Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 26 (27th Legislature, 4th Session)

27-4-26

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Tuesday, March 16 th, 19 65. Opening Prayer by Madam Soeaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees 621 HONOURABLE STEW ART E. McLEAN, Q. C. (Attorney-General), (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I wish to present the first report of the standing committee on law amendments. In presenting this report I might say to the members of the House that the committee agreed to meet again next Tuesday at 10 o'clock if anyone wishes to come before the committee at that time. MR.

CL ERK: Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments beg leave to present the following as their first report. Your Committee met for organization and appointed the Honourable Mr. McLean as Chairman. Your committee recommend that for the remainder of this sessi on the quorum of this committee consist of ten members. Your Committee has cons idered Bills No. 3,

an Act respecting Public Health; No. 36 ,

an Act to amend the Manitoba Evidence Act, and has agreed to report the same without amendment; all of which is respectfully submitted. MR. McLEAN: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Education that the report of the Committee be received. ried. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion car- MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion Introduction of Bills The Honourable the Leader of the New Democratic Party. MR. RUSSE LL PAUL LEY, (Leader of the New Democratic Party), (Radisson) introduced Bill No. 75,

an Act to incorporate Transcona Curling Club. MADAM SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Ass iniboia. MR. STEVE PATRICK, (Ass iniboia): Madam Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, would like to direct a question to the Honourable First Minister. Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Honourable First Minister has extended an official invitation to the Ca rlings people for the Ca rlings Rural Golf Tournament which is to be held in Ca nada in 1967. I wonder if he has ex tended an invitation or will be extending one so that the tournament can be held here in Manitoba.

I think we can have it in conjunction with our centennial. I think Ca rlings Golf Tournament is one of the largest ones in the world. I just would like to know if the Honourable Minister will be extending an invitation. HONOURABLE DUFF ROBLIN, (Premier and Provincial Treasurer), (Wolseley): I have no information on the subject Madam Speaker. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT, (Leader of the Opposition) , (Ste. Rose): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the First Minister.

In view of the announcements of the Minister of Welfare regarding additional assis tance to welfare people regarding the new taxes, has the government started a study insofar as the other low income groups? MADAM SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead. MR. S. PE TERS, (E lmwood): May I have this resolution stand, Madam Speaker:? MADAM SPEAKER: Agreed. The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Member for Inkster and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Selkirk. The Honourable the .Member for St.

Vital. MR. FRED GROVES, (St. Vital): M:ldam Speaker, I think a vast majority of Canadians are not sa tisfied with our antiquated divorce law. These laws are different in some of the pro vinces, they are difficult to operate, they are embarrass ing to comply with in many cases and they are inadequate for many people. However, while the majority might agree that change in these laws are necess ary, there is not a substantial agreement amongst these people that what the changes should be.

In my view I agree that the grounds for divorce should be widened to include perhaps desertion for a period of at least five years or to finalize a long period of legal separation, but this is the extent to which I would be prepared to agree in any change in the grounds for divorce. Cruelty both mental and physical cannot really be properly defined in my opinion and can be open to too broad an

interpretation or to too narrow a one. The elected

March 16th, 1961>. (MR. GROVES, cont'd) ....... representatives ofthe .people !think when we're dealingwith the matter of divorce would find it impossible to have the courts interpret their intentions accura- tely at the time any extens ion was made to include crue.lty. It is just such.mis representation of the term cruelty that has made people cynical and disrespectful of what we call Hollywood style divorces. Laws to protect against physical cruelty should be altered to fit the current needs I without tampering with our divorce laws.

Cruelty in a sense is a form of a sickness and where it is not a form of sickness I think could be dealt with through our criminal code or some other I law without actually changing our law in respect of divorce.

I also submit Madam Speaker, that ins anity is no longer an incurable disease and there ha ve been a number of awkward.cases where one partner to a marriage has been deemed to be incurably insa ne , has been divorced from their spouse in some other jurisdiction and later on cured of their so-ca lled incurable insanity and prepared to take up their married life where they left off and shocked into finding that their marriage no longer existed. Habitual drunkenness Madam Speaker, is also a form of sickness that is not entirely in curable.

I think that the resolution that we have before us and the amendment go too far in liberalizing our divorce law . The Honourable Member for Inkster asks for a period of deser tion not more than two years. I submit Madam Speaker, though there are grounds for I think extending the grounds for divorce to desertion but certainly not for a period as short as two years . Persistent physical and mental cruelty I have already dealt with. I do not think that the grounds for divorce should be enlarged to include these.

Insani ty is not incurable and certainly I am not in agreement with this provision that asks for the enlargement of grounds on the basis of imprisonment for two or more years. Legal separation, I think if a legal separation has gone on for a good many years and there is reason to believe that it is permanent then this may be some grounds for enlarging the grounds for di vorce. The Honourable Member from Selkirk amends the resolution to include other things . Cruelty I have already dealt with Madam Speaker, and again I ask how doas one define cruelty.

It is a form of sickness and I maintain that a person, that in many cases where a person is in clined to be cruel this is something that is known prior to the marriage and should be taken in to cons ideration by the parties at that time. With respect to mental illness we all know I am sure of the near miracles that have taken place in our mental ins titutions . Many of these people have come out of these ins titutions cured and I think this should not be grounds for the enlargement of the divorce law .

Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat what I sai d at the time this resolution was before us , or one similar , and that is, two years ago, or 1964, and that is that I am going to oppose this resolution on the grounds that in my opinion a marriage contract is a contract that is en tered into by two persons before God and is a contract for life. At this time Madam Speaker, again I would like to say that I think divorce is a federal matter and that the Federal Government has facilities to properly study any changes that might be made in this law .

It's time too, Madam Speaker, when we're talking of this subject that we might review the vow that is taken by our young people when they get married. I think that one of our problems today has been this vow is not taken seriously enough . When one gets married one takes the other party to be his lawfully wedded wife or husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until death do us part. According to God's holy ordinance and thereto they pledge each other their troth.

Madam Speaker, I think that this is a vow or an oath that is taken before God and one that should not be taken lightly by the parties concerned and one that they should think over many times during the course of their married life. I'm inclined to agree with some of the re marks that the Honourable Member for Brandon made the other day, about the fact that we are living in an age of moral decay in many instances .

And it is difficult with the type of movies , the type of TV programs and the type of books that are available to our young people to retain many of our moral standards , particularly those standards that we have always held high wi th respect to marriage. This is all the more reason Madam Speaker, why I think that it is our duty as parents and as counsellors to young people contemplating marriage, that we should be preparing them more for their embarkation on the sea of matrimony and preparing them for the seriousness of the vows which they take at the time they embark on that sea.

So although I am in agreement with a good lot of what has been sa id about the difficulties that married people find themselves in these da ys, I find too that we should not tamper with the •

March 16th, 1965 623 (MR. GROVES, cont'd) .... ... . divorce law lightly, we should remember that marriage is a contract for life taken before Almighty God and I am therefore not prepared to support either the resolution or the amendment. MR. ALBERT VIELFAURE, (LaVerendrye): I do not rise at this moment, Madam Speaker, to say that I am violently opposed to this resolution, or that I don't see its merit.

However, being a strong believer in the sanctity of marriage, I do not take this resolution lightly and I understand, I think I understand the intentions of the mover, which are certainly not to liberalize divorce laws but rather to help those who are in trouble.

However, Madam Speaker, I wonder if by liberalizing our divorce laws we might not be encouraging many of our young people who are getting married today in thinking in the line, "Well, we don't have to take it too too seriously, there will be an easier way out in the future." And I certainly think that when we look across the line and see how lightly for example the word "cruelty" is used there for applying for divorce, I wonder sometimes if my wife won't divorce me every week for just being away from home all the time. Mind you, I'm not worried to that point yet.

However, I think we should take this very seriously, and we should also, although it doesn't concern this resolution directly, I think us legislators should take a very good look at the advertisiq.g that is going on in this country and the falsification of marriage. If we lo9k around today, practi cally every billboard shows a woman more as an instrument of promoting the sales of some product rather than as a future mother as was wanted by God. Now I don't intend to make a sermon here.

However, when I see our young generation growing with this advertising litera ture stands all around, I think they will have to receive very good education at home and in school if we are not asked to liberalize divorce laws again in the future.

Madam Speaker, again I repeat, I understand the ideas of the amendment of the Honourable Member from Selkirk, which is to help those that are in difficulty rather than just liberalizing the divorce laws, I should say that at this time I am not convinced that this will do as well as it is thought it would do in here and in my estimation might cause more people to think more lightly of marriage, and therefore at this time I am not prepared to support this resolution. MR. D. M. STANES, (St.

James): Madam Speaker, rightly or wrongly, I look upon this resolution as a general expression of thought to the Federal Government, and therefore I don't think one should go in to any specific detail. I agree with the philosophy behind it in there should be some relaxation on the grounds for divorce, but one also must be very con scious as I am that by re taxing too much can be worse than the present situation. I'm a little concerned on the question of cruelty --who shali be the judge? It can be a farce like there is in some other areas, and after all as was pointed out by the Honourable Member from St.

Vital, in many cases is a sickness. The other item of unsound mind is also a sickness, in which we are making great strides in curing people and bringing them back to society; and the fifth item is also in many cases a mental sickness, and I don't think anyone can say what pro gress will be made in curing these sicknesses in the next few years. Probably by the time this resolution does get to Ottawa, the matter will have been gone into in very much greater detail with more information at hand.

However, there is one item which I feel is left out, and that is on the amendment, and that is the sixth item which was on the original resolution, legal separation for more than two years. I would therefore like to pose an amendment, Madam Speaker, a sub-amendment, seconded by the Honourable Member for Ch urchill, that the resolution be amended by adding (7) has been legally separated for at least three years. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Kildonan. MR. JAMES T.

MILLS, (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, also speaking as a Roman Ca tholic in this House, I feel it my duty to participate in the debate. As other members of my church have stated, I feel somewhat as they do. I fe·el that in my position as a Ca tholic I have to turn down the theory of divorce, but that's my own conscience; but I also have to legislate to other constituents in my area which they feel with the divorce laws we have at present, they are very strict. But I feel there should be other alternatives rather than to bring out a resolution as strong and as direct as we have brought up in this House.

There must be other alternatives. I was fortunate the other night in picking up a brief which I think could add a bit of solution to this before we carry on the drastic measures we are planning on doing. I would like to read out the foreword of this brief. This brief is based on a Co nciliation Co urt of Los Angeles Co unty. I would like to read one or two paragraphs here. The December 1962

624 1\'j:arch 16th, 1965 (MR. MILLS, cont'd) ...... . issue of Reader's Digest in an

article entitled: "The Walk-in Co urt that Rescues Rocky Marriages declares, 'most divorce courts pit troubled husbands and wives against each other as bitter adversaries. Los Angeles has a new approach .... . a Con ciliation Co urt." In 1956, the Journal of the American Bar Association carried an

article on Conciliation Co urts of Los Angeles entitled: "An Instrument of Peace." The function of the Co urt is to render compatible husbands and wives whose marriages are threatened with di vorce.

Although not restricted to aiding families with children, the disastrous impact upon children of broken homes emphasizes the importance of the work of this Co urt, and approxi mately 15, 000 children have been restored to their parents through reconciliation effected in courts since 1954." Madam Speaker, I feel as I said before, rather than go ahead, I would like to see a court similar to this inaugurated in the Province of Manitoba. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR. SAUL CHER NIACK, Q. C. (St.

John's): Madam Speaker, I am bound to tell the Honourable Member from Kildonan that as soon as he has a resolution drafted along the lines that he wishes to see carried 'out here, I would be honoured if he would allow me to associate myself with it and second it, because the court that he envisages is one which could be of very great benefit to the people in this province. We have very busy courts today. We have a Magistrate's Co urt which deals with humanity on all occasions and hasn't time really to deal with any particular problem whiCh arises except in a superficial and quick manner.

We have the Family C ourt which takes a very serious view on the entire question of separation and the Wives and Families Maintenance Act . TI,e judges of that court take very great pains to look into the problems that have occurred and are presented to them with the objective to help cure what appears to be a problem and save a marriage. In my opinion, that court is ove:rloaded, and that court does not have sufficient assistance in preparing itself by having case workers look into the problem, investigate the background and follow up in the future when marriages aren't being kept together.

We have the Co urt of Queen's Bench which deals with divorce, divorce only, and that's a very cut and dried court where the background of the problem is not looked at at all; all that is looked at is the question of proof, in our courts, of adultery, proof of domicil8, proof of the various matters, proof of marriage, whatever has to be presented, and it's not unknown that in twenty minutes a divorce may be granted. When I say it's not unknown, I think that's probably the average.

Now, Madam Speaker, if the Honourable Member for Kildonan is serious, and when I say "if", I know he is serious, but if he really means to carry out a progressive measure in this province to see what can be done about saving marriages, then by all means anything that can be done in this Legislature to create or to augment the work that may be done in a court such as he describes would be a tremendous contribution to this province.

I urge him to do it, and I urge him not to hide behind the Cabinet or behind the party which is in power but rather come out in the open and bring out a resolution such as he suggested; and I think that it will obviously receive tremendous support in this House. I would like to second what has been said by the Honourable Member for St. James in that this resolution does not in itself legislate. It sets out suggested grounds for divorce and it recommends them for consideration to the Parliament of Ca nada.

As such, I think that the principle is more important than the detail; and as such I think that if we agree that our pre sent divorce law is not up to the mark for present-day society, then we should vote in favour of this resolution, or another resolution which is watered down if necessary.

It seems to me that if certain members, and two honourable members spoke today, saying that they agree that what we have today is not adequate for our needs, but they think that the suggestions go too far, I suggest to them that they should nevertheless support it, in order to indicate to the Parliament of Ca nada that we feel that the law as it exists today is not a proper one in dealing with the pro blem of marital relations. I want them to mention a third point, which I think should be brought to the attention of the Honourable Members for St. James and St.

Vital, both of whom --and I think also it was mentioned by another speaker-- and that is the

interpretation of the word "cruelty". I think you do our courts an injustice in suggesting that they are not capable of defining cruelty as this Legislature would want them to do. It is true that there are courts south of us that use the term cruelty for any ridiculous thing in order to be able to dissolve a marriage; but that is done surely with the co-operation and consent of the legislative bodies, because here in this province we have a definition of cruelty. It is one which is found in the Wives and Chi ldrens I • I I

"March 18th, 1965 625 (MR. CHERN IACK, cont'd) ....... Maintenance Act and it does speak of persistent cruelty as being a ground for separation. It has been contested time and again in the courts and there are many decisions and precedents defining the term "persistent cruelty" as it is meant by the Legislature under The Wives and Ch ildrens Maintenance Act.

And there is sufficient law, both in this province and elsewhere to give us good cause to have a great deal of confidence in our courts, in our judiciary, to be able to interpret the will of this Assembly, so I think that they were unfair in suggesting that the definition would be so vague as to be able to be misused. I can assure you from my experience -'-and I believe I speak for the vast majority of members of my profession who've appeared in the Family Co urt, that the question of cruelty is one which has clearly defined characteristics which the courts recognize and which they make sure about.

Our courts and I think our lawyers are deeply conscious of the responsibility placed on them to always try to keep a marriage together before they do anything in terms of separation or divorce. It is my experience that just about every lawyer, and certainly every court, re cognizes this responsibility and does look into the question in the hope that a marriage may be made sound again. Having said that I must immediately contradict myself, Madam Speaker, by saying that this does not apply in Co urt of Queen's Bench when you deal with the question of divorce itself.

What I have said applies to the question of separation. When it comes to divorce the ground of adultery is all that is necessary once you have placed yourself within the jurisdiction of the court, and although the court might feel that there is great hope for this marriage in terms of bringing the people together, it is my

interpretation that the court, if it finds adul tery, must grant a decree nisi. And this alone is an indication that when you have a very hard and fast rule such as we have here, the application of it derogates against the possibility of a marriage being saved by the court itself. I should also say one other factor and that is that I don't recall any case in my own ex perience where adultery was the original cause in a divorce. It seems to me that in all the cases that I can think of the grounds for the separation preceeded any act of adultery. The grounds of the separation were cruelty.

The grounds of the separation might have been de sertion. The grounds for the separation might be incompatibility, or many, many factors, and after there has been a separation, after the marriage has been broken in all respects ex cept in the concept of the legal aspect, then with the couple separated, with the people living their own lives as if they were single, adultery has taken place and the divorce has come into court.

So that I suggest to you that we are no longer being at all realistic in thinking in terms of the present grounds as being the real grounds, and that we would be much more realistic if we washed out all these various reasons here and said there has to be a review. But if we said that we would be behind in our times because we have had --well I think I received it while I was in this Assembly, but in any event I've had for some time a very well documented pamphlet issued by the United Ch urch of England and I've seen it in the hands of many people. --(Inter jection)-- Pardon?

Of Ca nada, yes, thank you, -- the United Ch urch of Ca nada. I have seen reports of other religious bodies that have looked into the question of divorce and I commend to the attention of those members here who have not read this United Ch Circh review on marriage and divorce as being something which commands a great deal of respect because the studies given in that pamphlet or booklet indicate clearly that we must, in order to accept society for what it is and not wear blinkers about it, we must do our best to see to it that we make our society adapt to the requirements that modern technology bring before it.

It's a peculiar thing that we read so much and hear so much about common law marriage and about illegitimacy, and all the problems that come as a result of it, and we are just wearing blinkers, we are just blind to the problem if we don't at the same time recognize that by keeping these hard and fast rules we are in part participating in perpetuating the problems that occur in society as a result of broken marriages, that are broken, that cannot be mended but are still tied together by an artificial legal concept. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Selkirk. MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.

C. (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I rise to address myself to the amendment to the amendment which reads that --it gives an additional ground for di vorce," has been legally separated for at least three years. " Now I don't know if the honour able member realizes what is involved in this amendment to the amendment, whether he is referring to a judicial separation or whether he is referring to a separation order which was granted under The Wives and Ch ildrens Act by a police magistrate, but I take it that he means a legal separation regardless of the court from which it emanated. Now on that basis Madam

626 March 16th, 1965 (MB. HILLHOUSE, cont'd) ....... you would actually, indirectly, be conferring jurisdiction to grant divorce on a police magistrate, because a police magistrate has jurisdiction to grant a legal separation under the provisions of The Wives and Childrens Maintenance Act simply on the grounds of assault. And "assault" is a legal term which has a very definite legal meaning; and assault doesn't have to mean cruelty, it doesn't have to mean inflicting bodily harm.

As long as I reach out with the intention of striking somebody and as long as I strike that person, or if I am prevented from striking that person because that person jumped out of my way, I am guilty of an assault. Now that in effect is what you are asking the Parliament of Ca nada to add as a ground for divorce, because that is a ground for granting a legal separation.

Now as to the remarks by the Honourable Member for Kildonan, I respect his con science, I respect the fact that he is a member of a church to which I do not belong, and I give him full credit and the full right to stand up in this House and express his creed and faith; but I do suggest this to the honourable member do not by your action prevent anybody else or another person from taking advantage of a law which is not binding on their conscience; and please keep in mind this, that divorce is only the legal recognition that a marriage has broken up.

The marriage was broken up long before the divorce decree was ever granted. MR. MILLS: On a point of privilege may I ask one question? You mention that I as Roman Ca tholic, state that I am not in favour of divorce but I also want to inflict this on my fellow constituents and other friends in this House. This is not what I said. MR. HILLHOUSE: Then please do not because your conscience doesn't allow you to take advantage of it, to impose your conscience on somebody else. MR. MILLS: I am not forcing my conscience on someone else, sir. MR. HILLHOUSE: I submit you are if you are taking this attitude.

Now the Honourable Member for Kildonan also raises the question that we should have more efforts and more attempts made to bring about conciliations. I would like to point out to this House that in our Wives and Ch ildrens Maintenance Act there is a

section which says, "Before a public hearing of any proceedings under this Act the judge or police magistrate shall consider, having regard to the information, whether it will be well to hear the parties in private with a view to settle ment by mutual consent of the matters in question; and if he thinks fit he may summons the parties to appear before him, and shall hear them in private with the intent before mentioned and may receive in their presence information from any person whom the judge or magistrate believes to have a knowledge of the relationship of the parties." Now ·that is a procedure which is fairly generally carried out in our courts at the magisterial level.

There's very few police magistrates are prepared to grant an order under The Wives and Ch ildrens Maintenance Act without calling the parties into his private chamber and discussing the matter with them, with a view to seeing whether reconciliation cannot be effected. It's true that in the Queen's Bench, perhaps due to the pressure of business or perhaps due to the fact that the judges there realize that the marriage has broken up that that procedure is not followed.

But there is nothing to prevent any Queen •s Bench judge if he so desires for calling the parties together in his chamber privately and seeing if a settlement or a reconciliation cannot be effected. Now the Honourable Member for Kildonan mentions the fact that surely there is some alternative. I don't want to be facetious, Madam, but I say the only alternative to divorce is not to get married, because the number of divorces will never exceed the number of marriages. Now a great deal has been made here too about legal cruelty. The Honourable Member for St.

John's has dealt with that very fully, and as far as our courts are concerned they are not going to place the

interpretation of some of the United States courts on what constitutes cruelty. They are not going to consider it cruel because a man has halitosis or a man has dandruff or a man hangs from a chandelier or some of the silly notions that they have in Ca lifornia. Legal cruelty in Can ada is that cruelty which must be established according to the laws of England in order to entitle a person to a divorce or a separation on that ground; and that cruelty has been so well defined by so many decisions that our judges in Ca nada and in Manitoba particularly are bound to follow these decisions.

Legal cruelty is one of the hardest things to prove because in a great number of instances you are trying to prove a state of mind. You are trying to prove what the actions of the spouse in default, what effect those actions have had on the other person and in a great number of instances it is and it largely be comes a medical matter.

You've got to prove that that cruelty is such that it is endangering or has endangered the health of the other party, and I think any lawyer will agree with me that legal cruelty is one of the hardest things to establish in our courts, because as I said, it is largely a state of mind.

March 16th, 1965. 627 (MR. HILLHOUSE, cont'd) .. .. ..• Now I do hope that this House will carry this resolution as amended. I don't think they should vote for the sub-amendment because I think the sub-amendment is going a little too far and I don't think that the Honourable Member for St. James who moved that sub-amend ment was fully aware of the legal impact of his so doing. MR. GROVES: ...... .. .. on a matter of keeping the records straight, I think that the Honourable Member from Selkirk gave the Honourable Member for Kildonan a lecture which he didn't deserve.

The Honourable Member from Kildonan stood up and made exactly the same statement that the Honourable Member for St. Boniface made and the Honourable Mem ber from Brokenhead, and that statement was that he being a Roman Ca tholic did not accept the principle of divorce but that he was p:ot going to try and impose those views on others. MADAM SPEAKER put the question. HONOURABLE GURNEY EV ANS, (Minister of Industry and Com merce), (Fort Rouge): Madam Speaker, I would just like to say a very brief word about my own position.

I am in the difficult position of not knowing how to vote on this question except that I am of the opinion that voting for this particular resolution and the amendment and the sub-amendment is less desirable than voting for it. It's a matter of detail.

I believe that the situation confronting the divorce courts and those concerned with divorce matters is such that does require the most earnest study and I support the resolution to that extent, tha.t it does bring to the notice of this Legislature and is intended to bring to the notice of the Government of Ca nada, the views of the members here on this particular resolution. But I think it's in the detail in which I find fault and it is the detail that causes me to vote against all the resolutions that are on the Order Paper.

There is nothing to indicate here that we are asking the Government of Can ada to con sider the matter on a broad basis. It names specific items which are recommended specifi cally to the Government of Ca nada as grounds for divorce. Technical or legal difficulties have been raised about the item in the sub-amendment.

Other considerations have entered in to those items one to six in the amendment, and equally so with respect to the items in the main motion, and so with these specific details in which the resolution as worded now would recommend to the Government of Ca nada that dissolution of marriage may be claimed by either husband and or wife on the grounds that the respondent --then we name the six items- and add the further one that has been suggested by the Honourable Member for St. James.

There is nothing suggestive about it; it is simply a categorical imperative in that sense that we ask the Government of Ca nada to consider these as the specific grounds for divorce. I am not in agreement with a number of them and for that reason cannot support either the sub amendment, the amendment or the main motion. MR. PAULLEY: Madam Speaker, just a word or two. It is rather hard to speak on this resolution directly to the amendment to the amendment because it is dealing with one specific, namely the question of legal separation.

However I will try to do so because I re serve my privilege a little later to speak on the whole aspect in the field of divorce. I would suggest that the Honourable Member for St. James has raised a very interest ing point when he suggests the amendment to the amendment which will insert a clause number seven dealing with legal separation for more than three years. You will recall Madam Speaker that the original resolution as proposed by my colleague from Inkster in clause six used the words "legal separation for more than two years. " The Member for St.

James has now re instated this particular clause with the exception that the two is now changed to three. I listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments as proposed by the Honourable Member for Selkirk and his reference to The Wives and Ch ildrens Maintenance Act. But I think my honourable friend from Selkirk, in all due respect to his knowledge of the law has omitted the important part or the important contention as contained in the resolution as pro posed originally by the Member for Inkster, now the endeavour of the Member for St.

James to have it reinstated,.is the period of time --from the time that the magistrate under The Wives and Ch ildrens Maintenance Act has declared a legal separation. I would say that my friend from Selkirk might have a point that a legal separation by a magistrate became grounds for divorce immediately on receipt of the legal separation by the magistrate.

But such is not the case Madam Speaker insofar as this resolution is concerned, or the amendment, because it imposes a length of time of the legal separation and as my colleague for Inkster implied or meant-- and I am sure this is the contention of the Member for St. James-- that if a couple after having been legally separated for a period of two or three years have not become

628 March 16th, 1965 (MR. PAULLEY, cont'd) ...... reconciled to each other, notwithstanding how that separation came about, then it may be a ground for the consjderation of the granting of a divorce. I think this is the point that my honourable friend the Member for Selkirk has overlooked completely for I am sure this is the intention in the resolution, in the original resolution imd in the amend ment as proposed by the Member for St. James.

It's not the question again to recapitulate; it's not the question as to whether a magistrate has granted the legal separation under The Wives and Maintenance Act or any other Act, it's the fact or question that the separation has been for a period of time during which no reconciliation has taken place and to all intents and purposes they are a couple living apart. I think this is the point Madam Speaker that the members of this Assembly should take under consideration in dealing with the amendment to the amendment; not the point as raised by the Honourable Member for Selkirk. MR.

HILLHOUSE: Madam, would the honourable member permit a question? M.R. PAULLEY: Providing it's not too technical. .... MR. HILLHOUSE: No, no, no. It's quite factual. Does the honourable member im ply in his remarks that a lapse of three years would change the nature of the order made by the magistrate, would it make an order of the Co urt of Queen's Bench or would it still remain an order of the magistrate? MR.

PAULLEY: I suggest, Madam Speaker, in answer to my honourable friend it wouldn't matter whether it was an order of a magistrate or an order of a justice of the Queen's Bench. lt'l? a fact, a fact of being separated for a period of three years that we are contending within this matter, not who made it, but the fact that a couple for a period of three years under a legal separation have not become reconciliated in order to live together. That is the fact, not withstanding Madam Speaker I respectfully suggest who originated the original legal separation. HONOURABLE ROBERT G. SMELLIE, Q.

C. (Minister of Municipal Affairs), (Birtle Russell): Madam Speaker, the question of divorce is one that has perplexed all of us from time to time. Those of us who when we were married accepted a vow and who heard the person per forming the marriage ceremony in most cases say, " now what God has joined together let no man put asunder, " and accepted these words in all seriousness.

This is a question that has really bothered many of us, and yet I am sure that those of us who have had the opportunity to carry on the practice of law in this province have been made very clearly aware that this is one of the most serious problems that besets people in our society from time to time. I am sure that the Honourable Member for Selkirk has had people who have come in to his office and who have in fact had their marriage ruined; who have in fact been living separate and apart from one another, but who have in fact under our present laws no cause for divorce.

I must disagree with him when he suggests that by accepting the amendment proposed by the Ho nourable Member for St. James that we are in fact letting a police magistrate make an order of divorce.

Because when the matter comes before the police magistrate this is the beginning of a procedure which may or may not come to a conclusion, and I am sure that the Honourable Member for Selkirk knows as well as I do and any other members who have had experience in this thing that in many cases where an application is made to a police magistrate or to a county court judge under The Wives and Ch ildrens Maintenance Act, that a reconciliation is effected.

But I know of no case where an order has been granted and where the parties have remained separate and apart leading their own separate lives for a period of three years or more, where a reconciliation has subsequently been effected. There may be some. There may be some. But I know of none in my experience.

So Madam Speaker, if after that period of three years has elapsed as suggested by this amendment are we still going to insist that these unhappy people have either got to go out and purposely commit adultery in order to provide grounds for divorce, or, as happens infrequently I trust, but occasionally, where perjured evidence is given to our courts in order to obtain divorce on the only grounds that is now available to them. I suggest Madam, that in my view this is not right. That in such a case where there has been a legal separation that has continued for a period of three years, there is no marriage left.

There is a legal bond that unites those two people but there is in effect, no marriage. And that while we are considering or while we are asking the Federal House to consider broadening the grounds upon which divorce can be granted, I think that this is one of the things that should be included.

I cannot agree with the remarks of the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Co m merce either, because although we have set out in these resolutions specific terms, although we have set out in these resolutions the things that members or some members of this House believe should be taken into consideration as grounds for the granting of divorce by our courts, I

March 16th, 1965 62 9 (MR. SMELLIE, cont'd) ..•.... we know in passing this resolution that this is not going to be the final decision, that this is only going to be a request made of the House of Co mmons, the Government of Ca nada, to consider the advisability of broadening the law and making possible what society in general has accepted, the idea of divorce, but not on the present restrictive grounds that pertain particularly in this province. And so, Madam Speaker, I intend to vote for the sub-amendment as proposed by the Honourable Member for St. James. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Ca rillon.

