1968-12-06

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Third, fourth and fifth reports of special committee on procedure of the house-Mr. Blair.
First report of standing committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Francis.
[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on regional development-Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester).
[Note:	Text of the foregoing reports
appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) I should like to make reference to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade). In response to the question the Secretary of State indicated that the C.B.C. had signed contracts for the construction of the C.B.C. centre in Montreal. In fact the contracts have not been signed, but the C.B.C. has sought authority from the Treasury Board to sign these contracts. It had been hoped that these would be considered this week, but unfortunately we have not got around to this item. These will be considered at the next meeting of the Treasury Board.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Following the enlightening deliberations with a delegation from the province of Manitoba I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position, in the interests of
national security and based on the program of regional development, to assure the house, the country and the people of Manitoba that the Winnipeg air maintenance base will be maintained.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had a meeting with this delegation led by Premier Weir. As a result of that meeting and the information that was exchanged, a cabinet committee will be meeting later today to decide government policy.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer the Prime Minister just gave concerning a meeting of a cabinet committee later today, will there be an announcement not later than Monday as to whether the further period of study that was suggested yesterday will be granted by the government?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot state in advance what the cabinet committee will decide, but I would think that that is a reasonable request. If we think we are not in a position to make a final announcement in the next few days and that further study is needed, we will have to announce this after the cabinet committee meeting today or on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may we be assured that something will be indicated to us not later than Monday even though the Minister of Transport may not be here on Monday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-REPORTED JAPANESE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT CANADIAN GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a bit of laryngitis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December 6, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I knew my sins would catch up with me. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reference to the Japanese wheat market.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
should direct it to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I understand that Japan has refused to honour commitments to accept Canadian wheat because of its damp quality this year. Has the minister anything to report in that regard?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is not exactly as the hon. member has defined it. I checked this morning with the Canadian Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commissioners, and I have been advised that no complaint has been received from the Japanese food agency in respect of the quality of Canadian wheat arriving in Japan. However, due to difficulties the Japanese have experienced with the quality of new crop wheat from the United States, they have requested a meeting with Canadian officials to discuss the quality of the lower grades of wheat from the 1968 crop.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I take it from what the minister has said that we have now lost this market for grain under Japanese commitments?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is a wrong conclusion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, how many bushels of wheat is the minister able to assure us and the country we will be able to export at this time under Japanese commitments?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There has been no official complaint on the part of Japan in respect of Canadian wheat exports. Because of difficulties Japan has experienced with United States wheat exports they want to check with us as to the quality of our present wheat crop. This is a normal inquiry.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Are they looking for a superior or an inferior quality?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand that Japan usually buys a superior quality, especially No. 2 northern, and I understand no difficulties have arisen up until now. If difficulties do arise I will duly report them to the house and to the hon. member.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the reports of the reaction in Japan following receipt there of unsuitable grain, may I ask what steps are being taken to correct this situation. Why did our inspection services not intercept grain that was in poor condition before that grain was shipped?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it seems very difficult to be heard this morning. I said specifically that this was United States grain and not Canadian grain. The meeting to be held early next week between the Board of Grain Commissioners and the wheat board and Japanese authorities will be in anticipation of possible problems. It is a precautionary measure. It is not a meeting to correct a damage which has taken place in recent weeks.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. My question has reference to wheat, just as another matter I raised yesterday had reference to the C.B.C. Would the minister make sure that the facts broadcast by our national news service are accurate, so that misunderstandings such as we have here do not develop again.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his representation, and I assume it has been noted.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether an agreement has been reached between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia to provide federal access and egress for the construction of buildings on provincial foreshore property adjacent to Roberts Bank. If so, can the minister tell the house what is the nature of this agreement?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member referring to access across the foreshore to the port facility itself? If that is the nature of his question I should like to say that we have an arrangement with the provincial government providing for access during the construction period. This will be followed by negotiations for a
December 6, 1968

permanent arrangement. I have indicated to the provincial government that hopefully we would be in a position to talk to them sometime within a few months after the House of Commons has had a chance to study the report on port facilities which is available at this time for consideration.


Mark Willson Rose: Do I understand, Mr. Minister, that the lease agreement for land upon which very expensive installations might be constructed is based on a temporary or one year agreement? What are the possibilities for the renewal of this agreement, and under what terms?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that questions should be directed to the Chair. Having said that, perhaps the minister might want to reply.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is a temporary arrangement, but that was all that was required to get on with construction of the port. There are a number of options open to the government as to the final solution. Any conclusion in this regard would prejudge policy in respect of port administration and control which is yet to be decided. Consequently all the questions of this nature will have to be left until parliament and the government has had a chance to study the report to which I referred earlier.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister received the report, which he said back on October 16 would be ready by late November, defining the division of jurisdiction as between the federal and provincial governments; and if so can he table that report?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: When will it be tabled?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Soon, Mr. Speaker. In order to be more precise, I would say not later than next week.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport will take as long to reach a decision with respect to the Roberts Bank problem as the Prime Minister is taking with regard to our national defence problem.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house if the government has received from Russia a note of protest similar to that received by Great Britain in view of the discontinuance of cultural exchanges with Czechoslovakia? If so, what position will the Canadian government take about that note of protest and related comments?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I am not aware that such a note has been received, Mr. Speaker. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs could no doubt answer that question if it were put to him when he is in the house.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the opinion expressed yesterday by the chairman of the National Energy Board that high priority should be given to providing the board with sufficient staff to undertake intensive studies regarding the possibilities of future Canadian oil development in the north, will the Treasury Board give high priority to providing the National Energy Board with this additional staff as a means of helping to protect our oil development interests in the north?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member is of very general scope and is not of the required degree of urgency. Perhaps the hon. member would like to put the question on the order paper.


George Harris Hees: With deference, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question in view of the very important and recent discoveries by United States interests in the north and the great alarm expressed by the chairman of the National Energy Board as recently as yesterday. In view of this I think the question is important.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might be allowed to answer the question.
December 6, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member I have taken, note of the remarks of the chairman of the National Energy Board, and will consider them.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the government grant the request of the National Indian Brotherhood to allow the Indian people a formal role in conferences concerned with amendments to the Canadian constitution?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I do not know of the request, Mr. Speaker, but if the hon. member is referring to the constitutional conference to be held two weeks from now, there is no question of anyone but representatives of the federal and provincial governments sitting there as delegates.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister says he knows nothing of this request. I understand the request may be forthcoming to him today. I am asking whether he will give it his fullest consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether it is in order to ask a minister whether he will give consideration to submissions which will be made to him at a future date or a future hour. I have some doubts about that.


Robert Simpson: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but in his absence I should like to direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Will the government recognize the National Indian Brotherhood as the official Indian advisory body to the department of Indian affairs; and if so, can he assure the house that the National Indian Brotherhood will not be bypassed as previous so-called advisory groups have been bypassed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member contains allegations, and as such cannot be accepted.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but since I do not see him here perhaps the question could be taken as notice. Has the Indian affairs branch recently advertised a competition for a position at the P.M. 6 level with a salary of $18,000 a year, to consult with the Indian and Eskimo people on policies and programs affecting them? This competition, as I understand it, is not open to qualified native applicants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member the question should be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency for a discussion of the matter it could be raised at the time of adjournment at ten o'clock.


Mark Willson Rose: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: My
question is for the Postmaster General. Have new representations been made to him about the adverse effects of the increase in postal rates on union publications such as newspapers and magazines? If so, would the minister give consideration to moderating the proposed new rates?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have not met with any groups in the last two weeks because no groups have asked to meet with me. I expect the regulations, in conformity with the act adopted by the house, will be put into effect on December 24.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the hon. gentleman in a position today to bring the house up to date regarding his discussions with Canadian National Railways concerning the cut-backs
December 6, 1968

in the Canadian National police force in the Atlantic region, which has been brought to his attention by the hon. member for Moncton and myself on several occasions?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. I have had further conversations with the company since the last time my hon. friend raised the question. I am awaiting a report back from the company subsequent to that discussion.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: My question is directed to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as house leader. Is the hon. gentleman aware of the fact that the standing committee on transport and communications met this morning but is now deadlocked without a chairman, and hence unable to deal with matters of urgent public importance before it? While the minister is on his feet, would he assure the house that the house will be in a position soon to deal with the first report of the committee, which is now before the house but in which as yet there has been no concurrence?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of both these matters. I am sure the hon. member regrets as much as I do the fact that the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Manicouagan, had to enter the Royal Victoria hospital last night for surgery. I think perhaps I would be expressing the sentiments of the house if I were to say that we hope the surgery will be successful and we will soon have him with us again.
I have had discussion with hon. gentlemen opposite about a future or further order of reference to the standing committee on transport and communications. My understanding is that the committee expressed an interest in studying the question of transportation in the Atlantic provinces. This was indicated in the first report. The committee also indicated an interest in studying a particular dispute related to the Canadian National.
As I pointed out to the hon. member for Oxford, it has been the government's intention to refer the annual reports of both Canadian National and Air Canada to the committee. It was the government's suggestion also that not only should the committee
Inquiries of the Ministry study Atlantic province problems but that in view of the notoriously good climate there any time of the year, and particularly in the month of January, the committee should be empowered to visit the region for the purpose of studying transportation problems. My suggestion was that this rather broader order of reference might be substituted for the committee's report in this regard, and that the house might agree to putting these two orders, thereby empowering the committee to meet possibly early in January for this purpose.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. Would the house leader advise the house what is the position of the resolution that was passed by the committee dealing with the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission allowing the Canadian National to abandon rail passenger service in Newfoundland, which was not incorporated in the first report of the committee to which I referred in my original question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have not studied this; I am advised the resolution was passed but that it was out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Under the circumstances I take it that it is null and has no effect, but I have not examined the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no evidence anywhere in the committee's report that the resolution in question is out of order. It was passed by a majority of the committee members present. The only problem was that the Liberals did not have enough members there to defeat the resolution. That is the only bad part of it. The house leader and his whip have a responsibility, which I hope they take, to get their members out to the committee. I say it is a good resolution, and it should be included in the report.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The first thing to be said is that I am glad that through my intervention in this debate we have restored the hon. member's voice to him. I can only say that we will make every effort to assist if hon. members wish to continue the committee's studies along the line I have indicated, both of the Atlantic transportation problem and of Air Canada and the Canadian National Railways. If so perhaps there might be agreement to adopting this as the order of reference for the committee for the rest of the
December 6, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry session, and on that basis we might withdraw the second report.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the house leader, in reply to my question, set himself up as an expert by ruling on a resolution which was passed by the committee, which the chairman of the committee accepted, and which is now properly in the report of the committee which is before the house. I suggest that the hon. gentleman has no right to take it upon himself to rule on a resolution passed by a majority in the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I say, on the same point of order, that I accept the admonition of the hon. member, but I was only giving a ruling on the resolution because his friend from Calgary North asked me to do so. However, I agree that he was wrong to ask me and that I was wrong to do it.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. In the house leader's discussion of the past and future activities of the committee would he indicate what is to be done with the estimates of the Post Office Department?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I understand arrangements have been made to try to get the estimates examined in committee in the near future, but I must say I have not been able to follow in detail the present status of all estimates in the committees. I will have to take a further look at that.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the consequences of the rule to the effect that members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires who are not bilingual are to be replaced in the three Ottawa museums on December 31, would the Prime Minister be ready to make an exception for veterans who will reach retirement age shortly?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, national museums come under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, who would be happy to

answer this question if it were directed to him.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Is the replacement of the 10 to 15 civil service commissionaires by bilingual persons a sample of future policy which will affect the federal civil service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say that I can hardly be asked to state whether or not this is the policy because, as I said in my answer to the previous question, this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. I am not familiar with the details of it; it is the Secretary of State who will have to report on it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why not say "ditto"?
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the name of justice and of former commitments to these veterans, will the Prime Minister give consideration to rescinding or withdrawing that directive which emanated from the office of the Secretary of State?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is restating the question asked previously by the hon. member for V ancouver-Kingsway.


Paul Yewchuk: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will alternative employment be provided to these replaced commissionaires ?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would like to make it clear, as I did in my first answer, that this matter comes under the Secretary of State who is not in the house now. I am not familiar with the details of the matter, so there is no point in my trying to answer the question.


Mr. Mclniosh:: I'll bet you don't know the details of it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: How much do you bet?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on this important matter. When discussing this question with the Secretary of State, would the Prime Minister confirm-and he might consult the Minister of Veterans Affairs on this matter as well-whether the veterans preference still applies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Secretary of State to have those consultations.
December 6, 1968



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister concerned, I shall direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house what progress has been made in the negotiations with the provinces with regard to fraudulent bankruptcies in Canada, in view of the fact that fraudulent bankruptcies have increased in October by 47 per cent over the previous month?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not now in the house because he is attending to his affairs, but I shall try to get a reply for the member as soon as possible.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or for his parliamentary secretary. What action has the minister taken concerning an urgent telegram from a Toronto lawyer protesting the decision of immigration officials to execute a deportation order against a Polish seaman before this lawyer had received a written order from the immigration appeal board, thereby denying the lawyer an opportunity to appeal the order of the board to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that up to eleven o'clock this morning the minister's office had not received a telegram concerning this case. As the hon. member knows, the minister of immigration has no power or authority over any decisions made by the appeal board. Therefore I suggest to my hon. friend that he recommend the case be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that the cabinet will consider at the earliest possible moment the approval of the international convention on refugees and seamen?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I will take the matter under consideration.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Is it true that plans for the $1 billion expansion of the Welland canal section of the St. Lawrence seaway have been shelved indefinitely?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, this is not correct. This question is being considered by an interdepartmental committee at the present time. I am not in a position to say when they will finish their studies. I might tell my hon. friend, however, that since the time the report on the seaway was sent to the government there have been changes in the estimates made of traffic. There have also been changes in the technological devices for increasing throughput in the existing canal system which have an influence on the time when additional capacity might be necessary.
I think it is fair to say that no immediate start is required, but at the same time this is not to say that a start will not be required when the traffic forecast is sufficient to justify additional capacity. This is a question that can only be answered when we have had the chance to look at all relevant material in greater detail.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. It is true, is it not, that it is quite possible these plans will be shelved?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not agree with that.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production. In view of the continuing heavy unemployment in Canadian shipyards I wonder whether the minister is yet able to tell the house when he will be able to make a statement on motions as to government policy in this regard. I ask him this question because of answers given to me by the minister a few weeks ago to the
3590	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry effect that he and other ministers were meeting with representatives of the shipbuilding industry.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, these
meetings have been continuing, as well as meetings with other ministers. In view of the decision that has been made in regard to responsibility, I think this question should more properly be directed to the Minister of Industry.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the indication given yesterday that any decision in regard to assistance to the fisheries was being deferred until the end of the fiscal year, has any decision been taken to defer action with regard to subsidies on wooden vessels also until the end of the fiscal year? I would direct that question to the appropriate minister, whoever he may happen to be.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to my question to the Minister of Defence Production could I ask the minister of industry when he believes he will be able to make a statement to the house in connection with this most important matter of shipbuilding in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I love to make statements, but I really do not see the need for one on this subject today. We have a shipbuilding program. The subsidies are being progressively reduced, and representations about this have been made. An interdepartmental committee is now studying these representations, and in due course I will say whether a change is to be made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the various members of the government have decided who is responsible for subsidies on wooden ships so that my question can be answered.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, wooden vessels come under the fisheries department; steel vessels come under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bell:: Welcome back.


John (Jack) Davis: The estimates for next year will be published early in the new year.

DEBATES	December 6, 1968


Mr. Anderson:: A supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's remark that there is no need for a statement on shipbuilding policy would he please urgently consider answering question No. 295, which was put on the order paper on September 27. Since apparently there is to be no policy change the question should be easy to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, on November 20 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport which the minister took as notice and said he would deal with later. It concerned the planned experimental icebreaking expedition into Churchill with the Alexbow. I wonder whether the minister is able to answer now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I recall it, the allegation to which my hon. friend referred is not correct. The reason the Alexbow experiment did not take place this winter was that the company responsible for its development, having considered the situation and been unable to get the cargo they felt was necessary to assist in defraying the cost of the experiment, decided not to proceed with it this year.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I might tell the minister that I did not make allegations; I merely asked him a question. In view of the fact that the federal government, as I understand it, through their connection with Panarctic Oils, controls a lot of the interest in this new icebreaking equipment, I thought I should bring this to the minister's attention.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the application by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to the Canadian Transport Commission requesting a sharp increase in telephone rates in Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton,
December 6, 1968

Ottawa and other cities? If so, is it the intention of the government to oppose this application asking for an unjustified sharp increase in rates?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the application, but this is one area of responsibility that has been transferred to the Postmaster General. Perhaps I might redirect the question to him.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the application is before the Canadian Transport Commission. Since this is a court of record hon. members would not think it appropriate for me to make any remarks about this application.



REPORTED SLOW MOVEMENT TO TERMINAL DRYING FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Earlier we were told that drying facilities at the lakehead are not operating on a seven-day 24-hour a day basis because of lack of sufficient facilities to deal with damp grain. In the D.B.S. report dated December 4 it is indicated that for the seven days ending November 21 there were fewer carloadings-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member knows, he must ask a question and seek information rather than present information to the house.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to lay the groundwork for my question. According to the report there were fewer car-loadings with respect to grain than in the similar period last year. I wish to know why there were fewer carloadings during that critical period?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think the explanation has already been given either by myself or by the Minister without Portfolio. We indicated before that it took some time to organize and regularize the flow of wheat to terminals. This has been done now and will continue to be done in the coming days. Terminals will be operating six days a week and 24 hours a day. Yesterday the question in the house was "What about seven days a week?" The answer given was that this is presently being discussed with the trade unions.
Inquiries of the Ministry PRIVILEGE



MR. BROADBENT-STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON INCENTIVES TO INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I rose on a question of privilege with regard to comments made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since he is in the house, and back from the west coast, I wonder whether he would care to answer the matter I raised.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this was a rather technical matter. I stand on what I said and, if I may say so, I do not think it was a matter of privilege. But if the hon. member would care to debate it with me I will be glad to see him at any time today, tomorrow, Sunday or Monday.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since there are indications that the steps taken by the finance ministers at Bonn recently involve a temporary, patchwork solution to our monetary problems, what steps is the government taking to bring about a longer term measure of reform in our international monetary affairs? What policy proposals is the federal government prepared to advance toward that end?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he is seeking information which normally ought to be given by way of a statement on motions.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has he received a telegram from the Maritime Provinces Board of Trade asking for a positive decision on construction of the causeway? If so, how soon may we expect an announcement of that positive decision?
3592	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say within the next couple of weeks.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the problems concerning the construction of the Northumberland strait crossing. The Prime Minister indicated two weeks ago that there was some difficulty in arriving at a decision that he had promised the premier of Prince Edward Island he would make almost one month ago. Could he indicate to the house the nature of the difficulties; because we may be able to give him assistance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Money.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I deal with a question that was raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) yesterday, who wanted to know whether any member of the task force on government information services had requested the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission to ask Canadian radio stations to provide tapes of their news broadcasts to the commission. I replied that I would inquire. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Since almost three months have elapsed since the delegation from Nova Scotia presented to the minister a brief on the problems of our apple industry, when will the government make a statement on what assistance it is prepared to give this hard pressed industry?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that for the last three years, and slightly more than that, the federal government has resisted entering into any ad hoc assistance arrangements with the provinces. I have explained the reasons for that. When the brief was first presented to the department the apple market was not as good as it is now. The market in

DEBATES	December 6, 1968
Canada for fresh and processed apples has firmed considerably. That does not resolve the problem arising from the drought in the area, and the matter is still under active consideration. Yet I should not like to hold out any great hope that we will substitute an ad hoc assistance program for the crop insurance program we have offered to all provinces.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. From the minister's answer I suppose one could take it that there will be no announcement of government aid at the anual meeting of the apple growers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that question is argumentative.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to gather from the minister's statement that there is to be no announcement with regard to government aid during the annual meeting of the apple growers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is a wrong assumption. We undertook to give very serious consideration to the representations that were made and to take into account the market and the harvest with respect to this crop. That has been done and is continuing to be done.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hyliard Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the announced rejection of the proposal to expand the Toronto-Malton airport by all municipalities affected by the flightways, will the minister agree not to proceed as proposed and cause studies of other sites to be made?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to review all available data within a few days. Once I have had a chance to do that I will be in a position to make a recommendation to the government.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Dartmouth-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Can he now give a firmer assurance than he could
December 6, 1968
[Stage Direction]
give before that his department will be able to grant retroactive pay increases to national defence employees before the end of the
year?
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of doing so. I have been in consultation with the Minister of National Defence, who is primarily charged with the responsibility of making the computations in order to get the cheques out.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the initiative taken by the government of the Netherlands in allowing persons to open special post office accounts, which enables that country to use its post office facilities to bring relief to Biafra, will our government consider allowing something similar to happen in this country so as to encourage contributions to be made to this worth-while cause?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I can only applaud the initiative of the Netherlands post office, but it is not possible for us to emulate this activity. As you know, we do not operate the gyro banking system which they have in many European countries, which enables depositors to pay their bills directly and make deposits for such worthy causes as the hon. member has mentioned. It may be something for one of the task forces to review, but at the present time we cannot act.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)

