Manitoba Hansard — 30 April 1962 (Sitting 87, 26th Legislature, 5th Session)

26-5-87

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Vol. VII No. 87 8:00 p.m. Monday, April 30, 1962. Sth Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. s. Evans. Queen�s Printer for the Province of Manitoba� Winnipeg

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEll/IBLY OF MANITOBA .· 8:00 o'clock, Monday, April 30th, 1962. Prayer by Mr. Speaker: MR . SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Notice of Motion Introduction of Bills The proposed motion of the Honourable the Leader of the House. HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Industry & Commerce)(Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if-'- were you proposing to call the Orders of the Day? MR . SPEAKER� Orders of the D.�Y- MR . EVANS: Before the Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to lay on the table a Return to an Order of the House No. 34 in the name of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR . S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to di rect --Go ahead. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Leader of the Opposition)(Ste. Rose): Does the First Minister know how many Orders for Return are still to come? And what disposition was made of them? HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I think that all the Orders for Return are in, with the exception of the inquiries about the Mississippi Parkway.

Now in that instance we have had to write to the State of Minnesota to get their concurrence with respect to correspondence as a matter of courtesy. We have not heard from them and it seems unlikely that we shall; but I suggest that perhaps next time we meet the same order could be placed on the paper and we'll be able to gi\e �he information at that time. That's the only one I know of that's outstanding. MR . MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible when the reply arrives, if it could be sent to the member who requested the information? MR . ROBLIN: I have no objection to that Mr.

Speaker, so long as I make it clear that t this is not a precedent because usually, in fact always when the House prorogues the orders die; but as a ��r of courtesy to the gentleman concerned we would not object to sending it alon� . . MR . PETERS: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and I'm sorry that I didn't ask him sooner. If he wants to take this as notice he can tell me in private if he likes. I wonder if he could tell me if the Minimum Wage Board has met yet and if they have, where they have met?

If he wants to tell me in pri vate it's okay too. HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Labour)(The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I can't tell my hon ourable friend whether they have met. They have been instructed though to meet and to conduct their hearings and presumably if they haven't met, they will be shortly. MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable the First Minister that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means for Raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majes ty. The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR .

LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): ...... to say that I asked for the adjourn- ment for my colleague. the Honourable Member from La Verendrye. MR . STAN ROBERTS (La Verendrye): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a few very short comments on the Budget Speech. This I'm sure is not time for long speeches to be popular, but I think this opportunity should not be passed by.

Referring to the government of the day, I'd like to point out that I was elected to this Legislature in 1958 at the same time as this government was, and for some time after the gov ernment was elected there was a wave of favourable impression left by this government, prob ably a wave of favourable impression towards the new broom attitude of the government. For tunately, I think that this new broom attitude, this impression of a government going busily April 30th, 1962 Page 313_1 -

(Mr. Roberts, cont'd.) .. .. about its way doing good work has gone by. I think the govern ment has lost its spark and I suggest that the Honourable the First Minister in his challenge this afternoon to call an election should carry it out, because it's obvious that this is apparent ly the way for the province to get good government.

There's no doubt that there was a great deal of activity from the provincial government following the 1958 and 159 elections, but now we have come into a period of stagnation, a period where the government regularly throughout this session has been seeking out ways and means of avoiding making decisions on important issues of the day. In the field of agriculture in particular, we have Jthink, one of a more progressive Min ister's of this Cabinet; but I think he too at this time is being somewhat hesitant in stepping out, meeting the challenge of the changing times.

We have great problems in Manitoba with the farm population, net income is way down this year. There are many things that a provincial government can do to help them out. The greatest role of course is the role of trying to keep the costs of production as .low as they can, of narrowing that cost�price squeeze. There are many ways in which provincial governments can help cut costs.

For instance there is the problem which the Farmers' Union and the farm groups have been asking the provincial gov ernment to do for many years, a very simple thing, but its something that they have been avoiding doing, and that is the lowering of the registration fees, the license fees of trucks which are used only occasionally -- of elderly trucks only .used occasionally for hauling grain in the fall. This is only one move, but there are many moves like this the provincial govern ment could make towards keeping the costs down to the farmer.

There are other ways in which the provincial government can help the farmers of Manitoba in improving their income. One way of course is in the assistance towards the orderly marketing of their produce. We've had orderly marketing of grain for some years in Western Canada; we still haven't any order ly marketing method of handling our livestock produce and vegetables and I think the provincial government could show a great deal of help, leadership in this field and by the same token, im-. prove the income of the farmer, and improve by that method the net income of the farme r.

There is for instance -- has been -- a survey done of the southeast Manitoba, what is the future of this area? There's a real problem. This is an area which has a problem very much its own, a problem of many uneconomic farm units and an area in which this government set about busily to survey, and yet what do we see as a result of this survey. We have not had a report. We do not see any tangible evidence of programs under way.

It all goes to add up to what I started out with a dandy new broom idea and gradually each year since then has slowed down in its activities and many of its pet projects have just petered out. Because the south east Manitoba has a big problem. The farmers of this area have a big problem. The farm problem is to develop as many economic farm units as yol.l can out of the farms that are lo cated in these areas. And what is this government doing to help? -- Well nothing. They set up a crop insurance plan, but doesn't include this area.

They put a farm credit plan into be ing, an Agricultural Credit Plan in the Province of Manitoba, but money will not be lent into this area from this agriculture credit corporation because the value of the land is not high enough in order to provide security for this kind of loan. They've refused to go on with the testing of tobacco through the area; a possibility. They haven't made any particular effort to grow trees; something that can be grown through this area. Other new crops that could be grown in the southeast they've made no attempt to experiment with.

There's a world of po tential down through this southeast, potential of grazing livestock, of raising all sorts of special crops. This kind of program requires public assistance to get rolling. It requires experimental work being done by provincial governments as well as federal government, and it requires the help of a Minister of a department which is interested in helping out this area. Unfortunately, federally the Government of Canada has no more far-reaching policy than has the provincial government.

The policy towards agriculture by the Government of Canada for the past four years has been one of patchwork, one of plugging holes, one of expediency. Wherever there was trouble, plug the hole; wherever there was a jam, let's do something about it. Without a single policy; without any long-term projects; without any projects that will have a long-term benefit for the area. I don't think there's anymore specific or perfect example of a type of policy, or something that's called a policy, to help the farmers of west ern Canada than the acreage payment.

A payment made to farmers with no purpose, no Page 3132 April 30th, 1962

(Mr. Roberts, cont'd.) .... policy, no program; a payment which is made purely on the ba sis of a handout and a charity and something which in the long-term has no benefit to the farm er and in the short-term has very little either·. For instance, I read the papers today and listen to what the federal politicians are say ing about what the federal government has done for the farmers of western Canada and I read that they take credit for the wheat sales,' the great wheat sales that this government has made. They take credit for the wheat prices.

Weil, I think we can all get copies of the Canadian Wheat Board Review and read what's happened; to find that the wheat prices were higher in five out of ten years of the past years of the Liberal Government than they have been this year. We find in the 1957 crop to the '61 crop -- and this is all in here -- that the Nation of Canada has provided 23. 3% of the world exports of wheat.

Whereas in the same five-year period be fore 157 it provided 26. 6% of the world exports of wheat. We have a government now apparent ly running around the country trying for re-election, claiming credit for things that The Wheat Board has done and claiming credit for the effects of a drought; taking credit for a drought and a famine in China; taking credit for a deal made by The Wheat Board to China in which the Minister of Agriculture wasn't even present or involved.

I think that these sort of things, these stop-gap measures need all to be replaced by policies which have a long-term effect; policies which over the long run will help the farmers and not just keep those who don't belong on the farm just that much longer. For instance the Honourable Leader of the NDP today made a very interesting remark concerning the federal government now promoting the growing of wheat.

For instance last year, he said, they were promoting the growing of beef and the year before that they were pro moting the growing of pork -- Oh, no they were trying to stop you from raising pork, that was it, while the provincial government was promoting the raising of pork. This is the type of thing to do, just promote something that we don't happen to be producing at the moment; just try and stay one step ahead of the farmer and keep him thoroughly confused as to the future markets; thoroughly confused as to what his potential is and what his possibilities are.

I hope that the government of this province, the Government of Canada, will in the future look for policies which have associated with them the possibility for each farmer, the opportunity to make for himself an income to which he's entitled, and not provide charity, stop-gaps, floods, but provide security in the form of a long-term project; provide crop insurance to the whole province of Manitoba as well as the other western Prairie Provinces; provide agricultural credit, not just to those people who happen to have high price land for security.

Agricultural credit, not just for the good risk, but for those who want to farm and have ability to farm and wish to produce the very products which we should be producing in many parts of Manitoba, such as the southeast of Manitoba -- cattle, poultry, hogs, without the security of high priced land to put up as the main base. The government of Manitoba has suggested or has introduced into the House this year a plan to send a mission to Europe to help trade -- to help Manitoba trade -- to help find out lets for our products that we are now producing and outlets for products which we hope to produce in the future.

And I can only commend them for this. This must not be a half-heart ed mission. I hope it will be as successful as those who are promoting it intend it to be.

I hope that this mission to Europe will have many far-reaching effects for the industry and tne business of Manitoba, because there are many possibilities of producing items, products in Manitoba which can be marketed in Europe, marketed at a profit in Europe; marketed in com petition with European products, and these can only be located and searched out and found and consumated by our business going over there -- businessmen going over there and establish ing themselves as exporters.

I hope that this mission in Europe while there will presen°t the kind of an image that we want presented from the Canadian people. This is one of the very un fortunate things that exist, is that we have.an image in Europe at the present time as a Canad ian nation -- as a nation which is niggling; as a nation which is picayune; as a nation which is busily needling other nations of Europe; a nation which has no long-range policy; a nation which is short-sighted.

I hope that the Government of Manitoba which is introducing this mis sion to Europe idea, will go over there and explain to the people of Europe that we are not that kind of people; that basically we in Canada want to trade; that we want to trade with Euro pean nations; that we want to trade with Britain and the European common market and the April 30th, 1962 Page 3133

(Mr. Roberts, cont'd.) ..•. outer seven. That we are not the kind of nation that has been painted for us by Mr. Fleming and Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Hees, but we are the kind of na tion which wishes an economic - (Interjection) --. I have more trouble with my friends than I do with my enemies -- (Interjection) -- I hope that when this mission goes to Europe it will explain that the people of western Canada at least want to get along with Europe and we want to trade with them. We want to trade, we want to buy and we want to sell, and we want Britain to join the common market if this is best for them.

We want to join in a North-Atlantic com munity; we want to join in an economic block forming the whole North-Atlantic area and I hope that this mission will always keep this in mind while there and try and offset some of the bad publicity which has been created for us by the other people speaking for Canada during the past three. or four years.

I would like to congratulate the government once again -- (Interjection) -- I'd like to ·con gratulate them on their presentation to the medical -'-strange these press releases usually have all this sort of thing right on top -- the Minister's name is right near -- Premier Duff Roblin, the first three words -- "Royal commission on Health. Roblin urges voluntary medi cal insurance plan", says the press release from the Information Services. I want to con gratulate the First Minister on this presentation to the Royal Commission on Health.

