1962-01-30

Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister ol Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement to make. It has been drawn to my attention that the November, 1961 issue of the newsletter of the World Federalists of Canada contains a statement to the effect that the World Federalists of Canada have been investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and have been given a clean bill of health.
This statement is not correct. While what I have to say should not be taken as any reflection upon this organization, and indeed I am not entirely certain what is meant by the somewhat general expression "a clean bill of health", I must point out that it is not the policy or the practice of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to give any blanket or general statement with respect to any organization by way of clearance, condemnation or otherwise.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a request with regard to a change in the order of business today. This change requires unanimous consent and is requested after consultation with the other parties. At five o'clock today we would normally have private members' hour. I am suggesting that this be changed to eight o'clock tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed, then, that the hour from eight to nine this evening be substituted for the hour from five to six for the purpose of considering private members' business?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
express to the house leader, on behalf of the opposition, our thanks for this change, because I should say it was made at our request. I should like the government and its supporters, as well as the members of the N.D.P., to know that we appreciate this gesture.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Defence Production or to his acting representative, to whom I sent notice of my question.
Is it true that an American air line, the Seaboard World Airlines, has defaulted on the payment of five CL-44's bought from Canadair Limited? If so, has the government given assistance to Canadair Limited in order to protect this company against a loss of about $5 million?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I am sorry, but I was given notice of this question only a few minutes before coming into the house. Therefore, I shall take it as notice.
(Text):



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the report by Mr. Norman Campbell in the Ottawa Citizen that the advertiser who uses the most space in the February issue of the Reader's Digest is the Canadian government, would the Prime Minister care to comment and explain whether this is in line with proposed government legislation the supposed aim of which is to encourage more advertising revenues for Canadian periodicals?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the advertising appearing in the Reader's Digest was contracted by the government early in 1961 and before the report of the O'Leary commission. In considering further advertising contracts, the policy followed will be in keeping with that required of other Canadian advertisers, in following the course suggested by the O'Leary commission.

Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY



ALLEGED SHELLING OF U.S. COAST IN GUNNERY PRACTICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister care to comment on a news report to the effect that United States coastal towns were peppered with shrapnel allegedly as a result of gunnery practice by ships of the Royal Canadian Navy?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there was a complaint that shells of some sort had fallen on a part of the U.S. coast line in the straits of Juan de Fuca. This report is being investigated by United States and Royal Canadian Naval officers at the present time.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if I could raise a matter of privilege related to this subject. Inasmuch as it is alleged that H.M.C.S. Skeena was involved, if investigation proves that the Canadian navy is in fact responsible for this inadvertent shelling I should like it to be known that this does not necessarily represent the attitude of the hon. member for this constituency.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the public interest and with the knowledge of recent developments in the investigation into the sale of unfit meat, can the minister say whether his department, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, is prepared to extend federal meat inspection services until such time as an agreement is reached with the provinces?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Inspection as to the quality of meat is primarily a matter for the Department of Agriculture, but I am sure they are willing to co-operate in all respects. Following the earlier investigation I corresponded with the ministers of health in the provinces regarding this situation, and I have had some replies. However, I am having a meeting later today with respect to this matter and expect to be convening a meeting with representatives of some of the provinces.



REQUIREMENT TO LIST INGREDIENTS IN CIGARETTES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The question is based on certain inquiries and suggestions coming from co-operative Conservative constituents of mine. In view of the fact that cigarettes contain other ingredients than tobacco, has any consideration been given to regulations that would require cigarette manufacturers to list and give full particulars of the percentage of all the ingredients of their cigarettes, similar to the requirement for patent medicines?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not indicated any change which would make this an urgent question. I therefore suggest that he put it on the order paper.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Would he consider having the next meeting in the Columbia river negotations with the premier of British Columbia televised, so the taxpayer who is confused on the subject will know what is going on?


Mr. Pickersgill:: He would be more confused than ever.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is an interesting suggestion, and I am quite sure any such television arrangement would produce as interesting a program as any of us have seen. Of course there are two parties to any such meeting, and I am not sure what the position of the other party to the meeting would be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He would love it.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Oliawa West):: While on the subject of television I wish to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he could find out from the C.B.C. and advise the house as to who ordered the withdrawal of the television show "The Limelighters",

which was video taped for showing on the C.B.C. program "Parade" last October. Would he advise the house as to the reasons?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: As the house well knows this government, and certainly I as minister, have no control over the programming of the C.B.C., but I shall be very glad to make inquiries as to the matter which the hon. member has raised and I hope to give him a report in due course.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Could the minister give the house some information concerning a new tax with respect to the sale of certain postal matter which is to be levied, starting on February 1 by the officials of his department in the province of Quebec?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I will take this question as notice and give a reply later on.
(Text):



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he has received replies from any of the premiers of the provinces in connection with amendments to the constitution and, if he has, whether he will table those replies in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a number of replies have been received and I will table them if the house is agreeable.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I apologize for not sending him notice of it. The matter came to my attention just before coming into the house and is based on a Canadian Press dispatch from the United Nations which states: 26207-1-23
Inquiries of the Ministry
Because of heavy commitments, the United Nations has been forced to cancel financial support of the University of British Columbia's U.N. training centre, it was announced today.
The U.B.C. authorities have issued a statement to the effect that the centre will be closed on May 31 unless a satisfactory financial arrangement can be evolved. Can the minister inform the house what consideration the government is giving toward maintaining this very useful training centre?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: The United Nations regional training centre at the University of British Columbia was established in July, 1960, by the United Nations technical assistance administration. The centre itself does not conduct training programs, but it has assisted in arranging programs and in looking after the administrative arrangements for trainees sent to establishments on the west coast of Canada or in the northwestern United States. The total number of United Nations trainees handled by the centre in 1961 was 10. The centre has also been helpful in recruiting Canadians for service abroad under technical assistance programs.
In the last full year for which figures are available the United Nations contributed approximately $30,000 to the operating costs of the centre. The Canadian government has been making a grant of $10,000 annually since the fiscal year 1959-60 toward the expenses of the centre. The University of British Columbia has provided secretarial assistance, office supplies and other services which they have valued at approximately $6,000.
It is my understanding that the United Nations bureau of technical assistance operations has come to the conclusion that it is not in a position to continue direct financial support of the centre after May, 1962. The United Nations is, however, prepared to examine the possibility of making use of such a centre at the University of British Columbia on the basis of a fee for services rendered.
I am informed that the board of governors of the university have reviewed the matter in the light of this new development and apparently feel that for budgetary reasons they cannot continue the centre after May 31, 1962.
The Canadian government was prepared to continue its grant of $10,000 toward the cost of this centre. If, however, the United Nations is withdrawing its financial support and the centre is likely to be disbanded, a further grant from the Canadian government will obviously not be required.
I have gone into this matter very carefully because the University of British Columbia

Inquiries of the Ministry happens to be in my constituency, but unfortunately there was no way in which this centre could be carried on.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister advise the house whether the false Canadian passports carried by Vincent Mauro, Frank Caruso and Salvatore Maneri at the time they were arrested in Barcelona were stolen or counterfeit?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the Canadian passports carried by Mauro, Caruso and Maneri were not stolen or counterfeit but were genuine passports issued on the basis of applications containing false information.
Some months ago applications for passports were made in the names of Mattiacci, Loschiano and Pallante, and since the forms were in order, vouched for by an acceptable guarantor and accompanied by the necessary photographs and fees, passports were issued in the normal way. Subsequent information received indicated that the forms contained false information and the passports appear to have been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. When this was discovered immediate steps were taken by the R.C.M.P., in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, to recover and cancel the three passports. Investigations in respect of these applications are continuing with a view to determining whether there has been any violation of the Criminal Code by persons in Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister commenced an investigation to determine any possible connection between this incident and the alleged operation of crime syndicates in the province of Ontario?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question categorically. All I can say is that my department and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are constantly alert for any such activities and will have anticipated the hon. member in their attention to this matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hope they have.



SOUTHEAST ASIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arihur):: My question, like the previous one, relates to an answer given yesterday to a starred question that I put to the Minister of Public Works. I did not word it clearly enough; therefore the answer was not to my point. I should now like to ask the minister this question. Has he any further information on the plans or suggestions he unveiled at his press conference on his return from his southeast Asia trip, to build a monument in southeast Asia to the present Canadian prime minister?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I am indeed happy to have this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of telling the members of the house of the tremendous impression our Prime Minister has made all over southeast Asia. As a matter of fact, by everyone I met out there he is considered to be the white champion of the coloured races.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I might address a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him whether he has heard what has happened to the statue of Maurice Duplessis?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a matter that we might perhaps take up under public bills and statutes.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Denis:: May I direct a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see two members on their feet. Is the supplementary question directed to the Minister of Public Works?


Azellus Denis: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Leeds would allow the supplementary question to precede the one he wishes to ask.


Azellus Denis: The minister was talking about the good impression made by the Prime Minister in Asia. Is that why he is never in Canada?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a Canadian Press report that United States air force trucks have crossed a legal

picket line at the Taylor, Pearson and Carson Corporation at Kamloops, British Columbia. In view of the statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I raise the question whether it is good practice to anticipate a question which is on the order paper by asking it orally. A similar question is on the order paper and will be dealt with in its turn, I expect tomorrow.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to rise on a point of order. When I asked a question a few moments ago about trucks crossing a picket line in British Columbia, Your Honour ruled that there was a question on the order paper dealing with this subject and therefore my question would be out of order. I think your ruling would be correct if the questions had been similar or identical, but I would point out that the question on the order paper appearing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena has to do with trucks owned by the government or the Department of National Defence crossing a picket line. The question is No. 75 in Votes and Proceedings for Monday, January 29.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member's question is different, and if it qualifies otherwise, he could ask it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I might point out that my question has to do with a protest now being made involving United States air force trucks; therefore I submit it is different. I will not repeat the first part of the question, but the second part is as follows. In view of the statement of the Associate Minister of National Defence made in the house last year that it is the policy of the Candian government to have its armed forces respect picket lines, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs ask the United States government to instruct its defence personnel in Canada to follow this very laudable Canadian policy and practice?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to make inquiries about this matter.



BRANTFORD, ONT.    DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES OF IMPLEMENT COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It arises out of press reports to the effect that, with the sale of the Cockshutt Farm Equipment Limited of Canada of the White Motor Company of the United States, large numbers of Canadian workers at Brantford have been dismissed, with the manager resigning in protest. Can the minister make any comment on these reports and inform the house as to 26207-1-23J
Inquiries of the Ministry any steps the Department of Labour is taking in order to provide employment for those workers who have been dismissed?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; just as soon as I have an investigation made and a report is made to me.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether any conversations have been held with the company in Brantford prior to this time, in the light of the fact that these negotiations for sale have been under way for some time?


Michael Starr: I was not consulted in this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister might have taken the initiative.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that it is the function of the Canadian maritime commission to receive applications for subsidies and to rule on these applications according to the regulations governing subsidies, will the minister advise the house whether the action of Mr. Alec Watson, chairman of the maritime commission, in sending a telegram to an agency of the B.C. government threatening loss of subsidy unless this agency followed Mr. Watson's choice of engines means that in the future the chairman of the maritime commission will direct the purchasing policy of shipbuilders and ship owners?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to clear up this misunderstanding. I think it would be appropriate for me to state the facts as they have occurred.
As the house knows, under the present subsidy policy of our government a ship owner lodges an application with the maritime commission and the commission considers the application before deciding what amount of subsidy the applicant should receive. In this case concerning the government of British Columbia and the contract for the building of two new ferry boats, the president of the B.C. transport commission got in touch with the maritime commission and asked for information in advance on the possibility of subsidies for these two ferry boats. Discussion has been going on for some time between the maritime commission and the gentleman in question. A few days ago

Inquiries of the Ministry the president of the British Columbia transportation commission sent a telegram to the chairman of the maritime commission asking whether, if the British Columbia government was putting Canadian engines in these two ferries, they would qualify for the subsidy. He also sought some assurance that if the engines were of foreign manufacture-in this case, two British engines-the project would also be able to qualify.
The chairman of the maritime commission said there was no doubt, on account of the fact that these ships were being built in Canada with Canadian labour, that if the cost of engines made in Canada were added, the application would qualify for a subsidy as far as Canadian content was concerned. If, however, foreign made engines were put into these ships it would be necessary for the applicant to put in his application before he could receive an assurance that such a subsidy would be paid.
That is the situation. There is absolutely no intention of excluding other types of engines. It is simply that the Canadian maritime commission cannot say in advance of an application whether a subsidy can be paid and this is because of circumstances which hon. members will readily understand. For example, a prospective owner might use Japanese steel or German engines and so forth; we could not say in advance if the percentage of Canadian content in the case of such a ship would be sufficiently high to justify a subsidy. That is the reason for the telegram.


Ernest James Broome: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the shipbuilding subsidy was designed to influence private builders into using Canadian shipbuilding facilities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is undertaking to debate the matter rather than to seek further information.


Ernest James Broome: On that point of order, I am coming to a legitimate question, if Your Honour will hear me out. Is it not a fact that the shipbuilding subsidy was designed to influence private builders in using Canadian shipbuilding facilities, and not government contracts which would automatically be built in Canada? Therefore, is any vessel built for a provincial government eligible for subsidy?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not satisfied that the question is in order. If the minister wishes to answer it he may, but it seems to me the question asks for an opinion on the interpretation of the regulations, besides presenting a point of view.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question, and it

is this. When the minister tabled the regulations concerning the application of the subsidy some time in September of last year, was there a clause in them having to do with the matter raised by the hon. member and, more particularly, with the Canadian content?


Léon Balcer: All these matters of the
Canadian content and the form of application together with eligibility for subsidy are covered by the regulations.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence, to the parliamentary secretary. Could the hon. gentleman say whether or not the minister has received any recent representations from the four western ministers of agriculture with regard to establishing a veterinary college in western Canada?


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: We
know that all the western members are interested in this subject. Last fall, during the dominion-provincial agriculture conference, the subject was raised by the Minister of Agriculture with the four western ministers of agriculture. Since then further discussion and correspondence have taken place in connection with this matter.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has he received any indication as to when the restrictive trade practices commission will report in respect to its inquiry relating to the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have not a report or any definite indication. However, I can assure the hon. member that in discussions I have received clear assurance that this inquiry is being pursued with all possible dispatch.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: On Tuesday last the hon. member for Assini-boia asked if I would care to comment on a

press report that in the United States there are plans under way to construct new locks, particularly at Sault Ste. Marie, that would out-mode the present seaway, and that seaway engineers have already agreed to specifications.
As my hon. friend knows, I am not in a position to comment on a press report of proposed plans affecting facilities in another country. I can only say that the St. Lawrence seaway authority has not been a party to any such reported planning, and that the authority engineers have not been asked to agree to specifications. The dimensions of the present seaway locks were established following intensive study, and there is no indication on the basis of present traffic or future forecasts that they are outdated.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether, as a result of his inquiries, he feels that the Welland canal is adequate with its facilities?


Léon Balcer: This is an engineering opinion that I will leave for the experts.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to newspaper reports, in addition to mention of a new postal service related to the mailing of cats, there is other news about the reduction of personnel in the Post Office Department. Is the Postmaster General in a position to make any comment about the matter?


William McLean Hamilton: I am not quite sure what the hon. member is driving at, Mr. Speaker. In the press recently there was a statement to the effect that perhaps some staff changes at headquarters were to be made. I think that is the matter to which he refers. I merely tell him that in the five years ending March 1957, before this government took office, the headquarters staff increased by 50; but in the five years ending December 1961, it decreased by 17. That is an indication of the type of administration the department was getting previously and the type of administration it is getting now.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. By his answer to my question yesterday did the minister imply that the
Inquiries of the Ministry marketable securities held by the unemployment insurance fund have been sold or converted into non-marketable securities?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: If the hon. member will look back at the budget speech of June 20, Mr. Speaker, he will find that I outlined the plan of the government with respect to the securities held by the unemployment insurance fund. That policy or program has been carried through and has been working with eminent satisfaction. As the unemployment insurance fund requires to realize on these securities they are redeemed by the treasury in accordance with their terms.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At what price?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Par.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Ross Matheson: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It arises out of a news story in the Times of January 27, styled "Fewer Immigrants to Canada, Lowest Total since 1947". The hon. lady is reported as having said in Hamilton:
The number of settlers was not likely to reach the levels achieved in the past thirteen years.
Does this mean that a policy of net emigration will continue?


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that question?


Mr. Hees:: The hon. member will have to learn to read Lamontagne's writing. Let him go up into the gallery and Mr. Lamontagne will explain it to him.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I did not see
the article to which the hon. member referred, Mr. Speaker. He identified the publication as the Times. I think there are several newspapers in the world by that name.


John Ross Matheson: The London Times.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sorry, but I did not see the article in question and I do not know whether or not it is a quotation of something I said.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked him the following question:

Inquiries of the Ministry
Has he received a letter from the northwestern Ontario development association protesting against the increase of 20 per cent in Canadian National Railways freight and dock charges on iron ore shipped from Steep Rock to the lakehead? If so, I wonder if the Prime Minister would inform the house whether he is contemplating any action to correct the situation.
Can the Prime Minister answer today?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a letter was received in my office on the 27th of this month. It is dated the 25th of January and was sent by the organization in question. As the hon. member knows, there is provision under the law regarding the course to be taken whenever objections to freight rate increases are raised. I would suggest that whatever representations are to be made should be made in the regular course to the board of transport commissioners.
I looked into the matter following the question asked by the hon. member yesterday, and the information I have received from the minister who reports for Canadian National Railways is as follows. In January, 1954 the railway company agreed to publish a rate of $1.20 per gross ton to be effective with the opening of navigation. This rate represented a reduction of 27 cents in the then effective rate. Similarly, a handling charge of 15 cents per gross ton was adopted. Both rates were to be subject to adjustments upward or downward to the same extent as variations were made in the rate from the Mesabi range to Duluth-Superior. Under this formula the rail rate as of April 30, 1961, was $1.45 and the dock handling charge 19 cents.
In agreeing to these rates it was anticipated, according to the railway company, that shipments would attain the estimates made by Steep Rock Iron Mines and later by Inland (Caland Ore Company). During the seven year period the actual tonnage shipped from the whole area has been less than 50 per cent of the estimate given in 1954, and in view of this continuing trend the railway company found it necessary to increase the rail rate and dock handling charge by 33 cents per gross ton or approximately 20 per cent. It is estimated by the railway company that the new rates at the present level of tonnage will not give more than a modest rate of return.
The interested shippers were advised of the decision to file a tariff of increased charges to become effective on May 1. Since that time several meetings have been held with interested shippers by the company to consider representations as to the effect of the increased transportation charges on their operation. I am also informed that further discussions are anticipated on a possible formula

for arriving at a rate which would benefit shippers as the total tonnage of ore from the area increases.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Nipissing inquired whether the government had received representations from house building authorities in connection with extending financing to existing homes. My reply is that in May last we did receive such representations from the National House Builders Association.
The government, of course, as my hon. friend so well knows, has been under tremendous pressure to supply sufficient funds for the very greatly accelerated building program of new homes. This matter concerning existing homes and many others requiring consideration are constantly under review by the government. If and when a decision is made with regard to any of these matters it will be brought to the attention of the house immediately.


