May 13, 1953

LIB

James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. Sinclair:

I do not think the sale of fish is aided by masquerading one fish as another. More than that, the Meat and Canned Foods Act specifically provides in section 18, subsection 2, paragraph (b):

A true and correct description of the contents of the can, including the vernacular name, and in the case of fish the minimum weight in avoirdupois of the contents and in the case of shellfish the minimum weight in avoirdupois of the dry meat in the can, plainly printed in a conspicuous manner, and the name of the place where the same was packed.

If mackerel could be sold for a short time at better prices by labelling it as tuna it might aid the man who is canning it, but it would certainly harm the trade. Large tuna used to be called horse mackerel in the United States and they marketed horse mackerel as chicken of the sea, but nevertheless it is a tuna. I do not think the fishing industry of Canada would be very happy if certain canners were allowed to sell fish under names which are not commonly accepted or under other names. In any case, the law would prohibit it here in Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
PC

Winfield Chester Scott McLure

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McLure:

Since they belong to the

same family I do not see why that could not be done. They could still have the picture of the mackerel on the outside of the can if they wished. But tuna and mackerel belong to the same family although they may be called by different names. The only difference between the mackerel and the tuna is that the mackerel does not grow quite as large. When the tuna people advertise tuna they call it horse mackerel. The name "horse mackerel" would not have to be put on the canned foods.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
LIB

Andrew Wesley Stuart

Liberal

Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):

I should like to

say a word in this regard. For a great number of years the fisheries department have tried in every way to improve the very conditions that have been under discussion here for the last ten minutes, and I believe they have gone a long way and deserve a lot of credit for what they have done. The solid meats of clams and other shellfish that were in cans for years was a most deceitful way of marketing, and it took a long time to get away from that so that the purchaser or consumer got exactly what he paid for.

The idea suggested by the hon. member for Queens is again getting away from the facts. I might also add that in the sardine industry of this country for years we have not been able to ship sardines to Britain. We had to call them little fish in oil because sardines were considered to be a product of Sardinia, and we were not allowed to label them sardines. It was a great inconvenience to the sardine canners of this country.

I believe that mackerel should be labelled mackerel, and tuna fish should be labelled tuna fish, and in no way should we try to convince the public that they are getting something that they are not getting. In other words, I believe that, in the first instance, to put mackerel on the market and call it tuna fish might take, but the repeat orders might not be as encouraging. I believe that the department have been doing a fine job along this line and they should be encouraged to carry on. Let us

Supply-Fisheries

try to get away from the idea of labelling a can as containing something that it does not contain.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink

Item agreed to. 143. Consumer branch, $67,545.


CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

I just have a brief comment on this item. On the invitation of the handsome Minister of Fisheries quite a number of members had the opportunity to enjoy a demonstration of cooking by some of the lady cooks in his department. Personally, I had the opportunity to attend one of these demonstrations, and I have never eaten such delicious fish in all my life. I rose to ask the minister what can be done to bring that information to the smaller centres, say in co-operation with women's organizations? I am quite sure that if a demonstration such as we were able to witness, and the fruits of which we were able to enjoy, could be enjoyed by people in smaller centres, the consumption of fish would be multiplied very quickly.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
LIB

James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. Sinclair:

The dietitians in our department do that very job. They go to schools, home economic classes, women's clubs, women's organizations, restaurant associations and hotels. One of the reasons why I invited the fisheries committee, the coastal members and the members of the restaurant committee over to the kitchen was for propaganda purposes. I hope that when the hon. member for Kootenay West goes back to his riding and addresses political meetings and non-political meetings he will take the opportunity to suggest the advantage of fish, and if it is properly cooked how tasty it will be. Perhaps other hon. members will do the same.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Herridge:

I notice the minister spoke of the representatives of the restaurant committee. Will he use his influence and have the propaganda so effective that the fish we get in the restaurant will be improved?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
PC

Albany M. Robichaud

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Robichaud:

I also wish to commend the Department of Fisheries for the fish cookery publications which they are putting out. I notice that on page 204 of the estimates the amount covering this item is $15,000. I heard some favourable comments last fall about the money expended on these publications. In my opinion that amount could be very well doubled and more of these fish cookery publications, which are so well put together and so useful to everyone, could be widely distributed throughout Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink

Item agreed to. 144. To provide for the destruction of harbour and grey seals, $30,000. 5264 HOUSE OF Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


PC

Winfield Chester Scott McLure

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McLure:

There is a reduction of $15,000 in this item. Are they giving the same bounty on each head, or are they reducing it? Why the reduction?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
LIB

James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. Sinclair:

The bounty is exactly the same. We put in the extra appropriation last year to take care of this matter in Newfoundland. The killing there by fishermen was relatively small. As well as the killing of predators that we do, we have representatives of our own protective staff on the east coast and west coast put on a drive against predators. The appropriation this year is at the amount that was spent last year on this predator control.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
PC

Winfield Chester Scott McLure

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McLure:

The same amount will be

paid to Prince Edward Island?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink

Item agreed to. Fisheries research board of Canada- 145. Headquarters administration, $119,115.


LIB

James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. Sinclair:

I suggest that the discussion

of my estimates be adjourned. I have a fisheries meeting to attend with a special committee of cabinet members. We can return to these estimates later this day.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
PC

Albany M. Robichaud

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Robichaud:

Before the discussion is

adjourned I have one question. When does the minister intend to give some details about the insurance plans?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
LIB

James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. Sinclair:

When I get to item 766. I

hoped last night it would encourage hon. members to pass the items with a little more dispatch, but when we come to item 766 I will lay the whole scheme before the committee.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
PC

George Clyde Nowlan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nowlan:

Will the minister be back *early?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
LIB

James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. Sinclair:

Early afternoon, I hope.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

Therefore, when we

resume the study of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, we shall consider item 145.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS

May 13, 1953