I want to assure him that he has my support and I think most of the support of the people over here. Just because Saskatchewan has bungled their efforts into a medical plan doesn't mean that Manitoba need do likewise, because Manitoba can lead the way on a medical plan which will serve the people's purpose and will be acceptable to the Medical Association of this province and of Canada; because a medical plan such as that which is promoted here would be acceptable to the medical people and I think it would be of a great deal of benefit to the people of Manitoba. I hope that this proposal does not end here.

I hope it does not end with a recommendation to the Royal Commission on Health Services. I hope it will be followed up by some action by this government, because a medical plan offering the opportunity to the best of medical care to every citizen of the province, offering that opportunity, has everything to commend it and something that we in a nation as affluent as Manitoba is -- a province as affluent -- should make the move in as soon as possible.

I'm taking a bit of exception now to remarks made by the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce the other night concerning my remarks on urban renewal and slum clearance and his proposal re same. !don't think it's foolhardy to suggest that a commission set up by this province to study urban renewal and slum clearance should not look into projects.

I hope that the commission which he is setting up, I still hope it will search out projects; will help to co-ordinate all the different people who are involved in slum clearance and urban renewal here in Winnipeg and other urban centres in the Province of Manitoba.

To say that it is not the role of provincial government I think is passing responsibility on to someone else; but if those who as you say the responsibility belongs to make no move on it, can you keep your eyes closed and say, "well just because the municipalities aren't working in the speed, in which they should work", then we're·not going to have urban renewal and slum clearance in Manitoba and we're going to have all these slums and all these people living in filth and in areas that re quire services which costs the taxpayers of Manitoba a great deal of money; and in areas that produce the delinquents and produce the offenders and produce many of the fire-traps and the problems of the province.

Surely just because somebody once said that it is the responsibil ity of the municipality to do urban renewal and slum clearance then the provincial govern ment has no responsibility for the same. I think that the opportun.ity exists, not of imposing your will on anyone, but only of leading the way, of acting as ·the mediary and acting as the one who promotes, encourages, pushes along and co-ordinates the activities between the federal government and the municipality. This role can be fulfilled by that commission which you propose to set up, and I hope that it will do just that.

We talk of initiative by this government in the ·way it started out being a new broom and has since lost much of its punch. We talk of daylight saving time and uniformity of time throughout Manitoba. I've just returned not half an hour ago from Steinbach where a great state of confusion existed as to what time the meeting was supposed to be today and what time the meeting will be somewhere else in Winnipeg tomorrow. Steinbach is arguing as to whe ther or not the schools and which schools will go on daylight saving time and is arguing as to Page 3134 April 30th, 1962

(Mr. Roberts, cont'd. ) . . . . whether the town next door -- the Hanover municipalities are arguing with the town council and the Chamber of Commerce is on another side -- all because this province has not the courage of its convictions to suggest to the people of Manitoba that they all go on one uniform time. And then we heard so much remember in 1958 and 1959 from the Minister of Public Works about how the building of roads was going to be such a different thing in Manitoba from now on.

We were going to let the.contracts iii the fall; I think this is why we had to vote so much money so far ahead; why we've actually got over $40 million more voted ahead now. And wher.e are the contracts being let? Why this is the first day of May -- well tomorrow is the first day of May -- I don't know any contractors in Manitoba working. I don't even know very many contrac tors that have got a thing to start on. This is the government that was going to introduce this thing; it accuses the former government year after year of being slow of introducing the road contracts; the tenders.

When was this going to start, they said? Why wait till May before you let the contracts? They were going to let them in the fall -- in November -- and they had to have money voted. ahead; and now we find that here it is only i962, oniy four years later, things are worse than ever at their worst possible time before. Some over $40 millions voted ahead and not a contract let.

There was considerable discussion of who got what roads by the Honour able Leader of the Opposition -- and I'm not very happy about the situation myself, because I didn't get any roads either -- but I think there are quite a few people sitting over there in the backbenches that perhaps should be a little bit upse t about this too, because Metropolitan Winni peg, the area of Metropolitan Winnipeg, has over 50% of the population of Manitoba. Did they get 10% of the expropriations of this department?

I think that when the Honourable the First Minister was talking about all the things he's doing for Metro Winnipeg -- and he's doing too much already he says -- that he should consider how much money he's putting into roads into rural parts and how little he's putting into the expenditures of Metropolitan Winnipeg towards public works projects; because this is only fair, the people who pay their share of the taxes should get their share of the roads projeCt as well.

I think probably one of the most disappointing things to those who are interested in the ac tivities of the members of the legislature, about what this government has done or hasn't done during the four years it's been in office, is this terrible rush of business that takes place the last week of the legislature. I can remember when I was interested in politics and would sit in the gallery and would watch the government operate arid the Leader of the Opposition sitting over at this side, berating the governnietit because they were bringing so many things in the last week.

Well I'll bet you, never in the history of the Province of Manitoba has so many things been brought in in the last week as they have this past s_everl days.

And this is after the govern ment, the Leader of the House, each week of this year has said "We're going fu bring it in regu larly; we're going to have something com e in every week, so we don It have to rush it ali through the last day. 11 And how many intelligent remarks were made the other day when the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre brought in a series, a long series of amendments to the Metropoli tan Winnipeg Act -- (Interjection) -- Sor:ry, got the wrong man -- St. James. I was there, I1m sorry, quite right. How many people passed intelligent remarks on them?

Because not a soui in that Law Amendments Con:tmittee knew what they were about. Arid here's a bill brought in on Thursday, voted on on Friday, second reading, passed on Saturday through Law Amendments, and a whole bunch of new amendments brought in on Saturday in the Law Ainendments, in which we had no idea what they've done to the Metropoiitan Winnipeg Act -- none whatsoever. I defy - (Interjection) -- 50 out of 57 -- (Interjection) -- well I did ask and nobody had the time, rush right through. And this is the way the business of the House is done.

And how about this business of the interest rates that was introduced this past week, and was caucussed only night before last by the Conservative Government to decide 'what they were going to do about it -- after 11 weeks of session. What would happen if it had been an eight week session? Wouldn't we have had to have this stuff ready three weeks ago? So it couldn't be impossible that it could be ready three weeks ago. Were these bills not printed?

We even passed a bill this year -- now this really takes the cake -- we passed a bill which amended a bill we hadn't even seen yet -- and this is the Department of Agriculture, the Minister of Agri culture, which had something to do with drilling wells -- and we passed the changing of the word ing of a bill which hasn't even been brought into the House yet. -- (Interjection) -- April 30th, 1962 Page 3135

(Mr. Roberts, cont'd.) MR. DESJARDINS: What the heck do you think he's doing now? Playing a tune on a violin or something. Get up your tree again and we'll pull you by the tail. MR. ROBERTS: And then we go on and talk about all the things this wonderful govern ment has done. This wonderful government has done to the people of Manitoba --well it's in troduced two new levels of government, Metropolitan Winnipeg and the School Division Board for the rural people, and made no changes whatsoever to the people whom they were supposed to have replaced, or the work which they were supposed to be doing.

If we had an authority jungle before, we have got twice as bad an authority jungle now; because we have people at ev ery level duplicated; we have people at the municipal level duplicated; we have people at the school level duplicated. And why? Because the government wanted to bring in a few new lev els. In addition to that, of course, they introduced a perfect tax jungle. And this is simp1y by instituting a level of government known as Metropolitan government --a level which can only raise its money through the facilities of another level, which is the municipalities.

Provided them with no tax base of their own; provided them with no provincial money raised from any other source than real estate; but set them up so the only one way they could raise money was through the facilities of the municipalities. And this, of course, can only cause one thing - the very hardship that it has caused, the very hard feelings, and the very bickering and continu al niggling that goes on. Because as long as one level of government raises its money through another level of government there's going to be this same continual haggling. You cannot avoid it.

The Honourable the First Minister speaking the other night made quite a good deal of ref erence to this. He said he liked to see his tax money all on one bill. He thought it was a good thing that the school money, and the municipal money, and the metropolitan money should all appear on the one tax bill. I don't agree. I don't think that it is proper or right. You cannot set levels of government one over top of the other one, each raising their money through the same taxpayer, without trouble.

Schools of course, --school divisions --you can raise mon ey that way because schools are a different principle entirely. But you don't raise municipal money one level over top the other without causing the kind of trouble you've got right now. You've got your municipal people all through the City of Winnipeg and the 19 municipalities all poking at Metro and saying: 11 Look, you 're the reason our tax rate has gone up. 11 And Metro, what do they do but fight back; and what have you got but nothing but a complete picture of dis organization and unhappiness. So what does the government do about it?

Well they set up a commission, I suppose. They certainly didn't face the situation; they certainly didn't recog nize the fact that what was wrong was that they were having one level of government raise its money through the other, therefore there was fighting. They didn't give Metro its own tax base which they should have given. They set up a commission. And who's spoken up from the government benches protecting Metro? Which one over there besides the First Minister who sort of rides that offence line pretty close? Who over there has said Metro was a good thing? Who has defended Metro?

Who has put in a good word for Metro? Which one of you members who represents City of Winnipeg ridings have said: ''Metro belongs. I voted for Metro and I'll stand by it. Metro belongs. It's got a job to do. 11 Which one said it? The Member for St. Vital? The Member for Winnipeg Centre? Which one? HON. STERLING R. LYON, Q.C. (Attorney-General)(Fort Garry): St. Boniface. MR. ROBERTS: St. Boniface? MR. DESJARDINS: Yes, he did. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, but he didn't vote for Metro you see. He didn't vote for Metro but he's been defending it. You see, this is the difference.

There's honour here --(Interjection) --because he was part of this Legislature --he was part of this Legislature which introduced Metro and therefore he stands by Metro, and he says they've got a job to do and the way for them to get it done is for us to help them do it. Well what do we hear over there? Not a word. Not a word. Let them go down the drain just so long as they don't take me with them.

Isn't that right? - (Interjection) --Just not get caught in the swing behind Metro or you're liable to lose your seat in the next election --this is what we're saying to ourselves over there. --(In terjection) --Well who's defending Metro? You are right. --(Interjection) --Who's defend ing Metro? Who's on Metro's side? Who stood up in this House and said Metro was a good 'Page 3136 April 30th, 1962

(Mr. Roberts, cont'd.) •••. thing and we need it in this city? Metro has made mistakes but we need them. -- (Interjections) -- MR. JAMES COWAN, Q.C. (Winnipeg Centre): I think Metro is a good idea but their council isn'.t set up properly and it isn't carrying out its job properly. It's a good idea. -- (In terjections) -- MR.

ROBERTS: I wasn't in favour of a referendum when the time for a referendum was discussed in this House regarding Metro, but perhaps I should have been for this one reason, because Metro requires more than anything else a public understanding of it and its functions and they are not getting it from this government, the public isn't; because this government won't stand behind Metro. -- (Interjection) -- Paid advertisements won't do it. I think a referendum might have done it.

This is where a referendum would have been of value; this is probably the only place because there are many decisions which have to be made by the members of the leg islature in my opinion, and this was probably one of them·. But I don't think there has ever been any subject in Winnipeg in recent years which has been of greater public interest. I wasn't in favour, you know, of the commission which has been set up by this government to review Met ro this year, but I do hope that now that the commission has been set up that they will do a good job of it.

