Manitoba Hansard — 26 February 1962 (Sitting 10, 26th Legislature, 5th Session)

26-5-10

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legi s lative As se mbly Of Man itoba DE BATES an d PROCEED IN GS Vol. vn No. 10 Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison 8:00 p.m. Monday, February 26, 1962 . 5th Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

THE LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 8: 00 o' clock1 Monday, February 26th, 1962. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Mi nister of Agricu lture. MR. HUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the risk of being accused of carrying on wi t_h a flood of words and a trickle of ideas , I have some thoughts here that I would like to pre sent to the Asse mbly on wha:t I cons ider is the most im portant matter, in Western Canada in particular, and it's true also of Canada, and that is the problem of satisfactor y returns to the farmer . It's a real proble m; he's caught in a cost -price squeeze.

There are those who would suggest that there is an easy solution. All you do is raise the price of farm products to keep up wi th the crazy spi ral that is taking place in other segments of the economy. It has been in the past, and I know the members wi ll forgive me if I repeat some of what I had to say this af ternoon, but it has been in the past a very popular pastime for the former CCF Party -- and I expect it wi ll be as popular wit h the New Democratic Party -- to accuse both the Conservatives and the Li berals wi th being the great advocate of the phil oso phy of the "survival of the fittest".

They've done it for a long time; I don't think there's any indication that they wi ll change their attac k. And yet they co ntribute wi th their philosop hy in a greater measure to a practical cir cumst ance which indeed results in a survival of the fittest, I believe inadvertently, but never theless their contribution is substantial. As I said earlier, in a soc iety and an economi c sys tem where there is con tinual pressure for higher and higher wa ges, management automatically, and I suppose even logically, expects more and more of a turnout for the labour for which they're paying a higher price.

In fact it's an es tablished principle that increased wa ges, or increased returns to a business, can only come as a result of greater productivit y. And so it follow s, as the night the day, that by one means or another management is force d to take steps to increase the productiv ity of the men and the labour for which they have to pay a higher price. If a com pany or a business is fortunate enough that they can realize an increased produc tivit y wi th the labour force at hand, then they can afford to pay more.

But if these same people can not turn out more; if there's no opportunity to increase the income to management or a busine ss, then management turns for relief to other means. Well, if it's a strong union there's no danger of men bei ng lai d off, that•s true; but it can mean that ma chines wi ll replace the men. I put that rather wr ongly. It is true that management may not be able to substitute one man for another; but cert ainly they do substitute machines for men. And so men find themselves dis carded by a system which is advocated by our honourable friend.

Again, as the demand upon the indiv idual in soc iety becomes greater, his oppo rtunity, the op portunity of the indivi dual that we have ex pressed so much co ncern for the last two or three days , his opportunities become less and less -- his chances to qualify for a place in this soc iety become less and less. Isn't it unfor tunate, Mr. Speaker, that a very party that claims that they are the friend of the friendle ss; a friend of the commo n man, a friend of the less fortunate, advocate a system which elim inates it? -- (Interjection) -- No, no ! This is what the New Democratic Party does . Because, Mr.

Speaker, when management is look ing for help at high prices, only the best can qualify, and here is the law of the survival of the fittest. It's happening today in Canada, and it's happening today in the U. S. A. And more and more of our people are bei ng elim inated from a chance to run in the race. They can't even comp ete, let alone have any chance to wi n. Unfortunately many of our people are not organized. They are only bargaining on their own. They're not in a very good positim to bargain against the type of power that others have and as a result in this race of life they come out on a short end.

I can't see how at this -- and I say it's an in sane spi ral that we're faced wi th -- if it keeps up, how those who are unable to make their voice heard in the same way, have any chance in this surviv al of the fittest. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the farmer to a great extent falls amongst those who have an awful tough time to get into the race at all; and the indications are that his chances of qualifying for this comp e tition are becom ing less and less all the time. -- (Interjection) -- The Stabilization Board hadn't that much to do wi th this; not that much to do wit h this problem.

They talk about parity prices. I can remember a time . when the farmer got the prices that he's getting today when he could make money. He can't make money today because he's been left behind. His costs of production have co ntinued to rise and rise but he doesn't share in this. He isn't organized. He can •t force his wi ll on the people. I have the gravest doubts -- and that's putting it mi ldly -- February 26th, 1962 Page 173

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd. ) .. ... if by throw ing in his lot wi th powerful organized labour that he'll ever do it that way ei ther. Mr. Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . , A MEMBER: That's what Argue said. MR . HUTTON: Yes, and I agree wi th Argue; I agree wi th Argue. --(Interjection) - Yes, Siree. --(Interjection) -- He hasn't a chance of the proverbia lly snowball. The farmer, not Mr. Argue. He may not have any better chances than a snowball either, but the farmer hasn't a chance in this show . I'll tell .you why, very simp ly.

If you're going to try and solve the farmers' problem by raising the prices that he receives for his goods , do you think that organized labour is going to be wi ll ing to pay the bi lls ? Do you think they'll be wi lling to pay the bill ?

The first time that mamma goes to the store and she has to ei ther pay it that way or increased taxes, the first time mamma goes to the store and the price of beef is up and the price of bread is up, and the price of mi lk is up, she's going to come home and she's going to comp lain to dad and he's goi ng to go and he's going to say the cost of li ving is up and we can't live on this salary any longer -- another strike -- and we 're back in the same old spi ral. -- (Interjection) -- Never mi nd, I'll com e to that, I'll come to that.

You're back in the same old spi ral, because you'll never keep up to it; you'll never keep up tci it. This is not the way to solve this problem . Another thing that'll happen. Just let the price of products go up 20%. Suppose the government announces it tomorrow . Land wo uld immed iately go up in price. -- (Interjection) -- Never mi nd, this is another problem of trying to solve this problem by in creas ing prices. Land goes up in price. It becomes more difficult for the less fortunate to get into farm ing. It becomes more difficult for the young farmer to start farming.

Those in creased costs of land are inc orporated into his cost of production, in interest and carrying charges and so forth on his land. You don't solve the problem that way. Suppose it is introduced -- and I'm just trying to draw a pict ure for you tonight as to what happens when you try to solve this problem the way the New Democratic Party of Canada is going to solve it. Suppos ing that we bring in, as I suggested this afternoon we should, when we talked about parity prices -- and there's a difference between parity for agric ulture and parity prices .

If you try to do it by this concept of raisi ng prices you're go ing to have to embrace production control s, and if you don't do that do you think that the New Democratic Party, representing powerful organizations -- just about the strongest in Canada -- do you think that they're going to stand for the costs of carrying all this production that wi ll take place, because it wi ll. There wi ll be such an explosion of produc tion. Alr ight. Mr. Speaker, the honourable mem ber has forgotten about all the pork we got when we raised the price a lit tle too high and there was no limit.

Why, it was running out of our ears. --(Interject 'ion) -- Oh, but they changed the sup- port program. They changed the support program and they lim ited it to the first hundred . animals that you sold, and they gave all that surplus away. If you don't have production con trols you're going to have this sort of thing happen if 'you raise the prices. Now, so you put on production controls -- and they've got them on some things -- we've got tl_lem on milk, and they've got them on tobac co, and they've got them on other produc ts. It's a fine thing -- (Inter jection) -- It's a fine thing.

Now they're comp la ining about the fact that they're there. And, Mr. Speaker, what happens ? These quotas soon achieve a value in the market place and they are bought and sold, and as they are bought and sold, and as the co mp.etition increa ses, the value of these quotas increas es, because people are looking for a lit tle more production in order that they can keep their chin above water.

The cost cif these quotas is incorpora ted into the cost struct ure of production on the farm, and what was a fine thing for the first generation in getting a quota, isn't such a fine thing to the seco nd generation who has tq buy it and pay for it. It's just a valid and legitimate cost of production as the oil and gas are for the tractor . And do you know what happens ?

Only the rich can bid for these; only the more fortunate in the com munity can bid for these, and so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; the rich get-richer and the poor get poorer, and the NDP go marching on -- (Interjecti on) -- promoti ng this philoso phy and proclaim ing themselves to the salvation of mankind -- materially at least. This is the fallacy of the whole argument; it's spurious, it just doesn't hold wa ter when you examine it closely, because where it has been tried it failed, and instead of making all men equal as they would li ke to, they end up more unequal than they have ever been.

The pi tiful part of it ls that the less fortunate in our com munit y are those that suffer, and those whom the NDP today and the CCF in the past say they were always fair game for Robin Hood, they go marching Page 174 February 26th, 1962

(Mr. Hutton, cont·'d. ) ..... along hand in hand with the New Democratic Party. So, --(Inter jection) -- Well, this is a hypothetical case that I am presenting to you tonight. It could never happen; it could never happen. I think the New Dem ocratic Party are like the -- was it the red queen in Alice in Wonderland who the faster -they ran they just stayed in one place. Now you might be interested, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the members are interested in some figures relating to the cost of production on the farm which applies to machinery manu factured today and in the past ten years by the John Deere Com pany.

I happened to hear this lecture given, this address given, and I asked for a copy.·· This is what makes it rough down on the farm. We could make lots of money if the things that we had to buy weren't continually going up in price. Here are the cost changes since 1950 in respect of farm machinery. From 1950 to 1960 wages paid per hour plus fringe benefits rose 81 %. Prices for materials and sup plies during the same period, for the John Deere Plow Com pany, rose 39%. The price of tractors and farm equipment during this period rose 39%.

Employment costs, which are wages, salaries and fringe benefits, have increased from 30� of each sales dollar in 1950 to 39� in 1960. Material costs have actually decreased from 34� of each sales dollar in 1950 to 33� in 1960, a reduction oLone cent. In 1950 John Deere's total costs were 86� of each sales dollar. By 1959 they had risen to 91� out of each sales dollar, and last year they were 96�, leaving only four cents for re-investment in the business and for dividends.

This is wb.:it the farmer is up against, because it is evident from this that the machine companies have made an effort to keep those costs down; but in sp ite of their efforts to keep those (!OSts down, those costs had to go lip; they had to go up because some body had to pay labour's bill. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, who it was that paid their bill? It was the farmer who paid their bill. It was the farmer who paid labour's bill. He got some help from the company because the com pany took decreased dividends during that period. But nevertheless .... .•. MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): That's not right at all. MR.

HUTTON: Oh yes, it is. . MR. ORLIKOW: Have you got the net profits of John Deere? MR. HUTTON: Nevertheless it's true. MR. ORLIKOW: Have you got the net profits? MR. HUTTON: I've got some figures here. I don't think I need them, I don't think I need them, because I have a very interesting one here. If the cost of farm machinery had re mained at the 1950 level the actual net loss to the John Deere Plow Com pany would have been $97. 2 million if they hadn't raised the price of their farm equipment. Now they had to raise it.

They didn't show very much of a profit, but who paid the difference between a deficit of $97. 2 million? The farmer paid it, and he didn't pay it to the com pany, he paid it to labour, and when the New Democratic Party says that they're going to represent labour and the far- mer ..... MR. SCHREYER: I challenge your figures com pletely. MR. HUTTON: When they say that they're going to represent labour and the farmer, they are whistling in the dark ..... .... . · MR. SCHREYER: Your figures are nonsense. MR. HUTTON: .......... because you can't represent two people whose interests are diametrically opposed. MR.

