Manitoba Hansard — 17 February 1960 (Sitting 22, 26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-22

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison V olum.e N No. 22 February 17, 1960 / 2nd Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen�s Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

DAILY INDEX Wednesday, February 17, 1960, 2:30P . M. Private Bills Committee Report . • . . . . • • • . . .• • • • • . • • • . • • • • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 655 Introduction Bills: Nos. 87, 32, 37, 38, 33, 31, 34, 28, 29, 36, 30, 35, 41, 40, 42, 60, 67, 71,72, 73, 74, 70, 85, 91, 92, 86, 61, 84,79 • . . • . • . . • • • • • • . • • • . • • • . • • . . • . • • • • . • • . • • • • • • 656 Privileges: Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Lyon, Mr.

Speaker, et al .. •.•.••• ••• ; • • • • • • . • . 657 Third Reading: Bills 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 20, 27, 46, 52, 59 • • • . • .. . • . • .. • .. .. .. • • • • 661 Bill 62 re Metro, 2nd Reading: Mr. Roblin • . . . . .. .. • .. • .. . • • • • .. • .. • • .. • • .. • • • • . 663 �tt ee of Supply: Agricultu re, Livestock Branch .•.•• ; • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 669 The Progressive Index of Votes and Proceedings will be published on Tuesdays on the last page.

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Wednesday, February 17th, 1960. Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees. MR . R. G. SMELLIE (Birtle-Russell): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the first report of the Select Standing Committees on Private Bills, Standing Orders, and Printing and Library. MR . CLERK: The Select Standing Committee on Private Bills, Standing Orders, and Printing and Library beg leave to present the following as their first report.

Your Committee met for organization and appointed Mr. Smellie as Chairman. Your Committee recommends that for the remainder of this session the quorum of this committee shall consist of seven mem bers. Your Committee examined the petitions of: St. Charles Country Club praying for the pas sing of

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate St. Charles Country Club; Sidney E. Ransom and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate The Manitoba Federation of Agriculture; Alexander Colonello and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Elmhurst Golf and Country Club; The Sisters of Charity praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate St. Boniface General Hospital; The Sisters of .Charity praying for the passing of

an Act to incorpor ate Tache Hospital for Chronic and Geriatric Patients; The Sisters of Charity praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate St. Boniface Sanatorium; Les Petites Missionaires de St. Jo seph praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Residence Ste. There se Home for the Aged; The Sisters of Charity praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Ste. Rose General Hospi tal; Samuel Waldner, Junior, and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Spring field Hutterian Brethren; George Waldner, Senior, and others_praymgfor the passing of

an Act to incorporate Brightstone Hutterian Brethren; Michael Gross and others praying for the pas sing of

an Act to incorporate Rock Lake Hutterian Brethren; Jacob Kleinsasser and others pray ing for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Crystal Spring Hutterian Brethren; Frederick Wald ner and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Poplar Point Hutterian Brethren; Samuel Kleinsasser and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Sturgeon Creek Hutterian Brethren; Jose ph Kleinsasser and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorpor ate Sunnyside Hutterian Brethren; John Hofer, Junior, and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Hillside Hutterian Brethren; David Wa:ldner, Junior, and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Rose Valley Hutterian Brethren; David Waldner and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Spring Valley Hutterian Brethren; George Wipf and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Lakeside Hutterian Brethren; Jacob Waldner and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Grand Hutteriari Brethren; David Hofer and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Oak Bluff Hutterian Bre thren; John R. Hofer and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Bloomfield Hutterian Brethren; The Greater Winnipeg Transit Commission praying for the passing of

an Act to amend The Greater Winnipeg Transit Act; Ernest Enns and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Mennonite Educational Society of Manitoba; Hugh Mailey and others pray ing for the passing of

an Act to incorporate The Association of Dental Technicians of Manitoba; The Sobelco Foundation praying for the passing of

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate The Sobelco Foundation; Abram Arthur Kroeker and others praying for the passing of

an Act to in corporate The Abram Arthur Kroeker Foundation; Alfred Herbert Barnett and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate The Psychiatric Nurses Association of Manitoba; Ever ett M. McKinnon and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate The nenta:l Techni cians Association; Reverend Douglas Hill and others praying for the passing of

an Act to incor porate The Corporation of They Synod of Manitoba of the Presbyterian Church of Canada; The Winnipeg Canoe Club praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate The Winnipeg Canoe Club; W. W. Donaldson and others praying for the passing of

an Act respecting the Trust Fund of the 45th Battalion of Canadian Expeditionary Force; and find that the rules of the House have been complied with and the required notices given. Your Committee recommends that the time for _receiving reports of the Committee on Private Bills be extended to the 8th day' of March, 1960, all ofwhich is respectfully submitted. February 17th, 1960 Page 655

MR . SMELLIE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. James, that the report of the Committee be received. Mr. Speaker presE)nted the motion and after a voice -vote declared the motion carried. MR. SMELLIE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Hamiota, that the time for receiving the report of the Committee on Private Bills be extended to the 8th day of March, 1960. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Notice of Motion Introduction of Bills, · Mr. R. Seaborn (Wellington) introduced Bill No. 87,

an Act to incorporate the Meli.nonite Educational Society of Manitoba. , · . MR. SPEAKER: I might say that we have a long list of first reading of Private Bills, and would the members just stay in their seats until I call them. · Mr. H. P. Shewman (Morris) introduced Bill No. 32,

an Act to incorporate The Hillside Hutterian Bretliren. MR. MORRIS A. GRAY (Inkster): · Mr. Chairman, I would like to know· how many bills for brethren the Honourable Member for Morris has. Mr. Shewman introduced the following Bills: Bill No. 37,

an Act to incorporate the Rose Valley Hutteriail. Brethren; Bill No. 38,

an Act to incorporate the Spring Valley Hutterian Breth ren; Bill No. 33,

an Act to incorporate the Lakeside Hutterian Brethren;. Bill No: 31,

an Act to incorporate the Grand Hutterian Brethren; Bill No. 34,

an Act to incorporate the Oak Bl uff Hut terian Brethren; Bill No. 28,

an Act to incorporate the Bloomfield Hutterian Brethren; Bill No. -39,

an Act to incorporate the Springfield Hutterian Brethren; Bill No. 29,

an Act to incorporate the Brightstone Hutterian Brethren; Bill No. 36,

an Act to incorporate the Rock Lake Hutterian Brethren; Bill No. 30,

an Act to incorporate the Crystal Spring Hutterian Brethren; Bill No. 35,

an Act to incorporate the Poplar Point Hutterian Brethren; Bill No. 41,

an Act to incorpor ate the Sunnyside Hutterian Brethren; and Bill No. 40,

an Act to incorporate the Sturgeon Creek Hutterian Brethren. Mr. W. B. Scarth, Q. C. (River Heights) introduced Bill No. 42,

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate St. Charles Country Club. . Mr. K. Alexander (Roblin) introduced Bill No. 60,

an Act to incorporate The Manitoba: Federation· of Agriculture. Mr. F. T. Klym (Springfield) introduced Bill No. 67,

an Act to incorporate Elmhurst Golf and Country Club. Mr. L. Desjardins (St. Boniface) introduced Bill No. 71,

an Act to incorporate St. Boni face General Hospital; Bill No. 73,

an Act to incorporate Tache Hospital for Chronic Geriatric Patients; and Bill No. 72,

an Act to incorporate St. Boniface Sanatorium. Mr. E. Prefontaine (Carillon) introduced Bill No. 74,

an Act to incorporate Residence Ste. Therese Home for the Aged. Mr. Gildas Molgat (Ste. Rose) introduced Bill No. 70,

an Act to incorporate Ste; Rose General Hospital. MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member name another seconder? MR. MOLGAT: Can vou change that to the Honourable Member for Carillon, please? Mr. J. Cowan (Winnipeg Centre), in· .the absence of the Honourable Member for St. Vi- tal, introduced Bill No. 85,

an Act to incorporate The Association of Dental Technicians of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear your seconder. MR. COW AN: The Hon'ourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. Mr. Cowan introduced Bill No. 91,

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate The Sobelco Foundation; No. 92,

an Act to incorporate The Abram Arthur Kroeker Foundation. Mr. W. G. Martin (St. Matthews) introduc-ed Bill No. 86,

an Act respecting the Psychiat ric Nurses Association of Manitoba. Mr. John A. Christianson (Portage la Prairie) asked the indulgence of tli e House to let first reading of Bill No. 45 stand. Mr. T. P. Hillhouse, Q. C. (Selkirk) introduced Bill No. 61,

an Act to incorporate the Corporation of the Synod of Manitoba of the Presbyterian Church of Ca�ada. Page 656 February 17th,· 1960

Mr. Cowan, in the absence of the Honourable Member for st. Vital, introduced Bill No. 84,

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate The Winnipeg Canoe Club. Mr. R. 0. Lissaman (Brandon) introduced Bill No. 79,

an Act respecting the Trust Fund of the 45th Battalion of The Canadian Expeditionary Force. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. GEO. JOHNSON (Ministe-r of Health and Public Welfare)(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, be fore the Orders of the Day, I would like to table the annual report of the Department of Health and Public Welfare. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Attorney-General, and ask the Attorney-General whether he in tends to do something with respect to the challenge that I issued to him on a question of privi lege on the 8th of February, concerning the unnecessary placement of survey stakes in the con stituency of Carillon before the general electi on . And if so, when can I expect some action on it? And if not, why not? · HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General)(Fort Garry): I don't know how many questi- ons there were there, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the Honourable Member that I haven •t lost sight of his very interesting little gambit on the interesting little anecdote that I related about him. If I ever get to the point where I wish to write a biography about the Honourable Member for Carillon, perhaps I will take the opportunity then to look into some of these very interesting anecdotes we find around his constituency. But I assure him that I will keep his interesting question in mind. MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Chairman, I would like then to appeal to you for a ruling on the matter of privilege that I brought before this House.

