Manitoba Hansard — 21 March 1960 (Sitting 50, 26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-50

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harr ison Volume IV No. 50 Mnch 21, 1960 2nd Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. s. Evans. Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

DAlLY INDEX Monday, March 21, 1960, 8�00 P.M. Committee of Supply: Budget : Mr. Orlikow, Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . • 1793 Second Reading ofBilis : Nos. 2, 14, 18, 19, 21, 49, 57, 89, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . 1800 Bill 62, re Metro: Mr. Campbell, Mr. Desjardins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1801 --- Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Froese, Mr. Paulley . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1804 Mr.

Lyon.............. ................................................... 1805 Division on Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 1808 Bill. 98, re Sunday Sports (Mr. Baizley): Mr. McLean • . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 1808 -- Mr. Hryhorczuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 1810 M:. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . 1811 Mr. Tanchak, .rvrr.

Campbell, Mr. Froese . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. 1813 Mr. Baizley; Division on 2nd Reading . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . 1814 Resolution, re Onus of Proof (Mr. Lyon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . 1815 Mr. Hillhouse, 1-Ar. Paulley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . 1816 Bill 108, re Swan River (Mr. Corbett) . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . • . 1817

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Monday, March 21st, 1960 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions. Reading and Receiving Petitions. Presenting Reports"fiy standing and Select Committees. Notice of Motion. Introduction of Bills. Committee of the Whole House. HON .DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker , instead of calling the Order for Committee of the Whole House, I wonder if we could proceed at once to the debate on the budget and the amendment to the motion to go into the Committee of Ways and Means where the Ho:qourahle Member for st.

John's has the adjournment. - MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF)(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, if I may, would it not be better to call Orders of the Day in case there_are any questions? I haven't any. I won dered whether that wouldn't be the proper procedure. MR. ROBLIN: I have no objection to that, Sir, I guess the House will be wiliing to come back to this propased resolution some time later on this evening. MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear the motion that you wanted me to present. MR.

ROBLIN: The suggestion is, Sir, that you now call the Orders of the Day, and after questions, that we proceed at once to the Budget Debate. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. D. M. STANES (st. James): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the members some 75 students from that fine seat of learning from the second largest City of St. James -- I mean the St. James Collegiate in the City of St. James. They are here, Sir, with two of their teachers, They are here under the auspices of St. James Kiwanis Club and there are seven members of St.

James Kiwanis Club with them. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Adjourned debate on third reading of Bill No. 62. Is that the one you wanted? MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you call the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means and the amendment thereto that stands on the Order Paper under the name of the Honourable Member for St. John's. MR. SPEAKER: Committee of Ways and Means. The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, the Premier's budget is with some jus tification an optimistic report on Manitoba's economic prospects for this year.

Employment is higher, investment is up, capital construction, both private and public is growing. But Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that important deficiencies have been glossed over. Wage rates in this province lag significantly behind other provinces. This is probably partially due to' the fact that Manitoba's economic growth has been much slower than most;· of the other provinces.

From 1950 to 1955 the net value of Commodity Production grew by over 70% in Alberta, by over 50% in British Columbia, by just under 50% in Quebec, by about 45% in Saskatchewan, by about 40% in Ontario -by about 30% in Nova Scotia, while only just over 20% in Manitoba. Since that time we have improved somewhat, but so have the other provinces. What this means, Mr. Speaker, to wages and salaries can be seen in the Labour Gazette.

Provincially, according to the Labour Gazette for February 29th of 1960, only Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick show lower average weekly wages and salaries than Manitoba. As of October 1959, weekly wage rates were: Newfoundland, $64. 54; Prince Edward Island, $55.24; Nova Scotia, $61.70; New Brunswick, $60,86; Quebec, $71.85; Ontario, $77 .49; Mani-: toba, $71.05; Saskatchewan, $71.55; Alberta, $76.71; British Columbia, $82.03. In 38 urban centres Winnipeg rates 8th from the bottom. In other words, 30 of the urban areas have higher wages than Winnipeg.

Winnipeg's weekly average wage was $67.60 at that time; Toronto, _ ,· · $77.26; Vancouver, $80.27; Montreal, $73.59; Hamilton, $83.54; Calgary, $72.29; Edmonton,. $71. 50; Saskatoon, $67. 03; Regina, $67.76. So that we can see that Winnipeg, the largest city March 21 st, 1960 Page 1793

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd.) .•••• in this province, lags behind most of the other cities. · It is true and it is encouraging that Manitoba's output went up from $1 billion in 1950 to $ 1 1/2 billion in 1959. But agriculture is down, and forest and mineral resource s are station ery. Mr. Speaker, the position of the farmers of this province is serious if not yet disastrous. There is· almost _no one who will deny that the position of the family farm is becoming untenable. The Premier himself advocated the need for measures to control the influence of natural difficulties and economic adjustments.

But talk is cheap -- both the Premier and the present Prime Minister spoke in similar terms for the past six years. Talk will.continue until the heart of the agricultural problems are faced. The problem is one of priqe. The price problem will never be solved, however, if those who are in government refuse to accept the fundamental premise that stability of farm output and income are essential and that economic adjustments , by means of price support, are necessary to preserve such stability.

