Manitoba Hansard — 2 February 1960 (Sitting 11, 26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-11

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legis 1 a ti v e Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES·,. and PRO cE·E DINQS : � . : . ·. ' Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harri.son Volume IV No. 11 I ! February 2, 1960 2nd Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

DAILY INDEX Tuesday, February 2, 1960, 2:30 p.m. Select standing Committees, Report •.......• .• ••••.• •.•....•... ..••.• • •.•..... · .•• Introduction of Bills: No. 58, re Mechanics Lien Act (Mr. Lyon) .••.•.•• · •... •.••••. . Question re Emergency Assistance .••. ...• •.... ...• .• ...••.•...•..• •••.••. .. ••••• Address for-Returns: Mr. Roberts, Mr. GuttormSODi ••• •••.•.•.••.•. •••••.•••.••••• Resolution re Agricultural Credit (Mr. Shoemaker) Mr. Alexander ....• •.•••• ••.•.•• Resolution re School Construction (Mr. Dow) Mr. Paulley •••••• .••.• •• ••••.••• •••••• Resolution. re Pensions (Mr. Gray) Mr.

Cowan ••••• .. .••.••• ..... .•••••.•. .•••• ••. Resolution re Agricultural Support, Mr. Wagner ••• •....••....• .. ..•• •••••••••••.•• Resolution re School Room Grants, Mr. Dow .•........•..... •........••.••..... ••.. Bill No. 11 (Mr. Christianson) 2nd Reading ...................................... . Throne Speech Debate: Mr. Hillhouse · .••..........•..•... ..•.•... . ... .•••••.•..•• Mr. Harris ...••. •...... ..••.......•.... .•.. •.•. .••••. ..... •..•... .•••.•• Mr. Corbett ················ ....... ····· ·········· ·· ··· ·· ····· ··· ···· · ··· Mr.

Seaborn .. ····· · ·· .... . ······ ········ ············· ·· ··· ··· ·· ·· ······ 215 216 216 218 219 221 223 225 228 229 229 233 234 236 Proposed Motion re Education (Mr. McLean) Mr. Campbell • • • . • . . . . • . . . • • . • • . • • • . • • 238 Mr. Orlikow, Mr. McLean • . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . • • . . . . . . . • . . . • . . • . • • • • • • . . . . . . . 239 Bill No. 12 (Mr.

Evans) 2nd Reading ..... •.... .•... ... ....•...••.... ....•• .• ••••.. 240 INDEX TO VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS, 1960 Introduction of New Members . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . • . • • • 5 Speech from the Throne Debate: Mr. Groves, Mr. Jeannotte, Mr. Ca_mpbell • • . . • • • • • • 6 Resolution: Rules (Mr. Lyon), Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Paulley • . . • • . . • . • . . . . . • • • • . . . • . 32 Motion: Election Act (Mr. Lyon), Mr. Paulley, Mr.

Campbell . . • . . . • . . . . . • • • • • . • . . • 34 Introduction of Bills: Nos. 43, 27, 14, 18, 45 . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . • • . . . • . • 35 Orders for Returns: Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Dow .•• .•......... ••. ....... � .• :. • • • • • • 37 Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr. Paulley • • . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . • • • • . • • • . 38 Introduction of Bills: Nos. 20, 3, 19, 49, 36 ................................... •• • • 49 Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr. Froes·e, Mr. Orlikow • . . • . • . . . . . . . • • . . • . • . . • • • 50 Bili No. 2 (Mr.

Hutton) 2nd Reading: Mr. Camp bell, Mr. Roberts . . . . . • • . . . . • . . • . . . . 60 Bill No. 4 (Mr. Johnson, Gimli) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell .. ...•. .... ; . . • . • • • • . • . • 62 Bill No. 5 (Mr. Roblin) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Gray . . . . . • • • • 62 Bill No. 6 (Mr. Roblin) 2nd Reading: Mr. Campbell . . . • . . . • • • . .. .. • . • .. • . • • • • . . . • . . 64 Bill No. 8 (Mr.

Johnson, Gimli) 2nd Reading . . . . • . . . . . • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • . • • • . • • . 65 Introduction of Bills: Nos. 52, 54, 15, 16, 50, 52, 17 . . • . . • . . . • . • • . • . . . • . . • . . . • • • . . 67 Statement, re Television, Mr. Carron .... .• .... ..•...•... .•. .... •. .•••••. ....... ; 69 Motion, re Agricultural Credit Corporation, Mr. Shoemaker . . • . • . . . . • • . • . • . . . . . . • . . 70 Resolution, re School Construction Grants, Mr. Dow, Mr. Schreyer . . . . • . . . . . . • • • . • • 73 Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr. Peters, Mr.

Stanes ........................... 76 Introduction of Bills: Nos. 55, 56 ...•.....•............•. ·.•...... .....• .. • . . . . . •. 81 Bill No. 3 (Mr. Lyon) 2nd Reading . • . . . . • . . • • . . . . • • . . . • • • . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 86 Throne Speech Debate: Mr. Schreyer, Mr. Seaborn, Div. to Amend't to the Amend1t • • . 87 Introduction of Bill, No. 57 . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • •. • • . • • . . • • 95 Throne Speech Debate: Mr. Martin, Mr. Hryhorczuk, Mr. Christianson, Mr. Dow, Mr. Desjardins, Mr. Weir, Mr. McLean, Mr.

Hutton ........ ...• ..• ••.•... 123 Motion, re Agricultural Credit (Mr. Shoemaker) Mr. Smellie, Mr. Wagner ..• ••...• .. 134 Tabling of Reports, Questions ......•................... ..... .....•.... ..•.••••... 141 Motion re Agricultural Credit (Mr. Shoemaker) Mr. Roberts ......•......• .. ••••..••• 151 Motion re Pensions Increase, Mr. Gray .. ... ... •. ....... .. ..... .. .. ...... .... ..... 152 Throne Speech: Mr. Re id, Mr. Scarth, Mr. Tanchak, Mr. Roblin .. .. .•.•. . ' •..• . � . . . 154 Statement re Fire at Kelsey, Mr. Carron ......................................... 173 Ruling. Mr.

Speaker, Division on Ruling ......................................... 174 Second Readings: Bills 17, 14, 15, 16, 21 . . . . . . . • • • • • • . . . . . . • . . . . • . . • . . • . . . . • . . . • . 175 Throne Speech: Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Froese, Mr. Guttormson, Mr. Schreyer, •..•.. Mr. Roberts, Division on Amendment ...•...........•..... .... .. .. ......• 177 -- Mr. Gray, Mr. Hutton, Mrs. Forbes, Mr. Klym .. •... . •........... .. • •.•.. .... 197 Bill No. 13, (Mr. Groves) 2nd Reading . • ........ ...................... .... .. . .. .... 210 Resolutions re School Construction (Mr. Dow) Mr.

Hamilton .•... ..••. ; . . . . . . . • • . • . . . 212 French Addresses: Mr. Prefontaine, Mr .. Roberts ...... ............ ........... •••. 214

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Tuesday, February 2nd, 1960. Opening prayer by Mr: Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions. MR. KEITH ALEXANDER (Roblin): I beg to present the petition of Sydney E. Ransom and others praying for the pas$i.ng of

an Act to incorporate the Manitoba Federation of Agricul ture. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions. MR. W. B. SCARTH (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of the St. Charles Country Club, praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate the St. Charles Country Club. MR. SPEAKER: Rea1ing and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees. MR. CLERK: Your Special Select Committee appointed to prepare the list of members to compose the Select Standing Committee ordered by the House beg leave to present the follow ing as their first report: Your committee met and prepared the following list of members to compose the Select Standing Committee ordered by the House as follows; Law Amendments Honourable Messrs. Roblin, Carron, Evans, McLean, Johnson, Lyon, Thompson; Messrs.

Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Campbell, Corbett, CowaJ1,Christianson, Desjardins, Dow, Froese, Gray, Groves, Harris, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Rlym, Lissaman, Martin, McKellar, Orli.kow, Paulley, Prefontaine, Roberts, Scarth, Schreyer, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Tanchak, Wagner, Weir, Wright. Agriculture-- MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF Party)(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I think it would i:>e in order if the Clerk dispensed wi.th the reading of the Committees. We are alto gether in on them and we wi.ll be receiving notification. 'MR.

SPEAKER: The only thing involved, of course, is that this goes into Hansard. If it's not read will it appear in Hansard? MR. CLERK: Honourable Messrs. Roblin, Hutton, Johnson, Lyon, McLean, Ridley, Thompson; Messrs. Alexander, Campbell, Corbett, Christianson, Dow, Mrs. Forbes, Froese, Gray, Johnson (Assini.boia), Hamilton, Harris, Klym, Lissaman, Molgat, McKellar, Orlikow, Peters, Prefontaine, Roberts, Schreyer, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Tanchak, Wagner, Watt. Industrial Relations-Honourable Messrs. Carron, Evans, Hutton, Thompson, Wi.tney; Messrs.

Desjardins ,Groves, Guttormson, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Johnson (Assiniboia), Lissa man, Martin, Pauliey, Peters, Orlikow, Seaborn, Smellie, Stanes, Weir, Wright. Municipal Affairs-Hono•u·able Messrs. Lyon, Ridley, Thompson, Witney; Messrs. Alex ander, Baizley, Bjornson, Corbett, Cowan, Christianson, Desjardins, Dow, Groves, Guttorm son, Hamilton, Harris, Hillhouse, Johnson (Asstni.boia), Klym, Lissaman, Martin, McKellar, Orli.kow, Pa'.ll.ley, Prefontaine, Rei.d, Soarth, Schreyer, Seaborn, Shewman, Shoemaker, Stanes, Strickland, Tanchak, Watt, Wright. Public Accounts-Honourable Messrs.

Roblin, Evans, Hutton, McLean; Messrs. Alex ander, Baizley, Bjornson, Campbell, Cowan, Gray, Groves, Hamilton, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Johnson (Assiniboia), Klym, Martin, Molgat, McKellar, Orli.kow, Paulley, Peters, Roberts, Scarth, Schreyer, Strickland, Weir. Public Utilities-Honourable Messrs. Roblin, Carroll, Johnson, Lyon, McLean, Ri.dley, Thompson, Witney; Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Chri.stianson, Corbett, Desjardins, Mrs.

Forbes, Froese, Guttormson, Harris, Hryhorczuk, Johnson (Assiniboia), Lissaman, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Reid, Roberts, Schreyer, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stanes, Strick land, Tanchak, Weir, Wright. Private Bills-Honourable Messrs. Carron, Hutton, Johnson; Messrs. Alexander, Cor bett, Cowan, Guttormson, Hamilton, Harri.s, Hryhorczuk, Klym, Paulley, Peters, Seaborn, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Tanchak, Wright� Privilege and Elections-Honourable Messrs. RobUn, Evans, Lyon, Ridley; Messrs.

Cowan, Desjardins, Dow, Groves, Guttormson, Harris, Lissaman, Martin, McKellar, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine, Scarth, Shewman, Stanes, Wagner, Weir . . F.ebruacy.2nd, 19£0,. Page 215

(Mr. Clerk, cont1d.) •• All of which is respectfully submitted. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Memberfrom Rupertsland, that the report of the committee be received. �Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Notice of Motion Introduction of Bills. Honourable Sterling Lyon (Attorney-General)( Fort Garry) introduced Bill No. 58,

an Act to amend The Mechanics Liens Act. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. Mr. Lyon introduced Bill No. 59,

an Act to amend The Landlord and Tenant Act. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities)(The Pas): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to draw to the attention of the House,tvo nev.s articles which appeared in yesterday's local papers--The Winnipeg Free Press and the Tribune, evening edition, dealing with a Bill on the Highway Traffic Act.