First of all I hope they will hold their hearings in public. I hope that the press will cover it well -- and I think they will -- because there is work to be done in the selling of Metro and the explaining of it. If there are complaints against Metro I think they should be made in public; and if there are no complaints I think that should be advised to the public too. I think the actual tax base of Metro should be one of the most important subjects discussed by this commission - Where' does Metro get its money and wrere does it get it without along the way arousing the ire of the municipal people?

I think they should have their own tax base and I think this commission could probably be the group who find it for them. And lastly of course, this commission I hope will be made up very carefully of choice personnel, because this is a big job they have to do. They have to start without any preconceived ideas; they have to be impartial; and I presume in order to arrive at all this they should be at least beaded by an out-of-province person. But I hope that this government will start soon giving some moral support to Metro.

The Honourable the First Minister speaking this afternoon made quite an issue about the fact that this government bad brought in revisions to the curriculum -- he was discussing edu cation. He made great show of the fact that it was this government that bad brought in a gener al course in the high schools of our province.

I don't think anybody knows it better than be does bow obviously bringing in this general course bas pointed out that our whole curriculum needs revising; because the curriculum set out for the general course, which was to be a middle of the road course, has turned out to be, in my opinion, a heck of a lot better program than the present matriculation course offered. by the Government of Manitoba and the Province of Mani toba.

It's a good course; but surely if we're striking a middle of the road general course and strike up a curriculum for it, and it proves to be a better course than our matriculation course, doesn't this prove that there's something wrong with our matriculation course -- that · it needs revising? Five years ago, four years ago, the Royal Commissioner on Education brought in a recommendation that our curriculum should be revised.

Well I think it's about time it was, because this government that operates so quickly, does things pronto; doesn't back away from its responsibilities; isn't afraid of anything, should start moving again; and I suggest that perhaps if the only way to get them rolling again is another election, then perhaps that's what they should call. 0 MR. MORRIS E. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I have witnesses to prove I bad no inten tion to speak on the Budget at all, expecting that the House may prorogue tonight.

But the last speaker prompted me to say a word or two which I'm sure will not penetrate and as I always mention the same term all the time "A voice in the wilderness"; but I thought perhaps not ex pecting to:make too many speeches in this House, I would like to take a few minutes to express my opinion in brief in connection with the Budget. I'm sending the Hansards to my children to get an education of public life .and the last letter I bad is that all the speeches are perfect except yours. But I'd rather have a poor speech than have the Hansard not mentioning my name. That applies to the press as well.

The last speaker bas paid attention to the taxes and I, not being an scientific individual April 30th, 1962 Page 3137

(Mr. Gray, cont'd.) ••• , cannot understand how you could save food at home and not be hung ry. How can you get along without --or the taxpayer without taxes when in one way they de mand service. They demand the streets to be cleaned --and by the way they've never been cleaned as good for the last 50 years as they are now. I'm not giving any bouquet to the Met ro; my only defence about Metro is give them an opportunity to show whether they can do any thing or not. I was even opposed to the First Minister to shorten the years which they have to be --(Interjection) -.,.

Sure I vote for it --(Interjection) --I have voted for it period. --(Inter jection) - I'm not against it. MR. DESJARDINS: Oh, okay that's fine. MR. GRAY: I'm definitely not against, I'm just telling that to prove it they have to have a longer period to prove it --and I never deny what I do, wrongly or rightly --mostly wrongly. I think that the last speech of the honourable member is a very good one as far as he is training at the expense of the legislature for a speech in the Federal House. I didn't say he'll be elected. I said his practising his speech •.••.. at our expense.

People demand the garbage be removed every week and when the City Council removed it every ten days it was a crime. Well somebody has to remove it; there's an expense; somebody has to pay for the service they 're giving them. They cannot have both; it's impossible. Dollars don't grow on trees. If they want this service they have to pay for it and they are paying; and I don't say that anyone is pay ing too much because he's paying for these services. If you take the average homeowner of the working man.

It's true that the assessments were increased and taxes will b.e increased, but at the same time they want this service and they are getting it. They are getting fire protection. They are getting police protection. They are getting clean streets, the garbage is being re moved. They are getting cheap electricity. They are getting cheap power. They are being looked after. They've got to contribute whether they can or not. Those that cannot have to go down and ask for help. But you cannot buy a bottle of beer and not pay for it.

Now, I have really enjoyed all the speech from the Premier, the Budget Speech, it was an education to me. And I do want to pay a high compliment to the Leader of the Opposition for his speech, and particularly I did not expect that my own Leader will be so sober and to make such an futellectual, intelligent· attack on the government. MR. D. L. CAMPBELL: (Lakeside): It really is unusual. That's right. Very unusual. MR. GRAY: You could interpret any way you like. I love my leader; I follow him.

And ciort•t you ever charge me with less loyalty to my party, to my group, and to my ieader s --and I've had several - and I don't think the present Leader will accuse me of anything otherwise. And if you want to make fun of it you're perfectly a:ll right. There's no amusement tax for you to make fun of another speaker, although the amusement tax also has been reduced. So leti for get about it.

We have a shrine, we have a parliament, we are discussing it, and the very fact that we were right all the time, you could find on the· statute books where there are many, many pieces of legislation which we have advocated for years and they're now in the statute books by the government that be, and they have introduced it. I could mention quite a few thirigs by this government and by the previous gover nment when they have refused a better life for the people of Manitoba and a year or two later, at their wisdom, they introduced it themselves.

I'm not going to enumerate them now, but I say that our efforts and our aim is not going to waste. Any thing we ask this year and they refuse to give it to us, we'll probably get it next year. And particularly I refer now to the Minister of Education when he has not even seriously considered the new idea of guidance in education. And of course everybody can prove they're always right, and if you analyze the speeches of the Leader of the government when he was in opposition and analyze the Leaders of the Liberal group now, you'll find it's the same message and the same speech.

The only difference as far as I am concerned personally, within the Liberal group here and the Conservative group down there is where they sit. They are both against public ownership, although they have included it. They are both against more benefits to the working men. They are against minimum wage. They're against everything and the same thing applies to both of them. So if we have to choose one or the other, I'll probably put a coin in the air and find if it's head or tails. There's no other way of doing it. A MEMBER: Whichever turns up is wrong. MR. GRAY: Whatever turns up is wrong. I agree with you.

The main criticism I have against the Budget Speech is that the First Minister has not found it necessary to say one single Page 3138 April 30th, 1962 .

(Mr. Gray, cont'd.) •.•• word in connectipn with world conditions. He's still of the old school. In my opinion, he's still trying to build a fence around Manitoba and the whole world. He has not shown -- at least in the Budget Speech unless I don't read good English-=� it doesn't show a word about the world's condition affecting Manitoba and Manitoba affecting the world. He didn't say a word. He didn't say a word about increasing our agricultural development in or-. der to feed the rest of the world -- half of it, if not more, are going to bed every night hungry.

I think that this was -- he missed it -- he discussed all kinds of figures, but figures can be read in the Budget Speech. But he did not go out for one moment outside of Manitoba which I personally regretted and I mentioned it to my colleagues, there's something which be missed, whether it is intentionally or he has it otherwise, I do not know. I think that we now must con sider that anything that happerts in Moscow,. Bagdad or in Washington <;l.oes affect us; whether they're atom bombs or whether they're nuclear developniehts, it doesn't matter which, we here cannot escape it a moment today.

When you could have your breakfast in Winni peg and your lunch in London and your dinner in Czechoslovakia, we cannot isolate ourselves. I thought per haps this is the only criticism -- not the only one of course, but time is getting on -- but this is the main crititiism as far as I'm personally tioncerned. We are on the eve of prorogation; we have made all the suggestiorts to the government, the administration. Until they have the pow 'er, I don't think that they should ignore every word uttered here by the Opposition •. After all the ..

Opposition is criticizing not entirely for their own political benefit, but they also do it be cause they are just as interested in seeing a satisfied Man_itoba; in seeing a progressive Mani toba and in seeing that each ·artd every one in our province should have their reward for the la- bour they render to the people of the province. . . I have another quite a fe:W but i think perhaps if I speak long, the other one Will speak longer, so I better retire. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I'm like my honourable friend who spoke jU:St ahead of me, I had no intention at all of participatirtg in this debate, and I can perhaps call some witnesses, maybe the same ones as my hortourable friend from D:ikster to testify to that fact; but unlike my honourable friend from La Verendrye, I'm not going to say that I'm going to take just a few· minutes and then take three-quarters of art hoU:r. I'm going to say that I'm going to fake a few minutes and I hope that that is all that it will require to pass a few comments upon some of the remarkS that we have heard in connection with this debate.

My honourable friend from La Verendrye, I suppose, could be said tonight to be giving his "swan song" to the Ma.nitoba Legislatlire as this is probably the last occasion that this or any other legislature for the foreseeable future will have to hear him. He's embarke.d now on a career, he hopes, in federal politics -- And I think that the Honourable Member from Inkster was quite right in saying that he was, perhaps, giving us the benefit of one of his training speeches here tonight.

He started off by talking about a wave of favourable impression that had surrounded this government at one stage, and which he felt now was rather waning away. Well of course, Mr. Speaker, we all know that this wave of favourable impression is still lapping over the hulk of the Liberal Party in Manitoba, shipwrecked on some forgotten shore some where looking as they did last year for a ilew captain which they found, but still floundering I'm afraid on this far forgotten shore. The government, he says, has lost its spark.

This is very interesting, This is a recurring theme that we're hearing now from my honourable friends op posite. I really don't know what evidence they call in support of this proposition but I suppose they can adopt the tactics that others have from time to time and suggest that if you tell a story often enough, be it right or wrong, or slightly off base or on base, people are going to start to believe it.

That's an old propaganda technique and, I suppose, now having heard this from the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the Member from La Verendrye that we can ex pect to hear a bit more about this in the future. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I've got a much greater impression, a much greater .faith in the intelligence of the people of Manitoba than to believe that sort of nonsense; because the people of Manitoba know what sort of a government they have.

They have been able to see over the past few years what this government has been able to accomplish -- sometimes over the bodies of the members of the Liberal Opposition -- but nonetheless they are able to see the roads, they're able to see the schools, they're able to see the new school division plan, and we could go on through all the items which I'm sure the people of Manitoba know much better than April 30th, 1962 Page 3139'

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd.) .••• my honourable friend. But I merely want to assure them that the people of Manitoba are not going to forget these things quite as rapidly as perhaps you hope they would because they're going to be around for many years. Many of the changes that have been made are going to be with us for generations to come and they're going to stand as, I suppose, a sort of testament to what good government, progressive government can do in this province.

All of the talk that we hear about there being no spark left in the government and so on, is going to be treated I'm afraid as just so much eyewash when the day of reckoning comes, as I'm sure . it's going to come. How soon or how late one doesn't know yet, but it's going to come one of these days. My honourable friend from La Verendrye called for the election. He said, "Let's have it." He's a great one to call for the election because he's not going to be here to suffer the de feat that we know he'd get. But he calls for it on behalf of his other colleagues in any case.

