Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 41 (26th Legislature, 1st Session)

26-1-41

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Volume m No. 41 August 3, 1959 lst Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans, Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

INDEX Monday afternoon, August 3rd, 1959 Committee Report, Law amendments {Mr. - Lyon) •• •• ; . . . . . . • . • • . . • . . • . • • • • . . • • • . . 1485 Questions .•.•....•. ••.••.• .••.•• •..•••.. ...••• •• .••••••••••• ••••. •..... � . . . . 1485 Bills 88, 93, 97, 99, Third Reading 1486 Second Readings Bill 96, re Water Supplies {Mr. Willis): Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley................. 1487 Bill 100, re Crop Insurance (Mr. Willis) • • . . • . • • . • . . • . • . . • • • . • • . . . . • • . • . . • • • • . . . • 1488 Mr.

Campbell . . • • • • • • . • • . • • . • . . • • . • • • . . • • • • . . . • • • • • . • • • • . • • • . . • • • • . . • . • 1489 Mr. Wagner • • . • • • • . • • • . . • • • . • • • . • • • • • . . • . • • . • . • • . • • . • . . • . • • . • . . . . . . . . . . 1490 Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Willis . • . • . . . • • . • • . . . • • . . • . • • • • . • • • . . . 1491 Bill 101, re Dental Association: Mr. Mc Lean . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • . • • . • . . . . • . . 1492 Mr. Paulley ••. ••.• . . .••••.• •••. •. •••••••••••. •.••. ••.•••.... .. •••.•• .o • • 1493 Mr. Orlikow, :Wrr.

Gray . • • . • • • • . • • . . • . . . • • . . . . • . . . . . . • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • • • . • 1494 Mr. Hawryluk, Mr. Cobb •••..•.•••• •••••••••• ••.•• .•••..•••.•.. - . • • . • . . • • • 1495 Mr. McLean .•. ••••.•••••.•• ••. ...•.••..•. •.. .•. •.••• ••.•..•.•....• -. • . . . 1496 Bill 102, 103, 104 .. • • . • • • • • • • . • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • . • . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • 1497 Budget Speech Debate: Mr. Molgat . • • . • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • . . . • • • • • • • • . • • • • . . • • • . • 1498 Mr.

Roblin • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • • . . • • . . . • • • • • • . • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • . 1500 Division . • • . • . • • . . • • • . • • . • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • . • • • • . • • . • • • • . • . . • • • • • • 1506 Bill 67, 75, 105........ . . • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • 1507

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Monday, August 3rd, l959 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees. HON. S, LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Eighth Report of the Select Standing Committee on Law Amendm ents. MR. CLERK: The Select Standing Committee on Law Amendments beg me to present the following as their Eighth Report: Your committee has considered Bills No . . 88,

an Act to amend the Fire Prevention Act; No. 93,

an Act to validate By-Law No. 59-8 of the Rural Municipality of East St. Paul, and in agreement between the Rural Municipality of East St. Paul and Imperial Oil Limited; No. 97,

an Act to amend the Brandon Charter No. 2; No. 99,

an Act to amend the Gaols Act, and has agreed to report the same without amendµienta , all of which is respectfully submitted. MR . . LYON: Mr. Speaker , I beg to move seconded by the HOO.ll\lrable Minister of Labour, that the report of the committee be received. Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declat"eQ tlll? µiotion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of motion Introduction of Bills Orders of the Day. MR. G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to address a question to the Honourable the First Minister.

In view of the controversy that has developed and has received considerable publicity in the newspapers with regard to the events at the time of Her Majesty's visit, would the Honourable First Minister undertake to publish a list of the guests who were invited to Government House for the rec!;lption? HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, I am sorry that I cannot do what my honourable friend asks, because the events in connection with the dinner at Government House were entirely within the purview of His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, and I think I have no power to produce such a list for my honourable friend. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to ask a question of the Honourable the Minister of Education. Is it correct that any school district who wish to do so, could proceed as of the lst of April to pay their school teachers according to the new

schedule of salaries? Is it correct, that if they did so they could collect from the Provincial Government the additional amounts up to that new schedule; and if that iii! oorrect, is it correct that the persons employed in teaching by the official trustee were not pa!d the additional amounts, and if so, why not? HON. STEWART E.

McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr, Speaker, the situa tion is that any school district can pay any teacher any salary that it wishes at any time' and can change that from month to month or whatever may be agreed upon between the school board and the school teacher, or school teachers concerned.

Now, as of April lst of this year, a new sche dule of school grants became effective, and despite agreements that had been made previously, some school districts -- and I wish to emphasize the word some -- school districts agreed to pay their teachers salaries larger than they had previously been paying them, because it turned out that the salaries they were paying previous to the lst of April were below the amount of grant that the district was entitled to receive as of April ·1st wider the new grant schedule.

If tP.e district did pay a larger salary as of April lst, they were entf,tled to receive the grant up to tP..e amount set out in the regulations, provided of course, that that smn was paid. Now it is, I µnderstand, correct that a number of school districts did increase t� aalaries paid to their teachers by reason of that fact, but equally a number of s6hool districts did not, taking the posi tion that they had agreements which were· effective until the end of June and that the agreements were to be adhered to.

So far as the official trustee is concerned, be had agreements to pay the teachers the salaries until the end of June, and so far as I am aware, those agreements were complied with and, of course, if in any case the amount of salary paid was less than the amount August 3rd, 1959. Page 1485

(Mr. McLean, cont'd.) ••• • of the new grant, the official trustee acting on behalf of the diE;trict concerned, only received the amount that was paid to the teacher. MR. MOLGAT: ••••• If I may, Mr. Speaker, a subsequent question to that. The difficulty has arisen whereby in certain districts people employed by the school boards have been paid the higher salaries, and people employed by the official trustee in the same general area have not. And this is within Divisions.

Is is possible now to make payments retroactive to adjust that, on behalf of the official trustee,and if so, does the government intend to take any action in this re gard? MR. McLEAN: Well Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that we should take any action any more than there are always school districts that pay different salaries to their teachers, and I am not aware that we are under any obligation to pay them all the same. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Second reading of Bill ••••• •••• MR.

ROBLIN: Before the Orders of the Day, may I just suggest if the House is agreeable that we would go into Committee of the Whole to consider those Bills passed in Law Amendments this morning. They're not on the Order Paper and we don't need to do it, but perhaps it would be convenient if we did it at this time. If there's no objection then, perhaps you would call Committee of the Whole, Sir. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE HON. JOHN THCMPSON (Minister of Labour) (Virden):. Mr. Speaker I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-G.meral, that Mr.

Speii.ker C:o now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into committee to consider the followil:g Bills: No. 88, No. 93, Np. 97 and No. 99. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House. MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for st. Matthews please take the Chair. MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF) (Radisson): I wonder, Mr. Chairman, before you start, would you read out the numbers of the Bills we are going to deal with; I didn't quite catch the numbers. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 88, 93, 97, 99.

Bill No. 88, Sections 1-8 passed,

preamble passed, title passed. MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, before it is finally passed, I don't intend to move that it be not reported at this stage because I made that motion in the Committee.

Inasmuch as we have no record of the proceedings there and have a record here, I would just like to record the fact once again that I think it's a mistake to proceed with this Bill at this time; I moved that it be not reported when we were in Committee this morning; that vote was not agreed to so I presume that it's the intention of the Government to pass it and I sban't delay the business by moving it over again. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let it go. Bill be reported. Bill No. 93, Sections 1, 2, 3,

Schedule A, B, passed; Bill be reported. Bill No. 97, Sections 1 and 2 passed,

preamble, title, Bill be reported --passed. Bill No. 99, Sections 1, 2 and 3 passed,

preamble, title, Bill be re ported - passed. Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. Maybe if someone was in the visitor's gallery, they would wonder who had the floor just now. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered certain Bills and asked me to report as follows: No. 88, No. 93, No. 97, No. 99, considered without amendments, and ask leave to sit again. MR, W. G. MARTIN (st. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move seconded by the Honourable Member for Roblin, that the report of the Committee be received. Mr.

Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. Bills Nos. 88, 93, 97 and 99 were each read a third time and passed. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Second reading of Bill No. 96, the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. Page 1486 August 3rd, 1959.

HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Q.C.) (Ministar of Agriculture) (Turtle Mountain): I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Bill No. 96,

an Act to facilitate the Development and Transmission of Water Supplies for Domestic Use of the People of the Province, be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, this was fully explained before, I think, on the resolution, but this is the Bill that provides the means whereby water is carried from the source to the municipality. In most cases it arises where we have a source either through a river or a mountain-shed or a dugout, and it is desired to transport it to the town for the purpose of introducing waterworks in the towns.

This provides the means of getting it from that conser vation dugout to the town itself whereby it is taken over by the town and sold to its users. This does not provide a source; this does not provide the system whereby it's distributed. But it does provide the intermediary whereby we get it from the source to the town, and the town does the distribution.

And that is the purpose of the Bill because in the past, in many many in stances, we have been able to find the necessary water, the municipality or town desired and were ready, willing and able financially to distribute it within their town, but they were unable to get it from the source to the town, This provides the know-how and also the financing in regard to it so that water may be sold to the town for distribution therein. It has the usual and necessary powers in order to carry out that function; MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, I have just two or three questions to ask the Honourable the Minister in this regard. Number one, is this a separate Board or are the functions going to be combined with some of the -- one of the other boards that we have set up at this session dealing with water or water conservation or land use; and secondly, does the Bill provide for development of the source, let us say, a dugout, such as the Honourable the Minister has men tioned in one case, or the development of a spring in order to make it available as a source of supply; and thirdly, would the Minister explain Clause 7 of

Section 6, the one dealing with the limitation on the use of powers with respect to local distribution systems. MR. PAULLEY: •. ••••.• I would like to make one or two comments in connection with the Bill. I appreciate along with the member and all the other members of the House how difficult it has been in respect of certain areas. to obtain potable water. I notice that the Bill empowers the Board to enter into negotiations with corporations or other agencies within or without the Dominion of Canada. I think the idea behind that, Mr. Speaker, is the bringing in of water from North Dakota. Now the question arises in my mind insofar as that

part is concerned, as to whether or not an international treaty would have to be arranged for in order that there would be a continuity of water from this particular source. I am wondering if the Minister could tell us what steps, if any, have been taken; or what steps, if any, are necessary in order that the areas who may receive water from a source outside the Dominion of Canada will be assured of a continuity of the supply. MR. MORRIS A. GRAY (lnkster): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister -- is whether the municipalities are participating in the cost of providing them with domestic water? MR.

WILLIS: ..• •.•.• I'm sorry. I didn't get the question. MR. GRAY: My question is whether the municipalities do assume financial responsibility for providing them with domestic water supply? MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, -- MR. WILLIS: If I might, ...... . MR. MILLER: I guess we're going to close the. debate. MR. WILLIS: Well, O.K. MR. MILLER: Fine. I just have one question. Is the Government participating in any way by way of direct grant to the operating district, or is this a loan, or guarantee? MR. WILLIS: If there are no other questions, I would like to treat them in the reverse order.