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


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, revised estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. Vote No. 1 will be found at page 158 of the bluebook. Details thereof are listed at page 160.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the Estimates. $3,509,175.
['That concludes the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.\nResolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.']
John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, in my opening statement I
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry want to make one thing quite clear, and that is that Canada's fishing industry-and I am talking first about the industry in the over-all sense of the word-is not on the verge of collapse. It has had a record year in 1968 and it is going on to better things in 1969. It is true that certain important sectors of the industry, more particularly the groundfish industry on the east coast, are encountering difficulties, but by and large the situation is favourable to the industry. Quantities are up, prices in respect of most fish products are higher than they were in recent years, and productivity is continuing to improve. Nineteen sixty eight, when all the results are in, will show that it has been the best year in Canada's fishing history; I repeat, the best year in Canada's fishing history.
This assessment is based on hard statistics for the first nine months of 1968, that is, from January to the end of September inclusive. They show that our total catch is up 10 per cent in quantity terms over the corresponding period in 1967. They also show that the earnings of fishermen are up. Their earnings are up by roughly 12 per cent over a year ago. This upward movement in quantity, in gross dollar value and in fishermen's incomes is consistent with the long run trend in the record of the industry.
No doubt, Mr. Chairman, we need more perspective in these matters. In the ten year period from 1956 to 1966 Canada's total output from the fisheries grew by 18 per cent. Returns to fishermen meanwhile rose by 67 per cent in value terms, this despite a decline in the employment. Productivity by fishermen in quantitative terms, in the sense of numbers of fish caught, has improved by more than 2 per cent a year. This is a rate of improvement in productivity which has been comparable with and in some sectors of the industry better than, that of the rest of the economy, so that in terms of efficiency, and again I am generalizing, the industry has been doing quite well.
These figures apply to the nation as a whole, but one might expect large variations from one part of the industry to the other and from one part of the country to the other. During the last 12 months solid gains, again speaking over all, have been made in the Atlantic region. Out on the Pacific coast, and this is largely due to a decline in the halibut catch, our performance has been off somewhat. However, production of salmon has been up in quantity and dollar terms.
Marketing has presented a problem. It has certainly presented a problem in price terms
3594	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry to the groundfish industry. But there have been products, particularly products like lobster, crab, scallops and so on, in which price increases have been favourable to the industry and which have helped to improve the gross earnings, particularly of the fishermen concerned.
Before I turn to try to deal in detail with the groundfish problem situation on the Atlantic coast I would like to recount a few of the success stories. I would like to do this partly because the problem in the groundfish industry is one of confidence. It is a problem related to diversification. It is certainly a problem of finance in the sense that the banks and other financial institutions have been holding back. They have been less inclined to put money into the fishing industry in recent months than heretofore, and therefore I think it is important to give some balance to the over-all picture in respect of the fisheries.
Four developments have highlighted our Canadian fishing industry in the last two years. One on the Atlantic coast relates to the queen crab. This is an industry which in big dollar terms was non-existent four years ago. It involved a product which was regarded by the fishermen largely as a nuisance. Now it is being sold in increasing quantities. For example, the landings rose from two million pounds in 1967 to ten million pounds during the current year. This is up from less than one million pounds in 1966 and a negligible catch in 1965. It is a real success story. There are 20 new plants processing Atlantic crab, most of it caught in the gulf of St. Lawrence and off the east coast of Newfoundalnd. These plants now employ 700 on-shore workers whose annual earnings run to several millions of dollars. So here is one favourable development that relates to the Atlantic area which can be regarded as a partial offset in an overall picture where the ground fishery is admittedly in some difficulty.
The herring fishery certainly is a success story in the Atlantic area. Herring stocks on the west coast declined rather sharply in recent years and it has been ordered that there be no more fishing for herring perhaps until 1970. Herring stocks around the world have varied considerably. They have been depleted rapidly, but not always by fishing activity. Often the reasons for the decline are biological and the stocks come back again. No doubt we are in one of those as yet uncharted cycles on the west coast. Certainly there is ample evidence that the herring is coming back.

DEBATES	December 6. 1968
The herring fishing on the east coast meanwhile is picking up rapidly. There has been some movement of vessels from the east coast to the west coast. Certainly the catches have been heavy. There have been a number of new plants built and there have been some remarkable catches per trawler, pointing in the direction of fish gains in productivity in that particular sector of the industry.
I would now like to refer to another development on the west coast. We have had ample evidence of success in respect of restoring, improving and expanding the salmon fish stocks. The immense investment which the federal taxpayer has made in artificial spawning channels is beginning to pay off. The $10 million Babine project is now nearing completion. Its results in respect of salmon runs in northern British Columbia should show up in the next year or two.
[DOT] (12 noon)
I have been very interested in reviewing the reports and recommendations which led to this particular program. These assessments -and I think they were hard-headed ones- on the prospective benefits in relation to the costs of that project indicated the benefits would be at least three times as great as the costs involved. This is a good benefit-cost ratio. The results may well exceed that ratio. They certainly will if we put a proper value on the salmon caught by sports fishermen where the value per fish is a great deal higher than the value attributed to fish using the commercial yardsticks.
On the east coast, and also on the west coast, we are looking forward to what I think is an imaginative and obviously encouraging development with regard to fish protein concentrate. Probably no contribution to the fishing economy will have greater effect than that of the Fisheries Research Board in this field in Halifax which has led to this very important breakthrough. It was as a result of the efforts of the research scientists in Halifax that this method of converting fish into a high quality, readily storable and easily transportable product was developed. This has been followed through by substantial pilot plant investigations in the United States. Recently a United States firm announced the construction of a multi-million dollar plant at the strait of Canso. It is to open within the next 18 months. When this plant is in operation fish protein concentrate will begin to move in commercial quantities to the markets of the world.
December 6, 1968

Fish protein concentrate has been discussed at length in the scientific journals for a long time, but it is only in the last year or two that the economies of producing fish protein concentrate on a commercial basis have begun to firm up. I should like to indicate what these economic prospects are by repeating a calculation which I think is significant. Ten grams of this concentrate-that is a very small quantity, two-thirds of a cent's worth- will supply one person's daily requirement for protein. An individual's requirement for a day can be supplemented with fish protein for less than one cent. By comparison it would take 14 cents worth of pork chops, 11 cents worth of steak, 6J cents worth of whole milk, 6 cents worth of eggs or 3J cents worth of dry skim milk to supply the same amount of protein to the average human being.
It looks as if fish protein concentrate will be a relatively cheap source of protein. As I said before, it is a high concentrate product which is storable for long periods of time at any temperature and may be transported very cheaply. This substance looks like a white powder. It can be mixed with foods in very small quantities. It can be mixed into a variety of foods. It is normally tasteless. The food which people consume can obviously be enhanced considerably in respect of its protein content as a result of a very small addition of this valuable product. So the construction of a big plant in Canada at Canso, Nova Scotia, will mean that shortly production will begin on 20 million pounds of this concentrate per year. This is certainly something which Canadians should welcome.
This will not be the only large scale plant in the world. I gather that two others are already under construction in the United States and there is considerable interest in other parts of the world. In other words, it looks as if we will not be alone in trying to market this new product in its early years. Others have also seen the economies involved here and are trying to convince the breakfast food people, the soft drink people and other large purveyors of food and foodstuffs on this continent that fish protein concentrate is a very useful and a very economical product. I welcome the support of those great industries in getting F.P.C. launched.
Perhaps I could draw an analogy here. Over 100 years ago it was found that it was possible to produce paper from wood by grinding it up, by pulping it and using the wood fibres to make paper and other pulp and paper products. At one time a tree was
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry used only to make large planks. The rest of the tree was rejected, thrown away. Then more was used not only for planks but for sawn lumber and pulp. A much greater proportion of the tree became useable because the tops, branches, edgings, and so on could be used for pulp. As a result we have the most economic wood product plants in the world including, side by side, large sawmills and large pulp and paper mills. The straight sections of the tree are now used to make the prime products such as sawn lumber, for example, and most of the rest of it is used to make pulp and other useful products.
The situation in respect of the whole fish is akin to that of the tree. We can take the choice part of the fish, cut off the most desirable portions, sell them, for instance, as fillets, and the rest of the fish can be ground up and converted into fish protein concentrate. This is why our new F.P.C. plant in Nova Scotia is located right beside a large fish filleting operation. Such a plant can be located beside any type of fish plant such as a herring reduction mill. It can use a very wide variety of fish species. It does not discriminate in the same way as plants do which concentrate on the fish fillets that are so attractive to the palates of the people of North America. As a result of this process, equivalent to the pulping process, we will be able to draw on a much wider range of species and use up more of the fish in the oceans. We will be able to supplement the income of our fish filleting plants.
This will be very good in the long run. I do not suggest that it will tide the industry over its short term difficulties. We will see more of these plants as the marketing of fish protein concentrates gets under way. Here is a long range probability. It is a real probability in respect of the over-all improvement in the fishing industries of both our coasts. It can be a very helpful development indeed.
Now I should like to say a few words about the longer term developments in the industry and the longer term prospects. I shall turn specifically to the problem with regard to the groundfish industry on the Atlantic coast. It seems to me when we look at the expenditures of the federal Department of Fisheries, for example, which currently are in the order of $50 million a year, we must look not only at the commercial side of the industry, commercial in the sense of fish caught for consumption and marketing through normal commercial channels, but also at the sports fishery as well, the recreational side. I believe that more of the higher value fish will be
December 6, 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry caught by sports fishermen. In fact the sports fishermen will be investing in boats, gear, travel, hotel accommodation and so on many times as many dollars per fish caught than is invested by the commercial fishermen today.
I was surprised to learn, for example, that the number of fish caught now off the east coast of the United States by sports fishermen is greater than the total number caught by commerical fishermen. I will repeat that. Off the east coast of the United States there are more fish caught, and I am referring to numbers of fish, by sports fishermen than by commercial fishermen. This is an immense industry which is bound to develop in this country. Coming from the west coast of Canada as I do, I cannot regard this as something for the long term future, because the sports fishery in British Columbia is as important today as the commercial fishery. It is probably worth a good deal more if one were to take into account all the secondary effects. We must know more about this particular industry. Certainly there are far more small craft owned by sports fishermen on the west coast, representing a greater dollar value, than there are craft owned by commercial fishermen. In the sense of value I would say the sports fishery is the greater of the two already and it is growing very rapidly. It is more than doubling with each passing decade. Certainly the number of small craft engaged in the sports fishery is more than doubling every decade on the west coast. I am sure this is also true, but starting from a smaller base, on the east coast. It is certainly true of the Great Lakes and in a number of our other freshwater areas as well.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
The new department of fisheries and forestry must be increasingly concerned with this sports fishing aspect and, indeed, with recreation and the redevelopment of communities, some of which are solely dependent on the commercial fishery. We must be concerned with the redevelopment of these communities to service the sports fishery and tourists, all Canadians who want to travel in boats to where the fish are, and to enjoy the scenery in other parts of Canada. What I am saying about Canadians travelling up and down our coasts also applies to our good friends from the United States. This is a supplementary and complementary industry and, in the long run, perhaps even a more important arm to fisheries in Canada.
I said I wanted to make a few remarks about the main problem area which concerns


members opposite today and, indeed, members in all parts of the house. This is the groundfish industry on the Atlantic coast. The groundfish industry, if I can first assess it in very round terms, has been producing $50 million in total income for fishermen. Converted into saleable products which go to the market, this is a $100 million industry. Not all sectors of this industry are in difficulty. Not all companies and certainly not all areas are in difficulty. But this is an industry which has problems, and these problems are of two kinds. There is the problem in respect of declining prices on the market and there is the problem of the rising costs of catching and processing fish. The industry is, in other words, caught in a serious cost-price squeeze which is not unlike the situation that the prairie wheat farmer is encountering.
In the last couple of years there has been a declining ceiling on the price for the product, and slowly but inevitably many of the costs of this industry are rising. The industry has been trying to adapt itself to these changing circumstances. It has been necessary, however, certainly during the past 12 months, for the federal government not only to recognize this problem but to do something about it. In the past year two programs were instituted, both of which I might refer to as ad hoc programs. They were announced in several parts and pieces. The one which relates directly to fresh and frozen fish was announced last May. At that time the former minister of fisheries said that $4 million would be available to the industry, basically to maintain the price of fish to the fishermen. As a result of some adjustments and, incidentally, an exceptional increase in production quantity, the total sum has reached $4,500,000. That program in its detail is without precedent in our history. We have, in what was declared at the time as being a one-shot program, begun a process of helping the industry in financial terms to the extent of many millions of dollars.
The industry has been faced, as I say, with declining prices for its products. The price for cod blocks delivered in Boston reached a high of 29 cents a pound a few years ago. It has been slipping year by year and is now down to 21 cents. My impression of the industry is that it could break even-would see a little daylight-if the price was up around 26 cents. Until the price is up to 26 cents a pound there will be a problem.
There is a problem in respect of maintaining the price to fishermen and there is also a problem which the companies face in finding
December 6, 1968

ways to finance their purchases of materials and to pay the interest on their bonds. In other words, they need cash. The companies lost money in 1967. Because $4,500,000 was passed on to the fishermen their position has not changed materially in 1968. In other words the industry is still in difficulty because of the lower prices.
When looking at the marketing side we can perhaps see some relief. The figures I have, supplied to me partly by our own fisheries people and partly by the Department of Trade and Commerce, indicate that the total volume of exports, and this is 70 per cent of the production of the fresh and frozen fish industry on the east coast, has increased. I want to say also that the dollar value of exports to all countries has also gone up by 8 per cent. In other words the overall income of this industry has been rising in spite of the declining price.
In the first nine months of 1968 Canada exported 290 million pounds compared with 220 million pounds in 1967. We have obviously been shipping a lot more fresh and frozen fish to the United States, and in spite of the decline in the price the gross income or value of these exports is higher than it was last year. I understand the gain in respect of our fish products has not been reflected in overall consumption. Certainly production principally of fish sticks has gained in relation to other fish products exported to the United States market.
I am told that the per capita consumption of fish in the United States has been fairly constant in recent years, running about 10.5 pounds per annum. However, when considering the quantity of fish sticks consumed in the United States, we are up from January to October, 1968, to over 185 million pounds in comparison with 128 million pounds during the first ten months of 1967. That is an increase of nearly 60 million pounds or 45 per cent. So we are shipping more of these fresh and frozen fish products to the United States markets. We have been getting a larger share of the United States market in the form of fish sticks and portions.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Of course, this has to be viewed in relation to the performance of other countries. I understand that shipments from Norway, Denmark and Iceland have also increased considerably, and this is reflected in the fact that our share of the total market is down so much. However, there is another aspect of
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry this problem in relation to overseas competition with which I am sure many members opposite are also familiar. The devaluation of the currencies of those countries which are also exporting to the United States in larger quantities than before has resulted in United States prices looking higher to them in terms of their currencies. In their currencies the price is at least the same as a few years ago. In the case of Iceland, where the over-all devaluation has now reached the order of 50 per cent, the price undoubtedly looks a lot better to the fishermen in that country and to the industry, companies and organizations shipping into the United States. There is a diversion, also, of these fish products from European, and particularly African, markets. The difficulties on the continent of Africa at the moment are one of the causes for there being an additional supply of fish available from European countries.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Cyr):: Order. I must remind the member that his time has expired, unless he has the unanimous consent of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alexandre Cyr: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have skimmed over quite briefly the development on the United States market side- greater volume and a declining price to the Canadian exporter. I might perhaps have mentioned that there has been no decline in price to the ultimate consumer. So there is a larger margin available in the United States at the moment. Perhaps some part of that margin is going toward the promotion in the United States market of our products, our fish. I would certainly hope so. I would hope also that we have in prospect, and hopefully early in the new year, some improvement in price to the Canadian exporter. But this is something which we certainly cannot take for granted. If it does not happen, of course the industry has to turn even more to cost reductions and improvements in efficiency in order to get by.
There are a number of things the industry can do, but again many of these are developments which can only be counted upon in the longer term. The government has been financing a study of productivity in the industry and how individual fishing and processing operations can be improved in the Atlantic area. The industry itself has been
December 6, 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry looking hard at the possibilities of reducing costs. I am told that in respect of our major trawler fishing operations, economies of as much as 25 per cent could be effected by reorganization of the operations of the fishing sector itself, by redesigning vessels, and so on. But this, as I mentioned before, cannot be counted upon to come about overnight.
A similar improvement in productivity resulting from a rationalization or centralization of plants, but most of it due to a reorganization within existing plants, can take place on land. But again this is a long term process. I see no reason, looking at the summary reports I have had and listening to others, why a 2 per cent to 3 per cent per annum improvement in productivity cannot be realized. Perhaps this process must be speeded up by one device or another. We can expect some relief from that quarter.
I want to return now to the immediate problem. The immediate problem is that of an industry which in the round produces products worth $100 million, an industry which received $4.5 million worth of assistance from the federal government in the form of so-called deficiency payments for fresh and frozen fish during the past 12 months, an industry which has also received some $4 million in terms of purchases of dried salt cod, all of which has been taken out of normal commercial channels and will be used for food aid purposes. Those dollar inputs have been there in 1968. The industry, of course, wants the taxpayers of Canada through the federal government either to buy some of its products or price support others of its products so it can continue (1) to pay the fisherman the same price as he received in 1967 and 1968 and (2), to have enough cash in hand to pay immediate bills, to buy the fuel and other supplies needed to send trawlers to sea in January, 1969, to pay interest on debts, and so on.
I think hon. members opposite know that we are all concerned about this problem. We must be concerned about it because we are on the verge of doing something unprecedented for the fishing industry in Canada. We do not want to start doing the same sort of thing as was done in respect of the coal mines in important parts of Canada and get in deeper and deeper. We must resolve what is a very deep-seated problem here. It is essentially one of productivity. We know that with the best management in the world and the best equipment in the world, the best vessels and the best plants, we can improve our productivity by 25 per cent.


