1966-10-21

TABLING OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION

Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to lay before the house an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the commissioners of internal economy, in English and in French, held on October 18, 1966, relating to salary revisions affecting a number of positions in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on standing orders, in both French and English-Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe).


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: desire to rise on a question of privilege, which Your Honour may consider a grievance. It is a matter which in my estimation is of concern to all members of the House of Commons, to members of the other place and, I would think, to all citizens of Canada. With your gracious permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement explaining why I rise.
We all love this House of Commons building. We would not want to see it destroyed or hurt. It so happens that of necessity certain construction work has to take place in the grounds. That work requires boring through rock, and the use of explosives is therefore demanded.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
Yesterday afternoon, sir, while we were sitting in this House of Commons, there were a number of explosions during construction work. One was fantastically heavy, so heavy, sir, that it reverberated in this house. As one who knows something about construction, that concerned me very much. I have made a
check and, sir, damage is being done to our House of Commons because of the strength of the charges. Already plaster is being cracked in our building but, sir, more than plaster-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: -because of the major charge that was set off yesterday. Sir, I am talking about the construction work outside, not the discussions in the house.
Because of what happened yesterday, followed by the minor explosions, the Peace Tower has sustained damage. This morning, sir, because of my concern with this matter I visited the Peace Tower and found that cracks had appeared in our most beautiful Memorial Chamber and material of a major nature had fallen. I, sir, have with me now, and I shall send through you to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), what I picked up in our Memorial Chamber this morning.
I raise this question, sir, because I think it is of paramount importance. Through you to the Minister of Public Works I make an appeal, on behalf of our beautiful parliament building, that it be made clear, to the contractors that while we understand the necessity of explosions, we request that they reduce the major explosions to larger minor ones so as not to endanger our buildings and structures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I know, sir, that on a matter of privilege or grievance I should move a motion, but I feel certain that after drawing it to your attention in this way, and through you to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, immediate action will be taken and therefore it will not be necessary that I move a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that this is a question of privilege, but I believe it would be the wish of hon. members if I were to treat the statement that has been made as a question and explain exactly what are the facts, because I think they are of interest to all members.

October 21, 1966
Question of Privilege
This morning it was discovered that there had been some disturbance in the Memorial Chamber-


Harold Edward Winch: Disturbance? May I send you over what I picked up?


George James McIlraith: -some disturbance in the Memorial Chamber ol the Peace Tower.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What does the minister mean by disturbance?


George James McIlraith: I shall explain that in a moment. Immediately the appropriate authorities were called in, the appropriate engineer in the building and engineers from the Department of Public Works. When the structural engineer and mechanical engineer from the department arrived on the scene they discovered that the material that had been displaced could not be found, nor could it be obtained from the cleaning staff-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: How come I was able to find it in the Memorial Chamber?


George James McIlraith: -nor could it be obtained from the cleaning staff who first discovered the disturbance when they were cleaning the chamber in the ordinary course. The engineers have been searching for this material. I am now glad to have it so it can be inspected thoroughly. It would be wrong for me to attempt to assess the damage at the moment and say whether or not it is of any significance, until we have the engineers' report. The structural and mechanical engineers are now on the job inspecting this in a thorough way.
I should explain that the blasting is being done by a very well known firm of contractors, under the supervision of a firm of consulting engineers. Additionally, because of the nature of the work and its proximity to the parliament buildings, this firm has retained an engineer specializing in explosives work. The whole matter is being thoroughly checked. So far there is nothing that would lead me to indicate anything that would in any way alarm members. As I say, in a matter of this nature it is improper to give any advance opinion, but so far there is nothing which would indicate cause for alarm.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister was going to explain what the disturbance is. Is it a disturbance brought about through reverberations from the explosion or from some extramural activity? What is the disturbance?


George James McIlraith: The evidence of disturbance is that there was an abnormal amount of dust, what a layman would describe as plaster dust, which appeared to come from the ornamental work in the stone forming the design at the base of the window. This is what it would appear to be, but at this time I do not wish to say whether it is of any real significance. Now that we have the material the engineers will have an opportunity to determine whether it involves something more than plaster.


Harold Edward Winch: 
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, on the matter which has been raised I should like to direct a brief question to the Minister of Public Works. Prior to starting this type of construction was any consideration given to laying the pipe along the surface of the ground, properly insulating it, and then covering it with fill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: This would have been cheaper, and in view of the elevation of the ground in front it would have been satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering
whether the house now wishes to become involved in a debate on this subject. The hon. member rose on what he suggested was a question of privilege, or a grievance, and I considered that the house gave its consent to hear his statement and then to hear the statement of the Minister of Public Works. Perhaps the question raised by the hon. member now might properly be raised later on questions, and we might now revert to motions.



SUPREME COURT ACT


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carlelon) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-237, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is two-fold; first, to prohibit any justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from acting as a commissioner under the Inquiries Act; and, second, to prevent any such justice from undertaking any other service, unrelated to his judicial duties, as a result of which he might become involved in political controversy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
October 21, 1966

[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)



TELEVISION


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-238, to secure freedom of choice in television viewing.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the bill requires the Board of Broadcast Governors to choose one of the two networks in Canada to telecast the Grey Cup football game. It gives the board the power to direct that stations and satellites of the other network be added so there can be the same coverage there is now, but cuts out duplication and thus brings relief to about 80 per cent of all Canadians.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I should like to ask him, in view of the fact that he has not chosen to make a statement regarding a matter that is being widely discussed, whether the announcement by the Post Office Department that the coat of arms and crown would be removed from post office vehicles and equipment was approved by the minister and the cabinet. In addition, was the action of the official in the Postmaster General's office, who at the same time delivered to the press a copy of the new symbol, being a maple leaf with the letters "C.P." superimposed on it, cleared by the minister and the cabinet?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, that matter will be dealt with in my statement, which I intend to give on Monday.



ACTION FOLLOWING REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ELECTION EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet made a decision as to what disposition it will make of the excellent report filed by the committee on
Inquiries of the Ministry election expenses. Is it the intention of the government to refer the report to the committee on privileges and elections, or does the government intend to prepare legislation and have the house refer the bill to the committee on privileges and elections?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a notice on the order paper dealing with the reference of this report.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I shall put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the house whether he intends to act upon the request of the truckers association for removal of tolls on Champlain bridge in Montreal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this matter with the minister, and perhaps he will be able to report early in the week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to
the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any comment to make on the statement of Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith to the effect that the Rhodesian and British governments have agreed on the six principles laid down by Harold Wilson as a basis for ending the Rhodesian independence dispute?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the statement attributed to Mr. Smith-the statement he is supposed to have made on the radio-but I would want to see the statement in full. I would want to know the reaction of the government that has direct authority in this matter, which is the British government, before I make any comment.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Smith has also referred to the possibility of his country's ejection from
October 21. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry the Commonwealth. Could the minister tell us whether any such move is afoot within the membership of the Commonwealth?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would want to read the statement and see the full context before making any comment.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I, too, have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask the minister whether he committed Canada financially with regard to foreign aid, in his press conference yesterday; and if so, to what extent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has for many years been committed to the principle of foreign aid. I indicated yesterday there would be an increase in the amounts available for assistance to other countries-


Eric Alfred Winkler: To what extent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -between now and 1970. I expressed the hope that by 1970 we would have reached the UNCTAD figure of 1 per cent of gross national product, taking into account the fact that Canada is a net importer of capital.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I agree with that principle, but I should like to know approximately what it will cost in dollars and cents. What amount is involved here?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The present allocation is over $300 million.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I wish to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of that figure, and supporting the principle enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs but believing that charity begins at home, would the Prime Minister not be willing now to support legislation increasing the old age pension to $100 a month at once?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope that legislation will be before the house very shortly on that matter.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation that the minister might be a little more forthcoming today might I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask whether in his recent conversations with Mr. Aiken, the foreign minister for Eire, he discussed the status and composition of the peace keeping forces in Cyprus and the problem of financing the continuing presence of those troops in that area.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we did discuss the financial difficulties of peace keeping operations under the United Nations. There is a resolution in the name of Ireland now being discussed at the United Nations. We have not agreed with the full implications of this draft resolution and are now discussing ways and means of possibly reaching some agreement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Just what are the views of the Canadian government in this regard at this time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Our views with regard to peace keeping are that there is an obligation on all members of the organization to contribute to the financing of these operations. I regret to say, however, that this is not a view that is widely shared at the present time. We are now considering ways and means of trying to find, if we cannot use the Irish resolution, a proposal of our own to achieve a wider measure of support.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I bring this matter, which is not provocative, to the attention of the Prime Minister. It has to do with the frightful massacre on our highways and the damage and injuries that follow, which has brought about a situation whereby 10 per cent of the hospital beds in Canada are occupied by traffic victims, one third of these people may become burdens upon society, and 50 per cent of our paraplegics have become so through traffic accidents.
October 21. 1966

Would the Prime Minister be willing to meet with officials and representatives of the Canadian Highway Safety Council with a view to bringing about the co-operation of the provinces in this regard, and extending further aid to this council which is doing so much for the people of Canada as a whole?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad indeed to meet this council which, as the right hon. gentleman said, has been doing such good work in this increasingly dangerous field. Of course this is a matter for provincial as well as federal consideration, and the two levels of government are dealing with the matter. In view of what the right hon. gentleman has said I would be glad to have such a meeting, and perhaps to see to it that this matter is brought up at the next federal-provincial conference.


John George Diefenbaker: I hope the Prime Minister is willing to meet with the representatives, because I understand they have endeavoured to arrange a meeting and have not had it as yet. Could the Prime Minister give us his assurance that he is willing to have a meeting with these representatives, who after all are doing voluntary work of inestimable value on behalf of this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was not aware of the fact that they had not been able to have a meeting with members of the government. I will look into the matter at once and will be glad to call such a meeting.



REQUEST FOR FULLER INFORMATION ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. V/. Herridge (Kootenay West): Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question arises from the growing interest of all countries in investment in this country and the fact that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics only prints information on foreign investment of the three leading countries and then uses the words "all other countries". Would it be possible to direct the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to change its practice, with a view to informing the Canadian people promptly, and publish foreign investments from the 10 leading countries of the world?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I will be glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS



DAMAGE THROUGH BLASTING OPERATIONS ON PARLIAMENT HILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: wish to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. It arises out of an earlier discussion. Was any advice sought and received from experienced and competent engineers before permission was granted to dynamite areas adjacent to the parliament buildings in view of the possibility that damage might be done?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, I think I should take advantage of the opportunity in answering this question to repeat that not only was an outstanding firm of engineers retained to supervise the actual job, but in addition extra provision was made for them to retain a specialist in explosives. Provision was made for retaining that specialist in addition to the regular type of supervisory work and in addition to paying them their regular fees.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether consideration was given to the installation in the foreseeable future of the new thermo-compact heating plants before this major undertaking was commenced.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the question as notice because I do not understand precisely what the hon. member means when he makes reference to new thermo-compact heating plants.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Public Works. May I first of all say that I do not know why this matter caused such hilarity when it was first brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) in spite of the fact that it is quite serious. May I ask the minister whether, instead of playing around with a whole staff of engineers, whom of course we need, it would not be just as easy to direct that the charges which are being used be reduced? It seems to me, and I am sure this would be obvious to anyone who is connected or has had any experience with dynamiting, that it is not necessary to use such powerful charges.
8954	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Mcllraith: Mr. Speaker, one of the very things the engineers will be doing now is to check if the cause of this problem is too powerful charges, or if it is due to faulty detonation, to the wrong sequence, or to some fault in the rock. The whole aspect of this dynamiting is being checked.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Following the offer made by the Board of Broadcast Governors, to give the provinces assistance for the establishment of educational television, does the Prime Minister intend to discuss that proposal early next week with the provincial premiers who will meet in Ottawa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not on the agenda, but any provincial head of government could bring it up under the item "other business".



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State. In the light of this morning's report in the Canadian Press that the Fathers of Confederation memorial building in Charlottetown is in serious financial difficulties because of the lack of operating capital, I should like to ask the hon. lady if the federal government is prepared to immediately provide the money necessary to keep this national shrine open?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it has been known ever since the building was first designed and erected that it would be in financial difficulty and ever since then the trustees have done everything they could to augment their income from normal sources. I think there is no question but that it has been wonderful for Prince Edward Island to have the centre there.
In the past I have had some discussions with the trustees and have also discussed with my colleagues the continuing problem 
DEBATES	October 21. 1966
which is now becoming acute. When the government has a statement to make, it will announce it in due course.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the hon. lady if she has recently received an urgent request from anyone with regard to a further grant from the federal government toward the operating expenses of this building, in view of the financial urgency of the situation?
Can she also say if such a request has been received, when a reply might be expected?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, I have received such a request, and a reply will be forwarded as soon as the government has determined its position.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: wish to address my question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister prepared to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) as to the cutting off of C.M.H.C. loans? My reason for asking is that I am reliably informed that two of the largest areas in my own constituency have had such loans cut off; the reason being given is that no money is available.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I am very happy to be able to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac. At that time I intimated that I did not think that all loans had been cut off in Peterborough and I find that to be correct. In recent weeks there has actually been a marked improvement in loans in that area and elsewhere.
Perhaps I should preface this remark by reminding hon. members that on May 3, 1966 I announced that C.M.H.C. had been authorized to make as many direct loans in 1966 as in 1965, when 31,500 direct loans were approved.
On August 1 the corporation began to accept applications from merchant builders building houses for sale. Since August 1 some 85 loans have been made to merchant builders and 23 loans have been made to home owner applicants for a total of 108 loans in the Peterborough district. This is slightly above the 1965 activity when 104 direct loans were made, 81 to builders and 23 to home
October 21, 1966

owners. The autumn direct lending program to builders and home owners is proceeding at a fast pace in the Peterborough district as well as in other parts of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the minister is now making a statement. Perhaps his answer is a little too detailed for the circumstances.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, may I say with respect that the last part of my answer is directly relevant to the question asked yesterday. Do not forget that a further question was put to me this morning. May I finish this last part of my answer to yesterday's question?
Under the present circumstances it is not possible for the corporation to accept further applications for speculative loans from merchant builders in the Peterborough district, but funds are available to take care of the needs of home owner applicants in the area.


David Vaughan Pugh: This is a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I can take it then that I have not been reliably informed by one or two builders in each area that loans for home owners have now been cut off in Penticton and Kelowna?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, will the minister make available similar figures for the maritimes in whatever is the appropriate way?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will be glad to do so. I might also say that according to my information the maritimes are also ahead of last year.


Mr. Chatferton:: In view of the shortage of private money for building, would the minister consider increasing the amount available for direct loans?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under constant study.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if, in the light of the intended visit to Ottawa of the premier of Nova Scotia, Hon. Robert Stanfield, he would use his good offices to arrange a meeting with the premier for the purpose of discussing the
23033-567J
Inquiries of the Ministry very urgent situation that will arise out of any further base consolidations in the maritime provinces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the premier wishes to discuss this matter with me and the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to see him about it.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The other day I asked him about the possibility of making legal counsel available to some native Indians in New Brunswick with respect to fishing rights, and he was kind enough to say that would be done. In view of the similarity of the two situations I wonder if I could ask the minister whether his department will make available to counsel a transcript of the proceedings and findings of the Supreme Court of Canada of the case respecting Indians in Nanaimo, which was concluded favourably not too long ago.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the words the hon. gentleman has just uttered.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinthe-
Bagot): Mr. Speaker, I see from yesterday's Hansard that the Minister of Agriculture answered my question in the affirmative, though I had the impression that he was taking it as notice. As a supplementary question I would ask him what portion of that grant has the federal government agreed to pay?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I took the question as notice yesterday, and I will have an answer ready for the hon. member Monday.



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN MILK SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he be
October 21, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry willing to comply with the request of the data gathering function so as to include the C.F.U. to set the price of milk at $5 per gathering of price data relevant to retail hundredweight?	pricing.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. mem-
Mr. Speaker, the dairy policy for next year ^er ought to place that question on the order will be announced before April 1967.	paper.



CREAM-REPORTED DELAY IN SUBSIDY PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On October 7 I asked if he would undertake to make a statement in this house with regard to what appeared to be an undue delay in the issuing of the cream subsidy cheques. At that time he replied there was a possibility his estimates would be called later that day and he would be prepared to make a full statement with regard to this matter at that time.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know his estimates were not called that day and they have not been called since. I wonder if the minister would give us now a reasonably full statement respecting this delay, so the letters members are getting can be answered and so the cream shippers will understand why these cheques are not getting to them as quickly as they think they should.


John James Greene: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, the cream subsidy cheques only go out every three months; therefore to date there has been only one payment. The second payment to the cream shippers would be going out in November. There has been some delay in the province of Alberta by reason of the fact that returns from some plants came in late. As a matter of fact some have only made their first returns recently, and some of those returns were inadequate. This situation is being cleared up between the plants and the officials of the stabilization board at the present time. If the hon. member wants a specific report about Alberta, I will be pleased to send it to him in writing.



REQUEST FOR DATA RESPECTING RETAIL PRICING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I apologize for not giving him notice, but the question is concrete and timely.
I would ask the minister if the department intends to expand or has expanded its price
[Mr. Latulippe.)



LABOUR GAZETTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. A few months ago, in reply to a question I had put to him, the minister told me that around September or October the French edition of the Labour Gazette would be published at the same time as the English edition. And yet, I received this morning the French edition of the July issue, that is three months late.
Could the minister tell us why his promise did not come true in September?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am just as disappointed as the hon. member. We did make some progress during the first six months of this year toward bringing out the issues not simultaneously but much closer together. I have been disturbed by the delay. I am looking into it, and I will advise the hon. member shortly of the results of my inquiries.



INQUIRY AS TO METHOD OF APPOINTMENT OF RETURNING OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoft (Danforih):: I wonder if the Secretary of State would make an early statement to the house covering the manner in which the various returning officers have been appointed all across Canada, and in particular outlining the methods of choice, in order that the house may be assured that the appointments were made on the basis of merit and experience rather than constituting another example of Liberal patronage.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to tell my hon. friend right now that the method of appointment is by order in council.
October 21. 1966


Reid Scott: Perhaps the hon. lady would explain the rather complicated and devious methods by which these appointments are arrived at.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: May I
ask a supplementary question concerning the returning officers. I wonder if the minister would be in a position, perhaps on Monday or Wednesday, to have the question standing on the order paper in my name answered?



ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-PROPOSED VISIT BY MINISTER TO CAPE BRETON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. May I ask the hon. gentleman on what date he plans to make his pilgrimage to Cape Breton in connection with the recommendations of the Donald report on coal?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: On November 3. Arrangements are already being made to accommodate people who would like to present representations.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour with regard to the federal conciliation board in the dispute between United Press International and the wire operators. Can the minister say whether a report has been received from that board, and if not when it is expected?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Some days ago, Mr. Speaker, I stated in this house that the board expected to receive representations on the 7th and 8th of this month, or possibly it was the 8th and 7th, and that I expected to receive the report in due course. At the time of my last inquiry it had not been received. I do not know whether it has come in within the last few hours, but I will be glad to inquire and let the hon. member know.
Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE SECURITY



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASE IN PENSION WITHOUT MEANS TEST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's reply to an earlier question by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce to the effect that legislation increasing the old age pension will be on the order paper soon, can he say whether the government has now decided to make that increase without a means test?