One, there is no direct grant, but it will help them with financing in the usual way. Two, the municipalities assume responsibility only for the distribution and for nothing else. (Interjection) Just the local responsibility, that's all, within their own boundaries, that's all. To refer back to the Leader of the Opposition -- there will be a separate board. Within the Bill itself you will find provision whereby they have all the facilities of the Department of August 3rd, 1959. Page 1487

(Mr. Willis, cont'd.) •••. Agriculture under their Water Conservation Act, so that they can co-operate with them. But there will be a separate board. What were your other questions? MR . CAMPBELL: My other one was subsection 7 of

section 6, dealing with the limitation on the use of powers with respect to local distribution systems. MR . WILLIS: Subsection 6, subsection 7? MR . CAMPBELL: The otherway round, Mr. Chairman. Subsection 7 of

section 6. MR. WILLIS: That's the one where any road allowance, highway, street, lane .. ..• (Interjection) Yes, this is just a limitation so that the government doesn't have to repair or handle in any way the local distribution system. That's all it means. . .... don't have any authority in regard to it. The plJ["pose of it, as I understand in the discussions we had, we didn't want the board drawn into the local distribution system, but rather that it should be handled by the local municipality. MR . CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, it seemed to me that this was an attempt to safeguard a local distributing system by saying that this board shall not take it over. On the other hand, it makes the exception of a part thereof is the source of the supply. So it seems to me that if they interfered or expropriated the source of supply or acquired it, take possession of it, operate it, that they would pretty badly cripple the local distribution system. MR. WILLIS: Well I think the whole purpose of this as we had discussions at the time '- was to departmentalize the act. 1. The source is one thing. 2.

To get it from the source to the municipality or town -- that's ours. And thirdly, that the town should handle it from there. That's the sole purpose of it. Set it up clearly -- the actual demarkation of respon sibility in regard to this Act. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR . WILLIS: In regard to the question of water supply, we have been doing that for sometime down in that area, haven't we? And there has been no difficulty in regard to water.

It's a little different really if you go to bring over goods or things like that; but down there for a long time we've been doing exactly that from North Dakota. MR . PAULLEY: May I just make this comment, Mr. Speaker, with your permission. !appreciate that, but I understand when this bill is enacted it maybe of a more permanent nature. Is it not so that they were just bringing it on a more or less hit or run basis before, but -- this bill envisions a more or less permanent set-up. Will that not make a difference? MR . MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, if I may .....•• my understanding is that the people of Niche have the authority to export water from the United Stated Government. And previously it was transpo rted by truck. Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 100. The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. MR . ·WILLIS: ..••••. This Bill again. We had almost .•.•.•. MR. SPEAKER: Did you move the motion? You better move it. MR . WILLIS: I beg to move, seconded by Minister of Education that Bill No. 100,

an Act to establish Crop Insurance Test Areas in Manitoba be now read a second time. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Those in favour ...•... MR . WILLIS: May I, Mr. Speaker, explain for the second time. I do think we've had quite a full discussion in regard to this on the resolution but as indicated at that time, the purpose of this Bill is to establish test areas in 1960 within the Province of Manitoba: To establish the feasibility and the practicability of crop insurance in Manitoba.

The reason we are doing it in this way is because this is the recommended method of several royal commissions in the past that we should do precisely that which we are now doing in order to establish the necessary facts, the costs to establish too, whether the people desire to have crop insurance in Manitoba on the basis on which it is feasible to make it available. And for these reasons we have test areas. The number will be decided by the Board after it has been appointed. Those within the test areas will be able· to have contracts of varying kinds during 1960.

The experts inform us that on the basis of results of that experiment, very soon without defining exactly the year, then they should have all the facts necessary in regard to crop insurance itself. In addition to that, we must have

an Act satisfactory to the Federal Government as well Page 1488 August 3rd, 1959.

{Mr. Willis, cont'd.) .... because we enter into an agreement with them in regard to crop insurance. And so to establish these facts which several royal commissions and many experts have said are necessary, we're going about it in the way in which they advocate, namely, to have test areas in 1960 to get the facts so that we may proceed, we hope, with a full scale of crop insurance within Manitoba. This does not guarantee that it is feasible. We do not guar antee that it will be acceptable to the people as such.

But we want to get all the facts so that, if possible, we may be able to have crop insurance in Manitoba. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to reiterate all the things that I said at the time that the principle of this Bill was considered in Committee of the Whole. But I think I must reiterate one thing, and that is, that if the Honourable the Minister and his colleagues had said the same things that he now says at the time when he and they were running an election campaign, I would have little or no complaint against the proceedings.

The fact is that he did not, nor did his colleagues, any of them that I ever heard of, make these reservations and qualifications at that time. We were going to have crop insurance -- crop insurance -- not test areas. And the fact of what these various commissions had said were known to our honourable friend just as well then as they are now. However, that's the only point that Pm going to even mention in that regard, and point out as well that my honourable friend back just a few short weeks ago was still telling us that he was hopeful we'd have crop insurance -- not test areas but crop insurance this year.

Well, I was pretty sure we wouldn't but I'm glad to see that the Honourable the Minister is at least going this far, that he's going to try some test areas. Now he says he'll have them next year -- some of them -- but the number will depend upon what this board decides. Well I think the Government should take some hand in that matter themselves and I know that according to the Bill that the board will be under the direction and control, etc., of the Minister of Agriculture and Conservation. This is a place ;that I think he should exercise his direction and control to see that a goodly number are set up.

Don't leave it entirely to the board. See that they are in fact sufficient in number to make a good test. And then as to the size of the test areas, I would like to know from the Minister what size is contemplated because I suppose that the Government has not reached this stage without giving consideration to such important details as those. I notice that insurable crops in this sense means only wheat, oats and barley. I presume.they intend to limit it to those three grains for the time being.

Now I know that generally speaking this is the principle stage of the bill but there are so many different principles included in a bill of this kind Mr. Speaker, that I would point out that in

section 7, subsection 2, it is provided that -- or subsections 1 and 2 that "notice of loss" has to be given to the board and then the board sends out a form to the insurer.

Well now surely, surely Mr. gpeaker, the procedure would be to follow the practice of the established insurance company and have a "notice of loss" go to the insurer at the time of his contract, because I don't see any point in the insurer having to give within three days "notice of loss", and then I think it's within seven days that the board must ... or the board sends out immediately a "proof of loss" form; and then within seven days he must send that in.

Because farmers in the House will know, I'm sure, that these crops have a tendency to pick up particu larly if the weather is propitious after the loss has occurred. And the sooner that this inspec tion is made, the better I think from the farmers' point of view. But regardless of that, surely the "notice of loss" could be forwarded to the insured with the policy. Then I notice, Mr. Speaker, in

section 11 that the Managing Director -- as I read it quickly and we haven't had this Bill before us very long -- I'm not objecting to that because after all I think the Minister's perfectly fair about this that they did have to wait for final details mtil the federal legislation came down though I wo uld have thought they could have been further advanced -- but it is late when we get such important legislation as this, and I may not have understood the various clauses completely, but as I read

section 11, it seems to me that the Managing Director shall have the authority to approve or reject applications. Surely Mr. gpeaker, that should be done only by the Board. Surely one man in an administrative capacity should not be allowed to re ject applications. Approve them, I would think that would be largely a formal matter parti cularly inasmuch as these are test areas, I think he would want them in, but rejections I would think that only the Board should have that pow er. Then in

section 17 under Appeals, it seems to me as though under that

section that the appeal can be made only on matters arising out of

section 6. And

section 6 deals with a very August 3rd, 1959. Page 1489

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) .••• limited sphere as I read it. It appears to me to be not an appeal against an award as such but just an appeal against the fact of whether an insurer's contract should be voided because of some poor husbandry or neglect on his part. Surely if there's going to be an Appeal Board, the appeal should lie with regard to the award as well. Now there are quite a few other points but I don't intend at this time, Mr. Speaker, to raise them. but these that I have mentioned I think are actually matters of principle. MR. PETER WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, I just rise to give my own observation.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition said that we didn't have much time to study this bill, but as far as I'm concerned I rushed it through and I've noticed in the bill it says hail and drought and flood and so on. But it does not mention in the bill, for example, you will have a wet spring and it will be raining every second day and it's not a flood, it's not a hail, it's not a hail, it's not a drought and yet you cannot see it. And that's exactly what happened this spring in our area.

And the bill doesn't seem to provide such a clause in there except it says drought, flood, frost, wind including tornados .. .•..•... So ;I thought maybe this is a good observation. Also as the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition states it's wheat, oats and barley. I would at least suggest to have flax included because that variety of grain is l.argely sown. And as far as the agency in a crop loss, it states that the agency shall take into account the stage of maturity of the crop. Well, I would like to have some explanation on the "maturity stage".

It could be -- what I am thinking in my mind, it could be four inches tall and it could be destroyed, whether the farmer would qualify under the same compensation as it would be two feet high and destroyed. So that's what I would like to hear the Honourable Minister ex plain maturity stage. And payment of premium -- the application has to be in not later than 20th of April of the year. Well it seems to me that 20th of April is early seeding and I must say that I do not recollect that in our Interlake area anybody or very rarely anybody sows be fore April 20th.

Then the farmer would be handicapped whether he's going to insure his land - the one that he is going to seed -- he doesn't even know whether he's going to seed that land which may come up under favorable conditions in May 15th or May 20th. So that's the obser vation I will .•...•.. And then the promissory note for the amount of premium with 6% interest. N> w as I understand this bill, the farmer would have to pay his premium before the seeding time. And if he is in financial difficulties, he can sign a promissory note and then he is penalized to pay the 6% interest in the late fall.

I would suggest that I believe the farmers would very much agree to pay their premium on the bushel basis when they deliver their grain. And other observation I make "notice of loss". The farmer is given only three days or not later than three days to report a loss. Well not all the farmers live on the same land that created the loss, and by the time the farmer gets out onto his next work or two miles away or three miles away -- and some have them 20 miles away -- that wouldn't even give him a chance to come back and report the loss; and he would be overdue. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I believe the Bill will come to the committee stage and there will be more discussion. But one observation I make, the crop insurance is long overdue and with such legislation as the Federal Government brought is not much help to the farmer. It does not even go as far as the P. F. A. A.

And I personally believe that this Government would sit down with the farm organization and could arrive to a plan -- to a crop insurance plan rather than study it, because you may be studying the test areas for a year or two and then they may not prove satisfactory and·the crop insurance scheme would not be ...•.••. to the ..... farmers.

And I believe as far as the farm organization people are concerned, they have a lot of information about discussing the crop insurance with the farmer and I believe they would be just too glad to sit down with the Government of Manitoba and discuss and pass on these figures or whatever it may be. Well naturally we would have to take it for granted th at the Federal Government would have to revise its own opinion as far as their legislation is concerned.

But in my own opinion, in my own view, I don't see no crop insurance in Manitoba not even in 1961, because in 1960 a study will be held and then possibly it's not going to be satisfactory for the whole of Manitoba and the farmers may be in disagreement and then we may have an other study, and these studies may be prolonged further as in the past. Now I do not want to play politics -- as I said I'm here to represent the people and try to Page 1490 August 3rd, 1959.