SCHREYER: That's nonsense, too. MR. HUTTON: The labour man wants cheap food. I don't blame him for that. But the farmer wants a fair price for that product that he's producing, and I don't blame him for that. MR. SCHREYER: But he's not getting it. MR. HUTTON: The wage earner wants a good wage, and I can't blame him for that. But the farmer wants to get his machinery and his equipment and his costs of production at a reasonable figure where he can carry on in business -- and you sure can't blame him for that and instead.

Instead of going about the country as the great leader of these two great groups in Canadian soc iety, labour and the farmer, wouldn't it be a better contribution to make, to suggest to labour that there has to be an end to this; to suggest to management, who are equal ly guilty, and give the poor farmer a break, because he's caught between both of them. That's my philosophy on the agricultural si tuation. I don't think that ..... Governments can help, yes; I agree that governments can help. I believe that the present government ln Ottawa has February 26th, 1962 Page 175

(Mr. Hutton, cont1d. ) ..... helped a great deal. But I don't care what government goes down there, whether it's Liberal or New Democratic Party or whether it's Progressive Conservative -- this is a tough problem, and you can work for parity of agriculture -- but I hope whoever it is, that they don't get on to the treadmill of trying to solve agriculture's problem simp ly by arbitrarily raising the prices. We had the Honourable Member for Rhineland stand up here and suggest that one of the solutions was a two-price system.

Well, the western farmer wouldn't get a penny more than he's getting now, because he gets his $1. 00 a bushel for domes tically consumed wheat in Canada in the acreage payment. Now if you switched over to a pay ment on the basis of production, again the rich would get richer and the poorer would get poorer. Another thing that bothers me is this. When you look around Manitoba you will find that the greatest consolidation of farm capital, that is , land, buildings and equipment, has taken place in the most productive areas in the province.

I think that you will find that this , generally speaking, is true, and where the least adjustment has taken place are in those areas which are least productive. So I say again that to merely raise prices as a solution to our social and economic problems of the farmer today, is superfluous and I think would have tragic, actually tragic repercussions for many of our less fortunate farm people. If you're against the exodus of farm people from rural Manitoba, I suggest to you that you're not going to stop it merely by raising farm prices arbitrarily.

You've got to stop the spi ral, because the farmer is on the bottom end of it; he's the last guy to get any good out of it and he's the first man that's hurt by it. So I think that programs that will help the farmers to adjust to the environment that we're in today, programs that will help the farmer make the most of what he's got, anything that can be done to stop this crazy sp iral will do him a lot more good. We have great hopes that through ARDA in the next few years , that we can develop programs that will help.

We know that, in spite of what the Member for Fisher had to say about our credit program, that it's still a pretty good program and it's helping a lot of people out.

I think the very fact that so many people have been able to repay, or make their payment this year on a bad year indicates that it has been use ful to them, and that wi th this money they have im proved their position, because if they hadn't it's not likely so many of them would have been able to make their payment. --(Interjection) -- I expect now it would be very close to 90% of the farmers are up to date in their payments. -- (Interjection) -- Oh well we can . . --(Interjection) -- Oh yes -- (Interjection) -- We can argue about that when we come to estimates.

But these programs, these programs , we have to rely on these programs and we have got to rely on the sanity of the Canadian people to come back down to �arth so the rest of us can live wi th them. That's just about the size of the case. If it doesn't happen this country can't afford, and I am sure that the people that you say you re:.. present in organized labour, will not even consider the kind of measures that would be required on the part of the working Canadian to keep the farmer in step with the rest of the economy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. L. DESJARDINS (St.

Boniface): Would the extra half hour allowed the last speaker be deducted from his time on estimates. MR. G. MOLGAT (Leader of the Opposit ion) (Ste. Rose) : Mr. Speaker, I had asked the Minister, while he was speaking, whether he would answer a question. Would he answer now? I was very interested in his

definitions -- oh pardon me, blanket

definitions -- this afternoon of parity. Could he explain to the House what exactly parity is in the light of the statements made by the Prime Minister of Canada prior to the last election? MR. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, my

interpretation of what the Prime Minister said was that anything that the government could do was coming to the farmer and it wasn't a matter of charity. But I never gathered from anything that the Prime Minister said that he felt that he could solve the Canadian farmers' problem merely by arbitrarily setting prices that were in line with the prices of the things that he had to buy in the production of his goods . MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I must say I'm still confused. It seem·s to me the Prime Minister, prior to election, said quite clearly, "Parity not charity".

Now what does it mean in the light of my honourable friend's ·statement? MR. HUTTON: He was talking about a goal. The goal for farmers is parity. But there are a numb_er of ways of trying to achieve it, aren't there? You might just go out, and the most obvious thing to do, and the easiest thing to do in a sense, would be -- if you had enough Page 176 February 26th, 1962

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd. ) .. .•• money, and if the taxpayers would stand for it and if the consumers would stand for it -- would be to set the price of all these products at a level where they would return the farmer -- and I don't know how you figure this one out because the fellow who pro duces 10 ,0 00 bushels a week would find his parity at maybe 90� and the fellow who produces 2, 000 bushels of wheat may need $1. 90 -- but somehow or other you establish theoretically a price that will return to the farmer enough money so that he can pay for his costs of production and make a living over and above that.

There may be other ways. I've .mentioned some of them tonight. I think that the long-term solution is that we've got to get some balance back in our economy and not merely by jacking prices up. Maybe we'll need to bring some down, or at least get them to level off to the point where you can catch up with them. I'm making another speech. MR .• SCHREYER: •...... .... question, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister should re veal the source of the figures which he cited as regards the farm implement dollar. MR. HUTTON: I'd be very happy to do so. This was a talk given by Mr. C. R.

Carlson, Junior, Senior Vice-Pres ident of Deere and Company at the Fargo Farm Forum. I suppose because he's a representative of the Com pany all his figures are sp urious. MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, it's not my intention to make a long speech tonight, nevertheless -- I don't think I make very long speeches -- but I couldn't let, Mr." Speaker, couldn't let the nonsensical talk, the so-called speech on basic economics which we heard from the Minister just finished go by without saying a few words. _ I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, first of all that the Canadian Labour of Congress which re presents 95% of . the organized workers of this country, has on numerous occasions ---and I'll be glad to supp ly the Minister with copies of the resolutions tomorrow 'if he wants them -- has on numerous occasions discussed the problems of farmers and has on every occasion passed resolutions urging the Canadian Government to bring in crop insurance legislation; urging the Canadian Government to bring in parity price legislation; urged the Canadian Government to pass any measures which will im prove the lot of the farmers.

And for a very sim ple' reason, Mr. Speaker, because there is no better customer for the products which are produced by the Canadian worker than the Canadian farmer. The Canadian farmer, when he's getting: a good price for his products, and when he's able to sell his products, is an excellent customer for the tractors which are produced by Canadian workers, for the cars and trucks that are pro duced by Canadian workers; and because they're good customers, it is in the interests of the Canadian worker, Canadian city person, that the farmer be prosperous.

And so labour asked us to assist and we suppo rted the legitimate requests of the farmers for legislation which will help them. I want to say ·also, Mr. Speaker, that it is in the interests of the farmer that Canadian workers get a good price. The Canadian worker who gets 66� an hour, the mise rable minimum wage which is set by this province for the workers of this province, is not iln a posi tion to buy very much of these products which are produced by the farmers who are suppos edly represented by the Minister of Agriculture.

They don't have much money to buy milk or butter or eggs which are produced by the Manitoba farmer. They don't have much money to buy any thing. So it would be in the interest of the Canadian farmers to see that the workers are getting a legitimate wage -- and that's all that the Canadian workers have asked for. Now the Minister gave us some figures, Mr. Speaker, about the increased wag13s which Canadian workers, working for John Deere, have made. And I would be the last one to deny that this isn't true. Of course they're making higher wages.

They're making higher wages partly because they're organized -- and there's a lesson to be learned by workers who aren't organized and there's a lesson to be learned by Canadian farmers -- that if they want to get what they are entitled to that they ought to have a strong organization, and one organization. But the Minister didn't tell us , Mr. Speaker, that Canadian tractors are being produced every year by less and less workers.

The Minister didn't tell us, and I'm sorry I haven't g:ot the figures with me today, but the productivity of every worker in the farm implement industry has more than doubled since World War II so that sim ply to give the increase in wages only gives you a part of the picture, and not the important part of the picture, because ma t is im portant is how much is the total value of the product turned out by the number of workers in the industry. And if you look at that figure, Mr.

Speaker, you would see that while the wages for the workers have gone up, that there are less, many less workers working and they're turning February 26th, 1962 Page 177

(Mr. Orlikow , cont' d. ) .•... out a very muc h greater production of goods . And now I want to close wi th one figure, Mr. Speaker . The Minister says that because the figures he gave us came from the President of John Deere therefore we wo uldn't want to ac eept them as being true.

Well, I couldn't find the figures for John Deere -- maybe I'm not an expert, we have some people on the other side who are much more expert at reading the survey of industrial put out by the Financia l Post than I am -- but I did find the figures for Massey Harris-Ferguson which I think the Minist er wi ll recognize as a pretty im portant com pany. And the figures as given by them, I presume, to the Financial Post and published in the survey of industrials.

I think they are interesting, and when the Minister tries to blame the high cost of farm im pleme nts on increased wa ges and on the wo rkers, I think he should give the whol.e pic ture. Now one of the mem bers brought me two copies of the Survey of Industrials -- one for 1955 and one for 19 61, and the net profit for Massey-Harris-Ferguson in the 1955 Survey of Industrials, which is for the year 1954, was $7, 194, 000. 00.

And if you turn to the 196 1 survey which gives you the net profits for 1960, what's happened to this poor com pany which can't make a living, which only raised its prices enough so that it wouldn't lose the money which the Minis ter talked about. Well you see a very interesting thing. The net profits of Massey-Harris Ferguson has gone from $7, 19 4, 000 to $1 3, 154, 000 -- an increase of $6, 000, 000 or an increase of almost, of about 90%. So, Mr.

Speaker, I think that when -- I sai d this the other day when I spoke and I repeat it -- that figures don't lie, but liars can figure, and you can take anything you want out of figures depending on the figures you choo se. And when the Mi nister wants to talk about wages and about the cost to farmers , I think he wo uld be much more realistic if he took a look at the total pict ure and that includes the increase in productiv ity and it ce rtainly includes the increase in profits. MR. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Honourable Member for St. John's a question. Would he answer a question? MR.

ORLIKOW: I'll try. MR . HUTTON: Well, he gave the figures for the total earnings -- the gross earnings . MR . ORKIKOW: That's the net profit. MR . HUTTON: Alrig ht the net profit for 1955 and 196 1, and he didn't relate it in any way to the total assets of the com pany, nor did he express it in any way as a yield on investment at all to the com pany. I'd be interested in hearing that speech because the information I have is that it am ounted to 3% in 1960 as com pared to 6. 1% in 1957 . MR . ORL IKOw:·- Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think, first of all the Minister is talking about John Deere and unfortunately I have only been in a short period of time since the Mi nister spoke, I have only been able to find Massey-Ferguson. Secon dly, I think when he's talking about 3 -- I think he said 3%, I think you're labouring under a basic misco nception. I'd have to see the figures you're wor king from, but I think what you're talking about is 3� on every sales dollar, and I want to tell the -- (Interjection) -- Well, I'm sorry I can't analyse figures which I haven't seen .... MR .

