up his business again. A man may build a boat for himself in the winter; he needs $700 or $800 to buy a modern diesel motor to put in the boat, but there is nowhere he can go to obtain this money. I believe this is the most effective type of assistance with which our fishermen could be provided under the short term program.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the minister that whatever national goals we may have with respect to a national fishery development program, and however much money we may be prepared to spend upon it, it will still be a waste of money, time and effort if it is not geared to benefit the individual fisherman. We have already had too many programs which have benefited everybody else but the fisherman. This could very well happen with this national program that we hope will come. Unless he is the central figure, unless the whole program is built up with safeguards to see that whatever money is spent is to assist the individual fisherman, he may not benefit at all. In my province the provincial government has lent millions of dollars to the fishing industry, but the fisherman has benefited little, if at all. We must avoid the same thing happening under this program; because unless a fishery development program is going to benefit the fisherman, there is no point having it.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, in the short time left before five o'clock I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the

fisheries and particularly as they are related to our inland waters. In the area in which I live we have one of the great inland waterways in the world. I would like to say first of all, in connection with the Atlantic and Pacific fisheries, that this is an industry that nets us $200 million a year, I believe, and we occupy third place in the world with regard to the sale of fish. I think Japan is first, Norway second, and Canada stands third. We have the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, apart from all the inland lakes in this country. I believe we are sometimes inclined to forget our inland lakes. This is particularly true with regard to the northland, to which people come from the United States, pay a great deal of money for their trip, have their fishing and then go back home. This is a great source of revenue, but once the fish in these areas begin to be depleted we will lose this revenue. This is happening today in the inland lakes; I refer particularly to lake Ontario, lake Erie, lake Huron, Georgian bay, and lake Superior. This is a great problem.
If I may now deal with the biological problem, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister whether his department has found that harbour seals are carrying a parasite. If so, is this parasite transmittable to other fish that are used commercially? I do not know whether the harbour seal can be used commercially, but I would like the minister to tell us whether this parasite can be transmitted to other fish; in other words whether other fish can be host to it.
Mr. Chairman, I see it is five o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: It being five o'clock, I do now leave the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills; notices of motions, papers; and public bills.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if the house would give unanimous consent perhaps we could carry on in committee with the estimates of my department. Would the house agree to this course being followed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we are quite happy to accede to that eminently good suggestion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to the suspension of private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: The house will now resume the business interrupted a short while ago.

The house in committee of supply-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants
and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,159,000.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I was asking about the parasite carried by the harbour seal and whether this is a threat to commercial fish. Do other fish contract this disease? If so, how many other types of fish have this parasite? Then I would like to know what percentage of the research work done in the provinces is carried out by the federal government. How many research stations does the federal government have across Canada, and what percentage of the employees who work in these stations are scientists?
Have the officials of the department any idea why the fish population of the great lakes is decreasing? Is this depopulation the result of a disease or the result of pollution through pesticides or detergents? For some time the lamprey eels were attacking trout, particularly in the great lakes, and I am wondering whether the minister can tell the committee whether that problem has been solved? I understand the trout population in lake Superior and lake Huron is increasing.
Has the research activity of the Department of Fisheries included a study of the effect of detergents on fish population, and has there been any effort made to stop industries from polluting our waters by the discharge of detergents and other chemical wastes?
How often does the fisheries research board meet and where does it meet? How many members are there on that board, and of those members what is the ratio of scientists to laymen? Who appoints the members of this board?
Mr. Chairman, I have posed a number of questions for the minister and his officials rather than making a long speech, because I felt that perhaps a greater degree of information would be forthcoming. I should like to ask one or two further questions in respect of the 12 mile limit proposition.
Why is the 12 mile limit not reserved for Canadian fishermen, and why are fishermen from the United States, France, Great Britain, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Norway and Denmark 20220-532J
Supply-Fisheries
allowed to fish in the fishing grounds within that limit? Is there some agreement in this regard? It is my understanding there is such an agreement but I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong. What do we get in return? What are the circumstances surrounding the use of chemicals to destroy fish that prey on other fish, and I am thinking particularly of smelt?
Mr. Chairman, those are all the questions I wish to ask at the present time, but I will ask more after the minister has replied, if there are any unanswered or not clear.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to endorse that portion of the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, dealing with the situation in respect of fishermen in Newfoundland particularly, in the past two or three years. What the hon. member has suggested in this regard has unfortunately been very much the situation in respect of approximately 60 per cent of the fishermen in the area of St. John's West.
The unemployment insurance which is now available to fishermen is not in itself an answer to their problems. Much criticism has been expressed about the inclusion of fishermen in this program, but at least the criticism expressed in Newfoundland follows two opposite directions, because the program does not fit the requirements of those fishermen. This insurance does act as a bonus to those fishermen who have a high catch but does not provide sufficient assistance to the fishermen who have laboured throughout the season and have met with failure.
It seems to me that we have really approached this problem backwards. It may be desirable to give some sort of stimulation by way of a bonus to our east coast fishermen particularly, because the average value of landed fish per fisherman there is between $800 and $900 per year. That is well below what the fishermen should receive in order to provide their families with even a half decent standard of living. I am not quarreling at all with the suggestion that under present circumstances those people should be given some sort of bonus, but I do suggest that it is more important at this time to consider a program of insurance which will offer some protection in years when the average yield is unduly low.
One other thing I should like to mention in respect of fisheries statistics relating to the past several years is that the size of fish caught by the inshore fishermen has been getting smaller each year. While the pro-

Supply-Fisheries
ductivity per fisherman in 1956 was 41,000 pounds, this has decreased steadily each year, to the point where last year it was only 25,000 pounds. There are more fishermen now than in the past, so the total catch may be as good as it was; but I should like to remind the minister that the figures we now have in respect of the catch this year, which indicate that the situation is worse than it was last year, must be considered in the light of that increase in the number of fishermen. Unless there is a tremendous improvement in the fisheries in this area within the next month we will be faced with an even lower productivity per fisherman than last year.
I endorse the remarks of those speakers who have encouraged the minister to continue this admirable program of research, but perhaps the efforts in this field should be concentrated a little more toward determining the causes and remedies with respect to these smaller fish, as well as a study of the causes of the lower productivity per fisherman.
We in Newfoundland are heartened by the progress being made toward the establishment of the 12 mile limit, and we realize that there is a lot of water still to pass under the bridge before base lines are determined. We hope, however, that it is not too optimistic to suggest that the problems in respect of establishing this 12 mile limit will be solved before the 1965 fishing season. With reference to a suggestion made during a recent meeting of the committee on marine and fisheries, I suggested to the minister and his officials that certain conservation areas within Canada's territorial waters will have to be established. The inshore fishermen of Newfoundland, and of those areas of the maritime provinces where there still is an inshore fishery, are not unreasonable and certainly not agitating for the exclusion of Canadian draggers and trawlers from the 12 mile limit but they have a justifiable case in suggesting that certain areas, for example along the southern shore of St. John's West, which is straight for 60 or 70 miles, have not been properly considered in respect of the establishment of base lines. The base line theory does not mean anything because this is a straight shore, so whatever is resolved as far as base lines are concerned is not going to make too much difference to them. There are no large bays or other such bodies of water.
This 60 or 70 miles of coast line is very near the major ocean routes of trans-Atlantic traffic and many of the foreign trawlers and other vessels that go to the port of St. John's

for supplies go down this shore. Right now they hover about the 12 or three mile limit as the case may be. This not only causes undue interference with the fishermen's gear but from what I have been able to learn about the situation it is undoubtedly having an effect on the inshore fishery in that area. It has been explained to me not only by biologists and other scientists but by the fishermen themselves, who in their own way quite often know more about the situation, that in years gone by there were traditional runs of fish that came at particular seasons; but now the trawlers and draggers know the approximate times of these runs of fish and they are there to interfere with the potential catch of the inshore fishermen.
Whatever other arrangements are made as far as Canadian territorial waters as a whole are concerned, I think it would not be unreasonable if areas such as the one I am talking about were classified at least for certain periods of the year as conservation areas, to the exclusion of all trawlers and draggers including our own Canadian draggers. When I brought this matter up in the committee I asked the representatives of the Canada fisheries council and the representatives of the industry whether they would have any objection to this and they replied that they would not.
I sympathize with the minister in this regard in that all of the coast line of Newfoundland is the habitat of the inshore fishermen. Perhaps not all of them are so severely affected as those on the southern shore of St. John's West or the northern shore of St. John's East, or part of the strait of Belle Isle where they are very near shipping routes. Perhaps there are large bays where it would not apply, but I certainly think that for some period of the year-it would probably have to be from May or June until December- these areas should be reserved exclusively for the use of the inshore fishermen.
I say again that these areas will be affected very little by any future decision as to base lines because they are primarily areas of straight shore and do not have large bays and the like. If this is done it will have some beneficial effect, I hope, on the inshore catch in Newfoundland.
While I am talking about the inshore fishermen, may I say I think we have to recognize- I think the minister has given an indication that he does-that in addition to these conservation measures we must also strive for greater mobility among the inshore fishermen. We are heartened by the news of the subsidy

program for larger boats. I think we must have larger boats and more modern equipment for our inshore fishermen.
In Newfoundland we must also concentrate to a greater degree on our offshore fisheries. I was disappointed several years ago when a number of local fish producers in Newfoundland decided to go out of the offshore fishery business. I have not been able to understand the reason for that action. However, I believe that one particularly energetic and imaginative company is contemplating returning to the offshore fishery.
It seems to me, to be logical, that this would be a more efficient way for them to operate their business, rather than to depend solely on the inshore fishery.
One Newfoundland fishing company will be bringing to Newfoundland waters this November the first of four new factory ships. These ships will be floating fish plants. I was happy to learn from the president of Fisheries Products Limited that one of these trawlers will, it is hoped, be located in St. Mary's bay, St. John's West, next summer. I think this is a step in the right direction toward achieving greater mobility in one aspect of our fisheries at any rate, because these floating fish plants will be able to move into areas where the inshore fishery is better than in other areas.
My greatest concern in rising to speak was to stress the importance of these conservation areas, notwithstanding whatever other arrangements may be made concerning Canada's territorial waters. I think this is a most important step for the part of St. John's West about which I have been talking and I am quite sure it will be applicable to other parts of Newfoundland as well.


Mr. Regan:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) on the intelligent way in which he has administered his department.