(Mr. Wagner, cont'd.) .•.. do the best job as possible - but I must refer myself to the Throne Speech of March 12th, and it says "it is intended that legislation will be introduced to provide for a system of crop insurance for the benefit of the agricultural industry; these measures will be designed to co-ordinate and supplement the crop insurance proposal of the Dominion Government. That's fine. That, in my own understanding this was meant for the last session, and also the Throne Speech had it this session.

Now this test area came up - a study -- and it won't be in the spring session, and I hope I'm wrong, that it won't be even in the next -- 1961 session. MR . EDMOND PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister and I'm asking the question I suppose because of my limited knowledge of the English language; you have defined certain words, designated perils -- hail, drought, flood, frost, winds, disease and pests. Now with respect to pests, to me I think this word should be described also, defined somehow. Does that include deer and ducks?

Generally speaking to me they're not pests, but they might cause damage to crops - heavy damage as we've heard statements made in the House by diff erent members in the past. Ducks have caused a lot of damage to crops and so did deer. And I wonder if the word "pests" under (

i) here includes ducks and deer and maybe other animals? MR. KEITH ALEXANDER (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a comment on the statement made by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye last Thursday when he was speak ing on crop insurance and he said, "I refer to the farm crop insurance plan and also the agri cultural credit plan as two pieces of farm policy which were used for political "hay" primarily and for no other purpose" . Mr. Speaker, I think that statement is utterly false.

Because I think here we have a honest effort by a government to do what it thinks should be.done; what needs to be done; doing what they think is going to be of benefit to the farmers of the Province of Manitoba. Now I know I can't convince my honourable friend, he will still say that this is political "hay". At least he will have to grant me the fact that we are making 11hay11 and his party didn't even get the mower out of the machine shed. I have been surprised at some of the criticism from the Liberal Party -- not because of criticism but the line that it took.

I wouldn't have been surprised if they had stood up in their seats -- or stood up out of their seats and said that they disagreed with this, that they didn't think it could be done and that they didn't think it should be done. I think then they would have been consistent with their past record, and we could admire them and respect them for their views. But this complete about turn that they've taken and now says that this isn't enough, it's not fast enough -- I find it very hard to follow their line of reasoning along those lines. They've had an awful great change of mind in the very near past.

I think that this Government is definitely doing the right thing in pro ceeding along the lines that they are, because we are trying to insure that we give this province a proper crop insurance plan that is going to work -- not going into it helter skelter in an effort to make a big show at this present session. We're going into it cautiously, and I'm sorry if that word "cautiously" offends my Scotch friend across the way.

We're going into it cautiously for this year because by so doing, we think that within the next year or two, we will have a far better plan and a better plan for the betterment of the farmers than we would have by going into it right across the province at the present time. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question. MR . WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just in closing the debate mention some of the questions which were asked. The Leader of the Opposition asked as to how many test areas there would be ;and I agree with him that they had to be adequate.

There will have to be ade quate tests areas in regard to it or else it's not a complete test, and I think the Government will see that that is the case. I want to make it very clear though in regard to all the questions which the Leader of the Opposition asked that after all we are not escaping responsibility in regard to this matter. We recognize at once that the ultimate responsibility is that of the government and that we will have to take it even although we have a Board set up to run crop insurance within Manitoba.

There has been long discussion in regard to the size of test areas and it is the opin ion of those whom we have consulted that they would be of varying sizes, depending upon the location, depending upon whether they thought it would be an adequate test for that which they sought, of those areas such as those who have it frequently, those who have it in frequently, so that you'd get a cross-section proper which would bring about a proper result so that we would August 3rd, 1959. Page 1491

(Mr. Willis, cont'd.) .•.• know that we had the information that is necessary. In regard to the "notice of loss" of course, that must come in soon because otherwise you have a big change, and therefore, the provisions which were set up there 'l.fter noting what was done in regard to hail insurance, and some of the sections came from there, but not all; but that will deserve a look. I think, too, that as far as the approval or rejection is concerned that we'll have to have another look too, as to the General Manager. I'd like to look into that and also the question of "appeals" as far as the award is concerned.

And something might be done in that regard but that's a committee matter which we'll take up at that time. The member for Fisher pointed out that where there's no seeding there would be no award but this is crop insurance and no crop -- no award. It must be on that basis. With regard to flax, flax is not a major crop. If you go into minor crops such as flax, you'll probably have to go into a dozen other crops as well, and it was thought advisable, at least for test areas, that we shouldn't go into these minor crops such as flax.

The question of maturity of the crops of course, would determine the value of the crop. It may very well be that if they were hailed out and the crop was very short, they could reseed for the loss, therefore the loss wouldn't be so great because there wouldn't be much maturity there. On the other hand, if it was ju st ready for harvesting, the value of the crop would be much better than if it was just an inch high. But it could be destroyed in either case and, therefore, the value of the crop would not be as great if it had just been seeded a few days and there was the opportunity of reseeding again.

In regard to the premium -- April 20th -- I think that is quite satisfactory because they can give their note at that time in regard to crop insurance and, therefore, the question of cash on April 20th is not a difficulty. And of course, 6% is the incentive which is placed there so that the' Government would not have to wait for its cash. It isn't fair to have some people pay on April 20th and other not pay until October, and not pay any interest. Therefore we pay what is close to being government interest and that's 6%.

May I tell the honourable member that we have been in consultation with the farm organi zations in regard to crop insurance. We have been in touch with the farm organizations even today and yesterday, and we had them in previous to that with discussions in regard to crop insurance, and we have largely their views and they have been asked to attend the committee meeting tomorrow to express their views as well. So that I think that has been covered com pletely. In regard to the question of the Member for Carillon as to whether pests -- I think many pe ople might have different

definitions in regard to that -- but I would not want to get into poli tical

definitions in that regard but I think it would be correct to say that it doesn't include ducks and deer. But it does include bugs, aphids and things of that sort. That's the purpose of it but I think that it does not include ducks and deer. Mr. gpeaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 101 -- the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare. MR . McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture that Bill No. 101,

an Act to amend the Dental Association Act be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR . McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, this Act has two provisions. The first is to enable the Tu ntal Association of Manitoba to use its funds for the establishment of a dental clinic, where persons will be able to secure certain dental services at charges that will be satisfactory.

It is I believe, considered that in certain instances, certain dental services are fairly costly and the Dental Association proposes to use its funds to establish a clinic in the City of Winnipeg, to which any person in Manitoba will have access for these services. The management of the clinic and the fees to be charged by it are to be established by a committee of management comprising two persons appointed by the Minister of Health and Welfare and four persons ap pointed by the Dental Association itself.

Now ordinarily the ·Dental Association could establish this clinic without any reference to this Legislature except for the fact that under their present Act and by-laws, they do not have the authority to use their funds for a purpose of this nature, and essentially the Act is to enable the Association to use its funds for this purpose. And it is therefore of interest to note that this clinic and this plan will not ·cost the Province of Manitoba Page 1492 August 3rd, 1959.

(Mr. McLean, cont'd.) •.• • any money. It will be paid for entirely out of funds provided by the Dental Association and monies collected by the clinic for the services which it performs there. And as I say, in a sense, the only purpose of having this particular provision in the Bill before the House, is to give the authority which the Dental Association requires for the use of its funds in that manner.

The second part of the Act is to enable the Dental Association to establish a body which in a sense will be part of the Dental Associationkn own as clinical technicians and to provide for their training through arrangement with the University of Manitoba, and I presume parti cularly at the Dental College. The plan here is that a dental technician would be one who, under the direct authority and instruction of a dentist, would perform such services with respect to patients as would come within his experience and training.

And the important feature is that these people will work only with dentists, and as I say, perform their work under the direction of the dentist. This is not to be confused with those who, as part of their work, operate labor atories in which dentures are manufactured and other things of that nature. These persons - clinical technicians -- will be people who will work in a sense in the office of a dentist or den tists. This is a plan which was recommended in the report made for the Government of Mani toba by Dr. K. J. Paynter, in 1956.

Again the purpose of the Bill -- this provision in the Bill is to enable the Dental Association to establish this branch as it were, of their Association and to make arrangements for the necessary training to be given to persons who wished to en gage in this work. It should be pointed out that it is not -- these persons would not do anything that a dentist himself cannot already do, but they would act as -- I believe the expression used in the Paynter Report -- is an extra arm to the dentist in the carrying out of the work which he performs. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Speaker -- excuse me.

This Bill, to me, seems rather peculiar, in that it seems to do two things. With the first I have no objection; I think it is an admirable venture for the Dental Association to take. I think that that has been drawn to the attention of the House on numerous occasions in the past as to the need for extention of dental services, both here in Greater Winnipeg and also in the rest of the province, and I suggest that it is a very good thing that the Dental Association is now progressing along that line.

However, in respect of the second of the two provisions in this Bill, it seems to me that the simple explanation of the Minister of Education in respect of this Bill is not sufficient. I recall -- I think it was some three years ago, two or three years ago, we had two Bills deal ing with the question of dental technicians and their control over -- by the dental profession be fore us. At that time, if I recall correctly, the dentists had suggested with different termin ology, something akin to what is proposed in this Bill.

And.at that time the Legislature re jected both Bills with the object in view of having the dentists and denturists getting together to draw up a sort of a Bill which may be acceptable to both. Now here we are on the day before we expect the House to adjourn. I might say for the information of the Honourable the Minister of Education that the debate that I referred to, two or three years ago, extended over a period of two or three weeks. We all had ample oppor tunity of considering all aspects of the Bill. It seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that due to the lateness of the session: particularly, that we will not have ample opportunity of considering, the way we should consider as legislators, the.full effect of

section 14 (

b) of this Bill. I under stand, Sir, that in recent months -- and I'm not referring to it because it's often referred to by my particular group -- but I understand that in the past session of the Legislature of the Province of Saskatchewan, that there was a bill making amendment to the Dental Act there in troduced and proclaimed. But it was only after full consideration by not only the dentists but the dental technicians or denturists and all members of the Legislature. Now we received, as we were entering into the Assembly this afternoon Mr. 8Peaker, a telegram over the signature of Mr. H.

Mailley, the president of the dental technicians in Manitoba, drawing to our attention that in respect of their organization, it seems to me that they did not receive any prior notice of this particular Bill in its present form -- The dental technicians in Manitoba, the Association of Dental Technicians in Manitoba, per Mr. H. Mailley -- present 30 members. Item No. 11 on this telegram tells us that "since no notice of this Bill was given us, and we have hours and hours of presentation and argument, and there is no urgency, we suggest that this Bill be put over until the next session." Now, I don't know, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not August 3rd, 1959. Page 1493

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd.) .... the government would give consideration to that. Personally I. am not going to formally propose a motion of that nature at this particular time, but I would suggest to my honourable friends opposite, that this is a matter of very vital importance. In recent months we have had illustrations drawn to our attention in the press of individuals who have been fined because of the fact that they have had work performed by dental technicians contrary to .the other Act.

And I suggest, Sir, that unless we get a r eally truly good Act that's going to take care of all, or at least most of the problems that we have had here in Manitoba in respect to treatment by dental technicians -- denturists, that we are going to have still more trouble.