This by itself would be a $25 million solution to the industry's problems. But as I said before, this is not going to happen quickly. We can hope that the price will rise, particularly for codfish products to the United States, from 21 cents up to 26 cents or 27 cents; suddenly there would be another $25 million gross income available to the industry. Then this problem, at least in the short term, will be resolved. We are going around a tight corner and will have to come up with short term solutions as well as long term solutions. Mr. Chairman, the committee has been very tolerant in giving me this much time and perhaps I had better sit down and listen to other people's solutions to our problems.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Fisheries who is piloting his estimates through the house for the first time. It is evident that he has spent considerable time studying the problems of this important primary industry. I am glad his estimates came before the committee today rather than on Monday, for on Monday the roster might not have permitted him to be here to carry out this very important function.
As the committee is aware, the fisheries estimates were referred to the standing committee on fisheries and forestry where the operations and policies of the department were given a very thorough scrutiny. However, we are dealing with an expenditure of some $75,106,300 of the taxpayers' money and there are a number of items upon which I should like to comment while the estimates are before the committee. Of course I shall also comment upon a number of the minister's statements with which I disagree.
The importance of the Department of Fisheries has been recognized over the years by the increasing importance of the fishing industry in our economy and in the economy of the world. Canada's fisheries resources are harvested from two of the greatest oceans and from the most extensive bodies of fresh water in the world. The living resources of the two oceans contribute up to 95 per cent of our nation's fisheries production, while the remainder comes from freshwater stocks in the Great Lakes and other inland waterways. We utilize commercially more than 150 species of fish and shellfish, the most important being groundfish, salmon, halibut, herring, lobster and other shellfish.
December 6, 1988	COMMONS
The country's fishing industry represents an estimated investment of more than $200 million in ships and fishing gear, and tens of millions of dollars more in shore facilities. It provides employment income for an estimated 80,000 fishermen, of whom some 30,000 are full time operators, as well as 20,000 men and women workers in our processing plants. The fishing industry makes a great contribution to our foreign exchange reserves, for over two-thirds of the industry's output, which last year was estimated at $325 million, is sold in export markets. In fact, our exports of fisheries products last year set an all-time record of $235 million, and Canada now stands in second place behind only Japan among the world's leading fish exporters in terms of value.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
All this is very heady stuff and at first glance the average Canadian would get the impression that the fishing industry has had clear sailing with fair winds. In fact, in his comments the minister practically stated that Canadian fishermen never had it so good. However, this is simply not the case because the fishing industry is going through a very difficult period of readjustment. On the Atlantic coast the fresh and frozen sector of the groundfish industry is faced with falling yields on offshore grounds along with very serious marketing difficulties. On top of this, the reduction industry is faced with very low levels of world prices for fishmeal and oils. Generally, prices for most of our frozen fisheries products have declined in the United States which is our most important market. In fact, only a few weeks ago one of our European competitors sold 700,000 pounds of frozen cod blocks in the United States market for 20 cents a pound, not 21 cents but 20 cents a pound, which is one cent below the market price in recent weeks and approximately six cents per pound below our cost for landing the same species in Boston. Unfortunately the end is not in sight, for Iceland, one of our chief competitors, again devalued her currency from 57 krona to the U.S. dollar to 88 krona to the U.S. dollar, which is bad news for our fresh and frozen groundfish exporters as well as our salt fish dealers.
I know of no industry in Canada which faces economic problems as serious as those presently faced by our Canadian fishing industry. Many fish processing plants in the Atlantic provinces have already closed their doors-one in the town of Shelburne in my constituency-while others are on the verge 29180-228
DEBATES	3599
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry of bankruptcy. This situation is the direct result of almost three years of declining revenues and increasing costs. As a consequence, there has not been any expansion-here I differ with the minister-in the over-all earnings of our fishermen and this situation is contributing to serious social and economic problems in our fishing communities. The records will show that from 1960 to 1966 we had a period of heavy investment in fishing vessels and processing plants which was encouraged by a strong demand and rising prices for our fishing products. The reversal of this expansionary trend since 1966 is not due, in my opinion, to any weakening of consumer demand for fish but can be related directly to developments abroad which have reduced market prices in terms of national currencies. This is one of the problems which the minister stressed in his statement.
It is evident that currency devaluation in European countries is now having a marked effect upon Canadian fish exporters. Coupled with devaluation is the disruption of Iceland's and Norway's traditional markets in Africa and these countries are now setting the pace of competition in our traditional markets. Therefore I found it hard to believe that the Minister of Finance could recently rise in his place and state that the currency crisis in Europe would not put any pressure on the Canadian dollar. If he wants to see the effect it is having on the Canadian dollar. I would invite him to visit some of our Atlantic coast communities. I was pleased that the Minister of Fisheries commented on this devaluation because it is evident he is aware of this problem, and I hope that the Minister of Finance reads these remarks today so that he too is made aware of the problem created for the Canadian dollar by the devaluation of currencies in Europe.
Faced with this savage competition, Canadian exporters have been able to hold their own in terms of quantity, but our position in the U.S. market was retained at a tremendous cost in prices. In fact, the duty paid delivered price of cod blocks declined from 30 cents per pound in November, 1965 to 21 cents in July of 1968 with similar declines in the prices received for ocean perch and flounder fillets. Since it takes three pounds of cleaned codfish to provide one pound of fillets, a decrease of nine cents per pound in the price of cod blocks represents three cents per pound less for raw material. In other words, the prices paid to fishermen for codfish would have been expected to decline by three cents a pound during this
December 6, 1368

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry period, but tor a variety of reasons this did not happen.
In an effort to stabilize the industry, processors maintained prices to the fishermen using up working capital, bank credit and earnings from ancillary enterprises which they operate in connection with fisheries. However, many companies now find their resources depleted, and there is no easing of the pressure of supply on the U.S. market. I might add that prices would have been reduced this summer, but this last-ditch solution was avoided by the deficiency payment program authorized for the Atlantic frozen groundfish industry by the government. This program was in effect from May to October, 1968, and during this period the borrowing position of many processors was strengthened and a serious decline in the price paid to fishermen was averted.
For this program I am prepared to give the government full marks. However, the program has now terminated even though a substantial difference still exists between the costs of production of frozen groundfish products over the revenue received from their sale in the United States market. As I mentioned earlier, this difference ranges anywhere from four to six cents per pound, depending on the location of the processor and the distance between his plant and the U.S. market. With deficits of this size hanging over the industry, every fisherman on the Atlantic coast engaged in catching groundfish continuously faces the prospect of a 25 to 30 per cent drop in his earnings from this occupation. But while this threat hangs over him, every day brings him new evidence of substantial wage and salary increases approved by the government or granted to occupational groups in some other part of this country.
This government and this country have a responsibility to take action on behalf of our Canadian fishermen as long as the present depressed prices continue for their products. This government must show an interest in the economic well-being of thousands of our Canadian fishermen and their families, as well as in the processors upon whom they depend for the purchase of their catch. I say this because of the air of frustration and despair which hangs over hundreds of fishing communities where there are no alternative occupational opportunities. During the June election campaign the present Prime Minister stated that regional disparities were a greater threat to our national unity than differences in our languages. I say to this house that if


there is a decline in the prices which fishermen now receive for groundfish and this decline lasts for any period of time, the result will bring chaos to the economy of the whole Atlantic region at a time when regional disparity is supposed to receive top priority from the Liberal government now in power.
I do not wish to be critical of the Minister of Fisheries, for the problems with which he must deal were created for him in no small measure by the inaction of the former minister, assisted by the former secretary of state. However, I did read the minister's speech as delivered at the Canada Day banquet in Boston on October 19 with some misgivings. The minister made it quite clear that the government is going to adopt a very hard line toward the fishing industry. These are his words as quoted from his text:
Our commercial fishery, like any other industry, must make a profit tor the Canadian community as a whole. It must generate more benefits than costs, it must pay taxes and not deduct too many tax dollars, it must pay its way and not constitute a new burden on the Canadian community as a whole.
Farther on he added:
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
We do not intend to go on propping up the fishing industry indefinitely.
These are harsh words, Mr. Chairman, harsh words spoken in another country about a people and an industry which has been a way of life for many thousands of Canadians and which has contributed many millions of dollars to our country's progress, to our country's foreign exchange reserves through the export of our fisheries products. However, today Canada's fishing industry, though still made up of wooden ships and iron men, is fighting literally with its back to the wall; it is fighting the bureaucracy that grants pay increases which alone are sometimes greater than the annual earnings of some of our fishermen. It is fighting increasing governmental aid in many parts of the world which permits the exporters of those countries to take away our traditional markets. It is fighting for its markets against state-owned vessels from behind the iron curtain, the operators of which seem to have little or no problem when it comes to balancing their books in relation to profit and loss on their operations. It is fighting to keep its ships in the water and provide a livelihood for Canadian fishermen and their families and Canadian shore workers and their families.
December 6, 1968	COMMONS
In spite of runaway inflation in costs and diminishing prices for fish, the industry is even fighting for a place on the ocean in which to fish. This results from a lack of action by the government which failed to implement Canada's Territorial Sea and Fishing zones Act which was passed away back in 1964. Today the minister spoke at great length about a wonderful new industry, one of the stars of the fishing industry, the queen crab fishing industry. While we welcome a new fishing venture which the department, through its fisheries research, helped us to establish, I would say to the minister that the queen crab industry is primarily located in the gulf of St. Lawrence. It is an industry, Mr. Chairman, which is exposed to exploitation by every other nation, and will be so exposed until Canada's territorial sea and fishing zones limit is implemented. This is something the minister must take into consideration because unless some action is taken to implement that act the queen crab industry will be exposed to foreign exploitation. It is for this reason I said the minister inherited some of these problems.
I recall the former secretary of state for external affairs rising in his place and saying that this measure would be implemented immediately it was passed by parliament. It has not been implemented yet and the lack of action by the government has created no small problem for our Atlantic coast fishermen. The minister said, in effect, that the fishing industry must stand on its own feet. I ask the minister, is this attitude going to be adopted toward other government operations? Is this the attitude that is going to be adopted toward the C.B.C. which this year will have a deficit of as much as $150 million? Are we going to make the C.B.C. pay its way? I agree with the minister's concept that it is desirable to have all our industries stand on their own two feet. However, I cannot agree that our fishermen, faced with abnormal economic conditions forced upon them by the actions of other national governments, should be allowed to founder on the rocks of economic privation, desperation and despair when they need help.
I ask the minister, what does he think will happen to these people? What does he think will happen to many of our small fishing ports unless some action is taken by the government? It is not possible to put all these people on welfare and we cannot let them
DEBATES	3601
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry starve. We cannot ask them to compete, without aid, with Norway, for example, whose parliament approved a state subsidy for their fishing industry up to May 31, 1969 in the amount of $32 million U.S. dollars. This type of support measure for Norwegian fishermen is aimed at reducing the cost of fishing gear and bait and will be paid on the amount of these items actually bought by the fishermen. With some of these costs borne by the Norwegian government, it is possible for exporters to sell their fish at lower prices than those required by Canadian fishermen.
However, this is only one sample of the type of competition our fishermen are forced to meet. In my opinion, the government has no alternative at the present time but to formulate a policy of direct federal assistance to the Atlantic fishing and processing industries. This policy must take into consideration the immediate short term needs of the industry whose operating losses have depleted financial reserves of the fishermen as well as processors, and it must also consider a long term approach which will assist in reducing costs and expanding consumer demand for fisheries products.
According to all reports, there will be no easing in the immediate future of the pressure on world markets for the salt cod or the fresh frozen industry from European and Scandinavian countries. Until peace is restored in Africa, the fishermen of Iceland, Norway and Denmark will continue to press for greater exports to the United States. In fact, during the past eight months these exports have increased to the United States by some 40 million pounds. It is imperative, therefore, for the short term for the government to re-establish the deficiency payment program and the salt fish surplus disposal program. The deficiency payment program could be implemented in a number of ways.
I am well aware of some of some of the problems facing the minister in this regard, especially in relation to the general agreement under GATT and the Kennedy round. For example, the deficiency payment could be made on a graduated scale to fishermen and boat owners based on the number of days registered as fishing at sea, thus spreading the payments to a number of varieties of groundfish. For processors the deficiency payment could take the form of a supplementary payment on a percentage basis covering the number of man-hours worked by shore employees. Other formulas for the deficiency payment could no doubt be worked out, but
December 6. 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry I cannot stress too strongly the need for the government to take immediate action on this thorny problem.
For the long term benefit of the fishing industry I can only suggest that the government in future use more of its fisheries budget to help educate North American housewives on the nutritional value of eating seafood. In my opinion, in the past there has been too much emphasis on the productive end of the fishing industry and insufficient emphasis on the marketing of fisheries products. I should think it would be possible to perfect a seafood sandwich that could be sold at drive-ins. This is something upon which the department could work. In addition, well prepared fish and seafood luncheons could be served in our schools. More imaginative seafood displays could be used in our stores, and a training program instituted for the managers of seafood departments in our supermarkets. All of these things would be helpful.
We have heard much about the progress being made in the Kennedy round of GATT negotiations. We are told that the United States tariffs on cooked and uncooked fish sticks of 30 per cent and 20 per cent respectively are being reduced by 50 per cent over a five year period. In other words, the final stage will not be reached until January 1, 1973. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this is not good enough. It is too little too late because there are still formidable barriers which make it very difficult for Canadian firms to compete in United States markets.
On the Canadian scene, it would be very helpful if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-I am glad to see him in his seat this morning-would get together with the Minister of Transport, if he could find him, in an effort to speed up the railway service on less than carload shipments of fresh fish. As the minister is aware, the industry has made great strides in the processing, packaging and shipping of fresh fish to our markets in Ontario and Quebec. We are dependent on rail shipments to these markets to which we ship around 12 million pounds per year. At the present time we are faced with increased costs on these shipments. In fact, I believe it was last September that charges on these shipments increased by something like 10 per cent, a cost which the industry can ill afford to bear.
This, in itself, was harmful to the industry but even more important and even more harmful are the delays experienced by some


of our processors in their l.c.l. shipments. I would point out that fish is very perishable and time is of the essence. Time is most important in the transportation of such a highly perishable product as fresh fish. Anything that the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Transport could do to lower these costs or to speed up the delivery of fish would be beneficial to the entire Atlantic coast industry.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
On the international scene Canada should take the lead in establishing sound conservation measures as well as a more rational basis for international merchandising of fisheries products. I want to warn the government that unless conservation measures are soon taken to prevent the increasing depletion of our groundfish stocks by foreign fishermen, the day is fast approaching when the offshore and inshore fishing industry on Canada's east coast will become uneconomical.
It is evident that the approach used to date for the implementation of Canada's Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, passed in 1964, has not been successful. However, if that act had been implemented as promised in 1964 there would have been a reduction in the catches of fleets from other nations which now fish these waters and consequently there would be less pressure on our traditional markets. At the same time, hopefully, our Canadian catches would have increased and unit costs would have decreased.
In my opinion and for the reasons I have stated, the government therefore has a considerable measure of responsibility for the situation which exists today in our fishing industry, a situation which has existed for some time and which, if the government does not take any action, will exist for some time in the future. In closing may I say I hope the government will face up to its responsibilities and to the challenge that is before it, for the benefit of our fishermen who for too many years have been the forgotten Canadians.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I am a little startled and surprised to be called on since it is so close to one o'clock. I realize I will not have the opportunity, at least before lunch, to explore all of the various topics I wish to discuss. However, I should like to add my congratulations to the minister upon his appointment and to say that in all the dealings I have had with him up to the moment he has been most cordial. I have been
December 6, 1968
impressed by his grasp of the industry and also by his fair-mindedness in dealing with any problem I have brought before him.
In spite of the fact that the year 1968 has been a record year and that over the past ten years there has been a decided increase in the earnings of fishermen on both coasts, the industry has not been without trouble. Apparently the fishing industry, like many other industries in Canada, is going around a very tight corner. One of the problems that members of parliament will have to face is that we are entering upon a period when many industries are reacting to the kind of economy which exists in the world at the present time. Anything that we do here is not done, of course, in isolation from the rest of the world, since we are an exporting country and the success of our exports depends to a large extent on the world market picture and economies in the world generally.
My remarks will be directed mainly to the salmon industry. However, by way of preamble may I say that I was a little taken aback at the minister's suggestion that fish are the source of cheap protein and therefore on that count alone a desirable commodity. 1 think his presentation might have been a good deal more positive. It sounded as if he were suggesting that in utilizing completely the whole fish we in Canada would eat the fillets and then ship the remainder of the fish, though rich in protein, to some other country that does not enjoy our standard of living.
I believe that the whole idea behind the promotion of fish and fish products should be an attempt to make this product as attractive as the promoters of beef and chickens have made their products. Nobody has ever heard of heavenly fish although one hears a great deal about heavenly chicken. Neither does anybody compare fish steaks or salmon products with the gourmet's delight, the filet mignon. If I may make the suggestion, I think that the promotion of fish products can benefit from the kind of attractive merchandising that many other industries have cottoned on to and are pursuing in a much more able and aggressive manner than is the case with fish products.
I have also been interested to note that in our own parliamentary restaurant we have probably the most delightful recipe for poached salmon that I have ever had the good fortune to meet. And when I say "meet", I am not intending a pun. Nevertheless, I suggest that this sort of recipe and the promotion of this particular item in the diet will encourage people to eat more fish.
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry
My ancestors came from Prince Edward Island, and I happen to enjoy fish products. But in most cases I find it difficult indeed when I go to a restaurant to be able to purchase fish products attractively prepared. Since I have mentioned the parliamentary restaurant I should like to say that during the lobster season I think it would be very nice to have lobsters prepared attractively rather than just served cold on a plate.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2.30.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
["Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2.30.\nAt one o'clock the committee took recess."]
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, as I said before lunch, I am very interested in what the minister and his department have achieved. In my view fish products ought to be marketed in a much more attractive way than at present and promoted aggressively on the basis that not only are they substitutes for meat but an attractive basic food as well as a delicacy in some cases. Although the minister is an affable sort of man the industry as a whole is in trouble. Over the years many militant labour disputes have broken out in the industry, and we are not free from that difficulty today. The reason for that, is that the industry in general is depressed, paying depressed wages for work done under medieval working conditions. When one considers the poor markets for fish it is small wonder that we have difficulties of this kind in this industry, or in any other industry that suffers from the evils experienced in the fishing industry.
The minister mentioned some interesting conservation projects, including Babine lake and various other projects. He mentioned productivity, and I wish to deal with that. In the fishing industry productivity is not the responsibility of those who man vessels or are employed as cannery packers. The workers do not control productivity; it is controlled by those who own fishing companies and canneries. Over a long period we must increase investment in ships, canneries, shore installations and processing equipment, to say nothing of improvements in transportation, packaging and marketing before we shall see the productivity of this industry growing. To increase our productivity we must have a work force that is better educated and we

December 6, 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry must channel sizeable amounts of money into investment of badly needed research. Only in that way will new markets be developed.
Pollution of fish spawning grounds is a problem that plagues the industry. The minister and his department so far have been able to exercise little or no control over this matter. I hope the minister will recognize how serious the problem of pollution is and make a statement about it. I also hope to hear something from the minister about the progress of the proposed Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act amendments. Is a bill to be introduced soon? I ask this even though the matter may come under the aegis of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We must tighten the various departmental and provincial responsibilities with regard to pollution and we must recognize that responsibility for pollution is not something that is only of regional interest but concerns our entire population.
I should like to hear the minister say something about the establishment of an anti-pollution authority. I submit that the plans of various municipalities and plants to use the rivers and lakes of Canada as so many open sewers for the disposal of waste ought to come under scrutiny. No one ought to be allowed to dump waste into our rivers and lakes that are inhabited by fish and used by human beings in summer. We must bring strict regulations to bear in this area so that our rivers and lakes may be kept as free of pollution as possible. Over the years persuasion has not been enough to curb this problem and I should like some concrete governmental action taken in this regard.
May I direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the salmon industry of British Columbia, an industry which has faced troubled times and will face troubled years in the future. The fishermen of my area are disturbed because fishermen from the United States may fish in the waters off Point Roberts on days when the fishermen from my area may not do so. Regulations govern the catching of fish in the Fraser river. On certain days our fishermen are prohibited from fishing but this prohitition does not apply to United States fishermen. Our fishermen complain that while they are prohibited by our laws from fishing on certain days in the Fraser river, United States fishermen take advantage of their inability to catch fish about to enter the Fraser and obtain catches which our Canadian fishermen would have obtained if they had been allowed to engage in fishing.