HUTTON: .•.... the net profits per dollar of total assets -- (Interjection) -- the yield on the investment. MR . ORLIKOW: I've read you the net profit s for Massey-Ferguson. Do you want to know what the·-- (Interjection) -- I can read it all if the Minister wants it. It doesn't chs.nge the pict ure at all. The net profits are up. I can tell the Minister wi thout studying this in detail that the total investment is up, the total investment went up very sharply for all comp anies be cause they don't pay out all the profit in div idends each year , they hold it back and the net value of the com pany increa ses.

This doesn't make the pict ure any better from your point of view ; it makes it worse because the net value of the com pany is goi ng up as a result of the earnings which they make and which they hold back. MR . HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask him another question? MR. ORL IKOW: Go ahead. MR . HUTTON: In qualifying this question I'd just say this, that I have the figures, the com parable figures for Massey-Ferguson and they are 3. 2% for the period 157 to '60 and 2. 9% on the investment for the year 1960 .

My question relates to his saying that you can only go by the total amount that they earned and if it's up this indicates they have made some gross profits in the past which they have reinvested. But does the Honourable Member for St. John's realize Page 178 February 26th, 1962

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd. ) . . . • . that there ls a very heavy movement of consolidation w ithin the farm machinery manufacturing business? -- (Interjection) -- Do you realize that there is a very heavy movement of consolidation that -- (Interjection) -- a great deal ..... MR. ORLIKOW: If you want to make another speec h, make it. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? HON. J. A. CHRISTIANSON (Minister of Welfare) (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to join in this battle.

However, I feel that seeing that there have been a great many statements left laying on the table in what I would cons ider to be an uncompleted state, I think it's only my duty to help to supply some of the fu�ther answers that these questions raise-:- The Honourable Member for St. John's said that the tr-actors that were being produced today by the major manufacturers were being produced by less and less workers. He is quite correct. The same is true in any major industry in North America. The productivity of the worker has gone up -- it's gone up remarkably, and particularly in the last ten years. But, Mr.

Speaker, I think that if we examine :;tll the facts we must also ask why has this gone up, and what are the factors that has increased this productivity? There are two or three of them. One of them I should mention is research and development and there have been many billions of dgllars spent in the United States and in Canada in this very im portant field. This has brought about new methods of producing these various items; the design and manufacture· of entirely new types of production equipment, a lot of which was not even known just a few short years ago.

Now this has necess itated -- I'm sorry to see that the honourable member has left his seat -- this has necess itated a tremendous increase in investment. Now anybody who can say that if a company has increased its investment it has done so out of total profits shows a com plete lack of the basic facts of our modern industrial society. Almost all of these com panies, without exception, have increased their total investment, not only through profits which they have been able to retain in small measure, but also by terrific borrowing on the capital market.

He mentioned Massey-Ferguson and he quoted 1954 against 1961. The thing that he forgot to tell us was that prior to 1954, Massey-Ferguson wasn't Massey-Ferguson, it was Massey Harris, and so mewhere along in there -- I think about 1956 or '57 -- it became Massey Ferguson, and that's practically doubled the size of the Massey organization. Somewhere along in there, too, a fellow by. the name of E. P.

Taylor got into the picture and he didn't stop with just taking over a large -- another Tory perhaps -- and he didn't stop by taking over just a few plants in the United States, he went into all the markets of the world. He took over large plants in England, in France and in other· countries of the world. I think if you examine the total as sets of Massey-Ferguson of 1954 as against their assets of 1961, I think that you will find that they have more than doubied but probably quadrupled in that period. So total earnings of an in crease of the nature of 90% are really begging the question.

The figures that the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture has shown that even in the period '57 - '60 as against 19 60, their percentage of profits as against total assets fell from 3. 2% to 2. 9% in that short period. Now I think that if we had the figures at hand, which I haven't I'm sorry, to protect this figure back wards to some degree, we would find that their percentage had fallen from so mething on the order of 5 or 6% in 154 -- (Interjection) -- but the farmer was paying more than ever, but, my friend, the significant fact that seems to escape the attention of the members of the NDP, Mr.

Speaker, is that the manufacturer was getting an ever decreasing share of that dollar -- an ever decreasing share -- (Interjection) -- On paper and in fact, because the government has a pretty fair enforcement agency known as the Department of Internal Revenue that makes sure that most people tell the truth most of the time. To go back, I would only reiterate the fact that it's quite true that the machinery has been produced by fewer and fewer workers, but again -- (Interjection) -- and he knows it, Mr. Speaker, he knows it far better in fact than the Leader of the NDP Party.

But it only reiterates the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture when he was drawing some basic economic facts to the attention of the members opposite, and that is that the rich get richer and the poorer get poorer by this very process because as industry is forced to invest more and more per man employed, the productive level and the ability of the workers mus t continually rise. And what is the net result?

Well, some figures that were made available to me the other day indicated that here in our City of Winnipeg the number of em ployable unemployed -- that is people who have skills, who are unemployed and actually on relief this J6 ar, has risen by some 76% over February 26th, 1962 Page 179

(Mr. Christlanson, cont'd. ) ..... last year. Now I don't know what that says to the memb ers of the NDP, but to me it says that the comp etitive level of our �=JConomy is getting higher and higher every year .

Were we an is olated com munity liv ing by ourselves and able to trade wi th com munities such as Mars and Venus -- which I hope we wi ll be able to do soon -- we could probably go along in this way and not suffer any undue damage; but because we have to deal wi th other nations in the wor ld, because our very ll velihood is dependent upon the produc,.tive level and the efficiency of our relative level wi th these people we are forced .... . MR. SCHREYER: Would the Honourable Mi nister permit a question? MR. CHRISTIANSON: If you wo uldn't mind, I'd just like to finish the statement I'm making.

Oh, after I'm done, by all means. I'd be most pleased. The compet itive level is risi ng and our position is steadily deteriorating wi th respect to theirs. Now it's all well and good to say that the wa ge level in Japan or Germany has increased 10% in the past year and ours has only increased by 3%. But 10% of what? And 3% of what? I don't have to draw your attention to the fact that 10% of 60� is only 6�; but 3% of $2. 00 is also 69. The spread was too large to start wi th, and this , I think, is one of the things we have to fac e.

The attempts by pressure groups of one si de or another to influence the forces of the economy which has been the si tuation in Canada and in the United States over these past several years can only result in hardship on the people who are unable to protect themselves . The largest group who are unable to protect themselves are the old aged, the pensioners and others who are on fixed income, the ones who are not organized, and I include in that group the farmers . So, Mr. Speaker, we must be very careful, as the Honourable Member for St.

John's pointed out, that when we tell a story, and when we use figures to tell a story, we should use all the figures, and not only part of them. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Honourable Mi nister if he cons iders that to expedite international trade, it is more import ant to have lower wages or to have a lower exchange rate when you're running a defic it on current account. International trade. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, they both contribute to our comp etitive posi tion -- (Interject ion) -- I beg your pardon? Why didn't I mention which other? MR. SCHREYER: The exchange rate.

You didn't mention that at all . MR. CHRISTIANSON: I didn't bring the subject up, Mr. Speaker. You _did. Continued on next page Page 180 February 26t h, 1962

MR. SPEAKER : Are you ready for the question? The question before the House is the amendment to the • • . MR . ROB LIN: Mr. Speaker, I take it that you're about to put the question as to whether the government should continue in office , or not. If that is the case , I know that members opposite would be very disappointed and probably think me somewhat remiss if I didn't say a few words as to why I would hope that the government will be allowed to carry on. Now , I say that Sir, not in any spirit of complacency.

We have been charged with complacency by honour able members opposite , and I would very much regret the situation if that was , indeed, the fact.

And although, I suppose it is natural when defending what you have done, what you've been doing, and what you propose to do, to put the best possible face on your activities and to give the positive si de of the argument from one point of view, I think we must remember that that is a custom of debate and is part of the tradition of the House, and that we should not look upon that kind of a defense of the activities of the government as being fundamentally one of self-sat isfaction or complacency or approval of things as they are , because I want to start off what I have to say in defending the record of the government by saying that I really don't think that membe rs opposite are more fully seized of the necessity of continuing progressive work than we are.

I don't think there's anyone in this House who believes mo re firmly than we do that there is much to be done. I am certain, Sir , that there are few here who see the imperfections of what we have done more clearly than we do, because we are sitting on top of the problems that are at hand, and I certainly feel that I need apologize in no respect if I say that we are quite willing to accept legitimate and constructive criticis m of what we have done, and of what we pro pose to do, and to take that kind of criticism in the spirit in which it is intended.

That , of cour se, is one of the great advantages of this kind of a debate -- the general character and nature of a debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne -- because it is, in a sense , a free-for-all, and members from all sides of the House are able to express their views on any subject they like and to criticize the activities of the government in any way they like . There are one or two , perha ps, who might even say -- and per haps not all on this side of the House let it be said --that some of the things we 'r e doing are wo rthy of commendation.

But it does open up many prospects and I think should be used by. the government in the most constructive way, and that we should not be averse to acknowledging good criticis m when we hear it , or averse to being responsive to constructive suggestions that mig ht be put forward. I think that one such suggestion that I might make a brief reference to is the proposal of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead that we should have an "Amsbudman". He didn't call it that -- and I'm quite sure that I don't know how to pronounce it -- but thi s is a Scandinavian word for what might be called the conscience of the state .

In some of the Scandinavian countr ie s, as members know, this official -- this Am sbudman or whatever he's called -- ·has the duty of being available to lis ten to the complaints of the citize ns.

Here we've got a beef session on some of the radio statio ns , which perhaps serves a somewhat similar purpose -- and I must confess that members of the government, particularly those on the Trea sury benches, are a sort of a deputy-amsbudman all th e time , because we expect to receive and expect to make ourselves available , to a great many of the citizens of this province who come to us with difficulties that they think we can help them with; and we also have to make ourselves available to members of the legislature who come re pres enting their constituencies in a similar way. !'must confess that when we br ought in our le gislation re specting regul ations , which I think is generally agreed to be a forward step in trying to deal with the problems of administra tive law that have been referred to thi s afternoon, I must admit that when that piece of legislation was brou ght down, that at the same time we had given pretty careful considera tion to this ques tion of Amsbudman, and in thinking it over , it seemed to us that there was , under some circ um stances, perhaps something to be said for the idea.

In this province , however , with something less than a million people, where a great many of our citizens find it quite possible to communi cate with me , or to communicate with other members of the front bench, or to communicate with members of the House generally , in a small province like thi s I think there is , perha ps, a feeling of accessi bility -- I hope there is -- between the general public and those who are tem porari ly entrusted with the responsibilities for carrying on the government of the province ; and I would like to think that perhaps the neces sity for this kind of an official is not so marked or obvious here as it might be in a larger organization -- a government that mig ht be responsible February 26th, 1962 Page 181

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) .•.. for the affairs of many millions of people s, or who are scattered in a way that ours is not here -- where communications are not good, and where we do not have the kind of democratic responsibility that we have in this House , in those circumstances per- . haps the idea would have more force .

However, it's well worth taking a second look, and, as far as I'm concerned, I think we would be glad to take that second look to see whether we don't need some kind of a complaint department -- that' s what it really amounts to -- where the people can have recourse to somebody who they know will get to the bottom of the situation that they complain about . It might be a great thing for the government, for examp le . It mi ght take a lot of the stress and strain of daily contact with disc ontented people among the electorate that we have today in asking them to visit this official instead.

However, on the other hand, I think it does the government a lot of good to hear in that direct and pe rsonal way from members of the electorate who object to what is going on, or have problems, or don't agree with our policy , on whom the administration might bear unduly heavily, and I feel that it is a good thing for us - and I sincerely hope , not entirely futile on the part of the general public -- that they have this rather intimate possi bility open to them of bringing their complaints right to the men who are responsible for them .

