Manitoba Hansard — 15 March 1960 (Sitting 43, 26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-43

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Volume IV No. 43 March 15, 1960 2nd Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen�s Printer for the Province of Manitoba� Winnipeg

DAILY INDEX •• Tuesday, March 15, 1960, 8: 00 p.m • Adjourned Debate: Bill 85 (Mr. Groves) 2n d Reading: Mr. Johnson, (Gimli) • • • • • • • • 160 7 Mr. Christians on . . . • • • • . • . . . . . . . • • • . . . • • • . . . • • • • • • • • . . . • . • • • • • . . . • • . . • • • 160 9 Mr. Hillhouse, amendment .• ·• •. ..•... •.•.•• •• •.•.•• •. .• •.•. .• .••• .• • •.•• •• 1611 Bills 39, 40, 30, 41 , re Hutterites (not proceeded with) • • . • . • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1613 Bil172 (Mr. Desjardins), Bill 74 (Mr . Prefontaine), Bill 91 (Mr. Cowan), Bill71 (Mr. Desjardins), Bill73 (Mr.

Desjardins), Blll79 (Mr. Lissaman), Bill 84 (Mr. Groves), Bill 86 (Mr. Martin), Bill 92 (Mr. Cowan) . . . . • • . . . • . • • 1613 Re Pensions (Mr. Gray): Mr. Speaker's Ruling: Mr. Gray, Mr. Paulley •• • • • • • • 1614 Mr. Orlikow • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1615 Mr. Johnson (Gimli) • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1616 Mr. Froese, Mr. Schreyer ....... •.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1617 Mr.

Campbell, Mr. Roblin • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • 1618 Mr. Shoemaker, Mr. Cowan; Division • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • 1621 Re Municipal Act (Mr . Schreyer): Mr. Alexander, Amendment • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1622 Re Flood Protection (Mr. Desjardins): Mr. Groves • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • •• • • • • • • • 1623 Re Crippled Children (Mr. Gray): Mr.

Speaker's ruling; Division on ruling • • • • • • • 1624 Committee of Supply: Concurrence in Report • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • 1625

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Tuesday, March 15th, 1960 MR. GROVES: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the indulgen(;e of the House to introduce ••• MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear what you said. MR. GROVES: I wonder if I might have the permission of the House to introduce a class of students in the gallery. Agreed? Mr. Speaker and members, I would like to intro duce to you a class of 21 students in the gallery to your left, Sir, from Glenwood School. They are Grade IX students under the direction of their teacher, Mrs. H. Green.

I'm sure that you would all join me in welcoming these students to our deliberation this evening and we hope that they will enjoy their stay with us and that they will come back and see us again soon. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the motion of the Honourable Member for St. Vital. Second reading of Bill No. 85,

an Act to incorporate the Association of Dental Techni cians in Manitoba. The Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare. HON. GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Health & Public Welfare) (Gimli}: Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all say that I wish to speak as a private member for Gimli on speaking against Bill85. Now I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, at the outset, that I'm trying my best to speak in the interests of the people of my constituency and what I consider also the best inter ests of the people of Manitoba.

The inference that I have read and heard that I'm irrevo cably opposed to this Bill is true, but it's certainly not because I have any professional axe to grind, and I'm sure the honourable members believe me when I say that, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the only axe that I have· to grind is in what I hope is the public interest, and I say this conscientiously. To my mind the principle of this bill is not being clearly enunciated by the Honourable the Member from St. Vital.

What this bill really asks this Legislature to do is to put untrained, unqualified person, such a person in a position where the public can come to him with a certificate of oral health. This technician should have a responsibility to protect the health of the public, and he has not got the training and qualifications to protect that health. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the effect of this bill is to open up and legalize a health hazard to the public.

Now I just want to give one illustration or an example as an illus tration of what I mean, and to prove I hope, why every member of this Legislature should vote against this bill. I'm going to make it very simple. Supposing Mrs. X goes to a dentist to have her teeth extracted; he takes impressions; in his best judgment removes the teeth; orders plates; he fits them and he asks her to come back if they're uncomfortable. Now she comes back, Mr. Speaker, because there is an irritation.

Now at this time, this may be six weeks following the initial fitting, it may be three mollt hs following this time, now he sees and recog nizes the lesion --·a lesion or something on a gum. Through his training in pathology, anatomy he recognizes this may be a first sign of ca!lcer. His res{lonsibility training enlightens the dentist, make himrefer this case to a dental surgeon or to a medical man or a medical surgeon in that field where the cancer, let us say, is treated and cured. Now, eight out of ten cancers of the mouth if found early, and treated early are curable. This is a fact.

The American Cancer Society is my source of information. In addition to that, let me read what every practising physician and this came to my office in Gimli, which every practising physician and dentist receives every year from the American Cancer Society and this is distributed by our Canadian Cancer Society. Inside the front cover, Mr. Speaker, it says that seven danger signs of can cer. Every year every practising physician is sent a little pamphlet and I just want to read the first three of the seven points they ask you to be aware of. 1. Any sore that does not heal quickly especially about the mouth. 2.

Any unusual bleeding or discharge from any opening. 3. Any painless lump especially in the lips, tongue, breast or soft tissues. Why does the American Cancer Society do this? Because constantly the young dentist or physician in rural Manitoba or anywhere in Manitoba must be constantly on his guard. He must be constantly re minded, despite his years of qualification and training, that he mustn 't miss something that he sees because by the time that patient gets to another doctor, it may be too late.

Probably the greatest service a young man or a physician or dentist performs, say, especially in a rural area in the province. is to pick this up early, because as I say if he doesn't it may be too late. As I March 15th, 1960 Page 1607

(Mr. Johnson (Gimli) cont 'd.) ••• was sitting here the other day at. my seat, the Minister of Education was looking through numerous pamphlets that he had upon his desk and I asked him if I could borrow this: "Oral Pathology" ••••• in April, tbis is a little brochure being put out by the University, inviting all the graduate dentists to a series of lectures for one week. And what are the topics? "Ulceration of the Oral Mucosa" that's the lining of the. mouth; "New Growths on the Gums"; "Bone Behaviour"; "White Lesions" ·or white sores on the oral mucosa; "Oral Cancer".

Now constantly, these men in busy practice will take time off from their duties and we, through public funds are sponsoring this course to keep our qualified men right up to date and on their toes. This just. came through to my notice the other day. In the Province of Manitoba last year I have a breakdown --105 cancers of the mouth recognized in the past year by the Cancer Foundation. · And in our annual report, one death in the Province of Manitoba. Now I'm not trying to spread cancer phobia.

I'm just trying to point out as I go along, that this qualification even to the qualified person, a constant reminder is found necessary by such authentic bodies such as this. And I've pointed out the role of a dentist or practitioner. This Legislature, Mr. Speaker, has the assurance of the University, which after all, in the highest body of learning in the land, that they are qualified to recognize and to be in this area. And how --I've tried to say -- that early diagnosis being of such great importance.

And in my opinion probably the greatest function a young dentist or physician per forms in his area, is to pick these matters up early and get them into the proper place for treatment. Now let us come to the case of the lady, if this Bill were passed. She has her teeth extracted by a dentist. A week later she goes to her doctor and gets a certificate of oral health. Her gums are fine; there's no sign of anything wrong. This certificate of oral health is taken, for instance, to her dental technician as envisaged in this Bill.

The same afternoon, while he fills her mouth full of 'goo' and advises her to pick up her teeth the next day. She comes back, say in any period of time, one week, she comes back six weeks later and the same lesion that faced the dentist earlier, appears on the gum, a painless swelling, a small white mucous patch, a white patch on the mucosa, and the dental technician has no training to recognize, so he doesn't see, or know, its significance. Six months later this patient may be beyond help.

The principle is that if this Bill passes, you're allowing people to go to un qualified men who could have, with proper qualifications, protected the life of this person. Someone may say, "Oh, this happens rarely". The mover of the motion got away out in left field when during his talk, he started talking about cancer of the mouth and how this was really not an important matter. I submit as far as this Bill is concerned, it is a most important matter. In the address which he gave, he points out where cancer has not yet been ascertained that ill-fitting dentures necessarily cause cancer. With that I agree, Mr.

Speaker. It's also . never been proven that cancer of the lower lip is caused by a pipe, but any practitioner, Mr. Speaker, has seen cancer of the lower lip in pipe smokers. I'm not for one minute saying that trauma -- it's never been proven by the best scientific men we have, that trauma in itself can cause cancer. But the point is, you can •t give unqualified people the responsibility of making that diagnosis. There's the point. And that's why, I say, I feel that his statement was irre levant. The principle also is that our present law provides the kind of protection the public should have.

The proposed Bill loses that protection in the case of every person who goes dir ectly to a technician's office, whether with a certificate of oral health or not. I want to say something, Mr. Speaker, about the certificate of oral health, which I have said is the point which was not enunciated by the mover of this Bill. A certificate of oral health is as good as the moment it is written and no more. No conscientious, qualified physi cian or dentist can issue a certificate of oral health and insure that person.

For instan ce, it's the same as giving a certificate of freedom from infectious disease, and have the patient wake -up in the morning with tonsilitis. It is irrelevant. It has no protection to the public whatsoever. It prostitutes the professions that are asked to write them. It's just like saying, "O.K. you fellows, you dentists, and you doctors, you go to school for eight or ten years and get .in a _position where you can write a few certificates for our friends. It offers no protection to the public whatsoever. And this Bill I might point out to the Committee, Mr.

Speaker, doesn't say very much about follow-up. A patient, as I said earlier, who may come in with an irritating Page 1608 1iarch 15th, 1960

(Mr. Johnson (Gimli) cont'd.) : .•. denture and wonder what is the matter. We can not give these people the responsibility of working in that mouth. That's irrevocable. I'd just like to say, let's ask ourselves, how did dentistry evolve tc the position it is today? It didn't happen, by chance. It happened because our forefathers and our predecessors in tbese Legislatures back from the early days of this province, these pioneers, found that they had to underline these qualifications in those days.

Now we have carried this --we have talked on education, we have ·told how we want our boys and girls --I heard the Member from St. John, I am sorry be is not in his seat, when he spoke on the Education Bill, saying how important it was that our boys and girls receive the necessary qualifications through their educational system to allow them to qualify for the professions. When I heard the Honourable Member from Inkster speak of the struggle which he and his children had to attain proper qualifications in the field they entered.

This is important, this is why many of our parents sacrificed to give their boys and girls the opportunity to enter this work. Now, to get back to the point. I am not going to say any more, Mr. Speaker, I think I have tried to enunciate this clearly and simply. I just want to say that, I am prepared to say that if there is any argument against what I have said, I just throw out a challenge to any mem ber of this Legislature to tell me that the health of the people of Manitoba is protected by this Bill, and I would therefore, Mr.

Speaker, think it would be a mistake of this Legislature or succeeding Legislatures, to allow this type of Bill to pass this Committee. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Selkirk. MR. HILLHOUSE: •••••• MR. J. A. CHRISTIANSON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the principle of this Bill because of some past experiences with this. I have concerned myself with this problem, and I'd like to point out to the members that the people working in this craft in the dental technicians' field, there are some 100 in number, are not included in this Bill nor do they want to be.

