Manitoba Hansard — 29 January 1960 (Sitting 9, 26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-9

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

I Legislative !Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Volume IV No. 9 January 29, 1960 2nd Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen's Printer foi- the Province of Manitoba� Winnipeg

DAILY INDEX Friday, January 29, 1960, 2:30 p.m. Tabling of Reports, Questions . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . • . . . . . 141 Motion re Agricultural Credit (Mr. Shoemaker) Mr. Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . 151 Motion re Pensions Increase, Mr. Gray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . 152 Throne Speech Debate: Mr. Reid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Mr.

Scarth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . • • 156 Mr. Tanchak . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • • . . . . • . . • . . . • • • . . . . • . • . • • • • 158 Mr. Roblin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . • 164 INDEX TO VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS, 1960 Introduction of New Members ...... .... : . . . . . .. . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . • • • 5 Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr. Groves, Mr.

Jeannotte, Mr. Campbell . . . . . . . . . 6 Resolution: Rules. (Mr. Lyon), Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Paulley . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Motion: Electi�n Act (Mr. Lyon), Mr. Paulley, Mr. Campbell ........ .. ... , . . . . . . . . 34 Introduction of Bills: Nos. 43, 27, 14, 18, 45 .... .... :. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 35 Orders for Returns: Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Dow .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 37 Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr.

Paulley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . 38 Introduction of Bills: Nos. 20, 3, 19, 49, 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr. Froese, Mr. Orlikow . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Bill No. 2 (Mr. Hutton) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Bill No. 4 (Mr. Johnson, Gimli) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell .................. ... ... 62 Bill No. 5 (Mr. Roblin) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Gray ........ 62 Bill No. 6 (Mr.

Roblin) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 64 Bill No. 8 (Mr. Johnson, Gimli) 2nd Reading .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 65 Introduction of Bills: Nos. 52, 54, 15, 16, 50, 52, 17 ........ ............ ... . ....... 67 Statement, re Television, Mr. Carron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Motion, re Agricultural Credit Corporation, Mr. Shoemaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Resolution, re School Construction Grants, Mr. Dow, Mr.

Schreyer .. ........ ....... . 73 Speech from The Throne Debate: .. Mr. Peters, Mr. Stanes . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Introduction of Bills: Nos. 55, 56 .. ....... : ...... : ........ : ...... ... .. . .': .. . ..... ; 81 Bill No. 3 (Mr. Lyon) 2nd Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Throne Speech Debate: Mr. Schreyer, Mr.

Seaborn, Division on Amendment to the Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Introduction of Bill, No. 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Throne Speech Debate: Mr. Martin, Mr. Hryhorczuk, Mr. Christianson, Mr. Dow, Mr. Desjardins, Mr.. Weir, Mr. McLean, Mr.

Hutton . .. .. .. . .. .. .. • . . .. .. 123 Motion, re Agricultural Credit (Mr. Shoemaker) Mr. Smellie, Mr. Wagner . . . . . . . • . . . 134

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Friday, January 29th, 1960. Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees Notice of Motion Introduction of Bills Orders of the Day. HON. MAURICE E. RIDLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Pembina): Before the Or ders of the Day I would like to draw your attention to the second gallery on your left of the Grade X and XI students from the Village of Snowflake. They are together with their principal today, Mr.

Alex Hawryk and I'm sure on behalf of the Honourable Members of the legislature that we welcome them and hope they enjoy their stay this afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. GEORGE HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture)(Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to table the Annual Report for 1959 of the Milk Control Board of Manitoba. I would also like to table the Annual Report of the Co-operative Promotion Board for the year ending March 31st, 1959. HON.

GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Industry & Commerce)(Fort Rouge): Before the Or ders of the Day I would like to table the first Annual Report of the Manitoba Development Fund. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General)(Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I should like to lay on the table of the House first of all a copy of the new re turn under the Contraverted Elections Act for the calendar year 1959, (

a) from the Court of the Queen's Bench, and (

b) from the Court of Appeal. No rules were made by the judges under the act and eight copies have been forwarded to the clerk for distribution. I would also like to lay on the table of the House a copy of the Annual Report for the chairman of the Liquor Control Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1959. Copies of this will be distributed to all members of the House. I should also like to lay on the table of the House the report of the Comptroller-General--statement of assets and liabilities, profit and loss account, for the fis cal year ending 31st March, 1959.

I should also like to lay on the table of the House the memo randum showing details of expenditure of the Liquor Control Commission for liquor law enforce ment for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1959. Eight copies have been given to the clerk for distribution. I should also like to lay on the table of the House, a copy of a nil return under the Trade Practices Enquiry Act for the year ending 31st December, 1959. Eight copies have been given to the clerk for distribution. MR. PETER WAGNER (Fisher): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of utilities--whether the telephone installation will be done in 1960 spring in Fisher Branch or as he has written me some time ago in 1961 and if in '61, why do the people from the telephone department make �he farmers pay their fees so far in advance? HON. J. B. CARROLL (Ministi:lr of Public Uti.li.ties)(The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the Honourable Member for Fisher for bringing this to my attention before he asked the question. It is included in the proposed program.

This extension that he's talking about is included in the proposed program to be done during this calendar year. Of course, this is sub ject to weather conditions and other things. At the present time; there has been no time tabling of this particular program, but i.t is intended for this construction year. MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, be cause of the unavoidable absence of the Honourable Member for St. John's, I would on his be half, direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Labour. I assume that notice has been given. The Honourable Member for St.

John's wishes to know if the former Minister of Labour asked the Fair Wage Board to review the Fair Wage Act and whether he asked the Board to re commend possible changes in the Act? Secondly, has the Fair Wage Board made such recom mendations to this Minister--the present Minister? Thirdly, is it the intention of the govern ment to implement the recommendations made by the Board if any? And fourth, have the terms January 29th, 1960. Page 141.

(Mr. Schreyer, cont'd. ) .. of office of the members of the Fair Wage Board expired and if so, when will members to the Board be appointed? IviR. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from St. John's for having given me advance notice of this question and in answer to the question I would like to say that the Fair Wage Board was instructed to bring in certain recommendations with respect to the act and that they have so reported.

With respect to whether we intend to carry out these re commendations or not, I decline to answer the question on the grounds that it involves matters o"f government policy and are not correctly answered during the question period. The Board members have expired. We now have the nominations in for a new Board and they will be ap- pointed shortly. _ HON. CHARLES H. WITNEY (Minister of Mines & Natural Resources)(Flin Flon): The · other day I was asked a question by the Honourable Member for Fisher Branch--if I knew of starving deer in the St. George area. At the time I didn't.

We have had investigations made with forest rangers and conservation officers and they have found that in the area there is no indication of starving deer. The forest ranger spoke to some 20 people throughout the bush around the Funk's Mill area and could find no evidence of it. There apparently is the odd dead deer seen but this is not considered abnormal and certainly there has been no large number. Now the forestry man himself saw 27 and they found the deer to be in fairly good condition. Al so the forest ranger in that area has not received any such complaint. MR. SPEAKER: Questions.

The Honourable Member for LaVerendrye. MR. S. ROBERTS (LaVerendrye): Mr. Speaker, the first question addressed to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. Number one--Is it true that the assistance to Manitoba farmers under the Sire Purchase Policy of pure bred bulls has been reduced? Number two--If so, by how much? Number three--If so, for what reason has this assistance been reduced? MR. SPEAKER: Take one question at a time. MR. ROBERTS: One question at a time? MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Will you bring the question please. I might say that in respect to this

section --the number one question appears to be in order and number two

section ap pears to be in order. Number three involves a matter of government policy and I believe could not be asked at this time. If the honourable member would delete that clause I would-- MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, assuming of course that this matter will be--that we'll be able to bring this matter up further in debate. MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of CCF Party)(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, well--don't mind an introduction on your remarks, is it not so that the question as to whether it should be decid ed by a member of the front bench rather than Mr.

Speaker--in all deference to you Sir--be cause there may be questions of that nature that the government may be in a position to ans wer. And I respectfully suggest that that matter should be given your consideration. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest sympathy with you because whatever happens you're unable to please some of the members. Yesterday they were complaining that you were deferring to our views on some of these matters and now my honourable friends ask that you do defer to our views on some of these matters.

I think that you, Sir, are very competent to rule on this point; MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker made this point perfectly clear on his defence because he said that the members of the government themselves could decide whether they wished to ana.:. wer at this .time, matters of policy--not Mr. Speaker himself would decide whether to answer matters of policy. MR. ROBLIN: It's true that the government may decline to answer questions if they wish but Mr. Speaker is the guardian of the rules. MR. ROBERTS: ....•. in this case isn't your guardian as to whether or not you wish to answer matters of policy. MR. ROBLIN: No.

He's just going by the rules. MR. PAULLEY: That 's what I'm sug�esting, Mr. Speaker, that a proper interpretati on of the rules should be the government that decides as to whether they're not going to answer questions. ME: LYON: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I think if opposite. will con sult Beauchesne they will find they list--I forget the page--but I think it has been distributed Page 142. January 29th, 1960.

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd.) .. to all of us--a list of questions that should not be asked and one of them, of course, relates to matters of government policy. So, I think, Mr. Speaker is quite within his right in adverting to that rule and certainly taking the initiative in pointing out matters that are not properly before the House. MR. T. P.

IDLLHOUSE (Selkirk): With all due respect to the Attorney-General in ad; verting to that rule and certainly taking the initiative in pointing out matters that are not proper ly before the House--with all due respect to the Attorney-General--! submit that they better know the Minister's answers on the basis that it is a question of government policy; is some thing which he has to raise himself, not something that you raised. MR. ROBERTS: Yes. But in our own book it quite clearly states that members of the government may decide whether this is matters of policy, which they intend to divulge at th1s time.

It isn't. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, speaking again to the point of order, we would let you know. MR. SPEAKER: I might say that if we go back to our little red book that was written by the former government here--turn to page number 57--you find questions involving matters of policy cannot be asked of the government. Orders of the Day. MR. ROBERTS: A question directed, Mr. Speaker, to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. Number one--why are farmers who are eligible for the lesser assistance of PFAA not eligible for emergency aid under this government's plan?

Number hvo--is it true that the farmers of Saskatchewan, under similar circumstances, are able to qualify for both PFAA and emergency aid if the farm situation is severe enough? MR. SPEAKER: I believe this question also falls into the similar category and particu larly clause two. I would think that the Honourable Minister of Agriculture would not have of ficial knowledge of the Saskatchewan situation and would not be required to answer the question. MR. ROBERTS: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, surely I would have thought entire ly the other way around--that the number one question would be a matter of polic y--that per haps it's debatable. But number two question--! hope, surely, that the Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba, in conference with the other Ministers of the Prairie Provinces, would have some idea what their plans are. MR. SPEAKER: I can only go by the rules of the House. And certainly the last questi on requires the official knowledge of the Minister of Agriculture and-- MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): With all due respect, I haven't got my little red book.