William Hector McMillan: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the government giving any consideration to a reduction in the mortgage interest rate on homes?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and other members of the house must know by this time, this is a matter that is constantly in my mind. As and when the long interest rate on bonds is reduced I can assure the hon. member that we will make a reduction in the mortgage interest rate. There is nothing this government would rather do than lend money at an even more reasonable rate to people who would like to build new houses.
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the minister received any complaint to the effect that limousines serving the Dorval airport head for Montreal by taking the lower route instead of Cote de Liesse road, thus depriving a certain section of the population of that limousine service, and does he intend to remedy this situation?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive yesterday a communication to that effect and I immediately asked officers of my department to get in touch with the concessionnaire and make sure that he complies with the clauses of his contract.
(Text):

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production and marketing branch-
611. Payments to western grain producers to be distributed on the following basis, namely, $1 per cultivated acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $42,000,000.


Mr. Milligan:: Mr. Chairman, at the adjournment of the house last evening I was commenting on the sales of wheat that the Minister of Agriculture has been instrumental in negotiating, and I am sure we are all hoping that these countries will expand their demands and place further orders for grain. This has considerably relieved the pressure on the whole agricultural industry of Canada.
Production of livestock, dairy and poultry products has increased substantially in western Canada due mainly to large quantities of storage grain. This trend may result in surplus production and further stockpiling of these products. We are all hopeful of increased demands from export markets. However, conditions over which we have no control may reduce the export of grain from Canada. I am wondering if we should not now be looking forward to studying long term policies for disposing of our grain surplus. I am wondering if study should not be made to ascertain whether or not it would be good business to continue exporting our feed or cattle to the United States, in view of the fact that the finished product is often marketed in Canada. It is becoming more difficult for eastern feeders to obtain cattle in western Canada, and this may result in a further reduction in the consumption of western grain.
I favour a long term policy of the two price system for western wheat growers, because this would give them the kind of security to which they are justly entitled. I should like also to suggest to the minister that ways and means be provided for a delegation of members of the agriculture committee to study the policies other countries have adopted in taking care of their surpluses. I have always been concerned to find that these countries are able to purchase grain from Canada yet, under a subsidized
Supply-Agriculture
agricultural program, have been able to undersell us in many of the importing countries.
The people in the agricultural industry are very grateful for the leadership that this government and the minister have been giving, and are looking forward with confidence in the hope that agriculture may receive its fair share of the national income. A comparison with other countries shows that in Great Britain, where 5 per cent of the population are engaged in agriculture, they receive 5 per cent of the national income; in Denmark, where 20 per cent of the population are in agriculture they receive 18 per cent of the national income; in Canada, where 13 per cent of the population are engaged in agriculture, they receive 7 per cent of the national income.
In closing my remarks I should like to say that this is one of the reasons we are in favour of these acreage payments to subsidize western wheat producers; in other words, this measure will help them obtain a fair share of the national income. I would say that the purpose of this subsidization of agriculture has been to compensate the producers for this disparity of income in comparison with the rest of the people of Canada.
(Translation) :


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, we are right in saying that these payments to the western wheat growers fall short of the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) during the 1957 and 1958 election campaigns. It goes without saying that we realize the extent of the damage suffered by the western farmers last year, when they lost their crops, and that the party to which I belong supports the proposed payments of subsidies.
However, we have the right and indeed the duty to point out that the western provinces are not the only ones where damage was suffered. In the riding which I represent in this house, most of the farmers have been unable to harvest their grain on account of a very rainy season. It therefore follows that many farmers have to face extraordinary expenses in order to be able to keep their herds. And what assistance can they expect from these subsidies? Absolutely nothing.
This government, who speaks so much of assistance to agriculture, could have convinced the Ontario government, who holds the same political ideas, to take advantage of the Crop Insurance Act. This would have enabled the farmers who lost their crops to avail themselves of the advantages of this act and thus reduce the expenditures they must incur to face the present situation.

Supply-Agriculture
Yesterday, the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) took part in this debate. I was a little surprised. I am sorry that he is not here today, because I intended to refer to his speech. What amazed me, in view of his relationship with the Quebec Union Nationale, was to hear him try and justify that achievement about which we heard so much in the course of this debate, that is the long term sale of wheat to communist China. At page 313 of Hansard for yesterday he is reported as having said:
Our spectacular sales to Poland, Czechoslovakia and China have had an extremely favourable result while reducing our grain stocks to reasonable proportions.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder how the Quebec members, those who belong to the Union Nationale wing-and it is a well known fact that they are numerous here-I wonder, as I say, how those members will manage to defend the attitude of their government insofar as these long term wheat sales are concerned.
Mr. Chairman, referring to a political advertisement of 1956, allow me to quote from the newspaper he Droit of March 31 1956:
Mr. Lapalme and his Liberal friends in Ottawa give $4,198,293,000 to foreigners .. . including communist Russia, China and Czechoslovakia and other countries behind the iron curtain. The greater part of that amount in pure gifts and the rest in loans which are seldom repaid-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: A first question to Mr. Lapalme and his friends from Ottawa: Why do you sell-


An hon. Member:: Order.


The Chairman:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to abide by the rules of the house, as it was explained yesterday by the acting chairman of the committees.
I understand how he may have strayed away from the subject matter. However, I would ask him to limit himself to the item under consideration.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, in quoting those words I was keeping to the discussion which took place in this house.
Yesterday, we were told by certain members that the opposition is deliberately raising some provinces against the others. I would remind the Conservative members, especially those who represent the Union Nationale in the house, that they would be wise to make a self-examination and to take a look at their files of political advertisements in past election campaigns, when they claimed precisely-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: -You would rather give to strangers than to the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Quite true.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Their political advertisements read as follows:
Mr. Lapalme and his friends in Ottawa: Why do you sell surplus western grain to communist countries rather than to Quebec breeders?
The Secretary of State and several of his Union Nationale friends will find it hard to explain their conduct to the Quebec electors, because they are now doing precisely the same thing as the Liberal government; they are selling wheat to anyone willing to buy it and on a long term basis, if necessary.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Certainly.


Noël Dorion: Could he tell us whether or not he is in favour of the wheat sales which were made to certain communist countries?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, I will gladly reply that I am in favour of those sales, contrary to what they did when they criticized them.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the member for Cochrane a question?
The member has criticized the Ontario government for not participating in the crop insurance scheme established by the federal government. What does he think of the Quebec government which does not participate in the scheme either?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I would say that the Quebec government looks after its own affairs and that the Ontario government should do the same.


Mr. Parizeau:: We will look after the affairs of Quebec.
(Text):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the item carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: Before the item carries I think we should have an explanation from the Acting Minister of Agriculture as to why no provision is being made at this time for the 1960-1961 permit book year. In other words, why has one year been missed?
The acting minister, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have said this is a policy in lieu of the two price system for wheat grown for domestic consumption. One could argue that this measure is a strange way to bring that about, but that is not the point I want to make. If it was proper in 1958-59 to pay $1 an acre in lieu of a two

price system, and this was done in other years also, I should like an explanation from the minister as to whether, in his opinion, there were any different circumstances prevailing in the year that was missed.
I am sure this vote will get the unanimous approval and support of the house, but I am equally certain that should the government bring in another item providing double the amount of money on an acreage basis, so that we could pay for the year that is missing, it would also get the unanimous approval of the house. Can the minister explain why no provision is made for the year 1960-61?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no question of years being missed or not being missed. An acreage payment was made in 1958, one was made in 1960, and another one is being made at the present time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the item carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister has once again underlined the fact that this is not an annual payment. I say, Mr. Chairman, it is another example of the slipshod method of carrying out business so often demonstrated by the present government, what can be described as a hit or miss method or, in the words of the president of the Manitoba farm union, "a hopscotch policy". No one can have any confidence in a government that does not have a policy, and this government does not have a policy on acreage payments.
The Prime Minister is interested in the coming election. He is concerned about votes, but he repudiates the agricultural organizations of western Canada by failing to introduce a consistent policy. I challenge the government to put this estimate in legislative form. I challenge them to make this a policy recorded in the statutes of the country, instead of making it a political matter. At the moment there is no regular basis for it, and the measure is introduced purely and simply on a political basis designed, as the Prime Minister hopes, to gather support in western Canada.
I suggest that although the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture feel this kind of political activity and political management of the country is the way to get votes, it would be better if they would bring about a regularized system of dealing with this kind of payment and manage the country in an open way, instead of in a political roundabout, catch as catch can, pay some years and miss some others method, thus leaving the whole question in a state of confusion.


Mr. Rogers:: The longer you talk the more you lose.


Hazen Robert Argue: Although we have heard that some members oppose the vote, I am quite 26207-1-24
Supply-Agriculture
sure the item will pass unanimously. It is interesting to recall that when a vote was taken in 1958, that measure was then passed unanimously. The same thing happened in 1960, and I believe it will be passed unanimously once again this year. Should the government have any doubt about the question let them call a recorded vote and find out for themselves. No one is opposed to the measure. All that some of us are saying is that the government should put it on a regular basis in legislative form and not pretend it is in lieu of a two price system.
In the main, the reason for it being introduced is because of the uncertainty of the Prime Minister so far as his fortunes are concerned in the next few months. If that were not the case, why not bring in a vote to cover the year that has been missed? Why turn down the demands made by western organizations for payment for last year?
I have another question for the acting minister, although I think I know the answer to it. I hope I may be proven wrong, but it has to do with a sentence in the speech from the throne which has been placed on the record a number of times. It stated:
The drought in the prairie provinces during 1961 has resulted in severe losses, however, and you will be asked to provide assistance by means of acreage payments to the farmers who have been affected.
I hope the government do not claim the item now being discussed is the fulfillment of that forecast in the speech from the throne. It is nothing of the kind. As the minister well knows, this item has nothing to do with drought. The money it provides will go to men who produced no grain whatsoever, and to those who produced only forage crops. Producers like that will get the $200 payment provided they have permit books. Payment will also be made to men with 1,000 acres who have had bumper crops, although there are not many in that category. The payment is not based, as is the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, on drought and adverse yields.
The government have made it clear that they do not have information as to which farmers had crop failures, but to refute that is the fact that such information is in the possession of the department. Prairie farm assistance has been paid out over a wide area in western Canada. The level of such payments was increased in 1955. The administration of that act is doing a lot of good and the government do have records in their possession as to what farmers had crop failures. Inspections have been made, the information is there, and I suggest that to carry out the statement in the speech from the throne will

Supply-Agriculture
require legislation to bring about supplementary benefits, additional benefits, designed to help those farmers who have had a crop failure.
This additional benefit has been asked of the government by farm organizations. The provision we have now is paid to everyone. It is paid to those who had no crops; it is paid to those who had good crops, and it is paid to some farmers in particular areas who are not in the business of marketing grain in any way at all.
Therefore I suggest to the minister that to carry out the forecast in the speech from the throne will require further legislation to supplement payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, such is the suspiciousness of mind and the complete preoccupation with political considerations of the hon. member for Assiniboia that he imputes nothing else, as a result, to people on this side of the chamber, and quite incorrectly so. He has stated in effect that this acreage payment is being made for purely political reasons and has implied that it is being done because, as everyone knows, we are getting on toward the end of this parliament.
This is not the situation, as is demonstrated by the fact that the payment was first made in 1958, just after an election had taken place-and not before one-and again in 1960. I think this is sufficient proof in itself that this type of assistance for western farmers, particularly the smaller farmers, is a matter of help because of a lack of income which has existed on the part of these farmers for many years past. It is not, as the hon. member for Assiniboia is trying to maintain and as certain hon. members of the official opposition are also trying to maintain, a political manoeuvre.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then why did you not pay it last year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If this were being paid for the first time this year they might have some cause to voice suspicions of that kind but, as I say, the first of these payments was made in 1958, the next in 1960 and the third one will be made under this measure. I think that alone demonstrates the fact that contentions and suspicions of that sort have no foundation in fact.
The hon. member for Assiniboia, on I think three or four occasions now-because as usual he has been very repetitive in this debate-has referred to the exact wording of the paragraph in the speech from the throne which indicated that acreage payments were going to be made. The

hon. member has been indulging in a good deal of semantics really, a play on words in connection with that particular paragraph. I think if it was not clear to him, it was clear to practically everybody else what was meant by that paragraph, and that this acreage payment was property predicted in it and is now before the committee for consideration.
As I stated when I first spoke in introducing this estimate on Friday last, there were several considerations in mind concerning the making of this payment. One of them was the general drought situation in western Canada, which of course caused a general decrease in income as far as farmers as a whole in western Canada are concerned. There is always the odd exception in any case concerning a large number of people or a large volume of goods or large acreages. There were a few people in western Canada who did have good crops.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister know what proportion?


Douglas Scott Harkness: A very small number had good crops last year. The general situation is that as far as the farmers in western Canada as a whole are concerned, they are going to be short of income because of the fact that their crops were about 50 per cent less than they had been on the average in the previous five years. As far as the people who had no crop are concerned, as the hon. member well knows and as I have indicated in this debate on two or three occasions, they are looked after by Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not enough.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member always says "That is not enough".


Hazen Robert Argue: It is not nearly enough. You have not increased it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in the 17 years I have been in this chamber, and the hon. member has been here for the same length of time-as it happens we both came to this house together in 1945-I have never heard any single measure introduced in this chamber with regard to which the hon. member for Assiniboia did not say "That is not enough".


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a compliment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He has said that, or
"peanuts", or something along this line.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a real compliment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact you could bring in a measure to make the most impossible sort of payment in the world and the hon. member would still say it was not enough. In other words, that is his constant

plea which runs like a groove in a record in his head. No matter what happens, all he can do is put the needle down in that groove and say "It is not enough, it is not enough".


An hon. Member:: You cannot turn the record off.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why did you not pay them for the year you missed, instead of all this abuse?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It does not matter what type of measure it is, you will get the same story from the hon. member for Assiniboia. He has now repeated it so often that nobody pays any attention to it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about you?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It has ceased to have any significance whatever. The Leader of the Opposition intervened in this debate last night and made a great to do about being completely in favour of sales of our food supplies to any country anywhere in the world. Then of course he went on in the general way that is usual with hon. members of the Liberal party and made a lot of gloomy predictions in connection with this program. It was the same old story; "We are completely in favour of this, but, but, but, but".


John Whitney Pickersgill: But what?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Previous to that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was questioning very considerably whether it was not immoral on our part to be selling wheat to China, and again this afternoon the whip of the Liberal party made similar types of statements, in other words trying by every effort possible to build up in the minds of the people of this country that we are following a very bad practice in selling wheat to China.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister has just said, that the whip of the Liberal party made that type of remark this afternoon. That is absolutely contrary to the words I used. If the minister had listened and understood, I was pointing out the difference between what some of today's government members were saying five years ago, compared with what they are saying today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I said we were glad to sell the wheat to those countries, as we are glad to sell it today to the same countries.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was listening to the hon.
member quite carefully and he said exactly the same as his leader said last night. Last night the Leader of the Opposition was raising his hands and saying "We are in favour of 26207-1-24i
Supply-Agriculture
selling food supplies to any country any place in the world", and so on and so forth. Then he went on to say but we may not get paid for them; we may not do this, and so on and so forth.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: What is wrong with that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, what is wrong with that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, the members of the Liberal party on one hand, in order not to, as they think, antagonize the farmers, particularly of western Canada, in regard to the sale of grain say "Oh, yes, we are in favour of that". But on the other hand they are casting all kinds of doubts on the transaction and trying to persuade as many people as possible that this was a bad thing to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, it is the old double headed axe policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said we were casting doubts upon this transaction.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister lay the documents on the table, as we have asked repeatedly, so we can see what the transaction is, as the people have a right to know? Will he do that? Will he answer that question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hon. members of this house have already been told in detail what the transaction is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have refused to give the date; you have refused to give the figures.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is another red herring on the part of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. This is practically all he does in this house; he tries to draw a trail of red herrings or put up smokescreens. These two things are his stock in trade. After the long period of debate on this matter and the reiterated assurances on the part of hon. members of the opposition that they are all in favour of this measure, I hope they will now quit raising these objections of different sorts-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Closure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -and allow the matter to
pass.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the item pass?

Supply-Agriculture


John Whitney Pickersgill: The item shall not pass until the shocking misrepresentations to which we have just listened have been dealt with. Let us start with one. Who was in office when we first sold these exports to communist countries? The Liberal party. That is fact number one. Who objected to it when that was done? The members of the Union Nationale, the friends of the Secretary of State who is now boasting about these things. That is fact number two.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What have you against the province of Quebec? What have you against French Canadians?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member knows that I am where I always was. I never thought these arguments of the Union Nationale about the sale of wheat to communist countries were sound. I do not think so now. But the hon. member and his friends seem to have been converted.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You divide the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The plain fact is that when the sales of wheat to communist countries were first started in Canada the then premier of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, plastered this country with advertisements saying that this wheat was being given away to strangers.


Mr. Flynn:: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, my hon. friend the member for Cochrane just read the advertisement-


Jacques Flynn: You are twisting the facts, as usual.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor, and I think it would be appreciated by all if we could hear what he has to say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Some hon. members have suggested that this was not the position taken. The hon. member for Cochrane has already put this on the record, but I will put it on again. Here is what this advertisement of the Union Nationale had to say:
(Translation):
While Duplessis earmarks hundreds of millions for agriculture... Mr. Lapalme and his Liberal friends in Ottawa, who are more concerned about the situation in the Middle and the Far East than about the problems of the Quebec farmers, give $4,198,293,000 to foreigners-


Mr. Fortin:: It was not a sale, it was a gift.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -including communist Russia, China and Czechoslovakia and other countries behind the iron curtain.
(Text):
That is the position.


An hon. Member:: It was not a sale; it was a gift.
[The Chairman.]


John Whitney Pickersgill: One hon. member says it was not a sale, it was a gift. Let me read what Mr. Duplessis had to say on this subject, not what the hon. gentleman says he said: (Translation):
The greater part of that amount in pure gifts and the rest in loans which are seldom repaid- (Text):
That latter part represents exactly what this government is doing. This government is extending credits, in other words making loans, in order that this wheat may be bought. But the difference between what the St. Laurent government did and what this government is doing is this. The St. Laurent government, when it sold wheat on credit, laid the contracts on the table so that everybody could read them. The Minister of Agriculture, together with those who support him, has refused to have this contract laid on the table. What is so secret about this? Why have so many suspicions been aroused? They exist because they have been created by hon. gentlemen opposite by their furtive, secretive tactics with regard to this contract.
I will tell hon. members the reason the minister and his supporters are so secretive about it. That contract had been signed and that wheat had been sold before the Minister of Agriculture ever went to Hong Kong. The transaction was completed by the wheat board. After it was made the minister went over there to get the credit. They do not want us to know the facts. They do not want those two dates to be compared. That is one reason we cannot see that contract in this parliament. But it is only one reason. There is another. They do not want us to see what the terms are.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What has this to do with the question before us?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman still says I am misrepresenting the situation, let him put the document on the table and let us see what the facts really are.
This government, whose leader went all over the country talking about government in secret, government by order in council and contempt of parliament, must bear responsibility for what has happened. In the whole history of this country there never has been contempt of parliament comparable with that which we have seen since the right hon. gentleman went over there to the treasury benches. This is a perfect example of the way in which the public business is treated as the private business of the Tory party.


Mr. Slogan:: I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I should like to associate myself and my constituents with those hon. members who have thanked the government for its work in this matter of acreage payments.