I think it is not a matter of a joke, Mr. Chairman. When a man repeats a lie, he is just as guilty as the man who tells a lie. It was re peated right on the floor of this House, and it was taken seriously and got a lot of publicity. Mr. Chairman, I think that there was aspersions cast on my character. He was talking about an ex Cabinet Minister who apparently was responsible for having government surveyors stake roads in his constituency before elections--unnecessarily and wastefully. MR. LYON:' Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, I think if the honourable member is asking for your ruling, perhaps we should hear the ruling first without hearing his speech over again. MR. PREFONTAINE: May I then ask for a ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this matter? MR. SPEAKER: I refer the honourable member to Rule No. 25 in our book, and I would base my ruling on Rule No. 25 in our book, and the rule reads as follows: ''W hen any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately".

The honourable member first raised this question, I believe, either one or two sessions later, and it would follow that he was not privileged to do so at that time according to our rules. MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Speaker, this point was raised--this rule was at the time we had no Hansarq. We have a Hansard now, and I brought this matter up at the first opportunity- ten minutes after I had the chance to peruse Hansard to check on the statement made by the Minister.

And I maintain that I brought it before the House as soon as I possibly could, in the light of the present circumstances, and I think it was absolutely in order. MR. SPEAKER: I also looked up Beauchesne on this particular point. While I don't have the copy with me now, I could get it, and we have citation 193, and 192, in the third edition of Beauchesne, and it reads as follows: "that a dispute between two members as to the allegation of facts hardly fulfils the condition of a privilege".

Now there's some doubt whether the matter you raised would fall into the condition of a privilege, and we have our own rule that a matter of privilege should be dealt with at the time that it is made, and it would e.'ppear that there is not too much grounds to suostantiate your allegation that the matter should ·now be taken into consid eration. MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition)(Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word on the point of order that's been raised.

I note that you refer to Beauchesne>, where he uses the term "if a difference arises between two members as to an allegation of 'fact". Well I suggest to you that that is not applicable to this case at all. That's clearly meant that if two opinions are held by two members as to certain facts, that can be discussed--it's not a. mat ter of privilege. But this isn't an allegation of fact. This is a statement repeated to this House February 17th, 1960 Page 657

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) •. by a Minister of the Crown who publishes the statement that he was told that a former Minister of the Crown committed a very great violafi.o; of his public trust. · And if that isn't a matter of privilege, I certainly don't know what is a matter of privilege. That's a charge of bribery, dishonesty, and goodness knows what else, and the Honourable the Attorney General tries to laugh it off as a joke. But it was published in the papers of this province, and I suppose in other ways as well as in the papers. And I'm sure that it comes most clearly With in the definition of privilege.

Now as to the rule 25 of our own Rules, Orders and Forms of Proce.edings, "when any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immed iately". The Honourable Member for Carillon took this matter up as soon as he had the oppor tunity of reading in Hansard the statement that the Honourable the Attorney-General had made. MR. LYON: He heard it in the House. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, but we don't always listen as carefully as my honourable friend might think we should, and it's quite customary now that we have a Hansard t}lat we wait to get the exact wording.

And certainly the Honourable the Minister took it up as soon as he was sure of the statement that the Honourable the Attorney-General had made. But, Mr. Speaker, I sub- mit to you that even that is not the

interpretation of Rule 25. I submit to you that the real thought behind our Rule 25 is the. fact that a breach of privilege against a member of this House is so serious that no matter what other business is going on, that the business· of this House is inter- · " · rupted to discuss the question of privilege. And that it does not refer to taking it up immediate- ly it occurs but it is when the question is raised that it must be considered by the House im mediately.

That's how seriously both the United Kingdom Parliament, the House of Commons at Ottawa, and our own Legislative Assembly consider the question of privilege: And I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is definitely a matter of privilege and should be so considered . . MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order--of course I think this is a rath er ridiculous situation in which we find ourselves, when a humorous anecdote cannot be related in the House--I thought my· honourable friend had a much bigger funnybone than he has. But ap parently he hasn't.

I think the whole matter can be put to an end this way. I agree, Sir, with your ruling, and I think it is quite proper. But if it makes my honourable friend feel any better, --if it will appeal to him, I say, as one gentleman to another, that the story was related to me; I repeated the story here; he denies the story; I accept his denial--I accept his denial ofit, Mr. Speaker, because it was a humorous anecdote. There may be many anecdotes told about many people, but I will not deny, and I cannot deny, that the anecdote was not told me. It was told me. But if he says it isi:t•t true--that's all there is to it.

MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me just one word, I accept the apolo- gy which--because I believe it is-- - MR. LYON: No--no apology, Mr. Speaker. Let's be clear on this. Let's be clear on this, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, I accept my honourable friend's denial of the contents of that. I can't apologize for something that was told to me. MR. PREFONTAINE: Well then, Mr. Speaker, I would like him to apologize for crack ing a joke in this House which has damaged my reputation--had a tendency to damage my reputa tion-�(interjection)--Absolutely. Absolutely. --(interjection)--Well, Mr.

Speaker, in that case, I must appeal your ruling. After all, I am entitled to proper redress in this circumstance. Mr. Speaker, I know that we all know that a joke made by a smart aleck can ruin a man's repu- tation much more than a statement made by a wise man. " MR. SPEAKER: I believe in your statement. I have it here in Hansard. You say, "in view of this allegation, I challenge the honourable member to substantiate the charge. Let eith er himself or his informer prepare a statement showing the election or elections which this took place--the road or roads which this took place.

Let them have this statement corroborat- . ed by the Department of Public Works. If this is done, I hereby publicly promise $100 in cash each to the Honourable the Attorney-General and to his informant. If this is not done, I expect the honourable member would apologize on the floor of this House. I think, Mr. Chairman, I would justify in saying to the honourable member what I think, · that the old English expression 'put up or shut up"'..

Now it seems to me that the honourable member the Attorney-General has gone a long way to fulfil your conditions, and whether you wish to accept it or not of course, is your privilege. But I have made the ruling, that it is out of order--that the motion is out of order--and it's your privilege to challenge that if you wish, and call in the members. But it Page 658 February 17th, 1960

(Mr. Speaker, cont'd.) .. would appear that there'li! a matter of a wager in this statement of yours too. You're making a wager with--(interjection)--$100, and just b:ow are we going to fit that into this? ' MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF).(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, if I may just say a word in reference to the point of order. As far as the wager is concerned, well that•s--$100 is too high for me to be in that big gambling bracket. But I would say this, Mr.

Speaker, that you have drawn to the attention of the House, Rule 25, and also a quotation from Beauchesne, dealing with the question of a dispute arising between two members as to allegation of fact--does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.

On page 75 of our little red book there is a sentence --now whether it's entirely applicable in this case or not, but it might be construed as· such, and maybe some inference in the remarks of the Honourable Member for Carlllon--and I'll read that sentence, "Libels upon members or aspersions upon them in relation to parliament and inter ference of any kind with their official duties are breaches of the privileges of the members".

Now it could possibly be argued and construed that even though, as the Honourable the Attorney General said, that it was a humorous anecdote, that that might establish the fact that this is a question of priVilege for the Honourable Member from Carillon, and I would suggest you take that into consideration. MR. SPEAKER: Would you read the next sentence in the-- MR. PAULLEY: Yes, I didn't read it again, Mr.

Speaker, because you had read that:... (interjection)--but the one sentence starting ''but a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary procedure"--Mr. Speaker had read that from Beauchesne. I--(interjection)--he did. Just a few moments ago, Mr. Premier. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premie r)(Wolseley)_: ·.After my friend's finished, I can point out to him the diff erence. · MR.

PAULLEY: Yes, however I am drawing to your attention i.n our little.red book on page 75 the sentence which preceded the one that I thought I heard you read in respect of Beau ches"Q.e. MR. SPEAKER: It's very similar, I believe, the one-- MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, your rule is not debatable, and I dcm't wish to debate it. I just merely point out that the matter is covered twice in Beauchesne. In

section 105(3) you find the exact sentence that Mr. Speaker read, and that he quoted to the House. And then again in 113, you find a repetition of what my honourable friend has just read from our own rule book. So that the matter is referred to twice. But I don't intend to enter into the debate on it, because it's not allowed for in the rules. I think we should either accept Mr. Speaker's ruling, or pro ceed to have it tested, if my honourable friend thinks so. MR. A. J. REID (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a group of citizens before this discussion carries on. I'll tell you what, Mr.

Speaker, the buses arl;lleaving; it'·s there at the front door now; at 3:15, they. must leave; so if the gentlemen would give me that privilege, before the Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a group of distinguished citize"Q.S sitting up in the gallery on your right hand side there. They are "vets" and also members of the Retired Mens' Club of Elmwood, Branch No. 9, and Prince Ed ward, Branch No. 81, East Kildonan. I also see they have with them the Ladies Auxiliary of Prince Edward, Branch No. 81, and they are here under the joint leadership, Mr.

Speaker, of James Bryant, President .of the Kildonan group. The Honourable Member fo r St. Matthews and the ·Honourable Member for Elmwood and myself' had the privilege and honour of attending their annual banquet just recently, and I see in appreciation of that, they are reciprocating by coming out and visiting us. And they've had a good example of watching democracy in action, I believe, this afternoon. So I hope they enjoy their tour of the building and enjoy their stay with us and have a pleasant trip back home. And l'm.quite sure the members would wish to acknowledge them. Thank you. MR.

SPEAKER: Does the honourable member wish to challenge my ruling? MR. PREFONTAINE: I do not think I will challenge the ruling. I trust that the Honour- able the Attorney-General will not indulge in th� future in this type of jokes. · MR. LYON: •.•... Mr. Speaker will always have humour, even though my honourable friend hasn't. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. February 17th, 1960 Page 659

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I must say that as far as I'm concerned, I would chal lenge the ruling, but for the fact that we have a Rules Committee sitting, and I think perhaps the right way for us to do is consider this rule in that Rules Committee, and let us try and get an

interpretation of what we're prepared to agree as a question of privilege. In the meantime, I would like to say that I think my honourable friend the Attorney-General's exp}anation of the situation is something that we can't accept, because if we take his position-- MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! . MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my honourable friend, I don't think, is entitled to speak at this point-- MR. CAMPBELL: Why not? I'm speaking on a point of order. MR. ROBLIN:: What point of order? . MR. CAMPBELL: The p.:>int of order that has been raised by whether this is a question � of privilege or not.