Now this Bill is essentially the same Bill that was presented to this House at the winter session and which was before the members at our winter session. There are one or two amendments of course, which have been written in since that date. Now in o::>rder to get the maximum publicity to this Bill, we did prepare a news story which was to have been released on second reading. The story was prepared pri marily for the rural weekly papers who are not all represented in the Press Gallery here in the House.

This story, however, was inadvertently released by my office with the result that these stories have appeared in the Press before the Bills are formally before the House. MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are pro ceeded with, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture and it is this: Does the Minister of Agriculture still insist that this government has a verbal agree ment with the Government of Canada regarding the emergency assistance to farmers in view of the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons yesterday?

And I quote: "That n::> agreement was entered into with any of the provinces". HON. GEORGE HUTTON (Minister of Agrtculture)(Rockwood-lberville): Mr. Speaker, I still insist that there is a very substantial verbal agreement between the Government of Man itoba and the Federal Government at Ottawa. Our program has been approved by an official of the Federal Government and I have every assurance that the Federal Government will honour . their commitments to the Goverament of Manitoba. MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition)(Lakeside) Mr.

Speaker, I think there is something-- I raise here the question of privilege. I think we have a right in this House to a definite answer as to whether there is or is not an agreement. This question has been raised now on two or three occasious. The last time it was raised, Mr. Speaker, and I'm raising this as a question of privilege because I think the rights of this House are involved- because as I remember the statement of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture the last time that this same type of question was put to him--and I've read it over very carefully.

In the meantime, I'm not sure that I have it with me now, but I remembar his statement. It was that he had no idea why the Prime Minister would make such a statement. He may have added if he made it--I'm not sure of his exact words but the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture went on to say that he thought it was a sort of an insinuating question, or somethiirg of that kind. Now this is some days later, Mr.

Speaker, and we have the spectacle of the Prime Min ister of Canada saying that there is no agreement with any province, and the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture here is saying that, in his opinion, there's a very substantial agree ment or words to that effect. Now one of these Houses of Parliament is getting the wrong in formation and it's not up to us to raise it as a question of privilege here, Mr. Sp.3aker. As yo'.l well know, if the Parliament of Canada is getting the wrong information, that's their busi ness. But, Mr.

Speaker, I really find it hard to believe that the Prime Minister of Canada would make a categorical statement two days in a row--there is no agreement with any one of the provinces--or words to that effect. And then we find that the Minister of Agriculture insists that there is an agreement. Now surely, Mr. Speaker, surely the House is entitled to the cor rect information in a matter of this kind. This is a matter on which there is gl ing to be Page 216 February 2nd, 1960.

"I (Mr. Campl)Eill, cont1d.) •• intensive debate, I'm sure, in this House. There's already been some. Surely we're entitled to the right answer.

I'm not particularly blaming my honourable friend the :Minister of Agriculture because he's comparatively new in his position, but certain ly I would think when it had been raised on previous occasions and the conflict of view between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Honourable the :Minister of Agriculture has been brought to the fore, that the First Minister or someone on the government benches would have moved quickly to settle this very evident difference of opinion. Now, Mr. Speaker, I raise this as a matter of the question of the privilege of this House.

This House is entitled to the right infor mation. I do not charge my honourable friend with giving wrong information because I'm not in the position to do so, but I do say that the honourable member can not be giving the right in formation if the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of Canada is giving the right information. The two just can't exist, Mr. Speaker. And it's the duty of the government to clear this situa tion so that this House is properly informed. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolseley): l!llr.

Speaker, I've been watching the efforts of my honourable friends opposite to get into the fight that is going down at Ottawa on this par ticular matter and it doesn't surprise me at all that my honourable friend has spoken in the way that he has. Now I think I must say, in defence of the minister, that we here are giving the best information we have. We're not in any way, Sir, attempting to deceive the House or to leave any false impressions or to evade the question, because, to the best of our knowledge here-to the best of our understanding--according to our

interpretation of the discussions that have taken place that there is an understanding with Ottawa with respect to these me::osures. I don't think it would have been proper for us to have proceeded with them in the way that we have unless there was an undertaking, at least a meeting of minds on this point insofar as we are aware. Now, as I understand it, the point that's being raised at Ottawa is this: Has the GOv ernment of Canada made an agreement with the provinces behind the back of Parliament? I believe that's the argument that's taking place down there.

Well, I'm going to have to leave it to the people at Ottawa to deal with that matter. In my view, the answer probably is that they have not. They have probably taken the view, although I have no means of saying this except on my own

interpretation of the matter, that they may be disposed to recommend to Parliament certain measures, which is quite another thing than making a direct agreement, as I think the members 111iil appreciate. Now, to the best of our knowiedge, they have certainly undertaken to recommend to Parliament the form of the agreement which had been negotiated by my col leage with Ottawa on that point, and I can only assure the House that we're giving information here honestly to the best of our knowledge; and if the case is one that is being argued out at Ottawa, we must let them deal with it.

It may be that there's--Pm quite sure that if the Prime Minister says that there has been no agreement made, he is maybe thinking in terms of an agreement which he is prepared to recommend to Parliament, which is quite another thing from one that ma:y have already been made. But as far as we are concerned here, we believe that we have an assurance from the government at Ottawa that they are prepared to recommend to Parliament the approval of the general agreement that has been reached here and on which our plans have been formed. And I hope that that will expla in the position of this government in thi.s matter.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that our rules provide that the one time that a member of the House may speak a second time is if he may have been misunder stood or if he has been misinterpreted. Well now, Mr. Speaker, I am using the opportunity of speaking the second time because I have been both misunderstood and misinterpreted. Be cause when the Honourable the First Minister suggests that we're trying to get into the fight at Ottawa, nothing could be further from the tru.th. I have no wish-no opportunity to get into the fight at Ottawa. It can look after itself completely.

All we are wanting to do and we don't. --we have no wish to get into a fight about it here either--we want only the information. Is there an agreement or ls there not an agreement? My honourable friend says that the questi on down there is whether the government has done something behind the back of Parliament. That isn't any concern, so far as I'm concerned, in this House. That's not the issue. Ottawa can decide that. What we're asking, and I take my honourable friend's assurance that they feel that they have an assurance from Ottawa-l· accept that--but the question we have asked is, is there an agreement?

We have been told there is a verbal agreement. Tile Prime Minister February 2nd, 1960 Page 217

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) •. says there is no agreement. It's been asked in both Houses a couple of times and my point, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a matter touching the privileges of this House. We're entitled to the right information and an assurance is not what we asked for. I have no doubt that at Ottawa, they're going to eventually resolve the question and vote the money, but what we want to know is, what are we operating on now? And then the question of privilege that has arisen--what information is this House being given? Is it correct, or is the Prime Minister's answer correct? MR. ROBIJN: Mr.

Speaker •.•.• the Prime Minister, Sir. I have enough trouble handl ing my own problems in this matter. But I would simply say that I believe thatthe House has been given accurate information. We believe that we have a--what was the word used?--an assurance--what word does my honourable friend want me to use? MR. CAMPBELL: Agreement. MR. ROBIJN: Agreement. We believe that we have an agreement with Ottawa and the agreement is, to the best of my knowledge, that the government at Ottawa will present for the approval of Parliament the terms on which we have agreed in dealing with this matter.

Now I think that's clear and it's above board and plain. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the First Minister did not suggest that he had been either misunderstood or misinterpreted and he spoke twice. So maybe I'm entitled to a third time. But all I would say to him is that he'd better clear that with Ottawa. MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Utilities.

Is it a fact that the Manitoba Hydro Electric Board, in its specifications to contractors, has a clause which provides that it shall be a condition of tender ing that contractors shall calculate tenders using the "A" zone rates of pay, with the minimum work week of 54 hours per week? If this is so, what machinery, if any, has the Hydro Electric Board established to insure that contractors who receive work from the board will live up to these terms and pay wages in accordance with the tender actually submitted? MR. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable member from St.

John's for bringing this question to my attention in advance of asking it. The answer to the first question is no, so that eliminates any comment on the second question. MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenh3ad): Before the Orders of the Day, I would li.ke to ask the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce how it happens to be that my request for an order for a return is shown on the first page of Votes and Proceedings as being an order for return submitted by the Honourable Member for Emerson. Apparently the return has been given--well, I certainly didn't receive it. HON.

GURNEY EVANS {Minister of Industry & Commerce)(Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, � the Minister of Industry and Commerce is as puzzled as the honourable member. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, on that point may I say that it's been drawn to the attenti on of the Clerk of the House. There has obviously been a little bi.t of confusion. We'll get it straightened out and properly registered. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. STEW ART E.

McLEAN (Minister of Education)(Dauphin}: Before the Orders of the Day, I should like to lay on the table of the House the Annual Report of the Legislative Li brary of the Province of Manitoba for the year 1959. I should also like to lay on the table of the House the Annual Report of the Department of Education for the year ending June 30th, 1959. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I should like to lay on the table of the House the Annual Report covering the operation and enforcement of liquor laws in Manitoba. MR. HUTTON: Mr.

Sp•::Jaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to lay on the table of the House a return to an order of the House on a motion ·3f the Honourable Member for Rhin•3land. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Address for Papers. The Honourable Member for LaVerendrye. MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable Member for LaV er endrye, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, that a humble address be voted His Honour the Lieutenant-Goveru.or for a return; one, of all correspondence between Page 218 February 2nd, 1960

(Mr.

Shoemaker, cont'd.) •• the government of the Province of Manitoba and the GQvernment of Canada with respect to the presently employed deficiency payment plan for eggs; two, of all correspondence between the guvernment of the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada with respect to the presently employed deficiency payment plan for pork; three, all re presentations made to the Federal GQverD.IDent on behalf of the farmers of Manitoba by the gov ernment of the Prov1nce of Manitoba with respect to the price and the support price of eggs and pork, and with respect to the method of determining to whom deficiency payments wf.ll be paid and with respect to method of computing the national average price of eggs and pork.

Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. BUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to accept the order as subject to the usual reservations. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, that an humble address be voted to His Honour the Lieutenant-GQvernor for a return of all correspondence between the government of the Provin()e of Manitoba and the Government of Canada with respect to projects covered by Manitoba's $85 million flood control program apnounced by the Premier in the Manitoba legislature ])!larch 18, 1959. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. lVIR. ROBLIN: I will be glad to accept the order, Sir, subject to the reservation of con sulting Ottawa. Mr.

Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared, the motion carried., MR. SPEAKER: Adjo'.lrned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Mem ber for Gladstone. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, in speaking to this resolution, I would like to comment on some of the remarks that have been made around the House on our Agricul tural Credit Corporation, and I would refer first to the Honourable Member from Fisher when he stated that it was his understanding that he was told that this Credit Act was going to be the only cure for the farmers' ills in Manitoba. And myself, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to doubt the honourable member's word, but !'m sure that it didn't come from this House. And I never heard any government member say any such thing.

I think possibly that the honourable mem ber is maybe a little bit misunderstood on that point. We said that this would be of an assist ance to the farmer of Manitoba, but I don't think we ever at any time stated that it was goi.ng to be the only cure. I think that is a completely wrong misinterpretation. And then he went on with typical socialist disregard for the taxpayers' money, an:i hinted that we should possibly go into this without any security. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that--the honourable member went on to say that he had been told this was going to be done.