Just to give the committee an idea of how this will affect some of the small farmers in the west I should like to quote from a letter I have received from Mr. E. J. Otto, a farmer in Glenmoor, Manitoba. He says in part:
In our own case we are not quite eligible for P.F.A. yet we have had to and must still buy feed, so acreage payments would be most welcome and we would thank the government sincerely if they came through.
That is the attitude, and I may say it is the attitude of the farmers whether they support this party or the opposition. It is also significant that this measure is receiving the unanimous support of the opposition. My only disappointment is that they seem to be giving this support somewhat grudgingly; I do not feel they like to give credit to this government for anything constructive that it ever does.
We have heard speeches from members of the Liberal party which seem to have gone off at a tangent. That is understandable, because that party does not have a single member from the areas to which these payments would apply. There has been a lot of talk about parity prices and so forth. I should merely like to state in this connection that if the government had brought in a measure based on parity prices a most difficult situation would arise with respect to those farmers who had no crop to sell. When a crop fails, that is the time they would need help most, and this is the type of situation that the present measure is designed to remedy. The hon. member for Assiniboia has been saying that these payments should be made only to those who have suffered from drought.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, I never made any such statement.


Joseph Slogan: It is very hard to understand the hon. member for Assiniboia, because he leads us into such a morass that I took it from his remarks, which I read carefully, that he was trying to suggest that there are farmers who will get the payment and who will not need it.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is true.


Joseph Slogan: My understanding is that
P.F.A.A. does cover this situation and that the present measure provides for a supplementary payment which will help those who suffered from the drought. We must remember that those who did reap some harvest or who are in diversified farming also need assistance. In my own area of mixed farms this assistance is most welcome. In Springfield only 52 per cent of the grain produced is sold. The rest is used for feed and seed. Sometimes, indeed, we have to buy feed. Therefore, if we had introduced a measure based on the
Supply-Agriculture
price of wheat the benefit would not really have been as great as it is under a scheme of acreage payments.
I have the figures here to demonstrate this contention, but the argument is somewhat extraneous and I shall not go into it at this time because, as I said, I do not wish to prolong the debate. I merely wish to compliment the government on ironing out some of the difficulties which were experienced by a number of farmers when the two previous acreage payments were being made. Those of us who represent rural areas should not now be faced with problems from farmers who did not have their wheat permits or were experiencing difficulty in qualifying for these payments. This measure is welcome by all the farmers in the west. Regardless of what the opposition may say, it is a big help and it is coming at a time when the farmers who are preparing for their spring seeding and other spring work will welcome it most heartily.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item
carry?


Mr. Carter:: Before the item carries I wish to ask two or three brief questions for the purpose of clarification. Last Friday, as reported at page 246 of Hansard-and I am reading from the second paragraph of the first column-the minister stated as follows:
-and it is estimated that approximately 235,000 payments will be made.
My first question is this. Is it possible for a farmer to receive more than one payment or is the number of payments the same as the number of farmers? My second question is this. How many farmers actually received payment last year, and how many of the farmers expected to receive payment this year will also receive payment under the P.F.R.A.?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one received them last year.


Chesley William Carter: I mean in 1960.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member does not mean P.F.R.A. He means P.F.A.A.


Chesley William Carter: Yes, P.F.A.A.


An hon. Member:: What is the difference?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In reply to the second question as to the number of people who received payments previously, may I say that in 1958 the number was 234,162. I put these figures on record on Friday. The hon. member will find them given in Hansard. In 1960 the number was 227,710. The present estimate of the department is the one that I gave.
As to the matter of who might receive these payments and whether or not a man might receive more than one, the answer is no.

Supply-Agriculture
The maximum payment to any one individual is $200, no matter how much land he has or Whether he has two or three parcels of land. In respect of the first payment that was made, there were a few individuals who had a piece of land here and another piece of land somewhere else and who had a permit book for each one. As a result they received two cheques. When the whole thing was checked afterwards they were called upon to return the extra cheque which they had received. The scheme is based on the fact of a man receiving one payment only.


Chesley William Carter: So that the number of payments is the same as the number of farmers, is it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not necessarily. You might have a considerable number of farmers who do not have permit books. For example, consider the ranchers who have no cultivated acreage. They would not be eligible to get permit books.


Chesley William Carter: Did the minister say how many farmers who may receive payment under this acreage grant or under this acreage payment item also receive payment under the P.F.A.A.? Is it possible for a farmer to receive both payments?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. As a matter of fact, a large number of farmers will receive both payments. I have not here the figures as to the number of people who have already been paid and to who it is estimated will receive P.F.A.A. payments this year. I can get those figures for the hon. member and send them to him some time in the future if he is interested in them. However, I have not them here at the moment, as this matter really has nothing to do with the item which is under discussion. Everybody who has received a P.F.A.A. payment will also, I believe, receive one of these payments.


Chesley William Carter: I wish to thank the minister for the information he has given. It was the procedure in which I was interested, not the details. There is only one more question I wish to ask and it is this. Is there any sort of means test in connection with this payment, or is it paid to a farmer whether he needs it or not?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, there is no means test at all in connection with this payment. It is paid to every person who has a permit book.


Chesley William Carter: That is the only requirement?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall item 611 carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: Just before the vote carries, I wish to say that I am sure western producers 
will be disappointed that the statement in the speech from the throne will not be more accurately fulfilled by an additional measure which would provide some benefits based on crop failures. The farm organizations have been asking for such a measure. The Acting Minister of Agriculture can say "Oh, no matter what we do, the hon. member for Assiniboia says, 'more' ". I intend to keep on saying "more" so long as I think more is justified and so long as there is some support based on good evidence that such is the case.
The farm organizations have asked for supplementary payment based on crop failure. The national farmers' union came out last fall with the demand for a supplemental payment of $5 per acre to all farmers who had a crop failure as defined in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, namely a yield of 12 bushels an acre or less, and that this $5 per acre payment should be based on half of the farmer's cultivated acreage up to 400 acres. In other words they were asking for a supplementary payment to a maximum of $1,000 in addition to the maximum payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In other words they were asking for a maximum payment of $1,800 in time of crop failure.
The government's crop insurance scheme just is not working in adequate fashion at all. It is working to some extent in Manitoba. It has very limited application in Saskatchewan. The provincial government of Alberta so far has not seen fit to come into the scheme Under these circumstances I call on the government to take action to provide supplementary benefits to farmers who have suffered a crop failure and, by doing so, to fulfil the forecast in the speech from the throne.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 611 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
612. Contribution towards a special Newfoundland works program for fishing settlements that experienced income reduction resulting from decreased catches, $300,000.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall item 612 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I intend to make a short statement in explanation of this vote.
As indicated in the wording of vote 612, this special work program in Newfoundland arose because the traditional method of inshore fishing was not fully effective in the

past year. Over a widespread area of the coast, fishermen are dependant on the use of trap nets. This is a very successful method when the cod come close to shore. This year, for some unknown reason, the cod failed to follow their usual habits. Inshore fishermen were not in a position to go far out to sea to follow the fish, so their catch was substantially reduced.
This situation began to be apparent in the statistics for June and July, and in August a formal request for assistance was received from the fishermen's organization, namely the Newfoundland federation of fishermen, emphasizing their desire for a works program.
I think the fishermen's attitude should be commended in that what they were desirous of obtaining was a works program. These fishermen are a self-reliant, industrious group of people, and we were impressed with their request. As soon as the situation became clear, discussions were arranged in St. John's by officials of the federal Department of Fisheries with officials of the fishermen's federation and officials of the provincial government. This was followed by negotiations between the two governments through which agreement was reached to proceed with a twofold program of local work projects based on (1) taking maximum advantage of the municipal winter works incentive program which had been extended to include unorganized settlements for the first time and (2) special work projects in those fishing settlements where the fishermen had been unable to secure their normal production.
The joint federal-provincial program which has been undertaken will result in some $80,000 in additional work in fishing settlements under the regular municipal winter works incentive program and approximately $350,000 of work under the special program, the federal share of which is covered by this particular vote. The figure of $350,000 includes an estimated $50,000 to be contributed by the government of Newfoundland, which agreed to meet 25 per cent of the labour cost of this special program.
Under this program special work projects have been or are being carried out in 415 fishing settlements on the east and southeast coasts of the province and in southern Labrador. Some 12,000 fishermen live in these settlements. The total expenditure of approximately $430,000 makes up for over one third of the decrease in income from fishing compared with 1960.
Responsibility for local administration of the program has been assumed by the provincial government. Reports coming to me indicate that a wide variety of local projects
Supply-Fisheries
ranging from road extensions to improvements to slipways for small fishing vessels have been going forward.
If the committee is interested, I might give two or three examples. For instance, at Bonavista there is an item of $4,925 for the preparation of a public playground for children and repair of the road to Cape Bonavista lighthouse which is an attraction for tourists. At Grate's Cove there is an amount of $3,150 for the building of roads to the public slipway and the repair and ditching of roads throughout the community. There is an amount of $4,550 at Petty Harbour for the widening and repair of roads throughout the general area and the erection of guard rails and retaining walls along the Yellow river. At Seldom and Little Seldom there is an item of $4,200 for the reconditioning of local roads and the construction of a new road to tie in a number of new settlements. At Fogo there is an item of $5,425 for repairing and widening of local roads and the filling in of a creek near the ocean which has been used as a disposal area for garbage and sewage. The latter project is being done at the suggestion of the medical health officer. At Change Islands there is an amount of $4,270 for brush cutting for a snowmobile road.
I could give other examples, but I do not think it is necessary for me to take up any more of the time of the committee. However, if the debate goes on for several days, as it did on the previous item, I should like to say that I will demand the right to hold forth perhaps at considerable length on several occasions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, just before the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo begins, in view of the geographical distribution of the house I wonder whether the Minister of Fisheries would mind moving somewhere nearer the middle of the house for the benefit of those of us who are slightly hard of hearing.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a few questions to the minister arising out of the statement he has just made. If I understood the minister correctly, he said that the present winter works program which is being carried out, and for which this item is intended to provide the necessary funds, is being carried out at the suggestion of the Newfoundland federation of fishermen. It was not my understanding that the federation of fishermen requested this particular kind of program. I thought what they had in mind was a marine works program. I wish to ask the minister whether any consideration was given to substituting a marine works program for the present roads program,
3B4

Supply-Fisheries
or even including it in the present works program, and for what reason that was not done. Second, is the program that is now being carried out related in any way to the report which the minister received from Mr. Ian McArthur of the Department of Fisheries, who was sent to Newfoundland to make a survey of the particular needs of the fishermen of our province? I should like to know what recommendations, if any, Mr. McArthur made.


John Angus MacLean: To answer the last question first, if I may, this item and the program are based almost entirely on the suggestions that were made by Mr. McArthur and the officials of the provincial government and others in Newfoundland with whom he had discussions. All things considered, it was felt by the officials and the government that this program would most nearly meet the problem.
There are a number of marine works projects going on under the regular program of the Department of Public Works which are in addition to this provision, of course, but such programs as marine works are fairly large items. The hon. member is far more fully aware than I am of the difficulties involved in trying to make work available to people who are spread along a great coast line, and these larger projects are carried out in isolated places. We were trying to find a program which would have application almost everywhere, because naturally there was little relationship between the catch in any particular area and what works programs could be effectively carried out there. The catch was down in areas where there are already new wharves and in some cases where we have built community stages. It would not be feasible, of course, to build another stage or anything else that was not needed in that area. We were trying to find a plan that would have wide application and would be beneficial.
It has been suggested that wharves and larger projects would be more suitable, but the difficulty is that these large projects would have the effect of providing a very desirable amount of employment in one particular area where they were being built, but they would provide no benefit at all for fishermen who were some distance away from them. We are trying to evolve a program with a much wider application.


Mr.   Carier@: I think the minister misunderstood the main point of my question. I quite understand that you cannot build wharves everywhere. If a community already has a wharf you do not build another just to make work for somebody. This is not what I had in mind. What I had in mind, and I thought

I stated it clearly, was this. Why not include that type of program in this winter works scheme for communities where it can be done? This was the question I had in mind. However, marine works have been excluded even from communities where they are needed and could be usefully carried out. I should like the minister to clarify that if he can.
While I am on my feet I have a couple of more questions which perhaps I should put at this time. Was any consideration given to extending the same principle of payments to the fishermen that was incorporated in the acreage payments to farmers which we have just voted? Was any thought given to using the administrative machinery of the unemployment insurance commission to distribute the funds directly to the fishermen?


John Angus MacLean: Consideration was given to the general idea that the hon. member mentions but it was found not to have practical application, because the situation of farmers and fishermen is entirely different. It is true they have many things in common. They are both primary producers of food. However, when you have said that you have gone about as far as you can go in making a valid comparison between the situation of fishermen and farmers. In the case of fishermen it is more difficult to measure the amount of effort or equipment used in attempting to catch fish than it is in the case of a farmer where the extent of a man's operation and his industry are there for all to see. I might be missing the point the hon. member has, but I must say that this situation was taken into consideration.
I neglected to answer a previous question, but the request from the federation of fishermen was for a work program, and they gave a considerable list of suggested schemes, including the types that are covered by this vote.


Chesley William Carter: This principle of extending equal treatment to all Canadians, Mr. Chairman, is to me a sound one. The minister has not said anything as yet to convince me that it is impossible to extend the same principle to distressed fishermen that we have applied to relieve the needs of distressed farmers. We have in front of us today a sheet of further supplementary estimates which contains four items. The first two of these items are allocations to relieve distress. The first item, the one with which we have just dealt, is to relieve the needs of distressed farmers. The one we are discussing now is to relieve the needs of distressed fishermen. This sheet itself bears concrete evidence of the discrimination that is taking place.

I should like to deal with this discrimination under four headings. The first heading is the reason for it. The reason given by the minister on Friday, and on subsequent occasions since, for making acreage payments to farmers was to supplement their income. He did not make any reference at all to the amount of effort they put forth or anything like that. All that was required was a permit book and 200 acres of land and they could get $200. It was purely a measure to compensate for the low income which has resulted from the vagaries of nature over which the farmers had no control whatever.
Perhaps it would be worth-while to put on the record the statement the minister made on Friday in that connection. I am reading now, Mr. Chairman, from page 245 of Hansard for January 26, 1962: The minister had listed the four reasons for making acreage payments to farmers, and then he went on to say this:
This year there is a very important additional reason why a payment of this kind should be made. It is to be found in the reduced farm income, particularly of people in certain areas of western Canada due to the drought which took place there last year. This drought in the long run did not prove as devastating and serious as at one time was believed would be the case, but nevertheless it did have very serious effects which are particularly apparent in the income position of many farmers in western Canada. How serious that is can be shown by comparing the average wheat yield this year with that of previous years. During the past crop year the average wheat yield is estimated to have been 10.4 bushels per acre, whereas for the previous five years it was 19.7 bushels per acre. In other words, this year's yield was not very much more than half of what had been secured on the average in the previous five years. This gives a good indication of the situation in which many farmers will find themselves, and demonstrates the necessity of assistance in the form proposed.
Well, that is a very clear statement, Mr. Chairman, as to the reason for these payments. The need applies identically in the case of the fishermen. They are suffering from reduced income, just the same as the farmers. They have to live; they have children to feed, families to support. They have the identical needs of the farmers. In addition to that, they have to make some provision in order to be in a position to continue their occupation when the season opens.
There is one important difference in the case of the farmers. The minister stated that their income was down almost half because of the poor crop yield. In other words the crop this year is little better than half what it would be in a average year but, in the case of many fishermen, it is much worse than that because they had no crop yield at all. I know many of them in my own riding whose crop this year is only about 25 per cent of what it was last year, and it must be remembered that last year was a poor year.
Supply-Fisheries
The percentage would be less than that if we were to compare last year's yield with the average over the past five years, as was done in the case of the farmers.
Fishermen have as great a claim to aid as the farmers and I believe, when distress is to be relieved, compensation for the fishermen should be on exactly the same basis as it is for farmers. To treat fishermen differently is tantamount to discrimination. The sheet I hold in my hand gives evidence of discrimination in the form in which the assistance is to be paid. In the case of the farmers we have a very special measure of assistance, particularly designed for them, and with no strings attached.
When I am speaking on the subject I should like to point out to my hon. friends that this asistance is not the only aid being given to the farmers. It comes on top of other assistance which they can receive by way of Prairie Farm Assistance Act grants and other grants. But, so far as fishermen are concerned, there are no other payments by which their income can be supplemented. This is the only one; but when payments are made to farmers we do not include that aid in an expanded works program. We do not provide it in such a way that it would apply equally to small prairie town merchants and to labourers. The measure is applicable to farmers, and farmers only. On the other hand, in the case of fishermen the aid for them has to be fitted into some sort of winter works program, not specifically designed for fishermen and which cannot be administered in a way that will benefit fishermen alone.
The third discrimination which appears in this sheet is the amount. A farmer may receive up to a maximum of $200, in addition to other payments under other farm legislation. However, while $300,000 is provided for fishermen it is conditional upon the provincial government also making payments. The acreage payments to farmers are not conditional on anything done by the provincial governments in the prairie provinces, and I would like to know why fishermen are singled out for such treatment.
The $300,000 being made available for fishermen is contingent upon a contribution of 25 per cent of the labour content of the program being made by the government of Newfoundland, and that government must also complete the rest of the usual roads maintenance program, which will cost $80,000 from the middle of October. Thus, the federal government is providing $300,000 on condition that the provincial government puts up $80,000 and $50,000. All these conditions are attached before a fisherman can get one cent. But even when these conditions are fulfilled

Supply-Fisheries
what will he get? Our premier has worked it out at about $20 per fisherman simply because this $300,000 is not all to be spent on labour. It is for roads, bridges and some of the other things the minister mentioned this afternoon. Materials have to be bought out of that sum and so the amount a fisherman will get will perhaps be around $20, to meet the needs of his family for the whole of the winter.
There is a further, additional discrimination because when we look at the first item in the supplementary estimates we see that the government itself takes full responsibility for the administration of the payments to farmers. It states:
Payments to western grain producers to be distributed on the following basis, namely, $1 per cultivated acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council.
However, when it comes to relieving distressed fishermen the federal government takes no responsibility for the administration of the fund. It is to be administered in the best way possible. The minister pointed out the difficulties however when he said the $300,000 has to be spent in hundreds of settlements scattered around a 4,000 mile coast line. Since the government takes responsibility for administering aid to distressed farmers why can it not take the same responsibility for administering aid to distressed fishermen? Why has it refused to take that responsibility? I would like the minister to answer that question when he replies.
In his introductory speech I understood him to say that the winter works program is really the suggestion of the fishermen's federation, and that everybody in Newfoundland is in agreement with it. I am sure the government received advice from provincial authorities pointing out that such a type of winter works program is not really suitable because most of the settlements in question cannot carry out that kind of program in the winter months. It just cannot be done, and if equipment has to be used then the labour content is whittled down.
There is no administrative machinery to administer this grant. Some 575 settlements had road work done last year and I presume this item is related to the moneys already expended in those settlements. As I said already, most of these settlements are isolated and are scattered around a 4,000 mile coast line. There is no administrative machinery, yet the federal government expects somebody in the provincial government to take responsibility for administering this aid.
In addition to the difficulties of administration there is the further difficulty of discriminating between one fisherman and another as to which should receive work. In
other words, somebody in a settlement has to devise a means test in order to be able to say to one fisherman "you earned enough this summer, your catch was not too bad so you cannot get in on this program", and to another fisherman "your catch was down and you are entitled to participate." In other words, somebody has to select people in the community to work on a winter works program and refuse work to others. Not only that, but there is the difficulty of deciding borderline cases, when the fisherman is perhaps a borderline case and is in need, or perhaps a logger or labourer who has been out of work and not able to meet the needs of his family. These people need this assistance just as much as the fisherman who has had a poor catch. But the government washes its hands completely of any responsibility of administering this fund. It throws the whole problem into the lap of the provincial government, the municipal authorities, the local roads boards or whoever is willing to accept it. It does not lay down any direction for them with regard to the way this money is to be administered.
I wish to say to the minister that I am not against this item of $300,000. It is better than nothing. I suppose even $20 will buy something. However, when you break it down to a family it is only about 13 cents a day per family, or about 3 cents per head per family, and I do not know what they will get out of it. That is what it amounts to. When we contrast that with the way we help farmers, it defies words to describe the comparison.