His election is coming up on June 18th; he's going to have a lot of free time on his hands after that time • . So if my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition wants to whisper to us quiet ly, "don't pay any attention to him he doesn't know what he's talking about" we'll listen. I re member the Member from Ethelbert Plains standing up this session and saying, what a great Leader he had and he had faith in him and so on. These were good words coming from that member. But he said, and I remember these won:ls, "Give us another year. He needs a little · mcire time to get things going." Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that we can all say that having watched the Liberal Opposition in operation this session, we believe that the words of the Hon ourable Member for Ethelbert Plains are quite true. I think they do need a little time. I think, as a matter of fact that they need more than a year. I think probably the public of Manitoba will give them five, ten, fifteen or twenty years for that matter, to get things organized and to come back as a live rejuvenated party tinder what leadership or under what captain, I don't know at that time • · He said that t� province is now going through a period of stagnation.

Well if this is stag nation, .I think the people of Manitoba will want to stagnate for quite a while, because, again, without enumerating all of the policies one can see that progress has been and is being made at the present time. He purported and I venture now into a subject which, of course, is not ger mane to the office of Attorney-General, but he purported to say that the actions of the present government, as I recall and as I have a note here, during the drought last summer were some thing less than what might have been expected from a government that was on its toes. Well, Mr.

Speaker, if there's one thing that I've heard in connection with the action taken by the gov ernment and particular by the Minister of Agriculture last year, it was that Manitoba led the way among all agricultural provinces in devising and in implementing those programs and poli cies best designed to meet this great condition which struck our agricultural areas; best. de signed to give immedi::ite help, preserve the livestock herds that we have in Manitoba and so on; to preserve as much as we could from the situation that confronted us at that time.

My hon ourable friend from La Verendrye doesn't have to believe me. All he has to do is to look at the annual brief that was presented by the Manitoba Farmers Union to this government to get some indication of the feeling of the farmers of Manitoba toward the policies carried on by the government during the drought period last year.

But I mention these not to pat us on the back particularly but only to point out to my honourable friend from La Verendrye that for a govern ment that is stagnating and for a government that has lost its spark, we 1re still able to do the odd thing, the odd thing, that meets with the general approval of the people of Manitoba even in cluding the farm community which he professes to speak about from time to time. He, of ·cours.e, is going on to where the big decisions are made.

I believe that that was the quotation that was attributed to him when he accepted the Liberal nomination for the federal constituency of Provencher. I must say tonight, Mr. Speaker, that we 're quite happy that he has seen fit to give us the benefit of his opinion upon some of the small decisions that we have to deal with from time to time in this House. I only regret, of course, that he will never have the opportun ity to participate in those big decisions. I see my honourable friend coming in; I'm happy he's here.

He will have never the opportunity to participate in those big decisions, but I hope that from time to time after the lSth of June when he has more time on his hands that he will permit us to call upon him from time to time to help us with some of these small decisions that we're still going to be struggling with in this House and in this Legislature. Page 3140 April 30th, 1962

(Mr. Lyon, cont' d.) But, Mr. Speaker, he went on to talk about federal policies in agriculture. Well, we've heard the Minister of Agriculture -- today I think we heard the Minister of Agriculture dealing with a farm resolution presently on the Order Paper dealing with federal policies in agriculture so I don't intend to intrude any further in that particular field . I only say to my honourable friend from La Verendrye that I hope during the course of the present campaign that he uses those same words out on the hustings and tells the farmers that things have never been worse and tells the farmers that the Wheat Board of Canada is only selling 23% of the export market in grain now

whereas it was 26% some six years ago. I'm sure they're going to be pleased with those statistics when my honourable friend tells them about them . I'm sure though that they will remember as well that they're selling more bushels of wheat to day than they ever sold before; and I don't know that the impression he attempts to create by percentages is really go ing to get across .

I don't know when he tries to tell them that the Wheat Board has not been do ing such a good job, or the government, I should say, has not been doing such a good job over the past five years, that they're going to believe him when they look at the world price of wheat, when they look at the Canadian wheat market as it presently is today. And may I say when they pick up tonight's paper -- the evening paper tonight, and they see the Minister of Agriculture of Canada able to say to the farmers of Canada, "plant more wheat this year." Now my honour able friend is free, free, of course, to campaign as he wishes .

But from one who is an equal of his in terms of years spent in politics, I would say to him just as a friend, I wouldn't ad vance that argum ent too much in the hustings, because the number of votes that he is bound to get or that he is going to get will be diminished even further, and I would really hate to see my honourable friend lose the $200 deposit along with the election which we are sure he is going to lose in any case . . There was some talk about crop insurance, agricultural credit. You know we've heard these arguments so often in the House, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that the typists in Hansard and the members of the press gallery could give them11>to you backwards in Pakistani if they wanted to, so I don't intend to labour them anymore. It's very interesting though to hear my honour able friends now supporting crop insurance; to hear them supporting agricultural credit and say ing, "it's no good because it doesn't do enough." My honourable friend from La Verendrye was in the House when the six-month hoist was put on this Agricultural Credit Bill. I remember I spoke on it . And I remember the motion being moved at the time .

I'm not sure if it wasn't the present Leader of the Opposition . If I'm wrong, he can correct me . But there was a six months' hoist moved on the bill, if my memory serves me . These same people who today are telling us that we 're not going fast enough or far enough in agricultural credit and wanted to kill it when it started out. Crop insurance, oh well, there's a subject one could wax eloquently upon. There's a sub ject I'm sure that they're trying to get onto the right side of now because everybody in Manitoba realizes that this is a good program . Crop insurance is something that is needed.

And I don't blame them . I welcome their support now. I welcome their support because this is something that all Manitobans in the farm community are going to have to have as years come by. we note with considerable interest only, this rather rapid change in view of my honourable friends opposite . The initiative of the government he talks about has been lost . He talks about that very pregnant issue of daylight saving time . Well, I always remember when I come to that subject, Mr.

Speaker, that my honourable friends had, how many years? -- 10, 12, 14, 20, 40, you name it, to clean up daylight saving time, had they seen fit to do so . Our argument on this mat ter is fairly clear . We don't believe and I don't think that they really believe in their heart, the powers that are accorded to municipalities should be robbed away from them without consulting the municipalities . But that's not an issue of Manitoba that is anything new or that has anything new or anything exciting about it at all.

But this is the type of picayune, sm all, niggling, weaseling type of comment that we have been getting from the members of the opposition, par ticularly the members of the liberal Opposition. I am waiting -- and here we are within 24 hours of the end of this ses sion, approximately, we hope -- I'm waiting to hear the Liberal Party of Manitoba come out on some broad theme of policy and tell the people of Manitoba what they stand for. Let it be on Metro; let it be on the floodway; let it be on taxation; the budget; April 30th, 1962 Page 3141

(Mr . Lyon, cont'd.) •... services that we're providing; whatever; let it be on roads, let it be on any major facet of government policy but let them come out and talk. Tell us what their program is . -- (Interjection) -- My honourable friend from La Verendrye had the temerity to suggest that we were sitting on the fence over here on Metro . I hasten to assure him that we are not, Mr . Speaker . We are not . Because, Mr.

Speaker, there's no room left on that fence, there's so many grits astride of it right now there's no room left for anybody else -- (Interjection) -- So when he wants to talk about initiative I say to him , let's see some of the initiative from the opposition on some of these broad policies that means something to the people of Manitoba ; What abput school divisions . What do you think about them now ? Let's hear about that. Let's hea; about school division plans . Let's hear about how you would develop a new curriculum for Manitoba .

Let's hear about some of these things instead of the niggling criticism we get all the time ·on the little back-lotters and so on that really don't affect the public life of this province. · Well there are many other things that he went on to talk about. Oh, the one I got the par' ticular enjoyment out of though, was that great crushing debate on the question of rushing of . business during the last week of the session. That's a priceless one . I hope he uses that one in Provencher; there'll be a lot of mileage in that one . Well, Mr .

Speaker, I haven't been in the House any longer than my honourable friend from La Verendrye . · We both came in at the same time .. - fortunately we're not both going to leave at the same time -- but I want to tell him that from what pas sing experience and what passing familiarity I have with the House that the practice was time-honoured in a:ll legislatures under the former government as I recia:ll that there was always a rush near the end .

But my honourable friend from Lakeside has been at pains I know each year as the situation comes about, and I have appreciated it, and I think the younger members of the House have appreciated it, when he stands up and says occasionally that now members of the public and members of the press and new members of the House shouldn't get the idea that this stuff is going through without any proper debate and so on, and.I think particularly he was talking about concurrence and estimates . And the. same applies of course with respect to legislation.

The bllls about which my honourabl� friend saw· fit' to com plain tonight -- even though he wasn't here most of the time when they were introduced or de bated -- the bills about which he saw fit to complain have been on the Order Paper -- some of them for two or three weeks and have been there for criticism and for study and .for improve ment by all members of the House including the members of the government side . So I don't rea:lly think that that is a well-founded argument. In fact I wonder why it's even brought in .

I read some comment about something to this effect in one of the newspapers recently, but surely we're entitled to something a bit more original. Something that my honourable friend might have thought of him self. But, as I say it's such a picayune and niggling subject, I don't wish to dwell anymore upon it because again I think that e:Xperienced members of the House and mem bers of the public will treat it in accordance with the weight that should be. attached to it . And then finally he went on to the subject of the tax jungle in Metro.

He said that it was a terrible thing for Metro or for the government to have set up a new level of government and asked this new level to collect its taxes through the municipalities . But I couldn't follow his lo gic when he said that this is not a bad thing when it's done by school divisions sending their same bills up to municipalities and asking them to collect. Now he said he had some reason for the imbalance between these two propositions . I'd like to know what it is because the princi ple is much the same in both cases . He said that we have set up Metro with no tax base . That's not the fact.

Metro has a tax base; he knows what it is as well as I do -� tax base of realty; the tax base of business tax in all of the municipalities in Greater Winnipeg. He said that Metro is set up with no provincial money . When he drives down south on a portion of Pembina Highway that runs through my constituency I can tell him he's driVing on a 40% Metro road now . _And I can tell him as well that the contributions that we are making toward Metro roads and toward Metro bridges -- Does he forget about the St. James bridge? Does he forget about all of these things conveniently when it suits his purpose?

I hope not, because again, let me remind him - and I'm not speaking to him as any great expert in the field of politics -- but I mention again, we've both been in it the same length of time . I think the ess ential difference is that I've got a little more faith in the intelligence of the people than my honourable friend and I merely say to him that the people will not forget these things . They don't forget them, and he can talk about Page 3142 April 30th, 1962

(Mr . Lyon, cont'd.) .••• no tax base and no provincial money to Metro all he wants, but the people of Greater Winnipeg are driving on Metro roads that are paid for -- some of them in whole and some of them in part by the Province of Manitoba. They're going to be driving on new bridges that are going to be built in toto the river crossi ngs by the Province of Manitoba - three of them .

And these things all stand I suggest as, not as monuments -- these things all stand as testaments to progressive government, a government that is trying to work in co-oper ation with all levels of municipal governments whether they be Metro; whether they be munici pal. Now, Mr . Speaker, I have no other notes. I have attempted to confine myself to just a few pas sing rem arks in response to tho.se made by my honou.rable friend from I,.a Verendrye. In conclusion, tonight, may I take this opportunity to thank him for his "swan song" speech. It was nice to hear from him again.