Well in that case, he had the perfect right to say whoever told him that that he was n,ot telling the truth, because all he had to do was read the Act that he had voted for in this House and it was quite clear there that se curity was required, and the amount of soourity that was required. I think at no time did any body ever run away with the horrible thought that we should start lending out taxpayers' money without security--even to farmers. Then the member from LaVerendrye went on with some of his usual exaggeration ani he had thousands and thousands and thousands of farmers looking for loans.

As a matter of fact, for every farmer that had applied, there was 100 that had investigated this plan. Well, there's 1, 800 farmers--1, 800 applications. I think, if my arithmetic is right, that works out to 180,000. There's 45,000 farmers in Manitoba and we've got about135, 000 people from Ontar io and Saskatchewan and the rest of Canada coming in lookingfor benefits under this Agricul tural Credit Act.

He also went on to state that our standards were too high and I think after · anybody who was listening to the speech of the Honourable Member from River Heights, that they would know why we have high standards and why we are going to keep high standards in this Credit Act. Because we want this Credit Act to work and to work for a long time. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think when this corporation has approved loans in this first season of operation of over $4 million that our standards are not too high. There's .also been some discussion on whether this loan should be used to consolidate debts.

The member from LaVerendrye quoted from the Act and got down to where it said that the monies borrowed under February 2nd, 1960 Page 219

(Mr. Alexander, cont'd.) •• this Act may be used to consolidate debts, and I think. Mr. Speak- . er, that was put in as a permissive clanse for one very good reason, and that was that it would be very unfair to a man who had $12, 000. worth of security with a loan against it of $3, 000; he couldn't get clear title to that security until he had paid up that $3,000. loan. And if he had to use the proceeds of the loan to pay off the $3,000. he couldn't get a loan at all; and I think that clause was written in there for that specific reason--for that specific reason.

I think it was brought out quite clearly to all members of this House who sat in Law Amendments Com mittee that that was the reason that that Act was put in there for.. We weren't naturally going to take all the debt that any farmer had incurred and say the main: purpose of this Act is to let you consolidate all your debts that you have incurred from everybody else and we'll look after them for you. The main object of this consolidation of debt was so a farmer could use some of the proceeds of this loan to pay off outstanding debts on his security.

Now I would like to touch briefly on some of the statements made by the Honourable Member from Gladstone with reference to appraisals and assessments. I'm not going to add to what the Honourable Member from Birtl e-Russell said. I have a couple of points of my own I would like to bring up.

One of them is this: that the statutory requirements for assessment at the present time is once every seven years and I think we all know that farm improvements on land, particularly the clearing and breaking up of new land, can vary quite a bit in seven years, and also has quite a bearing on the value of thatfarm land; also has the point of sum merfallow versus stubble. I would like to give my own example here. For the last three years, due to politicking and a few things like that, I have gotten back to the idea of taking my 400 acres· and I am summerfallowing 200 and cropping 200.

If I was going to sell my land next year, I would put my 200 acres into second crop and put my 200 acres of summerfallow into crop as well. And in the summer time it's quite easily seen that the whole farm is in crop, and anybody buying that farm has no summerfallow. But I would defy anybody to come out to that farm at the present time and find that thing out. And also, to go back to practice, I don't think there is any farmer in this House, and I know I wouldn't, go and buy a farm that he hadn't had a chance to go over and inspect the land himself when the snow was off it. I'm sure we wouldn't.

Now, I'm quite interested in how the Leader of the Opposition is going to vote on this resolution because, if I remember his stand on law amendments, Mr. Sp.3aker, he was complaining vigorously about some clause in this Act and somebody suggested that he should move an amendment, and he said, "Oh! Not I. I'm not going to be the father of one word of this Act because I think it's unnecessary; it's complete unneeded duplication;" and he says, "the people evidently want it but," he says, "I don't believe in it at all".

Well the agency that he thought was doing a good job approved, I believe, loans last year of less than a half a million. We've approved loans in the same period of time of eight times over that. And I think the main complaints of the honourable members opposite is that we haven't been going fast enough in this. We1ve got to relax the regulations; we've got to lower our standards so that we can get more money out faster. Well if eight times is criteria for the proper speed is not fast enough for the honourable member, I wonder how fast he wants us to go.

The Honourable Member from Gladstone-Neepawa went on to deal with orders of applica tion--the orders in which the applications were received--and managed in some way to detect a very dark underhanded scheme because they all weren't dealt with in order. Well, Mr. Sp•3aker, there are two very good reasons that I can think of, of why they are not dealt in order. First of all, the appraiser is working in a district and I think it would be very, veryuneconom ical and very foolish for him to deal with application No. 750 at Swan River and then immed iately run down to Carman and do No. 751.

I don't know whether that's the honourable mem ber's idea of running this corporation or not. It would be entirely wrong. Secondly, this year we had a very unusual fall. Some parts of the country were covered in snow, where other parts were open and I think it was quite logical that the corporation would proceed in those areas where they could do their appraisals even though it wasn't necessarily in the order that the applications were received. But tb.e Honourable Member from Gladstone, Mr. Speaker, couldn't wait to think of those explanations.

He immed'iately had to launch into a very slander ous attack on the manager of this corporation for yielding to political influence, and the only reason that I add to the comments of the member from Birtle-Russell on this, Mr. Speaker, is the attitude of the members of the Liberal Party when he was discussing his meeting with Page 220 February 2nd, 1960

(Mr. Alexander, cont'd. ) • • the manager of the corporation. There was quite a few little sar castic smiles back and forth--a little cbnckle here and there-and I think a comment from the Honourable Member from Ste. Rose to the effect, "well, what do you expect them to do? What sort of an answer do you expect to get?" That proves to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Member from Ste, Rose doesn't know the manager of the corporation. I live 20 miles away from Russell. I know the man very well and I've known his family for years.

And I would say this to him, that the manager of this corporation doesn't need this job; he's doing it as a pub lic service; and I'm quite sure that sooner than yield to any political pressure, he'd resign his job in a minute. And I am quite surprised, Mr.

Speaker, to see the Leader of the Opposition sit back and let members of his own party criticize Civil Servants in this manner, because if I remember rightly, the first session that this government had, he got up and inferred that be cause we were criticizing some of the things that were done by his administration that we were, in a backhanded way, criticizing the Civil Service. And yet now, what have we from his own group? A complete--and as I said--a slanderous and slurring attack on a member.of the Mani toba Civil Service. And the man is in no position to rise to his own defence in this House. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that all in all we have a good Act here. It has been very successful to date. I think it is administered by excellent Civil Servants, who are doing a good job and will continue to do a good job in the administration of their duties. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. SCHREYER: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, that the de bate 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 Turtle Mountain. The Honourable the Leader of the CCF. MR.

PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take

part in this debate, I shall be rather brief because the contents of a somewhat similar resolution to .this was discussed at our last session. It has been pointed out that there is a change in the wording of the resolution propos ed this year, whereby the resolution itself applies to secondary schools within a division, which would indicate to me that the mover of the resolution and his party have at long last come to the conclusion of the value of our school divisions.

Now then, it has been suggested in connection with this very important matter of education at the secondary level in many of our rural areas, that the present method of paying grants may prejudice some remote areas. And my colleague, the Honourable Member for Brokenhead, last year, and again this, drew to the attention of the House of many problems which arise or can arise in some of our more sparsely settled areas which are in divisions in the province.

And a year ago, my collea,nue suggested an amend ment to the resolution, which was proposed at that time by the late Mr. ¥iller, that where school districts boards were of the opinion that they were prejudiced because they had to build a 12 room school in order to qualify for the full grant, that consideration be given to allowing them to qualify in such circumstances to receive the maximum grant with a smaller sized school. And then, later to that, Mr.

Speaker, after that amendment had been defeated in the House, the Honourable Member from Souris-Lansdowne proposed a resolution which, in ef fect, referred the whole matter to the Minister of Education to study the construction grant

schedule applicable to secondary schools in school divisions, with a view to recommending to the House such changes therein as may appear practical and advisable in the interests of stu dents attending secondary schools within Manitoba.

When the Honourable Member for Duff erin was speaking yesterday he referred to that amendment which was carried by this House--and I believe suggested that the minister may pos sibly be doing something in connection with it, or may have the matter under advisement--now, we have the motion before us today and I would suggest this, that in the absence of any sug gestion in the Speech from the Throne that the Honourable the Minister of Education has taken this resolution that was adopted by our last House into consideration, I think we are justified in presuming that nothing has been done up until now in connection with the matter.

It may be, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has given consideration. But on the other hand, as I say, in the absence of any indication of that contained within the Throne Speech, it is our duty to draw once again to the attention of the House the points which have been raised in the past in this very important matter of secondary school education. I would agree most heartily that there February 2nd, 1960 Page 221

(Mr. Paulley, cont1d.) •• is no question of doubt that in the larger schools with the greater ·space and facilities, a more full and complete secondary education would be able to be obtain able to our students.

However, I am sure that members of the House can find illustrations in many of our secondary school areas or divisions where it is uneconomical to build the size of a school which would only qualify-or would qualify for the 75% construction grant; or if, in the opinion of the board, due to the regulation as it is at the present time, in order to receive that amount of money, to undertake a system of mass transportation of the students from consider able distances.

And I thluk by that, Sir, that we are inflicting upon our students in cases of that nature rather a hardship, particularly in the winter months when transportation has its dif- ficulties here in the Province of :Manitoba. ' Now, Sir, it has been suggested, and I was looking at last year's Hausard, and the late member for Arthur, Mr. Cobb, replied with three parts to the resolution at that time, similar to what the Honourable Member for Dufferin has done this year. And he made a suggestion there that the time had not been enough to give full consideration to this problem.

I suggest the answer is that that time has now been given. He also made a suggestion at that time that in res pect of a six or eight room school, the school could qualify for a 66 2/3% construction grant. I suggest that our school division boards have to take into consideration the diff erence between the 66 2/3% and the 75% grants and are doing so. Also-- MR . McLEAN: Are thare any illustrations? MR . PAULLEY: I think there are. I haven't any right at my fingertips at the present moment, Mr.

Speaker, but I do know that in my own division of Springfield-Transcona that there has been a considerable amount of discussion as to the placing of a high school in that area, and the question has arisen within the deliberations of the board itself as to the size of the school which should be built, and where, due mainly to the transportation problem. And. I suggest-- MR. McLEAN: •••••• turning on the percentage of grants or some other considerationS? MR. PAULLEY: Other considerations as well. But I agree with the minister that there are other considerations as well.

But the point that I am raising at the present time is that if another method of the grants were forthcoming, or under consideration, that many of the problems such as that would not arise to the degree that they are. I have already said that school boards stlll take into consideration the difference between the 66 2/3 percentages and the 75, and I would suggest that there are other school districts, which unfortunately I haven't at my fingertips, but I have been informed accordingly of these, that have this particular problem.

Now then, I am going to suggest an alternative to the proposition and the resolution presented by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. It is somewhat different than the amendment suggested last year by my honourable colleague from Brokenhead.

Whereas last year we made the suggestion that where, in the unanimous opinion of the school division board, it was not practical or desirable to build a 12 room school, that they qualify for the full grant with a smal ler school. Now I appreciate the problems that the department might have in any proposition of this kind.

When the recommendations, i.f I recall correctly--or when the legislation first came in to this House respecting the construction grants to the secondary schools, if I recall correctly, the maximum grant at that time was to be SO% and there was a variation from 40 up to 80 on a sliding scale and there was a big jump between the grant to a six, an eight and a 12 room sch:Jol. I may say, Mr. Sp•3aker, I tried to pinpointthat exactly this morning as the min ister is aware, and wasn't able to get it.