An hon. Member:: Watch yourself.


Chesley William Carter: Yes, I will watch myself. My blood pressure is getting up. Certainly the time has come when we should not discriminate between one group of Canadians and another. When we make that kind of discrimination between groups that are in distress, in my opinion it is a most shameful thing to do.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the item before the committee has no direct application to the fishing industry on the west coast. However, because all of us in this house should concern ourselves as much as possible with matters affecting other sections of the country and the economy I should like to make one or two comments with respect to this item, even though it is far removed from my constituency and British Columbia and is in fact confined to the province of Newfoundland.
During the last couple of days we have been listening to the debate which has just concluded regarding the $1 an acre payment

to western grain farmers. In view of that debate I felt sure the Minister of Fisheries would revise his thinking and introduce an additional supplementary estimate based upon, say, $5 per foot per fishing vessel or something of that nature, in order that the assistance given from the public treasury to some of our people in the basics of farming and fishing would bear some equitability.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo dealt quite extensively with the theme that the item before us represents, in a number of aspects, an approach to discrimination as between fishermen and farmers. I agree with him in this regard. However, I think we must extend this concept of discrimination to types of fishermen and fishermen in different locales. I say this because certainly the salmon fishermen in British Columbia for two consecutive years, and especially two seasons ago, were disastrously hit by poor salmon runs, a poor catch and the like.
One of the worst salmon fishing seasons in the last 50 or 60 years took place two years ago on the west coast and many of the salmon fishermen there-this industry composes a large section of the economy of the province -went deeply into debt. Many of them went completely bankrupt because they just could not stand the economic situation that resulted from the poor salmon season.
We agreed to pay $1 an acre to western farmers because of drought conditions; but if drought conditions affect the salmon industry, the government tends to disregard the fact, although it is substantially the same sort of condition. Salmon fishermen were hit by drought on the coast when spawning creeks or salmon creeks dried up because of lack of rain. When this occurs the Department of Fisheries steps in and closes the season to allow for the greater escapement of spawning salmon upstream so that two or four years hence on the return we might expect a larger salmon run than would otherwise be the case if we engaged in catching a large number of salmon.
This is a deliberate action on the part of the Department of Fisheries on the west coast as a result of drought conditions that affect the income and the catch of fishermen out there. We do not see any indication of any concern, or of any approach either in the supplementary estimates before us or in any of the main estimates that I can ever recall participating in studying, for any special consideration for fishermen on the west coast of this nation. I think this is also a form of discrimination.
The herring industry on the coast was in the doldrums for a couple of years. In addition to the salmon industry, the whaling fleet has
Supply-Fisheries
been tied up as a result of several factors, and the income of the people following these particular fisheries of salmon, herring and whaling has not been too good in the past few years. I do not wish to complain too much about this because I realize it is not specifically covered by the item before us. We are concerned with contributions toward a special Newfoundland winter works program. I only mention that similar conditions existed in the province of British Columbia in other fisheries and would plead with the minister to take into account these conditions which exist on the west coast of Canada as well as those which exist on the east coast, in order that some balance and equitability may come into play in considering what assistance and help may be given from the public treasury to these primary producers.
Last session, I believe, we had some discussion about the attitude developing amongst west coast fishermen toward what relatively speaking, is considered to be an inordinately large degree of concern by the government with respect to fishermen on the east coast. We found that in the past the Fisheries Prices Support Act applied almost entirely to east coast fisheries products. To my knowledge it has never applied to the west coast. We found that there was special assistance to the Newfoundland bait service, to the east coast salt fishery, special assistance with respect to the construction of fishing boats, and the like. All this leaves the west coast fisherman, as has been explained to me, with wonderment in his mind as to whether or not he is being discriminated against. He is not complaining about the fact that this help and assistance is being given to his fellow fishermen on the east coast, but merely concerned as to whether or not this represents a form of discrimination.
I say to the minister, as did the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, that if it is considered fair and equitable that the public treasury should assist western grain producers because of drought conditions to the extent of $1 an acre, I think it is a bit of an insult to give the fishermen in Newfoundland an amount of $300,000. It is an even greater insult to disregard entirely the salmon fishermen of the west coast who have been in equal difficulties as a result of a poor harvest of fish.


Mr. Batten:: It does seem to me that there is a good deal of disparity between the treatment we have seen accorded to western farmers in the last two days of our debate and the treatment which is now accorded to the fishermen of Newfoundland.
Let me say at once that I am not objecting in any way to the assistance which has been given to western farmers under the first item. I think most people in Canada will recognize

Supply-Fisheries
that the past summer, as well as other summers of recent date, have been difficult times for farmers living in the three prairie provinces. Since these people are suppliers of food engaged in a primary industry I think it is fair in such circumstances that the federal government should help them on the grounds that their normal way of making a living has been interfered with by difficulties not of their own making. The Acting Minister of Agriculture used the argument the other day that if the western farmer were assisted during a period when his income was below normal, such assistance would eventually spread out to all parts of the country and the country would be better off in consequence of such assistance having been given. I think that is a fair argument. But if that argument is fair as applied to farmers who work in the three prairie provinces it is surely equally fair when applied to the fishermen of Newfoundland. At the moment I cannot understand the difference between the payments accorded to the fishermen of Newfoundland and those which have been accorded to the western farmers. Perhaps the minister will explain to me later where the difference lies.
Let us look at the amount themselves. I recognize that amounts and figures in themselves do not tell the whole story. Nevertheless, they have some significance. In the first place, as the minister told us the other day, about a quarter of a million farmers-not quite as many, according to the figures he used-are to be paid a total of something over $40 million, or an average of $178 per farmer. In Newfoundland, this amount of $300,000 will mean the payment of about $20 per fisherman under the present scheme. If that latter payment were accorded to the western farmers the vote which we have just approved would have amounted to approximately $5 million instead of $40 million. Let me put it in another way. The population of the three prairie provinces is approximately seven times as great as that of Newfoundland. If $300,000 is to be given to Newfoundland on a per capita basis-I am not arguing that it should be done in that way-then that sum would correspond to a little more than $2 million for the western farmer. These are just ordinary figures which do not tell the whole story but they do show the disparity between the treatment of both sides, and it is a disparity which I think the minister ought to explain.
There are other disturbing features about the plan which has been set up to aid the Newfoundland fishermen. In the first place, under the present scheme the Newfoundland fisherman has to go out and earn the amount of money he is intended to receive under this program. I have no objection to that. But as far as the western farmer is concerned, the 
money will go to him, according to the minister today, whether he is in need of it or not. The farmer concerned will receive the money because he has a permit book and because he has a certain number of acres under cultivation. True it is, according to the minister, that a number of prairie farmers had their crops reduced by 50 per cent during the past year.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I just remind the hon. member of this: did the acting minister not say that the total crop was down by nearly 50 per cent? I have it right here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right. That is what my hon. friend just said.


William Joseph Browne: It is a very different thing.


Herman Maxwell Batten: A different thing from what, may I ask the hon. member for St. John's West?


William Joseph Browne: A different thing from what you said. The hon. member said some were down by 50 per cent. The minister said yesterday as reported at page 314 of Hansard:
I said that drought conditions throughout the west as a whole had resulted in little more than a half crop, and that applied all throughout western Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The minister's knowledge of statistics amazes me. If the average crop brought in by the western farmer is 50 per cent of the normal crop then obviously some farmers were down more than 50 per cent and some not as much as 50 per cent. When we say that the average crop was down by 50 per cent we are saying that a large number brought in a crop of far less than 50 per cent as compared with the year before. Surely, that is understandable.


William Joseph Browne: That is not what you said.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If the hon. member for St. John's West will sit in his seat and allow me to say what I want to say he would find out exactly what I have in mind and what I intended to say. I am very surprised that the hon. gentleman should be standing up now trying to say something for the fishermen of Newfoundland. I hope he will.


William Joseph Browne: Give me a
chance.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Another thing is this: The money paid to the western farmer is paid by cheque. The money paid to the Newfoundland fishermen has to be worked for. In addition, the money paid to the western farmer has nothing to do with the provincial government. However, as far as Newfoundland

is concerned, the province has to make a contribution, otherwise the federal government does not pay anything. One of the strings attached to the payment made to Newfoundland is that the province must make some contribution. I think this is a significant difference.
One of the most serious differences is the fact that when the money was paid to the western farmer the whole plan was administered by the federal government. I shall not deny that administering this plan with respect to the fishermen of Newfoundland may be difficult. However, it might well be difficult to administer it in respect of the western farmers.
I do not understand why the administration of this program in Newfoundland should be placed upon the shoulders of Newfoundland officials.
There are many things which could have been done in some places-not in all places- which would have produced a much greater benefit than is likely to be produced by the present scheme.
When the minister spoke a short while ago he said that much of the plan had been concentrated around the east and southeast coasts. My riding includes the northern section of St. Barbe and there we have many small settlements which even yet have no wharf or breakwater. I think the most sensible assistance which could be given to these people would be to enable them to go into the woods and cut timber so that in the spring they might build their wharf or breakwater. I recognize part of the argument used by the minister, namely that this plan would work only in some places and give work to only a few fishermen. But in many cases these are the very people who are affected by the crop failure among the fishermen of Newfoundland. I believe they could be assisted to a greater extent by some such plan. I can think of many places along the west coast where the fishermen would have benefited greatly if they had been given the opportunity to engage in some public works project rather than the one that is now recommended by the Minister of Fisheries. When the minister replies I hope he will tell us how many fishermen are concerned in this plan, according to the survey which he has made in Newfoundland; where these fishermen live or where these places are; and how the fishermen are going to be assisted as well under the plan he has proposed as they would have been assisted under a plan similar to that which has been proposed for the western farmers.


Mr. Granger:: I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's. Previously
Supply-Fisheries
I have contended-and I thought my contention was a reasonable one-that the Canadian fisherman should receive the same treatment as that received by the Canadian farmer. It seems to me to be quite obvious that such is not the case. As a matter of fact, as can be seen from the sheet which is now on our desks, a comparison between what is written under "Agriculture" and what is written under "Fisheries" would seem to point out that a great gulf exists between these two producers; I refer to the farmer who produces grain and the fisherman who produces fish. Nevertheless both are essential to the Canadian economy. Both are engaged in basic industries. Each in his respective area is equally important.
The case for the Newfoundland fisherman, or perhaps I had better say "the Canadian fisherman", in my opinion has never been given the serious consideration it deserves. There may perhaps be on the part of those in government a lack of knowledge of the real needs. Without going into the whys and wherefores, certainly the fact is-and it is more apparent today than ever before-that the Canadian fisherman is not getting the same consideration as the Canadian farmer. His problem is not looked upon in the same light. The whole concept of his needs evidently is different from that of the needs of other producers.
In connection with the works program I should like to say that I am one of those who believe that a program of marine works and a program of supplying material for fishermen, would be better than the one which has been decided upon. The minister pointed out -and quite reasonably, I would say-that large marine works such as community stages would mean a considerable amount of work in one locality and none in others, and that there would not be the same spreading of work. This objection would hardly apply if small marine works were considered and if assistance in the way of material for fishermen to repair their traps, their nets and their stages were to be supplied.
I think the minister also said that it was difficult to assess a fisherman's property compared with a farmer's property. The fisherman's property consists of his boat, his trap, his stages and his flakes. They are all very real and tangible assets which can be seen and appraised. Small works have proven to be valuable to the fisherman. I refer to things such as small wharves, small landing docks or small breakwaters. These things require no argument to support them because it has been amply demonstrated over the years that where these works are supplied fishermen can carry on their vocation much better, that the fishing season is quite frequently lengthened

Supply-Fisheries
and that the fishermen's activities are facilitated with the result that the income of the individual fisherman is increased.
If I may, I should like to mention community stages here and to say that this argument applies to them to an even greater degree. If there was one program which was wisely conceived, it was the community stage program. It has been a source of bitter disappointment to me that more of these stages are not being built at the present time.
As to fishermen's property may I say that, owing to the fact that their income was low during the past year, many fishermen will face the coming year with traps that are really unfit to use, engines that are not really serviceable and boats that badly need to be repaired, to say nothing of their stages, flakes and so on. It seems to me that if assistance were given to fishermen to purchase materials so that they could put their property in shape, they themselves supplying the labour, so that when the fishing season starts they could more efficiently prosecute the fishing, two extremely worthy objectives would be accomplished at the same time. Relief would be given to the extent that materials which they needed, and which they would not be obliged to buy, would be supplied to them thus saving their meagre cash, and production would be increased as they would face the fishing season with more adequate equipment with which to do their work.
Apart from everything else, it seems to me that a real chance has been missed to accomplish something worth while and at the same time to give relief to people who badly need it. The fact is that there are many fishermen-and I am speaking of my own riding-who this year had a very poor fishery; they suffered a real crop failure. They need the kind of assistance which would permit them to become self-sustaining, independent and, one would hope, prosperous citizens of Canada during the coming year.
I shall not repeat what the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who spoke earlier said about a different approach or a different method of handling this relief, except to say that I agree entirely with what he said. However, I would say that the time must come when the Canadian fisherman is considered on a basis of equality with the Canadian farmer. His problems must be approached with the same attitude of mind. In the fisheries of Canada we have an industry which, although very old, is still very important and in many respects still shows amazing vitality. It is of benefit not merely to the fishermen themselves but to all of Canada. In the province of Newfoundland alone the industrial areas of Canada have a great

captive market. It is to the benefit of Canada as a whole that the fisherman be given the recognition which he deserves. In asking for that I am not asking for special consideration. All I am asking is the ordinary consideration usually accorded to Canadian producers.


Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, we have been listening to hon. members from Newfoundland plead the case in favour of their fishermen. Frankly, I cannot object to such a plea because the fishermen of my riding are in much the same situation. I believe that the problems of the Magdalen islands are quite similar to those in Newfoundland. The fishermen of Newfoundland catch a good run of salmon at a certain season of the year. When the cod run comes the fishing may be good for a short period of time but during recent years there has been a failure during two months of the fishing season. In my riding lobster fishing is the greatest revenue producer. However, the fishing season lasts only four to six weeks and in 1961 the season was shortened by three or four weeks because of the lateness of the arrival of spring.
However, having heard members from Newfoundland speak about their problems, I should like to refer them to the last report of the Department of Fisheries where I find the following on page 89 with respect to the Atlantic coast fisheries:
With the exception of Quebec, all Atlantic provinces registered increases in the volume of landings.
On page 90 there are these words:
Newfoundland small-boat fishermen started the summer season with record landings in May and June but by midsummer the entire situation changed and catches began to dwindle.
Where I differ from them is-


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member what year that is?


James Russell Keays: This is 1960.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are talking about 1961.


James Russell Keays: I believe that I heard the same plea from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in 1961 as in 1960.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it was in 1958, and I will have something further to say about that.


James Russell Keays: The solutions to the problems which have been advanced by the hon. members we have heard have involved the construction of stages, the construction of ports, wharves and so on. If we are going to have the same situation occur every year, we are soon going to run short of land on which to build wharves and these other projects. In my opinion the solution does not lie in the

construction of these projects but rather in the finding of new species of fish and the development of new methods of catching and processing the product and improving its quality.
I remember speaking on this matter last year. At that time I pointed out to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that if the weather was not favourable in Newfoundland for the drying of codfish the fish could be sent to the Gaspe peninsula where the weather was more favourable and the cod could be sold as Gaspe cured cod, which brings the best price on the market.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would not help fishermen much who caught none this year.


James Russell Keays: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. member if that is a promise?


John Angus MacLean: There is one thing I want to say at the outset and that is I believe every hon. member of this committee would have as his objective complete fairness and justice as between all segments of the economy of this country. Some members of

Supply-Fisheries
the committee, however, are not willing to concede that this statement applies to members on the government benches. I want to say that a fair comparison of the situation cannot be achieved by comparing things that are not comparable. You cannot arrive at any basis for a just estimate if you compare horses with rabbits and start from that premise.
First, I want to say a word about the situation so far as production is concerned. There have been comparisons made on the basis of these two items in the estimates and it was stated the Newfoundland fishermen were being discriminated against. Statements were made to the effect that this vote is an insult to the fishermen when $42 million is being provided for western farmers. I should like to point out that for the whole area covered by the acreage payments, production is down about 50 per cent. This production has an aggregate value of about $400 million, in very rough figures. The item that has been voted is about 10 per cent of that.
In the case of the Newfoundland fishery, taking it as a whole, the income of fishermen in 1961 as compared with the average for the previous three years is down 1 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about 1960?


John Angus MacLean: I am talking about 1961 as compared with the average for the previous three years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit me a factual question on that? He made a comparison of the western farmers' situation between 1960 and 1961. Would he take the same two years for Newfoundland?


John Angus MacLean: I am not sure that I have those statistics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the comparison.


John Angus MacLean: This basis would vary the deduction somewhat, but it would only be in degree. I should like to point out that-


Chesley William Carter: Would the minister permit another question on that same point?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


Chesley William Carter: When the minister says production-I thought he said it was down by 1 per cent-


John Angus MacLean: That is the value.


Chesley William Carter: It is down 1 per cent in value, but is that the total cash including fish landed by draggers? Does that figure relate only to the shore fishermen?


John Angus MacLean: It is income per fisherman.


Chesley William Carter: That includes all fishermen?


John Angus MacLean: That is right.


Chesley William Carter: Does the minister not have the figures for the shore fishermen, the ones we are supporting?


John Angus MacLean: I have the figures by areas, these are statistical areas, and area A was down compared with the previous three year average by 16 per cent. I shall name these areas around the coast of Newfoundland clockwise. Area B was down 3 per cent; C was down 10 per cent; D was up 14 per cent; E was down 25 per cent; F was down 5 per cent; G was up 10 per cent; H was up 6 per cent while area I was up 23 per cent. I am now getting into Humber-St. George's, although I may still be in Burin-Burgeo. Area J was up 69 per cent; K was up 21 per cent; L was up 7 per cent; M was up 8 per cent; N was up 11 per cent and area O was down 23 per cent.
Now, in addition to that, although this has very little direct bearing on the situation from which the fishermen suffered last summer, I am happy to report and I think all hon. members would be happy to know, that at the present time fresh fish are bringing the highest price on record along the south coast of Newfoundland. Certainly, it is the highest price since union with Newfoundland. I give hon. members full credit for sticking up for their constituents and for the industry in which those constituents are engaged. I do not object to this. However, when they say, let us treat the fishermen in exactly the same way as we treat the farmers, I should like them to think of some of the things they would be forfeiting as well as some of the things they would be gaining before they take that step.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like P.F.A.A.