[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The salmon fishermen, as represented by their union, are concerned about the new licensing regulations which have recently been proposed and imposed by the minister. For the benefit of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I would like to review some of the points connected with these new regulations. I believe the main point in these proposals is that there are to be no new licences issued, at least for the time being.
The vessels that fish for salmon are divided into two kinds, class A and class B. Class A are those described as having a total value catch of more than $1,250 in 1967 and 1968, and class B are those which have had a total catch of less than $1,250 in 1967 and 1968. The class B licences are slated to disappear along with the boats. A licence will die when the boat is no longer a viable fishing vessel. There does not seem to be any criticism of this action regarding class B vessels. The main point at issue rests with the issuing of licences to class A boats because those licences are now to be bought and sold with the boats to which they are attached. The big question is, who can buy these boats and therefore acquire a licence for himself?
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, these new regulations are of deep concern to many fishermen and that concern has been expressed by their organizations, notably their union. We must admit that all branches of the Pacific coast industry with one exception, the Prince Rupert Co-op, agree that there should be some kind of limitation, but the question concerns the method by which limitation is to be accomplished.
I would like to outline to the committee the main fears of the fishermen, as represented to me, on this matter of particular importance to them which affects their livelihood. The first point is that fishermen who know no other occupation, fishermen of all ages and in all branches of the industry, might be prevented by these new regulations from ever being able to fish privately again. They are concerned because they think they may have no other choice than to become employees or slaves of the fishing companies. They cannot afford to purchase class A boats. In many cases they have spent their whole lives and their families for generations have spent their lives in the fishing industry, and they fear that in the future they will be excluded from it.
The second point is that these new regulations will lead to the establishment of a select
December 6, 1968	COMMONS
group of vessel owners, many of whom will be fishing companies. The big corporations, the well financed companies, will be in a position to purchase class A vessels. They can even afford to buy them, hold them out of use for a while, retain the licences and use them at a future date. The main matter that particularly disturbs private fishermen with limited resources is that few of them will be able to compete under the kind of licensing arrangements that are forthcoming.
The third point of disturbance is that because class A boats with licences attached are limited in number, their price will be so high that only large fishing companies will be able to purchase them. The fishermen fear the concept of vertical integration such as has developed in the forest industry, whereby a company will own the boats and the canneries and will wholesale and market the produce. This is likely to occur in the fishing industry. When we have a situation such as exists in the forest industry, where there is vertical integration, I feel that the much praised concept of free enterprise and free competition no longer exists. Such a situation leads to the control of an industry by a relatively few companies and is ultimately more costly for the average citizen.
The next point is that this type of vessel price-kiting can lead to such an extra investment in vessels and equipment that it will eventually affect productivity. As you increase your investment in a particular industry and your production, your crop, as it were, remains relatively the same, productivity is bound to go down. In fact I am told that this has already happened in the fishing industry because the minister has said that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish.
Finally, fishermen are concerned about what provisions are being made for their retraining and to provide them with a measure of mobility, if they are going to be displaced from the fishing industry by these new regulations.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, I wish to advise the minister that the fishermen in my area are so concerned about this matter that they have asked for a meeting next Friday, a week from today, to see what can be done to humanize these regulations. This is a matter which the minister and I have discussed previously, and I feel certain that he will consider it in all seriousness.
The minister has said that everyone agrees to licensing limitations, except perhaps the
DEBATES	3605
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry Prince Rupert Co-op, and that only the union objects to this form of licence limitation. However, this is not completely compatible with my information. As the minister discovered in Prince Rupert recently, other groups are beginning to have gnawing doubts about the effect. I have heard that fishermen using trawlers and seiners are no longer in complete accord with these regulations, and this is something which should be taken into serious consideration. Many of the trawlers and seiners were out at sea during the various deliberations that took place when the licensing regulations were proposed initiaUy. I am certain they would like to review this whole matter, and I would hope a thorough review will come out of the deliberations of the fisheries committee when it travels to hold meetings on the west coast as it plans to do.
What are the alternatives to the method of limitation proposed by the minister? We might consider licensing individuals who are committed to the industry. I am not talking about moonlighters, those people working normally in other jobs who come into the fishing industry, work at it for a while, take the cream off the top and then go about their other business. I would suggest that such people should go sport fishing. This seems to be the kind of hobby approach we are facing in the fishing industry, but perhaps I do the minister a disservice by treating his suggestion frivolously because I too think there is much to be gained from his suggestion that the sport fishing industry has a lot to offer by way of profit to those engaged in it and to various related industries.
I would point out that the fishermen's union proposes a five year moratorium on licences and that the renewal of a licence be granted on the basis of the catch of a particular vessel attached to a particular person. The suggestion has been made that if a person derives from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of his annual income from fishing, that would be sufficient to consider him a bona fide fisherman. This is not something that is absolutely new. The Farm Credit Corporation will not lend money to anyone who is not a bona fide farmer. I think something along these lines might be considered. Possibly a waiting list should be established and administered by a board composed of representatives of the fishermen's organizations, the Department of Fisheries, and perhaps some disinterested body such as a university. Certain preference should be given to those families which historically have engaged in the fishing industry in our province.
December 6, 1968


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Chairman, during the last ten years all ministers of fisheries have been appointed from the eastern provinces. Although they were capable men the west


coast fishermen felt that these ministers did not have a full understanding of the problems of British Columbia. Indeed, many Pacific fishermen pointed to the days of Jimmy Sinclair of Coast Capilano, now Capilano, as being the last era of major co-operation between the federal government and themselves. Without a doubt Jimmy was an outstanding leader of the department. He led the industry with progressive legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Henry Goode: By coincidence the present Minister of Fisheries also represents the same riding. He is also becoming known among M.P.'s as co-operative, progressive and a man who is not afraid to enact legislation. Equally coincidental is the fact that the fishermen and the fishing industry in Jimmy Sinclair's days were represented in the Burnaby-Richmond delta by a member named Tom Goode. I do not wish to suggest that only "Goode" legislation is enacted in British Columbia and that fisheries flourish only when the member from Capilano is the minister and the member from Burnaby-Richmond delta is on the government side and his name is Tom Goode. I should like to point out, however, that Burnaby-Richmond has another Tom Goode although perhaps not yet of age. However, if Capilano in another 25 years can produce a minister of fisheries, we will have another Goode as the member from Bumaby-Rich-mond.
In British Columbia the wages of workers in most industries have increased substantially in the past ten years. Many of them are doing well. Families have obtained a standard of living equal to any in North America, but the fisherman has fallen behind. His family is not benefiting from a prosperous Canada. As salmon catches by individual boats have gone from bad to worse more boats with ever-increased investments in gear are fishing for fewer salmon. The Department of Fisheries has cut down on the allowable fishing hours in order to permit some salmon to escape from this larger fleet. Thus the income from the rivers and the ocean off the coast of British Columbia has diminished. Alarm has spread as pollution has become apparent in the major rivers of British Columbia. Nothing has been done about this pollution.
The battles and representations for a headland to headland base line have produced no victories and have caused the men and the industry to feel that no one really cares. To
December 6. 1968

make matters worse, the Russian and Japanese fleets presented themselves off our coast line. These fleets at first stayed well out to sea until 1964 when, as a result of lack of base lines and an inadequate 12 mile limit, they crept closer and closer to our shores taking more and more fish. The Russians with their massive fleet and their floating processing ships threatened to destroy our bottom fisheries. The fishermen have suffered from lower incomes, poor catches, too many boats, foreign fleets, pollution, increasing costs and no local fisheries minister to complain to.
But once again enthusiasm and optimism are spreading among the boats. The fishermen now know they have a competent minister of fisheries who is from British Columbia. They know he understands their problems. They have heard that strong government investigations are being carried on in respect of new headland to headland base lines in order to stop the destruction of our fisheries by foreign fleets. The fishermen know that the fresh new government and the eager new M.P.'s from British Columbia realize that pollution must be controlled and they know that the Fraser River has No. 1 priority. The government has promised new low cost loans for the purchase and improvement of fishing boats. At last the high interest rates will be done away with.
This summer, in response to the long time representations of the fishermen, the minister responsible brought in licensing restrictions to limit the future number of boats allowed to catch salmon. Two categories, A and B, were immediately instituted to cover salmon boats and class C was later added to cover halibut and herring fishermen. These regulations immediately disqualified 1,000 boats from further participation in salmon fishing, leaving
5.500	vessels in the preferred category A and
1.500	smaller boats in the restricted category B. The basis of the regulations is to stop the entry of additional fishing boats into the business and to upgrade the class A boats. It is hoped that most of class B will disappear in the next few years.
In class B is included one of the major sources of annoyance to professional fishermen. Here we have the part time fisherman or moonlighter, as he is called. He swarms over the best positions on the river. He constantly hinders and restricts the proficiency of the fleet by his inexperience. He is a fireman, a school principal, a millworker, or a student. He is not a legitimate fisherman. He catches few fish, less than 2 per cent of the total
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry salmon catch, but he represents 22 per cent of the boats on the rivers. For the good of the industry the moonlighter must be eliminated. This must be done soon in order to restore the fisherman's confidence in our government.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The government's proposed program to purchase these class B licences for the health of the B.C. fisheries must be brought in without delay. We must prove that this government is sincere in its desire to reduce the number of boats. We must prove that we will no longer tolerate substandard incomes among our fishing people. We must eliminate these 1,500 class B vessels in the shortest possible time, at the outside within a maximum of three years. If this program is followed we will eliminate the need for welfare and unemployment insurance among the fishing people. The bitterness will disappear in these fishing communities.
There are two methods open to the government in order to fulfil a short term elimination of moonlighting, and I encourage the use of both. First, the yearly purchase of a large number of licensed boats through a government fund supplemented by increased payments for boat licences should take place. Second, we must progressively increase the minimum catch limit allowed to hold a class A licence from the present 1,250 yearly catch limit over a three year period to 3,000.
Let us eliminate the small part time boat. The seiners, the trawlers and the gill netters of B.C. have always plied their trade with great vigour and skill. They are also renowned for their ability to bring their elected representatives to task whenever they feel the need has arisen. They feel that these new regulations have brought forth a definite need to criticize their minister and their members of parliament. This criticism is welcomed by all of us, for this is the path to good co-operative legislation. There are many criticisms of the new fish boat licensing. One of the main points of opposition originated with the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, an organization which negotiates product prices for most of the British Columbia salmon fishermen. The union agrees that licensing is important and has been making representations for control to deaf government ears for over a decade, but the agreement that there must be controls is the last point of concurrence between government and union policy. The United Fishermen
December 6, 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry would prefer licensing of individual fishermen themselves rather than have licences remain with the boats.
With the suggestion of a five year moratorium on new persons entering the profession the union further suggested that to remain in the industry an operator must obtain over 40 per cent of his annual earnings from the sea. This would mean that fishermen would be forced to present one tax return to the Department of National Revenue and another to the Department of Fisheries. We do not want to investigate fishermen's incomes and they do not want us to do so. Therefore there is no way we could possibly restrict people entering the industry on the basis of income, because the income of fishermen varies every year.
The union's proposed program possesses weaknesses and errors which override any advantage in this form of approach. First, by enforcing the five year moratorium on licensing of new fishermen we would be eliminating the entry into the industry of those young men whose heritage directs them to this exciting life. They have the right to enter this business just as those men in the business have the right to remain. Today's young men would be denied the right to follow this chosen pursuit for at least five years, at which time they would have no guarantee of entry. The decision would not belong to the individual but to a government controlled board which would be forced to consider all applications, not only those of fishermen's sons but others.
Who would then receive the nod to enter this profession? Would we deny entry to new Canadians? Would we limit it to people over 25 years of age and under 50 years of age, or would we limit it to friends of fishermen or friends of the government in power? Would we stop new Canadians from entering this industry? We should remember that new Canadians make up most of the labour force in the fishing industry. This is not the way to solve the difficulties.
Second, the limitation on income is contrary to the Canadian way of life. We believe that the man who works the hardest presumably receives the greatest reward, but we would be telling men not to work in the off-fishing season but to stay at home on unemployment insurance and welfare benefits. Let us remember the one fact that fishermen in our country are now receiving $3 million each year in welfare payments and unemployment


insurance benefits; yet they return only $100,000 in revenue or 30 times less than the benefits which are being drawn. This is intolerable for both the fishermen and the taxpayers.
The Burnaby-Richmond delta possesses many brand names that are world famous in relation to seafood. Two of these brands are synonymous with quality salmon. They are Cloverleaf, produced by B.C. Packers Limited, and Paramount produced by the Nelson Brothers. Both firms' products are packed in the Richmond-Steveston area, and we are exceptionally proud of the part these industries play in the Canadian economy.
In conclusion may I point out that the fishermen of the Burnaby-Richmond delta do not want welfare or unemployment insurance. They do not want to stop people from entering this industry but they do want the right to control the entry of new fishing enterprises and they want the right to control prices.


Mr. Moores:: Supply-Fisheries and Forestry the size of the companies, virtually none of them were, or are, capable of developing the necessary marketing and sales arrangements because of the lack of diversified products, volume, finances and, probably most important, know-how. This resulted in the easiest course of action being followed, volume sales of low value commodity items through brokers, a course of action that guaranteed the lowest possible return. Since the second world war the fishing countries of the western world, other than Canada and the United States, have received increasing industrywide subsidization. Information as to the form and implementation of the many and varied schemes is available.
The iron curtain countries have in recent years also made a massive assault on the north Atlantic fisheries and today, Mr. Chairman, when 40,000 tons of Canadian deep sea fishing fleets are operating off the eastern Canadian coast, there are 2,800,000 tons of subsidized European fleets fishing there. To put that in slightly different language, for every ton of ships sailing out of Canada there are already 80 tons fishing in the northwest Atlantic from western and central European countries. Our main western European competitors, namely, Norway, Iceland and Denmark, have received subsidization in many forms. A few of the major ones are, first, on the purchase price of raw material-for instance, in Norway the fishermen receive 6.77 cents per pound for cod and the government pays 50 per cent of this amount; second, on labour rates; third, through state encouraged and even state controlled marketing and processing organizations. In the case of Iceland, whose economy is primarily fishing, their method of subsidization is through continuous devaluation of their currency. This, of course, is a situation which cannot last, but in the past few years Iceland has devalued its currency 26 per cent.
These and many other factors are the reasons why we in eastern Canada cannot compete against the very heavily subsidized European fleets. The peripheral benefits that Canadians receive and which could be misconstrued as a form of subsidization, that is, unemployment insurance, able-bodied relief, etc., especially as they apply to fishermen, are more conducive to non-productivity than they are to productivity.
One of the major problems in the Canadian fishing industry, but much more especially in Newfoundland, has been the uncontrolled growth of a multitude of small privately owned companies. These companies, due

primarily to financial resources, lack the technical advancements in processing and catching equipment and have failed to keep up. The size of the companies, and in turn the individual plants, inhibit the employment of professional management in the administrative, accounting, technical, marketing and sales areas of their businesses which our much larger European competitors enjoy. The individualism of the Newfoundland owner has been such as to avoid mergers or any form of group co-operation which would mean he was not in control in name and in fact. This individualism was to be admired when the individual was matching wits with his counterpart in another town or hamlet in Newfoundland. However, it cannot survive in the international league in which Newfoundland finds itself competing today. As unpalatable as it will be to some people, the fact remains that the day when one owned the only horse and buggy in town is over.
These factors, together with the haphazard policy of the provincial government of putting large amounts of money into the industry in an unplanned and uneconomic manner, have led to the present chaos. We can easily define the problems and the reasons for them, but the solutions are much more difficult. However, I will sincerely try to provide some of the answers in a minute or two after advising the house just how serious is the present situation.
I believe I can show that the matter is urgent and critical. I believe I can demonstrate the dimensions of the problem, its causes and effects. I think that I can even provide some suggestions as to what should be done to save this important part of the Canadian economic fabric and eventually bring it back to full productive capacity. But perhaps more important, in the light of the government's apparent unawareness and apathy, I can point out what this government will be faced with if immediate remedial action is not taken. There will be thousands upon thousands of unemployed, undernourished and poorly housed Canadians on our eastern coast. There will be a ruinous impact upon the economy of a region, and eventually a heavy drag upon that of the nation as a whole. There will be bankruptcies and heavy losses among creditors. There will be cries for help from many quarters by way of demands for direct relief payments, subsidies and emergency payments of all kinds.
Because deficiency payments ended at the end of October, Newfoundland companies will from now on be trying to live on trading
December 6, 1968	COMMONS
results only, without government assistance. The present market condition has been created by countries with heavily subsidized fishing interests both in their fleets and on shore or by countries which have recently experienced drastic devaluation, as I have mentioned previously.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The industry has now been advised by telegram from the minister not to count on any help from the government of Canada before the end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, with no indication of what is to come after that. This means five consecutive months of substantial losses estimated for those processing groundfish in Newfoundland, cash losses of between $300,000 and $400,000 a month for the companies concerned. The trading losses including depreciation are of course in the order of half a million dollars per month, and I think it should be stated that the depreciation cost is as valid a cost as the actual cash loss. Half a million dollars per month is the over-all trading picture which includes depreciation, but even if one said, "well, I am concerned only with cash", the cash figures would be between $300,000 and $400,000 of actual cash loss per month, though for five months it would be getting on to $2 million in the industry. The actual cash loss for five consecutive months, not including depreciation, would run from $1J million to $2 million. The trading losses, including depreciation, which I insist should be taken in, would be in the vicinity of $2 million to $2J million between the termination of the deficiency payments and the end of the government's financial year.
The situation is that now all companies are running at a loss position every month. Most of them are already reaching the limit of bank borrowing, and the those few who are not are so close to it that it makes no difference. So if they cannot raise money from some other source, other than trading, then a shutdown is inevitable for all companies. The actual number of days and weeks until it happens depends on how successful people are in raising funds elsewhere and on their willingness to go on anyway despite the very bleak picture, without any government assistance whatsoever until the end of March at the earliest, and most of them feel that they might as well get out right now and cut their losses.
At the present time the fishing industry is very heavily in debt. Their bills payable are excessive, with a great percentage of the
DEBATES	3611
Supply*-Fisheries and Forestry money owing in excess of 90 days and most of the balance being due from 30 to 60 days. This is a situation which, of course, cannot be tolerated. If the creditors press for payment- and naturally they will with the industry in its present condition-it is only a matter of a very short time before the industry actually closes down.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the people in this house realize what this will mean to Atlantic Canada and particularly to Newfoundland. At present in Newfoundland there are in excess of 2,500 people working in factories and 1,200 employed on the trawlers bringing the fish into these factories. During the heavy seasons in the summer which stretch from six to eight months there are 10,000 people employed in the factories and some 16,000 fishermen involved. All in all there are something like 26,000 people. With dependants and back-up service, this means at least a ratio of five to one. So that you can say that one Newfoundlander in every four would be pretty directly affected. It means that 25 per cent of the people in Newfoundland will feel the drastic effects of the shutting down of this industry. This must not be allowed to happen.
Under no circumstances must the people of Canada stand by and watch 26,000 people become unemployed, with so little required to actually keep them employed. This government must provide assistance because the market prospects for the balance of this year are not bright. I stress the urgency of this assistance. Very recently I was informed that Iceland had sold considerable quantities of fish at 21 cents per pound for cod blocks to the U.S. market, and this is at least four to five cents below the actual cost of Canadian producers.
Equally, Mr. Chairman, you cannot expect firms with parent companies elsewhere to keep pouring money into a bottomless pit unless they can see some light at the end of the tunnel.
The minister will not even tell us what we can expect at the end of March, and I think it is time for him as well as for the industry to come out with a plan and with some definite commitments as to where both are going. We cannot wait until the end of March. We must come up with a long term plan in order to stabilize the industry but, as I have said, while this plan is being created we must buy time in order that there be an industry left. As I have said, in the short term time has to be bought. It has to be bought in the form of
December 6, 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry deficiency payments that have just been discontinued or of an equivalent scheme under a different name. The industry must be here when the long term plan is implemented. If this is not ensured, I suggest to the minister that at the end of March in lieu of a formula he will have to consider the establishment of a fish industry because most of the present one will not be in existence in eastern Canada.
Now I should like to deal with some recommended solutions as I see them. The problems in the Newfoundland industry could be solved by massive injections of money, but then so could just about everybody else's. This would not in itself be the answer. The federal government would be neglecting its responsibility and doing very little good if it did not insist that the fishing industry in Newfoundland first put its own house in order before this long term plan is implemented. This must be done but it cannot be done overnight. In the interim, money should and must be found to allow the Newfoundland fishing industry to buy time until it can become viable in its own right.
This morning the minister mentioned that he was looking forward to hearing solutions from this side of the house. I would suggest to the minister that we should be able to expect that he, with the staff of experts that surround him, should be able to come up with solutions. However, I will make a few suggestions of my own.
My first suggestion is an open auction system for the selling of fish products from the primary producer to the companies. Eastern Canada is one of the few places still left in the world where the open auction system is not in effect. Through the open auction system one ensures quality and one also ensures the highest possible price to fishermen.
Second, ideally one firm should be established to operate the industry. This is, of course, impractical. However, it should be accepted that as few firms as possible should continue to operate, and in my opinion their number should be kept as small as possible. This would involve the merging of the smaller firms as well as some of the larger ones. The remaining much larger firms could afford to employ professional management for administrative, accounting, technical marketing and sales positions. This would be an extremely bitter pill for most of the present owners to swallow, but it must be appreciated that it is more lucrative to own a small


percentage of a healthy and viable concern than 100 per cent of a bankrupt one.
The third recommendation is that a commission be appointed to study under the terms of reference suggested in my recommendations as well as those of the department and to propose the most effective manner by which to implement them.
The fourth recommendation is that the provincial government cease immediately giving assistance on an ad hoc basis. However, this same authority must establish a policy whereby assistance is uniformly applicable on an industry-wide basis. This can readily apply to the present structure of the industry as well as to any future changes. In this regard I might stress that I mentioned here the provincial government which in the past has granted money at the whim of an individual rather than on a well planned basis, and I am not talking about the type of ad hoc philosophy which was in effect this year.
The fifth recommendation is that the provincial government refrain from lending money for the purpose of either the expansion of present company facilities or the establishment of new companies. This policy would remain in effect until some semblance of order has been restored to the present situation.
The sixth recommendation is that the federal and provincial authorities set up machinery whereby funds are made available to an improved industry structure for the following purposes:
Upgrading skills among inshore and deep sea fishermen and plant employees. This would include the cost of acquiring management consultants, work study personnel and training personnel.
Acquiring approved plant and fleet equipment geared exclusively to increasing productivity of existing facilities.
Partially compensating owners of uneconomic units that would have to be closed.
Providing initial financing regarding working capital.
The seventh recommendation is that the federal and provincial governments, each or both, contribute to a major campaign to promote the sale of Canadian fish in the U.S. market.
The eighth recommendation is that a study be made to check the feasibility of the federal authorities buying distressed stocks of Canadian fish at cost price. With all the above, this may have to be part of the
December 6. 1968	COMMONS
immediate solution to look alter the purported excess of frozen fish amounting to 40 million pounds that will be in surplus in 1969.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The ninth recommendation is that the federal government arrange to take over the management of the fish resource on the continental shelf as quickly as possible. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the industry needs reorganization and refinancing. This government seems to be afraid to take unilateral action. Yet we see the government claiming the continental shelf, the bottom of the ocean floor, and claiming the air space from the top of the sea, up; but the water in between, where the fish are, seems to be beyond the jurisdiction of our federal government at this time. I strongly recommend to the government that this is possibly the most important step that could be taken at this time or in the future. It is stated that the fishing industry in eastern Canada is in dire trouble. The problems are many and large, and the solutions not easy. The situation can be set straight, but it will take bold and sometimes unpopular action, and it will have to be taken in a hurry.