Lester Bowles Pearson: While I appreciate the hon. gentleman's interest and also perhaps his impatience, I ask him to wait until the matter is before the house when his curiosity will be satisfied, and I hope satisfactorily satisfied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Prime Minister realize I will be satisfied only if there is no means test?


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I
ask a supplementary question. Since the matter is so urgent, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he does not feel, in the light of the high cost of living and the fact that senior citizens are trying to live on $75 a month, that the legislation should be proceeded with immediately because the increase should have been made last January?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the question is argumentative.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister relating to the increase in the old age pension. In view of the difficulties in getting this legislation before the house and having it passed because of other matters that are occupying our time, and in view of the need of the pensioners for relief, would the government not give consideration to making the pension increases retroactive to some date earlier in the year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let them spend that $320 million they have.


Mr. Speaker:: -that this might be discussed when the legislation comes in. I do not think this is a question that should be asked now.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question,
8958	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker. Why does the government not put the legislation regarding old age pensions on the order paper? Why continue this cat and mouse game by the government with those who are in need and who require assistance? I refer to the old age pensioners of this country. Why this cat and mouse game?


An hon. Member:: And not on July 1, 1968.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The best way to reach this legislation is to get the legislation through that is now on the order paper, and which is also very urgent.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with reference to the address he gave to the law students of Laval University, in which he is reported as saying that Canada should have a law to prevent the use of strike breakers in labour conflicts. I now ask the minister whether the government intends to introduce legislation along the lines he advocated in the speech to the students in question.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I
delivered a speech before the law students of Laval University and I tried to explain to them why the labour movement objected to injunctions, and also why it wanted protection in its lawful strike action. That was an explanation and not a statement of government policy.



CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODE PROVISION FOR EMPLOYMENT SAFETY IN FEDERAL WORKS

John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the second reading of Bill No. S-35, respecting the prevention of employment injury in federal works, undertakings and business.
i[Translation]


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member must realize that since the motion for second reading of the bill is now before the house, he cannot explain why he objected to its introduction last night. He must restrict his remarks to the principle of the bill under discussion.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I am not so
much trying to explain why we objected yesterday, but rather why we shall have to raise an objection this morning if we cannot be treated like all other members.
I should like to obtain from you, or from the person responsible, the assurance that we shall be treated like all other members and that we shall be told what is going on. Under these conditions, we shall assure the house of our full co-operation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), may I point out to you that he is now asking that a copy of all amendments be given to every independent member. As independents, they do not make common cause with each other; they do not even represent a new party and they want to be treated like other members. For the information of the member, I must tell him that the official opposition, which comprises no less than 95 members, gets only one copy of proposed amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would again remind the hon. member for Edmonton West that we must deal at present with the principle of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on labour and employment.
October 21, 1966


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-218, an act to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia.- the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development
Eric Alfred Winkler: With unanimous consent I wonder if we could not consider the second item of business previously indicated, namely the fisheries estimates, in view of a situation that I think is reasonably well understood.


George James McIlraith: There is no objection to that course if it better meets the convenience of certain hon. members who are directly concerned in the estimates of the fisheries department.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

The Chairman:: Shall vote No. 1 carry?
I. Departmental administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates. $1,552,000.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, when the estimates of the Department of Fisheries were discussed before the standing committee on fisheries last March I made a detailed statement on the status of the department and its activities.
I am at the disposal of this committee. I am prepared to proceed at once with the consideration of estimates, but if it is the will of the committee that I make a statement on the up to date activities of the department I am also prepared to do that.


John Angus MacLean: Perhaps the minister would like to make a brief statement on the first item. I think that might be helpful to the committee.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I will do the best I can to cover briefly each of the activities of the department. As I said in my report before the standing committee last March, the fisheries of Canada are undergoing great expansion. This is true of fisheries all over the world. In many countries the development of fisheries is proceeding at an amazing pace.
Supply-Fisheries
Growth and change are also taking place in Canada, with new facilities and plants being built at an unprecedented rate. I am glad to say that our expansion is orderly, and I hope it will remain so, for the benefit of the fisheries. We must guard against the dangers of too rapid expansion, while at the same time taking advantage of every opportunity to provide increased returns to those investing their capital and to those whose livelihood depends on the resources of the sea and our inland waters.
The most spectacular expansion in fisheries development at the present time is taking place on our Atlantic coast. There are also strong indications of an enlarging off-shore fishery on our Pacific coast. This growth is the result of the over-all program drawn up nearly three years ago by the federal and provincial governments, and it has expanded since then. We find that we must adopt progressive measures very quickly in order to keep up with continued scientific and technological advances that are being made.
[DOT] (12 noon.)
An increasing demand for fishery products and the keen competition for the stocks of common fishing grounds are the spurs forcing government and industry into the efforts that are resulting in this dynamic expansion. During the next ten years our Atlantic fishing industry alone will spend about $300 million for modern offshore fishing vessels equipped with the latest mechanical and electronic gear. There will also be substantial investment in shore plants and facilities because the advances being made in the finding and catching of fish are being matched by an evolution in unloading, storing, processing and transportation methods. New and improved boats must also continue to be built for the inshore and near-offshore fisheries.
We have scores of projects under way in our long range program, some of them being carried out by the industrial development service of the department, others in co-operation with the provinces and with industry.
I should like to make brief reference to two important fisheries conferences held this year. One was the Canadian Atlantic offshore fishing vessel conference held in Montreal in February, which was of great value to our offshore fishery. It showed, among other things, that mechanization and automation do not only make fishing operations more productive but can save wear and tear on our human resources. It is possible to make work aboard ship much less strenuous for fishermen and at the same time provide them with

October 21. 1966
Supply-Fisheries
the safety and comfort to which they are entitled. The other meeting was the Canadian Atlantic herring fishery conference held in Fredericton in May, which confirmed our belief that there is an enormous potential in the herring fishery for our Atlantic region. Both conferences attracted a great deal of interest in the fisheries world.
Our aim is not to overlook any possibility for fisheries development, and many species of fish as well as other marine products which have not been utilized before are now under intensive investigation.
One of the critical problems with which we are dealing concerns manpower requirements. Ever since the Prime Minister made it known that the government would undertake a greatly expanded fisheries development program we have been conscious that training on a very broad front is necessary to the success of the industry, particularly if the income of the fishermen themselves is to be improved. In providing technical assistance to the industry my department is playing an effective role not only in expediting technological developments but in related training activity. In fact Canadian programs in this field have already developed to the point where they are regarded by other countries as an effective aid in the transition from a traditional fishery to a modern sophisticated industry.
The training provided under the department's technical assistance program is directed mainly to the introduction of new fishing methods, equipment and techniques and to the finding and exploitation of underfished stocks. In this we make the most of proven methods developed in other countries through long experience. This also applies where Canadian fishermen from one part of the country are enabled to demonstrate their particular skills to fishermen in other parts.
While speaking of developments I should like to mention that in Newfoundland, where the isolation of many fishing communities has been a retarding factor, the department is co-operating with the Newfoundland authorities in the implementation of a program designed to make it possible for fishermen and their families to relocate in centres where opportunities for employment, education and related community facilities will be available to them. I am pleased to report that after 12 months of operation of this program, 16 subsettlements have been relocated, 33 more have been approved for relocation and a number of applications are under consideration.

Referring to expenditures for conservation and protection of the fisheries resource, may I mention the construction of a 180-foot patrol vessel for the Pacific coast where our own fishing fleets are showing increasing interest in the stocks of fish on the more offshore grounds. Foreign fleets also began operations off our Pacific coast a little more than a year ago. If we are to manage our complex fisheries effectively and maintain the integrity of Canadian fishing zones, we must have a capable all weather fishing vessel of this type in our own fleet. The design of the vessel will also permit her use in exploratory fishing and research work, and she will have marine search and rescue capabilities.
The program of the department's resource development service is mainly concerned with the scientific management and development of salmon and other fisheries resources on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, the management of inland fisheries in Newfoundland, the maritime provinces and the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and the control of sea lamprey in the great lakes. As well, the professional staff of the service provides technical advice on methods of maintaining and protecting the fisheries resource in the face of encroaching civilization on the fish environment. The prime offender in this regard is pollution from a multitude of sources including pulp mills, mines, manufacturing plants and pesticide applications.
The important role which both the department and the Fisheries Research Board of Canada are playing in this vital area is marked by the papers to be presented by professionals of these groups to the resource ministers' conference on pollution beginning October 31 in Montreal.
The resources development service works hand in hand with the conservation and protection service in the scientific management of the salmon fishery in British Columbia. A substantial program of this type has been implemented this year in Dixon entrance on the north coast of British Columbia to furnish data on migration patterns of salmon runs passing through that area, and the intermingling of northern British Columbia and southeast Alaska salmon stocks.
As hon. members know, we have a 12-mile fishing zone around our coasts which is being enforced against all countries except those which have traditional rights within that area. Following a meeting held last week, as reported in this house, I am confident that progress is being made, and we are now negotiating on a continuing and urgent basis
October 21, 1966

in order to arrive at a final and acceptable conclusion. However, some of our major fisheries are being exploited hundreds of miles beyond any base lines that may be established, and this could affect the growth and abundance of stocks inside our exclusive fishing zones.
For this reason Canada has been a party to seven international conservation conventions since their inception. These affect the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea, the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser river system, the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, the northern Pacific fur seal fishery, the northwest Atlantic fisheries, the fisheries of the great lakes, and the stocks of whales.
The maintenance of adequate standards to make sure that Canada's fishery products are of high quality is the responsibility of my department's inspection service. Late in 1964 the fish inspection regulations and the canned fish inspection regulations were completely rewritten to incorporate certain new departmental policies, including compulsory inspection of all forms of fish products, a closer control over the use of quality designations, standards for fishing vessels and for cold storages. These draft regulations were distributed to the industry for review and comment. Regional meetings with industry have been held from coast to coast, and a final draft of the regulations has now been distributed for review before enactment on April 1, 1967.
May I point out that regulations have just been drafted for the application of subsidies to cold storage, and I expect to be able to make a formal announcement in this house within the next few weeks.
Compulsory registration of plants processing fresh and frozen fish was begun a year ago. The degree of industry co-operation has been most gratifying, and many of the fish plants in Canada are now among the best of their kind in the world.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Both the quantity and quality of water remains a serious problem, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. Clean water has become an expensive commodity, and the capital cost of pipe lines and other installations has often been beyond the reach of some communities where fish processing facilities are located. In these instances generous financial assistance has been provided by the federal government through the Atlantic Development Board. To
Supply-Fisheries
date approximately $10 million has been authorized for the improvement of water supplies for our fish processing plants.
The inspection service is undertaking new responsibilities for applied and development investigation into problems in the handling, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of fish and shellfish, and is increasing its staff and laboratory facilities in order to serve industry better.
It is desirable for many reasons that new products be developed from commercial species of fish now being landed, from fish now discarded at sea and from fish known to be available but which are not being caught. In the effort to prevent the loss of millions of pounds of protein each year in capelin and dogfish, which are either avoided by fishermen or discarded because there is no substantial commercial demand for them, a group of technologists of the inspection service visited several European countries this year. There they studied new product development and processing techniques, and their work in this field is promising for the future.
As to the present state of the industry, Canadian fishermen in general are enjoying a good year. Based on the results of the first eight months it is estimated that the total catch will be as good as, if not slightly higher than, that of 1965. Over-all gross returns to fishermen are expected to be higher than they were last year by about 7 per cent.
Expansion of the groundfish fishery in, British Columbia continued and indications are that the landings of that group of species will be about 25 per cent higher than they were in 1965, which was a record year. On the Atlantic coast the groundfish landings are higher than those of last year by about 5 per cent, and the value to fishermen, due to higher prices, by about 10 per cent. An increase in the value to fishermen is registered in each of the Atlantic coast provinces.
The production of frozen groundfish fillets and blocks will likely exceed the all time high of 229 million pounds produced in 1965. The production of salted fish in Newfoundland continues its decline and indications are that the 1966 production will be some 7 per cent lower than in 1965. The trend to divert cod from salting to freezing is continuing in that province. A decline in the catch of lobsters is registered in all the Atlantic coast provinces. The drop for the area as a whole is about 14 per cent.
In just two years from now the fisheries Research Board of Canada will be celebrating

October 21, 1966
Supply-Fisheries
its seventieth anniversary. That important milestone will afford a most fitting opportunity to review the remarkable accomplishments of fisheries science in Canada. For now, however, I am content to refer to the progress of the Fisheries Research Board in the current year, and even this must be a case of touching briefly upon some of the highlights.
This has been a singularly important year for the board because the emphasis has been placed not upon accomplishment alone but upon plans and programming for the future. Hence I am very pleased to say that the board is defining the program trends that may be anticipated over the next ten years.
During the present year no problem has been of greater concern to the Fisheries Research Board than that of water pollution. The sense of urgency that has marked public comment on this important subject is even more evident within the scientific community, where a great anti-pollution offensive is being mounted.
A key role in this major effort has been assigned to the Fisheries Research Board. Painstaking appraisal of research requirements in dealing with water pollution contributed heavily to the decision to establish the new Fisheries Research Board freshwater institute in Winnipeg. This new laboratory will carry out research over a broad range of biological and technological disciplines, but none of the results will be of greater importance to the nation than those which may serve to stem or reverse the already advanced spread of water pollution.
Just one month ago the newest fisheries research vessel was christened at Port Weller, Ontario. The C.G.S. E. E. Prince, whose name commemorates an outstanding fisheries scientist and administrator, is a 130 foot high seas research vessel. She will operate out of St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and will be used primarily to give new impetus to the investigations into pelagic fish such as herring, mackerel, swordfish and tuna. These investigations are of vital importance to the current expansion of pelagic fisheries on the Atlantic coast.
The Fisheries Research Board has expanded its biological-oceanography programs on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The Atlantic oceanographic group, based at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, has been provided with additional laboratory space and scientific staff to carry out studies of the factors involved in fish production, while the Pacific oceanographic group at Nanaimo, British

Columbia, has undertaken similar studies in the strait of Georgia.
On the technological side the Fisheries Research Board has increased its staff so that new emphasis can be placed upon the application of research. Once again both coasts are affected, as well as the new Winnipeg laboratory which will serve the technological needs of the freshwater fisheries. This expansion is aimed at providing the techniques and the equipment to produce better quality fish products.
The Fisheries Research Board is providing the scientific background to strengthen Canada's case for obtaining a fair share of the Pacific salmon, in current discussions with the United States. New research is also being carried out on fish culture techniques, through which we hope to build up the salmon resources of the Pacific coast and the oyster resources of the Atlantic coast.
More public interest has been aroused by the Fisheries Research Board's transplant projects than by any other of the research programs now under way. This summer, following last year's preliminary studies on lobster survival on the Pacific coast, a sizeable transfer of lobsters was made from the Atlantic coast to Fatty Basin on the west coast of Vancouver island. The results of the 1966 experiment will be significant in terms of the future of this project.
We have just received encouraging news from Newfoundland on the pink salmon transfer project there. To the end of September nearly 600 adult pink salmon had returned to North Harbour river. Some were taken in local commercial salmon fishing but more than 400 entered the river. All indications point to a successful spawning.
Increased efforts in all parts of Canada and in all fields of research have taxed laboratory facilities to the utmost. We have already reached a point where programs have been hampered by lack of laboratory space and inadequate facilities. But something is being done about this. This year a site was prepared at Nanaimo, B.C., for the construction of an addition to the laboratory there, roughly doubling the space available. We anticipate the new building will be completed in 1967.
On the east coast planning is at an advanced stage for a new Fisheries Research Board laboratory to be located on the campus of Memorial University of Newfoundland. I have already referred to the new freshwater institute in Winnipeg. That laboratory is situated in temporary quarters provided by the
October 21, 1966

University of Manitoba, and we are now planning construction of permanent housing, also to be located on the University of Manitoba campus.
Earlier I mentioned that the Fisheries Research Board has been engaged in an assessment of trends that may be expected in the foreseeable future. One of the areas in which, failing appropriate action, problems could occur is that of recruitment of scientists in fisheries research. More and more, graduates with the background and desire for careers in research are the objects of intense competition from industry and other sources. To ensure that high calibre research talent can continue to be attracted to fisheries disciplines the board has embarked on a new program involving closer ties with the universities and the construction of laboratories on university campuses where this is feasible and practicable.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the co-operation, devotion and good work of the officers of the Department of Fisheries and of the officials of the Fisheries Research Board.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I think the members of the committee would wish me, on their behalf, to thank the minister for his statement, especially in view of rumours to the effect that it probably will be the last time he will be presenting to the house the main estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
The situation is this. The estimates of the Department of Fisheries were entered in committee of supply on March 22, and referred on that date to the standing committee on fisheries. They were reported back to the house on June 13, and in the intervening 11 weeks or so were thoroughly examined by the standing committee on fisheries. During the course of the committee's meetings detailed explanations were given by officials of the department who were examined, and by the minister. In the light of that fact it is the intention of the official opposition to exercise great restraint so far as debate on the first item is concerned. Nevertheless I should like to point out that the examination which took place before the standing committee on fisheries is now completely out of date.
In the rapidly changing fisheries industry many things have taken place in the intervening months. New problems have arisen, old ones have become more acute, and events have occurred which might be of special
Supply-Fisheries
interest to this committee. The minister has reviewed some of them. Many of the important problems with regard to the fishing industry in Canada are world wide problems. One of the most important in our case is the development of a more modern and expanded offshore fishing industry. There has been an enormously increased investment in the form of equipment and ships by foreign countries for the exploitation of the fishery resource of both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in areas fairly close to our coasts. This, of course, indicates that Canada must accelerate development in this field, so long as it is done on a logical and sound economic basis, with careful note taken of the effect that such a development may have on our traditional fisheries.
This brings me to the very important question of the law of the sea and developments which may have taken place in that regard in the last few months. It requires great restraint to refrain from indulging in debate on this very important question concerning Canada's policy in this regard. There is the question of negotiation with other countries concerning the establishment of an exclusive 12-mile fishing zone along our coast and the inclusion, within base lines, of certain bodies of water so they would be national waters and thereby excluded from the fisheries fleets of other nations.
There is another very important problem in international law with regard to fisheries; that is, the problem of conservation of the resources of the sea and the optimum exploitation of those resources on a continuing basis by the various nations of the world in a fair and equitable manner. So far as our own industry is concerned there is the problem of developing the industry in areas where the economic stimulation for an automatic increase is not great enough on the one hand, and the problem of prevention of over-exploitation in areas where the economic rewards are quite high, on the other hand.
In the latter case the salmon fishery on the west coast and the lobster fishery on the east coast are good examples. For years the resource has been protected by limiting the fishing seasons in respect of these particular stocks. There is however, the other problem of limiting the effort expended by fishermen during these open seasons so they will not require a disproportionate amount of gear and will not expend a disproportionate amount of effort in trying to catch a limited stock.