John Angus MacLean: Would the hon. gentleman suggest that fishermen should not be entitled to salt assistance, to unemployment insurance, to a subsidized bait service or to a subsidized vessel building program under which this government has increased the rate of assistance from $155 a ton to $250 a ton? There are no comparable things done for farmers. I am willing to admit right away that, on the other hand, there are things that are done for farmers that are not done for fishermen. It is not all one-sided.
I may have misunderstood one hon. gentleman who spoke previously, but I thought he objected to us requiring a contribution from the provincial government. I must say this contribution was not a requirement, it was a voluntary contribution. In this connection, I should like to quote what the

premier of Newfoundland said in connection with the circumstances under which this program was evolved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman quote the messages right from the beginning so we can have the whole sequence of events and ascertain how this came about?


John Angus MacLean: This would be very involved. I am not sure I have a complete file with me. There is a thick file of correspondence, and it would take at least the rest of this day if I were to read it.
Premier Smallwood had this to say, as reported in the daily News of December 1, and this is a direct quotation:
The discussion-

referring to the discussion taking place between officials of the federal Department of Fisheries and the government of Newfoundland-
-was very thorough and exhaustive and was conducted in a spirit of cordial co-operation, all present sharing a strong desire to work out the details as quickly as possible so that the benefits of the scheme may be brought to the fishermen with the least possible delay.
He went on to say:
In connection with this extra amount of $300,000 the government of Canada have accepted the offer of the Newfoundland government, made by me a few weeks ago, to pay 25 per cent of the total labour cost of the winter works projects that are carried out with this money. A considerable number of federal marine works and other public works projects have been carried out around the coast line of Newfoundland, and some are still in course of construction, and it is hardly necessary to say these special winter works will not, for the most part, be carried out in places where these larger jobs have gone ahead or are now going ahead.
The Canadian Department of Fisheries and the Department of Labour and our own Newfoundland department of fisheries and department of highways are working closely together, in the friendliest spirit possible, to get the whole scheme working without delay so that the benefits may be felt as soon as possible.
Now my department, in perfectly good faith and trying to do the best thing possible for the fishermen in Newfoundland, and trying to evolve a program which would be just, as compared to programs that are evolved for other parts of the country, not only for other industries but for other parts of the fishing industry, has evolved this scheme.
In that connection it is interesting to note that the hon. member for Skeena, in his contribution to this debate, helped to point out how very difficult it is to be absolutely fair and to be sure that justice is done to all. He said that the fishermen in his riding consider certain things are done for fishermen on the east coast which are not done for the fishermen on the west coast and he maintained that the government is prejudiced in
Supply-Fisheries
favour of fishermen on the east coast. I do not think that is so because, comparing fishermen with farmers, when you compare fishermen on the east coast with fishermen on the west coast you have two different situations to consider. There are vast amounts of money spent for fish ladders and that sort of thing for fishermen on the west coast, to make it possible for the salmon harvest there to be continued, while moneys are not spent to the same extent on the east coast.
Having said that, I now turn to the problem of fair administration. It is fair to say that the provincial government through its municipal roads system which is already set up in all of these areas, and which functions every year, was the most reasonable avenue to reach into all these little communities. There is also the problem that there is a great variation between one little area and the next, and even between one fisherman and the next. Therefore the local people who are on the ground would be best able to say where jobs were most needed. Such people located on the coast would know the situation much better than any official from Ottawa.
A scheme was suggested by hon. members whereby needy fishermen could be given grants or material for repairing their boats, equipment, and so on. On the face of it it is a fine idea. It just sounds wonderful; but on studying it we very quickly concluded that it is one which would be absolutely impossible to administer. To arrive at any degree of justice not only would you have to have a means test for a fisherman but you would have to determine what his income was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You did not have a means test for the acreage payments.


John Angus MacLean: I admit that, but I say that if we were trying to be fair-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then you were not with the acreage payments?


John Angus MacLean: Objections were raised in some cases that acreage payments were being made to men with large acreages and good crops, but in the case of the people of Newfoundland we tried the opposite thing. We tried to place the money where it was most needed, make it available to those who needed it most, who would make the best use of it, and who thereby in many cases would qualify for unemployment insurance.
Even if it were possible to arrive at absolute justice in the administration of any scheme one would still be criticized by those who think they should have got more or who think somebody else should have got less, and that is where the problem arises. As I said, the plan suggested by some of the hon.

Supply

Fisheries
members from Newfoundland with regard to advancing grants to fishermen is, on the face of it, a good one, but it would have to be carried through in a blanket fashion to cover all fishermen whether they needed it or not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just as you did for the farmers.


John Angus MacLean: To which you
objected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not treat the fishermen as well as the farmers are treated?


John Angus MacLean: Because there are so many other benefits which accrue to fishermen that do not accrue to farmers such as unemployment insurance, assistance under the fishing vessel assistance act, salt assistance, and so on. In carrying out a program of assistance of any sort the picture has to be painted with a wide brush. It is difficult to do it any other way because you would have to go back a thousand years and institute a sort of domesday book to arrive at who was entitled to so much, so that in a mathematical way you could make sure each fellow was getting exactly what he deserved in relation to his effort, his needs, his family, his bad luck, and his luck in the runs of fish and so on. It is for reasons of that sort that the acreage payment is administered on a rather arbitrary basis.
I am the first to admit that the amount involved in the case of the Newfoundland fishermen is small. It is $.3 million, $300,000, and the reason it is small is that it represents 35 per cent of the drop in income.
As has been said, if it were distributed evenly to everybody it only works out at 13 cents a day for the head of every family. The reason it works out at that figure for the head of every family is because the drop in income earned by the head of every family in Newfoundland this year, statistically on the average as compared with last year, would be three times that amount-39 cents. I think it is a week rather than a day, but those statistics do not impress me very much. What you are doing is taking the amount, then dividing it by the number of fishermen and dividing it by the number of days between then and now. In effect you are almost taking the cube root of it if you divide any figure by two other factors. Even if you take the cube root of the speed of light you come up with something that is relatively small.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the minister a question on this point?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister think that in making these comparisons and computations, which he says he wants to make fairly,

in contrast to those on this side of the chamber which he says have been made unfairly, it is fair to include the landing from draggers with the shore fishery?
No one is suggesting that the dragger fishermen should be included in any scheme at all. It seems to me that if the minister would take the shore fishery, which is the only comparable thing, he would get a very different picture. I think the minister knows that.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, but not such a very different picture, because even in the case of the shore fishery there were large areas in Newfoundland where the catch was up as compared with last year. But I would agree that if you take a small enough unit there are little communities-or if you get down to one boat, one crew-which perhaps caught no fish last year. However, it is difficult to fit them into a program that is supposed to apply to the whole of Newfoundland, unless you try to do it in the very way which has been suggested and which the provincial government agreed to undertake in the first instance.
Apparently this scheme suddenly became very unpopular, with the provincial government after they had agreed to it and had thought it was a fiine idea.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister if he would read the document in which the provincial government agreed to this scheme?


John Angus MacLean: I am not sure that I have that document available, but we can get it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister could get it by nine o'clock.


John Angus MacLean: I think so. Probably the cause of the change in attitude is the fact that when it came to applying this it was very difficult to satisfy everybody. That is human nature. No matter what you do, you will not satisfy everybody. It is an easy thing then, as a solution, to say, "Well, the scheme is no good". I think it is a good scheme as far as it goes. I think the amount is relatively comparable to the need, and if it can be administered in such a way that the benefits will go where they are needed, it will meet the requirements of the fishermen for the time being.
I wish to point out that the prospects for the Newfoundland fishermen are not all dark. Improved methods of fishing are being evolved. We are doing a great deal along this line and we have met with some excellent successes in some cases. Success varies, of course. For example, the federal department in co-operation with the provincial department

-and the two departments work very closely in these things-achieved some very striking results in making the herring fishery in Newfoundland more effective. I should like to quote briefly from a letter I received from a man in the industry, which reads:
We are now conducting a very successful herring season and have caught over 5,000 barrels of green herring in the past three weeks .. . This has given a lot of badly needed employment in this immediate area, as we have 140 men employed with a weekly payroll of over $6,000. These facts, together with the great advantage coming from the roads to resources program over the past few years, are all part of the over-all constructive program of this government.
He branched off from fishing there, but this is a statement contained in a letter with regard to something we were able to do for the herring industry. I might say that in connection with the inshore fishermen-this applies only to inshore fishermen-in 1960 their income was $12,324,881.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the physical quantities? That is what the minister gave us in wheat; he did not give us the income.


John Angus MacLean: I do not happen to have the physical quantities. I understood the hon. member to ask for the income and that is what I obtained.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not I.


John Angus MacLean: In 1961 the figure was $11,045,656, which represents a change downward of $1,279,225.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is at least 10 per cent.


John Angus MacLean: That is what I said; it is approximately 10 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought the minister said 1 per cent a while ago.


John Angus MacLean: No. I was speaking in connection with the inshore fishermen. Perhaps I neglected to say that, but I was giving the totals for Newfoundland, which were down 1 per cent and included draggers. I have a copy of a telegram from Leslie R. Curtis, acting premier of Newfoundland. This telegram is dated November 21 and reads:
Thank you for your telegram-
The telegram is addressed to the Prime Minister:
-re assistance to fishermen. Newfoundland government will co-operate by contributing 25 per cent of labour cost local public improvement projects as proposed by Premier Smallwood and accepted by you in settlements mutually agreed as requiring assistance. Presume it will be in order now for our nominee to contact your minister of northern affairs and this will be done promptly. Kindest regards.
Leslie R. Curtis
Supply-Fisheries
Mr. Chairman, that is all I wish to say at the present time. I am sorry to have imposed upon the committee for so long and taking up so much of the committee's time.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add my support to that given by hon. members who have spoken in aid of the fishermen of Newfoundland.
It was very noticeable to those who followed the cod fishery early last summer that the catches were very much below those of the previous year and were below an average catch in many settlements in Newfoundland. On August 24, 1961, Mr. P. J. Antle, general secretary and treasurer of the Newfoundland federation of fishermen, wrote the Minister of Fisheries and on October 4, 1961, the Liberal members from Newfoundland wrote the Minister of Fisheries and indicated their general support for the proposals contained in Mr. Antle's letter.
We were unanimous in our opinion that in dealing with the problem which was facing our fishermen, particularly on the east coast of Newfoundland, the government should be guided by the general principle that our fishermen should be treated in the same way as our mainland farmers when they have a crop failure.
We were well aware that those fishermen who had small catches would find it difficult to provide food for their families, let alone make provision for the next year's cod fishery, which always represents quite an outlay for our fishermen. Very often they have not the means to pay cash for the materials required and have to obtain supplies from their dealers or merchants early in the season in order that they may prosecute the cod fishery.
We suggested in our letter to the Minister of Fisheries that materials be supplied to our fishermen to enable them to build or repair boats and to furnish or repair equipment during the winter months, on the understanding that the fishermen themselves would provide the labour. We thought this would be an extremely practical way to assist those fishermen who are really in need to prepare for their voyages next year. We suggested in our letter:
1.	That this assistance be made available to all fishermen whose total net earnings fell below a certain income, the amount to vary with the number of dependants.
2.	That materials to be supplied include nylon, hemp and cotton twine for knitting of nets and traps; lines and hooks for the making of trawls and bultows; lumber, nails and paint for the building and repairs of

Supply-Fisheries
boats and dories for use in our inshore fishery, and other materials suitable for making moorings for boats and gear.
3.	That the value of such assistance be limited for each fisherman and that the government take a lien on the boats and gear thus provided to ensure that they are used in the fishery for at least one season, after which they would become the property of the fisherman concerned.
The Minister of Fisheries stated that our suggestions had been given full consideration but the committee felt that although assistance in the manner we had proposed would undoubtedly be helpful the problem of dealing with several thousand individual fishermen on an equitable basis would be much less practical than we had suggested. He also said the committee felt that assistance on a community basis directed to those settlements which had been most seriously affected by the catch failure would be more practical and more equitable. With this statement we could not agree. I personally tried to get full details of the assistance which was provided, but I have yet to get it.
On a non-political tour in Newfoundland the Prime Minister announced the response of his government to the appeal of our distressed fishermen. This government was well aware of the catch failure, because the departments concerned were notified by Newfoundland members and, in addition, an official from the Department of Fisheries went to Newfoundland to make an investigation. He obtained the information required and returned to Ottawa.
There seemed to be some confusion as to the number of fishermen affected. If we were to compare the bad fishing of 1961 with the catch in 1960, which was only a fair year, we could conclude that 12,000 fishermen had a bad year in 1961. Anyway, 9,000 fishermen at least and 12,000 fishermen at the most had poor catches. The sum of $300,000 was provided, as announced by the Prime Minister, to aid them. This amount was to be spent on winter works under the same arrangements as those made with regard to all the Canadian provinces from Newfoundland to British Columbia. It meant that if any of our local authorities, municipalities, community councils, local roads boards or any other local organizations carried out public works, half the money spent on labour would be provided by the federal government. In addition, the federal government would match the money provided by the provincial government to the various settlements in respect of road work and so on, since October 15, 1961-a sum which amounted to $80,000. This arrangement meant that the distressed

fishermen from Newfoundland received approximately $20 per family by way of assistance from this government as compared with $1 an acre up to 200 acres or a maximum of $200 in the case of the western farmer.
The minister has referred to just terms. In my opinion Canadians are Canadians irrespective of where they live and they should be treated alike. I am not against assistance being given to our farmers but I contend that the same yardstick which is used for our farmers should be used for our fishermen. The money given to our province was not given to or worked for by fishermen only; it was given to all those who participated in the winter works program. This worked out to about $20 per family-less than three cents a day. While we were glad to get the $300,000 we feel it should have been distributed among our distressed fishermen and that the amount available should have been much greater.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall this item carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. I intend when we resume at nine o'clock to say something about the origins of this policy. I asked the minister to do so but he thought it would take too long. It is going to be done, anyway. I just want to take the minute which is at my disposal now to deal with one point. The minister made a great deal about comparing horses and rabbits. It is obvious that this government regards western farmers as horses and the fishermen as rabbits, though I am surprised the minister should have admitted it.


An hon. Member:: Headline stuff.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not my phrase. It was the phrase of the Minister of Fisheries.


John Angus MacLean: On a point of privilege, I think the hon. member would wish to be fair-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Angus MacLean: He should admit, I think, that what he has imputed to me was never intended by me. I said that hon. members were not making a fair comparison when they compared things which were not comparable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, there is no dispute between us, and I do not think-


John Angus MacLean: I also said-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have sat silent all the afternoon. The minister is trying to take the one minute I have on a phony question of privilege. He will find I did not impute anything to him at all.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has said-


Paul Raymond Martineau: It is now six o'clock. I therefore regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but pursuant to the special order made today the proceedings of this committee will be interrupted in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business at eight o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the special order made this day the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills and public bills. There being no business under private bills, the house will consider public bills.



COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (12 mile fishing zone).
He said: This particular bill, Mr. Speaker, has two or three general purposes beyond the main one of extending our territorial waters. From what I can gather of at least announced government attitudes, I think these purposes are not inconsistent with the ideas the government has expressed in the past year or so. One of them is to protect our fisheries to the largest possible degree by ensuring (1) that the exploitation and use of our fisheries within the 12 mile area is engaged in by Canadian fishermen and (2) that our conservation practices within that area are not upset by fishermen of other countries coming in and fishing without due regard to the need for conservation as we appreciate it.
A certain aura of government secrecy is involved in this particular question. Since the last Geneva conference on the law of the sea where our efforts were not successful-and just by a small margin, I may say incidentally-no public announcements with any substance to them that I know of have been made by government members with regard to just what has or has not been done by the government itself. In the middle of July last year the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) was asked in the house what action was contemplated by the government with respect to the extension of our territorial waters. The answer he gave at
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act that time hinted-and not too clearly at that -that some talks were perhaps taking place but that the nature of those talks or the wishes and desires of the government were of a confidential nature; hence the house could not be taken into that degree of confidence which is necessary for full understanding of these matters.
Just yesterday a similar question was asked about government activities in this regard and the answer we were given yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was that it was not beneficial to give an answer. If the government itself would take parliament into its confidence and share some of its ideas with us, perhaps we might not have need to present this particular bill. However, expressing an expectation of the government's taking the house into its confidence in this matter or in most other matters is perhaps asking a little bit too much. None the less, if the government itself would not take this approach of saying in effect, "It is none of your business what we are doing in this field", perhaps we would have slightly better relationships and, as I said, perhaps there would not be any need to introduce a bill of this sort.
However, I suspect that what these announcements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in fact mean is that the government is doing nothing about this particular item. It is certainly doing nothing with regard to promotional activities within the United Nations where the initial conference and subsequent conferences were ordered and arranged for. No push or effort or anything of that nature is being promoted within the U.N. toward this particular end. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs says that it is not beneficial to answer questions relating to this matter, I submit he is saying that it is not beneficial to the government because it would be embarrassing for the government to be obliged to admit that it has shelved this most important problem after it did not receive the degree of support we all hoped it would receive at the last conference at Geneva on this matter.
Canada now has a three mile limit. The bill, which is an uncomplicated one to that extent, indicates that for fisheries purposes, we want this limit extended, to 12 miles. The bill also contains another important matter of interest (1) to our fishermen and our fisheries and (2) to our relationships with other countries. Some will say that this bill in fact is asking for a unilateral decision on the part of this parliament and therefore is not concerning itself with the necessity for discussions and negotiations with other countries, because other countries are fishing up to our three mile limit. But this is not the

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act case because there is a very important additional principle contained in the bill to the effect that it will come into force on the first day of July, 1964. The period of two and a half years between now and July 1, 1964, would allow for negotiations to take place with other countries directly, bilaterally, through the United Nations or in some other way, and I intend to mention two or three other methods of entering into some sort of negotiations to solve this problem.
I am a great believer in the approach of negotiation. I do not believe we should take abrupt, unilateral action of a type that will dislocate our relationships with other countries and will tend to dislocate the fishing economies of other countries because I believe we can solve the question much more easily through negotiation. But believing in negotiation I also believe that when you are negotiating you need a good lever on your side in order to ensure that your point of view has the greatest possible impact on the person with whom you are negotiating. The use of a lever in this way often takes place in parliament when the house leaders are negotiating with regard to the business of the house. The matter of whether or not agreement will be reached often depends on whose advantage is served.
The bill contains provisions which permit future action by another parliament depending on the course that negotiations take. If, for argument's sake, international negotiations were under way approaching the first day of July, 1964, when this act would come into force, and it was felt that the negotiations were close to being concluded, a future parliament could easily amend the act to provide for an extension of the date when the bill would come into force so as to permit the negotiations then under way to reach fruition.
The act which the bill seeks to amend, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, contains provision in sections 3 and 4 which, even if this amendment is adopted, provide an opportunity for other countries so to adjust their fisheries operations that there will be a minimum amount of dislocation by reason of the coming into force of this amendment. I am sure that the bill before us is based upon government attitudes and ideas as they were last publicly expressed. I have in my hand a green covered booklet. Perhaps its colour is appropriate because it comes from the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). The booklet contains the proposal which Canada made at the first Geneva conference on the law of the sea in 1958 and at the subsequent conference in March, 1960, so far as fishing rights are concerned. I am going


to read from this booklet but the words are also reproduced in the explanatory note in the bill. This was Canada's proposal:
A state has a fishing zone contiguous to its territorial sea extending to a limit 12 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured in which it has the same rights in respect of fishing and the exploitation of the living resources of the sea as it has in its territorial sea.
We took these words at their face value and drafted one of the most important proposed amendments, namely, the definition of what are Canadian territorial waters. We have put these ideas of Canada into legislative form. We regret that the last Geneva conference which dealt with this matter failed by one vote or one third of a vote, as I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs put it, to come to a conclusion with respect to this matter. However, some interesting changes of position were noted at that second conference and I think they afford some area for negotiation by Canada to find a solution for this problem. For instance, we could seek to open negotiations with each or all of the 54 countries who supported our proposal at the second Geneva conference on the law of the sea. At this stage I am not going into the differentiation with regard to the six and six formula that Canada developed. I am confining myself to that part of the formula involving a 12 mile area with regard to fisheries and not the six mile area relating to the territory itself.
We could open negotiations with these 54 countries. We could open negotiations with all the other commonwealth countries who, with the exception of India, supported our proposal at Geneva in 1960. We could negotiate with them to see whether or not an area of agreement might be reached. We could open discussions on the matter with the NATO nations, all of whom except Iceland, and for obvious reasons, I think, agreed with the proposal put forward by Canada in 1960.
With this bill on our statute books I think it would strengthen our hand in any such negotiations. It is most necessary and vital to protect the welfare of our fishing industry and our fishermen. It is most necessary to extend the area of our sovereignty over our own affairs. A former secretary of state for external affairs, the late Sidney Smith, commented on this matter a few years ago and I think it would be appropriate if I were to refer now to what he said. Perhaps at this time we might concern ourselves with putting into effect some of the things which the late Mr. Smith had in mind. As found on page 4353 of Hansard for August 30, 1958, he said:
. .. Canada does not favour the taking of unilateral action by states in respect of fishing zones so long as there is hope that a new international conference

on the law of the sea will he convened in the near future to deal with the question of territorial sea and fishing rights.
With this statement we agree generally. We say that there is no longer hope now, using the words of Mr. Smith, of another international conference on the law of the sea being held in the near future because, first, Canada is not promoting it at the United Nations and, second, so far as I know no other country is promoting it either. In my opinion we should not sacrifice the interests of our fishermen any longer. We should not allow the attitude of the United States in this regard to influence us to the extent that we do nothing about this most important question. This is an all-important matter, and I hope that the house will be kind enough to take one of those rare steps and give second reading to this bill today in order that a humble backbencher may assist the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the government in bringing some relief to citizens of this country.


Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Queens-Lunenburg, where many inshore fishermen as well as many deep sea fishermen derive their living from the sea, I am pleased to speak to this bill to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. It is interesting to note the attention given this international problem by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
The explanatory note of the bill states:
This bill's intent Is that it be a declaration by the Queen in parliament that Canada within those 12 marine miles seaward of her coasts has, to the sole use and benefit of her nationals, the right to fish exclusive of all others: as well an affirmation of Canada's obligation to protect and conserve the live resources of those seas to that same end.
Notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), this bill implies that unilateral action should be taken by the Canadian government in connection with this matter. This course has never been satisfactory when dealing with problems affecting other nations as well as our own. He states that this difficulty would be solved by referring action until July 1, 1964. This, in effect, sets a deadline when all negotiations must cease. I submit to you, sir, this is not a proper course to take.
This problem which the hon. member raises is not a new one. In fact, it goes back to the very beginning of this century. In the 1928 report of the royal commission on fisheries in the maritime provinces we find this at page 90:
The protests of the shore fishermen against steam-trawlers are not new, nor are they wholly the result of conditions prevailing in recent months. They have been persistently and repeatedly made during practically all the years in which steam-
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act trawlers have operated from Nova Scotia ports. A brief outline of the history of these protests may be of interest, as giving a better understanding of the question at issue.
In 1905, when the Halifax board of trade asked for assistance from the federal government to bring out trawlers from Scotland to operate in Nova Scotia, assistance was promptly refused, as indicated by the following letter written on June 5, 1905, by the minister of marine and fisheries at that time, to the chairman of the fisheries committee of the Halifax board of trade:
"Referring the matter of the introduction of steam-trawlers in Atlantic waters of Canada, I have an official report before me, and I do not see that any encouragement could be held out to steam-trawl firms to operate in our waters. You are no doubt aware that to that destructive method of fishing has been attributed the destruction of valuable fisheries off the shores of Great Britain, and prohibitory laws have been enforced in inshore areas. Outside the three mile limit trawling cannot be prevented, but I am not disposed to favour it in territorial waters or grant assistance to firms adopting that method of fishing."
Vigorous protests were made when foreign steam-trawlers began to fish too near to the Atlantic coast line and to interfere with the operations of the shore fishermen; and on September 9, 1908, an order in council was passed providing that "the use or operation of vessels known as steam-trawlers operating beam, otter or other trawls for the purpose of catching fish is prohibited within the three mile limit and in the bays and harbours of Canada." This was obviously an admission that steam-trawling was injuring the shore fisheries, and that it required regulation and restriction. In 1909, during the imperial defence conference, the Canadian minister of marine and fisheries, and the prime minister of Newfoundland urged upon the British government the desirability of making an international arrangement with France and the United States for the regulating of all fisheries on the banks. But no arrangement was made. Protests against steam-trawling, however, continued to be expressed in the maritime provinces, and as a result, the following resolution was passed unanimously by the House of Commons on February 6, 1911:
"That in the opinion of this house, as the mode of fishing known as steam-trawling prosecuted by ships of different nationalities on the coast of Canada outside of Canadian waters is destructive to fish life, it is expedient in order to conserve the deep sea fisheries, that negotiations be opened with the view of securing an international agreement prohibiting this mode of fishing in such spawning grounds for deep sea fish as the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the banks of the north Atlantic adjacent to the coast of Canada and Newfoundland.
Now, there is considerably more here, Mr. Speaker, but there is one paragraph that I think is most important. I quote again:
On March 18, 1912, the minister of marine and fisheries said in the House of Commons, "If it is possible to do so, effective steps will be taken to prevent steam-trawling being carried on." During the early summer of 1912, a conference was held in Washington, attended by representatives of the United States, by the Canadian minister of marine and fisheries, and by the prime minister of Newfoundland, with a view to investigating the whole question of steam-trawlers and of making observations on the results of their operations. After considerable negotiation, it was arranged that during the season of 1912 investigations would be carried on by each country independently, the understanding being that on the completion of the

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act work, the British government would be asked to call a conference of representatives of countries interested in steam-trawling with a view to reaching an arrangement for the entire prohibition of steam-trawling on this side of the Atlantic. The investigations took longer to complete than was at first anticipated. Meanwhile the war had come. It was then decided to postpone the request for the projected international conference until after the end of the war; but the proposed conference was not held. In order meanwhile to protect further the shore fishermen, the Canadian government in 1915 enacted a regulation under the Customs Act, whereby, the master of any steam-trawler is required before he is granted a clearance for the fishing grounds to give the customs officer a declaration that he will not fish within at least 12 miles from shore, this regulation to apply to all steam-trawlers clearing from a Canadian port on the Atlantic coast, Since that time no further restrictions have been placed on steam-trawlers operating from ports of the maritime provinces.
From this, Mr. Speaker, it can be ascertained that considerable objection was raised against fishing draggers in any area by the inshore as well as the hook and line fishermen on the schooners of that day. This resulted in the prohibition of large Canadian trawlers fishing within 12 miles of shore. Foreign trawlers, of course, are only required to observe the three mile limit. The problem is still of vital interest to our deep sea fishermen as well as to our inshore fishermen. Some time ago, I received a letter from one of our deep sea captains. I should like to place this on the record also for it explains the situation in so far as his operations are concerned;
As master of a Canadian vessel I am very much concerned for myself and my crew over the situation existing at the present time enabling foreign draggers and fishing vessels to fish within the 12 mile limit oH the Nova Scotia coast while we must remain with our draggers outside the 12 mile limit.
The foreign draggers and fishing vessels at certain times of the year are getting the best catches of fish while we are unable to find any satisfactory grounds on which to fish. It is understandable to me that in the interests of international negotiation this situation might be allowed to exist for a very short time but it now already has existed for a long time and in my opinion, and I believe the opinion of most of our fishermen and vessel owners and operators in this area, the time has come when definite action must be taken by our government

At the present time we are unable to find fish outside the 12 mile limit sufficient to make wages for the crew and the foreign draggers are doing well within the 12 mile limit. On our latest fishing trip we sighted at least 35 foreign ships operating within the 12 mile limit, getting large hauls of codfish and flounders, while our Canadian ships had to stay outside and fish for very small hauls of mostly scrod cod. I would like to point out also that the flounders and grey soles and halibut taken by the foreign ships were thrown back as they are not suitable for salting and it appears to us that the present situation is even more ridiculous as we are saving large quantities of fish for the foreigners who are not interested in all the species and destroying the species they do not want.
The area I mention is on the northwest side of Cape St. Lawrence where there is no shore fishery.

The present law might be understandable if there was a shore fishery to protect and I would suggest that if the law is changed any area with a shore fishery should be protected.
Now, conversely-


Frank Howard: I should like to know the date of the letter.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I said that letter was received some time ago. It is dated May 12, 1959, but the situation is similar today. Conversely, the inshore fisherman with his long-liner has found fish scarce and of necessity, in an effort to secure profitable catches, must go to the off shore banks where he is overly exposed in times of storm. For example, on March 20 last year, some 17 men were lost in one storm when three long-liners failed to return to the port of Lockeport.
However, this problem is somewhat involved. We are concerned here with fishery conservation, which is a matter perturbing many people. We must look at this from many angles. Total fish landings in the maritime provinces during 1961 amounted to 637 million pounds, with a total landed value to our fisherman of $39 million. While fish landings in 1960 were higher, the dollar value was somewhat lower, but during the past three years the average has been approximately $39 million per annum. That is the amount the fishermen have received for their catch.
When we realize that some 18 million Canadians consume on the average only 13 pounds of fish per person per annum we get some idea of the importance of the United States market to our fishing industry. Approximately three quarters of our entire catch is sold in the United States market, and any unilateral action taken by this government to restrict American trawlers from fishing other than 12 miles from shore, would no doubt meet with strong opposition from the United States.
There is another question that poses itself, the question of enforcing unilateral action on a 12 mile limit, and I submit this is of paramount importance. We remember when Iceland in September, 1958, unilaterally declared a 12 mile fishing limit and British trawlers had to be protected by gunboats while they fished off its coast. We also remember that Iceland maintained a fleet of fully armed ships in an effort to enforce its mandatory regulations. Would this be the policy of the C.C.F. and the New Democratic party if they were in office?


Frank Howard: It would be our policy to protect our own fishermen.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Certainly it is not the policy of the present administration. However, you may say that Iceland won its dispute with

the United Kingdom, but the Icelandic dispute was not simply between a big power and a little power. It was over a principle that concerns all countries, the principle that the right of states in international law depends upon the consent of other states. Iceland won out over the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom recognized that 99 per cent of the Icelandic economy is tied up in the fishing industry. During that crisis the United Kingdom was placed in a most unenviable position because the western world was concerned lest her action drive Iceland into the communist camp.
At the start of the law of the sea conference in 1958, more countries still upheld the three mile limit than any other single alternative. However, times have changed and at the last law of the sea conference the Canadian proposal that a state has the right to fix the breadth of its territorial sea, up to a limit of six nautical miles, with a fishing zone of an additional six miles, almost met with universal acceptance. I believe the hon. member for Skeena mentioned that it was defeated only by the narrow margin of one vote in failing to get the necessary two thirds majority.
This second law of the sea conference did not reach agreement on the breadth of territorial seas, or on fishing limits, although I still believe the Canadian proposal of six plus six is the best compromise between modern security needs, fishing interests and the fundamental freedom of navigation which all countries have an interest in preserving. Canada is again willing to try at Geneva, or anywhere else. I am quite convinced of that. In our proposals at the last conference on the law of the sea we presented our views in good faith and showed a willingness to co-operate.
Nova Scotians and those associated with the fishing industry generally believe that the search for local compromises is the best way to settle hard cases rather than imposing a flat 12 mile rule.
As I stated earlier, part of the problem is due to a desire to conserve the fisheries and give priority to the coastal fishermen who have a natural wish to increase their catches and raise their standard of living. However, I believe the real answer lies in scientific conservation. With our present knowledge of fish habits and movements we have improved our understanding and ability to tackle the problem, and I think that scientific regulations offer a more effective and skilful system of control than proposals for broad fishing limits that may not, in effect, include the areas most in need of conservation.
This trend of thought receives strong support in international quarters and I believe 26207-1-25
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act at present more countries are in favour of scientific regulation than ever before. There is a sound reason for this type of thinking. In Canada and the United States alone there is a population of over 200 million people, and as the population of the world increases we must constantly turn to the sea for more of our food supplies. We realize that this is the one untapped source available to us. No nation will intentionally destroy this source of protein; all nations will endeavour to preserve the fishing banks in an effort to secure gradually an increasing share of the available catch.
This bill attempts to change the definition of Canadian territorial waters, which limits foreign vessels to a three mile fishing zone. It proposes to change this to a 12 mile zone. Section 4, paragraph (d) of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations, among other things, designating the territorial waters of Canada for the purpose of the act. In view of this fact it is not necessary to amend it in order to have a 12 mile limit established, as the power is granted to the governor in council to do this at any time.
Present Canadian policy indicates we believe in a clear distinction being made between territorial limits and fishing limits. However, we believe that any change in the fishing limits should be made by universal agreement and must take account of the essential principles of international conduct. The chief of these is the need for international consent prior to any changes being made, because a nation's individual rights are only sustained by general acceptance.
This problem, Mr. Speaker, is still under consideration, but unilateral action as suggested by the bill would only create tensions between Canada and some of its best customers for its fishery products. This would be unacceptable to the Canadian people and I believe undesirable generally to the Canadian fishing industry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) both on the bill and on the very moderate and reasonable presentation he made of it. In saying that I am speaking for my party and I assert that we support the bill without reservation. We support it in large measure for the reasons given by the hon. member, and I shall elaborate on that point in a moment.
I should first like to deal with some of the arguments made in opposition to this bill by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. 382	HOUSE OF
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act Crouse) who also spoke with great moderation but who did not seem to realize that 1912 was 50 years ago and that the situation has changed a good deal since.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We are selling more fish now to the United States.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are selling more fish to the United States, and of course the United States is a far less important fishing power now than it was 50 years ago, and the mutual arrangements between the two countries are on a much wider scale than they were 50 years ago.
The hon. gentleman deplored the possibility of unilateral action. I do not think anyone wants to have unilateral action. It was the government which preceded the present one which initiated negotiations which were carried on and which almost succeeded, as everyone has pointed out, at Geneva in getting what we wanted by multilateral action. But the fact is that they did not succeed and that so far as we can discover nothing effective has been done since to resume these negotiations.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) in reply to a question from my hon. friend from Trinity-Conception (Mr. Tucker) who asked whether any negotiations were going on in this matter, said that any such announcement would be made in the house in due course. When the minister was asked by me whether active negotiations were going on at the present time he said:
I think it would not be beneficial to answer that question at this time, Mr. Speaker.
When I was so presumptuous in this free parliament as to ask, "Beneficial to whom?", the minister said, "To Canada. To whom does the hon. member suppose?" The hon. member felt that the minister does not often have a chance to score off anybody any more and the matter could be left there. But the reason for the question was that when this government is not willing to talk about something, I think that is the most conclusive evidence that it is not doing anything, because it spends most of the time talking about things that it is not doing. I think we can fairly assume that the correct answer to, "Beneficial to whom?" was, "To the government", because I cannot believe that, if this government is really seriously carrying on any negotiations, this can be such a deep, dark secret, that those negotiations would be seriously jeopardized if this house were told they were going on.
I would not do what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) did. I would not try to force the government to do what he did-force


Mr. Heath to show the British hand in the common market negotiations, thereby weakening their power to negotiate. I think that just to tell us whether or not the negotiations are going on would do the public interest no conceivable harm and I think we are justified in assuming, until we are told otherwise, that they are not and the government does not want to admit it.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg said this problem was not new. It is not new, that is quite sure. I suppose it is one of the oldest problems. It is as old as Canada and it existed before confederation. It is not a new problem at all but it is a problem that is getting very much worse. I do not need to tell the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg, but some hon. members may not be aware of the fact that whereas there were only three or four nations with fishing fleets off the Canadian coast even five or six years ago, ships are coming from all over the world and fishing right off our shores today, and more vested interests-if you like to call them that-more presumptions are being created every year very much to the detriment of the Canadian fishery and Canadian fishermen.
The hon. member also expressed grave concern about the displeasure of the United States. This was very touching coming from a supporter of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and a supporter-I suppose it is still possible to support both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding what has been said by a "servile" press. Assuming that the hon. gentleman supports both of them, and maybe even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton)-who has just come in-for good measure, these were the men who over here on this side of the house were going to speak in no uncertain terms to the United States five or six years ago and put the Americans in their place. Now the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg cringes for fear-


Mr. Pallelf:: He never cringed in his life.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the United States might be displeased if we took control of our own country. It is a very different line from the line taken by his leader at Yarmouth on March 25, 1958.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that another of Lamontagne's books that you have there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the gospel according to John written by one of those who followed him in the press.


An hon. Member:: Where are you reading from?


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the book? What is the title of the book?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will tell the hon. gentleman what the book is. This is a Canadian Press report-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the book?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman would like to know-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has a nice red cover.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Diefenbaker's Statements and Promises, 1958".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Published by whom?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Promises, I assume, by Diefenbaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Published by whom?


An hon. Member:: Who is the publisher?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the book has been sufficiently identified.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. member have the candour to tell us who published the book?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I now wish to read from the Canadian Press-


An hon. Member:: Who published the book?


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the present moment I am publishing what is here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am publishing it in this house, but I am taking it from the Montreal Gazette.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is far too much interruption. The hon. member has a limited time and he is entitled to be heard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Obviously it is not the gospel-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the last thing they want to hear is what their leader said in 1958, and I do not blame them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is obviously not the gospel according to St. John, but the gospel according to St. Pickersgill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I can only retort, in the words of my very young daughter, "Very funny".


An hon. Member:: You are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a Canadian Press dispatch which appeared in the Montreal Gazette reporting a statement made by the Prime Minister at Yarmouth on March 25, 1958. The first paragraph reads:
26207-1-25i
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
Prime Minister Diefenbaker today promised federal price supports under fish-
Where are they?
-and a firm stand on protection of Canadian inshore fisheries against foreign trawlers.
Where is that? Whether those two promises are among the 12 or among the forgotten, I do not know; but that was the brave attitude in March of 1958, and we now have a pusillanimous attitude expressed on behalf of the government by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg four years later.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the price of haddock today is as high as it has ever been in Canada's history?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this has to do with whether we should have a 12 mile fishing zone or a 3 mile fishing zone. In any event, I listened politely and without interrupting the hon. gentleman's statement. I have a statement to make in a very limited time and I hope he will do me the same courtesy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Catch fish or cut bait.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to leave any doubt about the authority for what I say. I said I was speaking for my party. The position taken by our party was stated in the debate in May last year. It is in Hansard of May 2, 1961, at pages 4226 and 4227, where my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson)-who is unavoidably absent this evening-had this to say with respect to the failure of the conference on the law of the sea.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where is your red ribbon?


