1967-06-05

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement to the house on the situation in the Middle East. With events in that area, tragic events, unfolding rapidly and at present uncertainly, the house will not expect me to go into details even if I were able to do so.
The house is aware, I am sure, that the Secretary General of the United Nations reported this morning to the security council, which was meeting in emergency session, the outbreak of large scale hostilities on the land and in the air between the armed forces of Israel and Israel's neighbours. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that these engagements may have extended to Sharm el Sheikh on the gulf of Aqaba.
The circumstances in which fighting began are not clear, and already there have been charges and countercharges. The Secretary General this morning was not in a position to throw any light on this question on the basis of reports he had received from the United Nations truce supervisory organization chief of staff or the commander of the United Nations emergency force.
The UNTSO chief of staff, whose headquarters are in the area between the lines in Jerusalem, tried to arrange a cease fire on the Israel-Jordan border and possibly elsewhere, without success. UNTSO headquarters in Jerusalem are no longer in touch with New York. It is understood that these headquarters were occupied by Jordanian forces but, reportedly, reoccupied by Israeli forces. UNTSO headquarters may not, therefore, be able to contribute much further information at this time at least regarding the course of the fighting.
Twenty Canadian officers are serving with UNTSO; our contingent with UNEF has, of course, left the area. Members of the house will have heard, I am sure, with deep regret the Secretary General's report of the tragic
death of three members of the Indian contingent of UNEF and the wounding of others in a strafing attack in the Gaza area. There has also been a report in the last hour or so that a member of the Brazilian contingent in UNEF has been killed. These are the only casualties among the United Nations personnel of which we have any word. a (2:40 p.m.)
As hon. members know, the security council this morning heard statements by the Secretary General, the representative of Israel and the representative of the U.A.R. Urgent consultations are proceeding among the members of the council, during a recess which was called, on the text of a resolution to be introduced and, I hope, agreed on without delay, with a view to meeting the most urgent immediate requirement, which is a cease fire.
When the Secretary General made his report to the security council on his return from
Cairo a few days ago, he included these words, and I quote from his report.
My main concern at this critical juncture must be to try to gain time in order to lay the basis for a detente.
Well, some time was gained, but the security council was unable to act effectively to prevent the crisis deteriorating into war. Therefore, to repeat the Secretary General's phrase; "our main concern at this critical juncture must be to end the fighting" and, after that, to bring about an armistice which will be binding on both sides and which will stick until it can be converted into peace and a political settlement. Surely there can be no further delay or debate about this. If things once again remain unchanged after the fighting ends, the fighting will begin again at some future date. I along with others said this in 1956 and 1957, and I say it with more conviction and even with some desperation now.
But that is for the future, though I hope for the near future. For the moment the security council should concentrate, as no doubt it is doing, on ending the fighting as the only certain way of preventing it from spreading. I am not suggesting it will spread-I am not an alarmist here-but we should do everything to remove this dire and dreadful possibility. Therefore a cease fire comes first.

June 5, 1967
Middle East Crisis
This is not the time to establish responsibility, let alone to assess blame for what happened in the early hours of this morning. That kind of inquiry can wait. In any event it would have to relate the occasion of war to the cause of war, something which goes back many years and deep into basic policy.
The main responsibility for intervening to end the war and bring about a settlement rests with the security council, on which Canada serves and where we shall do everything we can to bring about peace. In particular it rests upon the four permanent members of the security council, the United Kingdom, the United States, France and the U.S.S.R. They should meet and discharge that responsibility, preferably as members of the Security Council and reporting to that body-but I feel they should meet-and perhaps on a high political level. This is a time for very deep concern. It is no time for despair, but for a great effort for peace in that area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I agree that at this particular moment in the grave world situation one cannot go further than he has gone in saying that every possible effort should be made to bring a cessation to the fighting. Every possible effort should be made in the security council to arrange for an armistice. Only at that stage can we hope for a general settlement of the troubles that have beset the Middle East for so long.
At the present moment, with only brief details available of the extent of the fighting, it is impossible, as the Prime Minister has indicated, to assess blame or responsibility. We will have to wait and see what happens, not that waiting and seeing are always the best course when trouble breaks out in the world, but at this particular stage Canada can only hopefully express its aspirations that the security council will be able to take action and that the four major powers there, whose concern with the Middle East has been great for so many years, will make sure that the conflict is contained and stopped in the shortest possible time.
We are living in an age when we cannot face the horrors of widespread war without a great deal of fear. This is one of the grave moments in world history when we are given, we hope, another chance to reassess some of the problems of the world and, if this conflict

can be checked, try to cure some of the underlying causes of that conflict. I recall so well that in the spring of 1956 when trouble was brewing in the Middle East we had discussions here in the House of Commons. We looked to the United Nations to stop any outbreak of violence in that area, but nevertheless it did occur. In the spring of 1956 I was called upon to address a public meeting in Montreal on the state of affairs in the Middle East, and one paragraph from my address I think is applicable at the present time. I said then:
What happens to Israel at this grave juncture is a matter of great concern not only to all the small nations but to the world organization of the United Nations. For the United Nations assembly in 1947 determined the partition of Palestine, accepted the conclusion of the mandate of Great Britain and launched the tiny state on the course that led to its independence. The United States and Russia were in agreement, Canada played an active part in promoting the interests of the new nation, 33 nations voted in favour of the plan. In fact, the state of Israel is a creation of the United Nations. If the state of Israel should now be destroyed the influence and the prestige of the United Nations would suffer a serious reverse.
During the course of that address I also used these sentences:
-the establishment of the state of Israel has been marred by many acts of violence and has resulted in much bitterness and in the uprooting and dispersal of other people. Until some solution is found for the Arab refugees from Palestine the Middle East will continue to be unsettled. There is great need for an understanding of all these problems by other nations of the world.
That was 11 years ago. The situation has now reached a crisis point again and a solution still evades us. I do not know how many more lessons the world will require before we are able, through the United Nations, to settle some of these troublesome problems in the world which apparently inevitably lead to armed conflict.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to express to the right hon. Prime Minister our appreciation for his having asked spokesmen of the parties opposite him to meet with him and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This seems to us to be an act of statesmanship of which we approve in a crisis of this sort. Of course I know this is not the first time it has been done.
Mr. Speaker, in this most serious and dangerous situation there is surely no purpose in seeking to lay blame for the actual outbreak
June 5, 1967

of fighting. In my view the Middle East war really began the moment the UN emergency force was withdrawn and forces began to mass all around the borders of Israel and on the Israeli side.
The great world tragedy, I suggest, lies in the failure of the United Nations to reach any fruitful conclusions during the past two weeks, when it was still possible to avoid the actual outbreak of fighting. Instead of dealing with the crisis constructively and with a sense of urgency for the peace of the world, the security council became bogged down in endless debate. The actual war in the Middle East is tragic beyond words. Equally tragic is the low point to which the influence of the United Nations has been brought by the failure of the security council in this crisis.
This is, I think, a sad moment for the international organization and for the world. In our view, however, this very fact must strengthen the determination of all members of the international organization to do everything humanly possible to rebuild the influence and value of the United Nations; for it still remains the only international quorum for discussion and action to avoid disaster in the future.
I repeat what I said in the house two weeks ago tomorrow. One of the basic problems in the Middle East crisis leading to the present war has been the refusal of the Arab states to recognize Israel's right to exist. I also underline my personal conviction that when the United Nations solemnly established the state of Israel in the fall of 1947 that act, which had the full support of the Soviet union and all the great powers at that time, carried with it a moral as well as a legal obligation to seek a political settlement in the Middle East. This was not done. Indeed, even in the last ten years since the United Nations emergency force was established no steps to my knowledge were taken to follow up the end of the fighting at that time with an energetic search for a political settlement, despite the warnings of our present Prime Minister and others during the debate at the United Nations in 1957.
I mention these facts briefly because of my conviction that even if a cease fire should be achieved in the present military encounter, the danger to peace will continue to be great and ever present unless we learn from the past and follow up such cease fire with the most determined effort to establish a permanent basis for peace in that area.
I should like to say to the Prime Minister that my colleagues and I fully support the
Middle East Crisis
policy he has just outlined, namely that the security council has an immediate duty to seek a cease fire and to adopt a resolution to that effect. It is obvious to us that for the resolution to have any influence at all it must avoid any attempt to try to name anyone as the aggressor, a task which in view of the fragmentary information in the hands of the security council is as impossible as it is undesirable.
It also seems clear, and I should like to underline this if I may, that the solution, if it is to be found at all, lies in the hands of the four big powers, the four permanent members of the security council whom the Prime Minister named. If no progress appears possible at the security council, then it seems to us that a four power summit meeting or other kind of meeting is essential. It is my hope, and from the Prime Minister's words he shares this view, that Canada and all other smaller powers should encourage the bigger powers to engage is such a meeting. It is also clear, and let me emphasize this as well, that the steps both at the security council and, if necessary, at the four power meeting, should be taken without any delay.
The right hon. Prime Minister has often said that in his experience a crisis frequently makes possible solutions which might not otherwise have been possible. I hope with all my heart that he is right in the present situation, and if he is right it may be very desirable indeed that a meeting of the four big powers consider not only the immediate conflagration in the Middle East but other threats to the peace of the world, such as the war in Viet Nam.
Mankind is already too long on the brink of global disaster. If there is any real and honourable desire on the part of the big powers to lay a foundation for a genuine peace, we urge that they grasp the occasion of the unhappy situation in the Middle East to cease big power manoeuvring, which has rendered the United Nations powerless, and seek a settlement of many of the threatening fronts.
However, I want to close by emphasizing that this more long range objective must not, of course, interfere with the immediate objective to achieve a cease fire in the Middle East. I emphasize also that this should be followed by a withdrawal of all forces engaged in the present conflict, by the introduction of an appropriate United Nations presence to avoid further conflict, and by energetic steps to find a permanent solution in that area.

June 5, 1967
Middle East Crisis
tTranslation]


Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) stated:
I am greatly concerned at the news that hostilities have started in the Middle East. At this time, all efforts must be directed to a ceasefire. There Is only one certain way to prevent the fighting from spreading and that is to end it.
I think that this is sincere advice, likely to restore peace in that part of the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, we too, deeply regret the grave situation which is worsening and leading to a world war and we no longer know where to lay the blame.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) just said a minute ago that we do not know whether the Arabs or the state of Israel attacked first. It is not too certain, it is confusing. In any case, formal accusations indicate that Israel is guilty of aggression.
At a time when a resolution is about to be introduced, if it has not already been done, before the security council for an unconditional ceasefire, to be accepted by all nations, one great power says: We will agree provided the state of Israel is recognized as the aggressor. Objections are raised against the resolution immediately.
I sincerely believe that if all the truly responsible nations who really have world peace at heart would work hand in hand, they could, through this resolution, change the belligerent intentions of the countries concerned by exerting their influence to bring back to reason those who, today, would not balk at bringing on a world-wide conflagration which might lead to the end of the world through an atomic or nuclear war.
Mr. Speaker, the conflict we are witnessing today in the Middle East did not originate yesterday or last week, but it goes back several years.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said earlier that the conflict is due to the fact that the Arabs have always refused to recognize the existence of Israel. Now, the cause of the conflict goes back prior to that: from the time when Israel was created by the United Nations. As a matter of fact, the whole territory belonged to the Arabs who claim it was stolen from them. And it is since then that the Arabs have been trying to recover that territory which is the present state of Israel.
At any rate, since 1956, or since the second world war, there have been skirmishes in the

Middle East between Israel and Arab countries. Today, we are still facing the problem we discussed in this house in 1956.
The solution proposed by the Prime Minister is still the best. If we really want to achieve peace, let us first of all have a ceasefire, let us hold our positions, and then meet like men to hold round table discussions.
That is done at the security council. Canada plays its role and I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) for their objective attitude in trying to settle the conflict.
I do wish that Canada will always maintain its stand of calling upon nations to get together in an effort to find common grounds so as to avoid a third world war and to help Arabs understand that their right to live is respected in the world and to help Israelites realize that they themselves have a right to live in this world, which is everybody's world, as we say.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that the stand taken by the Canadian government with regard to this resolution for a ceasefire is a excellent one. Let us continue discussing at the diplomatic level and in a human way, so that people may realize that their interest is not to kill one another and that the countries involved may realize the importance of discussions if there is to be maintained a peace that will serve all the world's nations at the same time.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the present situation is not going to be solved by a multitude of words, but I should just like to say that those in this party support the statement by the Prime Minister that the most important matter at the present time is to obtain a cease fire in the Middle East. I am sure everyone recognizes the fact that what happens in the Middle East will not just affect that immediate area but will have repercussions right across the world.
It seems to me there are two unfortunate object lessons here. One is the failure of the United Nations to resolve this problem before it reached its present proportions; the other is the blow that the concept of peace keeping has received through this unfortunate situation. I believe these two matters put together constitute a very serious situation as far as the world organization is concerned. So we support the idea that there must be a cease fire immediately, and of course coupled with that
June 5, 1967

would be the withdrawal of the various forces to their original positions.
It was stated a number of years ago that as long as the refugee problem in the Middle East remained unsolved it would continue to be a potential fuse capable of setting off a major conflict. I believe that is true, and one of the reasons we face this tragic situation today is that a political settlement was not achieved in regard to the refugee problem. In a measure this would have defused the whole situation. Without any more words said this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we support the Prime Minister's view in this connection.


SILVER-ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXPORT PERMIT CONTROL
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, by order in council
1967-1122 of June 2, 1987, the export of silver coin, silver and silver alloy in wrought or unwrought forms, chemicals, salts and compounds of silver, and silver and silver alloy scrap, to all destinations including the United States was made subject to permit control effective immediately.
The international silver market has been in a disturbed state in the past two weeks following the action taken by the United States government in restricting its sales of silver to United States domestic requirements. The purpose of placing control on exports of Canadian silver is to protect Canadian supplies during this abnormal situation in the market. It is not the intention in administering the control to restrict the legitimate business of established and responsible exporters beyond the extent necessary to ensure adequate supply of silver for domestic use.
In order to avoid creating difficulty for travellers leaving Canada a general permit has been made available to the Department of National Revenue to permit release of export of silver coinage not exceeding $5 in amount in each case for the personal use of travellers leaving Canada.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement to the house concerning the coinage, which is related to the announcement just made by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning restrictions on the export of silver.
Issue of Nickel Coins
I stated in a press release on December 23 last that it is the intention of the government to change the composition of our present silver coinage to pure nickel. As I pointed out at that time, silver is becoming too scarce to be used as coinage. I announced in December that the government planned to introduce an amendment to the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act in order to authorize the issue of coins made of pure nickel for the 10 cent, 25 cent and 50 cent pieces.
As a result of the recent action of the United States government to confine the sales of silver to domestic users in the United States it is now necessary to conserve the supplies of silver in Canada for normal uses, including coinage. We have enough silver on hand in the mint to look after our anticipated requirements for coinage and medallions for some months. We felt it only prudent, however, in the present circumstances to provide the Royal Canadian Mint with the authority to commence the production of 10 cent and 25 cent pieces made of pure nickel so as to be ready to issue such nickel coins when appropriate. Accordingly the government has used the authority in the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act that provides for a change in the coinage at a time when the metal being used becomes scarce.
An order in council has been passed and a formal proclamation is being made to authorize the issue of 10 cent and 25 cent coins made of pure nickel. Silver coins of these values will continue to be produced and issued by the mint until such time as the new nickel coins are to be put into circulation. The mint will also continue to supply the numismatic silver coin sets and medallions that it has undertaken to sell to the public and will continue to accept orders for coin sets in accordance with the earlier announcement.
I stated last December that our plans concerning the target date for the issue of nickel coins will take into account the special requirements of the automatic vending machine industry. Since the new nickel coinage will circulate side by side with the existing silver coinage for some years, it is desirable that automatic vending machines should be able to accept both silver and nickel coins of the same face value. It is our hope, therefore, that we will be able to relate the introduction of nickel coins to the installation of new coin selector devices.

June 5, 1967
Questions



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, presented to the house on Thursday, June 1, 1967, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act to provide coverage under the act to employees and prospective employees on training courses and to extend the coverage provided under the act to certain employees located outside Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1. Has any action been taken by the government at any buildings to require public servants to pay a fee for parking of motor vehicles?
2.	If so (a) at what buildings (b) what is the amount of the fee (c) how many public servants are involved?
3.	What is government policy in respect to providing parking for public servants?


Mr. J. B. Stewari (Parliamentary Secretary fo Minister of Public Works):: The answer is as follows: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. The policy, effective October 1, 1967, is that a charge of $20 a month be levied on each employee of the federal government using an indoor parking stall. The interdepartmental committee on parking is to advise on the application and administration of such parking charges. It will advise also on the rates and conditions which should apply to all other parking.


FISHERY DEVELOPMENT, GREAT SALMON RIVER, N.B.
Mr. Bell (Saint John-Al-bert): 1.	With respect to the fishery development at Great Salmon river in New Brunswick, each year, for the last ten years (a) what were the total moneys expended by the federal government (b) how many salmon were counted?
2.	Was an agreement entered into by the federal government with respect to this development and, if so, what were the terms?
3.	Were any precautions taken to ensure that said river would be open to the public?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: 1.	(a)	(b)
	Expenditure (in dollars)	Salmon count
1956		248
1957	500	1,952
1958		1,171
1959		385
1960		1,789
1961		759
1962	3,000	2,0601963	11,000	447*1964	4,200	2,1121965	4,021(a)	includes expenditures	for stream improvement and construction of counting facilities-does not include costs for hatchery stocking and guardian protection
(b) includes escapement to the river and the angling catch * angling catch only
2.	No. The province has been interested in development of the area.
3.	This is a provincial responsibility.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION CONTRACTS, ENAMEL AND HEATING LTD.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the amount of the contract for the fiscal year 1967-68, awarded to Enamel and Heating Products Limited for overhaul and repairs of aircraft components from the Department of Defence Production?
2.	What was the amount of this contract for 1966-87, and what was the cost to the Department of Defence Production from this contract in 1966-67?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned: 1. $425,000.
2.	The amount of the contract for 1966-67 was estimated to be $475,000, against which the fiscal billings for the year will total approximately $450,000.
June 5, 1967


PURCHASE OF FARMS UNDER ARDA
Mr. Gaulhier: Under ARDA, how many farms have been purchased by the government?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: The implementation of most of the ARDA projects being under provincial authority jurisdiction, the federal government does not maintain a record of how many farms have been purchased under ARDA.


FILM OF RECOMMISSIONED MINESWEEPERS
Mr. McCleave: Were three minesweepers recommissioned at Halifax during April and, if so (a) were T.V. films for screening across Canada taken of each or any of the said minesweepers (b) were some of the crew of HMCS Skeena secured to form a dummy crew for filming the event?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Four minesweepers were commissioned at Halifax on 14 April 1967; (a) yes; (b) no, although some of the sailors who joined the newly commissioned ships may have been drafted from Skeena and wearing Skeena cap tallies pending receipt of new cap tallies.


LOSS OF LOBSTER TRAPS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many lobster traps were lost in the recent severe storms along Nova Scotia's eastern and south shores?
2.	What is the dollar amount of this loss in terms of traps?
3.	What was the dollar volume of the lobster industry in each of these districts last year (a) to the fishermen (b) to the industry?
4.	What percentage of this loss is covered by insurance?
5.	What action is planned by federal-provincial authorities to ease the serious losses to the lobster industry?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: 1. Fishermen reported 69,763 traps lost in the storm of April 28 and 29.
2.	Approximately $348,640.
3.	(a) District No. 4, $2,409,800; District No. 5, $727,900. (b) Not available.
4.	Six fishermen carried lobster trap insurance under the fishermen's indemnity plan.
5.	No representations concerning assistance have been received from the government of Nova Scotia.
Questions


PENSION TO GOVERNOR OR DEPUTY GOVERNOR, BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has any change been made in the by-laws of the Bank of Canada dealing with the provisions for pensions for the governor or a deputy governor?
2.	If so (a) when (b) what is the nature and effect of such change?
3.	Upon what bases or principles will pensions for such persons be calculated hereafter, and how do these bases or principles differ from those previously in force?
4.	What persons are now in receipt of pension as a result of service as a governor or deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, and upon what bases or principles were each of their pensions determined?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1,	2 and 3: Bill C-190, first session, twenty seventh parliament, an act to amend the Bank of Canada Act (1966-67, c.88), required that the bank's pension fund by-law provisions relating to the payment of a pension in respect of the retirement of the governor or deputy governor otherwise than by reason of age or disability be approved by the governor in council. After Bill C-190 received royal assent the board of directors of the bank enacted by-law 16 which extracts and consolidates those provisions of the bank's pension fund by-law (by-law 15) which relate to the retirement of the governor or deputy governor otherwise than by reason of age or disability; the only change was to eliminate a five year waiting period, which had no effect in respect of appointees from within the bank. By-law 16 was approved by the governor in council on April 18, 1967. This by-law, like by-law 15 and all other bylaws of the bank together with amendments thereto, is a matter of public record in the Canada Gazette.
4. Two persons are in receipt of pension as a result of service as governor or deputy governor of the bank. In each case the pension was determined on the basis of the published provisions of by-law 15 in effect at the date of retirement of the person concerned.


UNIFORMS FOR ARMED FORCES
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many uniforms of each of the forces, army, navy and air force, did the Department of National Defence have on hand as of March 31 1967?
2.	What was the inventory cost of the uniforms on hand for each force?

June 5. 1967
Questions


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. and 2.
R.C.N.	Stock	CostNavy jumpers	17,429	$ 184,748.00Navy trousers	12,638	116,902.00White jumpers	13,746	65,981.00White trousers	23,813	104,778.00Khaki summer coats	4,266	121,154.00Khaki summer trousers	4,401	36,088.00Total	$ 629,651.00Army Khaki battledress coat	132,170	$1,856,195.00Khaki battledress trousers	155,682	1,660,193.00Khaki summer coats	28,599	827,083.00Khaki summer trousers	34,780	298,656.00Total	$4,642,127.00R.C.A.F. Blue coats	29,263	$ 897,500.00Blue trousers	25,003	244,800.00Blue work coats	72,709	2,076,570.00Blue work trousers	80,483	833,804.00Khaki summer coats	34,414	1,016,590.00Khaki summer trousers	29,186	269,679.00Total	$5,338,943.00


CONSIDERATION OF TROIS-RIVIERES AS DESIGNATED AREA
Mr. Mongrain: What is the most recent date on which the officers of the federal department concerned have considered the region of Trois-Rivieres, in order to determine whether it should be termed a designated area or not?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Officials of the Department of Industry reviewed the unemployment and employment situation in the Canada Manpower Centre area of Trois-Rivieres in the month of April 1967 during a review of the Area Development Program. It was found that the C.M.C. area of Trois-Rivieres did not meet the prescribed conditions of high unemployment, 
employment decline and low income in order to become a designated area.


PROMOTIONAL EXAMINATIONS FOR OFFICERS, ARMED FORCES
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Have promotional examinations for officers been discontinued in Canada's regular forces?
2.	If so, when was this action taken and for what reasons was it taken?
3.	What is the present method and what are the criteria for promotion in Canada's armed forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: In the past, army officers were required to pass both theoretical and practical examinations to qualify for captain and major ranks. R.C.A.F. short service officers, not regular officers, had to pass theoretical examinations only, before promotion to flight lieutenant. Navy officers had no promotion examinations requirement other than to obtain a watchkeeping certificate before promotion to navy lieutenant. These inconsistencies in the promotion prerequisites of the three services have created serious inequities among officers. As a result, army and air force theoretical examinations are being terminated following completion of the 1967 series. The new common policy will permit all officers to be assessed by an annual promotion board based on: (a) merit and potential for more senior rank; (b) the serving of at least minimum specified time in rank to ensure experience and knowledge have been gained for the next higher rank, and to provide time for proper assessment of suitability for promotion; (c) recommendations of senior supervising officers.


DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICSBUILDING ALTERATIONS
Mr. Bell (Carlefon): 1.	Are alterations and additions being undertaken at the Dominion Bureau of Statistics building?
2.	If so, what is the nature and purpose of such alterations and additions?
3.	What is the estimated cost of such alterations and additions?
4.	What additional space, expressed in square feet or additional facility, will be provided?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Alterations are being undertaken at Dominion Bureau of Statistics building but no additions are being undertaken.
June 5, 1967



2.	The alteration consists of the installation of air conditioning equipment in the mechanical system in order to provide better working conditions.
3.	A contract was awarded for this work on May 4, 1967 in the amount of $68,670.
4.	No additional space will be provided.


OTTAWA, ONT.-CENTRAL HEATING PLANT
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	When is it anticipated that the improvements to the central heating plant on Cliff street, Ottawa, will be completed?
2.	What, in detail, is the nature of such improvements?
3.	What is the estimated total cost of such Improvements?


George James McIlraith: 1. The completion of this project is scheduled for June 1969.
2.	The improvements are carried out in five phases. The nature of the work involved in each phase is as follows:
Phase I: Renovation and extension of the old distribution system in the east and south tunnels. This involved the removal of approximately 13,000 lineal feet of old piping and the installation of approximately 18,000 lineal feet of new pipe. This phase is now completed.
Phase II: The construction of approximately 2,000 lineal feet of service tunnel under parliament hill and Confederation square. This phase is also completed.
Phase III: The construction of the central plant. This includes the installation of two refrigeration machines, one to serve as an auxiliary. It also includes chilled water and cooling water pump, water intake and treatment works, sub-station, switchgear, diesel generator set, plant piping, instrumentation, telemetering, control room, plant services, maintenance and locker facilities. Construction will start in the near future.
Phase IV: This part involves the construction of approximately 20,000 lineal feet of piping for the distribution system in the National Arts Centre, in the future National Museum, and across the Rideau canal, with a terminal in the Chateau Laurier hotel. This phase is under construction.
Phase V: This phase, which is now completed, consisted of structural alterations to the Cliff street plant, involving gutting the
Questions
middle section of the building, removal of coal and ash handling facilities, building a new roof suitable for parking over the gutted area of approximately 55 feet by 130 feet previously occupied by six old steam boilers which have been removed to provide space for the new refrigeration plant.
3.	The total estimated cost of the improvements is $6,378,856.


OTTAWA, ONT.-POLICE SERVICES BUILDING
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	In what location in the city of Ottawa will the building for the national police services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, be erected?
2.	When will the building be (a) commenced (b) completed?
3.	What is the estimate of the total cost of the
building?
4.	How many square feet of space will the building contain?


George James McIlraith: 1. On federal property immediately adjoining R.C.M.P. headquarters, at Queensway and Alta Vista drive.
2.	(a) It is intended to start construction in the summer of 1968; (b) spring 1970.
3.	It is not customary to reveal the estimated cost before tenders are received.
4.	Approximately 147,000 square feet gross.


H.M.C. DOCKYARD TRAFFIC CONTROL
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to turn over to civil authority for administration the control of traffic and/or parking at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax?
2.	If so, is this by private agreement with the city of Halifax?
3.	For what reason is this step being taken?
4.	Does it involve the loss of employment to any
person?
5.	When would such a change take place?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. No.
2, 3, 4 and 5. Not applicable.


PROPERTY FIRES
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the total number of property fires in Canada in 1964 and in 1965?
2.	What percentage of these fires was attributable to smoking?
June 5, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
3.	What was the estimated loss of life In such smoking-caused fires?
4.	What was the estimated financial loss of such smoking-caused fires?


John B. Stewart: The answer is as follows:
1964	1965
1. Total number of property fires	75,306	68,4322.	Percentage known to be attributable to smoking	33%	35%3.	Loss of life in fires known to becaused by smoking	52	654.	Financial loss due to fires knownto be caused by smoking	$10,275,193	$12,135,568


ATLANTIC PROVINCES UNEMPLOYED
Mr. Crossman: What was the percentage of the labour force unemployed in the Atlantic provinces for the three months ending in April of each year from 1961 to 1967 inclusive?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The figures are as follows:
February	March	April1961	18.3	18.3	17.51962	16.5	17.1	15.91963	15.2	15.6	14.41964	12.9	13.2	12.31965	13.3	12.5	12.81966	10.9	10.5	8.61967	10.4	10.6	9.9


NATIONAL DEFENCE EXPENDITURES BY PROVINCES
Mr. Allard: During the fiscal years 1966 and 1967, excluding sums devoted to armament programs, how much did the Department of National Defence spend in each province, on salaries for the members of the armed forces and civilian personnel, travelling expenses, food supplies, heating, clothing and similar items?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Information is not now
available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct

to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the government prepared to actively support any recommendation that may be made by the security council or the general assembly of the United Nations concerning the present crisis and conflict in the Near East?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly discharge the commitments we undertook when we signed the charter, and those commitments involve decisions of the security council.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister one further question regarding the crisis in the Middle East. Is the Prime Minister himself considering going to New York to participate in the security council efforts to achieve a cease fire?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think that would depend on circumstances. We have an ambassador acting very effectively on the council. If it were required to have the minister responsible, the minister of external affairs, to supplement his efforts by taking the Canadian seat, I know he would be glad to go. If it came to the point that I could be of any value at the security council, I would be quite happy to go, but I do not think that situation has arisen and I am not sure that it ever will arise.


CANADIAN MEMBERS OF EMERGENCY FORCE AND SUPERVISORY ORGANIZATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it may be worth having on record an answer from the government as to whether
June 5. 1967	COMMONS
one is right in assuming that all Canadian members of UNEF have been withdrawn from any area of danger. I should also like to ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs where any of our personnel in the supervisory organization are now to be found.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to
answer the question. In so far as the United Nations emergency force is concerned, all Canadian members of that force were withdrawn and almost all of them are in Canada. A very small number were allowed to remain in Europe or to come back through Europe, taking their leave there and returning to this country in about two weeks time.
In so far as UNTSO is concerned, as the Prime Minister indicated there are 20 officers who are members of the United Nations truce supervisory organization. Their deployment comes under the control of the commander of the supervisory organization; therefore we have no way of knowing from time to time exactly where they are. In most instances a very small number would be in Jerusalem at the headquarters, but most of them would be somewhere along the borders which they are charged with supervising. Therefore I cannot give the hon. member a specific answer as to where each person would be at this particular moment, but we have no reports of any of them being in any imminent danger.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, we have been advised today of the whereabouts of Canadian armed forces personnel who have been serving in the Middle East, but I am sure many of us would be interested in knowing just what plans are under way to provide for the safety of civilian personnel in those areas.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago instructions were sent to all Canadian heads of missions to advise Canadians in countries of the Middle East and who were not on urgent business to make arrangements to leave. In addition, arrangements were made for the departure of dependants of Canadian officials at our missions and of some staff unless such departure would interfere with the dispatch of Canadian government business in the territories concerned.
Arrangements are being discussed with charter air flight companies for the possible
DEBATES	1133
Inquiries of the Ministry transportation of Canadians from dangerous areas. This will depend, of course, on whether planes can fly into particular countries. We have now been advised it is not possible to fly into the United Arab Republic, but other countries may be open. In any event, all possible steps are being taken to protect Canadian civilians who may still be in the countries involved.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Have the wives and dependants of the officials of the Department of External Affairs and other government employees in Israel and Egypt actually been evacuated, or are they still there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some have left and some are still there.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: A supplementary question. Would the Minister of National Defence make it clear that his reply to a question a few moments ago with regard to the United Nations emergency force, and so on, applied only to Canadians? He did not make that clear.


Mr. Hellyer:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it applied only to Canadians. As the Prime Minister indicated, there were some casualties today in other contingents of the United Nations emergency force.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the report that the United Nations truce supervisory organization headquarters in Jerusalem has been overrun, has a secondary headquarters been established in this emergency?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question. The information available about the subject today is not sufficiently clear for me to be in a position to reply at this time.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General who announced earlier that new 10 cent and 25 cent nickel pieces would be put in circulation instead of silver pieces.
June 5, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
Since nickel is lighter than silver, does the minister intend to order more nickel pieces than there are silver pieces now in circulation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we shall issue as much coinage as is necessary to discharge the purposes for which coinage is used.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General.
Can he tell us if the 25 cent nickel pieces will be worth exactly the same as the silver pieces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will command 25 cents worth of merchandise, just as the silver coins. Of course there will be a somewhat greater seignorage or profit to the government.


WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO POSITION UNDER OLD AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce under whose jurisdiction falls the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister inform the house what is the status of the old international wheat agreement in the light of the pending new Geneva agreement? Will there be any changes, and if so what will they be?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member is now asking for a statement which might more properly be made on motions.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question and should be answered right now, for the simple reason that the farmers in the west have planted their wheat and are waiting to know where they stand in light of the new wheat agreement.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer this very briefly. On June 1 our ambassador in Washington did sign on behalf of the government of Canada a protocol extending the administrative articles of the 1962 wheat agreement until July 31, 1968, with provision for earlier termination in the event of a new

agreement covering wheat coming into force before that date. This action was recommended by member governments of the international wheat council at its 48th session last April.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce related to that asked by the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale. Would the minister not consider issuing a statement by way of clarification later inasmuch as many farmers are under the impression that if they withhold their sales this year they will receive a higher price next year? If the wheat board asking price continues at this year's level there will not be an increase and as a result the final payment will be reduced by the amount of the extra initial payment.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really asking two questions. The first seems to me to relate to the price of wheat which is determined by the conditions of the market place, by supply and demand. The wheat agreement really establishes the maximum and the minimum prices. The hon. member's other question related to the initial price. Of course the total price paid is made up of the initial payment and the final payment. The larger the initial payment, the less will be the final payment, to make up the total price.


NATIONAL DISASTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister about a matter in which I am very interested indeed, as are many other Canadians.
In view of the recent Fernie disaster, the possibility of disaster to the residents of Sioux Lookout and Chapleau and other disasters, has the government given consideration to the need for a Canadian disaster fund after the fashion of the bill introduced by the member for Kootenay West, that will provide for a Canada disaster fund to which contributions can be made in advance by federal and provincial governments and by individuals, companies, and institutions for assistance where the losses are considered of national scope?
June 5, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think this is a question that requires a much too general answer. I suggest to the hon. member that it can hardly be asked at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the answer could simply be yes or no.


INQUIRY AS TO GRANT TO AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the minister of health and welfare. In view of the fact that the National Hockey League recently announced a grant of $250,000 to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, will the minister tell the house whether the government, as has been reported in some newspapers, plans to discontinue its grants to the amateur hockey association?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he put the question on the order paper.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, this is urgent, in that the National Hockey League is being doubled in size.


Mr. Speaker:: The question might be debated at the time of adjournment.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister give the assurance that export credits will be and are available to the Sydney DOSCO works in order to obtain potential orders?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss this with the minister responsible, but I feel quite certain that the company concerned would have access to export credits in exactly the same way as any other corporation.


Robert Henry Winters: They always have.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Minister of Industry whether any representations have been made by Mr. Drury, the president of
Inquiries of the Ministry DOSCO, for a hearing with his department -that is, the Department of Industry-regarding the situation at the Sydney steel plant and the large scale lay-offs there.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr
Speaker, a further supplementary question which I direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who seems to have considerable knowledge of this subject. I would ask him whether he is aware of any delays at the moment which are preventing potential orders from being filled.
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): No, Mr. Speaker, there are no delays. We have always processed requests from DOSCO expeditiously, and as I recall at least one request went through during the last few days.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We might return to this subject after we have given other members an opportunity to ask questions.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious situation confronting the employees of the DOSCO steel plant in Sydney as a result of the drastic cut-backs and lay-offs, may I ask whether the minister or his officials, either in Canada or abroad, are making efforts to try to secure overseas orders under the export credits legislation to assist this plant and most important, its employees?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the initiative must come from the company itself. We are in the midst now of a new export drive known as "Export Operation 1967", and the totality of our exports has gone up satisfactorily. This has in part been made possible through the use of the export credit facilities, and DOSCO has been taking full advantage of them.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's statement, may I ask him whether he is suggesting that Mr. Drury the president of DOSCO, and the company are not trying to secure orders on behalf of the company and its people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
June 5, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since he indicated that a recent order or agreement had been signed within the last few days could he also indicate with what country it was signed and what is the tonnage or dollar value involved?


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I shall get that information. It has passed over my desk. Whether it has been finally approved by the government I am not sure.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not realize, as most people in Cape Breton do, that the initiative really belongs to the company and that what the Liberals of Nova Scotia are saying is all wrong?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question. Having in mind the very important ruling made over the week end by the United States federal trade commission to the effect that television stations carrying advertisements promoting cigarette sales must in future also carry a caution against such sales by bringing in material about cigarette smoking and disease, is the minister giving consideration to comparable legislation in this field in Canada?
Kon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, we are not
giving consideration to comparable legislation, but we do have under consideration steps that might be taken with respect to the hazards involved in cigarette smoking.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works; in his absence, perhaps his parliamentary secretary might answer. This is 
a department for which I have great regard, Mr. Speaker.
Is the minister in a position to tell us whether the rumours to the effect that federal buildings will be built very shortly in the Hull area are true? I know that the Minister of Public Works is anxious to give me an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might put his question on the order paper.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works but in his absence and that of the acting minister I direct it to the parliamentary secretary. Might I begin by injec-ing my pleasurable response to the news report of Colonel Churchill's appointment to an important position vis-a-vis the Northumberland crossing. Can the minister say when Colonel Churchill will take administrative responsibility for this project, and can the minister indicate the terms of reference of Colonel Churchill or make public the instrument of his appointment?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this information can be made available. I will bring the matter to the attention of the minister, and he will see to it that a full answer is made.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he give the house a report on the purpose and conclusions of the meeting of the NATO council, which it is reported was held earlier today to consider the Middle East situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this was a meeting of the permanent ambassadors of the 15 NATO countries. In conformity with established practice, any situation that in any way involves a threat to peace or a violation of
June 5, 1967

peace is a matter of concern to NATO members. The use of this forum for discussions, which as my hon. friend knows are private, gives the various countries an opportunity to compare assessments with the foreign offices of the countries represented on the council, and this was done. The meeting has not concluded.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have these melancholy events in the mid-East since the week end began given any indication of affecting Expo; for example, the participation in Expo by other countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I know of only one country that has taken action, not because of the events of today but because of alleged events of several days ago.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Registrar General in his capacity as Acting Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the management of the National Harbours Board in Halifax are requiring their office employees to carry out the normal functions of workers who are now on strike at the National Harbours Board grain elevator in Halifax? Will the minister investigate the situation and see what further steps can be taken to settle this dispute?


Hon. John N. Turner (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have investigated this incident in Halifax. On May 25 approximately 150 employees walked off the job as the result of a dispute relating to the hiring of one employee. As a result of urgent appeals from the agricultural sector of the maritimes, including the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and officials of the government of Nova Scotia, regarding the problem of supplying domestic feed to farmers, employees of the National Harbours Board, not members of the local union, have been moving or allowing grain to move over the week
Inquiries of the Ministry end. The National Harbours Board has suggested a compromise solution which so far has not been accepted. Everything at the moment is still peaceful.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Transport who, from what I have been reading in Weekend magazine, is interested in the young people of this country. I wish he would take an interest in the older people of this country and talk to Air Canada about the lack of adequate transportation to western Canada at the present time. We are finding it difficult to obtain seats on aircraft. If the minister, with his usual energy and enthusiasm, can deal with this problem, it will advance the cause of Canada very considerably.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I believe that on Air Canada people get seats in order of seniority. I will pass on that request to Air Canada.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries. Owing to the late spring start and the bad weather conditions in district 7B, I wonder how soon the minister will be able to inform us of an extended season for that lobster fishing area.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I believe I made it very clear in the house on two or three different occasions that no decision could be taken on an extension until the season was well advanced so that we could assess the catch and compare it with the catch of previous years. I can assure hon. members that at least ten days before the normal closing of the season an announcement will be made on the question raised by the hon. member.
June 5, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
NATIONAL DEFENCE	External Affairs information about the situahalifax-negotiations with motor tion there in general and the lot and condition transport union	of Canadians in particular?
On the orders of the day:


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of the peaceful demonstrations over the week end outside armed forces establishments in the Halifax and Dartmouth area by members of the motor transport, labour and yardcraft local union 273, would the department step up its negotiations with this union which to date has been quite patient in its argument over wages and working conditions?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue to negotiate as usual with these people.


Robert Jardine McCleave: When the minister says "as usual"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Does he intend to have the joint committee on penitentiaries re-established? I understand that the minister addressed a letter to the former co-chairman with respect to the reactions of the minister's department to the recommendations which were made last year.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to learn that I addressed the same letter to all members of that committee. I hope the committee will be reconstituted, as I found it most helpful in considering penitentiary matters.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, in the light of continuous and disturbing reports from our commonwealth colleague, Nigeria, has the Secretary of State for


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I indicated on Friday, Mr. Speaker, every precaution has been taken, through Canadian action or in consort with other countries, to provide for the safety of Canadians.

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


[Stage Direction]
1. Department administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates. $1,966,000.
The Chairman:: Order, please. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Fisheries for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. Vote No. 1 is to be found at page 160 of the blue book of estimates, with the details thereof listed on page 161. Shall vote 1 carry?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Chairman, in presenting the estimates of the Department of Fisheries I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the committee. As hon. members know, I covered the field quite extensively last year. Furthermore, the estimates of the department were fully discussed by the standing committee. I should like to make some general and brief remarks.
o (3:40 p.m.)
The development of the fishing industry in Canada during the past few years has been unprecedented. This government, the provincial governments and the industry have coordinated their efforts in a remarkable manner since our joint development program went into effect over three years ago. Just how remarkable is shown in the increases in the size and value of landings from 1963 to 1966. In that period landings rose by 11 per cent and their value by 35 per cent. Exports went up by 27 per cent, and the total marketed value of all fish products sold both in Canada and in the 76 countries to which we export them increased by 31 per cent. Last year's exports, with a value of more than $219 million, showed an increase for the fifth consecutive year and this year's sales to the United States, our biggest customer, are expected to reach a new record.
In departmental operations the Fisheries Development Act, introduced last year, has
June 5. 1967

been of great importance. It has allowed us to introduce new measures to facilitate progress and to extend our development activities which now reach into most sectors of the primary and processing industries. One of these I should like to mention particularly provides financial assistance for the construction or modification of cold storage facilities for frozen fishery products and for bait. This assistance is provided under the new fishery products storage regulations which are designed to improve the quality of frozen fishery products. We considered they were necessary because of the increased landings being made, especially on the Atlantic coast. This year applications will be considered for assistance toward the construction of new cold storage facilities and the installation of refrigeration equipment, as well as for modification of existing premises. When grants are approved, they may be made to cover up to one third of the building and equipment but will not exceed $150,000 in any one case.
We are involved in a great many industrial development projects ourselves, as well as with the provinces, in order to improve the efficiency of our fishing vessels, catching gear and processing plants. To meet the intensive competition from other countries we must have the most modern equipment available and we must also conduct training programs so that skilled manpower will be available to allow us to meet the challenge of the era of automation.
In the end product of our fisheries, nothing is more vital than quality control and improvement and through our revised fish inspection regulations and canned fish and shellfish inspection regulations we shall be able to implement a national inspection program designed to safeguard the quality of fish products at all stages. There is now provision for compulsory registration of processing plants, including canneries, which prepare fish and shellfish for sale outside the province of origin. Since 1965 registration requirements have established standards for plant construction, equipment and sanitation, and these are now being extended to canneries and salt fish plants. There will also be minimum standards for fishing boats, refrigerated transport and cold storages, and for closer control over the use of quality designations.
I should also mention that last year the department inaugurated the retail inspection of fishery products on an experimental basis in Montreal. This brought a very favourable response from store managers and we believe
Supply-Fisheries
an expansion of this type of inspection to other cities is justified.
In order to make available to industry the highest level of professional and technical advice for dealing with quality problems of all kinds, we are sponsoring the university training of inspectors toward a degree in science.
Canada's reputation as a producer of high quality fishery products is world wide, evidenced by the fact that we have been invited to be the host nation for an international meeting of fish inspection and quality control to be held under the auspices of F.A.O. in Halifax in June, 1969.
In the development of the fisheries we have many projects under way from coast to coast to conserve and expand resources where this is possible. Two very large programs which involve ingenious and complex engineering accomplishments in British Columbia are the Big Qualicum projects to enhance the environment of the Pacific salmon, and the construction of a system of spawning channels in the Babine river system which, when completed, will allow for an increase of 100 million sockeye salmon fry.
We have a long-range program to protect and restore runs of salmon in the Atlantic region where, as in other parts of the country, diversion of water for industrial purposes threatens the existence of a natural resource.
The vote for conservation and protection covers our usual operations, the maintenance of vessels in the department's fleet and of other establishments. Moneys are requested this year to start construction of a new, 150-foot protection vessel and for the replacement of smaller vessels in the 60- to 65-foot class.
A program in which the federal government is involved, along with the government of Newfoundland, is one which hon. members have probably heard of as the resettlement program. This has a double purpose, to provide a better and fuller life for many fishing families and to take greater advantage of the fishery resource of the northwest Atlantic.
The importance of international co-operation in the management of fisheries has long been recognized by Canada, and we hope soon to be signatory to nine international conventions. We already participate in seven. We have now applied for membership in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, and we are one of 18 countries which are working out details of a convention to deal with the conduct of fishing vessels in the