Melvin James McQuaid: I am sure that every
member of this committee, Mr. Chairman, must regret the fact that we are more or less limited in the time we have at our disposal within which to comment on the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. I consider fisheries to be one of the great industries of Canada. It is certainly an industry upon which our economy in the Atlantic provinces is very heavily dependent. This is an industry in which the men who are engaged in it risk more, work harder and unfortunately get less than in any other trade or industry in which they could engage. If, as I believe, there has been, some slight increase in the standard of living of our fishermen, it is certainly one which they have very dearly earned and one to which they are very rightly entitled. I say therefore it is the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries to see that this industry and the fish resources of this country are developed and improved so that an even further improvement may be made in the living conditions, as well as the working conditions, of the many thousands of Canadians who make their living from the harvest of the sea.
Improved working conditions is an increasingly important aspect of every phase of living today. These proper working conditions
DEBATES	3613
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry are as important, perhaps even more important to the fishing industry than to any other industry. I realize the provision of adequate wharf facilities, boat harbours, shelters, dredging and matters of this kind are the responsibility of the Department of Public Works rather than the Department of Fisheries. I mention them at this time because of their very great importance to the fishing industry.
Without facilities of this kind, the men just cannot properly do their work, and the industry just will not prosper as it should. The fishermen will try their best but they will be working under very great disadvantages and under conditions which constitute a real hardship. Improved facilities are needed in many places within my own constituency. I am confident they must also be needed in many other areas throughout this country. The Department of Public Works must show a greater interest in these needs and must be made to realize that the success of the industry can be very largely dependent on how well that Department of Public Works does its job. It is most important, too, that this work be done only after prior consultation with the fishermen. They are the men who know best what has to be done.
It is true that they may not have the technical knowledge, but they have what is just as important, the practical knowledge. Engineers, for some reason or other, do not seem to understand where or how to place many of the things that need to be built for fishermen. In many cases they have erected structures or carried out dredging operations which were entirely unsuited to the local conditions. These things were done at great public expense but they did not adequately fill the need. In fact, in many cases they could be very accurately described as a complete waste of the taxpayers' money. I therefore say to these engineers that they should not be afraid to consult with the fishermen before embarking on major construction projects of this nature. They must not be afraid to follow the advice given to them by the fishermen. These fishermen have been working in the area all their lives and they have the practical experience which should prove very helpful.
While I am mentioning fishing facilities, I feel I must comment on the deletion from the estimates this year of an amount to assist in the construction of bait freezing and storing facilities. This item has been in our estimates for the past number of years. This year, for some reason or other, it has been deleted. I cannot think of anything which
December 6, 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry could be of more assistance to our small boat, inshore fishermen than adequate deep freezing and fish storage facilities. At certain times of the year the securing of an adequate supply of bait becomes a real problem. Without bait our fishermen are just not able to operate. This bait cannot be brought in in large quantities and held for future use unless there are proper storage facilities located at the small fishing centres. Proper cold storage facilities for fresh fish are also necessary. This is particularly true in my own province of Prince Edward Island, where we have a serious transportation problem.
I suggest therefore to the minister that every effort should be made to encourage and give attention to this program of erecting bait storage facilities, and storage facilities for our fresh fish. This is something that must not be neglected. As I say, I regret that this particular item has been deleted from the estimates this year.
I should like to turn for just a few minutes to a problem facing our inshore fishermen. These inshore fishermen are the men who fish from small open boats; the men who go out in the morning and come back at night. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that they still make up a very important segment of our fishing industry. Many thousands of people are daily engaged in this branch of the fishing industry; many thousands of people are dependent for their livelihood on this mode of fishing. This is a branch of the industry which gives employment to many, many people, and it is one in which millions of dollars has been invested. It must be protected, and in particular it must be protected from destruction by trawlers which destroy the gear of these inshore fishermen. I only wish the Minister of Fisheries could talk to these inshore fishermen and listen to their complaints, their very legitimate complaints, about the destruction of gear resulting from the operation of trawlers. These trawlers drag inshore. They not only destroy gear but they also destroy the fishing grounds of the inshore fishermen.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
These inshore fishermen, because of the size of their boats, are not able to proceed very far from shore, whereas the trawlers can go many, many miles. The grounds close to shore should therefore, in fact must, be conserved for the use of the inshore fishermen. They have had almost exclusive rights to these fishing grounds for many years, and the whole economy of the inshore fisheries has
[Mr. McQuaid.l
been based upon the supposition that the small boat fishermen will have the use of these grounds, that they should be reserved for them. Further, I suggest that those fishermen with larger boats who can go farther from shore to earn their living should be prohibited from dragging over the gear of inshore fishermen.
Many full-time fishermen who are dependent upon inshore fisheries for their livelihood are facing a real crisis today, and something must be done, and done immediately, to protect them. I for one strongly oppose the idea that they must be phased out of the industry. One suggestion that we hear now is that these small boat fishermen must gradually be phased out of the industry. For hundreds of these men there are no alternative occupational opportunities. They have been fishermen all their lives. They know of no other way of making a living, and I say that they must be protected.
Higher operating costs, and fixed costs in relation to volume and value of their landings have resulted in a very great loss of net earnings, and something must also be done, and done immediately, to correct this situation. Some of our inshore fishermen are netting less than $1,500 per year, and this certainly places them well below the poverty line.
Conservation is also a very important aspect of the fishing industry, though I know this is now receiving some considerable attention from the department. However, I find fault with the government-not necessarily with the present Minister of Fisheries, because he has not been in office long enough to do very much about this problem-for not drawing the base lines so that some limit will be established within which foreign trawlers cannot operate. There is absolutely no excuse, except the excuse of negligence, for the government's failure to establish these base lines long before this, thus protecting the Canadian fisheries. The government did not take very long to establish the base lines for offshore mineral rights; this was done very quickly. Why cannot base lines now be established for the fishing industry? The law has been on the statute books since 1964, yet nothing definite has been done to implement that law. As I say, I am not placing this matter at the doorstep of the present minister, but I hope that now he is Minister of Fisheries he will see that these base lines are established immediately.
That is one aspect of conservation. Many people believe, and believe wrongly, that the supply of fish in the sea or in the ocean is
December 6. 1968

inexhaustible. That is not the case. It has been incontestably proven, I think, that some of the most valuable coastal and ocean fisheries are susceptible to depletion because of over fishing. This is particularly true with respect to lobster fishing off the Atlantic coast.
I want to congratulate the department on its initiative in instituting a lobster trap limit in district 7B. This limit is presently fixed at 500 traps per boat and seems to be working out quite well. I believe fishermen are finding that their capital investment is very much less, and that they are making just as much money with considerably less expenditure. I would warn the minister however that this conservation measure, this trap limit, will not be entirely successful unless it continues to be accompanied by a corresponding restriction on the number of lobster fishing licences issued.
A program along these lines was tried last season, and though satisfactory to a point it was not entirely successful because of political interference with the decisions that were handed down by the board which had been set up to decide who should receive licences. This board, which was comprised of at least one departmental official and a number of men drawn from the fishing industry, tried to do a good job. They met and considered the applications which were placed before them, and then they rendered their decision.
However the regulations provide for an appeal to the minister from the decision of the board. I find no fault with this right of appeal; in fact I think it is a necessary precaution because there may very well be extenuating circumstances unknown to the board which, when made known to the minister, could cause him in all fairness to reverse the board's decision.
Last year, just about the time when the decisions of the board were being handed down, a federal election was called, and this was when the matter got entirely out of hand. May I inform this committee without fear of contradiction that political influence was used in some cases in granting licences to men whose applications had been refused by the board, and who in actual fact had no real right to a lobster fishing licence.
This is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for the present minister, because I do not know how in the world he will ever get that regulation back on the rails. Men who apply this year and who are turned down will, I am
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry afraid, cite to the minister cases almost parallel with theirs where last year licences were granted. It is unfortunate, as I say, that this interference was allowed to take place. However, it did, and I certainly hope that the minister will not allow anything like that to influence him this year when appeals are directed to him.
It is also important that this board which hears these applications be set up immediately. It is not fair to keep these fishermen waiting until perhaps mid-April before they are told whether they are going to get a licence to fish. Applications should be heard just as quickly as possible and a decision rendered, so that men who plan on entering the industry may make the necessary preparations. In many cases these men who plan on entering the lobster fishing industry have to buy equipment, they have to buy boats and they have to buy other gear. Naturally they do not want to make this investment until they know for sure whether or not they are going to get a licence to fish. If, as was the case last year with some applications, these decisions are allowed to lag until the middle of April or even later, then this just does not give them time to get ready for the opening of the season.
There is one other phase of the industry with which I should like to deal briefly, and this is the Irish moss industry. The harvesting of Irish moss is rapidly becoming a very important industry on Canada's Atlantic coast. In the past 25 years the harvest of Irish moss has grown from about 1.5 million pounds worth $30,000 to last year's 79 million pounds worth over $2 million.
To give you an idea, Mr. Chairman, how valuable an industry this is, during one week in July of this year two families working in an area in my own province harvested moss worth $1,000 to each family. Several other families earned about $600 per family, and I have known as many as 20 boats to average as much as $40 each per day. This moss is harvested mostly by hand and is picked off the shore where it is tossed up by the storms. As a result of this method of harvesting, very little capital investment is necessary.
The moss is also raked sometimes from the rocks, and it is in connection with this operation of raking that I think some experimental work should be done by the Department of Fisheries, or by some other department of government, to make sure that the moss industry is conserved. There is a feeling among those who are engaged in the industry that this raking process may damage the roots
December 6, 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry of the moss, and thereby interfere with its regrowth. I suggest that some experiments be carried out to see whether there is a real danger from this raking process and, if there is, that regulations be immediately introduced to see that the industry is not destroyed.
From this Irish moss comes a very valuable extract which is known as carrageen. Carrageen is in great demand and its value today is from $1.75 to $3 per pound. Its uses are almost limitless. In the food processing industry alone it is used by the makers of chocolate milk, minute breakfast foods, ice cream, pie fillings, confectionary, beer, desserts, salad dressings, flavourings, and a host of other foods. It has many other uses.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The important point for the department to note, Mr. Chairman, is that there is no plan in Canada for the extraction of carrageen from Irish moss. The dry moss which we harvest near our own shores has to be exported either to the United States or Denmark. The valuable byproduct carrageen is extracted from the moss and then shipped back to Canada to be used here. That is not as it should be.
It is estimated that a commercially profitable extraction plant could be supported by an annual supply of 16 million pounds of wet moss. Last year in the maritime provinces we harvested, as I said before, 79 million pounds of wet moss. Conceivably therefore we could have supported at least four, or possibly five, extraction plants in the maritime area. The substance could have been extracted right here and we could have been exporting it at anywhere from $1.75 to $3 a pound, rather than importing it after the moss had been exported to Denmark or the United States and the carrageen extracted there. I suggest that we could have here a very nice little industry in the maritime provinces, and I recommend it to the appropriate department of government for serious consideration.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, under normal circumstances I would not take the time of the house to comment on the estimates of a cabinet colleague. In this particular case however I feel I have some distinct and unique responsibilities and a particular interest, since I am the minister from Newfoundland. For that reason I ask this house, or this committee, to allow me some time to sketch at least some of the background to what has been, in my view, quite properly
[Mr. McQuaid.l
described as a crisis in the Newfoundland fishing industry.
I wish to compliment the speakers who have preceded me today, and I particularly wish to commend the hon. members for Shel-burne-Yarmouth-Clare and Bonavista-Trinity-Conception for the moderate tones of their comments and the worth-while suggestions they have advanced. I will say at once that I am not disposed to disagree with them in their references to the long time neglect of the fishing industry.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister was mistaken when he referred to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare. I represent South Shore.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I beg your pardon. I ought to have referred to the hon. member for South Shore. They keep changing the names of constituencies and I find it hard to keep track of them all. In any event, I was saying that I would not disagree with the remarks of hon. members in their complaints about the traditional neglect of the fisheries. I think that is quite correct.
I do dispute the argument that this has been governmental neglect. I do not say that in the sense that either one party or another is responsible. It seems to me that one of the difficulties we have had in Canada for a long time is that there has been a lack of awareness on the part of the population generally of the importance of the fishery. There has been a failure on the part of information services of government and elsewhere to convey to the Canadian population the figures which were quoted this morning by the hon. member for South Shore as to the economic importance of this industry to our nation. So I have no cause to dispute what has been suggested here in that regard.
Looking back to the beginning of the fresh frozen fish industry, however, it is obvious that with notable exceptions there has been a very sizeable amount of government investment, both provincial and federal, in getting this industry going and actually creating it in the first place. I was looking today at some of the expenditures which have been made from time to time at both provincial and federal levels. It is quite surprising, for one who is not deeply involved in the industry, to see the extent to which government participation has created plants, contributed to their survival or has been the instrument for transferring the ownership of plants for the expenditure of as little as $1 or sometimes a few dollars more.
December 6, 1968

As the hon. member tor Bonavista-Trinity-Conception said, there has been in the past a continuing series of ad hoc aid measures. He may be perfectly right that these were not of long term assistance to the industry. I agree with him that some of them were, at best, only partially successful, or ill advised. Yet I fear that the conditions which brought about that kind of aid as a general rule were almost precisely the kinds of conditions we are discussing here today, which once again are resulting in submissions that other kinds of ad hoc aid programs be introduced.
From the comments which have been made today it is interesting to note that we are all reasonably good theoreticians when it comes to outlining long range solutions for the fishing industry. We have had a number of representations about that; obviously the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has been an expert in this field and I was greatly impressed by the solutions he advanced. I subscribe to many of them. I agree that a number of them are rather controversial and would generate quite a bit of disagreement among his colleagues, who formerly spoke for the fishing industry.
If I may make a comment here, it is that one of the difficulties we face is that there is no unanimity within the fishing industry-at least, there has not been until very recently- as to what the solutions ought to be. I can tell hon. members here that within the past few weeks a considerable number of alternatives and programs have been advanced that might be used to help the fishing industry. I have had diametrically opposed views presented to me by various groups within the fishing industry. Only three weeks ago we were able to obtain for the first time, so far as I am aware, a submission with regard to the future of the industry which was representative of all Atlantic provinces. In the past, for instance, Newfoundland representatives have made certain suggestions to us when seeking certain kinds of aid; at the same time, for example, a Nova Scotian plan may have been advanced, and for very good reasons they have said, "These formulae are not the most suitable from our point of view and we prefer some other type of programs." Indeed, there have been occasions when delegations have been sent to fight the suggestions of one province or another. I say that because I wish to tell hon. members of what has been, quite literally, a day to day involvement on my part in this problem ever since July, or ever since I assumed my new responsibilities.

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry
I was aware then, as I think all hon. members were who were interested in the fishing industry, that the federal government through the introduction of the deficiency program-and I am referring here exclusively to the fresh fish industry-had bailed the industry out for 1968. I think it is also a matter of record that it was made abundantly clear that, regardless of what the federal government wished to do, the trade was as aware as we were that this could not be an ongoing program. Indeed, there were certain dangers, which I think hon. members will be aware of and which I need not amplify, in carrying on with it at all for as long as we had. So, early in July I met with the Newfoundland fishing trade and at that time advised them that, of necessity, the program would have to end. I suggested to them in July that they ought to start work immediately on a complete presentation to the federal government, which would not only state problems but which would result in industry-wide thinking on how to come up with specific ideas as to how federal assistance might be applied to the industry. I emphasize that this was in July, because I cautioned those people against last minute kinds of activity. As hon. members know, it takes considerable time to work out a new approach and formula.
In August I met with these people again and repeated what I had said in July: that I would appreciate it if they could make suggestions to the government as to the form of assistance, rather than having the government devise something which, in the long run, it might not feel was most beneficial for their purposes.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In other words, what we were asked to do was to wait for this submission. This was again in the month of August. The submission finally came-and I can well understand why it took so long to produce it-on November 13, when my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, and I met with the representatives of the Atlantic groundfish industry and received their brief. That was just over three weeks ago, so that we have simply had this short period in which to consider this report and to consider whether or not the proposals which are in it are workable or practicable.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister permit a question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have a limited time but please go on.
December 6. 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry


James Aloysius McGrath: Has the minister seen the reply of the Minister of Fisheries to the fish trades association? Has he read it and does he agree with it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If my hon. friend will let me continue I hope that in the course of my remarks I can answer that question. I am simply chronologically stating the nature of the negotiations and the meetings held. It is simply a matter of record that the submission of the fish trade arrived here on November 13. Incidentally prior to that the subsidy program, the so-called deficiency payment program, exhausted its funds a good month ahead of what had been expected, 30 days at least ahead of what the trade itself had expected, because of higher landings and more production. If there were time it would be interesting to speculate why production was higher, but the simple truth is that the fund ran out of money that much earlier.
We immediately introduced a supplementary amount to ensure that this deficiency payment program continued until the end of October, but I repeat that it was not possible to continue that program in that form beyond the end of October and, as I have said before, I know hon. members will know the reason why.
The situation developed as of November 13 with this comprehensive report being given to us containing recommendations which, by the trade's own admission-and any who were present at that time can confirm this fact- they did not feel were wholly suitable, but they said in effect, "This is the best we can come up with."
Now, one week afterwards, just a single week after that report was submitted, long before there was time to read it even in detail let alone act on it, one seasonal fish plant in Newfoundland closed, and the story circulated was that it had closed because of the withdrawal of, if one wishes to call it that, or the ending or cancellation of the so-called subsidy payment. In that particular case the subsidy was only a relatively small part of the reason for the closing of that plant. It was a seasonal operation and the amount of fish being received was limited. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception will apprecaite, these were net fish in the water for several days due to stormy conditions, and the operator was in difficult circumstances with the plant anyway. I simply mention that to point out that there is also a normal kind of slowdown in fishing activity at this time of year.

So the suggestion or the possibility that these plants will be obliged to close as a result of the minister's wire, or any statements he has made, is I recognize true in essence, and yet there are certain overtones of exaggeration about it. Let me deal first with the comments of the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception with regard to the financial state of the plants in Newfoundland. It is quite correct, if one takes the homogeneous plants, those owned locally, that their financial straits are extremely difficult. Two of which I am aware are at the end of their line of credit so far as banks are concerned, and it is going to be literally impossible for them to continue without some kind of assistance.
On the other hand, as my hon. friend is well aware, there are plants in Newfoundland owned by large national and international companies, and with these it is not a matter of the companies themselves being distressed. Indeed were one to mention names such as B.C. Packers, Booth Fisheries, Unilever or whatever the name is, it is scarcely necessary to add that they do not have their backs to the wall in terms of national and international operations.
The question here is a difficult one relating to some of the recommendations made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception as to whether or not in the long run it is wise for the Newfoundland ground fishing industry-and I have no personal knowledge of the Atlantic provinces other than Newfoundland-to have all its operations consolidated as part of very large corporate organizations, because a decision can be made in Chicago, or Vancouver, or indeed away down in the southern states, to close an operation in Newfoundland simply because one unit of a large organization is not profitable at any given moment.
I make this distinction because members should be aware of it-and I am sure Newfoundland members recognize this fact-that it is the home owned plants which have the immediate financial difficulty. The other plants can continue if they wish to do so, but there is no argument whatever about the fact that all plants, home owned, nationally and internationally owned, are losing money. So the question is, what is the alternative? This is the real crunch of this matter, because with the very comprehensive assessment made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception most of the emphasis was on the whole, long range.
I quite agree that this is the way we should be thinking, but of course I add. as he does,
December 6, 1968

and as does everyone else, there is no point in diagnosing the patient to death without applying some form of interim remedial action. The difficulty we are up against, and this is why I suspect the Minister of Fisheries asked for suggestions, is what form this assistance should take. It is pointless to impose or introduce something which is regarded as assistance, which might in the end be as harmful to the industry as if nothing at all were done. Again I trust I do not have to draw pictures.
I explored certain points of view with the industry. I asked, "What would be the likely effects if you were able to get long term financing other than through the conventional banking system? Let us say, for example, the government or some agency of government was prepared to provide long term financing." Obviously the trade's answer was that it would not be beneficial at all, in so far as its present state of affairs is concerned, because it would not alter its profit picture. It would not narrow the gap between their operating costs and their income.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, we have explored these matters. I hope hon. members will appreciate that we are not totally unaware of the problems that exist. I then asked, "What would happen if there was some type of longterm loan to increase efficiency, to improve productivity? This is the kind of assistance aimed at getting your productivity up and your costs down." Here again the answer came back, "Of course it is desirable, but it won't help in the immediate case."
In other words, what the industry must have now is some form of direct infusion of dollars. I have to express it in that form because frankly I do not know how else to describe it. We have to get funds into the hands of the fish plant operators.
We have had a reasonably good year so far as those fishermen fishing for fresh fish plants are concerned, because the deficiency payments have kept their earnings up to the average of the last three years. But when it comes to the trawler type of operation, which will be the predominant operation for the next three or four months in Newfoundland, that formula is not very good. If we were to take the figures, analyse them out and apply the same kind of deficiency payment-even if we could do that-it is not the solution so far as the trawlers are concerned. There has been a suggestion that there might be some form of payment made based on the number of days that trawlers are at sea.
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry
I am sure hon. members are familiar with the suggestion that payments should be made to the fish companies in terms of the losses which they obviously sustain on the operation of trawlers, but this is not something you can work out even three weeks after you get a report. This would be a very complex formula. There are questions to be asked. Does it apply only to trawler operations in respect to types of groundfish which are not profitable, because it must be remembered that there are some types of groundfish which are not as bad revenue producers as others, and some which are reasonably profitable. Secondly, does it apply to all catches for all purposes, or only to those quantities which are destined for export to the United States?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
For instance, do we give some form of commitment that would apply to fresh or iced fish sold to the rest of Canada. Again, while there are difficulties involved here, they do not appear to be as extreme. Then there was the other suggestion concerning some plant help, based on the number of man-hours in the plant or some other related coefficient. Once again I suggest this is a profitable and worth-while area to explore, but is not something that can be done in a very short time. The attitude of the government is one of complete awareness of the difficulties, and I think a general disposition to help; but in the long run it really is a matter of finding a formula or solution.