I wish to say only a very few words on this subject. As one who comes from an area which is greatly affected by the fishery I would point out that the fishing industry has meant $70 million a year to the province of Nova Scotia. It has provided a great deal of employment, and it is of keen concern to Nova Scotians that the fisheries on the east coast of Canada continue prosperous. In this direction we all know that more and more modern equipment and better facilities have resulted in those who go down to the sea in
Supply-Fisheries
ships being able to pursue and catch fish more efficiently.
As has been emphasized by a number of speakers, much has been done but much more needs to be done with regard to obtaining a greater knowledge of the conditions under which fish will multiply and prosper and with regard to the amount of protection that will be necessary by way of international agreements in the years ahead, to assure that our fisheries are never completely exploited and used up with the result that the industry would disappear.
In this connection I should like to mention the fact that at Dalhousie University Dr. W. R. Trost, dean of graduate studies, has been appointed chairman of Dalhousie's aquaculture committee. This committee has proposed a $1 million aquatron. The name "aquatron" has been coined for this facility because it is a significant departure from any existing aquarium or aquatic experimental facility now existing. It is proposed to use the aquatron for the study of conditions under which fish and all sea life prosper, and the experiments are to be carried out in co-operation with the Bedford institute of oceanography. I submit that this type of development needs every encouragement from the national research council and the Department of Fisheries because it is only by acquiring greater knowledge of conditions in the sea at different depths and pressures that we can eventually turn the fishing industry from a hunting to a farming industry.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay my estimates. I feel I have already spoken long enough in introducing them but I am sure hon. members expect me to answer some of the questions they have directed to me and I want to try to do so as briefly as possible.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) referred to the order in council passed on the 17th of July exempting certain countries from the application of the 12 mile fishing zone. I am sure hon. members will understand why this was done. It was done for those countries with whom we are negotiating, inasmuch as we could not expect to enforce the 12 mile fishing zone on those countries before the negotiations were completed.
The hon. member also referred to the protection of seals, particularly in the gulf of St. Lawrence. The only foreign country involved is Norway and we are at present negotiating with Norway in order to assure full protection in that particular area. The

Supply-Fisheries
hon. member also asked for details with regard to the vessel replacement and building program for this year. In the Newfoundland area we are replacing the Cinderella at a cost of $110,000. In the maritimes area we are replacing the Hyperia and Obelia at a total cost of $57,000. In the Pacific area we are replacing the Rissa $10,000; the Bonilla Rock $10,000; the Branta, $20,000 and we have also a replacement for the Statistic at $16,000. In addition a start has been made on the provision of an additional deep sea patrol vessel of the Cape Freels type for the maritime area, and consideration is being given now to a similar vessel for the Pacific coast.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberrii referred to Canada's share of the world fishery, particularly in connection with F.A.O. I am pleased to report that in so far as the development of world fisheries, the resultant threat of depletion and keen international competition are concerned, the department is keeping in close touch with all these developments. Canada is active in every important international commission, as I have mentioned in my remarks, and is supporting the fisheries division of the F.A.O. in its attempt to cope with these growing problems bf international conservation and development. In fact two of the senior officials of my department will attend an F.A.O. meeting ;in Rome next month as part of the Canadian delegation.
The hon. member also mentioned the possibility of limiting the number of salmon licences on the west coast. Reference has been made to this subject by several members, including the hon. member for Skeena and the member for Fraser valley. I am sure all hon. members are fully aware of the difficulties connected with implementing such a restriction. The matter is presently under very active study by the department, and it is our intention to take action in this field as soon as this study has been completed. However, we want to do it in an adequate and equitable manner. I am sure the hon. members who raised this question understand the complexity of the problem. I want to assure them it is under very active study by the department.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg referred to section 31 of the Fisheries Act. Here again, I want to assure the hon. member this matter is under consideration by the department. The matter is much more complicated than just withdrawing this section from the Fisheries Act. I should like to refer
[Mr. Robichaud.l
the hon. member to section 76 of the Fisheries Act which was introduced in 1961 and has some direct effect on section 31, particularly as it affects lobster fishing. It is true that certain states, such as the state of Maine in the United States, permit lobster fishing on the high seas. We must remember also that in those areas the lobster season is open the year round. They do not have the problem we have in our Atlantic provinces, where we have limited seasons, and different seasons in different areas. We are studying this matter which, as I have said, is also very complicated.
We are also taking into consideration the suggestion the hon. member made in connection with some research being done in this direction, particularly on the Grand Banks. In so far as oyster development is concerned, and I referred to this in my remarks, we now have an oyster hatchery in operation at Ellerslie and we are convinced it will be a great asset to the oyster industry of the Atlantic provinces.
The hon. member for Skeena has made a special reference to the third meeting which is now taking place in Ottawa between Canada, Japan and the United States in connection with the north Pacific treaty. I am sure that, as I stated yesterday, hon. members understand why I cannot give more details about the negotiations which are taking place. We would not have a third meeting of these negotiators if our Canadian delegation had not maintained a firm position. I want to assure hon. members that our aim is to ensure that we have full protection for the salmon and halibut fisheries of the Pacific. If we had not maintained this firm position, probably an agreement would have been reached long ago. I want to give this assurance, that it is our hope, and the hope also of the other two countries concerned, that this treaty should be maintained because this protection is essential to the salmon fishery for future generations in the Pacific area.
In so far as the committee appointed last spring to study the wage dispute and problems affecting the fisheries of British Columbia, I am pleased to report that the work of the committee has been completed and a report is now being prepared. This report should be submitted to my department within the next month or so. After it has been given study, it is our intention to make the report public.
With reference to the development of markets for dogfish, I may say that experiments are now being conducted in co-oper-

ation with the industry. It is true these experiments are at an early stage. I believe we took this decision in February or early March, and we have been in communication with the industry. This experimentation is now under way, and we hope that later this year or early next year we will have some results to report.
In connection with the pollution of salmon streams, I may say that this is a subject of intense effort by the department. We are asking for the co-operation of the industries concerned. The hon. member asked also why the government has not ratified the Geneva convention. The question of ratification is one for the government to take under consideration, and it is under consideration now. One of the main reasons for the delay is the decision of the government to proceed with the establishment of the 12 mile fishing zone. After our negotiations have been completed in this sphere, I am sure it is the intention of the government to give further consideration to the ratification of the Geneva convention.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale has asked whether more publicity might be given or better displays made in connection with our salt water fish. I want to assure the hon. member we are making every effort possible in this field. As the hon. member knows, we have test kitchens in Winnipeg and in Edmonton which are doing some work in this connection and we want to give publicity to our fisheries products.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has mentioned many of the problems that affect particularly the fisheries of Newfoundland. It is true that at a federal-provincial conference which took place only eight months ago, a decision was reached to launch a national development program for the fisheries. We want to make sure every move we make in this direction is the right one. It is not a matter of giving money away or spending money without knowing it would be effective, and that it would reach the primary producer. The hon. member has mentioned the amount allocated to the estimates for research. I am pleased to report that this year we are spending over $1 million more for research than we did last year. There is much more research to be done and we are doing everything possible to accelerate the research program.
In connection with legislation to enable foreign draggers to land fish in Canadian ports, this matter is under study by my department in co-operation with the Depart-
Supply-Fisheries
ment of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Justice, but I am not in a position at this stage to state what the decision might be in this connection. There are many factors involved, and we have to take into consideration that if we allow foreign vessels to land their fish on Canadian soil this will extend the fishing time for foreign vessels, because at present they have to return to unload at their home ports. We have to consider that if we allow them to land their catch in Canada, so much more fish will be taken out of the waters adjoining our coasts.
The hon. member for Simcoe East asked me a series of questions which I have tried to list, and I will try to answer some of them. I want to assure the hon. member that the inland fisheries are receiving close attention from the department. Since the federal-provincial conference was held, a federal-provincial committee has been established, with participation by the prairie provinces and Ontario. This committee has met on two, and I believe three occasions, and we are working on a program in order to develop further the inland fisheries.
The hon. member also asked me a question in connection with parasites in harbour seals. It is true that there is a certain parasite in harbour seals. Extensive research has shown that although it is evident in many species, it matures in harbour seals and not in other species of seals. For this reason the department has taken measures to reduce their numbers, especially by providing a bounty, though this may not be altogether in line with some of the opposition we have been having in the last month in connection with the seal operation.
The hon. member also asked a very important question concerning the number of research stations. The fisheries research board, under a special act of parliament, is appointed by the Minister of Fisheries and has 17 members, nine of whom are scientists, the others being representative of the industry in different sections of the country. There are five biological stations, five technological laboratories and two oceanographical groups. Of the total staff of 736 over 200 are scientists and about the same number are technicians.
At this stage I want to praise the work being done by the fisheries research board of Canada. It is recognized throughout the world. Canada is well advanced in the field of research, and at the federal provincial eon-

Supply-Fisheries
ference we gave an assurance to the provinces that we were prepared to take more and more responsibility in this field. In some cases this will be in co-operation with the provinces. For example the province of Ontario is playing a great part in fisheries research, but without going into the details I would say that about 90 per cent of the research on fisheries is done by the federal research board.
We know that pollution of waters by detergents emanating from factories is taking place. We are studying this problem, and have in some cases taken action against factories for polluting waters containing fish.
These are answers to some of the questions which have been directed to me and I hope I have satisfied, in part, hon. members who have asked questions.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The minister missed one point in dealing with the effect of lamprey eels on trout and, second, I would like to ask why are the fish decreasing in numbers throughout the great lakes generally?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am pleased to give a brief report on lamprey control. I am quite optimistic about the results which have been obtained in lamprey control by the experimental treatments in lake Superior. By the end of 1961 all known lamprey spawning streams, tributary to the lake, had been treated with specific lampricide. In 1962 the catch of adult spawning lamprey in the barriers dropped sharply from 54,000 to 10,000. Approximately the same number returned in 1963. The lake trout have reacted rather sensationally to this reduction in showing less wounding, a great increase in numbers of large trout over 20 inches, and in greater availability to fishermen's nets.
The plantings of trout have apparently been quite successful in that large numbers of hatchery fish now form the basis of the population. Our problem is to determine whether the costs of control will, in effect, be economically sound. In the meantime we are doing limited work in other lakes, since it is our opinion that a complete program should not be initiated until we are definitely convinced of its efficacy.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I want to revive a matter I raised earlier, and I hope the minister will not be offended when I say he rather glossed over the subject in his answer. It is the question of pollution of waters, which is a serious matter, and I can quote the minister's own words to stress the

importance of it. In the communique dated January 24 of this year, following the federal-provincial conference, the minister said this:
The problem of pollution was recognized as being one of the most serious facing the fisheries today. The need was emphasized for the development of efficient and accurate techniques for detecting and assessing pollution and for corrective measures. The importance of fisheries representation on pollution boards was generally agreed upon.
I think everyone would agree with that statement by the minister, and I just pose to him a thought about two pulp mills which are proposed to be built in the middle of the northern part of B.C., each of which is to be located at or near salmon spawning streams. One mill is to be built at Kitimat, and the Kitimat river is a salmon river. The other mill is proposed to be built at Houston, further in the interior, away from the sea coast, but none the less in an area which is highly productive of salmon in the Morris river system. I would like the minister to tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that these salmon spawning areas will not be destroyed by the effluence from these pulp mills.
We had a very sad experience in Prince Rupert with the Columbia Cellulose mill, in which the area surrounding it is now barren for productive purposes. In fact I question the possibility of rehabilitating it as a spawning area. It might be possible with an extensive investment by the company involved and by the Department of Fisheries, but we want to prevent such a thing occurring again. These new pulp mills are on the drawing boards and this question of the spawning grounds should be tackled now.
I also raised with the minister a question about the rehabilitation of former salmon spawning streams that had become barren, or destroyed due to a variety of reasons. I mentioned in particular the Queen Charlotte islands, and incidentally in passing may I say the recent order in council issued regarding salmon streams was a step in the right direction. By its terms the department is allowed to step in and prevent the removal of gravel from salmon spawning streams. Obviously there was conflict as to whether or not this was provincial or federal jurisdiction; at least that was the reasoning given to me by the people in the fisheries department. They felt they were powerless to proceed to prevent the scooping up of gravel out of salmon spawning streams because in fact that was a landed area, and consequently under the jurisdiction of the province. I understand there was a

recent order in council amendment which gives the fisheries department authority, as I understand it, to prevent that sort of thing. However, we are interested in the rehabilitation of the streams there.