Where has my honourable friend been for the last few minutes? MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Honourabe the-Leader of the Opposition said he had no wish to challenge the ruling, and the ruling is not debatable. · MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I said I had a wish to challenge the ruling, but- MR. ROBLIN: It's not debatable. MR. CAMPBELL: ...... for the fact that the Rules Committee is. sitting is the only reas- on. So we'll have an opportunity--! wish my honourable fr-iend the First Minister had been pay ing attention to what was going on, then he would have known what the situation is-- MR.

ROBLIN: I've been listening closely to all your infractions of the rules •. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Orders of the Day. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day; I would like to direct a question or two to the Honourable the First Minister. If he recalls, on introduction cif the re solution dealing with Bill No. 62, the setting up of Metropolitan Authority for Greater Winnipeg in answers to questions. He informed the members of the House that they·would be able to ob tain, I believe, without charge, three or four copies of Bill No. 62.

One or two members of my group today requested additional copies, and they were informed that they could obtain .them from the Queen's Printer at 75� per copy. I have Hansard before me, and if the Honourable the First Minister would like me to read the quotation pertaining to the copies, I would do so. I · believe he will recall them however, and I would like a clarification as to whether or not it sttil holds true as suggested by the First Minister, that members would be able to obtain a rea sonable number, or as he said, three or four copies, without charge. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I think we'd do our best to meet the members' wishes in this respect. I would suggest that if we would agree, say that three copies per member would be a reasonable quota, that we would arrange to have that done. MR. 'PAULLEY: Yes. Fine. MR. ROBLIN: If that is satisfactory; I'm sure the Clerk of the House can see that it is carried out. MR. PAULLEY: One supplemental question, if I may apropos, of Bill 62. I understand the First Minister will be making a statement in connection with it. ;I would like to ask him in what respect does this bill differ from the Metropolitan set-up in Greater Toronto? MR.

ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that that matter can be profitably discussed on the second reading of the Bill, and not at the present time, if my honour.able friend will agree to that. Now if I may just raise a point of order, while this matter is before the House, and that is you will notice that this Bill is marked as printed today. Now that really is a little anticipat ory because at my request, it was marked "printed", although customarily we do not mark it printed until 48 hours have elapsed.

And I had intended--and perhaps this is as good a time as any to raise this point with the House, and to say that the reason why that was done was because we have agreed that the debate shall be postponed until next week. And it seem Erl that it. might be desirable to proceed with the second reading today. But I appreciate the fact that this is a day early, and if there is any member of the House who objects to that, we will certainly drop it today and proceed with it tomorrow. I felt that I was duty-bound to raise that point because it is something which the members should be informed of.

The thought that we had then--and I merely repeat it--is that we can have second reading today, and then, if it is adjourned by the Hono;rable the Leader of the Opposition, or somebody-'-! imagine from the official opposition-- Page 660 February 17th, 1960

(Mr. Robliil, cont'd.,) .. that the debate woiJ.ld be resumed after the week-end--maybe Monday; maybe Tuesday, whatever seems to suit the convenience of honourable members. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr . Speaker, I may say as far as our group is concerned, that we are quite willing to see this Bill proceeded with to the extent that the First Minister has mentioned.

I think there is some advantage actually in his suggestion that now that the Bill is before the members of the House, and before the public, through the Press and other forms of communica- ti on_,, that it perhaps is advantageous for the First Minister to proceed with his speech on the Bill. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be quite willing to adjourn the debate when he has concluded, on the understanding that it would be allowed to stand until approximately a week's time--! should say a week from today. If that's understood, it would be quite agreeable with us.

As a matter of fact, I thip.k there is some advantage in proceeding in that way. MR. PAULLEY: Mr . Speaker, as far as our group is concerned, we would agree to per mitting the First Minister to introduce second reading today, which I think is a day ahead of the .actual. But we would have no objections to that. We'd even be so co-operative this afternoon, that we would allow the adjournment by any other member of the official opposition than the Lea der himself, on the same understanding that about a week will elapse before further discussion takes place on the Bill. MR. ELMAN GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr.

Speaker, before. the Orders of the Day- MR. ROBLIN: If that's--parggn.me, I want to just acknowledge what has been said, and to say that I'll be prepared to proceed. I have no objection to it standing until next Wednesday. However, if my honourable friend is able to proceed before that, that would be welcome too. But I leave it in his hands. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr . Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Attorney-General. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislati. on at this session regarding trading stamps? ' MR. LYON: This matter, Mr .

Speaker, is before the courts--the question of trading stamps. I'm not able to advise my honourable friend as to what advice I'm giving the Executive Council of this government. MR. GUTTORMSON: A subsequent question--is it the intention of the government to bring legislation regarding Sunday sport at this present session? MR. LYON: With the excePtion of the first part of my answer to the first question, the second part still applies. MR. FRED GROVES (St. Vital): Mr .

Speaker, on the point that was raised earlier by the Honourable Leader of the CCF, I was also concerned about getting copies of this Bill for the members of my council, and on enquiry at the office of the Minister of Municipal Aff airs, I find that they are going to mail out a copy of the Bill to each member of the municipal council con cerned. I thought perhaps other members should be aware of that if they weren't already. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Honourable the First Minister if these extra copies of this Bill would be made available today or fairly soon? MR.

ROBLIN: I believe, Sir, they are available at once. I think a considerable number were printed, and I expect that they will be available at once to the members. MR. SPEAKER: Committee of the Whole House. MR. LYON: I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Committee to consid er the following Bills: Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13 17, 20, 27, 46, 52 and 59 . . Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for st.

Matthews please take the Chair? Bill No. 3 was read a third time and passed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 4. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr . Chairman, I regret that I was called out of the committee when this Bill was under discussion, but I understand that the Minister of Health and Public Welfare was kind enough to take up some of the arguments or questions that I had raised here. Could we have a--I appreciate his courtesy very greatly--could we hear what happened there? MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr . Chairman, I noted the Honourable the Leader of the Oppositi on's absence at committee just when that Bill came up. The Sanitary--Mr.

Kay, the Public Health Engineer, who's in charge, came and spoke to it and this

section 4, subsection 1--or February ll7th, 1960 Page 661

(Mr. Johnson (Gimli}; cont'd.} ..

Section 1--this is

Section 2 here.

Section 1 gives overall authority. The province, through the Sanitary Control Commission, still has the power over.the Health Department in the issuing of these permits. But it's just where the local health officer in the community may give· a permit to an occupant of a house, to hook on a: septic tank or some thing like that. They don't have to then come in and get a duplicating license from the Commis sion, but the Commission has overall responsibility. and authority in this area. This is-merely another

section under that. MR. CAMPBELL: I notice, Mr. Chairman, that representatives of the Sanitary Commis- . sion were in attendance and representatives of the Health Department in addition to the Mmister himself. I take it they were all in agreement. MR . JOHNSON (Gimli}: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Sanitary Control Commission were there mainly on another Bill, and had no comments on�-in fact, they're in favour of this ·particular Bill.

I think it would be more understood with respect to the Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District --I think the point is that the district is almost at the point now where it will have almost all of Greater Winnipeg under its. jurisdiction. And where they give a license to discharge affluent into the river, we hav·e the overall respOnsibility for the pollution of waterways. But under their Act, we would be duplicating them with a license.

I think the ultimate idea would be that we give the city jurisdiction within its borders--or the Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District, that the province would check the material going into the district, and leaving the district, arid leave it up to them for th·eir own licensing in that area. We still have that responsibility to the public. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Minister very sincerely for his. courtesy in seeing that that point was covered. Bill No� 4 was read a third time and passed; Bills Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13; 17, 20, 27, 4p, 52, were read a third time and passed. MR .

CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 59. MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, on that Bill No. 59, mayi direct a question to fhe Attorney General?

Section 3'--is that'for the purpose of saving many of the different parties of going to a higher court? Or you feel that the decision of the lower court should be fin:illy' in view of the extension from $800 to $2, 000? . MR. LYON: No, it's to permit, Mr. Chairman--to permit a court to make an award up to the .increased amount of the jurisdiction of the County Court Judge. This recommendation, I may say, was advanced by the Board of County Court Judges 1:0 tte government, in order that there inight be a reduction of the aglOunt of litigation, rather 'than a. proliferation of the amount of litigation. ·MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, under this

Section 3, there'S no further appeal? MR . LYON: Oh yes, yes. MR. GRAY: It doesn't say so. It says it should be final--at least in my legal reading. MR. LYON: No, no, {t just says, Mr. Chairman, that it shall be, when so filed, it shall be eonclusively deemed to be for all purposes, the judgment of the County Court, and enforcable as such. Bill No. 59 was read a third time and passed. MR . CHAIRMAN: Will the committee rise and report? Call in the Speaker. MR. SCARTH: Before rising, I not.e that Bills No. 9 and 12, which are scheduled, were not brought forward. --(interjection}--No. 9? When?--(interjection}--. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the following Bills: Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 20, 27, 46, 52, 59, and has directed me to report the same without amendment, and ask leave to sit again. . . MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has directed. me to report and ask leave to sit again, and ask that the report of the committee be received, MR. SPEAKER: Would you move the committee's report? MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move, seconded by the member for Cypress, that the report of the committee be received. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and .after a voice vote declared the. m_otion carrioo. Bills Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 20, 27, 46� 52, 59 wBre each read a third time and passed. Page 6'()2 February 17th, "1960 ·

Mr. Roblii:t presented for second reading Bill No.62,

an Act to establish The Corpora tion of Metropolitan· Winnipeg and to provide for the Exercise by the Corporation of Certain Powers and Authority. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it accurate to describe this Bill as a rather impor tant measure because it is one which attempts to set up a new structure in respect of administra tion and of government for an area which comprises about half of the people of the Province of Manitoba and will aff ect 18 or 19 or more municipalities in its implications and in its effect.