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


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Of course.


Walter C. Carter: Does he agree with the removal of the so-called band aid policies? I am referring to the salt rebate and the vessel deficiency payments. Does he agree that these policies should be abandoned until a long range policy has been adopted to help the fishermen?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I must have done a poor job of communication, because obviously the hon. member has not understood me. In the first place, the salt subsidy is not part of what we are talking about. Of course I do not agree with its removal. I am talking about the deficiency payment, which I assume is what the hon. member has asked about. I am afraid we had no other alternative. As any knowledgeable gentleman opposite knows, there was no alternative but to remove that program and end it as of the end
December 6, 1966

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry of October. I am saying that we are trying to find an alternative which will achieve the desired result and which will not in effect result in some sort of policy or control that would eliminate the benefits of it. I suggest that this is the quandary in which we find ourselves at the present time. I do not mean that it is a quandary only so far as the government or those who have a direct interest in it are concerned; I say it is also a quandary to those involved in the trade. It is a general and serious problem and I hope a solution to it can be found rapidly.


Walter C. Carter: May I ask another question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will accept another one, but I hope the time is being taken into account and will be allowed for.


Walter C. Carter: I should like to return to my original question. Does the minister think it is sensible for the government to discontinue the deficiency payment until it has found the solution he is now suggesting?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am afraid I will have to revert to what I said a moment ago. Of course it is not sensible at all in terms of purely internal Canadian national problems. It is probably the simplest way in which to continue this kind of aid. However if my hon. friend would consult with some of his colleagues I believe they would tell him why we could not continue the program. It was a question of this type of aid having to be of an interim and short term nature. October is the very latest it could have been kept on. If my hon. friend would like to discuss this with me later, I shall be glad to go into it in detail.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would allow me to ask a question. I am sure the committee will make allowances for the time involved. What is the difference in the United States imposing a tariff which is closing down that market, and causing our whole groundfish industry to collapse?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think that is a question which should more properly be directed, for example, to the fishing interests in the Atlantic provinces who themselves, with varying degrees of fear, have expressed this on many many occasions. I believe this was contained in a report that was submitted on November 13. I am quite sure this is the general reaction of the trade itself. I repeat that this is a situation in respect of which, in my estimation at least, the fishing industry has said

they want another formula. There are hazards in the particular plan and they are worried about it. I say to my friends opposite, forgive me if I have not spelled this out as clearly as they wish, but I hope they have the message.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the minister for asking him a question in the middle of his remarks. I do not like to do so. Several weeks ago in a community in Newfoundland the minister mentioned that the Liberals had superior intellectual ability and that the Conservatives were intellectually bankrupt. Would the minister say whether he offered any solutions to the trade. He mentioned for example that the trade made these recommendations that they could not be accepted, and so on. Only a few days ago the Prime Minister unilaterally made a decision and a statement in respect of offshore mineral rights.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Don't make your speech now.


John Howard Lundrigan: I won't. With a government that has this kind of intellectual ability I am sure there must have been suggestions made to the trade by the minister in respect of a solution to these problems. I am sure, in his remaining remarks, the minister would like to indicate what alternative plans were suggested to the trade.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I presume you are talking about what alternative plan I suggested to the trade.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister mentioned the suggestions of the trade and indicated that he asked the trade to make recommendations to the government. I wonder what recommendations were made by the government to the trade concerning the solution the government posed for the remedy of the problem.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not believe they were cut and dried suggestions or solutions. We batted around a good many things, as some hon. members who were present know. The first was to ascertain how to support the income of inshore fishermen by providing direct infusion to the fisheries operation. I think there should be a formula for getting additional funds into the hands of the fishermen who are fishing for the plants.
At the present time, except for a small portion of the southwest comer of Burin-Burgeo there is not much inshore fishing going on. There could be, for example, the trawler plan, the plant worker plan or some
December 6, 1968	COMMONS
other alternative. Certainly I have been very strong on the matter of productive incentives.
I was glad to have the support of the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception on this; that is, that we would provide assistance in some way by industrial loans or in some other form to help them increase production. Two other suggestions were made which unfortunately are long range. One was that there might be a very strong promotional program in the United States to induce people to eat more fish. The matter of consumption is a key consideration. Then there is the matter of one desk selling for cod blocks. This I believe is also very important. Then there is the possibility of pooling trawler operations. Instead of each plant operating its own trawlers, there might be a co-operative trawler operation.
As my hon. friend will appreciate these things do not solve the problem we have here and now. This is why I have been endeavouring to find a formula that will give us, as a government, the ability to offer the kind of assistance which I readily agree is necessary.
I heartily concur with those who say this ought not to be a partisan or a political issue.
I understand that the representatives of the trade are meeting next week in Ottawa. I shall be very happy to arrange a meeting for them with anyone, in an effort to explore this further in order to see what kind of interim solution might be found. For myself I have no concern about the future of the fishing industry. I think there is a two or three year hurdle which we have to get over. I subscribe to the view of the Minister of Fisheries that it can be self-supporting in time. In the interim we have these problems. I suggest we are looking at every possible angle in order to achieve some kind of interim solution.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Chairman, if we are looking for a short term solution I find it difficult to understand the situation in respect of the sale of the 4.4 million pounds of salt cod to Biafra, in which the suppliers received approximately $27.50 for the commodity while the fishermen ended up with an average of $12 or $13 for 100 pounds. How can we reconcile this variation and the fact that there was no thought for the inshore fishermen while the suppliers received good prices?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I believe I should ask my colleague the Minister of Fisheries to answer this question specifically. I am on the record as indicating that the situation which he has properly outlined reflects a very wide gap in the whole process of buying and marketing
DEBATES	3621
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry fish. My view is that this can be solved only by some sort of marketing effort. Perhaps the minister would be able to answer that question further.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I should like to point out to the committee that I have on my unofficial list the names of eight hon. members who would like to speak this afternoon. If these questions are continued at this time it will interfere with this list. However, I certainly will recognize the hon. member.


John Howard Lundrigan: I believe the minister
indicated he would take another question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: One more.


John Howard Lundrigan: I think perhaps for the record it would be wise if he could clarify the statement in respect of welcoming views from anyone about short term solutions. In that regard he really contradicted the minister, who said that we can forget about anything until March 31. This was contained in the telegram he sent to the fisheries people. I am sure that either the hon. member has not told us exactly what he wanted to tell us or he has intentionally avoided the issue in the hon. member's statement.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not think there is any suggestion of that kind, or any contradiction in respect of what was asked. As I understood the minister's reply-and of course he is perfectly capable of replying for himself-he was talking about the 1969 program. We are working on that. If you will remember, the program last year came into effect in May. I personally recognize the fact that there is a difficult situation in respect of the whole picture, and I certainly think the minister would be delighted if someone could come up with a formula which would solve this matter. I do not know what that formula is at this moment.


Walter C. Carter: Yesterday in the house in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries my leader and several of my colleagues asked questions regarding the very serious situation developing in Newfoundland as a result of several of our fish plants being forced to close up shop, as it were, for economic reasons. This is seriously affecting directly and indirectly the livelihood of many thousands of my fellow Newfoundlanders. If these closures
December 6, 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry are allowed to take place it will do away with the livelihood of these people. I was shocked and completely amazed by the total lack of interest, and the indifference displayed by the Prime Minister to this situation. Apparently he was completely lacking in interest toward this problem.
This situation affects almost 25 per cent of the population of Newfoundland. They are facing an economic disaster. I do not intend to be critical of the Minister of Fisheries, but yesterday he sat in his office rather than in this house, where he could answer the questions of hon. members. He was not present to discuss these problems because his name was not on the attendance roster for yesterday. This is a most shocking thing and almost beyond human comprehension.
This problem, as I said, affects 25 per cent of the population of a province of this nation. It is an urgent problem, yet the minister is unable, or at least not permitted, to be here in this chamber to answer these questions of extreme importance. This is a terrible situation. As an individual who became a Canadian 19 years ago-and as I have said in this house, I was very proud to be a Canadian-I must confess that I changed my mind slightly yesterday. I am wondering how interested this government is in the welfare of the people of Newfoundland. This is a direct result of the Prime Minister's action yesterday. Let me go a step further and refer to what was actually said in answer to my question. I asked whether the prime minister would consider setting aside one day to discuss this problem, affecting as it does 25 per cent of the population of my province. His answer was "ditto". Let me tell him now on behalf of 125,000 Newfoundlanders who will be affected by this crisis, "ditto" to him too.
I am afraid that word "ditto" will not mean too much to the fishermen of Newfoundland, come Christmas, when Santa Claus does not show up. That word will not fill their bellies, sir, in the month of January or the month of February. I hope the government will take some action, and will not allow these fish plants in Newfoundland to close, thereby affecting a quarter of our population. Let me repeat on behalf of the constituents of my riding, who will be affected by this crisis, and on behalf of the other Newfoundland people, "ditto" to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Bigg:: He could not care less.


Walter C. Carter: That is understandable.


An hon. Member:: That's not fair.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: He said that yesterday.


Walter C. Carter: This government must realize that the fishing industry cannot cure its own ills. It has been pointed out before by other hon. members that Canadian fishermen are competing with foreign industry supported by foreign government subsidies. Serious problems now face the Newfoundland fishing industry, and it requires immediate financial assistance. I hope this government will adopt a policy to make the Canadian fishing industry economical. Let me remind hon. members what the Minister of Fisheries stated in a speech he delivered at the American commercial fish exposition in Boston in October. He stated that we must adopt a policy of making our fishing industry "pay its way". If that is the case we may as well throw in the sponge.
If this government insists on following that line I suggest that the heaviest and most serious charge the minister and his colleagues will have to answer for before history is that they permitted the human resources of my province and other Atlantic provinces to rot away. In my province there is more than a quarter of the population which derives a living, such as it is, from fishing. This government, as well as successive Liberal governments, has allowed this once great industry to die by inches without putting anything in its place except a few handouts. This government is guilty of forcing a once great and industrious people to accept soul destroying welfare.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
While I am on the subject of welfare I feel compelled to set the record straight so far as my province is concerned. The idea is fairly current in the rest of Canada that our province is a poor relation, living on Ottawa's hand-outs. Such a complete distortion of the truth can only be the result of prevailing ignorance and prejudice concerning Newfoundland. The simple fact is that Newfoundland gets the second lowest rate of welfare payments from Ottawa of all Canadian provinces, and this is not because we are a small province. I am talking about the per capita rate; the payments to the provinces computed per head of population. Let this house and the government understand once and for all that Newfoundlanders do not want welfare they want jobs. They do not want charity; they want opportunities. Our fishermen do not want welfare; they want a chance to make a decent living from the fisheries. They do not want other Canadians to carry them; they want to pull their own weight.
December 6. 1968

The government's fishery policy, or I should say their lack of it, is just another indication that as a nation Canada is living off her fat, when she should be building muscle. In a country where regional disparity is a wasting disease, no province has suffered more from this chief cause of economic anaemia than Newfoundland. No people have suffered more than the Newfoundland fishermen.
I remind the house that during the election campaign the Prime Minister repeated again and again the solemn undertaking to give the people of the Atlantic region a Marshall plan for the development of that area. Now, after six months of stagnation, during which time we have seen the discontinuation of the salt rebate to our fisherman, the discontinuation of deficiency payments to our fresh frozen fish industry, the discontinuation of the winter works program, nothing could be clearer than that the Prime Minister's undertaking was nothing more than another phony slogan in a phony war against regional disparity.
In my opinion this is a grim and foreboding prospect for the people of Atlantic Canada, especially the fishermen of my province. These people see disparity widening, opportunities decreasing, services in danger of being curtailed, population eroding, problems multiplying, provincial and municipal finances strained to the limit, taxes increasing, and a federal government that at least in its first six months of office has been utterly indifferent to the problems.
Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I should refer to the policy of the federal government and the provincial government of Newfoundland respecting centralization in my province. There is in my riding a situation, and I am sure I am not alone in this respect, wherein a large number of people were encouraged to move from their former homes to designated resettlement areas. In the town of Placentia in my riding there are in excess of 100 families who were encouraged by this government, and indeed paid by it to some extent, to relocate in Placentia. While I do not entirely disagree with the principle of centralization, I charge this government with destroying a way of life for a large number of Newfoundland people.
I had the pleasure of attending a meeting in Placentia a few weeks ago. At that meeting were some of the people who were relocated from the various islands. It was the most shocking and terrible experience I have ever had. These people took pride in the fact that

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry they were independent, industrious, had their own homes and fishing stages, boats and nets. They were moved by the federal government and the provincial government of Newfoundland to an area where they have nothing whatever, where there are absolutely no facilities from which these fishermen can operate. These men left areas where, as I said before, they were reasonably well off. I admit there were a great many disadvantages in those areas. However these people were moved to an area which is in many cases completely unsuitable for fishing. These people, who were once proud, independent, industrious and hardworking Newfoundlanders are now forced to line up, as it were, at the welfare office to receive, as I have said, this soul-destroying means of keeping body and soul together.


James Aloysius McGrath: Join the just society!


Walter C. Carter: If this is the just society, Mr. Chairman, I contend it is one society we can very well do without.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: This government is responsible for destroying a whole way of life for a large number of Newfoundland people. I want to qualify that and make it clear that I do not disagree with the principle of centralization. But I think that before you start to move people from an area, provision should be made to receive them in other settlements, rather than just waving a cheque in front of their eyes and encouraging them to move to an area that is certainly inadequate and unprepared for them. This is a terrible injustice and is certainly not in keeping with the Prime Minister's promise and philosophy, of an end to regional disparity and a just society for all.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to a few problems that exist in my riding. I was quite amazed and concerned when we had the debate the other day and learned that one hon. member-I forget his riding-said on television that he can go to the Liberal caucus and up to a point can threaten the civil service and the ministers to give him what he wants. I would like to get his formula, because I have been a complete flop when it comes to getting things from the government.


Mr. Mahoney:: Come over here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
December 6, 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Chairman, the trained seals can bang their desks, but to the people for whom I have tried to get these things it is no joke.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I have made numerous representations to various ministers to get certain things for my riding. I made a representation to the Minister of Public Works through the Minister of Fisheries for the provision of certain facilities in the small town of Peter's River in St. John's West. This was meant to assist the fishermen in a settlement called St. Vincent's, in St. Mary's bay. St. Vincent's is completely exposed to the Atlantic and it has no facilities for tying up or docking boats. Fishermen come in there and have to pitchfork their fish from the boat to the beach and then, with the help of a couple of young fellows or older people, they have to pitchfork the fish from the beach to the stage. When I asked that facilities be provided to eliminate this problem I was told by the Minister of Public Works that this would cost $66,000. I find it extremely difficult to reconcile the minister's refusal when it has been rumoured and indeed stated that as much as $50,000 has been spent on furnishing the office of one of the ministers in this government. How can I go back to the people of that area, whose livelihood is completely dependent on the fisheries, and tell them that we cannot get this facility provided because the government feels that the expenditure is not justified, while at the same time we learn that $50,000 can be spent to furnish a minister's office?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Which one?


Walter C. Carter: I am sure the minister is as aware of which one as I am.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did
they not do it for you, Bud?


Walter C. Carter: I support the remarks made by my colleagues on this side of the house when they said that a very serious situation is developing in Newfoundland at the present time. If it is allowed to develop and to come to a head it will have dire and drastic effects on the lives of at least a quarter of the population of Newfoundland. I feel that this government and the minister, for whom I have much respect, should make an announcement very shortly to the effect that assistance will be forthcoming so that these companies, which are now threatening to close their doors and thereby throw out of work 2,500

plant workers, plus 1,200 trawlermen, will be able to see their way clear to stay in business and to continue contributing to the economy of Newfoundland. This is what I ask. I hope that the minister and the government will see fit within the next few hours to make an announcement to this effect.