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said:
In any event, the proposal was lost and there seems to be no immediate prospect-
And there evidently is none yet, as far as I know
-of a third conference on the law of the sea to deal with this matter; so this first and best way of dealing with it-
That is, by multilateral agreement
-has, for the time being at least, had to be discarded. But we do not need to let the matter drop because of that. There are 54 countries which voted for this 12 mile proposal with a 10-year period for the observance of historic rights. So another way of establishing this zone in Canadian law is to get those countries which accept this 12 mile zone to agree among themselves that as far as they are concerned it is international law and that it will be observed and enforced by them.
That is the second best way, and the bill introduced by the hon. member for Skeena

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (Mr. Howard) would provide ample opportunity to get that kind of agreement, and, as he has pointed out, some incentive to get it. After all, those words I have quoted were not uttered originally by me. They were uttered by a gentleman whose experience in international negotiation is unparalleled in this country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did he ever get a 12 mile limit for us?


John Whitney Pickersgill: He began to do it and if
he had still been there perhaps he would have got that one extra vote we needed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He never got close to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that kind of agreement were not possible, my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition indicated:
The third alternative is for our own government to take unilateral action as other governments have done and decree that there would be a 12 mile fisheries jurisdiction zone laid down in our domestic legislation and that we will exercise jurisdiction in that zone.
That is just what this bill proposes, and that, I may say, is the policy of our party. That is the reason why I have no hesitation in giving support to this bill. I am not very impressed by the dangers which it is suggested might arise from an attempt to enforce this. After all, if Iceland and Norway have been able to do this by unilateral action it is hard to persuade me that the Canadian people, if they had a resolute government which could make up its mind about anything, would have any difficulty in doing the same.
There is plenty of time left to have a vote on this bill and I hope we can have a vote before nine o'clock.


James Russell Keays: Once again we have witnessed the spectacle of the great wildcat from Bonavista-Twillin-gate getting down to petty politics and trying to tell us that this problem could have been solved without difficulty by the Liberal party if his friends had remained in power.


An hon. Member:: There he goes.


James Russell Keays: He is going to the Liberal dinner.
He seems to be a man who has done everything in the past. He and his friends look at every effort ever made by this government, every law that has ever been enacted, and they say: we did that in the past; we prepared legislation of that kind, or, in this case: we prepared submissions to Geneva. I can imagine attending the conference on the law of the sea at Geneva. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate walks into the hall brandishing a Canadian ultimatum,

and I can see all the representatives of all other countries bowing and saying: yes, we accede to the request of the representative from Canada. I find it hard to understand how either the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) or the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate can tell us that they do not foresee clearly that the result of this bill must be unilateral action. They wish to change paragraph (b) of section 2 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act so as to read:
'Canadian territorial waters' means a fishing zone extending seaward to a limit 12 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial seas of Canada are measured, and includes inland waters of Canada.
In the explanatory notes it is stated that to allow time for international negotiation which might result in agreement on national fishing limits, the bill is deferred in effect until July 1, 1964. Despite this provision, however, I believe that this measure definitely represents unilateral action and in all circumstances I do not believe anyone would wish that Canada should go to that extent. I agree that it is necessary to protect our fishing zones by the conservation and preservation of the species of fish. There is a special threat on the east coast where we see many ships from foreign countries, including factory ships, taking fish three miles from the Canadian coast. However, is it not best that we should settle this question by negotiation-negotiation, for example, with our neighbour to the south-although the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate seems to be a great enemy of our neighbour to the south?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh.


James Russell Keays: Some formula has to be found. Norway and Britain found a formula at their meeting in Oslo in 1960; since that period a four mile fishing limit was progressively extended into a 12 mile fishing zone. This is one example of negotiations between two countries successfully reaching a conclusion on this matter. I think the Canadian people would not wish to say that there must be both a 12 mile fishing limit and a 12 mile territorial zone. It might be better to suggest that we should have a three mile territorial zone and a 12 mile fishing zone. If we were to say this, it is possible that negotiations with many of the other countries would be successful and we would attain our objective, not by means of an ultimatum such as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggests but through friendly relations. I regret that I cannot endorse this bill as it is presented to us, though if it were amended we could possibly come to some understanding and to better terms.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration for private members' business having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at eight o'clock.

The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Special-
612. Contribution towards a special Newfoundland works program for fishing settlements that experienced income reduction resulting from decreased catches, $300,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: When the committee rose at six o'clock I had just begun to say something about the observation that had been made by the Minister of Fisheries and, particularly his appeal that we should make fair comparisons. I suggested that the kind of comparisons the minister himself was making were not fair comparisons. What I really rose to say first of all was that the minister threw up his hands at the possibility of doing anything for the fishermen comparable to what was done under the acreage payment scheme which we had previously voted for the wheat growers and grain growers of the west. The minister suggested that the problem of the fishermen was far too complicated for a similar solution, and that the difficulties were far too great. I cannot imagine that the minister really meant that. It would be much easier indeed to apply to the fishermen of Newfoundland-and I refer to the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland-a system such as that which we just adopted for the farmers of western Canada than to apply it to the farmers of western Canada. We already have in existence all the required administrative machinery to make that procedure possible and I am going to tell the minister just exactly how it could be done, just as I told the Prime Minister in 1958 how it could be done.
The machinery is there. It is there in the unemployment insurance commission. All the fishermen who would be concerned are insured under the unemployment insurance commission. Their files are there. The number of stamps they have is known to the commission. From its own records already available to it the government would have no difficulty whatsoever in identifying them and segregating those who were bona fide fishermen. They could have made such payments in two simple ways. They could have said, "We are going to give $200 for income maintenance to the western farmers who have had a crop failure, though in fact, crop failure, as the Acting Minister of Agriculture has told us, was taken care of under the Prairie Farm
Supply-Fisheries
Assistance Act which has no parallel whatever with the fishermen. This income maintenance was provided to the prairie farmers on two occasions when there was not a crop failure. I refer to the year 1958 and the year 1960. One way to have paid the fishermen was to do what was done with the prairie farmers, namely to say that, regardless of what their crop was, everyone of them would get the payment and the payment could have been a flat $200. I am not saying that I would have advocated that method. The minister said it could not be done. I say that it could have been done very easily. There would not have been the slightest difficulty in doing it. It could have been done in a very few weeks without encountering any problem whatsoever in an administrative sense. The minister has fisheries officers who know very well who the fishermen are.
It could be done in another way. It could be done on a graduated basis depending on how many stamps the fishermen had, so that those who had a good catch and had a sufficient number of stamps and therefore did not need any special help would not get it and it would go only to those who, because of their poor catch, were qualified to get it. That would be to apply a limited kind of test of need, something which was not done in the case of the western farmers. However, that is something that could have been done. These are two ways in which payments could have been made and by means of which the fishermen could have been treated in exactly the same way as the farmers were treated.
Why was this not done? I do not know. It would not have cost much money, whichever method had been followed. If anybody thinks that income maintenance is not just as necessary for the fishermen as it is for the farmers, I should just like him to compare their income levels and say that to any fisherman on the east coast.


James Russell Keays: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


James Russell Keays: I, too, believe in the sincerity of the fishermen but if he proposes to this committee that any fisherman- who has not earned sufficient stamps should qualify for unemployment insurance benefits during the winter months, how can be prove that this fisherman tried to fish? Could he not just sit at home?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can answer that question. You could eliminate any fisherman who did not have a reasonable number of stamps the previous year. That would be a fairly good test, if you are so anxious to screw the fishermen down. Nobody heard the hon. member

Supply-Fisheries
get to his feet and suggest tests like that for the western farmers. Why is there this desperate concern about a few dollars going to the fishermen after we have voted $42 million to the western farmers? That is exactly the question we are asking. We willingly voted this money to the western farmers because we thought they needed it. However, we think the fishermen need it also. It is rather hard to go down and tell the fishermen that the only way in which they can get it is to get jobs and sweat it out on work on the roads in the winter time at $20 when the western farmer gets a cheque for $200 from Alvin's cheque machine. That is what this government is asking the fishermen to accept. That is a perfectly fair and valid comparison. Whether or not it is fair or valid, it is a comparison which the fishermen in every settlement in Newfoundland make. If anyone doubts it, let him go down and ask them. I know the situation. I have heard them make the comparison.


An hon. Member:: You want a police state.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want a little bit of fairness and a little bit of equality. The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine who interrupted me a little while ago, at the conclusion of his speech, said that if we could suggest some simple method by which the fishermen could be aided as the farmers were aided, he would support it. I have suggested two simple methods by which it could be done. I hope he will rise in his place and support them.


James Russell Keays: It is not sensible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Go and tell that to the fishermen. I certainly would not tell the fishermen that it is fair that the western farmers should receive P.F.A.A. cheques if they have complete crop failures and in addition to that get another $200, while the fisherman, if he can get one of these jobs on one of these works projects, gets $20. I would not want to go around and tell them that. If the members of this government want to do so they are perfectly welcome to do it.


Mr. McFarlane:: Do you know that the farmers paid in to P.F.A.A.?


An hon. Member:: How much?


John Whitney Pickersgill: All I am suggesting is this. I admit right away what the minister said. I admit that you cannot have absolute mathematical equality. We did not have it in the acreage payments and the government did not make any such pretension. In no scheme which you have in effect to deal with this problem can you have it either. But in this way you could do something roughly comparable and it would be administratively quite easy to do.

The minister suggested that this scheme which we now have before us, as envisaged in this $300,000 vote, was what was suggested by the Newfoundland federation of fishermen last August. I think we really ought to look at what the Newfoundland federation of fishermen themselves said and not at the interpretation placed upon it by the minister. I should like to read from a letter sent by them to the minister of which I have a copy.


William Joseph Browne: What is the date of the letter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The date of the letter is August 24, 1961. There are two or three points about the date that I wish to draw particularly to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite. The general secretary treasurer of the Newfoundland federation of fishermen, Mr. P. J. Antle, wrote as follows:
It Is now apparent that the Inshore fishery In Newfoundland has been a complete failure, due entirely to the scarcity of codfish. This disaster as it can be rightly described applies to fishermen all around the province. In a few areas a small number of fishermen did secure fair catches and obtained sufficient stamps to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
Just as a few farmers had bumper crops, but there were not many of them; and there certainly were not many fishermen who in August, at any rate, were in this category, although some of them may have improved their situation later in the year. The letter continues:
The same general scarcity of fish still prevails and hopes for a successful fall fishery are fading day by day.
This was in August. That is when the government was warned about this problem and I want to emphasize that point. The letter continues:
Thousands of our fishermen do a little subsistence farming and produce sufficient vegetables for local consumption. In normal years production of vegetables helped to supplement earnings from the fisheries. As a result of the long dry summer those precious crops were stunted or ruined completely. In addition many fishermen due to forest fires are precluded from augmenting their income from fall employment in the woods industry.
The combination of disasters has left the great majority of our fishermen in desperate economic conditions. These conditions will grow worse with the approach of winter.
The letter continues:
On behalf of our fishermen I am appealing to you, and through you to the federal government for some form of special assistance to help them through the winter.
"Some form".
I will not attempt to outline the nature or form of such special assistance.
I am not accusing the minister of bad faith; I am just saying that the minister

did not correctly interpret this letter. Contrary to what the minister said, Mr. Antle did not say there must be works. He said:
I will not attempt to outline the nature or form of such special assistance. Men in your department more capable and with far more experience than I are best qualified to deal with such matters. However, I would suggest a continuation of community stage development, building or repairing of access roads to fishing communities and an expanded program of public works such as the construction of wharves and breakwaters.
This was just one suggestion, but it was the assistance for which they were appealing.
A further subject for study would be some form of loan program for Inshore fishermen to enable them to engage in next year's fishery with adequate fishing equipment.
It was because of that phrase in that letter and the knowledge and experience that my friends from Newfoundland on this side of the house had of this situation that we ventured jointly to write a letter to the minister which was described by two of my colleagues in the course of their speeches and in which we made a very practical suggestion which the minister said looked fine until it was examined. But I cannot believe that the minister's department is so devoid of administrative capacity that if they had really wanted to accept this suggestion it would not have been quite possible to do so. They have fishery officers who during the winter months could very well have supervised this program and could very well have made sure that the materials provided were used for the purpose for which they were provided. The scheme was thoroughly practical, thoroughly simple and bound to help the fishermen. Then Mr. Antle went on to say:
Such program would necessitate a combined effort on the part of the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Public Works and the provincial government of Newfoundland.
That was August 24. There was not a word from the government all through the concluding part of last session. I must say that I fully expected that with that appeal from Mr. Antle and with the knowledge which the ministers in the government had, which I am sure was communicated to them by their distinguished colleague from Newfoundland, some special assistance would be provided in the concluding part of the last session of parliament which was held in September. But not a word did we hear.


William Joseph Browne: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


William Joseph Browne: Did he have any request from the premier of Newfoundland or the minister of fisheries of Newfoundland?
Supply-Fisheries


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I did not have any request from them. I have read the constitution of Canada a good many times and I know that it is not in section 92 but in section 91 that jurisdiction exists over fisheries, and so does the minister. This is a national problem, something that is under the jurisdiction of parliament, not under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and it should have been tackled by parliament in the same way that the wheat acreage payments were. There were no requests from provincial governments for acreage payments at all. That was done by the federal government on its own motion and the same treatment should have been accorded to the fishermen.
Agriculture is a joint responsibility of the federal and provincial governments. The fisheries are an exclusive responsibility of the federal government. Yet the minister from Newfoundland gets up and says, "Did you have any request from the premier"? It is not the premier's business; it is the business of the Solicitor General. That is what he is in the cabinet for, to put forward the claims of the people of Newfoundland. I should like to ask him what he did about it when this letter came. I hope that when I have concluded he will tell us about his gallant efforts on behalf of the fishermen, getting $20 a head for the fishermen when his colleague from Saskatchewan was getting $200 a head for the farmers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How much did you get?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that is the way he is going to fight the next election, I do not mind when it comes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How much did you get?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could tell the hon. gentleman that but it is not relevant to this debate. I am not going to be put off by any diversion from the hon. gentleman whose knowledge of fishing is, I imagine, greater than mine, but has nothing to do with the kind of fishing about which we are now talking.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are pretty easily put off.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was not a word about this from the federal government from August 24 until October 19. What was the brilliant way they intended to deal with it then? Did they bring forward a program of their own? I should like to read a message, of which I have a copy, which represents the first action by this government, two months after they were told that this problem was urgent and that it should be dealt with in the fall and not in the winter. On October 19 we have this message to the premier of Newfoundland from the Prime Minister of Canada:

Supply-Fisheries
The dominion government has been considering the difficulties of those fishing communities in Newfoundland which have suffered severely from the poor catch this year and we feel there are opportunities for providing needed assistance by taking advantage promptly of opportunities and funds now available under the municipal winter works program which is applicable to the local road boards in unorganized Newfoundland communities. I would suggest your government consider immediately working out with us arrangements to apply this program in outport communities where employment is needed. Please let me hear from you as soon as possible.
I have the reply of the premier of Newfoundland to that message and as I think it expresses the position more simply than I could paraphrase it I will read it. It is dated October 26, 1961 and is addressed to the Prime Minister:
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you for your telegram of October 19 in which you say your government has been considering the difficulties of those fishing communities in Newfoundland which have suffered severely from the poor catch this year. You suggest taking advantage of opportunities and funds available under the municipal winter works program through local road boards where there are no municipal councils. We have carefully considered this suggestion but there are two almost insuperable difficulties. First, we could not in such winter works possibly discriminate between fishermen and other persons who might be equally in need and second, as your fisheries officers will confirm, the fishermen in question are scattered through some 600 settlements along 4,000 miles of coast and the administrative difficulties of organizing projects on such a scale with the limited facilities available for supervision hardly need any emphasis.
We suggest-
This was a counter suggestion made by the premier.
-as a more feasible alternative that the federal government consider organizing through its fisheries officers and the public works department-
Not through the provincial government and the local road boards. In other words, Mr. Smallwood was simply saying that the federal government should mind its own business and do its own business.
We suggest as a more feasible alternative that the federal government consider organizing through its fisheries officers and public works department, a series of small marine projects such as fishermen's slipways, wharves and small breakwaters of which your public works department already has rough plans available-
I know they have lots of them.
-and that such projects be started and carried on as far as conveniently possible during the winter and early spring. Such a federal program, because of the constitutional responsibility of the federal government of Canada, could be done exclusively for fishermen and supervised jointly by your public works department and fisheries officers As such projects would undoubtedly provide some financial relief to our welfare department we would be prepared to provide 25 per cent of the labour costs-

You will see the reason why this provision is made. The premier felt that if nothing was done the welfare costs incurred by the province would be greater and that if some of these projects were undertaken there would be a saving in one respect to the province and they would have this money which they could use to pay part of the labour costs.
The letter continues:
As such projects would undoubtedly provide some financial relief to our welfare department we would be prepared to provide 25 per cent of the labour costs of any such projects undertaken during the winter and spring, notwithstanding the fact that such undertakings would be exclusively in the field of activity as signed by the constitution to the government of Canada.
Now, here was something that was entirely the business of the government of Canada and no business of the provincial government at all. The Prime Minister tried to pass the buck to the province. The premier pointed out, and pointed out very considerately, courteously and respectfully, that it would not work and why it could not possibly work. In order to be constructive he put forward an alternative, something that any self-respecting national government would have done on its own. In order to be as conciliatory as possible the provincial government offered to pay part of the labour costs.
What happened after that? The Prime Minister sent another message, and I think the real story of this vote should be on the record. I am sorry the minister did not see fit to place it on the record. We should know what really did happen. The Prime Minister, on November 3, sent a further message to the premier in which he said:
Reurlet October 26 assistance to fishermen would like to clarify October 19 proposal. I do not believe that there will be any possible discrimination since any settlement incorporated or unincorporated anywhere in the province is eligible under winter works incentive program to secure grant equal to amount provided by your government for labour in annual road building grants. Understand such grants made to five hundred seventy five settlements last year under administration of your department of highways. If plan accepted all settlements can double their work programs at no additional cost to your government. Urgently request you to authorize representative to act during your absence to work out details of this practical program with this government.
I do not know who on earth advised the Prime Minister of Canada to send that message to the premier of Newfoundland. Whoever it was knew nothing about Newfoundland, nothing whatever. In the first place, what are these local road programs? They are programs that are carried on normally in the summer and fall. They are not winter works at all. Most of that money had already been spent long before that telegram was sent. Moreover, these works are works for

the whole community and no government would dare to say that only fishermen could be employed on them or that other people who were not fishermen could not be employed, as the premier had already pointed out. As a matter of fact, whoever the Prime Minister may have consulted about this, I may say it was about as foolish a message as could possibly have been sent.
In the meantime, the premier of Newfoundland had gone overseas on provincial business and the acting premier replied to this telegram. In order to make the story complete, sir, I should like to read the reply. It is dated November 8, and reads as follows:
Retel am wondering whether it is clearly understood by government of Canada that local road grants for present year referred to were made during the spring and summer and that practically all allocations totalling approximately four hundred thousand dollars regular grant and one hundred thousand supplementary grants for special needs have now been expended. Are we to understand from your telegram that government of Canada is prepared to match this amount which has already been expended by our local road boards without further cost to the government of Newfoundland.
Now, that is very important. In the settlements where the money had already been spent, was the federal government going to spend the same amount without cost to the provincial government? That is what the acting premier is asking.
Would appreciate your confirmation that this is so.
Then, he sent a letter in some detail which I will not weary the committee by reading, incorporating the telegram and, for greater certainty, expanding on this program. I have here a copy of a document prepared by the acting premier who, when he furnished me with a copy of this letter, wrote:
After the foregoing message was sent to the Prime Minister Honourable W. J. Browne made a statement. The report I heard over the air stated that according to Mr. Browne the federal government had turned down a suggestion by Premier Smallwood. They would, however, be considering at an early date a proposition put forward by the attorney general.
In order to make it quite clear that my telegram was not to be considered as other than an inquiry I addressed the attached letter to the Prime Minister.
That is the letter to which I refer.