Mr. Barneli:: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies to this question would he allow me to add a few remarks to those of the hon. member for Skeena. I think the minister is probably aware that one of the first comprehensive studies ever made by the department, as far as I know, of pollution as a result of pulp and paper mill installation was made in respect of the upper part of the Alberni inlet prior to the establishment of a pulp mill there. Many views have been expressed as to the success or otherwise of control measures which have been put into effect based on the fact finding of that study. Certainly it is evident that these efforts have not altogether been unsuccessful in view of, as the minister knows, the recent successful arrival of these new runs of pinks through the controlled spawning channels of Robertson creek. However, I should like to say that from time to time people do come to me seriously concerned about the evidence of mortality in fish as a result of the effluents of that plant right at the mouth of the Somass river system.
I am wondering whether the earlier investigations which were made have fully taken into account the tremendous expansion which has taken place in that plant since the original survey and planning was done. I know some of the local organizations, such as the Port Alberni and district chamber of commerce, have had this sort of question before them. If the minister has any late reports on how that program is operating I think it might be worth while to pass them on to the committee in reference to the consideration of this whole question.
The hon. member for Skeena raised the question of the proposed development of pulp mills on the main stem of the Fraser river system. Probably the minister has already seen the summary of the recent annual report of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission which is contained in the August 24 issue of "Facts on Fish" published by the fisheries association of B.C., in which it is pointed out that this whole question highlights the recent annual report of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission. This report indicates concern, even though adequate control measures may be planned, at the accidental spillages of highly toxic materials into the main stem of the Fraser, which at the
Supply-Fisheries
wrong time could very well accidentally produce disastrous results.
I relate my question in connection with what may be planned in pollution control on the Fraser to the earlier studies which were made in the Alberni inlet and Somass river systems, for the definite purpose of suggesting that there is a very major difference in kind as to the problem which may have to be faced in connection with the avoidance of pollution on the Fraser to that which was based on the establishment of the pulp processing mills at the head of the Alberni inlet. I know that in at least one instance in my constituency the existence of a pulp mill has, according to information I have derived from discussion with fisheries people, ruled out the possibility of the continued existence of salmon. I am referring to the pulp mill at Port Alice on the Neroutsos arm in the Quatsino sound area. While I have been informed that no major part of the Quatsino salmon run has been involved in this, nevertheless I mention it because it has been put to me that it is either a question of having a pulp mill or having fish; there is no feasible alternative between the two. Fortunately in this particular instance no major salmon runs, as I understand it, were involved. The damage which has been done is that the residents of the area now have to travel a good many miles to do a bit of sport salmon fishing, whereas a few years ago when the plant was smaller and the volume of pollutants was lower they were able to go out after supper and catch themselves a salmon without too much difficulty. I think it is in the perspective of what has occurred in the past that some of us would like the minister to give us a pretty careful appraisal of just what may be involved in this proposal to establish a pulp industry on the main stems of the Fraser river and, as the hon. member for Skeena mentioned, in the Kitimat area.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the problem raised by the hon. members for Skeena and Comox-Alberni I would assure them that the problem of pollution is one of great concern to my department. It is a very important problem and I wish to thank them for bringing it to the attention of the committee. Pollution of our salmon streams is the subject of intense efforts by the department, and in most cases now pollution by pulp mills is kept at a harmless level because we have discussions with the companies in the early stages of the planning of a new pulp mill. This is also backed by the Fisheries Act itself. We insist at all times on adequate pre-

Supply-Fisheries
cautions. We co-operate closely with the provinces and the municipalities in this general field of pollution control. The two cases referred by the hon. member have been in the mind of the department, and I understand that discussions have already taken place in order to take the necessary steps at an early stage to prevent any pollution effect from their operation.
With regard to the rehabilitation of salmon runs in the Queen Charlotte islands, this is being attempted at some stage through regulation of the fishery, and we can say that we feel we are meeting with success.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There is one other matter, Mr. Chairman, that I for one would like to raise on which I should like to invite any comment which the minister may care to make, while we are still considering the broader policies of his department. It is a matter which may be of more direct concern really to his colleague the Minister of Transport, and I may attempt to pursue it in a little more detail when we reach the consideration of the estimates of that department. The minister may have had drawn to his attention a question which was recently raised publicly by the Pacific trailers' association with respect to the operation of the coastguard on the west coast. As I read the substance of their complaint it was that both of the coastguard cutters had been put into operation on the straits of Georgia area, they claimed almost entirely for the benefit of pleasure craft. Therefore, they said, the main troll fleet off the west coast of Vancouver island was left without the kind of protection which the coastguard, they said, should be prepared to provide for them.
There was one aspect of their representation in which I felt they did not make a complete appraisal of the situation, because they linked their statement with respect to the idea of having both coastguard cutters operating in the inside waters with a rather critical reference to the existing lifeboat stations at Bamfield and Tofino.
I would urge the minister not to be moved too far by the statements they made in respect to the operation of these two lifeboat stations. It may be true that these people, thinking in terms probably of the troll fleet operating a good many miles offshore, are not fully aware of the value of those two lifeboat stations to the fishermen and others who are perhaps somewhat more closely inshore, and to the many other ancillary services in rescue that these lifeboat stations have rendered for many years. They claim 
that these two boats are outdated and are not properly equipped in the modern sense, which may very well be true. I would invite the minister to comment on this subject. I would also urge him to confer rather carefully with his colleague the Minister of Transport on this question, with particular reference to (a) ensuring that adequate coastguard protection be provided to the fullest extent for the fleet operating off the west coast, and (b) giving careful attention to the matter before any further move is made toward reducing the services-in my view, the very valuable services-that are performed from the existing lifeboat stations at Bamfield and Tofino.


Mr. Hobichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I will bring this matter to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Gauihier:: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question to put to the minister in regard to this famous water pollution.
We are wondering who is really responsible for this. The minister said a moment ago that he was highly interested in this matter. I can tell him that in our region we have been highly interested in this matter for over 30 years.
I am speaking of the Mistassini river, the best salmon river in the whole region. In the past 30 years, salmon has practically been driven away from the river because the refuse of a pulp mill have created a dam right across the river.
Last summer, I went to see for myself what was going on. Layers of white matter extending over a quarter mile could be seen. The fish, the salmon that feed on that are poisoned to death.
Various governments were asked to do something to eliminate such waste and also those accumulated on the bottom of the river. Some friends and I, in diving suits, inspected the bottom of the river. We found that there was from 8 to 10 feet thick of log wastage besides those floating islands of white matter that kill the fish.
We heard people say: "We are deeply concerned by that problem." And the minister said that the effects of waste from pulp mills are not so serious.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No.


Rosaire Gauthier: I hope I misunderstood-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I certainly did not make such a statement.


Mr. Gauthier:: I want to call the minister's attention to the fact that the waste product of the paper mills in my district are detrimental to our fishing waters and, more particularly, to the salmon run in the higher Mistassini.
I wrote to the federal and provincial governments and received only vague answers. I now seize this opportunity of asking the minister whether the matter of water pollution comes under a joint plan, or just under the federal or the provincial government, so as to find out which government should be approached in future to obtain some protection.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I shall answer my hon. friend that the administration of fisheries in the province of Quebec is under provincial authority.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise a matter involving a particular fishery, at the moment one in which primarily native Indians are interested. It is just a moment or two to six o'clock. The manner in which I intended to describe what is taking place with respect to pollution of one of the rivers which is highly productive of oolachan would not be conducive to a reasonably pleasant supper, so I will leave the descriptive part of it until we resume at eight o'clock, if that is satisfactory. It involves the oolachan fishery, and primarily the pumping of raw sewage by the municipality of Kitimat into the Kitimat river. By mentioning now what the subject matter is, this will give the minister an opportunity if he so desires, to refresh his memory over the supper hour as to just what has taken place there. As there are some other matters about which I wish to make inquiries of the minister, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether we might call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I almost missed my opportunity to speak because I was giving some information, about which I wish to make reference, to the minister.
The oolachan fishery is almost exclusively a concern of the native Indian people of the west coast. It is one of their traditional foods and part of their regular diet. The oolachan is a small fish much like the smelt, and I think
Supply-Fisheries
biologists would tell us that it is in fact a species of smelt, although there is some argument in this regard. I have given some of these oolachan to the minister and have some in front of me on the desk. You will see that they are relatively small, seven or eight inches in length at the maximum. Biologists do not know much about the habits of the oolachan because there has been only a small amount of research done in this regard.
The oolachan is an anadromous fish, as is the salmon, spending its growing years in salt water and running to fresh water to spawn in the spring, probably on a two year cycle. I believe they spawn in the silted bottoms of the rivers rather than in gravel, as do salmon.
The oolachan are caught by the Indians with the use of a very fine mesh net, as are herring and other similar fish. You will realize that because of their size a fine net must be used to catch them during their progress up river. These fish are cured by a smoking process and are sometimes bottled after being smoked, though very often they are dried or broiled. They are also rendered down by simmering in water to produce grease or fish oil. Oolachan grease or oil is of great importance to the native people. These fish are very oily and are often referred to as candlefish because, after proper processing, they can be used just as one would use a candle.
As a result of the development of the Aluminum Company of Canada project, with its smelter constructed on the Kitimat river a few years ago, a great deal of raw sewage from the community is being pumped into the river. I have seen this situation and have taken pictures of it, which I have forwarded to the Minister of National Health and Welfare because of the obvious health problem involved.
During the netting of oolachan, using these fine mesh nets, the Indians catch oolachan as well as everything contained in this sewage including human excrement, tissue paper -which is used extensively and discharged- discarded sanitary napkins, used and discarded condoms, and many other like articles. I only mention this fact because it is a fact that these things are discharged in the raw sewage and are caught up in the fine nets used by the Indians to catch the oolachan.
An extremely serious health problem exists in this area as a result of this situation, and Dr. Paul Woolacott, of Kitimat, was of the opinion that two people nearly died early this spring as a result of gastroenteritis contracted

Supply-Fisheries
by eating oolachan which had been contaminated as a result of this raw sewage.
While the oolachan fishery may not be of importance in a commercial sense, it is of vital concern to the Indian people, as I am sure the minister is aware from personal experience or from advice he has received from the officials of his department. If the raw sewage from the community of Kitimat is to continue to be discharged into the Kitimat river, resulting in this pollution, while it may not interfere with or destroy the oolachan it will undoubtedly continue to interfere with the fishery as far as the Indian people are concerned. The spring of the year is the traditional time when these Indians harvest certain sea products, but they must maintain their harvest of oolachan because it forms a very important part of their diet. If this health hazard is to continue they will have to discontinue catching the oolachan, thereby losing a staple and traditional part of their food.
This question has been kicked around by the Department of National Health and Welfare, which appears not to be too interested in it and does not seem to grasp the importance of the problem. The B.C. provincial government authorities also do not appear to be too interested. The municipality of Kitimat, which might engage in the installation of a sewage treatment unit, has not proceeded so far because from their point of view the installation of such a sewage treatment plant would be financially prohibitive, having in mind the relatively small population of Kitimat compared to the cost of installing such a plant. So far the Department of Fisheries has not to my knowledge done anything extensive in attempting to correct the situation.
However, somewhere along the line some government agency has to start the ball rolling by offering some help. Maybe it will require a contribution from the Department of Fisheries to the municipality of Kitimat to assist in the installation of a sewage treatment plant. Perhaps it will be a joint effort of the Department of Fisheries, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the provincial government, especially in view of the rapport that exists on fisheries matters between the federal authorities and the provinces. Somewhere a start has to be made, and I appeal publicly to the minister, knowing his sense of fair play, his desire for the preservation and conservation of the fisheries and his desire to protect at all levels the
[Mr. Howard.l
interests of all those who live off the fisheries on the west coast.
I am merely asking him to undertake a study and to look at the situation to see if some proposal cannot be worked out. Perhaps this is being done already. There are five or six months left before the next oolachan run comes along in the spring of the year and if we start to work on the problem now we may be able to come up with some satisfactory solution by that time so that the natives at Kitimat can continue to catch their traditional fish. I notice that the two or three fish I left with the minister a moment ago have been consumed, undoubtedly with some relish, and from this sample the minister will appreciate how important and necessary it is that the native people, whose traditional food this is, continue to have the opportunity to catch and consume it without placing their lives in jeopardy in the process. If the minister would care to make some comment I would be very happy to hear it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I wish to thank the hon. member for bringing this situation concerning the oolachan to our attention. I note that this small fish acts like the smelt in that it comes from salt water to spawn in fresh water. The problem he has mentioned is well known to my department. We have made some surveys and have done some research concerning the situation. We have found out that the oolachan are not affected by the condition of the water and we are unable to act with respect to the matter because it does not come within the scope of our jurisdiction. It is a local problem which needs the co-operation of the provincial authorities, who are responsible for health matters, and also the local municipal authorities. In view of the remarks made by the hon. member I want to assure him that we will again take up the matter with the authorities concerned to find out if something cannot be done to improve the situation.


Frank Howard: Just as an adjunct may I say it is undoubtedly true that the oolachan is not adversely affected by swimming through the sewage area.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: They are immune.


Frank Howard: It is the opinion of Dr. Woola-cott that the trouble arises from the fact that when the native people catch the oolachan and take them out of the water they cannot spend the time scraping the muck and guck off each fish before hanging it up to dry

and to be smoked, and in the process some of the dissolved solids cling to the fish. All fish have some degree of slime and this matter just sticks to them and makes it that much worse. I know the minister is conscientious about this matter and we would appreciate something worth while being done.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, I have one question to ask the minister. On January 14, 1964 a college of fisheries, navigation, marine engineering and electronics was opened in Newfoundland with Dr. W. F. Hampton as president. I am sure this college will prove very beneficial to our fisheries in Newfoundland. Dr. Hampton has worked as a control and research chemist with industry and has also served on the staff of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations with headquarters in Rome. He also played a very important part in the development of the product now known as fish sticks. As a matter of fact, I believe he was primarily responsible for this development. Would the minister advise if his department provides grants for such colleges as the one recently opened in Newfoundland and whether these colleges have an integral part in the program of fisheries management and development of his department? Also, do they have a distinct role in the program of national fisheries development?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member that we are cooperating very closely with the work being done at the new fisheries college recently established in Newfoundland. We are contributing technically, but so far as financial assistance is concerned that comes under the vocational training program of the Department of Labour.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief remarks and questions regarding vote No. 1 of the fisheries estimates. I congratulate the minister on his elevation to his important post in the cabinet. I listened with interest to the rosy picture he painted of our national fisheries industry. However, Mr. Chairman, I am not rising completely to that bait.
The federal Department of Fisheries seems to be principally interested in ocean fishing. I point out to the minister that in his speech he completely overlooked the great expanses of inland fresh water. I refer to the great lakes, lake Superior, lake Huron, lake Erie and lake Ontario. Each of them is a contributor to our international balance of trade through the fresh water fishery.
Supply-Fisheries
As I said, the minister painted a glowing and optimistic picture of the industry over which his department presides. I would point out to the minister that this is at variance with the latest commendable studies and work of economists. I happened to have in my office a book I obtained from the library some time ago. It is by Caves and Holton, economists of Harvard University and is entitled "The Canadian Economy". At page 560 they state:
The fisheries of Canada take the prize for slowest rate of growth of any of the major Canadian industries, with output rising only slightly more than 0.5 per cent annually since 1926.
So, we have nothing of which to be very proud, except the fact that the product of the industry is of great value for the sustenance of millions of people, especially in the United States.
I return again to the great lakes and the importance of the great lakes fisheries, Mr. Chairman, to our balance of trade. The principal market for fish from our district, that is the shores of Prince Edward-Lennox, is the New York market. As a result of what I believe to be the very serious condition existing in the great lakes, especially lake Ontario, which is the lowest of the lakes in the chain and thus receives all of the pollution that comes into the other lakes, the fishing industry is in serious condition. I have here, Mr. Chairman, a communication from an experienced fisherman who has devoted his life to the fishing industry in the county of Prince Edward. He sets out very briefly the conditions that exist, and I quote:
This will be my twentieth year in the commercial fishing business and during that time I have worked in just about every phase of the commercial fishing business. My company has been active in both catching and processing fish for human consumption. We have sold both packaged fish and live fish to wholesalers in Canada and the United States. About five years ago we noticed a decrease in some species of fish and at that time in order to substitute for this shortage we started to prepare fish for biological studies. Since then we have supplied such companies as Borealis Science of Cooksville, Ontario, Wards Science of Rochester, New York and Carolina Science of Burlington, North Carolina, with both fish and fish eggs that we scientifically prepared for biological studies. This sudden scarcity of fish in this part of lake Ontario is a real tragedy for many fishermen as fishing is all that many of them have ever done and there are 240 licences issued in this area for taking fish commercially. Many of them are wondering if this is the end of the business, and if so what to do from here on. We know that in the past some species of fish disappeared but they made a comeback but this time nearly all species are going and not even our top-notch biologists can tell us why. I feel that much research must be done-

Supply-Fisheries
This is true, if the commercial fishing industry in lake Ontario and the other great lakes is going to survive. I point out to the minister the clear and vital need for his department devoting their utmost to the study of this situation. We are living in a fool's paradise because pollution of our lakes and streams is allowed to continue. I believe things are not well with the industry over which this department presides because I note the hon. member for York East has pointed out some places in which there are problems connected with the industry.
We have one family among many in my area who have been fishing for a living for many years. This family reports to me that they own approximately $100,000 worth of first class fishing equipment, including a tug, and many nets. They cannot now make a living from commercial fishing, even with all the gear they have accumulated because of the reduction in the available catch. They are going out and coming in with nearly nothing. They are losing money on their investment. It would be well for the federal-provincial committees the minister has mentioned, and the international joint commission, who have a certain amount of jurisdiction over these international waters, to study this situation of pollution on the great lakes. Pollution sounds the death knell of commercial fishing on these lakes unless we do something about it. We are, in fact, befouling our own nests. Last summer, in fact, the pickerel were floating dead by the millions on the bay of Quinte and along the shores of Prince Edward county, that is the northern shore of lake Ontario. The whitefish have been killed off by the lamprey. We have not even conquered the lamprey eel as yet, although I will admit that progress has been made along this line. We have a long way to go yet. The lake trout are practically extinct in all the lakes except lake Superior.
This matter deserves the attention of the government, first, because of the employment factor; second, because of the food processing factor which adds to employment in the secondary industrial field. Third, the transportation factor, which is very important and the international balance of trade which I mentioned earlier, deserve our attention. In other words, the fresh water fishing industry has a favourable impact on Canada's international balance of trade. The factor of future economic stability is also worthy of note, to say nothing of the advertising factor. The fresh water fish from the great lakes have made a good name for Canada abroad and in

the United States. The minister has said that we should, in our educational programming, encourage greater consumption of fish. I commend him for that statement and for his work along this line. Another part of this program should be directed toward conservation and better national housekeeping. There should be greater liaison and co-operation between the United States and Canadian governments, and through the international joint commission, in relation to the abatement and prohibition of pollution of the great lakes. I ask the minister to use his influence and that of all other bodies that have jurisdiction over these lakes, to bring about an improvement in these conditions which are certainly nothing of which we can be proud at the moment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There are only a few points I want to touch upon. I gather that my colleague has already made a similar suggestion to the one I made in connection with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, when I argued this was basically a scientific department. I believe this argument applies also to the Department of Fisheries. It seems to me that one of the considerations this government should be giving is to a complete reorganization of the ministries and having, generally, a minister of science, particularly in terms of the applied sciences. Of course, we can think of all sorts of reorganizations. Obviously we will have to do something with the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Industry clustering in each other's fields. It seems to me that fisheries, forestry and mines are three departments with which one could start, because their activities are primarily scientific and investigative rather than being in the political sphere or where they have political connotations in terms of the requirement of immediate political action. I think this should be seriously considered.
Some people may say, "It is all very well for you to make such a suggestion with regard to fisheries when you don't come from the maritimes and you don't have all this squid cutting and all the other problems in connection with the hand lines and so on," but I am not convinced that the maritime people, or the people who still depend on fishing for their income, would really be bereft or deprived of something if they stopped having a minister to report to, and instead had a general scientific agency to which to report, because it seems to me that aside from a rather small amount-and what appears to be a disappearing amount-of subsidies through

various programs, the actual activities that touch the fishermen in any political or in any other way that starts up partisan controversy are largely disappearing.
It has been notable that our friend who is the minister, when he was in opposition was one of the most bristling and aggressive of the members of the opposition. When he became a minister you would have expected him to be the same way, but the plain fact of the matter is that his portfolio does not give him the opportunity to be so. We can all remember our very affable friend over here from Prince Edward Island when he was minister of fisheries. In essence the role, so far as it was a political one in the House of Commons, did not really give him an opportunity for the general cut and thrust and the general political responsibility that I suggest attaches to a minister.
My feeling is that this is one more of those departments we should consider when we take a look at the old traditional attitude, and see if we cannot re-arrange them under a general ministry of science, and possibly wipe out one or two portfolios, or perhaps provide portfolios in other areas and other fields which might merit them. If you judge by the interest in the questions in the house, broadcasting alone would merit a minister much more than fisheries, mines and technical surveys or forestry. It seems to me the thing to do so far as ministerial things are concerned is to adjust to the positions that are considered important, relevant and current among the people in politics.
One of the questions I would like to ask the minister relates to the advice that was given by the scientists of the Department of Fisheries to the other departments, and particularly to the Department of Transport, with regard to the question of opening up the Trent waterways. As the minister knows, game and fishing associations in Canada have made this somewhat of an issue, and I know my hon. friend over here from up in the Orillia area has been actively interested in this. I have a couple of fishing and game groups who have seen what has happened with the lamprey eel on lake Superior, and they are of the opinion that steps should be taken or plans made to go ahead with supporting a program that would offset the entry of the lamprey eel into lakes following the opening up of the Trent waterways. They feel this would be a most retrograde step, and I understand the decision to go ahead has been taken. Because of that I would like to know if advice was
Supp ly-Fisheries
sought from the Department of Fisheries, and what advice was given.
The second point I want to ask about is whether the minister's officials have considered doing an economic study in relation to the fisheries situation on lake Superior. As the minister knows, the fishery, so far as trout are concerned, has been almost wiped out because of the lamprey. However, we assume that because of various control measures that have been taken the trout are coming back, though not with tremendous speed. It seems to me at this time, particularly when the number of fishermen on the Canadian shores is very low, it might be a good time to go ahead with our United States friends and make an economic study of the future of the fisheries on lake Superior. This is especially important, because more and more use is being made of lake Superior which is littered with campers, U.S. fishermen, and of course, Canadian fishermen, and when I say this I am thinking of sports fishermen rather than commercial fishermen.
It seems to me there may be a case-I am not supporting it particularly-that as lake Superior comes back it should not be opened up again or not turned back to the trout fisheries on a commercial basis. Rather, it should be exploited for sport by Canadian fishermen. This should be particularly interesting if the stories I hear from my acquaintances in provincial fish hatcheries are true, and these stories are to the effect that landlocked salmon are adjusting very well to planting experiments in lake Superior.
I suggest to the minister this might be a place where his department could play a role in an economic study, undertaken jointly with the provincial department of lands and forests and the United States wild life service, or one of the other U.S. agencies that operate in connection with the lamprey control program.
The last matter I want to question is whether it is true that the lamprey control program has been successful in cutting out the reproduction cycle so far as the streams are concerned, and whether it is true there is now strong evidence that the lamprey is turning to cycles on the flats and beach areas along the shores of lake Superior. I am told this particular eel is adapting to the control program, that it is taking defensive steps, I suppose in a way by instinct, to survive the control program. If this is so, means of control are going to be tremendously expensive, and I would like to have a comment from the minister on whether this is true.