We're going to miss him in this legislature . He's an at-. tractive, intelligent member . His politics are wrong of course, but he brings other perso nal qualities to this House which are going to be missed from this Hous e.

And as ls aidatthe outset, when he wasn't here, I conclude on the same note, I'm sorry that al llegislatures in Canada are going to miss this young man from our midst, because he's not going to the federal House, unfortunately; and as I said before, I hope that on the 18th of June -- (Interjection) ,..._ on the 18th of June when he has, and subsequently, when he has more time on his hanps, I hope he will come to· call on us occasionally to give us the benefit of his advice. on some of these small de cisions that the rest of us here are going to stay around. and try to make over the next few years. fyIR.

MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, just on a correction on the member' s speech, if I may. I did not move a six months' hoist on the Agricultural Credit Bill. I did move ,__no one did -7 but i did move an amendment suggesting that the rate of interest should not be more than 5% per annum. There was no six months' hoist; MR. LYON: I defer to my honourable friend's recollection. MR. MOLGAT: I'll refer you to the journals . MR. LYON: .I ac.cept. , Mr. Speaker put.the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLlN: The motion is then passed Sir.

We're not calling for yeas and nays here unless somebody else wants them . There may be some yeas and nays on other votes. This one, I think, is pretty well resolved by now. I move, sec onded by. the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, that the res olutions reported from the Commi ttee of Ways and Means be now read a second time and concurred in • . Mr. Speaker presented the mo tion and after a voice vote declared.the motion carried. MR. ROBLlN: Mr . Speaker, I'm afraid I gave you the wrong motion there.

What I should have done is t� ask you to put the res olution that the Speaker leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Com mittee of Ways and Means . It's after that stage that we propose concurrence . I regret my slip in that respect , . Mr . Speaker presented the motion and after a. voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the Honourable Member for St. Matthews in the Chair . MR. ROBLlN: Mr .

Chairman, we'd better hold up procee dings for a second -- (Inter jection) -- Fine, thank you . MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolved that towards making good the sums of money granted to Her Majesty for the public servic.e of the Province for the. fiscal year ending the 3lst day of March, 1962, the sum of $112, 015, 213.0 0 be granted out of Consolidated Fund. Mr . Chairman pres ented the question and after a voice vote declared the motion passed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolved that towards making good certain monies for various capital purposes the sum of $57, 683, 375 . 00 be granted out of Consolidated Fund. Resolution be passed?

Comm ittee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Commi ttee of Ways and Means has adopted certain resolutions and directed me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Hon ourable Member for Springfield that the report of the Com mittee be received. Mr, Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. April 30th, 1962 Page 3143

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of In dustry and Commerce that the resolutions reported in the Comm ittee of Ways and Means be now read a second time and concurred in. Mr. Speaker presented the motion . MR. CLERK: Resolved that towards making good the sums of money granted to Her Maj esty for the service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1962, that the sum of $112, 015, 213. 00 be granted out of Consolidated Fund.

Resolved that towards making good certain monies for various capital purposes the sum of $57, 683, 375 . 00 be granted out of Consolidated Fund. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN introduced Bill No . 40,

an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1963, MR. ROBLIN introduced Bill No. 98,

an Act to· authorize the expenditure of money for various capital purposes and to authorize the borrowing of the same (1) . MR. ROBLIN introduced Bill No. 31,

an Act to authorize the·expenditure of monies for various capital purposes and to authorize the borrowing of the same (2) . · MR. ROBLIN: Mr; Speaker, before I move the second reading may I suggest to the House that we give second reading. and follow through the procedure oii these three bills by leave. I think that the subject matter of the bills are proforma, in that we are alfthoroughly familiar with the contents having debated this for the last six or eight weeks, and I ask for leave to proceed in that way. And if there's no objection to that, !will move with leave that Bill No. 40,

an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service to the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1963, be now read a second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole . Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I presume it's the intention to proceed on the three bills to the second reading stage tonight and leave third reading for tomorrow. Is that correct? MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, if there's no objection to them, I would like to put them to the Committee of the Whole tonight and we could proceed with the whole formula for passing these bills. I think members will find that the bills on the current supply merely consist a

summary of the items that we've already discussed in Committee of Supply; and the capital bills merely repeat the schedules that we have repeated in the capital when we consider�d the capital bills in Committee of Supply. The wording that goes with them is the ordinary word ing that we have had over these many years ana there are no changes in that wording. It is the same formula that we've always used. So naturally if there's any objection, we won't do it, but it seemed to us that we might very well proceed with them all now. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not rising to object, but more to find out what the pro cedure is going to be . We have the understanding that any of the resolutions on the Order Pa per will be discussed and providing we're operating on that understanding, I have no objection to proceeding. MR. ROBLIN: I see my honourable friend's point. I assure him we'll be meeting at 9: 30 tomorrow morning. MR, RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the New Democratic Party)(Radisson) : ••.•.. if I may, Mr. Speaker, I have no objections for them going to Committee of the Whole tonight but I would like the opportunity of checking them to make amply sure.

And may I suggest to the First Minister that in granting leave for these to go into the Committee of the Whole House that formal third reading be given tomorrow morning when we meet. Would that be agreeable? MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, if honourable members wish·that, I have no objection to it at all. I would like to proceed as far as reporting from the Committee of Supply, but we will leave the motion for third readings until tomorrow morning if that is the desire of the House . Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried . MR. ROBLIN presented Bill No . 98,

an Act to authorize the expenditure of monies for various capital purposes and to authorize the borrowing of the same (1), for second reading. MR. ROBLIN presented Bill No . 131,

an Act to authorize the expenditure of monies for various capital purposes and to authorize the borrowing of the same (2) , for second reading. Page 3144 April 30th, 1962

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Pub lic Works that Mr . Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the three bills to which second reading has just been granted. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, and the House res olved itself into a Committee of the Whole House with the Honourable Member for St. Matthews in the Chair. MR. CHAIRMAN: .Bill No . 40 . MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, before proceeding with. any of the bills - - the wording in all of these is similar to the wording in the same bills in previous years? There's no change in policy; no change in. drafting? MR . ROBLIN: There are no changes at all that I'm aware of, Mr. 'Speaker . I'm sure they would have been brougb,t to my attention if there were any and none have. Bills Nos . 40, 98 and 131 were read

section by

section and schedules and passed. MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr . Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered certain bills and directed me to report the same without amendment., Bills No. 40,.98 and 131; and directed me to r�port the same and ask leave ta sit again. MR. MARTIN : Mr . Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable Member for : Brandon that the report of the committee be received. Mr . Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I think that we should now proceed with the resolutions on the Order Paper and I suppose the first thing to be looked at would be the amendment proposed this afternoon by the Honourable Minister o� Agriculture to the resolution on trade. I think you undertook to advise us whether .it was in order or not . . MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if before you make your ruling -- because, of course, your ruling is not debatable once you have made it -- whether you've had an opportunity of looking at

Section 202, Subsection 12, I believe it is, on Page 170 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne. I draw this to your attention, Sir, because I've looked up Beauchesne and it appears to me that according to this particular subsection the amendment as proposed by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture could be construed as being not in order and I respectfully suggest, Mr •. Speaker, that if you have not looked at. this particular rule that you may do so. •-(interjec tion) - Pardon? On Page 170; it is Subsection 12 of citation No. 202 if memory serves me correctly. MR. MOLGAT: Mr .

Speaker, on the same point, and I have read·the amendment as care fully as I could and compared it to the original amendment, it seems to me that the wording to which we would object is the taking out of the word "negative" and substituting therefor the word "constructive. n These strike us as be ing a dire.et negative .• I might add further that under Item No. 14 of the same citation which says that: "an amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negative is out of order'.', i.t seems to.me that the proposed sub-amendment actually contradicts completely the original amendment, and if that is the wish of the mover then we should simply vote against the original amendment.

HON . GEO. HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture and Conservation)(Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, might I say a word, since I moved this amendment? I would like to point out that this is not in the "resolved", the wording that the Honourable Leader of the. Opposition and the Hon. curable Leader of the New Democratic Party are objecting to . In the first place, it's not in the resolved section, in the operative section, of the resolution. It's in the

preamble. And sec ondly, I would like to point out that the word I used was "constructive". MR. PAULL EY: Mr . Speaker, it doesn't matter. The point is there is another rule and I haven't got my finger on it at the present time -- a rule I'm sure that you're well aware of that where any portion of an amendment is out of order, then it strikes out the whole amendment, · and I merely rise, Mr. Speaker, to draw these points to your attention before a ruling is made . But there's no argument afterwards. MR.

ROBIJN : ....• • suggested Sir, that if you're not prepared to rule on it tonight, we could discuss it tomorrow morning. On the other hand, if you are prepared, that's all right. MR. SPEAKER: ..•• •. •. would be the proper thing to do. I could read out the sense of the motion to the House if they wish me to . I have copied it out in the manner in whic!J. it is amended. I might say that I have put the motion together as the amendment to the amendment April 30th, 1962 Page 3145 -

(Mr. Speaker, cont'd) •••••• •• proposes, if the House would like to hear it. It might give them a little better idea of what it's all about. The motion, as amended by the amendment would read:

Whereas new trading patterns appear to be developing which may closely affect the vital agricultural, extractive and manufacturing industries of the Province of :tVJ:anitoba, And

Whereas wider and freer trading patterns of a multilateral, non-discriminatory kind are in the best interests of the people of Manitoba, And

whereas the six countries of the European Common Market are Canada's friends and allies and Canada has extensive trade relations with the Common Market as evidenced by the fact that Canada's exports thereto have quadrupled in the last ten years, · And

whereas the possible entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market and the economic policies now being advocated by President Kennedy of the United States are of a funda mental importance to this province , And

whereas the Government of Manitoba is encouraging the expansion and development of agriculture, the extractive industries and 'manufacturing for sale at home and abroad, And

whereas the Government of Manitoba sought and obtained the co-operation of the Government of Canada in holding the Manitoba Export Trade Conference in 1961 and· the Govern ment of Manitoba has been assured of the continuing co-operation of the Federill Government and its Trade Commissioner Service in its activities to expand the export trade of the Province of Manitoba;

Whereas the success of a Manitoba Trade Commission is to a considerable extent de pendent on the actions oftbe Government of Canada in the field of trade and tariff ar;rangements; And

whereas the Government of Canada is responsible for trade iµxd tariffs; And

whereas the Government of"Canada has taken a constructive attitude towards the Eu ropean Common Market and the entry of the United Kingdom into that association: Therefore

be it resolved that this House encourage the Government of Canada to continue to extend to the United Kingdom co-operation in this venture; And further

be it resolved that this House request the Government of Canada to continue to support enlightened policies of freer trade and to investigate actively !).ll possibilities of de veloping larger areas of free trade." That's what the motion means -- the amendment to the amendment. MR. PAULLEY: •••• ••• Your Honour, that that in itself, in my opinion at least, is tanta. mount to a direct negative of the amendment as proposed by the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party, and I.think it's in that context you should consider the amendment as proposed by the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR.