Now these men comprise the finest technicians in this field, and they de sire to work under the supervision of dentists. They realize their shortcomings. They are technicians, they are not trained in any medical field. They have no formal education in mat ters of oral health and hygiene. And let me point out that they outnumber the illegal denturists listed in this particular bill, by better than four to one. I might say that should this Bill not pass, these denturists would be eligible, in fact I think they would be welcomed into the legal Technicians' Association.

Now a fully qualified dental technician today earns between five and six thousand dollars a year and there's presently no JSurp1us of qualified men in this field. In matters of this sort, Mr. Speaker, we who are not experts can only draw on the advice of men trained in the field and on the experience in other jurisdictions. Now this has been a con tinuing problem for many years in almost every country.

In Great Britain after the first world war, the government set up a committee to investigate the field of dentistry, and I'll quote from the government report of the enquiry that the practice of dentistry and dental surgery by persons not qualified under the Dentists' Act is mainly responsible for the following evils --the great shortage of registered dentists owing to the unattractiveness of the profession; the inability of the general public to distinguish between a registered and an unregistered practitioner; grave personal injury on account of lack of skill and of technical knowledge.

And one of the most im portant findings they came up with, the existence in the public mind of the belief that there is no advantage in preserving the natural teeth and that teeth should be allowed to decay and when trouble arises have all the teeth out and substitute a plate of artificial ones. Now surely, Mr.

Speak er, the .efforts that we are making in the dental field, in setting up the Dental College in promoting research, in the field of dental health and oral hygiene are all pointed to the ultimate aim, which I think every practitioner VD uld agree that the important thing is the saving of the natural teeth. Now in Germany, after the first war, the field was thrown open to the technicians to work directly on the public. This condition continued until 1952, and in 1952 the parliament in West Germany had to enact legislation restricting the practice of prosthetic dentistry to fully qualified dentists only.

This was because of the terrific shortage of properly trained dental people that there were in the country. In Scandinavia, where they have done much in the field of social welfare and public health, there has been continuing pressure from time to time to allow dental technicians to work directly on the public. The Swedish government stated, when they turned do'wn the request the last time, and when they increased the penalties for illegal �larch 15th, 1960 Page 1609

(Mr. Christianson, cont'd.) ..• practice of dentistry, one of the statements made was that in Sweden they would not have poor dentistry developed for the poor. and here again Sir, I suggest that the matter of price as it enters this field, is not really a valid one because people are not getting value even though they are apparently saving money, and I would argue that in many cases today, it is possible for a man to go to a qualified dentist and get a set of false teeth for a lower price than he is called upon to pay by some of the unqualified people.

Now the Illinois Supreme Court pointed out in a ruling regarding technicians working directly on the public, --"volumin ous testimony establishes beyond doubt that the furnishing of artificial dentures is intimately related to the general health of the patient and that the mechanical work of making the dentures is but a small part of the total undertaking which always requires biological, physiological and pathological knowledge and sometimes surgical skill!' The Cour t emphasized, and I quote again --"the evidence established that the knowledge and skill of the dentist is necessary in the diag nosis of the case, the taking of impressions, the issuance of instructions to the laboratory, and the testing, fitting and adjustment of a prosthetic denture.

The responsibility to the patient shall not be fragmented, as it would be if you had the issuing of a certificate of oral health by one mem ber of the medical profession for another to operate under".

The Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching has this to say --"the practice of health services as applied to the teeth and the adjacent tissues cannot be divided between the stomatologists as prescribers on the one hand, and dental technicians as mechanical experts on the other, in a manner analogous to the distribution of .duties between the oculist and optician, for the reason that the actual prac tice' of dentistry must be in the mouth itself and requires the union of medical special ties of med icine.

A dental technician can prepare an appliance from a dentist's model or specifications and under a dentist's supervision can adaptively modify it.

By attending to various extra-oral proce dures a co-operating technician can very effectively and desirably increase the amount of time available to a dentist for direct personal intra-oral service for his patients but without the edu-' cation in the medical.science that the practice of dentistry requires, the most competent dental technician, who with such additional training, would be a dentist and not a technician, cannot be safely entrusted with the responsibility of fitting dental appliances." In Saskatchewan, since legislation of this type was enacted last summer they have lost seven dentists from the province of Saskatchewan --they have gained, in the last year they have gained five, only three of whom were new dentists.

So their net loss over the year with death and retirements is eight. This, I suggest, is a direct reflection on the effect that legisla tion of this kind would have up on an already acute shortage of dentists in this province. Dr. Paynter is very specific -:--it has been suggested that Dr. Paynter would more or less condone tl:>e technicians working directly on the public. He has this to say when he's talk ing about auxiliary services: "It also seems reasonable to assume that an auxiliary-arm den tistry could be trained to serve the public in the prosthetic field, again under supervision".

And I stress those words. They are his. Again, this writer wishes to make it clear that he does not agree with the principle of licencing a service unless its training program and the performance of its wo rk, is under professional supervision and control. In 1956 this Legislature set up a Dental School. I have here a clipping from the Tribune. After the debates of this afternoon, I am constrained to not read it, however Dr.

Nielsen, if I may just quote --(Interjection) --"it should be stated categorically that the faculty regards intelligent supervision of any such per sonnel not only as being most desirable but as being most essential to the public good. On the other hand the faculty regards as a completely regressive step any measure which w.ould permit the unsupervised practice of any branch of dentistry whatsoever". That was a quote from Dr. Nielsen, of the School of Dentistry. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this Bill on Principle. It gives to a certain group, qualifications in the practice of dentistry that they have not earned.

It will permit untrained persons to work in the human mouth and on living tissue. It is our duty to ensure that only qualified people have this right and these rights should not be conferred by us, but by the University of Manitoba. -- (Interjection) --Certainly, Mr. Speaker. _ MR. GROVES: You made the statement that the technicians outnumbered --that the technicians in the other bill outnumbered the technician s in this bill by four to one. That would indicate that there are approximately a hundred so-called legal technicians.

Now would you be prepared to state unequivocably that everyone of these hundred is a fully qualified dental Page 1610 March 15th , 1960

· (Mr. Groves, cont'd.) ••• technician, or does this include messenger boys, polishers and other workers that are working on an assembly line basis in these labs? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, during the preparation for all this sort of thing, I had occasion to visit several dental labs and I think that the member for St. ,Vital is quite correct when he says that there are not lOO fully trained technicians in the province today.

I would have to go back and get that figure for the members, however there are over 100 people actively engaged in (fhe craft, in various stages of training, and they all have signified by sign ing a petition that they wanted the bill which I had previously brought in --the one incorporating the Association of Dental Technicians. MR. SPEAKER: The member for Selkirk. MR. lllLLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, I hope all the members in this House have read this Bill and read it closely. I have, and I find that there are four principles embodied therein.

The first principle is a principle which is very dear to the CCF --a closed shop-- only.in this par ticular instance, it gives an absolute monopoly to 21 individuals, to practice as dental technicians in this province for a period of at least four years. Now the honourable member who introduced this Bill stated that there were 31 in his group, and later on I'll ask him why they left the other ten out in the cold. Another principle involved in this Bill is that no qualifications whatsoever are required of the first members, that is, the 21 men whose names appear in the

preamble to· this Bill. The only thing in the Bill which gives us any indication of what their qualifications may be is their description as dental technicians. Now the petitioners acknowledge that some qualification should be necessary for anyone who wishes to practice as a dental technician in Manitoba, and for that reason they have embodied in the Bill the qualifications and training that other members shall have before being admitted to the practice of dental technicians here.

Now the fourth principle is that of the oral certificate of health which has been dealt with very fUlly by the Honourable Member for Gimli, as he wishes to be called, and I think his argument, in my opinion at least, is quite conclusive and is something which this House shoUld not ignore. The honourable member has a reputation in this House as well as in his own consti tuency of being a sincere, honest and humane individual. I think he has endeared himself to the members of this House to the same extent that he has endeared himself to the people of his own constituency, through possessing these characteristics·.

And I say to each and everyone of us here, that we woUld be foolhardy indeed if we neglected to obey the warning which the Honour able Member for Gimli has given us. Now dealing first with the principle of the closed shop, this principle is to be found in Sections V, XIV, XV, XVI and XX of the Bill. I'm not allowed to read those sections, but I can at least explain to the House the principle embodied in these sections. Under this Bill, the 21 men whose names appear in the

preamble are to be the first members of this association. Upon payment of a fee of $100 and a license fee of $25, they become the first licensed technicians in this province. Under the Bill, no one is allowed to practice as a licensed technician in the Pro vince of Manitoba unless that person complies with the provisions of the Bill.

One of these pro visions is that that person must be of good moral character; another is that that person must have an education equivalent to a junior matricUlation education; another provision is that that person must serve an apprenticeship of four years with a dental technician. Now the only dental technicians in Manitoba are the dental technicians who are incorporated under this Act, so it means that any person who wishes to become a dental technician in the Province of Manitoba, outside of the 21 men whose names appear in the

preamble to that Bill, must serve an appren ticeship with one of these 21 men. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as far as the additional ten men whose names have been omitted from the

preamble --I don't know whether it was because they couldn't write or because they were lulled into a false sense of security, believing that they woUld be allowed to practice --but in omitting them from the right to pnc tice in Manitoba with out complying with the terms of the· Bill, I think there is a certain sense of poetic justice.

But as to the hundred orthodox technicians, men who have lived within the law; men who have never wished to break the law; men who now have a Bill before this House to form an association, who wish to deal with the dentists and who do not wish to deal with the public; why shoUld they be pen- . alized? If this Bill becomes law, the Attorney-General of Manitoba is going to have a bard time explaining to those hundred technicians that crime doesn't pay. Now I submit that this Bill was deliberately drafted to make it monopolistic in its March 15th, 1960 Page 1611

(Mr. Hillhouse, cont'd.) ••• implication and extent, and as proof of that I'm going to quote from the speech delivered by the sponsor. On Page 875 of Hansard, he was referring to a police court prosecution against a certain technician in Manitoba and he was referring to the damage done to a patient's mouth in that technician's office. Then he goes on to say that "this man is not a member of the association represented in this Bill, nor is he going to be". Now I submit in their anxiety to keep that one man out, they're keeping out ten of their own members and a hundred orthodox technicians. MR.

GR OVES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what the honourable member is say ing is not true. Inadvertently in the drafting of this Bill it appears as if there is a closed shop, but it has been brought to the attention of the solicitor of this group by the solicitor for the other group tllltt this appears in the Act, and they are intending to propose an amendment in committee to take care of just the situation that he describes. MR. HILLHOUSfl Mr.

Speaker we have to deal With the Bill as it is in this House, and if you take out these sections which give that monopolistic control, you're going to have an evis cerated chicken. There's going to be nothing left in the Bill. I submit it's all right for the honourable sponsor of this Bill to say that they're going to make certain amendments in Com mittee. What assurance has he got that these amendments will even pass in Committee? This is the Bill we're dealing with and this is the Bill I'm discussing. This is a basic principle of this Bill.

Now regarding the certificate of oral health, I think that the Honourable Member for Gimli has dealt with that very, very fully and I think too that this House would be rendering a disservice to the people of Manitoba if they enacted this Bill as law. They would be, as the Honourable Member for Gimli has said, allowing unqualified people to perform a service which is usually and should be performed by qualified people. Now in the Ma.. 'litoba Dental Association, it isn't the Manitoba Dental Association that fixes the qualifications and training of their mem bers, it's the University of Manitoba.