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
north Atlantic. The purpose of this is to increase safety at sea and prevent damage to fishing gear, especially on the crowded fishing grounds where fishing vessels of many nations operate.
The work of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada is invaluable. The results of its investigations have been applied in many ways, with great advantage to the resource and the industry. They have also made it possible for this country to more than hold its own in various internal fisheries management programs. The need for even greater research efforts is shown in our plans for expansion in several areas. There is to be a $7 million laboratory for the newly established Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg, a new research board laboratory building in St. John's, increased accommodation at the board's laboratories at Dartmouth, Halifax and Nanaimo, and a new water laboratory at West Vancouver. The board's reputation throughout the world is unmatched, c (3:50 p.m.)
I have touched only briefly on some of the more important aspects of the activities of my department so that in considering the estimates you will be acquainted with the scope of our efforts and the direction we are taking in our contribution to the orderly expansion of the fishing industry.
Recently hon. members questioned me in the house about a problem connected with a logging drive on the Stellako river in British Columbia. In recent weeks and months I have had extensive correspondence with the responsible provincial minister and, as requested by the hon. member for Skeena, I have asked that I be permitted to table this correspondence which I am sure will make clear in the minds of hon. members the problems we are facing.
I have taken the position that we should make multiple use of our waters, taking into consideration the interest of the forest industry as well as that of the fishing industry. On Friday last I received notification from the provincial minister that he was prepared to accept my proposal that a limited logging drive, controlled and supervised by both the federal and provincial authorities, be allowed on the Stellako river, with measures taken to prevent any damage to the spawning grounds. I understand that log drive is almost ready to start and will be completed probably by the middle of this month.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, a decision will be taken probably within the next few

weeks on the implementation of the straight base line system. On May 7 at the annual meeting of the Fisheries Council in Montreal I stated that an announcement to this effect would be made in the house by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is responsible for the administration of the act. In view of the world situation and the strain placed on my colleague during the last few weeks I am sure hon. members will realize his announcement may have to be delayed for a matter of days. I am sure hon. members will understand the position.
I was also questioned in the house by hon. members from Prince Edward Island regarding subsidies on the construction of fishing vessels. I assured them that the matter would be examined again. Early in May we made a special survey. The fishermen's loan board of the province took part in the survey. As a result, of the 96 applications which we received from that province 51 have been approved, four are still doubtful and will require further study, and the balance of 41 have been rejected, a decision concurred in by the loan board, because those applications did not meet the criteria established by the federal government and the criteria established by the provincial loan board.
I am prepared to answer later any questions which hon. members may pose.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, on this occasion it is my intention to take a leaf from the minister's book and not speak extensively on the estimates of his department. The estimates of the Department of Fisheries for the preceding fiscal year were thoroughly examined less than a year ago. In fact they were referred to the standing committee on fisheries where the operations and the policies of the department were given a searching scrutiny. However, a number of members from this party will be asking specific questions and making brief statements. The notable thing about this year's estimates is that they are larger than ever before. I do not say this as a criticism. They are about $5 million more than they were last year but I believe this is justified.
The importance of the Department of Fisheries has been recognized over the years by the increasing importance of the fishing industry in our own economy and in the economy of the world. In 1952 total expenditures by the Department of Fisheries were about $9 million. Five years later, in 1957, they had increased to $13 million, and five years later, in 1962, had almost doubled to $24
June 5, 1967

million. In the last five years they have almost doubled again to reach a total of $47 million. This, of course, is not a true picture because the value of the dollar has depreciated considerably over those 15 years. But even taking constant dollars, expenditures on fisheries have increased a lot and, as I have said, I think this is justified.
We are in a phase of our development when the fishing industry is becoming more and more important. This is just another indication that the world is experiencing a population explosion. As population increases the demand for food also increases, and the demand is most noticeable with respect to protein foods. They are the scarcest. They are foods which are produced from the sea, and of course from other sources. In one sense the fishing industry represents the recovery from the sea of the proteins which have been lost from the land over milleniums of time. There is little nitrogen, the basic building block of protein, fixed in the sea. Nitrogen is fixed on land by plants and to some extent by lightning, and it is used to manufacture chemical fertilizer. The recovery of these protein foods from the sea is becoming an increasingly important factor in the diet of human beings, and the demand for these proteins to meet the needs of a hungry world will increase as time goes on.
With respect to Canada as a fishing nation I would point out that until very recently 95 per cent of the fish caught throughout the world were caught in the northern hemisphere. Recently there have been great fishing developments in parts of the southern hemisphere because of efforts by the Food and Agriculture Organization and by some southern countries such as Peru on their own initiative.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In 1948, almost 20 years ago now, Canada ranked sixth among the ten leading fishing nations of the world. By 1965 she had slipped to tenth place principally because of the much more rapid growth in the fish landings of other countries. As an exporter of fish and fisheries' products, in 1964 Canada stood seventh in volume but second in value, partly reflecting the relatively higher value of the species being shipped and partly because of the further degree of processing and packaging in the Canadian industry. This is a very brief summary of Canada's relative position, but it brings out the point that although Canada is only the tenth fishing nation in the world now in respect of volume it is the second in respect of export value. We should
Supply-Fisheries
realize this means that Canada's position as a fishing nation is different from the position of many of the nations of the world which fish extensively. Whether it is economical or not in our terms, they must fish in order to feed their own population. We have to compete, however, in world markets for the same of our fish products and therefore we must be highly productive as a fishing nation in order to compete successfully.
In order to be more efficient there must be a greater tonnage of fish produced per man hour and this means there must be a very great increased investment in the industry. This requires the use of large-scale processing plants, larger trawlers and other types of fishing vessels which represent a very large capital investment. It means an investment for the freezing, processing and transportation of this product to world markets. Investment in the fishing industry has been going up very rapidly in the last few years. The investment is going up and must go up more rapidly than the increase in employment because the only way we can compete properly in world markets is by lowering the labour content in the product.
In many cases, as the figures indicate, our traditional fishing industry is engaged in the production of what are almost luxury products and in some cases are luxury or high-cost products where the element of labour is not so important. In this regard I might mention the lobster fishery, the salmon fishery, the oyster fishery and that type of operation. There is also the traditional groundfishing industry which has had a great deal of capital poured into it in the last number of years. This industry has increased tremendously and is important especially to Canada's east coast.
The most recent development of all, of course, is the recognition of the fact that of all the species of fish harvested perhaps the most important in world terms is the herring. Herring is the greatest available producer of protein for use by man and animal. There has been a tremendous development on the east coast in this regard. On the east coast in the last year or so ten new herring processing plants have commenced production. I believe they have a combined total capacity in the order of 6,000 tons of herring a day. This is a tremendous amount of fish.
The herring are being processed into herring oil and fish meal. The fish meal is produced almost entirely as a protein supplement for animal feeds in order to bring up the protein content in these feeds. The use of this protein for human consumption is not direct.

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
The protein is used in feed for animals and the animals in turn are consumed by human beings. If the demand for protein increases even further I think we will have to develop commercially-this has already been done for some time on an experimental basis-the direct processing of fish meal and fish flour for the feeding of humans because the human diet now in many parts of the world is deficient in the most costly element-protein.
In this connection I should say that on the east coast there are other developments in other branches of the fishing industry. I do not intend to be all-inclusive when I mention these few examples. There are new developments such as the tuna fishery based in Charlotte county, New Brunswick, the whaling industry based in Nova Scotia, the mackerel industry which is more efficiently processing mackerel for human consumption at Rustico, Prince Edward Island, the new plant at Shelburne for the processing of herring for human consumption, the plant for the production of marine plant products in Miminegash, Prince Edward Island and near Charlottetown, and many other developments in the fishing industry.
These developments, of course, are not all painless. There is the further development of the use of larger ships which can go farther out to sea and catch fish more efficiently than can be done by the traditional inshore fishery. There are many communities on the east coast of Canada especially which have come into being because of the inshore fishery. In many cases the situation for the inshore fishermen in these areas is becoming more difficult all the time.
There is a human problem involved, and this is particularly true in Newfoundland and in parts of the province of Quebec. An intention has been expressed by the province of Quebec to increase the income of the fishermen in isolated places by supporting the prices of some of these products. As I see it, the province of Quebec has a complete right to do this in the interests of the people concerned. I might add that the hon. member for Gaspe is especially interested in this matter but unavoidably had to leave the chamber this afternoon. He will be unable to make the remarks he wished to make in this regard. I wish to point out to members of the committee that this is a matter which is of interest to members of parliament from the province of Quebec and that in my judgment the provincial governments are completely within their rights in trying to do something which will
(Mr. MacLean (Queens).]
put a little more money into the pockets of our inshore fishermen, especially those who have the added disadvantage of a very short season.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I want to make a few remarks now regarding some other items of concern to the fishing industry generally. First let me mention very briefly the sealing industry on the Atlantic coast. I commend the minister for his recent sound and reasoned statement in respect of this industry. Of course everyone wants the harvesting of the seal crop to be as humane as possible, and I think this is being done at the present time as nearly as well as we can reasonably expect. We should not cease to seek improvements, but I feel reasonably sure that the herds of seals are being exploited in a rational way, at least as far as Canada is concerned, and are not being exterminated. However, this is a matter which will have to be watched closely. I know the minister realizes this and that the department has the industry under very close supervision.
In this regard I should like to make a suggestion to the minister about sealing in the gulf of St. Lawrence where aircraft are involved. I know the responsibility does not come directly under this department but under the Department of Transport. When aircraft are used in the sealing industry a tremendous financial investment is riding on whether or not an aircraft can operate on a given day and a great temptation exists to fly aircraft under weather conditions which are not fit for flying with the result that there is danger to life and equipment. It is pretty hard for an operator to refrain from operating an aircraft, even when the flying weather is not fit if somebody else is going to fly anyhow. I strongly recommend to the minister that before the next sealing season someone from the Department of Transport be appointed for the period of the seal hunt with the power to control flying in the sense that he could declare when flying had to cease or when it would not be permitted because of weather conditions. This would apply equally to all operators. It would make the operation much more safe and orderly and reduce the loss of equipment.
The minister mentioned the growing necessity for rational exploitation of the resources of the sea. This again is an element related to the increased demand for fishery products. As the demand increases the interest of the nations concerned increases, and the tendency
June 5. 1967



for conflicts to arise between nations regarding their rights and privileges is bound to be greater. Five or six years ago international conventions were agreed to at Geneva. I strongly recommend that Canada ratify the conventions she has not ratified yet so we will be recognized as having an interest in rational and orderly exploitation of the living resources of the sea.
The minister also mentioned briefly the problems regarding exclusive fishing rights for Canadians within a 12-mile zone of Canada's coasts. Three years have passed since we put through legislation empowering the government to declare a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone for Canadians and, to put it mildly, I am greatly disappointed at the lack of progress which has been made. It is not my intention, however, to press the point now as I can well understand that the Department of External Affairs, which is of course involved in this matter, has bigger fish to fry at the moment. That does not relieve the government in any way of the responsibility to find an acceptable solution to these problems at the earliest possible time and to at least declare some geographical co-ordinates in some areas in order to start this desirable process on its way.
We are, of course, a leading nation so far as co-operation with other nations in international fisheries conventions is concerned. This country has been a member of seven important commissions for a number of years. They include the Pacific Halibut Commission, the International Pacific Salmon Fishing Commission, the International Whaling Commission, ICNAF, the Great Lakes Commission and the North Pacific Fur Seals Commission. Most of these commissions have done extremely good work. I was pleased to note that the minister mentioned that action is being taken at the present time to bring about an international agreement with regard to the tuna fishery and regarding orderly fishing in the north Atlantic, having in mind safety and that sort of thing.
Speaking of safety, I strongly recommend to the minister that if he has not already done so he should set up an informal committee with the Department of Transport or take other appropriate action to make sure that fishing on the east coast especially, particularly during the wintertime, has adequate navigational aids and that the vessels concerned have adequate navigational equipment. In this way we could, so far as possible, prevent such tragic loss of life as that which occurred
Supply-Fisheries
this winter on more than one occasion as a result of the complete loss of small trawlers operating on the east coast.
The minister also mentioned briefly the importance of safeguarding, developing and expanding some of our most valuable species such as salmon on the east and west coasts. One of the best investments the Canadian taxpayer can make in terms of helping the economy is the expansion of means of increasing the stocks of salmon on both coasts, including the establishment of artificial spawning beds, the removal of obstructions and the prevention of pollution in salmon producing streams. This is a resource that has a very crucial link in its life cycle in the streams but does most of its growing in the high seas and comes back to our shores as a very valuable asset.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The minister did not mention other types of development of our fishery resources such as fish farming. If my memory serves me right, when the federal-provincial fisheries conference was held some years ago one of the important matters considered was that in some of the provinces at least there should be strenuous efforts to develop fish farming under certain circumstances, in the belief that it would be a viable and perhaps profitable industry in some areas. There may be a reason why there has not been much development in this phase of the industry. It may be that it is not as profitable or economic as was supposed at that time. Again, there may have been developments of which I am unaware. I do not want to take up any more of the time of the committee at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but I may have some further remarks to make when the specific items are called.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, in his opening remarks the minister indicated that he was going to make a short, terse statement partly because a committee of this house last session examined at quite some length the estimates of the fisheries department. But I hope it is not taken from what the minister said that all the problems dealt with by that committee, some of which were recommended upon, are solved and out of the way, because such is not the case. I might note in passing, because I asked the minister a question about this in the house one day, by implication at least, that the rumour which circulated pretty widely through the press and elsewhere about the minister leaving his post to repose in some other place has not yet come to pass. I am not trying either to hasten or prolong the

June 5, 19G7
Supply-Fisheries
minister's departure. These things are beyond my authority, of course. But, apropos of that, I think some mark of commendation should be given to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra for the way in which he handled and chaired the meetings of the committee last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: Even though he and I had a few differences of opinion occasionally, nevertheless I think he deserves that mark of commendation for the approach he took to the committee. This is the way a committee chairman should operate-fairly, justly and impartially while attempting to get the estimates passed and back in the house as quickly as is convenient. If the minister is posted to another place and having in mind his colleague the Minister of Labour that he is not going to run for election again, perhaps the abilities of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra should be kept in mind for the post of minister of fisheries if it becomes vacant in the foreseeable future. This would at least provide us with a minister of fisheries who is oriented to British Columbia, which has not been the case since 1957 when Jimmy Sinclair was the minister.
Perhaps a change of balance might do the department good. It would certainly have as its head someone who knows what the problems on the west coast are. I am not saying that the minister does not know them; I am just saying that he comes from the east coast. We desire these balances because cabinet members, as we know, are not particularly chosen on the basis of ability but on the basis of provincial distribution within the party which happens to be in office, plus a few other factors.
The minister raised a couple of points upon which I should like to comment, and I will toss into the hopper a few other items that are of great concern in the fishing industry. I wish to direct the bulk of my remarks to a peculiar and pertinent current situation in the fishing industry of British Columbia about which I have spoken to the minister on a number of occasions. The minister mentioned the necessity of international agreements and international concern about conservation and exploitation within the limits set by conservation. Many of us have put forward the contention for some time that there is a feeling amongst certain fishermen at home that we engage in the conservation of fisheries and restrictions upon our own fishermen in order that nationals of other countries may reap the 
benefits of our conservation measures. In other words, we hold back on fishing while somebody else reaps the profit. Whether this is valid is immaterial at the moment. The fact is that it is a matter of very great concern to certain of our fishermen at home and it is something to which we must give recognition. If benefits are to accrue from restraints upon our fishing industry for the purpose of conservation, we should be in the forefront of those receiving the benefits, especially where the conservation is carried out in our own territorial seas and fishing zones and in respect of those species such as salmon which breed in our streams.
We pointed out some years ago, even before the Soviet union became such a notable fisher off our west coast, the increase in Soviet union incursions into the fisheries on the Pacific coast and elsewhere. These came about partly because of the visit of the former minister of fisheries, Mr. Sinclair, to the Soviet union. Some of the information he was able to glean on his visit there was given a great deal of publicity and one could almost see the handwriting on the wall at that time. That is more then ten years ago now.
Regardless of the conflict that has taken place in mainland China in the last few months, we can foresee the time when China, as it develops and expands, will become a major nation involved in the fisheries of the Pacific Ocean. Whether we like it or not we will have to contend with that situation if and when it arises. I am confident it will arise because of the great need of people for food. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, the ocean is perhaps the last known source of foodstuffs with special protein content that has not yet been explored and exploited to the full. When the minister speaks about the necessity of international agreements and international control or conservation these facts must be kept in mind so that we are prepared for these situations when they arise rather than try to cope with them after they have reached such proportions that we become greatly concerned about them.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Part of the problem, of course, has to do with the straight base lines to which the minister referred. The 12-mile fishing limit and the so-called straight base lines will not be as valuable to us as was thought by many people, even people in the fishing industry, some 10 or 15 years ago when pressures were exerted to establish a 12-mile limit. However, I submit for the minister's consideration, and
June 5, 1967

we have continued to point this out, that just before the bill was introduced in the Senate to establish the territorial sea or fishing zones a presentation was made to the government by the fisheries association. In that presentation the fisheries association delineated what they conceived to be the correct position of the straight base lines.
In so far as British Columbia is concerned, all people with any concern about or interest in the fishing industry whom I have met are of the unanimous opinion that the proposition put forward by the fisheries association should be accepted, namely, that the straight base lines should be drawn in such a way as to extend from the area along the northern tip of Vancouver island and around Cape Scott, the last point of land on the island, to the Cape St. James area at the lower end of the Queen Charlotte Islands, and from Langara at the northern part of the island up to the international boundary between British Columbia and Alaska. Thus the waters of Dixon Entrance, Hecate strait and Queen Charlotte Sound would be enclosed behind the straight base line.
The only nation with which we have been having discussions has been the United States and it is the only nation which has recognized historic fishing rights and has remained within the area regardless of the straight base lines. Therefore the only conclusion to which we can come is that our so-called negotiations have been about the location of the straight base lines, and any variation from the proposals put forward lay the fisheries association, which were endorsed completely by everybody in the fishing industry in British Columbia, which would designate more of that water area as international waters detracts from the position of the government. At that time the government claimed that it based its entire proposition for the 12-mile limit on the presentation made by the fisheries association, and that was the reason that it took action and made that particular proposal. I hope that whenever the announcement is made there is no variation on the landward side. This would be against the unanimous opinion of the fishing industry in British Columbia because we recognize clearly the necessity of taking in as much of that water territory as is possible for our own fisheries especially in view of the advances we have made in the last few years in the so-called bottom fishery which has been excluded by and large from extensive fishing.
Before proceeding to another matter I should like to say to the minister that during
Supply-Fisheries
the committee hearings last year, at which time intensive discussions were taking place between Canada and the United States, heated comments were made from time to time about the extent to which Alaskan or United States fishermen were catching salmon bound for the spawning grounds in the Nass and Stikine rivers in northern British Columbia. In other words, we were concerned about the extent to which United States fishermen were catching Canadian fish. At that time the final decision of the department was to conduct spot fishery research with a number of seiners, half a dozen, I believe, to attempt to determine the degree to which Alaskan bound salmon traverse what we hope will be our Canadian waters and the degree to which we might be able to catch the home-coming Alaskan salmon. The purpose was so that we might be able to present this information to the United States and say to them: "If you persist in establishing a surf line, not by agreement but by subterfuge and deceit, then we have no other recourse but to engage in extensive fishery of your home-coming fish because that is our only effective lever against you to make you draw in your surf line." That report has been made. I have not called the department to see whether or not I could obtain a copy of it, but there is no doubt that I can. I wonder in passing whether the minister might not feel disposed to table a copy in the house so that it would become a public document.
At the same time I should like to ask for the tabling of a similar document, namely, the report on research into the salmon fishery in the Stikine river. The Stikine river has its mouth in Alaskan waters and the salmon spawning grounds are in Canadian territory. Fish coming to spawn in the upper reaches of the Stikine and its tributaries must travel almost the entire distance through Alaskan waters once they leave international waters, and Canadian fishermen have no possibility of catching the fish until they actually get into the waters above the boundary between British Columbia and Alaska in the lower reaches of the Stikine river. This is another document which we should like to have.
There are other items which I shall not mention at present but will perhaps raise later. I should now like to spend what time I can dealing with the situation in Prince Rupert to which I have made reference and which I have discussed with the minister on a number of occasions. A couple of months ago reports reached us about the quarter of a


Mr. Robichaud:: According to that telegram the minister was playing with words.
June 5, 1967


Frank Howard: June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
processing of foodstuffs, the economy of Prince Rupert and the fundamental rights of people are far too important for the federal government to sit idly by and engage in a buck-passing game with the provincial government. To do nothing is simply to play the "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" game, with Prince Rupert as the figurative pyre in this activity.
When the halibut season opened on May 9 there was further activity. Some companies refused to provide boats and ice to people who wanted to go fishing for halibut. Some companies were afraid that by so doing they would incur the enmity of one or other of the unions in the jurisdictional dispute and might be subject to having their plants picketed when the halibut boats returned. As a result fishermen were discouraged from going out to fish for halibut even though this fishery is an important part of the total fishery off the west coast. The mayor of Prince Rupert has persistently tried to find some way to resolve the dispute. Great credit is due him for persistently attempting to do this. I see you rising, sir. Perhaps my time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Has
the hon. member leave to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: It is very kind of the committee and I shall try not to impose on its kindness. I shall shorten my comments. I became so involved in the matter that probably I went further than I should have.
I was about to say that the ministerial association had expressed its concern and has worked assiduously to find a solution. The housewives who have picketed in support of shore workers going to work to try to process fish as it was landed are to be given credit too. All those who participated in this action are to be commended, though so far not a great deal has been accomplished in the resolution of the dispute.
On Friday last-this is how serious this situation is-one of the unions, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, picketed the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-op plant because they said that the co-op was unfair or words like that. Before that the union had not declared particularly that certain plants were unfair, only that certain boats were unfair. Pickets also appeared at Royal Fish, saying that Royal Fish was unfair. These two companies were picketed by members of the United

Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union. The Deep Sea Fishermen's Union picketed on Friday at the Seal Cove plant of B.C. Packers, calling B.C. Packers unfair and saying that they would not unload the Fredelia III. The ship had to go to Royal Fish or somewhere else.
Here we have two unions, one of them picketing one fish plant and the other picketing another fish plant. The situation has resulted in members of one union involved in the picketing going through their own union's picket lines and in another case going through the picket lines set up by another union. This sort of thing in a community such as Prince Rupert, where trade union feelings run pretty high, could be damaging and explosive to say the least. This is a situation where friend turns against friend, union member against union member and neighbours do not speak to one another because they are on one side or the other of the dispute. The law has been ignored, and I submit that ignoring the law, as has happened in Prince Rupert, merely entices others to ignore it or to break it completely. When such a situation develops it simply cannot be tolerated. I do not care who thinks what about whose jurisdiction anything falls under. Threats of intimidation have been made against individuals by anonymous telephone calls. There is every likelihood that this situation will continue and that it may well develop into something worse.
In some instances people have been threatened with the prospect of being blackballed. This threat of the loss of opportunity to earn a living is one of the worst possible forms of intimidation. When I was with the trade union movement we condemned it as a scurvy practice when employers used it. I condemn it now and it should be condemned whether it is engaged in by employers or unions, and I emphasize the union's part in this. If any union or any person carries on a policy of such threats they should be condemned and, if necessary, restrained by law.
The only manner in which I can make this appeal is to the Minister of Fisheries. I submit that he must take action along the lines I suggested earlier or along some other lines but, for heaven's sake, the action must be taken soon. Otherwise the situation could explode and become something far beyond anyone's expectation. These situations have a tendency to do that when emotions run high and the economies and incomes of persons are involved.
June 5, 1967

I shall conclude by referring to the Inquiries Act. Section 2 of the act gives the minister and the government authority and jurisdiction to conduct some sort of inquiry into the whole problem. Obviously the provincial government has abdicated its responsibility by using semantics in the telegram it sent to the chamber of commerce. It ignored its responsibilities. Section 2 of the Inquiries Act reads as follows:
The governor in council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada-
I will not make humorous comments about whether we have good government.
-or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The words "good government" are not capitalized. So I submit that the words "the good government of Canada" do not apply necessarily to this government or to any other government. The words refer in my opinion, to the simpler and broader concept of governing itself. Surely a situation which is imperilling a large number of people in one major seaport on the west coast should be of concern to the good government of Canada. When the force of law breaks down, as it is likely to break down, and when the force of law has been ignored, as it is being ignored, it is for the governor in council to cause an inquiry to be made into the good government of Canada and the conduct of any part of public affairs.
The time to act is now. Hon. members will find that there is no opportunity now to deal with this situation in depth and to study and examine it. A move in this direction would, I am sure, be supported by everyone in this house and by virtually everyone in Prince Rupert. The time has come to do something worth while. If we could set up a royal commission of inquiry in connection with that trollop Gerda Munsinger, surely we can have an inquiry into something as vital to our economy as the fishing industry in Prince Rupert.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to make a few observations on the estimates of the Department of Fisheries I certainly wish to thank the hon. member for Skeena for his kind remarks about me in regard to the chairing of the fisheries committee during the last session. It is a pleasure to hear such favourable comments about my behaviour in
Supply-Fisheries
the chair, especially after some of the comments made in the house with regard to my chairmanship of the defence committee, for which I got very little praise at times.
I am astonished that the hon. member should have gone so far, however, as to suggest I might even become minister of fisheries. I just want to say that we have at the present time an excellent Minister of Fisheries. Wherever I go I find him to be very highly regarded by working fishermen and people in the industry generally. When they talk about the federal government and of the Department of Fisheries they show a high regard for the present minister based on his understanding of the industry and the rapport he has with those who make their livelihood from it. I hope he will remain minister of that department for a long time.
It was interesting to hear what the hon. member for Skeena had to say about the deep impact made by the fishing industry on the social and economic life of the people who live on our coasts and engage in that industry. He expressed the situation well. It is a fact that this industry is virtually the life of hundreds upon hundreds of individuals in small villages and outports along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada. Accordingly, when we review the estimates of this portfolio we are doing far more than considering a list of items setting out money which is to be spent. We are talking about the lives of a group of Canadians whose background is very different from that of most of us who come to this House of Commons. Few of us come from fishing villages and have felt the harshness of the lives that these people lead. So it is important for us to remember that we are dealing here with the livelihood of Canadians who earn their living in a dangerous pursuit, one which exacts great penalties in return for the yield it allows.
There are one or two items which have come to my attention as chairman of the committee upon which I hope the minister will comment briefly when he replies later to this debate. They have come from various sources. One concerns the complaints of fishing vessel owners in connection with subsidies for vessel construction on the west coast. I would refer to a letter I have received from Mr. Frank Buble, president of the salmon section of the Fishing Owners Association of British Columbia. It is dated January 22, 1967, and in one paragraph he states:
In 1966, 170 new boats came Into salmon industry mostly trailers and gilnetter's or combination boats (troll and gill net). This year it looks from reports