Supply-Fisheries
I would also like him, not during the debate on these estimates but in his annual report, to give a clear analysis of the amount of expenditure on the lamprey program by all the various agencies. I do not mean the contributions. I want to make a distinction, and I would like him to show where the money came from for the program as a whole, and then how the money was spent by the various agencies. I appreciate the information that is available in his report, but I would like to get a complete picture of how all the agencies, those of Canada at the federal and provincial level, and those of the United States at the state and federal level have responded and co-ordinated in this program, because from what we can see it has been an example of fruitful co-operation and coordination.
That, Mr. Chairman, sums up the remarks I want to make on the Department of Fisheries. There is one other matter I would be interested in, but again just as something prospective. I would like to know whether the minister or his officials are aware of any work being done in so far as exploiting the fisheries on the shore of Hudson bay are concerned, up north of Winisk, particularly with reference to the Indian population. I raise this matter because this is part of my constituency-a very hard part to visit, as it is about 500 miles from the main population centre-and recently I have received information that the Indians in that area, because of their association with the D.E.W. line work and the attractions of airport life, have gradually lost a number of their traditional skills that enabled them to support themselves. It has been put to me that one of the things which could make their life more attractive from an economic point of view would be if they were staffed and fitted and given a training program to exploit the fisheries along Hudson bay shores. I do not know what merit is in the suggestion, but I would like to know whether the minister is aware of it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I shall reply briefly to the questions which have been asked by my hon. friend from Port Arthur. First of all, I want to tell the hon. member that there is so much work to do in the Department of Fisheries which requires so much of my time that I cannot devote more time to my work in the house, as the hon. member suggested.
He asked about the opening of the Trent waterways. Let me assure him that my department is well aware of the effect it could have on the movement of lampreys from one

area to another, but we are now investigating that matter. So far as lake Superior is concerned we agree that trout have virtually been wiped out, and it is recognized that this has been partly due to the effect of lampreys. In this regard joint studies are being made to find out what is the economic effect of the money spent on control of lampreys to date. As the hon. member knows, the federal government has been spending from $500,000 to $600,000 yearly on this program which is shared by the United States government on, I would say, a somewhat larger scale. We know to some extent, as I reported before the dinner hour, what effect the lamprey program has had on the lakes, but we want to find out if it is effective economically. We are not yet sure, but this does not mean that we are going to cut down this program. We are working jointly with the great lakes commission and hope that we will be able to solve this problem.
So far as exploiting the fisheries on the shores of Hudson bay is concerned, I know this is of main concern to the Indian population of the area. We have conducted some studies particularly in relation to marine mammals. As I mentioned in my opening remarks yesterday, we are building near Ste. Anne de Bellevue a new laboratory which will look after the problems of the Arctic. I am sure that once we have this laboratory in operation we will be able to look more closely after the problems of that particular area.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I just develop the lamprey question a little further. Is there any indication that the lamprey cycle is adjusting to the measures which have been taken to poison the streams? There is evidence now that they are using the beaches and shallow waters in the bays for the larvae stage of the cycle.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: We are aware of this, Mr. Chairman, and what we are trying to find out is whether the amount of lampreys using the beaches and shallow waters are increasing compared to the years before we introduced this program. I do assure the hon. member that this matter is under investigation now, but I am not in a position to make a definite statement on the effects of the spawning which is taking place.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Just one other point in connection with the economic study. To paraphrase the minister, he said the economic study is in relation to the amount of money being spent on the control program. What I am interested in is an economic study, in co-operation with the United States and the departments of lands

and forests, which would consider seriously lake Superior in future being a lake which will exploit sport fishing rather than commercial fishing. I do not mean to discontinue commercial fishing altogether. I would assume that fishing for whitefish and herring would still continue, but as far as trout is concerned I would assume that in future lake Superior would be of greater economic advantage to the communities along its shores in terms of tourists and sporting groups than in terms of commercial fishermen. It seems to me that it is worth looking at this matter, in view of the tremendous increase in the number of people using the north shore route and pouring into that part of the country to enjoy its natural beauty.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, we will take note of the suggestions made by the hon. member and discuss them with the other authorities of the province of Ontario.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to a lot of talk about fisheries but I have not heard anyone say anything about the lowly sardine. I maintain that you cannot read a book, go to a play or to a moving picture but that the word sardine is mentioned; and if you do not believe that, Mr. Chairman, look out for it in the future and see whether what I say is not true.
The sardine is principally produced down in Charlotte county and Passamaquoddy. Why the sardine comes to the Passamaquoddy no one knows, but it has been coming there for 80 years or more. The sardine industry distributes $6 million to the county, yet no research work has been done by the government to investigate the type of run we will have, whether it will be big or small or anything like that. We know all about the salmon and the halibut but know nothing of the lowly sardine. I think it is about time that the fisheries department took more interest in it and did some research work to find out about these runs which we have. They have told us that they spawn on the southern coast of Nova Scotia and then come over, and so forth, but the pattern changes from year to year and is never the same. Today we might have a very short pack on the coast, but we do not know why. Next year we may have a big pack. It does seem to me that some research work should be done to find out why we have a big pack or a small pack, because sometimes hundreds of thousands of cans are purchased and piled up and we find we have nothing to put in them. Somebody said to me that it was all
Supply-Fisheries
on account of one man. One of my colleagues told me: "You have established this industry and gone along with it, so it is your problem". So I said to him that when I came here to Ottawa I resigned as treasurer of my company. I am no longer a director of it. The company has nothing to do with me, except in helping to promote the industry.
In the Passamaquoddy area the United States wants to dam the waters to develop power, and so on. As far as I am concerned I am getting along in years and will probably never live to see this power developed, but I do want to see the industry protected for future generations. For my part I have gotten along all right. When I came up here to Ottawa I told my constituents that they would not have to pay me because I would assign any money I received from Ottawa to the provision of scholarships in my constituency, and this I have done. I resigned from my company. All I am interested in is the protection and the future of the industry.
I think that the fisheries department should provide more research. I know the minister is interested in this and I know the deputy minister is too, but I do not know about his department in general. The sardine people, the people in whom I am interested, do business in 60 countries. This money flows into Canada and it certainly helps in regard to our balance of payments. If we knew there was going to be a big year, we would provide for it. We would buy the tinplate in Hamilton and this would provide a lot of work in Hamilton. We would buy hundreds of thousands of cases of cans and hundreds of carloads of tinplate from Hamilton. But we do not know. We wish they would tell us what is likely to happen, the same as they do in the salmon industry. They say, "We are going to have a big year this year; a small year next year". If we knew this, we would know what to do. But we do not know what to do in our industry. This has been going on for the last 70 or 80 years, and we should know something about it. Investigations have been carried out, and it is said, "We think so-and-so will happen". But nobody has said, "This will happen", or, "That will happen", and so on and so forth. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we do not know what to do.
This Passamoquoddy project is coming up. I do not think it will ever get under way, because I think the power will cost 16 mills, whereas they say it would cost 4 mills. But I am not bothered about that at all because that is at the head of the bay, and with Shepody you can get three times the power.

Supply-Fisheries
If the Americans wanted to develop She-pody they could get three times the power. They could afford to throw in the Chignecto canal. There is $100 million there with the Chignecto canal, and they could afford to throw that in and yet develop the head of the bay; because they have tides there up to 60 feet, and down in Passamaquoddy we only have 16 feet at the head. They could get three times the power at the head of the bay with about two thirds of the cost. So I cannot see that it is reasonable to develop Passamaquoddy from a power standpoint. But, Mr. Chairman, that is neither here nor there.
However, I believe we should know why these small fish come there. That is the most important question. You could understand it if from year to year there was a certain pattern of fish coming in there; you would know they were spawned in a certain place and drifted in, and so on, with the tides. But this is not so. Sometimes they come in small, sometimes they come in large, and then they come in small again. This type of fish has been coming there for a thousand years, I suppose, and nobody knows why. All we ask the fisheries department to tell us is why they come there; then we will not oppose power or anything. We want to know why the fish come there; why from year to year they come there small, and then large, and so on and so forth. At the present time in our companies I suppose we have 300,000 or 400,000 cases of large fish packed up in what we call 13 ounce and 7 ounce. We have to go out in the world markets and sell these fish. In the sardine industry you have to pack the fish as they come along; you cannot just pick and choose. We are no good to the fishermen unless we take what they bring in; and we have to pack what they bring in, large or small.
This year they were running large, and we have hundreds of thousands of cases of large fish which we have to go out in the world markets and sell. Next year perhaps they will run small and we will have to go out and find markets for small fish. We do not know what size they will be; but if we knew through research what we were going to have from year to year, we would know what we had to go out and advertise and sell in the sardine markets. This industry has grown from a few thousand cases to over two million cases. At the present time in the sardine industry three to one tins of sardines are packed in Canada. That is the proportion. In this country we pack more than the great United States; we pack more than Norway. So,