If this government and its counterpart in Ottawa believe in the need for achieving agricultural stability, why then the lack of enthusiasm by this government and the outright refusal by the Diefenbaker government regarding the request for deficiency payments made by the Western Farm Delegation? Their request was to the point. They asked for an average payment of·28\l a bushel for wheat, 109 for oats, 18 9 for barley; but their request was refused. And now what? Prospects do not look bright, because the Prime Minister has again suggested that the western representatives come up with a new formula.

This government has not helped matters by its lack of coherent action regarding crop insurance. The present crop insurance legislation is such that most farmers will find it unattrac tive. Sin�e the Federal Government's contribution is only 20% of premiums collected, this will amount to only 15% of premiums levied, making the scheme appear as an escape for the Federal Government. This government should have insisted on greater federal participation, or should have asked for a revamping of PFAA to make it into a real crop-insurance plan.

Even if the individual farmer's share were increased to 4%, it would make it more palatable than a new crop insurance plan with its premiums ranging as high as 16% of coverage. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion any scheme of crop insurance with premiums of over 9% of coverage is doomed to failure; and farm leaders to whom I have spoken agree that this is so. The position of the urban people is not quite as desperate as that of the farm community, but it is much less happy than one would gather from the First Minister's speech. The economic position is not quite as bright as the First Minister indicated.

Unemployment in the prairie region is up 5% over last year. There are more than 25,000 unemployed, in Greater Winn ipeg alone, out of a labour force of 125 to 150 thousand. Despite this. the winter works. program has been cut to the bone. And this comes at a time when unemployment has been al most completely eliminated in most of the industrial countries of Western Europe.

Our unemployment has serious consequences for those who are unemployed, and almost as serious consequences for the merchants and other suppliers of service who lose in the neigbborhood of three-quarters of a million dollars a week in the Greater Winnipeg area as a result of reduced purchasing power for food, for clothing, and other necessities which are not purchased by unemployed workers. But of this fact, Mr. Speaker, we learn nothing from the Premier's Budget Speech.

Nor_is there any expressed awareness of the long-range dangers of large scale and prolonged unemployment which has been forecast even by such business journals as the Financial �ost. In an editorial on March 12th of this year, the Financial Post said in part and I quote; "There is going to be such a tremendous growth in the number of teenagers looking for jobs, especially in the next five years, that it will shake the labour force from stem to stern. Popu lation projections show that there will be about 100, 000 more young people every year who reach job-hunting age during most of the sixties.

By contrast, in the two decades 1935 to 1955, the yearly addition ot this age group averaged only 5, 100, a number which could be easily ab sorbed in a growing economy. Unless plans are laid soon, the sixties may well be character ized by discontent among the young and jobless, and by disillusionment among unskilled older workers who have been displaced by cheaper, more mobile youngsters." So says the Financial Post" in its editorial. In an

article ln the same issue dealing with this question, the Financial Post -- and, Mr. Speaker, I need not remind members that the Financial Post is il.ot particularly Page 1794 March 21st, 1960 /

(Mr. Orlikow, cont1d.), •••• sympathetic with the political or economic views which we in this group hold -- analyzing the situation the Financial Post says, and I read some quotes from this article; ''Universities and governments have actually been spending mo'ley to offset this change as it affects university students. But no one seems to have made any similar prepara tions for the 93% of teenagers who don't go on to university after leaving school. The result could be a higher level of unemployment, even in good times.

For more than 20 years, begin ning in 1935, there was very little change from year to year in the number of young Canadians reachin g the age at which most people start looking for jobs, ages 15 to 19. A million for all those years. Meanwhile, every other part of the economy was growing rapidly. Total popula tion grew from 11.1 million in 1935 to 15. 7 million in 1955. Gross national expenditure on goods and services rose from $4,300 million in 1935 to $27,000 million in 1955. Capital in vestment soared from $369 million to $6, 244 million.

The labour force increased from 4,402, 000 to 5, 666,000 and the number of jobs available rose from 3 ,670, 000 to 5, 507,000. Yet all this time the teenage group of potential job-seekers rose only from 1, 040,000 to 1, 138,000 for an ann ual average of only 5, 111. Each year, the Canadian who reach job-seeker age found it easy to get a job because they fitted into a rapidly rising market. Beginning about 1957, all this started to change and by June 1st of this year, 1960, there will be at least 1,400,000 Canadians aged 15 to 19.

For the next ten years the labour force will have to absorb at least 100,000 new job-seeking teenagers a year. The problem can't be solved by putting up immigration barriers, or admonishing married women to stay home. Nor will it be solved automatically by the withdrawal from the labour force of older workers. A large labour force is,not, by itself, an economic asset. What counts is the training and skill the labour force possesses, and the capital it has to work with.

If nothing at all is done, and the voting popula tion remains full of jobless teenagers and worried parents, the New Party, whatever its name and platform will be off to a flying start." So says the Financial Post. In a report from Parliament Hill in the same issue, the Financial Post reports a speech which Mr. Pearson made, and they say as follows: "Mr. Pearson summed up in one of the most thoughtful speeches; of the session. He said besides the regular seasonal unemployment of winter, Canada was afflicted with two other kinds, cyclical and technological.

