I am going to take hardly any time at all. I would have liked to speak on the first item, but I know that time is rather precious and it is getting late. I want to ask one favour of the Minister of Labour. In Charlottetown we have machine shops. Recently I have had telegrams, as I believe the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Labour have had, stating that the machine shops are closed because no work was given them by the Department of Defence Production. Without elaborating on the matter at all, I want to ask the Minister of Labour to urge the Minister of Defence Production and other ministers that something be done to provide work for the 200 men who have been laid off. It would be a good idea to do a little decentralizing and give our machine shops an opportunity. They have qualified men who can do all kinds of repairs. What we have done in the past is proof that we have the men to do the work. I ask that favour of the Minister of Labour.
I should like to say a word on behalf of the fishermen of my constituency. I can say to the minister and to the officers of his department that this scheme will give to our fishermen some protection similar to that which farmers and other are getting. Representations have been made on this from
time to time. While we cannot expect every detail of this scheme to be worked out to the entire satisfaction of all at this time, I do believe that the scheme which is outlined by the minister will be a real start on something that will be of great interest to the small liner and to the larger fishermen as well.
As I said at the beginning, I wish to congratulate the minister and his officers for putting this scheme on trial, and I am sure that hon. members who are interested in the fisheries of their constituencies will give every support and co-operation to the minister in working out the details.
Subtopic: SELECTED STATISTICS ON CANADIAN COAL MINING BASED ON REPORTS BY DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND DOMINION COAL BOARD
There is one thing I wish to mention. I should have done so a moment ago, but I guess I missed it. What I wanted to say was this. It may be all right under fish culture here but it is something that has to do with markets. I refer to the changing of the name in the marketing of canned mackerel. The name "mackerel" has been hard to get on the market as a canned food. But when it has been marketed under a new name, that of tuna chicken, it had wonderful success. The matter was brought before the federation this last year, and I am sure it will come before the Department of Fisheries. For instance, they are going to ask permission to use the name "tuna chicken" on their cans. Without getting anybody into any trouble-because they are out of it now-may I say that a couple of fishermen made a great success-in a small way, of course-of selling canned mackerel but they did not sell it under the name "mackerel". They sold it under the name "tuna chicken". Of course, tuna and mackerel belong to the same family. When this question comes before the Department of Fisheries I hope those who are making the regulations will permit people to can mackerel and put it under the name of "tuna chicken". If they do there will be a tremendous market created, because canned tuna has no comparison with canned mackerel. They could not get the word "mackerel" to take successfully as a canned fish. By changing it to "tuna chicken" the market will take a great deal of the mackerel off our coast in the form of canned fish. I know that the demand on the market for it a few years ago before the authorities caught up with the men who were running the factory was good. They had a great success in marketing it.
Subtopic: DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES