Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 20A (26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-20a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Volume IV No. 20A February 15, 1960 2nd Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. EvBDS, Queen's Printer for tbe Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

The Progressive Index of Votes and Proceedings will be published on Tuesdays on the last page. -

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00p.m., Monday, February 15th, 1960. MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, just before 5:30 I was speaking as regards the proposed program of the government to provide sewer 1 and water facilities for people of rural Manitoba, and I said that we shall be waiting with interest to hear some comment from the Honourable Minister as to just what the specifics of this program on sewer and water are.

It can be a very good program and for which the government can take a great deal of deserved credit or it can be nothing more than a blown-up publicity stunt, and personally, I hope for the sake of the people of the province, rural Manitoba, that it will be the. former. At any rate we shall wait with interest.

I would also like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that we do not have in this province what one might call a comprehensive research council or research study group and I wonder if it might not be in the better interests of all depart ments if we had one integrated and co-ordinated research co:mcil, one that might very well look into aspects of rural life which have not been studied as yet.

We are all aware that a few years ago a Royal Commission to study agriculture and rural life was set up in the Province of Saskatchewan --I wouldn't say that this was of pressing need here in this province at this time, but certainly perhaps some kind of study committee should be set up to look into various aspects of rural life. Perhaps data accumulated would be of immense value in dealing with all the many requests upon this government for action as regards agriculture. --(Interjection)-- !' m sorry, I didn't hear the Member from Roblin's remark . -- if he'd care to repeat it.

Then, too, as I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention at this time to go into the rather major problem of price and so on because I felt that it was dealt with very well by the member for La· Verendrye and by my own Leader, but as I said on Friday and I shall say once more, certainly this government can do something very concrete and worth while in impressing the Federal Government with the needs for adequate prices, and we cer tainly expect them to do so. Anything less will be a shirking of responsibility. Oh, I notice in the estimates, Mr.

Chairman, that there is considerable allocation for water conservation, drainage districts, and so on, and I would like to take this opportunity to draw. to the attention of the administration the fact that in this province we have too much of a diversity of drainage district practices. In other words, one might go to one municipality and find that that municipality levies its drainage levies in one way and go to the next municip ality and they levy their drainage taxes in another way, and I often wonder if the overall effect or result is a desirable one.

I think that this administration would do well to make a study of drainage districts, their boundaries, and the methods of raising drainage taxation. Perhaps we would be in a position then to recommend a certain uniform approach to the various munic ipalities that are involved in drainage districts. In my constituency, the constituency of Brokenhead, there is a considerable problem which has existed now for several years and that is the problem of erosion on the river banks - - the Red River.

I raised this matter last year and all I got from that side was a lecture from the Attorney-General to the effect that people who bought land along the rivers were buy ing the land caveat emptor and so they really did not have any claim to any assistance from the government in combating the river barik erosion, but I would invite every member of the front bench to take a trip just north of the city, along the east bank of the Red particularly, and have a look and see the extensive damage being done in the way of bank slippage and erosion.

It's getting worse every year and so far there seems to be no policy, no approach for the peo ple to hang on to and they just simply are waiting in growing desperation. Surely, when an admin istration that prides itself on being alert and aware of the situation, this government has the onus upon it to have a look into this situation and see just what can be done.

What makes this worse of course is the fact that in years past some municipalities have approached the govern ment and they have received a certain percentage -- assistance in shoring up the banks, and then when other municipalities come along there seems to be nothing definite -- nothing tangible, and the people must merely wait and see every year the banks slipping down into the river.

I recall last year the former Minister of Agricultur� giving us the glowing report of just what the newly formed branch, water conservation, was going to do and here is a challenge for it; and I offer it to the Minister for his wise and just consideration. Well, because of this, Mr. February 15th, 1960 Page 569

(Mr. Schreyer, cont' d) ••.•.. Chairman, it is with some feeling of disturbance that I notice that the appropriation for soil erosion control has been reduced. It hardly seems the.time to do it in view of the fact that erosion is just as much a problem now as it ever was, and I think that this was very ill-timed. · · I. would also like to point out to the Minister that this province has a lc:mg, long road · ahead of it insofar as the development of our co-operatives are concerned. We have here be fore us an allocation of $50,000 for our co-operatives, co-operative assistance, research and so on, and salaries.

This is a niere pittance when one considers that the money allocation for the Credit Unions is in this item as well -- at least I take it that it is .;.._ it was last year. That means then that we are spending somewhere between 10 and 20 thousand dollars on co-operative development. This is indeed something to make one blink ones eyes at. I never want to bring in the Province of Saskatchewan and I very seldom do, but I would think that insofar as co operatives are concerned here is definitely one field where w.e could take some advice and take some lessons from.

Co-oper atives in that province are almost beyond description -- away ahead of this province -- and the government is realizing its responsibility there.as well. The implications of co-operative development are far-reaching, Mr. Chairman, and if we in this p'rovince do not give a helping hand to the further development of co-operatives we shall no doubt be sorry 10 or 12 . or 15 years from now' because co-operatives not only affect us in the southern part of the province but there is a vast and wide field for co-operative work in northern Manitoba.

I'm sure that a good many of you must have seen the young lady on T.V. some few weeks ago. She was describing her life -- summer months in northern Manitoba and then in northern Saskatchewan. There was an

article in the Free Press this last Saturday --I don't have the

article with me, but it was to the effect, written by this same lady, it was to the effect that the Indians in northern Manitoba are ·grossly in need of some opportunity of self-help and advancement. She goes on to say what a startling and striking difference there is between the state of the Indians' well-being in northern Manitoba and Northern Saskatchewan.

Now the two· areas are for the most part quite similar and if the Indians in northern Saskatche wan are doing so well, largely due to fish co-operatives, then surely this government -- oh, I'm quite convinced they are very sincere in their efforts to help the Indian population, but surely they should take some action and start moving with a view to possible establishment of several fish co-operatives and other co-operative ventures in the northern part of our province. But we'll never do that, Mr. Chairman, wit h an allocation of $50,000.

And allied with the matter of co-ops, it's also rather disturbing that this government has not revealed any plans or any ventures it might have with regard to the helping of co-op schools, because I think that the younger population in this province especially are in need of various schools that could be held during the summer months at different points in the province to acquaint these young people with the mechanics of co-operative business, co-operative work and so on� Well I promised I wouldn't speak too long.

I shall not say much more except that I would like to register a protest with the Minister, that if we are going over the estimates of his department we should have more copies of the report of his department. We have one here but I thii:tk that it wouldn't be asking too much if each group here had at least three or four, if not one for each one. It's hardly possible to do justice in studying the expenditures of a department and so on if one does not have the current report before him so that it might be studied. ' And before I sit dovm, Mr..

Chairman, I would like to reiterate two, rather important specific points, and that is with regard to the establishment of seed cleaning plants. As I said before, the Premier made a great deal of "to do" about the need for seed cleaning plants and he was right, but since his'coming into office there hasn't been anything substantial done insofar as encouraging communities to build or to construct seed cleaning plants. As a matter of fact it's quite obvious when the allocation for the loan fund for establishment of seed cleaning plants has been decreased·in this year's estimates, so something must be wrong.

The communities are not biting the chance largely because they simply cannot get the financial capital require ments, and so I would once again like to ask this administration if they are thii:tking of including a percentage grant, possibly up to a $20, 000 -maximum and to finance the rest by a loan, and to leave the community with the balance of one-third to raise by itself. I don't thii:tk, Mr. Chair man, that this would take so much money.

This administration would allocate possibly $100, 000 a year for five years but they could go a long way towards bringing this up to the desirable !evel . \ Page 570 February 15th, 19oO

(Mr. Schreyer, cont'd) .• ••• where you would have an adequate number of seed cleaning plants throughout the province. The economics of the situation are such that it is simply ridiculous not to make these grants, because if they are not made there will be no seed cleaning plants in the various communities, which means that weed control will be as costly as ever and farmers will lose as much as ever due to weeds. And the last point, I would once again ask the Minister to give us more details on the scheme to provide sewer and water to the people of rural Manitoba. MR . D. L.

CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in the congratulations that have been extended to the staff of the Department of Agriculture. I am sure that they're richly deserving of the things that have been said about them and I think it's quite proper of the Minister to acknowledge the great help that he has received from them. I have had the pleasure in my time of working closely with a good many of them and I certainly concur in the tribute that he paid to them.

Like him, I would say a special word of appreciation to that really grand man of Manitoba agriculture, Jim Bell.

I have known Jim for more than 40 years, because it happened that when he first became an agricultural representative it was to the Portage la Prairie district that he was assigned - more than 40 years ago He has been with the Department of Agriculture ever since, progress ing from a junior Agricultural Representat ive, new and nntried in the field where he made a very great success of it and still is a by-word out in the Portage la Prairie conntry, through the various positions in the department to have occupied the position of Deputy Minister for some years, and I certainly concur with what the Minister has said with regard to him.

I think in general this department has very excellent branch heads too, and other good staff. It's been very well served through the years and they are doing a splendid job. And I congratulate the Minister for being chosen to take a portfolio that I still consider in the Province of Manitoba to be the most important of all the portfolios, and all what my -honourable friends say about education and health and even treasury, I still say that the posi tion of Minister of Agriculture in this province is more important to the province as a whole than any of the others.

And I think the Honourable the Minister will discharge his responsib ilities with a great deal of zeal and 'vill bring to bear a practical knowledge that I think is tremendously important in that position. Consequently, because he is a comparatively new man in the position, I do not hold him responsible for the things that I am going to say that don't sound very complimentary to the Department of Agriculture. The people that I blame mainly are his :Predecessor and his First Minister.

They are the people who led the folks of Manitoba astray, along with some of their colleagues, by going out and making promises that they should have known at the time were incapable of fulfilment. They are the people who have left the Honourable the Minister in his present nnhappy position of being nnable to deliver on the pro mises that they made. And it is just impossible that he could deliver, seeing the type of pro mises that they made at that time. And so he is in the position here of being somewhat frust rated.

I am afraid I found him rather pessimistic today-- I rather disagree with my colleague from Emerson because I thought he was even more pessimistic than usual as he enumerated the various points and problems that the farmer faces. The list of promises was so long, Mr. Chairman, and to such an extent did the First Minister dwell on Agriculture, because he wasn't handicapped by having too much knowledge about that particular industry of the province, that he went out and made such promises that it does make the performance look rather poor. The performance wouldn't show up so bad if the promises hadn't been made.

Just to enumerate two or three of them, and not to go into them· at any great length but to indicate the position that I take in regard to these, so that the Honourable the Minister can have the opportunity of answering me if he cares to do so and any of the other members who want to defend the present policy certainly have the opportunity of doing so too. As a good place to start perhaps, a timely and topical one would be the emergency assistance program.

Some pretty important promises were made with regard to that one as soon as the snowfall came in parts of Manitoba and the extremely wet weather in other parts. --(Interjection)-- No, that's one for which nature deserves the credit rather than the govern ment. If they could have anticipated it they certainly would have promised it at the election time. It's a wonder that they didn't put in a disclaimer with regard to the election-- to the weather in the election program. Perhaps they forgot that one. I don't remember the.m February 15th, 1960 Page 571

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd) ...... promising to control the weather so I can't blame them for that. But this emergency assistance program, and here I am going to emulate the example of my honourable friends and go to the Province of Saskatchewan for reference because, Mr. Chair man, in the Province of Saskatchewan, faced with a similar program, differing in some respects of course but a similar program, the Province of Saskatchewan has madegreat headway com: pared to what has been done in the Province of Manitoba.

I note by the figures that they already have a tremendous number of payments made compared to what the Province of Manitoba has done. The Province of Manitoba has a much smaller area to deal with. But not only that, but in the way in which they meet their payments. The Province of Saskatchewan, I am informed, does not make it a condition, as this province does, that if the farmer qualifies for PFAA that he can't have the emergency assistance. Well for goodness' sake, Mr.

Chairman, who ever thought out that particular program, that because a farmer qualifies under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act that he mustn•t be allowed to receive this emergency assistance? Surely to goodness it's the man whp does qualify under PFAA that need!=! further assistance. If there was ever a tailor-made case of need, without my honourable friend the Minister of Health and Public Welfare or anybody else writing the prescription, there it is- there's the need--that they qualify for PFA assistance, and yet this clause says no, that they can't have it.

Saskatche wan not only says that they can have both PFA assistance and emergency assistance, but they also have a provision that if the farmer, because of the unfavourable condition under which his harvest was carried on, if he was unable even though he combined his fields, if he lost half of it or more that he still is eligible for this assistance. And I have always maintained that I don't see any magic in that formula of 50%.

I can think of the difficulty of drawing a line right at 50%, but at least Saskatchewan i has that additional advantage, that if the farmer -- all far mers know how difficult it is to harvest a crop under those conditions --if he leaves half of it on the ground even though he went over the whole field, then he can qualify for this assistance as well. MR. HUTTON: Mr. Chairman, would the Honourable Leader of the Opposition mind giving me the source of that information? MR. CAMPBELL: The source of my information is the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan. MR. HUTTON: Pardon? MR.

CAMPBELL: The Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan. The Honourable Toby Nowlett. A very good source I would say. I have be�n reading the information sheet, one of the many that has been sent out with regard to the emergency assistance program; this one is headed --is under date of December 11th, 1959, "Hutton lists details of farm aid program - graduated scale based on need." Over on page 2 there is a short paragraph, "Farmers who qualify for PFAA awards will not of course be eligible for similar assistance under the provincial plan." Of course they won't says the information bulletin.

I don't see where the ''of course" comes in. I'd say, of course they should qualify--of course if there's anybody that should qualify it's people that get PFA assistance because they have thereby established their need to get assistance. And after all, Mr. Chairman, this Prairie Farm Assistance payment that they get, that's their own money coming back to them, as figures have been produced here more than one year showing the fact.

The Honourable the Minister gave some today that point the same thing out, proving the fact that Manitoba farmers have paid into that fund a lot more than they have taken out of it, and so it's their own money that they're getting out and it's not something that comes from the Provincial Government. I can understand the position of the Provincial Treasurer.

If he's short of money and if he wants to hold down the amount that the farmers get, then I can under stand that if this was going to cost the province more money, but this is the farmers' own money that's paid out of PFA, and only indirectly through what they pay anyway into PFAA does it cost the Province of Manitoba one cent. So I say, of course they should be getting this assist ance--not that of course they won't. The only possible reason that I can see, Mr. Chairman, for denying the farmers that small measure of equity is in order to save money.

Now I've not been· one that's been very often accused of wanting to throw rmay money and usually I am as anxious as anybody else to save money--the public's money--but I certainly am in favour under these circumstances of seeing the money that the farmers themselves pay in, returned Page 572 February 15th, 1960

· (Mr., Campbell,cont'd) .•.... to them, and I certainly don't agr�e with that provision. · It's possible, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal M.P. for Springfield gave us tbe answer in this connection, because the other day the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet read on to the record here some words of wisdom from the Federal MP for Springfield, and just to read this to the House again, I think it should be once more made public.

I'm going to read the same excerpt that my honourable friend from Lac du Bonnet did, and this is his quote, and here is where he starts to quote from the Federal Member for Springfield: "One of the things that I would like to bring to the attention of the House is the fact that this has been a very bad year for .the farmers, especially those in Springfield. As a matter of fact, last December the � ster of Agriculture declared all the grain unharvested in the area east of the Red River a complete loss.

To give some indication of the extent of the loss, I may say that last year under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act we paid out something in the vicinity of $20,000 to the people in my area. This year I would estimate that under jhat Act we will be paying out over $1 million to the farmers in my constituency alone." Now I wouldn't like to take my honourable friend's figures in that regard as being very accurate. They are his figures, not mine, but I would think they are away wide of the mark.

If they are even close to the mark it could mean that that federal constituency would receive more under PF AA than the whole of Manitoba has received on the average since the program was instituted. But it should at least indicate that the situa tion is serious out there; ana it should at least indicate that they would qualify for the type of assistance that the province is giving and sharing by the Federal Government.

And if it's such a large area then, if there are going to be such large payments, then it is of course going to save the Province of Manitoba a great deal of money to rule that because they qualify for PFA assistance they can't get the Federal-Provincial Emergency Assistance. But I say, Mr. Chair man, that that's the kind of a saving that we should not have to see put into effect in the Province of Manitoba. I think that is a tremendous let-down to the program that has been suggested as being of benefit tO our farmers. Then I might say a word -- oh yes, before I leave that subject.

I note that the estimate in the Federal House is $6 million. That's a 5():...50 program which would mean that the three prairie provinces together would be putting up $6 million. That's a total in the prairie prov inces of $12 million under this program. And yet we were told by an estimate, that emanated -I think from the Department of Agriculture here, that the loss in Manitoba alone would probably reach $25 million. It doesn't look to me as though this is very good emergency assistance to the farmers • Now, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak for a very very short time on the question of farm credit.

That's been receiving a lot of attention in this House. Incidentally, .J have noticed according to information that appears in the Federal Hansard, that in the Federal Farm Loans Act a young farmer is defined as one between the ages of 21 and 45. Quite a difference to Manitoba's definition. If they keep on raising this definition they might get me in yet.

But when I was talking about the farm credit legislation of the Province of Manitoba and the program that is developed under it, I accused the First Minister of having led the people of Manitoba to believe that the reason that we had this duplication of a federal service, that is already in opera tion ·and that should have been tailored to meet our needs instead of us entering into a costly duplication.

I accused the First Minister of having led the people to believe that the reason was that the need wasn't being met in Manitoba, and that he also led the people to believe that if he headed the government that put farm legislation into effect in Manitoba that it would meet that need by taking into account things other than just the collateral -- just the security that the farmer had to offer. And the First Minister, when I was saying that the other day, objected to that as not being a correct

interpretation of what he had said. I believe I suggested to him that I would look up some proof for the assertion that I was making, so I want to remind the Honour able the First Minister of the one time - there may be others -- one time that I know of when he was a politician turned jo.urnalist and was writing editorials for the Winnipeg Tribune. My Honourable Friend the First Minister will recall that he contributed three articles to that paper back in April of 1958, just before the election. I'm not going to go through them all.

The first one has a completely gratuitous and insulting reference to a heading ''City Country Wedge Won't Solve Farm Problems", and a suggestion that the government of that day was in some way doing something that would contribute to misunderstanding between the City of Winnip'ilg and the rest February 15 th , 1960 · Page 573

(Mr. CampbeU, cont'd) ...... of the Province of Manitoba. A completely unfounded and com- pletely gratuitous suggestion although the heading was •'Agricultural Credit''. I'd be delighted to read it to anybody who would want to hear it and no one would be as embarrassed as my honourable friend if I did so. But the second

article is the one where my honourable friend after a lot of perambUl ating gets down to the question of agricultural credit, and I do want to read a little bit of it on to the record to substantiate the statement that I made, and to remind the people of this House and of the province of the fact that the First Minister of this province before the election did pretend that if he had the opportunity of putting in farm credit legislation that he would base it not on the safe type of loans that have been mentioned by my honourable friends from that side, but on the character and ability and other considerations of the borrower.

This is from the Winnipeg Tribune of April 16, 1958, and I am reading directly from the

article now. So as to be certain to not take it out of context I'll go back some considerable distance from the quotation that I want to place before the House particularly. "Farm credit iS perhaps the most glaring example" --·this is a most glaring example of the failure of the government of that day to meet the farm problems _ .. ,Farm cr edit is perhaps the most glaring example. This pro vince had an unfortun�te experience with the old Manitoba Farm Loan Board.

Certainly we must learn from that experience that there is clearly no government leadership in suggesting that reversal was suffered several decades ago and that action must therefore be inhibited forever. other Canadian provinces are into the extension of credit in a very big way. Indeed, six of the ten provinces have provincial farm credit programs. .Each of them is working well and is filling a long felt farm need. Why is it necessary for governments to move into the general field of long term farm credit? Briefly, because the need is critical and is not being met.

Banks of course are not allowed tot extend long term credit on farm property. Mortgage com panies do not do so to any substantial extent because they are able to locate more attractive investment areas. Private people hold mortgages and agreements of sale but this is frequently done retuctantly simply to facilitate a sale of a farm." Then we come, Mr. Chairman, to the sentence, "and the Canadian Farm Loan Board is not meeting the need of the farming industry. Primarily interested in 'safe' loans, it extends credit where by defii:!ition it is least critically needed.

Modern lending agencies extend credit on the security of the borrower's character and record to a substantial degree. The Farm Loan Board wants saleable assets". I ask anybody who is acquainted with the English language to · say that that was not holding out to the people of this province a definite promise that when farm credit was put into· effect by any government that my honourable friend headed, that it would provide the kind of farm loans that are talked about there. My honourable friend denied it just a few days ago. And so we see, Mr.

Chairman, we see that this program too, this one like emergency assistance is being slowed down, slowed down to a walk. Slowed down for what reason? To save the Province of Manitoba money. The only reason -- to save the ·money.

Having set the organ ization up they're moving at a snail's pace in order to see that the commitments don't become too heavy, and the Honourable the First Minister himself, and several of his supporters on that side of the House, have already-- including the Honourable the Minister-- have already put on the record here of this year's Hansard exactly the arguments approving of safe loans that my honourable friend was decrying when he was facing an election in this province. Just to save money.

Well the government's hard up-- (interjection) --It's a good idea-- a good idea to save money, but not, not by breaking. the promises that were solemnly made to the people of this province. That's too high a price to pay even to save money. Then, Mr. Chairman, with regard to crop insurance. After promising crop insurance to the people of Manitoba in two election campaigns, and after promising it to the members of this House in two Speeches from the Throne, because it's been in two of them, what has happ-' ened? The government decided to study it further and set up test areas.

They Set up test areas, and what assistance have they given? No premium contribution. After every investiga tion that has ever been made into crop insurance, in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, being unanimous on the point that crop insurance is too big a matter for any province to handle, that it must have federal participation -- but note that word ''Participation" - this province after indicating that it would see to it that we got crop insurance, and after the Federal Government -belatedly it's true, and with too little support -- but after the Federal Government had at least put crop February 15th, 1960

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd) ••..... insurance on the statute books and had at least made some contribution, too little I admit, but at least giving 20% of the premium and half the administra tion costs and some other fairly useful things; after the Federal Government doing that, what does this great defender of crop insurance in Manitoba do? It doesn't even make any contribu tion to the premium in the test areas -- in the test areas, at the time when if you ever want crop insurance you want the test areas to demonstrate its feasibility -- and no contribut ion from the Provincial Government. Surely to goodness, Mr.

Chairman, the Provincial Govern ment has at least as much of a responsibility in this as the Federal Government. I'm not noted I'm sure, for being a great defender of the Federal Government. I say quite frankly that I think they didn't go as far as they should have gone on the basis of what they had promised to the people of the prairie provinces. They didn't go as far as they should have gone, and one reason that they didn't go as far as they should have gone is because this government didn't give them the encouragement that it should have given to them.

The Honour able the Minister last year admitted -- not the present Minister, but the one who was occupy ing his position at that time -- admitted last year when we talked about crop insurance, he tacitly admitted that he had done nothing about it so far as the federal people were concerned; but he definitely admitted that he had found it impossible to get from the Federal Minister a copy of the Act or information regarding the provisions of the Act before it was made available in printed form; that he had found them sticky when he tried to discuss it with them; and the plain facts were as anyone could see who took

part in that discussion or heard the discussion in the Chamber at that time, that the Minister of Agriculture at that time had done little or nothing --and I think it was nothing --in order to encourage the Federal Government to do a better job. And you rememher that the First Minister was in Ottawa just at the time that we were discussing this, and we asked the then Minister of AgricUlture to get in touch with his chief in Ottawa to see that even if at that late date he could get some better arrangements made, and they never were made, and I don't suppose they would be at that stage, but I think the.

Federal Governme'nt would have done something a little bit better if they had been encouraged by this government which undoubtedly has some influence with .them. But with all' of that, as poor as the performance was by the Federal Government, . at least they put the Act on the statute books, and when the Federal Government puts it on the statute books it means that they have to be prepared to go through with it in all the provinces that want it or to which it applies; and we've got to give them credit for that much.

And so when the Province of Manitoba, after saying when the Act first came out, after the then Minister saying that he thought we would have it last year, eventually deciding that more study was_ necessary -- after twice promising it in elections, after twice promising it in the Speech from the Throne -- decided to study it further and set up crop insurance test areas -they put in no contribution toward the premium at all. Something toward administration - that's true. And I say, Mr. Chairman, did you ever see such an example as that of an attempt to implement a promise?

The only conclusion I can draw from that one, the only conclusion that seems to be possible, believing that the government has some logic to its action --the o!lly conclusion that I can draw is that here again they don't want to see it succeed because they know that eventually it would cost them some money, and it will. �d that's the only way that they can get it is by having the Federal contribution, the Provincial contribution both be substantial. And so it should be. And I'ni not suggesting that the farmer shouldn't have �o make some contribution.

He should, but a fair arrangement as I have previously said in my opinion would be a third of the premium from the Federal Government, a third from the Provincial Govern ment, a third from the farmer and the two governments carrying the administration costs. Well, the story of crop insurance in this province, which my honourable friends used to say was not a very good one under the former administration, is certainly much worse since. Now, I was going to ask some of the questions, Mr.

Chairman, that have already been asked with regard to some of the programs that were either mentioned in the Speech from the Throne or have been indicated by the Minister. One has already received some attention.. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Co-Operator of February 11th this year, headed "Plumb ing Short Course Available" and the Minister made ·some reference to that this afternoon. "Plumbing short course will be held during the. winter months in any agricultural represent ative area in Manitoba that is requested by 15 to 20 farmers. Complete plumbing on a majority February 15th, 1960 Page 575

(Mr. Campbell , cont'd) ...•..• of Manitoba farms is the objective of the program being spons ored by the Provincial Department of Agriculture and Conservation. All farmers registering must be prepared to install plumbing on their farms, etc." I would like to ask the Honourable the Mlnister if that• s all that is going to be done, that and the inspection tp.at he told us of this afternoon,because if it is I agree with those who have spoken that the brave promise of the Speech from the Throne is not being very well lived up to. I would like to know how many have enrolled in this course already. I'd like to know how many farms have been,inspected up to date because the

article says that, prior to each course, farms of those enrolled will be visited by an agricultural engineer and a sanitary inspector who will draw up complete plans for water and sewage systems so that if somebody applies, apparently before he is enrolled the engineer and the sanitary inspector have to go out and check his farm. How many have been checked up to date? And I would like to know if the engineers and the sanitary ui. spectors who are going to do this work are already in the departments or are they being hired?

And most important of all, just what is the assistance that is being given to those who wish to take advantage of the plan? Because I don't want to take too long, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to skip over the deficiency payments item that I had down to mention.

I'll leave the Si� Policy until we meet it in the proper item in the Estimates but I would say in passing that after the tribute that the Minister paid to the good results obtained Jlllder this plan I think it's the most illogical thing that I've ever heard mentioned in the House to say after paying tribute to the. good results we're going to scale. it down. · · . . · _ . I was going to ask about the Federal Bangs Disease Policy and l:iow tlu!.t ties into the provincial program that the Honourable the Minister mentioned this aftei1J,oon, but that can be dealt with when we come to the . Estimates. · . .

I heard a word on Predator Control as someone I believe raised in the House a few days ago. I, too, wantel} to mention Co-Op Services but the Honourable Member for Rhineland has covered it very effectively. I agree with the members who have spoken about the contribu tion that the Co-Operatives can make to the economy of.the Province-of Manitoba. It's an interesting consideration, Mr. Speaker, to those who have studied the hi story of the Credit Union movement which incidentally originated in Canada and spread to a.lot of countries of the world.

It is interesting to notice that traditionally the Credit Union movement has. usually prospered in times of adversity -- has not been so buoyant when economical conditions were .more buoyant. I would think that the time is ripe for them to prosper fu Canada with a Conser vative Government in Manitoba and at Ottawa. They can make a great contribution by encourag ing thrift and by keeping the assets of the community right at home. I think it's an excellent -- a very excellent program and should be encouraged.

So far as the Producer and Consumer Co-Operatives are· concerned I think the great thing to keep in mind with regard to co-operatives in either the consumer or producer field, is that they don't have to do all the business, they don't even have to do a large percentage of the business in order to influence the whole of the business. And. by tJ?.e way that they work, they can make a great contribution in both fields. I'm not in full agreement yet with my honour able friends of the CC F as to just what constitutes assistance to them.

I think that as with so many other organizations that have people of character and initiative and ability that they can do a better job themselves than by having the government try to run them too much. However, they need some government assistance in particular the Credit Unions in regard to their auditing services and such like, but we can discuss that later on.

I wanted to say a word with regard to the resolution that a lot of the members got laid on their desks from the Veterinary Association . .I think that's something that is deserv ing of consideration in this House but that again will come up properly under an item in the Estimates and we can discuss it at that time. The same holds true with Water Control and Conservation. Certainly we can have a discussion of that when the item is reached. So, Mr. Chairman, I would conclude with a very brief word on the general agricultur al situation. I think the Minister was very pessimistic with regard to it.

And I certainly do not share his view that price is not the main consideration. I think that it's tremendously Page 576 February 15th, 1960

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd) .•. ... important. And I must say that I think it can be tackled in different ways but that the assistance in that regard simply has to come from the Federal Government. Consequently I'm not holding this government responsible for the difficulties in that regard. When I used to say that from the government's side of the House the Opposition of that day used to say that I was trying to escape responsibility. I say the same thing for them that I applied to ourselves that they are not in control of the things that are the most important to the farmers of this province.

As important as all these services that my honourable friend has mentioned this afternoon-- he detailed them at considerable length and they are important but as important as they all are -- as the best job that can be done with regard to all of them by the farmer even if he's perfect in his conduct with all of them, even if they measure up to the very highest standards of his departmental experts, the farmers still can't get along if at the end of it he hasn't got a reasonable price.

And the question of price is so much more in the hands of the Federal and even International authorities than of ours that I cannot belabour my friends with regard to that. But I do say, as others have said here today, that this govern ment has a responsibility to make its representations to the Federal Government on matters that are of so much concern to the farmers. This government knows that we have to live to a large extent by exports. This governme�t knows that trade is a two-w ay street.

This govern ment knows that the way for us to be able to sell our products to the countries where we wish to sell them is by being willing to take their products. And this government so far as we have been aware has done little or nothing -- and I think it's the latter -- to attempt to influence the Federal Gov�rnment against the policies that they have been erecting and adopting and promot ing that are definitely against the interest of agriculture in this province. What have they said to them about textiles? What have they said to them about woollens? What have they said to them about exports to Japan?

PI:ice, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion is the real main problem of the farmer today. The cost-price squeeze is the farmer's nemesis and has been for some years. He can't do anything to help himself with regard to this. He can do a lot to help himself with regard to the things that the Minister was talking about this afte moon, and the Department of Agriculture can do a lot to help him with regard to those too, but he can't do very much about these things that are most important of trade and tariff:> and things of that kind.

He can't do very much -- he can't do anything about the costs that affect him in his production. Oh, he can cut down, he can be more efficient and all the rest, but the costs -- the costs that continue to go up on his implements of production and on getting his goods to market and all the rest -- he can't do anything about those costs. And so he has had to face the position through the last ten years of seeing his costs go up practically 50% in the last ten years and at the same time the price that he receives at the farm -- and it's the farm that counts to him, the price at the farm goes down by 20% or mm;e.

And if that isn't a cost-price squeeze I don't know what it is. And that's the problem of the farmer today, and it's not lost markets, as my honourable friend tried to indicate this afternoon, because over the period of years the markets have been holding up very well. So what can we do? The price is what he needs in these times and he's got to look to the Federal Government.

And this government ought to be making some very strong representations to the Federal Government to support the plea of the farmers if they get some kind of assistance to niake up for the unfavour able position that they're placed in because of this cost-price squeeze. :MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker-- Mr. Chairman, I confess that I know very little about agriculture or farming and I listened with great interest to the rest of the members here who are all with exception agricultural experts.

I only want to ask two quest ions, but be fore doing it I want to inform the House that my only experience in farming is harvesting for several years when I received less than $2. 00 a day working from sunrise to sunset and had to get along with what's left over of Kosher food in a farm house, namely, bread, potatoes, milk and cabbage. But before asking these questions I'd like to make a person al comment to the Honourable Member from Carillon. Since the House opened he accused the CC F on several occasions that they are not the Opposition, they are co-operating with the gov ernment.

And he said that the duty of Opposition is to oppose. I felt for awhile that if the First Minister gives me a silver dollar bill, genuine, once 95 cents, I shall definitely not 1 oppose -- it's a question of opposing. I looked up at the library and tried to get a book here which I'm not going to read, to find out what is the duty of the Opposition; whether it's to February 15th, 1960 Page 577

(Mr. Gray, cont'd) .•••.. criticize which is necessary, suggest some improvements which unfortunately we cannot do because we cannot suggest increase of expenditures -- there's no desire on the part of our group at any rate to reduce any expenditures because we feel it's not enough. And I could only read two lines out of the 300 pages. (Interjection). Yes, pardon? No, not just topics of the day the author is - I didn't think it was necessary but you could believe him; I believe him any;Vay- Robert MacGregor Dawson- The Government of Canada.

And there's another here; it says, 'The Government expects and receives reasonable assist ance from the Opposition in the despatch of non-c ontentious business. Organized obstruction occurs only when parties are fundamentally disagreed about the work of parliament itself.'' But to go on steadily and say -- accuse us that we are not the Opposition Party because we don •t oppose anything even if it's good, I certainly with great respect, my fi-iend, do not -agree. Now I'm coming to two questions and I ask them only for one purpose. We all realize that agriculture is the main industry in this province.

I do not know what the City of Winnipeg would do and the rest of Canada and the rest of the wor.ld when we are producing food realizing that three-quarters of the popUlation in this world go at night to bed hungry-- is one of the main industries and they'll have to support it in every way possible. And we all realize that farming in Manitoba h;J.s been, I hope still is, and I hope it will be in the future, the main industry in Manitoba where we get our products; we get our food, we get our daily nourishment.

My question to the Mi�ster is this: Can he tell us, can he tell the Committee - say last year perhaps, not to go very far-- is there any increase or decrease in the individual farming? What I mean by individual farming is that a family actually lives on the farm, grows grain, raises cattle and other farming industry. I do not mean those who come here from anywhere and put in their grain in the spring and they do their harvest in the fall and we donit see them all year round - they're either at HonolUlu or any other summer resort.

And it would be inter esting to know whether they are drifting away from their farms or they're still there. And what are the prospects for them for the future? The second question that I want to ask is perhaps, maybe political, but it's not with me: Is in the opinion of the Minister-- the dairy industry to us is a very very important one; we cannot get our milk; we cannot get our eggs;. we cannot get our cream; we cannot get our butter, unless the dairy industry is prosperous.

Has he at this time -- outside of the Pro fessor Waines' investigation -- can he as the Minister and being a farmer himself tell us whether the question-- it became an international question now, and this is the margarine, whether it will affect the industry or not? And thirdly is: What is being done to place more settlers on individual farms? .....••..•. Continued on next page Page 578 February 15th, 1960

MR. NE LSON SHOEMAKER (Gladstone) : Mr. Chairman, does the Honourable the Minis- ter intend to answer the questions asked? ...... Thank you. I would fir st like to thank the Minister for his account this aft ernoon of his department and to commend him for the very large group of fig ures, the statistics that were made avail able to us but I can't help but think that every time I hear word "st atistic" that it reminds me of a story that Disraeli. once said, he said there were three kinds of lies -- lies, damn lies and statistics. Now I'm not suggesting for a minute, Mr.

Chairman, that we listened to a bunch of lies -- far from that. But I do suggest that the statistics tend to conf use the issue to some de- · gree. Statistics are diff icult to comprehend and they're rather confusing after you listen to them for some time. The Throne Speech is rather confusing. on that particular issue, page two. And I quote, "While the estimated value of Manitoba's 1959 total agricultural production of approximately $321 million is slightly more than $1 million higher than that of 1958. I must emphasize that the net farm income for the year just closed will be lower than that of 1958 .

" Well that's ra ther a confusing statement too but it does point out the fact that we have a cost-price squeeze. The Honourable the Minister suggested and I agree with him on this one that agriculture is still the backbone of our economy. But he also suggested or the Estimates suggest that only six or seven percent of the total estimates are directed towards agriculture. And yet, on the other hand; he states that agriculture is the. backbone and that doesn't seem to quite add up.

The sta tistics that he did quote certainly pointed up further the fact that the farmers are in a plight and emphasized the cost-price squeeze furt her. · A lot of talk emanating from the members on both sides of the House have suggested that while the matter of price is pretty well out of the hands of this government, that this govern ment should at least impress their Federal friends and influ ence them to do something about it. And I agree with that one. But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that they have not been very ef fective in that field.

We heard a great deal about the wishy-washy telegram that was sent last year by tl:):is government to the government at Ottawa prior to the big march -- we have two marches now. We have what we call the big one and the little one .-- the eleven hundred that went a year ago be ing the big one and the one sixty or so that went here a week or two ago as the small one. But the wishy-washy telegram arrived in Ottawa from this government to the Federal Government . prior to the big march. Now it appears to me that the Provincial Conservative Party hasn't too much influence on our Federal frien ds .

I have befor e me a clipping from the Tribune of May 14th, 1958 which might be called "The Three D's", because it says , "Dau phin gives Duff, Dief welcome". And it was quite a welcome. But I'm not going to read into Hansard all about the big band that was out to greet them and so on. -- (Interjection) -- Do you want me to read it all? -- (Interjection -- Sure) -- The whole thing? A MEMBER: Yes. MR. SHOEMAKER: Very good, I'll read it all. I've been asked for it, Mr. Chairman, so I'll read it all. Now, Mr. Chairman, do they or do they not want me to read all ofthe ar- ticle? 0. K.

Well I'll read ...... (Interjection -- Read it all)-- Read i.t all? 0. K. Here we go. ''Dauphin gave Duff Roblin that Diefenbaker welcome Tuesday night as the Conservat}ve Leader officially opened his election campaign in riding which hasn't seen a straight Conserva tive vote for twenty-six years . This bustling town of 7, 000 people gave the young challenger a red carpet treatment rarely seen in provincial politics . Complete with drum and majorettes, bandstand, bagpipes and the hall filled with 350 enthusiastic listeners. Now in return Mr.

Rob- lin delivered one of the most dramatic speeches of his career, hitting out at the old ..... . MR. CHAIRMAN: ...... pan't hear exactly everything ..... . MR. SHOEMAKER: "Hitting out at the old limping and lackadaisical Campbell regime and promising the government to build a better Manitoba. Mr. Roblin's campaign opener here resembled Prime Minister Diefenba ker's triumphant visit last March 17th, when he made an unscheduled step here in response to a petition signed by hundreds of young Conservatives. Mr. Robli.n spoke here because of a similar petition signed by 250 supporters" -- same number.

"F estivities started with a ten-car bunting-smothered cavalcade from a school on the outskirts of Dauphin to the town hall led by twelve strutting majorettes and a 32 -piece brass band, Mr. Roblin and Mayor Stewart McLean, his Conservative candidate, drove along the main street February 15th, 1960 Page 579

(Mr. Shoemaker, cont'd. ) ... in an-open convertible. Hundreds thronged the sidewalks as the parade passed through the business section. The town hall was almost filled 15 minutes before the meeting was scheduled to start and by 8: 30 p. m. all but a few seats were taken. Mr. Roblin marched to the platf orm with five party candidates from Dauphin and neighbouring constituencies . Buoyed up by this wave of hospitality the Conservative chief delivered a sp eech packed with cam paign promises and sparkling with wit.

In place of the deliberate meticulous Opposition Leader of the Legislative Asse mbly, stood a speaker able to move his audience to serious reflection or easy laughter all at the expense of the Campbell Government. The pioneer spirit in Manitoba has been weakened and watered down, he charged; we need a government willing to work hard hand in hand with the people." Now here is the part that I was going to read and I'm coming to it now so put on your hearing aids. He devoted his speech to five main topics: 1. Agriculture. "Manitoba's prosperity is wedded to agriculture, " he said.

"The government has -- the gov ernment" -- and he's refe r_ring to the former government -- "has by-passed its responsibility in this field. Conservatives wUl give farmers a sound program of farm credit and crop insur ance." In Water Control �- this is plank No. 2 _;_ Water Control. ·" The government's approach to this problem has been piece-meal and half-hearted. More provincial money must be given to water control projects administered by a central board.

" In Agricultural Research -...: "A commission set up to investigate the fa rmers' marketing problems would be a logical follow -up to the present Federal Commission on price spreads!' He also called for better means of help ing farmers to use the latest technical developments in agriculture. Plank No. 3 - Education. "Improved teaching standards and equality of education for every child in the province is· an in tegral part of the Conservative platform." Roads -- "Ineffic iency in the Public Works Depart ment is part of a short-sighted roads program. New roads fail to stand up -to ordinary traffic," Mr.

Roblin charged,_ "and other roads start up and never seem to get anywhere at least for ten ·or twenty years. " He promised a province-wide survey of highwa-y:s and secondary roads to en courage lorig term planning and assured municipalities of a sensible program of assist ance for roads instead of the present system of political bargains. "When Mr. Campbell talks about good government", he said, "think about scandals involving beer, oil leases, horse racing, ·e very year we've found something diff erent. We want to destroy the myth that the present gov- ernment is effi cient.

Their record is one of mismanagement and missed opportunities ," and this is the closing paragraph -- I'm getting right to the end of it now -- "The people of Manitoba deserve a better government; a government which has watched the example of John Diefenbaker who has shown us the way. " End of quote. And I'm -- I should reread I guess, aye? Particu larly the ones where it says , 'Follow John' and that's what we suggest that you're doing. And the people are not too happy about it.

Now the -- I say that there isn't too much hope or any evidence at all to show that there's any hope of this government influencing the Federal Government and probably the

article that I've just fin ished reading suggests that the Honourable the First Minister is still following John. Now the Honourable, the Minister of Agriculture has suggested that price is not the only factor that concerns the farmer today and I agree with him on that one, but I do suggest that it is a mighty important one.It was so important that the 1, 100 farmers that went to Ottawa a year ago, went down for deficiency payments which was intended that the farmers should obtain a fair share of the national income. If they went down there it was on a price issue.

Now appar ently the members opposite are not in favour of deficiency payments as such because they have amended the resolution that is presently on the Order Paper and it's quite evident that they are not in favour of deficiency payments.

Now the Liberals have not generally been known as a party that favours tariffs as such but isn't it a fact that most industries, most of the industries in Canada, are operating at a profit today because of the fact that we have protective tariffs ;· that's the reason that they're operating at a profit, the reason that they're e,mployed and work ing and it's quite understandable. And the Canadian consumer is paying the cost of that pro tective tariff in 1959 to.the tune of over one billion dollars. Well then why exclude agriculture ? Why exclude agriculture?

In eff ect, tariffs and deficiency payments, protective tariffs -do the same thing for other industries as defici ency payments wi.ll do for agriculture. They're both establishing a price at.which it is profitable to produce a product. But this government does not seem to favour that nor do they seem to be ready to influenc e their Federal friends . It should be carried out. Now on the matter of a two-price system because after all a two price Page 580 February 15th, 1960

(Mr. Shoemaker, cont'd. ) •.. system would, in part, pay for a deficiency payment, I don't see anything wrong with that. One day last summer I had a very interesting chat wi.th a baker in our town who does a quite a thriving business and I asked him how much cheaper could he - Pardon me? MR. ALEXANDER: Is this the chat that you had wi.th him last year? MR. SHOEMAKER: Could be, but you people have a couple of new members over there and we have a cou ple of new members and I'm going to tell it to you again because it's a good story.

I accommodated you by reading this story, now I'm going to ask·you to bear with me while I tell you one of mine over again. It's only fair. So this baker tells me -- or I asked hi.m the question, "How much cheaper could you sell a loaf of bread i.f the wheat was d!lmped off in your warehouse for free?" And he paused for two or three minutes and then he said, he certainly couldn't reduce the price of bread by more than one cent i.f he got the wheat for noth ing. Well, then I suggested to him that i.f we doubled the price of wheat he shouldn't have to increase the price of bread by more than one cent.

So that i.f we double the price of wheat for home consum ption •... he said that was a fact! Certainly. . . . . so that i.f you double the price of wheat to the Canadian consumer I don't know the amount of dollars it would raise, but cer tainly it would raise several millions of dollars , then that could be used to pay deficiency pay ments or sup port the price of grain. All other industries, I suggest are protected -- why ex clude agriculture?

Now on the matter of crop insuranc e and agricultural credit, the Honourable the Minister has suggested that we on this side of the House were doing everything we could t.o scuttle it, it just isn't so Mr. Chairman -- that is not so ! We have also said that -- or certain members of our group have said, that it was duplication and I still think it is . I can't see any reason why the PFAA could not have been tailored to fit the need and had done a better job than the present crop insurance scheme i.s going to do.

I don't know why it couldn't have been done and why i.t can't be done yet with the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Act. There's 110 reason on earth why the former Canadian Farm Loans Board couldn't -- hadn't been tailored to meet the need. In fact they are tailoring it now and liberalizing it, and that's a good word and even changed the name to the Farni Credit Act. It's been done now ; why couldn't it have been further tailored to meet the need and saved all of this duplication? It costs money.

And on that .poi.nt, I don't know where in the estimates we find an item to cover the deficit that we might expect under both of the Acts, that is under the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Act and the money that this government will have to pour into crop insurance. It may be in the estimates -- I don't know where it is. It could be there. On the matter of crop insurance once again I say that we have no intention of scuttling it but I do suggest that the people that may scuttle it will be the farmers themselves for the simple reason that under its present form, it is not attractive enough.

It's not attrac tive enough and I would just like to point out a few reasons for my thinking that. Now because of the fact that the maximum amount that a farmer can ensure his crop for is 60% of the long term average, in effect that represents a 60% deductible clause, in effect. Now the hail insur ance com panies tell me that 80% of all their losses are under 20%. Well, that indicates that there'll be few claims under crop insurance scheme. It has already been suggested that the premium is too high.

I agree wi.th that one, it is too high because the Federal Government have not made a fair enough contribution nor has this governm ent. Now I was certainly sur prised when the Honourable the Minister told us the other day he was emphasizing the amount of money that the Provincial Gove=ment was putting into this project and once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to read just one paragraph which you will find on Page 202 of Hansard, Feb ruary 1st, and the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture is sp eaking and he said: "Mr.

Speaker, it has been charged that the governments involved in the test areas of Manitoba, pri marily the Federal Government and in some respects , the Provincial Goverument are not mak ing a sufficient contribution to test areas to the premiums -- to the cost of crop insurance to this province in order that it can be a success. They point out that the Federal Government is paying 20% of the premium s. I would like to point out, Mr.

Speaker, that in addition to the 20% of the premium s, the Federal Government is contributing 50% of the cost of administration and that the provincial government is contributing 50% of the cost of the administration and when you add the 20% premium and the lOO% of administration costs, it repres ents between 40 and 50% of the total cost of a crop insurance program for this province. " Now, I can understand an February 15th, 1960 Page 581

(Mr. Shoemaker, cont'd. } •.. insurance company having fairly high acquisition costs, that's the term they use, but I can't see why the .Provincial Government should have administration costs as high as the Honourable the Minister has suggested in Hansard 1;here. Of course, he hasn't told us the amount of commission that is going to be paid to agents and he hasn't told us a lot of things about it yet but it does seem to me that the administration costs, if they are as · the Honourable the Minister has suggested 20 or 30% of the cost of insurance, it's too high al together.

That simply means that if you take in a million dollars in premiums, the administra tion costs are going to be between 200 and 300 , 000 according to his figures there. Too high! The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture told us in his statement this afternoon and he was comparing crop insurance to PF AA, that presently under PF AA, the farmers received 89 cents out of every dollar and

whereas with the crop insurance they would receive 120 cents for every c dollar I think that was the figures that he quoted. No ? MR. HUTTON: No, a· dollar on every 80 cents. MR. SHOEMAKER: Oh, pardon me. Just about the same percentage though. Now that may be so but the matter of premium is different. With PFAA, I understand the premium is 1% presently -- I may be wrong but I think that is it for Manitoba. Well it's too high too. I've always maintained that the FFAAprenii,ums, if you want to call them thatf should be different in each of the provinces .

That it is a fact I believe that of late Saskatchewan recetv!'ls a large percentage of the PFAA paymen1B and their premium is exactly the same .as Manitoba. So in the terms of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture it isn't actuarily sound under the present set-up. Now I'm referring to PFAA and it should be adjusted. But to get back to the premiums again. Under PFAA if he didn't harvest a crop he would · not have a premium to pay, would he? That's my understanding. He wouldn't have a premium to pay,

whereas under the crop insurance proposed program regardless. of whether he got a crop or not, he would have a premium to pay, and a much higher premium than he would under·PFAA.

And it's just another factor that adds to the already high cost of farming. · On the matter of soil and water conservation, a subject that I'm very interested in, I must say at the i:!tart that I was happy to hear the Honourable Minister say that they were going to set up a schedul-e of grants or a grant formula to the Riding Mountain Whitemud River Watershed Program,-they were going to establish one especially for them and I was glad to hear that.

I will listen with interest to the formula that he designs because presently; and I think the· Honour able the Minister understands that presently it just isn't workable until we do have that grant formula and we'll no doubt hear more of that later on. The Honourable the Minister suggested that agriculture is presently in a better position .· than it mtght well be and is in a better position than Saskatchewan by reason of the fact that it is diversified in this province or more diversified than in the other prairie provinces.

And he particularly referred to cattle as being the balance wheel in the agricultural sector of our econ omy but I don't think I heard him refer to eggs or hogs. Now he may have but I suggest to you Mr. Chairman, that the egg market in particular is not good; in fact, it's as bad as I have ever seen it and 1 used to be in the hen business myself at one time and was for some ten years.

It was in a bad state of affairs then, that was back in what is referred to as the "Dirty Thirties," but when I was selling eggs at 15 or 20 cents a dozen I was buying grain for about a third of the price it is today so it was offset in part by that.· But certainly the largest egg producer in my constituency lives in the Arden district and he was in to my office the other day and said to me that he was losing $30 a day -- $30 every day on his egg production.

SO it certainly is bad. · Several of the members of this House have questioned the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture as to the water-works assistance to farmers and they seem to be in doubt as to whether that is the extent of the program referred to in the Throne Speech and I suggest that that's it, fellows! That is i.t! You've heard all there's to it. Now that's my guess, I may be wrong on that one but I think you've had it on that one.

But, I was particularly disturbed to learn that there was a $10 fee attached to this idea of making plumbers out of farmers in addi- . tion to giving them the information they're going to charge them $10 if they get fifteen farmers in one area that's interested in coughing up $10 and then going and listening to the plumbing talks. (Interjection} -- Well, it could be but I suggest as one member did earlier that if the governm ent intends to get into the plumbing supply field and supply plumbing material to the Page 582 · February 15th, 1960

(Mr. Shoemaker, cont'd. ) ••• farmers at wholesale that you will be hearing from the plum bers on that one. I know that what some or how some farmers view these so-called 'white-collared' guys and they've got better adjectives than that but I can't use it here, Mr. Chairman, but when you start charging them for the fees they'll certai nly have a less opinion of them than they had before I do believe . (Interjection) -- They are not the same aye? Now the Honourable the Minister suggested that there would be an increase in civil ser vants, that's quite understandable.

But once again, Mr, Chairman, I want to suggest that he missed the point completely because the people of this province were certainly lead to believe that the entire Conservative program could be implemented without an increase in taxes and we now know -- JY!Lnow know in this House that that is not possible. Now Mr. Chairman I think that I will reserve anything Ellse that I have to say until we get down to about item No. 2 in the estimates and by that time, that'll probably be tomorrow even ing sometime but for now I will call it a day. Thank you kindly ! MR. EDMOND PREFONTAINE (Carillon) : Mr.

Chairman, I rise to take just a small

part in this debate and I think that my first words should be ones of compl iments to the Minister of Agriculture. I think that in the short space of a couple of months he has mastered his depart ment quite. well . That's not surprising; we farmers work long hours, he must have worked long hours to be so fluent with his department. Now, I would like . him to understand that I'm not on my feet only to praise but also to criticize because I'm one who believes that the duty of the Opposition is to criticize.

My honourable friend, the Honourable Member for Inkster has quoted from a book -- I'm not sure of the name of the author but I have a book here by Jennings on Cab inet Government. Jennings is one of the most famous authors on Parliamentary Government. He has another book entitled Parliamentary Government-and for the benefit of some members of the Hou�;�e especially the newer members of the House and maybe to a certain extent to the members of the press I might quote from Jennings what he has to say with respect to the 'Oppo sition. It's

Chapter IV of Government and Parliament: "The Function of the Opposition. At tacks upon the Government and upon individual ministers are the function of the Opposition. The duty of the Opp osition is to oppose. It adopts Sir Toby's advice, •so soon as ever thou. seest him, draw; as thou drawest, swear horribl e'. That duty is the major check which the Constitu tion provides upon corruption and defective administration. It is, too, the means by which in dividual injustices are prevented.

The House of Commons is at its best when it debates those individual acts of oppression or bad faith which can never completely be overcome in a system of government which places responsibility on such minor officials as police officers. It is the public duty of the Opposition to raise such questions. It is a duty hardly less important than that of government. 'Her Majesty's Opposition' is second in importance to 'Her Majesty's Gov ernment'.

The apparent absurdity that the Opposition asks for parliam entary time to be set aaide by the Government in order that the Opposition may censure the Government, or that the Government is asked to move a vote of supplies for the Ministry of Labour in order that the Op position may attack the Minister of Labour, is not an absurdity at all . It is the re cognition by both sides of the House that tlle Government governs openly and honestly and that it is prepared to meet criticism not by secret police and concentration camps but by rational argument.

" And one last sentence, "Opposition and government are carried on alike by agreement. The minor ity agrees that the majority must govern, and the majority agrees that the minority should cri ticise". Now, I think this is a good author and it is in fact our system of government that has work ed so well for centuries in Great Britain and in Canada and I do not apologize when I do get up in this House to criticise. And now I have a littl e bit of criticism with respect to a statement that was made by the Minister of Agriculture.

I think he made the statement, and I was sur prised that he can do as much for agriculture, with his programs in Manitoba, as the solution of the cost, of the price question would do for the farmers of this province, or something along those line s .,--that he could do as much for the farmers. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with that. I think that the fundamental trouble with agriculture is the cost price squeeze.

It's not the fact that the farmers are not good farm managers; it's not the fact that we are not ef ficient enough; that we don't produce enough; yes, these programs are in themselves good, but these just touch the fringe of the problem and I agree wholly with the Leader of the Opposition, my Leader, when he stated a few minutes ago that this government was not on its toes with February 15th, 1960 Page 583

·(Mr •. Prefontaine , cont'd.) •.. respect to asking Ottawa to do something along the lines of their provinces with respect to helping the farmers of Western Canada. I suggested this in my ad dress to the Speech from the Throne. These programs that we have listened to are good in themselves, but according to the Farmers' Union they are supplementary issues. I have been farming ·now all of my life . I am the son of a farmer. I went to st. Bonifa ce College but came home during the summer and worked for five months on the farm. I have been farming on my own since 1923.

I'm possibly one of the largest farmers in this House and I have farming at heart, and my he<trt is sad to see what's going on, on the farm s of Manitoba now. It's getting from bad to worse. Our young folks are leaving the farms all over Manitoba. There's no more young people in the country any more and we see farmers who have farmed practically all their lives quitting now because he can't carry on because the cost-price squeeze forces them to s'3ll.

They come to Winnipeg and take jobs as caretaker and they say they are better off than they ever were on the farm, and there are quite a few of those now all over the City of Winnipeg. There are.some from my own Village of Ste. Pierre -- good friends of mine. The situation is getting desperate. We were told the other day "why didn't you do it when", and we said that it was the responsibility of this government to try and press on Ottawa the question of the cost price squeeze, and we did, to the best of our ability.

Nobody can charge in this House that the ex-Premier of Manitoba was trying to shield the Federal Government at Ottawa during his days -- to shield the St. Laurent government at all, The question is getting fro m bad to worse. The cost-price squeeze is worse than it has ev:er been. We have with us row high cost economy and the farmers of Western Canada cannot operate under a high cost economy. They can't operate. They're producing under· conditions .of diff iculty; they are selling on an open market and buying on a restricted market. It cannot go on indefin itely like that.

The combine that I purchased for $4, 500 four years ago is now worth more than $8 ,0 00. Why? Because of the ligh cost economy. A tractor is doubled in price -- $2 ,0 00 to $4, 000, and if a fa rmer has to go to the -- not the blacksmith's shop, it's changed name, to a garage to get a repair done on his tractor, instead of paying $150 to get an overhaul on a tractor he'll pay $300 because the garage operator has to pay his hired help twice what he was paying fo ur years ago. Everything has gone up -- the salaries of all the workers, the benefits of all the workers, unemploymenfinsuranc e, minimum wages.

Everything has gone up; everything has been protected except the poor farmer, and I say that the far mer cannot go on, and I say that all these programs are good in themselves. I have heard many good speeches by Ministers of Agriculture just as good as I've heard today. I've heard them by my present leader; I've heard them by Mr. Bell, by Mr .Robertson, by Mr .S huttle worth, and they were applauded even by the Oppos�tion in those days, telllii.g us all about these prog rams. By the way, there are not many things that are new in the programs that were presented to us to day.

A fe wthings--absolutely--certainlya fe w--there's progressgoing on all the time to a certain ex tent. But I say this does not go to the core of the trouble and I say that my heart aches at the present time . I have raised a family of fo ur sons. I had hoped that the four of them would be farmers and encouraged them to stay on the farm. Of course I wanted them to get an education and I sent them.to college. I hoped that they would come back and follow their dad's example and be a fa rmer af ter having gone to St •. Bonif ace college.

I have only one now on the farm and he's got a job in Winnipeg at the same time. I say that's the same thing all over. We'r e losing our boys because, and I can't blame my sons for not being farm ers, in fact I'm encouraging them to leave the farm at the present time because there is no future the way things are going. They are going from bad to worse and this is a deplorable situation. We just cannot blame the young folks now for leaving the farm s.

We have built community halls, covered skating rinks, curling rinks, to try and keep our boys and girls in the country but no, there's no work, of course it's dif ficult and they are attracted by the lights of the cities; they are attracted by the salaries that they get. We know that farm boys have gone up north and they came back after having earned thousands of dollars, five or si.x hundred dollars a month. There are quite a lot of new cars 1n our village right now. Who drives. the new cars? These boys who work in the City of Winnipeg -- travel morning and night.

The farmers are driving trucks, many of them, or old cars. That's the situation that we have and I say that the government should attest itself not only to giVing us programs touching the fring e, things which are second to the farmers; but to go at the fun damental remedies to the situation. Let us go after the Federal Government, Page 584 February 15th, 1960

(Mr. Pref ontaine, cont'd. ) •.• solidly, resolutely, and not to send wishy-washy telegrams or not send anything at all. Our farm associations have made strong representations on the Fed eral government. They want deficiency payments. I think as long as we have these tariff walls protecting eastern industry and causing the high cost economy that we must have deficiency pay ments and protection for our farmers. I don't see no way at all for the time being.

Of course if we could have reduced tariffs and lower cost economy then maybe we could do wit:!.lout defi ciency payments, but we cannot at the present time, ·a nd I say that it l,s time that this govern ment should do all that it can along those lines. I don't think -- I wasn't prepared to· speak tonight, I'm just speaking off the cuff, but my heart is in what I have just said. As far as I'm personally concerned, and I hate to S[E ak about myself, · I can see the day when this 88 0 acres of farm land that I'm farming right now will have _to be sold. I don't know to whom.

In our country we've had quite a many newcomers to replace oldtimers. Newcomers from Europe -- they're not used to our high standard of living and they're working 14 hours a day, 12 or 14 hours a day, and they 're trying to make a go of it and they're having a .lot of trouble and they're getting dissatisfied. Some of them came with lots of money but they've seen their capital disappear at the present time and they're not so happy. I say the situation is very serious.

I say to the Minister I like his programs to quite an extent but I think he's wrong when he believes that this is the solution or half the solution to the trouble that the farmers are in. It is not. The solution is the high cost economy that we're living un der and it's getting worse under the Diefenbaker regime. MR. HUTTON: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to th.e re marks of the members of Opposition.

I can't help but take issue to some of them, and every time I hear this red herring about tariff dragged across the issue and the Conservative Party charged with being the party of high tariff, I see a little red. Let's settle this issue. Let's look at the history book. I have a couple of excerpts from Canadian Agricultural Policy by Dr. Fewke that I'd like to read to this Assembly. ''Meanwhile the voice of the Canadian manufactur er, individually and officially, amplified by those of transportation, commerce and finance was the only guide effective in the shaping of Canadian fiscal policy.

" Liberals went to the polls in 1896 in full support apparently of their low tariff platform of 1893. In Winnipeg, in 1894, Sir Wilfred Laurier had said, "I denounce the policy of protection as bondage, yea, bondage, and I refer to bondage in the same manner in which the American slavery was bondage." .In an 1896 campaign speech in Deloraine, Manitoba, the Honourable Clifford Sifton declared, "free coal oil, free clothing, and free implements you shall have if the Liberal party are returned to power.

" When elected the Liberals repudiated their 1893 tariff platf orm along with the election pledges given in its support. Another very revealing item. The Honourable Clifford Sifton came openly to avow a tariff policy based on expediency. In 1905 Sir Wilfred Laurier, speaking before the Canadian Manufact urers' Association in Quebec City, said in part, "they, the settlers in Wes tern Canada, will require clothes; they will require furni ture; they will require implements; they will require shoes; and I hope you can furn ish them to them in Quebec. They will require every thing that man has to be supplied with.

It is your ambition, it is my ambition also that this scien tific tariff of ours will make it possible that every shoe that is worn in those prairies shall be a Canadian shoe." I think those quotations from this Dr. Fowke's book speak louder than anything I could say about this , as I call it, a red herring, that is forever and perennially being dragged into the picture.

I was very pleased to listen to the member for Carillon make his remarks on the general agricultural picture and especially the future of agriculture, because so many members of the Opposition have lamented the fact that I am a pessimist and yet, Mr. Chairman, I have always been charged in the past with being an extreme optimist, and certainly I am an optimist if you compare my outlook on the agricultural future of Manitoba with that of the Honourable Member fo r Carillon, because certainly b3 holds out little hope at all. He says there is no fut ure, there is no futur e.

Well things were getting a little bad before he came to power. There was another statement made by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. He said that it absolutely wasn't true that our troubles could be related to the loss of markets, in fa ct, markets weren't lost. Well, Mr. Chairman, in 1953-54 the export of oats from Canada were 65 million; 94. 2% of these oats went to the United States. In 1955-56 our exports to the United States had dropped to 1. 867 million. Now I don't know what you call a loss of markets. February 15th, 1960 Page 585

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd) ... ..............•.. It seems to me that is as gpod an il;).dication of loss_ of mll:rk:ets as wyone could demand. .OUr tota_l oat-export? d}:"opped from 60 , ·a l- most 70 million in 1953-54 to a low of a little better than 3 1/2 million in '55-56 and I gave you fig ures today to show that the wheat marketings of the farmers of Western Canada dropped from well over 500 million bushels to somewhere in the 300 million range in one year.

So there can be 'no doubt, and anyone who was farming during the 1501s remembers only too vividly the fact that in 1954 the grain farmers in Manitoba awoke to the fact that they-had lost half their mar ketings of grains. I was one of them; you don't forget easily. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the importance of price as a factor in the welfare of the farm community.

I said at the outset this afternoon that indeed it was a very . important fact or, but I also said that there were other factors involved and I gave statistics to show that even if prices were to improve we would still have some problems with us, and my argument is simply this, that whether our prices are better or worse we have a job to do in Manitoba. The issue between the Coriservative Party and the Liberal Party in the elections of , the last two years has been that we the Conservative Party in Manitoba have accepted a measure of responsibility that the Liberal Opposition refus ed to accept.

They wanted to blame it all on Ottawa, all on prices -- it's cheaper to write letters . -- (Interjection) -- It's cheaper to write letters. MR. GUTTORMSON: What are you proposing to do about it? MR. HUTTON: No one is going to argue that price will always be an important fact or'in farm income. But price doesn't mean much to the man who hasn't got very much_income, who· isn't producing suff iciently to meet the needs of modern day agriculture.

And this is what I am talking about today, the fact that we have problems, problems that have come upon us be cause of the tremendous revolution in agriculture in the last, particularly in the last decade. MR. GUTTORMSON: What are you doing about 129 a dozen eggs? · MR. HUTTON: The charge has been brought that the government of Manitoba at the pre sent time is not making any representations to Ottawa in regard .to prices and the cost-price squeeze .. I would be very l:appy, if you .will permit me, to read you letters which I have written to the Minister of Agricuiture in Ottawa.

Woilld•you like to hear them? · A MEMBER: As long as you read the replies. MR. HUTTON: I'll table the reply. A MEMBER: Why don't you table them? MR. HUTTON: On December 30th, 1959, I wrote to the Honourable Douglas Harkness as follo ws: -- "The Manitoba Government views with very great alarm the effects of the deficiency payment policy in respect to eggs implemented by your Agricultural Stabilization Board a few weeks ago. Our fa rmers, whose farm pro,gram includes the production of eggs, have been placed in an untenable position and face an intolerable situation.

This Province, as you are aware, is and will be for many years a surplus producing area. Producers of this Province are at least 1, 000 miles removed from any substantial deficiency area and regularly have to accept the three to four cent price differential between Winnipeg and Montreal market quota tions for Grade A large eggs. Small surpluses of this product. in Canada have at times increas ed this differential ten cent per dozen or more for Grade A large. This is a discrimination which we have always felt as most unfair to Manitoba producing areas.

We at the same time, together with other citizens of Canada, are asked to support a freight subsidy program on feed grains shipped to eastern Canada and British Columbia, areas in which the local producers have the advantage of higher market prices for their farm produced products, eggs included. This again places our producer in a less favourable marketing j:Josition. Currently, Manitoba egg producers are receiving 15 to 179 per dozen for Grade A large eggs while producers in some other producing areas of Canada are receiving as much as 309 or ·more ·per dozen.

The deficiency payment policy, as we understand its provisions, is to prevent undue hardship to the small farmer or producer. In Manitoba the effect of this policy is precisely the opposite. The prospects of 169 or less per dozen for eggs and little or no deficiency payments is not only creating undue hardship but is forcing many farmers out of poultry raising, with the small fa rmer the first to either cease operation or drastically reduce egg production.

This situation is occurring at a time when producers have been encouraged to diversey their program, and feed to livestock and poultry a greater volunie of sur!:Jlus grain. What can be more logical than the feeding of grain on the farm or in the area in which it is produced. This appears to us Page 586 February 15th, 1960

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd. ) •.. to be a wise policy and just plain common sense. We agree that any government policy for agriculture must encourage efficient use of capital and labour. We agree with the intent of the deficiency payment policy, but in our considered opinion the intent of this policy cannot be realized so long as the national average price for eggs determines the extent of the deficiency payments. It is unlikely that the national average price for the deficiency payment year will fall far before the support level.

Assuming that a deficiency payment of five cents is paid, producers who have received high prices for eggs will receive the same deficiency pay ment as Manitoba farmers. Our producers, if they continue, are left to labour under a very great handicap. One of the prime reasons that Canadtans enjoy a high standard of living and a high standard of nutrition is that our prairie farmers are able to produce a wide variety of high quality food products far in excess of local requirements.

The present policy on eggs will provide the admittedly needed adjustment to make production, but under this policy indications are that, due to the nature of the. market, prairie farmers and more particularly Manitoba far mers will be confronted with adjustments much more severe than farmers in other parts of Can ada. If it is appropriate to invoke the present policy on eggs , will it then be appropriate to in voke policies to the detriment of prairie farmers on all other surplus products?

We believe that it is in the national interest to provide an economic climate which will allow a healthy and vigorous agricultural industry in all parts of Canada .. We contend, therefore, that this policy and future policies relating to agriculture must be so designed as to provide maximum equity among all agricultural producers. Our farmers do not request any special privileges but right ly ask that they be given the same opportunity to produce as those operating in other areas of Canada.

We therefore urge that the basis of deficiency payments be regional average price rather than national, and that the regions be so designed as to ensure that all producers in Canada be afforded equal opportuni1;y and treatment under the Federal Deficiency Payment pol icy; all of which is respectfully submitted. " On January 20th I wrote another letter to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture .... A MEMBER: Di.d you get a reply to the .•.•.. MR. HUTTON: You'll receive it. - (Interjection) -- ''I have your letter of January 13th with regard to the support program on eggs .

I would bring to your attention two points which seriously affect Manitoba producers. First, many of our producers invested in plant' and equip ment on the basis of the offer to purchase .Policy and while you are sound in your argument that this policy encouraged over-production, replacing this policy, as rapidly as has been the case, has seriously jeo pardized the investment position of these farmers. Second, while it is no doubt true that Manitoba farmers are receiving pric.es for their eggs which are better relative to prices being received by Ontario farmers , that has sometimes been the case.

It is small comfort to a drowning man that his neighbor is up to his chin in water. Thank you for the con sideration you have given me. I trust that you will appreciate my grave concern for the well being of Manitoba farmer and that they will receive your sympa thetic consideration. " (Hear, Hear) . . MR. ROBLIN: We never speak for Manitoba farmers!. We never opened our mouths! MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister permit a question?

About three weeks ago I submitted an order asking for the tabling of correspondence between the two gov ernments as regards to deficiency payments -- resolution passed in this House at the last session. Could the Minister tell me what is the fate of my request? When will I get that cor res pondence ? MR.

HUTTON: Your request I'm sorry to say carried with it the implication that this House had agreed to deficiency payments which was not the case and, therefore, if you want the correspondence I would suggest that you table an order for a return using the correct word ing in order that I can avoid the unhappy situation of committing this government here to the fact that they agreed to deficiency payments. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, if I might object, the order was so written that it made clear that 1 was asking for the correspondence to that resolu tion as agreed to by this House. Now surely that was clear enough.

MR. HUTTON: We never agreed to deficiency payments. MR. PAU LLEY: Mr. Chairman, may I say on a point of privilege, in connection with· the reply of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, I'm surprised to heat· his statements February 15th, 1960 Page 587

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd. ) ••. tonight in respect of the motion that was addressed to His Honour from this House three weeks ago. If the wording of the address was not proper surely to good ness the Minister of A griculture had ample opportunity to read the request and to study it, be cause it appeared in Votes and Proceedings at least two days before the motion was before the House. Mr.

Speaker read out completely the address to His Honour and surely to goodness some thing is radical ly wrong when all of the rules of the House have been complied with, that the Min ister of Agriculture stands up here tonight some three weeks later and tells us that because of · the fact that in his opinion that the wording was not correct, because it may have committed the government to some policy, that the order that my honourable colleague -- if he puts in another order for return will receive the information.

I say that an onus was on the government and the Minister of Agriculture not to accept the address to His Honour if it conflicted in any way with the opinions of the government and also _ _;;.yes, and also the House passed the address to His Honour.

Now then, if this is going to be the manner in which the govel"I!lDent of Manitoba is going to conduct its affairs in response to the requests of members of this side of the House they are not performing the functions of government, for we in Opposition, S<f ably presented by my honourable friend this evening the Member for Carillon, have pointed out our duties as Opposition to enquire, to criticize, and if this is the result, an indication of our criticisms of government, that three weeks after the acceptance of an address a responsible Minister of the Crown tells us that it cannot be accepted in its presen t form, then I would respectfully suggest to the govern ment that they move over and out because they're not fulfill ing the duties of government.

MR. ROBLIN: I suggest the situation is very simple. The Honourable Member asked a question on deficiency payments. We :·didn't write any letters oil deficiency payments. We'll give him a nil return. MR. PAULLEY: You didn't give him any return. MR. ROBLIN: Well, he'll get a nil return. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, it's all very fine for the Honourable the Leader of the House to stand up and tell us that three weeks later . He could have told us that the next day, but that isn 1t the point.

The p>Jint is that the Honourable Minister of Agriculture has stood up here and said to us tonight that it was ,not acceptable, and that if my honourable colleague de sires to put in a different phrased address or order for return, it will be complied with. I say the government has failed and failed miserably in the normal function of government in Manitoba. MR. ROBLIN: You should ask the right questions. You can't expect an answer if you don't ask the right questions. MR.

PAULLEY: It is then a responsibility of the government at the time of the introduc tion to inform the Opposition that in their opinion -- they have 35 members on that side of the House, MJ,o. Chairman, against 21 on this side. If the order was not a proper one it was their duty to inform us, and if we insisted, they had the right by strength and majority to refuse it and vote us down, but they did not take either course, and three weeks later a responsible Min - · ister of the Crown gives us the information that the Honourable Minister of Agriculture has done tonight.

I say most improper and I doubt very much we'll find a parallel in the history of parlia ments of Canada. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, could rju st -- I'd just like to read for the benefit of the government side the order -- the address for the papers : "That an humble address be voted to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor for a return of all correspondence between the Government of the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada with respect to deficiency payments to Western farmers as agreed to by this. House on July 30th, 1959 ." In other words, the resolu tion was before us at the last sessi on.

It was amended and this;House agreed to make this re presentation. I merely requested the correspondence to this effect. No objection was raised by the government side at the time when this was accepted on January 27th, and so I don't see that the Minister's argument is valid. MR. ROB ERTS: · Mr. Chairman, I agree with the honourable members of the CCF Party in their case.

I'd like to point out my particular case here where on February 2nd, this House did issue for a return under.my name: "That an humble address be voted to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor for a r�turn of all correspondence between the Government of the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada with respect to the presently employed deficiency pay ment plan for eggs; and of all correspondence between the Government of the Province of Manitoba Page 588 February 15th, 1960

(Mr. Roberts, cont'd. ) .•• and the Government of Canada with respect. to the presently employ ed Deficiency Payment Plan for pork; and all representations made to the Federal Government on behalf of the farmers of Manitoba by the Government of the Province of Manitoba with res pect to the price and the support price of eggs and pork, and with respect to the method of deter mining to whom deficiency payments will be paid, and with respect to the method of computing the national average price of eggs and pork.

" And now we find today that out of a gross -- I feel a gross discourtesy to myself, to the other members of this House, the Honourable Min ister rather than table this order decides to read it to the House. A MEMBER: Only part of it. MR. ROBERTS: And only his part. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose) : Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that there is more to this than the matter of discourtesy to the member. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of privilege of this House.

The Minister, in my opinion, has no right to read that correspondence until he has laid that report on the table of this House when it's been asked of him, and after he read it the inscription here is: "Mr. Speaker presented the motion and af ter a voice vote, declared the motion carried" and that was it. At no time after that did the Minister get up, either the day after or any time after, and say that this was not available, and now tonight, to help his argument in his estimates out comes the li.terature, out comes the let ters.

Denying it to my honourable friend who asked for it in a perfectly legitimate fashion, who had it agreed to by this House, and now the Minister uses it for his own use in this argument - denies it to him, denies it to the Member for La Verendrye. Now I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is an absolute breach of the privileges of this House by the government opposite us. MR. HUTTON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out to the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose that I expressly asked your permission before I read those letters. I asked you whether you wanted me to table them -- it's on Hansard. MR. DAVID ORLJKOW (St.

John's) : Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Honourable Minis ter at no time said he would read part of the correspondence and not the rest, and I suggest to the Honourable Minister that there could be nothing more ridiculous than for him to read one letter, then go on to read his second letter to the Federal Minister in which he repli.es to a let ter which the Minister has written to him, and yet he will not read the letter the Minister has written or explain what's in it. It's nonsense from beginning to end. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, let's be fair to the Minister.

I don't claim -- (Interjection) -- all right we aim to be fair to the House too. I don't claim that everythii:tg we do on this side of the House is perfect, but I think the House should li.sten to the explanations on this which they have not yet apparently been prepared to do. I think that with respect to what the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose said, I think we should realize that the resolution -- the address of my honourable friend from Brokenhead has got nothing to do with the correspondence that's just been read here.

He had some reference to a resolution we made last year which expressly declined to deal with deficiency payments -- expressly declined to deal with deficiency pay- · men1s. He may ask the question, what letters did we write about deficiency payments with respect to that resolution? But we wrote none and a nil return will be submitted.

If my hon ourable friend's question had been phrased in terms of the operative resolution that was ac cep ted by the House, then, of course, if we have correspondence -- (Interjection) -- but it is not because I have the resolution right here. -- (Interjection) -- Well, I wilL "Therefore

be it resolved that in the opinion of this House the Government of Manitoba should support the farmers of Manitoba by requesting that an immediate payment of cash assistance be made available to western farmers in order to assist them in attaining a standard of living compar able to the average enjoyed by the people of Canada." And that was put in there, Sir, as an amendment specifically to rule out this reference to deficiency payments as we all know. So I think that takes care of point number one. MR. PAULLEY: Oh, no, it does not. MR. R()B LIN: Well, it may not in your opinion but I think that it does . MR.

PAULLEY: Well, I can . ..••. MR. ROBLIN: Well, let's go on to the second order that's been raised. Now you must know, and the House does know, that when we write letters to the Government at Ottawa and we 're asked to table their replies, we must have their consent to do so. That procedure is - February 15th, 1960 Page 589

(Mr. Roblin, cont' d. ) . . . still in motion as far as I'm aware in connection with this particular matter. Now when the matter came up tonight the Minister desired to read his letter. He can't read the Ottawa correspondence until he gets permission from them, and I dare say that will be forthcoming very soon, and he asked the House, an.d I think we all heard him, for permission to read the letter into the records and he was given that permission to do so. MR . HILLHOUSE: Subject to reading off of the reply. MB. ROBLIN: Well of course , and I quite agree.

I quite agree that the reply from Ottawa has got to be tabled in this House as soon as we're able to do so and that will be done, but I think that under the circumstances that the. government is not so open to the widespread criticisms of abuse of the privileges of the members as has been made. I don't think so at all. They've chal lenged us on this matter; the Minister asked if he· could read the letter; and he was told that he could. And when we have the authority to table the full correspondence, we '11 be very glad to do so. · MR . PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I want to say one further word in respect of the address of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead. I cannot agree in any part at all with the explanation of the Honourable the First Minister. A little earlier in the debate this evening, the Honourable the Miirister of Agric'ulture·· was talking about red herrings. If .there was· ever a red herring, it's the. one that's being attempted to be .floated across the House by the Honourable the Premier of the Province of Manitoba. He may be right by haggling over words, but there was a resolution that was adopted by this House.

There was a resolution concerning deficiency payments. When the Address to His Honour was before this House the government knew, we all knew, what the resolution was that the Honourable Member for Brokenhead was referring to. And again I say to the Leader of the House, that even if he is absolutely correct, which I dispute, it was an onus on government to inform the House at that particular time that there were no letters between Ottawa and Manitoba in respect of deficiency payments.

It was the onus on the Leader of the House to inform the .House that there was no resolution passed in respect of deficiency payments ; and it was the onus on the Minister of Agriculture or the .Leader of the House to inform the House at that tim e. Had not my colleague asked that question tonight that he did in respect of the cor respondence, we never would have known how our government operates. And I say that i.t's · wrong and that the Honourable the First Minister is just trying to place a red herring over the whoie issue.

They accepted the motion, and when they accepted the motion they accepted the contents therein, and if there were no correspondence between Ottawa and Manitoba or vice versa, a nil report c.ould have been made two or three days, at the outside, following the ac ceptance of the Address to His Honour. MR. ROBLIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the government has. certain duties here but it's not one of the responsibilities •. , MR. PAULLEY: And they're· failing miserably in them .. MR. ROBLIN: .... but it's not one of the responsibilities of the government to think up the honourable gentleman's questions opposite.

It's your job to think up the questions and I suggest to my honourable friends it's their job to be careful in the framing of their questions that they are designed to illicit the information they seek. It's not our job to correct their questions. If they ask a question which in itself stands on its own feet then that's their business. A MEMBER: Poppycock! MR . ROBLIN: My honourable friend can say "Poppycock" all he likes. I don't know what questions my honourable friends are going to ask. MR . PAULLEY: Don't you read Votes and Proceedings ? MR.

ROBLIN: I'm not going to take upon myself the responsibility of correcting their questions. But I will say this, and I'll accept the criticism of my honourable friends on this point, that we should have answered and given them a nil report before now. Now I make no . excuse for that because I think we 've got to accept the responsibility �or it and I make no attempt to say that we were right in delaying this long -- we were not. We should have given him a nil report before, and insofar as that point is concerned, I'm willing to accept my honourable friends criticisms on the point.

But I think beyond that, he should not ask us to go. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting point that has come up and I don •t think we could be blamed for. taking a little of the time of the House to discuss it. As my honourable friend has said, I'm sure that this il:! one of the few cases where the privileges of Page 590 February 15th, 1960

(Mr. Campbe!l, continued) ..• • the House itself have been abused. Now the First Minister has said just now that it's not up to the government to think up the questions for the Opposition. What nonsense that is ! It's not the government's job, says he, to correct the questions of the Opposition. Of course, it isn't -- we know that. But what it is the government' s job to do, is that when they've had notice for a couple of days in order to see what question is coming up, it is a government' s job to object to the question if it isn't asked in th;:l right way.

And when this House accepts the motion, it doesn't matter how poorly phrased the question is or with what it deals, then this House is entitled to have the answer brought down, and if the Honourable the First Minister or the Minister concerned is going to make any objection they make it at the time . Surely that's clear, and my honourable friend the First Minister can't wiggle out of it in that manner . But there's something, as the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose has said here, much beyond the mere matter of procedure .

The Honourable the First Minister says that they haven't received authority from Ottawa yet and that they need that authority, and he uses that as a reason why the letters in reply can't be read. Mr . Chairman, did you ever hear anything more ridiculous than that? The reason for that courtesy that is shown between two different governments, about neither one tabling the correspondence between them until both have agreed, is so that both know about it and the correspondence comes there when both know about it.

But for my honourable friend, can you think of anything more unfair to the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa than for my honourable friend to read his side of the correspondence and withhold the correspondence from Ottawa. That's the most unfair thing that you could possibly do to Ottawa -- read his side of it without the reply, and that explanation certainly just makes the matter worse . But here is the most important point of all to my way of thinking, Mr .

Chair ll1an, if the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, defended and supported by the Honourable the First Minister and the government majority, are going to take the position that even after this House has passed an Order for Return or has agreed to answer questions , that even after that, that a Minister will get up here and say, oh, but the question wasn't phrased properly, it didn't deal with the right thing; it asks something that we don't want to answer; we're not going to give it. What a kettle of fish that is, Mr.

Chairman: I asked some questions here a short time ago - -I thiJi.k the oi:Uy series of questions that I have asked by placing them on the Order Paper that I have asked this session. I haven't received the replies yet but if the Honour able the First Minister stands up in his place and says, oh, but we don't think we'll -- we didn't like those questions -- we don't think -- (interjection) -- the time to say that is when they are before the House and not after . MR" ROBLIN: No - that's incorrect. MR .. CAMPBELL: Of course it is . That' s the whole point. That' s the main point at issue here.

The Houal passed the motion and after the House had passed the motion to which the government did not object at the time, the information must be brought down . That' s all there is to it. MR" PREFONTAINE : Mr . Chairman, I think this is the most serious breach of the privileges of this House· that I have seen enacted in 25 years in this Legislature . The most serious breach - absolutely. What position are we in at the present time? How many of the resolutions that we have brought forward Orders. for Returns are we going to get an answer to now? We don't know! MR. CAMPBELL: That's right! MR.

PREFONTAINE : We don't know at all . There might be dozens where the Premier might come up at any time and say, well that resolution wasn't worded properly. We won't give you the answer -- after the government has passed it and approved it -- and I say this is an intolerable situation for this side of the House to be in. It hasn't happened before and I say that it's preposterous for the First Minister to come to us and advise. us and chastise us be ca use we don't draft our resolutions properly. I never heard a thing like that before . MR. ROBLIN: Well, Mr . Chairman, I'm not doing anything of the sort.

I'm simply saying you'r e going to get the answers to the questions you asked, and you'll get the answers to questions you asked and you'll get them before very long. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr . Chairman, I submitted an Order for address of Papers a year ago and I'm still waiting for them. MR. ROBLIN: That' s perfectly true, and we were not given permission by the February 15th, 19 60 Page 591

(Mr. Roblln, continued) • • • Government of Ottawa to table those at that time . MR. PAULLEY: Well the Minister of Agriculture said he wasn't going to do it and now the First Minister says that he is - in respect 9f the request of my colleague from Brokenhead. MR. HUTTON: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can iron this out a litt�e bit.

I ap_ologize to the Honourable Member for Brokenhead for failing to table the nil return, and I would point out to the Honourable Member for La Verendrye that when I asked the House for permissionthis evening I was thinking of him specifically and his request, and if he had. objected in the slightest I would not have read the correspondence. Beyond that I can say no more. That is all I have to offer. MR. SCHREYER: I thank the Honourable Minister for his apology - I thank him most · profusely.

But what I object to is that obviously the Premier and the government is hiding behind a technicality� They know perfectly well what the intent of this address-for papers is:; they know perfectly well what resolution was passed on the 30th of July la$t; they know per fectly well that there was a resolution on the Order Paper as. regards deficiency payments; they know perfectly well; it was amended; they know perfectly weU it w:as agreed to; and so therefore why this hiding behind technicalities?

And while I'm on my feet and on this matter of tabling of correspondence, I would dare say that there's something mote surreptitious than meets the eye beca use in the Federal House a few days ago the Opposition -I believe it was a Liberal M. P., asked for the tabling of .correspondence between the Federal Government and the three western provincial governments .

The correspondence was tabled insofar as Saskatche wan and Alberta were concerned, and permission was not received from· thsi government and the correspondence was not tabled, I dare say that this administration is',gtiilty of some sur- reptitious outlook- I won't put it in any stronger words because perhaps,'they do mean well, but.they are rather slow. MR. ROBLIN: To relieve my honourable friend's feelings l can tell him that just the other day we were asked if we had any objection to tabling that information and we said, . ''none at all", and I presume that it will be tabled in due course� MR. CHAIRMAN: .••.

You'll continue your speech •.... MR. MOLGAT: :M r. Chairman, before the.Honciurable Minister continues his speech, I gathered when he asked the House for permission to read this that he was also going to read the replies of the Ottawa Government. That was the understanding that we had. MR. ROBERTS: When the Honourable Minister asked if we had any objections we Said .providing he reads the replies and there was nothing further said from that side of the House . I said it and several others. MR. MOLGAT: Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit that that was the.\mderstanding on which the Minister read the letters.

I ask now that he proceed and reads the -letters from Ottawa. MR. HUTTON: I misunderstood you. · MR. CAMPBELL: In addition to what the understanding was, I submit that it's palpably unfair to the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa to not read his reply. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Chairman, in regard to the situation in this matter, I think the committee should allow the Minister to get in touch with the Minister at Ottawa, perhaps by telephone, and we may be able to produce this correspondence for the House with all the pro -prieties observed during the course of our next meeting on this particular point, But I still go back to our original stand on this matter. MR. MOLGAT: I Suggest Mr. Chairman, in that case that it would be wise that the Committee rise and report. The Minister will have ample time tomorrow- it's private mem ber's day and his estimates will not be up.

In view of this situation that has arisen here, I think it'-s the only proper course for the government to follow. If they follow any other course than j:hat I submit that it's a deliberate attempt on the part of this government to use informa tion for their own purposes rather than supply to the members of the House as has been pro perly requested. MR. ROBLIN: Well I don't agree with that, Mr. Chairman. I think that the debate will carry on very well until our usual time. I think the Minister has a few more comments he would like to make on some of the remarks that have been made. other members wish to speak.

I'm sure we'll be able to revert to this matter again when we meet tomorrow. When ever we get to it again there will be plenty of time. I think we should carry on with the Page 592 February 15th, 1960

{Mr. Roblin, continued) ..... discussion . MR . CHAIRMAN: Due to the statements ofthe Minister and the apolog yto the member for Brokenhead and the statement now of the First Minister with reference to telephoning Ottawa and so forth, and the answer in due course, there's only one course now, we have a little time to go so the Minister should continue his speech. MR � HUT TON: I would like to deal, and I must do so rather briefly now -- I would like to- deal on this question of price a little further.

I think that this is a most important considera tion and I think that_.it is rather dangerous to kid the farmers of Manitoba into belieVing that their salvation lies in a rehabilitation of the economic atmosphere. I think it is the responsibility of the government to be honest with the farmers of this province -- honest with the farmers ofthis province and not to ·kid them along into believing that a few letters and a few meetings with the .. MR. GUTTOMRSON: When are you.going to start? MR. HUT TON: . • . • . Federal Government are going to iron out alltheir -troubles. And I submit, Mr.

Chairman, that the farmers of the -Province of M

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-20a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 20a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	272e1ca6b257d0416cc1df2e194d1b3772ed6bd1

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