I mention this beca use I was interested in what· the honourable gentleman had to say on that subject , and I wouldn't like him to feel that his remarks have gone unapp re ciate d or unnoticed. I also must admit that I had intended to say a word or two about the rather deep and philo sophical discussion that was being conducted by the Minister of Agriculture and Conservation and the Member for St. John' s, beca use I wanted to get into this busine ss of figures -- I rather like figures now and then.

However, I think my colleague , the Minister of Welfare, has said all that may be necessa ry to say at this time . Suffice it to say this , that in these matters of major economic policy which we discuss perhaps rather light-heartedly in this Chamber , that the solutions are never as easy as they seem , and that one of the great difficulties is that a solution which may appear good in itself and on the face of it, will lead you into consequences which per haps were not anticipated and which perhaps will thwart the good purpose that one might have in mind in introducing the policy in the first pla ce .

This is one of the things that hap pens when we are dealing with matters of deep economic importance such as the kind that have been discussed here tonight, and I think it is on that note that my colleague , the Minister of Agriculture and Conservation, would wish to place his emphasis tonight. Now, Mr . Speaker, I know that in this debate I have what sometimes is a perhaps more of a custom than sincerely mea nt -- and I make no reflection on what anyone else has said when I say that -- but sometimes it may become ·a bit formal that we should congratulate you on your posi tion as Speaker of the House .

I sometimes wish that we'd develop another way of referring to Mr. Speake r than these rather formal tributes that are paid to him as a matter of routine.

But I can pay a tribute to you , Sir, that is not a matter of formaLty at all beca use I can say quite sincerely -- and perhaps I am merely putting into other words what others have tried to say -- that you have demonstrated by your moderation and your sound judgment in your rulings that you deliver to us from time to time , the wisdom of this Chamber in having asked you to assume the office which you hold today, and I would like to say that I have sat under a number of Speakers , all of whom I think were commendable indeed, that I feel , Sir, that you are fully equal to your task, and dese rve to rank with the very best of those who have occupied your seat before you.

I would also like to join with those who have expressed their satisfaction with the speeches of the honourable the mover of the motion on the address in reply and the honourable gentleman who seconded it. I think that they both made very pleas ant and commendable contributions to the debate , and got it off on what I thought was a good tone, and I would express my thanks to them .

I wonder if I should say this pu blicly, beca use it's a rather personal thing, but I can't tell you, Sir, how pleased I am that one of my colleagues here has occupied his seat in this session of the Legislature after a very serious illness . I think that we must recognize that he has a severe trial in front of him, but I am so happy that the medica l advice that he has been receiv ing is so optimistic about his splendid progress to date that we may look forward with confidence to his return to good health.

I think perhaps my Honourable Friend, the Leader of the Opposi tion, would not think me out of place if I were to say that the surgeon that has been so capably Page 182 February 26th, 1962

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) . • • • in charge of my honourable friend is the brother of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Mr . Speaker, I am expected, of course, to make some extended comment on the speech that was delivered here in support of this motion of non-confidence by the Honourable the Lead er of the Opposition·, and I think it was entirely fitting that at the commencement of his remarks he spoke in French to this Chamber and I would like to respond in suitable terms.

J'a pprecie hautement !' allusion faite par mon honorable ami le chef de !' opposition au suj et de l'u sage de la langue francaise en cette Chambre. Je puis !' assurer que nous sommes tout-a -fait d'accord, en visant au maintien de l'un ite de notre pays , base sur les deux grandes cultures de ses fondateurs auxquelles se sont ajoutees celles d' autres peuples venus de toutes les parties du monde. ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ABO VE: I should like to acknowledge with appreciate the reference made by my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition to the status of the French language in this Chamber.

There is no disagreement among us·, I am sure, in maintaining the unity of our country based upon the two great cultures of the founding races and incorporating the contributions which other peoples have brought to us from all parts of the globe. I must say, though, that it is -- I am glad that at least one thing that I have done has re ceived the approbation of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. If I were the sort of man who kept a diary I'd make a note in it tonight.

I know that the Honourable Leader of the Opposi tion will not expect me to be so receptive to some of the criticisms that followed his very gracious opening remarks in that debate, and indeed I feel it would be wrong if I were not to select a few of the major points which I think he made in this House , to explain to him and to the people of the province why I think his criticism is overdrawn and why I think that some of the negative conclusions to which he came really don't gibe with the actual facts as they exist.

For example , my honourable friend had a good deal to say about the situation facing municipal and local governments in the province , and the niggardliness of the financial support, monetary con tributions that this administration had made to those municipal and loc·al governments. He h3.d a lot more to say on the same subject but I think that was the main point that he was trying to make -- certainly one of the main points.

Perhaps, therefore , it would not be out of place for me to place on the record, for the information of all members, how much additional assistance, indirectly and directly, the local and municipal governments of this province have received since the present administration came into office . And I am able to say that, including the sums that you will be asked to provide in a few days from now, that the provincial assistance in this way to local and municipal governments in Manitoba since we came in has increased by the sum of $23 million. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what members on the opposite side of the House think about it. I'm sure they are going to say that it isn't enough, but I'm going to say this, as far as we're concerned, that $23 million is a very large increase indeed in the assistance that we give to local and municipal governments. Grants to schools alone, we know, have doubled since the present administration came in. And I give you these other figures to give you some idea of the magnitude of the additional assistance that has been made available to the school boards of municipalities of the Province of Manitoba -- $23 million.

I must confess, frankly , that we have to rely on the financial responsibility and the financial good sense of these school boards and municipal governments of this province to manage on the money that they get from us and the money that they get directly from their own local taxpayers , because everybody knows that in a very large measure they are economists in this respect.

When one considers today that we have this very large increase of $23 million made available to local governments since we came into office , I think we are talking of huge amounts, and let me say this, huge sums of money that were never dreamed of by those who came before us in the management of the affairs of this province . So I don't really think that a charge of niggardly conduct toward the municipal and local governments of Manitoba really rests at our doorstep . But I want to go further than that, I want to say to you , Mr. Speaker, that that doesn't mean that the situation is perfectly all right.

I wouldn't like any member of this House to con clude from the fact that twenty-three million more dollars of provincial money has been poured into the local governments of this province indicates that we on this side or the citizens gener ally should sit back in their chairs and say, well it's a very great sum of money, these fellows February 26th, 1962 Page 183

(1\'lr. Roblin , cont'd) •••• have certainly been increasing their grants and everything is satisfactory and we needn't worry about the financial and fiscal condition in which our munici palities find themselves. I don't think it would be right, I don't think it would be helpful to take that complacent view with respect to local governments in this province, beca use I am coming to the conclusion , Sir, that the day may not be far off when we will require a very thorough re view of these local government arrangement s. I'm well aware that this is not a novel idea.

I know and other members of the House know, though none of them have seen fit to mention it so far , that the municipalit ies themselves, the union of Manitoba municipalities and the union of urban municipalities jo intly, let it be said to their credit -- a very great deal of credit is due to them on this point -- jo intly are conducting their own studies of this state of affairs with re spect to the organization and structure of our municipal governments and our school districts in Manitoba insofar as they affe ct municipalit ies , and they affect them very much indeed.

This study is under the chairmanship of the very distinguished Manitoban, Dr. Murray Fisher, who was for many years a widely respected, indeed adm ired Depujy Minister of Municipal Affairs in this provili.ce, whose experience and broad view, I think on this ma tter and on many others , is second to none in the Province of Manitoba. These bodies of municipal men have voluntarily and on their own initiative and with their own money, let it be said, they have initiate d this study into municipal government in the Province of Manitoba. I think they have done a wise and statesmanlike thing.

I expect that their report will be before us before very long. Sometime during the coming year I expect the report of this investigation into the structure of municipal government to be before us , and I am as certain as I am standing here that it is going to call for the most serious consideration.

Now it may be that when you get a report of that nature which necess arily is , as the lawyers say, "exparte ", which I believe means from one point of view -- if that' s righ t the lawyers ca:n remain silent; if it's wrong they can correct me -- but it may be that recommen dations of that sort need to be filtered again when we receive them beca use one can expect that perhaps not all their recommendations will be without complicat ions , which perhaps even they do not recognize when they make them.

But however that may be , do not rule out the possibility of change in the financial and organiza tional structure of the ;municipal ities of Manitoba. We have got to the stage now where per haps most of the money, in some municipalit ies by far the greatest part of the money that they spend, come s from this government ; and what does that do to the initiatiVe and to the constitutional position , if you want to look at it that way , of those municipal officials.

Perhaps it would be better if responsibilities were redefined; perhaps it would be better if financial resources in the field of taxation were redefined and reorganized and changed and brought up-to-date ; because in spite of the committee that sat under the leadersh ip of my hon ourable friend the Member for Lake side many years ago -- not many years ago but about six or seven years ago -- no really fundamental changes outside the Metro area had taken place in connection with this matte r of municipal government.

So I say to the House that by no means take the present situation for granted, and by no means impute to us -- if I can use a word commonly employed by the honourable member of the New Democratic Party -- by no means impute to us satisfactional complacency with the situation as we find it.

Twenty-three million dollars more -- yes, but I think that we may very well and before long be called upon to take a new look at this whole problem and the government itself awaits with the greate st of interest and, I may say, expectation, the recomme ndations that will be pres ented to us by this jo int study of the two municipal bodies under the pres idency of Dr . Murray Fisher.

So I say to my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party , and all who have spoken on this question of municipal finance s, that they need not think that their complaints fall on, deaf ea rs. They need not think that there is any sense of self-satis faction on this side in connection with the problems and they need not think that it is not a matte r which will receive our attention. Part of the addre ss of my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition was taken up in dealing with the question of the school division plan.

Not a very great part , I'l l have to admit, but he did include , among his catalogue of hasty actions on our part , he did include haste in setting up the school division plan. Well I must say that it is a matter of opinion as to whether it was hasty or whether it was not. But I want to say this, that if this government has to be judged by the people over the House , if there is any one thing upon which we would like to stand Page 184 February 26th, 1962

(Mr . Roblin, cont'd) .••. or to fall , I want to tell you that it's on the question of what we did in reo rganizing education in the Prov ince of Manitoba. If anyone opposite me today, now or on the hustings, wants to take a ballot on the question of whether we did ri ght or wrong, whether we were hasty or slow on the question of the school division plan, we're willing to face up to that charge and we 're willing to accept our full measure of respo nsibility, because we think we did the ri ght thing. We think we did a good thing. We more than think it.

We have a little bit of evidence to indicate that perhaps it was the right thing to do. Since that plan came in, some 2,6 88 new schools have been built -- 2, 688 -- to say nothing of renovat ions, improve ments , teacherages and things of that sort. I want to say that the new high schools are now the landmarks of the towns of Manitoba, replacing the grain elevators that used to be the main dis tinguishing feature of many of our towns . It's the high school today. But it isn't really a question of bricks and mortar; it isn't really a question of the number of rooms or_ how much money you put into it.

Those perhap s are some degree of measurement, but the fruit of the policy rests entirely in the boys and girls who are going to school that weren't going to high school before . I say that the people of this province are proud of what they have done for their children in the high schools of this province . The people where schools have been built, and the school division people , are proud of their new schools and they know they have done the right thing.