I haven't got Beauschne but I've been in the House for 25 years and I fail to remember an occasion when the Speaker presumed to decide what the government policy was. I think that we should follow precedent in this House because this has been our way of doing things, follow ing precedent and I fail to remember an occasion when the speaker has presumed to decide what government policy was.

I did not rise previously but at this second time today that this matter comes up and I do not know if you have inside information of government policy· that we haven't got--but it seems to me that you are well acquainted with government policy by telling us that this appears to be against government policy and I say this is contrary to the customs of this House. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, my honourable friend is on most shaky ground here in deed because he's been a member of this House for a long time and he should be relatively .familiar with some of the rules of the House and if he'll turn to page four he'lJ see under Regu l!ition Six: "When Mr. Speaker is of the opinion the motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of the legislature, he shall apprise the House therefore, immediately before putting the question thereupon and stating his reason therefore". That obviously puts the duty on the Speaker to advise us as to what he thinks the rules are-- MR.

PREFONTAINE: That's ruled very often, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is in the past . the Speaker has not risen at the particular time to decide that this was or was not a government policy. MR. HUTTON: I want to assure the House that on these questions that have been raised I had every intention of dealing with them in full at the appropriate time. I don't think that this is the appropriate time.

They would be out of context and I want my honourable friends oppos ite to be assured that I will speak and I will explain what our policy is in regard to these mat ters but I don't think that it's in the best interests of this House that I should indulge in a debate January 29t�, 1960. Page 143.

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd.) .. of this kind in a question period. :MR. SPEAKER: Now that the Honourable Minister of Agnculture has cleared it--the question of policy of the government--we can refer to Beauchesne's Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Page 148, Clause 17lw: "No question, whether written or oral must raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question or ask the government's opinion on the matter of policy". I think it's quite clear. :MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, as to that, may I respectfully suggest that you turn to page 19 of our little red book dealing with Rule No. 51, which says: "questions maybe placed on the Order. Paper seeking information from Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs and to other members relating to any bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the House in which such members may be concerned, but in putting any such questi on or in replying to same, no argument or opinion shall be offered nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same.

The minister to whom the question is addres sed shall hand the answer to the Clerk of the House, who shall 'cause it to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings. If, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, a question on the Order Paper put to a minister is of a nature to require an Order for Return, a lengthy reply, he may, upon the request of the government, direct the same to stand as a Notice of Motion and be transferred to the proper place on the Order Paper.

If the question is such a nature that, in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, if the minister states so." There's no reference in that

section of our little red book involving the question of policy. Now I would suggest this, that in reference to the questions asked by the Honourable Member of LaVerendrye--why are the _farmers eligible for the lesser assistance of PFAA not eligible for emergency aid?--all that is required of the minister is an answer to the effect that we are not doing it. He could say period--we're not doing it period. We've con sidered the matter. We're not asking for any revealing in this--of any policy of the govern ment. In respect, Mr.

Speaker, to the second question--Is it true that the farmers of Sask atchewan are receiving this? --In all due respect to you, I would suggest that this is informati on--that the minister may have the same as the rest of us apparently have not. And there's nothing wrong with it, surely. The answer may be superfluous in some respects but I suggest in all deference to you Sir, that the questions are proper questions and that they are questions which the minister can answer because they are in the interest of the general public. :MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I'm afraid I must take exception as to what my honourable friend says because I think he himself, in discussing the matter, has clearly underlined the fact that this is a matter--a very important matter of government policy. --(interjection)--Oh! Yes it is, because people--oh! you say it is a matter of very important government policy. The minister has already said that.

Now Sir, it is encumbent upon us, when we are answering questions of this nature, which involves a matter of this important public policy, that we should give a full and complete answer and I suggest to you, Sir, that that is not the purpose of the question period. We intend to give a full and complete answer. We're looking for the opportun ity at the right time in the estimates or other places in the debates where this matter can be discussed, but I think it is wrong, Sir, to ask us to accept it as an Order for a Return. :MR. PAULLEY: ...... Mr.

Speaker, in deference to my honourable friend, there is nothing in the rule book that says that the question must be answered tomorrow or the day fol lowing and if we carry through the logic of the Honourable the Leader of the House that these questions will be answered at the proper time, the judgment as to when these questions will be answered lays in the hands of the Ministers of the Crown, why not accept the questions and then in due course give the answers? MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, if we followed that course, my honourable friend would be the first to criticize us and rightly so because when we are asked questions of this nature we are under obligation to do our best to produce an answer as quickly as we can. That's the purpose of question.period. It's to get answers on matters on which members are interested in that can be dealt with in the terms of the form of a question as expeditiously as possible. Most of these are done verbally across the House at one time.

You never know, and there are some legislatures in this country where they do not have a question period of this sort at all. They just don't permit it. --(interjection)--Never mind. Written or oral, they don't allow oral Page 144. January 29th, 1960.

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) .. questions. MR. PAULLEY: ••.... you just don't want to answer any questions. MR. ROBLIN: Don't worry. We'll give my friend such an answer it will make him sit up in his seat when we're through with this matter because we have a very good case to make and we are going to take the proper time to make it in the proper way. This is a matter of gov ernment p::>li.cy; we cannot part deal with it in the form of a question and that is the way I think the House should treat the matter, Sir. MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition)(Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, I have the advantage of not having heard the debate that has proceeded so far because all--if all of it was on the same plane as the last speaker that I heard, I think it would become quite confusing. But I gather that the point of order that has been raised is whether these questions or this first question raises a matter of policy--is that--and the second as well.

Well, my understanding of the rule regarding statement of policy and to the extent that the rule is interpreted as saying that questions cannot be asked of the government dealing with questions of policy, policy being policy of the future, then I'm sure that is correct and I think that is right, that it's not encum bent upon the minister or the government to answer what their policy will be on a certain questi on in the future but where the policy is already decided then we couldn't ask any questions about anything.

If that was extended to take in policies already decided, and so far as the first questi on is concerned--the one dealing with assistance on the Sire Policy--Is that one under discus sion?--not the first part--well, but even so, if the number three of that question--if the decisi on has been made, then I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is an order too, because the question of policy is asking the government what they're going to do on a future occasion--not what they have already done. Policy then has become practice, and there is no objection in the world, I'm sure to that.

Well then the other question--Is it both one and two of the second question?--why are farmers who are eligible for lesser assistance of PFA not eligible for emergency aid under this government plan?--Well, if it is the fact that they are not eligible for emergency aid under this government plan then if that policy is already decided, then I sub mit to you that this question is perfectly in order; and

whereas the second question is concerned- Is it true the farmers of Saskatchewan under similar circumstances are able to qualify for both PFAA and emergency aid if the farm situation i.s severe enough?--it may be that the minister doesn't know. All he has to do is say no. Then, as I heard the discussion about an Order for Return, I can appreciate the position taken by the Honourable the First Minister that the ans wers to some of these questions could involve a lengthy explanation. If that is the feeling of you, Mr.

Speaker, or of the government, or of the minister concerned, then all anyone of those people need to do is suggest that they will bring i.t down as an Order for Return. My honourable friend the First Minister says that we. will be the first to criticize if it is not readily available.

I would expect the government would attempt to bring it down as soon as possible, and certain- ly, if i(seemed an undue time we would be asking, and I think we would always be prepared to give reasonable time on it--quite frankly one of the objects of asking these questions--and the Honourable the First Minister certainly employed this device when he was on this side of the House--is to get information in advance of the estimates coming up--well, ammunition if you wish--I prefer to use the term information, but to get reliable information--because we don't want to make speeches upon the policy and then find out that that isn't the policy--so you ask the government so that it gives the answer to the que�?tion that you want the information on.

Mr. Speaker, once again, --and I wish to say that I see that you are holding a copy of Beau chesne--but I have to come back again to my usual text that where we have a rule in our own rule book that applies, Beauchesne has no significance-- MR. ROBLIN: •..... if I may just have a--1 trust this is the last occasion I will inter vene on this point of order but naturally we're grateful that my honourable friend was able to make it in time to get back for this little discussion because he is a pretty good one at making the confusion worse confounded.

What he seems to overlook is that the question--the rules re specting questions can be either oral or written. The same rules apply to both and the questi on that's involved here is raising a matter of policy too large to be dealt with within the limits of an answer to a question. Well, that sort of question is not conducive to good con!luct of business in the House and this is the way in which these matters are regulated. We have a series of rules--of custom and precedent which we follow in this respect. Now there's nothing January 29th, 1960. Page 145.

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) .• clearly laid down in our own rules in respect of this particular point_ and where there isn't, we refer to Beauchesne. Mr. Speaker raised the point that this was a matter of policy and that it was a matter that was too involved to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question and I think that is a proper observation and represents the facts of the matter. As for making explanations of these points, naturally, we'll make full explanations and we'll make them before the honourable members opposite have to make their speeches so that the information will be before the House.

But I do not think that the Opposition should con tinue to press that these questions, which are obviously not within the regular limitations to questions, should be accepted by the House and that we should abide by the ruling of the Speaker. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what was the conclusion that Mr. Speaker arrived at after having said that these were too involved or would require too long an explanati on to be pro per ly ace epted as questions ? What was the suggestion to that? MR.

SPEAKER: My suggestion, I might inform the Honourable the Leader of the Op position--that the questions were out of order. And I'm sure that if he peruses his red book that became the property of the member when he was Premier, and read the

section devoted to questions, he might find this: "questions involving matter of policy cannot be asked of the gov ernment, but within certain limits questions as to their intention with regard to any matter are permissible, " and as such, is it the intention of the government to operate the Letellier Ferry this season? There are many other matters as to which questions are not permissible and no reply will be forthcoming.

If a reply is refused, the refusal cannot be discussed nor is there any appeal to the House." That is the basis of the thinking of the Liberal Government of that day, and we're trying now to conform to that practice. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I take it that you are reading not from the rules. You're reading from the explanation of the rules at the back. Is that correct? Well, Mr. Speaker, the rule itself, rule 51 that I'm sure I heard my honourable friend the Leader of the CCF Party reading, is so clear that it doesn't require any.explanation.

My honourable friend the First Minister said that questions--that I was confusing oral questions and questions placed on the Order Paper. Fifty-one deals with questions placed on the Order Paper. That's what it's dealing with. That's our rule, Mr. Speaker. And it gives the procedure that is to be fol lowed. If Mr. Speaker o,. the government or the minister thinks that it's too complex for an answer in this way, then all they have to do is to say that they'll bring it down as an Order for Return. And that's perfectly acceptable, I would think, as far as we're concerned--if they wish to do that. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, permit my honourable friend to go a little further, be cause it's all very well for him to say that the rules are so explicit that they require no com ment, but that's obviously not correct. We wouldn't be having a debate of this sort if that were the case. It's obviously not correct because when the rules of this House were last revised, a good deal of comment was included. And what was that put there for? For the guidance of the House in an

interpretation of the rules. What else? And what does it say? This is reading from page 56, if my honourable friend wishes to look it up: "Information is frequently desired of some matter of government business which can only be obtained from the government or the minister at the head of the department concerned. There are two ways of obtaining this; first, by giving Notice of Inquiry, setting forth by means of a question or questions, the information it is desired to obtain; the other, by means of a Motion for Return. In either case, written notice must be given.