MR. LEONARD A. BARKMAN, (Carillon): Madam Speaker, I have very little to add to this debate but it seems to be customary in this House that if someone tends to vote against the resolution, to declare himself. Madam Speaker, coming from the area that I do, I guess I do not really have to declare myself as to how I'm going to vote. I am happy though that I can vote as my conscience dictates me, and I'm very happy that I can vote as my conscience . dictates me knowing that I will by a large percentage vote the way the people of Ca rillon would wish me to vote.

Possibly some day as Ca rillon becomes more wicked and more central I will have to change my mind. MADAM SPEAKER: Are your re<�.dy ..... MR. W. G. MARTIN, (St. Matthews): Madam Speaker, dealing with the sub-amend ment I am a little bit confused I have been heartily in support of the amendment because I thin!,;: the time has come for us to have some relaxation in our marriage laws.

But in the amendment --or rather in the sub-- rather in the amendment, "has deserted the petitioner without cause for a period of at least three years." The sub-amendment says "three years after legal separa tion has been brought to pass. " Now I know out of my own experience that there are many cases where there has been unhappiness in the family circle and going on for some length of time, but before three years have transpired there has been reconciliation.

Suppose, hoping all the time that there might be this reconciliation, it doesn't take place, then they proceed along the lines of legal separation which will take three years and so you are going to have those added years of misery, unhappiness and in many cases sort of "hell on earth." So I'm opposed to the sub amendment but I'm heartily in support of the amendment. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. HILLHOUSE: The yeas and nays, Madam. MADAM SPEAKER: Ca ll in the members.

The question before the House the pro posed sub-amendment of the Honourable the Member for St. James: (7). Has been legally separated for at least three years. A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Beard, Bilton, Bjornson, Ca rroll, Ch erniack, Co wan, Gray, Harris, McDonald, McGregor, McKellar, Mills, Moeller, Paulley, Peters, Schreyer, Seaborn, Smellie, Stanes, Steinkopf, Strickland, Watt, Witney, Wright and Mrs. Morrison. NAYS: Messrs.

Barkman, Ca mpbell, Desjardins, Evans, Froese, Oroves, Guttorm son, Harrison, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Jeannotte, Johnson, Johnston, Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McLean, Martin, Molgat, Patrick, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smerchanski, Tanchak, Vielfaure . and Weir. MR. CL ERK: Yeas, 27; Nays, 26. MADAM SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. The proposed amendment as amended by the Honourable the Member for Selkirk. MR. PAULLEY: Madam Sp eaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Inkster the debate be adjourned. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.

MADAM SPEAKER: I would like to request the House· permission to welcome a group in the gallery which I inadvertently forgot to welcome before the Orders of the Day. May I draw your attention to the gallery where there are 32 Grade 11 students from the Miles Mc Donnell School under the direction of their teacher, Mr. Doern. This school is in the con stituency of the Hon ourable the Member for Kildonan. On behalf of all members of the Legis lature I welcome you.

The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Member for Inkster and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable the Member for St. Matthews.

630 March 16th, 1965 (MADAM SPEAKER, cont'd) ... .•.. The Honourable the Leader of the New Democratic Party. MR. PAULLEY: Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest the other day to the contribution that was made by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews dealing with this resolution.

I noted in his discourse that he suggested that during my remarks previously that I had said that basically I agreed that the. increase should be more or less associated with those who require additional help, and on page 555 of Hansard of March 12th, my honourable friend referring in the first instance to the remarks of my colleague from Inkster says this, and I quote: "You will notice that his sole argument was on behalf of the needy." Then in the next line, the member for St. Matthews goes on to say: "When the New Democratic Party Leader rose he took a similar line of argument.

" I want to say to my honourable friend that such is not the case, that I did not base any arguments that I was endeavouring to make on the basis that the pension should be increased from $75 to $100 based on need. And I think actually if I may, Madam Speaker, say that my honourable friend in proposing his amendment still retained in the

preamble to the resolution of the Honourable Member for Inkster the basis of my refution of it being on need, when he left in the original motion our contention that the reason of the increase should be providing of the means for those elderly citizens to live a life of dignity in the absence of deprivation should be one of the most worthwhile efforts. So I suggest that this is our contention, not the question on the basis of need.

It is true, Madam Speaker, in my remarks, I did use the phraseology that our old age pensioners should have the increase from $75 to $100 in order to provide them with the basic necessities of life. I think here is where my honourable friend came in conflict, because there is a difference of

interpretation of what might be the basic necessities of life and those of ap plying the prescription of need in respect of our old age pensioners. And I think that maybe my honourable friend from St.

Matthews is using the phraseology and concept of need similar to that of the Minister of Welfare, because there is a difference entirely, Madam Speaker, be tween the concept of need as given to this House by the Minister of Welfare than that of providing the basic necessities of life; because if one reads the reports of many of our social welfare organizations who are deeply interested in this --when one reads the reports of the YWCA, they find there's a vast difference between what is being provided for on the so-called basis of need by government such as we have in Manitoba and the provision of the basic necessities of life that we have in our minds when we 're speaking of this increase to those on social security and also those in receipt of the old age assistance pension.

I want to repeat, if I may, Madam Speaker, what I said again on page .410: "I am not satisfied that we should have an old age security pension of an amount that makes it necessary, to apply to the provincial authorities through social allowances or any other method, to increase what we deem to be a pension that should be adequate at least for the basic necessities of our senior citizens." So I just want to say to my honourable friend --and I'm sure this was inadvertence on his part-- we were not or at least I was not, making an appeal on the basis· of need in the concept that the Government of Manitoba has at the present time.

But it's most interesting, Madam Speaker, after hearing from my friend who is a member of the Conservative caucus here in Manitoba to get his idea --and I do not know as yet whether my honourable friend was speaking on behalf of the Government of Manitoba or not- and I trust and hope that if he was not then one of the front row, one of the treasury bench mem bers will tell us before this debate is concluded what is the position, the official position of the Conservative Party as such in the Province of Manitoba. I think, Madam Speaker, this is most important.

I think not only the people of Manitoba are entitled to know. I think too that the people of Canada are entitled to know what the Conservative Party of Manitoba thinks in respect of pensions, because after all this resolution is dealing primarily with legislation at the federal !eve l.

Madam Speaker, may I first of all just run over a brief history of old age pensions, old age security, in our Dominion, as contained in Volume One of the Minutes and Proceedings of Evidence at the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons dated Tuesday, November 24th, Wednesday, November 25th, Thursday the 26th, wherein the Deputy Minister of Welfare of the National Department of Welfare and Health gives a bit of a history of pensions in Canada, and I am sure that my honourable friend, the Member for St. Matthews, will find some interest in the statement which appears on page 57. MR.

CAMPBELL: ....•... month and the year? MR. PAULLEY:Month and Year? Of which --of this? November 24, 1964.

I ]darch 1uth, 1965 631 (]dR. PAULLEY; cont'd) ....... First of all, the first pension was adopted in Canada according to this statement of the Deputy ]dinister in the year 1927. Prior to this, in 1924 and 125, there was a parliamentary committee which made certain recommendations suggesting the adoption of a social assistance approach. Following this development, Canada adopted in 1927 The Old Age Pensions Act which was patterned on legislation in a number of countries. Then the

article goes on: "Canada took this basic social assistance approach and adapted it to a federal-provin cial structure suitable for a federal state. Canada took the basic elements of this type of as sistance program which had a means test, a residence requirement, a citizen requirement at that stage, and even an eligibility requirement that the receipient must be of moral character. The first pension was for $2 0.0 0 a month.

It was payable on the basis of a test of means, which meant that information on income, property or other assets had to be provided to deter mine wheth�r or not the recipient would be eligible for the benefits. " This means test program payable to persons 70 years of age and over as we know, was carried on from 1927 up to the time the recommendations of the 1950 parliamentary committee was implemented. I might say, ]dadam Speaker, that while the recommendations were made by a parliamentary committee in 1950, the recommendations were not adopted until 1951.

I revert now again to this document from which I am reading: "When the universal flat rate benefit payable at age 70 was brought in, a new old age assistance program was introduced for those in the age group of 65 to 69." ]dark very closely, that when the new legislation was brought in in 1951 for the first time we get away from the concept of a means test, ]dadam Speaker, for the change was made in 1951 to place the Old Age Pension on the basis of a flat rate benefit payable at the age of 70; and this was in 195 1.

Now, ]dadam Speaker, in order to get the conservative approach to this basis, which is contrary to that being proposed by my honourable friend on the basis of need, I would like to quote from what a very influential Conservative said who was a member in the House of Com mons in the year 1951 regarding this point of a flat pension rather than that that is now being proposed by the Honourable ]dember for St. ]datthews. I want to quote, ]dadam Speaker, from the Debates of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, Second session, 1951, Volume One. I want to quote from page, starting at Page 392.

And who am I quoting? The Honourable Donald ]d. Fleming, the ]dember for Eglington. I think the members of this House will reco gnize Donald ]d, Fleming was a very prominent Conservative --if I'm not mistaken, he became the ]dinister of Finance in the Diefenbaker administration.

What did this prominent Conserva tive have to say about a needs test or a means test, in respect of old age security pensions in 1951? -- and I quote: "There are those who have said" --may I deviate, such as my honourable friend the member for St. ]datthews said the other day-- and I go back to the text: "there are those who have said why have a universal pension to include all those who do not need it. Un questionably there are people in this country 70 years of age and over who do not need this pension.

After reviewing this particular aspect of the problem with great care the committee arrived at the conclusion that there should be no departure from the univers al principle. To illustrate how much this point did bother some of the members, one Senator asked at one stage why we should provide payments to those who do not need them." I recall says Mr. Fleming, "about two years ago when the Prime Minister ]dr. St.

Laurent, was asked in this House about the possibility of universal payments or payments for the greatly reduced or liberalized means test, he asked for himself why the country should pay him a pension in his circumstances when he had reached 70 years of age." And ]dr. Fleming goes on, "these are serious questions ·and I think the Minister should have dealt with them in his speech this afternoon. I can give reasons why the committee recommended universal payments.