October 21. 1966
Supply-Fisheries
There have been developments with regard to marketing. For example, just the other day the Mclvor report on the marketing of fresh water fish in certain areas was tabled. There are the problems of the inshore fishermen. I am the first to admit that in many cases these are sociological problems or problems which at least have a sociological aspect, but in this regard there are matters which are a federal government responsibility, such as the provision of suitable wharves and so on. It is true these things come under the Department of Public Works; nevertheless the federal government is responsible for them.
As the minister mentioned, there is the problem of education and technical training for these fishermen and others so they can adjust to the developments in the industry. I mention these things just to point out that there is a great field in which discussion might take place here, but because of the circumstances of the situation it is the intention of the official opposition to exercise great restraint on the first item and not indulge in a general debate. However, we do not intend to forfeit our right to ask questions of the minister with regard to the administration of the department generally on these various items.
The minister has not mentioned supplementary estimates A. I do not know whether it is the intention to pass these as well at this time. If that is the case no doubt there will be some questions in this regard. Mr. Chairman, I wish it to be clearly understood that in these first remarks I have made I have not attempted to cover the whole field by any means. If I have failed to mention numerous very important aspects of the fishing industry, it is not because I wish to ignore them nor that they are not important. Questions will be asked on them later as the items are called.
My chief reason, however, for being brief at this time is that these estimates were carefully considered during the meetings of the standing committee on fisheries earlier this year, and that committee has on it members who are very knowledgeable with regard to the problems of the fisheries in, I think, every important fishing area of the country.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Queens has set out in detail the manner in which the estimates of the Department of Fisheries have been before the house since they were called originally on a supply motion. My only comment on that
fMr. MacLean (Queens).]
aspect of the matter would be to say that we in the New Democratic Party feel that this method of approach to the estimates of the fisheries department has really been a very satisfactory one which we hope will be repeated when we come to deal with next, year's estimates. Further, Mr. Chairman, I hope there may be some development in regard to handling estimates to the point where it may be agreed that following the work of a standing committee on estimates, such as the one dealing with the Department of Fisheries, the report of the committee to' the house may be presented in such a way that it can be considered, discussed and possibly acted upon by the whole house.
In his opening remarks today I feel that the minister did two things. He mentioned some of the highlights of the work of the department which were considered by the standing committees-I presume for the general information of those members of the house who are not members of the committee. He also touched on some developments which have taken place during the quite considerable period of time that has elapsed since the committee concluded dealing with the estimates. It is not my intention to go over what the minister said today point by point. Indeed, in connection with developments on which he has reported, such as the return of the pink salmon to Newfoundland or the lobster experiment on the west coast of Vancouver Island, I am willing to take his report as being somewhat more up to date and I will take it as read.
My principal interest is to raise with the minister some of the questions which are in my mind and with which I do believe he dealt in his opening statement. So far as I am concerned it matters not too much whether they are dealt with and answered while we are on item No. 1 or at a later stage on the detailed items. However, I think it is the general desire of the house, or at least of the members of the marine and fisheries committee, not to have an extended period of consideration in committee of supply so perhaps some of these questions could be dealt with immediately.
One question with which the minister, did not deal and which to me is very important concerns the situation at present in respect of the very important subject of multiple resource use arising out of the driving of logs on the Stellako River in the central interior of British Columbia. As the minister and the house well understand,, this involves the
October 21, 1966

whole question of the viability of the Department of Fisheries and of the Fisheries Act of the federal parliament. I think it is important to know exactly what developments are taking place in this connection because this matter has implications that go far beyond the immediate effects upon that particular river and its spawning beds.
I was glad to note that the minister made reference in his remarks to the question of pollution. He mentioned that people in his department are going to be involved in the forth coming conference in Montreal which is being convened under the sponsorship of the Council of Resource ministers. I hope that the federal Department of Fisheries and the federal fisheries research board will make a real impact with the presentations that they will make to that conference.
I think that the problem of pollution is underlined by one of the recommendations contained in the recently tabled report of the commission of inquiry into freshwater fish marketing. Recommendation No. 15 of the commission, which I should like to draw to the attention of the committee, is as follows:
15. We recommend that present legislation governing water pollution be strictly enforced and that governments take all further steps required to prevent pollution of Canadian inland waters.
Legislation should not only aim to make and keep water "safe" for human use, but should simultaneously create an evironment in which Canadian freshwater fish can thrive. Corrective and preventive measures with regard to pollution should keep in mind the needs of the freshwater fishery.
I realize that this report was tabled in the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but the heading in Hansard under which is recorded the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is "Fisheries". I am also pleased to realize that the report of the commissioner went beyond the mere matter of recommendations on the question of a fish marketing board and went into some considerable detail on the question of resource management in the inland areas of Canada, a matter which is covered by the terms of reference of the inquiry. The minister is cognizant of the fact that it is not only important to have proper and orderly marketing arrangements for our fish products but that we take steps to maintain and to expand the basic resource.
In this connection, as one of the members of the northern affairs committee I had an opportunity for the first time of getting a glimpse of the inland fisheries of the Northwest Territories and the fisheries along our Arctic coast. Certainly one of the facts of
Supply-Fisheries
life which I feel was brought home to all members of the northern affairs committee was the importance of renewable resources to the well-being of the indigenous population of the Canadian north in order to enable them to have a decent livelihood.
Quite apart from having been able to enjoy Arctic char as it really should taste, it was brought home to me that among the renewable resources of the Canadian north, vis-a-vis the standard of living that may be achieved by the local population fish are important.
The minister might be interested to know that when those of us on the committee were at Cambridge Bay we had the opportunity of engaging in conversation with the members of a field party from the fisheries research board which was at work in that area, as well as getting a glimpse of the work that they were doing and enlarging our knowledge of the potential of the Arctic seas in that area. One of the points I should like to raise in committee concerns the difference between the kind of information given to us by the minister and the officers of his department at headquarters with the reality we see when we have an opportunity of travelling in the field and learning the situation first hand from those engaged in the industry and those concerned with the preservation and expansion of the resource. It seems that sometimes the kind of answers we get here in Ottawa do not jibe very well with what we see and hear in the field. I know that this situation is not confined to the Department of Fisheries. But one of the impressions one gets as a member is that here in Ottawa there is a disposition to view many things through somewhat rose-coloured glasses. I suggest to the minister that he and his departmental officers are not altogether immune from this fault.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
For example, we raise questions about whether logging activities are resulting in damage to salmon spawning streams along the Pacific coast watershed. We are assured that there is fairly good co-operation in this area, that co-operation is improving and generally speaking no damage is being done to the salmon spawning streams as a result of logging activities. When we make inquiries about the effects of pollution by industrial activities such as mining, we are generally told that this matter is under very close study and steps are being taken to ensure that no damage is being done to our fisheries.
However, when we go into the field we very often hear stories that are quite contradictory

October 21, 1966;
Supply-Fisheries
of the somewhat glowing pictures from time to time painted for us in Ottawa. To lend credence to this point-and I may not get a completely detailed answer on this matter from the minister at the moment unless he happens to have the information before him-I should like to pinpoint what I have been saying by referring to some impressions I gained during a recent visit to the Quatsino Sound area on the northwest coast of Vancouver Island.
I was rather distressed to be informed-I should like to know whether this is in fact correct-that during last season there was no fisheries inspection officer in that whole area on a continuous and regular basis. Are the minister and his headquarters' officials aware of the kind of reports I get that flagrant violations are being committed by net salmon fishermen of the surf or blue line, which has. been a subject of considerable discussion in our marine and fisheries committee?
I should like the minister and the committee to know that I am deeply disturbed by reports I receive about the effects on our fisheries of mine tailings going into the Marble River system, one of the important fishing systems in the Quatsino area. The activities of the mine operated there by Co-minco are creating a situation whereby mine tailings are moving down into the spawning areas of that watershed. Then there is the whole question of what happens to spawning gravel because of the infiltration of fine silt, quite apart from what may be the damaging results of chemicals that are intermingled with the mine tailings.
Residents of that area, who in some cases are second and third generation, are gravely concerned about what they have seen happening to some of the runs of the Quatsino area fishery. I remember a number of years ago, for example, raising a question in our discussion about the effects of the kind of pollution being poured in the Neurotsis Inlet of Quatsino Sound from the pulp mill now operated by the Rayonnier Corporation of Canada. There is a highly visible degree of pollution for miles down that inlet, I do not know how far back the records of the fisheries department go in respect of fish runs into the headwaters of Neurotsis Inlet, but I was told quite bluntly at one time that in this situation it was a question of either no pulp mill or no fish, and that there had never been any important runs into that area. Yet people who have been residents of the area since well before the turn of the century tell me that years ago this was a place where the

Indians went in order to catch and smoke their annual harvest of chum fish, and that the chum fishery of that area was at one time of a fairly substantial size. I have also been told that the run of Springs that went into this area was certainly of no mean proportions.
These are the kind of questions that one who is representing a constituency such as mine has to answer, and as the minister knows this area is one of the important fishing regions of Canada. These are the type of problems with which I am faced when out in the field. I want the minister to know that very often when I repeat the answers I have received in Ottawa these answers are greeted, to put it mildly, with considerable scepticism by those who have personal, detailed, firsthand knowledge.
I wish to make it quite clear that I am not accusing the minister or any of his officials of bad faith in the kind of answers they give to the committee. Generally speaking, as I have made clear to the minister and the house before, I have a very high regard for the kind of Canadian citizen who comprise the working force of the federal Department of Fisheries. But I know that people in offices in Ottawa cannot be everywhere, and I believe it behooves those of us who have the responsibility of dealing with complaints across the country to raise questions of this kind because it seems to me that there is a certain amount of error in the kind of information that comes from headquarters in Ottawa on some of these matters.
I know we cannot have a fisheries inspection officer stationed in every bay, cove and inlet on the Pacific coast and that there are people who will deliberately, if given the opportunity, ignore the needs of conservation when they ought to know better. I raise this issue because I think it is the kind of issue that should be raised in committee of supply when we are dealing, as we are, with these estimates following their consideration in a detailed way by the marine and fisheries committee, and after having had some opportunity of cross-checking the answers we have been given in Ottawa with the kind of situations which one encounters in the fishing areas of one's own constituency.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The minister made some reference to the situation regarding the international negotiations with the United States on the Alaska surf line and the boundaries of our fishing waters. If I heard him correctly, he said that
October 21, 1966

negotiations are now proceeding on a continuing and urgent basis. As the minister and members of the house who have taken an interest in these matters well know, these negotiations have been going for a long period of time. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who enters into the picture on these matters, tried to assure us that so far as his department is concerned negotiations on these matters are always proceeding on a continuing and urgent basis. I will not seek to provoke a major debate with the Minister of Fisheries on this point but I would like to suggest that the sequence of events since this house dealt with what is commonly referred to as "the 12-mile limit bill" has certainly confirmed in my mind that the position I and some of my colleagues took at that time was correct and that it we were going to take action we should have gone the whole way, set out the territorial limits and then proceeded to negotiation from a position of strength. As I said, I will not seek to launch into a major debate with the minister on this point, but I simply want to let him know that as far as I am concerned none of the actions he or his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, have taken in the intervening time have done anything to convince me that I and those who share my point of view were incorrect when we first debated the matter in the house.
There is one other point I would like to touch upon at this time, partly because recently I had in my hands a copy of the report on the Atlantic coast seal fishery by the New Brunswick humane society. I should like to ask the minister to give us his assessment of the story told in that report. As he is probably aware, not only the people of New Brunswick or the people on the Atlantic coast but all Canadians from coast to coast, partly owing to such communication media as television, are interested and very concerned about what is or is not being done in this matter. When the minister is answering this question he might also report on just where we stand regarding an international agreement in this regard under the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission. If my understanding is correct, discussions by this body have recently taken place on this subject.
These are the questions which I want to raise at this time. I feel that the minister did not come to grips with them in his opening statement and, as I said, it is immaterial to me whether they are dealt with now while we are on the first item or whether the
Supply-Fisheries
minister prefers to deal with them when we consider the detailed items. Judging by the remarks made by the hon. member for Queens, it seems to me it might be possible for us to conclude the discussion of these estimates while we are still technically on this item and then proceed to accept the detailed items pro forma at the end of the discussion.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, a matter was raised by the hon. member which may be of some urgency and I would therefore like to take a minute to give him a brief explanation. I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to know that I will be on the west coast tomorrow to attend a "salute to the salmon day" program on Adams River. On Monday morning I will be in Victoria where I will be meeting with the two ministers concerned, Mr. Williston and Mr. Keirnan, on the problem of the Stellako River drive and the logging in different spawning rivers. I am convinced in advance that following discussions with the ministers concerned we will be able to come to some mutual agreement to protect the fisheries' interest.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, for the reasons outlined by the hon. member for Queens it is not my intention to take much time on this subject. We feel that the procedure followed of referring the estimates to the standing committee, where they received extensive and detailed scrutiny, should meet the need, generally speaking, so far as the consideration of these estimates is concerned. Another reason my remarks will be very brief is the fact it was felt that in the standing committee hon. members would have an adequate opportunity to raise questions and discuss the various matters relative to the fisheries problems and that when the estimates did come back to the house perhaps those who were not privileged to be on the committee would have the opportunity of voicing their views and raising the questions they had in mind. Therefore, as I said, the remarks I will make will be very limited.
Perhaps we should confine ourselves to general observations but I am going to deal with two or three specific matters which I feel are of vital concern. First of all, there is the question of the establishment of the 12-mile limit. This subject was mentioned by the previous speaker. I fully recognize the fact that it involves many problems and that the deliberations may take a considerable length of time. I know that the effects of a decision

October 21, 19S6
Supply-Fisheries
one way or another may perhaps prove to be very important. Nevertheless I would like to emphasize once again that there is a growing impatience that this matter has not been brought to a conclusion, and I think the minister can well understand the feelings of the organizations representing the fishermen in regard to this problem. We can well understand the feelings of those engaged in the industry in asking when this matter will be brought to a conclusion and when Canada will indicate its position in a definite and conclusive manner. I urge the minister, in his continuing conversations and discussions with other parties, to keep in mind the fact that the time will come in the very near future when this matter will have to be resolved conclusively.
Another matter briefly raised by the previous speaker concerns the seal hunt in the gulf of St. Lawrence. I suppose all of us have received copies of the document to which he has referred. I am deeply perturbed about the conditions that had been brought to light. On the occasions when this matter was raised in the house the minister assured us that every endeavour was being made to eliminate the cruel practices used in the annual slaughter of seals, and I believe he was sincere in making those statements.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
We understand also that he was on the scene personally for a day at least, if not more. Possibly while he was there the customary conventions were observed and he did not see anything too much out of the way. Apparently those who went incognito had an opportunity to observe the practices being followed and saw things entirely differently. The stories are certainly different, which does little to allay the fears and anxieties of a great many people across the country who are vitally concerned about the methods used in the annual slaughter of baby seals.


Mr, Robichaud:: These stories are not factual; they are not exactly according to the facts but are exaggerated.


Alexander Bell Patterson: If the stories are not factual, then perhaps there should be some way by which those who have written them can be brought to task and required to give an explanation. The stories, coupled with the pictures on television, are having an influence on the thinking of the people. If they are not correct and are being spread abroad for ulterior reasons, there should be some way of
(Mr. Patterson.]
bringing the true facts to the attention of the people.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. I raised it on orders of the day yesterday, as reported on page 8902 of Hansard. I asked the following question and I quote:
In view of the economic hardship imposed on Fraser Valley gill net fishermen, would the minister reconsider the decision resulting in the closure of the Fraser river for the balance of the season?
The Minister of Fisheries replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the salmon season in British Columbia this year has been excellent, one of the best, if not the best, in decades. However, there is need for conservation, particularly in the case of certain runs of salmon frequenting the Fraser river. I expect to be on the west coast this week end and I will discuss this matter with our area director there.
I appreciate the reply given by the minister to this question. He pointed out that the salmon season in British Columbia has been excellent. I regret to say that so far as the gill net fishermen are concerned they are not benefiting too much from this fact. This is one of the reasons I raised the question. The minister made reference to the need for conservation. I think the gill net fishermen on the Fraser river are well aware of the salmon conservation measures, and I believe they have co-operated to the full when the regulations were imposed and they felt there was a need for them.
On the other hand, we can understand the feelings of these fishermen when they do everything they possibly can to assist in the conservation of salmon resources but are denied the opportunity of harvesting these resources in order to provide for their families. After all, these men are bona fide fishermen. They make a living from this industry. Yet because of the closure methods they are unable to provide for themselves and find themselves in severe financial conditions.
I believe, therefore, that this matter should be given very careful consideration. I am not saying that closure periods are not necessary. I believe they are. The fishermen realize they are. However, in some instances I believe these regulations are carried to the extreme and to the detriment of the interests of those engaged in the fishing industry. Therefore I request that the minister when he is on the west coast investigate the matter and give consideration to the needs of those who are experiencing hardship as a result of the closure of this river to the gill net fishermen.
October 21, 1966

Those three matters were the only ones I wished to bring to the attention of the minister at this time. Any other matters can be dealt with later. So far as the Social Credit members are concerned, I understand that our intervention in the debate on these estimates will be limited almost to my remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the house leader might not be interested in a luncheon recess?


George James McIlraith: Yes, we would be quite agreeable. However, it might be possible for the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg to make his remarks before the committee rises.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Later.