This Bill, we believe, will be influential indeed on providing for the future growth and expansion and planning of the major urban area, not only within the Province of Manitoba but within west ern Canada, and I think I can say that the principle on which this Bill rests consists of two rather simple thoughts. First of all that we should develop a central planning authority for this metro politan area that would be charged with the responsibility of providing a unified development plan for this large urban area.

And secondly, that we should also provide for the central con trol of certain essential services to the public within this same urban area. Now Sir, I think the reasons for the introduction of this Bill and the facts that have been adduced to support it are to be found self-evident in the recent history of municipal problems and in municipal government in this area.

Members of the House will recall that it is in the early part of the 1950's that serious attention was directed to the problems of ·a growing urban area and the diff iculties that were being experienced by reason of divided jurisdiction and the lack of a centralized view or an overall view of some, and I emphasize the word some, some of the problems involved. This situation and the diff iculties that the metropolitan area was moving into as a result of its growth and expansion was obvious to the men who are entrusted with re sponsibility in municipal offices in the various municipalities of the area.

And they forme d, as a result of their consideration, what was then known as a Metropolitan Exploratory Commis� sion, and this commission which was generally representative of the municipalities of the area began to take under its consideration the problems that had developed and possible ways in which they could be solved.

And if my memory serves me correctly, after examining the mat-: ter for some time, they decided that they would like to have the matter referred to perhaps a more authoratative body, certainly one that would be established with perhaps broader powers of investigation and with facilities to carry out a study of this sort, and a recommendation was made to the Provincial Government of the day that a commission should be set up, I think of some five men, to pursue this examination and to bring in to this Legislature and for the people of this area of the province their proposals as to how this matter could best be dealt with.

Now the House will be aware, Sir, that this Commission was established in 1955. I note from reading the Order-in-Council which made it effective that the members of the Com mission were to be Mr. George E. Sharp, then mayor of the City of Winnipeg, Mr. J. G. Van Bellingham, mayor of St. Boniface, Mr. Thomas Findlay, Mayor of St. James, Mr. C. N. Kushner, then Councillor for the Rural Municipality of West Kildonan, and J. L. Bodie, Esquire, of the Municipality of East Kildonan.

And perhaps it also might be instructive if I were to read the main purposes for which this Commission was established, though I shall not read all of this matter, but perhaps reading paragraph nine of the Order-in-Council will outline the scope of their responsibility.

And it reads as follows: "The purposes, objects and duties of the commission shall be to make full enquiry and to make findings and recommendation consistent with the public interest with respect to the whole field of relevant matters, facts, issues and legislation relating to municipal, inter-municipal and public school government and administra tion of the Cities of Winnipeg and St.

Boniface, and the existing or potential urban areas of any adjacent municipalities, which in the opinion of the commission have or may have certain inter ests and responsibilities in common with respect to municipal and public school government ad ministration and to report the findings and recommendations of the commission with reference to the matters comprised within the enquiry." While there are other specific instructions given to them, 1 think the reading of that extract will remind the House of the very large nature of the problem that was entrusted to them; the very difficult problems that they had to de!J.l with and the scope of the enquiry with which they were charged.

Now, Sir, this body after considering these matters, in my opinion carefully indeed, presented their report to the present government in, I think it was March ·1959 if my memory February 17th, 1960 Page 663

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) •••• serves. And I think perhaps it would be appropriate at this time if 1 were to express the appreciation of the present administration and I am sure 1 speak for other members of the House as well, for the work that was done by the members ofthis Royal Com mission. I think that they have made a most commendable examination of the problems that confronted them and that confronted the urban areas in question. I think that they laboured very diligently indeed and were fruitful in the recommendations which they brought forward as a result of their discussion.

And I'd like to take the liberty of offering my compliments to the five gentlemen that composed that commission for the work that they did, And I think it can be said that the main principles upon which they founded their report, the main principles upon which they thought municipal government should be reorganized within the urban area are indeed the same ones on which the government is at present basing its Bill that is before the House.

I think they came to the same conclusion that a central planning authority was desired and to the co�clusion that there should be a central control of certain essential services. Now I am free to admit that the exact details of the solution which has been adopted in the present Bill differ in some particulars from the recommendation of the.commission, and diff er in some important particulars. We have not taken into the scope of this Act some of the things which they thought might be considered in that connection.

And we have not follbwed their line of thought in connection with reorganizing the actual structure of the subordinate municipa lities themselves, and those are indeed important distinctions. But I think it can be said that we have been willing to acknowledge the force of the two main principles which we discern·m this report and which have become the foundations upon which the present piece of legislation is con- ' structed. I am very happy indeed to acknowledge the contribution that they have made to this problem and in assisting us in drafting the legislation that we have before us.

Well Sir, when this report was made public early in 1959 it then became the subject of a good deal of public discussion. It became the subject of much anxious study on the part of the municipal men of this area of the Province of Manitoba. And a number of meetings were held on their

part in reviewing the recommendations contained herein. This came to a head, I think, on November the 3rd of last year when the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time con vened a .conference of the municipalities with himself in order to obtain their views on the report that was before them. And I think that that particular meeting was helpful indeed in crystalizing the views of all the people who are interested in this important matter.

I would be very happy if I could claim that there was a unanimous feeling among the municipal men as to what should lie done, and that there was a clear course of action which, at least the majority perhaps, found unexcept ionable, but it is a fact that there was a diversity of views that covered the whole field.

The views were extended as far as those who thought that there should be a minimum or reorganization, that perhaps placing a few powers in commission would be the solution. ·Those people on the one side ranging all the way over on the other to those win believed that nothing less that a full scale lOO% amalgamation of this metropolitan area was the thing to do.

Now I want to say that those meetings convinced the government beyond any shadow ·of a doubt that while the opinions were varied and differed one from the other that they were certainly held with reason, on all sides there were arguments that had to be respected, and that they were held completely sincerely and honestly with a view to the best measure of pro cedure for the people of the area.

And although I think it's true that there was no unanimous feeling I believe that all or perhaps almost all did agree that consideration had to be given to the two principles that I am endeavouring to enunciate, namely, that there should be-a central planning authority; and secondly, that there should be central control of certain essential services. Although I must say there was a wide variety of opinions as to just how those two principles should be applied. Well Sir, it was obvious that the problem first discerned actively perhaps in the early 1950's was getting no simpler with the passage of time.

It was obvious that the problem was growing more difficult with the passage of time, and it seemed to us that under these circum stances tlle general welfare of the people in the metropolitan area made it apparent that the government had a responsibility and had a duty under the circumstanceS tO devise a plan on its own.

When it became apparent that there was not a suff icient measure of agreement to work upon with respect to what the municipal men had told us, it became apparent to lis that we had a responsibility to do our best to devise a plan that would meet the needs of the situation as clearly as we could see them and at the same time would come as close as we possibly could � . Page 664 February 17th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, con t'd.) ••••• to what we felt municipal opinion and public opinion generally would support as being reasonable and prudent under the circumstances. And that is what we trust this Bill is . Now , Sir, I want to spend a minute or two in explaining to the House what this Bill does, how it works and for what it provides.

It's a lengthy Bill , there's quite a formidable document to look at but it really is quite simple in its main structure, and although there are many clauses in here that will require our earnest consideration I think the main structure of the Bill can be described in quite simple terms. This Bill provides fo1 a program that leads to a development by stages of metropolitan juris diction over those two main items of central planning that I have mentioned and certain es sential common services which I propose to itemize in a minute or two.

The Bill provides that the metropolitan area shall consist of a territory one-half mile beyond the perimeter road which surrounds this metropolitan area. There are a couple of exceptions to that general description. There is a bulge north to accommodate the Middlechurch area and a bulge ,south to accommodate the area of St. Norbert.

Jn addition to this metropolitan area there is what we have termed an added zone, an additional zone , extending a further five miles , generally speaking, around the area where certain restricted powers are vested in the metro politan authority which I will refer to in a minute or two. This metropolitan authority is to be controlled by an elected council. The Bill provides that there shall be 10 members on this elected council.

I don't think there is anything sacred in the number 10 , we certainly may have some discussions on points like that that will be very useful and fruitful, but as a basis for our presentation the Bill calls for a council of 10 that are elected on a four-year basis .

These members elected on a four-year basis will be elected on a representation by population formula and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will be charged with the responsibility in the first in stance of delineating the 10 areas or 10 zones or divisions or whatever they are, that will elect these men, And the intention is to have the zones run across present municipal boundaries, that they will not be tied to any particular municipal connection but will generally respresentative of the whole area in the way that I have described.

The Chairman, in the first instance is to be appointed by the Provincial Government. He holds office for some four years •. At the second election the municipal councillors who are elected at that time will have the responsibility of selecting their own Chairman, and the Bill provides that they may either select the one who has been previously in that office if they wish, or if they do not wish to. do that then they select one of their own number. This is a deviation from what we have usually done in this province.

It is the procedure that has been followed generally speaking in the United kingdom and we place that particular method of selection of the Chairman before the House for their consideration. This is a point which I am also sure will call for some discussion and some debate •.

The inten tion is to appoint the first Chairman relatively soon, . if this le gislation should receive the Royal assent, in order that some preliminary work may be put in hand as soon as possible , However he will not proceed with any active measures of course until the council itself is elected because we do wish to have directly elected representatives of the people in charge of the operations of this particular organization. The 10 councillors will be elected at the next municipal election in October and will take their office immediately upon election.

There will be no lame duck period as there is in some of the municipal posts at the present time. Now Sir, what are they going to do ? Well I think that from what I have said so far that honourable members will appreciate that the key to the major portion of the services to come under metropolitan jurisd iction is to be found in the central planning function of the metropoli tan government. The council is charged with the preparation, revision and adop�ion of a development plan for the whole of this metropolitan area and is established as the sole authority in that field.