I might say too, possibly the Honourable the Minister of Education is not aware of this -- I'm sure that the Honourable the First Minister is -- but in all of the deliberations on the Bills that were before the House before, there were no party Whips restraining the Members of the Legislature on this particular Bill -- or those Bills I should say, were Bills in which exeryone expressed their own personal opinions on it. No, I believe Mr. Speaker the First Minister is correct, it was not introduced as a government Bill.

But I might point out to him and he knows it as well as I -- I'm not stupid in everything -- that I raised the question this morning, I raised the question this morning, if he recalls, in Law Amendments in respect of the Bill on the amendments of the Liquor Control Commission or Liquor Control Act, and the Chairman, supported by the Honourable the First Minister said in respect of that Bill, that even though it was introduced by the Honourable the Attorney-General, there was no Whip in sofar as the members were concerned. There may not be a parallel between the two bills; I'm not going to argue that point, Mr.

Speaker, but I merely point out that when we were considering the bills in respect of the dental profession and the dental technicians, that party Whips was not on it and suggest that the same thing should happen in respect of this bill. But apart from all of that.

Apart from all of that, I think the members of the Legisla� ture will recognize that this is a very, very vital and important matter and that we have not had sufficient time to consider all of the implications of this Bill, and I would suggest to the Honourable the Minister of Education, who is sponsoring the Bill in the absence of the Honour able the Minister of Health and Welfare, that those points should be given earnest consideration. MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. Johns): Mr.

Speaker, this is a matter which divided a legis' lature which discussed this last very very much, and certainly there is a good deal of division amongst the people who are interested in this question. Now I'm sure all members of the Legislature have had representations made to them during this session and before this session by both sides in this matter; and I want _to say frankly Mr. Speaker, that my own personal sym pathy -- if that's the right word -- has been with the Dental Association.

I am not convinced that people who are not trained as dentists can do the job which dentists can do, and I have told the dental technicians that this is the way I feel about it. At the same time, I think that the dentists and possibly in "14 (a)" they are trying to face up to this problem. A good deal of the feelings for the dental technicians has been the feeling on the part of a good number of people that it simply costs too much to get this work done by dentists. Now it may be that

Section 14 (

a) of this Bill would go a long way to meeting that objection towards the exclusive monopoly by the dentists. . Now ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, I would be disposed to, 1·think, to vote for this Bill. If it were to come up in the regular way during the regular session when we could get some dis cussion and hear representations from both sides and probably there will be representations from the public that is concerned. But I want to say frankly, Mr.

Speaker, that if we have to vote on this at this late stage -- a day or two before the House is closing -- that despite the fact that ordinarily I would vote for the Bill, I would feel that I would have to vote against it because I don't see, Mr. Speaker, how we can get representation from the people who are in te rested in this. As I read 1114 (b)", it certainly puts the control in the hands of the Dental Association of the work and everything else which the dental technicians do. Now that may be a good thing -- that may be a desirable thing, but it would seem to me, Mr.

Speaker, that if �e have lived with the situation as it 'til now, that we can live with 'til next February or March, when we might have adequate discussion of the whole matter before we settle it. MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, this morning the First Minister argued with my Leader about the understanding of financing the province. I kept quiet; I didn't think that the Minister was right but there is something which may be a matter of opinion -- whether my leader was page 1494 August 3rd, 1959.

(Mr . Gray, cont' d. ) .. •• right or the First Minister was right. But when it comes to medical profession or dental profession, I am inclimd to stay with the man that knows best. I don't know anything about dentals; I don't know what harm or what good the dental technician does or does not do . I know one thing is that probably they are keeping the price of dentures down to enable some people who cannot afford to pay the high price of dentures and in this case perhaps , the dental technicians may do a quite a bit of help .

But how can I, a layman, sa y that here is a profession whi ch is an important profession, almost everyone contributes to this profession, how can we say that the dentists don't know anything about it, and we could only favour the dental technicia ns ? A MEMBER: Nobody said that . MR. GRAY: So in view of this, I feel that I think there is time enough to have the den tists come over tomorrow morning, the same as the others -- they would know about it -- and let them present their case and so the technicia ns , and then we'll judge by its merits . If I have to make a decision today, Mr .

Speaker, I must make a decisio n in favour of the dentists . But I could be convinced that there is some system that could be worked out where both will be happy and the health of the patient will be protected -- after all this is my only concern, is what is good for the patient. There might be some justifica tion for dental technicians so I say I'm willing to support on second reading.

I think it 's not too late to -- if we have the in dulgence and the patience to -- give some others like the Manufactu rers Associa tion and the industry a chance to present their case, and if you could give a chance to present the case of those who want to extend their hours in the beer parlors -- I think this is just as important to me as the oth ers . I'm going to support for second reading and I would ask that the two parties be.notified tonight -- notified first thing in the morning, to appear before the Committee to morrow . MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (Burrows) : Mr .

Speaker, in the past ten years or so, this has been one of the most controversial topics in thi s House. It has been. And the fact that the government saw fit to introduce a bill , I think has some merit . There's no question about it. Possibly they felt that since the Dental College has been establish ed, since it is the customary thing to have dental clinics operate within distance of the College , no doubt the first part of thi s Bill definitely has merit because it will provide patients for the dental students . But I feel that the second

section of this Bill is one that we have diffe red in this House in the past, Sir, right across the House , it has never been a party policy , and we voted on it the way we felt we wanted to , but we are fully aware of the bad publicity that has come about between the Manitoba Dental Assoc iation and the dental technicians for the past two or three years . There have been charge s and counter-charge s time and time again and it's certainly not good for both professions as far as the average man is concerned.

But whether this Bill will curtail the bootlegging of denture� or not is something I feel that we'll have to discuss possibly in second reading, provided we get a number of people who will come tomorrow morn ing. I only hope that the represe ntatives of the dental technician s· will be able to be here and give their opin ion. But the thing is why was this particular Bill presented at the last moment. I believe for the past two months we have been aw are that there was some Bill to be presented by the Dental Associa tion and I can't understand why this has been given to us in the dying moments of this House .

It is something that used to be the practice of the previous government especially controver sial bills, and I just wondered whether the Conservative s are enhancing their reputation in that manner;- Because I feel that this Bill needed a great deal of thought and dis cussi on as it did in the past and I feel that this should have been presented at least several weeks ago.

Now the only question I have , Sir, and whether you'll be able to answer that or somebody else from the Dental Ass ocia tion, is that on the basis of 14 (b), the way I read this Bill , that the Dental Assoc iation will have complete monopoly, complete monopoly over the dental tech nicians in this province . In every aspect -- in every aspect as far as the training and possibly anything else that is to be done. Now I might be corrected on that , Sir . On the basis of this it means that the Dental Assoc iation will have complete monopoly as far as all dental work or dental care given to any patient. · MR. J. G.

COBB (Arthur) : Mr . Speaker, I would like to agree with the Leader of the CCF Party in regards to the importance and vital necessi ty of this Bill at the present time, August 3rd, 1959. Page 1495

(Mr. Cobb, cont'd. ) •••• but not in the same manner as he took it. Now, Mr . Speaker, we all know that a dental college has been recently inaugurated in our province and that we need den tists in our province . I've heard enough discussi on around this House in the past month or two to lead me to believe that considerable of the Greater Winnipeg members have a leaning towards the denturists in a certain respect. Personally I have not. My first consideration is this , that we need dentists in this province in the rural areas . And if we cannot have this dental college work, we are not going to get them .

If the denturists are allowed to run wild, the way they have been doing and they are, in my regards , moonli ghting -- because I believe most of them have other work and they do the work in their off-hours -- I think we have to do something to correct that. And I believe that this Act will do it. When you take areas of the province, and there are lots of them, where you do not find maybe more than one, if you're lucky to have one, dentist in areas from 50 to 100 miles wide , it is time that you've got to give some consideration to it.

Now the people who are at the extremitie s of this province are not able to travel to the City of Winnipeg to take the advantages that the so-called denturists have been giving to the people in the City from their standpoint of price. And while price is a considera tion, that is not all. We all know that there are certain considerations that a person should have to that sort of work that the dental technicians have not got . In other words they are not qualified to do the work that dentists do and some of them are attempti ngto do it.

As a result there has been cases, I understand, of where there has been trouble from the stand point of people getting certain things wrong with their mouth that they wouldn't have had if they had gone to dentals instead of den turists. Now if we are to allow this denturist organization to continue as they have done in the province or to increase, I think it is going to affect our dental college and as a result it is going to affect the needs , particularly of the rural areas , unless that college continues.

You, in the City I believe have sufficient dentists to take care of your ttoubles ;w e in the rural areas have not. It is hard enough to get people into the rural areas to do that class of work without having the pos sibility of the dental college being affected by allowing these denturists to carry on the way they have done in the past .

And I think it is the duty of this House to see this Act passed, because with the passing of this Act, it will allow the Dental Assoc iation to put into being the means of supplying at a better price the work of repairing, providing dental neces sitie s to the public at large, no matter where they may be in the Province of Manitoba, at a better price and I believe, at pos sibly a better price than the denturists are giving at the present time . MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, may I point, as a point of privilege to the honourable gentleman.

I don't believe I ever suggested any extension of the work being done by the den turists , but rather that there should be co-op eration between them. There has never been any suggestion as far as I'm concerned -- MR. COBB : I made no such suggestion ! I only suggested that I •..•. You said that this Bill was vital and impor tant and I said I agreed, but on a different basis than what you did. That was the only thing I said in that respect. · MR . McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this will teach me to stick to Education . I think, Mr.

Speaker , there is a misunder standing concerning the second portion of the Bill. It does not deal in any way with dental technicians or with denturists, which is a term that has been used during this debate. This deals only with the establishment of a new group, I pre sume , of clinical technicians . Perhaps the use of the word 'technicians' tends to confus'e this. But the situation would be simply this, that I might take the course that would be pres cribed and take employment in a dentist's office and under his direction and control, perform certain tasks . Really Mr.

Speaker, I think it' s not much mor e, it's something mo re, but not too much more, than what the dentist's nurse now does in the dentists' office, and it hasn't anything what ever to do with dental technicians who are people who operate what are commonly known as den tal laboratories of their own quite separate and apart from dental offices , and who make false teeth dentures and that sort of thing. And I believe, as I understand it, that denturists are people who do somewhat the same type of work. But they cmiduct their business quite separate and apart from the dentists' office .

Now this relates only to a person to be called a clinical technician who would work, after a period of training, who would work in the dentists office, in doing certain things as I say, som ewhat similar, I would assume , to what is now done by a nurse in a dentists' office. So I think that there is nothing here, and the Member for Burrows Page 1496 August 3rd, 1959.

(Mr . AfcLean, cont'd.) ••.. asked a very direct question. He said, does this mean that the Dental Assoc iation will have a monopoly over dental technicians? The answer is 'no'. It doesn't deal with dental technicians. It only deals with these people who will be clinical tech nicians . It only deals with these people who will be clinical technicians and working and em ployed in the office of a dentist. Now Mr.