It isn't the Manitoba College of Physicians and Surgeons that fixes the qualifications of physicians and surgeons to practice in Manitoba; that, too, is the University of Manitoba. Any person who passes the qualifying examinations prescribed by the University of Manitoba to practise dentistry or to practise medicine in this province, it must be admitted by the associations representing these groups. He's got to be admitted.

But here we have a case where this Legislature is asked to set up an asoociation of individuals who are to practice as dental technicians, and who prescribes the qualifications that these people will have to practice as such? This House doesn't; they do. The University of Manitoba doesn't.

Now I submit that it would be extremely dangerous for us to enact legislation of this nature and I think there's only one body in Manitoba which has the knowledge and which has the impar tiality to determine what qualifications these people should have before they should be allowed to operate in tbe oral cavity, and that is the University of Manitoba • . Now it may be said by certain members, well let this Bill go into Law Amendments; let's hear what the technicians have to say; let's hear what the dentists have to s;:w; let's hear what the doctors have to say. Now I submit, Mr.

Speaker, that the issues are joined right here. I don't think that anything that will be said in Law Amendments Committee would change the minds of any individual in this House --I don't think so. If your mind could be changed --and I don't know how you're going to vote --if you are going to vote for this Bill, I submit that if your mind was capable of being changed it would have been changed to-night after the speech of the Honourable Member for Gimli.

He speaks as a physician and I think he speaks sincerely and I think he speaks honestly. --(Interjection) --No, I'm not implying that at all --no implication of that nature in what I've said, which is understood. Now I submit that since the issues are. joined here, and since nothing will be gained by having a dog fight in law amendments, that there's only one thing to do and that is to have the University of Manitoba determine the qualifi cations that these people should have before they are allowed to practice directly with the public. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Roblin, that Bill No. 85 be not now read a second time, but that having regard to the paramount impor tance of maintaining and enhancing the standards of oral health of the people of Manitoba, the University of Manitoba be requested to establish standards of training, technical and academic qualifications for dental technicians before they are permitted and allowed to deal directly with· the public. Page 1612 March 15th, 1960

MR. SPEAKER: I think that I'll have to have a look at this one and I'll advise you later. Second Reading of Bill No. 39. The Honourable J.Y!ember for Morris. Second Reading of Bill No. 40,

an Act to incorporate Sturgeon Creek Hutterian Brethren. The Honourable Member for Morris. Second Reading of Bill No. 30,

an Act to incorporate the Crystal Springs Hutterian Brethren. The Honourable Member for Morris. Second Reading of Bill No. 41,

an Act to in corporate the Sunny Side Hutterian Brethren. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. DESJARDINS presented Bill No. 72,

an Act to incorporate St. Boniface Sanatorium, for second reading. MR. PREFONTAINE presented Bill No. 74,

an Act to incorporate Residence Ste. · Therese Home for the Aged, for second reading. MR . COWAN presented Bill No. 91,

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate Sebelco Foundation, for second reading. MR. DESJARDINS presented Bill No. 71,

an Act to incorporate st. Boniface General Hospital, for second reading. MR. DESJARDINS presented Bill No. 73,

an Act to incorporate Tache Hospital for Chronic and CBriatric patients, for second reading. MR . LISSAMAN (Brandon) presented Bill No. 79,

an Act respecting The Trust Fund of the Forty-fifth Battalion of Canadian Expeditionary Forces, for second reading. MR. R. 0. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr. Speaker, this fund involves the canteen fund of the battalion which has been under trusteeship since the time of the first world war.

The original trustees, several of the senior officers of the regiment, have since passed away and it has been passed on to the present day trustees who are also well up in years, and since there has been very little call upon the monies of the fund -- it was to be used to benefit the deserving non-commissioned officers and men of the 45th Battalion, their widows, dependants or next-of kin who in the opinion of the tr ustees may be in the immediate need of assistance -- there has been such little call upon these funds that the trustees now would like to be relieved of this res ponsibility.

The matter was thoroughly advertised; all remaining members of the regiment were contacted as well as could be possibly ascertained, and 154 survivors were located.

One hundred and fifty-four ballots were sent out to these men and 120 were returned and the great majority, whiie they may have voted in disposing of the mop.ey to various funds or foundations, certainly the majority we re in favour of disposing of this fund; and the proposal herein is to divide the monies equally between the Manitoba Heart Foundation, The Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children at Winnipeg, the Canadian Arthritic and Rheumatic Society, and the Canadian Cancer Society.

I'm sure that when this goes to committee they will be well assured that every -- and I did myself as far as possible try to ascertain from the legal counsel that every possible measure had been used in trying to locate the survivors of the regiment so that a majority de cision would be rendered before this Bill was submitted to the House, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . GROVES presented Bill No. 84,

an Act to amend

An Act to incorporate The Win nipeg Canoe Club:, for second reading. MR . MARTIN presented Bill No. 86,

an Act respecting The Psychiatric Nurses Asso dation of Manitoba, for second reading. MR . SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 87,

an Act to incorporate The Mennonite Educational Society oi Manitoba. The Honourable Member for Wellington. MR . SEABORN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask that that be allowed to stand. MR . SPEAKER: Order stand. MR. COWAN presented Bill No. 92,

an Act to incorporate The Abram Arthur Kroeker Foundation, for second reading. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain and the motion in amendment thereto by the Honourable the Leader of the CCF Party, and the proposed motion in further amendment by the Honourable Mtmb er for Sel kirk. This motion is still standing and I would think it advisable to hold it until we have the motion from the Honourable the Minister of Education.

Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for !nkster and the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St. Matthews in amendment thereto. I might say that I had this motion under advisement and I now have prepared a ruling on the quest ion. March 15th, 1960 Page 1613

(Mr. Speaker, cont'd.) ••• On March 4th, 1960, the Honmr able Member for St. Matthews moved an amendment to the resolution of the Honourable Member for Inkster, which amend ment read as follows: "that the resolution be amended by deleting all the words after the· words 'house' in the first line thereof and adding 'approve the principles that a major respon sibility of the government is to meet the needs of those over 65 years of age as provided in the Social Allowances Act'." The Honourable Leader of the CCF asked that the motion be taken under advisement by Mr. Speaker and to consider if it were in order.

May I refer the House to Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 201 which reads as follows: "The object of amendment may be to effect such alterations in the question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alterations must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon; or to present to the House an alternative proposition, either wholly or partially opposed to the original question. This may be effected by moving to omit all of the words of the question after the first word "that" and to substitute in their place other words of different import.

In this case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment but includes the motive of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under considera tion of the House as alternative propositions. A motion may be amended (

a) by leaving out certain words; (

b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (

c) by inserting or adding other words." Accordingly, I must rule that the amendment is in order. The Hon ourable Member for St. Matthews. MR. ROBLIN: You have spoken, Sir, and the order is now open for any member that wishes to take

part in the debate. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amendment and the motion. Since the Hon ourable Member from St. Matthews entered the House I have had the highest respect, and I still have, for his ability, straight-forwardness, advisory capacity. Tonight, if I would do well, I would very much like to raise my voice just one tone higher but unfortunately I cannot. Here is a situation where I have made a resolution to petition the federal government to in crease pensions from $55 to $75, request the federal government.

The only thing the House could have done is either vote for it or against it. In all my experience that a similar motion it was always watered down, an amendment suggested which kills entirely the motion, doesn't amend at all, doesn't suggest, because the bill is here before us and this is not asking for a supplementary allowances for the old age pensioners; it's request ing, respectfully requesting this government not to be too bashful. and ask the federal government -- tell the federal govern ment that they in their wisdom, feel that the basic pension allowance is not sufficient. We are in favor of it.

And as a matter of fact, a discussion is being carried on in the House of Com mons now about raising it to $75 a month. It was not news, it was already mentioned, but to come here, and in my humble opinion if I express I'm feeling wrongly, I'm willing to withdraw and apologize to the honourable gentlemen, that this is to get away from voting for or against and kill it with a -- pronounce the death sentence and give the people a little bit longer, the prisoner a little bit longer to hope or dream about it. It's actually not necessary.

It deliber ately -- deliberately I say to prevent some members of his own vote, against or in favor of this motion. To me it is rather strange and most strange coming from this honourable gentle man whom I admire and respect so much. Now what can we do now? If this is in order, if this will carry.

We are going to oppose it -- definitely oppose it unless the future judge how honourable members sitting in this House are trying hard to go under their definite opinion and definite responsibility and have no other words at the moment to use them -- but going to oppose the amendment and are going to support the amendment of the Honourable Member from Rhine- _ land. At least that member said something; he said, "Yes we're in favor, but $75 is too much. We1ll make it a dollar or two," Well that's an opinion. That's a definite opinion, but this resolution, with all due respect, Mr.

Speaker, I say this absolutely, is a-camouflage, if this is a proper word to use in the Legislature. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I feel obligated to say a word or two in connection with this resolution. This has b_een a time-honoured device by governments that do not Wish to put th emselves on record on a very important issue. It is the type of a device that has been used to defer having to stand up and be counted. There is so much difference betwe en the amen dment which you, Sir, have ruled in order, and the main motion, that it is incomprehen sible to me, as Page 1614 March 15th, 1960

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd.) ••• suggested by my honourable colleague the member for Inkster that it was proposed by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews. What does it say? Approves the principle that a major responsibility of the government is to meet the need:; of those over 65 years as provided in the Social Allowances Act.

Despite all of the debate that has taken place in this House, despite all of the assurances of the Honourable the Minister of Health and Wel fare, we, of our group, still say that the Social Allowances Act, while it does contain many favorable features, is not looking after the needs of those over 65 years of age. We have been informed during the debates in this House, that all of the provisions contained in the Social Allowances Act, are not in effect at the present time.

We've received no assurance at all that those other important aspects of the Social Allowances Act will be given -- or brought in to'the regulations except by that term that has been used so often, without meaning in this House, that it will be done soon. And I suggest,. Mr. Speaker, that there's another very important omission in the amendment, as proposed by the Ibnourable Member for St. Matthews because now, Sir, we are excludillg in the amendment a considerable number of individuals who are of an age under the age of 65. Take a look at the resolution.

The original resolution, as proposed by my honourable colleague, asked for an increase for all old age and blind pensioners in the Province of Manitoba from $55 to $75 per month. What does the amendment do? It excludes all reference to blind pensioners who receive their pension at an earlier age. Is this the attitude of this forward -looking government, that they are now wishing to show themselves by this amend ment; that they are not taking into consideration those blind pensioners who are in receipt of a national pension less than the age of 65. MR.

JOHNSON (Gimli): The honourable member has read the Social Allowances Act and is aware of the fact that blind pensioners are included in this. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to my honourable friend the Minister of Health and Welfare that I have read the Social Allowances Act but, Mr. Speaker, in deference to my honourable friend, I wonder if he would mind reading the amendment that was proposed from that side of the House wherein reference is made, and I shall repeat it in case he has missed it, to Iree t the needs of those over 65 years of age.