Enquiries should be short and explicit and so worded as to permit a short and explicit answer". There's a lot more, but I think that we can stop there for the time being, because our contention is that we cannot give a short and explicit answer to these questi ons that are placed before us in this way. We want to give a full and complete answer, and I think the way for that to take place is for the minister to deal with these matters at the proper time in the course of our discussions. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, may I just on the remarks of my honourable friend, the Leader of the House, and I agree with his contention, but would he kindly explain to me on the point of order, what is involved of a lengthy reply to question--the second part of question num ber two? --Is it true that the farmers of Saskatchewan under similar circumstances are able to qualify for PFAA? Page 146. January 29th, 1960.

MR . ROBLIN: Yes ..•... MR. PAULLEY: Now then--l'm suggesting, Sir, that the Honourable the Leader of the House once ·again is away off of the beam because there is an illustration under the point under discussion where it's only required "yes" or "no". MR. ROBLIN: You're not very familiar with the rules. MR. PAULLEY: No. But I'm very familiar with my honourable friend. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition has made reference to our rules being somewhat different from the rules in the Federal House and that we have a different practice, which is built up around our rUles and so on and so forth. But re ferring to rule 51, which he has referred to in our own rule book, he will see at the end that there is a reference there to Dominion Standing Order No. 44.

Actually, that is now Dominion Standing Order No. 39, and if he will take the trouble to read the fourth edition of Beauchesne, starting at page 145, he will see Dominion Standing Order No. 39 set out in practically the same terms and words as rule 51 of our House, with the exception of such peripheral differ ences as asterisks, starred questions and questions for Wednesday and so on, and so forth. But substantively, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the rule of this House was taken from the rule of the Federal House.

Consequently, when rulings are made under the federal rule, which is for all practical purposes the same as ours, these rulings will apply in the absence of any. practice to the contrary in this House. These rulings will apply in this House. And I think that is only one point that we're trying to make. MR. CAMPBELL: But, Mr. Speaker, there isn't an absence of either a rule or a prac tice in this House. We have both the rule and the practice established--both the rule and the practice.

And for my honourable friend to suggest that because this refers to Dominion Stand ing Order 44, now 39, that that in any way changes our rule is just not within the bounds of pos sibility. Mr. Speaker, I don't suppose there's any point in arguing this at any great length. My honourable P:-1end--no--but in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, we're going to be talking about the rules of this House and in a few days,--and for goodness sake let's try and get them so plain that nobody can misunderstand them--even the First Minister--so that we can try and get them plain.

But in the meantime, hadn't we better stay with the practice here? My honourable friend the First Minister himself emphasizes the part that the questions should admit of simple and concise answers. Well, what is easier than to answer the first question of all--the first part--Is it true that the assistance to Manitoba farmers under the Sire Purchase Policy has been reduced?--requires "yes" or "no". A MEMBER: . . . • . . objection. MR. CAMPBELL: I don't know. I thought maybe you will. All right, we take the se- cond question. Was there an objection on the second question? A MEMBER: No. MR.

CAMPBELL: Well, I asked Mr. Speaker and he said there was. MR. SPEAKER: The second question on the Order Paper? MR. CAMPBELL: The second question on the Order Paper--then "why are farmers who are eligible for the lesser assistance of PF AA not eligible for emergsncy aid under this government's plan?" Now, that might take a fairly long answer, and if the Honourable the Minister wants to supply that in the form of an Order for Return, he has the right under this rule.

Second question--"Is it true that the farmers of Saskatchewan under similar circumstances are able to qualify for both PFAA and emergsncy aid if the farm situation is severe enough?" --That, Mr. Speaker, admits, I think, a very, very simple answer, either "yes" or "no" or "I don't know". MR . LYON: Mr. Speaker, on that last point--Pm speaking still to the point of order- that second question to which the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition refers is a matter which is not within the administrative confidence of this House.

How is the Honourable the Min ister of Agriculture supposed to answer, in all honest or fairness, with respect to the policies of another province? He can't do it. He has read accounts in the newspapers, the same as the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. But if hearsay evidence is all that's wanted, you can produce a newspaper clipping. I suggest that that is bad under two rulings; first of all that it's not within the administrative confidence of the House, and secondly, in any case, it might require a much longer reply than the question anticipates. January 29th, 1960. Pag.e 147.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, isn't it correct to say that the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture of this province took the initiative, for which I commend him, of getting in touch with the ministers of agriculture of the other two Prairie Provinces; that they held a conference in this buUding in order to talk over their policies under the federal program ? And isn't it likely that the Honourable the Minister knows--but if he doesn't or if he thinks he should give an answer--that this is outside of hls field; that's all the answer that needs to be given.

My only point is that it's not out of order, in my opinion. MR. ROBLIN: It is out of order, Mr. Speaker. Just think of the precedent that would be established here if we were required to give an accounting to this House for matters which are under the responsibUity of other jurisdictions. That's just not on the cards. It's not done any where. And we're not going to undertake to give answers to those ki.nds of questions. It would be wrong of us to accept the order. And we don't intend to do so. MR. CAMPBELL: I gather, Mr. Speaker, that this isn't your ruling.

This is the rul ing of the Honourable the First Minister. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker has given his views on the matter and I think he's entirely right as usual. MR. CAMPBELL: He's been advised on the matter. I ask the Hono'..lrable the First Minister i.f he's been advised on the matter. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, any advice that I give my honourable friend, I give him on the floor of this Chamber as my honourable friend ought to know very well. And I think that's the kind of reflection on our speaker that he ought not to permit himself to indulge in. A MEMBER: Hear! Hear! MR.

CAMPBELL: I think that knowing my honourable friend the First Minister, it's the kind of a reflection on him that I'm quite willing to indulge in. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend can reflect on me as he wishes. I'm quite able to stand up to that but I do not think that he should allow himself that other privilege which he's just accepted. MR. CAMPBELL: This is a reflection on my honourable friend the Leader of the House. MR. SPEAKER: Order. It's not a proper discussion. MR. CAMPBELL: I think he would be getting the worst of it all right. MR.

SPEAKER: A matter of whether the motion is in order or not. I've already ruled that it's out of order and we wUl proceed to the next order of business. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, did I understand you to say, as well, that you had ruled that there was no appeal? Because I want to say in the plainest terms, that on these mat ters which touch the rights and the privUeges of the members of this House that we intend to fight them in every way, and that we definitely want to put both Mr; SpeakE)r and the government on record with regard to the curtaUment of our right to get information in this House.

And, therefore, I request that we have an appeal--we have a vote from the speaker's ruling. MR. SPEAKER: I have no desire to inflict my wHl on the House and I have every re- spect for the opinions of the members of the House. A MEMBER: One side. MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the honourable member to retract that remark. MR. ROBLIN: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to look at the rules. Will he turn to page 14 which gives us the debatable motions. I'm sorry--I'm on the wrong point here. I'll have to -- A MEMBER: You have been all evening. MR. ROBLIN: No.

I doubt that I have, but I think we should look this one up. This is very important. It will take a little time to do tt. MR. CAMPBELL: It is important. A MEMBER: Let Mr. Speaker finish. MR. ROBLIN: Oh! I'm sorry. I didn't know I interrupted. MR. SPEAKER: I take it from the opinion again in the red book, which was written by the Liberal Government, that there's no appeal to the speaker's ruling in this respect. Now that is the opinion of the former speaker and the former Premier of this House. It's not my wish to inflict any such ruling on the House. I believe in free rules and free speech ..

And I read again from the appendix, which is not official, but somewhere in the little red book there Page 148. January 29th, 1960.

(Mr. Speaker, cont•d. ) . . must be--57: "If a reply is refused the refusal cannot be discussed. nor is there any appeal to the House. There are many other matters as to the questions that are not permissible and no reply will be forthcoming. " If a reply is refused, the refusal cannot be discussed, nor is there any appeal to the House. Now we have discussed it quite thoroughly in this last fifteen minutes. MR. PAULLEY: May I suggest this, that that particular sentence refers to a refusal of a minister. In this particular case--if we go back to the start of this hassle this afternoon- it was Mr .

Speaker who made the refusal, and I would suggest that, in all deference to you, and I know that you are in a very peculiar position at the present time, and I cast no reflection on you, Mr� Speaker, but I do say again, --in all deference, that if a reply is refused in this par ticular instance, they're referring to a reply from the minister concerned, and not insofar as .Mr . Speaker is concerned. MR. SP EAKER: I'm sure, of course, that any ruling of the Speaker is subject to appeal to the House-- MR. CAMPBELL: Mr .

Speaker, may I just say that I'm in entire agreement with what the Honourable the Leader of the CCF has just said to the House. I think it's quite plain that this refers to a refusal by a minister to answer a question, and, of course, we know that is correct. No appeal under those .circumstances--but I see nothing there--! know nothing in the practice that says that a ruling by Mr . Speaker is not subject to appeal. MR. LYON: Mr . Speaker, I'm still speaking to the point of order, as I presume we all are.

The Minister of Agriculture, during the course of this long debate on the point of order, has already made reference to the fact that he does not wish of himself, after your Hono:1r had made the ruling--he does not wish of himself to answer a question of this length on the Order Paper. And so, I suggest that it first came to an end when His Honour ruled against it; and secondly, the minister himself has refused. Now subsequently, subsequently--(interjection)- yes.

That's true--now it may well be, and I don't know if this would meet with the approval of the Hono'.lrable the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the CCF, but it may well be that His Honour might wish the opportunity to refer some of these matters to his Clerk, to see if there is an opinion on them, because it is an important point-- I think all of us admit it--and all we're trying to say is that we're trying to follow the rules, and we're trying to assist Mr. Speaker to hand down the proper rules and to preserve democracy which, perhaps, is the most important. And, perhaps, if Mr.

Speaker had the opportunity to consult with Mr. Clerk, he could defer the matter until, perhaps, Monday. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr . Speaker, I would like to say that we'd be very glad to concur in that because I think there arA quite often occasions arise where it is advisable for Mr. Speaker to take some time, because I'm sure it's not easy to stand in your position, Sir, and try and decide these matters just on the spur of the moment. It isn't an easy job. We certainly don't wish to embarrass Mr. Speaker.

I think it's a good idea, because it is very important indeed that we have the best decision possible in this matter. So, I concur with the suggestion the Hon ourable the Attorney-General has made. MR. SPE�R: As I take it, the motion is not yet before the House. The question of order is involved and the motion is still on the Order Paper. It's a question of ruling whether the motion is in order or whether it is not. Yes, I think I'll take that under advisement. MR. EVANS: Mr . Speaker, I wonder if before the Orders of the Day if the Leader of the Opposition would answer a question. MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!