The adoption of an overall development plan must of course, include long-term planning with respect to major roads and bridges traffic control, transit, sewer and water func tions, the establishment of major parks and garbage disposal . An orderly and economic expansion in any one of the above fields can be successfully achieved only if it is integrated and fitted into the whole picture of the future development of the area.

For instance, all ·honourable members will know that the planning of major roads, future transit needs and the development of sewer and water facilities must now be projected into the future and can be economically achieved only in relation with each other, having in constant mind what the future trends and movements in industrial and residential requirements are to be . Any individual February 17th, 1960 Page 665

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) •••.• development in any one of these fields, if carried on separately and without due regard to other requirements will lead only to unnecessary expenditure of public · funds which cannot be recouped at a later date when that particular service is fitted into the overall program. It is of course , impossible to have an orderly and desirable development of the area unless such development is planned, haVing regard for the problems which will be presented it in each of the individual fields that I have just referred to .

The time to plan for this growth is at the beginning and the planning in all its phases must be co-ordinated under one central authority. Such being the case it follows logically that the same central authority should as well control and provide the services themselves. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a general statement of the planning authority which I have just alluded to and which has been part of the theme of this Bill all the way through.

I make one casual observation only on· the scope of the planning matter because its all detailed very fully in the Bill, but we do provide that members of the general public who are affected by any of these plami.ing arrangements or ·any variation of the same wili have the right of appeal on the same to the metropolitan council itself.

I understand that in some phases of municipal govern ment that kindofappealfromplanningdecisions is not provided for but we thought it desirable that in this instance, in view of the effect that it will have on the lives and the welfare of so many people, that 'that method of appeal should be made clear so that the citizen has recourse to his elected representative if he feels that he needs ·consideration of the problems that will arise in this way.

We trust, Sir, here that there will be an orde rly development, an orderly development of these services that will proceed as the metropolitan council feels able to do it.

I would like to say that among the services, and I will read over the list again to make sure that I haven it omitted any, you will find the following; assessment, planning, arterial roads, iriclu ding bridges and the regulation of traffic, transit, water , not including local distribution, sewage disposal, not including loclil sewers, garbage disposal, not including collection.major parks and flood protection, together with certain more general features such as civil defence, river con trol, mosquito abatement and a few other odds and ends of that particular kind.

The arrange ments of the Bill make it clear that it is intended that these functions will be taken over by the metropolitan authority as and when it. is ready and able to do so. There will. be an orderly transfer of these services. The procedure followed is to have the council pass a by-law re questing the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to give authority for the transfer of the particular service and on approval of the Lie.utenant-Governor-in-council that transfer proceeds. When we are transferring assets of any kind there is no compensation for the assets that are trans ferred from a municipality to metro.

However if there is debt outstanding on those particular assets then the responsibility for the debt is transferred to metro and the debenture .. and bond holders will be fully protected in that respe ct. I should also point out that the employees who may be concerned in any such transfer also are protected under this Bill insofar as their rights and privileges are concerned. But that provision does not extend to those who have been appointed as commissioners or members of various boards which are not strictly speaking part of the metropolitan civil services in this matter. Now I referred to assessment, Mr.

Speaker, and that leads me of course, to a discus sion of finance. One of the provisions under this Act is to have a centralized assessment for the whole area and I would like to make a comment as to why that is so . Since the cost of metro politan government will in part be met through an apportionment among the various area municipalities based on the property assessment of each, it is essential that the assessment in each municipality concerned be made by one central authority.

Accordingly the Bill provides for assessment to be included as a metropolitan function but until such time as a new assessment of the area can be completed by the central body metropolitan costs will be apportioned on the latest equalized assessment of each of the municipalities concerned. And leading into the question of finance may I say this , metropolitan Winnipeg will meet its cost of operation, in cluding the cost of debt servicing from three major sources . First, direct fees and charges for services supplied or facilities made available .

Second, commercial, industrial and busi ness tax revenues of which it will receive a portion from each of the member municipalities , and three, direct levies on each municipality in the proportion that the asses sment of that municipality bears to the assessment of the total metropolitan area. This Bill contemplates that the corporation may collect fees , charges and rates from the individual consumer to cover · Page 666 · February 17th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont' d.) ••••• the cost of its. transit service s; and also in the case of sewage dis posal and garbage disposal and water services, the cost may be recovered by rates and charges made against the municipalities enjoying the service. In all cases however, the metropolitan council is left with the discretion which permits it to recover all or some portion of any of these costs by direct levy on the municipalities conce rned or by any combination of rates and direct levy.

The 9orporation of Metropolitan Winnipeg is. of course established with the power to borrow in the case of any ordinary municipality. But here we have a different provision because its borrowingS will not be subject to the approval of the rate-pa�rers or electors but require the authorization of the municipal board: This of course brings up another problem which is in volved in financing particularly of a capital nature, with a number of local governments all in the same general area and all of whom_ are securing their support from the ·same set of tax payers .

And a provision has been made in the Bill that the present municipalities and school distric ts , while still posses sing the financial structure and powers that they have at the present time will be asked to refer their proposals to borrow to the municipal board and at that time the ·Metro Council will have an opportunity to discuss any features of that financing which it feels may be inharmonious with the general need of the area, and there will be an opportunity for the municipal board to act as a referee and to carry out the job of deciding what should be done in the particular instance involved.

I personally don't think this will become a trouble some matter but it seemed advisable to have some provision made to take care of that aspect of financial management. Now I think I have, Sir, given a rough sketch of the purpose for which the Metro Coun- cil is to be established, the machinery under which it will function and those services for which it will be responsible. It will be obvious at once however, that many of the most important functions still remain in the hands of the present municipal authorities and school distric ts , and that has been done with deliberation.

I might refer perhaps to the question of schools and re mind the House that another Royal Commission also discussed that same problem,. the matter of education , and brought down certain re()ommendation which we are in the process of working out and which as far as one can tell at the present time will in general be satisfactory. It seemed to us that we should allow those measures to remain rather than make any other changes at the present time.

There are other very important local matters such as the question of policing , the question of fire services , the question of many other services of a local nature that have already been referred to in discussing the extent of the sewer. and water and garbage activities of Metro Coun cil . There is the question of local streets and matters of that sort all of which are eXtremely important indeed. So we visualize a very important and active role remaining for the municipalities and school districts of this area.

And _it seemed to us that we had to exercise great care in dealing with that particular matter, because while this Bill is our responsibility , and we must acknowledge that fact, 'nevertheless we are asking the House to approve an arrangement that is mandatory, mandatory on the municipalities of the area and on their citizens to enter into this metropolitan arrangement that we have just des cribed to you.

And think that when one faces up to that fact it is readily apparent how impor tant it is to be sure that under a mandatory arrangement of this sort , that we limit. ourselves only to those common services which can be regarded as essentially of a nature that should be managed in this common way. I must say that there is room for argument with those who believe that centralization in itself is a good thing, that centralization in itself is the virtue that is to be sought. Well I can say that one must admit there is an argument for economy in complete cen tralization.

Let's say there is ·a.n argument for economy, it doesn't necess arily follow that it will be realized. And there is also an argument tluit a certain degree of technical efficiency will flow from lOO% metropolitan government. But I think one has to consider very carefully whether or not that arrangement is worth the sacrifice that would be entailed in respect of the local authorities that we have now, because these local authorities are not just creations of the legislature.

In the course of time they have come to have almo st a corporeal body and soul, that they have a distinct personality of their own and that they have a life and a history and a tradition which has become part of the life and history and tradition of the people that live in these particular areas. And there is a virtue in local effort and in local enthusiasm and in local sentiment which are very important human values which one does not want lightly to do away with in legislation of this sort. And we have taken the view that unless we were thoroughly -Febmary 17th, 1960 Page 667

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) •• , •• satisfied that it was essential in the common interest that a particular service should come under central control, then we should leave it where it is now. If we were satisfied that it should come under central control then we have placed it within the ambit of this legislation. And that I think, is the guiding principle that has helped us to draw a line of demar cation between those services which should belong to metro and those that should not.

Now I recognize that there will be a vigorous debate as to whether our line of demarcation is 1n the right place, and I make no claim for perfection, but I do say there is some merit in considering that principle on which the line of demarcation has been drawn as being one which in the light of his tory and of human experience is one that perhaps should be the principle which we follow in a connection of this sort. I'd like to. say to the House that I believe the Bill today goE:Js as far as is reasonable and is.prudent.

You will notice if you read it that there are provisions in the legislation for .other services to be dealt with in a metropolitan way on a voluntary basis . I don't know whether that will be of any use or not but it is placed in the Bill 1n case there are those services which can, perhaps by voluntary arrangement be dealt with in that way.

And you will also note that provision is made at the end of a five year period for a Committee of Review to be. established to consider what has been done to assess its value and its worthwhile, to find out if it's right or wrong, should be changed, modified, expanded or reduced •. In other words , we acknowledge that this is experimental; we acknowledge that when this particular plan is put into operation we are going to find things out about it which no one thinks of at the moment. We are going to find advantages to it; we are going to find disadvantages to it.

Amendments can be made at any time it is true, but we wanted and thought it advisable to provide for some regular recognized reconsideration of the problems involved after a certain period had gone by in which this meas ure could be given some trial. Well , Sir, I hope that this Bill will be regarded in the light of the overall good. I know there are local interests to be considered, but I do hope that we will not fritter away any benefits that this measure might provide by unreasonable local prejudice or unreasonable ad herence to local convenience, I really don't expect that.

I expect, Sir, and I hope I may say · with some confidence, that there will be a constructiveviewtaken, constructive co-operation, constructive criticism , both on the part of membe.�s of this Legislature; on the part of the representatives of the people in municipal government; and on: the part of the general public themselves. And I want to say that we will listen with the greatest of care and attention to that kind of presentation that will be made as time goes by. I do believe, however, that the main principles which I enunciated at the beginning on which this Bill rests are sound.