So here we are dealing in this resolution for providing for those over 65 as provided in the Social Allowances Act as -- (Interjection) - that's right. Those over 65. What about those under 65 that are in receipt of blind pensions? And I say this, too, and it has been pointed out -- and I'm sure the honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare is aware of the situation -- that

whereas under the Social Allowances Act of the Province of Manitoba we have a needs test, and I say that with a smile, which only allows cash assets as laid down in the regulations, the proposition as propoSed by my honourable col league had no such a means test involved in it-- or needs test- in order to satisfy the verbi age of my honourable friend the Minister of Health and Welfare. So I say, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with the contention of my honourable colleague when he says that we will oppose this resolution, this amendment, because it do es not meet the intent as proposed in the original mo tion.

It does not give to the old age pensioner and the blind pensioner an increase in the basic amount that they have available before they have to apply on a means or a needs test, whichever way you want to put it. And I join in his regret, that rather than stand up and be counted on a straight forward proposition, the government or at least -- I might get into trouble if I say the government -- that a member of this Legislature has proposed a resolution of this nature which only butters up a program that has been instituted by the Government of Manitoba.

And while I have said before I appreciate some of the steps or the steps that have been taken in respect of the changes in the Social Allowances Act, and we've agreed with them, because of the fact of the intent of this resolution is no way at all compatible with the original i�tent of the mo tion, we intend to oppose the amendment. MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, it's not my intention to be very long.

At the last session of this Legislature the Honourable Member for Inkster moved exactly the same motion which he moved this year, and it was the opinion of the government and expressed by the Minister of Health and Welfare, that this resolution should be opposed. The Minister gave his opinions at that time, of which I don't agree --but certainly he has a right to his opinions -- gave it as his opinion that he would oppose this resolution because in his opinion it was unnecessary since the government Social Allowances Act, in fact, would take care of the needs of the people who are -·mentioned in this resolution.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think this is an honest opinion. I happen to March 15th, 1960 Page 1615

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd.) ..• disagree with him. I do not believe that, with all due deference to this government and to the prasent Minister of Health and Welfare, that the Social Allowances Act which we passed is perfect now or for all times. I do not believe that the Social Allowances Act will never have to be improved. I do not believe t.hat the Social Allowances Act, even if it had been all proclaimed, would meet the needs of all the people in this province. But let's face the fact that only 2 1/2 sections of the ten, which the Minister said V\OUld be included in the Act, have been proclaimed.

So the Act, as the Minister himself explained, is not yet in full opera tion. Now we do not say, we have never said that $75 is enough. We recognize the fact that the question of how much a person needs is important. All we're saying in this resolution is that we believe there should be a minimum amount, to which every person in Canada should have to meet the needs. We're not saying that if the Federal Government would accede to this re quest that this would be enough, that the Social Allowances Act would not have to be used to supplement people who need more than that, who have no other means of income.

All we're suggesting, all we have ever suggested is that the present $55 a month is in raality not much more than the original $20 a month when the old age pension was brought in. But, Mr. Speaker, I didn't rise to discuss the merits of our resolution. I think mem bers of the House by now can vote on that. But in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this amendment, while you have ruled it a proper amendment, is an amendment which I despise because it's surely and simply ruled with the intention of permitting the members on that side of the House not to be recorded-'yes' or 'no'.

Last year they had the courage to vote against it and here's the vote. It's listed in Votes and Proceedings -- on July 7th of 1959, 43 members voted against· it and only eight members voted for it. And that's all right. Members have a right to their opinion, but I think, Mr. Chairman, that it ill behooves members of this House of any group to try to get out of voting on an important issue. And I want to make very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly did not expect that the Honourable Member for St. Matthews, of all people, would be the one to move this kind of an amendment.

I have listened to the Honourable Member from St. Matthews for years, in this House and out of this House, and I've had a high respect for his ability , Mr. Speaker. I also had a high respect for his integrity, and for what I thought was a real belief in the need to look after people who need assistance. Well I still have a high regard for his ability, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say that I, for one, am going to look at his speeches in the future from quite a different light than I've looked at his speeches in the past. MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this resolution, if I may.

I am very, very surprised at the Honourable Member from St. John's using the words "despising this type of amendment" and these words that we have used -- {Interjection) --I think that since coming into office I have taken the responsibility as Minister of this department - during the debate on my estimates I asked the Leader of the CCF Party if there was a hundred thousand dollars worth of need, should it be met? He said, "yes", and I asked him secondly, do you believe in giving people money that don't need it, and he said i•no".

Then he stands up and -- it's pure and simple --I want the people of Manitoba to get the message and they'll give you the message. The people of Manitoba want to know one thing, what about this Social Allow ances Act? I say the Federal Government is participating on a needs tast basis and giving to those who need it an extra cash allowance. This is pure and simple. The amendment is not meant to be a device to fool anyone. It pure and simply says that we consider it our major res ponsibility as a Provincial Government to meet the needs of those over 65, as provided in the Social Allowances Act.

The Social Allowances Act makes it quite clear that blind pensioners and those m receipt of VA and so on are just as entitled to extra.cash allowance as is the old age as sistance person over 65 years of age. Now, cash assets -- they talk about that. They believe in not �ving mcney to those who don't need it. Certainly I'm not saying this Social Allowances Act is perfect.

I have said, and I'll say again, I think it's the most progressive social legislation in the Dominion of Canada, _and certainly it's far better legislation than the Province of Saskatchewan has devised to date as I re viewed, I thought, very fully for my honourable friend opposite. And before they stand up and try and tell the people of Manitoba that this isn't a good Act, I'll stand up here and defy _them to tell me-- show me one better. Su:re, everything across the board say my friends but they're not responsible, and thank God for the Province of Manitoba, they won't be for a little while. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Page llj16 March 15th, 1960

MR. SCHREYER: I'm sorry. I bow to the member for St. Matthews. MR. SPEAKER: He may want to ask a question. MR. SCHREYER: Well , Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member is closing the debate, l shall speak for a few minutes-- MR. MARTIN: ••...• only wanted to ask a question. MR. SCHREYER: Oh I MR. MARTIN: .•••.. close the debate. MR. SPEAKER: No, you can't. There's no closer of the debate. MR. MARTIN: I rise at this present time, Mr. Speaker, because I-- MR. SPEAKER: You may ask a question or you may rise on a point of privilege, but you may not make a speech. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Speaker, on a previous occasion I was trying to speak on an amend ment and apparently I was out of order at that time but it appears to me that I'm able to speak on this occasion at this time. So I just wanted to bring to the attention of this House, what the two provinces in western Canada are doing.

We in Manitoba, apparently , are satisfied with the present grants that our old age pensioners receive and that is the $55 a month which the Federal Government is paying to those 70 and over, and we're sharing the others that are between the ages of 65 and 70: Now in BC, in addition to these general pensions, the aged people of that province of which there are 37, 000 receive a $20 a month supplem entary pension. This costs them $8 million in 1958 and an estimated cost of $9, 600, 000 in '59. Now, just recently the gov ernment of that province-- MR.

SPEAKER: If the honourable members would be a little more quiet--I can't hear what the speaker is saying. MR. FROESE: Just recentl y .the government of that province increased the supple mentary pensions by another 20%, making the suppleme ntary, $24 a month. This, the people of that province will be receiving, plus the $55 , making i.t $79, where we, the people in our pro vince, our people are getting $55. Then the next province of Alberta also has 20, 000 pension ers on their list and these pensioners get a supplem entary allowanc e of $15.

That is subject to a means test, however, in Albe rta, so that the average amounts to roughly $14. 25. In addition, they also have a welfare program in Alberta and one of their p::>licies is that and I should prob ably read it to you, that applies to all the old age pensioners who still have an equity in their homes or assets that they own and it ts not the policy of the Alberta Pension Board to make claims against the estates of the deceased pensioners for pensions or allow ances paid. The person receiving a pension is free to will his prop:3rty as he wishes.

I think this is quite a step forward, and I thought 1t only fitting to bring this to the attention of the members of this House at this time. When I previously amended the resolution brought in by the member for Inkster, I did it with the intention that the request would be made to the Federal Govermre nt but that this government should also participate in that supplemen tary pension and therefore made that amendment. However, it seems to me that they're just ignoring the request completely and just giving themselves a pat on the back for what they are evidently doing in Manitoba.

Members of this House, I would request that y.ou defeat the present amend::r.ent bef:Jre us. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, as the Honourable Member for Rhineland has just said, in this amendment the government is in fact patting itself on the back for something which they have not yet, in fact, accomplished but have only accomplished in part. So at best, it' s only premature patting on the back.

Now the substance of this resolution is, of course a con troversial one and certainly we expected "some amount of disagreement from the other side, but I for one, could not understand the heat that was generated both here and on that side with re gard to the speeches made here on this topic, on this resolution tonight. I don't know if members of this Assembly are aware that at the last session in this Chamber on the 19th of June, an amendment almost identical to thi.s one was prop-::>sed an:l Mr' Speaker saw fit at that time, to rule it out of order.

However, I do not wish to cast any reflec tions or as persions on .the ruling of His Honour the Speaker, so I shall not try to make anything out of this . However, I think that the amendment made then, being almost identical to the one made now, was out of order then, an:l this o:J.e is I think, if not out of order, at least unworthy of support. The Minister of Health and Welfare seemed to generate quite a bit of anger, at least he made tt appear as though he was angry, with statements made by my Leader and the March 15th, 1960 Page 1617

(Mr. Schreyer, cont'd.) •. me mber for St. John's. I fail to see why he should get quite so aroused bec&.use he knows full well that the Social Allowances Act is only operating in part at the present time. There are still people in the Province of Manitoba who ar� in desperate need and I can quote from a letter which I have from a S'Jcial worker with resp:lct to a certain case. An individual is in desperate need, the social worker writes. There is nothing under the Social Allowances Act that can be done for her at the present time; she must apply for municipal relief.

I think that some of the remarks made by the Honourable Minister of Health and Wel fare were unworthy of the gentleman. Everyone resp9cts him so much; certainly I do. But we have just cause for moving this res olution; we think that the amendment utterly fails to do any thing, in my opinion, except as the member for Rhineland said, to pat the-government on the back. Now I shall not attempt to make comparisons between the social welfare legislation of this province and the Province of Saskatchewan.

It could well be that insofar as supplementary cash assi stance is concerned, that we might be somewhat ahead of that province at present. But insofar as other asp.ects of social welfare are concerned, I think that the Minister of Health him self would be one of the first to admit that there are many things in that province from which we could benefit by taking a look at. Certainly, this group, as already has been mentioned, are go ing to vote against the amendment and I hope the members of the party to my right see fit to do likewise. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, this is a Private Members' resolution , of course, and it's not necessary that any of us vote as a party regarding it, and I am stating a personal opinion in this regard, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't see very much merit in either the amendment or the resolution. The amendment, I think has been already well-described. It's just a case of the government attempting to pat itself on the back.

Well, that's not uncommon for governments and I don't blame them particularly for that, and I must remind my honourable friend, the Leader of the CCF Party when he seems to complain about what governments do in that regard, that--(interjection)--Oh, you were complaining. You were com plaining! And when he complains, he might just as well understand that if he's going to continue to p�t resolutions in for this purp::>se, that he faces the likehood of that sort of thing being done. I'd like to say, Mr.

Speaker, that I agree completely with your ruling; that I think this is in order as far as o�r rules are concerned. I think it's quite in order. But I think it is quite out of order as far as making any useful contribution to the debate pres ently under discussion is concerned.