We're on the Orders of the Day-- MR. EV ANS: Oh! I beg your pardon. I was going to ask if he would inform the Ho'.lse as to what show he was entered in and what ribbon he won. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, it's traditionally in agricultural circles that a yellow ribbon is considered to be about the fourth prize, and from what I learned by the newspapers- ! might get about that position. A MEMBER: I don't believe it. MR. SPEAKER: Address of Papers. The Honourable the Leader of the CCF. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Inkster that an humble address be voted His Honour thE< Lieutenant-Governor for return of all corres pondence between the Government of Manitoba and any health unit or municipality of the province, January 29th, 1960. Page 149.

(Mr. Pa�lley, cont'd. ) .. the Government of Canada, and any individual or corporation or be tween any of them, respecting the building and operation of a sulphuric acid plant in the muni cipality of Springfield near the town of Transcona. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. ELMAN GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon ourable Member for LaVerendrye, that an humble address be voted to His Honour the Lieuten ant-Governor for a return of all correspondence between the Government of the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada, with respect to the establishment of an RCMP detach ment at Lundar, Manitoba, and the construction of an RCMP barracks in this village. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. ROBIJN: Yes, Mr. Speaker--subject to the usual reservation respecting the Gov- ernment of Canada. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Orders for Return. The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher Branch that an order of the House do issue for a return showing: any cor respondence received in the Department of Labour from its inspectors, apropos health conditi ons on the Kelsey project, together with any reports showing disposition of such complaints. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Orders of Return. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. GUT TORMSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for LaVerendrye, that an humble address be voted to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor for a re turn of all correspondence between the Government of the Province of Manitoba and the Govern ment of Canada, with respect to construction of a bridge on the lower Fairford River in the Fairford Indian Reserve. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. ROBIJN: Subject again, Sir, to the usual reservation. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of Return. The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hono'.lrable Member for Fisher, that an order of the House do issue for a return showing: the report made by the Enquiry Com mission which dealt with the dispute between the Manitoba Motor Transit Lines of Brandon and its employees; and also the correspondence between the Department of Labour and Union and Company concerned, regarding the non-publishing of this report for almost six months follow ing its receipt.

Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR . JOHN P. TANCHAK (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hono'..lrable Member for LaVerendrye, that an order of the House do issue for a return showing: for the year 1959, the total cost of Hansard, including cost of publication; the number of persons re ceiving free Hansard; the number of paid subscriptions. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brokenhead. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the member for St. John's that the House do issue an order for return showing: (

a) the amount of municipal bonds purchased by the Provincial Government in 1959, in the last three years; (

b) the amount of bonds issued by school units in 1959; the amount of these bonds purchased by the Provincial Government in 1959; and (

c) the amount of provincial bond purchases from hospital districts. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the CCF. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, that the House do issue an Order for Return showing: What does Greater W:nnipeg Gas Company pay for natural gas per thousand cubic feet from Trans Canada Pipe Lines? And how much does Intercity Gas of Portage pay; also Great Northern of Brandon? Mr. Speaker presented the motio::t and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. Page 150. January 29th, 1960.

MR. SPEAKER: Adj ourned debate on the proposed reso lution of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. The Honourable Member for LaVerend rye. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like first of all to make ref erence to some of the re marks made yesterday by the Honourable Member for Birt le-Russell. I'm sorry he's not in his seat. In fact, I'm sure if you read Hansard and haven't got the inflections of his voice in the right place that you will agree with me that he appears to be supporting this resolution in his arguments :rather than attempting to defeat it.

His arguments for the reasons why farm credit should not be extended--or at least appraisals of farms should not be made on the basis of the provincial assess ment, seem to be these: First of all that the farm credit assessors , when they assess land, assess it chiefly for its ability to repay the loan, wher eas municipal assess ors, when they assess farm land, assess it chiefly on its ability to pay taxes. Surely , there must be a close parallel" between a land's abili.ty to pay taxes and its ability to repay a loan. Mr.

Speaker, I can't see, other than perhaps his suggestion that in some cases assessors are not too accurate, but apart from that, there surely can't--and I'm talking about municipal as sessors --surely, there can be no other argument as to why a land should be assessed any dif fer ently for its abili.ty to pay taxes than its ability to repay a loan. In both cases, it is valued for the purpose for which it is used.

In other words , it it's a grain land, it's valued at its abil ity to produce grain ; and if it is cattle farming land, ranching land, it is valued on its ability to produce beef; and I think this is · true whether it's for taxes or for the farm credit plan. And so I don't see the validity of his argument when he suggests that the municipal assessor's asses smen t of the land isn't close, at least, to that which would be made by a farm credit assessor.

He goes on to say that--or at least I thif\k he said--first admitted that it takes months and months between the time you make an application and you are approved, and then told of cases where it took months and months, even after you were approved as a borrower, before you re ceived any cash--which, in my way of thinking, only adds to the argument of let's speed up the method under which we can make loans under farm credit . The Farm Credit Corp::>ration, as you are all aware, assesses the land.

It also assesses the chattels owned by the farmer, his livestock and his machinery, and, of course, livestock, machinery and buildings, can all be assessed equally, as well, and probably better, in winter time than they can in the summer time. Although I don't think it says so in the Farm Credit Act--Agricultural Credit Act, I'm sure, as the Honourable Member for Birtle -Russell said, they also do take into consideration the man's reputation and his personal ability to repay a loan. And, of cour se, this can be done equally well in the winter time and probably better than it can in the summer time.

Now, just in support of this reso lution, I would like to say that there are, I believe, in the figures given to us by-the Honour able Minister of Agriculture a few days ago--there are· still some thousands or more applications which need to be processed very shortly and I would suggest that this would be a logical method of doing the things that our First Minister so valiant ly claimed that this farm credit bill could do, and speed up the method of handling the applicati ons .

It's interesting to note that the Hono'J.rable Minister of Agriculture, when he's speaking on various occasions about this farm credit bill, points with some pride to the fact that some 1, 800 people have applied for far m credit. In truth, of course, some many, many, thousands have done so, because for everyone who actually fills out a for m, there are a hundred who in vestigate this Farm Credit Corporation .

I would suggest that every far mer in Manitoba, with the possible exception of a few very well-to-dofarmers, and even they, probably, have investi gated this Farm Credit Corp::>ration, and have fourid, in most cases, that they could not meet the qualifications--the high set of standards set in the act, in order to borrow money under it.

And in these cases, of course, amongst these people are a great number of young people, who, because they do not own valuable property , because they do not have valuable chattels, are unable--they realize--to borrow any money under this and so, rather than go to the bother of waiting for several months because their neighbour had to wait six months to find out if he could borrow any money under it, they don't bother applying at all. They have been trying to raise money in other ways.

And I would only like to suggest that to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture- -that rather than be proud that 1, 800 have applied--! think that's the figure he gives--that in truth, thousands upon thousands of farmers of Manitoba have investiga�d this thing, and would like to apply for agricultural credit-- (interj ection: When it wasn't necessary ?} Of course, . even if it wasn't necessary. If you can borrow money for 5 1/2% nowadays, you can January 29th, 196 0. Page 151.

(Mr. Roberts, cont'd.) .. reinvest it well enough. But there are farmers who find it very, very necessary to borrow money, but who can not meet the qualifications set up under this Agricultural Credit Corp:>ration. The chief criti cism which I made at the time of this act, and I would like to make again now, is the fact that there is no provision in the act to make allowances for the ability, and managerial ability, and the training of an exceptionally good young farmer or a good farmer of any age. There is no credit given to him as he goes to borrow money under this act.

The only thing that counts when he goes to borrow money is how much land he has to put up as security; how valuable is the land that he has to put up as security; and how valuable are his buildings and his chattels? And there is no credit--there is no plus given on the positive side of the ledger; there is no credit given to him for the fact that he may have university education, he may have a diploma course in agriculture, he may have been raised--and on a good farm, knows farming; he may have outstanding business abilities, the type of man that can make money on a farm.

No credit is given to him for these things. But the thing that counts is how much money, or how much the security he can put up is worth. And this seems to be the only thing that is important. I noticed yesterday, for instance, on a slightly different subject, when the Honourable Member for Fisher was remarking on some constituents of his who had been turned down on their application for a loan, and the reasons that they were turned down were those given--that the reason that this man wanted a loan was the consolidation of some debts.

And he was told that he could not borrow money to consolidate debts; And the Honourable Member for Fisher says that isn't the case. That isn't what we were told when this bill was brought in. And the Honourable the First Minister, in his usual explosive manner, said, "Oh no. We told you you couldn't consolidate debts with this bill". Well, I suggest that he looks at the bill; reads -the bill.

And there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight reasons why money may be borrowed under this Agricultural Credit Corporation, and the fourth one is--and the bill reads very plainly:--"that the Corporation may make loans to farmers for any or all of the following purposes:"- -and the fourth reason given is "the consolidation of outstanding liabilities incur red for productive agricultural purposes".

Well, I can see the point that perhaps they wouldn't want to take over some debts that he had made on the stock market, but surely the average farmer who owes several bills, on tractors, machinery and grain and so forth--this is product ive agricultural debt--and surely, our Agricultural Credit should include these people and we should be able to loan money to them to consolidate their debts, and as the minister said when he explained this bill to the House, to make it easier for these people to repay the debt over a long period of time. MR. KEITH ALEXANDER (Roblin): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rupertsland that the debate be adjourned. I'm sorry. · He's not in his seat--the Honourable Member for Arthur. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Mem- ber for Turtle Mountain. The Honourable Member for Dufferin. MR. W. H. HAMILTON (Dufferin): Mr. Speaker, I beg to have this matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. Proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the Hon- ourable Member from Kildonan, that this House request the government to petition the Federal Government for an increase of all old age and blind pensioners in the province, from $55. to $75. per month. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, for over 18 years, in this House, I have listened to the speaker's prayers each session, and each time it has brought comfort and divine to me, al though they use the same words, same blessing, and the same hopes.

In this particular case, I also do not want to apologize for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. The re solution, Mr. Speaker, is very, very simple. It asks for this government--there is no man involved directly--to petition Ottawa for an increase of the basic Old Age Pension and blind pensioners in this province by $20 a month. I have just--(interjection),.,�:r;-ight--and the ar guments are just as good now as they were in 1927, when the original amount was $20 a month, and then, after years of hopes and prayers by the old age pensioners, it was increased up to $55. Page 152.

January 29th, 1960.

(Mr. Gray, cont1d. ) .. It has taken over 30 years to do it, and the justification for another in crease today is just as valid as it was of the increase between the $20 a month and the $5 5. - probably more. Twenty dollars a month has purchased more food in 1927 than $55 a month to day. The basic amount for the old age pensioners have absolutely nothing to do with the soci al security bill which we hope may come in effect on March 1st, because there we are dealing with em ergency cases under the means test.

Here we are asking for an increas e, and perhaps this would save a lot of money for the province by some of the pensioners not applying for additional am ounts from the bill, which, as I said, will come in effect on March 1st. The fact that pen sions have been increased by all provinces shows the need, and as I have already stated, the need today is more than the need years ago. What is the situation now, Mr. Speaker ? The number of old age pensioners under the means test--in other words those between 65 and 70-- is at the present time 4, 979.