Mr. Chairman, this industry deserves some attention and some research.
Another subject upon which I should like to touch is the clam situation. We told the fisheries department 15 or 20 years ago that they were not going to have any clams unless there was some conservation in the industry. Today we have no clams in New Brunswick. Why? Because conservation was not practised. The scientists in the fisheries department said, "No; it is the green crab", or something, "that is destroying the clams". I will tell you, as a practical man, what destroyed the clams. It was the fishermen; because you cannot sell a clam unless it is two inches long. The clam digger goes along and digs a row. He takes the two inch clams out and sells them. But where he takes a barrel of two inch clams he probably exposes four barrels of smaller clams, and he does not do anything about them; he is not going to bury them again. What happens? The gulls and crows take over. According to the scientists a gull cannot eat a clam because a clam has a shell on it; but I think the gull has probably a little more sense than the scientist, because he takes the clam up in the air, drops it on the rocks, the clam opens, and the gull comes down and eats it. That is what happens. Today our clam beds have been exhausted. We have told, not only this government but other governments, about the clam situation and they have not done anything about it.
They should do something about it. We should conserve our clams down in New Brunswick. I think we should conserve the beds and do something for the future; because I remember the day when we had clam factories all along the coast-and today there are none. There is no reason for this situation; there is no reason why we should not have more than one clam factory; in fact, we should have a dozen. But, as I say, we haven't any. In my opinion we need more research in this matter and perhaps a little more common sense in the fisheries department. I know the minister has all kinds of common sense, because he was born and bred in the fishing industry in New Brunswick. I served on the fisheries committee and heard the deputy minister, and I know he knows all about the fisheries. But they want to use some common sense in this matter and we want more research.
This research is needed if the sardine industry is to progress. It has grown. I would say it is something like Topsy-it just grows. But they have their setbacks and there is no reason for them. This industry should go

ahead all the time from year to year because it provides a great deal of employment. At the peak of the season 2,000 of our people are employed in this industry. Normally there are 600 people working the year round; but at the peak of the season 2,000 people are employed. Six million dollars are being paid out, and money is being brought into this country from all over the world. This industry has to be considered. People should think about it; the fisheries department should think about it and some research should be carried out for this industry.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a little something to say about draggers. I have heard a lot of talk about monopolies in farming, and syndicates and how the syndicates were going to promote monopolies, and all that sort of thing. I represent a constituency that is concerned with farming. If the government wanted to lend me money to start farming,
I would say no; I would keep away from it.
I do not want any money for farming. We lost $150,000 during the last 15 years so we do not want any money for farming.
I have heard it said about fishing that we have a monopoly, and a company goes out in the springtime and catches all the fish. We cannot sell this product in Canada because there is not a sufficient market. If we produce 15 million or 20 million pounds of fish there is no market for that amount and we have to sell it to the United States. The purchasers there say we must sign a contract for 500,000 pounds of this, and 500,000 pounds of that. They tell us that we should give up using small draggers in the bay of Fundy and obtain large steel draggers, and go down as far as Georges bank, because we will be able to bring in between 100,000 pounds and 300,000 pounds. As a result of this suggestion we obtained large steel draggers, went out in the bay of Fundy and caught a great deal of fish, but by the time we sold them, considering that they had to be processed, we only had about 30 per cent left. The fish are gutted at sea and the livers and everything is thrown away, and all we have left are the clippings. I do not think the large monopolies are making any money in this industry, but rather that the small operator is making money. When we were small and used the small draggers in the bay of Fundy we were making money. I think in respect of every pound of fish we sell this year we will lose money.


An hon. Member:: That is the Liberal government for you.
Supply-Fisheries


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: I assure you that we are losing money.


An hon. Member:: I do not believe you.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: You should have a look at our balance sheets if you do not believe me. You do not know anything about the fishing business or you would not question my statement, but would pat me on the back and state that I am right.
I have nothing more to say, Mr. Chairman, except to repeat that more research should be done in respect of this industry.
When a producer buys a fish in the raw he may pay five cents per pound for it, but when you buy the same type of fish at the market it likely will cost 40 cents per pound. To understand this situation you must realize that only 30 per cent of the raw fish is marketable. People are inclined to suggest that the monopolies are making a great deal of money because they have to pay 40 cents a pound for fish at the market. They should keep in mind that the same fish is sold in the raw for perhaps four or five cents a pound. I bring this information to your attention so that when you go to the store and have to pay that much for fish you will not complain because you will be aware of the situation, and realize that the fisherman is not making a lot of money.
At this time there is a very serious scarcity of fish and I do not believe the processors are going to make any money this year. We must have more research in respect of the sardine industry. You might suggest that this is a very lowly industry, but I point out that it amounts to $6 million in my county alone, and the products are sold all over the world. One can go to any foreign country in the world and mention the word "sardine" and the people there will understand what you are talking about, whereas you may mention wheat, or any of a variety of foodstuffs or products and the people are just as likely not to know what you mean. I repeat that we must have more research in respect of this industry, not that it will mean anything to me personally, but it will mean a great deal to a future generation in my county in the province of New Brunswick. I suggest that the fisheries department should pay more attention to this particular fishery.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Charlotte who has given us some information about this very important sardine industry, and has referred to the need for research in respect of the

Supply-Fisheries
mysteries of that particular fish. As the hon. member was speaking I thought that he was at least in a more fortunate situation than I, in that one of the fishing industries in British Columbia has completely disappeared. The sardine, whether large or small, is still in existence, but one of the unsolved mysteries on the west coast is the complete disappearance of the pilchard. The pilchard used to swarm in very large numbers, but to my knowledge no one has seen even one for a number of years.
I am very pleased that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is in his seat tonight to listen to the discussion we are having in respect of the Department of Fisheries. I am sure he was interested earlier in the evening when my colleague from Skeena was talking about the oolachan, which is of importance to many of the native Indian people on the west coast. In view of the situation the hon. member for Skeena described as existing at the mouth of the Kitimat river, I think perhaps I should explain that the oolachan which he presented to the Minister of Fisheries came from the Nass. I suggest the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in his capacity as superintendent general of Indian affairs, should not lose an early opportunity of sampling these small oolachan, a sample of which I am sure the hon. member for Skeena would be pleased to provide.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about a matter in which I think the superintendent general of Indian affairs and the Minister of Fisheries have a common interest, and perhaps the remarks I make in respect of this particular item during our discussion of the fisheries estimates will serve to shorten the remarks I might otherwise make during our consideration of the Indian affairs branch. I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to some interesting comments which appear in a book entitled "The Indians of British Columbia" by Hawthorn, Belshaw and Jamieson, and which I believe is still considered to be a basic work as far as a survey of the situation in respect of Indians in that province is concerned. This information is now old but it was produced at the instigation of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in an attempt to provide a social and economic survey of the Indians of British Columbia. Perhaps I might refer briefly to chapter 10 which is entitled, "The fishing industry", the first paragraph of which states:

The fishing industry is by far the most important field of employment and livelihood for Indians in British Columbia. As shown in table III in chapter 7, more than 2,000 Indians derive their main source of livelihood from various branches of fishing itself, and another 1,000 or more, the vast majority of whom are women, from fish canning or processing.
The chapter goes on to describe the historic pattern of the industry as it has affected the livelihood of the Indian people. I think it is apparent that since the incursion of the white man into what was originally the basic means of livelihood of the native people of British Columbia the pattern has had its ups and downs with, unfortunately, a good many more downs than ups. I think it emerges rather clearly from a study of this chapter that the developments taking place at the time this work was produced and which have been proceeding at an accelerated pace since 1958 have tended to remove more and more Indian people from their proper status within this industry. On page 112 there is this reference to recent developments:
There have been a number of other Important developments in the fishing industry of British Columbia in recent years. In different branches of the fishing industry and in different areas of the coast they present a somewhat confusing picture, in which it is difficult to assess accurately the present and future status of Indians in fishing and canning employment.
Then it goes on to refer to the rapid technological changes that have been taking place both in the fishery and processing sections of the industry. If the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will refresh their minds with the outline contained in this chapter of the book it will become clear to them that one of the problems the Indian people have been and are faced with is that they have been pushed into a poorer and poorer economic position relatively speaking, and that by and large the relative efficiency of the type of fishing gear they have been able to acquire and use has declined in relation to the kind of gear used by the whites and by the Canadians of Japanese ancestry. This is presenting a most serious problem.
The book makes clear that many of the Indian people today are in the position of being marginal fishermen. At the conclusion of the chapter on the fishing industry as it affects the Indians there is an attempt to make some recommendations. The authors suggest that in some respects it may perhaps be better if many of the Indian people would move into other industries. I should like to refer to the last paragraph in this chapter

because I think it has particular point in view of what has happened since the book was written. On page 123 the authors say:
One saving feature in this situation is that those coast bands who seem to face the greatest threat of mass displacement from fishing, particularly in the Skeena and Nass areas and on the west coast of Vancouver island, live in heavily timbered areas in which intensive logging and lumber processing operations are likely to be under way in the fairly near future. The whole problem, however, requires further surveys and investigation, particularly of the employment and income potentials of timber resources accessible to Indian bands in each major district.
I realize that my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, is much more familiar with the Skeena and Nass areas than I am, but with respect to the west coast of Vancouver island, where many of the fishermen have been pushed into a very marginal position, the fact of the matter is that in spite of the statement that there are large timber resources on the west coast of the island, which is correct, the economic opportunities in that field which have opened up to the Indian people since this book was written in 1958 have been very limited indeed. One reason for this has been the kind of policies that have been adopted at the provincial level in respect of allocating the forest resources for harvesting.
I should like to refer to one particular community of Indians, Ahousat, whose reserve is located on the seashore in the midst of a tremendous area of forest resources. In spite of a number of years of intensive effort on the part of the member of the provincial legislature for Alberni to have steps taken leading to the development of employment opportunities in the logging industry for the people of Ahousat, the fact is that most of them at the present time are in a very marginal economic position and are living under conditions which I am sure the minister, if he is aware of them, would have to agree are completely disgraceful. A forest management licence for the whole area has been granted to one major forest products concern. Some of us have attempted to argue that an economic log producing unit should be established to provide employment opportunities for these people, but so far no such steps have been taken.
The fact remains that the Ahousats, like most of the people on the west coast of Vancouver island, are historically a fishing people and would like to be able to continue to fish. However, because of the change brought about by the removal from the west coast of Vancouver island of the many fish canning
Supply-Fisheries
and processing plants which existed there, because of the fact that technological change has resulted in fishermen from other areas being able to range far and wide into areas where the Indian fishermen cannot go in their small boats, because of the fact that the plenitude of fish close inshore has dropped to the point where they find it difficult to fish in a way which will return an income above marginal level, these people in fact are really not in the fishing industry in the way that they were. In days gone by they were known far and wide for their skill in fishing. The Ahousat people at one time played a large part in whaling and sealing. They have a long tradition in the fishery and it is their most natural occupation.
The Minister of Fisheries will recall that not long ago the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced the beginning of a community development program for the Indian people. I suggest that here is an area where there should be the closest co-operation between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Fisheries so that a realistic program of community development can be initiated along the west coast of Vancouver island. I suggest that one thing that is needed is a program which will enable the Indian people in these smaller west coast communities, of which I have used Ahousat as an example, to compete efficiently in the fishery.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration knows that there are certain funds available to his department to assist the Indian people in obtaining fishing vessels and gear; but these funds are completely inadequate, and the arrangements under which they can be had are completely unrealistic so far as putting the fisherman in a competitive position with other fishermen is concerned. I should like to suggest to the Minister of Fisheries that the role his department should play in this field is to see that these people are being treated fairly and receive the same amount of attention in respect of credit arrangements for modern fishing vessels and gear as any other citizen in any other part of Canada. This is simply not the case at the present time.
So, Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to express, as briefly as I can, what I feel is a very important aspect of the fishing industry and a very important concern so far as the superintendent general of Indian affairs is concerned, at a time when both ministers happen to be in the house.

Supply-Fisheries
I hope both ministers will take note of this situation and work together to do something about it.


Frank Howard: Before we proceed to pass item 1, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a series of questions relating to expenditures in the past year for a variety of items and programs, with a division of those expenditures as between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I should like to start with the Newfoundland bait service. I would assume from the name of it that the moneys spent are spent mainly on the Atlantic coast and that none of this money is available for the Pacific coast because Newfoundland does not extend that far, even though I am sure some Newfoundlanders think it does or would like it to. Can the minister tell me with respect to the Newfoundland bait service the amount of money that has been spent during the past year?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If the hon. member wants an immediate answer, I would say that last year we spent for the Newfoundland bait service-this includes the construction of the new Arctica-$1,148,000. Normally, the total expenditure for a year is about $400,000. This amount is just for Newfoundland because it is provided under an agreement under the terms of confederation.