George James McIlraith: Then I suggest we rise, report progress and when the honourable Speaker is in the chair ask for the suspension of the sitting until two thirty.
Progress reported.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker I should like to ask that we suspend the sittings of the house until two thirty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Do
members give unanimous consent to suspending proceedings until two thirty?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 1.10 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended until 2.30 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,552,000.
Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief. I have three points to make while we are on item 1. One of them has already been covered by some of the speakers who spoke this morning. I am referring to the seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The minister has already made some remarks on the report I think all hon. members have received from the humane society of New
Supply-Fisheries
Brunswick which gives a very chilling description of a seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I am not in a position to say how accurate it is. The minister has said that it is not accurate. I remind the minister that I have asked him to be kind enough to make arrangements for me to accompany him or to go with some of his officials to the next seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I should like to see for myself what goes on and I think other members of the house would also like to go. So I shall leave the matter of sealing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence with these few remarks.
Next I want to move to the general subject of conservation, which is very close to my heart. I understand the problem in British Columbia better than in the other parts of Canada. I suggest that the time has come when federal-provincial consultation should take place on the matter of regional conservation boards that would look into the whole question of conservation, including basins, watersheds, estuaries of rivers and their approaches. This will not only require joint consultation between federal and provincial governments and their officials but also must take into account commercial interests such as logging, mining, pulp and paper operations and so forth which have such an impact upon conservation measures in a province.
I will not go into details. I shall try to leave scope for other members to speak, but I do suggest that the time has come when regional conservation boards embracing federal and provincial officials, commercial operations and sports and commercial fishermen should be set up and set up soon. It is a very much needed requirement and will be welcomed by the people in these areas who rely on the federal government to take the initiative in instituting such boards. It is a requirement which cannot be filled unless the federal government takes the initiative. I urge the minister to do so at the next opportunity.
The last thing I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, concerns a local matter. I believe it was brought to the attention of the minister last summer during the salmon fishing season that in the British Columbia area, particularly off the lower end of Vancouver Island where the international boundary line crosses through or comes very close to some of the better salmon fishing areas, a number of so-called sport fishermen from the United States are evading the Canadian fishing regulations.
Supply-Fisheries

October 21. 1966
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I have a particular incident in mind. I have witnessed this myself, as have a number of my friends in this area. Sport fishermen in fast boats need only proceed half a mile across the international boundary to take fish from a favourite fishing area. I am thinking in particular of an area known as East Point which is on the international boundary line. Canadian fishermen are limited both as to the number and size of fish they may take, but sport fishermen from the other side of the border are inclined to ignore the regulations, knowing there is no proper policing of the area.
I realize we cannot have one fisheries protection vessel for every sport fishing craft in the area, but I think we could do better than is being done now. I should like the minister to look into the possibility of authorizing lighthousekeepers in the area to act as fishery patrol officers. I suggest they should be given the equipment with which to patrol these local areas in order to see that Canadian sport fishermen are not prejudiced and that our hospitality on this side of the border is not abused.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, speaking as the representative of one of the largest fishing constituencies in the Atlantic provinces, I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. I may say that I share the views expressed by the hon. member for Queens when he commented on these estimates and stated that this may well be the last occasion on which we will be hearing from the present minister, having regard to press statements that he may soon be residing in the other place. Whatever lies in the future for him, I assure the hon. gentleman that I wish him well.
I know that members of the committee and Canadians generally were saddened this spring by the news that 12 members of the crew of the fishing trawler Reliance were lost when the vessel collided with the Liberian freighter Bordapian. This tragedy brought back memories of the Acadia Sea Hawk out of Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, which disappeared in a December storm in 1964 at which time 14 men lost their lives. The fate of both the Reliance and the Acadia Sea Hawk are tragic examples of the risk faced by our fishermen throughout the year. This does not represent the whole story, however, for in the past two years a total of 51 men lost their lives at sea
[Mr. Groos.l
off the coasts of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Deaths at sea continue to occur despite the many navigational aids provided by modern science, and these deaths serve to bring home to all who are employed on land the many hazards faced by our fishermen.
These tragic occurrences underline the necessity of providing improved weather data for our fishermen and mariners. In this modern age we are often amazed by the scientific data sent back to earth from satellites circling the globe and by instruments landed on the moon. I would ask the government to consider setting up a complete system of weather buoys moored in the Atlantic ocean for the purpose of sending weather data almost instantaneously to stations along the Atlantic coast as well as inland if necessary. The use of these weather buoys would have a major impact on weather forecasting since it would provide a regular supply of data from fixed positions and from inaccessible ocean areas from which we are not now collecting such information.
To pursue this idea further, it should be possible for electronic buoys to broadcast weather data to earth satellites which could in turn rebroadcast this information on demand to any point on earth. These fixed buoys could collect such information as sea and air temperatures, wind direction and velocity and barometric pressures. Relay from the satellites could be by very high frequency radio waves and information could be picked up on the ground by relatively inexpensive receiving apparatus installed in aircraft or in ships at sea.
The setting up of a weather system of this type would, I believe, receive support from other nations using the sea lanes and the airways. The data provided would give warning of weather changes and impending storms in time to prevent further loss of life among our fishermen.
The report of the standing committee draws attention to some of the problems facing the fishing industry as they were expressed by the members of that committee during its 17 meetings. One of the areas of concern is the evident breakdown of recent international negotiations to conserve and protect the fisheries from which Canadian fishermen derive their livelihood. This criticism immediately brings to mind the government's inaction with regard to its stated intention to establish through unilateral action
October 21, 1966

the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada and a 12-mile fishing limit off our shores.
It was on May 20, 1964, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs moved second reading of Bill S-17 respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada, and it is interesting to note what he had to say at that time. These are his words as reported at page 3409 of Hansard for that year:
First, the bill establishes the fishing zones of Canada at 12 miles from the Coast line. When it is passed by parliament and proclaimed, Canada will have a fishing zone in the 3 to 12-mile area off our coast line. This, in the view of the government, is a fundamental achievement of the bill. It is not enabling legislation in this respect. On proclamation, the 12-mile fishing zone will be established. I must emphasize there is no doubt, and there can be no doubt, about this point.
Canada has never published official charts showing the present base lines, but for at least parts of our coast the base lines follow the sinuosities of the shore. Pending the establishment of straight base lines, the fishing zones will be measured from the existing ones. This is clearly provided for in the bill.
The second important purpose of the bill is to apply the straight base line system to the Canadian coast line. This part of it, unlike the section concerning fishing zones, will be of an enabling character. When the bill comes into effect the Governor in Council will be authorized to draw straight base lines. The question may be asked: what does this achieve In response, I would say that what the bill accomplishes is of great significance. It makes applicable the straight base line system to the Canadian coast. These straight base lines will be drawn in accordance with international law, on the basis of the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case and of the Geneva convention on the territorial sea and fishing zones and taking into account Canadian historic interests in the bodies of water off our coasts.
Speaking on May 10, 1966, in Halifax at the 21st annual meeting of the Fisheries Council of Canada, this is what the Minister of Fisheries had to say about the 12-mile limit. I quote from a report which appeared in the press:
Canada is enforcing a 12-mile fishing limit- although not against all foreign fleets-and implementation of the new boundary "has resulted in added protection for our Canadian fisheries", Fisheries Minister H. J. Robichaud said yesterday. He was speaking at the 21st annual meeting of the Fisheries Council of Canada.
The 12-mile limit is just one of a host of measures his department has implemented or plans in an effort to increase Canada's fishing catch, protect stocks and re-gear the $300 million a year industry for revolutionary changes being brought about by research, the minister said.
However, when I questioned the Minister of Fisheries in committee about the progress which had been made in negotiations over the 12-mile limit and asked him to name the
Supply-Fisheries
countries which were still fishing up to three miles from our coast line, he named the following countries, including some of the largest fishing nations in the world: France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
When we ask why the government has not enforced the 12-mile limit in pursuance of its unilateral action taken in July, 1964, the minister tells us that negotiations are continuing with those countries which engage in fishing operations off Canadian coasts but that they have proved to be difficult and long drawn out. The minister has never told us, however, what it is that concerns these various countries or what their objections are to this legislation. Why the secrecy?
When Bill S-17 was introduced the Conservative opposition made it clear to the government that they were opposed to a gunboat policy and that in their opinion the problem of fishing limits and territorial seas could never be settled by unilateral action but should be solved at the international conference table. I still hold this viewpoint because the number of countries involved make this an international problem. Of course, Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the process that is being followed at present, according to the minister's announcement today. We are told that more proposals have been made to the United States recently, and we are still waiting for a response that we trust will enable us to make progress on the establishment of a straight base line system. [DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I would like to know what proposals were made to the United States, and what about the seven other large fishing countries that still fish up to three miles off our coasts? What proposals have been submitted to them? It seems to me that Bill S-17, in the form of enabling legislation as brought forth in July, 1964, is nothing but a hoax to date from the standpoint of Canadian fishermen. It was widely promised by leading speakers of the Liberal party in the Atlantic provinces in the election of 1963 and hailed as a fait accompli in the election of 1965.
However, we only have to read the first resolution arising from the 21st annual meeting of the Fisheries Council of Canada, who act as spokesman for the industry and for the fishermen, to know that the fishermen have

October 21, 1966
Supply-Fisheries
not been fooled by the double talk of the government. Their resolution reads:
-that top priority be given to an immediate conclusion to negotiations and declaration of an exclusive fishing zone from a straight base line drawn headland to headland on Canada's Pacific and Atlantic coasts and in an area measuring 12 miles to seaward of that base line.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is it any wonder that parliament has fallen to a low level in the eyes of the Canadian people? I submit it has a long road to travel before its esteem will be restored if politicians continue to practice deceit and deception as evidenced in the 12-mile limit legislation.
I would now like to refer to another matter. In our newspapers and magazines we are confronted fairly regularly with advertisements by the Department of Fisheries in Ottawa, signed by Hon. H. J. Robichaud and Dr. A. W. H. Needier, deputy minister, headed "Operation Tuna-A Dramatic Experiment." I read the following from one of the advertisements:
The largest fishing vessel to be built on this continent, using what may be the largest purse seine net anywhere, will soon be ranging the world's oceans for tuna.
It is all part of a dramatic experiment that could be the beginning phase of a new and prosperous tuna fishing industry. The special project, sponsored by federal and provincial government agencies in co-operation with owners and operators, began in 1963 with promising results. In five short trips, two 92-foot New Brunswick built vessels, using huge seine nets, landed 700,000 lbs. of tuna- almost equal to the total Canadian catch of the previous year.
A new vessel, 168 feet long, with a capacity of 750 tons, will use a net 3,300 feet long and 420 feet deep (big enough to encircle the largest ocean liner). Aircraft will be used to spot the schooling tuna and direct the crew in shooting the net.
"Operation Tuna" illustrates the degree of cooperation possible between government and private enterprise in the development of new methods and equipment. Tuna constitutes one of the world's great ocean resources. The potential of this venture is enormous.
For the last one, if not two seasons, Mr. Chairman, the two seiners referred to in this advertisement have been Ashing off Nova Scotia for herring. I believe that the other ship referred to is, from the dimensions, the Golden Scarab. The Golden Scarab was built at Lauzon, Quebec, in 1965, was registered at Halifax under the Canadian flag, and her construction was subsidized by the Canadian government. On her first voyage she carried a Canadian crew but the catch was landed at Ensenadas, Mexico, and at that time all the original crew members who did not quit were laid off. The ship's officers were replaced by

Americans, and the deckhands by Mexicans or Costa Ricans. The ship was built for the Canadian Tuna Corporation, and at the time of its construction there was considerable speculation over the development of a new tuna processing industry in Nova Scotia. However, according to the information provided to me, this ship has not landed any of her catch in Canada and is not complying with the terms and regulations laid down by the Canadian Maritime Commission or the federal Department of Fisheries relative to the assistance received in the form of a Canadian subsidy toward the construction of the ship.
I buttress that statement with a letter from a former Lunenburg resident who is now in command of the oceanographic ship Vema, who wrote to me from Cape Town as follows:
I noticed on one occasion that you questioned something about the tuna seiner Golden Scarab .... I visited this fine vessel in Balboa last year. At that time she had an American captain and mostly a foreign crew and she was in such a terrible state of neglect and disorder, these conditions of crew and vessel represented to me a great example of unregulated use of taxpayers' money ....
Of course the owners' argument is that they cannot find Canadians to fill the berths and willing to make long voyages. I cannot believe this. Neither do I believe that our own fishing captains and crews cannot learn this type of fishing in a very short time. It is a very lucrative type of fishing and knowing our men very well I think that our people would take it up if given the proper encouragement.
I am sure we will see the day when our Lunenburg fishing interests will be forced to acquire and operate larger and more far ranging vessels and now is the time to make a start in training a small corps of young men as masters and crew by having them serve in those few existing large tuna seiners now flying the Canadian flag and using foreign crews.
I am not charging the minister with the responsibility for what has happened to the Golden Scarab. I am merely pointing out to him that this ship is now operating in waters that are certainly not adjacent to Canada, and I find it difficult to assess the reasoning of the government when it encourages the construction of ships to fish off Peru or other coasts of South America while allowing the ships of every other foreign nation to deplete the fishing resources and stocks off our own shores.
I recommend to the minister that he give some thought to working with his colleague in the Department of Transport and his other colleagues who are concerned in order to amend the regulations respecting capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and
October 21, 1966

fishing vessels, so, that the person who proposes to be the owner and the builder of a commercial vessel or fishing trawler, on which a Canadian subsidy is paid, must agree to refit the ship annually in a Canadian shipyard according to regulations as laid down by the Canadian steamship inspection service. This may not bring these ships back continuously to operate in Canadian coastal waters or to land their catches in Canada, but it would ensure proper maintenance of them while providing some return in the form of refitting work to the Canadian taxpayers who initially subsidized the enterprise.
Before leaving that subject I would also like to know just how much this type of advertisement is costing the Canadian taxpayer. They have appeared in various newspapers and periodicals throughout the North American continent, and when the minister replies I hope he can give us some idea of their cost at least during the past year.
While speaking of subsidies I would also like to point out that we have a very confused set of regulations covering their payment. I have a list of them and the following subsidies are either in effect or, I believe, contemplated:
1.	25 per cent subsidy based on the gross cost of wooden boats with a length overall 35-55 feet;
2.	30 per cent subsidy based on the gross cost of wooden boats from 55 feet to 100 gross tons (a wooden boat reaches 100 gross tons at approximately 84 feet in length);
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
3.	40 per cent subsidy based on the gross cost of wooden boats over 100 gross tons;
4.	50 per cent subsidy based on the gross cost of steel fishing boats over 100 gross tons (a steel boat of approximately 80 feet in length will measure 100 gross tons);
5.	40 per cent subsidy based on the gross cost of steel boats under 100 gross tons.
I do not believe the department ever received an application for a steel boat under 100 gross tons. The minister may correct me if I am wrong.
6.	A special 50 per cent subsidy based on the gross cost of wooden boats 35 to 55 feet in length.
I am not certain about the last item but I have heard that the department considers that a subsidy of perhaps 35 per cent could be paid by the Department of Industry for the construction of aluminum or fiberglass boats. I should like to have this matter clarified. I list these to point out the confusion which reigns among the minds of the fishermen and the fishing companies when considering the construction of a new ship. I
Supply-Fisheries
suggest that surely the minister could get together with his counterparts in the various provinces to work out a more equitable and administratively feasible set of regulations to cover this subsidy, which has proven to be a boon to maritime yards since its introduction for ships of any length by the Conservative administration when it was in office.
Finally, I should like to ask the minister what progress is being made toward lowering the continuing high United State's tariff on cooked fish sticks. As the minister is aware, there is a 30 per cent duty imposed on this processed product which creates a marked distortion in North American production and marketing. As a result of this tariff it has been necessary for the great bulk of fish shipments to the United States from Canada's Atlantic provinces to be sent across the border in frozen fillet or block form at the lower duties prevailing. The world market situation calls for a move toward freer trade in all fish products. In most producing and consuming countries, there now are no overhanging stocks, and it is surpluses, which usually are offered as the big excuse for not reducing tariffs.
I think a sound argument that could be put forward at this time for a reduction in the tariff on cooked fish sticks is the fact that we have a continuing deficit in trade with the United States. In the past we have been able to cover such gaps by surpluses achieved in dealing with overseas countries and through borrowing, but in view of present world economic conditions I do not think it wise for Canada to rely indefinitely on importing foreign capital to meet the deficit with the United States.
There are many more items I could raise,
but we are desirous of expediting the minister's estimates and I hope he will give some consideration to the items to which I have referred.


Mr. Caouette:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
Last night it was agreed that, when the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) came back from Queen's University at Kingston where he went to sell his medicare plan, we would resume the debate on Bill No. C-227, that is some time around two o'clock this afternoon.

October 21. 1966
Supply-Fisheries
As it is, we are now discussing the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. In rising to a point of order, I merely want to indicate that we should resume study of that legislation, as the government house leader mentioned we would last night.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned at about one o'clock, as it was not sure whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) would be back by two o'clock, it was agreed, after consulting with the hon. members that were present in the house, that we would proceed with the estimates of the Department of Fisheries this afternoon. That is why we are now discussing those estimates.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I note that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is indeed back from Kingston, and I suggest that we should return to consideration of Bill No. C-227, dealing with medical care insurance in Canada.


Maurice Rinfret: It is pursuant to an order of the house that we are proceeding with consideration of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. The members present agreed unanimously that we would take up the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, when the sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be quite brief. I rise in the first place in support of the plea made by other members of the house, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), the hon. member for Fraser Valley and others, in respect of the cruel killing of seals. Over the years we have received a great number of letters about this and during the last year particularly members all have received resolutions. This matter is also brought to our attention because today all of us received a letter from Mr. Charles D. Monk with an enclosed brochure on this question. I am not going to deal with this because I understand other members have done so at great length. I believe the minister informed the house at that time that some of the material in the brochure was incorrect. I would add my plea to that of the others that he have this matter further investigated to make sure, if it is required that these animals be slaughtered, that they be slaughtered in a humane manner.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, in order to prevent a lengthy debate on this subject I might be permitted to make a very brief statement regarding this letter and similar letters which are being received by hon. members. As hon. members know, in the last two years the Department of Fisheries has been keenly and directly interested in introducing measures which would prevent any cruelty whatsoever in the sealing operations. Last year, as hon. members also know, I myself was on the ice at the time of the sealing operations. We had with us at that time representatives of the Canadian S.P.C.A. and they witnessed the operations. We know that a very small number of members of the
S.P.C.A. have advocated total abolition of sealing by Canadians. This I cannot accept.
I also have the responsibility to protect the fisheries of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. At the time of the sealing operations last year it was estimated there were over one million seals on the floating ice on the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We must take into consideration that an adult seal consumes from 12 to 15 pounds of fish a day. Since we also have the responsibility to protect the fisheries of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we must consider what would happen in a period of less than 10 years if we were to abolish seal hunting completely. The fishery of the Gulf of St. Lawrence would practically disappear.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I do, however, take upon myself the responsibility to introduce, implement and enforce measures which will prevent undue cruelty during these operations. Following last year's seal hunt, we had a meeting in June with representatives of the S.P.C.A., representatives of the industry, and a number of other persons interested in the sealing operations. We are amending our regulations again in order to make them more complete and more binding. We can assure the general public that by adding to the number of officers who will supervise the operation and by increasing the transportation facilities, such as aeroplanes, helicopters and so on, we are taking every possible measure to take full control of this operation.
The new revised regulations have been completed. They have been sent to those who attended the meeting in June in order that we can have their comments before passing them by order in council. I assure hon. members that I take a special interest in the introduction and enforcement of measures which will prevent cruelty during the sealing
October 21, 1966

operations, but to abolish the operation is something I cannot accept.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In continuing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I appreciate the favourable response of the minister to the representations made to him by numerous organizations and many people in this country. We shall look forward next year to a report on the results of his policy, which he intends to improve upon and to pursue in the near future, with respect to this operation.
I also want to express my support for those who have advocated the need for closer federal-provincial co-operation in the promotion of research and the practice of conservation with respect to commercial and sport fisheries. Several members have dealt with this subject and I support their remarks in that respect. I also think that with respect to sport fishing organizations, which I gather is one aspect of policy which has been rather overlooked, the department should seek greater co-operation between the various sport fishing organizations across Canada in the development and administration of his policy after it has been designed.
When the minister replies I should like him to answer the following question which I have posed to three ministers of fisheries during my 21 years in this house. Could the minister give a clear-cut explanation of the constitutional position with respect to the administration of commercial and sport fishing in Canada? I ask that question at the request of a couple of organizations.
I also want to bring to the attention of the minister a wonderful opportunity for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in regard to the Columbia River basin and projects to overcome the effect, shall I say, on fishing from the building of the various dams which is taking place at the present time. The fish and wildlife branch of the provincial government of British Columbia conducted an inquiry into this subject and their report clearly indicates that there is going to be very serious damage to sport fishing on the Columb a River. It also indicates there is going to be very serious damage to the redfish population of Kootenay Lake and other species.
When the minister replies later would he inform the committee what degree of cooperation exists between the federal Department of Fisheries and the provincial departments in regard to co-operation generally in the development of policy in the matter of research and utilization of staff to the best
Supply-Fisheries
advantage on both governments, and also in regard to the development of programs to promote hatcheries? Lastly, what is being done to co-ordinate the activities of both governments with respect to research, administrative staff and the sharing of expense?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I came into the committee just at the time the minister was speaking on the subject of the seal hunt, and I must say that I am gratified by the information he advanced in connection with the effective action, now being taken to reduce the diabolical cruelties perpetrated within the last few years.
The minister states that the regulations are going to be amended, or re-amended, and when these regulations are passed the cruelties will be reduced to a minimum. I am conscious of the minister's desire to give the assurance that humanitarian practices shall become the rule under the law, but I would remind him of this. He made almost the same speech in so far as sentiment is concerned two years ago and again a year ago. On both occasions he assured the house that the regulations were then of such a nature as to contradict the view expressed by so many that the cruelties were not being eliminated. The assertion that what was taking place was a blot on the name of Canada. I hope that with the submission of these new regulations to the S.P.C.A. and to the other organizations to which he has alluded there will be brought about the assurance under law that what we complained about both two years ago and last year will now fade into history.
I realize the difficulty of imposing regulations that will be completely effective. Certainly the operation of sealing is of a nature and kind that no matter how carefully the regulations are drafted there are bound to be cases of wrongdoing. However, I impress upon the minister, as I did previously that effective, positive action which was then demanded is still demanded. I have spoken with some of those who participated in the hunt last year as observers and they were shocked by what was then regarded as humanitarian. I only hope, now that the minister has recognized there is and has been need for reformation of the rules of conduct governing sealing, that the regulations passed will have teeth in them that will bite, teeth that will be effective. I know he intends to bring that about. His objectivity in that regard has been revealed during the several years that this matter has been brought up. But on each