I think that being a product of human endeavour that some aspects of it undoubtedly are susceptible to improvement. I think that our consideration of this measure demands ou r very best efforts, because if we are successful in producing a good law here we will be doing a great deal I think to improve the prospects of the future of half the people of the Province of Manitoba. This is a problem which demands that we should take of it a large and constructive view , and if we do that I think that we can make a good and prudent provision for the future welfare of the people who live within this metropolitan area.

MR . CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker , before I move the adjourmnent, I would like to ask the mover of the Bill if anything is contained, or any program is envisaged, with regard. to the electrical utilities? MR . ROBLIN: No, Sir, there is nothing about the electrical utilities in the meas- ure. MR . CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Member for Carillon, that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. • ••••••••••• continued on next page. Page 668 February 17th, 1960

:MR. SPEAKER: Committee of. the Whole. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that Mr . Speaker do now leave the Chair an,d the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a yoice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the Chair ? MR . CHAIRMAN: Item No . VI, 3 (a) (5) . MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Chairman, when we arose last night I was serving notice that I wanted to discuss and get some information regarding the two programs, Bang's disease and sire purchase policies, that appear under (a) (5) . First of all I would like to ask the Honour able· the Minister if-he would give us the breakdown as between --that is the financial break down as between these two pr!)grams for 59-60, that is the year that we are in. If he has those figures available, probably they will still be to some extent an estimate, but I would think that he would have them fairly closely.

And then the expected breakdown in the coming year, or whether he expected to follow pretty largely along the same line or to vary to some extent. Then if the Minister at the same time, if he would prefer to answer these questions individually I would just as lief do it that way, but if he'd rather that I would continue with my questions at the moment, I would think it would be helpful to the committee if he would tell us something of the relationship, if there is one, between the Federal program on Bang's disease that• s now in operation in part of the province at least, and the calfhood vaccination program.

I would . like to have something further to say on that program myself, but I think perhaps if the Minis ter would give us his view of it first, that it might anticipate some of my questions . As I understand it the Federal department of agriculture under the health of animals branch is now engaged in a test and slaughter program with regard to Bang's disease in the same - largely.along the same lines as the T .B. restricted area program was carried on for some years . And that raises another question because I notice that there is no T ..

B. restricted area vote in here this year, or if there is it has escaped me and I was wondering if there is.n o expenditure at all in that regard that the province is contributing to. And then, I wanted to ask the Minister if under this new policy of the Federal Government if the Province of Manitoba contributes to it as they did to the TB restricted area by carrying some or all of the cost of the field men while engaged on that work. Mr.

Chairman, I will have some further things to say but if the Minister would prefer to answer those questions now, I would be quite willing to accommodate him, and if on the other hand he would rather that I would go ahead and lay my whole program before him I am willing to do it either way. HON. GEO. HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture)(Rockwood-Iberville): ....... to answer one at a time. The breakdown is approximately $125, 000 for Bang's program and $100, 000 for the Sire Purchase Policy. (Interjection) ' MR . CAMPBELL: $12 5, 000 ... .• MR . HUTTON: And $10 0, 000. MR . CAMPBELL: Thank you. MR .

HUTTON: Now the estimate is that approximately 10 0, 000 calves will have been treated in 1959-60 as compared with 89, 000 approximately the year previously. MR . CAMPBELL: So it woUld be about $10 0, 000. MR . HUT TON: About $100, 000 this year. As I understand the provincial policy as related to the Federal policy it was first undertaken in 1945 by the Provincial Government, the vaccination of calves, and then in 1950 the Federal Government undertook to provide the necessary vaccine and since that time the program has grown steadily.

Now when a municipal ity has carried out the vaccination program for a period of two or three years, possibly more, they by resolution request that they be declared a Bang's free area, and that request is . forward ed to the Federal Health an.d Animals Division on the recommendation of the Minister of Agricul ture of Manitoba, and after consultation with our provincial veterinarian.

The reason that we carry out the vaccination program preferably for three years.: is in order that the farmers can avoid any great losses that might occur if the control program· was brought in, the Federal program was brought in without any preparation because you might get half a beef herd going down as reactor and it would represent a loss to the producer . But by giving this period of time · · Februaey 17th, 1960 Page 669

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd) .•.... of two, three or four years, the breeder can prepare his herd by the very fact that he is making replacements over that period with animals that have a resist :.. ance to the-disease, .thereby he avoids very large economic losses. There are some other questions that were asked me last evening and Ithink we could save ·a lot·of time if lg ave the answers to them when l'm�on my feet. One was with regard to the reduction in the number of bodies in the livestock branch. 1 accounted for one; the other was a clerk-sten<Jgrapher .

This body was moved up a year ago; the establishment remains in the estima tes . The establishmen t was not filled during the past year and so no provision has :been made for it for 1960-61. . · On the question of how much the Provincial Government is spending on community pastures; 1 believe there is an item in previous estima tes for $7, 000 . This has been moved , lip into pasture improvement project and ferti lizing trial s in an amount of $60, 000 and is ,e mbodie d in there .

By far the greater expenditure in cases of community pastures is carried out by the Federal Government; the provincial expenditur es are largely .confined to the pasture at Sleeve Lake.

Another question that was asked of me yesterday evening was in connection with the 'number of applications for assistance in acreage payments , and I would lik e to report that to date 2800 farms are being in spected, 700 applica tions were rejected on the basis of their application, that is ,· they did n't qualify simply because they had either harvested too much in acreage or had received a yield in excess of the qualifying figure s.

There are 2000 ·applic ations yet to be processed, waiting on PFA returns, and I would like to explain that no m11tter how careful yqu are in laying down the terms of administration you always and inevitably run into exception �)to the rule. And there are many cases of people who may have'some land within an· · eligible area, and some oftheir land, or maybe a good deal of it, falls outside of a PFA eligible area, and some of these will have to be dealt with and given apecial conside rati on. Another conside ration is the beet grower.

The PFA does not take into consideration the high cost of production in special crops. Our program did in that the regulations governing the payments · per acre were '$30. 00 an acre for special crops up to a .maxi mum of 20 acres . And we have postponed dealing with a lot of these special cases until the major part of the applications have been: dealt with ; And so I would expect that of the total 2000 , there will be a considera ble num ber of these applica tions that will qualify as well. There were 5500 applications received and we are still .recei ving .

I thi nk that covers the que stions that were rais ed.to the present ti me. MR.: CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, there was one that the Minister was going to give us the locations ofthe Herd Improvement Associa tions . I don't know whether he brought that one with him or not. MR. HUTTON: Was it the Herd Improvement Associations or was it the AI uni ts ? MR. CAMPBELL: No, it was the Herd Improvement. I think the. Minister said that there were eleven. _, MR. HUTTON: Oh, well, I haven't the Herd Improvement Associations with me' at the present time . MR. CAMPBELL: There is no hurry, Mr. Chai rman. We can get them again. MR.

HUTTON: All right . MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairm an, the Honourable the Mi nister knows that we are inte rested in this side of the House in the Sire Pur chase Policy as well as Bang's disease, and I ai:n not trying to make it difficult on account of the figures because I know that some of these are still estima tes so far as the current year is concerned. But when the Honourable Minister suggested that 100, 000 calves was the estima te for vaccination thi s year, which would be approximately $100, 000 -- is that right -- approxima tely $100 ,0 00 expenditure there .

There was only $162, 000 voted this year, the year that we' re in now. Tbat would mean that on the Sire Purchase Policy there could have been only $62, boo approXimately, spent, and if there were only $62, 000 spent -- that' s the estima te for this year -- and if the assistance to the buyer of the purebred sire is going to be reduced in the year to which these estima tes apply, I was wondering how the Min ister could possi bly be so optimistic as to suggest that that program would increase from $62, 000 to $100, 000 . I don't know -- do I make myself clear to the Mi rii ster ? MR.

HUTTON: There was an over-expenditure in this it em on boj;h counts I believe (if Page 670 February 17th, 1960

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd) ..... I can find them) . The revised estimate was $100 , 000; the voted estimate a year ago would be for purebred sire policy - the estimate or the '59 vote was $80, 000; for '59 and '60 the actual expenditure was $96,0 00, and for '60 - '61 it's $100 ,0 00 . And in connection with, I have the figures here for the Herd Improvement Associations: there were two more formed in 1959; there is one at Grunthal, Stonewall, Selkirk, Steinbach, ste. Annes, Seine River, La Broquerie, St. Pierre, Springfield and Red River, and the grant is $1 ,8 00.0 0. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr .

Chairman, I gather that the way that the Minister explains the expenditures that we're in now is that there was an over-expenditure of the estimates that we had last year, and that he expects that in spite of the reduction on the sire purchase policy that we will go up to $100 , 000 this year, it having reached about $96, 000 last year . I would not share his optimism with a reduction in that amount but time onlywill tell, I suppose, on that one_. Well, Mr.

Chairman, I want to ask the Minister if it was not his opinion that with the calfhood vaccination now up to the $1 00, 000 mark per year and 11 0, 000 expected fcir this year that we are in now, or passing the estimates for now, wouldn't that be practically the satura tion point as far as calves are concerned eligible for vaccination? Has the Minister an estimate of how many calves there would be of the �emale sex and in the appropriate age per year ? Mustn•t 110, 000 be practically all of them ? ·· · · MR .

HUTTON: I believe there are two municipalities who have not as yet entered the program, arid I of course must rely upon my experts in this fieid. And they tell me that they expect 110, 000 calves will be vaccinated in this coming year . MR . CAMPB ELL: I am not in any way objecting to the figure, Mr . Chairman, and I have no doubt in the world that the estimates have a better estimate than I could give .

I'm only asking if we mustn•t be getting practically now to the saturation point, and I was going to lead on from that to say that if, through the recent years, we've been 'comin!(c lose to the saturation point, perhaps have reached it now, isn't this new Federal policy an unnecessa ry policy?

If calfhood vaccination has been carried on through the years as it has with increasing numbers going all the way from 17 ,0 00 (I think the Minister quotedrall the viay up to 110, 000 - if it has been going On through the yearS tO Where We I re nOW Vaccinating practically the Whole crop of female calves, isn't it pretty likely that we wouldn't have any major outbreak of Bang's disease, and even if the odd one did go down, for I know that no program of that kind is· perfect -- even if it did, wouldn't it be a pretty simple matter for the herd owner to simply dispose of that one or those ones and carry on?