Frank Howard: Can the minister tell me also with respect to the operations under the Fisheries Prices Support Act, what have been the expenditures on the Pacific coast and the expenditures on the Atlantic coast?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Under the prices support board, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the administration expenditures this year have been moderate, namely, $62,866. There was no direct support given last year. This year we expect to have about $25,000, I believe, for the Magdalen islands, and about $60,000 was set aside for support for the sauger fishery in the prairies. This is as a result of a lack of markets for smoked fish.


Frank Howard: Would this be the first year of operation for the Fisheries Prices Support Act in the prairies?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, it has been effective in that area in the past.


Frank Howard: There have been no expenditures under this act on the Pacific coast?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Not last year.


Frank Howard: Can the minister indicate to me the amount of money that has been

expended by way of subsidy under the so-called fishing vessel construction program, again dividing it as between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As the hon. member knows, the subsidy program is only applicable to the Atlantic coast. The amount spent last year was approximately $500,000.


Frank Howard: Can the minister tell me the expenditure in connection with the salt subsidy program, and whether or not that is exclusively expended on the Atlantic coast, or whether the Pacific coast is involved as well?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The salt subsidy program also applies to the Atlantic coast. The total expenditures last year were slightly over $600,000.


Frank Howard: There is an item in the estimates for grants to the Nova Scotia fisheries exhibit at Lunenburg, which is exclusively a matter for the Atlantic coast, of $3,000. I wonder if the minister can give me a breakdown of the grants to Canadian universities as between universities on the Atlantic coast and universities on the Pacific coast?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The grants to universities are as follows: St. Francis Xavier, $51,700; the social economics service, Ste Anne de la Poca-tiere, $27,100; University of British Columbia, $11,200; Memorial University, St. John's Newfoundland, $30,000.


Frank Howard: There is an item referred to in the estimates as development and demonstration of fishing vessels and gear. I wonder if the minister could tell me the expenditures under that item, again divided as between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This answer, Mr. Chairman, would require detailed study if we were to separate the amounts. The total expenditure amounted to $195,000, and I would say that a large proportion of this was spent on the east coast although some demonstrations have taken place in the great lakes area and in British Columbia.


Frank Howard: There is another item following that with regard to development and demonstration facilities for processing, packaging, storing and transportation. I assume that perhaps I will get a similar answer from the minister, that it would be difficult to break down the expenditures.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, it would be difficult unless we had notice that a detailed study was required.


Frank Howard: Could I at this stage ask the minister it he would be kind enough to make that study and communicate by letter whatever information is available?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will be pleased to do that.


Frank Howard: Will the minister communicate also with respect to the amount of money paid for the destruction of harbour and grey seals, divided as between the east and west coasts?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not have the exact figures, but I can tell the hon. member that the larger proportion if this expenditure was on the west coast. In fact we had a shortage of funds there about a month ago, because all our appropriation was expended.


Frank Howard: Am I correct in assuming that the bait freezing subsidy is also limited to the Atlantic coast or is the Pacific coast involved as well?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The bait freezing subsidy applies to the Atlantic coast, and the main reason is that this is the area where there is a requirement for bait because of the type of fishing which is practised there. The total expenditures last year were $22,670.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, these are helpful figures and it is helpful information. What I was trying to do, perhaps, was to substantiate the argument I have put forward in various speeches, namely that there appears to be an imbalance between the expenditures by the Department of Fisheries on the Atlantic coast as compared with the Pacific coast. I hope no one will misinterpret what I have said. I am not in any way decrying the fact that expenditures are made and services are provided by way of subventions for salt, subsidies for the purchase of squid for bait, for fishing vessel construction, and so on. I do not know the Atlantic coast fisheries, but I am quite sure there are a lot of grants for the Atlantic coast and the maritime province of Newfoundland that are quite well justified, and necessary to preserve the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast. However, there appears to me to be an inordinately large amount of preference given to Atlantic coast fisheries by the department, as compared with that provided for the Pacific coast fisheries.
I know that fishermen at home in B.C. on the west coast make inquiries from time to time about various assistance programs. They want to know about this bait freezing subsidy. They do not freeze bait on the Pacific coast
Supply-Fisheries
but they could get some assistance in this way. We do not salt fish on the west coast, but the fishermen there ask, especially in difficult years when prices are low, such as last year and the year before, why there cannot be some provision made to assist or subsidize some section of the industry on the west coast, so that the fishermen there could get a little better opportunity to make a more decent income than they do now. There is this concern about the heavy weighting of consideration for the Atlantic coast fisheries vis-a-vis those on the Pacific coast.
I was waiting for the minister to make some comment about a telegram which I hope has been forwarded to him, dealing with this very question. It involves the fishing vessel subsidy and the order in council which sets out that this is exclusively for the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The Pacific coast is specifically excluded from the operations of the fishing vessel subsidy, and on August 28 Mr. Guy Williams, who is president of the native brotherhood of B.C., sent a telegram to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration which I think I should read. It said:
Forward to Minister of Fisheries, Hon. H. J. Robichaud. Request you act on behalf of native fishermen in B.C. to be included in extension of fishing vessel assistance regulations as in five provinces. Minimum length of 35 foot boats ideal for combination gillnet-troller and longline operation.
No less than 100 fishermen need immediate assistance first year. Ninety five per cent of small Indian fishing boats in state of ill repair and not suitable for required mobility of today's operations. Detailed letter at later date on above.
Guy R. Williams
This is an indication of the concern that fishermen have on the west coast. They ask themselves this simple question: Aren't we Canadians too? Why can fishermen on the Atlantic coast, in the maritime provinces and in the province of Quebec, qualify for the 25 per cent or 30 per cent subsidy for the building of fishing boats, when we are excluded from that? This is a very serious question that concerns the people in B.C. For many years there has appeared to be an orientation of the federal government toward the east, toward in some respects-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Very happily.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Have the fishermen on the west coast made serious attempts to take the benefit of the subsidies that go into the

Supply-Fisheries
building of these ships? I hope the hon. member can enlighten me on that because I have tried to get that information over the last 18 months.


Frank Howard: The minister has not exhausted himself if he tried for 18 months and has not been successful. Undoubtedly he was one of those who, on June 11 of this year, participated in passing the order in council with respect to the fishing vessel assistance regulations which sets out that these regulations apply only to the province of Nova Scotia through the fishermen's loan board, to the province of New Brunswick through the fishermen's loan board, to the province of Prince Edward Island through the fishermen's loan board, to the province of Newfoundland through the fishermen's loan board, and to the province of Quebec through the minister of industry and commerce.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member answer my question? What representations have been made by the fishermen on the west coast? Plenty have been made on the east coast, but what representations have been made by the west coast fishermen?


Frank Howard: Perhaps I may tell my hon. friend this is due to the failure-which I think is a ruddy shame-of his own party, which I understood was to treat Canadians as equals. It may be due to the failure of members of his own party. Not one single member of the Liberal party from B.C. has participated in the discussion so far today or yesterday, on the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. This is a shameful thing.
What sort of representations have been made by them? Isn't the minister himself a member from B.C.? Doesn't he know himself about these things? Where was he when the cabinet passed this discriminatory order in council that discriminates against B.C. fishermen? Was the Postmaster General in on that cabinet meeting? Why didn't he speak up and say something?
What about the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister? What about the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, a home born British Columbian? Isn't he interested in the fishermen of B.C.? Did he not have the intestinal fortitude to speak up and object to this discriminatory order in council when it was passed by the cabinet on June 11 this year?
Perhaps if the Postmaster General searched his own party and his own concern for the welfare of the fishermen at home he would

find the answer, rather than standing up and exhibiting his ignorance, asking me questions about what representations have been made. Here is a telegram that was sent by Guy Williams, president of the native brotherhood of B.C., making reference to this matter and asking for something to be done. What has happened since then? Is anything to be done? Are these people at home to continue to be looked upon as second class citizens, unworthy of equal treatment by this department? This is a very serious question, and perhaps the minister would like to answer me.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: So far as expenditures are concerned I realize the hon. member has brought to light some programs provided for the Atlantic coast, but I would like to refer briefly to the Nanaimo station where the research board is spending close to $2 million, to the $210,000 we are spending on the international Pacific halibut commission, to the $295,000 we are spending on the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission. These are only some of our expenditures on the west coast.
So far at the telegram which the hon. member read is concerned, it was only brought to my attention this morning through correspondence with my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I understand the telegram was supposed to have been sent to me, but we have no record of its having been received at my office, and following a letter I received from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I asked him to send me a copy of that telegram which, as I say, was brought to my attention this morning.


Frank Howard: What are you going to do about it?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you do not expect me to take a decision within 24 hours. We are certainly going to study the problem, find out what the situation is and find out what can be done.


Frank Howard: It is correct, as shown in the main estimates, that $1,885,000 is to be spent on the biological research station at Nanaimo, $323,000 on the technological research station in Vancouver and $204,000 on the oceanographic group in Nanaimo, making a total of about $2,300,000 or $2,400,000 expenditure on the Pacific coast by the fisheries research board, but the minister has failed to mention that the total amount to be spent by the research board is over $6 million, the bulk of which goes to the Atlantic coast.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: And the prairie provinces, and also an additional $250,000 to the Vancouver aquarium.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries management and development-
5. Operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates and of the costs of programs and projects shared jointly with the provinces and industry, $12,949,100.
Mr. Danforih:: I have listened to the discussion with a great deal of interest and I can assure the minister after listening to the last speaker and the argument he raised about whether or not more money is spent on the east coast fisheries than the west coast fisheries that we in Ontario in the inland fisheries would be tickled to death to accept either one as our allocation in the matter of fisheries.


Frank Howard: You should get the Postmaster General to argue for you.


Harold Warren Danforth: I would bring to the minister's attention the fact that I do not wish to deal in detail with the troubles of management and research into the fishing industry in the great lakes because I am sure the minister and his department are quite familiar with the main problem which has been brought out, namely the matter of pollution in the lakes. Underneath the surface of lake Erie there is a mass of insoluble sludge and slime, no one knows exactly how many feet deep, coming down the Detroit river and rolling out over the bottom of lake Erie, and when the fishermen on the lake drop their nets they become covered with this slime. This makes fishing a terrible job and is causing many fish to die. The lake is becoming a terrible place to fish. It has become so contaminated that bathing beaches are being closed down. They are talking of it as the dead lake and people are asking me whether I realize that lake Erie has now become a dead lake. The boats which go out on the lake and return to shore are covered with an inch or so of this slime all over their bottoms and keels. The condition is getting worse and the fishermen there want to know whether anything can be done, and if anything is being done now.
Commercial fishing in lake Erie is now confined to two main species, smelt and perch. Only a few years ago hundreds of thousands of pounds of other varieties were taken out of the lake. It seems sad that those who fish on lake Erie are within reach of a 24-hour refrigerated truck service which 20220-533
Supply-Fisheries
can supply perhaps 30 million people in Canada and the United States with fish. We have a market for the products of the lakes, which have found a ready favour in both the United States and Canada; but now we are faced with a depletion of the fish in the lake. We have an entire industry geared for production, and we now find the fishermen in most parts running into dire economic straits, abandoning their ships in many instances and looking for other types of work. This is a sorry situation, and these men are asking that something be done right away. They are not concerned with who is responsible, but what they are concerned with is what steps are being taken, when they will be taken, and how effective they will be.
The minister spoke about federal-provincial committees.. The fishermen in the area are sick and tired of approaching over the years provincial governments and federal governments, going back and forth seeking an answer to their problems. They have always received sympathetic consideration and have always felt that the officials they approached have seriously tried to do something about their problems. But somewhere there seems to be a breakdown in communications between the federal and provincial governments, which has meant that the fishermen did not receive the consideration which they felt was necessary. I would ask the minister whether it is his opinion that this federal-provincial committee will now provide the necessary pipe line to enable these fishermen to get the immediate help they so desperately need.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena because our problem is exactly the same as his. We in Ontario want to know why our fishermen cannot get the same sort of insurance on their boats, and the shipbuilding subsidies, which the fishermen in the other five provinces receive. Our fishermen build boats which vary in length from 55 feet to 65 feet and are valued at anywhere from $30,000 to $90,000 each. But they need help with new boats, nets and supplies and they are anxious to know whether any money will be made available to them. Will there be any new legislation so that these fishermen can insure their boats to the degree necessary under the conditions they fish today? Are they going to get the necessary money to provide new equipment and new boats? Is this going to be provided, now that we have a new federal-provincial committee?