These definitely are in need because they are on a means test, and the applic ations are being very car efully and microsco pically examined. The Old Age Ass istance transfers to the Old Age Security Branch, --total federal res ponsibility--approxima tely 1, 400 a year. And if we are to take the 18 ,0 00 which has been transferred in 1952, plus the five or six thousand sin ce, indi cates definitely there are at least 25, 000, which means half of the total of 53, 000 under the Old Age Security now could qualify under the means test.

And they definitely have no other means to support the emergencies and the urgency they need. I don't need to tell the honourable mem bers about the high cost of living in general. They know it and they also know how little even $7 5. a month can purchase today. The Old Age Security, not those of the means test--over 70- report that the death rate out of the 53, 000 is 300 per month. I'm not suggesting that this is for lack of nourishment or for lack of food ent irely, but it indic ates that the death rate between 70 and over is 300 a month, which is, in my humble opinion, a few too many.

And, although I can not prove it, but I think, perhaps , if some of these people would have had better housing, bet ter living, more rest, not so lonesome, --being alone--perhaps they could have prolonged their lives and enjoyed a little bit at the golden age period. Now I already mentioned once or twice, who are the old age pensioners . They are those who have been here or lived in Canada either all their life, or at least 50 years ; the new im migrants who came in here 40 and 50 years ago, slaved and worked at a very low wage.

Each and every one was very much interested to give their children a proper education--a profession- must have spent every dime they could have saved fro12: tl:e 01<:' Age Pen;>ion, to give the child ren education so that they could be more independent than they were. And it was impossible for them to save any money for their old age.

It's true that in the rural districts an old age pensioner may be able to get along for less because they may have their own farm; they may have their own garden; they may have their own vegetables , chicke ns , eggs--but right here in the city where each and every one must p'lrchase everything he needs--and I s.ay under the means test indicated he has no money--I feel that there should not '''" any great objection. The argument wUl be made that there are many who now apply for the Old Age Pension--don't need it. It's true !

But in the first plac e, not everyone applies; anG. secondly, from some of them, it comes back in the way of income tax. And if there are some who receive the pension of $55. a month and don't need it--l'd rather give it to them than put the entire system under a means test, which is one of the worst social legislations . This resolution, Mr.

Speaker, is only an expression of opinion and the question we have to decide definitely is whether we are ready and willing to request the Federal Government- Pm not suggesting that this be done by the provinc e--to give consi deration to increase the ba sic minimum allowance for the old age pensioners. The fact that the Liberal Government be fore the elections had increased by eight dollars ; the fact that the Cons ervative Government after the election gave them another increase; the justification that they had at that time is still, in my opinion, valid.

I would li.ke to appeal again to the honourable members that, do not criticize this resolu tion as expressed last year, that I or the group are looking for political expediency. Believe me, it's far, far from it. I'm close to the scene. I visit them. I'm close to their situation. They come to me. The need is here--that's definite. And I do not see why in this pros perity that we live in, that food is being wasted; where expenditures grown from day to day by all gov ernments; that one section--the most important

section of the com munity--namely, those who January 29th, 1960. Page 153.

(Mr. Gray, cont' d. ) .. have prepared everything for us under very trying circumstances; the ones that have put up the very same building that we are meeting in now; the ones that have giv en us transportation; the ones that have built the tracks down to western Canada, and thousands of lives were lost at that time, in order to make comfort fer us. I appeal to you! It's not a di rect taxation on the Province of Manitoba. True--it's indirect. And in a province where we have so much luxury, I think perhaps at thi$ time, some favourable consideration could and should be given. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Mem ber for Fisher. MR. WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House that this matter stand. MR. SP EAKER: Stand. Adjo•1rned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member -for St.

Vital for an address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to his speech at the opening of the Legislature; and the proposed motion and amendment of the Honour able Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. A. J. REID (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity and congratulate you as -speaker of this Assembly, and may you carry on your good work in your non-partisan manner. I also welcome the new members of this House as I remember what it feels like to take your seat for the first time. Everything is strange and forbidding.

This is my fo'.lrth opening, . but I'm still learning. Now I'm not going to expound on the virtues of my constituency. I have done that on pre vious occasions but since the last time I have spoken to you, we have had something new added in our area. Last week, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor had the privilege of officially opening the Rossmere Golf and Curling Club, Sir, and I have a fine picture here of him in my local paper, of throwing the first rock. Now, what makes this organization unique, Sir, is that it's the first in the area that is a combined golf and curling club.

Thus, we have facilities for recreational purposes all year around; curling, six sheets; golf, 18 holes; and one of the fin est courses ; and the club rooms are so designed that they must be seen to be appreciated. So, drop in and. see them as we are open seven days a week and practically 24 hours a day. The Honourable Member for St. James mentioned the $2 million drive for the YMCA fund, and I see some of this money is to be diverted to East Kildonan--where the Council have given them a site and approved tentative plans�-so this summer another needed recreational unit should be started.

In fact, Sir, in our local paper yesterday--it's quite a paper --the plans for the building is $412, 000 and our share is $80, 000 , to be collected in. East Kildonan--1 guess we'll get quite a contribution there. Now per�aining to schools, _Sir, we are one of the large areas and have no trouble with grants, but our greatest problem is the large number of students in our a_rea, and we have growing pains to keep up with the task of building schools. On February 9th, we are having a school by-law for $945, 000 for secondary schools, and I hope our ratepayers get out and ap prove same. But then I noticed, Mr.

Speaker, again by this paper--l'm quoting by a local pa per--that our elementary school board has· approved plans, and tenders will be called for early in Febru.ary, for two new additions to schools, in the elementary leveL That, Mr. Speaker, seems to b·a one of our greatest confusions in our area--the two school boards. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity and congratulate the mover and seconder under elaborate deliberations on their reply to the Throne Speech. But I regret to say that this is where it ends.

I'm not going to digest the speeches clause by clause--that has been done very expe.rtly by membl:lrs from this side--but, Sir, my own honest opinion of the essence of the Throne Speech is that it is like the echo of a base drum--empty and hollow and will re-echo and resound many times this session and the year to come. What amazes m�, Sir, are the bills that have been given third reading, and are shelved to wait for the leisure of our govern ment to present them for Royal Assent. because this method of procrastination could carry on Page 154. January 29th, 1960.

(Mr. Reid, cont'd.) .• for the term of the term of the government; meanwhile they have been given credit and publicit-; for the passage of said bills. I don't think it's fair practice to the public who are waiting for said legislation, but maybe these are rules of the political game with which I'm not familiar. Labour legislation, Sir, was hil. Yet, in the CCF, this is one of their main issues.

You know, Sir, that many of the working people, es pecially the single ones, during the depres sion, were initiated into the labour ranks the hard way--by graduating from the relief camps, where we used to get the magnificent sum of $5.00 a month. So, no wonder we are always talk ing about labour. Yet, the present government, during the election campaign, had the adaucity to portray themselves as the working people's party. But, Sir, we don't have to pretend. We, in the CCF, are the working people. We work with them along with their unions and associ ate ourselves in all their local activities.

Brass must meet the grass. The top brass in Conserva tive Party and the Liberal Party are always telling their mem bers to get to the grass roots of the people. That, Sir, doesn't worry us because we are the grass roots of the working people. Th;;tt includes everybody who works , whether they work with their hands, their head, profession al or small business people . The government budget, Sir, ·as I understand, is going to be very large and how the government profess to hold this to their pledge of increase in services but no increase in taxation--well , Sir, they have started in a round about way.

First, all costs of government services have been increased; the price of the working man's beverage has been greatly increased and, I think, Sir, that this is just a start.

I notice, Sir, that the Liberals are contemplating on dropping the word "progressive" from their party name, .which would be a very smart move, to dissociate thems elves in simil arity from the Conservatives, because I am certain, Sir, that by the time this government's term expires, that the public will realize that all the promises will never materialize and they will progressively assist the Conservative Government, as the saying goes, to fold their tents and silently steal away.

And I hope, Sir, that the farmers will realize that after all the treat ment they will receive on a federal and provincial basis, that they belong to the working class. True, Sir, the government has tried, and still is trying, to implement legislation, labour, wel fare, education and farming, but I doubt it if it will ever be acco mplished to succes sful com pletion of any said program. I personally believe, Sir, that the actual government members are sincere in their declaration that they have the welfare of their constituencies at heart.

But, Sir, it's the bugbear--the Conservative Party itself--because if history repeats itself, when the Conservatives are in power, first we have the highest level of unemployment; second we have highest rates of interest and tight monies ; three, we have the lowest number of bills passed, pertaining to the legislation for the welfare and benefits of people of the country. Thank you. . ................. Continued next page. January 29th, 1960. Page 155.

MR . W. B. SCARTH (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am very happy to be amongst those who today congratulate you on an office of trust in this legislature and which you administer so well.

Sir, we have heard that there will be a committee to strike new rules of procedure in this House and they will and can perhaps improve upon the present rules but it can never be anticipated that any set of rules which any committee can draw will take in every contingency that will arise and Sir , when you consider the British North America Act, our con stitution and when you consider that the draftsmen of that Act made it elastic intentionally and made it overlapping that is an overlapping between the fe deral authorities and the provincial authorities intentionally because they could not foresee everything that might happen then we must conclude that no rules which we make will cover everything and it will always be upon our shoulders, Sir, to make those fine lines of distinction when there's a doubt one way or the other but I believe every member of this House well knows that when you give your decision it is based on that inherent justice which makes you up .

Secondly, I would like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Throne Speech and in speaking of the mover, the Honourable the Member for St. Vital, let us say he was both re freshing, outspoken andor'iginal. Whether or not some of the honourable members will agree with him or not is a matter by the way be cause if it ever comes to pass in this House that we are all in agreement then it truly will be time to pack up and go home and leave the govern ment to the civil service.

And again, Sir, I would like to congratulate the new members and I might say that when I looked to my right and see the fair member at my side I am very happy that there was a by-election, Again, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition on his very forceful speech of January 21st. One must conclude in part that he does not always agree with us or does not always like us but anyway he made several points and I should like to refer to some.

One Page 26 of Hansard, Volume IV, No.3 he referred to the Manitoba Agricul tural Credit Corporation, its working and amongst other things he said why are so niany being turned down? This line of thought that is an attack on the Credit Corporation has been followed by others of his ranks including the Honourable the Member for Gladstone who made a motion and the Honourable the Member for Ethelbert-Plains who spoke on Crop Insurance . In other words , Sir, the Liberal Party has now become in its own thinking the champion of the farmer of Manitoba and with that hear, hear, I will go on.

Sir Winston Churchill in his days as leader , war leader, and I think we will all admit that he was perhaps the super strategist of our times, relied upon (

a) experience and (

b) a close study of history to anticipate what next would happen. And Mr. Speaker, I'm not going back into ancient history but l' m going back into recent history of the govermnent which preceded us in office and find out what these champions of the farmer did for the farmer. I'm going to suggest that we look into what they did in regard to the Mani tobe Farm Loans Association. They want, as we understand it, a pretty loose directive of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, In 1939 the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Agriculture in the Garson government and I would like to read you

section 23 of the 1939 amendment to the Manitoba Farm Loans Association Act. It should be borne in mind by all who are here that the Manitoba Farm Loans Association was incorporated in 1917 under the then Norris Government and it kerton lending money without perhaps unwisely and not too well and so by the time 1939 this

section of the Act may give a reflection as to how well that association had conducted itself.