Mr. Durante:: Mr. Chairman, I was a little reluctant to rise because I thought this was the day set aside for a discussion of the Newfoundland fisheries. I think hon. members opposite should realize that Canadian fisheries are not only to be found in Newfoundland. I should also like to point out that, in my opinion at least, many Canadians are not aware of the value of the Canadian commercial fisheries, both freshwater and saltwater, to the Canadian economy. I should like to cite some statistics in this regard. Canadian commercial fisheries employ in excess of 70,000 fishermen and some 15,000 other people involved in fish processing plants. I should like to quote figures relating to the 1967 catch. During that year two and a half billion pounds valued at $161.5 million was caught. The process value of this catch was $325 million. Canada is second only to Japan among the fish exporting nations of the world. It exports approximately 70 per cent of fish production and 60 per cent of its exports go to the United States, with the remainder to Britain and other nations. These statistics indicate how important the commercial fishery is to the Canadian economy. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Fisheries mention this morning that the 1968 catch, to date, is up by 10 per cent and that fishermen's earnings this year are up by 12 per cent. With all due respect to the Newfoundland representatives I should like to devote my remarks to the west coast fishery.
The total catch in British Columbia for 1967 was 332 million pounds with a total value of $49 million. Salmon, which is the chief catch in B.C., brought a gross revenue of $36 million, well over 50 per cent of the total. These statistics in turn indicate the importance in value of the west coast fisheries in relation to the total Canadian fisheries.
One of the first things that our present Minister of Fisheries did-and I think it is something for which he should be commended and applauded-was to announce licence limitations legislation which is to go into
December 6, 1968

effect in 1969. I should like to quote the following from an editorial which appeared in one of the west coast newspapers:
It takes considerable political courage for a cabinet minister to stride into the middle of a complex and artificially structured industry and arbitrarily establish rules that will reshape that industry's future.
Our fisheries minister has done just that by making his decision to limit the number of boats in the B.C. salmon fishing industry. For this he should be commended and applauded. With regard to that quotation I may say that I take exception to the word "arbitrarily" as a description of how our minister made his decision with regard to licence limitations, because government studies such as Dr. Sinclair's royal commission of eight years ago, and briefs from both fishermen's organizations and industry groups, have recommended and suggested some type of licence limitations.
As I see it, licence limitations will not be the panacea to the problems of the west coast fisheries because I firmly believe there is no panacea to any problems. I feel however that some hon. members opposite think that all you need do is wave a wand and there will be a resolution of any problem you wish to present them with. There are however some distinct advantages to licence limitations. First of all it removes the casual fishermen or the moonlighters as they have been referred to this afternoon. I think it is a step in the right direction. Second, productivity in the fishery has been decreasing at an alarming rate in recent years. It has been costing far more money to catch the same number of fish. As a result of licence limitations I feel that the efficiency of a reduced fleet should improve our productivity. I believe that conservation should be enhanced and fishermen's earnings be increased. I think that boat values will certainly be increased, and as a result of all these advantages I hope that in time lower consumer prices will result.
There are, however, some disadvantages to licence limitations which have already been drawn to the minister's attention. One of them is the loss of vessels at sea. I understand that an appeal board has been established to which anyone who loses his vessel at sea can make an application. I am personally concerned about the fact that there is a real possibility that the companies will take control of salmon fishing vessels on the west coast. I am confident that our minister is aware of this likelihood and that he will guard against it carefully. There are those
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry who would have advocated licensing fishermen rather than vessels. Naturally, the unions take this view because they would like to take control. I agree with the present move to license vessels, but I think we should be aware of the danger of the companies taking control. I ask that our minister keep a very close eye on this possibility, as I am sure he will.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I should like to say a few words about our first Canadian fishermen, the Indians. I believe there is an awareness of the need to assist our Indian fishermen. I applaud the development of the Indian Fishermen's Development Board by the Department of Fisheries, in conjunction with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is a five man board to administer loans and grants to be paid to the Indians of British Columbia for the construction and purchase of fishing vessels, equipment, gear and other related facilities, as well as providing a fisheries training course. This program involves an expenditure of $4.6 million to be spread over a five year period. Also in this regard, the new vessels built for ownership and operation by the Indians under the Indian fishermen's assistance program are exempt from the licensing limitation. I certainly believe this merits commendation.
Licence limitation is to be implemented, as I have already mentioned, because productivity has been going down and because, as our minister stated, there have been too many boats and too much gear chasing too few fish. The "few fish" in my opinion is the key, and conservation is the answer. In this regard, the legislation enacted in 1964 to establish the 12 mile limit would be of some help. A 12 mile limit with a base line drawn from headland to headland would be of even greater help. I urge our minister actively to undertake the establishment of this base line, and the 12 mile limit on the west coast, as soon as possible. As a matter of fact, of even more help would be a continental shelf limit. Foreign vessels are fishing just outside our 12 mile limit. These are large vessels, in excess of 200 feet in length, with factory and processing ships. They are dragging our ocean floor and nothing is returned; all that is seen is a puff of white smoke emitted from the stack on the stern of these ships.
Unfortunately our salmon and other species of fish do not recognize the 12 mile limit. I think the Department of Fisheries is to be commended for the research work it is doing,
3628	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry and for its foresight in establishing artificial and controlled flow spawning channels. The $10 million Babine project is a classic example of the work being conducted toward increasing salmon rims. The only way we can increase income and production per fishing unit is through licence limitation, which is a long term project, and by increasing or restoring the size of the salmon stock. As I have suggested, the project now being carried out should increase the sockeye and pink salmon runs extensively in the next few years.
However, the situation with regard to the cohoe and spring salmon stock is not nearly so rosy; in fact it is unsatisfactory. In this regard, possibly we had better take a lesson from our neighbour to the south, who has greatly increased his stock by the hatchery method, in spite of the many difficulties that have had to be overcome. I refer to such obstacles as dams, pollution and a limited number of suitable rivers. None of these obstacles confronts us, except possibly pollution, and even that is present to a lesser degree. Although we have no dams to contend with yet, and an unlimited number of suitable rivers, cohoe and spring salmon stock is decreasing at an alarming rate, and for two basic reasons. The first is the heavy fishing pressure and the second is the damage caused to our natural spawning streams and watershed areas by indiscriminate logging practices. Our natural spawning channels are still, and heaven forbid it should ever be otherwise, the best areas for salmon stocks. It would seem therefore that the preservation of these stocks through the preservation of our natural spawning channels should receive top priority from our Department of Fisheries. On the west coast I have seen, and I continue to get reports about, the damage caused to these spawning beds and watershed areas by logging operators of both small and large magnitude. The necessary legislation exists to prohibit such conduct. I therefore urge that this legislation be enforced-and that it be rigidly enforced.
In so far as salmon rehabilitation is concerned, 1 would recommend that the Department of Fisheries conduct a survey of all the streams on the west coast suitable for the introduction of spawning channels. May I offer for special consideration the Kennedy lake system of Vancouver island?
I keep referring to this problem of pollution. I have referred to it this afternoon because I am quite convinced our rivers, streams and lakes are being polluted at an alarming rate. I am convinced also that if any

DEBATES	December 6, 1968
department has some authority over the prevention of this condition it is the Department of Fisheries. I urge that legislation to prevent the pollution of rivers, streams and lakes be introduced as soon as possible. Earlier I made reference to the fact the Canadian commercial fishery had contributed to the Canadian economy. I should like now to make a reference to the sports fishery, whose value to our economy is inestimable. Certainly, there is no-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before Your Honour sees the clock, may I make a suggestion? I believe that if we do proceed to private members hour the bill to be debated would be one of mine. I am anxious to get a chance to debate it, but I believe this is the last full day we will have on these estimates, and there is a desire to continue a discussion of the fisheries estimates. I would be willing therefore that you not see the clock. But I hope that some time during the hour you will see the hon. member for Surrey.


James Hugh Faulkner: I believe the procedure we should follow is for the committee to rise and report progress, then, any hon. member may make a suggestion along the lines suggested. If there is unanimous consent we can revert to the committee of supply.
Progress reported.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I now say "ditto" to what I said a few minutes ago?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the official opposition may I say we welcome this opportunity to continue with the debate. I should like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for waiving private members hour. I would concur with his suggestion that the Chair should recognize the next speaker as being the hon. member for Surrey, even though there are a few more of our members who are anxious to participate in the debate between now and six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. member for St. Paul's.
December 6. 1968	COMMONS



Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: May I have consent to revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of presenting a report of the external affairs committee?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Grant Wahn: I have the honour to present the fourth report of the standing committee on external affairs and national defence.

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


[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $3,509,175.
James Hugh Faulkner: Order. The House in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.


Richard John Joseph Durante: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed a few minutes more, I was making reference to the value of the sports fishery to the Canadian economy. I indicated that it was of inestimable value, that there was no way a price tag could be placed on its value. I should like to speak of my own personal experience. My sports fishing exploits have varied from very successful, on the one hand, to dismal failure on the other. Consequently the cost to me per pound of sports fish caught has also varied, and on occasion has run as high as $50 per pound. This is not meant in criticism of our sports fishery but indicates rather my inability as a sports fisherman.
However, my point is that this is a very valuable industry. In our changing society I feel that we are going to be faced with much more leisure time, and I know there are many people who enjoy sports fishing during their leisure time. I should like to urge that serious consideration be given to the possibility of instituting salt water sports fishing licensing. I am convinced that this would meet with approval, provided the revenues derived therefrom could be returned to the sports fishery in the form of artificial spawning channels or controlled flow channels.


Mr. Mather:: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for seeing me. Like the minister, I too come from
DEBATES	3627
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry the west coast of Canada, and I am particularly interested in having an opportunity to take some part in the discussion of these estimates.
I should like to say at the outset that although I am a member of the fisheries committee of this house and am not entirely ignorant of the troubles and difficulties faced by the fishing industry and fishermen in the Atlantic and maritime areas, aside from saying that I and my party fully support the representations that members from that area have made so well today, I intend to devote my remarks more to a discussion of the problems of the fishing industry on the west coast.
The appointment of the present minister a few months ago was welcomed by many people in the industry in British Columbia. On the one hand, I think it was felt that coming from British Columbia he would be more conversant than his two immediate predecessors with the problems that we have in that industry on the west coast. Or if I may put it in this way, they felt that at least he could not be less conversant than they were. Therefore the minister took office with some support on the part of the industry.
I believe the minister should be congratulated upon the speed and energy with which he has taken up his position and got down to business. It is not for his lack of speed that some parts of the industry and hon. members here are criticizing him; it is for the decisions this speed has brought him to.
I will deal with one particular aspect of his major decision to date, but before I do so I want to outline very briefly some of the problems that were left over to this minister by the two previous administrations of both old line parties. Among these were the need for a licence limitation program; the need for the declaration of headland to headland base lines so as to give reality to the 12-mile fishing limit for Canadians; the need for resolute action to bring all these countries that fish the north Pacific into a new fisheries treaty; and the need for the development of offshore fisheries for Canadian vessels and fishermen in the Pacific. I add to that list one other need which has grown more apparent during recent years, and that is the need to combat pollution in the fishing rivers of the province.
The minister has made a start by tackling at once the issue of licence limitation. This is a move that was long overdue. To quote the Vancouver Sun, a basic problem has been-as other hon. members have said earlier-"too
December 6, 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry many fishermen and too many boats chasing too few fish and too little money".
British Columbia fishermen have been asking for a program of licence limitation for the past 25 years. It is eight years since Dr. Sinclair, the royal commissioner who dealt with this problem, made some specific recommendations. So that I think in taking up this issue the minister should be commended.
However, the ministers' method of dealing with the situation has been to propose the licensing of boats so as to limit the number of boats fishing. In the opinion of the fishermen, as represented by their union, this will put the whole industry further under the domination of the large fishing companies, many of whom are foreign owned.
On this particular point I can do no better, to illustrate the difference in the points of view of the government and the fishermen in British Columbia, than to quote from the union paper which carried an article dealing with the two methods involved-the government's proposal and the proposal of the union. According to The Fisherman for September 13, 1968:
Under the union's scheme, the licence would be issued to the fisherman, to be retained only as long as he could show he was obtaining a set proportion of his annual earnings from fishing. Since it would be non-transferable, it would have no financial value in itself. Upon the fisherman's leaving the industry, for whatever reason, it would be surrendered. The fisherman could sell his boat and gear at market price and his place would be taken by the next on the waiting list of applicants.
Under the government's scheme, the licence is to be issued to the boat-either an A vessel that can be replaced by a new boat or a B vessel that cannot be replaced. Even announcement of the scheme has had the effect of inflating the price of vessels that qualify for a licence.
As the union has pointed out, the fact that the companies finance the majority of boats places them in a position to dictate which fishermen shall or shall not have the right to fish.
In the fisheries committee of this house various members of all parties have discussed this particular matter with the minister. The committee wishes to go to British Columbia and meet the fishermen and other interested parties in the industry, particularly to discuss the issue that is involved in this type of licence limitation. We wish to get the advice of the industry, and we want to get it before the plan really comes into effect. I think this is the only wise course to pursue. Either we go there as a committee and meet with the fishermen, or they should make strong representations to the fisheries committee on this particular point about the type of licence

limitation involved. I make that recommendation to the minister.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Another matter I want to touch on is the 12-mile fishing limit. I was very glad to hear the minister say in committee the other day that he intends at an early date to move to implement the components of the 12-mile fishing legislation having to do with headlands. The entire matter has been pending for years. All this time fishermen from other lands have been able to fish Canadian fishing resources. In the north Pacific we have only gone though the motions of passing the 12-mile fishing limit laws. I think that we ought to put the law into operation and so safeguard a major industry.
I, with other hon. members on a committee, recently went to Peru, where they have a major fishing industry. Though that country is relatively small when compared with Canada, it enforces rigorously a fishing limit that extends either 200 or 250 miles from its coast. Surely Canada can do what Peru has done, spell out clearly what are our own fishing borders and enforce those borders.
My next point will interest the minister, since as well as being responsible for fisheries he also has an interest in forestry. In fact, I have heard the minister described as the minister of fish and chips-the minister responsible for fish and wood. The other day in the fisheries committee he said that he would take up immediately with the provincial forestry authorities of British Columbia the question of pollution of the Stellako river-a pollution which enrages conservationists and fishermen-by logging operations. The former minister of fisheries attempted to remonstrate with the authorities, but I do not think he got very far with them. Since our present minister comes from British Columbia, he may be more successful than the previous minister in making his views prevail. In any event, he knows how urgent it is to stop the pollution of the Stellako river by lumber runs. I expect the minister knows what has been happening in the area.
As other hon. members noted, not only is it important to harvest fish but it is also important to sell that harvest. Not long ago I sent the minister a letter suggesting that whenever possible in promotional campaigns the word "fish" ought to be dropped, and that sea foods ought to be referred to by their generic names. I said:
Having in mind that this is "buy-more-fish-month", I would like to make a suggestion as to how more people might buy more fish.
December 6, 1968	COMMONS
I suggest that the word "fish" be avoided.
"Fish" has a fishy sound. It is a word, fortunately, which does nothing to promote a desire to eat fish. I do not claim that this is a rational situation.
I know it is a fact.
Would your department, i.e. the officials concerned in the promotion of fish sales, consider doing what they can to get the industry away from the word "fish" and to use, instead, such descriptions as ... "B.C. salmon steaks" ... "gold-eye" ... "maritime lobster" ... "Arctic char" ... ?
I asked the minister to bring my suggestion to the attention of his officials and offered to buy him a B.C. salmon steak dinner if some of them did not agree it was a good idea. I have not had to buy that dinner yet, and I take this chance to remind him of my suggestion.
In conclusion, it is my view and the view of my party that, with regard to the question of the Pacific Coast fishing industry, there should be immediate consultations between our fisheries committee and the British Columbia fishing industry on the 12-mile limit proposals. Those consultations should also be between governments and unions. Second, within the next few months, or as early as possible, the government should implement the components of the 12-mile fishing limit that have to do with headlands. The limit at least should be from headland to headland. Third, there ought to be a stepped up and continuing effort to bring the British Columbia department of forestry into line, in order to combat river pollution and to conserve our fishing resources in the area. Also I support, as do the members of my party, the positions of hon. members from the maritimes who have brought to the attention of the government problems of their areas with regard to fishing.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
As a representative of the Gloucester riding it is normal, I think, that I should be interested in fisheries, because the fishing industry plays a very important part in the economy of northeastern New Brunswick.
I should like, with the same enthusiasm shown by my colleagues opposite, to call the attention of the hon. minister to the problems concerning markets and prices of ground fish. Several fishermen in my area find themselves in the same situation as those in Newfoundland, but contrary to the stand taken by the representatives of these people, I do not necessarily blame the government for the
DEBATES	3629
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry present situation of the fish market. In any industry, it is important to have a good market, a good support price and a well-managed industry.
All the fish caught in Canada today cannot be sold here. Therefore, we have to depend mainly on American markets and, for reasons that hon. members know as well as I do, because they were mentioned this afternoon, the American market has not been very good in the last few years.
The minister said this morning that in eastern Canada crab fishing is becoming more and more popular, especially in the gulf of St. Lawrence. That situation is of great interest to the fishermen in my riding because several of them this year-they started last year and are getting ready for next year-began to convert their boats from ground fishing to crab fishing.
It might be a good idea to point out-and it is encouraging-that it is not very expensive to convert those boats. Therefore, 1 hope that the fishermen in my region will take up that kind of fishing instead, because the market is good for the time being.
We must remember that when an industry pays a little more or a little less, it does not necessarily incumbent on the government to seek markets and find solutions. The members of the industry-in this case the fishermen-must do their share by altering somewhat their fishing methods and, especially, the type of fishing.
I feel it is imperative for the honourable Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) to see to it that there is co-ordination between the incentive programs of the federal government and the provincial governments with regard to crab processing plants. If the industries are not controlled, if incentives are given to all those who want them, if government aid is offered to too many fishermen, it will be very difficult to control a certain production and we will then have surplus goods which may lead to lower prices and other economic effects.
I should also like to mention that fishing as a sport is very important in my area. We have beautiful rivers like the Tracadie river, for instance, the Pokemouche river, which are most popular for trout and salmon fishing, although they are not publicized enough. I feel that the Department of Fisheries should do something to better acquaint the public with the tourist attraction of that area. In addition to restocking the rivers with small salmon and trout, the people should
December 6. 1968

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry also be educated to make them understand more fully the importance of that industry.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Above all, I would like to deal with the protection of the rivers. Some people shirk the responsibilities too easily, saying that it is fairly easy to protect or control salmon and trout fishing to an extent of about 75 per cent. Beyond that, what is needed is more human capital, more money and, obviously, the cooperation of the people, especially the people who live in the areas which could become sport centres.
For example, in the province of New Brunswick, it is estimated that salmon fishing brings in approximately $10 million. In fact, I can give the example of little villages in my region, such as Tabusintac-which hon. members may know-with a population of around 700 or 800 people living exclusively on the tourist trade, that is, from the money spent by Americans or Canadians who go there to fish salmon, build a cottage and, consequently, have to hire people.
People realized, in those places, that, instead of making an immediate profit by destroying the fish, particularly in an illegal way, they should protect their rivers in order to derive a greater income from them.
I should now like to assure the hon. Minister of Fisheries that I am ready to support the long term measures taken by the federal government in order to solve the problems of the fishing industry rather than the short term programs.
In my opinion, we have tried far too long already, not only with regard to fisheries but in other fields as well, to find solutions to problems which would give immediate results instead of making long range plans.
I think that, at the present time, the fishing industry in eastern Canada and in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia faces a dilemna. In fact, when there is no market, we cannot expect that government action will necessarily solve the problem. I think that this problem requires a serious study and I hope that the government program will be realistic and will give some assurance to the fishermen who wish for technicological progress and large investments in the fishing industry.
Small fishermen must be told whether or not they will be able to carry on their fishing operations. I think that, because of these short term solutions, government assistance has been inefficient. Assistance was perhaps provided for a month or two, even perhaps 
for a year, but a guaranteed market for the fishing industry was not developed and this is what matters. When we have an important market which will yield high returns, the fishing industry will be viable.
Mr. Chairman, I have dealt briefly with the inshore fishermen of my area. Several are in a bad fix. They cannot improve their lot, on account of their lack of knowledge or investments. They cannot own big ships or practise offshore fishing. They want to remain small fishermen. I think that this problem should be considered separately from the fishing industry in general. Instead of providing social welfare, I think that it would be advisable for the Department of Fisheries or the government to study the problem of the inshore fisherman in another context.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to apologize to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, if he thought that the Newfoundland members were trying to take up all the time of the committee. This is not our intention, and I can assure him that if he is concerned with problems on the west coast we will support him. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Surrey for his kind words and support.
I rise, Mr. Chairman, to join with my colleagues in attempting to emphasize the critical situation which exists in the Atlantic region regarding the fishing industry. I do not intend to repeat the technological implications or to quote statistics. These were very ably offered by previous speakers.
What I would like to do is to try with sincerity and respect to point out the human problems which exist among the fishermen population of my province, and which will result from the present crisis, because of mismanagement, apathy, neglect and a lack of a common sense approach to an industry which could be prospering today, but instead is disappearing.
With each passing day as I sit in the House of Commons, the more frustrated and disillusioned I become at the lack of sincerity that is so evident on the part of government with regard to the problems of the country. What amazes me is how a group of individuals, who are supposed to be the ones most capable of solving our problems, are instead compounding them. I fail to understand how a government, with supposedly the most capable brains in the country at its command, cannot provide the leadership required to
December 6, 1968
operate successfully the most fundamental business of buying and selling fish.
Some 25 years ago the fishing industry was a comparatively prosperous one in Newfoundland, an industry second only to the pulp and paper industry. With each passing year since then, instead of keeping pace with competition and modern methods, instead of giving management leadership to keep pace with competition, instead of on-the-spot training to ensure quality control, instead of creating markets, government has turned its back on the fishermen of the Atlantic region and has allowed the industry to reach its present depressed proportions.
In 1963 the then Liberal prime minister promised in an election speech that a new Liberal government would co-operate with Newfoundland, where fishing is such an important industry. Mr. Pearson said:
We shall work out a program for fishery development based on the principle that the government of Canada should parallel action already taken for agriculture with action to develop the fisheries.
That was written five years ago, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
What a fishy story that turned out to be! If we were to ask the fishermen what action has been taken by the two Liberal governments, provincial and federal, to assist them, I suggest the answer would be, "None". The most amazing thing to me, and something I cannot understand, is how one can get the attention of the government in respect of an emergency that is real. Since the opening of the house we have been endeavouring to point out the seriousness of the typical position of the fishing industry in our province, and the needs for assistance. The Newfoundland members met with the Minister of Fisheries two months ago. They have been in touch with him or his staff almost daily since then. I should like to say here that the Minister of Fisheries and the members of his staff have been most co-operative in providing me with honest and sincere answers, although no solutions. I am sure the minister realizes the seriousness of the situation. I can only assume that not only did he take over a mess created by his predecessors, but that he is being thwarted in his efforts by his superior, whoever he might be-and I use the singular intentionally.
We have a very serious problem on our hands, which will become a national emergency, indeed if it is not one already. This emergency has been delayed only by a 29180-230
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry strange turn of events in the world situation. I wonder whether we realize this and whether the government realizes it has avoided the collapse of an industry affecting some 100,000 people, either directly or indirectly, only because of some ten million pounds of dried cod being provided to the starving people in a certain country? I might ask whether this should be the criteria for the future of the fishing industry? What will happen next year? I might also ask what will happen while the government is still looking for a long range plan? What about the next three months; what about right now? Why do we preach restraint in spending on the one hand and the waste of millions on the other? How can the government justify saving $350 thousand on salt subsidies and yet be prepared to spend that much on a by-election, due to the whims and fancies of one individual? How can the government justify the cutting off of deficiency payments to the fishing industry and waste millions of dollars on arts, cultural centres and fancy furniture?
Then, Mr. Chairman, what about foreign aid? Let us give foreign aid to needy countries, but let us not be blind to our own needs.
The district which I represent stretches along a coastline of some 300 miles. It consists of some 100 communities whose main occupation is fishing. The citizens of these communities are a sturdy, honest and industrious people. They are a reliable and conscientious group of Canadians. They have a native intelligence about the fishing industry that the supposed experts in the field of economics would do well to study. These people do not want handouts. They do not want disguised welfare-lard on the government, as it has been described. All they want is sensible direction from the government. But they have lost faith in the government, due to the ever changing policies. They are sick and tired of the here-today-gone-tomorrow assistance programs. They would like a chance to compete against the foreign draggers which are allowed to rape their very livelihood, because the government will not enforce fishing limits. They want only realistic direction by the government in creating a market, and being told what the market needs. They also want to have a fair price commensurate with the cost of equipment.
In a previous speech in the house I invited the various ministers to visit my district, instead of junketing to other countries. That invitation still stands. Perhaps I might invite the Prime Minister to visit the rural fishing

3632	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry communities of Newfoundland, where he would see the human problems. Yes, Mr. Speaker, human-a word which he uses so often in his speeches across the country. Let him take a good look at humanity in Newfoundland. We cannot fly him there by a special plane. There are no shopping centres and there will not be any crowds of mini-skirted teenagers. There will be no flowers, no hippies and no poles to swing on. Neither will he be able to book any hotel suites, as at Cla-ridges in London, nor a suite that the queen mother of Jordan uses. But he will see a part of Canada, and a people who have for far, far too long been taken for granted, and for far, far too long have been neglected. He will see a fishing industry that has been allowed gradually to disintegrate to the present emergency proportion.
On November 22 in this house I pointed out very clearly, in a question which appears in Hansard, the impending shutdown of a fishing plant on the northwest coast of Newfoundland. No one took even a blind bit of notice. Today we are threatened with the collapse of the complete fishing industry of the Atlantic region. Now is the time for our task force, but let us make it an emergency task force and not a long term one.
The Newfoundland members have been crying "wolf" ever since we came here to Ottawa concerning the problems of the fishing industry. The wolf is at the door. Will the government believe us and find a solution to this emergency by reinstating the deficiency payments or offer assistance and thereby assure the industry and its people that there is some ray of hope for their future livelihood?