October 21, 1968
Supply-Fisheries
occasion his exemplary views which anticipated reform were nullified as a result of the conduct of certain sealers. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if my recollection is correct, within the last few days action has been threatened in the republic of Germany against the purchase of Canadian sealskins.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
When the minister has established these new regulations he should make them available not only to the country I have mentioned but to other continental countries which purchase our sealskins so that the damage that has been done to this trade beyond our boundaries and to the sensibilities of Canadians will be rectified. The assurance given repeatedly in the past by the minister and the government that the cruelty had passed was assuredly more optimistic than has been borne out by developments thereafter.
The minister must not regard what I am saying in a personal sense because I think he has tried with all his might and main to remedy this situation. Unfortunately, those who give him advice have glossed the matter over and said there is nothing wrong. That is what they said two years ago; that is what they said last year. Now that the minister has had the benefit and experience of being present during the last seal killing period, with representatives of various organizations concerned in this matter. I know he will do everything that he can to solve the problem. He cannot obliterate the past but he can assure the future.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be allowed to clarify the position once more. I want to make it clear to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that the cruelties which have existed in the seal hunt in recent years have not existed only in the last two years. This situation had existed for generations. It may have been brought to the attention of the government in a more open way in the last two or three years. Unfortunately for Canada, or perhaps it is fortunate that the situation was brought forward in this way, the films shown in Germany which have caused such a sensation were taken three days before the opening of the season in 1964. They were put-up scenes by people who had no interest whatsoever in the sealing operation but were trying to create an image. Unfortunately they created a bad image for Canada. We received evidence of this earlier this year but too late to take action under the present regulations because the cruelty had occurred two years before. I

assure the right hon. gentleman that if we had known about this before definite action would have been taken. Not only are we trying to control the killing of seals in Canadian waters but we have succeeded in having this matter brought under the control of ICNAF, the International Convention for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. At the meeting in Copenhagen two weeks ago the countries constituting ICNAF succeeded in bringing control of sealing on the high seas under the protocol of that organization. This is another step forward.
I would also point out to hon. members that the letters and pamphlets now being circulated in this connection refer to the operation last year. The S.P.C.A. officials who were on the ice, and myself, were able to witness the seal hunt and found that this type of cruelty was limited to a very small number of seal hunters. This year we are bringing in additional regulations which I hope will prevent even these abuses taking place.


Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to take but a few minutes on these estimates because, as has already been mentioned, they have received close scrutiny in committee. There are a few items I should like to raise at this time because of information that has come to us since the termination of the hearings of the committee.
First of all, I should like to commend the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), who has offered to visit the sealing grounds in the spring of 1967. He will be leaving his constituency when the crocuses have gone and the tulips are in full bloom to come to the windswept ice of the St. Lawrence. In order to help him, I am sure that a few easterners could lend him warm clothing so he may have the greatest amount of comfort when he is on the floes of the St. Lawrence.
I endorse in large measure the answer given by the minister in so far as the killing of seals is concerned. I believe this is one of the resources with which we have been endowed by nature and we should use it wisely. It is imperative that some of these seals be killed every year, but the methods used must be those which commend themselves to the people as being the most humane possible. I believe we should continue research into ascertaining the best and most humane way in which seals can be killed in order to meet as much as possible the wishes of all those interested in the humane way of doing this
October 21, 1966

I recently heard the rumour, and I have written to the minister to this effect, that there is a movement afoot to concentrate the offices of the Department of Fisheries-I speak here of the province of Quebec-in an area 450 miles away from the fishing communities. It seems to me that here we have a situation similar to that which we have witnessed in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. For years we have been speaking of decentralization and now we are coming back to centralization.
I am not going into the U.I.C. aspect of this question, but so far as the fisheries are concerned it seems to me that the officers of the department, who must be in constant touch with the fishermen, must have their working place in the area of the fisheries. I would not want us to start a system whereby we will be putting administration on wheels because this would be rather expensive for our country. I hope the minister can assure me that no such move is afoot.
In this connection, at the committee stage I spoke about the technological station at Grand River where there are all the facilities necessary to benefit the fishermen. However, it has been pointed out to me recently that at this station there is no bacteriologist. I would point out what this means to the clam industry, for example. Clam fishermen have to send their clams to a laboratory in Montreal in order that they may be analysed. I know of two cases where the report on the clams was received 30 days late; in other words, the report was received 30 days after the clams were canned.
Hon. members can imagine how serious this situation is when large quantities of clams have been canned and one month later it is discovered that the clams must be destroyed. Then the officers of the Department of Fisheries have to go to the stores and take the clams off the shelves, and the poor producer loses a considerable amount of money. No fisherman on the Atlantic seaboard can afford to lose a whole month's production. Therefore I hope the minister will consider engaging a bacteriologist in that area during the fishing season.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It was also brought to my attention that the Prices Support Board is to help the fishing industry in Lake Erie, and in particular to help those who are fishing the yellow perch. The reason for this is that the fishermen there have received about 3 cents a 23033-568
Supply-Fisheries
pound for their perch instead of 10 cents. If I went back to my riding and told our people that the yellow perch from Lake Erie was fetching a price of 10 cents while my constituents received only about 3 cents and no subsidy, for the sea perch or red perch from the Atlantic, I think I would be in trouble were I to support such a measure. Therefore, for the benefit of our fishermen and for my own information, I would like to hear from the minister the reasons for the price support of the yellow perch in lake Erie.
I would also like to raise the question of insurance being paid by the lobster fishermen in the Atlantic region. I will not question the charges being paid in all the regions of the east because I think the government contribution was a worth-while one, one which has helped the industry to insure the traps used by lobster fishermen at a very low price.
It is rather difficult to understand why three different prices should be charged or three different deductions allowed when claims are made in the three regions in the province of Quebec, namely the north shore of the St. Lawrence, the Gaspe area and the Magdalen islands. If we applied the same principle to the insurance business it would mean that we would have a different rate and a different amount deductible in each region and in each part of Canada. It seems to me that if we are to issue insurance policies to the lobster trap fishermen, we should at least set a uniform price and a uniform amount deductible because these sums range from 25 per cent on the north shore to 40 per cent in the Gaspe peninsula, and 20 per cent in the Magdalen islands, all within an area of 100 miles. I know the minister will say that there are more lobster traps in the Magdalen islands and that more revenue comes from there. Nevertheless this just goes to show that uniform prices should be set on the claims that are made by the fishermen from the Gaspe peninsula who have lobster traps and who are suffering more than others, owing to the inclemency of the weather.
May I also deal briefly with assistance to fishermen who experienced serious catch failures in 1966. The reason for that may not always have been due as much to the price of the product as to the lack of facilities or to the changes in the weather. However, it is a fact that in certain areas of the east fishermen cannot practise their trade. What I am saying now may have to do with another department such as the Department of Public Works, but it seems to me there is a lack of

October 21, 1966
Supply-Fisheries
communication between the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Public Works. I am sure that the same situation obtains in the minister's own riding where the fishermen cannot practise their trade and cannot go out to sea at the time when the tide is right because the weather prevents them from doing so. So they sit idly at home day after day, unable to get the necessary revenue from their trade. I am sure we will be faced with the same problem this year. I am now referring to inshore fishermen who are the ones most affected in our area.
On looking at the statistics regarding the gross revenue of the fishermen in the province of Quebec I find that in the Magdalen islands their gross revenue is $3,129, their expenses amount to $1,318, leaving a net revenue of $1,811.
In the Gaspe peninsula the gross revenue is $1,149 and the expenses are $337, leaving a net revenue of $812. This situation commends itself to the mercy of the government, which I hope will be concerned about it and will endeavour to study all the possible means to help these people for many years to come.
It is also very interesting to note that while a fisherman receives $1,150, his unemployment insurance, social allowances, etc. amount to $793. It is therefore hard to understand why we pay these people social allowances, etc. rather than encourage them to pursue their trade by assisting them with certain facilities which would encourage them to continue to earn a fair revenue.
I should now like to say a few words about the Gaspe salmon, the king of all fish. When we were in committee we were told by Dr. Needier of certain studies which were being undertaken regarding the reason for such large concentrations of Gaspe salmon on the Greenland coast. If these studies have not already been started I hope they will be undertaken as soon as possible because we do not intend to raise Gaspe salmon in our waters only to see others benefit from it.


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise very briefly a question which is of considerable concern to the fishermen in the western maritimes, in British Columbia, I am referring to the fishing licence limitations. This question has troubled the fishing industry of that area for a good many years. Undoubtedly there are economic reasons for the implementation of this licence limitation policy which could result in very far-reaching effects. Like many other problems, that of licence limitation has received a good deal of
[Mr. Keays.l
support in British Columbia but, as happens in the case of many other problems, when the form that this legislation should take is being considered we run into many divergent views. I know that many months ago a conference was held on this subject, I think it was in Vancouver, at which the fisheries department, the fishing industry and fishermen's unions were represented and at which different proposals were put forward and considered in regard to limiting licences of the fishermen. I do not think any agreement was reached, but I believe it is correct to say that since that meeting took place the department has indicated to the fishing industry that despite the fact that no agreement was reached on these proposals, some of them may be introduced without a further conference.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The concern expressed by the fishermen of British Columbia on certain aspects of this issue is well put forward in an editorial appearing in a paper issued by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. I should like to quote briefly from that editorial. The union is concerned that whatever is done in the way of limiting licences may add to the monopoly control of that industry. The editorial states:
None of the government's announcements provides any real assurance that the companies will be prevented from tightening their grip on the fleet.
The minister's announcement indicates that the government is contemplating a boat licensing system, but it does not provide any hint of rules which would require individual fishermen to prove that their basic livelihood is obtained from fishing in order to renew their licences.
Moonlighters who had a vessel licensed for salmon in 1966 presumably would have equal standing with bona fide fishermen.
Again, fishermen who were engaged in some branch of the industry other than salmon in 1966 could be ruled ineligible to engage in the salmon fishery in future years. Yet a person holding a regular job ashore, but who took out a licence and fished salmon in 1966, could continue in the salmon fishery.
I just wanted to raise this subject to indicate, by means of this quotation as well as my other remarks, the concern of the people in the British Columbia fishing industry. I should like the minister, at some time during the consideration of these estimates, to comment on this subject of the fishing licence limitation.


Mr. Orange:: I wish to take only a few minutes of the committee's time to make a
October 21, 196G

reference to the importance of the Department of Fisheries in northern Canada. First of all, I should like to tell the minister that the work of the officers of his department in northern Canada is vastly underrated by his own department. I believe the role of the fisheries department, and that of the officers working in the field, have contributed a great deal to the development of our commerical domestic and sport fishing in the north. I need not say how important the industry is to northern Canada. When we examine the report of the commission of inquiry into fresh water fish marketing, we ascertain that 17 per cent of the white fish and 20 per cent of the lake trout caught in Canada come from the Northwest Territories. It is for this reason we welcome the report, particularly when we see the recommendations which propose some change in the marketing system now in vogue.
The report rightly points out that fishermen engaged in the inland fishery receive an unduly small share of the retail price. It is because of this factor that the people engaged in the fishing industry do not have the economic advantages that so many other Canadians have.
My basic purpose in rising today, Mr. Chairman, was to bring to the minister's attention a subject of which I know he is well aware, that is the future of the fishing industry in the town of Hay River and along the south shore of Great Slave lake. As a result of an outbreak of a disease during the past summer in a city in the United States, caused by the consumption of fish which came from the area of Great Slave lake, the United States government, although it has not taken any direct action, has indicated that should there be a further outbreak of this particular type of food poisoning, it is possible all fish products from Great Slave lake will be barred from entering the United States.
One effect of this action would be to reduce our foreign exchange by approximately $2 million. In addition, the effect on the fishing industry of Great Slave lake as well as the town of Hay River, would be disastrous. The problem appears to be one related to conditions in the canneries. Whether or not this is a fact, I do not know, but I do suggest to the minister that, in conjunction with his colleagues in the cabinet, a solution must be found and found quickly. We do not know whether there will be another outbreak, but 23033-568J
Supply-Fisheries
we do know the difficulties that will result therefrom if there is another one.
A further point that is of concern to the people who live in the north relates to the future of the domestic fishery, and we mean the fishery in which the Indian and Eskimo people are engaged. There has been some difficulty and a lot of disappointment over the lakes which have been opened up to commercial fishermen, a procedure which has deprived many of our indigenous people of an opportunity to earn their livelihood. In most cases there has been consultation with the Indian and Eskimo people concerned. However, there are instances in which the department has opened up lakes to commercial fishermen without consultation with the Indian or Eskimo people. I urge the minister to look into this matter to ensure that the traditional rights of our first Canadians are not tampered with as a result of administrative decisions.
I should like to point out, too, that sports fishing in the Northwest Territories has become a major industry during the last five years. This industry, too, is significant in terms of earning foreign exchange for Canada. Fishermen from Minneapolis or Chicago are willing to spend $1,000 for equipment and expenses to visit one of our exciting and charming lakes in the north in order to take home a trophy fish. It is no wonder therefore that the northern lakes and rivers are exciting and attractive places for United States sportsmen. I should like to think that the Department of Fisheries will continue its excellent work in opening up new areas for sports fishing. The effect of this on the Canadian economy is sufficiently important that it deserves the serious attention of the Department of Fisheries.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the member for Victoria (B.C.) suggested that possibly next spring he might accompany the minister on a seal hunt in the lower St. Lawrence. Perhaps the minister may bring with him as well a great expert in seal hunting, one of those people who have had centuries, not just generations, of experience in seal hunting. I have participated in a seal hunt with the Eskimo people, and I have yet to see any cause for concern on the part of those people who seem to be concerned about conditions which are alleged to exist in the St. Lawrence. I should like to think that the minister might bring along with him one or two of the great Eskimo seal hunters to let them explain to us