They rec ognize what they owe to the pioneers in the little red schoolhouse that my hon ourable friend the Member for Lakeside has such affectionate memories of, and I can quite under stand why, because it was the genesis . But on top of that structure , on top of those pioneer efforts for education , we have been able to complete it by er !"lcting this structure of secondary schools over the whole of the Province of Manitoba, where people can see that their children get education. I must say that taxes have gone up in some place s. I must admit that, but I want to share something with this House .

I've been one of these men who 's been flitting around wasting our time, accord ing to the Honourable Member for Gladstone or is it the Honourable Member for Emerson -- I'm not sure which, they're both so -qegative I've trouble distinguishing between them -- wasting our time opening these new schools . I've not been reproached yet by any tax payer because he's paying more taxes for that new school. I'm sure they don't like paying more taxes.

I'm sure that they look at that tax bill and understand clearly what it means, but I think that when they understand the contribution the government has made and what we have done in good faith to pay our share of the school bill, that they are willing to make that sacrifice . I won't sell the people of this province short by saying in any audience in this province that they are not proud of their educational system and not willing to make the sacrifices that they are called upon to make. I went to a school in Turtle River.

Turtle River school division happens to be pr etty well eo-terminus with the Constituency of Ste. Rose so I was rather interested in going there , I'll admit it frankly. They have four or five new high schools . My honourable friend the Lea der of the Opposition knows more than I do about this -- (Interjec tion) -- seven? Well , there you are. I attended one of the openings with him. He was wasting his time on that same occasion along with me, and we went to Amaranth where we opened a very handsome new high school facility.

I must say that my honourable friend was more than kind and more than generous to the government on the platform that afternoon. He didn't accuse us of haste . He didn't talk about increased taxes. He didn't say any of those rather negative things that some members of this House say when you talk about schools. He got up, to his everlasting credit, and he said: "This ·is a good school. The people here need it and it's something we should have ". Whatever quarre ls we may have in the time to come or whatever differences of view that may develop between us , I can always remember that. And I know why he said that.

He said that beca use he knew, as I know, that in the last two years in Turtle River there has been a 60% increase in the number of boys and girls going to high school -- 60% more -- 60% more in two years . -- (Interjection) -- Well, my_ honourable friend has been looking for votes a lot longer than I have , so I bow to his superior wisdom . But, Sir, there was 60% increase in the high school students in the constituency of Ste . Rose, Turtle River division, and in addition to that, in that particular division, the province happens to pay 68% of the total school bill.

I think that gives you, in a more intimate fashion than the larger figures and the millions of dollars and the thousands of schoolrooms do, some idea of the impact of the high school division system of the February 26th, 1962 Page 185

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) .••. Province of Manitoba. We'r e going to see it in our university. Univers ity enrolment is going to rise . There 's a big increase in university grants this year. They're about three times what they were when we came in and they're going to go higher.

And I want to tell all members of the House to brace themselves because we need more money for loans and more money for scholarships and more money for our university as time goes by, be cause we're going to generate the future of our country through the high school system into the university and at the technical schools , by reason of these improvements in our high school system and what they mean to the rural sections of the Province of Manitoba. I know that many people in Winnipeg around here don't know about these things .

They've always had good high school system s, but I suggest to you that the people of the country know what it means and even though they're not going to agree with everything we have done, that even though they'r e going to be able to criticize us quite le gitimately for some of the miscalcu lations which inevitably arise from any new policy that's started, I think they are going to give us the cre dit for having the courage and the conviction to do what we thought was right and which now we know was ri ght for the people of this province.

I don't think you can make a case for haste on the basis of the high school system . I could talk about the fact that this subject has been debated in this Chamber as long as I'v e been he re and we had a Royal Commiss ion on it and then we did something about ten years before anything happened. I could say that's not very hasty, but I can say that whatever else it may be it was the right thing to do and it is done good, and on that basis we stand or fall.

Well, Sir , I want to change to some of the other points my honourable friend made , and I'm afraid that at the risk of being repetitious , I must talk about this charge about hospital taxation and hospital rates and misleading the House and mismanagement and all that kind of thing which cluttered my honourable friend's speech. I think it rather marred what was in some respects a rather good criticism of what we'r e doing. What shall we say about it? Mismanag ement we're called upon. We're mismanagers .

We're deliberately misleading the House which I- - this doesn't apply to the whole of the government, this is just me -- I am slipshod; I am without all the facts and figure s; and then on that rather questionable basis , my honourable friend sa ys, comes into the House and deceives us or else h� doesn't know what he's doing.

What are we to say to those charges after the exhaustive explanations made by the Honourable Minister of Health with respect to this matter just a few days ago when he exploded the charge completely and underlined what can only be . described as a crass statement on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. I wouldn't mind so much if the debate was confined to the Chamber here . We 'r e used to this kind of thing and I must tell him that I've made mistakes myself along things in this respect.

I don't claim any perfec tability on it and I really am not too angry that he has made this unusual error, but what does upset me is that the television people got a hold of it and I think some of the newspaper folk too, and they magnified this accusation which amounts to cheating; which amounts to deception of the public in connection with.this matter , and I don't know what; when all the time the whole crisis arose out of a mistake in simple arithmetic on the part of my honourable friend.

When the Minister of Health was able to get to the little yellow book, which was the basis of my honourable friend's charge , I think it became quite apparent that the 3% which he was trying to marry off with the 12 1/2% should re ally have been married off with the 5.2 %, and the subsequent statement of my honourable friend the Minister of Health that the 5. 2% which we were allegedly trying to cut to 3, in what we h ad asked the hospitals to do , would in practice and when the year is over, turn out to be pretty well right on the button.

Now if you want any more proof , all you have to do is wait until the estimates come down tomorrow or the next day and you'll see what we've done with the money. There 's no deception there and you will see where we're asking you to vote it. If you want any evidence that we'r e · tr ying to play this thing as my honourable friend usually says, "try to play it straight", I as]>; you to look at the es timates when they come in.

Now I will excuse my honourable friend for his failure to understand corre ctly the information given in the yellow book and applying the wrong set of per centages, because it's a thing that's quite easy to do . I've done it myself. But I must say that while I don't think any apology or corre ction is due to us here, we'r e not looking for that kind of thing, I think the record ought to be put straight insofar as the general public is concemed, because as my honourable friend says, he appeals really, when he speaks over Page 186 February 26th, 1962

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) ... .. the heads of the Chamber to the public, in Oppos ition, and that's true. I agree wi th that, but it is im portant that the public get the facts correct ly, and I think that if an incorrect inform ation has been given and wrong inferences drawn, and, as I say, cheating and deception imp uted to us and that's not so, then I think we are entitled to expect some kind of a statement on this matter from those who made it. Well , so much for rushing into the hosp ital plan and so much for rushing into the question of premi ums and the question of taxes to raise this money.

Now I want to say som ething about Metro. We are accused of rushing too fast into Metro. Well of all the places where we rushed, I think that's the place where the charges are more easy to deny than almost any other, because if one traces the hist ory of the dem and for metro pol itan government in this province, one can't start at the date in which the Metro Bill was in troduced into this House by me. One has to start wi th the requests of the Mayors in the Metro area, I think it was 1952, that something should be done, and that was ei ght years before any thing was done at all.

You have to go back to the Municip al-Pr ovi ncial Commission that was established by the Honourable the Member for Lakeside when he was First Minist er, in which they made some com ments and recomme ndations on the same point.

You have to go back to the Royal Commission that was set up and whi ch for a number of years exhausti vely analyzed the question, and although we did not accept the prec ise recomme ndations of the Royal Commissi on, I want to tell the House now , as I said quit e frankly two years ago when the bi ll came in, that the principles on which we were worki ng were indeed those that had been develope d as basic by that Royal Commission.

Now , Mr. ·S peaker, I am frank to admit that there will be another opportunity to talk about Metro, and on that other opportunity I expect to have a good deal to say about the Blake Goldenberg report, because I think me mbers wi ll be interested in know ing -- and I'm sure the general public have the right to know -- why the government decided that the Blake-Goldenberg report wo uld not be a suitable thing to imp leme nt at this time.

We wi ll be prepared at the ap propri ate moment to make a full statement as to why we think that, in fairness to all the muni cip al governments in the area, Blake-G oldenberg wa s not indicated at -the present mo ment.

There is another aspect of Metro which I expect to have some discuss ions on wi th members of the House before we 're through, and that is the whole question of Metro finance; whether the provincia l support is adequate or whether it's not; and the principles which we think should govern the relationship on a financial basis between Metro and the province, because I think that the public and the House are entitled to know what our views are on that subject.

We anti cip ate a full debate on those poi nts at a later time, as we have already made it clear in the speech that we intend to deal wi th those matters in this session. But I think there is one aspect of Metro finance that I am bound to mention now because it was raised by one of the members in this debate in such a way as to make it imp ossible or inadvisable to delay in replying to it.

The Honourable the Leader of the New Dem ocratic Party and the Honourable the Member for Seven Oaks mentioned Metro and its problems, and I want to repeat the feelings of appreciation that I expressed previousl y to the co nstructive and, I think, correct way in which they made their re ferences. I don't agree wi th the imp ression left wit h some by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks that amalgamation is the cause. I have different views on that, but I do apprec iate what they said because I think it was meant to be helpful.

Now I'm going to make some further remark on what wa s said by the Honourable Member for St. John's because, and I'm not cr itical of what he said because I feel it was probably good that he brought out the point that he did, but he made some comp arisons between the support given by the Government of Ontario to Metropolitan Toronto wit h the ·support given by this government to Metropol itan Winnipeg, and believe me, he wasn't very pleased wi th what he saw. Fi gures, as he said, "figures can't lie , but liars can figure", was his rem ark earlier on to night.

I don't like to put it that way because I think that there are several legitim ate ways , no doubt, of looking at the same set of figures, but I don't criticize him for using his . He said that Metropol itan Toronto got mi llions of dollars more than Metropolitan Winnipeg, not only in actual amount but also in relationship or in comp arison wi th the help that is given in one province as wi th that in the other.

His point was that Metropol itan Winnipeg deserves much better treat ment than it was getting today if we were to be able to place ourselves in any situation of com parison wi th the people in Metropol itan Toronto. Now I think that he left a very loose and February 26th, 1962 Page 187

(Mr. Roblin, cont•d. ) ..... inaccurate imp ression, whic}l l'm afraid has gained som e currency, that his view of the si tuation was correct. It's not the only view and I maintain it is not even the correct view , and I wo uld like to give some different analysis to the problem that he placed before us in this respect. The first thing that you have to understand, Sir, is that there is a vast difference indeed between the responsibil ities of Metropol itan Winnipeg and the responsibil ities of Metropol itan Toronto. They are much more centralized.

How amalgamation has proceeded to a much greater extent in Toronto than it has here , and let me give you some illustration of the extent to which that has taken place. In Metropol itan Toronto the health and wel fare services are largely the responsibility of Metro -- the hosp italization of indigent patients ; the post-sanator ium care of consumption; homes for the aged; the ma intenance of wa rds of the Childrens ' Ai d Society; and different soc ial services of that nature are part of the responsibili ty of Metropol itan Toronto.

Metropol itan Toronto also includes in its annual budget the current estima tes of the Metropolitan School Board, which are enormo us . The Metropol itan Corporation, on the advice of the Metropolitan School Board, determ ines the am ounts of funds to be approved for the pur chase of new school si tes and the erection of new buildings, and the capit al funds required for these purposes are raised by Metropol itan Toronto on the credit of the Corporation and handed over to the school boards as they are required. The provincial education grants, as I tried to poi nt o'ut to my honourable friend the Member for St.