What I'm wondering is, what is the justification for the present program ? I don't think the Minister told us whether the province contributes anything toward the program in the way that they used to with TB restricted areas. MR . HUTTON: Well , the municipality also contributes to the same extent that the provincial government does, where they have passed a by-law to undertake this program ..

But to answer your question on the feasibility of discontinuing the vaccination program , until such time as the Federal program has ferreted out and eliminated the carriers of the disease I would suggest that it would be quite unsafe to discontinue the vaccination program .

And although there are 88 municipalities that are registered as Brucellosis control areas, this program has not advanced to the stage where it would be at all safe, and all of us knowing that there are cattle movements, and even taking into consideration the precautions that are taken, until such time as the Federal program has advanced to the stage where the province is pretty well covered, I think it would be rather foolish to discontinue the vaccination program , because of the 88 municipalities that have been registered, there are only 17 in which the first blood test of all designated animals has been completed.

There are another 22 where it has been started but there are an additional 42 control areas where nothing as yet has been done. MR . CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I was not suggesting that the calfhood vaccination program should be either curtailed or discontinued. What I was suggesting was that inasmuch as it is carrying on as fully as it is -- and I am all in favour of that -- that was there a nec ess ity of the other program ? Now it's possible that the Minister doesn't want to comme nt on a Federal program particularly if we don't contribute anything to it.

But I'm all in favour of the calfhood vaccination program . I think it's done a good job and it's been very well received, but wh(!n we are approaching what it seem sto me is the vaccination of all the eligible calves every year, then if we continue to vaccinate the eligible calves every year, what I'm asking February 17 th, 1960 Page 671

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd) ..... is -- what is the necessity of the Federal program? I'm not suggesting doing away with our program. MR. HUTTON: Well, just speaking as a lay person I would just suggest that it's commonly accepted that you try to get at the root of the e".fi and the root of the evil is the carrier and the reactor, and as long as they are chasing around loose there is going to be a danger of infection. I think it's as simple as that. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, but isn't the other thing equally simple, Mr.

Chairman, that if the calfhood vaccination campaign is as successful as we have believed it to be through the years, then isn't it a fact that we have been gradually building up almost completely immune herds -- not wholly immune but largely immune -- so largely immtine that the odd one that became a reactor wouldn't be any serious difficulty to the farmer?

My point is that I think we have immunity very largely established provided we continue the vaccination campaign in the way that we're doing, and what I wonder -- and I'm speaking only as a lay person too; the Honourable the Minister doesn't need to make any apology on that fact because I guess with the exception of the Minister of Health and Public Welfare we're all lay people on this matter- Pm only asking if the Federal program in the opinion of the Minister is necessary. By the way, I take it that we do not contribute to it at all. Is that correct? MR. HUTTON: No. MR. CAMPBELL: No contribution.

We're not doiilg •..•.... :MR . HUTTON: Co-operation but no contribution. MR . CAMPBELL: Well as I remember it we gave more than co-operation. to the T .B . restricted area program because I think the province actually paid all the expenses of the field staff on their tests and re-tests, but in this one I take it that we're not carryiilg any financial obligation. Well, I hope I make myself clear to the Minister because I have been wondering what is the necessity of the Federal program inasmuch as the provincial program appeared to me to be so successful. MR.

HUTTON: Well, just offhand I would say that because cattle move both inter provincially and internationally that it is not only to Manitoba's advantage but certainly to Canada's advantage as an exporter of beef that there shouldn't be any doubt whatsoever as to the freedom from disease on the part of our cattle. And I imagine that this is one very real consideration, and that until such time as we have built up this reputation -- and I don 't think that the Honourable Member of the.

Opposition would seriously suggest that we have, at this time, built up this reputation, that we haven't gone far enough, and that until the municipalities who have been declared controlled areas have been checked for reactors and these reactors have been eliminated, then I think that. we can say that the job is pretty well done. But I don't think it' a done as yet. MR. CAMPBELL: Well, I really think we have, Mr. Chairman.

I think with the length of time that this number of calves have been vaccinated through the years that we hav.:� got a very very large degree of immunity established in the herds and it seems to me that there should be some method by which the Provincial Government or the Federal Government, or both, can give the necessary certificate of freedom from Bang's disease to very large areas now. However, there is a Federal program and I must say I don't see the necessity of it my self but I would certainly defer to the superior judgment of the Minister' s experts.

They're not laymen like he and I, and I would like to get him to tell us their reaction to this question of - with 15 years of this going on with the large proportion of the heifer calves being vaccinated under the program, year by year, with what looks to me like almost the total crop being vaccinated now, surely we're coming close to the completely immune position. MR . E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Would the Minister have the information there as to how many cattle were tested last year under the Bang's Irradication Program ? Do you have that? MR .

HUTTON: I haven't got the numbers of cattle and I haven't the number of reactors but I think, Mr . Chairman, I think the very fact that..we still have reactors and the very fact that once in a while I go into a Veterinarian's office on business of my own, and on one occasion not too long ago, I was in the office and some party called in to say that all their cattle, their cows were abort, and I think that as long as this is happening in the province that it's obvious that we just can't say that the job is done. And there are reactors, and Page 672 February 17th, 1960

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd) •••• they're finding reactors, and I'm not a Veterinarian, but I think that they wouldn't have this program if it was considered unnecessary and I think that we just have to look at the record of vaccinations to know why. In 1950-51 there were 17 , 000 calfhood vaccinations. In 1956 there were 44,0 00. Between 1955 and 1956 there was a gain of less than 1, 000 in calfhood vaccinations .

In 1957 we jumped up by 12, 000; in '58 by another 12 , 000; in '5 8-'59 we jumped by 21, 000 and in the last year we've come up another 11, 000, and we expect another 10, 000 this year so } think the job hasn't been done as yet. MR . CAMPBELL: Mr . Ch:iirman, I'm not suggesting that the job is done. I'm all in favour of keeping on with the calfhood vaccination. We will have to vaccinate the annual crop of calves when they reach the appropriate age every year, in my opinion, as long as we keep on having the calves .

I'm not suggesting that that job is done, it's a continuing program of vaccinating every year as they reach the right age -- what is it, four to eight months or something in that area, as they reach the right age, that we have to vaccinate the annual crop year by year by year, and that's a con tinuing program. What I am asking is that when we get that program and we have it going year after year after year, what is the need of the Federal program? That• s the one I'm asking about.

Now the question that the Honourable Member for Brokenhead asked I think is excellent if we could get the figures of how many have been blood tested in the past year or two years, and then, even more important, and I'm sure he intended to ask this as well, how many reactors have been found out of those tested because that would give a good answer. MR . HUTTON: Only 17 municipalities have been tested . .. MR . CAMPBELL: That's a lot of cattle ... MR . HUTTON: Yes, but only 17 municipalities, out of the 88 that are registered and there are more to come.

And in 22 the program has just been started and in 42 control areas they haven't started the blood testing as yet; But I imagine from my limited knowledge of medicine, and maybe I'll have to call upon the Minister of Health here MR . CAMPBELL: No, we better not get him into it. MR . HUTTON: •.••. to give us the answer. MR . CAMPBELL: He knowstoo much about it. MR .

HUTTON: But I think there are cases where vaccination doesn't always give the resistance that it should, and I think that possibly this is one of the reasons why the reactors ·have to be, because the ones that don't develop resistance are all potential carriers and they have to be tracked down. MR . CAMPBELL: Mr.

Chairman, I'm afraid that the medical doctor will get so dis gusted with us laymen talking about this subject that probably he'll be forced to get into it, but even if only one municipality, if we had the figures for only one municipality of how many have been blood tested and how many reactors have been found, then it would -- and I'm sure the Minister could get some of the municipalities and get that -- then it would give us an idea of just what is happening.

And I'm sure that what he says is true that they do find some re actors in the very areas where they have been vaccinating the calves year after year after year, and it's true that even with that program carried on that there is one reacts every once in a while. My point is, however, that provided the immunity has been established among the rest of them, that even though that one is a carrier, that with immunity established in the herd it isn't the potential danger that it was a few years ago when that immunity hadn't been established. And I come back to the point: is the Federal program necessa ry? MR .

SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, there is information on Page 4 of the Livestock Branch

section of the report. One municipality -- the figures of one municipality are given here, 1, 000 cattle were tested and 95 reactors were found. This means almost 10% reactors, and if this is at all indicative then I don't blame the Minister for taking the line that he has . Well, what I would ask the Minister at this time, Mr . Chairman, is if these figures of the other municipalities are available and if they are anywhere near this percentage then what would the Minister have in mind? MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr.

Chairman, I think they're going to have to increase this program as the Honourable Minister mentioned the other day that it can cause undulant fever, brucellosis in human beings , and in the past year there have been quite a few cases in this province and it's increasing, and I would ask the Minister if in his estimates they've set February 17th, 1960 Page 673

. (Mr. Peters, cont'd) ...•• aside any money for research to produce a vaccine for hum an beings, or has he turned that over to the Honourable Minister of Health? And my second 'question · w 01ll d be t,his: Does the Provincial Government have money to compensa te people for the loss of thetr cattle through Bang's Disease? . . . · MR. HUTTON: No, this is a Federal program , the answer to the last, and as L understand it there is compensa tion paid as there was in the case of the r'eaCt�rs in the T .B. program .

And I'll also say that I' m g9ing to stick to cattle and I' 1i let the M4iister of Health look after the citizens of Manitoba, from a health stil.ndpoint. And in answer to the Honourable Member for Brokenhead I would say that the figures for the nlUI1ber of reactors in the munici palities which. have completed their first blood tests would be interesting t� have and I'l l. · endeavour to get them. . . . ' ·· ' . . l.\m. CAMPBELL: Mr . Chairman, the Minister thinks he can get those figures, does he, Mr. Chilirman? I think they would be very helpful to have. ..· . . . · · · . . MR. PETER WAGNER (Fisher) : Mr .