The serious thing this year was that unemployment was again very high, although business is now expanding. But the UK had managed to promote industrial development in backward areas, Mr. Pearson said; and he asked the government to study the UK plans and see if they could not be adapted to Canada. Chronic unemployment is the problem, he declared. There was a hard core of un employed people growing up, and it was on the increase. To cope with this, he believed, the government needed a special planning agency. "This kind of planning, he said, is becoming increasingly important.

It is necessary for Ottawa to get together with the provinces." Now' Mr. Speaker I think that Mr. Pearson had an excellent proposal. We concur in this and suggest further that there should be a special Federal-Provincial Conference to deal with un employment. This is a problem of great proportions and must be tackled at once. It isn't enough to have a little ineffective program for seasonal unemployment. We propose that Mani toba take the lead. Now Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something about what our economic policy should be.

The Premier was optimistic, but the recovery he has listed has been marked by consider able stress and imbalance. Particular industries and certain regions continue to languish under relatively depressed conditions. Agriculture in Western Canada is an example of that, as is the general economy in the Atlantic Provinces. Tight money at a time of expansion has brought interest rates to record highs. Muni cipalities, school boards, hospitals are paying interest rates of more than 7%.

Investment in needed social projects is being stifled, and it may obstruct a continued and broadly -based economic growth across the nation. The so-called free play of the market has proved unable to allocate resources and income in a manner which will meet the tests of economic efficiency or social justice. We need to recognize that.governments have an urgent and legitimate role in directing the economic affairs and advancing the social well-being of the nation.

While prospects for 1960 look good, even Government economists are predicting a recession in 1961/62 , and at the same time we are putting more of "our eggs in the United States basket." At the present time, the .general economic recovery fTom the 1957-58 recession has March 21st, 1960 Page 1795

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd.) •• ••• been considerably better than employment recovery. The indus trial production index is about 7.1 per cent above its pre-recession peak; the composite index of industrial employment is about 3 per cent below its pre-recession peak. While these two indexes are not precisely comparable, they nevertheless underline the fact that improvements in production technology have made it possible to produce more with fewer workers. This is not necessarily bad, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly affects the employment picture.

There are those who, in seeking to stabilize prices, would have the country adopt measures which would only slow down the rate of annual growth and result in steady unemploy ment. A major example of such measures is a tight money policy. A tight money policy makes sense only in the case of a general and widespread demand inflation. When too many dollars are chasing too few goods and services throught the economy-- the kind of situation we had in the first two or three years after the war -- a restraint on the expansion of the money, supply is unquestionably necessary.

For such an inflation is to a large extent caused by an excessive consumers' demand in an economy with no idle manpower and no idle plant capacity. But this is not the kind of economic situation we have today. In spite of the rise of economic activity, we .still have an unemployment problem, and we still have unused plant capacity. In an economy with idle manpower and resources, an injection of some additional money will not as a general rule raise prices.

Since additional money creates additional de mand for goods and services in a rising economy, idle manpower and plant!'! can be employed to satisfy this additional demand. After all, the reason that the economy is under-employed is because there is not· sufficient effective demand to employ its total manpower and plant capacity. Just so long as the money pumped into the economy is no more than is necessary to employ such idle resources, then there is likely to be little danger of rapid inflation resulting.

When inflation arises from specific causes, such as administered prices, excessive private capital investments in particular sectors of the economy, then selective controls should be applied so as not to discriminate against those sectors of the economy which are not responsible for generating inflation.

If, for example, excessive private capital spending on basic resources is responsible for generating inflation, it makes little sense to adopt a tight money policy which has relatively little effect on private capital spending, because of large internally generated capital funds, while having serious effect on provincial and municipal governments and other public bodies not responsible for inflation, and certainly has serious effects on housing. The main thing that such a policy accomplishes is the slowing down of badly needed developments in the public sector of our economy.

What must be done is to provide and maintain full employment. In order to provide jobs for those who are at present unemployed, and in addition absorb aunual increases in the labour force, the Canadian economy must grow at a faster annual rate than has been the case in the past few years. Furthermore, measures must be adopted which will sustain a much faster rate of growth. What are some of these measures which can be adopted? Even in Canada, with the second highest standard of living in the world, the volume of unmet needs is staggering.

We have thousands of sub-standard houses, many of them overcrowded and lacking adequate facilities. We need thousands of new schoolrooms and teachers and equipment for them. We need more hospitals and other health facilities. We need more parks and roads • . We need vast undertakings for conserving our natural resources. Since the war, we have invested enormous amounts in industrial plants and equipment. But our social investment has lagged seriously behind. Just catching up with the backlog here would keep a lot of Canadian workers busy for a long time.

Then there are the unmet needs of the underdeveloped countries. Two-thirds of the world's people never have three square meals a day, let alone any·of the comforts. Most of the countries where they live are making heroic efforts to raise their standard of living. But they are too poor to do it alone. They need our help; our machinery; and our know-how. We create jobs by giving it to them. What we need is a federal and provincial planning· and co-operation to meet some of those needs. We need to increase old age security benefits and family allowances, and provide cash benefits to maintain income durirtg illness.