October 21, 1966
Supply-Fisheries
how a seal hunt might be conducted in a humane way.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, my participation in debate before the committee will be fairly brief. I have three items to offer for the consideration of the committee and for the Minister of Fisheries regarding the fishing industry in my area.
As hon. members know the riding which I represent, Prince Edward-Lennox, is situated on the north shore of Lake Ontario and it is one of the few ridings in Ontario where freshwater commercial fishing is carried on to quite an extent. It is the source of a fanliving at times for many of our citizens. As the minister knows, and I have apprised him of this before, of late years earning a living from that source on the north shore of Lake Ontario, yes, and Lake Erie also-and there are hon. members in this chamber who represent ridings on the north shore of Lake Erie who could express their views more ably than I could-has become more difficult. In those areas where freshwater fishing is carried on the industry has reached such an impasse that it is practically impossible for many fishermen to carry on their trade and earn a living from fishing.
In spite of the high food costs the prices of freshwater fish in general are very poor. The instability of the market for some time now has been of great concern to the freshwater fishermen of our area, particularly those of Prince Edward-Lennox. As a result of this instability as well as of other causes many fishermen are being forced out of business. I have had many inquiries from commercial fishermen in my constituency asking what the government will do to assist in the stabilization of the market. They are not asking for handouts. They are not asking for something for nothing. They want government assistance to stabilize markets, to guarantee them at least a minimum living from their product.
All hon. members recently received a report tabled in the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce which, I hope, represents a beginning towards the goal that my questions seek this afternoon. I have a copy of that news release. The report contained in it of course is the report of the one-man royal commission of inquiry into freshwater fish marketing, which was started in July of 1965.
(Mr. Orange.]
According to the report-and I quote from the news release:
The Commission's report recommends that a Freshwater Fish Marketing Board be set up under federal legislation to handle all export and interprovincial sales of freshwater fish in Northwestern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
I ask the minister, why is southern Ontario completely excluded from any benefits that the findings or workings of that commission might bring to the fishing industry in general across Canada? Why are we excluded? We are not mentioned in the news release. That may be an inadvertent omission. I hope it is. Why are the north shores of Lake Ontario and also, the north shore of Lake Erie excluded from this report?
I read on:
The report proposes that the board should be the sole buyer of freshwater fish from the fishermen but that services of present exporters, packers and processors be utilized under contract with the board.
I have no particular criticism of that last paragraph because in the past I believe the fishermen have had good service from the fish buyers. Of course, if the market in New York drops, then the fish buyer has to govern himself accordingly. The man who suffers at the end of the line is the fisherman producer. That is one of the reasons, as the hon. member for Gaspe pointed out, for our taking ridiculously low prices for our fish in the Great Lakes districts of late.
In closing on this point I respectfully remind the minister that the commercial fishermen of my area are waiting to find out what will be the guiding principles of the department regarding the stabilization of the markets for our fresh water fish. In fact, the fishermen are waiting now to call a meeting of inquiry in Picton pertaining to this problem.
I wish to mention something else that sorely affects freshwater fishing in the Great Lakes. I regret the necessity of bringing this subject up this afternoon, but it has been brought up in this chamber for the last two years, and we have obtained good results when hon. members have pointed out the flagrant pollution of lake Ontario by ships -allegedly by ships of foreign registry- which come to our Great Lakes system via the seaway, thinking that they have free reign and licence to dump their oil refuse and the contents of their tanks into Lake Ontario. That sort of thing has catastrophic effects on our natural resources. It affects the water
October 21. 1966

itself which, as hon. members know, in these international waters is the basic natural resource of Canada and of the United States.
For the minister's information I quote from an article appearing in the Picton Gazette of October 14, 1966. The headline is: "Ducks reveal oil in lake" and it states:
Oil is again being dumped in Lake Ontario by boats. Evidence is found in two ducks shot in the Point Traverse area this week by Gregory Cole. The breasts of the two ducks along with the foot webbing were heavily coated with oil. There have been several convictions for oil dumping, but apparently the practice continues.
Canada cannot any longer afford to tolerate one bit-not one bit-of pollution of Lake Ontario, especially by commercial users of the seaway, and especially by those foreign ship captains who do not yet seem to have become aware of their responsibilities when travelling the waters and rivers of another country.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I have been pleased to read that some members of the United States Congress have also raised this subject. I believe the United States and Canada should combine to apply rigidly laws that have teeth and that will stop this criminal act. When I raised this matter previously, two years ago, the north shore of Lake Ontario was littered with dead ducks. Once a duck came in contact with large blobs of oil on the lake, as the saying goes, it was a dead duck. I am even informed that when hunters shoot these ducks that are covered with oil, they are unfit to eat. On that occasion I raised the matter with the Minister of Transport. This time I hope the Minister of Fisheries will use his good offices within the administration to stop this criminal act. Oil pollution also kills millions of fish. Many of these foreign ship captains are using the Great Lakes as a septic tank, and they must be taught a lesson.
I have made a list of recommendations which may be of some use to the administration in this regard. We need greater and more effective helicopter patrols. I was pleased that the Department of Transport operated a helicopter patrol last year, which resulted in at least eight foreign skippers being fined, and the fines imposed were a little heavier than those imposed previously.
Second, we need to have greater publicity given about the gravity of acts of pollution through the dumping of oil, and more publicity whenever convictions are obtained.
Supply-Fisheries
Third, an educational program should be provided for the captains and crews of all ships using the Great Lakes waterway. I believe it would be in the national interest if, instead of fining a foreign captain for such an offence as dumping oil, he were banned from operating a ship on the Great Lakes. In some cases if his company pays the fine the captain more or less goes scot free, he does not learn his lesson. But if he were banned from the waterway that would affect his pocketbook. I know this would be a stringent remedy but it would be an effective way of stopping these offences which, if allowed to continue, will spell the doom of the fishing and tourist industries.
I wish to repeat what has previously been said about the killing of seals on the ice floes in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. During the past year and a half I have received over 400 letters protesting against the inhuman practices followed in the seal fishery, and most of the letters were from school children. There is significance in that. The children of Canada are looking to the government to see that these inhumane practices cease. There is an old biblical saying that a little child shall lead them, and I know many hon. members were proud to get such letters of protest from Canadian school children. Let us see to it that the wishes of the Canadian people, as voiced through the school children, are put into effect.
I agree with the minister that sealskins have a commercial value. There is a market for them, just as there is a market which gives rise to beaver trapping and muskrat trapping. The seal industry must not halt. We must still take our quota of the seals which God put on the earth for the benefit of those Canadian people who live in the vicinity of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but I trust that the minister will see to it that instantaneous and humane methods of killing these fur-bearing animals are used.
I noted that the minister said these practices had been followed in other centuries and other generations, and that they were brought to the notice of the government and the public only last year. I say to him that the habits of the past give us no licence to perpetuate these inhumane practices into the future. Public opinion now manifests how sensitive are the feelings of the Canadian people. We do not often have occasion to realize the sensitivity of the feelings of the people of Canada. It is a very valuable quality in mankind. I hope those feelings will

October 21, 1966
Supply-Fisheries
always exist and will be the cause of bringing to our attention things that are contrary to the sensitivity of our people. A reasonable amount of toleration, accompanied by permanent and deep-seated humanitarianism, is characteristic of the people all across Canada.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to put these remarks on the record and I hope that the administration will give then-attention to them.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I would need only two or three minutes for my remarks, because the matter was dealt with exhaustively and also because I do not lay claim to the competence of all my hon. colleagues who have spoken here this afternoon.
I am interested in fishing, in my area, in my riding, not because there is any large scale commercial fishing carried out in my constituency as it would be rather semi-commercial fishing and mainly sport fishing.
I have had an opportunity to speak to the minister, for instance, about a somewhat unique type of fishing, which is found nowhere else in Canada and which we call channel fishing; it is done in January through the ice and is a real tourist attraction, for it draws people from many parts in the United States.
There are also other popular types of fishing in the province of Quebec, which are beginning to worry the experts, for all sorts of reasons. For instance, we have fishes which come to spawn in our rivers, such as sturgeon, which is caught at the mouth of the rivers, since it cannot be caught in the rivers themselves. We use a net, which is a slightly different method than we might find elsewhere. It is then tied live to posts along the edge of the river and kept alive, much as one would keep an ordinary animal on a leash, waiting to be led to the slaughter house. Incidentally, sturgeon is marketed for its eggs, namely caviar.
The eel is another type of fish migrating in considerable numbers to our province. Surely, there is some concern that these fishes, channel fish, sturgeons, eels, smelts and other types of fish, are what one would call migrant fishes, falling under provincial authority, since they are caught in our rivers but which, in view of the fact that they are migrant fishes, come from the sea to spawn in our rivers. I would also like to have the Federal

Department of Fisheries include on the agenda of its subsequent meetings with provincial authorities, consideration of a study of the habits of these fishes to make sure that they will not become extinct in a few years, because water pollution certainly is a factor in the extinction of these fishes, and also keeps them away.
The building of dams at the mouth of some rivers prevents the fish from going up-river to spawn, true to instinctive habits dating hundreds and thousands of years back. This might require a more detailed study than the provinces would be able to undertake.
I would suggest this to the hon. minister, keeping in mind that all of today's discussions, concerning the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, are a tribute to the minister's ability and professional integrity.
It is not every day that I have the opportunity to see a minister receive such consideration from the members of the opposition. Usually, they like to concentrate on ministers with a vigour I would call ferocious in some cases. But, in the case of the present minister, they all insisted on saying he had accomplished a lot since he had taken over the department, that conditions had improved considerably.
I wish to join them in this tribute, Mr. Chairman, because during the few weeks off we had last summer, I gave myself the pleasure of visiting the shores of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and, on another occasion, Nova Scotia, to have a look at living conditions of our Canadian fishermen. I did not do so in an official capacity. I went there incognito, as a tourist; in most cases, I did not identify myself.
I went along the waterfront, I examined fishing establishments myself, I even went aboard some fishing vessels, and I think I speak the exact truth when I tell the hon. minister that 90 per cent of the fishermen I met were satisfied with the progress from which they have benefited during the last few years. I am pleased to agree with those who said the same thing before I did, even if I do not have their competence.
Mr. Chairman, I should simply like to point out the problem of water purification. As it has been said several times before this problem is of major importance not only for the fishing industry but in several other respects. After studying water pollution in the principal municipalities of the whole country, I believe the federal and provincial governments must make greater efforts to help the
October 21, 1966

municipalities to improve water purification, for I think municipalities have to contribute beyond their means to the cost of water purification.
I shall only give the example of my municipality which has undertaken a sewage disposal project of approximately $10 million, even though its floating debt reaches about $20 million. Considering all other commitments to be met shortly, it must be admitted that this is prohibitive. Several other municipalities find themselves in the same situation.
I therefore suggest that the federal government, as well as the provinces, which already provide some help, I admit, should increase their financial assistance to municipalities.
Mr. Chairman, like several other members, I am greatly impressed by the campaign launched, rightly or wrongly, among the public regarding the hunting of seal pups in the gulf of St. Lawrence. I have seen those films myself and I have received, like most of my colleagues, a great deal of literature in this connection. After hearing the minister tell us about the action taken by his department, I think something has been done. As a matter of fact, I might bring up the evidence given by two airmen of my district who go seal hunting every year and who told me that in the past few years conditions have greatly improved. But I read in today's Gazette a short article taken from a dispatch of the Reuters news agency. I should like to call the minister's attention to that article and put it on the official record with a constructive aim in view, rather than to criticize the minister and with the intention of helping him perhaps to promote the efforts being made to enhance the good reputation of Canada in foreign countries which take alarm, rightly or wrongly, at this massacre of seals which apparently is not being effected humanely. As reported in today's Gazette, the Reuters agency has this to say:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)

The London based international society for the protection of animals is planning to send a second observer team to Canada to watch sealing operations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. After observers watched last year's operation it was claimed they had obtained scientific evidence that seal hunters were guilty of an element of cruelty.
Supply-Fisheries

Then the report must be misleading and perhaps exaggerated or the information communicated to the minister is incomplete, since it is said:

They have obtained scientific evidence.

Mr. Chairman, even if the report was inaccurate, in order to maintain the reputation of Canada in other countries, I feel that the minister is right in extending the publicity campaign abroad to explain to all the countries interested in what is happening here, that cruel methods used in seal hunting concern us as much as they and that we are trying to improve the situation.
I have personally been impressed by the remarks of the member for Northwest Territories when he said that Eskimos should be brought over to teach seal hunting to our people. I think that it would be useful, because they are born hunters and have been gifted with a natural ability to hunt. It might be that the vast majority of baby sealers in the gulf of St. Lawrence are only commercial slaughterers. Then, perhaps they would have some pointers for them and the suggestion is appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, I shall restrict my remarks to those things, and again what impressed me, as an independent member, is the fact that the discussion was so objective that it appears a tribute to the administration of the present Minister of Fisheries, and I am pleased to point it out.


Mr. Bower:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to compliment the Minister of Fisheries on his remaiks prefatory to the approval of the estimates which are before this committee. I also wish to add my adherence to what has been said by various members who preceded me, with many of whom I have had the pleasure and honour of serving on the standing committee on fisheries. We made a very thorough study and received excellent cooperation in the committee from the minister's officials during the consideration of the estimates. I am sure the committee of the whole will have no difficulty in approving these estimates.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a riding in Canada which I believe has the highest landed catch value in the whole country. Certainly I do know it is 40 per cent of the value

October 21. 1966
Supply-Fisheries
of the landed catch of the famous fishing province of Nova Scotia, so I assume it ranks high if not highest in the nation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I would be derelict in my responsibilities to my constituents were I not to take a very brief moment to appeal to the minister and his new parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. John's West,

who I am sure will agree with me coming as he does from a fishing area,-to assist in securing the cooperation of the minister's colleagues in the cabinet to see that requests for further development of the facilities in the area which I represent are given favourable consideration. Wharves are part of the infrastructure there, and it is folly to think of expanding or improving our fisheries without an adequate infrastructure. Many of the facilities to which I propose to refer specifically were fine structures which have now been outgrown and require enlarging and improving. On what is known as the French shore let me first of all mention Meteghan. This is a fine fishing port which is now limited because the wharf there is simply not big enough to offer adequate protection for the fishing fleet, which has now grown in size.
Yarmouth is a developing fishing port. Already two more fish processing firms have entered the area, but the present public wharf is inadequate. The harbour needs an additional wharf on the west side in order to take care of the inshore fishermen, who must not be forgotten. I believe it would be advisable for the government to acquire the old C.P.R. wharf from which the boats used to sail from Yarmouth to Boston and which is now abandoned. It will be necessary very shortly to expand the wharf facilities in Yarmouth proper, so I suggest that this property be acquired now.
At Pinkney's Point additional wharfage is absolutely essential. The port presently cannot handle adequately the number of boats which use the facilities, and this number is increasing year by year.
At West Pubnico a very fine wharf has been built but this too is completely inadequate at the present time. The condition there will become worse as time goes on and as more boats attempt to use it. This is a wharf from which fishing both inshore and offshore is conducted.
With regard to Cape Sable Island, which is a very important fishing area in the community, the department earmarked some
(Mr. Bower.]
sums in the estimates to construct a wharf at West Head. Engineers visited the site and tenders were called, but nothing has happened and the people there would like to know what is going on. This island is within the boundaries of Shelburne county.
In the Port Latour area an additional wharf is required at Smithsville. Some 50 to 60 boats located there have no wharf to use; they lie scattered all over the place.
Shag Harbour, which is one of the greatest lobster fishing ports in the world, has a wharf which is now completely overcrowded and inadequate. At Pleasant Point, which is in the Lockeport area, nothing has been done to improve the facilities despite repeated requests for improvements in order to service the boats fishing there.
I would also appeal to the minister to use his good influences with the Atlantic Development Board to ascertain what has become of the programs which were planned and announced in connection with the provision of fresh and salt water supplies to the fish plants at Lockeport and Shelburne. This has created a situation which is causing grave concern to the area surrounding both these towns. I am not going to hold up any further the consideration of the estimates but want to wind up on this note. Having heard the very able exposition of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg in regard to the so-called 12-mile limit, I heartily support everything he said. I would assure the minister that mere promises to regard the matter as urgent are not going to satisfy for much longer the people in Nova Scotia, particularly those in the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare. They require action.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare tempts me to enter into a discussion with him as to whether Comox-Alberni may not be a better fishing area in Canada than his constituency, but I suppose that the best way to settle that matter would be for us to take one another on a conducted tour of our respective constituencies.
I have noticed that the Minister of Fisheries has been busying himself with his pencil taking notes as various members have raised points in the discussion this afternoon, and if his pencil is not yet too dulled there are a couple of other points I should like to raise for his consideration before he replies to these estimates. One of them has to do with the discussion that took place earlier on the
October 21, 1966

question oil the seal fishery along the Atlantic coast.
I do not intend to be repetitive, but as the minister is probably quite aware some of the discussion that came about it partly due to the coincidence of many members receiving in the mail an article dealing with this subject, which the minister said in an earlier comment was not altogether accurate.
The article which I have is authored by someone called Brian Davies. I have no knowledge of this gentleman or of his authority or competence to make the statements he does make, but two of the statements he makes in this article run directly counter to statements made by the minister and by officers of his department before the fisheries committee, and I should like to make reference to them. Because these statements are being made and are being circulated, I certainly think we should give the minister and his officials the opportunity to make some reply, at least for our own information in raising questions with him.
I will briefly quote the two statements, which are as follows:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Will the seals gobble up all the fish In the Gulf of St. Lawrence?
I read further:
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to substantiate this claim and the fisheries department has now admitted this lack of evidence, and, it is to be hoped, have stopped circulating the article in question. Surely any grade ten student knows that no predator eats all of its prey, but that a natural and healthy balance is maintained between the two, providing man, the great destroyer of his environment, does not upset this balance of nature.
The minister suggested earlier today that there is a necessity to control the seal population, but he made nothing more than an assertion. It seems to me we should have something more concrete in this regard. It raises in my mind this question: If the seal population would eat up all the fish if it were not controlled, how is it that when Europeans first arrived on this continent, when there had been no seal killing, they found that the waters were teeming with fish? These questions will have to be answered in all seriousness either today by drawing to our attention published evidence, at a later time by a statement on motions, or by way of some published document. These questions should be properly and scientifically answered. The second question, which has not been touched 23033-569
Supply-Fisheries
on today but was the subject matter of comment and discussion in the fisheries committee, is the following:
A suggestion has also been made that the harp seal is a carrier of the worm that affects codfish. Again, we find government officials now admit that there is no real scientific evidence that this is so.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is not true.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I continue:
Indeed, evidence presently available tends to point to the harbour seal and the grey seal as the chief carriers of cod-worm. These animals have an entirely different life cycle to the harp seal and the hood seal. At any rate, it is logically confusing to justify the slaughter of harp seals as some kind of control for cod-worms. Cod-worm is in the Gulf, and to eliminate it, if this is possible, which I doubt, requires the elimination of all seals, especially the grey seal, a proven carrier. The government seems unwilling to do this, however, since the grey seal, which had been hunted down to low numbers, is now protected.
That is a pretty blanket sort of statement and it certainly runs counter to information that was given to the fisheries committee. Again, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the minister should make a definite statement on this question from the scientific point of view, draw the attention of the committee to evidence that may have been published on this subject and to which we may refer, or should have prepared a suitable document which will give in an understandable way the scientific evidence which exists on whether this kind of statement has any foundation in fact. These questions are not related to the earlier discussion, but in view of the fact that they are being asked and this type of material is being circulated, they should be answered by the minister either through his departmental officers or the Fisheries Research Board.
Mr. Chairman, I have just one more point to bring to the attention of the committee before resuming my seat. Like the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, I am going to ask some assistance from the minister in dealing with another department of the federal government. I am going to leave the Department of Public Works alone but would ask the minister to do something to prod into action the Department of Transport in respect of the manner in which side wharfage charges are levied, at least on the Pacific coast. The Department of Transport has been saying for at least the last two years that under consideration are some changes to the existing system; but nothing has been happening. In