But the po�nt that I'm raising is this, that at that time--and I think I'm correct in saying that the maximum grant was 80%-but in the wisdom of the committee, or its lack of wisdom, the

schedule was changed to reduce the maximum allowed from 80 to 75%, and in the intervening percentages amounts, there was an adjustment which gave a greater percentage to a six or eight room school to more or less compensate for the maximum grant coming down.

So I say that there will be a problem to the department to ascer tain any change in their formulas for a smaller school, because as I have said, I don't think any of us in all seriousness would suggest that the basic principle of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Education should be deviated from in having a large-a high school --secondary school, but I do think that in the light of a couple of years' experience that there are circumstances which involved a fairly considerable distance of transportation where, due to road conditions, there are problems that at this time the government should be giving Page 222 February 2nd, 1960

{Mr. P.il.ulley, cont'd.) •• consideration and proposing to the House changes in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I said that I was not going to be long, and in line with the thoughts that I have expressed.

I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Inkster, that the resolution be amended as follows: First, by deleting the word "rescinding" in the second line thereof and substituting the word "amending"; secondly, by deleting all the words after the word "formula" in the third line and substituting the following; to provide that where a secondary board can justify it is not practical or desirable to construct a school of a size required in order to quali fy for the maximum grant of 75%, that a smaller size school qualify for the maximum grant. The resolution would then read, Mr.

Spaaker, re.solved that this House requests the gov ernment of the Province of Manitoba to consider the advisability of amending the present sec ondary school construction contract grant formula to provide, etc. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: AJ:e you ready for the question? MR. R. G. SMELLIE {Birtle-Russell): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Souris-Lansdowne, that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Mem ber for Inkster. The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR.

JAMES COW AN {Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that the CCF Party would not have brought in again this. same resolution which was presented at the last session. We remember very well the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks telling us that it was the policy of the CCF Party to help those who need help most. Yet, in this resolution, we are asked to ask the Federal Government for an increase for old age and blind pensioners in the province from $55. to $75. per month, regardless of their needs.

If it is good policy to in crease all old age pensions, surely the CCF Government in Saskatchewan would have done so for they have much greater wealth than we have in Manitoba, particularly from oil and gas, and yet in that government, they have not given any overall increase to all their old age pensioners- not even $5.00 a month. They, as a matter of fact, do not even give a supplemental allowance to old age pensioners between 65 and 70 years of age. And they limit the supplemental allow ance to those of 70 years and over to ten dollars a month.

According to the latest figures that I have been able to obtai.n, the average cheque for supplemental allowance in Saskatchewan is $5.56 a month. The CCF have inferred that almost all pensioners need more and that a large part of the money paid to those who don't need it would be returned to the taxpayers through the in come tax. Neither of these theories stand up under examination. Only about 20% of our citi zens in Canada between the ages of 65 and 70 receive the old age assistance. The ramaining 80% get along on their own resources and with their own earnings.

In Saskatchewan, of those over 70, only 30% receive supplemental allowance. In Manitoba, under our hospital insurance scheme, premiums are waived for those over 70 years of age who have an income of less than $960. a year if they are single or less than$1, 620. a year if they are married. And the result is that premiums are waived for 36 1/2% of our people over 70 years of age.

And this does not indicate the true picture of need of those over 70 because of the fact that many over 70 wiU get this waived because they have not got the income, and yet they have perhaps a pleasant place to live with members of their families or in other circumstances, and they actually do not need more h3lp. But they do qualify for a waiver of premium.. If this motion was put into effect, it would mean, in Manitoba, extra payments of $18 million a year and in Canada of $300 million a year. This is a lot of money.

These payments will have to be paid from the taxes from which these pensions are now paid-corporation tax, sales tax and the income tax. Higher cor poration tax and sales tax mean higher prices. Income taxes are paid by many of our people, and we would find many low income earners--many low wage people with large families having to pay higher taxes and higher prices--money that they could not afford to pay in order that these pensions could be paid to many who dld not need any help.

Surely many of the working people will not continue to support a party who is in favour of such a policy--taking away from many who need it to give it to many who do not. We should help those who need help and that. is the policy of this government and that is the policy that this House should support. The CCF members and others will give us examples of persons in receipt of old age pensions who need February 2nd, 1960 Pag e 223

(Mr. Cowan, cont1d. ) • • additional help, and the fact that there are these individuals who need help is quite correct and is justification for the policy of this present government, and these people will be helped--these people who need help. Nor is it true that if pensions are paid to elderly persons that a large portion of the money-extra money paid will be paid back to the government through the income tax. If a person is 65 years of age or over, and has only a wife as a dependent, he has an exemption today of $2,6 00. a year.

In order to pay even an income tax of 20% on part of his income, he must have an income over $6,6 00. a year or over $550. a month. That is quite a high income for two people, and one realizes that if a person only has . an income of $550. a month that you don't pay an income tax on any of it equal to 20%. You will realize that very little of this extra money that is paid out would come back to the treas ury through the income tax. The CCF continue to make statements to the effect that the cost of living has gone up to a greater extent than the pension.

While the pension is not large, it is still considerably larger than it would be if it had been tied to the cost of living when it was first instituted in 1927. Then the pension was $20. 00 a month and the cost of living index was 74. 6. In November 1959 the index was up to 128. 3. The cost of living has gone up 72%. But in the meantime the pensions --old age pensions have gone up 175%.

In other words, lithe old age pension had been tied to the cost of living in 1927, the old age pension cheque today would be $34. 40. ·I t is a good thing the pension wasn't tied in 1927 to changes in the cost of living or it wouldn't be nearly as high as it is today. So it is wrong for the CCF to keep repe ating that the pension increases have not kept up with the cost of living. I do not say that $55. is a large sum but it is a lot more than $34. 40. The Honourable Member for Inkster in Sll.pport of his motion has stated that more than 300 persons die in Manitoba each month who are over 70 years of age.

I submit tha:t that is not an argument in favour of this resolution. If there were only five or ten who died each month over 70 years of age it would. indicate that other people who die were under 70. The fact that so many die who are over 70 is an indication to us that today many, many people are living much longer than they used to--thanks to the higher standard of living and the advancement in healing and in medicine. In closing, I ask the members of this House to reject this resolution.

I ask them to give support to the idea of helping those who need help and not to give support to the idea of taking away from many who need it to give it to many who do not need it. Let us instead continue to support the policy of this government of helping those elderly persons who need help most .. MR. ARTHUR E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Fisher that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Those resolutions standing in the name of the Honourable Member from Fisher.

The Honourable member from Fisher • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • , • Continued next page. Page 224 February 2nd, 1960.

MR. PETER WAGNER (Fisher) : Mr . Speaker I beg to move seconded by the honourable member for Brokenhead

whereas the Agricultural Support Bill of the Federal government does not give any assistance to the growers of wheat, oats and barley in western Canada, and where as the need for such assi stance is shown by the fact that in the period since 1947 , the cost of the goods which farmers have to buy have risen by approximately 50% while the prices received for wheat, oats and barley have gone up by about 24%, therefore

be it resolved that in the opinion of this House the Government of Manitoba should use its influence as spokesman for the people for this province to impress upon the Government of Canada the need for cash payments to western farmers to make up the deficiency between costs paid and prices received in order to assure to the western farmers a standard of living comparable to the standard of living enjoyed by the peo ple of Canada. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR . WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time this resolution has appeared before this House but not once has it reached its final destination .

The last time it was moved by my colleague the honourable member for Brokenhead, it was amended by the honourable member for Roblin for imme diate acreage assistance to the farmers. I just wonder what was the reac tion of the Federal Minister of Agricultur� when he received that resolution and whether or not we can expect the payments which are long overdue . Mr. Speaker if ever the farmers required deficiency payments on their crops it is now, especially after the disastrous crop failure last year .. Some of the honourable members feel it should be on acreage basis .

Personally, I don't care how you arrive at the fee, ;,.hat I am most concerned and 1!llXious about is that the farmer receive at least the cost of production, or to put it in popular phrase , a fair share of the national income as has been promised by our Right Honourable Minister of Pa.rliament. I am afraid if the Government does not recognize this eme rgency and give full supp�rt to the farmer receiving his rightful share that here in Manitoba the Social Allowance Act which came into force February 1st, which is yesterday, will be a "IIJigltybusy one. Mr.

Speaker, I should like to stray for just a moment or two from the matter of grain resolutions and deficiency payments and refer briefly to the egg and hog deficiency payments . In this way I hope that I will be able to explain myself sufficiently to the honourable members why they should support this resolution on grain. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to burden the honourable members of this House with too many figures because I believe I gave enough figures last year so I will just refer to my little voucher here. Pos sibly some of the fifty members do not follow the farm prices closely so.

I will just quote one voucher on poultry and this could be checked. It is ''Original Voucher No . 641 November 6/59 DressArl "Poultry, Producer Voucher, Manitoba Dairy & Poultry Co- opera tive Lt d. , Head Office Winnipeg, Manitoba, John D. Mc Fadyen, Birch River, Manitoba, Grad ing Station, Dauphin. Number of birds he sold was 11 (that is fowl) . Grade he received was A -- four to five pounds , 48 pounds in total for the eleven birds , price ten cents -- value $4 .8 0.

Now I will just say five birds , grade "A", four pounds , 16 in total, price six cents, value $96. 00; 45 birds, grade "B" , four pounds, 158 pounds , four cents, value $6 .3 2; ten birds, grade ''C", four to five pounds , 43 pounds , four cents, $1. 72; ten birds, Grade "C" fou.c pounds, 27 pounds , three cents , value 81� ; two birds, Grade ''C" OR -- (just for your information -- old roosters) -- nine •..•..... Just for the 50 members' information, and possi bly some rural members' information also, because if I were going to read grade COR, believe me or not, 75% wouldn't know what the grade would be.

So it' s two roosters, nine pounds, price three cents , 27� value; six birds; Grade Culls -- no value; total birds 89 -- value, the poundage. The weight 301 pounds total -- value $14.8 8. Now transporta tion costs 301 pounds at one cent was $3 . 01, killing charges 89 birds at ten cents was $8 .9 0 -- total deduction $11. 91. Now, subtract the $11.9 1 from the value $14.8 8 - - cash ticket attached, $2 .9 7 for 89 birds. Now, Mr. Speaker I sometimes when I'm out in the country speaking particularly in the election campaign I watch for the cartoonists (they are very good at it) .

They can draw. a-pic ture in the paper that would make me speak for an hour but they do it and that's all I need to do is to show to the people and the answer is there. And I have here a good clipping and it says on top of it "Tory Market. We buy chickens' grade A ten cents per pound." On the other side it has the consumer buying it "We sell chickens grade A 59� per pound". That's the explanation in itself. · February 1st, 1960 Page 225

(Mr. Wagner, cont'd.) . . . · Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have stated before possibly this· will help support this resolution. With egg and poultry and now hog prices coming down, and I am as sure as I stand here today that cattle prices, will follow because they are on the decline already -- how can we ex:pect the farmer to carry on in an industry which we receive such a ridiculously low income . Mr .

Speak er, I should like to repeat once again -- how can a farmer obtain his loan or meet his financial obligation when the price of his livestock produce has decreased to practically nothing, his grain crops destroyed, and with his taxes and credit payments long overdue ? I agree that we had a good discussion in this House last Session on deficiency payments . A farm delegatfon went to Ottawa twice (and incidentally, 40 representatives went to Toronto on Saturday). And here I have a government to decide within 30 days what the outcome will be to this.