John Howard Lundrigan: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate a great friend of ours from Surrey, who certainly came to our assistance very ably today. I should like also to point out to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, a very distinguished west coast area, that we sympathize if he has any problems, but we would like more understanding on his part as well.
I am greatly encouraged by the sincerity of the new Minister of Fisheries, who I am sure is sincerely aware of the problems in Canada. I am sure also that, in the long run, obviously he will make a genuine attempt to do something about this. I am not equally impressed by the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada. In the few minutes I have, if I were to speak to this one point I would be certain to point out to the Canadian people that this

DEBATES	December 6, 1968
lack of sincerity will show through to the Canadian people, and that this Prime Minister, who treats the House of Commons as a circus, will not continue to get away with this kind of clowning. The Prime Minister might kiss his way across Canada during an election, but let him not think that he will have the same kind of success in trying to kiss away the problems of the Canadian people as they relate to the economy of the Canadian Atlantic fishermen.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I should like to have seen the Prime Minister here today, because then I could be a little more aggressive; but as he is not here I will be polite now and refrain from doing so. I will take the opportunity when he is here to tell him exactly what I think of him, which perhaps might or might not shock my colleagues.


An hon. Member:: He will be here for 20 years.


John Howard Lundrigan: He will not be here next year, if he continues in his present attitude. I say that in reply to the colourful remarks of the hon. member who just spoke.
I was a little disappointed about the statement today of the Minister of Fisheries. I cannot blame him for this kind of statement, because he is a new minister. All he actually did was an excellent job of identifying the problems, but we have had people identifying problems ever since I was very young. Many people have identified the problems facing the fishing industry.
On September 20 I asked the Minister of Fisheries if and when a long term plan would be announced to the house and the Canadian people. On a number of other occasions my colleagues have asked a similar question. This request has been made almost every day. We have wanted the Minister of Fisheries to make a statement in respect of a short term plan to keep this industry alive during the interim between now and the date when a long term plan is announced. Day after day we have received the same answer, that the "plan will be announced shortly". In the meantime, as I and my colleagues have said, the salt rebate has gone, indemnity relating to insurance has gone, the community stage program has gone, the plans for fishing facility expansion, which is under another department, have been curtailed, deficiency payments have disappeared and livelihoods are going. This is the situation we are finding ourselves in: The industry is bleeding
December 6, 1968

to death, and all we have heard from hon. members who have spoken on the government side today, and all we have heard since we have been old enough to understand English or French, is that something will be done soon.
The minister told us today that we are on the edge of something. He told us that prices are down but that costs are up. This is his answer to the trade. During an emergency situation the minister sent a telegram to the industry in which he asked this of it:
Please do not count on any new program of government assistance being put into effect before the end of the federal government's current fiscal year which is March 31st, 1969.
He further indicated today that if markets improved all will be well and good, and that if they do not the industry is going to have to improve its productivity, its cost arrangements and its expenditures in order to become self-sufficient. This is similar to what the minister said in Boston. He indicated that we need a long term plan, a new bright program and a new program of action.
Let me say to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that if I had the time I should like to develop this. In the meantime let me quote from a statement made in 1964 in which the then minister of fisheries, Mr. Robichaud, told the Canadian people that the federal government was going to come up with a Magna Carta for the fisheries industry. King John would have been proud of this action in 1964. This statement was quoted all across Canada. We were going to have a new Magna Carta for the Canadian fisheries industry. If I had the time to quote in detail I would be able to make the same kind of speech the Minister of Fisheries made to the house today. In any event, in 1964, the then minister of fisheries said that the resources in Canada's inland waters and neighbouring seas can support a great long-term expansion of the fishing industry. He indicated that the future for fishermen is bright, and went on to say, not facetiously, that there must also be a progressive program which will take into account our sports fishery. That was said in 1964, after the minister had met with all the provincial ministers.
This report of the ministers' conference was tabled in Ottawa on January 24, 1965, and it states in part:
The conference stressed the importance of effective long-term planning to provide adequate harbours marine works and navigational aids to meet the changing needs of the inshore and offshore fisheries.
29180-230&
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry
I wish I had the time to quote the entire statement by the then minister of fisheries, and compare it with what the present Minister of Fisheries said today. Today we heard the minister define these problems. He presented us with a lecture. If talk could solve our problems we would be making the greatest progress ever made in the history of Canada, and perhaps I should say that I am sorry I feel I should add my two cents to this matter.


An hon. Member:: Could the hon. member say whether the then minister of fisheries was referring to a long term plan to assist in marketing problems?


John Howard Lundrigan: Let me recommend to hon. members, especially on the back benches, that they read the results of this conference in 1964. It was a long and great conference of ministers of the various provinces. Even the premier of Newfoundland was present, and this was the statement that resulted from that conference. It was referred to in the former prime minister's statement to an hon. member for Newfoundland.
I do not think we can hold the minister responsible for the attitude of the Newfoundland government, which is responsible for many of the difficulties of the fishing industry today. Nor can we hold him responsible for the government's attitude in respect of foreign aid, but a little stimulation in this regard would alleviate this problem to some extent.
The fishing industry in Canada has been treated as the poor stepchild of the Canadian economy. This is the reason for the extreme difficulties we find ourselves in right now. We cannot hold the government responsible for the non-productivity or the sometimes questionable attitude of merchants, and I use that word deliberately. We cannot hold the minister responsible for those non-productive attitudes of fishermen. Neither can we hold him responsible for the lack of diversification in the industry. However, we can hold this government and this minister responsible for not taking issue with the present attitude of this government toward the United States government, because I think in Canada we are going to have to set up a trade relationships and prices support board in order to solve our problems, and to come to grips with the United States in respect of our fishing industry. This would allow us to call the shots so far as this industry is concerned. However, the federal government does not seem to give a damn about these things. I hope you will
3634	COMMONS
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry excuse the language, Mr. Chairman but apparently we are never going to have a fish policy.
I am trying to rush through my remarks to give other members a chance to put in their two cents worth. I should like to conclude by saying there are three basic problems in this industry which might be referred to as the three "p's". There is a lack in respect of prices to fishermen, there is a lack of productivity and a lack in respect of processing. If I had time to develop these three ideas I think I could point out, as my hon. friends have done today, that aspect referred to by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Concep-tion. There is not an easy solution to these critical problems; but unless the federal government is literally prepared to come up with a medicine cabinet full of solutions, rather than band aid solutions, we will have no fishing industry in Canada, come spring. At that time we will not have to worry about the fishing industry because it will no longer exist.
We must worry now about what is going to happen next year. Long term planning is the only answer to the Canadian fishing industry's problems today. If the industry is left to die, our problems will be related to the creation of a fishing industry in Canada, rather than helping to preserve the industry we now have. We need a change of attitude on the part of the federal government, and the minister will have to face the facts. If he does not, we will be on our feet at every possible opportunity. We will continue to talk about this matter until the government is willing to deal with the problems facing the Canadian fishing industry today.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the minister during the debate on this issue and I was rather surprised by what can only be described as his cavalier approach to what we consider to be the very serious problem, and crisis, facing the groundfish industry in eastern Canada. We listened to the minister refer to the fact that we have never had it so good, and that these are the best possible years. He referred to the queen crab industry, and in glowing terms to the herring fishery. He also mentioned fish protein concentrates and several other things, but he had very little to say about the problems we are facing in eastern Canada today. We believe this problem to be critical and of a crisis proportion. If the minister thinks the Newfoundland fish trades are bluffing he is in for a rude awakening, because I guarantee that they are

DEBATES	December 6, 1968
not bluffing. I am sure the Minister of Defence Production knows in his heart that these trades are not bluffing.
Let me suggest to the minister that it is about time he stopped playing Russian roulette with this serious problem. In his telegram of last Friday he as much as said to the Newfoundland Fish Trades Association that there will be no more aid and no further programs to assist the industry until next year. Some five months from now the industry might get assistance from the government of Canada in respect of the situation which exists today. Surely that is an indication that the minister is gambling over this serious crisis.
The Minister of Defence Production went one step further, trying to qualify what the Minister of Fisheries had said. I suppose one will have to wait until he reads Hansard to discover exactly what these ministers did say. We were treated to the unusual experience of two ministers speaking in the house on the same estimates, with one apparently attempting to qualify what the other said. Surely this points out the inconsistency of the entire situation.
I asked the Minister of Defence Production during the course of his speech whether he agreed with what the Minister of Fisheries said in the telegram he sent to the Fish Trades Association. However, he evaded my question; he did not answer it. I am going to read, for the record, what the minister said in the telegram which he sent to the trade the day before yesterday:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Re your tel November 28th the brief presented to the federal government by Atlantic groundfish industry is under active consideration. Impossible however for me to outline government's response to brief's proposal this week as your telegram suggests. While I recognize marketing and other difficulties which your industry faces it is now apparent that programs of government assistance cannot absolve your management of its decisionmaking function.
In other words, "We are going to call your bluff"-that is what the minister was saying. The telegram continues:
Please do not count on any new program of government assistance being put into effect before the end of the federal government's current fiscal year which is March 31st, 1969.
I ask the Minister of Defence Production again-he is not in his seat but he is in the house-does he agree with that telegram?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Do you want me to answer it now?
December 6, 1968	COMMONS


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, of course.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that my answer was not clear enough before for the hon. member. The words used were, "Please do not count on any new program." I think those were the exact words used. I believe the Minister of Fisheries, as I said, was wise to put it in that form. I suggest, however-and I suspect the Minister of Fisheries would be willing to confirm this-that this does not preclude the introduction of something earlier if a formula can be devised. The whole emphasis I was putting on it was the difficulty in finding what that formula should be.


James Aloysius McGrath: The fish trades in their brief of November 13, to which the minister referred, made it very clear to the government that unless some aid program was continued the industry would collapse. If that was not sufficiently clear to the minister, they pointed out again to him in the telegram of last Friday that unless aid was forthcoming they would have to take decisions tantamount to the collapse of the industry. Is the minister prepared to take the consequences if the groundfish industry in Atlantic Canada collapses because of the lack of action by the government?
Is the Minister of Defence Production prepared to take the responsibility, in relation to the people of Newfoundland, if the groundfish industry in that province collapses, because of inactivity on the part of the government of which he is a member? Surely he must accept this responsibility. He tried in the house today to defend the government's inactivity. My time is limited, but I hope the minister will say something positive and definitive before the house rises today, because it seems to me there is very little wrong with the groundfish industry that the government cannot tackle in a positive way. The answer is overproduction, markets that are oversold, and a government that does not give a damn.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is the problem. You have not given any answer.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister said I have not given any answer. I would like to refer briefly to the fact that when the Minister of Fisheries opened his remarks today he requested members of the opposition to make suggestions, because he obviously did not have any. Now the Minister of Defence Production says the same thing. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is the responsibility of the government of Canada, and the Minister of
DEBATES	3635
Supply-Fisheries and Forestry Fisheries and the Minister of Defence Production as members of the cabinet, to bring in solutions to this serious crisis. It is not my responsibility as a member of parliament.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I did not say anything of the kind. The hon. gentleman put words in my mouth and I am sure he did not intend to do that. I simply suggested to him that he had made a statement that the answer was overproduction. That is not the answer. I said these were the problems and suggested that he should put forward solutions to them.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, that smart alecky reply will not help the situation at all. This is the kind of frivolous approach on the part of the minister which tries to downplay what is in fact a serious crisis facing the basic, stable industry of our province. All the minister can do is stand in the house and make frivolous suggestions, as he has just done.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: You do not like facts, do you?


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall vote 1 carry?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, before vote 1 carries, I am sure the committee would agree that the minister should be given limited time at least to answer some of the questions that have been raised today.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to say in as emphatic terms as possible that I recognize we have a serious situation in the Atlantic fisheries. We certainly have a serious situation in respect of the ground fishery in the Atlantic area, and particularly in Newfoundland. I do not think anyone who has any knowledge of that area, and particularly of the ground fishery, would say otherwise.
There have been references to band aid treatments. There have also been references to the need for a whole medicine chest. I suggest there is also need, long term anyway, for a little surgery as well. I think we should face facts. What hon. gentlemen opposite are really saying is that an industry which has had difficulties over the years, and a great deal of support from the Canadian taxpayer, wants more support; it can get this support in band aid fashion in terms of millions of dollars with few or virtually no strings attached. That is perhaps the bluntest definition that I can give of the band aid treatment.
Certainly we need a longer term policy, and a longer term policy really points to the
December 6, 196b

Supply-Fisheries and Forestry progressive rationalization of the industry, basically one which will reduce costs; a policy which must recognize, however, the human values involved, the rights of people, the attachment they have to their homes in many, and often remote, areas of the country. It is not easy to find long term solutions which do not influence the lives of people and will not uproot them and move them. We have to face this fact. We have begun to face it in Canada, and particularly in Newfoundland on a relatively small scale. The centralization program, which several hon. members have mentioned, is resulting in the movement of people, which affects their social values. We will have to continue this resettlement plan. I hope we can have a more effective and bigger program.
I made a few rough calculations about the extent of taxpayer support-it is not just government support; it is money of the people of Canada-for that part of Canada which supports groundfish industry, namely the Atlantic area. A great deal of assistance is now going to that area, without this additional band aid treatment in respect of which some hon. members have asked that an announcement be made in a matter of days or weeks. This support is of the order of $40 on every $100 of production. This is a great deal of support. There is no question of nothing being done, because a great deal is being done. Some people might say that the money has been misspent, but it is very substantial support.
Research in fisheries amouunts to 5 per cent at least of the gross value of the catch. This is the largest of any industry in Canada. There can be no doubt that research expenditure for the fishing industry has been very substantial in dollar terms, and I think in quality. So there can be no excuse asked for or given in that regard. With regard to general support, the budget of the department is $50 million. The total value of the fishery in Canada is $300 million. This is a great deal of money relative to the total value of the fishery, and certainly a proportionate share is going to those parts of the country which are having a problem with the ground fishery, particularly the Atlantic area.
We have to do several things. I am personally attracted to the idea of a solution for the salt fishery somewhat similar to that proposed for the fresh water fishery. I think that unless other and better propositions are advanced very shortly we will have to arrange for the more orderly and effective single-desk marketing of our salt fish production. I think this


would certainly improve quality and would slowly, progressively centralize the industry as well. This would lead to the movement of people to fewer centres, where there could be more efficient collection and where fish in the round could be handled with centralized efficiency.
With regard to processing, we have to produce quality salt fish and regain our position in the world as a supplier of salt fish. We can do that when we come to the fresh and frozen commodity, which has been the mainstay of the industry. We are concerned with an industry which surely in some measure at least should remain in the hands of private ownership. It is certainly an industry in which the individual fisherman still has a very substantial role.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
This is a question which hon. members on all sides of the house should really ask themselves: How far can a government assist an industry before the taxpayers who are supplying the money begin to demand remarkable changes in respect of the way that industry is run? We are all asking ourselves that question, and no doubt some hard decisions will have to be made.
I received a telegram, which had been referred to several times during the course of the debate today, which in effect said that the industry may shortly have to tie up many of its vessels. I was wondering where the money was going to come from to enable the fresh and frozen industry to send its vessels to sea in January or February of next year, and to make them productive again. As I said before, we have had two special programs totalling $8 million brought in during 1968. At this moment we do not have money set aside in the estimates or in the budget of the federal Department of Fisheries for additional support of this kind. It may be necessary to give some interim support, but I thought that the frank thing to do was to tell the industry that so far as I knew, and so far as I could tell them with certainty, no money at this moment is earmarked for payment to them prior to March 31, 1969. That is the situation as of this moment.
This does not prevent the government from developing two policies, one short term and one long term, communicating them to the industry, discussing them, and announcing them in full measure in the next month or two. However this is a frank statement of the situation in which we find ourselves today. I
December 6, 1968

know that many companies are in difficulties; a few are in serious financial difficulties. We will have to assess the situation from day to day. But it would be wrong of me to try to outline a definite and final policy of financial assistance to the industry to help to get it back to sea again early in the new year, when the moneys are not yet definitely earmarked. Certainly it would be wrong of me to try to pretend we have all the answers in respect of a long term policy which will not hurt and will not involve moving people and closing down some plants. I hope that we will be able to define that long term policy and improve upon it as time goes by. I am sure we will define it in the new year and, with your help, improve upon it as the months go by.


James Aloysius McGrath: Before we rise, Mr. Chairman, may I thank the minister for his statement. It is a very sound and sensible one, and we on this side appreciate what he said. We are only sorry he did not say it earlier.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The following items were agreed to:
Fisheries Management and Development-
5. Operation and Maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the International Commissions detailed in the Estimates and of the costs of programs and projects shared jointly with the Provinces and industry, and authority to make recoverable advances in 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, $22,602,500.
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 and payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, $5,378,600.
15. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the Details of Estimates, $3,820,000.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada-
20. Administration, Operation and Maintenance, including an amount of $500,000 for grants for Fisheries Research and for Scholarships and authority to provide free accommodation for the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, $12,135,000.
25. Construction or Acquisition of Buildings, Works, Land and Equipment, $4,000,000.
Forestry-
30. Administration, Operation and Maintenance, $18,271,025.
Business of the House
35. Construction or Acquisition of Buildings, Works, Land and Equipment, $3,697,000.
40. Grants and contributions as detailed in the Estimates, $1,516,000.
James Hugh Faulkner: That concludes the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of hon. members the government house leader would indicate the business which the government proposes to place before parliament next week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will return to the committee of supply and deal with the estimates of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and regional development, both of which were referred back to the house and to the committee of supply from the standing committee today. Perhaps I might add also, for the advice of the house, that under the order we adopted on September 20 this will be the last allotted day in committee of supply. All the estimates will, at the close of business at 10 o'clock on Monday night, or earlier if the house agrees, be put to the house. This will be therefore the final supply day coming up on Monday next.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask the minister if he would advise the house what departments we would turn to if we were to finish regional development before the time expired?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, the
Minister of Transport will be available. However I might solicit advice and suggestions from hon. members as to those departments they would like to hear from, which have not already been dealt with, and I promise that to the best of my ability I would try to have them called during the day.


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

[Stage Direction]
1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 9, 1968

[Stage Direction]
Third, fourth and fifth reports of special committee on procedure of the house-Mr. Blair.
First report of standing committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Francis.
[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on regional development-Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester).
[Note:	Text of the foregoing reports
appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]