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
that there will be close to 300 more. When do we stop? The pie is going to be cut quite thin and this means more strikes etc. Is this good for our Canadian economy?
He goes on to say:
We find that most of our members have to compete with these new fish boats which enter the salmon, herring, halibut and trawling fisheries. We are not against subsidies but they should help all the vessel owners if they are to keep their boats and gear and electronic apparatus in first class condition without being a hardship on the owner.
This, of course, raises an old problem. When a subsidy for building something new is introduced some hardship is caused to those who are already in business and find themselves facing decisions about what to do with their own capital equipment. Many of these men have been in business for a long time and have made fairly large investments in boats which now have years of life behind them, though they are good for a few years more. These men are fighting for the equity they have acquired in their business. It is disheartening, I know, to find younger men entering a business assisted by special subsidies which were not available in the past. So when the question of subsidies is being considered, care must be taken to preserve equity as between the older fishermen who have already acquired their equipment and the younger men who wish to enter the industry.
It has been said that these subsidies were offered in the main to assist the boat-building industry. Yet there are still complaints on the Pacific coast that our vessel building industry is altogether inadequate compared with the industry in the state of Washington to the south, and that the subsidy has not assisted the efficient development of building techniques in Canada. I believe this whole subject needs to be reviewed in the light of some of the complaints which have been raised and some of the anomalies which have come to light.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I wish to refer now to a dispute which has arisen on the west coast and about which the last has not been heard. I have in mind the appeal made by sports fishermen for a net-free zone in the strait of Juan de Fuca. Many demands are being made by sports fishing clubs, chambers of commerce and the like, that a net-free zone be set aside from which commercial fishermen would be excluded, thus allowing them to engage in sports fishing. This idea is bitterly opposed by the commercial fishermen. We must face up to the fact that our population on the west coast

is growing rapidly, that more and more people are using small pleasure boats, sometimes for fishing and sometimes for cruising among islands, and these boats are creating a whole series of problems in relation to the fishing industry. They are creating wharfage and accommodation problems and are a disturbance when fishermen are working on the fishing grounds.
We cannot tell these people that they have no rights. Small craft and pleasure vessels are becoming a big business. They have to be regulated and it is our duty to study these problems more carefully in the light of changing conditions. I hope the minister will make some comment on the matter.
Recently I received a very interesting letter from the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of British Columbia in regard to fish packed and sold in North America as "Greenland Halibut". The secretary of the association wrote me as follows:
We are writing to bring to your attention a matter that is of considerable concern to the halibut fishermen on the Pacific coast. As you know, halibut is a delicacy, commands a relatively high price and indeed it is not overstating the case to say that the name halibut itself is synonymous with a food fish of the highest quality. A very bad situation has developed in that a much inferior fish now taken in Atlantic waters and known, though not scientifically, as turbot, is being packaged and sold in North America as "Greenland Halibut". Compared to true halibut this fish is soft, mushy and oily but the housewife buying it in the supermarket or fish store and indeed the institutional buyer buying fish in large quantities is unable to differentiate, through lack of knowledge, between ''Greenland Halibut" at prices as low as 29 cents a pound and true halibut.
This is causing a good deal of consternation in the industry on the west coast and it is a problem which I refer to the minister with the request that he examine it. I understand there are international complications when we get into the question of marketing halibut abroad, but I hope the minister will give this matter his attention.
I have also received a letter from the Pacific Trollers' Association, one of the many organizations connected with the fishery on the west coast. It deals with the problem of pollution. It was sent to me by Mr. R. S. Stanton, secretary-treasurer of the association, and in it he wrote:
The Pacific Trollers Association protests the intention of the municipality of Richmond to discharge domestic sewage into the main arm of the Fraser River at any location, including the proposed Gilbert Road location.
Further, we protest against 16 permits issued by the B.C. Pollution Control Board to Richmond industries and businesses for existing outfalls, which
June 5, 1967



permit 3,688,300 gallons of domestic and industrial sewage to be discharged, daily, into the waters of the Fraser River.
This once more draws to our attention the increasing problem of pollution along our shores, both Atlantic and Pacific, as our population increases. Last year in the standing committee we drew attention to this question of pollution and directed the minister's attention to it in our final report. It is something which concerned all members on the committee. Could the minister assist us by letting us know what steps have been taken to combat the problem following receipt of the standing committee's report?
The hon. member for Queens, a man with long experience in the fishing industry and who was minister of fisheries at one time, referred to sealing. That question is dormant at the moment simply because the season is over, but we all know that the humane killing of seals will be engaging our attention next year. A few days ago I read the 1959 reports of the standing committee on agriculture dealing with the humane killing of food animals in slaughterhouses. They were interesting in relation to the seal problem. We cannot turn our backs on the fact that inhumane killing of seals is taking place. I believe that as a civilized people we have a duty to see that when animals are killed, something which is necessary to our economy, it is done in the most humane way possible. The reports of the 1959 committee on agriculture show the lengths to which the Department of Agriculture, veterinarians and other scientific people went in order to devise economic, effective, but humane killing procedures.
There is much to do in this area with respect to seals. I would urge the government to review the agricultural committee reports of 1959 and bring expertise to bear on the seal killing problem. The harvesting of seals is something which is related to the economic lives of fishermen, and we should come to grips with the problem that it has created. I am quite sure Canadians are capable of overcoming the difficulties and of satisfying people who were offended by brutal killing practices.
I cannot add much to what has been said so ably by the hon. member for Skeena in regard to the 12-mile limit, except to say that the industry awaits with expectation the efforts of the government to finalize the problem and to institute limits which will protect our growing coastal fisheries. The hon. member for Queens made reference to the possibility of establishing straight line co-ordinates
Supply-Fisheries
in some areas in order to start the work. I would concur in his suggestion because protection is needed for our fishing zones.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Anyone who has been to Expo and had an opportunity to visit the Russian building will have seen a vessel exhibited by the Russian fisheries. One of the most interesting exhibits is a Russian fishing vessel of about 40,000 tons. It has along its sides some 14 trawlers which can be lowered into the water. It is an enormous floating plant for deep sea fishing or trawling. To anyone interested in Canadian fisheries I would commend the Russian exhibit at Expo and I suggest that they think very carefully about the demand for protein in this world and consider the means that nations such as Russia have adopted in order to equip themselves with fishing plants so that they will be able to obtain protein. This means we are on the eve of a breakthrough in respect of obtaining food from the sea such as we have never envisaged. If we are to live with others in any kind of harmony we must learn how to practice conservation in concert with other countries and must make arrangements in respect of fishing zones and conservation in those zones on a scale we have not dreamed of before.
One of the first things which faces us in the years ahead is that we must learn how to share the food from the sea. There is a growing number of nations in the world which will have to turn to the sea in order to find the food for their populations.
In respect of our own committee on fisheries I believe it is generally agreed that members of the committee should be better equipped with expertise than they have been up until now. I should like to make an appeal to the government not only in respect of the committee on fisheries but in respect of all the important committees of the house that provision be made so that we will have much more expertise available to us in order that we can deal with these matters intelligently. We must be in a position to employ for a time on a regular or on a daily basis expert scientists, lawyers, doctors, veterinarians or whatever may be necessary in order to accomplish some of the work which faces us as members of committees,
I would hope that some time in the not too distant future, when we have come back after the summer recess, the minister would provide the committee on fisheries with a reference which would enable it to commence some of the studies I have mentioned and

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
some of the studies which have been suggested by the other members who have spoken in the house this afternoon. These are problems of great concern to Canadians and are of increasing concern the world over.


Mr. Chatterfon:: Mr. Chairman, my intervention will be very brief. The hon. member for Skeena I believe spoke well with regard to the 12-mile fishing limit and the territorial waters. I recall that in the middle of 1964, I think, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in response to a question, said he hoped that before Christmas of that year the co-ordinates would be established. I was naturally pleased when finally the Minister of Fisheries announced today that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, within the next few days, will announce the co-ordinates and the base lines. I assume from that that all matters relating to the historic treaties and rights will have been studied by the time the announcement is made.
A very contentious question concerning the greater Victoria area has been referred to today by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I am referring to the division of the catch of coho and Chinook salmon between the net fishermen, the trawlers and the sports fishermen. The problem arises basically because the International Salmon Fisheries Commission has no jurisdiction over these species. It remains more or less a problem for the Canadian government itself to solve. There has been a demand that a corridor be established around the coast of Juan de Fuca strait. Recently-I believe in an attempt to do something about the problem-area 19 and part of area 20 were closed to commercial salmon fishing. The fact is that this has made nobody happy. It has made everybody very unhappy. The fisheries council of British Columbia objected very strongly to this precedent of an infringement on the rights of the commercial fishermen. The trawlers objected that it did not help anybody except the net fishermen. The conservation council announced that its members were very unhappy because the closure stopped at the wrong point. As of today everybody is dissatisfied.
It seems to me that this is a difficult problem. Part of the problem, however, is that there is not sufficient knowledge concerning the habits of the coho and Chinook salmon particularly. More research is being carried out to establish the habits of these species, but basically I believe the problem is that not just the present minister but the department have not realized the growing importance of
[Mr. Deachman.3
the sports fishing industry. I realize there is a conflict and that a certain amount of the research must be carried on by the various interested groups.
In the attempt, which failed, to placate at least the conservation office I believe what was overlooked was the basic problem of the classes of fishermen on the Pacific coast and that there are too many fishermen for the resource which is allocated to them. If a solution can be found to this problem through licence limitation, I think the other problem of the division of the Chinook and coho between those interested can be solved also.
I suggest to the minister that the attempt to make and ad hoc arrangement will not succeed. Any such attempt will not succeed unless the other question of the limitation on licensing is also solved. I should like to repeat again that I think the importance of the growing sports fishing has been underestimated by the department, not only from the point of view of the jurisdiction of the department itself but also from the point of view of the over-all economy of the west coast and certainly in the area of Victoria.
My only other point concerns the wharfing facilities for commercial fishermen and more specifically the Victoria fishermen's wharf. I do not know whether the minister has received complaints in this regard. There has been, however, much publicity in Victoria. I have before me a petition signed by some 200 commercial fishermen. The preamble to the petition reads:
We the undersigned petition you as our federal representative-
This petition, incidentally, was also sent to the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.).
-to look into the inadequate wharf facilities for the Victoria commercial fishing fleet. The ever-increasing fleet demands more wharves, as at present boats are tied up four deep. This condition causes damage by passing traffic in the harbour and also creates a potential fire hazard.
I realize that the provision of funds for this purpose does not rest directly with the Minister of Fisheries. I submit, however, that the minister has a responsibility to carry out an investigation into this situation and then use his influence with the Minister of Transport in an effort to see that the necessary facilities are made available.
The following headline appeared in the Victoria Times of February 18: "Fishermen Hit Overcrowding at City Wharf." The news account itself is quite alarming. I have been down to see the situation and I hope the
June 5, 1967

minister will have a thorough investigation made, if he has not already done so, and use his influence with the Minister of Transport in order to provide adequate facilities.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As to the fishermen's wharf at Shoal Harbour in Sidney, the fishermen have told me they would be prepared to pay additional wharfage fees if additional facilities such as lighting, individual berths, toilet and sanitary facilities could be provided. Again I suggest that the minister have his staff look into this and if they are satisfied that the fishermen would pay larger wharfage fees he could then use his influence with the Minister of Transport to provide these faciliites.
In closing I again urge the minister to put his mind to a consideration of the serious problems of conflict which exist between commercial and sports fishermen in the greater Victoria area.


Mr. McQuaid:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to delay the passing of these estimates for any great length of time but there are one or two things upon which I should like to comment briefly while the estimates are before the committee. Let me mention in passing that I have had considerable dealings with the minister over the past 12 months and have always found him easy to get along with, co-operative and anxious to do what he thinks is best in the interests of the fishermen. There have been one or two exceptions, of course, regarding things I consider important and with which the minister did not agree, but I do not suppose we can always agree on all things.
The minister is in charge of a department of government which is very important to the people of many sections of Canada. Statistics indicate that the demand for our fishery products has never been greater than at the present time. There are, of course, several factors which contribute to this. One factor, and perhaps the most important, is the ever-increasing requirement of the world's population for food. Another is an evident increase in the appreciation and use of fish as a highly enjoyable source of protein. This I suggest is the result of insistence on quality in order to make fish competitive with other staple foods in places where there is a great variety of choice.
The third factor which is contributing to the greater demand for fish is the attractive manner in which fishery products can be and are being presented to the consuming public.
Supply-Fisheries
Fish is very appetizing and can be attractively presented. The minister and his department are to be commended for the work being done in the test kitchen of the Department of Fisheries. At the invitation of the minister I had occasion to visit that kitchen not long ago and I was very impressed by the work that was being done. They are making an effort to provide different types of recipes in order to prepare and present fish in a more attractive way. This is what we must do because fish is as appetizing as other foods but it has to be presented in an attractive manner. The department through its efforts at the test kitchen is doing a very fine job in this respect.
The consumption of fish is increasing. The latest figures I have from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicate that in 1963 Canadians consumed 137,000 tons of fish compared with only 113,000 tons in 1960. This augurs well for the future of our fishing industry. At the present time Canada is second only to Japan in the export of fishery products and stands either ninth or tenth in the world in total catch. Our annual total landings are over two billion pounds, worth over $160,000,000.
There are not as many people engaged in this industry as there should be, and one reason they are not taking part relates to the fact that some of the facilities for fishermen are unfortunately being neglected. This is particularly so in the area I have the honour to represent. This situation is not entirely the fault of the minister or his department but there should be closer co-operation between the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Public Works so that when repairs to wharves and other facilities at various centres are required they can be carried out quickly by the Department of Public Works. There must be closer liaison in this area.
Since I was elected to the house I have been hammering at the Department of Public Works to get some work done in the harbour and fishing centre of Georgetown. I have asked for a landing slip there so that fishermen can launch their boats without an undue amount of hard labour. This would not be a particularly expensive job, and I had hoped the Department of Public Works would accede to my request. I understand this request was also made by my predecessor who represented this same district. It is still my hope that somebody in authority will be able to persuade the Department of Public Works to

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
undertake this every important job required to assist the fishermen to carry out their work properly.
Other small construction jobs require to be done which will not involve great expenditures of money and are very important to those engaged in this industry. I hope that as a result of better liaison and closer co-operation these jobs will be carried out. I am sure the minister would be anxious to see these things done as long as they are for the benefit of fishermen.
Let me commend the minister for the initiative and courage he has shown in the setting of lobster trap limits for district 7B. I assure him that by far the majority of fishermen in the industry in that area are in favour of the trap limit. I carried out a poll, so far as I was able, to determine what their reaction was and I can say that almost unanimously the fishermen agree there should be trap limits. Since the fishing season opened I have spoken to them and they still agree this is a good thing, although there is some disagreement as to the number of traps. At the present time the number is limited to 500. I believe this is a test period and that probably the minister is awaiting reaction. No doubt he will receive that reaction before the season closes or the time comes to change the limit if it requires change. At that time I hope he complies with the wishes of the fishermen in this regard. On the whole the department and the minister are to be congratulated for encouraging trap limits, because this is what the industry and the fishermen require.
Let me say that I am getting sick and tired of all the complaints about the sealing industry. It is too bad that a very small minority of people can attempt to destroy an industry which is worth so much to so many people. The department has done everything possible to see that cruelties are not practised in the sealing industry and it is to be commended for what it has done. Extra protective staff have been employed and the minister has gone to the ice fields himself to see exactly what has taken place. He has also received almost daily reports while sealing was taking place. What more could he possibly do? The reports he has viewed confirm, in his opinion, that there is no undue cruelty. Why should men and women persist in making these allegations if there is no substance to them?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I was impressed by the report circulated by the minister's department a few days ago
[Mr. McQuaid.l
which gave a review of this industry. I hope it can be more widely circulated. I do not know how widely it was circulated but presumably it was sent to every member of the house. It should be more widely distributed because it points out very clearly and succinctly what the minister and his department have done so far as the protection of seals is concerned and alleviating cruelty in this area. The report also points out the value of the industry. I think it is high time we heard less of these allegations of cruelty which apparently cannot be substantiated to the degree to which they are alleged to be taking place.
There is one other point I should like to raise. It concerns the protection of the gear of inshore fishermen from the operation of drag-gers. We all realize that dragger fishing is a very important branch of the fishing industry and must be allowed plenty of scope within which to operate. I have always maintained that the inshore fisherman, the man who is trying to eke out a living in his small fishing boat and cannot venture too far from shore, must be afforded protection from the operation of these draggers. Unfortunately there is some destruction of inshore fishing gear by reason of the operation of draggers too close to shore. These offences are not being committed by every dragger fisherman. They are being committed by probably only a very small minority but that small minority is causing havoc to a great many inshore fishermen. The draggers drag over the gear of the inshore fishermen and destroy it.
I hope the department will engage a competent protective staff to protect the inshore fishermen in this regard and see that the draggers do not drag too close to shore. There is plenty of room further out at sea for them to operate. They are equipped in such a way that they can fish many miles from shore. The man in the small boat is not able to do this and has to stay close to shore in order to carry on his fishing. The grounds close to shore should be reserved for him and he should not have to run the risk of having his gear destroyed by dragging operations within the area in which he fishes.
Now I come to my main criticism. It concerns a point on which the minister and I apparently do not agree. I refer to the payment of the subsidy to those fishermen who build boats in the 35 foot to 45 foot class. I was not encouraged at all by the announcement of the minister today that 51 out of 96 applications from my province have been approved, four have been classified as doubtful and 41 have been rejected. I think I am
June 5, 1967

quoting the minister correctly. He said they did not meet the criteria established by the federal government or those established by the loan board of the province. This is exactly where the minister and I come to the parting of the ways.
I suggest that the minister cannot produce anything to convince me or the fishermen of my province that when the policy was announced in respect of paying a subsidy to those who build boats in the 35-foot to 45-foot class, any criteria at all were laid down. I do not think he can establish to my satisfaction that such criteria were laid down at that time. If there are regulations in this respect I invite the minister to place them on the record so we can examine them. Let us know the date on which they were passed and the date they were transmitted to the provinces and to the fishermen's loan boards of the provinces. I have made inquiries of the officials of the fishermen's loan board of my province, the boat builders and the fishermen themselves, and invariably they have told me that at the time the policy was announced in 1964 no such criteria or regulations were laid down other than that the boat would have to be in the 35-foot to 45-foot class and would have to be used for fishing other than for lobsters. These were the only two stipulations made at that time, as far as I can ascertain.
The minister has said there are other stipulations. I have not been able to find them. If there are any other regulations in this respect 1 should, as I say, be obliged if he would place them on the record so we may look at them and settle this question once and for all. Thousands and thousands of dollars have been lost to the fishermen of my province because they built boats fully expecting that the government would live up to its commitment and pay them the subsidy. They have built boats in the 35-foot to 45-foot class. At the very beginning the government started to pay this subsidy. Six fishermen were paid. I would like to know why they were paid the subsidy and others were turned down, because the boats they built were not one bit different from many of the boats which have been built since and in respect of which applications have been rejected.
Apparently the department picked these six names out of a hat. I do not know how they chose them. They were not picked on political grounds, they were not picked on religious grounds or because of the area in which they happened to live. Apparently these six names were picked out of hat and the men were paid the subsidy. I have gone to the trouble to 27053-741
Supply-Fisheries
inquire into this matter and have ascertained that the boats they built are not one bit different from some of the boats which have since been built and in respect of which applications have been turned down.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I cannot agree.


Melvin James McQuaid: Well, this is the best information I can get. I should like to see this question settled because I have not been satisfied so far with the answers given by the department and the minister. The minister says that regulations have been laid down in this regard. I want to see the regulations. I ask the minister to show me the regulations, the date on which they were passed and when they were promulgated and circulated so that the fishermen will know what they are up against. Then I will go home satisfied, but I will never be satisfied until I receive this information and fishermen of my province will never be satisfied until the department comes forward with this information.
This is a serious matter for a great many fishermen. Some of them, as I said before, have built boats in the 35-foot to 45-foot class. They did not actually need the boats but realized that a bigger boat would be more comfortable to fish from and figured that the government would pay the subsidy. They therefore said they might as well take advantage of the offer and avail themselves of a larger, more comfortable boat from which to fish. They built the boats in good faith. They were going to be used for other than lobster fishing. The were in the 35-foot to 45-foot class and the fishermen concerned fully expected that they would be paid the subsidy.
It has been a serious blow to these men not to receive the subsidy. Some of them borrowed money with which to build their boats. I know at least two fishermen who went to the bank and borrowed money in order to meet the additional cost involved in building larger boats. Some of the loans are still outstanding at the bank. In many cases the price of boats went up when the subsidy was announced. Therefore the fishermen have paid more for their boats. The government will have to live up to its commitment in this respect, a commitment that was made and which the fishermen accepted in good faith. If the government does not do this, I suggest to the minister that it will be in very serious trouble with those in my province who are directly concerned in this matter.
Supply-Fisheries

June 5, 1967
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
That completes all I have to say at this stage of the consideration of the estimates. There are one or two points on which I would like to question the minister, but I will not delay matters further now and will deal with them as the estimates come before the house item by item.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to say nice words about a maritimer, even if that is not always done by those from the maritimes. I started out today by complimenting the minister for the sizeable help his department has given the tourist industry in eastern Nova Scotia by the extension of the trout season in that area. I have written him a nice note to that effect, and now I say publicly what I have expressed privately. I hope he will be able to make a quick decision within the department about the possible extension of the salmon season, apart from the spawning grounds, well into the fall in that same area because fishing for sport can be built up on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia to the benefit of the population there.
Before I get to the main point of my brief address which will concern lobster trap losses I should like to ask the minister, as a humanitarian and a man of common sense, to exercise these faculties where they are not now bring exercised by the ministers of two other government departments. The first point concerns the Department of Transport. I see that the minister, a pseudo-maritimer smuggled in by Mr. Smallwood, has returned from his latest odyssey. I will be speaking to him when we deal with the estimates of his department concerning navigational aids which are of help to fishermen, but I hope the Minister of Fisheries will do something about the restoration of the Sambro lightship to its time-honoured position outside the approach to Halifax harbour. I am sure the minister has read in the fishing journals of the Atlantic provinces and in other publications how sorely the fishing industry feels about the loss of that particular navigational aid, especially in view of the Cape Bonnie disaster this past winter. I hope the minister will also use his influence with the Minister of Public Works to point out that by and large fishing vessels are growing larger and that a system of wharves which no doubt could cope with the problems of some 30 years ago is really not adequate if the fishing industry is to develop properly.