October 21, 1966
Supply-Fisheries
the meantime a situation that really is intolerable as far as the commercial fishermen on the west coast are concerned continues to prevail.
In certain fishing harbours attempts are being made to collect side wharfage charges, whereas in harbours a few miles up and down the coast no charges are levied. In some places where charges are levied there are no facilities such as water, lights and supervision, and in other places there are. This situation is such that many of the commercial fishermen are virtually in a state of open rebellion against the existing regulations.
Commercial fishermen have come to me with a bill in their hands and told me that they would sooner go to jail than pay this particular charge, because they believed it was an inequitable and unfair charge in relation to the situation in which other fishermen find themselves. I am sure the minister would agree with me that this is not a healthy state of affairs. In view of the fact that it is a question which involves virtually all the commercial fishermen on the coast of British Columbia, I am asking him to use his good offices with the Department of Transport to get them moving and to bring forward a policy that will be more equitable and feasible as far as administration is concerned.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to take but a very short time because, as has been said by other speakers, the estimates of the fisheries department have been very carefully considered by the standing committee on fisheries. I just want to put on the record some highlights of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Freshwater Fish Marketing. This report was published only recently and contains many matters of interest to my area. Lake Centre, of course, is so named because Last Mountain Lake is there. There is a considerable amount of commercial fishing carried on in that lake, mostly in the wintertime.
A press release issued after this report was tabled in the House of Commons had this to say:
This one-man commission was established by the government in July, 1965 to consider and report on the export marketing problems of the freshwater fish industry in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and the Northwest Territories.
I am speaking particularly of Saskatchewan, but I know that Manitoba also is very

much interested in the freshwater fish industry. This press release also said:
The royal commission's inquiry arose from recommendations made by the Federal-Provincial Prairie Fisheries Committee which had been studying instability of prices and demand in freshwater fisheries products and the means for improving returns to primary producers by more efficient marketing.
The plan proposed by Commissioner George H. Mclvor follows the system of the Canadian Wheat Board marketing of grain in western Canada. This is probably because Mr. Mclvor was chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board. As I say, Mr. Chairman, he recommends the marketing of freshwater fish something along the lines of the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. He recommends that there be five to seven members federally appointed to this marketing board, which would be the sole seller of freshwater fish. The board would accept delivery of fish only from fishermen. The marketing plan would be along the lines of the Canadian Wheat Board, with an initial price and a pooling of all the fish for marketing. Then a final payment would be made to the fishermen. As I say, Saskatchewan is quite interested in the freshwater fish industry.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I might point out to the minister that the report shows that Saskatchewan rates third in the size of catch of freshwater fish, exceeded only by Ontario and Manitoba. In the years between 1962 and 1964, an average of 14,452,000 lbs. per year were caught, which was a considerable amount; it is 12,3 per cent of the total freshwater catch in Canada. However, what I find particularly interesting is that the increase in the catch in the last few years has been 29.5 per cent over what it was between 1955 and 1959. This table shows that the increase is the largest of any other freshwater fishing industry in the country.
Mr. Chairman, I am just bringing this to the minister's attention because I know that there is considerable interest in the west in this marketing plan and I trust that the minister, and through him the government, will deal with this plan in co-operation with the provincial governments.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, my remarks
will be very brief because I do not want to delay the passing of my own estimates, but I know that hon. members expect me to answer some of the questions they have raised. I thank all hon. members who have spoken
October 21. 1966

for the objective approach they have taken in regard to the fisheries problems.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni again raised the question of the seal hunt, which I thought I had covered earlier. He read excerpts from a certain report written by Mr. Brian Davies. I must inform the hon. member that Brian Davies is the same man who made a statement earlier this year that the High Commissioner's office in London had interfered with the showing of a certain film in Great Britain, and this was proven to be completely untrue and unfounded. He is also a man who cannot agree with his own confreres in the S.P.C.A. Many of them have stated that they found him to be rather irresponsible. I want to assure the hon. member that personally I cannot accept many or most of the statements made by this gentleman.
In so far as the consumption of fish by seals is concerned, the quantity has been confirmed by our own scientists. The gentleman is quoting parts of a paragraph which he has been using many times since last spring, but the facts are that our own scientists have confirmed the amount of fish consumed by adult seals, as I have stated earlier.
The hon. member has also made reference to the Mclvor report as have other hon. members. This report has been received by the government. It covers the problems of the freshwater fish of the Great Lakes. It will be studied carefully and further meetings will be held with the industry and the provincial governments, which have a special interest in the application of this report. Following these meetings the government will decide what action should be taken. I find this report to be quite complete and I hope the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox will read the full report because I do not think a judgment can be made solely on the basis of the press release which was issued at the time. I think that the whole report should be studied before an opinion is reached.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has also made some points regarding the operation of the fisheries officers, having to do in particular with pollution in certain areas. He has asked me for detailed information on this matter and I hope I will be in a position to supply him with it shortly.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley mentioned the plea of the gill net fishermen of the Fraser river. I am sure he understands the situation better than I do because he is more familiar with it and he knows that for 23033-569^
Supply-Fisheries
conservation purposes we have to control the fishing seasons. If my information is correct, one of the reasons for the closing of the Fraser river at this time was to permit the run of certain species of salmon known as chums which was very low and needed to be protected.
The hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Northwest Territories, and other hon. members mentioned the problem in the sports fishery. I am sure hon. members are fully aware that just about a year ago at the initiative of the federal Department of Fisheries a special sports fishery committee was formed in British Columbia. I think it consists of 12 or 15 members who have not been selected by this department but who have been appointed on the recommendation of different societies such as the fish and wildlife society and others. Regular meetings are being held in order to discuss the relationship between the sport and commercial fishery and to arrive at satisfactory conclusions.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg raised the very important question of the 12-mile fishing zone. As I have already stated, we are now taking continuing and urgent action in order to arrive at a solution of this most complex problem. He asked what are the proposals which we are making to the United States and what are the objections of different countries. First of all, what we have to take into consideration are the treaties which are in existence and which affect such countries as France and the United States. We also have to take into consideration the historic rights of many countries, and these are very complicated. We have to say if we recognize certain rights and we have to determine what those rights are. I am sure that we are close to arriving at a satisfactory solution of this problem.
The hon. member has also referred to the tuna operations by the Golden Scarab. I am not satisfied with the operation of the Golden Scarab. I would have preferred the new tuna fishing vessels to operate in Canadian waters and deliver their catch on Canadian territory. However, this was almost impossible because of our lack of facilities for processing and the far distances where tuna fishery is possible.
A new tuna processing plant is now under construction and about to be completed in the Champlain industrial park of Chamcook, N.B. It is reported in today's Globe and Mail that tenders have been awarded to the Yarrow Ltd. shipyard in Victoria, B.C. for the construction of two 200 foot long tuna fishing

October 21, 1966
Supply-Fisheries
vessels which will be operating for the company which is building the plant at the Champlain industrial park site in Chamcook, N.B. I hope that when this plant is completed all the vessels which will be subsidized under our program will be bringing their hauls to Canadian plants.
The hon. member also asked what is the cost of the advertising which he has referred to. We have a very limited budget for advertising in fisheries; I believe it is in the vicinity of $45,000.
The hon. member also referred to subsidies. I want to inform him that all subsidies are being made applicable after full consultation with the fishermen's loans boards in the Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for Gaspe asked for the reason for the discrimination in the premiums paid for insurance on lobster traps. This is a similar practice to the one which exists in automobile insurance or fire insurance. The rates are based on the risks in different areas. As far as the lobster traps are concerned, the amount of insurance depends on the season, on the area, on how exposed the traps are; and even taking all this into account, this program costs the department money to operate.
So far as the price support of perch is concerned, this scheme was introduced in the Great Lakes area and in Lake Erie in particular at the request of the industry and of the fishermen, and the price was based on 80 per cent of the average price received by the fishermen in 1963, 1964 and 1965. The reason for introducing this was to stabilize the price of perch in the fall of the year, because when the catch is heavy it can force a drop in price from an ordinary price of 25 cents a pound to 3 or 4 cents a pound as was experienced in the fall of 1965. As a result, this year the price has been stabilized.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Chairman, these are some of the points which were raised. The matter of pollution has been mentioned by some members. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox referred to a particular matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. I will make it a duty to discuss this matter with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I will discuss with him also the points raised by several other members, including the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Victoria

(B.C.). The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare referred to the freshwater system at Lockport and Shelburne, and I want to assure him this program is well under way. I hope tenders will be called for these projects in the very near future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
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, $18,099,000.
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including acquisition of land for the international pacific salmon fisheries commission, as required by article VIII of the convention, $4,822,000.
15. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $3,025,000.

[Stage Direction]
20. Administration, operation and maintenance, including an amount of $265,000 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, $8,770,000.
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
la. Departmental administration-to extend the purposes of fisheries vote 1 of the main estimates for 1966-67 to include Canada's fee for membership in the international council for the exploration of the sea and to provide a further amount of, $18,000.

[Stage Direction]
50. Operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates, $290,000.
10a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $824,000.
John Angus MacLean: I would appreciate it if the minister would give a brief word of explanation of the purpose of this vote.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, this has to do with the construction and acquisition of buildings and works. Part of it has to do with the construction of a haul-out for the fisheries patrol boats at Newcastle, New Brunswick. It includes also a new bait service depot for the Newfoundland bait service in the Labrador area, I believe at West St. Modeste.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
October 21, 1966	COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
15a. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the subvote titles listed in the details of estimates, $435,227.

[Stage Direction]
20a. Administration, operation and maintenance, $135,000.
Fisheries-

[Stage Direction]
L34a. To extend the purposes of the revolving fund established pursuant to Vote 542 of the Appropriation Act No. 3, 1953, to include the financing of transportation, dressing and dyeing and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals entered into by Canada, the United States of America, Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, dated at Washington, February 9, 1957; additional amount required, $200,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.


David Walter Groos: Before the estimates are finally carried, I wonder if the minister would care to comment on one suggestion I made while I was speaking. I think he overlooked it in his remarks. I refer to the problem on the west coast of dealing with sports fishermen coming across the border and not coming within our jurisdiction. I made some suggestions to him, and I hope he is considering them.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes; in fact, I have already taken note of those suggestions and I am bringing them to the attention of the officials of my department in order to determine if it would not be possible to have the co-operation of lighthouse keepers as the hon. member has suggested.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



CANADIAN LIVESTOCK FEED BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, October 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-218, to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia-Mr. Sauve-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 20-Offence and punishment.
Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Chairman, with respect to subclause 3 of clause 20, there is a reference to the fact that a prosecution may be instituted within two years from the time when the subject matter of the complaint
DEBATES	8989
Canadian Livestock Feed Board arose. I should like to inquire from the minister how he is going to square this provision with the provision of the Criminal Code of Canada which provides that in summary conviction cases there cannot be a prosecution unless it is taken within a period of six months after the subject matter of the complaint has arisen.
In the Criminal Code, "proceedings" are defined as proceedings in respect of offences that are declared by an act of the parliament of Canada or an enactment made thereunder to be punishable on summary conviction. Proceedings as defined in the Code are to be taken directly under this act, and yet this act purports to abrogate section 693(2) of the Criminal Code.


Mr. Sauve:: Section 693 of the Criminal Code contains the expression:
Except where otherwise provided by law-
The provision in this bill comes within that exception to the provision that proceedings should be taken within six months.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is one section here, Mr. Chairman, that has concerned some of us. I refer to clause 20(l)(b) which reads:
-fails to comply with an order issued to him pursuant to this act is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
I have some knowledge of the acts covering marketing boards within the province, and things of that sort, but this seems a very drastic provision in that it definitely states a person is guilty of an offence before he has even been tried. Could the minister explain this section, and perhaps give an illustration of how the provision should be applied. There are provisions like this in the British Columbia marketing act, but you are not guilty until you are proven guilty.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: Clause 20 (1) (b) refers to an order issued. Then you you have to refer to clause 6(g). The order has to be served personally by registered mail. Evidently he cannot be found guilty until the order has been issued. In other words, if the order has been issued and he has not complied then he may be found guilty. That is, if the order has been issued, and if it is proved in court that he has not complied, then he may be found guilty.
8990	COMMONS
Canadian Livestock Feed Board


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to explain how a person can be guilty of something if he has not been proven guilty as the result of appearing in court?


Maurice Sauvé: No, no, he can be proven guilty only by the court. That is, if he has failed to comply with the order an offence has been committed and he will be brought before the court. Then, if the judge decides he is guilty, the defendant is liable to the penalty mentioned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister assure the house that this clause provides every protection given to anyone at the present time under the Criminal Code?


Maurice Sauvé: Though not exactly the same,
this clause follows almost the same language as used in section 42 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and it is put in there for a similar offence.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When this bill was being discussed on Friday, October 7, it was agreed to stand clause 9, as found on page 8495 of Hansard. The committee will now return to clause 9.
On clause 9-Board agent of Her Majesty.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, on clause 9 the hon. member for Kings brought up an objection, which was referred to the law officers of the Crown. I have explained to the hon. member for Kings the interpretation given by the law officers and he accepts the wording as it is. This is satisfactory to him.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When Bill No. C-218 was
being discussed on Tuesday, October 11, it was agreed to stand clause 17 as recorded on page 5533 of Hansard. The committee will now proceed to discussion of clause 17.
On clause 17-Advances.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, after consultation with the law officers of the crown and with the Department of Finance I would be ready to accept an amendment offered by the Minister of Labour.

DEBATES	October 2L 1966


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I move
That Bill No. C-218, to provide assistance to livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia, be amended by renumbering clause 17 on page 8 thereof as subclause (1) of clause 17 and by adding immediately after line 21 on page 8 thereof, the following subclause:
"(2) The total amount outstanding at any time of advances made under subsection (1) shall not exceed fifty million dollars."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was here
when the objection to the clause was raised. I want to congratulate the minister for listening to the objection raised by a number of hon. members on the opposition side of the house and for consultating with the law officers of the crown and then introducing this further amendment.


Mr. Churchill:: I wish he had talked to the Minister of National Defence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: At that time it was felt by several members in the opposition that the maximum amount, that could be granted under this clause should be specified.


Robert Muir: He does not play golf with the Minister of National Defence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister has acceded to the wishes of opposition members. I trust that his example will be followed by other ministers.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Before clause 1 is passed I should like to express to the minister my appreciation of the consideration he has shown to the amendments which have been suggested. I should also express some of the misgivings, about which the minister should know, harboured by producers of feed grain in eastern and western Canada. One of the difficulties arising from the bill is that the feed board may obtain import licences for the importation of feed grain from outside Canada. There is a danger that in buying surplus foreign feed grains it may obtain them at prices which have no relation to the cost of production, because this might be a surplus commodity. In other words, such an operation could constitute a dumping operation which should create hardships for growers both in eastern and in western Canada. We have the minister's assurance that this will not happen. I am pleased with that
October 21. 1966	COMMONS
assurance, but I would have been happier had safeguards been spelled out in the bill.
Answering a question I had put to him the other day, the minister intimated that the only grain which would be purchased in the east would be purchased through the Wheat Board. I may have misunderstood the minister in the answer he gave to the hon. member for Kent when he said that the board would have authority to purchase Ontario corn. Is there to be any purchase of Ontario corn by the Feed Board?
There are a few other things I wish to bring to the minister's attention. Perhaps he can clear them up. I have no quarrel with the board's purchasing Ontario corn, but I believe the minister could make it clear to the committee as to what authority the feed board has in these matters, so that when the bill is passed there will be no doubt about what kind of board we have set up. If the board is successful in eliminating speculation on western feed grain when it leaves the lakehead, it would assist both the eastern feeder and the western producer. If the available supplies of Ontario corn can be used before that commodity is imported from the United States, that would also be of great assistance to the Ontario producers.
If I am right in assuming that the feed board will be required to obtain a permit or a licence from the Wheat Board for the importation of foreign grains, the producers would be protected to a certain extent with respect to the prices and quantities of such imported grains. I am not sure whether this applies to imported corn which would enter Canada in direct competition with Ontario corn.
There is a danger, too, in putting the onus for the issuing of licences with respect to the importation of feed grain by the feed board on the shoulders of the Canadian Wheat Board. Asking the Wheat Board to assume responsibilities which are those of the government could in some circumstances, lead to difficulties between the two boards. No one can object to the feeders of British Columbia and eastern Canada having an agency that would eliminate higher costs caused by speculation with respect to grain and feed grain supplies; but the legislation is going to defeat itself if its purpose is to obtain cheap feed for the feeders in those areas at the expense of the producers of feed grains in Canada. I would hope that the board which we are setting up, while working in the interests of the eastern feeder, will also take into consideration the necessity of keeping
DEBATES	8991
Canadian Livestock Feed Board feed grain supplies in Canada up, to the extent that they are satisfactory to supply the market. The only way to do that is to act in all fairness not only to the feeder but also to the producer.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The other thing I wish to point out at this time, and I know I am repeating myself, is that while the Canadian Wheat Board is wholly supported by the producers in western Canada, and all expenses of the board are borne by the grain producers of that area, this new, proposed board is going to be paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. I do not think the taxpayers are going to object to this, provided the objectives of the bill are what they should be.


Maurice Sauvé: On that last point, about the expenses of the board being paid by the parliament of Canada, inasmuch as the board will take part in buying and selling operations, as provided by the bill, these operations will provide for the payment of expenditures by the board. It is only the part of the operations of the board which has to deal with the payment of freight assistance that is going to be paid by the people of Canada. The operations of the board that are similar in nature to the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board will have to be supported by the board itself.


George Robson Muir: Would that include the salaries of the members of the board?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, and the administrative costs. With respect to the Ontario corn, I would point out that there is already an 8 cent duty on imported American corn. Probably the problem mentioned would arise if the American producers were dumping corn in this country; but then the anti-dumping laws would apply, which would be helpful to the Ontario corn growers who are making tremendous efforts to increase their production. At present there are discussions being conducted with the railways about agreed charges between Ontario and the maritimes. This will improve the position of Ontario corn in the maritimes, and probably after that in the province of Quebec.


George Robson Muir: Would this railway subsidy to the maritimes apply to Ontario com as well as to western feed grain?