Section 23 quote -"The interest upon securities hereto for issued by the Association and payable to the government of the Province of Manitoba or to the province and which has been deferred pursuant to

Chapter 15 of the Statutes of Manitoba 1931 is cancelled and any claim therefore discharged and released and the amount thereof shall be written off both in the books of theProvince and the books of the Association." Subsection 2- "the liability of the Association to the province shall be shown both in the books of the Associ ation and the books of the province at $9 , 856 ,4 92 . 57 and unless or until other provision is made no interest shall be charged on this amount. The said amount of $9,85 6, odd shall be re duced from time to time by the amount of the payments made by the Association subject to subsection 4 of

section 18." I would like to direct the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, to some more activities of the previous government in respect to the Manitoba Farm Loans Association. In 1933 the Association was not fairing any too well but as farm lands ------- Page 156 . January 29th, 1960.

MR . CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, before the honourable gentleman goes on I wonder if I might ask him a question at this stage. Did the honourable member infer that at the time that the amendment which be has just read was put on the statute books that the Honourable Mr. Garson was my leader? MR . SCARTH: No , I said Sir, that you were the Minister of Agriculture. If I went further than that it was a slip of the tongue. MR . CAMPBELL : Mr. Speaker, before the honourable gentleman goe::; on, he said that in Mr.

Garson's government-- I thought maybe I should remind him that the leader of the government at that time was the Honourable Mr. Bracken who soon thereafter became Leader of the Conservative Party. MR . SCARTH: Very good, Sir, I stand corrected in my dates so long as we know that you were then the Minister of Agriculture. But in 1933 , Mr.

Speaker, it said the Farm Loans Association was suffering from ma ladministrationand the government of the day and the Honourable the Minister, the Honourable the Leawr of the Opposition was then a member, de vised a scheme whereby they transferred or conveyed unto the government, unto His Majesty the King th_en in the right of the Province of Manitoba about 15 hundred quarter se.ctions of land I believe it was belonging to the Association.

This bill and I can see no other reason for it was passed by the government of the day as a straight tax dodging bill so that the government would not be required to pay taxes to the various municipalities

whereas the Farm Loans Associations had to pay taxes previously. Well neecil.ess to say, there was a bit of furor amongst certain of the municipalities and I understand that representations were made for the government and in 1937 the government turned about face and repealed that bill and invested or revested all of those lands in the Manitoba Farm Association. As a result of that vesting in the first place and revesting a peculiar incident took place.

When the lands were revested the var ious district registrars who were revesting these titles misinterpreted their duties or the law and they put a notation on each title that the lands were subject to the reservations contained in the Crown Lands Act. Now that doesn't mean much to the average farmer or purchaser. It doesn't mean much to any of us but it did have the effect •••••• of leaving of oil and the miner al rights to the Crovm.

Now I do not say that the government intended that by the Bill but any way the district registrar through misinterpretation or otherwise took that out of the Bill and that's the way the titles were. Then after 1937 many, many quarter sections of land were pur chased from the Association by various farmers and these notations subject to the reservation contained in the Crown Lands Act were on the titles and very few knew what they meant. Oil was struck in Virden in 1949 , meanwhile a young farmer at Virden through the help of his father had acquired a half

section in the Daly Field, that is in 1945 or thereabouts. In 1951 he en deavoured to lease these lands to an Oil Company to drill, the Oil Company rejected his title on account of this reservation on it. The young farmer wrote to the Manitoba Farm Loans Association in 1951 an<i he wrote in 1952 and he wrote to the government asking that they give him his oil rights. The then government of the day and the now champion of the farmer said no we will not give up those oil rights. They refused, consequently a court action was taken by this young man for his oil rights on this half

section of land. In 1953 , Chief Justice Williams of the Court of Queen's Bench, granted the oil rights to this farmer.

That wasn't good enough for the champions of the farmer , they appealed to the Court of Appeal and they won in the Court of Appeal on a split decision but the young farmer being ba cked by perhaps 5.0 or 60 other far mers in the neighbourhood took it to the Supreme Court of Canada who in turn told the Province of Manitoba or gave a judgment directing that the oil lands be returned to this man or the oil rights and then the government gave up the oil rights to him and to, as I believe, the owners of 1500 quarter sections of land and may I say here , Mr .

Speaker, that the government, that the then government, the now ch ampions of the farmers certainly had a great array of legal talent at Ottawa when they fought that case and as I say to you, Sir, that is what the Honourable the Lea der of the Opposition, the then Premier, back in 1955, thought of the farmer and his rights but now he comes into this House and with others in his party -- what are we doing for the far-. mer? - Let us do this and let us do that.

Now as far as the Corporation is concerned, Sir, the · lending corporation it is my wish and I hope it is the wish of every member of this House, the ' said Corporation be conducted on a proper business basis . That it lends where needed at a reasonable rate of interest but that it lends only where there is merit. We do not want another January 29th, 1959. Page 157 .

(Mr. Scarth, cont'd. ) ••••• debacle somethin15like the Manitoba Farm Loans which ended up millions in the red. r.et us see that the Farm Loans Association is conducted properly , business-like and so that justice will be done both to the tax payer of Manitoba and to the borrow er. I thank you, Sir. MR. TANCHAK: Mr. Speaker , I wish to congratulate you on your health and wish you many happy years of service to come. And I also wish to congratulate the mover and the secon der of the Reply to the Throne Speech.

I wish to thank the seconder for expanding the Speech from the Throne and -- or the mover, I beg your pardon -- and the seconder for taking us on such a ple asant and enjoyable tour of his constituency. I also wish to welcome to our group _ the four new members of this Legislature and especially lady legislator, especially a special welcome to her. I listened with great interest to some of the speeches here so far. I was impressed with quite a few, some didn't impress me so much but yesterday when the Honourable Member for St. Matthews had the floor I really was impressed.

I always love to listen to his speeches but there were two statements that he made. I will not say that I disagree with him, probably wholeheartedly I do agree with the Honourable Member for St. Matthews and one of those was when he made reference to advertising. Mention on this side was made that the Throne Speech is nothing but a big publicity campaign. He replied to that and he said we should advertise, we must advertise.

I certainly do agree with the honourable member but I would add on to it that it is absolutely necessary to advertise your wares and vour products and the cheaper the product is the more advertising you have to do and I would say that the Conservative Party needs an awful lot of advertising. Now another paragraph there in the speech shows that the Honourable Member from St. Matthews is a great lover. We all love lovers . (Interjection) That's true but we say that love is blind - I make reference to his great affection to the Leader in this House.

They say love is blind and there is a fable back there, we remember what the Pied Piper did so beware , there is danger and pitfalls. I noticed that in this Throne Speech the friends opposite are more cautious about making such extravagant and rash promises as they did in the past and their counterparts did in Ottawa. In Ottawa promises were made just probably to be broken later because that is the result of it. I heard a very good phrase today and I think it's very applicable to both the Conservatives in Ottawa and the Conservatives here .

It seems that they like to promise just to get to be the government , but as soon as they change places they change faces. That's what happened in Ottawa and that's what's happening here in the Province of Manitoba. Both of them federally and provincially were going to take us to the last of the promised land of honey and cream but it seems to me that some of that honey has turned bitter and that cream sour. When reading the Throne Speech it reminds me of a huge sandwich-- I'm going to get pretty comnion -- huge sandwich; .a sandwich of publicity, a sand wich between elections.

MaYbe it's the right time to make such a sandwich. I wonder, I wonder who we'll let-forget us members of the legislature, we include the Press, who wielded this huge knife to cut the slices and who used colored margarine to smear the slices. Now here 's the term, who sliced the salami and the bologna shall we say to fill the sandwich with? Now who molded this huge sandwich and let us not forget the mustard, the mustard comes on later. MaYbe that's the idea. Now let's go to the Throne Speech.

We regret that the government has not implemented its numerous promises in the last three elections and I think the foremost in this , the most import ant promise was no increase in taxes , no increase in taxes. We'll give you all these services without any increase in taxes . I didn't think it was possible but I think that kind of appeal bore fruit because naturally the peopld who promised not to increase the taxes are I'm sorry to say in office at the present time. Was this promise kept ?

It wasn't kept in Ottawa -- I'd say more than 75% of the promis es that were promised during the campaign were not implemented. Was this promi se to the people of Manitoba kept that taxes will not in crease? I say it wasn't. True; I mentioned this last year, the Honourable the First Minister took objection to what I said. He said those are not taxes, those are fees. My dear friends I don't think there is much difference one is a direct tax and the other is an indirect tax. It's a hidden tax and I'm not the only one that does say so.

Here's a brief that was presented by the Manitoba Federation of Labour, presented to the government and there is a paragraph here on this page and I will quote -- "whereas the Manitoba Government in spite of its election promises that it would not increase taxation has resorted to a less desirable form by thrusting upon the Page 158. Januacy 29th, 1960.

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd,) ••••• citizen.S an indirect tax" and I believe it was an indirect tax, of course it makes reference to the beer right here. The tax on beer, What about the taxes on all diff erent" --practically all government services --fee s as they call them. That's a tax, so that's a broken promise. I would like to pick up the Speech from the Throne.

I am not going to say anything about the introduction there, but we come to this one, "my government is happy to report" -oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't say my government, "I am happy to report that there has been substantial and satisfactory progress in all the principal fields of re sponsibility of the Provincial Government." (Heart Hear!) I would sugge st-that the two words "subs tantial and satisfact ory" be left to the people to decide. I mean right now, I am not going back --in the futu re--and I am sure that the people will decide. Substantial and satisfactory --we'll go on and come back to it late r.

I am just trying to prove you that this huge sandwich is nothing, nothing but publ icity. I'prefer to call it a sandwich. 1959 provincial road-building program completed was the largest on record. I am not blaming the present minister , and I don't say I'll blame the former minister, but I object to the word comple ted. I don't think it was comple ted. There are many projects that were started that were not complete d. Of course there is a very, very good reason for that --the rains, the bad fall. But why put that in that it was complet ed. I disagree with that.

It was not comple ted and definitely not complet ed. Now we'll go into agriculture . And here's what strikes me as funny . Talking about ag riculture and excuses and so on and so on, a little more propaganda and publicity . Then it says "farm income for the year just cl osed will be lower than that of 1958 ." Let's go back to -- I am happy to report substantial and satisfactory progress. This is substantial and satisfactory pro gress ? "Farm income dropped in 1959"? Is that substantial and satisfact ory? Maybe accor ding to the friends across - according to their thinking, it is satisfactory .

I don't think the farmer thinks it is satisfacto ry. . Now it goes on again, in here,. the liquida tion of liv estock. And I congratulate the government on trying to help out the needy farme rs , the farmers that were hit hard by the snow and the rains and so on. I congratulate them. But why boast about it so much? I think it's the duty of the government to help its citizens. Why boast? But they have got to boast about something. As I said before , and the Member from St. Matthews also agrees with me , that you need a lot of advertising, expecially if your product is cheap.