I could give many examples from my own constituency but I will content myself with two. The first one is Sambro, a wharf built in the days of the late prime minister R. B. Bennett. Sambro bids fair to become and could become the sword fishing capital of eastern Canada. Many fishermen from Sambro derive a handsome living from swordfishing, but many of these men have to travel in their boats an additional 20 miles to Halifax and land their catches at another wharf simply because the wharf at Sambro is not large enough. I suggest that the minister exercise his talents on the Minister of Public Works and have the Sambro wharf extension added to the estimates.
The other place is Little Harbour in the other part of Halifax county. It is one of those delightful, picturesque places of almost postcard tourist quality. It is a fine little harbour with a thriving fishing industry. However, it is being stifled somewhat because the government wharf facilities are simply not large enough for the thriving fishery there. I think the minister understands the point that when there are more and larger vessels it is time to bring the physical plants along the seashore up to date as well or the fishermen will suffer.
The main part of my brief remarks concerns the grievous losses suffered by lobster fishermen in at least that part of Nova Scotia which I serve and I understand also in other areas. Rev. Neil F. MacDonald of Musquodoboit Harbour has been good enough to compile for me a list of fishermen in specific areas, the number of traps they had set and the number of traps they have lost in the present season. I will send the list to the minister but I should like to say that the figures Mr. MacDonald has presented are truly staggering. For example, one fisherman at East Petpeswick had 115 traps set and lost every one of them.
Mr. MacDonald broke down his report into four different groups and on looking at them I found that at East Peteswick 729 lobster traps were lost out of 954 set. At an estimated value of $6 per trap this is a loss of $4,300 for the seven fishermen affected, or a loss of about 75 per cent of the traps they used for catching lobsters. This is a grievous loss. The effect on the community of one person's loss would undoubtedly not be as severe but the fact is that the whole lobster fishing population of a very small village has suffered this loss in the last couple of months. Mr. MacDonald's figures cover 53 fishermen who had
June 5, 1967	COMMONS
set 7,972 traps. Of these 4,236 were lost, or approximately 52 per cent. I worked it out for each fisherman. On the average there were 150 traps set of which 80 were lost. At an approximate cost of $5 or $6 per trap the loss was from $400 to $480 for each fisherman.
These figures may seem very insignificant but as the minister knows-he must have heard of similar circumstances in his own riding so I know this will appeal directly to him-a loss of that magnitude to men of these small means is a truly staggering one. It would be equivalent to the loss of half of one year's salary and expense allowance for a member of parliament. I suggest that we should take a new look at the assistance we can give to lobster fishermen, especially when their losses rise beyond what can be regarded as reasonable levels. Of course I am not in a position to state what I think is a reasonable level, but I would say that obviously a loss of 52 per cent is very unreasonable. We could establish a disaster fund, but it is too late for that. We could extend the lobster fishing season, but that is of no great help when the men do not have the traps immediately at hand to replace their losses. They have lost the equipment which gave them the opportunity to earn a living.
It is now six o'clock but I should like to conclude my speech with a very short observation. A few days ago the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg advanced the idea of a lobster trap depot. The movement of traps would be feasible because the lobster fishing season varies from one part of Nova Scotia to another. This was an idea which was developed in meetings with lobster fishermen in different parts of the Halifax riding by Mr. Buchanan, by my colleague from Halifax and by myself. I think it has some virtue. It would help the fishermen where the lobster trap insurance, generous as it is in certain aspects, does not. I hope the minister will consider my point and make some observations on it later in this debate.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being six o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business I do now leave the chair.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform
DEBATES	1157
Proposed Broadcasting of Proceedings the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), Nickel-possible restriction on amount available in Canada; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), Consumer Credit-inquiry as to legislation this session; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), Expo '67-demonstrations, Department of National Defence.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I think I have to raise a question of privilege. The word "Expo" should not be included in the subject of what I intend to pursue on the late, late show at ten o'clock. I noticed the word in the copy of the agenda that my whip has but I was dealing specifically-I think the associate minister is aware of this-with a particular situation in Halifax which has nothing to do with Expo.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then perhaps I can correct that for the hon. member for Halifax so that it will read in this way: the hon. member for Halifax, Demonstration-Department of National Defence.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South) moved:: That a special committee of the house be appointed to consider and make recommendations on a system of televising and radio broadcasting the proceedings of this house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope the initial applause is an augur that hon. members will look with favour upon this resolution and permit it to come to a vote tonight.
I believe the question of televising the House of Commons proceedings is of particular importance to a country like Canada. Certainly it is true to say that the newspapers do an excellent job of covering the proceedings of the house. Though we may quarrel with their reports from time to time, especially when we feel we have been misquoted, by and large it is felt that a good part of the proceedings of this house are given coverage in the press. However, one thing that the newspapers cannot do for this house is to describe the special flavour of a nation whose people are bilingual, a flavour that is reflected
June 5. 196?
1158	COMMONS
Proposed Broadcasting of Proceedings in the debates here. I think it would be of enormous advantage to the people of Canada to realize the nature of the debates that take place, to hear these debates in one or the other of the official languages, and to witness the relationship that exists between our two founding peoples.
Again, Mr. Speaker, because we are a small nation in the presence of a large neighbour United States influence in this country tends to be very strong and is felt through the media of weekly magazines and television. We can use television to establish a better sense of identity in this country. It is the kind of medium of communication that would reach every corner of Canada and as such could counteract much of the American influence that is felt in this country.
Like all hon. members, I am very proud to participate in the work of this chamber. I never fail to be impressed by the fact that when I look around the house at the faces of the members and hear their accents I am looking at Canada. Words alone cannot convey this feeling to the Canadian people. I think it is important that they both hear these special accents and see those who speak them, a combination that makes up the mosaic that is our country.
A great speech is not only a news event; it is part of history. As history is written it should also be seen. We should have some way of preserving for those who come after us the words, the faces, the expressions and the emotions of the members of this house.
Think how important it would be to those attending school today to be able not only to read about the great figures of Canadian history but to hear their voices and see their faces as they deliver some of their memorable addresses. The events that have taken place in this house have implanted themselves upon history. We recall the pipe line debate, the debate on capital punishment, and the words of J. S. Woodsworth who alone spoke against the opinions which led this country into war. I am sure that each of us can think of hundreds of other occasions upon which figures in this house made their mark and whose voices should if at all possible be preserved.
Students visiting this house are quite often appalled by what they see here. They have the impression that every member of parliament sits firmly in his seat throughout the course of our proceedings, pays avid attention to every word that is spoken, that some kind of special debate and give and take occurs in this chamber to influence people on opposite
[Mr. Saltsman.l

sides of the house. Of course, this is not the way that parliament operates. One of two things would happen if the proceedings in this house were televised. Its image, which apparently is not liked by those who have seen it, would have to be explained to and understood and accepted by the public or this house would have to change its ways of operating.
I do not know which of these two things would occur but I believe that the decision about how this house should operate should take into consideration the opinions of the people that we were sent here to represent. None of us really knows who would benefit from the introduction of television in this chamber, but it is a new and important form of communication. Just as platform speakers are somewhat out of style in the new politics, perhaps some of the speakers who look good in print may not appear quite as impressive on television. This should not be any reason for limiting the kind of coverage that would take place in this house. Television would give a rounded perspective to what goes on and for that reason it would provide opportunities for all types of debaters and styles.
It is often said that members would play to the galleries. I think one of the things we have to face up to is that it does not require television in the house to make a member play to the galleries. This goes on all the time, and I think there is good reason for it. Much of what is done in this house is by way of informing public opinion and influencing public opinion. This can only be done by having the voices and opinions of the members of this house brought to the attention of the public at large. We know that what we say does not change opinions too much in the house. One of the great merits and virtues of publicity is that it will make our debates national debates and national dialogues. It is different in committees. There is more give and take, more willingness to accept opinions from whatever source they may come. Frequently there is a consensus. This behaviour the public should know about and see.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Some have been helped by television, others destroyed. We recall all the comments which were made about the Kennedy-Nixon debate and how it favoured Kennedy. We should also remember the McCarthy army hearings and how the image, face and words of McCarthy practically destroyed him when the public had a chance to examine what he was saying and doing. Whatever the effect
June 5, 1967

may be on those in public life I think the public should be able to examine and to make their own judgments. We televise state visits, state funerals and the speech from the throne, all magnificent experiences for those watching.
I recall being present in the chamber and hearing one speech from the throne and seeing that speech later on television and being impressed by what I saw. I saw a great deal more on television that I had seen in the chamber that day. Television is a medium that can make the most minute scrutiny of events and should be permitted to do so. Canada led the way in 1957 in broadcasting the state visit of that year. It was rebroadcast in Britain later and received enormous public acclaim. That led to agitation in Britain for similar television coverage over there. That was a first for Canada. The practice was developed here and accepted in Britain. It is always nice to say that Canadians have done something first, and my suggestion to hon. members today is that we have an opportunity to create a first in the British parliamentary system by having the proceedings of this house televised.
In other countries there is radio coverage. The houses of Australia and New Zealand are covered by radio. The proceedings of the Saskatchewan government are broadcast. Municipal councils are covered by radio and those who have listened to such programs have been greatly impressed.
The big question is, how is this to be done? That is why I ask that the matter be referred to a committee so that the committee may examine the ways and means of televising the proceedings of the house. Another question that arises is whether such coverage should be continuous. Perhaps we should be thinking of the possibility of satellite television when it comes and of one channel being devoted all day to the House of Commons. One might ask: Who will listen to something like that? I think a great many would listen. I am impressed by the number of people who read Hansard from cover to cover. Similarly, many people in this country would be willing to follow the debates in parliament from start to finish.
We tend to underestimate the drama of this house and the fascination of its debates. No one will deny that there will be problems with editing. Those might be overcome by some system of party allocation, as with radio broadcasts. I cannot make any specific recommendations or suggestions tonight. I only ask that this matter be referred to a committee to
Proposed Broadcasting of Proceedings examine these questions and to make recommendations on them to the house.
What would the public see on some of these broadcasts? Let us admit that some of it would be pretty bad stuff. The words in the newspaper often make badly spoken words look good, but the words in the newspaper tend to be far more polite than the words on the original occasion. Viewers will see members reading papers, banging their desks, writing letters or perhaps asking a silly question. They might see or hear some of those private little "in" jokes that this house enjoys-private club jokes. They might see a house that is half full paying no attention to a member making a speech. It is those sorts of things that the viewers will see. Perhaps they will understand or perhaps they will not. But, much more important than that, the viewers will see the magnificence of parliament.
After they have overcome the initial shock they are bound to suffer from they will see what parliament is all about. They will see occasions they will never forget. I have been here for almost three years and there are occasions, debates and speeches that I shall never forget, and the same may be said of others who have been here. There is a great excitement in the chamber. As an example let me refer to the debate on capital punishment. There were speeches from all parts of the house, from members of all parties, that surely must have been among the most moving and thoughtful in Canadian history. I wish that all Canadians had heard those speeches as I heard them. It might have corrected some misconceptions.
We may remember the recent scandals that were headlined in every newspaper. The impression throughout the country was that this house was doing nothing but debating scandals, when the facts of the matter were otherwise. This house was occupied with other business and the scandal was being debated in the press and in a judicial process. All this the nation would have known had the proceedings of this house been covered by television.
Unpopular measures have been raised in the house. A number of years ago two members from my party raised considerable ire because of their conduct on the divorce question. Now some recommendations are to be brought forward to take care of this longstanding and obscured social problem. That process could have been hastened had the people of the nation been party to what was going on and had they heard the arguments that were presented then.
June 5, 1967
1160	COMMONS
Proposed Broadcasting of Proceedings
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I wish there had been television in the house today. It was a proud moment for this house with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) speaking and presenting his point of view on the war in the Middle East. The members of the opposition party responded. There was intelligence, there was concern and there was timeliness. The nation should have had the opportunity of listening to what was said at this critical time. I saw the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) being interviewed in the library. There would have been no need for him to be interviewed outside the House of Commons. He explained very fully how he felt about what was happening. Those words should have been heard directly by the nation from the house itself.
Many have spoken in favour of broadcasting the proceedings of the house. I believe that the views of three of our political parties are on record. My own party is on record as being in favour of televising our debates. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has often spoken on this subject, has even indicated, to his credit, that he has changed his mind with regard to it. The Prime Minister has told us he is giving serious consideration to this request. When the committee on broadcasting met a few months ago it hoped to have its proceedings televised but apparently that was not possible under the rules. And, if I may say so, even Your Honour has indicated an interest in this question-I believe a favourable interest.
I would therefore urge hon. members to give this matter serious attention, to realize that this great new dimension is here, and to take steps to ensure that Canada is one of the first countries to benefit from this new medium so that this house, with its unique French-English flavour, may be seen in a way in which it cannot be reported.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame~de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the proposal that debates in this house be televised is becoming increasingly acceptable to hon. members. As was mentioned by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) told us during the debate on the speech from the throne that he would be quite willing to consider this suggestion and thought we might make a start by televising the sittings of our committees.
In other speeches made during that debate many opinions were expressed, the majority of them in favour of the proposal. The subject was again debated while the estimates of the


Department of the Secretary of State were under consideration last week. I believe it was the hon. member for Okanagan-Revel-stoke (Mr. Johnston) who is in his place today, who opposed the idea of direct broadcasting. I rose to ask him whether he felt there was any real difference between reporting the proceedings of this house in the press and having them televised directly. He replied that he was disappointed I was not more familiar with the media, and recommended that I read Marshall McLuhan's book "Understanding Media".
I have read, or tried to read, not only "Understanding Media" but other works by Mr. McLuhan. While there may be linear, tactile, hot and cold media, that is not what I was getting at in my question. If we decide that the proceedings of this house are to be made public rather than kept private as they were at one point in parliamentary history, how do we rationalize our conclusion that they can be made public by means of a public gallery or Hansard or the press or commentaries by radio and television people, but may not be broadcast directly through television and radio?
Some critics of this measure say that if our debates were televised members of parliament would be more concerned with acting and playing to the gallery than with legislating. I think the stimuli for acting or playing to the gallery are with us now. We have a public gallery, we have Hansard, we have reporters. I do not see that the introduction of television would of itself bring about the type of behaviour suggested on the part of members. Direct broadcasting would amount to a change in degree rather than a change in kind.
If members of parliament are more concerned with acting than with legislation I do not think a solution would be found by limiting the types of media which report our proceedings. No doubt there would be problems. It might not be possible to televise all the proceedings from 2.30 until 10.30, in which case there would have to be editing. The question would arise: Who is to decide what shall be shown? We are, of course, faced with this situation now. We have no control whatsoever over the men and women in the press gallery who write about what goes on in the house. We have no control over the editors who decide which stories shall go on page 1 under headlines and which shall be buried on page 45. In any case, nothing is accomplished by restricting the media.
June 5, 1967

Personally, with respect to the responsibility of reporting what goes on in this house I should like to see something organized in Canada along the lines of the press council in Britain where the men who report the news have banded themselves together into a professional group to receive complaints from the public and discipline themselves if there has been a breach of their own ethical code. This might result in the public getting more truthful and factual information about parliament.
I should like to mention a few things which have happened because the proceedings of this house are not televised. One is that many television and radio stations stage their own debates with their own panellists. These debates are very often the only ones the public sees and hears. The real debate, which goes on in this house, does not always filter down to the public. What the public sees is "Platform" and other programs of that nature. I object to programs of this type being the main forum of debate. I do so because those who take part in them are not chosen democratically as are the members of this house. They are chosen by the people who organize the programs. If our proceedings were open to the public through television I think a lot would be done to bring public debate in Canada back to the House of Commons.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
If we look at the history of parliament we see that the arguments given both for and against the televising of parliamentary proceedings were given in the past with respect to admitting the press to the press gallery, with respect to the reporting of proceedings in Hansard, and so on. Hon. members who have studied the history of parliament know that originally the proceedings of parliament were held in private, and it was a breach of privilege to publish them in any way. Of course there were reasons for this in the early days of parliament. Members of parliament were afraid of the reactions of the crown to some of the things they might say in the house because in those days the crown was powerful. Members of parliament were also afraid of the reactions of the mobs.
It was only in 1641 that certain reports began to appear with the printing of votes and resolutions. Division lists were published for the first time in 1689, but even in 1696 the Commons ruled that it was a breach of privilege to publish the minority list in a division. This later changed.
DEBATES	1161
Proposed Broadcasting of Proceedings
At the time of James I any stranger coming into the room or chamber where the Commons sat had to take an oath that he would not tell outside the house what he heard inside it. The two arguments that we see throughout history being used against opening the House of Commons to the public were, first, that the speeches and the proceedings of the house would be misrepresented and, second, that if the proceedings were open to the public the members of the house would become more accountable to those outside the house than to those within the house. 1 think today most hon. members would agree the second argument would not have too much weight because a lot of us realize we are accountable to those outside the house. But the first argument, misrepresentation, is still the main argument used today.
In the early days some members took notes within the chamber in Great Britain and these notes found their way on to bulletin boards, into coffee houses, and into small printed journals. For a long while there was no press gallery. Members of the press had to sneak into the public gallery, and because the taking of notes was not permitted in the public gallery they had to try to remember what went on and print their reports from memory.
At the very beginning these reports were printed with fictitious names to get around the ruling on privilege. These reports would appear in the journals of the day with fictitious names, but the public knew they were reports of debates. The public came to know the fictitious names and to identify them with certain people in parliament.
Finally, in 1771 the matter came to a head when a man named Wilkes printed the names of people involved in debates. Breach of privilege was claimed in the house and certain delegations went to parliament on Wilkes' behalf. Finally the mayor and council of London were sent to the tower for taking his side. I would like to refer to a book published by the Hansard Society, "Our Parliament", in which this incident is reported. It says:
The corporation of the city of London, headed by the mayor and an alderman, both members, and inspired by Wilkes, championed the printers' cause. As a result the house committed the mayor and alderman to the tower. There they were so overwhelmed with visits, compliments and presents, that their imprisonment became one long ovation. There was no doubt on which side the public sympathy lay. After six weeks' confinement the prorogation released the prisoners, and a year later the sheriffs were able to boast with justification that the House of Commons had "tacitly
June 5, 1967
1162	COMMONS DEBATES
Proposed Broadcasting of Proceedings acquiesced in the claim made by London citizens on behalf of the public at large that the constituents had a right to be informed of the proceedings of their servants in parliament."
After this incident, reporting was still a breach of privilege but reports were published with impunity. However, reporters still had to go into the public gallery and were not allowed to take notes. A separate press gallery was only allowed with the rebuilding of the house after the fire of 1834. Finally, in 1845, by order of the British House of Commons, reporters were allowed to go into the press gallery and report the proceedings of the house.
This same debate continues today, and the same arguments, with respect to television and radio. A couple of weeks ago when this matter was being debated on another occasion, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) suggested that we might start with radio. I think I would prefer radio to nothing at all, but when we have television, which is a much more complete medium, I cannot see any reason why we should not use television.
As the hon. member who proposed this motion said, proceedings in the New Zealand House of Commons have been reported directly by radio since 1936, and it has proved a very popular program there. In Australia debates have been reported since 1946, but according to the commentaries I have read it has not proved as popular in Australia as in New Zealand.
In the United Kingdom in 1962 a private member's resolution was put on the order paper to provide for televising proceedings, and it was sponsored by 28 members of that house. The subject was again discussed in the United Kingdom during debate on parliamentary reform in 1963. During that debate the Times of London, of July 30, 1963, carried a full report in which was quoted the remarks of minister without portfolio, Mr. Deedes, as follows:
"What troubles me about the house," Mr. Deedes, minister without portfolio, has said, "is not its proceedings, but its communications.... There is a very big gap, too big for an informed democracy, between what happens in the house and what people think happens. This has led to suggestions that House of Commons proceedings should be televised."
The motion before us, Mr. Speaker, asks that this matter be sent to committee for study. This is a worth-while suggestion but I think it will only delay a decision. I would rather suggest that we start off on an experimental basis, allowing under your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, the televising of certain

proceedings of parliament, maybe the question period one week, maybe a particularly interesting debate another week, maybe some of the committees that would be of interest to the public a third week, and this at first without any general authorization that would be final.
I suggest it should be done on a temporary basis at first, and afterwards the house would have an opportunity to assess the results of the experiment.
In conclusion I would like to congratulate the hon. member for presenting this motion to the house. It gives us an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons once more. It is my personal feeling that some day the proceedings of the house will be televised, and the quicker we do it the better it will be, not only for us but for the people of Canada.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: 
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A very wise and interesting statement.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yet I would say that we should not interpret the word "holiness" in the way some of our latter-day leaders have been attempting to interpret it, in the sense that we close ourselves off from the people and the world. I do not wish to become involved in a discussion of theology, but I should like to remind members that the root meaning of the word "holiness" is "healthiness", and this implies something about the body being vital and whole. If we prevent in any way whatsoever the people participating in knowing what is happening in this place, then we are doing a disservice to the house. If there has been-and I sense that there has been-over the past few years in this country a growing disillusionment with and despair about parliament and politicians, part of that I believe is due to the fact that we have cut ourselves off from the public. I realize that a hundred members could jump up and say that this is not true, on the ground that they send hundreds of letters to their constituents, have many personal visits with their constituents have many telephone conversations, and intercede on their behalf on many occasions. But that is what you are doing, in a sense, as a member outside this house.
June 5, 1967
1164	COMMONS
Proposed Broadcasting of Proceedings
I am talking about the decision making which affects the lives of the Canadian citizens. It is in that sense that the people feel cut off. I think it stems from being unable to participate in and know and see how in fact we represent them in deciding the affairs of state which affect their lives. So, if we are thinking of this place in terms of its sacred quality, or in terms of its importance to the country throughout history, then let us not give it a narrow interpretation but rather a broad and realistic one.
The second argument I think against broadcasting in this House of Commons relates to costs. I see figures, particularly those given by people writing in the newspapers, concerning how much it would cost. Surely the small cost in comparison to what it would do in terms of public enlightenment would indicate that we are being penny wise and pound foolish. The small amount of money that would be necessary to have set aside for the establishment of permanent radio and television equipment I do not think is a cost which we should bother ourselves about. Surely not, too, when we will be spending this year $140 million for one year's operation alone of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Also, as has been mentioned this evening, there is the concern some have that there would be some acting, if you like-some role playing, some playing to the gallery. Mr. Speaker, I suppose all of us to a degree are actors; otherwise we would not have gained a seat in this place. We have had to be adequate enough performers in our own area to convince a majority of the electors that we are necessary to them. I believe, however, that when we think of people who are playing to microphones or television cameras, we should not think only in terms of the negative effect but also we should think of the positive effect. Surely members will be conscious of the radio and television facilities in this house. Surely, when they rise to ask a question, make an interjection or make a speech, they will be conscious that their face and voice are going out across the country. That will be a good thing. Then maybe we will be able to cut out many of the questions and comments which have not been well advised. It may tend to eliminate some of the time which, in truth, I think is wasted in this place.
Perhaps, if great portions of the proceedings are broadcast-and frankly I do not argue for that-the people will be conscious of the fact that we spend too much time


debating matters of procedure and in allowing ourselves to be caught up in and concerned with matters of procedure rather than in dealing with the essential issues. I do not think it would do any harm at all to allow the public to have a much more constructively critical eye on how we govern ourselves in this place.
In introducing the resolution, I believe the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) suggested that a channel should be set aside for the continual televising of our activities here. I believe the experience of countries which have attempted this with radio is that this is not a necessary step and in terms of its reward in fact might be too costly. I do not think there are many newspapers which furnish verbatim accounts of everything which goes on in this house. Even the best newspapers we have in this country and in others at best give a precis of the highlights of a day's session.
This is the kind of thing I should like to see presented both on television and radio. This, too, I think is an area in which people become concerned about the editing. Questions were raised in the Britsh parliament, and have been raised here in discussions concerning this question, about who would do the editing, and who would get to appear on the national news at eleven o'clock to ask his or her questions. Surely we do not say to any of the representatives of newspapers in the gallery, "Be sure to submit your copy to us in advance so that we will know you have given us a fair representation". We would rather have the opportunity to complain about it the next day, when we could read the papers for ourselves. We do not believe in effect that we should exercise this kind of censorship, because it is not in the interest of our system or concept of freedom. I think it might be a good suggestion made by the hon. member earlier to follow the procedure of a press council, such as obtains in Great Britain, where there is some kind of self-discipline imposed; but I would abhor any attempt on the part of parliament, government or any group arbitrarily to edit the news. These people are newsmen and they know what is news. They know what in fact will be of major importance to the public; and I think if we believe in the freedom of the press, this kind of decision should be left ultimately in their hands.
c (6:50 p.m.)
Naturally we know all too well from experience that when this freedom is trespassed and when licence rather than freedom exists in the press there is recourse still left in this
June S, 1967