First, it was felt that in the case of those who did not need the payments it would be a simple matter for the Minister of Finance if he so chose to draw them back in the way of taxes. In the second place, it was thought that the administrative problem would be considerable. It does not matter which figure you choose as the breaking point between those who receive and those who will not, you are applying a means test." Again, this very eminent Conservative is objecting to the imposition of a means test in respect of old age security pensions.

To go on with my quoting from Hansard of '51 "it may be that it would be an infinitely more generous means test than that which had prevailed hither to, but nevertheless it would involve the application of such a test." There is more in this particular volume, I refer to Madam Speaker; I commend it to the Conservative Party of ]dani toba as to what the stand of the Conservative Party was in 1951. I believe the Honourable Mem ber for Lakeside pretty well has it that the Conservative Party and one of their most influential men was against the resolution as suggested by the Member for St.

Matthews the other day in

632 March 16th, 1965 (MR. PAULLEY, cont1d) .. ..... this Conservative Assembly, well almost Conservative Assem- biy. Then Madam: Speaker, may I go back a little bit to the history of pensions in Canada. In 195 7, there was another important step in the development of the social assistance approach. At that time, as time went on federal sharing of the cost of supplementation of recipients of old age security and old age assistance began to take place under the Unemployment Assistance legislation.

At the present time, therefore, we have the provision through Unemployment As sistance Act for sharing half the cost to the provinces of supplementation for any person in need. This Madam Speaker is bringing in this word "need" as I see it for the first time.

But I also want to note one very important point in this documentary history of pensions in Canada . that sort of is in conflict with my honourable friend, the present Minister of Education , because reference as I say here is made· to. 1957 of assistance on the basis of need, and my honourable friend opposite continuously tells us in this House that it was not until they came into power that the needs instead of a means test came into effect. Now I will agree with hirri to this de gree that I'm talking of federal legislation not provincial at the present time and using the word need.

However, at the present time 18 .6 percent of the reclipients of old age assistance and about 4. 8 percent of the recipients of old age secuirty are receiving such supplementations. Now and I go back, again I'm quoting from this report and make this observation: "The major recommendation of the 1950 committee was the universal flat rate pension. This repre sented a very important new approach and a change in emphasis with regard to income security for the aged in Canada.

We had adopted as I mentioned before:' says the Deputy Minist er, "a voluntary approach back in 1908, a social assistance approach on a means test basis in 159 with a needs test type of supplementation after 1957. " This Madam Speaker gives a general idea coming up to our present day situation, and I need not say to this assembly how just prior to elections generally speaking, this pension of $5 5. 00 as it was back in 1957 was increased in stages to what it is $75. 00 at the present time .

So Madam Speaker, I think that I have established the position of the Conservative Party with its spokesman in 1951, being Donald Fleming . But lest my honourable friends of the Conservative Party says come on there Paulley, get out of the ancient history, may I re fer to 1965 and the position of the Conservative Party respecting means test, needs test, what have you at the federal level, the position now of the Conservative Party in opposition in Ottawa.

May I refer Madam Speaker, to the joint, the Minutes and Proceedings of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider and report on Bill No. C 146 --and I'm going to quote from Issue No. 24 dated Monday, February 8th, 1965; not so very long ago. And what is the position of the Federal Conservative Party respecting the imple mentat ion of the resolution as proposed by my colleague from Inkster, calling for a pension of $100 to recipients without a means test? Lo and behold, page 274 of this Volume No. 24, Mr.

Aiken, who is a Conservative member of the Joint Committee of the Senate and Commons at Ottawa, proposed an amendment to Bill C 136 which reads as follows: "All persons over the age of 70 receiving Old Age Security benefits shall rece ive an additional uniform flat amount of not more than $25. 00 a month to be paid from the Canada Pension Fund when the first pay ments are made from the fund" --(a), "(

b) all persons between 65 and 70 who meet a retire ment test and who elect to draw the actuarily reduced old age security payment shall rece ive an additional uniform flat amount of not more than $25. 00 a month." Here Madam Speaker, February 8th, 1965 , Conservative representatives in opposition dealing with the Canada Pension Plan suggesting that they would be satisfied with no less than a flat rate of $100. 00 per month. Now I might say there was some disagreement among representatives of the New Democratic Party and Mr.

Aiken who was representing the Conservative Party, or one of the representa tives, because what Mr. Aiken attempted to do was to have the increased amount paid out of the Canada Pension Fund rather than the funds of the old age securi ty. So Stanley Knowles, M. P. Winnipeg Centre, who I am sure is known in this House, on page 2086 had this to say. First of all he was referring back to Mr. Aiken's proposal and he says "Parts (a), (

b) and(

c) as I take them all aim at increasing the amount of income in the hands of our older people, whether it is those now over the age 70, those between 65 and 70, or those who will get older later on. fu all cases the proposal is either that there will be a $25. 00 addition or there will be a minimum guarantee of $25. 00. Now I want to see this kind of ad vantage and I will be proposing it, " Stanley Knowles, says a little later on. "But I disagree with the contention of the Conservatives, he says, basically that they should come out of the I

March 16th, 1965 633 (MR. PAULLEY, cont'd) .... .. . Canada Pens ions Fund. " Then later on, on Page 2100, Mr . Knowles makes comment first of all on the recommendation that was made by the Joint Com mittee of which the majority were Liberals.

The recominendation of the co�ittee which was to be forwarded to the House of Commons for its consideration had this to say: "The committee also recommends that the Government give consideration to further measures regarding th e position of those people, who, because they are or soon will be retired, will not be substantial contributors to the beneficiaries in the Old Age Pension Plan.

" In other words, Madam Speaker, the contention of the Committee at that paiJ:ticular time was that the Government of Canada should be giving consideration to increasing the $75 pension but not stating any particular amount that the increase should be. And this was the proposal of the Liberals and I don't know maybe it would be unjust for me to say, well now they didn't want to be placed in the position where they couldn't prior to an election come along and say well we are going to give you another five bucks boys, or six bucks boys, as we did once before. .

However, subsequent to this, or may I quote ·again from page 2100 from the remarks of Mr. Stan ley Knowles: "I think that the Liberal members will realize that they cannot go on forever trading on the fact that the $1 0 increase was made independently under the Canada Pension scheme. " And then Mr. Knowles moved an amendment, "the Committee recommends for consideration that

part 4 of Bill C136, be amended to provide for an increase in the pension paid under The Old Age Security Act to $100 a month and for the lowering of the el igible age for the full pension under Old Age Secu:r:ity to 65. " Following this, Madam Speaker, after ob jec tions were raised in the Committee , a motion was then proposed that the Committee recom mend a consideration be given to provide for an' increase in the amount of the pension and for the progressivel y lowering for a full pension at age 65 under the Old Age Security Act. That motion too was defeated by the Committee .

But the basic point is however, Madam Speaker, that on the proposition to give or award. or to make provision for, whichever way you want to put it, a pension, a flat pension of $100 a month at age 70 with a reduction of el igibility to 65 was supported in February of this year by the Conservative representatives on the joint committee . My honourable friend here, either speaking as the spokesman for the Conservatives or as an individual in this House has suggested Madam Speaker that we turn the clocks back, back to the days prior to 1950 when we had a means tests respecting old age pen sions in the Dominion.

I am pleased to note, I am pleased to note, Madam Speaker, that just yesterday as I understand it, legislation has been approved by the House for the gradual reduction of the age of qualifYing for old age secuirty from: 70 down to 65, and that next year, as !' under stand the Bill that has been appro�ed, the age will be reduced so that those who are in the age, at the . age of 69 will be eli gible for the old age security pension. Now what is this going to mean in sofar as the Province of Manitoba is concern ed?

It is going to mean that the joint sharing pro gram I would suggest under the Old Age Assistance Act at the present time which is taking care of those between 65 and 70 will have a fifth reduction gimerally speaking because we will only have to provide under the sharing and under the Old Age Assistance Act for those between the ages of 65 to 69.

I suggest to the Minister of Welfare that in the estimates that we are now considering that he take this now into account and use the savings that he is going to make as a result of this progressive lowering of the age of eligibility for the Old Age Security Pension to increase benefits to those still not recieving the true basic nece ssities of life. . So in conclusion Madam Speaker , may I say we reject completely the· contention of my honourable friend the Member for St. Matthews . Donald Fleming, that great Conservative rejected this contention back in 1951.

The ·conservative representatives on the joint commit tee of the Senate. and the House of Commons, considering the Canada Pensions Act have re jected it in 1965. I respectfully suggest that in this Ass embly now Madam Speaker that unless he wishes to withdraw his amendment that the Honourable Member for St: Matthews stand up alone as the only one of any of the political parties who is in favour of going back to a means test in respect of Old Age Security Pensions iri this Dominion of ours. MR. J. M. FROESE, (Rhineland): ':Madam Speaker, ifl may at this ti:rhe address my self to the resolution before us.

It seems to me that the whereases are quite in order. I· fully go along with them. It mentions that the purchasing power is ina.dequate and I heartily agree that our people, not Just the aged, · but our people in general in Manitoba should have more purchasi ng power, as well as the next

whereas, which mentions the means for these elderly citizens to live a life of dignity. Too often it has been the case that people come to their

634 March 16th , 1965 (MR. FROESE, cont'd) ..•..... old age and they have to live in a way which does not present a life of dignity at all and I feel that this is all a matter of finances. Surely if we had the finances available we could give higher pensions to our aged. There would be nothing in the· way of doing this. I think the previous speaker missed the point completely because surely if the finances are available there would be no problem and we could give them the necessary pensions. Why is it today that the provinces paying the best pensions are under Social Credit administration? Both Alberta and B.

C. give higher pensions than any of the other provinces in Canada and many people today when it comes to retirement age move to the West Coast . Here they receive higher payments in pensions, but not only that, the taxes are lower too, so that it works both ways. First of all they get a higher pension , they have more purchasing power, then they have to pay less in taxes. Certa inly there is no fuel tax in B. C. such as we have in Manitoba. MR. LAURENT DESJARDINS, (St. Boniface): That's a dirty crack. MR. FROESE: Oh, !w ouldn't say that's dirty.