SPEAKER: I'll take it under consideration. My opinion at the moment is that maybe that's not exactly right. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Minister · of Health. The :Honourable Member for Gladstone. MR. NELSON SHOEMAKER (Gladstone) � Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate for the Honourable Leader of our group. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, if I may then proceed, I have a brief few comments to make on this resolution. The resolution proposed by the Minister of Health is one of general terms.

I don't really know why he brought it into the House but he apparently wanted some recommenda tions for some of the things he had said to the Commission on Health Services . And I must say, Mr. Chairman, that by and large what he says here is not too far from the position that our own party had taken on the subject.

I can refer him to the working paper which he may not have had - possibly he did have it -- (interjection) -- of our leadership convention of last year at which time the committee that was investigating, or had been investig!ltingthis particularly, stated the following: "L iberal philosophy would have no Manitobans suffering from the want of adequate health care because of economic or financial reasons . A basic Liberal relief is that the freedom of the individual in our society should be carefully protected and should only be controlled where the controls provide greater real freedom for all members of society.

On these principles we therefore conclude that comprehensive health care should be available to all and should not be substantially dependent upon the financial circumstances of the individual." In addition to that -- of course this, as I say, is a year ago; a little over a year ago now - in addition to that, the federal party had passed a resolution some three or four months prior to that embodying the same principles with some variations in detail, but the principle basically Page 3146 April 30th, 196'2

(Mr. MoJ.iat, cont'd) ••••. was the same, and I judge from what my honourable friend says here that it's roughly the same approa ch. I do have, though, two or three points of detail, Mr . Chairman, on which I would like to comment. The first one is the principle of ability to pay . Now I think it could be said that in a sense this is involved in the second portion -- second state ment there -- that it be a stipulated premium within the range of the great maj ority of the citi zens of Manitoba, but this would presuma bly mean a flat premium and no possibilities of re bates or anything like that.

It seems to me that it would be desirable to clearly state the ability to pay principle in this proposition, and that is one thing I would suggest to the government. The second one is that the resolution appears -- although it starts off by talking about health services -- it appears in its operative part to be coming down to the point of only speaking of medical services, and I wondered at this, Mr . Speaker, when you consider the resolution or the brief that the Minister presented in the first place to the Health Services ComJl!ission, be cause there he speaks about many other things.

He has a great number qf sections -- it's quite a long brief ..,- brings in dental, for example, and makes s0me specific recommendations on the dental matter on page 39 , He sug gests, for example, the federal government provide a grant of 50� per capita for t:Qe provision of dental services· in lVianitoba; and. it made me. wonder when reading this whether he had intended to have free dental services in the province Qr have some expanded services in this line, and I'm rather surprised that this would not b ecoµJe then part of this resolution.

Further on, on page 48, the Minister speaks -- or starting page 47 -- SPell.ks about drugs, and has quite a great deal of information here about the cost of drugs to the proVince itself which is the only factqv whiph he can adequately have some records on, bµt if we can judge by the costs to the provincial goverrunent for its various hospitals, thep, we cap. easily cqnclude that the cost to the Province _of Manitpba as a whole to the residents. is very many times higher than this. Now in spite of this, the Minister does not include this in his resolution, and there's one particular comment I would make there, Mr.

Chairman, that the table No. 25, on page 48, t:Qe Minister illustrates the variation in drug prices. He has drug (

a) for example, running from a low from one company of $140.0 0 to th� sam e drug quoted by eight coJl!paajes, and the eighth , company being $828 . 00 . Jn other words, a range of 491 percent. And he goes. on like this and lists a number of examples showing tremendous variation in the prices that the drug compani�s have been quoting to the government, presum ably, for drugs . And yet he apparently is doing nothing about this . I don •t know if he had intended that Manitoba should do something about this or simply that the federal government should, but it seems to me that this information, Mr.

Chairman, would caus e the Minister to be most anxious to do something to protect the citjzens of the province, because surely, if the same drug can be sold by one firm for $140.() 0 and by another firm for $828 . 00 then there's something drastically wrong, and I'm sure that's why the Minister included this in his brief, and I would say to the Minister, well, there is a serious problem here; we've got to get at the problem within the responsibilities of the Province of Man itoba first, and secondly, of course, u,rging the federal government to do whatever is required in the circumstances.

I'm not suggesting that we should control the prices of drugs but I think that we should make certain that either some standardization exist in names or that the public at least be informed that these various drugs that they're buying are the same thing and then they can judge for themselves what price they want to pay. :aut certainly this leaves open the field for serious consideration, and yet the Minister "apparently is not intending to cover any of this by his resolution because he speaks only of medical insurance, so I would suggest there that there should be an expansion in the term medical.

It should be changed and we should use the term 11health11 instead, which would cover more of the services required and would permit then an expansion of the program as conditions warra nted. The last point I want to make, Mr.

Speaker, on the stipulations of the Minister -- and it's a point I made when his resolution, or his brief, was first presented, and I was questioned about it then by the newspapers and I said that it seemed to me that there should be one public principle embodied, and this one I think would commend itself to the Minister himself consider ing his profession, and that is that we be very careful to retain in the plan that personal relation ship of doctor to patient. The free choice of doctor and patient. Now this, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me is essential.

The Minister can speak much better than I on this particular field, but it seems to me that there's much more to medicine than just the fact of going to see some doctor April 30th, 1962 Page 3147

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd) ••••••• and getting a diagnosis and recommendation. I think that faith in the doctor, that close relationship to a doctor, that belief on the part of the patient that he has a good doctor, that the doctor knows him, knows his problems intimately, is vital, and that we would lose a great deal in the field of health and medical services if the relationship between patient and doctor was simply that which may exist be,tween the seller of any product and the customer . I think there's a great deal more, and that this should be embodied as a basic principle in establishing our plan .

When we look at the Province of Saskatchewan and the troubles that they're having right now, I think it's evident that this must be retained, because it's only in that way that the plan will work properly. So in the light of those comments, Mr. Speaker, I will niove an amendment. Now I know the government isn't anxious to accept amendments from the Opposition. They've shown some reluctance on these matters � But I would recommend strongly to the Minister that he study this one carefully before deciding to vote against it, because really it does not, in any way, negate his re·sohition.

It adds these points which I have mentioned, which I think are important and which "r trust that he himself would agree with. So I beg to move, Mr . Speaker, seco nded by the Member for Lakeside that the motion be amended by striking out the word "medical" in the 22nd line and substituting therefor the word ''health", and that the motion be further a mended by adding the following words after the word "Manitoba" in the last lliie: "with provi sion being made to incorporate the principle of ability to pay and retaining the free choice of patient and doctor . " Mr . Speaker presented the motion. MR. D.

ORLIKOW (St� John's): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Mem ber for Seven Oaks that the debate be adjourned. Mr. ·Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. MOLGAT: Mr . speaker, I don't want to hold up the work of the House at all but I have a couple of other resolutions later on that I will be speaking on .

If it meets with the. approval of the House, I would appreciate it if this would stand till tomorrow morning. I have no objection to any others speaking. MR. SPEAKER: Stand? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, if there are no other members prepared to speak then I would agree that this item stand. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the· Attorney-General . The Honourable. Member for Broke'nhead. MR. PETER WAGNER (Fisher) : Mr. Speaker, the member is away. I would ask the House's indulgence to have this matter stand. However, if anybody wants to speak that would be all right. MR.

SPEAKER: Anybody wish to speak? Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable the Attorney-General. Order stand? ·MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Attorney-General would be back mom entarily and I don't know how long I can in propriety just stand here speaking as slowing as possible hoping that he will ]oin us at any moment. I think that probably I could scarcely do the subject justice . I think in that event, Mr.

Speaker, that we would proceed with the adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Selkirk which I understand is standing in the name of-- well nowl wonderif it would be acceptable now, Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney-General were to propose his resolution now that he's here . MR. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, Resolved that this House doth concur in the Report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Orders hereinafter called "the committee" made to the House on the 16th day of February, 1962, and also the recommendations made therein; be it further re solved that the regulations hereinafter mentioned be dealt with as hereinafter provided: Regu lation 52/61; Sections 3 and6 are required to be repealed. Regulation 45/60; being spent, is required to be repealed.

Regulations 46/60; as soon as the substance of this regulation has been enacted by statute (which is recommei:ided), this regulation is required to be repealed. Regulation 51/60; this regulation is required to be amended as set out in the report. Regulation Page 3148 April 30th, 1962

(Mr . Lyon, cont'd) •••••• 52/60; this regulation is required to be repealed and re-enacted as set out in' the report of the committee. Regulation 54/60; there being no authority for

section 1 of this regulation, it is required to be repealed. Sections 4 and 5 of Regulation 64/58, as en acted by

section 2 of Regulation 54/60, are redundant and are required to be repealed. Regula tion 55/60; there being no authority for

section 2A of Regulation 38/60, enacted by

section 2 of Regulation 55/60, it is required to be repealed unless The Fruit and Vegetable Sales Act is amended to give the necessary authority for the

section 2A aforesaid. Regulations 66/60 and 63/60; subsection 2 of

section 1 and also

section 2 of each of these regl1lations are required to be repealed for the reasons stated in the report of the commi ttee. Regulation 9/61; this regulation is required to be repealed for the reasons stated in the report of the comm ittee. Mr. Speaker presented the motion . MR. LYON: It is not my intention to make any extended remarks on this resolution but I do think I should call attention to the House to the fact that this is the implementation of the first report of your Standing Committee on Regulations and Orders -- the commi ttee that was es tablished a year and a hil.lf ago.

I think this is a matter of no little significance because here for the first time in the history of our province we have the Legislature of Manitoba directing the Executive Branch of Government as a result of recommendations made by a comm ittee of this Legislature to repeal or to remedy in some way regulations which have been passed by the Executive Branch of Government. This was the full intention, of course, when this com• mittee was established in order to permit the Legislature to have a higher degree of control, · so to speak, over delegated legislation.

And here we see the first manifestation of this control by the commi ttee bringing forth a res olution such as you have before you and asking for the House's support of it, and thereafter for the members of the Executive Council being under onus placed by the House to effect the changes set forth in this resolution. I think this is a singular occasion in the life of this legislature, Mr . Speaker, because it is the only legislature in Canada that has conferred this power over delegated legislation. Certainly I know that it will receive approval on all sides of the House.

I merely make these few remarks to indicate to the Legislature -- to the members of the House --.that this is rather a hallmark, a bench ma rk in the life of our Legislature, and certainly one that I'm sure will be followed in other legislatures across the country as years go by. Again, I think Manitoba can take pride in the fact that we have led the way in Canada in this particular field, and I commend this resolution to the House for its consideration and approval. MR. T. P: HILLHOUSE, Q. C. (Selkirk): Mr .

Speaker, as a member of the comm itte, I'd like to join with the Honourable the Attorney-General in recommending to the House that this resolution be unanimously passed. At the sam e time though, I'd like to make this sugges tion, that at the time this comm ittee was set up, the First Minister listed the principles which should guide us in our deliberations . Now I feel that these principles that were so listed were good principles and these were the principles which we followed during our sittings .