house and the courts to take action of that kind. Therefore I for one would not fear the editing that would exist in the C.B.C., the C.T.V. or any kind of news agency reporting the proceedings of this house.
Finally I should like to refer to one of the objections that some members have had in the past, namely the fear that once they have said something on television or radio they would have great difficulty in correcting it, changing it or retracting it because there would be an immediate, once and for all kind of contact with the viewer or listener. Surely that is what we are trying to achieve in the modernization of our democracy. Surely the trouble in implementing so many of our decisions in recent years has resulted from the lack of communication, the lack of contact and the lack of involvement with the people of this country. It is not just good enough to lay down a barrage of material at election time when the public tends to be highly sceptical. We must have an on-going dialogue with the people between elections, so they will exercise their franchise competently and participate competently in this system.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sioke):: Mr. Speaker, I admire the way in which the three previous speakers assumed that there is complete unanimity in this chamber on the subject, to the point of using up almost the entire hour. It would take a better speaker than myself, I am sure, to counter all the things that have been said in support of this resolution this afternoon in the minute or two left to me, but I will do what I can.
It has been stated that the public has a right to know, and that so-called right has been elevated to an absolute, it would seem. That process of elevation has been in evidence in the debate this afternoon. The right of the public to know has impinged very much on the right of privacy of the individual. This right to know, if television is allowed into this chamber under the guise of increasing the knowledge of the public, will impinge on the equally important right of this house to deliberation; and by that I mean to be deliberate, to take time, to be dull and to talk endlessly if necessary, and do all of those things that are bad television. Once we start televising procedures in this chamber I am sure we will not long be allowed to continue doing things that are bad television, because the medium will not stand for that.
The thing that concerns me most about the arguments presented this afternoon is the feeling that by televising this chamber it will
Proposed Broadcasting of Proceedings do all things, that it will be a panacea, that it can take off weight or put on weight, just like the old snake oil which promised everything. We are told that it will give the drama and the glory of this chamber. We are told on the other hand that bad aspects would be exposed. I wish some of the people arguing would make up their minds about which they are going to show, the drama and glory or the bad things which should be exposed. I am sure that, like all panaceas, which are not cure-alls at all, there will be a host of side effects which will be far more deadly to this institution, and will not be offset by the supposedly good things that will come out of this proposed move.
We on the North American continent are suffering from an urge to rush into history, and this is spreading to other parts of the world. We know the agony of public figures in the United States who have been concerned that the record be immediate and rushed out to the public. This has not meant that the people know any more of the truth of what actually happened, but confusion, bitterness and ignorance have all grown at the same pace.
We have an excellent example in this country of a very small institution that was one of the best in the country and rated high among those in the world, but which was virtually destroyed by television. I am speaking of the Leslie Bell choir. This was one of the finest we had, and it grew as a result of public appearances and radio. Once we had television it was natural to insist that this be brought to all Canadians through television. Mr. Bell found that he was no longer just a choirmaster, because he was told that people would not watch this choir stand idly singing, and that they had to move around. As a result to his great regret he became a choreographer at the same time, ultimately gave up televising and, in a sense, lost enthusiasm for the choir he had built up through different media.
For people to say that the effect is the same when you move from one medium to another is complete and utter ignorance, and is a misrepresentation of what by now should be obvious to Canadians. We were told the other night that television spared the United States from having Mr. Nixon as president. If it did that, then it was only an accidental byproduct. Those television debates showed North America that the thing that mattered in that contest was the rate of growth of the whiskers of the candidates. This became the important matter, and what happened afterward was only an accident.

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
I can give you an example of what has already taken place through televising, and I refer to the televising of the throne speech. Let me say only this about that situation. I was talking to one of the persons involved in televising that speech. He said the red carpets and red draperies will have to go because they bleed into the picture and everybody looks pink. I suggested that maybe it was the cameras that should be changed. That was heresy on my part: It was the chamber that would have to be changed; and if television comes into this chamber, the chamber will have to be changed. This is inevitable, and if it happens this will not be the same chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for consideration of private members business is now expired.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Prince) in the chair.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Macdonald, Prince):: Order, please. The house again in committee of supply. It being 7 p.m., pursuant to standing order 6(2), the committee stands suspended until 8 p.m. I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. ITranslationi
Jean-Thomas Richard: The
house in committee of supply on the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, item No. 1, department administration.


Mr. Bower:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief observations to make on the presentation of the estimates of the Minister of Fisheries. First I should like to express my appreciation, and I am sure the appreciation of all my constituents, for the recent gesture of the minister in extending the lobster Ashing season in district No. 4. This will no doubt be of great help in alleviating the very bad season experienced by the lobster fishermen in that area. Because of storms and bad weather conditions, their harvest to date has been perhaps only 50 per cent of the normal. The extension will at least give them a chance to recoup some of their losses. I am sure we in

that part of Nova Scotia are all very grateful for the gesture made by the minister.
At this time I should like to refer to the statement made by the minister in connection with the sealing operation in the gulf of St. Lawrence. I found it a careful, thoughtful and convincing statement which pointed out the importance of this industry to the economy of the area. The statement also pointed out very clearly that the seal hunt was being conducted in a humane manner. Perhaps there could still be some improvement in this connection and a correcting of some of the faults there may still be in the methods used to kill seals, but any reasonable person who takes the trouble to read the statement will be convinced that the almost world wide hysteria that has been aroused by some well meaning people, no doubt, but who have not taken the pains to see what has been done to improve the seal hunt, is completely unfounded. I feel that the statement must be publicized and brought to the attention not only of the Canadian public but the world at large, so that this criticism which has been such a reflection upon Canada as a whole may be dissipated.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
However, I think I would be remiss if I did not give full credit to the minister for having started the job of correcting public opinion on this subject. The people in my constituency are not interested in the seal hunt in the gulf of St. Lawrence but they have a deep sympathy for the people of that area and they realize only too well that the hunting of seal, which is a harvest just the same as the harvest of the domestic animals, which we all hate, is a vital part of the economy of that area.
I should like to appeal to the minister, who is undoubtedly interested in expanding the fisheries, to co-operate with me in my constant battle to get some action from the Minister of Public Works in the expansion of existing facilities. I would point out to him that in my constituency there is a need for new facilities or for an expansion of existing facilities because the fishing fleets have grown larger, and in some cases the facilities have fallen into disrepair.
There is another minor point which I should like to mention in connection with this, and that is that the planning of work, so far as dredging is concerned, is not well handled. For example we are now approaching the herring fishing season and a number of the wharves need dredging. They need it now, when the season is starting, not after the
June S, 1967

season is over or in the middle of it. I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he would consult me on some of these lacks and deficiencies and exercise some influence on his colleague in the cabinet, the Minister of Public Works. I will not name the individual items now because I do not think it appropriate, but I shall be very glad to bring them up in detail later in the course of the consideration of the minister's estimates.
I recall hearing the hon. member for Queens in his speech this afternoon make some comment on the increase in this year's estimates of the department. I observe that the increase over last year has been some 11.5 per cent, but I also note that the total amount is about one quarter of the total value of the 1966 exports of fish from Canada, which was about $219 million. I am not so concerned about the amount so long as it is worth while. It is a very substantial overhead figure and consequently it is imperative that it be well spent or we will indeed not get fair value in return.
Earlier in the debate mention was made of the east coast salmon fisheries. I should like to hear from the minister on what has been done or what can be done in connection with protecting the salmon in the Davis straits area, where I understand it has now been discovered they gather for their return to the east coast rivers to spawn. The salmon fisheries in the east coast, while not of the same tonnage proportion as those on the west coast, are extremely important to the economy of the maritime provinces, and it would be nothing short of tragic were protective measures not taken soon enough and in adequate proportions to protect this important item in the economy of the maritimes.
I have heard a number of comments from people in the western part of Nova Scotia on the question of the berried lobster, that is female lobsters producing eggs when in the pounds. I should like to hear from the minister as to why it would not be more practical and in the better interests of conservation to establish a system whereby the pound owners would be reimbursed for lobsters which they bought in good faith and under legal conditions for pounding during the season. When these lobsters are found to be in that condition they could be purchased and returned to sea. I have not at all been satisfied so far with any of the arguments against such procedure. I understand that the fish buyers pay a certain licence, which I believe is $1,000; but surely that cannot be a controlling factor in this matter, because the propagation of the
Supply-Fisheries
species should be far more important then the odd thousand dollars received in licence fees from pound owners.
I must emphasize that the 12 mile fishing limit continues to be an extremely lively and important issue in Nova Scotia, particularly in my constituency which lies in the western part of the province. While I appreciate the pre-occupation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with a most vital issue at the present time, I hope that this temporary interruption of his attention will not result in a forgetfulness concerning the 12 mile limit for another year, two or three.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like simply to ask the minister a question. As he knows, several hon. members have referred this afternoon to the seal problem, and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra put forward a suggestion that possibly in the fall some matters in connection with the subject could be referred to the fisheries committee. As the minister knows, there is a group in Canada which has been campaigning very vigorously for the abolition of the seal hunt. I do not know whether it is numerous, but many allegations and demands have been made and even what I would consider to be some unnecessary language was used by these people. My point is that to a private member there seems to be many contradictory statements and many facts which I feel should be clarified. Therefore I wonder whether the minister would consider referring the whole problem of seal hunting in the gulf of St. Lawrence to the fisheries committee, which would not only study the problem of seal hunting but also the economic conditions and everything else that might pertain to seal hunters. There have been allegations that we could very easily do away with the seal hunt and that the sealers would still be able to find other means of employment. There has been a dispute over how much the sealers get out of seal hunting, and who benefits from the seal hunt, whether Canadians or people in other countries.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I think it would be worth while bringing these people before a committee so they could give evidence to support their claims. They would be subjected to cross-examination and re-examination and experts from the Department of Fisheries could also appear and give evidence. I think that then the public in Canada could be properly informed on all sides of this issue. As it is, the group that has been organized is going round the country

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
making speeches and showing films, and there is no one at the meetings to contradict them. I think it is better that they be brought before a committee which could question them and ask them to substantiate the allegations they are making publicly. I think such a reference would be worth while.
I would be interested in hearing the minister answer later, perhaps at the end of the estimates, whether this might be a worthwhile procedure.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, when we consider the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, we notice that the Canadian government makes a contribution to international research, allows subsidies for the construction of freezing and storage facilities and fishing vessels, and also subsidizes practically all fields of fishing. The department must be congratulated for that assistance which proves that the minister is really aware of the significance of the fishing industry in our country, a large country with thousands of miles of coastline on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, vast inland seas and very great rivers. It is gratifying to see the enviable position our country has attained in the world markets with the assistance of the department. On both coasts of this country, that is, in the two areas where the fishing industry is the most important, the majority of workers have felt the need to organize and to protect their interests.
So now they are union members to negotiate better working conditions with their employers or again members of co-operatives to process and market their products.
Nevertheless, a certain number of Canadian fishermen are currently in a disastrous position, and I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fate of the commercial fishermen along the St. Lawrence river, below Montreal. In the constituencies along both shores of the St. Lawrence river, between Quebec and Montreal, fishermen can be found who succeeded very well in earning their livelihood and that of their families. These fishermen are not relying solely on luck but on organization. They own commercial equipment, hundred foot long drag seines or large traps, made of wire or various materials and called different names according to the areas.
To tell the truth, a fisherman does not fish. One might say that he draws from our resources, that he collects and loads his boat with hundreds, even thousands of pounds, and when the fishing is good, his catch may reach

one or more tons. In the past month, I have met several of those fishermen who told me in confidence that they were desperate in the present situation. As a matter of fact, the situation is more than desperate, it is tragic.
Those people who managed to earn $5,000 and sometimes $7,000 a year saw their earnings go down last year to as low as $600. And as things are going this year, that is, in 1967, if nothing changes, one wonders if they will manage to earn $100. And earnings of $100 for people who used to make $5,000 and $7,000, are really not a gift in this centennial year.
From Orleans island, near Quebec city, to Montreal, dead fish has been found on the shores of the river for a year and a half. Pike, pickerel, bass, carp and even eel are dying by thousands. Such a thing has been unheard of in the area in the last fifty years at least. We know that everything concerning water pollution is considered jointly by the central government and the provinces. However, I have to denounce the Expo corporation which has been polluting the river since 1965 and 1966. This is still going on, during the centennial year, since DDT or rather Rothane, if you prefer, has been poured in the river at the beginning of this summer; that is 2,700 gallons, or 27,000 pounds of violent poison.
Experts, paid to say that this violent poison is harmless cannot but agree that it is.
To the experts who are paid to say it is not dangerous, I who was paid to sell that violent poison for ten years as a salesman of insecticides to farmers, repeat that it is a violent poison and that the present situation is due to that poison dumped into the river continuously for the last three years. I hope that the minister will tell us what influence was brought to bear so that this criminal act, repeated by the people responsible for Expo, is condoned by the central government in Ottawa.
I also hope that the minister will tell us what the Department of Fisheries intends to do to help all those fishermen without another source of income, for those workers who are not asking anyone for anything and pay taxes like all other Canadians.
Will the minister tell us also what the cost will be to the Department of Fisheries because the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources neglected to assume its responsibilities before the damage had been done?
Mr. Chairman, I will deal briefly with this subject, in view of the fact that it is a matter of life or death for some fifty citizens living along the shores of the St. Lawrence. I ask the minister to make his views known on this, and
June 5, 1967

I hope all other hon. members representing riparian ridings will also make their views known on this situation.


Mr. Noble:: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to assure the minister that my remarks will not be too long. Only a few members of the house are interested in the Great Lakes fishery, and I feel during consideration of the estimates some matters with respect to the fresh water fisheries should be mentioned. I am mainly interested in the Georgian bay and lake Huron area.
The Great Lakes fisheries are under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. However, I know the federal government, in co-operation with the United States, are supporting the International Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, and anything of an international nature is considered by this body.
It is in respect to the area around Georgian bay and lake Huron that I am seeking information. The waters I speak of have been depleted of lake trout for a long time, and we all know that this was a result of the invasion of the sea lamprey which destroyed the lake trout. The program of lamprey control has been in operation for quite a number of years, but I would ask the minister to bring the committee up to date on what progress has been made in this regard. What is the government's contribution to this program, what will be the total mount spent by the International Great Lakes Fisheries Commission for 1967, and will the operation this year be concentrated in any specific area?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In other words would the minister like to speculate on how soon trout stocks can be introduced to lake Huron with some hope of successful propagation? I would ask the minister, does he have information about the successes of splake plantings? This operation has been under way for some time in conjunction with the International Great Lakes Fisheries Commission and we have heard little about it. The fishermen in my area would like to have up to date information on this project.
I should mention to the minister that several years ago, as he knows, I promoted the introduction of sockeye salmon or kokanee, to the great lakes. With the co-operation of the premier of Ontario and one of his chief research workers we successfully introduced kokanee into Georgian bay and lake Huron. Perhaps the minister already knows this, but we were successful in having kokanee come
Supply-Fisheries
up to spawn, at 18 months of age. They were not expected before three years of age. On this project we are being kept up to date. Because of that I wish the minister could tell us what progress is being made on other programs I have mentioned. From the information I have had from the International Great Lakes Fisheries Commission I have learned that they are promoting splake in preference to kokanee even though the kokanee is showing more signs of success than is the splake.
If the minister could answer those questions I should be well satisfied.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I wish briefly to bring up a matter which I have discussed with the minister. In the house on many occasions I have mentioned salmon fishing. When the estimates were before the house last the minister replied extensively about what his department was doing and I was well satisfied with the answer-though I hasten to interject that no matter what is done, it is never enough.
We are faced on the Saint John river with another dam. Regardless of how optimistic we may be it will change the habits of the salmon. Provision is made for the protection of the salmon and we are hoping that this will be of benefit. The pollution of the Saint John river also is becoming worse. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton the other day referred to this matter.
I should prefer to discuss later the matter of the new licensing policy for the salmon net fishermen in Saint John harbour, but since this may be my only opportunity for some time I wish to place on record briefly one or two thoughts in mind.
I understand from information that has been given to me by the department that in April of this year a new policy was enunciated by the minister with respect to the licensing of salmon fishermen in certain areas of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This new policy comes under the authority of the old regulations; there is nothing legislatively new about it. I am interested in it, and I think we are all interested in conservation. Though we must be careful to protect our resources I do not know how much notice the fishermen received of the new policy. I know that the new salmon restrictions were published extensively, but I wonder how many of the actual fishermen, those who are engaged in the activity covered by the regulations, knew of the policy? They must be made aware of it for the policy to be effective quickly.

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
I hope the minister has the information I am about to ask for. If he has not, perhaps he could let me have it later. I know that he will give it to me. My question is this: How many applications for licences in the bay of Fundy were received this year and turned down as a result of the new policy restrictions? I know that there is a problem of the harbour as against the bay. I always found it hard to understand why we restrict salmon fishing in the bay of Fundy but not in Saint John harbour? I hasten to add that my prime concern is with the Saint John harbour. I wonder what the attitude of conservationists is about salmon stocks in these two areas? Why are they concerned with the bay, but not with the mouth of the harbour through which the salmon past? It may be that the authority would be hard to impose in the harbour. Perhaps the minister might confirm this.
I am also interested in the bona fide fisherman as against what one might call the moonlighter. We are all interested in conservation, and I know that any serious salmon fisherman will go along with something that is being brought forward sincerely to regulate fish stocks. But I understand that the main reason for the new changes is that for a couple of years salmon fishing has been extremely good, and the department wishes to move in to this area of activity. Is this the reason? Is the cycle of salmon fishing so good that these restrictions need to be brought forward?
Having said that I suppose the minister will also wish to comment about what one might consider discrimination against certain classes of fishermen. It is important that the fisherman, whose prime occupation is fishing, should be given extra consideration when applying for a licence. Some fishermen who have fished for many years are none the less not fishermen, primarily, fishing is not their main occupation. I wonder if the minister has considered that. Without going into the regulations, and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, I understand that under extenuating circumstances consideration will be given to licensees.
I also wish to know whether the figure 120, which refers to the area in which I am interested, will be maintained. In other words if one or two vacancies occur this year will the minister seek replacements next year, or will he be satisfied with a lower figure?
The other question has to do with salmon fishing. In my area we have a great salmon river. On the order paper I have a question which has not been answered yet. I do not

criticize the minister, because it is necessary to compile figures. As I say, coming from the bay of Fundy we have a nice salmon river that was famous for many years for its salmon. The fish count decreased because of pollution and industrialization, and the weird habits of the salmon. The salmon count at one time went down to almost 100. Recently, though, for some strange reason-I do not know whether that reason is the dam-we have counted from 3,000 to 5,000 salmon in this river. I might add that the federal government has taken considerable interest in this waterway and it can take a great deal of pride for spending money in a worth-while project that has increased the salmon count.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The project of which we are proud was undertaken in conjunction with the Fish and Game Association of Saint John, New Brunswick. That project was the pride of anybody who went to the river to fish. Recently an altercation took place between the private company and others, and the question was asked whether the provincial government had certain privileges in the area. I limit my criticism to this, because it appears they are on the horns of a dilemma. But I understand this private company has exercised fishing privileges, or privileges on the river which give it fishing rights, and now this salmon pool which was so valuable to many in our area has been lost to the fishermen.
I say that the federal government should have protected its investment to a greater degree. I should like to know if the department was consulted in the course of the negotiations which took place between the provincial government and the company, as a result of which the company was able to obtain these valuable salmon pools. I should like to know also the terms of the contract which was entered into when we expended these large sums of money originally there. That is all I have to say. I reiterate my interest in salmon fishing and in all forms of conservation in connection with both salmon fishing and commercial fishing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to make a few brief remarks on the question of conservation generally on behalf of members of rod and gun clubs in my area, those interested in sport fishing and recreational facilities and those interested in the development of the tourist industry.
From information I have received from my constituency I judge that the provincial government takes a unilateral approach to the
June 5, 1967

development of sports fishing in British Columbia. I think this was clearly demonstrated by the difficulties experienced by the minister in connection with the Stellako log drive in connection with the activities of the provincial government, when some sharp protests were made by those who are interested in the protection and development of sports fisheries in our province.
Then there are a large number of lakes in British Columbia which are becoming infested with coarse fish, which are driving out fish such as Kamloops trout and Dolly Varden. I am also informed there is a large export by the provincial government of kokanee eggs to the United States, though many people feel these should be used in Britsh Columbia. I am not aware of the terms under which these eggs are exported. I trust the minister will explain some of these things to me when he replies later.
I should also like to know whether there is any co-operation between the federal department and the provincial department of fisheries with respect to the development of sport fisheries on the Columbia river, which will be harmed to a great extent by the projects provided for in the Columbia river treaty. It is evident from a confidential report of the wildlife branch of the province of British Columbia that this would be the case. I should like the minister to say whether the federal government is co-operating in any way-I should think it would have a certain responsibility in this area-in any effort which may be undertaken to rebuild the fisheries which will be lost for a number of years to residents and visitors.
I should like the minister to explain to the house the legal responsibility under the constitution for the protection and development of sport fisheries. Then I should like him to explain the arrangements which have been made with the provincial authorities for the drafting of regulations.
Are these regulations ever questioned by officials of the federal government, or are they accepted as sent in by the provincial government without amendment? What are the arrangements with respect to these regulations which are forwarded to the federal government and what is the procedure? I understand that approval by the federal authorities is necessary to give them the effect of law. I should like the minister to deal with this question because it is one which is of great interest to a number of people I have the honour to represent, some of whom are confused as to where final responsibility rests for
Supply-Fisheries
what is happening in British Columbia in connection with the protection and development of sports fisheries.
I must say I congratulate the minister on what I thought was a very patient attitude in dealing with the Stellako log drive. I hope he will tell the house what arrangements exist at the present time with respect to that drive.


Mr. Fairweather:: I wish to follow up what was said on another occasion by my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton in connection with a subject which was mentioned also by my hon. friend from Saint John-Albert a minute or two ago, namely pollution of the Saint John river.
This is an important matter. The minister has told me that it is already affecting the salmon fishing and I am sure he agrees with me that the closest possible co-operation is needed, now, between his own department, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the provincial authorities.
Unlike most of the subjects with which we deal in parliament the answer, in this case, is clear. We know where the pollution is coming from. Seventy per cent of it is coming from Fraser Brothers in Edmundston. Another large portion of it comes from the capital city of New Brunswick which I am ashamed to say has done nothing tangible by way of removing the raw sewage it now dumps into the Saint John river. There have been surveys, I know, but as the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton said the other day, the subject has been studied to death.
The reason a New Brunswicker is concerned about this is that we in our province have had a tragic example of what can happen if pollution is unchecked in the loss of the salmon fishery on the St. Croix river. Only now are active steps being taken to redress this situation and I understand it will take decades, even generations, to restore that fishery.
As the minister knows, the case of pollution which concerns many of us has to do with the pollution which will arise when the Mac-taquac power dam is finished, building up a 60-mile head of so-called dead water-with the Fraser Brothers pollution entering the river above this point. There is really not much point getting civic minded municipalities and other groups to clear up their pollution if major corporations do nothing about it. This is not an indictment of Frasers; I know there are provincial and federal schemes-tax write-off provisions, and so on. But at some stage there has to be a deadline. Possibly

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
Fraser Brothers has already announced concrete plans so that deadlines will not have to be invoked.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As I say, we know what the problem is. It has been studied backwards and forwards, or upwards and downwards, whichever way you prefer it. It seems to me the time has come for a concentrated effort to be made by the joint authorities of Ottawa and Fredericton, representing as they do the national and provincial governments, to clear up this problem. I speak with some feeling about it because my constituency contains the Saint John river, a fine river, and five of its tributaries, together with two large lake systems that flow into the Saint John river.
I have always had a great interest in seeing that the river be cleaned up, and that not only our sports fishery but the commercial fishery be protected on this great waterway.