We need a public investment program , with federal, provincial and municipal housing, schools, hospitals, roads, conservation and so. forth. We need to increas� our efforts to promote exports, through special trade missions, Page 1796 March 21st, 1960

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd.) ••••• trade agreements with specific cO\mtries, and the lowering of bar riers to international trade generally. We need adequate measures to maintain and increase farm purchasing power. And we ought to substantially inc rease Canada's contribution to the Colombo Plan and United Nations' Technical Assistance, by special measures to help depres sed industries to get on their feet, and tO help depressed areas, either by bringing industry to such areas or by helping workers to move to places where work is available.

Now it seems to me that the budgets, both federal and provincial, can be used to help meet these needs. Our provincial budget should aim to, first, help develop the industry and reso)lrces of this Province. Frequently, substantial public expenditures are necessary to open too way for such development. Secondly, to improve the health, welfare and education services and to provide the means for their growth as the economy grows. Economic growth is meaningful only if it has as its goal -- humanity first. A .budget must not be merely a monetary budget -- it must be a human budget.

Here are some of the ob jectives which we might study: Saskatchewan, for example, is modernizing farm homes through the provision of sewer and water. Their Department of Agriculture is providing technical and engineering aid. The province is bulk purchasing. Grants are being made to individual farmers. Credit union loans are being guaranteed. The cost to the Province of Saskatchewan this year is estimated to be $500,000. Our program, or what we call a program, Mr. Speaker, can hardly be compared to the program which they have announced.

Sewer and water :to small towns is being agressively promoted with Saskatchewan. Any town or village in Saskatchewan desiring to install either a water system or sewer system or both, which obtains the approval of the Municipal Water Assistance Board, will be assisted by the government. The Saskatchewan government is providing this year $400 , 000 for this program as well as continuing to buy 50% of the municipalities bonds for such a program. Last, Mr. Speaker, I think, and most important is the problem of housing.

One of the greatest boons to our Canadian economy since the end of World War ll has been the large in crease in housing starts . triggered in fact by government guarantees for financing. For every worker employed in the construction of housing, two or three workers are employed in the production of furnishings and appliances, in building supplies and finishing materials. However, today the big need is for houses for people with large families in the low income br ackets. For them in this country we have evolved little on a National scale and even less on this provincial scale. Now what are our needs, Mr.

Speaker? Nationally, it has been estimated that 400,000 extra dwellings are needed to catch up with our accumulated housing backlog. Of the dwellings we have today, the 1951 Census showed 940,000 were either overcrowded or in need of major repairs, or both; 900,000 had no inside runn ing water; almost 1,500,000 had no bath or shower for the family's exclusive use; over 1,200,000 had no flush toilet; nearly 600,000 homes had no hot water supply; over 1, 700,000 homes were without an electric or gas stove; over 1, 757,000 had no mechanical refrigerator; and almost 1,250,000 had no refrigeration at all.

Nearly 500,000 homes were without a powered washing machine; and over 1, 500, 000 homes were with out a vacuum cleaner; 1,380,000 homes were without a telephone; and 1,700,000 homes were without a furnace. One answer which has been used in many countries in the world is subsidized housing. This has been virtually ignored in Canada. We have less than 10,000 units either built or authorized in Canada and none have been started in Manitoba. Aside from the provision for elderly persons • housing where a fair but belated beginning has been made, nothing has been done or is proposed even in this year's budget.

And Manitoba remains one of the few provinces in Canada which discourages municipalities to begin such projects by requiring a money by-law before money can be spent for such projects. I want to turn for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to financial problems. Manitoqa's prob lems stem to quite an extent today on the do-nothing policies of the former government which believed in low taxes based on poor and inadequate services. Schools, our universities, drainage problems, to mention just a few, which should have been dealt with years ago were, to a large extent, ignored.

Today our debt is going up substantially and not just for self liquidating items like hydro, telephone, but also for such items as roads. We need some plan ning and control of our limited capital funds on a national scale. I think maybe we don't need all the drive-ins and supermarkets. If we have to choose between them and schoo�s, I March 21st, 1960 Page 1797

(M�. Orlikow, cont•d.) .•••• personally would choose schools but only the governme nts, federal and provincial, can do this planning and this only if they really believe in the need. Now in this province the bank rate has gone up from 1/12% when the government took office to 6.14% in August of 1959, according to the First Minister. This is to a large extent thanks to the financial policies of the Federal Government, and through such projects as they have initiated as the bank conversion policy. Canada • s bond conversion policy in 1958 was a handsome windfall for the banks and other large financial institutions.

The higher i nterest rates will cost the taxpayers of Canada $60 million a year, and the cash adjustment alone cost a lump sum of $35 million. The result of this has been to push interest rates up and it has slowed re covery. It has made it harder for the provinces and the municipalities to borrow. We have to pay more to compete with the higher rates of the conversion bonds. The 1959 surplus in this province was realized to a large extent as a result of the $5 million surplus carried ov-er from the previous year, thanks to the generosity of the former government.