Speaker , I have noted what has been said regarding this coming somewhat late in this sessi on and we have no , perhaps too strong an opinion on the matter , it has been dis cussed with interested parties, according to my information, by the Minister of Health and Welfare. We'll be glad to consider it from every angle in Committee . Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No . 102. The Honourable the Minister of Agri culture . MR. WILLIS: Mr . Speaker I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Education that Bill No . 102,

an Act to amend the agriculture credit act be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. '¥JLLIS: Mr. Speaker , these contain some minor amendments. They rose entirely because our Legislative Counsel pointed out to us that it was not clear that we could charge only four percent interest to young farmers, and bec ause of that, this was introduced. There are, however , tacked on to it two or three others which in practice were thought advisable.

Previously provision had not been made for family farms which are now incorporated, and many of them in the country, who would be entitled to receive loans and therefore, that family farm is defined and also the family farm corporation, just to bring them in. Four percent is now made clear as we desired to do so . Deferment of principal -- there was a lack of clarity in regard to that, the power to defer the payment of principal. Also there was the

section in there which said that there would be no compound interest, and that is wiped out. because in every other corporation ..... and loaning company, it is there . Many of them, of cour se, put a penalty on; we don't put any penalty on whatever. This again makes clear the authority of the manager to approve a loan which was not entirely clear before . Just clarification along those lines . MR. GRAY: Mr . Speaker, .... interest is four percent, is it? MR. WILLIS: Yes -- Yes . Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. Bill No . 103 was read a second time.

Bill No . 104 was read a second time. MR. HAWRYLUK: Mr . Speaker , the fact that you've raised the fees from $10. to $25 . for real estate agents and $5 to $15 for real estate salesmen, is this something that has been suggested entirely by your government, or is it something that you felt had to be introduced because of reasons of your own; or is this a suggestion from the Real Es tate Association operating in Manitoba? I mean, what are the reasons back of it; is it just to raise funds - extra funds for the government? MR. GRAY: May I also ask a question similar to this in mother way.

Isn't this Bill introduced in good faith by the Minister to eliminate new people who want to be in the real estate business ? We know quite a bit from these incorporations , where they have the full right to admit or allow by themselves anyone to carry on the business under which they are incorporated. Now we have here in the city, or anywhere else in the province,, real estate people , it's true, that have been in the business for many years .

But there are also young people coming up , and what I'm worrying about is that this Bill may have a tendency to do away with the younger man and the less experienced.man, who wants to go in and pursue this business , and they could be eliminated by disqualifying them by those who incorporate this Bill -- not by the Government, but by those who incorporate the Bill -- because I understand that they have to recommend the new candidates to them. In other words, the amount of money -- the increase -- doesn't worry me a bit, it doesn't mean anything. The question is whether there is any discrimination in this Bill .

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it's clear that real estate agents are -- and salesmen -- are handling a greatly increased volume of property plus a greatly increased value, and it is felt to be a more reasonable fee as proposed in the Bill; and the status of both August 3rd, 19 59. Page 1497

(Mr. Thompson, cont'd.) •..• the agent and the salesman are increased by the .other.am end ment to the Bill which provides for an examination in the discretion of the Utility Board for agents or salesmen. With respect to the question of discrimination, I cannot see that there is any discrimination against any of the agents or salesmen in this enactment -- this proposed Bill. Mr . Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion on the proposed motion of the Honourable the First Minister,. that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty; and the proposed motion of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition in amendment thereto. The Honour able Member for ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, before going into the budget matters themselves, I wish to make a complaint about the manner in which we are now receiving a large number of bills, at this the end of the session.

Now the Leader of the CCF Party brought this up specifically with regard to one bill, but this actually applies to quite a number of bills, and I submit, important bills; bills in which the members here may have very specific views, and also people outside the House have very specific views. On Friday we had, to mention two, com ing up for second reading. No . 32 Vacations with Pay and No. 98 , Liquor Control. Now those were in Law Amendments Committee this morning; it was quite obvious that there are very positive views on them.

I think it's also fair to say that the people who are interested did not have sufficient notice, and as a result when they appeared this morning, were not prepared. Now, I will be fair with the Government and admit that they agreed to stand them over until tomorrow in Law Amendments, when they can have further discussions, but I still say, Mr. Speaker, that these should have come in long before this in this session. Today we have six new bills appearing before us on the Orders of the Day for second reading. And again these, in many cases, are bills on which people outside the House may have very specific views.

I think it's not fair to them, it does not give them time to prepare, it does not give them time to appear at Law Amendments with their arguments as they would like to do and make their representation, and I feel that insofar as the members are concerned, once we are operating on the

schedule that we now are following -- that is of as many sessions in the day as the Government likes -- today for example , three -- and Law Amendments Com mittee wedged in between -- that it does not give adequate time for consideration of these im portant bills.

The Government can very well say, "Well , we didn't say the session was going to end now" , and I will admit that too; no one has said the session is going to end tomorrow or the day after, and conceivably it can carry on till next week or the week after, but the fact is that the pace at which we're operating right now still does not permit us to have a full discus sion; and certainly, insofar as the people who come and make representations to us, they feel that the session is coming to an end.

In fact, this morning, I think of all those who spoke at Law Amendments Committee that has made representations, every one of them prefaced his remarks by saying, "I don't want to take up the time of the Committee at this stage of the session, " and then proceeded with what they had to say, and I think that they are not in a position to do a proper job.

I say this, that in view of the fact that this is the second session this year, in view of the fact that in the Throne Speech at the March session the Government had �dicated the largest part of the legislation that it's now presenting to us , I see no reason why the bills were not ready lEfore this. These were presumably ready for the March session. How else did the Government intend to run that session, if it didn't have its bills ready? If it did -- we defeated you, quite true.

In other words then, either you anticipated defeat or you intended to dissolve the House yourselves -- you had no intention of presenting those bills at that time. Because if you had had that intention, I submit that your bills were ready in Feb ruary and March, and I see no reason now why at this state in this session we are getting important bills presented to us in this way. I can only interpret it as a deliberate attempt to give us these bills at the last minute andget them through with the least amount of discussion.

Now returning to the budget itself, this morning the First Minister gave us a partial re ply to the statements made to date. He saved the reply to the comments made by the leader of our group, I presume, for either later on this afternoon or this evening. But he proceeded to give a :partial reply to the Honourable Leader of the CCF Party and the Member for st. John's. Page 1498 August 3rd, 1959.

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd. ) •... And he ridiculed them in his reply. Now I don't want to get into this particular prtn;:re fight of the two groups, but I must sa y that I did not feel that he gave an adequate reply to the statements tney had. :wade. I want to remind the Honourable the First Minister tbat his friends in Ottawa some two, three years ago , used exactly the same argument against the previous government. This was a statement that they made all acro ss the country, on exactly the same basis .

And the circumstances in Ottawa at that time are the same as the circumstances in Manitoba to day, and I certainly don't feel that the reply that he gave this morning is an adequate reply. He simply ridiculed the statements that were made and let it go at that . Insofar as the budget itself is concerned, Mr . Speaker, I don't propose to go into it in a detailed analysi s. This was done earlier by the leader of our own group. My obj ections to it are the same as his . I object to the -- shall I say -- the least informal accounting proce dures of my honourable friend the First Minister.

I object to the fact that he is not giving the full facts to the public; he is gloss ing over a great deal; he is again , as he has done, trying to pretend that things are different from what they actually are . I will say this for him, he is consistent, beca use that is exactly what he did during the election campaign -- that's exactly what he has done so far in this session. We had our discussi on under Bill 35 ; that's exactly the situation that existed there.

Now in this particular budget speech, for example , he com pares last yea r's estimates and this yea r's estimates on an even footing -- and I submit that that cannot be done. Because in last yea r's estimates were at least $10, 000,0 00 . which could be considered as Capital and which this year is considered as Capital . Now how can you con sider then those two estimates as the same, because they don't cover the same type of expen ditures.

Similarly , when he is discus sing the debt picture, I think he neglects to show exactly the borrowings the government will be involved in this year; and that is important to the people of Manitoba. The Capital Supply Bill indicates some $58,0 00, 000 . in total. In addition to that there's a $33 ,0 00, 000 . that was voted last fall.

And in addition to that, the item which -- I will frankly admit when we were discussing the Capital Supply Bill -- he did say this covered part of the expenditure, but when discussing the total debt or the borrowings, this was not covered -- is the additional $26 , OOO, OOO. which the F\l.blic Utilities are going to borrow on the basis of past appropriations . And this makes a total borrowing this year , that is in the period since my honourable friend has been elected until now which is a period of some thirteen months, a total borrowing of $1 18 , OOO, OOO.

Now this was completely neglected in his presentation, and I suggest that in making a budget speech of this type the public should be made fully acquainted __ __ _ ____ of the operations . That is the only way in which we can continue to have sound government in this province . Now my honourable friend, as I said will no doubt be giving a reply later on today to the comments which my leader has made , and I would ask him to make a complete reply this time, not proceed -- as he can do very well, I will admit -- and that is to cover those points that he is interested in and then leave the other out.

I feel that these are important subjects , not sub jects which should be treated by ridicu le, and when it's a suggestion that he doesn't like or some thing that he doesn't care for, I think the term '"it's' silly" or "stupid" isn't a sufficient answer . There is a great deal more to be said on these items.

Coming back to Bill 35, for example , I asked him some specific questions at that time, in particular , whether it was not true that without Bill 35 and that action, that the budget - the pre vious budget which had been shown to us in March, the estimated revenue and expenditure figures -- whether it is not true whether that that would have been a deficit except for actions under Bill 35. In his reply he neglected completely to give us those answers.

Now I ask him in this reply that he will give us today , to give us the full details on the budget and on the questions that have been raised in the objections made to the Minister • • • . • • . . . • • . . . • (Continued on next page) August 3rd, 1959. Page 1499

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to deal with the questions raised by the last gentleman who has just spoken, and also I am particularly glad to make some comment on the observations of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition when he suggested that a less than true and accurate account of the aff airs of Manitoba was presented to the people in the budget material . Much of the ground covered by my honourable friend from Ste.

Rose is mere repetition, so that I will leave whatever I have to say about that until I deal with the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, when the point was raised in the first instance. But I do want to set one thing straight. I am sorry if I have given the impression that I was referring to my honourable friend the Leader of the CCF Party as stupid, because I don't regard him in that light at all . I think that he sincerely and earnestly endeavours to perform his functions to the best of his ability, and he does so I think in a very commendable way.

What I was trying to convey is that ii we, as the government, took the five million three that he was talking about and used it in the way that he suggested we were going to use it, namely, put it in the sock and not make it avail able for capital purposes, that would not only be wrong of us but stupid of us . And I do not imply any stupidity to my honourable friend; we're much too well acquainted and too long acquainted for any exchanges of that sort, and I certainly don't wish it to be on the record any where that I said that of him .

What I was referring to was the suggestion he made that we might be inclined to do this very stupid thing in connection with our surplus that we have. And he didn't call it stupid, but I say that if we did it, we'd be stupid, so I hope that that clears up that little point insofar as my friend the Honourable Leader of the CCF Party is concerned . I don't regard him in that light at all .

Now about the last minute rush, I must admit that we have had discuss ions on this topic befo re, and I've heard men on the opposite side, some of whom are still sitting in the House - who were on the opposite side then - compla in about the last minute rush of bil ls, and I must say frankly that I don't like it, and that sometimes I feel that we would be better off to drop these measures rather than be accused of trying to push them through in any undue haste.