I don't think you believe that's dirty. --(Interjection)-- And here I might add that the Premier of this province prides himself when he says that Manitoba has one of the lowest tax structures of the provinces in Canada. And we've heard this repeatedly. Not in this House only but on TV and so on. Well one thing he fails to do though is to tell the people that we are also the lowest salaried weekly income pro vince west of the Maritimes. Nowhere is the weekly salary income lower than in Manitoba west of the Maritimes.

Even Quebec Province which is very often consider ed a depressed area and where we've had reports from the ARDA people that the incomes are very low in Quebec and especia lly in the rural parts, yet we in Manitoba are lower than they are as an average weekly salary income. I think ours amounts to some $75

whereas Quebec's is $77.0 0. Mind you the provinces to the west of us .have a much higher income so that even if they have to pay some tax they don't mind it as much because they have more money to pay the taxes with. This brings me to the point which I would like to make, and that is that the provinces to the west of us, both B. C. and Alberta have paid their debt and as a result don't have to pay the large amount of interest annually, and thus make a considerable saving which can be pass ed on to the people.

If this was the case in Manitoba, if we didn't have to pay the income on our provincial debt we could pay our pensioners , if we took the total amount of $18 million, this would give our people $281 a month because we have some 4, 000, 5, 436 pensioners as listed in the welfare books. Now if we reduced the amount that we presently pay or that the utilities are paying toward this cost of interest, that's a figure of $12 million , we still have $5, 911 , 575 left which we have to take out of our revenues toward the cost of paying the interest.

If we deduct that amount we would still be able to pay our old age pensioners $90 a month. Just think of it ! To pay our pensioners $90 in addition to what they are getting now. And this could be done if we weren't going into debt at the rate that we are and if we weren't in the situation that we've got ourselves into. The resolution that's before us calls for an increase of $25 .0 0 a month. This amounts to $1 , 630, 000 which is only a quarter of what we pay in interest. Then, they make the appeal to the Federal Government.

This wouldn't be necessary at all if we had matters under control in our Province of Manitoba. We could do this on our own, and we wouldn't have to depend on going out begging to the Federal Government. This could be done locally , and very well too. I thought I should bring these matters into this debate here because we get so wrapped up in this pension deal and especia lly with the Canada Pension Plan that we always have to go to other places and ask for funds when we could well be doing these things on our own. MR. PAUL LEY: I wonder Madam Speaker, if my honourable friend would permit a question? MR.

FROESE: Well if I can answer it I sure will . MR. PAULLEY: I'm sure my honourable friend could because he is so well steeped in the philosophies of the Social Credit and their abilities. I wonder if my honourable friend could tell me whether or not insofar as Old Age Secuirty pensions that the two Social Credit countries of Alberta and British Columbia intend to opt out of the arrangements we have at the present time, if given the opportunity. MR. FROESE: I am not in favour of our present opting out legisla tion we have in Ottawa. It's no good. It needs revision and therefore I cannot answer it.

MADAM SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? I

March 16th, 1965 635 HONOURABLE J. B. CARROLL, (Minister of Welfare) , (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Health that the debate be adjourned. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. . ........ .. continued on next page

636 March 16th, 1965 MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition .. The Honourable the Member for Souris- Lansdowne. MR. M. E. McKELLAR (Souris-L ansdowne) : Madam Speaker, I beg t)le indulgence of the House to let this matter stand. MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for St. George, and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable the Member from St. Vital. The Honourable the Member for Gladstone. MR. NELSO N SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Do you think I should speak now ?

A MEMBER: Oh yes, speak now. MR. SHOEMAKER: Madam Speaker -- Madam Speaker, I don 't know whether I should stand it or not. There's some members suggesting that I should. I don't know why. I don't know why I should call it a practice of most of the government members who have resolutions standing in their name. They always seem to like to drag them out and hope that a lot of them will die on the Order Paper I gues s, but I will not dis appoint some of the members. I intend to speak brief ly today -- briefly.

Now, Madam Speaker, I spoke at some length yesterday when we adjourned the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the subject matter that is before us today. But what prompted all of this debate anyway, Madam Speaker? What prompted it all ? Well I don •t mind admitting that we in this side of the House get letters from people, and a lot of those letters were complaining about the government naturally, and in particular about this heating tax.

The people get bills, and in 19 65 the average householder will be reminded 36 times of the new utility taxes that have bean imposed, or that were imposed at the special session. That is, he will get 12 telephone bills with the tax staring you in the face; he will get 12 Hydro bills in a year with the tax staring you in the face; and providing you don't burn wood, you will get 12 bills likely -- could get a lot more than that -- of fuel bills with the tax staring you in the face.

So it is these reminders every two or three days , reminding us of the taxes, that prompts the people I think to write us and to object to these nuisance taxes . Now in addition to individuals we have the Farmers 1 Union, an organization who met with our group the other day, I think, after meeting with the cabinet and members of the govern ment. I don •t know what they told the government, but when they met with us they said, in effect, you fellows will have our annual brief and time is sh ort, so we would just like to point out some of the highlights of our brief. It contained something like 25 pages.

One thing they did want to point out to us though, Madam Speaker, was Page 8 under the heading of Taxation, and they say: 11That a responsible government in our opinion is one which will not relentlessly continue with unlimited government expenditures and public works program even though it may be expedient to do so from a political standpoint 11, and then is continued on Page 9, and they say that they don •t think that a responsible government would impose taxation on home heating fuels, tele phones and hydro, and suggested it was a most unfortunate decision for the government to take.

Now, Madam Speaker, yesterday you heard me read a little

article from the Free Press suggesting that the cabinet in devising these new taxes had no special reason for putting this tax on in the first place. Now I know my Honourable Friend the Attorney-General sa id that he didn •t sa y it, but I think I should remind him -- I' m sorry that he is not in his seat right at the mo ment -- I was going to ask him did he attend the Cons ervative Convention on November 14th, yes or no; and if he did, did he attend this round-table discuss ion -- I guess that is what it was .

It says -- it starts off: "Attorney-General Stewart McLean sa id Friday there had been 'a good deal of criticism 1 of the government •s recently imposed tax on heating fuel. 11 Even he admitted that there had been a good deal of criticism . And then as ked why he had imposed it then, why did he put it on, he said, 11 •T here was no special reason 1, he replied. 11 He said he didn •t say that yesterday -- (Interjection)-- Yesterday, I think it was . However, it doesn 't matter.

Now we have continued to say ever since the new $22 million worth of taxes were im posed at the special sessio n that it was hard to imagine why they were put on in lig ht of the statements that the First Minister makes continually in the House, on the road, on TV and on the radio, about the huge annual surpluses that 'we have -- the huge annual surpluses . Now I know that this government are experts on printing propagand a. They are experts on that and I must give them credit for that, Madam Speaker. All of their propaganda sheets are well worded and desiring to show the government up favourably.

I just happen to have one, Madam Speaker, a recent one, March 5th, that's not long ago. It is headed; 11Tax Cuts to Accompany $18 5. 5 million Budget. 11 Well, surely Madam Speaker, after us putting out $22 m ill ion of taxes last August they didn •t expect we' d slap another 22 I I •

March 16th, 196 5 63 7 (MR. SHOEMAKER cont'd) ..... million on again now. But yet this went out to all of the news papers in the province and suggests that, lo and behold, here •s a government that •s going to spend $18 5. 5 million, they're going to end up with a huge surplus; and they're going to cut taxes at the same time. Now, isn't that something ? They don 't mention anything about that 22 million that we put on four or five months ago, but now they're going to do all this. So the people are rather at a los s to know why it is that the government needs this little niggardly tax. Why do they need it?

In the light of the annual surpluses, why do they need it? Well, Madam Speaker, I must say that nearly every province in the Dominion of Canada has either followed the First Minister of this province in this type of bookkeeping or he has copied the bookkeeping that is presently in use by some of the other provinces, because last year, according to an

article I have here, seven of the ten provinces reported a surplus and Manitoba had the third sm allest in the Dominion. So even if the surpluses that my honourable friend talks about, if he thinks that he's made such a wonderful job of running the affairs of the province, I must remind him that a lot of the other provinces are doing a lot better than he is according to this

article here. But this

article that I have before me, September 8, 19 64, is attempting to point out that the federal authorities are saying to the provinces, in light of the surpluses that you have, why are you coming to us for more money? This is the whole theme of this

article that I have here. Now, Madam Speaker, we have been told by the Honourable Member from St. Vital and other members that have spoken on this, well what are you fellows complaining about anyway, it's only 60 cents a month. It is such small potatoes, why are you worrying about it? In fact the Honourable Member for St.

Vital, who generally gives us a second Throne Speech -- you might consider that the talk we got the other day was a second Throne Speech, I suppose -- he sa id that it was fair game -- he said fair game for us on this side of the House to crticize the government, but it wa sn' t fair to single out one little tax out of all the taxes that this govern ment has put on in the last seven or eight years, to single out one little measly thing like this and attack them on that. That was going too far altogether, he said. That was dirty pool. He says , Madam Speaker, that it's not being fair when he picks out one tax.

And then he goes on to sa y that 1140 percent of the people, " -- I 'm reading from page 558 of Hansard -- "so that at least 40 percent of the people in the Province of Manitoba" are not affected by the tax at all. Why? Because the oil companies saw the impact of this new tax and they had pity on us poor people and they reduced their fuel by the same amount of the tax.

That 's what my honourable friend has sugge sted, that the oil companies -- right? -- He's nodding his head in the affirmative so I guess he agrees with what I said -- that the oil com panies actually immediately saw the impact and 'reduced the price of the fuel, so that the fuel today ..... MR. FRED GROVES (St. Vital): The oil companies reduced their price of fuel before the tax went on. MR. SHOEMAKER: They could see it coming I guess, Madam Speaker, But his entire speech -- I' m referring to my Honourable Member for St.