This 196.0 surplus is due to the carry-over from the surplus of 1959. The expenditure for servicing public debt is up $2 1/2 million. I'm not going to spend too much time in comparing our province with the Province of Saskatchewan; that was done very effectively by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, but I would just point out that in Saskatchewan, that radical, wild-eyed, visionary province, they are financing all highways and public buildings on a "pay as you go" policy, and this has caused a sharp reduction of their net debt.

This has resulted in a deep cut in the amounts required for sinking fund payments and for interest charges. Next year these will total $2.2 million as com pared to $5.2 million five years ago. Debt payment alone in Saskatchewan this year will be $1.18 million or only 0. 78% of their budget; while Manitoba under a Conservative Government will have a debt of $5.3 million, 5. 6% of our budget for this year, and all indications are that this will increase both in absolute amounts and percentage-wise in the coming year. .

This budget speech of the First Minister suggests that there be no tax increases and that none are proposed. Thi s is not entirely true, Mr. Speaker, Fees of various types have been increased by as much as two and three hundred per cent. This is a tax increase whether the First Minister admits it or not. While it is true that the province has sharply increased aid to municipalities in various fields, municipal taxes are continuing to rise. The First Minister says that in 1958 local taxes were over $56 million.

He estimated that 1959 local levies would be $59 million, an increase of $3 million; and that 1960 estimates were about $62 million. It is no wonder that municipal governments are wondering what the future holds for them as the necessary but expensive programs inaugurated by this government take hold. The taxes of individual homeowners are continuing to rise sharply, principally to provide adequate schools.

Total cost of ed\lcation has gone up, but when the new program has really been put into effect all across the province, the total cost will be substantially higher than it is at the present time, and this will be true not only for the provincial treasury but for local school districts all across the province. Similarly, the social allowances program and the new health program has not yet been really felt in a financial way, in terms of their effect on the provincial or municipal tax struc ture, but the program is only beginning.

Let us remember that only 2 1/2 of 10 important fields in the Social Allowances Act have been proclaimed. We can get some indication of what this will cost, when it is fully established, by looking at Saskatchewan which is probably ten years ahead of us. Their rates of service are not too different from ours in those fields which we have now proclaimed. Our eventual costs, therefore, are likely to be somewhat akin to theirs. In fact they may be higher because ours is a more urbanized province. This year Saskatchewan is spending $39. 9 million for health and welfare, while we are spending only $23.49 million.

The people of this province have a right to ask how our program will be finan ced in the next ten years, and I suggest that the First Minister might indicate to this House what his projections for the future costs of this program are -- I'm sure he has some -- and how he thiliks that they will meet the costs. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but note the tremendous difference in this year's budget speech with last year's budget speech iri relationship to Federal-Provincial tax arrangements.

I agree with the First Minister when he said, and I quote: The urgent need of the Provinces, and through them the municipalities, for a greater share of the taxation revenue. available to Page 1798 March 21st, 1960

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd.) ••••• governments in Canada. SecOD.dly,we•.L--meaning the First Minis ter --''stressed the capital requirements of the provincial and municipal governments." But , Mr. Speaker, we are not nearly as optimistic that this Federal Government will agree to a basic revision as the First Minister seemed to be in the last session. We think he is being much more realistic now because it is obvious that the present Federal Government has, in fact, reneged on its promises which it made so loudly and so often before the last federal elec tion.

We are afraid that it will require at least another federal election before the promises made_ at that time are even partially met. This is something which 1 think that we certainly would support the First Minister in his requests, should 1 -say, even in his demands, on the Federal Government. But we suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to look at other sources of revenue, and again we suggest that this government look at Saskatchewan.

That province this year will get 15. 08% of its revenue ,$22 1/2 million from Natural Resourc.es and Mineral Re sources; while we will get 3% of our budget, only $2.9 million from the same source. In part this can be explained by the different tax rates. For mines, the rate in this province is 8% for companies making over $10, 000 a year; in Saskatchewan it varies from 3% for small. operations to 12% for companies making over $1 million a year.· Ontario rates.are somewhat comparable to Saskatchewan, running from ii% to 12%; British Columbia charges a flat10% .

We re·cognize it as competition between the provinces and between Canada and other countries, but there are othei considerations beside-s the_ direct taxes charged. Nickel companies who have invested tr-e:tnendous amounts of money in Cuba might be well prepared to pay a little more in Canada with its stable political and economic climate for the assurances that their properties will not bE;� confiscated and production will continue .on an even basis. In Saskatchewan, experience disproves the theory sometimes advanced here in this House that higher rates will keep com- _ panies out.

In fact, Saskatchewan's progress has been much more spectacular than ours in recent years. Now this may change as a result of discoveries by those made at Thompson and the new finds of the Hudson Bay Mining Company within Manitoba, but from a production of $36 million in 1949 , mineral production in Saskatchewan grew to $210 million in 1958. In two years, from 1957 to 1959, production of industrial minerals grew from $10.8 million to $14.82 million in Saskatchewan. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the rapidly expanding programs proposed by this government in the fields of health and welfare, education, industrial development, roads and bridges, are requir ing much higher expenditures which will continue to rise precipitously for a number of years. It is, therefore, more important than ever that this government re-examine the revenue derived from those sources which we have suggested so that the people of this province will benefit from present and future developments. Mr.