Now we'll go on, an expanded weed control program. I forgot to mention before the promises in this huge sandwich were just a real delicacy. Well this is one of the delic acies in the sandwich. It's a promise of expansion. I hope that the promises will be kept. Now we come to farm credit. "My government is pleaseq to report to the Manitoba Ag ricultural Corporation which has been functioning" and so an. Well maybe here we'll say they have - that the people opposite have a little reason to boast.

But I still say, and I know quite a number in my own constituency that would rather go, take advantage of the federal plan than the provincial, In fact one farmer had made an applica tion --then he switched to the federal . I still say that it's a duplica tion of service. True if this plan coJl].d help some farmer in even the smalle st, minutest fo rm, I say it does help . But I do not think that the promise was ful filled that was given during the election campaign. Especially the young farm er, as has been mentioned befor e.

I am not going to say that the government delib erately misled the people , the men opposite. But they left that impression. They went among the people during the cam paign and they led the young farmer to believe that at last he will be able to make a loan, to borrow money and to start up farmi ng. And my honourable friends across at the different meet ings knew that that impression was created especially among the younger people (Interjection - how do you know?). Because they tell me so, and I believe them , and I am sure that the hon ourable member who has just spoke up now knows it too.

They didn't try to explain to these young far mers that they are being misle d. Now they are sorely disappointed. Some of these deserving young men that could have been farme rs , they are thoroughly disappointed. I have several applicants and I am happy to announce a few of them that I know of in my constituency did receive loans . One came through last week. (Interjection). Good -is right. But what did he have to go through? He -- the purpose of his loan was to expand, to buy a farm that was right next to his own quarter.

When he applied for his loan --and he was one of the very first ones --one below a hundred, he was told when he asked, he was told , that surely he January 29th, 1960. Page 15 9.

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd.) ••• •• can expect his money by mid-summer; So he figured it would be � around August. What did this young farmer do? He gave a deposit on the adjoining quarter be lieving that he'll have this loan and pay the balance in cash. He gave his deposit. July, August came, nothing. What happened to him ? What happened to the application?. Almost -- this was during election, by the way -- before election. He was promised before election that it will be around August or July. It was approved. He didn't hear anything from them, from the Mani toba Credit Corporation for about a month.

He didn't want too much, only about half of the value of his property -- or half of the collateral. He said you will not have to mortgage your cattle . A month later another letter comes here and says we will have to take a chattel mortgage on your cattle, He agreed to that. Waited a month. (Interjection) No, they left his. wife and chil dren alone. A month later, another letter comes , another letter comes, find yourself a lawyer, find yourself a solicitor. He did. He did it immediately. He waited a month -- we'll have to have your insurance policies . So, this young farmer sent the insurance policies in.

What happens? He still had to wait a month,and they returned the insurance policies to him. Why? Because he didn't sign it off. He had to put some kind of endorsement on it and see that the beneficiary would be the Corporation. Finally he gets another letter that says you owe--through his solicitor -- that says you owe the solicitors at the other end for doing this for you $1 20 .00. $1 20 . 00. Pay this and you'll have your cheque. He paid his own lawyer, solicitor, his own in town, and then he had to pay at the other end. Maybe that's the usual procedure. I don't know. I don't think it is right anyway.

Finally he did get it. But what happened to that adjoining quar ter? He promised to pay cash for it. He couldn't produce cash, at the end of August he lost his deposit. Another man came along who had the money, he bought the land. He's got his money now to buy that quarter, but the quarter is gone. So I think that Farm Corporations are just a little too slow in this case. And there are other cases. I. have another case which I'll not go through.

Still I am not going to say that the farm credit doesn't do any good whatsoever. · Crop insurance was promised during election. · Immediately we're elected we'll see'to it that the farmers will be under insurance. We'll have crop insurance. MR . R. G. SMELLIE (Birtle-Russell) : Would the honourable member permit a question? MR . TANCHAK: Yes. MR . SMELLIE : In the example that you just cited of the f armer who asked for a loah for the purpose of buying a quarter

section of land. You say the loan was granted, but he never did buy the quarter

section of land, and under the terms of the Act, if a loan is granted for the pur chase of land, that land would have to be included in the security. Surely there must be some mistake •••••• MR . TANCHAK: If you want further explanation I am very happy to do it. Here is what happened. I didn't want to make it too involving but for his information I'll tell him what bap pened. His father had a quarter on the other side adjoining to the son. This was the son.

So the son agreed to purchase his father's quarter and the money was turned into buying the quarter that belonged to his father -- but that was to his father only. So it helped in the long end - helped in the long end, but he actually lost his deposit from the first quarter, and that sustained a lo ss. I know it is easy for you to laugh but I don't think it's a laughing matter for the man who lost several hundred dollars of deposit . (Interjection) Yes 120 bucks at this other end to a lawyer. · He has the receipts. (Interjection) Now I was on insurance. I am not going to delve too much into it.

You promised to help farmers with problems -- crop insurance immediately we're elected. I aJ; not going to say that the Honourable the First Minister made that statement himself because I did not hear it, but I heard from others, responsible men from across --on the other side. They made that state ment. Now it's pretty near two years or a year and a half at least. Have we got crop insurance? Where is that promise ? Gone by the wayside -- there may be established trial areas -- we don't even know that for sure. Maybathe friends opposite are surer than I am.

I do not think that most of the farmers are too happy about this new plan as far as they have been telling me they do not think that Ottawa participates enough in this , and they do not. Most of the farmers . think that the premiums are too high. But we'll leave that, leave it as another broken promise to give crop insurance to the farmers , and when I say farmers I mean the farmers of Manitoba, not a few little corners. Page 160 . January 29th, 1960.

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd. ) ••••• Now there are other promises. Both

partie s promised to help the farmer. The farmer was the under-dog. We'll see that the farmer gets parity; we'll see that he gets better prices for his grain, for hogs , for eggs . Well we know what happened to eggs of course , it was not the responsibility of the provincial government. But the friends ac ross , the Conservatives should have some influence with their friends in Ottawa, and maybe try and help the farmers, if they wish to , unless they don't care to. We've got policy on eggs , policy on bacon, subsidies or whatever you call them here and there. I don't think the farmers are too happy.

I don't think that this will bring about stability for the farmer. We may see the price of eggs, May and June this year go up to 40 or 50 cents a dozen, but who is going to benefit by this ? Most of the small farmers are out of egg production. They're leaving it to vertical integration -- they're leaving it to these fellows that have layers , say 5 - 10 thousand layers . Ai:td they are the people that are going to make the money when the eggs go up, but then by the time the small farmer decides that he wants to go back into production of eggs the eggs will be down again.

I don't think there is any stability, and I don't think there will be any stability on the hog prices. I think that the present government, the Government of Manitoba, should provide· with all this unsettled business -- no stability -- I would suggest that the friends opposite provide the farmer with a crystal ball so that he can gaze into it and see what the future holds for him. There is no stability. Well let's go on. Promises of water, plan and install their own modern water supply sewage disposal . Water supply sewage dispos·al. That's a very good promise. That's one of those rare morsels .

I don't know how many members across , probably those coming from the country, are aware of the fact that quite a number of farmers even at the present time have this service. And I just wonder what -- is this only going to be ,plans? It says plan and in stall , to assis t rural people to plan and install, I wonder if there will be any money involved or is it just another promise ? Well we come to the next one, flood control. I wonder where is that "go-it-aloner ," where is he today ?

"Go-it-alone" if Ottawa doesn't provide any assistance , 75% we were tol d at that time. 75% help. from Ottawa for flood control around Winnipeg. The people of Winnipeg are waiting for it. It's another promise broken, and ba dly broken. I suggest Sir, that very, very little has been done as far as that . And I don't think, as much as my information is cor rect, that Ottawa has commited itself. But still that resounding sound , "We'll go it alone." I still hear it. Where is the go-it-aloner? I think he is still opposite, but it's just another broken promise, and we regret that so many promises were broken.

Increased sums for agricultural research at the University of Manitoba will be proposed. That's another promise, and it's a good one. I hope that that this promise this time will be kept. You will be asked to consider legislation, recreational matters and so on. Well we're quite hopeful, -- I think that goes under Department of Mines and Natural Resources. We've got an atomic young Minister here , jet propelled and I wish him luck. I can see that he is a true lover of nature and that's about all I'll say about the Department of Mines and Natural Resources.

I believe in giving a young man who really believes in what he is doing a chance , and that's all I'll say to the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. I hope he is as kind to me some day as I am to him today. Now we come to the next one, Manitoba Development Board. $2, 905, 000. I don't think we should be as kind with this Minister, he is a little bit older in here . He's had his chance . I do not profess that I know too much about it, but I have heard several remarks. $2 ,9 05 ,0 00.

And there is just a question here, it seems to me, I ask -- I wonder how much this department with all the different expenses, expenses that an applicant has to pay and so on, I just wonder how much less that comes to than $2 ,9 05,0 00, I don't know •. Maybe I will find in the course of the sessi on. The Royal Commission on Transportation and they say "my government favour the re tention of the Crows Nest Pass ." I wonder who doesn't? I am sure if my friends opposite would have reversed the statement and said "we do not favour," they would not have been there next time.

We all favour the· Crows Nest Pass-- retention of the rates. I don't think -- and to me this just seems another little bit of publicity. What about atomic -- let's go to -- I just mentioned atomic energy -- atomic propelled January 29th, 19 60. Page 161.

(Mr. Tanchak , con t'd. ) ••••• Minister. We go to atomic energy. The plant to be built in Mani toba, we are all very happy about it. Why not? But I don't think the present government should take all the credit for it. Take the credit where the credit is due . But it seems to me that it was doing practically nothing for the people of Manitoba -- I say practically nothing -- and boasting of doing so much, and promising so much, and breaking so many promises , that they just grope at anything' any straws ,on top of the water' and say give us credit for that, give us credit for that.

I don't think that the present government deserves too much credit for this site. Probably -- maybe they tried to help, but I wouldn't give them all the credit. "My government records with satisfaction the early success of the school divisions . 11 I disagree with that. I don't think there is any su ccess, early or late, at this stage in our history. We shall see what success there will be . You heard the Minister yesterday .

I was sorry that I was called out the latter part of the speech and didn't hear it all , but I heard a few remarks there, and I heard one remark that he made that in no way did the government encourage, or did he encourage this vast expansion, vast expansion of school s, building huge schools with auditoriums and more rooms than actually the people required .--the districts required. No encouragement was made. At the trustees meeting here the Minister warned the trustees , boys, don't go so fast. We 're not going to build your auditoriums, recreation centres for every school district.

That wasn't the purpose of this. But I remember the words of the Minister myself, and those words were right at Ridgeville in my home town, when I suggested that what the Minister had said, that he does not -- it isn't the intention of the government to close existing local high schools . It isn't the intention of the government. You may retain you high schools where you have them. That's what he said in the first place . I objected to that. I was a strong believer in centralizing schools , and I still am.