In reply to the telegram and requests sent, the Federal Ministry stated that serious consideration would be given to the matter. And at the present time it is only thought -- instead of action -- and it is still going on in spite of that thirty announcement. I just wonder what will be in the announcement. It is true, Mr . Speaker, that I have been painting a very black picture of the farmer, and some of the Government Members would agree entirely with me, and that is their !}rivilege - but I believe that when calves and cows are fed with eggs , surely something must .be wrong!

Granted we have a deficiency payments on eggs -- By the way, how do they work? Do they ac tually help- the producer ? MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that the honourable member speak to the resolution he has on the order pape r. I don't mind him diverting for some moments on other matters that are allied but the resolution refers to payments of oats and barley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, ....•....... in deference, I suggest to you that you read the resolution itself that

whereas in the

preamble it mentions· that but contained in the body of the resolution itself it deals with the need for cash payments to western farmers to make up de ficiencies between the cost paid and prices received which will refer to the broad aspects of ag riculture and not simply that which is contained in the

preamble to the resolution. MR . SPEAKER: I am qjlite willing to give the honourable member quite a lot of latitude but surely he should mention oats and barley sometime during .... MR . WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, thank you fot bringing it to my attention. But as ! stated that from the beginning that I would like to illustrate that the deficiency payment in eggs and hogs that pos sibly the members would see light to support the resolution on grain. That's where I was drawing my comparison here . Mr .

Speaker, granted we have deficiency payments on eggs, as I said before, but are they to the producer, or to curtail the production? Let me read you a newspaper clipping illus trating just one ·such instance -- and believe me , there are hundreds of such feedings taking place on the farms . The clipping I hold tells of one of my neighbors who lives only five mlles ,away. I should like to mention here that he is a veteran 'of the se cond world war and served most in battles overseas . As a result of his

part in fighting for our country he lost his health imd unfortunately some of his records at the army headquarters either went astray, or were not properly noted, and consequently even though in poor health he does not qualify for any army pension. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe I am going astray again but I just want to point out our farmers' dilema -- in what shape are the farmers and those returned, and some of those returned men? .I tried to speak to the army personnel because I pers onally knew this man before he joined the army and saw for myself the physical condition he returned in.

Some of the honourable membere are laughing at what I am saying -- that's fine, they may have their_fun -- but the farmers out there on the farm , they don't think it is funny. He submitted to many examinations by army doctors and was requested by the authorities but to no avail. And mind you, Mr . Speaker, he didn't re ceive a pension and he hasn't got it today and there are lots of such boys that came back and they do not qualify for pension. They have to carry on on their own. And here is that paper clipping, Mr . Speaker, that I was going to read . ''Price Too Low, So Cows Get Her Eggs .

The price of eggs has gone so low that at least one Manitoba producer is feeding tham to her cows -- shells an,d all. Mrs. William Persowitch of Fisher Branch had been selling eggs direct to stores until the price dropped to ten cents a dozen. Rather than sell at this price Mrs . Persowitch said she would feed them to her cows or give them away. Page 226 February 1st, 1960

(Mr; Wagner, cont'd.) .•. A check Friday showed the price to producers through the govern ment grading station was ten cents a dozen for Grade A small ." And we have a government grading station in Fisher Branch and I am sure that most of the honourable members on that side know the person who operates that station. Mr. Speaker, the deficiency payment program of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Harkness, is too inadequate on eggs and hogs . Since most of you feel that I shouldn't be talking on hogs and on eggs I'll just skip that over .

Bl.\t one thing that I would like to remind the government that they should give close scru tiny whether that egg and hog deficiency payment is on the level, possibly I'll get a chance to come in later on it. I talked briefly on the problems that face the farmers . In the Speech from the Throne it w� stated that the farmers net income is lower than that of last year. Yes, even our Federal agricultural Minister predicts a lower income for farmers in 1960, January 26th "Lower Income For Farmers Predicted.

Ottawa - Agriputture Minister Harkness said Monday there may be some decrease in farmers.'._ gross and net income in 1960 as compared with last year ." Instead of the farmers' coming up, they are going down . So while the cost is rising the price of the produce is dropping. The deficiency paymerlt program on eggs and hogs as it now stands will not help the farmer. And here I have a clipping of January 27th ''The Canadian Federation of Agriculture con vention Tuesday rapped the new federal deficiency progra m for eggs and hogs .

It must be no good because Canadian Federation of Agriculture at one time was a great farm organization. Furthermore , Mr. Speaker, not only are they displeased, farmers in Manitoba and Canada as a whole , but I have a clipping here that says on January 29th ''Rumbles of Farm Revolt in PC Ranks -- Tory MP's Blast in House Echoes Cr,iticism in Caucus -- Ottawa -- One of the Con servative government's own supporters ripped into the government' s deficiency payment agri cultural policies Thursday night, echoing sharp criticism reported from several other Tory backbenchers at a party ca1 1cus earlier this week.

" Now, Mr. Speaker, even their own members are already awakening up by the farmers because they very well know that if nothing is going to be done for the farmer endangering his stability they will not be re-elected. But what happens ? What does the Honourable Minister of Agriculture answer to the farmers when they presented their brief to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture ? He says the farmers don't get the idea of deficiency payments. Well the very first thing, he should sell the idea to his own members because they don't get the idea either. I believe nobody gets the idea. under such scheme .

Once again, Mr. Speaker , and I hate to belabour the point, belabour the point, but some of the members feel the deficiency payment would help the big farmers. And if I should stand here and talk on the big farmers -- well, as for the farmers here in Manitoba, I think they are away behind. I think my time is not limited yet. But if I should speak out of my own head sure ly I would be standing here half an hour after if I would be permitted.

So I decided to bring it in a lump sum which is so ably put in the Western Producer which is the farmers ' paper - about those big farmers of January 21, 1960 , and I'll just quote: "The question arises : How many of the 230 , 000 odd prairie gr1ain producers would qualify as 'big' farmers, if a farm of five quarter-sections is no longer in this category? Even if one were to agree that 1000 acres is a big farm for grain production, and that the operator of such a holdi�g should not be in need of assistance , there's still no argument, as far as we can see .

In response to requests from readers last June, we published a breakdown of the ten percent or so of grain farms 600 acres and over, as follows: "T he breakdown is from the _last available figures quoted in the House of Commo ns in late 1957 by the minister of agriculture, Hon . Douglas Harkness ." (That is his figure) . "There were at the same time 230, 854 permit books issued to grain growers , and of these, 210, 371 were farming up to 599 specified acres .

The following analysis of these farming more than 599 specified acres was made :" (And I am just wondering whether I should read you the figures -- maybe I should read them and put them on record in Hansard, maybe some farm er would want that information).

"Specified acres from 600 - 699 acres there were 751 4 farm- ers ; 700 - 799 acres ...... .. 4634 farmers ; 800 - 899 acres ..... ; .. 2568 farmers ; 900 - 999 ....... . 1747 farmers; 1000 - 1999 ...... .. 3603 farmers; 2000 - 2999 ... ..... 21 3 farmers; 3000 up to 4000 bracket ........ 66 farmers; from 4000 to 5000 ........ 42 farmers; from 6000 - 7000 •..•. ... 7 farmers;" February 2nd, 1960 Page 227

(Mr. Wagner, cont' d.) ... "lt can be", (it carrie's on) ''It can be calculated from the above that a fraction more than 1. 2 percent of all permit book holders farm 1000 acres or more . If these are really the 'big' farmers (and we should be inclined to believe that not many of even these can be rolling in wealth) then the group appears to provide a pitifully weak argument for denying assistance to the huge majority in actual need. 11 That grain producers are still pinning their faith on Prime Minister Diefenbakerls often repeated promise to secure a fair share of the national income for farmers .

The cost price squeeze which has driven grain producers to seek government assistance is in large measure due to government policies ....... which tend to establish and encourage a high cost econo my. Canada is the only major grain exporting country in the world where producers are expected to keep on producing for both domestic and export markets at the price substantially under the real cost of production. · In concluding, Mr.

Speaker, I want to quote one more paragraph from this paper. 'The grain producers are growing terribly weary of their chronic status of third and fourth and fifth class citizens in the economic scheme of things , and ecPect this session of parliament to produce some pretty substantial evidence that some kind of positive action is going to result from these long dreary months of •ca reful consideration' . 11 Now, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the whole House to please give support to this resolu tion .

Since the Right Honourable Minister in the House of Commons or in Ottawa stated in Toronto to the farmer on Saturday that within 30 days he is going to announce a program, I am going to have a vision like he used to have a vision -- pos sibly he still has a vision -- that that announcement may not be perfect, and that it might not be the right announcem ent in what the farmers expected for what he expects them to accept. Thank you . MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR . B. P. STRJ:CKLAND (Ham iota): Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the honourable member for Souris-Lansdowne the debate be adjourned. Mr.

Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution standing in the name of the honourable member for Turtle Mountain. MR . E. I. DOW (Turtle Mountain) : I beg to move seconded by the honourable member from Gladstone ,

whereas the cost of buildings and land has increased over the past two years and

whereas the $15, 000 . grant for each school room is now inadequate , therefore be it re solved that this House request the Government of the Province of Manitoba to consider the ad ,isability of revising the present authorized grant of $15, 000 . as a maximum for school room to a more realistic figure of $20, 000. per room . Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . DOW: Mr.

Speaker, I again wish to reiterate that I am one who has supported the Bill of Education which was voted on here a year ago and I am very keen on the fact that every thing that can be done to provide better ways and means for education for our boys and girls, who are in the province should be done . And I feel Sir, that when the Bill was proposed that this figure of $15, 000 . was very realistic, and a figure that possibly buildings could be built on. My information has been in the past couple or three months that that figure of $15, 000. is now not realistic.

I Sir, am very alert to the fact that when we are equalizing tax:es throughout the municipalities and towns and cities that they should be equalized on a realistic figur� of cost, and if the amount of grant that is set up by the Bill is the proper one , then I feel Sir, that the amount of money that it costs to build a building" should. be a realistic figure and I would like to give an example Sir, of how it can effect municipalities and towns and villages on the basis of a 12 room school.

At the present time a 12 room school total cost should cost $180, 000 � of which the Province of Manitoba pays $135 ,0 00. and the school division would pay $45, 000 . spread over a few years and collected by way of taxes . But Sir, if it costs $20, 000 . per room to build the school and the grant is based on $15 ,0 00. then that means that the school division and there again related to the various towns and municipalities would have to pay an additional $60 ,0 00. and collect by way of taxes .

Or in other words the total contribution then comes down in my way of figuring Sir, that the province then only pays 56 1/4 percent of the actual cost of the building. I feel, Sir, that if the grant would be increased to $20 ,0 00. per room and the Page 228 February 2nd, 1960

(Mr. Dow, cont'd.) •.. government paying 75 percent, then it works out something like this, that the total cost would be $240, 000 . of which the municipality, or the division would pay $60, 000 . and the province $180, 000. So Sir, on these figures and the difference between them would be something like this . On the basis of $15, 000 . the government pays $135 , 000 . , the school division pays $105, 000., now that's providing the building is going to cost $20, 000.

But if the grant was increased to $20, 000 . per room it would revert back to $180, 000 . by the gov ernment and $60,0 00. for the school division to allocate throughout the municipality. And Sir, I would request the House to give consideration to the advisability of changing the grant from $15 , 000 . to $20, 000 . per room . MR. MC LEAN: I move seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 11, the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie.