Supply-Fisheries
Another matter I wish to mention is one which I am sure the minister is well aware of; it has been brought to his attention on various occasions and representations have been made to him. It is the formation of a co-operative for the fishermen on lake Erie. The fishermen on lake Erie are not only faced with the fact that the fish in the lake are being depleted, but also the price of the fish varies from 1J cents a pound to 18 to 20 cents a pound, depending on the amount of fish on the market at the time. I am sure the minister is aware that one matter which is standing in the way of the formation of a co-operative is the legislation block, which has been brought to his attention. The fishermen have approached the province on the matter and at this point I should like to quote from a letter sent to me by these fishermen. They say, in part:
Accordingly the farm products marketing board of Ontario is of the opinion that the proposed lake Erie fish marketing plan would be of little value until the necessary federal legislation is enacted and is withholding any further action on the request of this association-
I am sure that this was brought to the attention of the minister, and his answer to them on July 27-and I do wish to thank him for the courtesy of his consideration and his proper reply-he pointed out that a new committee was being set up to study this entire program, and that a local member of the association was secretary of the new committee.
According to a newspaper article dated July 20, in Winnipeg the federal-provincial study committee recommended the establishment of a prairie fish exports marketing board, and I am wondering whether there would be the same value in an Ontario board. This newspaper went on to say that the three major fish buyers in Chicago and Detroit could set the price which will be paid for Canadian fish in the United States. I hope that this is why a co-operative is being established-to combat the setting of prices in the United States rather than to further the setting of prices.
They are the problems which I bring to the attention of the minister and I hope he will have the answers that these fishermen need. It is purely a question of economics. The fish seem no longer to be in the lake. What is being done at the London research centre and at other local research centres to see why these fish are being depleted, and what can be done to put them back? What is being done to enact the right legislation in order to make it possible for these fishermen

to form a co-operative if they so desire? What is being done to put our fishermen on the same basis as the fishermen on the east coast, and even those on the west coast, who have more money, subsidies and legislation to enable them to further their business? As I am sure the minister and his departmental officials are well aware, it is simply a matter of pure economics. If the fishermen can make more money they can stay in business. If they cannot make more money the industry is going to fail. Surely we in Ontario especially cannot afford to let this multi-million dollar industry fail without making desperate efforts at the federal level to try to see if it cannot be established on a paying basis.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like you to tell me which vote we are on at the moment?


Lucien Lamoureux: Vote No. 5. Shall the vote carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two questions I want to ask the minister on vote No. 5. As the minister is probably quite well aware, the Shell Oil Company has been conducting certain explorations off the west coast of Vancouver island, operating from a base at Ucluelet. In the course of their oil explorations they have been carrying out certain tests which involve the use of explosives, in underwater explosions. A great deal of concern has been expressed from time to time as to the effect of these explosions on the fish population in that area.
I understand that the matter has been under observation by the Department of Fisheries and I wonder whether the minister has available and could give to the committee for the record the fisheries department's knowledge in this regard and just what has happened in respect to the destruction of the fish population.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, this operation by the Shell Oil Company on Vancouver island is under close observation of the officials of the department. If at any time we find it affects the fish population, we are prepared to order that the operation stop until we can study the matter further.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Has the department available a detailed report on this matter? I noted in the recent publication of the fisheries association of B.C. certain statistics which they say come from the Department of Fisheries; it was some report of the Department of

Fisheries. I must say that I have not seen that report issued by the department. I was wondering whether the minister has it available and can put these statistics on the record; or if not, can he indicate how that information is officially available from the department?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, we have no official report to give. We can certainly prepare a statement to that effect and make it available to the hon. member, and I will do this.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman,
there are two or three questions that I want to ask the minister-I will try to be brief- regarding the new regulations which he spoke of with regard to seals. I think he said he had discussed the matter with representatives of the S.P.C.A. I believe he has been written to by the Audubon society also, and I presume he has discussed this matter with them. They have expressed keen interest in this matter, and I would like to be assured that these representations are being considered.
Under this item, Mr. Chairman, I would refer to the latest figures we have for revenue from the north Pacific fur seal treaty. These are for the fiscal year 1962-63, which show a revenue of almost half a million dollars. I wonder whether the minister could conveniently give us the revenue, either gross or net, for the last fiscal year, 1964, if that figure is available. Also, is the minister in a position to make a brief statement about the conclusion to which his department has come with regard to the effect that the Mactaquac dam may have on salmon migration in the Saint John river, especially with regard to the effect this dam would be expected to have on the Tobi-que run, and all the runs that migrate above that location on the Saint John river.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I would reply briefly to the questions asked by the hon. member. In so far as our contacts with the S.P.C.A. and the Audubon society are concerned, I cannot confirm at this time whether we have had representations from the Audubon society. I believe we have. We will certainly make an effort to contact them and make them aware of the amendments we have in mind.
The return on investments for seals amounted to $466,989, and the proceeds from the sales were $176,758. In so far as the Mactaquac is concerned, we have made a thorough survey of the project and have come to complete agreement with the province of New 20220-533J
Supply-Fisheries
Brunswick to build in this connection probably one of the most modern and efficient hatcheries in the world. We are combining the knowledge of our scientists and the knowledge of the Swedish scientists in this regard. We can give the assurance that when this project is being proceeded with the salmon population of the Saint John river will be fully protected; in fact, we intend to have enough production from this hatchery to supply not only the Saint John river but other rivers in New Brunswick.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister could supply some answers to the questions I posed a few minutes ago?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can reply briefly to the points raised by the hon. member. So far as pollution of the lake Erie area is concerned, we are well aware of the situation. It is a very complex problem which affects not only the provincial government and the municipalities but all the industries along the lake shore area. It is also an international problem. The hon. member mentioned the federal-provincial committee, which is studying this matter further. We are also looking into the matter of the co-op marketing plan, which requires legislation as the hon. member says; but it requires provincial legislation. We are now in the course of discussions with the provincial authorities in order to determine what can be done in this sphere, not only for that particular co-op but for a marketing board in regard to the whole production of the inland fisheries.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question on vote No. 5. There is an item on page 148 which refers to community fishing stages, in the amount of $25,000, compared with $50,000 in the previous fiscal year. I wonder whether the minister could tell us what this item is for. What are community fishing stages, and what is the explanation in regard to the decrease?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Community stages are being built, principally in Newfoundland; in the outposts of that province, in very small areas where there are no facilities, no fishing company to buy the fish and where the fishermen have to process their own fish. We are providing for them what we call a community shed, in which they can store their salted fish until the buyer calls in the fall for their production.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
.8422
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries
15. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the [DOT]amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $1,050,000.
Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of delaying these estimates, but I am .anxious under vote 15 to congratulate the provincial government of Newfoundland upon its initiative, its imaginative initiative I might say, in instituting the new fisheries college. This is obviously a very forward looking effort on the part of the provincial government and its beneficial effects will be felt far outside the province of Newfoundland; indeed they will be felt in all Canada.
I would urge the federal government and the Minister of Fisheries to give earnest consideration to assisting this fisheries college in every possible manner. May I also support the hon. members who have spoken, especially those from my own province, and suggested that we spend more money on conservation and research. In that respect I am very happy that the minister said this afternoon that over $1 million more will be spent this year than was spent last year on research. I do not need to . urge the minister to remember the fisheries college; I know he needs reminding only that this is a very worth-while effort, which not only deserves but demands, even commands, our enthusiastic support.
I cannot help at this moment suggesting to the hon. member for Skeena that when he is compiling his statistics on the fishermen of Newfoundland, whom he seems to feel are very well taken care of as compared with the fishermen of British Columbia, he should look up the average wage. He will find it is something like $800 in Newfoundland, v. $4,000 in British Columbia.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, this is what I was hoping would not happen, that any member from a constituency of one of the Atlantic .provinces would think I was picking on him or the Atlantic fishermen. I had no intention of doing that. I was just pointing out the disparity that exists in respect of federal government assistance on the Atlantic and Pacific cpasts. The hon. member has talked about an average income of a fisherman on the Pacific coast in the amount of $4,000. I wish he would come out and tell some of the gill-net fishermen that their average is $4,000. I am sure he would get wet as a result of being thrown in the ocean.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Fisheries research board of Canada-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including an amount of $75,000 for grants for fisheries research and for scholarships and authority to make recoverable advances of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the international great lakes fishery commission of the cost of work on lamprey control and lamprey research, $5,865,000.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, if my understanding is correct this item has to do with the granting of money for the operation of the fisheries research board of Canada, and in view of the value of the work done by that board and the appreciation expressed by those of us who have knowledge and experience in this field I certainly think it would be a mistake to pass this item without comment. As far as I am concerned, I think a discussion in depth and in detail in relation to the operations of this board should be referred to the committee on marine and fisheries, as was suggested earlier. I certainly hope that in light of an earlier statement by the minister in relation to next year's estimates, that this is one of the matters we will have an opportunity to examine and discuss in that committee next year.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is an undertaking, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to raise anything objectionable at this time, and I am not asking you to see the time, but it is now 10.05 and if we are to proceed past the normal hour of adjournment we should do so by unanimous consent, rather than as a result of inadvertence or blindness on the part of anyone.


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is the desire of all hon. members to sit a little longer in an attempt to carry the estimates of this department. We have been discussing them for two days now and have given them full consideration. I think we can complete our consideration of these estimates in a very short time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: That completes the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the acting house leader whether he would list for the record the estimates to be considered tomorrow, and give a forecast of the work for next week.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will commence with a consideration of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, followed by the estimates of the Department of Public Works and the estimates of the Department of Forestry. On Monday we will resume the debate on the motion of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) for the second reading of Bill C-121, an act to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,159,000.
la. Departmental administration, $55,000. Fisheries management and development-
5. Operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates and of the costs of programs and projects shared jointly with the provinces and industry, $12,949,100.
Supply-Items Passed
5a. Operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates and of the costs of programs and projects shared jointly with the provinces and industry, $913,000.
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,737,900.
10a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land, and equipment-to extend the purposes of vote 10 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to provide for the acquisition of land for the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, as required by article VIII of the convention (chap. 11, statutes of 1957), $1.
15. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details and estimates, $1,050,000.
15a. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $400,000.
Fisheries research board of Canada-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including an amount of $75,000 for grants for fisheries research and for scholarships and authority to make recoverable advances of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the international great lakes fishery commission of the cost of work on lamprey control and lamprey research, $5,865,000.
20a. Administration, operation and maintenance,
[Stage Direction]
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,693,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 25, 1964