Speaker, since this government has already rejected these suggestions for the raisjng of increased revenues;! can only characterize this budget proposed by the First Minister as "A Wing and a Prayer" budget; the Wing is the soaring cost of -the welfare, health and education policies; the Prayer is the hope that the Diefenbaker Gov ernment will implement its election promises about re.:.. organizing federal-provincial financial arrangements. Mr •.

Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Radisson, that the amendment be further amended by adding at the endthereof the following: "And has not provided for the planned and orderly economic growth of Manitoba to insure that the people of the province will receive the benefits thereof; and has continued the policies of former govern ments in failing to obtain sufficient revenue from our Natural Resources. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR;. J. M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, 1 move, seconded by the Member for St. Boniface· thatthe debate be adjourned.

MR. �SPEAKER: I might point out tha_t I have been informed b-y the Clerk that only one amendment,to the-:budget debate is allowed: according to Rule :6.2; One atilendment only may be made to a �otion 'for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair "for the :llouse to gb into a Committee of Supply or c;mmittee of Ways.and.Means. · · · · · MR. li.OBLIN: Mr. Speaker. I believe-that is correct. That is our present rule and as l know that .you are aware Sir, we have agreed to amend it for next Session.

I think, how eyer; if we had the unanimous consent of the House we could suspend that Rule and allow this sub.:..amendment to be made; and speaking for this side We'd be glad to give that unanimous March 21st, 1960 Page 1799

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) ••••• consent so that this sub-amendment may be properly placed before us and debated. · MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition)(Lakeside): Mr� Speaker, we're very glad to give our consent as well. MR. PAULLEY: I don't think there is any question about us, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to further point out that, while I do appreciate the correctness of the Clerk's information to you as in our book, that past practice has prevailed wherein there has been sub-amendment s.

However. as the First Minister said that it's going to be definite in tl).e new rules, I appreciate the consent of the House. MR. SPEAKER: It's the unanimous consent of the House then that the sub-amendment be allowed at this time? I'll now take the adjournment by the Honourable Member for Rhine land, seconded by the •••• I didn't hear it. MR. FROESE: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Boniface that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, we now revert to Committee of the Whole House to con sider the committee stage of the Bills that are listed on Page 2 of the Orders. MR. SPEAKER: Agreed? Committee of the Whole House. HON. GEORGE HUT TON (Minister of Agriculture) (Rockwaod-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Committee to consider the following Bills: No. 2, 14, 18, 19, 21, 49, 57, 89, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 104. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for st. Matthews please take the Chair. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 2 was read

section by

section and passed. Bill No. 14 was read

section by

section and passed. Bill No. 18 was read

section by

section and passed. Bill No. 19 was read

section by

section and passed, Bill No. 21 was read

section by

section and passed. Bill No,49 was read

section by

section and passed. Bill No. 57 was read

section by section-and passed. Bill No. 89, sections 1 and 2 (

a) were read. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman •••••• on this Bill. Might as well do it now as later. I asked the Honourable the Provincial Secretary the other day in connection With the payment to the staff who work late on the sessions -- I believe he told ma that he was going to take the matter up or the matter was under consideration. I'd like to ask him if the matter has been if consideration has been concluded and will it be applicable to this present session?

As we're all aware the fiscal year ends in a very few days now and I'm quite interested in this problem or situation and I'd like to hear any comment which the Provincial Secretary may make at this time. HON. GURNEY EVANS (Provincial Se.cretary)(Fort Rouge): Mr . Chairman, as far as I recall I said the matter would be given consideration •. It hasn't been given consideration in the meantime and I would be unable to say whether any change that might be arrived at would be applicable to this session or not. I might indicate that the actual pay plan does not come under the Civil Service Commission itself.

The staff of the Civil Service Commission does certain clerical work but the pay plan for the ordinary civil servant is a matter for the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council. It does bear on the question to a certain extent and I thought I should mention it. Until now I would say that the matter of the sessional staff has been of concern to the Commission of Internal Economy, I think it's called, so what jurisdiction this comes under at the moment I don't know. That will perhaps be part of tbe eonsideration that we must yet give to the problem. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, just in brief answer.

I don't care particularly whether it comes under the Committee on Internal Economy, the Civil Service or the Lieuten ant-Governor-in-Council, but I do make an appeal that whoever it comes .under that there is an adjustment made and that adjustment be made in respect of the current fiscal year. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 89 was read

section by

section and passed. Bill No. 99 read

section by

section and passed. Bill No. lOO read

section by

section and passed. Bill No.l02 read

section by

section and passed. Bill No. 103 read

section by

section and passed. Bill No. 105 read

section by

section and passed. Bill No. 106 read

section by

section and passed • . Bill No. 104 read

section by

section and passed. Page 1800 March 21st, 1960 ·

MR. CHAm.MAN: Comrrlittee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Comrrlittee of the Whole has con,sidered certain Bills, No.2, No.14, 18, 19, 21, 49, 57, 89, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 104 without amendment and directed me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Mamber for River Heights that the report of the Committee be received. ried. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion car� i ' ' Bills:No.2, 14, 18, 19, 21, 49,57, 89, 99, 100, 103, 10 5, 106, 104 were read a third time and passed. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the motion of the Honourable the First Minister for third reading of Bill No. 62. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. qAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration of the House in allow ing this motion to stand over until after the dinner adjournment. On anothe.r 13ill before the House, Mr. sPeaker, we have heard a lot about conscience.