MR. J. A. CHRISTIANSON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move seconded by the Honourable Member for Swan River that Bill No. 11,

an Act to amend .the Portage la Prairie Charter, be now read a ·second time. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a sequel to the bill that was introduced last year except that it doesn't include quite such a large extent of territory. This Bill incorporates 70 acres from the Rural Municipality to the City of Portage la Prairie and it has the agreement of the Rural Municipality as well as the land owners in the area and the City of Portage la Prairie . I don't think any other explanation is necessa ry, Sir. MR. PAULLEY: I don't disagree with the Bill itself. It appears to be quite in order, ex: cept that I notice in the

preamble it mentions that

whereas the Council of the Municipality of the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie has by Resolution agreed to this, I am wondering whether that Resolution or a certified copy of it shouldn't either accompany the Bill, or whether it will be produced in Committee stage for the benefit of the House. MR. CHRISTIANSON: All the documents have been deposited with the Legislative Coun cil, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker presented the question and following a voice vote declared the motion car- ried. MR . SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St.

Vital, for an address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to his speech at the opening of the session. The Honourable Member for Selkirk. MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, may I extend to you my congra tulations on your again occupying the position in this House as chief commoner and may I ex press the wish and hope that you will long be spared to take charge of the deliberations of this House in the fair and just manner which has characterized the exercise of your duties to date. To the Honourable Member for St.

Vital who moved this address in reply may I thank him for a very revealing and informative discussion and that notwithstanding the fact that he failed to heed the mother's warning not to go near the Mulberry bush. To the Honourable Member for Rupertsland I wish to thank him for a very sincere talk and to say to him that it is an honour to sit in the same House as he sits . .

To the new ministers may I offer my congratulations on your elevation and may I express the hope that your energies will be directed solely to the welfare of this province, and may God give you strength to do your utmost on behalf of our province. To the new members I welcome each and every one of you here and I know that it has been the experience of every member of this House to come in as a new member. I know something of your feelings and something of your dismay.

I realize that when you enter this House you have a feeling of frustration and a feeling of hopelessness and sometimes you think that if you ran your own business the same way as the business of this House was run you'd go broke. I know too that sometimes you get a little bit testy with the members of the Opposition and not that I wish to apol ogize for anything that the members of the Opposition have done, I would only like to say this to you, that you as government members discuss all government legislation i� caucus . You know February 2nd; 1960 Page 229

(Mr. Hillhous e, cont'd .) •.. what the government is going to introduce . You have the help and assistance of �_perts to guide you in reaching a decision as to whether or no you will support the government legislation . We on this side of the House, we .get our legislation cold.

The first time that we see that legislation, sometimes we get indications in advance of what it might be , but the first time we usua lly see that legislation is when the bill is put before us and it is our duty as members of the Opposition, if we see fit, to criticize the policy as evidenced in that bill and to take all steps that we deem necessa ry to protect the interests of the people of this province . Now there's a couple of matters that I would like to deal with. Matters that are not in cluded in the Throne Speech.

One is, and I have to rely entirely upon the information that I have obtained from Winnipeg Newspapers, one is the intention of the First Minister to introduce a provincial Colombo Plan . Now before I discuss that I would like to say in advanc e that every member in this group, and I am sure every member in the House supports Canad a's participa tion in such a plan. I do not believe there is a man or a woman in the Province of Manitoba who begrudges the fact that Ca nada during the ten years of the operation of that Plan has contributed $351 million in money, services and goods .

I do not believe there is anyone in this province ob jects to the fact that Canada increased its annual contribution last year to 50 million dollars . But when we start talking about a provincial plan I think there is an entirely different feeling among the people of Manitoba and I am pretty sure among the members on this side of the House. Now before the First Minister does introduce such legislation in this House, if it is his intention to do so, I submit that he should take a very close look as to whether or no we have the power under the British North America Act to enact such legislation .

Now, as I said at the outset, any information I have obtained regarding the First Minister's intentions have been purely gathered from newspaper reports . And following out that report I understand that it is the intention of the First Minister to establish a school in one of the underprivileged countries, wherein at the expense of the taxpayers of Manitoba he can train technicians for the development of that country. Now I submit that if that is the First Minister's plan that it is unconstitutional and in support of my submission I would like to refer to certain sections of the British North America Act.

Now it is true Mr. Speaker, that under

section 93 of the British North America Act a province is vested with e l\�Jlusive jurisdiction in matters relating to education, subject to certain conditions which we need not consider in connection with my argument. Now that is true, we have exclu sive jurisdiction in matters relating to education. But our powers in respect of taxation are limited. Under

section 92, subsection 2 of the British North America Act, the power of a pro vince is limited to direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes . Now mark Mr . Speaker, the underlying words, for provincial purposes .

Now I submit, if I am correctly stating the intention of the First Minister to establish a school in some Comm onwealth country for the training of native s of that country, for the development ·- of that country, I submit that that cannot be considered a provincial purpose and I submit that the taxpayers' money of Manitoba cannot be used for that purpose . Now I am not saying that there are not instances where we could use the taxpayers ' money of Manitoba, in other countries.

But I say that the determining factor as to whether or no it is constitutional for us to do so is whether or no we are going to receive any benefit from the use of that money there. Now take for instance this example, and there is numerous others that you could think of, but in the Royal Commission Report on education it is urged that we become more bilingual .

Now supposing for the _sake of our argument, for the purpose of carrying out that recommendation we decided to open a teachers' college in France for the purpose of training French teachers whom we would bring to Manitoba, I would say· that we could use that money for that purpose because it would be for a provincial purpose .

I can also see , and in this instance I am trying to be facetious, where we might use pr.ovincial money in those dark parts of Africa where they practise the art of head shrinking, I can see perhaps where we could use money in one of those countries to bring these people over here to practise their art on some Manitoba politicians , and that might be for a pro vincial purpose . But I submit, Mr.

Speaker, on the basis of the information which is given to us by the press, and assu ming that information to be correct, that the First Minister should look very carefully at the constitutionality of any legislation of that nature before he introduces it into this Hou se . Now there is another aspect too . Even assuming the First Minister finds that he has the Page 230 February 2nd, 1960

(Mr . Hillhouse, cont•d.) .• constitutional right to pass such legislation and to vote money for that purpose, I think it is incumbent upon this house to examine this proposal very very care fully keeping in mind the old saying that charity begins at home .

As I have said at the outset I give the Colomb o Plan my fullest support, but I say it should be on a national basis and the reason why I say it should be on a national basis , apart from the constitutional aspects of the case is this, and this argument was used in connection with the larger school areas, because its only on the national basis that we have the wide enough base to support that type of money .

Now as I say again, charity starts at home and until such time as every segment of our population is taken care of, I don't think we have any right to spend the taxpayer of Manitoba's money on some project outside of this province . At the present moment we have underprivileged people right in our own province, we have the Indians living off the reserve, perhaps we will be doing som ething for them. We have the retarded children, and what are we doing for the retarded children? Why we haven't even started to scratch the problem .

We have the hard of hearing children, what are we doing for the hard of hearing children? Nothing outside of the City of Winnipeg. The only place in Manitoba where they are. giving any instruction to hard of hearing children is in the City of Winnipeg and it is being done by the City of Winnipeg School Board . We have never made a survey in this province to determine how many children in this province are hard of hearing. We have never made a survey in this province to determine how many children in this province are retarded.

We have never opened any clinics in this province to examine thoroughly the question of mental retardation and I submit that these are problems that we must tackle and we must solve before we start using the taxPayers money of Manitoba in some other country . Now another matter which I would like to deal with is this , is our civil servants. I have said before in this House and I'll say again that we have one of the best civil services of any province in Canada .

Up until the time the present government took office, we had fewer civil servants per capita of population than any other province in this country -- in Canada . Now one of the reasons I believe for the loyalty of our Civil servants was due to the fact that the morale of the civil service was good and it was .kept good by reason of promotion within that service . Now to give you a few examples of promotions that we had made within our civil sen ice dur ing the time to which my personal knowledge goes back .

First of all we had Emerson Heaney who was the Liq uor Inspector in the government Liquor Control Act under the Department of Attor ney-General. He was moved as judge of the juvenile court . There was M. S. Watson who was the assistant Administrator of Success ion Duties, he was moved to Administrator of Succession Duties and then subsequently to the Winnipeg Juvenile Court . There was Glen Towsley, Glen Towsley started off in the Attorney-General's Department as the C 1·own Prose cuter.

He be came the Administrator of Succession Duties and subsequently became the Commis sioner of Workmen's Compensation which position he fills today. There was Bob Bailey; Bob Bailey and I, back in the dirty thirties were on the same circuit together in the inter-lake area. He was a crown prosecutor in the Attorney-General's Department. Bob Bailey today is the Commissi on er of Taxation in this province and he is the Re z,istrar of Motor Vehicles. Char lie Tupper, Char lie Tupper started off in the Attorney-General's Department as a crown prosecutor is now Magis trate of the City of Winnipeg.

The late Grant Potter started off as an employee of the Attorney General's Department, as a crown attorney and subsequently became Provincial Police Court Magistrate, City of Winnipeg. Orville Kaye, our Deputy Attorney-General was Crown Prosecutor in the City of Winnipeg and he is now Deputy Attorney- General. Bill Johnson started off in the Attorney-General' s Department, he is now Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs. Murray Kyle started off as High Sheriff "Of the Province of Manitoba and he is now a Pro vincial Police Court Magistrate.

Now these are a few of the people -- (interjection) -- I'm trying -- wait a minute, I'll develop my theme. Now these are a few of the people whom I know who have been promoted within the service and it is true that they have all been promoted within the Attorney-General's Department. Now I wonder whether this government has departed from the practice of pro motions within the service? Recently there was an appointment made to the Winnipeg Juvenile and Family Courts . I have no complaint to make of the ability, the character, the intelligence and integrity of the man who received the appointment .

That' s not the point. My point is why was an outsider given that job when there were men within the service who are quite capable of filling that job? What I am trying to avoid is the old pork barrel. Now there is going to be an February 2nd,. 1960 Page 231

(Mr. Hillhou se , cont'd.) .. appointment in this province very soon . I understand that the Commis sioner of Workmen's Compens ation, his time for retirement comes up this year. It may be that he will be granted an extension. Now I suggest, and I have heard rumours as to whom the government has in mind for that appointment but I suggest that the appointm ent should be made of a man who has a judicial temperament, a man who is at pres ent within the civil service and a man who has never been closely alli ed either with employer or employ ee .

In other words whoever gets that posi tion should be a person who takes that position with an open mind. -- (Interjection) -- Beg pardon. No I don't want it . Now there is a little matter that I would like to deal with in my own constituency . Some people call this the Roblin Hump , others call it Willis's Folly , but I refer to that dividing strip on No. 9 Highway , from PTH No . 4 to the dividing pass at Selkirk. And Mr . Speaker, I have never in all my life seen such a silly bit of engineering . It' s absol utely absurd.

It doesn't serve any useful purpose other than to act as a snow fence in the winter and holding up drain age in sum mer . Now I have been told by the Minister of Public Works that the government doesn't intend to do anything about removing that obstacle until after August the first. Now I would like to know whether there is any game limit that's placed on that strip remaining there or whether there's going to be an open season. But I do know this that the Chamber of Com merce at Selkirk has sent in a Resolution to the government asking them to remove that strip , the Municipality of St .

Andrews has sent in a Resolution to the governm ent asking them to re move that strip , all the people living on that highway have signed a petition to the government asking them to remove that strip and the predecessor of the presen t Minister intimated to me that this strip was going to be removed. But I now find from our pres ent Minister that is 's not the intention to remove it until ne;..i August. Now I know the people along that road . I know the difficulties that are confronted by the far mers , and all the farmers live on the west side of that road, in using their farms in the outer two miles .