John's when he was speaking, ac crue to the Metropol itan School Board, and are included in the grants that the Province of On tario pays to Metropol itan Toronto. Now you can see that on that one item alone , if we included in the grants to our Metro the grants to all the area school boards, what a nice pict ure it would make of provincial support to Metro, but we 'do it another way and that is why the difference be tween the two is so marked, because they have so many services centralized which are not cen tralized here. Take the police force.

The police force of the 13 municip alities which comp rise Metropol itan Toronto were joi ned in 1957, so naturally that inflates the Metropol itan si tuation there. The administ ration of justice is centralized in that the Corporation is required to pro vide and maintain a court house and a gaol for the County of York and a Juvenile and Fam ily Court for the Metropol itan area. That, of cour(>e, is not the case here.

And in housing -- in Metropol itan Toronto the Corporation there has all the powers of a munic ip ality in respect to housing, and the grants that we are going to give to the City of Winnipeg, which incidentally · we re not mentioned in my com parison of provincial aid to municipalities, you can add several mi llions more to that figure of 23 when you see the full impact of this com ing estim ated budget on munici pal government. In Toronto, Metro has an interest in housing, where it certai nly doesn't have that interest and financ ial concern here.

They exercise jurisdiction over practical ly all the aspects of licens ing, and they also have air pollution control, so you can see that there are many, many aspect of municip al government indeed which here are handled by area munici palities -- are not transferred to Metro; are not part of their responsibility -- which are part of the responsibility of Metropolit an government in Toronto. The main one, of cou rse, is edu cation, because there the education grants filter through the Metropolit an system and inflate the si ze of the provincial grants to Metro in Toronto.

All right, my honourable friend the Member for St. John's said, "so what!" He said to us : "I don't care how you slice it, it's still you know what.

" He said tb us, and I quote: "but I wa nt to say tb the First Mi nister that he can total all the costs , and he can total all the contri butions of the Province of Manitoba to Metro, to the individual municipalities, to the school districts of Greater Winnipeg, and if he ca n come wi thin half" -- he was rather generous -- "if he can come wi thin half of the perc entage that the Province of Ontario comes to wi th regard to Metropol itan Toronto, I wo uld be very glad to con gratulate hi m.

" Well, I took note of that because he doesn •t very often con gratulate me, and I thought that if there was any chance of getting that lit tle bouquet from my honourable friend I should be zealous enough to see what it wa s, so the ne cessa ry ca lcu lations were made. In the Province of Ont ario, ·and I'll deal wi th direct aid -- direct aid from the Province of Ontario to the total area budget, including Metro polit an Torol).to, including the area municipalities, including the school districts in that area, comes to 23% of the total cost. And what is the same figure in the Province of Manitoba?

In the Province of Manitoba the provincial direct aid to all the area municipalities, all the area school boards and to Metro itself, comprises 21 % of their budget, so I' m due for some congratula tions . Page 188 February 26th, 1962

MR. PAULLEY: I wonder if the Honourable First Minister has the figures on a per capita basis. MR. ROBLIN: No, I haven't it on a per capita basis but I can tell my honourable friend som ething about that. I think I can tell him that the per capita basis will be quite different.

I think I can tell him, · and I have no objection to his raising this point, that there is a marked difference, I would expect, although I have not calculated the figures myself, between what is done there and what is done here, for the reason that there is a difference in every municip al structure -- between Metropolitan Winnipeg, between Brandon and the provincial grants, and any place you like to go you get those variations, but you get it particularly when you're dealing with what is a very rich and well-developed part of the country, which I claim Metropolitan Toronto is , com pared to an area which is still doing not too badly, but really isn't in the same league with the people in Toronto.

In any case, my honourable friend's question was a question of percentages, and on a percentage basi s, 23% in Ontario; 21 % in Manitoba; so we' re really not too far off. But there's something else you should consider, and that is that in dealing with Metropolitan Toronto you're dealing with 42% of the total assessed value of the Province of On tario, but in dealing with Metropolitan Winnipeg you're dealing with 65% of the total assessed value of real estate in the Province of Manitoba.

That's som ething to think about -- 65% -- the richest tax base in the entire province as far as real es tate goes concentrated in ·one area here, as opposed to 42% in the Metropolitan area of Toronto. So, with those facts, I do not think that we need be too downcast at the criticisms made of us by the Honoura�le Member for St. John's in this respect .. I should add, perhaps , that •. •.•... MR. ELMAN GUTTORMSON (St. George): On a Point of Order, if the First Minister continues his remarks he is breaking the rules of the House.

I have no objection to him con tinuing his speech, but I hope that we will be allowed the same courtesy. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that when I am defending the government, as I am on this occasion, there is no lim itation on time. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker , the rules stip ulate if another member of the Cabinet speaks for more than 40 mi nutes during the same debate, then the First Minister is lim ited to 40 minutes. MR. ROBLIN: Well, Sir, if anyone has sp oken over 40 minutes he was not called to time by the Speaker, and I'm making my speech in defence of the administration. MR.

GUTTORMSON: The Minister of Agriculture spoke for over an hour. MR. ROBLIN: Very well, many other members spoke more than 40 minutes on this oc castion who were not on this si de of the House, but I'll abide by whatever decision Mr. Speaker makes on this matter. MR. SPEAKER: I might point out that when the Honourable Minister of Agriculture was sp eaking many of the members were running interference for him and they used up most of his time. In actual speaking time, in my opinion, he did not speak more than his allotted time. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I have another interesting com parison here and I want to make one point clear, that I would not ask members to believe that the argument that I am mak ing is conclusively proved by any set of figures that are produced because, as I say, there are many ways of looking at them, but I think that if you take these figures they do give some indi cation of the fact that the provincial support to the Metropolitan area is reas onable. Perhaps it's not enough, we may have to make changes, who knows, but it is not as bad as some are making out -- 23% in Toronto and 21% here.

Another interesting figure is this , that in Ontario direct municipal aid to the Metropolitan area of Toronto takes up 9% of the provincial budget and here it takes up 13%. I don't claim to prove anything by that figure, I just offer it as an in teresting statistic for the members of the House. But I do think I have proved this. I have proved that I'm entitled to the congratulations of the Honourable Member for St.

John's with respect to the challenge that he put before us the other day when he was debating this question of support for Metro, and I would hope that some members of the House mig ht tell him where my office is and I'd be happy to have him come in any time, or perhaps he would like to do it across the floor of the House -- it would be even more acceptable under those circumstances, and let him tell me that, although he may not think we're all that we're cracked up to be, that we're not quite as bad as some of the criticisms that he has been seeking to bring against us.

Now we get another one of these "haste" charges. I'm not entirely sure whether the February 26th, 1962 Page 189

(Mr. Roblin, cont' d. ) .•... Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, who thinks that we're run ning hot and cold, too fast in some directions and too slow in others, I'm not sure whether he really included the, by now, well-worn theme of tax rentals under the hasty connection or under the slow conne ction, but whatever particular category he wants to put it under, he makes it perfectly clear that he doesn't think much of it, so I suppose that we'll have to re-open this old can of worms again and have a go at some of the points that he's made there.

I think the main point that he made, and I notice he got a great deal of pleasure out of mak ing it -- it really gave him a li ft when he talked about how the Premier and the government had knuckled under. That was the phrase -- "knuckled under" -- and really it was most reprehensive that we had been sent, at the public expense mi nd you, all the way down to Ottaw a on the taxpayers money just to "knuckle under" and to say "howdy" to "Uncle John" or whatever it was that my honour able friend thought we were doing down there. I really think that I have to tell him that I don't think we knuckled under.

If so, we were in pretty good com pany because it's only fair to point out that the Premier of Quebec, Jean Lesage, had to knuckle under. Perhaps he wou ldn't call it that way. He did n't li ke the agreement altogether; he made some vigorous protests; but he had to take it or leave it. He had to knuckle under. The Premier of Newfoundland, who now finds the Federal Government rather better neighbors than he had thought -- judging from recent press reports he seems to li ke what they're doing for him -- he had to knuckle under and take the proposition that was offered to him .

Little Mr. -- I wo n't , that's unparliament ary -- Mr. Louis Robic haud, the new Premier of New Brunswick, who came in wi th all that fire and enthu si asm which my honourable friends accuse relativel y new Premiers of having, and thank good ness it's true, he came in wit h all that zeal to improve the position of the Province of New Brunswick, and I've got to report to the House, Sir, that he knuckled under. I have to say the same thing of Mr. Manning, so that my honourable friend from Rhineland wo uld get in on this somewhere. Mr. Manning did n't really have much protest about the whole arrangement.

I thought of him as being perhaps the most acquiescent of us all in this particular matter, but he had to knuckle under. So it seems that regardless of what your pol itical comp lexion is or what your politica l view may be, or your relationship wit h the Government at Ottaw a, you all come to the final decision -- every one of us, every last ten of the Premiers of Canada -- Are you goi ng to take it or are you going to leave it? We came to this House and we said, "take it". We didn't say that we li ked everything about it. We were rather clear on that subject, I thought.

As a matter of fact as things go in politi cs, we were rather frank wit h what we said about that agreement at that time, but we said to the House that in our judgment it is som ething that we had better accept for the Province of Manitoba rather than leave . So if that's knuckling under, when everybody else is in the same boat wi th us, my honourable friend may describe it that way if he li kes. I don't think it wa s knuckl ing under.

I think anyone who-followed the negotiations as closel y as I trust some members of this House did, would have to co nclude that we did put up some pretty stout protests from time to time on what we thought wa s wrong, and that we did try to get the best deal that we could for the province , just as every one of the nine other Premiers did, fighting for his province. I wou ldn't say they knuckled under. I would n't sa y they all agreed. We didn't agree com pletely wi th what we got. They did the best they could in those negotiations and I make no apology for saying that we did the same.

But my honourable friend, the Leader of the Oppos ition goes around the count ry and he says : "T his is cos ting you money. You're not getting your rightful dues. The province is go�ng to be worse off. The taxpayers of this pro vince are subsidiz ing some body else. It's not a good deal. " MR. CAMPBELL: It's true. MR. ROBLIN: Well, we 'll come to that. Well what was it worse or better than? -- (In terjection) -- All right. Let's look at the deal that my honourable friends brought in in 1957 .

Wben they came to this House in '57 wi th the agreement which expires on the 31 st day of March this year, they didn't say that it wasn't any good -- (Interje ction) -- Well, I didn't. Now I'll be frank about this. I did not. My honourable friend the Member for Lakeside wi ll probably re member, and to do him justice, he did n't say it was perfect either. He said that there were some defects in it; that he wo uld have li ked more. And who wo uldn't li ke more ? Let me frankly say that if anyone offers me more, I'm going to take it -- that's for sure.

But in 1957 the Honourable Member for Lakeside, who was then Premier, supported by the Honourable Member Page 190 February 26th, 1962

(Mr. Roblin, cont' d. ) •.... for Ste. Rose, came before this House and recom mended that agreement to it; and w'e who were in Op position then agreed that the government was presenting a deal that we could accept and we did accept it. Now I mention it for a purpose and that is this, that if the 1957 plan wi th all its vi rtues, ·and there were many, had been in force in this com ing year 1962-63 , we wo uld have got $39, 540, 000 all in and that is not including, and I want to make this clear, that is not including the spec ial hosprtalization tax, so the comp arioo n can be on all fours -- leaving that out.