But I will say this in self defens e, that of the measures that are before the Hous e in the last three or four days, that my honourable friend refers to, there are only two -- as far as my recoll ection goes - that could be considered as bills that should have been ready earlier in the session. One is - insofar as the Throne Speech Decla ration was concerned either at this session or the previous one -- one is the Develo pment of Facilities for Water Supply for the Domestic Use of the People of the Province .

Not a contentious Bill - it received second rearung without any trouble , but it does contain a lot of very diffi cult legal matters which had to be cross referred to other types of publi c utility legislation in the province and elsewhe re, and while I am not seeking to excuse the delay I can account for it.

The second bill that is delayed is the one on Crop Insurance, and I must say that we really could n't get at this until we had the federal legisla tion in front of us, and we didn't have it any sooner than anyone else had it; so that in view of that fact , we made it clear that our Bill was being brought down in conjunction with the federal legislation . Clear warning was served, so we had to wait till we had the federal legis lation before we could do anything about it. Now there are some other bills here that arose since the session began that are included in this last minute lot here.

The Mines Act, and the Sisters of st. Benedict and the Dental Act and the Agricultural Credit Act amendments, were not brought to our attention till quite recently , so I do wish to say to the House that we are not seeking any policy of bringing in these measures at the last moment in order to secure an easy passage or to embarrass members. In fact , if we find on Tues day morning that it is not reasonable to proceed with any of these bills within the time limit weJiave on Tuesday, the government will certainly not insist on their being proceeded with.

We will adopt the same tactics as we adopted this morning, and that is that at the suggestion of the government - let it be noted - we propose, as I think we should have proposed, that some of these measures which were contentious and were mentioned by my honourable fri end, whould be left over at least till tomorrow, we've done it.

If we find that tomorrow, any of these bills that come before us, are in such a state as far as p-:illlic representations are concerned that we ought not to dispose of them , well then we can either withdraw the bill or we can postpone our hearing to another day, whichever may be thought convenient at the time. But I am not anxious to rush the closing of the House or to rush this Page 1500 August 3rd, 1959 .

(Mr . Roblin, cont 'd.) .... legislation through in any such way. I want to give the House the assurance that the government will do its best to see that the public interest is properly considered in the progress of these bills through our various stages. Now, I think that it would probably serv e just as well now to' deal with the views put for ward by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke. There is one sort of casual point I should mention in passing - probably this will come up in the Estimates Committee but perhaps I should mention it now.

I think some reference to the fact that the government is going to get some $2 , OOO, OOO . 00 more this year due to higher fees., and I think the impression has been left that the whole of that $2, OOO, OOO . 00 was being raised by increased fees -- that are being increased now, rather than the natural growth in some fees whose actual level to the person paying them remains unchanged .

The facts are that the actual increases in fees, most of which we have already discussed in Estimate s, by the way -- there might be one or two hangovers - comes to around half a million dollars, and the other million and a half is accounted for by the fact that the take from present fees is rising, rather than that the level of the fees them selves has been rai sed . And I thought it might be just as well to set that matter straight at the present time .

Now when my honourable friend spoke, he made it clear that he considered a proper Budget Speech to be one that is clear and honest and complete, and one that does not gloss over or omit any pertinent matter which ought to be disclosed . I don't think that's a bad definition. I am quite willing to admit that in the nature of events we don't always me asure up to it . One has to recall that many of the matters which might be in a Budget Speech have already been before the House , in one form or another .

In the discussion of the Estim ates, in Public Accounts Committee, in tabling of the Capital Supply Bill, and in all that kind of thing, there are a great many facts disclosed about the fiscal operations of the province which just do not get into a Budget Speeech, partly I suppose, because of repetition. There is a great deal of material in the Budget Speech that is already repetitious, but we put it in there in order to get the fullest picture that we can. But it is , I am afraid human nature that some.things get left out which other people consider to be very important.

Now I am quite willing to accept that kind of criticism if it's made on the basis of good faith. I am quite willing to accept that kind of criticism because I am sure that we ca.-i improve the make -up and character of Budget Speeches . But I do wish to examine the points that were raised by the honourable gentleman to see whether we are really to be censured for what we have done in this particular instance . I would like to touch on some of the general points that he raised; he referred to our policy in crop insurance and farm credit as an ignoble retreat.

Well, Sir, I don't agree with that; I think that our position on Crop Insurance is a step forward. I would remind honourable members here -- and this will be familiar to tho se who are not new in the Chamber -- that at the last regular sess ion of this legislature under the former admin istration, we in the Conservative Party moved a resolution on Crop Insurance and made it quite clear that our policy in crop insurance was tied in to the Federal Government providing the capital reserv e in order to make available that cushion against losses which we could for see .

And I know myself that in speaking in the election, I always was careful to add, "subject to the Federal Government providing the capital reserve" in order that this particular measure should be a solvent one . And I think that fact should be noted. Now when the Federal Legis lation was before us., Sir, it did not contain that provision . Instead of a capital rese rve being provided by the federal administration we have instead a system of guaranteeing of loans to provincial administrations to take the place of that reserve .

I say frankly, as I said in all my conversations with people on this matter, that I don't like that. I think it would have been better if we had had the capital reser ve su pplied by the Federal Government as we ourselves moved in this Legislature when it was first mooted here -- when it was last dealt with here --about fifteen months or sixteen months ago. So I feel that we are fulfilling our undertakings with the electors in bringing in this policy.

It' s on a test basis because it doesn't fit the conditions which we ourselves always envisaged, and which we did our best to tell the public about when we were campaigning on this particular point. I think we have taken a positive step forward. At least we are going to find out if this system ·will work. If it won't we're going to have to try something else . I don't call that ignoble retreat. Farm Credit: I am really at a loss to understand why my friends don't like that. As of August 3rd, 1959 . Page 1501_

(Mr . Roblin, cont'd.) •... June 30th the Farm Credit Corporation has committed $1, 154, OOO . 00 to farm credit for the farmers of Manitoba. I wonder what my friend would think a glorious advance to be if that's an ignoble retreat. It seems to me that's a very reasonable sum of money to have - commit to for this important purpose in the short months in which it has been in operation. And I don't like to make any prophesies, but I am confident it will be much more by the time we meet again.

And for honourable members to charge the government with an ignoble retreat· on that matter is something which passes my comprehension. My honourable friend intimated at least to me, that he was in favour of higher taxes on diesel fuel . Well, ma ybe he is right there . But certainly it's not in the budget a± !::e ;:- e:>e !!! time. MR . CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to correct that. I think it's quite plain that I was warning my honourable friend not to do what Ontario did. MR . ROBLIN: Well he got on both sides of the question quite succe ssfully.

First of all he told us to look at it then having looked at it we were not to do what Ontario did. Well that's fair enough but it looks to me as if he was thinking that we sould look at it for a purpose and surely that purpose was to be whether it was adequate or whether it was not. To move on, he complains that we should show the driver's license receipts this year as an item that should be spread over two years . Maybe we should. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that it is being received in this fiscal year and this is the fiscal year for which I am to give an account.

And I might also mention that this was the procedure followed by my honourable friend when he and his friends occupied the treasury benches in Manitoba . He refers to Unemployment Insurance and says what a sad thing that you are going to spend more for unemployment assistance -- I' m sorry if I said the word 'insurance' -- I meant the word 'assistance• -- because there's a very considerable increase in the revenues from Ottawa in unemployment assistance .

I'm afraid we've been wasting our time with our honourable friend because we've been trying to demonstrate to him and to make it clear that it is from this fund that we are going to find about half the cost of our greatly increased social assistance policy, that this has got nothing really to do with unemployment assistance at all . But rather with this concept of it not related to the former way of doing things but related to the new arrangement we have been able to make with the government at ottawa.

I share his concern that we should not have to spend this money for people who are out of work in the normal course of events and I don't think we will, but the amount that we show in these esti mates reflects the increased social assistance we ·will be giving to the people of the province . Now how many times have I tried to explain that, and my colleagues tried to explain that to honourable gentlemen opposite and still apparently they missed the point. Well to move on, tax rentals . Doesn't think I' m very smart because I was four million dollars out in my tax-rental payments. Afraid it's true .

I was four million dollars out. The fact is, · l\ir. Speaker, that we are dependent on the estimates we get from Ottawa. Having received those estimates we evaluate them as to whether we believe them or not. The estimate that I gave this House in the previous revenue statement last March or April was based on the latest figure we had rece.i'\-ed from Ottawa, and unfortunately, but true , that figure was derived from August 1958, and I think I mentioned it at one course or another in our proceedings that that was the case . We don't compile that figure we si.Inply register it when it's received from ottawa.

The figure we used in our Budget the other day was compiled - was handed to me on July 6th, 19 59 -- practically one year's difference. We knew that the economy was on the upgrade; we could have brought in a higher figure last March than the one we did if we wanted to be optimistic about this thing; but we decided, no, we would stick indeed to the actual figure giv.�n to us by Ottawa. We are doing the same thing with the figure that they gave us the other day of some 38 million dollars.

We have tested it Sir, against what we know about the progress of the economy and we believe tbat although we have not had always accurate figures in the past, and I'm quite willing to say so, we believe that this figure does represent a reasonable estimate of what we can actually expect ne:>..-t March. Now Sir, time only can tell if ·our reas onablE' expectations are borne out, but I assure my honourable friends that that is the way in which that sum was arrived at.

It was not by having any special information which we refused to disclose to the House; it is not by making wilfull errors or exaggerations in the figures pre sented in the estimates, but on the basis of the facts as best we know them, given to us by Page 1502 August 3rd, 1959 .

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd .) •... those charge d with that particular duty. I should go on and say that there is one question of the Honourable Member for ste . Rose I would like to deal with before I get into the major complaints that were raised . He asked me that if we hadn't taken the surplus in last March is it not true we would have a deficit. I'll ask him a question.

Is it not true that if my honourable friends had not taken a deferred revenue surplus into accou nt not only last year but the year before last, that they would have had a deficit, and not one of $200, OOO . 00 Sir, but one of over a million dollars, perhaps two million dollars in one instance . So he can answer his own question in that particular way. :N'ow I come to those items w:t.ich can be described as major complaints beca use that' s the way my honourable friend refers to them .

"His major complaints with the accuracy and the truth anCi the fair dealing of the measures of the statements that have been made in respect of the governme nt's financial statement." The first one that he inquires about has to do with the review of borrowings during the past year . Then, Mr. Speaker, he says "a nother major complaint that I have to register against my honourable friend' s budget treatment is the casual way in which he dealt with the growth of the debt of this province. May I ask why Mr .

Speaker, there was no review of borr owings during the year, why did he not tell us the purpose of these borrowings and the interest that's to be paid upon them ?" And then it's perfectly true Mr. Speaker, we have a table appended to the Budget Speech and all that kind of thing. Well Sir, this is the first budget that I have ever had the honour and the privilege of dealing with in this legislature .

I would be less than honest if I did not say that I took the previous budgets of this province as some sort of guide, as to the kind of thing that I might be expected to discuss and disclose when these matters were at hand, and I picked up the Budget Speech of the Honourable Charles E.