And I would suggest to the House, particularly to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, that the rules of this House be amended by incorporating into these rules the principles which should guide all future com mittees on statutory regulations and orders . Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried . . • . . • • • • • • continued on next page April 30th, 1962 Page 3149

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Selkirk. Second reading of Bill No. 125,

An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act. The Honourable Member for .Selkirk. MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q. C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, the opposition to this bill has not been very voluble. In fact, the only one who has expressed opposition is the Honourable Minis ter of Health -,- Welfare -- (Interjection) -,- No, I never heard him . ··.R egarding the comments made by the Honourable Member of Health, I would like to say this, that-his objection to the bill seems to fall into two main objections.

First, that 11e doesn't like lawyers. -.,. (Interjection) -- .N o, I realize that -- and secondly, he thinks that this bill takes away from a mother the right to determine the religion in which a child shall be brought up. With regard to the second objection, I think the House should understand that tl1ere are two me:thods by wh.ich. children may be adopted under The Child Welfare Act. First, there is the voluntary method where the unwed mother or the parents decides or decide t<;> give up. a child :for adoptio11 . .

In. that case, th.e unwed mother has the right to cqoose �he adopting family, and by reason of the fact that she has that right, I don't think that it can be said that we are taking away froµi her the right of determining the religion in wllich that .child shall be brought up. The second type deals with ,tb.qse children who are wards of the clirr;ic�or or of Children's +'\id Societies.

And in that case, the director or the Children's Aid Society is, in what is comm on,ly. called, in loco Parentis to that child, the mother ol." the parents of that child has lost all legal rights of guardia'nship 'and control over tl1e child. It seems to me that when the director or a Cb,ildren's Aid Society is placed in the positipn of being in loc9 parentis to a child, that it should, and .they' should be able to exercise all the functions that the natural mother or the natural parents can exercise in respect of the child. So. for these rea&o1;1s, Mr.

Speaker, I do. not think that the objections raised by the Honour able Minister of Health are completely valid. As previously stated when I introduceci this. bill, I feel that the welfare of the child should be the matter of paramount consideration. I'm not going to go into the legal aspects of

Section 131 of the Act. I think I have made it clear that, insofar as religion is a factor in that section, it is only a factor in, respect of the ,two main faiths in Canada. It is not a factor· in respect of any of the other faiths,· nor is. it.a factor, nor does it prevent an atheist or a person having no religion whatsoever from adopting a chi.Id of either of the two main faiths. Furthermore, it does not prevent adoptions by people of other faiths of children of these other faiths. In other words, there's nothing in that Act to.prevent a Mohammedan fro_m adopting. a Buddhist and vice versa and, to that extent, I don't think that

section can be considered a. religious

section at all and if it is a religious section, I su,bmit it discriminates against the people of faiths other than the two main faiths in Canada. In conclusion_, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to urge upon this House that they look upon this mat ter strictly on a welfare basis and consider what is in the bes.t interests of the child and what steps we s.hould take to clear up a situation in Manitoba which is worsening from .year to year, . Mr. Speaker put the question and anljlr a voice vote dec[ared tl1e motion lost. MR.· SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Before I call the motion, I would Jike to call at tention to the members of the House that they shouldn't talk together in such a loud voice as it's hard to hear the score .when we take. the vote. The motion before the House is second reading of Bill No. 125 proposed by the Honourable Member for Selkirk,

An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act. A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs . Campbell, Dow, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hillhouse, Orlikow, Peters, Shoemaker, Wagner and Wright. NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Desjardins, Evans , Froese, Groves, Hamilton, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (As siniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman , Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Molgat, Paulley, Prefontaine, Roblin, Roberts, Scarth, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Watt, Weir, Witney, Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. MR.

CLERK: Yeas 11; Nays 38. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution proposed by the Honourable Member for Fisher and the proposed amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne. The Honourable Member for Brokenhead. Page 3150 April 30th, 1962

MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Brokenhead is not here this evening. My colleague the Honourable Member for Fisher is ready to speak on this resolution if it'·s agreeable to. the House to let him proceed," and any other member of the House, and then the adjournment stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead. As far as we're concerned, that would be quite satisfactory. MR. WA GNER: Mr. Speaker, I don't get a chance to speak and they want me to sit down. Mr.

Speaker, since I'm a member in this Legislature I didn't hear as many federal politics going on since last week, and naturally I was accused. wben I brought this resolution, particu larly by the Honourable Member from Springfield -- Oh, I'm sorry he's not in his seat -- that this is a federal matter. For one moment I did not have any intention that the provincial govern ment can give parity prices or stabilize the economy, but this government can call upon their cohorts in Ottawa, and they can do that.

However, the Member for Springfield, he kind of touched. me where I don't very well like it and he quotes -- and I want to quote him in the Hansard of March 13th, 162, page 665. I'm not going to read too much because I waRt to expedite this ses sion as fast as possible, but it seems to me that I'm holding my feet and the honourable members are getting ahead and I think I should have a say too. When he was speaking that this is a federal matter and I shouldn't be bringing this resolution to the provincial House , so I quote: "He seemed to have been in reverse gear trying to go ahead.

He stated· in his resolution that the three main farm grains are far .too low in price and so forth, but to my observation and I think to everybody in this House, the Federalization Act" -- no doubt it's a misprint, it should be Stabilization Act -- "and the machinery of it does not control prices or anything of that type as far as the grains are con cerned. The grain is controllE!d by the machinery of the Canadian Wheat Board. Therefore, I think there's a great big misconception of the whole thing on the part of the member who spoke on that the other day. " Mr.

Speaker, I'm a little bit disappointed and surprised from the Member of Springfield. He has been well educated, in my opinion. He has taught school for quite a while and surely he understands that I didn't say that the Stabilization Bill 237 has to do anything with grain. Surely I understand and everybody else knows that it's under the Wheat Board jurisdiction. And again I must be fair to my Honourable Member from Springfield that I think he either forgot himself or he just wanted to make a little bit of noise. A MEMBER: That's all he ever does . MR; WAGNER: Mr.

Speaker, when I mention this noise stuff, it reminds me of a story that three hermits were sitting in a cave and they made a deal -- that's why they were in the cave because it was too much noise out elsewhere -- so they were not on speaking terms . So one day a white horse passed by and one hermit said to the other: "M y gosh, that's a nice horse. " Two years later another hermit said: "Yes , it was a beautiful white horse ." Three years later the third hermit said: "I move out because it's too much noise in this place.

" However, it seems to me that that's the only way I can refer to the Honourable Member from Springfield. He wanted to blow steam and I'm pretty sure that he's well relaxed now. However, referring back to the federal items that we are speaking - as I said from the outs.et, that we have been talking nothing else for the last week only federal issues, even European trade missions and Common Market and what not we have -- the Colombo Plan. So I don't think it's such a great sin to speak on the agricultural stabilization resolution.

However, the Honourable Member for Springfield wants to state that the government should take all the credit becaqse the ten cent price increase in grain and all the money that the farmers receive, that it came from the government. However, I would like to remind the memb er that it came from the Wheat Board. This is our money; this is farmers• money; and we sell our grain in three stages. The first stage is initial, then interim, then final payment. The Wheat Board is our agent -- salesman, which I have high regard for the Wheat Board.

I was one of those that had campaigned through the Interlake area when the plebiscite was held that the Wheat Board should be maintained. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I can refer again, if we would have such members in federal and in the provincial House as the Member for Springfield, we wouldn' t have a Wheat Board. Oh no, we wouldn't have a Wheat Board, because already you start the thin edge of the wedge by reducing the feed mills , giving them the authority -- juris diction to buy their grain elsewhere; so therefore, J!.ir. Speaker, I resent some of those April 30th, 1962 Page 3151

(Mr. Wagner, cont 'd. ) .•..• statements that are stated against the Wheat Board. Getting back, Mr. Speaker, to the resolution -- parity prices, cost of production or a fair share of the national income , it seems to me it's the very words that nobody likes to hear in this House. I don't know why, and I can refer myself to the Member from Souris-Lansdowne when he stated that I want state control and that the state owes us a living.

I would quote the Member from Souis-Lansdowne on Page 1137 , March 27, 1962 and I quote: "I think that he is trying to say" -- meaning me -- "in the latter part of his resolution, is that the state owes a living to every farmer in Western Canada, a standard of living, as he mentions in the last part of the resolution. I disagree very much with the honourable member for that reason.

I think that that is one of the main diff erences between his Party and our Party, and may I say when l include our Party, I mean the Liberal Party too, 11 --well he speaks for the both parties -- "be cause we think in our opinion, that we should leave initiative and the desire with the individual to gain better results rather than to have the government interfere in any way with production costs and price controls." It says "freight controls" but I am sure he means "price controls." Mr. Speaker, the far mers don't say that the state owes them a living - a standard living.

The far mers want a fair share of the national income .. Wbat is requested by them, they are en titled to: I would like to refer the Member for Souris Lansdowne, when the Prime Minister of that day, 1956, when he was the Leader of the Conservative Party of that day, that he too thinks that the state owes the fa rmers a living when he said "parity, not charity. " Did he think at that time that the state owes a living to the far mers ? Mr.

Speaker, the farmers demand what is rightly theirs and it can be argued back and forth as you may, but we have to arrive.at some settlement, some agreement, and we also refer all of these to a family fa rm. I have here a paper clipping. It's headed by "The Family Farm, Voice of the Farmer, U. S. Secretary of Agriculture. " -- Orville Freeman reads the speech. He states what is meant by a family fa rm.

"To me, the family farm is a unit of agricultural production characterized by the fac t that the owner or operator who manages the farm is the farmer himself, and the far mer him self has the incentive to do a good job because he will be rewarded accordingly. Of course, he may hire some labor. But the family farm is distinct from a huge corporation farm operating entirely by hired labor. It is diffe rent fro m a state-lwned collective fa rm. Its distinguishing feature is the incentive and enterprise that comes with individual ownership. " I wonder whether this means something to the honourable member.

Now as far as parity prices, I've heard the Attorney-General refer even to the Farmers Union brief on drought conditions. I want to refer to_!! resolution that was passed by the Farmers Union on December 5, 6, 7, 1961, and I'll just read a paragraph of it and it states: "Wbereas acreage payments, deficiency payments, subsidies to railways, coverting poor lands to forests , etc. , have not succeeded in alleviating the cost-price squeeze in agriculture; and

whereas agri culture is the main industry in any stable economy; therefore

be it resolved that the federal government institute parity prices f or all farm commodities consumed ii:t Canada." Now I would ask the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne and the Member for Springfield whether they agree or they disagree with this resolution; whether they agree or disagree with the fa rmers, that they presented this resolution? I have here, Mr. Speaker, what I picked up, an excerpt from Economic Analyst, December 161, Page 122: "How the prices have· declined on farm products.

Farm prices of Agricultural" -- and it has the index fro m 1935 to 1939 equals 100 -- "In 1951, the farm prices of agricultural products, the index was 296. 8 and in 1960, January, 240.9, a drop of l)5. 9; and that's exclusive of living costs. Well, it isn't fair f or the far mers tOask for parity prices.