The '57 agreement gave us $39 1/2 million. The plan that is so ter rible, the plan that is selling the province down the river and all the rest of it, wi ll provide for us in this comi ng year $43, 974, 000, or an increase over the '5 7 plan of some $4, 433 ,0 00. 00. Well I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the deal was wo rth taking in 157 that would give us 39 1/2, the deal that we've got now which gives us 43 , pretty nearly $44 mi llion, is wo rth taking today.

I say that when people are discuss ing the mer its of the two schemes, and I'm not adverse to any discussio n of those measures, let it be cle arly stated what the net financial advantage to this province is by having acce pted, or as my friend says, having knuckled under and taken the ar rangement that is proposed for the next five years. In this year of grace it is wor th $4 1/2 million more or le ss, more to the Province of Manitoba in cash than the deal that we got before. -- (Interjec tion) -- Well, I'll tell you what the proposal of Mr. Pearson is . You mi ght be in terested in that.

I didn't intend to do this , but I just brought this on the off-chance you mi ght ask me . MR. MOLGA T: Are you going to answer the question? MR. ROBLIN: I'm going to answer the question? I know you would want me to do so. Well, let's read.what Mr. Pearson had to say, and this is a report of his speech in the Free Press on Tuesday, November 7th, 1961, when he was speaking down in the Province of Quebec.

I think that the Honourable the Leader of the New Democratic Party must have read this speech because when he was speaking in the debate the other day he really landed a haymaker on the chin of my honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Party in asking just how this statement was to be interpreted. Well, it puzzles me as to how it should be interpreted as well, because this is what Mr.

Pearson said, and these are the quotations of his exact wo rds according to the press report: "As a matter of fact we believe that the Federal Government should wi thdraw from the field of joi nt programs which are of a permanent character once these programs are well established across the country. This proposal applies more parti cularly in the field of soci al security, Mr. Pearson says. " Now if I may just add a word of my own here, the House should rememb er that these jo int shared programs today are wo rth to the Province of Manitoba 24 or $26 mi llion; It's not small fry we're talking about.

It's 24 or $26 mi llion. It's over half the value of the tax rental agreement, which are quite separate from this altogether. And then Mr. Pearson, of course, doesn't leave the matter there. Let's be fair to him .

He goes on and says how he's going to handle it, and this is what he says: "In putting an end to its financia l co ntributions to such programs, the Federal Government should compen sate the provinces by giving them more leew ay in the field of direct taxation, so that wit h equalization added their cost s wi ll not increase ." Now those are the two si gnificant phrases there -- "w ith equalization added their costs will not increase ." Well, I'm not looki ng for a plan that doesn't increase my costs. I' m looking for a plan that gi ves me more money, if I'm to reject the one that we've got now .

I say to my honourable friend the Leader of the Oppos ition, who has so blit hely promi sed to abolish the hosp ital premiums by increased federal shared costs, when the Federal Govern ment have announced they're going out of the shared cost business -- (Interjectio n) -- All right, you can explain it when you get to the budget or any time you like. I'd like to find out just how you reco nc iled it. I want to find out what this phrase "w ith equalization added" means. We know it means equalized to the top provi nce -- that's fine. We'd like to see that, but I want to know what's being equalized.

I want to know the basis on which this equalization is to be calcu lated. It's all very well to talk of equalization, but if you don't define your terms closely, you don't know whether you're ahead or behind. -- (Interjection) -- Well, I'd like to say that in the course of this general election which we can antici pate fairly soon, there's nothing I'm going to li sten to more close ly than Mr.

Pearson's views on equalization and what this plan of his really means, because after he said all those nice things, which we can look at in an optim istic way unless it means something we don't think it means, and then he says: "t heir cost s wi ll not in crease". Well, doesn't that seem to indicate that our question of getting a great deal much more, February 26th, 1962 Page 191

(Mr. Roblin, cont' d. ) ..... by way of bigger revenues from Mr. Pearson's scheme, is cer tainly open for question? I frankly admit I don't know what Mr. Pearson means. If the Leader of the Op position knows what Mr. Pearson means and they can prove it from Mr. Pearson's own lips , then I'll list en to him, and if there's a better scheme than the one that we have here and Mr. Pearson's elected, I'm going to take it. MR. MOLG AT: Would you li ke ... .........•... now ? MR. ROBLIN: You had your cha nce.

Until I do , I don't think that I'm going to be very satisfied wit h the proposals that are put before us at the present ti me. Well, Sir -- (Interjec tion ) -- Yes, he's passed up one chance to tell us about him but I'm going to wait to hear it from Mr. Pearson's own mo uth, because when my honourable friend walks off in one direction promisi ng to abolish hosp ital premiums by getting more money from Ottawa wi thout any indica tion from Mr. Pearson that he's going to get it, then I wo nder whether his promise is wo rth very much. When I find out that Mr.

Pearson is propos ing to abolish these shared programs and substitute for it some formula which is rather inexact ...... . MR. GUTTORMSON: All Mr. Pearson said here is he wo uld go along wi th the Leader here in Manitoba. MR. ROBLIN: Well, what's he going to do wi th the Leader in other places ? He better get together wit h the lot of them. I tell you one thing, that if Mr.

Pearson should happen to be in a position to implement this promise -- and I'm not one of these rather noisy people who take the verdict of the electorate for granted, I prefer to wait and see how they vote before I make any rash statements of that sort -- but if he should be in a position to imp leme nt this pro mise, I sincer ely hope for the good name of the Leader of the Oppos ition that it means more money for Manitoba. And if it does and I'm still in my position, I'm going to accept it. Now, Mr. Speaker, enough of this .... .... . Continued on next page Page 192 February 26t h, 1962

MR. MOLGAT : Mr. Speaker, before my honourable friend leaves this subject, would he also tell us about the deal that Ontario is getting under the new plan? It is very much part of the whole affair. MR. ROBLIN: Well you know there's a little phrase in the Litany that keeps running through my mind:" From envy, hatred and malice and all uncharitableness, Good Lord deliver us ." My honourable friend may be right in some of his views on this, but I urge him not to go around stirring up trouble between provinces. If you want to raise cain with Mr.

Diefenbaker or with me that's fair game, but this stimulation of envy between provinces on the part of my honour able friend is something which I really can't say that I approve of. Now , Mr. Speaker, there are a great many other things that I desire to say so I mustn't allow myself to dwell on this interesting question, no matter how attractive it might be, except I want to reiterate that we're going to get 4.4 or $5 million more under this much maligned scheme that we've asked the House to accept than the arrangements that were presented here five years ago. Now what about the Floodway?

I do not think that it would be fair of me to make any criti cal comments on what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the Floodway on this occasion . He raised two points, I think. I'm not sure of one . He certainly raised the point that if Saskatchewan got 75% and we didn't, then he's going to be mighty unhappy.' In fact, I think he said that if we didn't get the 75%, regardless of what happened in Saskatchewan, he's going to be mighty unhappy.

I don't know whether he said it, but certainly some of his support ers said: "we don't care how much you get, the thing's no good and we won't go along with it';.

I don't think it would be fair for me at this moment to object to those criticisms because I'm hopeful that as this session progresses we will have a chance to try and convince honourable gentlemen on all sides of the House, and we trust the public, that the policy that we have been following in connection with the Floodway.is not an irresponsible one; that pe�haps even th\)se charges which they like so much about my having been indiscreet when asked what the Province of Manitoba should do, in having given away our bargaining position. I think the quotation is: "In a fit of temper" .

I'm not even going to rebuke them on that because I think we're going to have plenty of time before we're through to examine the records and see exactly what happened and who said what to whom and why. When that is all refreshed in the rriinds of honour able gentlemen, I don't think they'll be quite so stern in their admonitions as far as I am .concerned and certainly not as far as the government is concerned. I think the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a little more information before we ask him to make up his mind on the question of the Floodway.

I think he is entitled to a little more information on the financial characteristics of the plan; its comparison with Saskatchewan which, I think, was a point raised by him. -- (Interjection) -- Yes, we'll give you that. If you didn't ask for the Saskatchewan, you asked for our figures which we'll give you. I think my honour able friend and some honourable gentlemen opposite are not entirely convinced about the technical· acceptability of the entire program that we've embarked upon , and I want to ask for the opportunity to try and convince them that our view is sound.

I'm not going to labour that point now because that's a debate in a speech all in itself, but I do tell them, and I tell the House , that we will be placing before them a motion on which we can have a full and complete discussion on this particular matter of public importance to which I think that he has referred and which I think is worthy of that kind of treatment. After all, this is one of the biggest issues that many of us will be called upon to vote upon.

It's true that it's not as big as the hydro issue was, but then it's not as clear-cut and as obvious as the hydro issue was, of some $130 million dollars more or less on the South Saskatchewan River.

But whatever the difference may be , it's certainly a very large sum of money and I think that we want the opportunity to try and con vince this House that the policies that we are adopting in respect of it are policies which are sound on all counts and will bear a reasonable comparison -- will bear a reasonable compari son to similar arrangements that have been made in the Province of Saskatchewan to which ad version has already been made.

Now I don't know whether I've much more to say about my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition, except to say that he's in a fortunate position these days in having it both ways. He's arraigned us on a long series of charges of haste and he has arraigned us on a long series of charges of delay. One of them is teachers' pensions . In respect of teachers' pensions, I February 26th, 1962 Page 193

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) ..•. might just refresh his memory and remind him that he was a mem ber of the government which in 1957 , which isn't very long ago, in 1957 brought in this atrocious Teachers' Pension Plan. There , that's something that should be remembered, that it was the previous government in 1957 which my honourable friend supported that brought in that pension plan. I remember with some interest his rebuke to the Member for Birtle-Russell saying that he should be zealous as a backbencher to imprint his views on the policy of the government.

Well I couldn't think of that advice coming from a better source because the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the government backbench for some six or seven years, or was it longer, and he had, I'm sure , a great deal of influence on the policy and the decisions that that government pursued, so I think that we can associate him with what that government did with no difficulty whatsoever and that he wouldn't be preaching to the Member for Birtle-Russell on something which he, himself, failed to do.

So I think that we should re member that the Teachers' Pension Plan of 1957 was one that was introduced by the past admin istration. It's not very ancient yet. It was accepted then as being quite a satisfactory scheme, I believe . I know that it was represented to us by the government at the time as being a good scheme for teachers' pensions , but I want to give my opinion that it isn't a very good scheme for teachers' pensions.

I want to give my opinion , Sir , that it does need a very cons iderable reform and overhaul, but I don't think that all those complaints of undue delay were quite as justified coming from the mouths of the honourable gentlemen who made them. I will say this, that in this session we do hope to make some improvements in the Teachers' Pension Plan and we acknowledge the responsibility to see that a thorough reform and overhaul of that plan takes place just as soon as is reasonable under the circumstances. And that is exactly what we are going to do.

I can't really recall all the other complaints of undue delay that were levied at us , but I know this , that if we had done all the things that he complains were delayed and left all of the things that he said were hasty, he'd be in a position to make entirely the same speech that he made the other day and all he'd have to do is reverse a few paragraphs , so it' s a question of "when did you stop beating your wife?" . It's that kind of a question that he was able to pose to us the other day and, frankly, I didn't find it too convincing. Now , Mr.

Speaker, I feel that I must say a. word on the subject which I frankly confess I would prefer not to speak on at this time and under these circumstances if left to my own de vices. I regret that the gentleman who is responsible for my feeling the necessi ty to talk oil these points tonight is not here . At least he isn't in his seat, and I'm referring to the Honour able Member for St. Boniface .