Mr. Danforfh:: 
Mr. Davis:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief but I do want to make a determined plea to the minister to continue the special subsidy which was instituted last year and directed toward the catching and processing of dogfish on the west coast. Dogfish is a shark-like fish that grows to as much as five feet in length. It is a predator and lives off many of the smaller fish species on the coast. It has been free to proliferate in recent years, because there has been no commercial market for it.
During the war years it was caught in considerable numbers and processed for its vitamin A content. Prices as high as $3 per pound were available at that time. But as a result of developments in the chemical industry during and following the war, vitamin A began to be made synthetically. The demand for dogfish livers fell off and there has been no commercial incentive to catch dogfish ever since.
Dogfish is the fish which is caught in the North Sea and which provides most of the flesh for fish and chips in the United Kingdom. Although it has no commercial value on our coasts, it does have a commercial value in the North Sea. It is caught in substantial numbers by the Norwegians, in fact in such numbers that dogfish, or greyfish as it is known in the North Sea area, has to be protected. During the war years we landed as much as 40,000 tons per annum. Recently catches have been negligible, but for the last two years experiments have been conducted on the west coast with a view to reducing the cost not only of catching these fish but of processing and transporting them to markets overseas.
I would like very much to see these experiments continue. I understand that last fall some $25,000 was set aside by the Department of Fisheries and a limited experiment conducted, the results of which are not available at this time. There is a substantial market for these fish, particularly in the United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium. Conceivably markets could be developed in time for dogfish flesh in North America. A modest subsidy would be required in the initial stages but, as I mentioned, it is becoming a relatively scarce commodity in Europe.
The economics of processing and transportation have yet to be fully explored and I would urge the department to continue its experiment this year. If it is successful we should be able to bring our dogfish population under control and substantially increase the salmon, herring, pilchards and other species which are being decimated by the greyfish, or
June 5, 1967

development of sports fishing in British Columbia. I think this was clearly demonstrated by the difficulties experienced by the minister in connection with the Stellako log drive in connection with the activities of the provincial government, when some sharp protests were made by those who are interested in the protection and development of sports fisheries in our province.
Then there are a large number of lakes in British Columbia which are becoming infested with coarse fish, which are driving out fish such as Kamloops trout and Dolly Varden. I am also informed there is a large export by the provincial government of kokanee eggs to the United States, though many people feel these should be used in Britsh Columbia. I am not aware of the terms under which these eggs are exported. I trust the minister will explain some of these things to me when he replies later.
I should also like to know whether there is any co-operation between the federal department and the provincial department of fisheries with respect to the development of sport fisheries on the Columbia river, which will be harmed to a great extent by the projects provided for in the Columbia river treaty. It is evident from a confidential report of the wildlife branch of the province of British Columbia that this would be the case. I should like the minister to say whether the federal government is co-operating in any way-I should think it would have a certain responsibility in this area-in any effort which may be undertaken to rebuild the fisheries which will be lost for a number of years to residents and visitors.
I should like the minister to explain to the house the legal responsibility under the constitution for the protection and development of sport fisheries. Then I should like him to explain the arrangements which have been made with the provincial authorities for the drafting of regulations.
Are these regulations ever questioned by officials of the federal government, or are they accepted as sent in by the provincial government without amendment? What are the arrangements with respect to these regulations which are forwarded to the federal government and what is the procedure? I understand that approval by the federal authorities is necessary to give them the effect of law. I should like the minister to deal with this question because it is one which is of great interest to a number of people I have the honour to represent, some of whom are confused as to where final responsibility rests for
Supp ly-Fisheries
what is happening in British Columbia in connection with the protection and development of sports fisheries.
I must say I congratulate the minister on what I thought was a very patient attitude in dealing with the Stellako log drive. I hope he will tell the house what arrangements exist at the present time with respect to that drive.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I wish to follow up what was said on another occasion by my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton in connection with a subject which was mentioned also by my hon. friend from Saint John-Albert a minute or two ago, namely pollution of the Saint John river.
This is an important matter. The minister has told me that it is already affecting the salmon fishing and I am sure he agrees with me that the closest possible co-operation is needed, now, between his own department, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the provincial authorities.
Unlike most of the subjects with which we deal in parliament the answer, in this case, is clear. We know where the pollution is coming from. Seventy per cent of it is coming from Fraser Brothers in Edmundston. Another large portion of it comes from the capital city of New Brunswick which I am ashamed to say has done nothing tangible by way of removing the raw sewage it now dumps into the Saint John river. There have been surveys, I know, but as the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton said the other day, the subject has been studied to death.
The reason a New Brunswicker is concerned about this is that we in our province have had a tragic example of what can happen if pollution is unchecked in the loss of the salmon fishery on the St. Croix river. Only now are active steps being taken to redress this situation and I understand it will take decades, even generations, to restore that fishery.
As the minister knows, the case of pollution which concerns many of us has to do with the pollution which will arise when the Mac-taquac power dam is finished, building up a 60-mile head of so-called dead water-with the Fraser Brothers pollution entering the river above this point. There is really not much point getting civic minded municipalities and other groups to clear up their pollution if major corporations do nothing about it. This is not an indictment of Frasers; I know there are provincial and federal schemes-tax write-off provisions, and so on. But at some stage there has to be a deadline. Possibly

June 5. 1967
Supply-Fisheries
Fraser Brothers has already announced concrete plans so that deadlines will not have to be invoked.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As I say, we know what the problem is. It has been studied backwards and forwards, or upwards and downwards, whichever way you prefer it. It seems to me the time has come for a concentrated effort to be made by the joint authorities of Ottawa and Fredericton, representing as they do the national and provincial governments, to clear up this problem. I speak with some feeling about it because my constituency contains the Saint John river, a fine river, and five of its tributaries, together with two large lake systems that flow into the Saint John river.
I have always had a great interest in seeing that the river be cleaned up, and that not only our sports fishery but the commercial fishery be protected on this great waterway.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the contention made by my colleague, the hon. member for Grey North, who spoke on some of the problems facing inland fishermen. My purpose in rising is mainly to seek concrete information from the minister. He knows that so far as the fishermen of lake Erie are concerned an absolute disaster was averted by the marketing procedures universally engaged in, which allowed the fishermen to get a price of 8 cents to 12 cents a pound where formerly prices had dropped to 1J cents to 3 cents per pound.
I would like the minister to disclose what long range plans, in conjunction with the provincial government, that he has to restore the lake Erie fishing operation. Although a layman I am well aware extensive research on the waters has been engaged in both by the provincial and federal authorities. This has covered different methods of fishing, but the fact still remains that since the invasion of the lamprey eel only two main varieties of fish are taken from lake Erie on the Canadian shore, namely smelt and perch.
The minister knows that a few yellow pickerel have worked their way down the lake, but if anything should happen to the market for perch and smelt fillets, which are very small and are more or less a luxury demand, the fishermen would be in dire economic circumstances. I would appreciate very much if the minister would outline what his department, in conjunction with the provincial department, envisage in their experimental work and their plans for this fishery.
[Mr. Fairweather.l


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief but I do want to make a determined plea to the minister to continue the special subsidy which was instituted last year and directed toward the catching and processing of dogfish on the west coast. Dogfish is a shark-like fish that grows to as much as five feet in length. It is a predator and lives off many of the smaller fish species on the coast. It has been free to proliferate in recent years, because there has been no commercial market for it.
During the war years it was caught in considerable numbers and processed for its vitamin A content. Prices as high as $3 per pound were available at that time. But as a result of developments in the chemical industry during and following the war, vitamin A began to be made synthetically. The demand for dogfish livers fell off and there has been no commercial incentive to catch dogfish ever since.
Dogfish is the fish which is caught in the North Sea and which provides most of the flesh for fish and chips in the United Kingdom. Although it has no commercial value on our coasts, it does have a commercial value in the North Sea. It is caught in substantial numbers by the Norwegians, in fact in such numbers that dogfish, or greyfish as it is known in the North Sea area, has to be protected. During the war years we landed as much as 40,000 tons per annum. Recently catches have been negligible, but for the last two years experiments have been conducted on the west coast with a view to reducing the cost not only of catching these fish but of processing and transporting them to markets overseas.
I would like very much to see these experiments continue. I understand that last fall some $25,000 was set aside by the Department of Fisheries and a limited experiment conducted, the results of which are not available at this time. There is a substantial market for these fish, particularly in the United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium. Conceivably markets could be developed in time for dogfish flesh in North America. A modest subsidy would be required in the initial stages but, as I mentioned, it is becoming a relatively scarce commodity in Europe.
The economics of processing and transportation have yet to be fully explored and I would urge the department to continue its experiment this year. If it is successful we should be able to bring our dogfish population under control and substantially increase the salmon, herring, pilchards and other species which are being decimated by the greyfish, or
June 5, 1967

dogfish, this shark-like fish. One way to improve the stock of fish of higher commercial value would be to push this program to its logical conclusion.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to thank hon. members for their remarks and to assure them that the suggestions they made will receive full consideration by my department and myself. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Queens say that the increased expenditures which the estimates forecast for the Department of Fisheries were justified.
The hon. member for Queens also mentioned that Canadian fisheries within the last ten years had slipped from sixth to tenth place in world production. As the hon. member mentioned, there is a good reason for this. We in Canada have to compete on the world market. Other countries which may have greater fishery production need the fish they catch for their own consumption. To them their production is a necessity. From my recent visit to the U.S.S.R. I know that the fishing industry in Canada could not exist if we had to produce fish at the price which it costs some other countries. For example, herring costs the U.S.S.R. from 30 cents to 40 cents per pound to produce. I just wonder what we could do in Canada if we had to increase our production at that cost.
I want to assure the hon. member that it is the objective of the Department of Fisheries to encourage the processing of herring for human consumption. As the hon. member mentioned, a number of new plants have been erected, particularly on the Atlantic coast, for the processing of herring. A few weeks ago at the annual meeting of the Fisheries Council in Montreal I asked the fishing industry to take a serious look at processing more herring for human consumption so that increased productivity will result in a better price to our fishermen.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
A number of hon. members, including the hon. members for Queens, Vancouver Quadra, Kings, Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, and Notre-Dame-de-Graee, have referred to the seal hunt on the Atlantic coast and particularly in the gulf of St. Lawrence. I wish to thank hon. members for the position they have taken in respect of this problem, which has created such interest and commotion in this country and abroad in the last two or three years. I should like to repeat what I said previously in this house. I am prepared to take every measure possible to prevent any cruelty in the methods used for the killing of seals. Recently
Supply-Fisheries
I have issued a number of reports on the sealing operation. I have explained how it is a part of the fishery operation of the east coast. Some of the suggestions which are made in connection with this operation are made by people who, although I am sure thoughtful and well intentioned, definitely are not familiar with the problems this industry has to face on the Atlantic coast.
I am sure hon. members will be pleased to learn that on my return from a visit to the U.S.S.R. I spent a few days in Norway where I had an opportunity to discuss this problem with representatives of the Norwegian government. Most hon. members are aware that Norway now is the only foreign country engaged in sealing operations on the west Atlantic coast. We have succeeded in having the sealing regulations on the front-outside Newfoundland and in the area off the east coast of Newfoundland-accepted under the protocol of ICNAF, but unfortunately Norway and Canada, being the only two countries which are interested, it is rather difficult to consider under ICNAF the type of regulations which will control not only conservation and protection but also the method of killing. During my discussions in Norway I was given assurance that the Norwegians would be prepared to enter into a special agreement with Canada in order to introduce on the front special regulations for controlling not only conservation and protection, but also to some extent the methods of killing.
For that purpose, since ICNAF is meeting this year in Boston, on Thursday of this week I plan to go to Boston myself. I will meet with representatives of the Norwegian government and of the fishing industry. We will discuss the type of measures which could be applied on the front and which could be effectively enforced. I have every reason to believe we will receive the full co-operation of the Norwegian government in introducing measures on the front quite comparable as we now have to control the situation on the gulf of St. Lawrence.
The hon. member for Queens also mentioned the use of aircraft in the seal hunt. I agree that there should be better control over the operation of these aircraft. I am looking forward to amending further the sealing regulations because I believe there still is room for improvement. It is my intention to look into the possibility of having better control over the aircraft operations because, with regret, I must say that during the last season, if there were a few cases of abuse-and they were very few-these were mainly by the operators

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
of the aircraft rather than by those who operated from sealers or sealing vessels.
I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that all fishery problems will not be solved due to the fact that we discussed the estimates of the department before the standing committee last year; but surely he will agree with me that this was a wonderful opportunity to bring forward the problems affecting the fishing industry and for us to explain the action taken by the department. I should like to repeat what I said last year. I appreciate the attitude taken by the members of that committee.
The hon. member referred to the B.C.-Alaska salmon fishing problem. As we announced during meetings of the committee last year, the department carried on exploratory fishing and tagging programs in northern British Columbia waters to discover whether the salmon would be available for commercial fishing in the rivers of British Columbia and Alaska. This report is available. We have already discussed it with representatives of the industry and different fisheries associations on the west coast. I can assure the hon. member it is my intention, as he has requested, to table this report.
There is evidence, in the migration of the pink salmon, that the migration in that particular region differs considerably between the odd numbered and even numbered years, The south to north movements usually are stronger in the even numbered years. For this reason we will carry on a new experiment this year in order to gather the complete information. An experiment similar to that undertaken last year will be undertaken again this year and then, following a discussion with the industry and the fisheries associations, we will meet with our friends from the south, the United States representatives, with a view to reaching a decision in respect of what action should be taken.
The hon. member also referred to a matter which has been of great concern to those interested in the fishing industry on the west coast. I should like to assure the hon. member that although I am from the east coast I am not easterly oriented. I am oriented in the fisheries from coast to coast. I can also say that the same applies to my predecessor, the hon. gentleman who held this post before me.
As the hon. member is aware, I have stated that this dispute does not come under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities. In a telegram which he quoted from the minister of labour for British Columbia it was stated
[Mr. Robichaud.l
that the minister said that fishing does not come under the jurisdiction of the provincial department of labour. It is true that fishing does not come under the jurisdiction of that department; it is a federal responsibility. But in respect of this dispute it is not the fishing that is concerned. What is involved is the unloading and handling of the fish after it is caught. After seeking advice from the Department of Justice I am told that the subject matter of the dispute relates to property and civil rights which definitely are matters which come under provincial jurisdiction. Notwithstanding this, I have offered my services, in co-operation with the officials of my department, to the officials of the British Columbia government in an effort to find ways and means to bring about an end to this dispute.
Again I should like to assure the hon. member that within federal jurisdiction I am prepared to do anything I can within my responsibility to bring an end to this dispute, which is causing such concern to the British Columbia west coast fishing industry.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has referred to the subsidy paid to fishing vessel owners. He mentioned 170 vessels in 1966 and close to 300 this year subject fo federal subsidy. I am at a loss to understand what is meant by these subsidies. There certainly are no subsidies being paid by the Department of Fisheries. We have made very clear that such subsidies were not applicable to vessels used for salmon fishing. Furthermore no subsidies have been paid under the regulations of the Department of Fisheries to fishing vessels on the west coast. I am sure that if the hon. member would look at the figures of subsidies which have been produced by the maritime commission he would find that their figures are much lower than those quoted in the letter, part of which he read this afternoon.
9 (9:10 p.m.)
I know there is a problem as referred to by several hon. members, including the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, regarding a dispute between commercial and sport fishermen, particularly in the Juan de Fuca strait. While no final decision has been reached, I have made it quite clear that it is our intention to close a small and limited area of the strait to commercial fishing, leaving it open only for sport fishing. I want to make it clear that this is not a matter of creating a precedent, but we are well aware of the growing
June 5, 1967

importance of the sport fishery in that area of British Columbia. Certainly we are not underestimating its importance.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra referred to Greenland halibut. This is a matter which falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce and I have already referred it to my colleague, the minister responsible for that department. His officials have taken this matter up with representatives of the appropriate department in Washington.
The hon. member for Kings said he appreciated the co-operation he has received from the department, and he referred particularly to protection of the gear of inshore fishermen which on many occasions is destroyed by draggers operating too close to shore. I am pleased to inform him that within the next few weeks, after full discussions with the provincial governments concerned, it is my intention to introduce certain regulations prohibiting the operation of draggers in limited areas where inshore fishing is prominent. We have every reason to believe that this will afford the type of protection desired.
Unfortunately the hon. member for Kings and I do not agree on the payment of subsidies on fishing vessels of the 35 foot to 45 foot class. Let me assure the hon. member that when this policy was announced there was a press release which was issued after full discussion and agreement with the provincial loan boards in the Atlantic provinces.
That release stated:
During the first few years of operations under the new regulations assistance to vessels under 45 feet in length will be limited to approved experimental designs. The fishermen's loan boards in the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and the minister of industry and commerce in the province of Quebec, will continue the direct administration of the new regulations. Close control over the design and specifications of craft eligible for assistance will be maintained by federal-provincial co-operation. This will include consideration of the numbers to be built each year, and their location, and the co-ordination of their construction with training projects designed to provide skilled manpower for a modern Atlantic fleet.
I wish to add that regulations were passed by order in council P.C. 1964/8995 covering such agreements reached with the fishermen's loan boards of the provinces.
The hon. member for Halifax referred to assistance to lobster fishermen. I agree there was a heavy loss suffered by lobster fishermen on the Atlantic coast this spring, due to stormy weather and the late opening of the lobster season as a result of the
Supply-Fisheries
heavy ice movements. Our policy is not different to that which has been followed for a number of years. On different occasions in the house I have stated that we are prepared to consider assisting any area if the provincial government concerned will make representations to us and declare such losses in those areas as being of disaster proportion. Under those circumstances we would be prepared to consider providing assistance.
In this instance I want to repeat what I said last year, emphasizing that it is unfortunate that lobster fishermen are not taking advantage of the fishermen's indemnity fund. We have a program of insuring their lobster traps and their boats, and in this way protecting them in case of losses such as those which occurred this year. However, it is most unfair for lobster fishermen of a certain area, who do take advantage of this insurance policy, in order to be compensated for losses when other fishermen are not contributing to this insurance policy and are provided with assistance.
Perhaps I should say that the province of Nova Scotia this morning requested the information we have in respect of assessing the amount of loss in the area referred to by the hon. member. I immediately issued instructions to supply the province with this information, and if it is considered by the province that the losses are of disaster proportion I will be prepared to recommend to my colleagues that special attention be given to these claims.
Let me also make it clear that I am asking for the co-operation of the provinces in persuading the fishermen to take advantage of this insurance program. It is there for their protection and the cost is extremely low. When such losses occur the fishermen are compensated for the greater part of their losses.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth-Clare referred to protection of salmon in the Davis strait area. This matter came up about two years ago, and last year we carried out a tagging experiment in that area in the vicinity of the coast of Greenland to determine what proportion of salmon originating from Canadian rivers are to be found there. We expect to repeat this experiment this year to obtain further information before any further action is taken.
The hon. member for Notre Dame-de-Grace referred to sealing operations and I have already given my answer in this regard. I certainly will take into consideration his suggestion, also made before in the house, that this matter be referred to the standing committee

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
on fisheries so we can obtain all the facts and available information. The suggestion that we find other employment for these fishermen does not stand examination. It would be impossible for any government to decide in advance where these ice fields carrying seals will be found, whether they will be off the coast of Labrador, in the area of the Magdalen Islands or off the west coast of Newfoundland. It would be impossible to determine which of the 30,000 fishermen who depend on the gulf of St. Lawrence fishery resources for their livelihood might be affected by any measure of assistance that could be provided by the government in order to compensate them for the loss resulting from an abandonment of this operation. Furthermore, we have a responsibility to protect the sealing fishery in the gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as other fishery resources. Our scientists claim that an adult seal can consume from 12 to 15 pounds of fish daily, except during whelping and breeding seasons. Considering that 1,250,000 seals were sighted last year on ice floes in the gulf of St. Lawrence, one can imagine the quantity of fish consumed by those seals and how fast they could deplete the fishery resources in the area.

The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) mentioned the disastrous and tragic situation of the commercial fishermen below Montreal.
I do admit that we have had some reports on the quantity of dead fish found in that section of the St. Lawrence; but that is an exception because, as the hon. member knows, Quebec fisheries fall strictly within provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, when reports reached us, including, for instance, that of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), we immediately brought them to the attention of the Quebec government.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)

The hon. member for Grey North referred to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I am pleased to advise the hon. member that in this year's estimates there is $1,870,000 provided for lamprey control in the great lakes. Of that amount the federal government will contribute a total of $627,000. As the hon. member knows, the number of lampreys in lake Superior has been reduced, since this control operation was commenced, by about 80 per cent. We are now moving into lake Huron. It is too early yet to determine what the results will be, but with the experience we have

acquired in lake Superior we are convinced in advance that our experiment in lake Huron and other areas of the great lakes will also provide good results. It is too early for me to say what steps will be taken to introduce fish in lake Huron. The hon. member also asked for information regarding sockeye salmon in the great lakes. Rather than giving half an answer right now, I will write the hon. member giving the complete details on our plans in this regard.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert referred to the pollution of the Saint John river. This was also mentioned by the hon. member for Royal. As hon. members know, there are at the present time two or three main sources of pollution on the Saint John river. We are concerned about those sources of pollution. There is the food plant at Florenceville, in respect of which the Atlantic Development Board has provided a substantial sum of money to correct the existing conditions. Another main source of pollution is the pulp mill at Edmundston. We are now in consultation with the province and the Fraser Company, which is the company concerned, in order to arrive at ways and means of intro-duc new machinery which will correct the pollution problem in the Saint John river at that particular location. This will require a heavy capital investment, but I hope that with the co-operation of the provincial government it will be possible to initiate this program in the very near future.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert also referred to our new licensing policy in respect of salmon. There is no new salmon licensing policy in respect of Saint John harbour and the bay of Fundy area. In the harbour proper this matter comes under the harbours board; they decide on the issuing of licences. In the bay outside the harbour it is the responsibility of the federal Department of Fisheries. Licences have always been controlled. There is very little difference in the issuing of licences. However, in the last two or three years salmon fishing has been improving and a larger number of fishermen are applying for licences. I do not have before me the number of new applications we have received this year, but under this policy we try to transfer the licences from those not directly engaged, those who are not bona fide fishermen and do not operate their nets and fishing boats, to new applicants who are qualified. It is the same policy that we apply on the Miramichi. I will be able to supply the hon. member with more detailed information later, but there is no reduction this year in the number of licences
June 5, 1967

issued and it is not our intention, unless we have to do it of necessity, to reduce the number of licences held in that particular area.
The hon. member for Kootenay West asked me a difficult question regarding legal responsibility for the protection and development of the sport fishery. In the province of British Columbia the sport fishery regulations are administered by the province. These regulations are suggested to us and orders in council are passed establishing them. Anadromous fish such as commercial salmon, for example, are definitely a federal responsibility. As I have said, proposed sport fishery regulations are forwarded to the federal government and an order in council is passed making them legal; but the control of fisheries in lakes, for example, is entirely a provincial responsibility.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) referred to the problems of the inland fishermen. I think the answer I have given to the hon. member for Grey North deals in part with the questions raised by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) I agree that the intervention of the price support board last fall saved the industry in lake Erie particularly. In recent weeks we had a meeting with representatives of the industry. We still have on hand supplies of fish purchased last fall. It is our intention to dispose of this stock as soon as possible. It is more than likely that we will be called upon again this year to introduce the price support program in order to assist the industry. Last year's program had a very good effect in improving the quality of the product and controlling the market.
I will also keep in mind the suggestion made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano to continue the special subsidy in respect of catching and processing dogfish. Due to assistance provided last year by the federal Department of Fisheries experiments were made in the preparing and marketing of dogfish for human consumption. The experiments have been fairly successful and we hope to be able to continue them this year in order to achieve practical results.
Mr. Chairman, this answers most of the questions raised. If I have forgotten any I would ask hon. members to remind me and I will be prepared to give in writing full details to the questions they have asked.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether I might follow up what the minister said about the research fishing, or spot fishing for salmon in the Dixon entrance and the fact
Supply-Fisheries
that this will be continued this year. In between the time I made my remarks before supper and now I have been reading the Prince Rupert Daily News of May 30 last. If I had known about this editorial at the time, I would have mentioned it in my original remarks. Perhaps I could read the article-it is very short-and ask the minister to what it pertains. It is headed "Research on salmon" and says:
A joint United States-Canadian committee on fisheries will recommend a general research program on the intermingling of U.S. and Canadian salmon, it was announced in Juneau recently.
The committee chairman. Commissioner Walker Kirkness of the Alaska Fish and Game Department, said the program would try to determine where, when and why salmon stocks from the two countries intermingle.
All waters from the northern end of Vancouver Island to Jakutat, Alaska, would be studied, he said.
The committee's recommendations are expected to be submitted to the U.S. and Canadian governments in early June.
If approved, the research program would probably continue for four to 10 years.
Is this a correct declaration, or is it another research program? If so, I wonder whether the minister could explain what this particular one is designed to accomplish.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the program referred to by the hon. member is on a much larger scale than the one undertaken last year. As I have said, the one undertaken last year takes care of two different runs of salmon. This is why we had to carry it on this year in order to determine what position we should take. I will certainly make this report available so that the hon. member will have complete information in this respect. The other program he referred to has not as yet been brought to my attention, although I understand it is on a much larger scale and will affect the movement of salmon on the whole of the west coast.