However, I would like to quote the cost of production of wheat on summer.:.fallow, and it - comes from the Federal Government Illustration Stations Division on Progress Report 1954- 1958, Experimental Farm Service, Canada Department of Agriculture, and it tells on Page 27 and 28: 11A study was made in 1957 of costs of producing wheat on fallow at 80 locations in the three prairie provinces. The data are given in Table II and classified by location in three sub geographic zones according to soil group. On a basis of costs per acre, the diffe rences between these three groups are highly significant.

It should be noted that these data pertain only to 80 widely separated locations. However, tqey indicate that significant dif ferences in production costs per acre for spring wheat on fallow exist between regions but, because of compensating diffe rences in yields, the costs per bushel are relatively unifo rm. " Well Table II, it has Soil Page 3152 April 30th, 1962

(Mr. Wagner, cont'd. ) ..... Group -- Black and Gray Black; Number of Locations -- 28; cost per acre in 19.57 was $21. 15 to grow on summer fallow the wheat. Shallow Black and Dark Brown, 30 locations, $19. 94 was the cost; and Brown was 22 locations, $17 . 38 an acre. All groups, you average them -- BO locations -- the average cost per acre was to produce from sum merfallow the wheat, $19. 66. So we have already an experiment on the cost of production of wheat. A little bit elbow room, a little bit more energy, we can arrive to the stability the parity prices of cost of production.

Furthermore, that same report states: "Costs of field operations in the prairies were studied at 71 locations. For self-propelled grain combines, the 1957 data on costs per acre of operating them on 40 illustration stations are given in Table 12. As'the size of the machine in creases , as measured by table width, the cost per acre decreases. " And the 10-foot combine, which I believe is mostly used -- and this is based on 122 hours per combine ,..._ "operating costs included interest on investment, allowance for deprei;iiation and repairs, fuel oil, grease and labor for operating the combine.

Interest was charged at 6% on average investment; de preciation and repairs were based on probably life estimates of 2, OOO hours, repairs being charged at 150% of machine value. Fuel, oil and grease charges were based on current prices . Labor was charged at $1. 05 per hour. " Now 10-foot combine -- with tests of six machines - an average per acre was $4. 62; the 12-f oot was $3. 16; so on the average it costs $5. 51 to operate a combine per acre. Naturally when the machine is bigger you have less, but however I just point out the 10-foot and 12-foot com bine because it's mostly used.

So there we have the operating costs of the combines. Now naturally we understand that the price of machinery even went up in 162. The far mers are not only receiving less for their produce but their living standard costs went up; the machinery went up; so where is the farmer? Naturally ;,e had the budget -- the Honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Fleming, he presented the budget in Ottawa -- we know what kind but there is one item -- I would like to refer in Free Press April llth.

While some people like to say that it's a budget of great help -- but to who? fd.on•t want to refer to nobody as some of our members want to cover up themseives with the Farmers' Union brief, and I would like to say what the President of the Farmers' Union had to say on the budget. The headline is: " Budgetis no Help -- Usick. Rudy Usick, President of the Manitoba Farmers• Union said Tues day, One big disappointment to drought-stricken farmers here in the west is fhe omission from Mr.

Fleming1s budget of any special drought assistance ." Naturally we have the $40 million that we are expecting to have assistance for 1962. However, it's being construed that it's going to alleviate the situation of two-price system so, in other words , we did not receive nothing from the federal government due to the drought. He goes on further: "We in the farm union had been expecting a decision to be made by the government before spring seeding, as we had been promised by the Prime Minister the matter has been receiving serious consideration since mid-summer last.

This omission in the budget means that we farmers will need to send a special delegation" -- and yes they did. They have been promised, as in the past. They sent a delegation -- ten of the farm organization -- as I stated under the Agriculture estia:a tes - "Farmers plead for Aid from Ottawa. " Now the farmers lost, in round figures , $500 million. We want to take pride stating that we are good salesmen, selling wheat to other countries; we open the quota.

My reasoning is this, that five years ago these markets were there; ten years ago these markets were there; but due to the results -- yes, I blame the both governments -- oh sure, the one in the past and the one at present. The one in Ottawa is electioneering now so that's out of the question to give some results now. However, we had these markets but for unknown reason to me we wouldn't practice them . The farmers lost $500 million due to drought last year. Now we pride ourselves with an open quota. If the farmers would have had a 500 million bushel crop there would be no open quota -- No.

Now as far as the 50 members, I wonder if they pay any attention to what is the Wheat Board. And I will just refer a little bit to the Wheat Board that the farmers, through the Wheat Board, employ 650 people. How do these 650 people get paid? Through the sales of farmers' grain, and whatever is left afterwards , the farmer gets his equal share on his delivery quota. So let's not have no misconception on this. The Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne was stating that he would rather stay on April 30th, 1962 Page 3153

(Mr. Wagner, cont'd. ) . • • . . the same level as his father was on the farm -- supply and de mand should take its part. · It reminds me of a story when two fellows,' Harry and Pete, parted when they were 21 years of age and then they met 20 years after. Harry was married and Pete was not married, and Harry asked him: "Why didn't you marry Pete?" And Pete said: "You know what? My great-grandfather was a bachelor; my father was a bachelor; and I am a bache lor." So Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to stay where my father was or grandfather was. We can not.afford to stay and we shouldn't stay.

We should get along; we should go ahead. · Now, Mr. Speaker, turning backcto Bill 237, it was supposed to do wonders, and it is a. good bill if Rwould be implemented right; Oh yes. I want to quote from the Farmerst Union resolution under Stabilization Bill, "Whereas Bill 237 was a decisive factor in the 1958 .Federal election in its promise to bring price stability and a fair share of the national income'to agri culture; and

whereas this bill has dismally failed in its objectives; therefore

be it resolved thatthe Manitoba Farmers' Union strongly request the federal government.to ma,ke· the neces..: sary changes to bring about the implementation of the promises of the. BilL " This bill was sup� posed to stabilize the prices. The Member for Souris-Lansdowne said. it does not stabilize the prices. We had a little argument. I read here tonight in the Tribune, April 30t):r, where our assistant Agricultural. Secretary, Warner Jorgenson said:' "Saturday he .accepted the ·nomina tion with the request that the Conservative government be allowed to carry on with the job it was doing for Canadians.

For agriculture, he said, the government had brought in a price stabili zation scheme ." According to this Hansard of the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne, that was not supposed to stabilize the price. I want to. quote, Mr. Speaker, from the Act, and it's a very short quotation. 1 took ex cerpts .from the Statutes of Canada, '57-58,

Chapter 22 in the Act to Provide for the Stabiliza-, tion of Prices of Agricultural Commodities -- stabilizing prices -� "Whereas it· is expedient to enact a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the price of agricultural comm odities in .order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its.labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relatioh8hip between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods andBervices that they.buy; thus to provide farmers with a fair share Of the natidnal income; therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:" ·Then it says: "Agricultural Stabilization Board shall be nomina ted.

" Then it has an Advisory Com mittee. "The Advisory Com mittee established under sub section (1) shall meet at least twice a year and shall advise the Minister and the Board with respect to such matters relating to the stabilization of prices of agricultural commo dities un der this Act as are referred to it by the Minister or the Board. " We are arguing here that the Bill 237 .was not meant to stabilize prices, when the Act reads it so plainly.

"The duties of the Board"-- it says: "The Board shall from time. to time in accordance with this Act take such action as is necessary to stabilize the prices of agricultural comm odities at their respective prescribed prices, and shall take such action and make such recom mendations as are necessary to ensure that the prescribed prices for an agricultural commo dity in effect fr'?m time to time shall bear a fair relationship to the cost of production of such com modity. " Now, have we got that?

"The expenditures of the Board -- there shall be established in the Consolidated Revenue Fund an account to be known as the Agricultural Commo dities Stabilization Account, in this

section called the "Account"." How much money per year does the account hold? The govern ment can have $250 million a year. The gentlemen �pposite, I don't argue with their figures. I didn't go into statistics, but they claim that something over $200 million was spent -- assisted by the government to the western farmer through the whole years since the Diefenbaker govern ment came into power. Here the Act says $250 million a year. "The Agricultural Stabilization Board' has at its disposal a revolving fund of $250 million which is $50 million higher than that made available to its predecessor.

This fund is maintained at that amount by annual appropria tions by Parliament to cover any loss that may take place during the year, and if there should be any surplus to the Board's account, it is to be_ turned over each year to the general Consoli dated Revenue Fund. " Mr. Speaker, where is our drought assistance for 1961? The government has that author ity. The Stabilization Bill allows that, but what's happened?

Oh no, those big promises that were made that they were going to stabilize the prices; that they were going to give parity, not charity; the cost of production; and I heard the Minister of Agriculture saying: "One vote from Page 3154 April 30th, 1962

(Mr. Wagner, cont'd. ) ....• the West for Diefenbaker government" -- well it sounded some thing like that -- I cannot quote him, what he said this '1fternoon. I believe, Mr. Speaker, in this election if the farmers will protest with every vote, then we shall get places; not giving him a mandate full strength saying yes, you're doing very well. This is the protest. , MR. EDMOND PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words on this resolution.

The members will recall that for four years we have had practically the same resolution emanating from the same corner and we have had the same amendment emanating from the same side of the House also, or jus� about a sill!ilar resolution and. a simi lar amendment. Now for two years, Mr. Speaker, I have brought in a sub..:amendment to a resolution: of this kind.

I had been impressed by a speech mad,e by the First Minister at a ban-: quet in Winnipeg when he was speaking to a group of businessmen, in which he had praised the Atlantic provinces for having an Atlantic Provinces Economic' Coun(lil to dµJcuss their common problems and he had suggested th?-t we should have in Western Cana,da the same type of a c,oun .. cil, and he called it the Prairie ProVince's Economic Council; and I moved a sub-amendment in 1960 to a similar resolution and it got the approval of the House.'.

Siml).arly, in 1961, l made the same sub-amendment to the. sami:i type of resolution and tlie same type of. an amendment and, if I'm correct, again it was supported by the, House unanimously .. But iast year there. was a dif,.. ference on the part of the governmept. Last year apparently there was a ch�ge of heart. We had had a. comipittee here called by the Governme.nt of Manitoba, not of the western. provinces but of the whol,e of Canada.

It seemed that,our Fi+st Minister had his eyes on larger fields. than western Canada and that he wanted to have representatives of the whole, of Canada to dis-, cuss agricultural problems; that to try and solve them on the basis of w�stern Canada alone . was not sufficient; and although I quoted ag;Un from his famous speech to the,businessmen of Winnipeg, it had no 'effect on him that tim� and my resolution in the form of a sub-amendment . didn't get to first base. ,· , , Well I had a notion to bring another one this' year but there has not been,time, , It is too late now anci I know that it would not achieve results because the ·First Minister .has his eyes more and more on the national field' rather than the wes,tern Canada field, and the ,resolution here mentions ,western Canada time and time again -- special probiems for us in western Canada: -- but this does not appeal to the First Minister.

His eyes are somewhere else and, before long, I suppose he will be in that other field of activity and not the western Canada field. So it's no use, I will not bring such a resolution,, but I don't like, in general, this form of an amendment. , The resolution was a kind of a criticism. It

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-5-87
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 5th hansardpdf 87.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5e5edc0c993df1d265e35c43a6d4b0ad9db98ebd

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