Maurice Sauvé: This has not yet been defined, It would have to be defined by the board administration. There is a technical problem

October 21, 1966
Judges Act Amendment involved in arriving at estimating and paying the costs of transportation. What I am talking about now is the possibility for the railways to negotiate with eastern feeders agreed charges for the transportation of Ontario corn to those points under the present system which, even if there were no subsidy applied to the transportation costs, would give Ontario corn a better position in the maritimes, and probably after that in Quebec, in relation to imported American corn.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the bill as amended carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I report the bill as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Maurice Sauvé: the third reading of the bid.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Depuiy 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, public bills and private bills.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT


Richard Albert Bell: the second reading of Bill No. C-20, to amend the Judges Act (Discontinuation of Pension).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to discourage and, if possible, end the practice of judges retiring on pension, some allegedly on grounds of ill health, and then returning to plead in the courts in which they previously sat, before their former colleagues on the bench, or alternatively to plead in inferior courts or tribunals in respect of which they once exercised appellate jurisdiction. Sometimes such retired judges have
[Mr. Sauv6.1
been known to cite in argument decisions they themselves made.
The bill does not seek to deprive a retired judge of an opportunity to practice law, but only to deprive him of a right to appear as a counsel or advocate in the courts. Until recently there were very few cases of retired judges returning to practice. There are now a substantial number across Canada, and for two reasons the problem is likely to become considerably more acute; first, the now universal retirement age of 75 for all judges and, second, the much greater longevity now apparent due to advances in medical science.
The remedy provided in this bill is the cessation of pension, and the proposed amendment reads as follows:
If any person who was granted a pension or an annuity under the Judges Act, chapter 105 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended, or who is granted an annuity under this act, engages thereafter in practice before the courts as a barrister or advocate at the bar of any province, such pension or annuity shall cease, and shall not thereafter be resumed whether or not such person desists from such practice.
My purpose has been to provoke public and professional comment on the subject, and I readily concede that the pension penalty provided in this bill is a much less satisfactory technique than would be rules of professional conduct adopted by the various governing bodies of the legal profession. But the pension penalty is the only remedy which appeared open to a federal parliamentarian to propose.
Since this bill was introduced, the largest governing body of the legal profession in Canada, the Law Society of Upper Canada, has acted, I am glad to say, and therefore so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, this bill has become academic. Ruling 35 of professional conduct, passed by the Law Society of Upper Canada in Convocation on April 15, 1966, reads as follows:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Retired Judges Returning to Practice
Without the express approval of Convocation, no Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Ontario or of a County or District Court who hereafter retires or resigns and returns to practice, shall appear as counsel or advocate in any court or in chambers or before any administrative board or tribunal.
In other words, this professional ruling accomplishes in Ontario the precise purpose for which this bill was introduced. My sincere hope is that other governing bodies of the legal profession will follow this example
October 21, 1966

and that the new rule in Ontario and the purpose of this bill will become uniform throughout Canada.
The reason for concern on this subject is very forcefully set out in a report of a committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada adopted as far back as June 16, 1905, from which I read:
A barrister upon his elevation to the bench is withdrawn from the arena of practice and all that is incident to the position of counsel and the profession. The public look upon the office with esteem and regard its occupants with feelings of respect, and nothing should be permitted whereby a retired judge could have the opportunity to be engaged in professional business, the mere fact tending to lower the dignity of the high office formerly held and so react upon the bench at the time existing -the resumption of practice has a tendency to impair and lower the dignity which should be upheld, as well off, as on the bench.
Again, it appears to the committee, that a retired judge resuming practice is an act of injustice to the members of the profession-especially is it so in the case of judges of the county court where it may readily be supposed that the prestige, experience, influence and social position the judge has acquired in his county will have weight with the public to his own advantage and to the corresponding disadvantage of other and younger members of the profession.
I emphasize that this has been the rule of ethical conduct in Ontario since 1905. The old cliche that not only must justice be done, but it must appear to be done, is highly relevant. What does a litigant think when he goes into court and finds that a retired justice of the highest court in the land is counsel on the other side. It is useless to assure such a litigant of judicial objectivity. What do you suppose happens when a litigant loses a case in which the opposing counsel was formerly a judge? Does he not have misgivings about the impartiality of the judgment? He is sure that he has been "done in the eye". Then, sir, the acute embarrassment to a present judge of having a former colleague or former jurist of a superior court appearing before him has been described most vividly to me by many of the present judges at all levels.
The situation in England, whence we derive our judicial standards, is very clear. I should like to quote from a note very kindly prepared on April 26, 1966 by the Lord Chancellor's office at the request of the Commonwealth relations office in response to a request made by me. This is what is contained in the note:
It is not the practice in England for judges at the time of their appointment to give any undertaking not subsequently to return to practice at the bar.
Judges Act Amendment
I had been told by a leading counsel that this was the practice in England. Here it is indicated that my information was erroneous. But the note continues:
It is, however, so well recognized that senior judges should not return to practise, that it amounts almost to a constitutional convention, and it must be assumed that judges accept appointment on this understanding.
There is no record of a judge of the High Court having returned to the bar since the reign of Charles II, when a number of them did so after being dismissed from office. County court judges, whose office was created by statute in 1846, are precluded by section 6 of the present act, the County Courts Act 1959, from practising at the bar while holding office. This implies that they may do so after retirement, but again there is no record of any having done so. The opinion of the bar itself would be so strongly opposed to such a course that it would be virtually impossible.
Although no precise line can be drawn, the convention against returning to the bar applies with more or less force according to the seniority and permanence of the judicial appointment. No Lord Chancellor could return to the bar, even though his office is not permanent.
I interject to say that some Lord Chancellors have served only for a brief period of months and thereby have been deprived of the opportunity to return to the bar. The note continues:
It is worth noting that in 1952 a circular dispatch was issued by the colonial office recommending that every colonial judge should be required, on appointment, to undertake not to practise before the courts of any territory in which he had sat on the bench, without the consent of the governor or the secretary of state. Where a judge had sat in a court of appeal for more than one territory, the principle was to apply in respect of all of them. This dispatch was intended to confirm what had for long been regarded as desirable among colonial judges.
I am most grateful to the Lord Chancellor's office for this clear expression of principle. My inquiries in other commonwealth countries indicate that the general rule is that retired judges do not return to practice, although there is a notable exception to this rule in Australia, where the late Dr. H. V. Evatt retired from the bench to enter politics and subsequently appeared both as attorney general and private practitioner before the High Court of which he had once been a member. But this appears to be virtually a unique case in the commonwealth outside of Canada, although my attention has been drawn to two cases in New Zealand, those of Mr. Justice Spratt and Mr. Justice Stanton.
The problem was considered in a most interesting case in Ireland, that of Re:

October 21, 1966
Judges Act Amendment Solicitors Act and Sir James O'Connor, which may be found in (1930) Irish Reports at page 623.
Sir James O'Connor, who early in life was a solicitor, but later a barrister, became lord justice of appeal of the Court of Appeal in Ireland until the Irish Free State abolished the court in 1924. Later, Sir James joined the English bar, but ill health compelled him to abandon his practice. His health having improved, he applied to be re-admitted as a solicitor in Ireland-I emphasize the words "as a solicitor in Ireland". Chief Justice Kennedy who heard the application made an exhaustive study of all precedents in England and in Ireland and was unable to find any case of a judge returning to practice in either England or in Ireland since the Act of Settlement. Mr. Speaker, with your erudition you will be able to verify my impression that this was in 1782. At page 631, the chief justice of Ireland set forth the principles applicable as follows:
Such a long continued abstention almost asserts a common understanding underlying these appointments, that, with security of tenure and fixed and adequate remuneration and pension, the practice of the profession of the law is abandoned for ever by the person appointed.
There is good and powerful reason in support of such a rule, for it is beyond doubt that if a man should step down from the privileged position of the bench and throw off what is a sacred office to engage in the rough-and-tumble of litigious contest, and compete with the practitioners for the feed business of the court, perhaps challenge the decisions which he pronounced, or even fail to support them in argument, he will shake the authority of the judicial limb of government, and mar the prestige and dignity of the courts of justice upon which the whole structure of the state must always lean. Moreover, a new way of scandal and corruption would be opened up to any who would pursue it. In the words of one well qualified to speak, though not greatly entitled to be heard:-"The Place of Justice is an Hallowed Place; And therefore, not only the Bench, but the Footpace and Precincts, and Purprise thereof, ought to be preserved without Scandall and Corruption" (Bacon, Essays, "Of Judicature").
If a judge of a superior court, secured as our judges now are in tenure of office, and provided by the state with salary sufficient to maintain his dignity and independence while in office, and adequate pension after completion of his service therein, should of his own initiative retire and apply directly for admission to the profession of solicitor, I should feel the greatest difficulty in yielding to that application.
His lordship went on to find that there were very special considerations in the case of Sir James O'Connor, that his office had
[Mr. Bell (Carleton).l
been abolished as a sequel to a revolution and that the new system of courts was entirely different from the court structure on which Sir James sat. Accordingly, the chief justice granted the application, but he did so only upon a personal undertaking being given by Sir James O'Connor that, and I quote from the order as it appears at page 632, "he will not seek personal audience in any of the courts of justice". So in the result, this interesting case achieved a position which is precisely the objective of this bill.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, in the United States it is commonplace for a former judge to return to practice, and indeed while practising to keep the courtesy title of judge. In part, at least, this arises from the system of elected judges and from the lack of that security of tenure for judges, which is the hallmark of the Commonwealth judiciary. In my submission to this house, the Commonwealth precedents are much to be preferred over those of our United States neighbours.
As I indicated at the outset, Mr. Speaker, the Law Society of Upper Canada in April of this year, subsequent to the introduction of this bill, adopted a new rule of professional conduct which meets the problem in this province fully. This action resulted from a study conducted by a committee of leading Ontario counsel headed by Mr. Brendan O'Brien, Q.C., who is now the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and such other leaders of the Ontario bar as W. Gibson Gray, Q.C., Terence Sheard, Q.C., Ralph D. Steele, Q.C. and R. F. Wilson, Q.C.
The report of the committee, which was adopted, is a detailed and cogent argument of all sides of this problem and I commend it to hon. members wishing to study the matter further. The committee did not feel that a former judge ought to be prevented from returning to practice, but it was of the opinion that such retired judge should not be allowed to appear before any tribunal as a counsel or an advocate. That, sir, is the precise objective of this bill.
If the Ontario rule were generally adopted across Canada, this bill would not be needed and in such circumstances I would be the first to seek its repeal.
Since the bill was introduced, Mr. Speaker, I have had a great deal of correspondence with retired judges, some of it pleasant, some of it not so much so. Two principal issues about the bill have been raised with which
October 21, 1966

I should like to deal. The first is that in its present form it would be retroactive. I am prepared to concede that objection, though with some reluctance, and in committee I would seek to remove any retroactive feature.
The Ontario rule is not retroactive and I think this bill should actually incorporate the same language used by the Ontario rule. But this I feel impelled to say to those retired judges. I believe that every retired judge ought to concern himself as to whether he is exempt from standards of professional conduct which the largest law society in the nation has imposed for the future. In my submission there cannot be two standards of professional conduct, dependent upon time of retirement; and I would hope that all retired judges would recognize what I submit is an obvious fact.
The other issue that has been raised is the suggestion that prohibition of practice as counsel after retirement would add to the difficulty of inducing leading counsel to accept appointment to the bench. Quite frankly, sir, I discount this suggestion completely. First, the inhibition in this bill is only against appearing as counsel or advocate. How many counsel at the age, say, of 50-which is probably the average age of judicial appointees -would view with great enthusiasm a return larly when their financial needs are met without cost to them?
Of course, Mr. Speaker, all who love the law, as I confess I do, look forward to "keeping our hand in" all our life, but there is a great role for a man of 75 in using his wisdom and experience in fields other than advocacy.
Second, sir, the rule in the United Kingdom has been no inhibition to appointees there since the reign of Charles II, and for myself I cannot believe that adherence to the standards of ethical conduct laid down in Ontario so clearly as long ago as 1905 would cause any leading Canadian counsel of appropriate age for appointment to pause for a moment in accepting appointment to a judicial position, a position in which his future is fully assured in only ten years by a pension to which he, unlike any other Canadian, makes no contribution whatever. Some retired judges, I suggest, should pause to ponder on what their earnings as a counsel would have to be in order to save sufficient
Judges Act Amendment money, in the existing tax structure, to purchase pension rights equivalent to those received, without contribution, as a result of a judicial appontment.
No, sir, I do not believe that Canada would be deprived of any judicial services of distinguished counsel by the imposition of a convention which has been adhered to in the United Kingdom since the reign of Charles II.
Judges, sir, are not the only persons to whom inhibitions about future activities apply. Former cabinet ministers, who have no pension, and I think properly have no pension, and no matter how brief their service, are under clear inhibitions about their future activities.
Perhaps I may be forgiven a personal example, Mr. Speaker. Because for a few months I was minister of citizenship and immigration I have had to turn away many thousands of dollars worth of briefs offered to me on immigration matters. I claim no credit for the fact, sir, that I would not, as I think I could not properly, act for a fee in any matter directly or indirectly related to my former departmental responsibilities. I suggest that this is the only acceptable standard and it is part of the proper price which we must pay for the privilege, and the real privilege, of high office.
So, sir, I can see no hardship in the bill. I can see nothing wrong in indicating to a retired judge that if he wants to receive his pension he may engage in practice of law but that he may not appear before the courts which he formerly adorned.
One very distinguished retired judge expressed to me shock that such a bill as this would be introduced by a Conservative. It is simply and precisely because I am a Conservative, a Progressive Conservative, with the deepest respect for the great traditions of the bench and bar, that I have introduced this bill and that I commend it now to the house.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr.   G.-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) for introducing that bill. However, I cannot agree with him.
I practised law regularly in the province of Quebec for 12 years, before judges of the Magistrate Court-now called the Provincial Court-the Superior Court and, of course, the
8SS6

October 21, 1986
Judges Act Amendment Court of Appeal and I never felt for a single moment that the judges of those courts could be influenced by past practice, or by any other case, in favour of one party or another, because they had known or represented one of them.
The explanatory notes of the bill read in part as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to prevent judges who have retired from appearing before the courts where they have previously sat or before judges who in years gone by may have appeared before them; to prevent also such former judges from quoting in their favour before courts decisions which they themselves have rendered or decisions which they have been instrumental in making.
I find it hard to imagine how it can be decided that judges will not be able to appear before former colleagues simply because they were members of that court. Personally, I know some lawyers in the province of Quebec-I give examples from the province of Quebec because I am a lawyer and member of the bar of that province-and I find it hard to see how we could prevent them, as well as former judges, from appearing before that court, whether they are former judges of the Court of Appeal, the Superior Court or the Provincial Court.
That does not matter, Mr. Speaker; I have faith in judges and I cannot see why a former judge should be prevented from appearing before a certain court simply because he is a former judge of that court. I know personally lawyers in the province of Quebec who have been judges of the Superior Court, who resigned for one reason or another and who appear before the Superior Court of the province of Quebec. And why should they not be eligible to appear before that court and quote precedents of that same court they presided?
That would be a denial of justice, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot understand why the hon. member for Carleton presents this bill. One would think that a court of justice is simply a court of individuals. I object to the bill because I believe that individuals who are members of the court of justice are honest enough to face up to their responsibilities. I do not see very well why a former judge, or a judge of a certain court, would be prevented from pleading before a court of justice of a certain province. This would prevent a lawyer from earning a living and it implies that judges of a certain court of justice will be influenced by the decisions of that lawyer, of that judge,

of that person but I cannot believe that the hon. member for Carleton thinks such a thing.
Mr. Speaker, I protest against that idea. I cannot believe even that a judge would be influenced by a lawyer who has been, before him, president of that court. I cannot believe that a member of that court would feel under an obligation because of the decisions made by a member of that court, even if today, he is member of the bar, even if today, he is attorney for a party appearing before that court. I do not understand the hon. member for Carleton.
I am a lawyer, I have had the opportunity to plead a number of cases and when I represent a party before a court of justice, I feel that I am defending the interests of that party within the framework of the law. Even if I had been in the past president of that court, it seems to me that I would not have the impression of influencing the president of the court if I referred to a judgment which I had rendered in a similar case.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the purpose of this bill. Let me tell the house that there was no need to legislate in order to prevent former lawyers from appearing.
Let us suppose that a lawyer, whatever the province he comes from, is appointed judge of a court by the federal government, and that, six months later he chooses, for one reason or another, to go back to private practice. He could not, according to this bill, if I understand correctly, represent anyone before that court, he could not quote any case in which he would have acted and he could not quote any decision he himself had rendered.
I cannot understand that a bill should be introduced to that effect. If an individual, at a given time, decides that he is not meant to be a judge and feels that he would rather be in private practice, I do not see why he could not represent clients before a court of which he might have been a member, nor refer to a case that he might have heard.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my arguments are valid. We still have to give the benefit of the doubt to people who have been instrumental in the making of a decision in a civil or criminal case.
I am a lawyer. I was also crown attorney in Montreal. The fact of being a lawyer and crown attorney would not prevent me from studying a case and remaining neutral. Those are the remarks I wanted to make today. I
October 21, 1966

am not saying that the hon. member for Carleton is not sincere, but I am giving you the impressions of a lawyer who practiced law for a good number of years, civil as well as criminal law, and who does not see why he should be particularly influenced by being a judge or by occupying any important position assigned to him.
I had the opportunity of being crown attorney in the province of Quebec, and I am grateful for that experience. Still, believe me, Mr. Speaker, that did not change me or my relationship, as a lawyer, with the bar, the crown or other judges, and I consider myself perfectly free to think whatever I wish about jurisprudence, about the possibility of pleading a case before judges whom I know and respect, or about the rulings made in the past.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself more in accord with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) on the principle of this subject than I do with the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance). I appreciate the good motive and the excellent drafting of Bill C-20 by the hon. member for Carleton. I think its concise form is a credit to him.
I am entirely in sympathy with the reform he seeks, and I compliment him upon his explanatory notes. I think his notes are so good, so terse and to the point that he could almost have read them into the record and dispensed with his speech. However we over here are always warmed by the sound of his hearty voice and the sight of his emphatic gestures, and we are glad he has been kind enough to employ his time to the advantage of all hon. members. I am only sorry that I cannot go full measure in supporting his bill.
I have only one reason for not backing the hon. member, but I submit it is a really good one. The hon. member is on the right road but he has taken the wrong turn. He should have been making his point at Queen's Park or Osgoode Hall last year instead of in this chamber now, because this parliament has not the legislative authority to deal with it in the blanket form in which it is drafted and presented.
The hon. member seeks to amend the Judges Act to provide in effect that a retired judge who engages in practice before the courts shall lose his pension. By definition in the Judges Act, section 2 (b), a judge includes a chief justice, president, senior judge, chief
Judges Act Amendment judge and junior judge, and of course the act pertains to all the judges of dominion and provincial courts.
Mr. Speaker, the only legislative jurisdiction that parliament has in regard to judges of provincial courts is to fix and provide the salaries, allowances and pensions of the judges.


Richard Albert Bell: And to take them away.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Here we are getting into another area entirely. We are in the area of penalty, in what we are now discussing. A measure such as this that would impose a penalty on a judge who returns to practice, by depriving him of his pension, is not bona fide legislation in relation to pensions. It is rather a colourable attempt to legislate with respect to matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, namely the provincial courts and persons entitled to practise before them.
It is true that from time to time a retired judge goes back into practice and appears before the courts, including the same court of which he was a member. I know of several members of the judiciary at both the federal and provincial levels who have done so. Some have retired because of ill health, and possibly some because of the boredom of the long hours of sitting. In many such cases experience has shown that it is usually not too long after retirement and after restoration to health that an active practice before the courts is resumed. This has brought a good deal of criticism from the bench and the bar, particularly in the province of Ontario, and I feel certain that many complaints have been made to the law societies of the provinces and to the federal and provincial law officers of the crown.
As I have indicated, I do not think it is a good thing that a retired judge should practice before the courts; but I do not believe this is a matter that calls for any action or legislation by the federal government. The provinces have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the administration of justice and the constitution, organization and maintenance of provincial courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction and including procedure in civil matters in those courts. I refer hon. members to section 92, clause 14 of the British North America Act.
The provinces also have exclusive legislative jurisdiction to determine who is or who is not eligible to practice law and to appear

October 21. 1966
Business of the House
as counsel before the provincial courts. Often this power is delegated to the law society of a province. Of course Ontario has dealt with it in the fashion in which it should be dealt with, and the same opportunity is open to all the other provinces. The only field remaining for the dominion is in its own federal courts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the first item we propose to submit for the consideration of the house on Monday will be item No. 82 on today's order paper, the second reading of the
medicare bill; second, item No. 101, the resolution preceding the bill providing for the amendment to the National Housing Act; third, item No. 100, the resolution preceding the bill to provide for the encouragement of scientific research and development and, fourth, item No. 79, second reading of the C.N.R. financing bill. The last three items need not necessarily be in the order indicated, but we wish to start with the medicare bill.


[Stage Direction]
At six 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, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, la, 5a, 10a, 15a, 20a, L34a
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 24, 1966