And so, as far as I'm personally concerned, I certainly intend to heed the advice of the last speaker, the Honourable Member for Brokenhead, and vote against the amendment, because while the government is quite welcome as far as I'm concerned to pat itself on the back, I have no intention of patting them on the back, because I don't think that they deserve it in general--or in many particular cases.

If the, so far as the resolution is concerned, if the House had listened to the sensible amendment that was moved by the Honourable Member for Rhineland, there would have been some concrete progress made upon this particular subject.

Because there was a sugges tion made by the Honourable Member for Rhineland that was a sort of--seems to me --reason able middle ground, to not ask for the amount that the CCF Party has done, but to place our selves on record as again suggest ing to the Federal Government that taking the general situation into account, that there was an argument for an increase in the old age pension. But the mis take that the honourable members of the CCF Party make in my ju dgment, is that they us ually ask for a bit too much.

As far as I am aware there has never yet been a case in all the years that the Old Age Pension Act has been in force, never been an occasion, where it has been in creased by--as much as $20 at one move . What is the realism of suggest ing that it likely will be, under these circums tances ? So I think that the thing that should have been done was to have ac cepted the sensible and logical suggestion of the Honourable Member for Rhineland, which we supported at the time--(interjection)--I don't recall whether you did or not. Well, I'm apprec iative of the fact, if you did.

But having arrived at this situation , I see no advantage whatever in supporting the amen:iment and I think that the 'resolution goes too far, so far as I'm concern ed, and I expect to be voting against both. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting little flurry tonight, in which we have thoroughly threshed old straw once again. I suppose that's ine'\ti.table in this Chamber and one must just get used to the idea. And I haven't any doubt that perhaps we 'll be threshing old straw again on other occasions on very much a similar subject. Page 1618 March 15th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) .• I think though, that it would be more becoming on the part of members opposi te if they would at least give members on this side the credit for the same degree of in tegrity that they would undoubtedly hope for thems elves. MR� PAULLEY: I'm afraid you don't. Pm afraid that neither my honourable friend who just spqke nor one of his supporters who sits behind him conveyed any such impressi on. I think than�ct:l �nde avoured to convey the impress ion that this resolution had been brought in, in order tfu1.t' ��e government might avoid taking a stand on the issue.

I'm quite sure that's what they think:. . JliW.. ROBLIN: If that is not within the description that I have just laid before the House I'd be rat��l:'· surprised. And I also think that my honourable friend for St.

John's is much too self-right eQ�, much too self-virtu ous , much too obsessed with his own inviolable integrity, which of course, none of us can match on this side of the House; much too sure that the govern ment is just trying to weasel out from under; much too certain that all our motives over here are cowardly and wrong for me to ·be able to convince him that he might, just by chance, be ex aggerating in this particular instance. And I think perhaps the same remarks could apply to most of t}l� people that have spoken from the CCF Party in respect of this matter.

MR, PAULLEY: You used to support it. �· ROB LIN: Well, now maybe I'll supp ort it again one day when the time- :MR. PAULLEY: VJhen there 's a change in Ottawa. MR. ROB LIN: Maybe we'll be supporting resolutions of this sort--one can never tell what wilfl�appen, and I am going to say, I'm going to say that I thought that by and large there was som�·�()Od sense in what the Leader of the Oppos ition had to say in respect to the amend ment p:f �gased by the Honourable Member for Bhi.neland. And perhaps there was a point there, that will . fS?\Jive consideration one of these days.

I would say that my honourable friend the Leader o� the Op position has changed his tune a lot since when he sat on this side of the House because I have a hard time remembering anything he had to say-- MR. PAULLEY: Except when he spoke to you. MR. ROBLIN: Oh, no, there's a differen ce. MR. PAULLEY: Oh, yes, ')tou're over there now. MR, ROBLll'f: If rny honourable friend wtll ·allow me to point out the diff erence and the diff erence is contained in the principle embodied in the Social Allowances Act.

None of the opposi.te members --none of the members opposite who enjoy thems elves so much on an occasion like this , apparently have taken the trouble to analyze the situation as I think it should be, and namely that mere is a world of differenc e in the principle embodied in this government's policy in respect of social allowances, and that which is embodied in the policy of $20 more for every body by my honourable friends . I don't think that it is right. I fr ankly do not think it is right that this House should ask the Government of Canada to give every old age pensioner another $20.

I don't think it is right morally or in any other way, because that our duty is to help those people who need the help most. There are plenty of old age pt:lnsioners who don't need it. Now my honourable friends are entitled to say that our Social Allowances Act only goes a small way. They may be right--I'm not going to claim any perfection for that, but I think I am ju stified in saying that embodied in this amendment which my honourable friend . moved and which I am glad he moved, is a principle which I want this House to endorse .

And that principle is to meet the need; that's what that principle is; it's to meet the need. That principle says we are not in terested in in creasing old age pensions for those who don't need it, but we are interested in in creasing old age pensions to those that do. Now you may say, what harm would it do to vote for the main motion that was moved by the Honourable Member for Inkster ? I think it would be irresponsible to vote for that. I think the members of the Liberal Party think it would be ir res ponsible to vote for that.

Maybe it would have do!le no great harm to have voted for the amendment proposed by the Honourable Member for Bhineland, because that in itself was a pretty innocuous thing and I'm certainly sure that there will be occasions in the future when the pension set by Ottawa will certainly have to be looked at again. MR. PAULLEY: About 1961, too. MR. ROB LIN: I certainly don't have anything to say about that.

But I do say this, Sir, that regardless of what you think about the amendment introduced by the Honourable Member fo � '·flli ineland, I think that we are entitled to stand up on this side of the House wit hout being Jlii�ch 1Sth, 1960 Page 1619

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) .. accused of hypocrisy. I think we are entitled to point to the principle enshrined in our Act, which is what I believe this amendment does , and say this is what we stand for, without being accused of the things that my honourable friends over there are try ing to accuse us of. I don't make any claim that either the Act itself or the administration of the Act is a perfect thing. We are feeling our way along with it; we are going to make it work to the very best of our ability.

My honourable friends opposite can point their fingers and say, well, you're pretty slow about it and all that sort of thing. But, Mr. Speaker, you and I know just how many sessions of this Legislature we've had in the last 18 months.

You and I know the elections that have been fought; you and I know the problems that are involved in introduc ing this legislation, and I would rather be accused by my honourable friends of being sensible about it; of going into this thing with care and caution and with some regard for the p.sople con cerned as well as for the public purse, than I would if they accused us of acting in a way which was in the long run, not in the best interests of the people of Manitoba. We'll take the criti cism on that score, because we believe that fundamentaly we have a good bill.

We believe that when we have the time, and when we have the opportunity to develop all the aspects of that piece of legislation--as we are determined to do, Sir--that we are going to have a piece of leg islation that we need not be ashamed of. We think it's good. MR. PAULLEY: Yes, we think in the meantime something should be done about the other. MR. ROBLIN: The trouble with my honourable friend is that he doesn't think. The trouble m th my honourable friend is that he wants to stand up and make a great noise so that he can say, "I asked for $20" . Well, why didn't you make it $30? You might just as well have.

He wants to get up and say, we are the champions of this, that and the other thing.

But I want him to get in the position sometimes when he says, "we are the champions of good common sense; that we are the champion of doing first things first; we are the champion of taking care of those who need and we 're not interested in putting bigger pensions in the hands of those who don•t:' If my honourable friend is able to get up on the public platform and be as candid and as straightforward with the audiences there as he was the other night with my hon0urable friend the Minister of Health, then I'll have a little more respect for him. MR.

PAULLEY: I'll stand on this on any platform with you my honourable friend. MR. ROBLIN: And we are going to vote for this amendment because we believe it embodies a good principle. One that we're not ashamed of. We're willing to stand up and be counted from it. My honour able friend I notice, when I sometimes make a comment, some of my colleagues over here about his speeches or perhaps I even make a little remark at him, he's very indignant. He takes that--he thinks that--I don't know--I think it offends his dignity, if anyone should say anything-- MR.

PAU LLEY: I don't think my honourable friend thinks I have any dignity. MR. ROBLIN: Oh, I may not but my honourable friend thinks so. MR. PAULLEY: •.. •. . MR. ROBLIN: No, I think my honourable friend has plenty of dignity. And I think he's a us eful member of this House. MR. PAULLEY: Oh, that's a real admission. MR. ROBLIN: He contributes to what one might call the gaiety of nations or at least a certain feeling of good humour all year. He never gets very angry at me and we're always able to smile at one another when it's all over.

But I think, "sir, I really didn't intend to say anything, but I just found it difficult to-- MR. PAULLEY: I don't think you have. MR. ROBLIN: Well, my honourable friend is notoriously lacking in any sor t of dis cretion whatsoever. He1s·frequently unable to understand a good argument when he hears one. I'm perfectly sure that if he had that sense of the fitness of things he wouldn't be trying to lead the party which he now represents here in the House. He would be trying to do something else just as I'm trying to do my job here.

And I'm sure he'd be a lot more useful member, and a lot more useful citizen of Manitoba if he would listen a little more carefully to some of the ar guments that come from this side of the House. Well, Sir, I'm not going to persuade him. I doubt that I'll persuade many people on the opposite side of the House to adopt my point of view. But I merely ask of them this--I don't ask them to accept my point of view because it's Page 1620 March 15th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) .• their right to have their own but I merely say that it would be better, and I think a little fairer, if they would concede to us on this side of the House the same good intentions and the same sincerity in what we're trying to do, as they would like us to concede for them. If we can agree on that one thing, then Sir, we can agree to disagree on the rest. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just answer the question which I think by the wave of the hand was directed to me. We do agree with your sincerity. We have agreed time after time with the purpose behind the honour able-- MR.

ROBLIN: He's not supposed to do th at. MR. SPEAKER: You're not supp:>sed to do that. MR. PAULLEY: I th ought I was answering a question directed at me. If there was no question, then I have no answer. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, and I will say this at the out..'let, I'm ·not going to speak ori the motion; I'm not going to speak on the amendm ent. I'm goi.ng to ask a question on both. The motion refers to two governments , that this House request the government to petition the Federal Government.

Th�J amendment simply says now, that this House approves the principle that a major responsibility of the government is to meet the needs of tho se over 65 years of age, as provided in the Social Allowanc es Act. The question, Mr. Speaker, is it the Municipal Government, the Provi ncial Government, or the Federal Gov ernment or a combination of all thr ee, that you're referring to in the amendment ?- -{inter jection) --or Metro. MR. COW AN: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very fine for this House to go on re cord as being in favour of the principle th at was enunciated by our Leader.

And I would just like to say th is, that it seems to me th at it is very out-of-plac e for the self-righ teous CCF to be so critical of th.e Manitoba Government's scheme. When we think of the fact that in Sask atchewan the old age pensioners who are in need between 65 and 70 don't get one cent extra from their Provincial Government--not one cent. There's only supplemental allowance for old age pensioners over 70 and it is limited to $10 a month .

Not so in Manitoba, they can get cons iderably more and as for tho se over 65, surely the self-right eous CCF .should think of those things before they go after this government. MR. SCHREYER: Is he aware or isn't he ? Well, I'll ask him. Is the honourable member aware that in Saskatchewan, housing is provided for elderly people on a basis of $25 a month. Does the memb er know th is ? MR. COW AN: Provided for some, it's true; and it's provided for some .i n Manitob a. MR. SCHREYER: For those who wish to apply for it. MR. COWAN: Oh, no, that 's not right. MR. SCHREYER: Well , did the member check it? Mr.