Vital -- seemed to follow the theme that it's such a small little thing that it is hardly worthwhile talking about anyway. Sixty cents a month, 40, 000 people are not affected, and in addition to the 40, 000 -- or 40 percent is it -- 40 percent of the people are not affected anyway. Now of the remaining 60 percent, what per cent burned wood ? I should ask my honourable friend .

He says that there's a whole raft of them up north that burn wood and there 's only a few people left anyways that's affected by the tax, and it's only 60 cents a month for them, and why in the world do you want to talk about this any way? Then he goes on to say -- just before he moves the amendment he goes on to say in spite of what he has said about all of this being small potatoes, that if it wasn •t for this, there •d be no tax rebate . The $1 0 million of tax rebate would have to go by the board.

And then he ends up by saying, Madam Speaker, moving the amendment that is before us now -- can 't find the Orders of the ])ay. Where is the amendment? -- Yes, he sa ys that he appreciates the in cidence of it -- he should have put in the incident and the impact because you can •t hardly have one without the other, if there is an incidence then there must be a bit of an impact, and had he worded this resolution properly, why some of us could have probably gone along with it. Then he suggests here too -- or the inference is ce rtainly left by the amendment that -- I' ll read it. "And

whereas the tax on heat amounts to about 60 to 90 cents per month for the aver age family", and then he goes on to say, "and

whereas the government is pledged to a multi million dollar school tax reduction on the homes' 1, tying the two together again that you can •t

638 March 16th; 1965 (MR. SHOEMAKER cont1d) . . . . have one without the other. What's that old song? Love and marriage goes together, you can't have one without the other. That's what he 's sug gesting here, Madam Speaker. Well, Madam Speaker, I said yesterday that in light of what my honourable friend the Minister of Welfare said, when my honourable friend the Leader of the NDP was speaking and asking some rather embarrasf3ing questions of the Minister of Welfare, as reported on page 563 -- and I think this is the shortest speech that the Minister of Welfare ever made in his life . MR.

CARROLL: You should try it sometime. MR. SHOEMAKER: If it doesn 't make any more sense than this, I don't think I will . "It's in the process , Madam Speaker, at the present time and it's going through. " That's the end of his speech. He made that statement following some questions by the Honourable Leader of the NDP. The Honourable Leader of the NDP simply said in light of the increased cost of living resulting from the heating tax, did he intend to increase the "needs" test or the budget accordingly, and he said yes he intends to do it, and certainly that was reported at some length in both of the papers.

"Ca rroll Promises the Needy to Get More to Offset the Heat Tax"; and in the Free Press, "Heating Tax on Needy to Be Offset", and so on. He apparently has made an announcement which must be government policy. They intend to increase the heating allow ance by $1 . 00, going up from the present $19 to $20 . 00 . I would like to ask him and he can an swer it now or when I sit down , Madam Speaker, would that mean $12. 00 a year or $6 . 00? MR. CARROLL: $8 . 00. MR. SHOEMAKER: Eight -- $8 . 00 a year. So he 's going to increase that by $8. 00 for the increase for electricity and so on .

However, I sa id yesterday, Madam Speaker, that this increase in the cost of living would take in a whole new group of people who had made application for socia l allowance and had been turned down -- had been turned down . I have a letter before me and I think I would like to read it, Madam Speaker, to point up what I am saying. This is written by a district supervisor of the Department of Welfare. 11As you know, your old age ass istance pension has been increased" -- Madam Speaker, I should say the date of this letter is January 24th, 1964. "As you know, your old age ass istance pension has beeJ?. increased.

The social allowance pro gram was devised to supplement individual incomes, therefore it is necessa ry at this time for us to review your social allowance budget. In view of your increased income you will now re ceive a cash allowance of $2. 00 from this department effective February 1st, 1964. " Now this points up the method that is used, and th ere's nothing wrong with it, of as sess ing the needs of the individuals that make application for social allowance.

But here is just one out of thousands, I suppose, where the department has said, we have assessed your asse ts , your liabilities, your income and your outgo, and we owe you $2. 00. That's what they're say ing in effect and accordingly we 're going to send you $2. 00. Now in light of the new taxes on heat, light, fuel and so on, there will be a whole raft of people whose cost of living has increased and therefore should now rCiJ-apply for social allow ance. This man that's been getting $2. 00 will be getting $3 .0 0 I suppose or $2. 60 or something of this kind.

The fellow that was getting nothing, that just happened to be coming out even, now he 's got an additional increase so he should be entitled to two bucks a month or whatever the socia l worker decides is coming to him. So, Madam Speaker, in light of what I have sa id, and in light of what the people of the province have said, I would like to move, seconded by my honourable friend the member for Lakeside, that the amendment be amended as follows: (

a) By striking out the word "only" in the fourth line thereof; (

b) by striking out the word "many" in the fourth line thereof and sub stituting there for the words 11the important"; (

c) by striking out the words "about 60 cents to 90 cents per month for the average Manitoba family" in the sixth and seventh line thereof and substituting therefor the words "a substantial penalty on low income families" ; (

d) by adding the word "yet" after the word "not" in the eighth line thereof; (

e) by striking out the words "is pledged to" in the tenth line thereof and substituting therefor "has promised ", (

f) by adding at the end of the eleventh line thereof the words 1 •but is at the same time impos ing upon those homes and farms increased taxes amounting to more than double the promised reductions; (

g) by striking out the word 11while " in the twelfth line thereof and substituting the word "in "; (

h) by striking out the word "incidence" in the twelfth and thirteenth lines thereof and substituting the words "discriminatory nature"; and (

i) by striking out all the words after the word "as " in the thirteenth and fourteenth lines thereof and substituting therefor the words '' inequitable, I I •

March 16th, 1965 639 (MR. SHOEMAKER cont'd) .... unfair and unjustified." MADAM SPEAKER: This is a very lengthy -- I think that I' ll take it under considera tion and I' ll give my ruling on whether it's admis sible at a later date . MR. SHOEMAKER: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could have one copy back. I sent up about six copies . Is it neces sary that you have all of the copies that you have before you there? MADAM SPEAKER: I' m holding the resolution for the time being. I' ll give my deci sion on it at a later date. MR. McLEAN: Madam Speaker, I may be out of order. I was inspired to speak on this resolution.

I don •t much care whether I speak on the resolution -- the amendment which is now before the House. Would I be in order to speak or should I wait until after you have ruled on the amendment presented by the member for Neepawa? MADAM SPEAKER: I think there is a motion before the House, I am holding it. I would suggest that you speak when I give my ruling on this . MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q. C. (Ethelbert Plains ): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, you are not permitting the Honourable Attorney-General to speak now on the motion before the House?

MADAM SPEAKER: If the Honourable Member wishes to speak on the resolution . ... MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead) : On a point of order, may I suggest that the only way the Minister could speak now is by leave and I don •t think we are prepared to give him leave. MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains . The Honourable the Member for Brokenhead. MR. SCH REYER: Madam Speaker, this resolution has to do with the appointing of an Auditor-General.

Now I know that members opposite are not too impressed with the arguments that have been put forward in recent years asking for the appointment of an Auditor-General. In fact I distinctly recall the Honourable the Premier suggesting last year that this resolution calling for an Audi tor-General was simply one calling for the establishment of a second mas ter bookkeeper, and I can recall him saying those words with curled lips, sort of an attitude of dis dain -- who needs a second bookkeeper? Madam Speaker, there's more to this than merely the appointment of a second master bookkeeper.

I sugge st to honourable members that when we asked for the appointment or the establishment of an Au ditor-General position that what we are as king for here is to rationalize a little more the organization of government, I don •t think that it is good that we sh ould have the sa me officer and the sa me staff conduct both pre-audit and post-auditing. I just don't think that it is good business practice. However, it has been done for decades and has not caused any problem.

I don't think that any funds, in fact I am quite sure that no funds have been author ized for expenditure without in fact them having legal basis. I am sure that whatever post auditing was carried out was carried out properly and thoroughly and effectively. This is not the point, Madam Speaker. I suggest that it is just a case of being prudent and cautious when we ask for a separation of pre-auditing and post-auditing in the control of finance in this pro vince.

There is yet another reason why there should be an establishment of the post of Auditor General and that is so that we may have an officer of this Legisl ature who would be responsible not just for conducting an audit, post-audit, but also for conducting an investigation into basic administrative practices and procedures . You could refer to this as an efficiency audit. This is in fact what is being done now by the Auditor-General in the Federal Government.

It is what is being done now by the Auditor-General in the government of the United Kingdom,and I think that as government grows larger and more complex and more intricate, as its activities grow in volume, that it is no more than wi se, no more than right that we should take whatever steps are practical and possible to see that there is some investigation of the administrative practices, to see that they are as free of extravagance and waste as is humanly possible. I know that members of the front bench opposite are not particularly anxious to have an efficiency audit done of their departments .

This is but human nat ure, but I sugge st that if they would forget about their own personal concerns and worry about what is good for the administra tion of government in the province, that they would welcome the establishment of an officer, of an office, of a position that would conduct efficiency audits. I think those are two powerful reasons, Madam Speaker, for the establishment of an Auditor-General. But there is still a third, and I think the third may be in some ways the most important. I believe that it stands on its own, and that is that the establishment of an Auditor-General

640 March 16th, 1965 (MR. SC HREYER cont'd) ..... would be but one additional means that we in this Legisla ture would have of keeping a check on the executive. The original conception was that Parliament or the Legisl ature was to pass laws. I think the day has long gone when we have exercised that function in its full and complete sense .

Today, legis lation is for the most part determined by the administration and by the Treasury benches, and it is admitted that Parliament and the Legisla ture are there but to analyze the legisla tion, to comment on it; that the real function of the Legisl ature today is no longer to legisla te in the full sense but to check the executive, and in order for us to do that we must have more machinery, and this is but one such additional means of keeping a check on the executive. We talk about having library and research facilities for members of the Legisla ture.

We talk about the establishment of an Ombudsman whose function it would be to investigate citizen complaints and investigate allegations of mal-a dministration, etcetera. All of this is designed for the purpose of keeping a more effective check on the executive, and the establishment of an Auditor-General would be yet one more such means of checking the executive.