William Joseph Browne: Perhaps you had better read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister suggests that I should read it. I am quite prepared to read it if the minister really wants me to do so. I am sure the minister is very familiar with the contents. They bear out completely what was said. It is dated November 10, and the first part of it reads:
Supply-Fisheries
This will confirm my telegram to you dated the 8th inst. with reference to your correspondence with Premier Smallwood re assistance to fishermen.
Then, the telegram is again given verbatim and I will not read it a second time. The letter continues as follows:
Before Premier Smallwood left for Europe he asked me to handle this matter in his absence: but before authorizing an expenditure of between one quarter and one half a million dollars, I wanted to be quite sure that there would be no misunderstanding between the government of Canada on the one hand and the government of Newfoundland on the other.
Your telegram of the 3rd instant states that any settlement, incorporated or unincorporated anywhere in the province is eligible under winter works incentive program to secure a grant equal to the amount provided by your government for labour in annual road building grants. The amount appropriated by the Newfoundland government to five hundred and twenty-four settlements this year was approximately $400,000. being $2 per capita of the population of each area. In addition, an amount of $100,000 was appropriated for special works, such as local bridges, etc. We have been trying to find out how much of this money was spent in materials and for hire and how much in labour. It would seem from the tabulations already prepared (and many returns are not yet in) that the amount for labour would be about 75 per cent of the various allocations. Of course the amount would vary from settlement to settlement according to the nature of the work done.
If I interpret your telegram of November 3, correctly it would seem to me that your government is now offering these various road boards approximately 75 per cent of the amount of their annual grant, or roughly $300,000, and I have given instructions to the department of highways to be ready to notify the road boards concerned that this additional money is available as soon as my interpretation is confirmed.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry, but I have to advise the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps for the sake of continuity, the committee might consider permitting me to finish reading the letter.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing his quotation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue the quotation:
The regular practice in allocating road board moneys is for the road boards concerned to call a public meeting of the settlement and to put before that meeting a program of expenditure which must be approved by that meeting before any funds are allocated by the government. In that way the public has some control over expenditure. In view of the lateness of the season it would seem that the various road boards will have to be left on their own to decide how and where these additional moneys, if available, are to be spent.
I am sure the various settlements will appreciate the expenditure in their areas of these additional moneys, but I doubt very much if the expenditure of $1.50 per capita in any community (and that figure would seem to represent the labour share of our annual road grants), would be of any substantial assistance to fishermen in a small community.

Supply-Fisheries
Then, there is the usual appropriate conclusion. Since my time has expired, sir, I will reserve my other remarks until some other hon. gentleman has spoken.


Mr. Nasserden:: I had not intended to take part in this debate but the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate have cast what I consider to be an unfair reflection on some of the people I represent and on some of the policies brought forward by this government, and the former government of which he was a member, to provide assistance for the people in my area.
I am sure the fishermen of Newfoundland would not wish to be associated with any misrepresentation made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act is a measure which was introduced to relieve distress caused by drought and crop failure in the wheat growing regions of western Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By a Liberal government.


Edward Nasserden: I am proud to acknowledge that fact and to say this government improved on that legislation. It provides that on each bushel of grain delivered to the grain elevators by farmers in western Canada, there is a levy imposed, deducted, and put in a fund and that fund, assisted by the treasury of Canada, is used to pay awards to those farmers who qualify after their crops have been inspected and it has been determined that they have suffered through crop failure.
The acreage payment is, of course, another matter, being in the nature of a subsidy to Canadian consumers of bread. From its introduction in 1958 it was considered in that respect, and it has absolutely no similarity to a drought payment, so far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned. I hope the fishermen in Newfoundland will pardon me for interrupting a debate in which I know they are vitally interested, but I thought that on behalf of my own constituents I should make this correction of the facts that have been placed before us today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am most grateful to the hon. member for Rosthern and I have no quarrel with one word he has said. I am just as proud of the P.F.A.A. as he is. I am proud of the fact it was introduced by a Liberal government and I only wish something similar existed for the benefit of the fishermen.


Edward Nasserden: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really have a lot of things I want to say about the fishermen, and I deliberately refrained from bringing the fishermen into the debate on the acreage payments.


Edward Nasserden: I should like to ask a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member could ask it when I have concluded. I would prefer to continue my remarks and conclude the account of what actually did happen about this matter. There were one or two more communications and I do not want anyone to say that I have left out any part of the record.
On November 15 the Prime Minister replied to these communications, the letter and the telegram, and he said:
Dear Mr. Curtis:
While I will be absent for a couple of days I wish at once to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 10th instant which just came into my office this afternoon.
I will turn your letter over to the Minister of Northern Affairs for his immediate attention.
I am not quite sure why it was the "Minister of Northern Affairs", but that is what the letter says. Then, on November 21, the Prime Minister sent a telegram to Mr. Curtis, the acting premier, which reads as follows:
With further reference problem certain fishing settlements where fisherman had poor results in fishing season we are prepared through winter works incentive program to match labour content of all local road boards grants eligible under that program and possibly including work done since October 15th.
I direct the attention of members to that. It is very different from the first brave offer, which said they were going to match all of the road grants for the whole season, but when the facts began to trickle slowly down in Ottawa they reneged on that offer and said "Oh, no, we will only match those in the settlements where the money has not been spent, possibly including work done since October 15." In that way a settlement in which the people had energetically got their road work done would not get any benefit. That is part of the history of nondiscriminatory, practical policy suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite to deal with the problem. The telegram continues:
Where such expenditure fails to meet need we are prepared to provide additional funds up to $300,000 for local public improvement projects capable of being carried out by March 31st, 1962, in fishing settlements mutually agreed as requiring assistance provided your government will contribute 25 per cent of labour cost as suggested premier's letter October 26th.
In other words, the federal government was not willing to assume its own responsibilities and do the job itself. It insisted on getting the last nickel it could get out of the treasury of Newfoundland, to deal with a national problem that was its responsibility.
I have another message from Mr. Curtis to the Prime Minister. It is the same date, November 21, and is as follows:

Thank you for your telegram re assistance to fishermen. Newfoundland government will co-operate by contributing 25 per cent of labour cost local public improvement projects as proposed by Premier Smallwood-
This was the same scheme as the Solicitor General said they had already turned down.
-and accepted by you in settlements mutually agreed as requiring assistance. Presume it will be in order now for our nominee to contact your Minister of Northern Affairs and this will be done promptly. Kindest regards.
Then there is one other message, from the Prime Minister to Mr. Curtis, dated November 24, 1961. This spanned the period from August to September, one month; September to October two months, and October to November; three months after Mr. Antle brought this urgent matter to the attention of the government. It was three months before anything got off the ground because of the buck passing performance that had been carried on. The message reads as follows:
Thank you for your message of the 21st accepting our proposal re assistance to fishermen. Will advise you Friday names of our officials designated to confer with your nominee.
I would draw attention to the fact that all Mr. Curtis accepted, all he had agreed to was to co-operate by contributing 25 per cent of the labour cost. This was a federal scheme. This $300,000 was federal money and towards that scheme the provincial government said it would contribute 25 per cent of the labour cost.
I have not got any further documentary evidence and I prefer to speak only about those things that I really know, but I have read what took place in the legislature. Indeed, I was present in the house on December 4 when this was first discussed, but the latest statement that has come to my attention is a quite recent one which I should like to put on the record. It is from the St. John's daily News of January 16, 1962. In it there is an article headed:
Federal winter works aid misunderstood-blame lies with Ottawa.
Throughout Newfoundland there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding about the federal government's winter works for the distressed fishermen.
In an announcement yesterday, the Premier said that some people do not seem to understand that this whole scheme belongs to the federal government at Ottawa.
"The Newfoundland government do not like it." the premier declared, "and have said so very plainly.
Indeed, some of the things he said in the legislature were not very flattering. However, the article continues:
"I denounced it strongly in the House of Assembly, and so did everyone else in the Newfoundland government."
Supply-Fisheries
Another part of the article reports the premier as follows:
"The Canadian government officials came to St. John's from Ottawa and planned out the whole scheme," Mr. Smallwood continued.
"They decided what place along the seacoast should receive anything from the winter works program. They picked out the very settlements where this scheme would be carried out. They decided how much money would be sent to each individual settlement.
The Newfoundland government had nothing whatsoever to do with selecting the bays or settlements, or anything to do with deciding how much money would be sent to each place".
Concerning the money from Ottawa, the premier had this to say: "The Newfoundland government were asked if they would permit the money provided by Ottawa to be sent to the local boards in the various settlements-the town councils, community councils, local road boards, etc. The Newfoundland government agreed that the money could be sent to those organizations but the Newfoundland government refused point blank to decide how the money should be spent".
That is all that is in direct quotation marks and therefore that is all with which I think I should weary the committee. I wish to make a few very brief observations. As my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo said when he opened the discussion of this estimate, notwithstanding the inequity, notwithstanding the impossibility of deciding whether this aid would go to fishermen or to other persons in the settlements, notwithstanding the difficulties of administration and the inadequacy of the road boards, with the best will in the world, to administer this kind of program, particularly when it was delayed for three unnecessary months from August until November, if this government was prepared to do nothing else, in view of the very serious crop failure of the fishermen this is better than nothing and we are not going to be so foolish as to refuse it.
But when we apply to it the test-and I quote the words of the Minister of Fisheries as I took them down-which we ought to apply, being completely fair, with complete fairness and justice to all-those were the words which I copied down as the minister uttered them-and consider that the whole thing is rubbed in by asking us to vote this money immediately after the acreage payments, the discrepancy is so frightful that it is hard to believe that the government had any notion at all of the kind of problem with which they were dealing.
There was no reason on earth why the federal government should not in August, when that letter came, have sent Mr. McArthur or one of the other capable people they have in the department to Newfoundland and on their own responsibility produced a thoroughly workable scheme for dealing with this problem. It is a national problem which under our constitution belongs to this

Supply-Fisheries
parliament and not to the legislature. The government should have done this instead of offering winter works. These same winter works were offered the winter before and the winter before that. They were available on exactly the same terms. The original offer of October 19 was absolutely nothing that was not already there for any other province which did not have this crop failure.
It was only when the premier of Newfoundland stirred them up by saying that Newfoundland, though it needs every dollar in its treasury for provincial purposes, would help this great federal government in a scheme if they would get a scheme started and do it themselves, that we got anything at all; and still we got something that is a hit or miss, haphazard arrangement. You cannot tell whether the aid really goes to the fishermen or not.
Perhaps it should not. It is hard to go into one of these communities where a man who is not a fisherman needs a job just as badly as one who is a fisherman, and say to the one who is a fisherman, "You can have a job" and to the one who is not a fisherman, "You cannot". I should not like to do that and I should not like to be part of the government which foisted that kind of policy upon the local authorities and road boards. That was not done to the farmers, as my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo pointed out. The farmers did not have to go out and work for their $200. They received a cheque. Why should not the fishermen be treated in the same way as the farmers?


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Antle said they did not want a handout.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, the Solicitor General calls what the government has given to the farmers a handout.


William Joseph Browne: I said that was what Mr. Antle said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said the fishermen did not want a handout. In other words, he is calling the acreage payments a handout.


John Ferguson Browne: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I said to the hon. member that Mr. Antle, whom the hon. member quoted, said they did not want handouts. He wrote that himself.


Mr. Jones:: Acreage payments are not handouts at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If acreage payments are not handouts, why would a payment to the fishermen be a handout, because the problem of a deficiency of income was precisely the same in both cases. It was a crop failure

in both cases. Why is it not a handout if it is paid to the farmer, and is a handout if it is paid to the fisherman? I cannot understand it, and neither can any reasonable man in Newfoundland or anywhere else.
In any event, Mr. Antle said-unfortunately I sent his letter to Hansard so I cannot quote his sentence verbatim-that it was up to the federal government to decide what was the best method of assistance. He did make a few suggestions, but he was not trying to govern Canada. Do not try to pass the buck to Mr. Antle, as you tried unsuccessfully to pass it to the premier of Newfoundland. It was the responsibility of these hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches who were given a huge majority to govern Canada, and who refuse to deal with any problem that arises, in any constructive fashion. I have been given a copy of Mr. Antle's letter and I think it is worth reading again what he said.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I did not say it was in his letter. I said that he made that statement in the Newfoundland Fisherman, the magazine published by the Newfoundland federation of fishermen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the Solicitor General knows just as well as I what Mr. Antle meant. He meant that the fishermen did not want to have to go on relief. The Solicitor General's leader promised that no one in Canada would have to go on relief if they voted for him in 1958. I have the promise right here.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what was meant by a handout. They meant they wanted to be treated like any other Canadian and not driven on to relief. But hon. gentlemen opposite prefer to give them $20 and let them go on relief. That is their policy, and it does not wash. It is not good enough. If that is their conception of complete fairness and justice to all-


An hon. Member:: It is a lot better than you did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman says, "It is a lot better than you did". I also read-


Jay Waldo Monteith: So right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A short time ago I read the Prime Minister's promise at Yarmouth, that there would be price supports for the fishermen as there are for the farmers, with the price known at the beginning of the season. Has that happened in the last four years since the promise was made? It is all of a piece, sir.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You have only Newfoundland members in the committee now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the hon. gentleman is not very much interested in Newfoundland-that is very evident-and neither are the rest of his colleagues.


William Joseph Browne: You are
monopolizing all the time.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Five members from Newfoundland; nobody else.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor General said I was monopolizing all the time. This debate started before four o'clock this afternoon and I did not rise until two minutes to six o'clock, so that anyone who says I have monopolized all the time is absolutely incorrect. Before I intervened in the debate I waited until every other hon. member who wanted to speak had an opportunity to do so. I represent a very large number of fishermen who had a crop failure last year. I was elected to represent these people and I intend to represent them and support them, and not make excuses for the failure of this government to accept its responsibilities and discharge them seriously and fairly.


Mr. Charlton:: Are you going to have a convention this time too?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is worried about a convention. If he would like to come down and represent his party, which has never had a convention in my constituency, I think his fate would not be different from that of his predecessors. I would not, if I were the hon. gentleman, talk very much about that subject. In any event, like most of the other interventions from the other side of the house, it is altogether irrelevant to the vote before us. If this is all the government will do-if they are not shamed into doing something better-it is still a pittance; it still is something, and nobody is going to refuse it.


John Angus MacLean: There are a few remarks I should like to make. I do not intend to detain the committee long, because it may feel inclined to pass this item before it rises. I should like to point out, as I have said before, that as far as the income of inshore fishermen in Newfoundland is concerned, in 1961 it was 1 per cent less than the three year average and for 1961 as compared with 1960 it showed a decline of a little more than $1 million-about $1,250,000 in round figures, or approximately 10 per cent as compared with 1960-and 1960 was one of the best income years that the fishermen of Newfoundland had experienced since union,
Supply-Fisheries
since the time when the federal Department of Fisheries undertook its responsibility toward Newfoundland.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate has poured scorn on the negotiations which began very shortly after the first request for assistance was made, and which were carried out by officials of my department. I do not want to name individuals, but some of the groups included Mr. McArthur to whom the hon. member referred. They went down to Newfoundland and conferred with representatives of the industry and of the provincial government. Afterwards they came up with the advice on which this program was based. The hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate has said that anyone who could persuade the Prime Minister to write such a letter was foolish-that it was utter nonsense and he was displaying his ignorance of the situation in Newfoundland. I have advisers in my department who, I believe, are second to none among civil servants who are fisheries experts anywhere in the world. I say that they take second place to no one in the federal service, and on their advice and with the best judgment I could muster I made those recommendations and I take full responsibility for them. I do not say for one moment, nor do I pretend to say that my intimate knowledge of the fisheries of Newfoundland is great, but at least I am a neighbour of Newfoundland and I am an east coaster familiar with the environment in which the fishermen live. Small as my knowledge may be I do not intend that it should be overridden by the vast lack of knowledge displayed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
I have proposed this item to this committee on the basis of the best advice available, with the cheerful co-operation of the officials and of the government of Newfoundland up to a certain point-about the day the legislature opened. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate has admitted he was there on that day. Then the attitude of the provincial government seems to have changed overnight. They have disowned a thing which they agreed was suitable to begin with. I hope that is nothing more than coincidence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thank you for the compliment.


John Angus MacLean: Never during the course of the negotiations did the Newfoundland government once suggest the amount was too small. I admit it is small, because it is approximately 35 per cent of the total drop of income of the Newfoundland fishermen in 1961 as compared with I960. The hon. member has contrasted this amount of $300,000 with the $42 million paid as an acreage

Supply-Fisheries
payment to the western farmers. I say that this $300,000 is 35 per cent of the loss of income in the one year as compared with the other to the Newfoundland fishermen. Well, the $42 million just approved by this committee represents only 10 per cent of the drop in income experienced by the western farmers from one year to the next.
Since I have become minister in charge of this department I have taken a special interest in the fishermen of Newfoundland. It has been suggested by hon. members from the west coast that my interest is too great. I make no apologies, because Newfoundland, as far as government services are concerned, has a great deal of catching up to do. It is my intention to do what I can to improve the situation in which the fishermen of Newfoundland make their living. It is a hard life. Since I have been minister my department has doubled the outlets for subsidized bait to Newfoundland. We have increased the subsidy on long-liners and larger vessels of that sort in order that the fishermen may go out and fish where the fish are to be found rather than be dependant on the fish coming close to shore. There are many other things I could say. My department is most anxious to do what it can for the fishermen of Newfoundland so as to improve their lot, and I am not going to sell them short. I have a great deal of respect for the fishermen of Newfoundland. I know them to be a selfreliant, hardworking, honourable class of people.
Having said that, I want to say, in closing, only this: I do not pretend that this is the whole answer to all the ills of the fishermen of Newfoundland or that in the administration and distribution of this grant there will not be some who will feel they should have got more or that others are getting too much. There are bound to be difficulties and criticisms. Has there ever been anyone who has fried to improve the lot of his fellowmen who has not been criticized? The hon member for Bonavista-Twillingate has taken 50 minutes to express his point of view. I see it is ten o'clock, now, and I am going to sit down, but the hon. member has taken 50 minutes to pour scorn on this item and all I can say is that if I thought an item was as bad as this one is in his opinion I would not want to be associated with it. So I invite the hon. member who, I presume, is speaking for his
party, to get up and move that this item be reduced to $1 if he feels that way about it.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 612
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we adjourn perhaps the house leader could indicate what we will do for the rest of the week. It would be of help if he could do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will continue with the program I outlined yesterday, namely conclude the supplementary estimates and then go on with the resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that business is completed tomorrow, can the minister say whether we would resume on Thursday debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The type of question that is offered to me is one that I could answer if the members of the opposition would tell me when we are going to complete the business that I have already outlined.
It being three minutes after ten o'clock
the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following Items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Production and marketing branch-
611.	Payments to western grain producers to be distributed on the following basis, namely, $1 per cultivated acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $42,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
612.	Contribution towards a special Newfoundland works program for fishing settlements that experienced income reduction resulting from decreased catches, $300,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 31, 1962