I can say quite sincerely that the Metro Bill has exercised mine considerably. I have honestly endeavoured to visualize Metro in operation a./ld to assess the value that it would be to this greater centre of our province. I have listened to all the delegations that were held in public, both at the November hearings and before Law Amendments Committee. 1 have tried to understand, and I certainly have appreciated the views of all who have supported this l3ill. And I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that it appears to me that the majority of those who appeared to make representations on it are in favour bf it.

I respect their opinions but I still have some grave doubts. I s.hould re cord too, I thlnk Mr. Speaker, that the government has been prepared to make changes as it said it would when this Bill. came up for second reading. Many of those changes are import ant and two at least met objections which I had raised, namely, that one dealing with the boundaries cdmmission setting the boundaries of the constituencies, and the provision for appeal. I appreciate these improvements. Still, however, Mr. Speaker, I am unconvinced that the areas or the people concerned are ready for this drastic move.

Even more, I am convinced that only a small percentage of the citizens have studied the question at all and few are well informed as to the far reaching powers confe�red by this bill on what is really a fifth and very important level of government. A fifth level of government in a province that already has a great amount of government; federal, provincial, municipal and schoolboard. Now many of our people I am sure realize that this supe�-municipal council of 11 people will be able to commit taxpayers of the area to huge capital expenditures without approval of the electors.

Notwithstanding my own reserva tions, however, on these questions, I was, and I still am, prepared to support this Bill if there is added to it the proviso that it shall come into effect only when it has been approved by the electors of the area. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this would cause no delay and I am sure that the educationhl value of a referendum on the subject would be enormous. Similarly I feel certain that :i favourable vote would launch this ambitious scheme with a maximum of good will and suppprt that is impossible if it is implemented without an expression of opinion by the people concerned.

My proposal therefore is that the government agree to let the Bill stand over tonight and give .further consideration to this change which I believe to be essential. If this is done I am sure it will be worthwhile; and if it's done I'll be glad to support the Bill. If it isn't done I shall have no alternative but to vote against it. You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why I didn't propose an amendment along this line on Mr. Chairm�'s report from the Committee of the Whole.

The reason is that I had already twice made that motion, first in Law Amendments Committee and later in Committee of the Whole, and 1 am convinced, and experience in regard to this Bill shows that there is more likelihood of 'such a suggestion being adopted by the government itself rather than on a motion by an opposit!ion member. I'm very serious, Mr. Speaker, in urging on the government that it consider this suggestion and agree to make provision for a referendum. MR. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, it would appear that I will be the only urban member to vote against this Bill.

Therefore I think that it would only be proper to in dicate the re;1sons why I oppose this Bill. I did say that I will· oppose it to the bitter end and I will accept i� only after it has been properly passed. I am convinced, first of all, that by March 21st, 11960 i Page 1801

(Mr. Desjardins, cont'd.) ••••. passing this Bill in the present form it will surely lead to total a.nlalgamation, and I am surprised that not more of the members here representing the sub urban municipalities do not agree with me because most of these suburban municipalities did come out against total amalgamation. And, Mr. Speaker, I would not be afraid to wager that maybe not immediately, but 15, 20 or 25 years at the most we will definitely have total amal gamation. I was disappointed not to see more of the members agree with me.

I was very disap pointed in not hearing the Honourable Member from Brandon speaking on this Bill. I have always admired his good judgment and I felt that he was one man that was not afraid to express his opinion even when he was not in complete accord with the members of . his party or his leader. In fact many consider him outspoken and in the opinion of many this might be the reason why he is not now a Cabinet Minister. He certainly seems to have all the other neces sary qualifications. I feel certain that if the proud city of Brandon was in the place of the City of St. Boniface he too would object as I do.

I also object because I feel that the average citizen of Manitoba doesn't know what this is all about and he should certainly be given a change to study all the implications of this Bill. We were told not too long ago that it took an awful long time to study a brief of SO pages, but apparently this could be studied in af ew weeks from the ordi nary people on the street. I also feel that in view of the fact that the Metro Council will not ask for a referendum on money bylaws, we should at least have a referendum on the staff.

The Honourable Member from River Heights assured this House that he did not know of one of his constituents who favoured the referendum. For his info�ation I could say that quite a few of the residents of River Heights, some of my friends, assured me that they believed that the only democratic way of bringing in this Bill would be through a referendum, The Attorney General told us all about a referendum this afternoon and I certainly agree with· him. (Inter jection)-- Yes and I can't see why it can't be the same. Most rural members agree with this Bill.

I am afraid that they might wake up too late and find out that they have created a Frankenstein. A metro form of government is new now, Mr. Speaker. A few years ago we were speaking of a city manager; now a good portion of them have been fired or are in jail and we don't talk about a city manager so much. It is Metro now: But, Mr.Speaker, I oppose this Bill, mostly because I represent St. Boniface and I think it is bad for St. Boniface. I oppose it now more than I ever did, because I consider that an attempt has been made to politically bribe the· citizens of St.