The other night he made a pretty direct, not very subtle refer ence to the problems of private and parochial schools , and I must say, Sir, that I am distressed by what I think to be his rather uncharitable criticisms of the Progres sive Conse rvative Party and of myself. I really don't mind him having a little fun at my expense about the cult of the leader and all that kind of thing, l::)ecause we know that that kind of language is just ridiculous when applied to any leader of a democratic party of this country.

Many people I know, not very many really but a few, sometimes think that if you're Premier you can do anything you like. All you have to do is decide to do it and go ahead. Wait until you have been in the job a little while and you'll find out that that isn't the case . If you're ever so silly as to have such an idea, my honourable friend the member for Lakeside and I can agree on this one , because on the policies that any government pursue the First Minister , regardless o{ what his views may be , is under the absolutely justifiable nece ssity of being able to carry substantial groups of the people with him.

Now on this question , I would like to ask the Member for St. Boniface if he were here to ask, what the policy of his party is on this matter, and what his leader would do if he. were Premier of Manitoba. I don't really need him to answer that question because we know what the answer is. The Liberal Party of Manitoba had a convention in April of last year, some eight or nine months ago, and to do them credit, they not only elected what I think is a very personable person as their leader, but they dealt with this problem as well , and I would like to read to the House what they decided about it.

This comes from the Winnipeg Free Press of April 20, 1961. It says: "Liberal policy takes no stand, non-partisan on school aid. The Manitoba Liberal Party, Wednesday night, decided with little debate that it would not take a stand on the question of provincial aid to private schools. The party at its leadership convention adopted the report of a special committee set up to examine the matter under the chairmanship of Winnipeg lawyer, Page 194 February 26th, 1962

(Mr . Roblin, cont'd) •.•. Alan Sweatman. The Committee's report says , and I quote, "The unanimous recommendations of the committee are as follows: {

a) That the Liberal Party be non-partisan in its approach to the question, being neither for nor against public support for private and parochial schools . (

b) That in accordance with the best traditions of the Liberal Party, every encouragement may be given to the development of objective and dispassi onate attitudes among the people of Manitoba in the expectation that greater understanding of the factual aspects of the question will lead to its proper solution". Now that is a sound statement and I congratulate those who drafted it and those who approved of it, because it is exactly the posi tion that we took when we were dealing with this matter in the Legislature . Former Industry and Commerce Minist er, F. L.

Jobin, said: "It is imposs ible for this or any other party to form a ma jority opinion ". He pers onally favoured aid to the private schools but , nevertheless, favoured the resolution and he said "this is not a case of shirking responsibili ty". I agree with him. It's a case of responsi bility . To be pe rfectly fair about it , one of the prominent members of the Liberal Party there , a former Pres ident of the Liberal Party had this to say: "Chide delegates -- Joe O' Sullivan, past pres ident of the Liberal Assoc iation chided delegates for criticizi ng the Conse rvative Government.

There has been some suggestion that we would do well not to make this a partisa n question, but the Conserva tive Government does wrong to take the same stand". And he goes on: "In fairness to the people of Manitoba, we should not seek to gain political advantage from this question, he insisted. This attitude is a sound basis for the government as well as the Liberal Part y". That is the end of Mr . O'S ullivan's quotation. Now I want to pay my respe cts to Mr: O'S ullivan.

I think that he , I'm sure after much inner conflict because I know his private views, and after much weighing of this most difficult of our traditional political problem in this province , I pay my respects to him that he delievered himself of so generous and, if I may say so , statesmanlike sentiment in deal ing with this problem. I would like to hope that we can keep it on the same basis, because for all the pain that it may cause the Honourable Member for St .

Boniface , and I do not for one second challenge his sincerity or the sincerity of the Leader of the Opposition or any other gentleman in this House , I respect it, but I say that if we are to do the right thing in Manitoba, we have to keep this on that high plane that the Liberal convention raised it to with almost unani .mous consent . I pay my respects to Mr . O'S ullivan. I pay my respects to that convention be cause they did the right thing in the Province of Manitoba. I only hope that the members of this House will not fall short of the standards they have set for themselves and for us.

Well, Sir , I suppose that there are many other subjects about which I might comment. The debate has been very wide and free ; so many aspects of it have been discussed. I really am jus t dying to get into this discussion between members of the House about the image of the New Demo cratic Party that is now gradually emerging. I must say that I think that they are vulnerable on one point.

I don't suppose they'll listen to me on it but I'll give my opinion anyway, and that is this, that where a Party makes it possi ble for a group that, without using a word in an unpleas ant sense , can only be described as a special interest group or press ure group, where they make it pos sible for such a special interest or pressure group to have specia l represe ntation in the conventions of the Party that is concerned. MR . PAULL EY: That's not true •.• MR. ROBLIN: I think they are certainly raising questions in the minds of many people .

We ll, maybe it's not true, but my impression is that the constituency delegates find as their partners down there delegates who were elected in some other way. Now that's not customary in the Canadian political scene . I know it's customary in the United Kingdom. They get some pretty peculiar results over there as a result of it. But I really think that in order to dispel all substance to the charge that Mr . Hazen Argue has raised, they would do well to look to this re form in the constitution.

I must say that in a sense I rather envy, in a way in which the path has been smoothed for the Honourable the Leader of the New Democratic Party in this matter of where the money comes from. I wish that -- this is rather a wish than a serious intent -- that I rather envy the fact that he can look to such substantial financial contributions raised on such a broad basis -- so many people as he gets from the trade union movement -- and I'm sure that's going to increase the party war chest. MR. PAUL LEY: •••....••.. that's what your party has to use . MR.

ROBLIN: Well if I get as much as you do, I'm not going to complain. February 26th, 1962 Page 195

MR. PAULLEY: Oh brother! I'll show you the statements . MR . ROBLIN: But I'm going to tell you one thing, and I think that in fairness to the New Democratic Party this should be borne in mind. My experience is that money counts for very little in things like this. It's true you can put out a few pamphlets or you may be able to put a little ginger into certain aspects of your organization, but when you get down to it , if you haven't got the kind of policies and programs that the people are after, you're really not going to make the grade.

So I don't really mind whether my honourable friends have a lot of money from the Trade Union or not. It perhaps will ease things a little if they do. They are still going to be under the same necessity as the other politicians of indicating that their policies and their programs are sound and are well based in respect to the needs of the people of the province. My honourable friend and his associates have never succeeded in doing that -- never will, my friend says -- well, I don't know -- (Interjection) -- That's right, I'm remembering that. Never is a long, long time.

I remember so well -- well , of course, he didn't have the inestimable advantage of being in the opposition .....•. me. But I remember very well when I sat where the Honourable Member for Lakeside sat, and I used to· listen to the taunts and the barbs that we re hurled at me and my little band of men over there. The Member. for Carillon was pretty good at it. I think even the then First Minister occasionally took a swipe at us -- used to tell us that we'd never get into power. Where were the men? We'd never find the men. How could we run the government and all that kind of thing? No , I don't say "shame".

I say that that's part of the normal give and take around here. I never replied to it but, on the other hand, I never very seriously objected to it because I always took the view th at time will answer that question, and the electorate will answer that question. So I won't throw any barbs at my honourable ) friend the Leader of the New Democratic Party -- at least on this occasion. I won't promise to be like this all the time, but I won't throw any barbs at him nor at his erstwhile associate on the front bench a little further along, because I don't know when they'll be back in power.

I can't tell -- (Interjection) -- I thought the word "erstwhile" took care of it, but if it doesn't I'll with draw the imputation. I don't know whether they'll ever be on this side of the House again - either one of them.

I can't tell that, but I can tell you one thing, that we are going to do our best to continue to justify the confidence of the people of Manitoba, not on a basis of name-call ing; not on a basis of raising spurious issues; not on any misrepresentation or misunderstand ing with respect to what may be going on; but as far as we can, within our limits as mortal men, on what we believe to be a true and accurate presentation of the situation.

I don't think that there is anything that has been said against the government in this debate that is going to really ju stify a vote of no confidence, that we should go out of office. I know that in a sense it may be a formality, but even considering that, I don't think a charge has been made that sticks or that justifies itself. I admit that our work is not completed. I admit that there are problems we haven't solved.

I admit that there are new difficulties that arise every day that require the best that we can give them but! say this, that we have made a sincere and honest effort and, on the whole, a successful effort to carry out those_pledges and promises we made to our people when we came into office. We have tried as best we can to do those things . We have reformed the face of the Agricultural Department in this government. The amount of money that goes into agriculture , although that's not the only measure, is double or triple what it was when we came into office. Research -- great developments out at the University.

We have the leading animal livestock research institute in Canada at the present time, and our field crop work is not inferior in the slightest. We have established crop insurance as we said we would do, and we 're looking forward to extending it over the whole of the province . We have assisted in the economic problems of agriculture which have concerned members opposite in agricultural credit.

We think that by our policy in southeastern Manitoba, of setting up an area there that we're trying to improve and develop and reform and to make the most of the assets down there, that we 're doing a good thing for the people of that part of the province . Mind you, as the Honourable Member for Emerson can tell you, they don't voty for us . ·T hat's right, they don't vote for us . That isn't very important, because we feel that that forest down there, which is only 35% efficient because of poor management and a lot of bad fires in days gone by, can be brought up to snuff. Mr.

Chairman, the value of that forest is $2 million per annum. Now with the advent of the plant at Sprague, one simple little plant, we've increased that value by half a million dollars, or 25% . That' s the kind of thing we like to do . We didn't do it ourselves -- Page 196 February 26th, 1962

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) •••• of course not . There was industry in there; there was science in there ; there were the local people in there . Perhaps our share wasn't a major share, but it was a contribution worth making, .a contribution that hadn't been made before . I'll go so far as to say this, that without that contribution that particular enterprise would not have developed. So we are interested in trying to develop the Province of Manitoba. Water conservation -- we have more than doubled the expenditures in that important branch of government.

Educa,tion -- you know of the trem.endous school building program . You know that the school grants have been doubled since we came into office, in round terms :-- (Interjection) - All right, I'm going to make it with a little assistance from you,. If you'll ask me a few more questions I'll do better •. -- (Interjection) -- But there are so many things that I would like to tell the members of this House whicb obviously they don't know. Do they know that since we came into office the capital investment in the University of M;anitoba has been more than $16 million?

Now "put that in your pipe and smoke it", when you 're talking about developing the university in this province. And we have pledged in addition to that, $8 million more on a two for one matching grant formula to develop that university. Does this House know that we have increased the amount of capital grants we make to the affiliated. colleges since we came into office by � very substantial amount? Does this House .kno� thatwe are investing $2 million at Brand,on, being matched on a 2 for 1 basis by the people of Brandon to provide. a'liberal arts college in that part of the Province of Manitoba?

Is this House aware that we h:J,ve greatly in creased the vocational educational facilities in the Province of Manitoba? The Leader of the Opposition finds something very amusing, but I suggest to him that these are practical examples of the results of the policies we've been following which he thinks are wrong. We are building a $3 million vocational institute in the Brooklands suburb but, better than that, we have doubled the technical training facilities at Brandon, particularly for unemployed and for people coming into that part of the province.

We've done the same thing -- (Interjection) -- •... that these technical training facilities are available on a scale that was never the case before in this pro vince. If there is anything we've needed, it is an increase in these facilities that I refer to , And what about the activities in the Department of Highways

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-5-10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 5th hansardpdf 10.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	56ab114131df4e20777c464f843e8edd20f63da0

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