The only way they can get back to the outer two miles is to get on that road. Now unfortunately there's no openings in front of their places and they either have to go a half a mile south and make the turn at Lockport, in fact that• s the only way they can go . Now if that strip were serving any useful purp ose , if it were designed for safety, I'd say let's try it out . But it' s not designed for safety .

It's true that . we may not be able to get any stati stics on whether or no any accidents have been caused by reason of its presence there, but I submit by the same token there is no statistics that its presence there prevented accidents . And I think it's silly to have it there and it should be removed. Coming in today , Mr . Speaker, you couldn 't see that strip and people who are using that highway for the first time will see a little hump of snow in the centre of the highway which just looks as if a patrol had been down one si de and then come up the other side and had left this little ridge of snow.

They wouldn't know that there was a piece of cement under there . It's true that you have a sign up ''dividing strip ahead '', but would be much more to the point if you changed that sign from dividing strip to dividing hump. People would know what it meant . Now there is another matter which I would like to bring up and that is this . ·I under stand that it is the intention of the government to hard surface that portion of PTH No . 59 extending north of PTH No . 4 east.

And before speaking on this matter I have discussed the matter with the Honourable Member for Brokenhead and I think that what I have to say has his support and his concurre nce . Now the suggestion which I am making to the government is this , that the government should build a highway from PTH 59 to the Selkirk Bridge . It would serve a very useful purpose in acting as a connecting link between the Town of Selkirk and other towns to the east.

In addition to that it would also enable the people living north and west of Selkirk to travel to the Whiteshell and the Falcon Lake Resort Areas and in still further addi tion to that I would like to point out that in the Honourable Member for Brokenhead's constitu ency, there are a large number of farmers living there, who in order to keep on their farms are working at the Manitoba Rolling Mills at Selkirk and that they use that road and that a good highway there would be of inestim able value to them .

In still further addition to that we have a steam plant at East Selkirk, and most of the employees of that steam plant are living in Selkirk, and if we had a good connecting highway from Selkirk to 59 it could be used by these people in travelling to and from work. Now Mr. Speaker, I hope I haven't bored the House and I wish to thank you. Page 232 February 2nd , 1960

MR. LEMUEL HARR IS (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with other honourable members in congratulating you upon occupying the most important seat in the House. Adoption of rules of order in debate is one of the marks of a democratic society and I still do my best to obey the rules of this House and follow your guidance. My congratulations are extended as well to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I con gratulate them upon being selected to speak and upon the quality of their speeches. They got us off to a good start in this debate.

My good wishes go to the newly elected members. Being pretty new here myself I can appreciate their feelings . Regarding the Throne Speech itself my concern is not so much what it contains as what it does not contain. What was left out of this important document calls for some comment. Housing -- the most glaring omission to me is that there was no mention of the housing conditions. It has been clearly evident for nearly half a century that housing and living conditions, living accommodations in general have been woe fully inadequate in Manitoba.

This is particularly true with respect to those famil ies in Mani toba. This is particularly true with respect to those families with low incomes. In fact almost within a stone's throw of this magnificent Legislative Building and in this year of 1960 there are families living in overcrowded, broken down, worn.:Q_ut old houses and tenements that are unfit for human habitation.

There might possibly be some excuse for this if the whole cost were to be borne by this government but the Federal Government has passed legislation under the terms of which it is prepared to assume 75% of the cost of provision of suitable living accommodation leaving only 25% to be borne by the municipality and the provincial government ..

Yet after all these years with the situation growing worse and worse with each passing year there is not a single word in the Speech from the Throne which give§_ any indication that the government is giving any thought whatever to this fundamental and long standing social need. In this respect the Government of Manitoba has accomplished less than any other provincial government from Quebec to the Pacific Coast. In other provinces the government has taken the initiative and has assisted the municipalities by assuming a major share of the cost of housing.

The Government of Saskatchewan, for instance, assumes 15% of the balance of the cost leaving only 10% to be borne by the municipalities. This not only helps the municipalities it stimulates them to action. Now, Mr. Speaker, I've got a few excerpts from the papers here just to show you on housing. Under the Health Act -- violations, the gamut from cockroaches to bedbugs to defe c tive floor, leaky roofs and insufficient heat -- that's October 14th, 195 9. Here is another one -- the report says in 158 there are 388 violations of the Health Act in 94 houses, blocks and terraces that these land owners owned.

That they were taking advantage of the people and let ting them exist in slum conditions. There they were paying rents which were equivalent to the highest rents paid in the best parts of this City but has anythingbeen done? No. Unemployment. Another glaring omission in the Speech from the Throne is that no mention is made of unem ployment in Canada. I contend that whenever there are more than 20, 000 unemployed in Greater Winnipeg Area the situation has reached serious proportions but this government has little con cern for this great problem judging by the Speech from the Throne.

The government has no con cern at all. The incident of unemployment is always higher in winter months on account of cli matic conditions. In recent years efforts have been made by the Federal Government to stimu late winter employment. It is very noticeable, that

whereas the Provincial Governments to the east and west of Manitoba have taken an active

part in initiating and publicly promoting winter em ployment, this government, like the fo rmer m is-ca lled Liberal Government, has played a very passive- role. In fact it has done practically nothing towards taking the lead in promoting winter employment. One of the results of this lack of action is seen in the fact that we have as great a volume of unemployment now as there was last winter at this time. The figures show that in Greater Wiunipeg unemployment fo � the first week ending January 14th totalled 22, 440 persons.

On January 21st, a week later, there were 23, 444 seeking work in this area and ac cording to the figu res presented in this House by the Minister of Labour in answer to a question from this group there were 31, 662 unemployed in Manitoba on January 21st of this year. One year ago there were 31, 352 so this year's total is somewhat higher. The wealth which is lost as a result of such unemployment is lost irrevocably. It can never be regained. It is a loss from which j;p.e whole community suff ers yet there is not a single word of recognition of this in the Speech from the Throne.

While the whole community suffe rs in part, those who suffer the most are the workers and their famil ies. February 2nd, 1960. Page 233.

( Mr. Harris, cont'

d) On health. Another need of the community of Manitoba is a maintenance of the highest possible levels of health. A good deal of the potentiality for the new world prod uction is lost every year on account of illness which might have been prevented. The Govern ment of Manitoba, the fD rmer government, adopted a plan of prepaid hospitalization. A plan which made hospital accommodation available to all who would be in need of it, but there was not a single word in the Speech from the Throne about making provision for much more important need.

The need of provision for medical care- this is long overdue and should have been instituted years ago by the Federal Government but there is no need for provincial governments to wait for the Federal Government to take action. Several provinces enacted prepaid hospital care long before the Federal Government took action. Now we find our sister province, Saskatchewan, planning to introduce prep aid medical care without waiting for the slow moving Federal Government to act. Just as the people of the lower income groups are most in need of good housing so also are the ones most in need of medical care.

They suffer more illness and suff er illness longer than do people with higher incomes. The volume of medical care received by those with low incomes is much less than the volume received by those with larger incomes. The plan that has been instituted by the Saskatchewan Government does not pretend to be comprehensive health insurance program which is what is really needed in Canada but is a prepaid medical plan, care plan, just as our hospital plan is a prepaid one but will cover everyone and will provide a high quality of medical service for every citizen of that Province. Cancer control.

Here in Manitoba we find that some of the illnesses are so costly that a family can be made bankrupt for years. Take cancer for instance. In Saskatchewan if a person fears he is suffering from cancer he goes to his doctor and if the doctor suspects cancer he applies for entry for the patient into a cancer clinic. From that point on the whole cost of diagnosis and treatment is borne by the Cancer Commissio n, .in other words, by the community. This kind of service is badly needed here in Manitoba but no mention is made of it in this barren speech from the Throne.

There are other omissions from this Throne Speech, notably labour legislation, but time will not permit now a further discussion; such matters will be brought forward by other speakers and upon other occasions. Today I thought it would be of some value to emphas ize the need for better hou sing and for more comprehensive plans to deal with unemployment and for more extensive measures in the field of health. I have not said that the Government is useless and without some. merit - what I have said is they are overlooking some of our most pressing needs.

They cannot hope to do a good job of government if they continue to neglect these great social and economic pro blems. I thank you. MR. A. E. CORBETT (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am placed in the position to gaze at your pleasant face and know that you occupy that position so well, and will do so in the future. I also would like to congratulate the mover and the seconder to the Speech in Reply to the Throne. I think they have done very capable jobs, in fact fro m the newspaper coments I think the mover did extra well.

Anybody who gets favourable ; ewspaper comments or comments of any kind from the newspapers is doing well. I would also like to congratulate the new members of the Cabinet. They are, in my opinion, which might be some what differ ent from the opinions on the other side of the House, I think they are doing very well too. In fact I'm in a wonderful mood of sunshine today.

I would like to congratulate the new members of the House, while that congratulation is tinged slightly with a touch of sadness when we think of the members who departed from this earth, who they are replacing, but it does not de.:_ tract from the fact that we're very glad to see these new members, even the new member on my right hand. And I must say I want to pay a special tribute to the lady member, the Honour able Member for·cyp ress who has added a slight ornamental touch to a rather drab looking Assembly, but, I have to get on to do a little reading now which is contrary to the rules.

I had intended to speak briefly on the contents of the Throne Speech but these matters have been covered so well, and ably by members of our own party in a much more capable manner than I could do, and I think have been attacked just as vigorously--not so ably I would say -- by the members on my right hand side, but I'm quite sure that to carry on with this Throne Speech any further would be -- it has become slightly monotonous so I am going to de viate slightly from my original ideas. Page 234. February 2nd, 19 60.

(Mr+ Corbett, cont•d .) .•..• Fortunately in discussing the Speech from the Throne considerable latitude is allowed members insofar as the subjects to be discusse d, and speakers are allowed to digress considerably from the subject matter contained in the Throne Speech. This I am about to do . I will attempt to deal with improvements in the internal affairs of this Chamber rather than attempting to concentrate on external affairs of the province outside the Chamber as enumerated in the Throne Speech.

I would like to drag in a little sunshine into this Cham ber, after li stening to the last three speeches - I don't think its necessary , Mr. Speaker, for me to mention the honourable members who--made these speech es -- but they were rather de pressing.

One dealt with three-cent a pound chicken; and another one dealt with bedbugs and cockroaches, and another one dealt !Y_itb. .<�.divided highway which has caused him consi derable- unfortunately he's not in the Chamber n..,w -- caused him considerable worry and trouble, but as I said I thought I would like to bring a little more sunshine into this gloomy atmosphere. I must say that I have noti ced since this sessi on-m�t a rather sombre outlook towards the business of government by many of our younger members of both parti es . They loo k on things with a very sober, sad look.

It's quite laudable, it's a proper way, you don't want to take these �hings lightly; and I've also noted an eager but rather complicated outlook on the rules of parliamentary procedure by the older members of the various political groups . I am occupying I suppose in some ways , unfortunately , a seat in the House that whenever I raise my eyes I look directly into the "ivory chamber" or I should say the "bronze chamber" occupied by the press representative s.

During the period that the House has been in session I have noticed at various times what I believe to have been a quite considerable air of boredom in the press gallery. As I have been led to believe by some 70 years of observation that the members of the press are only bored by the lack of interesting news or hap penings , I think I'm correct in making that assumption.

Anything connected with death , disaster o.r -human dist ress provides the press with good headline s; following along the lines of !iteration we notice that the five S's, Sin, Sex, Satire , ·sarcasm and Sadism are all productive of notice arresting headlines and fol lowing articles, but from the bored looks of the press gallery -- and I must also admit that I myself have suffered from a certain amount of boredom -- in reading the local newspaper parliamentary reports it would appear that our present session to date has been, to say the least, rather somewhat dull.