Frank Howard: The four to ten years mentioned in the article struck me as being rather long if we were to arrive at any worth-while conclusions on the other aspect of the program.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make reference to the committee proceedings of last year in order to set the background for a particular question which I would like to put to the minister. I will quote from page 315 of the committee proceedings of Monday, June 6, 1966, almost exactly a year ago. At that time I had raised the matter, and I will quote my

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
own words as an introduction to my question. I asked the following question:
Speaking of our native Indian people, there is another matter I would like to ask about, if I could and that is the fishing vessels assistance regulations which the Department of Fisheries operate, and which apply solely to the four Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec but which do not apply to the province of British Columbia. What is happening? Are any steps being taken to extend the operation of those regulations to British Columbia?
Mr. Levelton, the director of the conservation and protection branch, then said:
Yes, especially in view of the communication between yourself and Mr. Tremblay when he was minister of citizenship and immigration, relating to the desire of native Indian people in B.C. to come under these regulations,


Frank Howard: I would like to know what is happening.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is not that this regulation is only applicable to the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, but we have now had meetings with the governments of Ontario, the prairie provinces and British Columbia and this regulation is applicable to those provinces who have a fisherman loan board, with whom we can deal.
There is a special case to be made in the case of the native Indians, and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has been recently studying the possibility of introducing a special assistance program based on the same principle that we have on the Atlantic coast, which would be made applicable to the native Indian. We in the Department of Fisheries have offered all the assistance possible in order to determine the regulations applicable to such a program. I sincerely hope we will have something to put into effect before too long, in this regard.
Now I should like to ask the minister the almost identical question, namely what is happening?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am happy to reply to the question put to me by the hon. member for Slteena. What I said last year was correct. It is our intention to extend these fishery assistance programs to the west coast. We have already had a number of meetings with representatives of the provincial government of British Columbia and of the prairie provinces. We have already extended to Ontario the insurance scheme for the protection of fishing vessels.
With reference to the special assistance program for the Indians, we have had a number of meetings with the representatives of the department of Indian affairs. In fact a certain sum is now suggested for this assistance program, but we find it is much too small. We wish to reconsider the amount now made available, and I hope we will be able to come to a final decision within a very short time. It 
is our intention to establish on an experimental basis a special assistance program for the Indian fishermen on the west coast.


Frank Howard: The minister said that a certain sum was available. Could he tell us the amount and through which department it would be provided?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Through the department of Indian affairs. All the details required for the application of this program have been supplied by the Department of Fisheries, but the fund will be administered by the department of Indian affairs. As I said, we feel that a substantial amount should be made available so that the program would be practicable.


Frank Howard: Did the minister say that it is available now?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not available now but I understand there will be further discussions within a week or two to finalize the decision.


Frank Howard: I understood the minister to say that a certain amount of money is available now but that it is not sufficient. However he has cleared up this point for me.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What I said was that we found the amount suggested to be too small to make the program practicable.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, as no one wishes to have the floor I should like to raise another matter at this time. It relates to the regulations of the department regarding fresh water supplies for canneries. I have written to the minister about this, as these regulations might have an adverse effect on a couple of canneries just outside of Prince Rupert. I am not trying to get him to alter the regulations and I do not think the people affected would like them altered. What I wish to do is to draw his attention to an awkward situation which may develop as a result of the implementation of the regulations requiring fresh water.
As I understand it, some financial assistance has been made available to canneries and to communities on the Atlantic coast to enable them to provide the water supply to the canneries necessary to meet the regulations promulgated by the department. I believe this financial assistance has come from the Atlantic Development Board and not directly from the Department of Fisheries, even though the federal government contributes toward the operation of the Atlantic Development Board. Indirectly the federal taxpayer's
June 5, 1967

that province does not seem to want to be involved too directly with the fishing industry.
I know of no cost sharing program with the province of British Columbia, though we do have a cost sharing program with the University of British Columbia and on a limited scale with the industry. One which was mentioned a little while ago is the dogfish experiment, and we have programs of that kind. We are also negotiating with the representatives of the fishing industry on the west coast large scale experiments with groundfish. These will be cost sharing programs between the government and the industry direct. The hon. member will remember when we passed the fisheries development act that I was asked by many hon. members to include the operations of private companies. Due to the amendment I accepted this would now be made possible.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Frank Howard: So that all is not sweetness and light in the government of British Columbia. Perhaps I understood the minister incorrectly in his opening remarks but I thought the gist of his words related to the relationship between the government of Canada and the provincial governments, and that their activities were co-ordinated in a remarkable manner. I presume that the minister exempts British Columbia from his opening remarks.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Not altogether, because we have a federal-provincial committee. There have been meetings between my deputy minister and senior officials of the government of the province of British Columbia. I assure the hon. member that we are seeking much better co-operation than existed in the past. On my visit to Victoria last year when I met with two provincial ministers we discussed not only the Stellako problem but the whole problem of log driving in British Columbia rivers. That is an example of the type of co-operation which we are seeking, and were I able to table the correspondence it would prove to the hon. member that we are offering all kinds of co-operation.


Frank Howard: When I referred to remarkable co-ordination and that British Columbia was exempted, 1 was referring to my own province and not to the minister or the government of Canada.


John Angus MacLean: I just wanted to make certain that the minister was clear about my remarks to do with the use of aircraft in sealing in the gulf of St. Lawrence. I was thinking not only about the sealing regulations but also about the flying control governing
Supply-Fisheries
the aircraft. I thought my remarks had been understood, but perhaps I should take the matter up with the Department of Transport.
I have a brief question on item 5. If my memory serves me correctly, when some members asked in the committee last year why the department's telephone costs had risen when another department of the government had said that it would introduce a new system of government telephone tolls which would effect great savings, the answer that was given was that the estimates for last year had been printed or devised before those savings became apparent and that is why the telephone costs were higher than in the previous year. I see in these estimates that these costs have again risen to an abnormally high figure. I am wondering how the government is saving all this money when its telephones are costing so much more.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I can answer this question briefly, with a word of explanation to the hon. member. It is true that under the new system normally our telephone expenses should have gone down; but with the establishment of new services, particularly in the development field, we have officers in the field with whom we have to keep in almost daily contact. Hon. members will appreciate when they ask me questions that often I do not take time to write, and then to wait for an answer. I ask my deputy minister particularly, or my senior officials to contact our area directors by telephone. The same applies for instance to the present problem that exists on the west coast. I have tried as much as possible to be kept advised almost daily. This may be done only by telephoning involving, naturally, extra expenditure. That is the main reason for the increased expenditures on this particular item. Probably we are using the telephone more than we used to in previous years, and I do not object to this practice.


Frank Howard: When the minister attended the fisheries council meeting in Montreal a short time ago one of his comments had to do with his recent trip to the Soviet union. As I interpret his remarks he had his eyes opened and understood better some matters which existed, especially in the field of international co-operation, research and the like. Under vote 5 I see there are listed various international commissions, one of which is the North Pacific Fisheries Commission, or the treaty between Canada, Japan and the United States. For some time we have advocated that there be attempts to bring the Soviet union into that treaty, if it desires to enter. Because the



June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries
Soviet union is interested in halibut and undoubtedly, in salmon fisheries on our side of the ocean, could the minister indicate whether he discussed this matter with any of the Soviet officials? Did he gain any impression from talking to them that there was a possibility of their entering the treaty, if they were invited? What are the prospects of putting into effect that which the minister so earnestly embraced in 1962 or 1963?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am glad the hon. member has mentioned vote 5. On page 171 of the blue book he will see that $10,000 was voted last year for the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and that this year the figure had been raised to $20,000 for the full year, the figure for last year being for half a year only.
Yes, I did discuss the North Pacific treaty with the minister of fisheries of the U.S.S.R. He expressed the views of his government. It is not a matter for the government of Canada to invite the U.S.S.R. to participate in the North Pacific treaty. It is a tripartite treaty comprising Japan, the United States and Canada and it would be up to those three countries to invite the U.S.S.R. to participate if it were considered advisable.
I certainly acquired much information from my discussion with officials of the government of the U.S.S.R. and from their minister of fisheries relating to their policy and their position in this regard. I must say that we did not come to any conclusive decision. I expect to bring this matter up again during Mr. Ishkov's visit to Canada, sometime in the next few weeks. Nevertheless I gather that under the present form or application of the North Pacific treaty the U.S.S.R. will not be interested in participating.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 10 carry?
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, $5,339,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
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, $4,130,000.
Frank Howard: I have a brief question on vote 15. On page 176 an amount of $750,000 is listed for financial assistance in the construction and equipment of facilities for the storage of frozen fishery products. Included in that

amount is money for the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Co-operative Association?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As soon as the regulations were approved we notified the Prince Rupert co-operative and they are free to apply now. I am not sure if their application has been forwarded; it has not been laid on my desk yet. If they do apply I assure the hon. member that they will receive full consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to:) Fisheries research board of Canada-*
20. Administration, operation and maintenance, including an amount of $410,000 for grants for fisheries research and for scholarships and authority to provide free accommodation for the international north pacific fisheries commission, $10,929,000.
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,900,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the main estimates of the Department of Fisheries.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, may I thank hon. members for their co-operation in passing these estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Perhaps the acting house leader could assure us that the business for tomorrow will be the same as was announced last Thursday? I presume that if the budget debate is adjourned before the day ends, the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General will be opened up.


Robert Henry Winters: Correct.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Max Saltsman: Today might be a most appropriate day on which to raise the question of nickel, since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has indicated there is to be a change in the content in the coinage of the realm. It is appropriate because there is some question of whether there is enough nickel to fulfil this particular requirement.
June 5, 1967

money is used to assist communities and canneries to modernize their operations and provide the necessary facilities, so that a fresh water supply could be made available to the canneries in order to enable them to meet the requirements specified in the regulations. I have no argument against that because in many instances regulations of this sort, which are made after a cannery has been established and in operation for some time, impose a rather heavy financial burden on any section of the industry, any particular cannery or any community which may be supplying water to the cannery.
However, the bone of contention here is that there is nothing similar in the way of assistance available to the west coast. On the west coast there is no development board which would make this assistance available to communities desirous of providing a fresh water supply to canneries. So in this regard there exists an inequity between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
In the letter which I wrote to the minister I mentioned the distinct possibility that two of the canneries may find it economically impossible to invest the money to put in an extensive water supply system which in one instance involves pumping up hill and the installation of a lengthy pipe line into the cannery area. Because of their inability or lack of desire, perhaps the two go together in some respects, they are seriously contemplating closing two canneries just outside of Prince Rupert, simply because of the requirement contained in the regulations. Even though one of the companies has done some extensive well drilling to see if it could find a source of fresh water close at hand, it has been unable to do so. If the canneries close we will find perhaps that 1,000 native Indian people, for whom work at the cannery is the only source of income during the summer or during the salmon fishing season, will be deprived of work and unable to find work at the other canneries which operate in and around Prince Rupert, and which already have their full complement of workers.
The closing of these canneries will be a serious blow to these areas. One of the canneries on the Pacific coast was in a great deal of difficulty not long ago because, owing to its geographic location, its costs had been higher than that of most other canneries and because it wished to comply with the provisions of the regulations.
I am not pleading for a relaxation of the provisions relating to fresh water and I do not
Supply-Fisheries
think anybody in the canning industry is opposed to these regulations, but I am pleading for special consideration, especially in areas where it is not economically feasible for the canners themselves to invest their money in a fresh water supply, or where this would be an unnecessarily heavy financial burden on a community. I plead with the minister to look at this matter seriously. If it is necessary for the Department of Fisheries to provide financial assistance or to lend money to the communities or to the canners, to be repaid over a long period of time, this will not be a new venture because, as we all know, the Department of Fisheries makes grants and subsidies available in other fields.
I see the minister is ready to reply now. I have another question but I will raise it later.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Under the new fisheries development act there is certainly room to look into this special problem. I want to assure the hon. member that we will be looking into every aspect of the matter.


John Oates Bower: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano this evening raised a point that I too find interesting. As I recall it, the minister did not comment on the point, which had to do with a subsidy for processors for the purchase of dogfish, or greyfish as they are called in Europe. I understand that the fisheries department does have an operation of this kind on the west coast, but in limited form and on a temporary basis. On the east coast the commercial fishing for dogfish could be of great significance but would only come to pass through the initiation of a system of subsidy payments to make it worth while to the fishermen to catch this species of fish. I would very much appreciate it if the minister would take up this question on behalf of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and myself.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Chairman, the reply I got
from the minister gave me the impression that either he did not understand me or I did not make myself clear. I mentioned the splake plantings by the International Great Lakes Fishery Commission and I wanted to know what success they have had. We are aware of the kokanee project, which is a provincial project. We are familiar with the success of that program, but I should like to know about the splake project.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I explained to the hon. member that I would write to him about this project and give him all the details I had. I do not have them with me at the moment.

June 5, 1967
Supply-Fisheries


Percy Verner Noble: The minister did mention ko-kanee, which is the reason I raise this point. I thought the minister might have understood that I wanted to know about the kokanee project.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, one other item I want to deal with is the oolachon fishery. The minister will recall at one time when Dr. Needier was here that I sent over some smoked oolachon for him to try, and I hope he enjoyed it. It is quite a staple part of the native Indian fishery and is not fished commercially, partly because the fishery regulations were altered a few years ago to permit commercial venture into the oolachon fishery. It is primarily a food fish for the native Indian people. They objected to this commercial fishing of oolachon and a regulation came into effect to prohibit commercial fishing of oolachon in district 2, or words to that effect.
The native people engage occasionally in a system of bartering as well as in direct sales of oolachon in the Prince Rupert area, especially to the large number of native Indian people who move into and live in Prince Rupert, which incidentally is a practice endorsed by the government in the hope that the native people will find employment in urban areas where it might not be available at home on reserve communities. Because of the practice of the native people, thinking in terms of a communal economy, of catching fish for neighbours and friends who may live in town, and because of the practice of selling oolachon at $1 a bucket, which is the usual price in the port of Prince Rupert, one young lad was charged under the fisheries regulation during the oolachon season this year with contravening the regulations by fishing for oolachon for commercial purposes.
This was considered to be something of a travesty against the common understanding that existed. What occurred undoubtedly was that when the original objection was put forward by the native people to a commercial fishery they were thinking in terms of canning and fishing companies fishing oolachon and either freezing or selling it fresh, not in terms of individual native Indian people fishing oolachon to bring it into Rupert either to give it away or sell it to their own native Indian people, who otherwise would not have the opportunity, because they live in an urban area, to go out and fish oolachon themselves. As I say, this concept was not in their minds when the original request was made to keep the canning companies from exploiting the oolachon fishery.
IMr. Robichaud.]
I would urge the minister to look at this regulation and see whether or not he can revise it. The oolachon fishery is, perhaps, the last remaining part of the native Indian culture which we can preserve, and we should permit them to fish for their own purposes. If the minister would look at it from that point of view, this would overcome a great many difficulties.
The minister nods his head. My saying that he has done so will appear on Hansard, so I can keep the floor and ask another question. Hansard will show that the minister agrees that he will at least look into this matter.
Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, there is an item which does not appear this year. Last year there was a $10,000 item by way of fee for membership in the international council for the exploration of the sea. This year no such item is listed. Perhaps this year there is no necessity to pay a fee to that council, or perhaps the council itself has ceased to function, but I should like an explanation of this.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will try to get the information for the hon. member, but I cannot give him the detailed information at this time. It may be that this amount is included in some other item, but I am sorry, I do not have this information. I will try to get it for the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries management and development-
S. 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, 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, $21,000,000.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, on page 165 of the blue book, under the industrial development service, including the provincial projects, there appears an item for $1,250,000 in relation to programs and projects shared by provinces. I would appreciate, if the minister has it available, a detailed listing of these joint programs so far as the province of British Columbia is concerned.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As the hon. member has mentioned, Mr. Chairman, this amount in the estimates is to cover shared programs with the provinces. I must say that most of the provinces that take advantage of this program are the Atlantic provinces, and to some extent the province of Quebec. We make the same offer to the province of British Columbia, but
June 5, 1967	COMMONS
I asked the minister whether he had received any information indicating that the International Nickel Company of Canada was restricting the supply of nickel for use in Canada and, if so, what action the government was taking to ensure that the needs of Canadian industry are being met.
It seems that the production of nickel has declined this year. It declined last year as well. At the same time the export of ores, nickel anodes and other products has increased. I hope I am not misreading the statistics. I certainly look forward to an answer from the minister which will indicate what is happening in connection with nickel production in Canada.
In 1965 we produced 44.6 million pounds. We exported in that year 43.1 million pounds. In 1966 we produced 40.5 million pounds and exported 41.7 million pounds-in other words, we exported 1.7 million pounds more than we produced in Canada.
If we look at the export figures for two years we find that though production dropped about 10 per cent in 1966, exports in the category of nickel anodes, cathodes and ingots were only diminished by 5 per cent, while the export of nickel and alloy frabricated materials was increased by 50 per cent. I believe an explanation is in order because it has come to my attention that manufacturers in Canada who use nickel in the production of their goods are findings this material in short supply. Their needs are not being taken care of adequately.
While all of us are desirous of seeing that our exports are maintained we are also interested in seeing that secondary manufacturing in Canada is not starved for lack of supplies and that every possible encouragement is given to those who engage in it. I welcome the presence of the minister tonight and look forward to his answers to these questions.


Robert Henry Winters: The world situation of nickel is one of short supply.
The situation with regard to demand and supply has been rather odd for some time, principally because of the large American stockpile, with demands being met by a draw down on stockpile. It is only since the stockpile has been substantially depleted and world demand has had to rely solely on world supply that the true situation respecting nickel has come to light.
The nickel producers in Canada have been aware of this for some time. They have been searching diligently for new nickel deposits
DEBATES	1183
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion around the world and have been endeavouring to bring them into production. Some of the most recently discovered deposits have been of relatively low grade in relation to those at Sudbury and Thompson. This is one of the reasons why we were agreeable to a higher price for nickel when the International Nickel Company made its appeal to us some time ago, so that it could arrange and could plan on bringing in these new lower grade sources of supply at an economic return.
In the light of the current shortage of demand the companies producing nickel in Canada have been working with us in the government, and although we have taken no steps to provide means of allocating within the government's hands, the companies themselves have, on a volunteer basis, been contributing very fully indeed. We have undertaken with them to point out to them instances which come to our attention in which domestic users of nickel are to get sufficient supplies of nickel, and to get this through co-operative effort.
We have been able to assure nickel consumers of at least as much nickel as they had last year, which was a high point in the consumption of nickel in Canada. I think that any consumer of nickel has been assured of 100 per cent of the amount he used last year, and this is a higher level than the companies have been able to guarantee to users of nickel abroad. When you have to weigh domestic requirements against the need to export nickel you have a very fine balance, as the hon. member said, but we have been trying to ensure through co-operative effort "that domestic supplies are met.
In any cases of hardship to Canadian consumers that come to our attention because of a temporary shortage of nickel, arrangements for relief are made with the producers. They have been very good about this, and consideration is given when necessary to making appropriate provision for defence and other essential requirements. I think that provides the answer which the hon. member is seeking at the moment. At least I hope so.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-HALIFAX-NEGOTIATIONS WITH MOTOR TRANSPORT UNION

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I suppose on this rather awesome day in human affairs it is comforting that the Associate Minister of National Defence and myself are dealing with matters that are far from military in nature. They concern a dispute and a labour problem in the Halifax
ft
1184	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion area, where last Saturday some men carried placards in front of the various defence units, to back up their demands for wages and settlement of other outstanding issues.
These men belong to local 273. They comprise labourers, yardcraft employees, and motor transport workers. I think it can be said that their union leadership is a respectable and conservative one, but they felt they have not been able to make the progress they wanted, and so they took this method, this form of demonstration over the week end, and very quickly may I say for the record it in no way cut into the work they perform for the Department of National Defence.
With respect to the wage issue, they work alongside people who have been classified in the ship repair group and who have received wage increases. The labouring group and most of the motor transport group have not received increases since October, 1965. I suppose this gives rise to the inevitable in any place where a large number of men are working and some have enjoyed the benefit of a wage increase while others have not.
There is also a complaint that certain provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code were not implemented for the yardcraft and auxiliary vessel workers.
Further, because integration is in progress, there have been five or six cases involving discipline, although I believe that in the previous 20 years there were no disciplinary cases at all. I suppose the discipline cases arise because the civilian and military personnel are being fitted together and have not yet learned to adjust to each other or co-exist.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I imagine that this is not a continuing thing. Eventually, when all the kinks are ironed out, there should be no problem in that regard. I think I have spoken too long, because when I asked the question of the Associate Minister of National Defence today I really wished to give him an opportunity to make a statement on the various points which are still at issue, so that I can send the issue of Hansard to the men who are concerned. Under our procedure sometimes it is difficult for a cabinet minister to get his points across on any occasion when he might wish to do so. It would be helpful if cabinet ministers were allowed to do this. I could pursue that point, but I shall do so at another time because I should like to hear the answer from the associate minister.
DEBATES	June 5, 1967


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am always pleased to note the interesting questions raised by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. McCleave).
With regard to this particular question, I have been informed that last Friday officers at Canadian forces base, Halifax, including the senior civilian personnel officer of maritime command, met with officials of Local 273 to discuss a seven point protest which had previously been submitted by the union.
Talks between the union and command will continue and I am informed that a senior staff officer at maritime command expects to meet with the union either tomorrow or Wednesday. The director general of civilian personnel at national defence headquarters is following the matter closely and will inform me of the progress that is being made.
I am very pleased, as is the hon. member, to note that no work stoppage occurred as the result of the protest demonstration, and I would like to thank the union members and officials for averting a work stoppage during a particularly busy period.
I do not wish to go into further particulars, but I have been given to understand that some concession will be made in respect to at least four of the seven points raised by the union, and discussion will continue on the remaining points. This particular question which was raised by the hon. member about the rates of pay is one in respect of which we always give the stock answer, for the time being anyway, that collective bargaining has been introduced and therefore it is a question which really is out of our hands at this time. I hope that for the time being the hon. member will be satisfied with the answer, that we are doing our utmost to come to grips with these problems and that we will meet the union as far as we can. I repeat that we are pretty sure that of the seven points at least four can be settled, and that discussion can be continued in respect of the other three.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
[The following Items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25.