I believe strongly that as the government function increases, as government involves itself more and more, the executive and the administration is growing in power, the Legisla ture has to be given additional tools with which to keep a check on this executive that is growing in power with each passing decade, and I think that that in itself is an argum ent that should recommend itself to all mem bers of this House. So therefore, Madam Speaker, I wish to ma ke it clear that we support this resolution.

However, I do have some reservations, some misgivings about the wording of the second para graph where it indicates that the Auditor-General would be empowered to make spot checks and efficiency audits of all government departments, boards, commiss ions and utilitie� and to report to the Legisla ture. Now certainly the Auditor-General should be empowered to make the post audit and the efficiency audit of all departments and to report to the Legisla ture. He would be an officer of this Legisla ture , not of the executive.

Now that is fine, but what I am uneasy about is that we should include as part of his function the running of an efficiency audit on these boards, commissi ons and utilities .

Some of them, yes; but others, I know that the practice in other jurisdictions is not to subject these proprietary commissions and agen cies to the Auditor-General •s scrutiny for the reason that they are either producing a good or performing a public service for sale and they must operate in the nature, or somewhat in the nature of a corporation, and therefore we must keep political interference, intercession in their affairs to a minimum .

And while I think that the Cabinet should obviously have the power to authorize the independent auditing of their affairs , of their books, nevertheless I don •t think it should be done by the parliamentary officer, Auditor-General. And so, Madam Speaker, I conclude then by saying that while I support the bill or the resolution in principle, and I support almost all of the proposals, I do have reservations about the inclusion of the reference to commissions, boards and utilities and would hope that some one will move such an amendment.

In fact, Madam Speaker, if it is in order, I would move such an amendment at this point. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Elmwood, that the motion be amended by inserting the words "and all non-proprietary" after the word "department" in the sixth line thereof. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. McKELLAR: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Hamiota, that the debate be adjourned. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, MADAM SPE AKER: The proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable the Member for Emerson. MR.

JOHN F. TANCHAK (Emerson): Madam Speaker, not because I like to, but I would like to have the indulgence of the House to have the matter stand. MADAM SPEAKER: The proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable the Member for Selkirk. MR. HILLHOUSE : Madam, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lakeside that

whereas great public concern is being expressed with regard to the methods used and prices paid by the government and its boards and commissi ons in the purchase of property, such as the purchase of property for the Arts Centre, the purchase of property in the Delta marsh and the expropriation of property in the Birds Hill area, among others, therefore

be it resolved that the government give consideration to the advisability of establishing a Special •

March 16th, 1965 64 1 (MR. HILLHOUSE cont'd) .... Committee of the House to examine , investigate and enquire into all property purchases and expropriations by the government, its boards and commissions, and to make such findings and recommendations as are deemed advisable with respect thereto; and be it further resolved that this Special Committee of the House have power to sit during the pre sent sessi on and in recess after prorogation and to report to this House in the matters referred to them at the next sessi on of the Legisla ture.

MADAM SPEAKER: I have had under consideration the proposed resolution of the Hon ourable the Member for Selkirk, and in the light of the statement made in the Throne Speech where it is stated, and I quote, '' Legisl ation providing for the reorganization of the procedure of the acquisition of property required for public purposes will be introduced" , in my opinion, the proposed resolution of the honourable member anticipates the matter that has been appointed for consideration by the government and accordingly I must rule the proposed resolution out of order, and in so doing I am applying our Rule No. 31, Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceed- ings of the Legisla tive Assembly of Manitoba.

MR. HILLHOUSE : Madam, I must bow to your will, but have you considered this reso lution in the light that it is not in anticipation because it deals with a matter which took place in the past. MADAM SPEAKER: I have given my ruling. I will have to ask the honourable member to accept it. MR. HILLHOUSE: You are going to give your ruling on that are you, Madam, or have you given your ruling? MADAM SPEAKER: I didn't understand you, I' m sorry. MR.

HIL LHOUSE: No, my question was, did you consider, in giving your ruling, your first ruling, did you consider that this resolution was not in respect of anticipating future matters but was in respect of matters that had happened in the past. MADAM SPEAKER: I have given consideration to all aspects of it and my ruling stands . MR. HILLHOUSE : Madam, I regret that I will have to challenge your ruling. MADAM SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Ch air be sustained? A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS : Messrs .

Alexander, Baizley, Beard, Bilton, Bjornson, Ca rroll, Cherniack, Cowan, Evans, Gray, Groves, Harris, Harrison, Hutton, Jeannotte, Johnson, Klym, Lis sama n, Lyon, McDon ald, McGregor, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Mills, Moeller, Paulley, Peters, Schreyer, Seaborn, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Steinkopf, Strickland, Watt, Weir, Witney, Wright and Mrs . Morrison. NAYS: Messrs . Barkman, Campbell, Desjardins, Froese, Guttormson, Hillhouse, Hryhor czuk, Johnston, Molgat, Patrick, Shoemaker, Smerchanski, Tanch ak, Vielfaure. MR. CLERK: Yeas 40; Nays 14 . MADAM SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Member for Lak eside, and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable the Leader of the New Demo cratic Party. The Honourable the Member for Rhineland. MR. FRO ESE: Madam Speaker, the resolution before us has to do with Rule 33, and the main thing involved here is to recognize opposition party leaders other than the official opposition. In the resolution itself, it says that -- the second

whereas -- 11This Committee reported to the House on March 1, 1960, which report recommended among other things , •T hat for the improvement of the procedure of the House and the attainment of a higher degree of efficiency, Rule 33 of our present Rules be repealed'. 11 I• m not so sure that it is efficiency that we are trying to get here by replacing the present Rule 33 that we have in the rule book and substituting it with the one mentioned in the resolution.

However, I first of al l would like to say this to the Honourable Member for Lakeside, that !feel that it is good in bringing it forward to correct an error in the printing of the Rule No. 33 that involved a decis ion reached in committee to change it some time ago. I don •t know just how long ago this is -- a year or two -- it must be a year or two anyway. Then I also think it's good to bring it to the attention of the honourable members and to remind them of a thing like this, if an error is made it shouldn •t be just left in abeyance .

I think it sh ould be brought for ward, and bringing it forth in this fashion provides a basis to have it formally discussed by the members of the Assembly. Then I would also like to thank the member for Lakeside for providing me with informa tion of this type in past years, which I do greatly appreciate. We have had other matters of this

642 March 16 th, 1965 (MR. FROESE cont'd) ..... type which have been discussed in the House and I appreciate get ting information along this line so that when the time comes for discuss ion that I can discuss or . debate in a worthy manner. In my opinion, the change involved would deprive opposition parties other than the offi cial opposition of some extra time needed on occasi ons when theymighthave an importantmatteron issue to bring forward requiring additional time, longer than is normally allowed for a leader or a member to speak in formal debate.

This in my opinion would have the effe ct of we akening the opposition in this House. If we take away this right from the leaders of the other parties in this House, I think we •re doing harm to the Assembly as a whole, and I do not think that the Honourable Member for La keside would want this to happen, or that this should be the case. I cannot believe it.

I for one always feel it refresh ing, and think it advantageous to the House to have more viewpoints on a given matter expressed, be it on various bills placed before us, resolutions that are up for discuss ion, or any item of current interest or issu es, be it the Pan Am Games, government taxes, expropriation or purchase s of properties , government finances .... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member from Rhineland, I believe, is debating the main motion. We have the amendment before us at the time. MR.

FROESE: The amendment concerns itself with the same matter, which just states that we should retain the present

section that we have in the books. So it pertains to the same matter in my opinion, Madam Speaker. If I may continue -- all these matters can be considered from various angles and argued on different basis, but so often a party will take certain stands, having adopted a certain policy, and will proceed along that line.

That being the case, it narrows down the ideas put forward to the political parties represented in this House, and to further restrict this by limiting the time required for presentation of such a viewpoint or explanation of policy would not be in the best interests of the Asse mbly of this or future sessi ons . I fail to, nor can I see the need for such restriction, and this is an honest opinion. I can not see the need for such a restric:tion. I have yet to witness an occasion where the privilege on the present Rule No. 33 has been abused.

There has been no abuse been taken over the years that we have had it in the book. It is seldom that it has been applied, therefore let us not unduly restrict members, and particularly leaders of parties, from debating in this Assembly to the fullest extent. I think that the honourable member, the member for Lakeside must realize and recog nize that we will have multi-party Houses for some time to come and that we must of necessi ty adjust ourselves to this fact, unless the old line parties want to get out of business and leave the field to the newer parties, which might not be so bad after all.

However, in all seriousn ess, I appeal to all members to leave Rule 33 as it is presently constituted in the rule book. I think the Honourable Member for Lakeside, having br ought the matter to our attention, I would say has partially achieved his purpose, and would he not reconsider, and could we pre vail on him to withdraw his motion or, failing that, may I sugge st that it be tabled or referred back to committee for further consideration. In my opinion this House is no longer bound to that decision and that the error should have been corrected at an earlier date.

Failing that, however, I will have no alternative but to support the amendment that is before us . . MADAM SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? MR. McLEAN: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Education, that the debate be adjourned. MADAM SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Member for Logan . The Honourable the Member for Roblin. MR. KEITH ALEXANDER (Roblin): Madam Speaker, I ask that this be allowed to stand please.

MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Member for Churchill . The Honourable the Member for As siniboia. MR. PATRICK: Madam Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand. MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The Honourable the Member for St. Vital. MR. GROVES: Madam Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of the House to let this

March 16 th, 1965 643 (MR. GROVES cont1d) .... matter stand. And I would probably ask that this stand again - twice, Madam Speaker, and I have no objection if anybody else wants to speak in the meantime. MADAM SPEAKER: The proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable the Member for Morris. MR. HARRY P. SH EWMAN (Morris): Madam Speaker, on account of the hour, I wonder could I have the permission of the House to call it 5: 30. MADAM SPEAKER: Agreed. We'll call it 5: 30 and I leave the Chair until 8: 00 o• clock.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	27-4-26
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	27th 4th hansardpdf 26.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1ced7d32bb2874187d9fb9170663a1ff095a4863

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).