Speaker, am I going to get an answer to my question, because it does make a difference. Is the principle that . . . . . • the major ...•.• · MR. SPEAKER: Order ! Order ! The honourable member is not required to answer a question if he doesn •t choose to. MR. SHOEMAKER: Well, it makes a difference if you're voting. MR. SPEAKER: He apparen tly refused to answer your question. Are you ready for the question? Those in favour please say "aye ". Those opposed please say "na y". In my opinion the "nays " have it--or the "ayes" have it. In my opinion the "ayes" have it. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, the ayes and nays please.

MR. SPEA..XER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the amend ment to the resolution of the Honourable Member for St. Matthew s, which reads as follows: Approve s the principle that a major responsibility of the government is to meet the needs of tho se over 65 years of age as provided in the Social Allowanc es Act. Those in favo•1r of the amendment please rise. · YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Carroll, Ch ristianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Mrs. Forbes, Messrs.

Groves, Hamilton, Hutton Jeannotte, Joh nson (Assint boia), Johns on (Gi.mli}, Klym, Lissaman, McKellar, Martin, Ridley, Roblin, Seaborn, Shew man, Smellie, ·s tanes, Strickland , Thompson, Watt, Weir, Witney. March 15th, 1960 Page 1621

NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Dow, Froese, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters , Prefontaine, Reid , Roberts, Schreyer, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner, Wright. MR. CLERK : Yeas, 30; nays, 22. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. The question before the House is the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Inkster as amended. Are you ready for the question? Mr. Speaker presented the motion an:i following a voic e vote declared the motion carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Fisher, and the proposed motion and amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Ham iota, and a further motion and further amendment by the Honourable Member for Carillon. The Hono::trable the Leader of the CCF Party. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to allow this matter to stand. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Emerson. The Honourable Member for Em erson has the adjournment of this de bate and he will be closing the debate.

If any other member wishes to speak he may do so now. The Honourable Membe_r for Emerson. MR. TANCHAK: I was prepared to speak but to expedite the business of the House so we wouldn't sit too late I'd like the indulgence of the House to have this stand. MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Member for Brokenhead and a further motion and amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre, and a further motion in further amendment of the Honourable Member for St. Bonlface. The Honourable Member for KUdonan. MR. REID: Mr.

Speaker, I beg the indulgence of this House to let the matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Elrnwood. The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR. ORLIKOW: •...•. stand. MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to let this matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution ot the Honour able Member for Churchill. The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr.

Speaker, in the absence of the honourable member I ask this to stand. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honour able Member for Logan. The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I adjo urned this on behalf of my colleague. I don't know whether he wants to let it stand or not. MR. HARRIS: Mr. Sp :laker, I prefer to let the matter stand. I beg the indulgence of the House to let the matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. The proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for St. John's. The Honourable Member for St. James . MR. STANES: Mr.

Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon- ourable Member for Brokenhead. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak for a minute on this so pos sibly we should try and get something done on some of these resolutio:IB. I think in discussi ng his estimates that the Hono·.rrable Minister of Municipal Affairs told the House that this was one of the matters which was under consideration by the Municipal Advi sory Committee and the Municipal Inquiry Commission of Manitoba.

And I think if we accepted the resolution as it is presently worded that we could curtail any decision of the House or curtail the possi bilities of the decisions of the House on taking into-consideration the recommendations that might come from those committees. So therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Rupertsland, that the resolution be amended by deleting all after the word, ''land" in the third line thereof and adding, "And

whereas this matter among others i.s Page 1622 March 15th, 1960

(Mr. Alexander , cont'd. ) •. being considered by the Municipal Advisory Committee and the Municipal Inquiry Commission of Manitoba, therefore

be it resolved that the government give consideration to the recommendations of these committees". Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. SMELLIE: :Mr. Speaker, where .is the deletion to take pla ce? After the word ''land" in what li. ne? MR. SPEAKER: I'll read it again. "That the resolution be amended by deleting all after the word "land" in the sixth line thereof and adding, "And

whereas this matter among others is being considered by the Municipal Advisory Committee and the Mun:icipal Inquiry Commission of Manitoba, therefore

be it resolved that the government give consideration to the recommendations of these committees". MR. SMELLIE: Eighth line, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk will make the corrections. Are you ready for the question? MR. SCHREYER: I move, seconded by the member for Elmwood that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared themotioncarried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Mem ber for St. Boni.face. The Honourable Member for St. Vital . Ivm. GROVES: Mr.

Speaker ,I think we appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Honourable Member for Emerson in allowing this to stand; that there's also some merit in what the Honourable Member from Robli.n says that we might be well advised to dispose of some of these resolut ions so that I would like to ca... -ry on and speak to this one. It has been on the Order Paper for some time. This resolution brings up a wide subject, the effects of which are not confined only to the City of St. Boni.face. In St. Vital the east bank of the Red River i11 f ltll .t of the St.

Vital Hotel and running parallel to the Trans-Canada highway there is a serious slipp:tge in the river bank. It is causing serious concern to the Department of Public Works as to the future stabil ity of this highway. On our main street, St. Mary's Road, a riverbank erosion is occurring behind the St. Vital Legion Hall, the Lanes Publishing Building, and behind most of the build ings on that block lnclud[ng the Federal Government Post Office. In tile Victoria Crescent area, huge chunks of the riverbank are falling into the water each spring.

There are proper ties on Victoria Crescent that had hundreds of feet of beautiful riverbank property. Now, some of these same houses are sitting on the top of considerable size cliffs . ·T he sarre situation pre vails at many points all along the Red River. Many of these have been mentioned in the House on previous occasions by other members. The whole subject of riverbank damage is one which the government should look into along with the Federal Government whose resp::msibiUty--who are responsible for navigable streams such as the Red River.

This subject was of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the brief of the Municipality of St. Vital to the commissi on that was set up after the 1950 :ll ood. And in this br!ef under the heading of 11Dikes" this submission says the follow ing: "Referring again to the line of flood defence, there are indications that the dikes constructed i.n 1950 are now showi..ng some signs of deterioration and slipping of banks especially in the sec ondary dike area.

When taking precautions during the expected flood peri od in 1956 , cracks were found at points in the secondary dikes and it was also found that at some points the level of the dike had dropped as much as two feet. There is a growing fear that future floods with the increased pressure on the dike may cause a collapse that could be very destructive to li.fe and property. " So this is a serious matter in the Municipality or con stituency of St. Vital . There is also evidence that t..i.e Federal Government is interested in riverbank erosion.

On January, 1959, Gordon Chown the member of Parliament for Winnipeg South, wrote letters to--presumably to the ;nayors of all of tb.e municipalities that were contained. in his constitu ency, informing them that the Minister of Public Works was most anxious i.n view of the unem ployment situation that prevailed at that time, to build up what he called. a "shelf of possible future public works projects". The letter goes on requesting the Municipal Council to submit to Mr.

Chown, who presumably would send them on to the Minister of Public Works, the pro jects that could be considered i.n the future either as short-term or long-t erm, of federal works projects for the alleviation of unemployment. And one of the suggestions that was made in this March 15th, 1960 Page 1623

(Mr. Groves, cont'd.) .. letter as suggestions for projects that might be considered, was riverbank erosion. So I think that the Federal Government is well aware that there are river bank erosion problems in Manitoba, in fact in the whole country, that could be used at some future date as a means of giving people employment. This resolution's only weakness is the fact that it refers to only one project. I think that the whole field should be revised and I sin cerely hope that it will both by our own government and by the Government at Ottawa.

The one project mentioned, however, is of sufficient importance to warrant our support of the Bill--of the resolution rather. It says, "Wher eas the St. Boniface Hospital as well as other properties is endangered"- -and it is a serious situation that an institutiqn of the size and importance of St. Boniface Hospital is in danger, if in fact it is in danger. And we must believe tiE Honour able Member from St. Boniface if he says it is in danger. Surely, he would n't be so irrespon sible as to make such a statement if he didn't have the proof to back it up. It appears then, :Mr.

Speaker, that this is an emergency measure, and I can see no harm in our sending this along to the Federal Government asking them to look into the matter as the honourable member requests. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared themotion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Mem- ber for Inkster and the proposed motion and amendment thereto by the Hono':ll"able Member for Osborne.

This also has been held by myself for future consideration and I propose at this time to also give a ruling on this resolution. It's as follows: On March 1st the Honourable Member for Osborne moved an amendment to the resolution of the Honourable Member for Inksterwhich amendment read as follows; "that the resolution be amended by striking out all the words after the word 'province' in the first line thereof and substituting the following; 'are provided with the educational facilities at the expense of the Province of Manitoba and

whereas the education of blind children is provided in institutions outside cf the p-rovince of Manitoba; and

whereas the full cost of education, maintenance and transportation of blind children is paid by the Province of Manitoba; and

whereas the education of deaf children is provided both '.'rithin Manitoba and in institutions outside of Manitoba; and

whereas the full cost of education, maintenance and transportation of deaf children who are educated in institutions outside of the province of l.V"mni. toba is paid· by the Province of Manitoba; and

whereas the Manitoba Royal Commission on Edu cation made a study of the problems associated with the education of exceptional children and handicapped children and made certain recommendations; therefore

be it resolved that this House request the Minister of Education to take under consideration the. recommendations made by the Manitoba Royal Commission on Education in

chapter eight of its report:' whereupon the Honourable Member, Leader of the CCF Party expressed a .doubt as to the regularity of the proposed amendment on the grounds that it was basically a negative of the resolution proposed by the Honourable Member for Inkster. The proposed amendment by the Honourable Member for Osborne proposes that the House request the Minister of Education to take under consider ation the recommendations made by the Manitoba Royal Commission on Education in

chapter eight of the report. The Honourable Member by so-doing asked that the deaf.children now re ceiving instructions in Manitoba at the provincial day school for the deaf in Winnipeg, be sent to the Saskatchewan School for the Deaf. This establishes a new principle not dealt with by the original motion; therefore the amendment cannot be considered to be a direct negative of the motion.

May I refer the honourable member to Beauschene 's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, third edition, citation 340 , of which reads as follows: "An amendment is to alter the main que stion by substitUting a proposition that the opposite conclusion is not an expended negative and may be moved". Acco rdingly I must move the amendment in order. MR. PAU LLEY: Mr. Speaker, in all deference to your ruling, I must dispute that ruling based upon a consideration which I draw to your attention. MR. SPEAKER: Did you challenge the ruling? Call iu the members.