What's the sense of having our divisions or organizing our divisions , if you are go�g to retain our small high schools as they are, I was not in favor of that. I said we should build one central high school , and that's the only way we'll be able to improve our education. When I objected to that, I said that kind of type defeats the purpose of the Bill . The Minister got up there and he says "Mr .

Tanchak is not right, I still say we are not here to take away your high schools •••• I hope that the day wfll come when I'll officiate at an official opening of a 12 room high school right here at Ridgeville ." Isn't that encouraging the people to build such huge high schools ? I say it is encouraging, and now the Minister is trying to discourage this • Maybe it is the right thing to do, but after having committed the wrong, it's pretty hard to right it, I believe. And why put the blame on the trustees now ? Why not shoulder the blame, the responsibility. I should say they should shoulder the responsibility.

I don't think I should talk too much about school divisions , because I seem to be in this unfavourable position that part of my -- I won't say all -- but part of my constituency did not accept, after a second vote, did not accept the division, And whether they're right or they're wrong, I'll still say the people are right, because it was the majority, and we have to accept it.

Whether they're right or not, I still say they must be right because the majority is always right, And I do not think that the department should punish them continually as second best citizens and withhold the grants from them, There must be a reason, and I think it's the duty of the depart ment to find that reason -- and probably they have a legitimate reason for refusing a second time after the vote was taken -- they turned it down , And I say that in other areas that did not accept the division -- and this happens to be in the Minister's own constituency I'm referring to Dauphin Ochre .

The Minister himself said that they will qualify for all the grants . Why? Because this plan is superior to their division plan. At least the Press reports made that statement -.l'It's a superior plan to our plan. " It's very comforting to know that the old Liberal plan is superior to the present plan -- at least one consolation there. But they're not in a division , and they'll receive all the grants . Part of my area is not in the division, and I suggest that they are en titled at least to the teachers' grants.

Let us say that those people didn't do the right thing, which I said they must because it was the majority. But let us say they did not. What right have the people across, or what right have we to punish the young people -- the students ? Just because all the oldar people as you may think, were not smart enough to accept this plan , then is it right for us to go ahead and withhold the grants so they would not have the same opportunity?

No , I think it is wrong and I think that those people even though they are not in a division -- 3J'ri it's not only my division, my boundary -- to the west there's Hanover -- not Hanover, Rhineland or something, they didn't accept this plan. I think that they are entitled, at least they should be Page 162, January 29th, 196 0.

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd.) ••••• entitled at least to the teacher grants. I think, �lJ:at's all I'll say on educ ation. If the Minister of Education was here I was going to say, prob�\Y I'll say it towards the end, I don't overrun my time -- there's something I'd like him to hea,r1 ��sorry he's not here now. Now all I can say in conclusion to this school problem is that it sayf! "The Government will be asked to appropriate the greatest amount of money towards education ." I say, make sure that we do, to save the plan from drowning. We must do it .

Well we'll go on -- "my govern ment has received the final and completed report of the Royal Commission on Education and desires to acknowledge," and so on. Everybody seems to be afraid to talk about this -- the final report from the Royal Commission. I have made up my mind, -- I don't have to disclose it yet -- I have made up my mind. But I say it is the duty of the people across to make up their mind and show that they are worth the seats they are sitting in. They are supposed to make up their mind and bring in a resolution. It isn't our duty to make up our mind and voice it.

I think this is the responsibility of the government and the government should have the guts to do it -- do what they think is right -- either implement it or turn it down. Maybe the government is going to do it (Interjection -t o what do you ref er) . I'm referring to private aid to schools - I meant aid to private schools, I'm sorry. So far this mentions here, consider and so on.

Well I suppose they are considering it,. but I suggest -- maybe I have no right to -- but I suggest that the government -- well I will not say the government -- some of the boys across ar'3 just a little bit reluctant to bring that out in the open. And here's another information here , and I missed it in agriculture .

Maybe my informa tion is not right, but we know that we have the report on margarine -- the commission on mar garine -- and mind you that was a one man commission, and I do not say that I wholly agree with him -- I can say that I totally disagree with him, because I always was against the colour ing of margarine , and I still am· against the colouring of margarine. Why don't somebod y advocate colouring bananas purple or something like that. Colouring margarine! Take the colour of butte r. (Interjection) Yes , we could stripe it, maybe.

But I hear -- maybe my in formation is not right but the information I have is that there will be a private member bring ing in that resolution. And I do not think it is right. I think this is a govern..ment responsibility this is the report by the Royal Commission, and I think the government should shoulder the responsibility in this case too. I do not think that the government should make it a private bill. Show you colour -- A MEMBER: It's not yellow anyway. A MEMBER: I don't , think it's true blue either.

Jl/ffi , TANCHAK: Now let's go on -- You think I'm out of -- oh, I've only got about three minutes -- Well I think maybe some of my other colleagues will pick up where I leave off, and I believe that my sandwich by this time is getting pretty thin -- everything is out of it by now, even the crust, even the two slices of bread -- even that' s turned to a crust. ,So now let's go back to that mustard. It's hot mustard. Mitchell legislation and labour legislation, that was omitted. Let's take some of that mustard and dab it on top -- refresh. this big sandwich.

I see that the Minister of Education is nodding, when I ref erred --- I'd like to make a plea, Maybe the Minister -- he'll read it in the Hansard -- probably I shouldn"t have attacked him -- maybe I should have been just as good to him as I was to the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natur al Resources, because I have a plea to make. As you all know, I am a British subject and I'm proud of it. I am a Ukrainian by descent and I'm proud of that too. I am a Canadian by birth and I'm doubly proud of that . We all kliow that Canada is made up of differ ent races, nationalities , and so on.

It's just like a huge Lea gue of Nations. And I would not like to see the Canadian people adopt the traditions and customs of any one of these races and say that is going to be our custom -- the Canadian custom or Canadian tradition. I would like the best of all these traditions to be brought forward and molded into one of Canadian tradition and customs.

I have a plea to make to the Minister of Educat ion, and this is , as we all know, that at the present time the Ukrainian language is being taught at the Univer&ity level, but I would like the Honourable Minister to try -- is the Ukrainian language at the high school level? I do not say that it is possible to just throw it in for the next year-- add it to the curriculum and it will be there , but at least make -- put it on a trial basis. Maybe in the City of Winnipeg, which may not be as good a place as some others , but there is one town in particular that I January 29th, 1960. Page 163 ,

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd. ) ••••• lmow would be well suited for that, and that's the town of Vita. And I would make this plea to the Minister of Education, to look into the advisability of bringing in the Ukrainian language at the high school level . , You lmow Professor Kirkconnell once did say that a man that lmows one language is one man, if you lmow two you are two men, and if you lmow twenty you are twenty. I do not think that an extra language would hurt. I thank you. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR .

ROBLIN: I am hopeful, Sir, that I might conclude what I have to say before 5: 30, in which case it may be possible to have a vote . However, if there are others who wish to speak, no doubt we will be meeting tonight for that purpose, because we have reached the end of our adj"ourmnents on this amendment that we have to the Speech from the Throne. I should like , Sir, to take advantage of the opportunity that this debate customarily affords, to offer my compliments to you, Sir, for the first time , as I state the position of the government on the important matter that is before us.

I'm also sincerely happy to offer my good wishes to the four new members who have joined up in this House. I trust, Sir, that they will use their best endeavours to be worthy of the great privilege that has been accorded to them in their election here, because I can tell them that that is the ambition of all who sit in this Chamber. And I am particularly happy to aclmowledge the fact that for the first time in an um ber of years the government can claim to have a woman among its members. That is a fact from which we take a good deal of satisfaction.

Now, Sir, I want to deal with what I can only describe as a strange resolution, which has been presented to us by the Leader of the Opposition. That he should propose a want of confid ence motion is to be expected, and it is his duty, no less, and I concede it, to do so on this occasion.

But one would hardly have expected that he would take the unusual grounds that he has chosen to take, and that his party behind him has chosen to endorse, in asking for the dismissal of this government: "Resolved that this House regrets that Your Honour's Government has failed to implement many of the important promises it made and repeated 'during three· election campaigns to the people of Manitoba." Mr.

Speaker, what will the people of Manitoba think of the gentleman sitting opposite, who in the same-three election campaigns, if I describe the situation correctly -- I'm not just too sure what they mean by three -- I'm well aware of two , but they may be right in that -- declared that they opposed the policies and the promises; that they were wrong, misguided, needles s. And now their allegation is that these wrong, mis guided and needless promises have not been fulfilled.

I should have thought Sir, that they would t<Jss their bonnets in the air with pleasure that we had not proceeded on what they think to be these ill-conceived measures. I wonder who is going to swallow this kind of political double talk when it's discussed among the members of the general public, Well there may be a good reason for this hocus pocus, because I think that in the terms of this resolution they have been trying to cover over and to paper up the obvious split that one has discerned for some time in the ranks of the Liberal mem bers.

Because there are half of them, Sir -- there are half of the, and the ones that laugh the-loudest might be well-considered as memb ers for this half, who feel that perhaps some of the things the government is doing are not so bad after all . Ah yes, but let it be said to the credit of the Leader of the Opposition that he doesn't belong to that half. At least he thinks that what we are doing is all wrong, and that's why I am completely surprised to see that he rebukes us because we haven't done more of the things that he thinks are all wrong. Oh well, they'll have time to patch up this split.

In the next six months it's going to be very interesting to watch the devious methods by which they will try to get themselves out of their completely undefensible political position. I want to say something about the points the Honourable Leader made in his speech. You know, I got quite a chuckle, Sir, out of the way in which he trailed after the red herring intro duced by my honourable friend the Member for St. Vital.

Thirty-€igh t years -- thirty-€ight years in this Chamber, Sir, and he decides to devote the first, and I think probably the best part of his speech to tacking after a member of 18 month's experience , claiming that be was introducing additions to the Speech from the Throne; stating government policy. After thirty eight years of experience that's his conclusion. Or perhaps it's a natural mistake because I can oilly assume that my honourable friend used to abet the speeches, The gentleman that moved his Speeches from the Throne lmew very well what they were going to say.

Such is not the case with respect to this administration. But I am not going to follow my honourable friend Page 164. January 29th, 1960.

(Mr. Roblin , cont'd�) •• , •• down his wild-go ose chase there, and af ter four pages in Hansard of pleasantries and little sort of niggling criticism, you know, at which he's so good -- I must say, most effective -- he gets to other points that might be considered to have some substance . They've been dealt with and it would be rather superfluous for me to mention it, but if I failed to do so he'll immediately jump to the conclus ion, judging from experience, that I didn't care to discuss the topic.

He says: "in my opinion and the opinion of others who are capable to judge"- referring to the road program -- "it was the worst on record as far as getting value for money spent, and furthe r, the road program of 1959 was the biggest bungle that even this government has ever made. They got the least value for their money that any public expendi ture ever received, I think, in the Province of Mani

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 9.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2f33993baeab320ce34257fce7e095f81f9c92bb

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