Chairm an, I would like to. ask the Honourable .Wnister i.f he · is a-.yl\re u this government had any approach by ll;IlY organiz!ltion or farm g:��up that. tW,s vacciitation would be carried on a compulsory basis ? And this: dollar �er head I . heard y9u say, the. Honourable Minister, dollar per head, that �eans it costs the Federal Gcwernmen� a. doJ1ai pe� head plus fifty cents' that the farm er pays for the · v:�ccination of hi�, ·caives? · · · · · · · · ··· · MR. HUTTON: No·, I think you're mixed up betWeen the P�ovinciai program and the Federal program .

Under the Provincial program a municipality can pass a by...:law. which calls for the compulsory vaccination of the calves in that municip ality. Most; of the by-laws contain a pimalty clause which is very seldom , and I don't know of any case where it's been inv�ked·. The whole program is for the protection of the individual producer. If he neglect s to take advantage of tlie . .vaccination program he only stands to lose possibly half of �s _h erd or he could lose them all, and so he is the one who in the end accepts the responsibility.

But the municipalities in the interests of the beef industry have undertaken to a·ssist.the ·farmer· by making a contribution equal to the Provincial contribution and the F;ederal government �::ontributes. the vaccine, strain 19, and so ·it's in a sense a three-way proposition·. I think that e_Jq)lil.ins it. . · · : · · . , ,. ME . . WA GNER: My question was whethe r there was any repres�ntatlon fr� m any farm group organization· to have it compulsory, as insofar as I understand it Ws not co.mpulsory •. · l\ffi . HUTTON : Would you ask your question again? MR.

WAGNER: ,W hether the Minister was approached, or the g0venmient, bec!Ulse you took office I understand nine mo nths ago, but since this governi:nentis in any representa tion was ma de that this Bang's disease vaccination be carried on .a compulsory basi�. And if so, from what organization and how many groups ? A MEMBER: Is the Minister going to answ er ? MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr . Chairman , !w ould like to ask the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture if he is acquainted with resolution No. 27 that was passed at the .last annual me eting of the Union of Municipalities?

I'll read the resolution if you like, because I don't suppose,you'll know it by number, but it was moved by the Rural Municipality of. Ro;edale and it says:- ''Wh ereas Municipill and the Anim il.l Husbandry Act to. not :q1ake provis ions for effective vaccination coverage of calves for Bang's disease with any municipality and wh ereas the Municipill Act provides for the passage of a by-law covering compulsory vaccina tion fqr Bang's disease,

now therefore,

be it resolved that the Province of Manitoba be requested to ame�d the Municipill Act and the Animai Husbandry Act to provide that the munic ipalities be empowered to undertake, supervise and provide financially for adequate coverage in respect to Bang's disease vaccination. I believe that that was presented by the President to the members of the Government . Has any action been taken on that to ·.overcome this problem ? Page 674 February 17th, 1960

MR. HUTTON: No , because what in effect, I think they'r e asking for is that the munici pality be empowered to give a monopoly of the vaooination program in one district, and although I don't recall the details of the' case, there was one case whl:lre this happened' and it was taken to court and 'it was rUled ultra vires and the question of offering orie veterinarian: a monopoly of the business and refusing the right of the individual farme r to �ho ose the veterinarian whom he might wish to carry out the work, is I think; of significant importance and one that we as a government don't want to interfere wi th.

I don't thirik there's anything wrong withthe legislation the way it stands because there's only one person who is going to lose in this and that is the individual producer, beef producer, if he doesn 't take advantage of tlxi opportunity of this program to buy some insurance ag3.inst the day when his dairy is goihg to' be . declared a Brucellosis area. . . MR. FROESE : Last night when I put a question to the Honourable Min}ster regarding the Horned Cattle Trust Fund it was agreed 'that it would be proper to bring the q�atter under this item that we're now discussing.

Having received a return on my queStion regarding the Artificial Breeding Association I notice that last year $43 ,8 99. wal\l sper;tt from ,the Horned Cattle Trust Fund on Artificial Breeding Associations or Artificial Ins�Hlination Associations for that matter, and the Minister indicated there woUld be a change in policy. Could we ·have the Minister's reply as to what that change in policy will be and how these Breeding Associations will be affected? . . · · · MR.

HUTTON: I think that I gave the change of policy last nf ght: . ' !said it wotildbe a reduced grant over a period of three years and that's the policy; that fu.5teado f ari. annual grant going on in perpetuance the grant will be reduced after the first yea:r' the second year· and 'the third year and finally run out. And if you were interested fu the --'- Id idn't have.-- 'couldti.•t find although they were right in my folder -- I couldn't find the sheet setting out the Breeding Associations. There's one at Neepawa, one at Hanover, one at Redboin:e', Stonewall, .siiiruey, and Rhineland.

The Rat River Breeding Co'-operative Limited, the Dauphin C'o-oJ.)erati.ve Cattle Breeding Association, the Canadian Artificial Breeder's Association., �hic h is the largest by far , and which has tinits spread out in various places· in Manitoba, the Pe:inbina Artificial Breeding Association, the St. Claude Artificial Breeding Association and thl{ Spfirigfie ld Arti- ficial Breeding Association. There are eleven. ' . ·. . . .' . MR . FROESE: Mr . Chairman, by what amount will these grants be .reduced and how will they be applied? Will they be applied· equally or will there be diffe rentiation? MR.

HUTTON: Well, the grant is on the first -- the previous grant was on the first 500 cattle. I believe it was $2 .00 per head and $1. oo on the remainder ·and 'the grant will -- the size of the grant will remain the same but it will move from $2 . 00 , I believe to $1. 00 in the second year. I can get the exact figures for you. I don't think there .•• it' s· the principle that is important.. . MR . GUTTORMSON : Mr . Chairman, the question I want to raise is related to the one brought up by the Member for Neepawa.

LaSt year a farmer in my constituency was told he had to have his ca:Ives vaccinated by a certain veterinarian and he was opposed tO it because he had been using another vet in previous years, but he was a:Il in favour of t'he program. The point I want to raise was if a farme r is opposed to the vet appointed by the :inuni'cipality is the mlini. cipality compelled, must they still donate $1 . 00 towards the veterinarirui used by the far mer. MR. HUTTON: As I understand it, yes . . . . .. . .. MR.

GUTTORMSON : Therefore he can claim $1 .00 from the :Provin� e"; $1.00 from the Municipality and get the vaccine from the Federal Government. Even if' the municipality is opposed to this veterinarian he still must donate that $1. 00 per calf. Is'·this correct? MR. HUTTON: Well , i don't see how the municipality could be opposed to 'a veterinarian unless they had endeavoured to introduce a compulsory scheme setttirig up an inspector of animals in that district which was attempted in the case that the Honourable Member for Neepawa referred to, and this action was ruled ultra vires in the courts of Manitoba. MR.

GUTTORMSOM: But, Mr . Chairman, the point I'm raising is , in some municipali ties they employ a veterinarian to go around to diff erent farms to vaccinate the calves . Now if a certain far mer opposes or is objecting to having his calves vaccinated by this particular veterinarian and he brings in another veterinarian to do the same work, must the municipality still donate that $1 .00 to the veterinarian brought in by that farme r? February 17th, 1960 Page 675

MR. HUTTON: If they have passed the by-law . MR. GUTTORMSON: To what effect? MR. HUTTON: Setting up the calfhood vaccination program. MR. GUTTORMSON: No, but they are in the program. But the farmer isn't compelled to have a veterinarian brought in by the municipality is he ? MR. HUTTON: No, he is not compelled to use the veterinarian that the municipality designates . · · MR. GUTTORMSON: But does the municipality have to donate that $1.0 0 to •• • MR . HUTTON: Yes, yes. MR. GUTTORMSON: They must do it regardless of whether they want to or not. The Minister said there were two municipalities not in the program .

Could he tell us what those -municipalities are? MR . HUTTON: Moss13y River and Whitemouth . MR. GUTTORMSON: There are a number of unorganized territories not involved in the program,is that correct? MR. HUTTON: Three. MR . GUTTORMSON: Is the government taking any steps to bring them into this Bang's vaccination program? When I last heard the farmers themselves had taken the initiative and taken petitions around. Wouldn't it be advisable for the government through agricultural rep resentatives to take the initiative on this matter ? ·MR. HUTTO:t:r: Well, the department is promoting this.

The LiVestock Associations the various Livestock Associations· in the Province are promoting it and the extension person- . nel and the ag reps are promoting this pro gram. . MR. STAN ROBERTS (La Verendrye): Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions in TI1ind. First, earlier, an hour ago in your first remarks about Bang's disease this afternoon th� ':Honourable Minister referred to consultation with the provincial veterinarian in certain regafcls. Would you kindly tell us who the provincial veterinarian is?

And on the discussion ' which we have just heard regarding municipalities setting up B a.IJ.g'� vacc��on areas it would appear, based on the case which has appeared in court, and mainly from the discussion today that the municipalities are not empowered to set up this Bang's vaccination plan in the munici palities under the present Act. Is that not true? MR. HUTTON: The answer to the first question is Dr.

Isa is the provincial veterinarian.· The answer to the second question is that under the present Act the municipality may pass a by-law authorizing the payment of $1 .0 0 for every calfhooci vaccination and they also have the power to write in a penalty clause. They haven't the power, however, to designate one veterinarian and give him the sole responsibility for carrying out the vaccinations. They may, however, designate someone as an inspector to see that the work is done. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's 5:30 shall the Committee rise and report. MR •. ROBLIN: Will the Committee rise, Sir. MR . CHArnMAN: Call in the Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of Supply is considering certain resolutions and dir�ct me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. MR . MARTIN: I move seconded by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre that the report of the Committee be received. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce that the House do now adjourn. . Mr.

Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and that the House do now adjourn and stand adjourned until 2: 30 Thursday afternoon. Page 676 February 17th, 1960

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-22
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 22.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	565b05597e99ac498ccaad7302035e02c02e31c5

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