Greenlay for 195 8, the last year of record which seemed to me like a pretty good one to look at, and I caref ully searc hed through it to see whether the questions as to the review of the borrowings for the past year or the purposes for which they were required, or the interest which was paid thereon was to be stated in the Budget Speech. And when I looked through his Budget Speech this is all I could find. On page 18 it is dealing with the provincial finances , it is estimated and I quote "It is estimated as at the year end the dead-weight i:J.et debt of the province will am ount to $29, 640, 949 . 66 .

Detailed informa tion respe cting the ma ke-up and distribution of the provincial debt has been included in the tables appearing to the appendix in this addres s." That' s the limit. No interest charge s, no purpose, no review apart from those few lines. I have the same kind of tables in my Budget Speech, I haven't got a par agraph in my Budget Speech saying they're in there but I don't think anyone's the worse off for that.

So when I read the Budget Speech of my immediate predecessor in 1958 I found out that he gave what my honourable friend would be forced to describe now as something less than a complete dis closure, as something less than those details which he criticizes us for not having in our budget. Well Sir, ma ybe the criticism is just, but I wonder if it is quite fair that the criticism should come from that quarter, because when my honourable friend had the business of dealing with these matters he found this budget ac ceptable. Mine he finds something less than acceptable.

Well that's the picture as far as that particular year is concerned. Now we go on Mr. Speaker, to the se cond major complaint that leads my honourable friend to claim that this budget of mine is riddled - where are his words -- "r iddled "With inaccuracies, simply littered with half-truths and misrepres entations". That was the expres sion. } ... nd one of these half-truths and misrepres entations which caught his eye at least he mentioned it, had to do with the way in which the debt page on the estimates v:as constructed.

Well Sir, if he was listening carefully to my speech, he may have caught some hint that this was not the first time this kind of thing was done. For many years in the Budget of Manitoba we did not take into account the interest revenue from investments .

They were just not taken into account in calcu lating our debt at all, but lo and behold, in the year 1953 my honourable friends opposite decided they were going to make a change, and they decided they were going to show the interest re ceived from some of our investments -- the utilities -- and if you will look up the estimates for 1953 you will find the debt charge s on page 45 as being 7 million. Then if you look up the debt page for the following year, 1954, miraculously it seems the debt charges have dropped from 7 million dollars and a little more, to something about 2-1/4 million dollars .

And how was that mira cle achieved? It was achieved Sir, by taking into acco unt as deductions from interest expense the interest revenue from the utilities, and when you come to read the Budget Speech August 3rd, 1959. Page 1503

(Mr. Rohl.in, gont'd.) •••. for that year you will find only this reference to what took place .. At :(i:r!lt glimoe it will seem -- this is page 14 if anyone cares to look it up --"on first glance it will §eem that our general interest revenue is down from last year's estim ates of 3.7 million do'!l!!-f!l tg this year's estimates of $1 .5 million dollars . Tha t' s on the revenue side .

In explan atioa. pf tbi11 l would remind the House that in this year's estimates of expenditure the interest recoverable from our three utilities has been netted against our gross interest expenditure." Well that'lil a simple explanation of what took place . \Vhen we came along Sir, and followed through the same procedure with regard to other types of interest income, we find that it is a deliberate attempt to deceive the electorate . We find that it is a deliberate attempt to play fast and loose with the facts about the provincial debt burden.

We presented our reason for the changes we made in the Budget Speech which you have read Sir, and heard Sir, at consider able length, not two or three lines but about a page explaining what we had done. If you will care to take a look Sir, at the revenue estimates at the debt page for this year which I have somewhere around here, you will find that not only have we done as our honourable friends did, but we actually put in an explanation on the botton of a page, and I'll read it.

"In the official estimates of revenue for the year ending March 3lst, 1959 , this item"-- that is the new loans and investments taken in against interest expense -- "this item was shown as one of the estimated revenues of the Treasury Department that is interest and related revenue etc." You can look at the estimates tabled by my honourable friend when he did this kind of thing, and what do you find on the estimate page? Not a word. Not a syllable . Not a letter.

We put in an explanation , we covered at considerable length in our Budget Speech and this becomes one of the star exhibits in the case against the government, charging it with these failures to come clean with the facts of the public revenue. This is part of the litter of half-truths and misrepres entations that my honourable friend spoke about when he spoke on that particular matter . It's odd to recall that 1953 was an election year too -- just like 1959 -- but no member of the Opposition of those days went around accusing my friend of finanCial light-handedness, or chicanery, or anything of that so rt.

We thought it was quite a reasonable thing to do . After all we did it ourselves . Why does my honourable friend not accord the same justice to us when we present a budget state ment as we have done today. So there we have two of the three or four major complaints that were raised. The review of the borrowings and the treatment of the interest income on the debt page in the estimates before the House , and I think we find that we have followed a reas onable course because it was the course followed by my honourable friend when he and his had the charge of this particular matter .

Now let me come to a third major point, and I have honestly tried to separate out of his speech the things that really gave him cause for concern, and I hope that I'm not glossing over anything that he feels ought to be dealt ·with because I'm not intending to do that. But one of the things that bothered him very much was what became of the 33 million dollars. What be came of the former authorization. Not an authorization of this year, mark you , -- that• s why it wasn't in the budget -- but what became of the former authorization of 33 million dollars . .

And what are you going to do about the extra money that you got authority to borrow for? Wny is no clear account given of this particular ma tter? Well Sir, it's a good question, and I ask him why he didn't look into this matter when he had the charge of it. Last year Sir, in the last budget presented by my honourable friends, they ha<;l an over-hang of 44. 8 million dollars, of former authorizations which had not yet been used. 'f�y offered us no explanation whatsoever as to what was going to become of that matter.

The� ggaj,n, they had a borrowing program of some 20 odd million dollars for government acc9�t . mid some 18 or 20 million dollars for public utilities which was approved at that time . 'j3ut seit:!-'!;lfl the Budget Speech as you will, you will find no reference to what my honourable fI'ieng !!oW plaims we should have in our budget address . But we did som ething more than he !fid Sir, W€l pj.d give a full, and I trust coherent account of the policy in respect of borrowing that we P¥Opose to follow. He ma y complain that the details are not there .

I reply they weren't there in your budget, but what we did do, and what I thing we were bound to do was give this House some i;ixplanation as best we could of the policy that we wculd be following in respect to our borrowing program . And that we have done. Not only did we do it in this House but we did it on eve:iy platform in the election. r" recall so well that I told the electors frankly at that tim e thai we would be borrowing. They were put on notice as to what we would do and Page 1504 August 3rd, 1959 .

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) •••• they are under no illusion as to what we would do, and I am still :inclined to thing that they approve of what we are doing in this respect. I don't see how it's possible to give any information about borrowing as respective costs, etc., for our expenditure - for authorizations which have been made, but which have not yet been drawn upon. Beca use as my honourable friend must know, having been a provincial-treasurer, one of the great problems in the treasury busL'less is to try and find out when those monies will be drawn upon.

And it is only when the spending department give you the 'when' that you have the slightest idea of what the other details are because they depend on the circumstances at that time . All I can say to my honourable friend is that he didn't put it in bis budget.

I'm sorry if I've offended him by not putting it in my budget, but I do not think that he can fairly accuse me of presenting a Budget Speech that instead of giving a clear, and here I quote, "instead of -giving a clear, concise and accurate and honest statement of the financial affairs of the province , is simply littered with half-truths and misinfo:rmation of this kind which do not convey an accurate impression" . That's the last thing I want to do. Surely honourable i:oembers must know that one must always face up to the implications of the financial policy that' s adopted.

What good does it do to try and camouflage or conceal even if one wished or could, for a short period of a few months, the implications of a financial policy that a government has knowingly adopted. It does no good whatsoever .

If there were any omissions from my speech which he thinks ought to have been there -- they certainly were not omitted for the reasons that he says -- and then again as I pointed out to the Committee in some detail, as you examine what he did, you'll find that he and I are pretty well on all fours on many of these matters which he now con siders to be a dereliction of duty because of the way in which we have done them. Well, Sir, the public are going to have to decide between us because I don't tbin]l: that I'm going to be able to convince him in the House.

I think that what he has done in bis speech and in bis motion can either be ascribed to inadvertence; or it can be ascribed to a failure to remember what he did when he was in office; or else it can be classified as a first class example of political hypocrasy, I'm not going to pass judgment. I'm not going to call my honourable friend a hypocrite. I believe he really meant the things that he said to us the other day . But I am surprised that he does not remember what was done in bis day on these important matters which he thinks we have been so wrong to neglect in the way in which he spoke .

But I'll suggest to him, Sir, that he would have done a good deal better in bis analysis of the budget debate if he had tried to find some real basis of policy on which to comment that separates the men on the various sides of this Chamber . I think he might have made a contri bution to political development and thought in the next little while, if he had given up this attitude of petty and I think, fault-finding criticism which he adopted, and instead dealt with some of the basic principles which underlie the financial policy of this administration .

Why does he not challenge us on our borrowing program as such? Why not ? That was one of the issues between us and the electorate . That is one of the issues in this particular budget. Why does he not challenge us on our spending program as such? That surely is fundamental and vital to the whole of this statement. You may complain that certain details aren't there, but it's the underlying principles which I think should command the respect or the disrespect of the members of this House . I ask him why he did not attempt to attack the basic financial policies on which this administration rests.

It isn't as if he hasn't got some ideas of bis own. It isn't as if he didn't do so before . - ''l _cut_ spending by thirty million", is the quotation from the Liberal Leader of a short while ago . "Thirty million can be saved" , says the Leader of the Liberal Party in the election campaign. MR. CAMPBELL : Mr. Speaker, I rise only to point out that that particular press report was inaccurate and was denied. MR. ROBLIN: Well, I'm sorry if it was inaccurate and denied. It appeared in both papers - it appeared in the Free Press and the Tribune and I've quoted from both of them here . MR.

CAMPBELL: Copied one from the other . MR. ROBLIN: Well, he's got another one from the Winnipeg Tribune of May 4th in which he advocates "m ore services and lower taxes - highlight Liberal promises." That was the speech that he made at Melita in which he nailed down some of the main planks of his platform . That's fair. That's a good honest platform. I respect my honourable friend when he was con ducting that campaign before the electorate because I think in that campaign he underlined very August 3rd, 19 59. Page 1505

{Mr. Roblin, cont'd:) •••• clearly some of the basic differences between the two parties that were thought of as being likely to form the next government. He was right to set up his view in contrast to the policy that the government was placing before the people at that time. And I suggest to him that he'd sti..ll be right if he attempted to maintain that policy in the House today . It's all very well to say the people have spoken. And so they have . And we have the respons iblity of carrying out the things that we set our hand to do. But my honourable friend has his responsibili ties . He is no delegate .

The members of his party are no 'puppets • to be jerked by the springs of public opinion. They're thinking sentient human beings, sent here to give the best of their minds to the probl ems which lie before us . This is not a delegate convention. This is representative and responsible government where each party in the House sets up its views regardless of its fate in the previous election --because some of them, at least, were sent here to maintain and uphold those views. And I think it would not have been unfitting if members opposite had decided to adopt that course of policy when criticizing this budget.