The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? YEAS: Hon. Messrs. Roblin, Carroll, Johnson, Evans, Thompso1l, Witney, Messrs. Campbell, Prefontaine, Shewman, Lissaman, Ridley, Alexander, Hon. Mr. Huttou, Scarth, Mrs. Forbes, Messrs. Martin, Cowan, Groves, Corbett, Christianson, Molgat, Rillhouse, Guttormson, Watt, Jeannotte, Stanes, Smellie; Strickland, McKellar, Weir, Seaborn, Johnson (Assini.) , Baizley, Bjornson, Klym, Hamilton, Froese, Pow, Shoemaker, Roberts, Desjardins. Page 1624 March 15th, 1960

NAYS: Messrs. Hryhorczuk, Gray, Paulley, Hawryluk, Tanchak, Orlikow, Wright, Wagner, Harrts, Peters, Reid, Schreyer. :MR. CLERK: Yeas , 41; nays, 12. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the Speaker's ruling sustained. The Honourable Member for Osborne. MR. BAIZLEY: ....•. member for Klldonan that the debate be adjourned. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, the member for Osborne introduced the amendment and therefore has sp::>ken to the question. MR . SPEAKER: I was under the impression that the motion wasn't put. MR. ROBLIN: I rather think, Sir, that the question was raised by my honourable friend as to its admissabllity. MR .

PAULLEY: After it was introduced it was spoken to by the Honourable Member for Osborne. 1\(lR. ROBLIN: I see. Well , in that case, it's open. I really wonder whether that was in order. I think you have to reason these points instantu2·. However, it can be adjourned on that ..•.•• MR. PAULLEY: In connection with that point, Mr. Speaker, it was at the conclusion of the remarks of the Honourable Member for Osborne that he made the amendment, and at that time I challenged it. MR . SPEAKER: Does the honoTI"able member wish to speak? MR.

PETERS: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from KUdonan 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 Mem ber for St. John's. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would pray the indulgence of the House to Jet this matter stand. MR . SPEAI<:ER: Order stand. Proposed resolution of the Hono:.trable Member for Brokenhead. Stand. MR. SCHREYER: I beg the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand. ·MR. SPEAKER: Stand.

Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. John's. MR . ORLIKOW: •...•. matter stand. MR . SPEAKER: Order stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon ourable the Attorney-General. The Honourable the Member for La Verendrye. MR . SHOEMAKER: In the absence of the Honourable Member for La Verendrye I would ask the indulgence of the House to have the matter stand. MR . SPEAKER: Order stand. Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Hon ourable the First Minister. MR. ROBLIN: I would like to have this matter stand, Sir. MR . SPEAKER: Order stand.

Committee of Supply. 'MR . ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce that the resolutio':l reported from the committee ·::>f Supply be now read a se cond time and concurred in. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Those in favour please say aye. Those opposed please say nay. MR. CLERK: 1, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $57., 490 for legislation for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1961; 2, resolved that it be granted-- :rvm. CAMPBELL: I have a few rema rks to make about this motion.

Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, I would be moving a motion on concurrence in amendment to this motion, but I believe that I have not the right to do so, inasmuch as the principle on the matter that I am going to speak on, has already been decided, not by the House perhaps exactly but certainly by the Com mittee of Supply and I esteem it to be for these purposes, practically the same thing. That, Mr. Speaker, is the question of the additio:'lal salary that is voted to me as Leader ofthe March 15th, 1960 Page 1625

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd. ) .. Opposition. Now I do not intend, Mr •. Speaker, to delay the House by making any further plea at this stage. I think I am deprived of the privilege of making a mo tion that it be reduced. My views on that are well known and so I rise now only to say to the House, which I think I shollld say, that I have already implemented the undertaking that I made at the time that the matter was before the committee, that was that if the House ins isted on vot ing to me this extra salary that I would dispose of it to some worthy cause or causes, and I have pleasure in announcing to you, Mr.

Speaker, and to the House, that I have already donat ed the sum of $1, 000 to my alma mater, Brandon College. I suppose that wollld be a sort of a poetic justice after all the trouble that I have put the committee to; if at this stage the honour able the First Minis ter or some body wollld move that the amount be reduced by a thous and dol lars , because I say quite frankly that I have already taken this action. I think I need to offer no apology for the fact that I chose the institution which perhaps to a greater degree than any other was res ponsible for the limited education that I was able to achieve .

I can't give it too much credit in my own case, but I can quote some other people who I think, having had a lib eral education at Brandon College , have contributed a great deal to the Province of Manitoba, to Canada as a whole, and in even wider fields . And consequently, I think it would be ag-..:eed that this small institution has really made, through the years, a very great contribution to the welfare of this province and this country. I wollld like to mention the names of just a few. I think I should start with the wife of the Prime Minister of Canada, J','frs.

John Diefenbaker, who ls a graduate of Brandon College . I don't know Mrs. Diefenbaker's politics before she became Mrs. Diefenbaker--1 collld guess what they are now--but regardless of political affiliation, I know that Brandon College is very proud of her, and that she gives great credit to Brandon Col lege for the education that she received there. Guessing at what her politics are now, I should perhaps mention next the Honourable Tommy Douglas, Premier of Saskatchewan, who is a graduate of Brandon College . I don't need to say anything about Tommy Douglas. His political affiliations are well known.

Perhaps if I mention immed iately thereafter that Stanley Knowles also, was a student of Brandon College , I think he didn't graduate there--I'm not cert,<J.i.n--a student of Brandon College that my honourable friends at this side would start to feel that they had been training their students along the right political line , so I would hasten to say that Waiter Dinsdale also took a large part of his training there.

Then, if I wanted to go further and mention other distinguished citizens, I would certainly be remiss if I didn't bring in the name of the Honourable John Thompson, the Minister of Public Works in the Provinc e of Mani toba who was a student at Brandon College , and a. young man whom I consider to be of great character and ability and promise, the Honourable Member for Birt1e-R ussell. When you combine all of these with your humble servant, Mr.

Speaker, and a host of others, you will see that Brandon College extended a liberal education in the extent that the people who studied there or graduated therefrom at least took

part in the various political parties, and were not narrowly partisan so far as their activities were concerned. So I would like, :Mr. Speaker, at this time to simply say that I'm sure that a good many of the members of the House would want to join with me in paying tribute to this little coThge that, in the face of considerable adversity over the years, has struggled along so .w-ell to make its contribution toward higher education in this province.

And in these days when higher education is justly recei ving so much attention, I, when looking around for the kind of a worthy cause to which such a donation as this co2ld be p:tt, I even managed to convince myself that I should amend my earlier decision to deduct from the donation the expected amount that the inc ome tax wollld likely assess me on acco•mt of rec eiving this amount, and com pletely out of character for me, made the donation of the full amount. So, lVIr.

Speaker, I report this to the House for the simple reason that I alwaya believe in trying at least, to finish what I start and while I know that the honourable members of the House would take my word that I intended to do this, I always believe i.n going right through with the story and so I proclaim now to the House that this has been accomplished, and after having suggested at an earlier stage that the increase in salary shollld not be granted, I now have no option but to concur in the resol uLi.on. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I've been very interested in listenin g to the statement of my honourable friend and I would like to say that I e!ltirely agree with him that it is most comm endable and desirable that citizens of the province in many walks of life , as well as the political walk, should take that direct and personal interest in the field of higher learning that Page 1626 March 15th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) .. he has displayed in the case of Brandon College. I didn't go to Bran don College, but I did go to St. Johns College and I would like to say that I also have had the pleasure, and I deem it a pleasure, of contributing $1, 000 to the bui.lding fund of St. Johns Col lege, even though, or that was done before my salary was increased.

Perhaps the prospects are a little better now, but I would like to say to my honourable friend that he has bui.lded bet ter than he knew because we have not only been interested in these matters in an academic way, if I may be excused an inexcus able pun, and say that when we caiiJ3 into office we were so im p;:-essed with the need and desirabUity of re-es tablishing Brandon College as a liberal arts centre in Western Manitoba, that we provided an unconditional grant of half a million dollars .

But my honourable friend has builded better than he knew because due to the strenuous' efforts of the Honourable Member for Brandon, we followed up on this particular donation, by making an arrangement with Brandon College that for every dollar they secured here on in by way of donation, we would donate two, so my honourable friend's donation of $1, 000 really means that Brandon College is going to get three; one from him and two from us, and I think, Mr. Speak er, that's all in all, a highly satisfactory arran gem ent. MR. LISSAJYT..AN: Mr.

Speaker, as a member of the Board of Directors of Br;mdon College, I would like to, at this time, thank the Le ader of the Opposition for his very generous donation. As the First Minister said, this means not just $1, 000 to Brandon College, but $3 , 000.

I inten::l to speak more-- further on Brandon College in the Capital Supply Item, and at that time would like to carry on a little further-- but I am sure that this gift from the Honour able Leader of the Opposi tion will be most appreciated because the college has, over the yea rs, gone through some very strenuous tim es, and just now, the last whi.le, we can see a real future for the college in Brandon; :NIR.

CLERK: 2, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $32 1, 834 for legislation for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1961; 3, resolved that lt be granted to Her Maj esty a sum not exceeding $44, 700 for legislation; 4, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1, 625 for legislation; 5, resolved that it be grant ed to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $54, 435 for Executive Council; 6, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceed ing $2,7 50 for Executive Council; 7, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $75 ,0 00 for Executive Council; 8, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $172 ,3 20 for Executive Council; 9, resolved that i.t be grante:l to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $208, 240 for Treasury; 10, resolved that it be granted to H�z ivlajesty a sum not exceeding $94, 455 for Treasury; 11, resolved that it be granted to I-Ier Majesty a sum not exceeding $8 ,9 00 for Treasury; 12, resolved that it be grant ed to Her Majesty a sum not exceedi ng $76 ,6 60 for Treasury; 13 , resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not excee::ling $105, 300 for Treasury; 14, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a S<.:!m not exceeding $2,5 06, 833 for Treasury; 15, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $63, 890 for Provincial Sec retary ; 16, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not S.'tceeding $8, 940 for Provincial Sec retary; 17, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $32,8 80 for Provincial Secretary; 18 , resolv ed that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $113, 725 for Provincial Secretary; 19 , resolved that it be granted to Her Majest--y a sum not exceeding $895, COO for Provincial Secret ary; 20, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $50, 000 for Pro vincial Secr etary; 21, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $58, 810 for Provincial Secretary; 22, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $750, 005 for Education.

MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seize this opp :Jrtunity which, I believe for me it is the last one, to just sort of protest and to ventUate a grievance against the Minister of Education. On February 5th, I moved i.n this House for an Order for Return. To me it was a very simple Order for a Return. I was asking the Minister to table the number of boys and girls attending high school, divided between urbans and rurals.

The Speech from the Throne had made a statement along those lines, and I wanted to be able to che'ck with respect to the increase that had taken place in these last ten years wit h respect to the numbers of bvys and girls attending high school. This Order was passed by this House without a: word of com ment by the Minister with respect to how difficult it would be to table this return. That was on February 5th; On February 23rd, I asked the Minister when he would table this Order for .March 15th, 1960 Page 1627

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd. ) .• return, and the Minister made this statement, quote from 'Han sard, "The Honourable Member asked rather a difficult question. We're working on it. We will produce it as soon as it is ready". And now, another three weeks have elapsed and the order hasn't been tabled yet. I think this strikes right at the privileges of this House, Mr. Speaker. The question was a simple one and I am sure that the information was close to being available because the Speech from the 'I'hl'one--and I'll quote one paragraph from the Speech from the Throne.

"My government records with satisfaction the early success of the school divisions, and increased provincial financial sup port provided for in the legislation presented and passed at the Special Session of the Legislature held in October and November '58 . There has baen an increase of 11. 6% in the number of boys and girls enjoying high school education in the province with an increase of 30% in rural Manitoba alone". This certainly was not guess work.