Several hour long debates on points on rules of parliamentary procedure are no doubt es sential to the carrying on of our busine ss but are nevertheless not inte resting news material , nor do they always assist the carrying on of government busine ss .

I have spent quite a large portion of my life evading and breaking beaurocratic rules, so I must admit that I'm not a proper person to pass judgment on these matte rs, and I know there is a committee which is already appointed to study revisi on of our parliamentary rules, I presume they will be able to bring something forward that Will eliminate to some extent the time that has been spent on such matters.

As stated before I have no quarrel with our rules governing our deliberations as I know they are time honoured and bring dignity to all legislative bodi es, but I have a few informal suggestions to make that might brighten up our Chamber and make our deliberations possi bly not more productive , but at least pleasanter. I listened in the gallery of this Chamber to several of the meetings of the First Legislature to occupy the new Parliament Buildings -- I believe in 1916 or 1917 -- I'm not sure of the year but that is beside the point .

At that time the walls of the Chamber were bare and the acoustics of th� Chamber were terribly bad . There were no microphones in those days so the acoustical experts went to work to remedy the bad echoes and reverberations from these bare walls . Draperies which· are still there were attach ed to the walls and the ability to hear was greatly improved; and at a later date the ·installing of microphone speakers has rende red it possi ble to bear quite well what is said in this House . That is a very good thing.

My suggestion regarding the internal affairs of this Chamber are that these draperies could be replaced by attractive murals or tapestry paintings which would have the same effect in improving our acoustics, and a proper selection of subject matters of the murals could have a wonderful effect on the discourses of our members . Pastoral scenes are conducive of se renity and I can visualize what a soothing affect on the Honourable Leader of the Opposition if he could look across the Chamber at an attractive mural depicting the sun drenched shores of Flee Island, possi bly with a small inset of a flea circus inset.

Think what a wonderful effect a painting of his beloved Lake Manitoba showing an insert of the dilapidate d February 2nd, 1960 . Page 23 5.

(Mr . Corbett , cont'd. ) ••••. Fairford River Dam would have on the Honourable Member for st. George, and how much it would check some of his rather uncertain outbreaks.

A mural depic ting the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains seated on the peak of Baldy Mountain, the highest point in Manitoba, which by the way lies in his constituency, gazing with a condescending look across the valley at the Honourable Minister of Labour seated on the top of Hart Mountain in The Pas constituency -- which is 27 "feet lower than Bald y Mountain -h e reminded us of that last year �- would I believe have a sodhtrg effect and would temper his. attacks on the government cabinet and back benchers .

A painting of depressed pigs alongside a great pyramid of ten cent a dozen eggs would probably inspire the Honourable Member for Fisher to great heights of beneficient criticism. When the Honourable Member for St.

Johns rises in his seat to sing the 1Jnion Organizers' Lament or When Shall we Gather at Kelsey, substituting Thompson for Kel say in the second verse, or when he recites the Lay of the Poor Immigrant who was forced by horrible taskmasters at Kelsy to labour over 2, 000 hours and earn over 3, 000 good Canadian dollars in six months, how much more harmonious his e:lhortatiors will be , and how much more pleasurable to the listening members if while addressing the House he could gaze at a painting of the multi-million dollar labour building in Washington, possibly flanked on either side by portraits of Dave Beck or Jimmy Hoffa.

This being a fair and responsible government the opposition side of the House facing the Honourable Minister of Health and Public Welfare could be decorated with a painting showing the docks and fishing fleet of Gimli with insets of a lam prey rampant and a whitefish couchant. Also the Minister of Education could be faced with a representation of a twelve-room high school that was built, with a suitable inscription describ ing it, that was built by the local community without any grant whatsoever from the government. I'm afraid this subject would probably be mythical.

There are many suggestions , and the possibilities are boundless, and I am sure that anything that could raise the tone of not only the parliamentary debates, but the quality and interest of the parliamentary press reports would surely be welcomed by our long suffering public. As stated before I gave the warning that I would wander far off the field of the subject in hand. I've been expecting, Mr . Speaker, that you would probably call me to order for not dis cussing the subject matter in hand, but you have not dO!!J �0, so I will now draw to my conclusion.

But I still maintain that my slight digression into possibly the field of fantasy will have at least have accomplished almost as much as a similar time devoted to a violent discussion on some re mote parliamentary rule . It will have at least, I hope , brightened up the outlook of some of our very sober and earnest members and let them remember that life and government business has still a fair amount of sunshine in it. I thank you. MR . SEABORN: Mr . Speaker, I enjoyed the discourse of our colleage from Swan River as I did last night that of our fair lady from Cypress . I think she justified our pride in her.

The speech she gave was an excellent one, and although the Honourable Leader of the Opposition was the target of her criticism he too seemed to enjoy her humour . It takes a woman to inflate your ego and then effectively deflate it, and if last night revealed our lad y' s ability to us in this res pect, I think our friends across the way are in for some embarrassing moments .

We in the city area are not as appreciative of the government's accomplishments as the members from the rural areas, for it is here that the better roads , improved educational faci lities and the agricultural policies of this government are mainly directed. But our governmen t has not been lax in other matters either, for our cultur:il enterprises and the visible evidences of our spiritual life have at long last received encouragement in a tangible way from the Roblin administration. Now it should not need saying that the patronage of arts should be accepted as an obligation on all political parties.

Provision for the arts should be removed from the politi cal sphere inasmuch as it should become a utility service like education, available to all and indeed a logical extension to education. Now I am not being critical when I point out that the role of the local governments in the patronage of the arts is not nearly extensive enough; it is not enabling the population throughout our province to enjoy a full cultural life.

Appeals to the public for the preservation of some aspects of the arts usually succeeds to some degree because of sentiment, but patronage takes real courage and the ability to take risks and to me it does not matter if it is mixed up with an attempt to get local publicity and prestige. I am not suggesting for a moment tha:t local govern ment should take the place of voluntary effort, but I do feel that those who care about the arts Page 236 . February 2nd, 19 60.

(Mr. Seaborn, con t'd. ) ••••• should be met halfway. In the past the public has been unable to persuade the Provincial Government to live in Manitoba and not merely sleep here, and con sequently this recognition of the arts by this present administration came as a welcome change. The future of the arts is very largely dependent on the lead given by local government. As you know, I am connected with the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra, being the concert master of that organization.

If I present to you the difficulties that confront our orchestra I will be at the same time giving a general picture of the predicament of the other cultural or ganizations in our City. The operation of any symphony is a difficult one for it cannot possibly pay for itself. For the 1958-59 season, the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra had an operating deficit of $7 1, 000 . The cost of presenting the performances was 60% greater than the box office re ceipts. The difference had to be made up by public spirited citizens, the City of Winnipeg, the Manitoba Government and the Canada Counci l.

The box office receipts were admittedly low, for-symphony orchestras usually realize 50% of the operational cost from this cource. To try and bring the percentage more in line the orchestra has raised its prices to a point it was felt the public would pay, and although it is too early to tell, it is predicted that 50% of expenses will be met through the box office. However the rising costs and the wage increases negotiated by the Musician's Union means that the financial plight of the symphony orchestras across our country is getting worse.

The rising costs in our own city means that the orchestra will suffer an estimated deficit of $92 , 000 this year compared to the $71, 000 for the previous season, although we are operating on essentially the· same schedule. If the rate of subsidy were enough, all would be well, but it is 'generally recognized that most orchestras operate on a shoestring, and a shoestring budget invariably leads to a lowering of standards, more performances, too few rehearsals , fatigue, a lower standard of playing, and less opportunity to perform new works.

One only has to look elsewhere to see the kind of subsidy that high standards require. The Berlin Philharmonic .Q._rchestra alone receives $330 ,0 00,0 0 annually from the State and municipal grants ; and the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra recently was granted $300 ,0 00 for its recent tour in the far East. In com parison with these sums, the total amount granted, from all cources in our city, is small in deed. With all the services that the Winnipeg Symphony orchestra has given this season, the budget had to be confined to $160 ,0 00.

Last season it was $143 , 000, 000 -- the rising costs being responsible for the increase. Although I would naturally like to see increased govern ment grants , I do not feel that the solution to these problems lies in this direction -- not en tirely at any rate. The orchestra itself will probably do more by way of subscription schemes and perhaps a further increase in prices would contribute something to what is needed, but I think it will be recognized the larger burden must lie with Canada Council and the local govern ments.

What is actually required, I believe, is a minimum guarantee, over a three-year period to allow the orchestra to plan ahead .. The second requirement is for the local. authori ties to organize their collective subsidies to actually meet the need of our cultural enterprises- and here, I might interject, if we could encourage business patronage to meet the need of the arts and fill the gap presently existing between our. grants, our cultural organizations could well enter on a new era of financial security with all the benefits it would bring in terms of the ability to plan ahead over a long period.

This would encourage experiments and new ventures in the field of the arts, and the present policy of "safety first" would no longer be dictated by financial necessity . I think that business companies could afford to be adventurous and enjoy the luxury of backing artistic dark horses, shall we say, which is actually denied to those who administer public funds and who must justify every cent th.at they spend. And here I would like to touch on the deplorable lack of facilities existing in this city for our cultural organizations.

The civic auditorium is woefully inadequate for the need of the cultural groups, and _frankly it serves its full purpose each Friday night. Lack of foresight prevents the use of eithe_r hall when one is in use because of the fact that the one stage serves both the large and thesmall auditoriums . For years the symphony has sought for adequate rehearsal facilities without any measure of success . We have rehearsed on the top floor of the welfare building, and for two or three years the plaster was a oource of real danger both to the individual and the instrument he played.

If the brass played a good loud chord, down came the plaster in a great cloud of dust. ln attempting to recify this by covering the ceiling with February 2nd, 1960. Page 23 7.

(Mr. Seaborn, cont'd. ) •.••• some kind of board, we now have a resounding room where all the sounds are exaggerated entirely out of all proportion. I cannot help expres sing here my admi ration for Mr . Feldbrill who goes through this experience every week, and on the one two-hour rehearsal we have in the auditorium on the day of the concert , is able to rectify the situation enough to present a cre ditable performance. But why should our cultural organizations have to go through such an experience as this?

In Vancouver they have built a new auditorium to seat approximately 2, 800 people , and are going to build a smaller hall for chamber music concerts and similar projects . In Calgary and Ed monton, the Alberta Government has constructed two magnificent auditoriums with a stage that will not only accommodate a full symphony orchestra, but a full chorus as well. In Winni peg we are hard pressed to get our orchestra on the stage of the auditorium.

In Toronto one of the le ading breweries, I understand, is building one of the finest concert halls in the country, but it isinMontreatwhe re the true recognition of the need of culture is being made manifest. In that city they are building a large hall to accommodate about 3, 000 people ; a smaller hall for theatre and for recital purpo ses, and in addition are constructing a small hall to seat about 500 people for intimate concerts such as chamber groups and the like. A restaurant is available here , and all the parking is underground.

In other words ; Winnipeg is the only major city that is not recognizing the needs of its cultural groups. The need is desperate and I should point out that when the facilities have been made available in other centres , the culture has expanded accordingly. It is my hope that we can, someday, build a cultural centre here . A place that our cul tural enterprises can call "hom e", a place which will provide proper concert facilities. We need a place for our muse um , our art gallery, our fine ballet company and our symphony or chestra.

We need a place that will become the focal point for all our culture in Manitoba and will lead to greater and fine

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 11.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8011df3e1b3438447ae30ef06b98a721a9f7be5d

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