So I say to you Sir, that I do not feel that this amendment expressing want-of confidence in the administration should pass . I accept, with grace I trust, criticism .· of the budget as such. I certainly will undertake to examine them all with as free mind as I can. I do not think, Sir, that if there have been any omissions in what we have done, that it has been delibe r ate in an attempt to deceive, that in fact it followed in the foot-steps of Budget Speeches that have gone before in this House . And therefore , it seems odd that we should be so severely slated from that particular quarter .

I regret there has been no considered expression of view from the Liberal Party on the real policies that are involved in a budget debate of this kind. I think it would have been good for them and good for the province if we had had that clash of ideas because, it is ouly in that clash of ideas that we can arrive at a substantial and proper policy to follow . As the Leader of Government I confess that I'm quite willing to take good ideas where:ver they come from. We claim no monopoly of accuracy or of truth .

We merely say that we are doing our best within the capacity that is open to us to carry out faithfully and honourably the pledge s that we gave to the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion lost . l\IB. CAMPBELL: The Ayes and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAh.'ER: Call in the members .

The question before the House is the motion in amendment to the Budget Speech which reads as follo ws : that the motion be amended by strik ing out all the words after 'that in line 1 and substituting therefor the follo wing: "T his House regrets that the Provincial Treasurer in his Budget Speech has failed to disclose to the people of Manitoba the true financial position of the province." A standing vote was taken, the results being as follo ws: YEAS: Messrs .

Campbell, Desjardins, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hawryluk, Miller, Molgat, Orlikow , Paulley , Peters , Prefontaine, Reid, Roberts, Schreyer, Tanchak, Wagner, Wright. NAYS: Messrs . Baizl ey, Christianson, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Hutton, Inge brigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (As siniboia), Klym, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Ridl ey, Roblin, Seaborn, Shewman, Smellie , stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Weir, Will is, Witney. l\IB . CL ERK: Yeas 18 ; Nays 26 . MR. SPEAKER: I delcare the motion lost. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr.

Speaker, I was paired with the Member from Ethelbert Plains , had I voted, I would have voted against the motion. M�l. SPEAKER: The motion before the House now is proposed by the Honourable the First Minister that the House resol ve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means for raising of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: We have passed the motion for Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would be kind enough to ask the Honourable Member for Matthews to take the Chair . MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the Chair . 1IB . CHAIBMAN: Resolved that towards making good the sums granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province for-the fiscal year ending the 3ls t day of March 1960, the sum $80, 98 7, 497 . 00 be granted out of consolidated funds. Those in favour - Capital Supply Resolution . Page 1506 August 3rd, 1959.

(Mr. Speaker, cont'd .) Resolved that towards making good certain monies for various capital purposes the sum of $58, 953, 560 . 00 be granted out of consolidated funds. Res olution be adopted. Committee rise and report. Coats please . Call in the Speaker . Mr. Speaker, the Committee awaits leave to adopt the two resolutions and requests me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Ce tre that the report of the Committee be received. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried.

Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means were read a second time and concurred in. Mr. Roblin introduced Bill No . 75,

an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 3l st day of March, 1960 . Mr. Roblin introduced Bill No. 67 ,

an Act to authorize the expenditures of monies for various capital purposes and to authorize the borrowing of the same . MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, the next order procedure requires leave. This is the second reading I proposed this afternoon of Bills No . 65 and 67 and perhaps they might also go to the Committee and get into third reading today if there is no objection. Yes, the two Supply Bills we have in mind.

Well, in view - I thank my honourable friends for their courtesy, Sir, and I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour that the rules of the House be suspended and that Bill No . 75 be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. ROBLIN : I shan't say much, Mr. Speaker, this is just the usual Bill we have and enbodies in Legislative form the votes that were passed when the estimates were considered, and before the House .

The estimates are not an official document, merely an aide memoire, this statute is necessary in order to make the estimates we passed official authorizations for expend itures of current account. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. Bill No . 67 was read-a second time . MR. ROBLIN : The same comments, largely speaking, apply to this Bill, Mr. Speaker.

There are some changes from previous bills of this sort on account of the policy laid out in the Budget Speech, whereby we would have authority to use current supply for some of these capital items as the case might require. I think the matter is now well understood. Bill No . 67 passed, second reading. MR. ROBLIN : Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by th� Honourable Minister of Industry and Comme rce that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Committee to consider the following Bills: No. 67 and No . 75. Mr.

Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee and the Honourable Member for St. Matthews took the Chair. MR. PAULLE Y: Mr. Chairman, I wonder, just before you proceed with particular Bill 75 - we might have it on our desks. It will make me feel a little bit better if it is on my desk. MR. CAMPBELL: I quite agree . MR. PAULLEY: 67 and I think we all have it. MR. RO BLIN: Well, we can proceed with one of them . I had hoped that . . . MR. PAULLEY: 67 I believe we have , Mr. Chairman. MR. ROBLIN : All right - 67 .

Bill No . 67 , Sections 1 - 15 was read,

section by section. MR. GRAY: May I ask a question first. What is the total interest being paid now by the province for all borrowing during this present fiscal year? MR. ROBLIN: That can be found on the debt page of estimates, Mr. Chairman . Pll just try and locate it here in this pile I've got. --(Aside) Have you got it? Yes, that•s it. - You'll find it on page 32 of the estimates and you will see that the interest on the public debt of the province, that's everything - utilities and the whole works is $9, 684, 423 . 00 _and against this we are offsetting the interest income that we received from our investments estimated at $9,6 76, 596 .0 00 . August 3rd, 1959 . Page 1507

The balance of Bill No. 67 was read

section by

section Eill No. 75 was read

section by section. MR . CHAIRMAN: Will the Committee rise and report. Coats on plea se. Call in the Speaker . Mr . Speaker the Committee of Ways and Means has considered certain Bills passed ·· and asked me to report and ask leave to sit again. MR . MARTIN: Mr . Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia that the report of the Committee be received. Mr. Speaker put the question a.'ld following a voice voted, declared the motion carried. Bill No . 67 was read a third time and passed. Bill No. 75 was read a third time and passed. MR .

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Brandon in amendment thereto. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . CAt"1PBELL : Mr .

Speaker, my friends and advisers sitting close to me here have been. suggesting that inasmuch as it is their view that we have to come back here tonight anyway that perhaps it would be better if we consulted the wishes of the House, which I guess means 1he First Minister, as to whether we would now call it 5: 30 and reprieve themselves for a little while at least from having to listen to a speech by me. MR . ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to fall in with that suggestion.

I would suggest, ho wever, that we take se cond reading of Bill No . 105 and then instead of coming back to the Chamber at 8: 00 o'clock, we should proceed directly to Law Amendments Committee and then we would come back to the Chamber after that and be able to advance these Bills another stage. Now that's a little bit irregular and I'm not going to propose it unless my honourable friends think it reas onable but it would, I think be the best way of dealing vvith things at the present stage of events. Iv1R. CA1V1PBELL: I think, Mr . Speaker, that it is not only reasonable but it is a good idea.

That' s the first time I ever saw the First Minister think of something worthwhile before I did. MR . ROBLIN: You know, my honourable friend is going to get some more pleas ant surprises before he is through. MR . PAULLEY: lVrr. Speaker, there is just one point I would like to raise . We raised the question in connection with the Bill on the Dental Te chnicians or the clinical assistants or whatever it is; I'm wondering whether it would be the intention to deal with that Bill tonight in Law Amendments.

I know that we have a number of bills that we've set aside in order to hear representations tomorrow morning and I' m wondering whether or not we could leave that one until tomorrow morning and know it now in order that those· interested may be notified to come tomorrow. 1vffi. ROBLIN: No Sir, I would suggest that we deal with that Bill tonight and if there are pl:lople whom we can persuade on such a hot sultry evening to come and tell us what they think about it, then that' s fine. However, the Committee can decide when we get there as to whether they wish to proceed with it tonight.

My thought would be that they would not. They would like to hold it over until tomorrow and I would like to have it called tonight in case there is anyone there who wish to speak. MR . SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No . 105. The Honourable Member for st. Jame s. MR. D.M . ST ANES (St. James) : Mr . Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Rockwood-Iberville that Bill No . 105, and Act to amend

an Act to incorporate the Sisters of the Order of St. Benedict be now read a second time. lVi.r. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. 11.�R. ROBLIN: I trust that Bill is referred to Law Amendments and not to private members . In that case, Sir, I think we've reached the end of our Order Paper so I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture tha:t the House do now adjourn. MR . SPEAKER: Would the Honourable the First Minister care to suggest a time that we adjourn. MR .

ROBLIN: I would suggest Sir, that we adjourn until nine o'clock and we'l l see how we make out and if we're still busy in the Comm ittee, we may be pardoned if we are a little later than that. Page 1508 August 3rd, 1959 .

MR. CAMPBELL: Would Mr. Speaker think it too irregular if we adjourned just until Law Amendments when the Committee finished? MR. ROBLIK: I would agree to that. lli. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared that the House adjourn and stana adjourned until completion of the Law Amendments Committee this evening. August 3rd, 1959. Page 1509

ELECTORAL DIVISION ARTHUR ASSINIBOIA ..... BIRTLE-RUSSET-L BR.i\.NDON . BROKENHEAD BUR..'tOWS ..... . ::: 1 CARI!.LON CHURCHILL. CYPRESS .... ································· / DAUPHIN DUFFERU-l' El'...MWOOD . . .... . ..... ... . ... . ...... .. ... . [ EMERSON .......... . ETHELBE.. "iT PLAINS ..... . FISff'i:R . Fl.lN FLON . . FORT GARRY FORT ROUGE GIMLI . GLADSTOl:� :Hl'.MIOTA INKSTER . KILDONAN .. LAC DU BONNE T LAKESIDE LA VE..'IBNDRYE LOGAN .... MINNEDOSA MORRIS OSBORME PEMBINA PORTAGE LA PRR-'1UE rul.D!SSO:N BH!NELAND RIVER h""EIGHTS ROBLIN ROCK LAKE ROCKWOOD-I BERVILLE RUPERTSLAND ST. BONIFACE ST.

GEORGE ST. JAMES ST. VITAL ST. ROSE ........ . SELKIRK . SEVEN OAKS SOURIS-LA.. ... SDOWNE ... SP!.UI<GFIELD . SWAN RIVER THE PAS TURTI.E MO'CJNTAIN VIP.DEN .......... .......... ..... . WELLINGTON WINNIPEG CE!ITRE .. WOLSELEY ......... ............... ............ . NJl.JVIE J. G. Cobb Geo. Wm. Johnsen Robert Gorden Smeilie .. R. 0. Lissaman E. R. Scru:eyer .. J. M. Hawryluk Edmond Prefontaine J. E. Ingebrigtson Hon. Itliarcel Boulic --.. ;.··· · :��:::;:: e:· :: �:,,_ . JI John P. Tanchak M. N. Hryhorczuk, O.C. Peter Wagner Charles rL Witney ...... ...... . Hen. Sterling R. Ly<>r. ..... . ?ion.

Gurney Evans .... Hon. George Johnson Nelson Shoemaker . . . B. P. Strickland Morris -"-Gray . 1 .,... J. Reid . I Oscar F. Bjornson . ::

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-1-41
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 1st hansardpdf 41.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	509ef30559ba4638705b3559747318bd0f9a1e61

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