It indicates to everyone that at least for those two years, a record had been calculated, and that the department had the numbers of boys and girls attending high schools in both rural and urban Manitoba. My question was to include eight other years. It should have been very easy for the Minister to produce this answer and to table this report to the House. I rise to protest. I think it strikes right at the privileges of the members of the Opposition and privi leges of the members of this House. I think it's too long a delay.

The Minister has reasonable delay--of course, we should give him reasonable time, but he was given ample time in three weeks , and more than ample time in a month and a half and yet we a':'€ arriving now to concur rence in the sums allocated to that department, and yet we still haven't got this answer and I rise to protest, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLERK: 23, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $29, 000, 042 for Education. MR. HAWRYLUK: Mr.

Speaker, while concurring in resolution No. 23 , this Hous<: regrets that the government has failed to assume a fair share of the cost of education and has left too large a portion to be borne by the municipal taxpayers. Seconded by the Honourable Member for St. John's. Mr, Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the "nays " have it. MR. SPE.AKER: Call in the members.

Question before the House is the motion of the Honourable Member from Burrows that while concurring in Resolution No. 23 , this House regrets the government has failed to assume a fair share of the cost of education and has left too large a portion to be borne by the muni.ci pal taxpayers. Those in favour of the motion, please rise. YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Desja rdins, Dow, Froese, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Molgat,Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine, Reid, Ro berts, Schreyer, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner, Wright. NAYS: · Honourable Messrs .

Roblin, Carron, Johnson, Evans, Thompson, Witney, HuttOn, Ridley, Messrs . Lissaman, Shewman, Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Mrs. Forbes, Messrs. Groves, Hamilton, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Klym, McKellar, Martin, Scarth, Seaborn, Smellie, Stanes, Stctckland, Watt, Weir. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 22; nays, 31. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

I might say that it's possible that we may have other divisions this evening and may be we could try out a new system that has been recommended by the Rules Committee, and if every member would remain in his seat rather than going out and into the House, we may be able to have the same number of members at all times during concurrence. We'll try it and see how it works. MR. TANCHAK: Mr. Speaker, .••.•. resolution? I'm not going to make a speech. What I have to say is self-evident.

I move seconded by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain that, while concurring in Resolution No .. 23, this House regrets that the government is not providing for educational equality of opportunity, in all areas of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared � he motion lost. MR. CAMPBE�L: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker, and so far as we are concerned, we would be quite willing to call it the same division. MR. PAULLEY: The same division as far as we're concerned, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I take the recorded vote same division as before. Page 1628 March 15th, 1960

MR. CLERK: 24, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $603, 690 for Education; 25, resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1, 797, 425 for Education; 26 , resolved that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $69, 550 for Agriculture and Conservation; 27, resolved that it be granted-- MR.

ROBERTS: Two or three days ago in the House, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, on a Motion to go into Supply, referred to some instances which were quite important, I thought, describing how farmers who had q'.lalified for assistance under the Prair ie Farm Assistance Act had received assistance which was considerably smaller than the assist ance they could have had, if they had been allowed to qualify under the Crop Disaster Plan, and those remarks by the Honourable Menh er for Turtle Mountain received considerable publicity.

Since that time, I think all rural members have received--at least I have, and I know of many others--have received records or reports of many other instances where farmers who receiv ed assistance under Prairie Farm Assistance--qualified under Prairie Farm Assistance and received assistance which was a great deal smaller than the assistance which they could have received under the Crop Disaster Plan, and for that reason, Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Gladstone, that while concurring in Resolution No. 26, this House regrets the failure of the government to treat the farmers of Manitoba in a fair and equitable manner by failing to make payments under the Crop Disaster Plan available to farm ers who qualified for the lesser assistance of PFAA. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a VOlCe vote declared the motion lost. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the same division is acceptable to us. MR. SPEAKER: I see the Honourable the Attorney-General is now in the House where he wasn't in the last vote •.

JYIR. LYON: I don't think there's any doubt as to where my vote will be, Mr. Speaker. MR. ROBLIN: I think, Sir, that this may be going a little too far but I am prepared for the same a division plus one, if the rest of the House will agree. MR. LYON: I have no objection to that, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: House agreed. M.J.1.. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that in case--and I don't t:<tnk this is much of a possibility--that if one of our honourable friends on the other side happens to come to reason rather rapidly to support one of o•1r resolutions, if he stands up well that might up set the applecart.

ME. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member for Dufferin wish to speak? :MR. FROESE: No, I was just going to state that I agree with it. Otherwise I could cause trouble. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. MR. CLERK: 27. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry-- ME.· CLERK: . $1, 27 5, 375 for Agriculture and Conservation. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, on this resolution No. 27, in view of the province wide publicity and the profusion of publicitY given to the sewer and water program--so -called program--by the government, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, that while concurring i.n Resolution No. 27, this House regrets the failure of the government to pass legislation to provide a rural sewer and water program having some relationship to the p·lbli city given to it in the Speech from the Throne. Mr. Speaker presented the motion:'3.nd following a voice vote declared the motion defeat ed. Carried. MP .. PAULLEY: Ayes and nays, Mr .

Speaker. As far as a division is concerned, we're the same. MR SPEAKER: Same division as the last one? MR. CAMPBEL'L: It's acceptable to us. MR. FROESE: It's agreeable although I agree if i.t was declared carrled. It's OK with me. MR. CLERK: No. 28, ..•... be granted to her Majesty a sum not exceeding $81, 920 for Agriculture and Conser vation; 29, resolved to be granted to Her Majesty a sum not ex ceeding $554,"860, for Agriculture and Immigration; 30, resolved to be granted to Her Majesty March 15th, 1960 Page 1629

(Mr . Clerk, continued) ..... a stim not exceed ing $203, 300 for Agriculture and Co nservation . 31. Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceed ing $50, 645 for Agriculture and Conse rvation. 32 . Res olved to be granted to Her Majesty a sum n0t exceed ing $445, 500 foi" Agriculture and Co ns ervation. 33. Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $6, 000 for Agriculture and Conse rvation . 34 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceed ing $25, 000 for Agriculture and Conser vation. 35 .

Res olved. to be granted to Her Majesty a sum not excee ding $1, 573, 620 for Agriculture and Conser vation. 36. Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceed ing $200, 825 for Attorney-General. 37 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $432, 980 for Attorney-General.J 38 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $287, 980 Law Courts . 39 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceed ing $24, 010 for Attorney-General. 40. Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $2, 128, 917 for Attorney-General . 41.

Re-'· solved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $10, 465 for Attorney-General. 42. Res olved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $260, 740 for Attorney General. 43 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, .a sum not exceed ing $548, 080 for Attorney-General. 44. Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $79, 625 for Attorney-General. 45 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $642, 834 for Health and Public Welfare. 46 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $10, 906, 996 for Health and Public Welfare. 47 .

Re solved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exce eding $11, 948, 785 for Health and Public Welfare . MR . WRIGHT: Mr . Speaker, I beg to move an amendment, se conded by the Honourabie Member for Fisher that while concurring in Resolution No . 47, this House regrets the failure of the government to proclaim certain sections of the Social Allowances Act. Mr. Speaker presen ted the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion defeated. MR . PAU�LEY: Ayes and Nays, Mr . Speaker . MR . SPEAKER: The same division as before? I declare the motion defeated on Division. MR . CL ERK: Res olution No . 48 .

Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $89, 490 for Mines and Natural Resources . 49 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $74, 260 for Mines and Natural Resources . 50 . Res olved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $199, 225 for Mines and Natural Resources . 51. Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not excee ding $395, 240 for Mines and Natural Resources . 52 . Res olved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $1, 166, 435 for Mines and Natural Resources . 53 .

Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $478, 285 for Mines and Natural Resources . 54 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $236 ,3 20 for Mines and Natural Resources. 55 . Res olved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $263, 760 for Mines and Natural Resources. 56 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $357, 865 for Mines and Natural Resources . 57 . Res olved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing . $56, 000 for Mines and Natural Resources . 58 .

Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $18, 550 for Public Utilities . 59 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not excee ding $75, 390 for Public utilities . 60. Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not excee ding $23, 069 for Public Utilities. 61. Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not excee ding $754, 050 for Public Utilities. 62 . Res olved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $645, 135 for Public Works. 63. Res olved to be granted to Her Ma jesty, a sum not excee ding $2, 136, 37 2. 64.

Res ob,red to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $11, 809, 985. MR . WAGNER: Mr . Speaker, I beg to move an amendment seconded by Member for . Brokenhead that while concurring with resolution 64, this House regrets that the government has failed to disclose an effective and C<'>nsistent program of road construction in unorganized and disorganized territories. Mr . Speakerpre sented the motion and following a voice votedeclared the motion defeated. MR . PAULLEY: Ayes and nays, Mr. Speaker . Same Division as far as our group is concerned. MR .

SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated on Division as before . MR . CL ERK: Res olution 65. Res olved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceed ing $89 ,9 40, Municipal Affairs. 66 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not Page 1630 March 15th, 1960.

(Mr . Clerk, continued) ..... exceeding $69 ,3 50, Municipal Affairs. 67 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $15, 100, Municipal Affairs . 68 . Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $138, 262 Municipal Affairs. 69. Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $98, 143 - Labour . MR. PETERS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Logan that while concurring in resolution 69, this House regrets the failure of the government to appoint a full-time Minister of Labour . Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the ''nays" have it, and motion defeated. MR. ROBLIN:· I hope you recognize that I'm a nay. )VIR. PAULLEY: It's the hour ; it's time to quit. MR. SPEAKER: Same division as before ? MR. FROESE: I do object. MR. SPEAKER: ! still didn't hear the Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. PAULLEY: He objects to the same division, Mr. Speaker . MR. FROESE : I object to the same division. MR. SPEAKER: .••• ..•• same division. I declare the mo tion defeated on •.•.. MR.

ROBLIN: .••.• honourable friend wishes to indicate that he doesn't -- isn't pre pared to support this amendment, Sir. He wishes to vote on the other side and if no one has any objection I would say some division except my honourable friend is recorded in the nega tive rather than the affirmative. MR. CL ERK: Resolution 70, resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $142, 850 for Labour; 71, resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $139 ,4 10, Labour . 72. Resolved to be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $33, 452 for Labour . 73.

Resolved it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $114, 020, Labour. 74. Re solved it be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $134, 27 0, Industry and Commer ce . 75. Resolved it be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $9l, 130, Industry and Commerce. 76. Resolved it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $139 ,7 86 for Industry and Commerce. 77 . Resolved it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $130, 420, Industry and Commerce . 7 8. Resolved •.• · .••• MR. PAULLEY: IV!r.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Inkft..er that while concurring in Resolution No . 77 this House regrets the government use of public funds for political purposes . Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a word or two in connection with this resolution. I am deeply appreciative of the Honourable Minister, present Minister of Industry and Commerce for the resolution.

When he was my neighbour on this side of the House sitting, where the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain now sits, he moved this resolution in criti cism of the former administration. Because of the terrific job that was done at that time by the Liberal administration in sending out regularly, irrespective of what the weather was like, these informative bulletins from the Department of Industry and Commerce -- possibly I should c

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-43
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 43.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	703dc5ee1d9101860aa6d181e75eeb2f87fdcce9

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