Boniface. (Interjection) I'll explain, just a minute, I'll explain. The Honourable the First Minister promised that he would listen to the people of St. Boniface and that he would work in their interest. Well what has he done? He brought in two amendments both meaningless. Two amendments that could only serve to place the French Canadian in bad light, and only serve. to. antagonize our fellow Manitobans, to misrepresent us to others, to encourage them to brand us. as impractical fanatics. The Honourable the First Minister took advantage of the fact that a well-intentioned citizen of St.

Boniface got carried away and that was his way out. I do not blame this well-intentioned citizen, but I blame the Honourable the First Minister because in a very few .words he could have set him straight. This was the easy way out, but I don't think that the Honourable the First Minister will. be taken off the hook so easily.

The First Minister himself, without going to Law Amendments -- I know that he might not have had the time -- and I am told without even discussing it with the members of his caucus -- I can't prove that, I am told that this is what happened -- promised and agreed to have the name of this corporation changed from the Corpo rntion of Metropolitan Winnipeg to the Metropolitan: Corporation of Greater Winnipeg.

The original idea behind this change of name was to make it clear that if this Bill did not bring total amalgamation no mem ber municipality or city -should be favoured; if the names of all the municipalities and cities could not be incorporated in the official name well then n:o special one would be singled out for special consideration. I suggest that in this case the word metropolitan certainly has the same meaning as the word greater, at least to the average man on the street. But this was made to order. The First Minister could say that St.

Boniface has asked for it; that he had come to some agreement with St. Boniface, St. Boniface voted for it. St. Boniface will not vote for it, or at least I will not vote for it. The citizens of St. Boniface can see through this little political by play. Page 1802 March 21st, 1960.

(Mr. Desjardins, cont'd. ) ••••• The second amendment, also brought in by the Honourable the First Minister is just as meaningless . One of the qualifications necessary to be eligible to run for office is clause B (

c) and it read originally: "able to read English language and write from dictation." Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that what I am about to say could at future date be misconstrued, be misunderstood, could and probably will be used against me because one will not bother to explain. And it is possible that if I am quoted tonight I will be misquoted, but I say that one either has or hasn't a conscience. This clause in· no way, at any time, discrimi nated against any individual or group and l brought this to the attention of this House.

The Honourable the First Minister changed this to read; "able to read English or French language. " If he would like to accomplish something, to give something, he would have modified this to read "able to read the English and the French language." I certainly had no objection to that; I told him �t, but -- this would be - certainl y be asking too much. I agree that this point will probabl:r never happen, but it could conceivably have a case where a man who could not read or write English could be elected to this council . Could he then do justice to the division that he rep:resen ts ?

The First Minister is not kidding us on this. Let him say that all the members of council should read and speak English and French or leave it the way it was . It looks good. It would have been much easier, and certainly some say that I am committing political suicide at this time . But if somebody is nungryand asks for food and if you give them a wax apple,' an artificial appie, it is no good. It looks good but it doesn't mean a thing.

If the Honourable t'pe First Minister fe els that he should allow some concession - maybe it is impossible, 1 explained that in the past - but if he fe els that he should allow some concession to St. Boniface let him do it, but in God's name let him not add insult to injury. In my opinion, Mr •. Speaker, this is more a Roblin Bill than a Government Bill. Why was the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Aff airs who had heard most of the representation in the briefs of ithe diff erent municipalities and discussed the question with these municipalities, why was he teplaced? There might be another reason.

But this is very important, this is the most important Bill of the session. (Interjection) No, well that's -- I didn't think so. Why did the Honourable the First Minister sponsor the Bill himself instead of letting the present Minister of Municipal Affai rs present it? Maybe they think I can't understand that either. No wonder that the Honourable the First Minister got so annoyed with me when all I did, try and remind him that I agreed that he certainly had powers , but that he also had responsibilities. No wonder he gets annoyed when the word dictatorship is mentioned. The Honourable Member from St.

Vital tells us that St. Vital also is rich in history, and I certainly agree with him . But aside from the older residents, aside from a few historians--: who really knows about it? St. Vital up to a certain point at least, already has swallowed up the French and Metis groups whose ancestors were responsible for at least much of the beautiful history of St. Vital. And many of those residents feel compelled to adopt St. Boniface as their city. Progress is a wonderful thing, Mr. Speaker, but it does not mean that progress is necessarily the only thing, or the most important thing to be con sidered.

Certain t.lpngs should not be sacrificed in the name of progress and we should not pey too high a price for progress. The purpose of the Metro Government was to centralize everything we are told and this would make it more pleasant for everyone. The Old Testament tells us about people who wanted progress , who wanted to do something big, who wanted to build a tower, a tower that would reach Heaven. We want progress , we are reaching fo ri Heaven -b ut, we must remember that those same pople who were working on. the Tower of Babel did not succeed and instead became confused. And Mr.

Speaker, history · conld very �11 repeat itself. • ••••••• continued on next page. March 21st, 1960 Page 1S03

MR. SPEAKER: Are you re ady for the question? MR. E. PRE FONTAINE (C arillon): Before the Honourable the First Minister closes the debate I would just like to say a few words in support of what my leader has stated and the need for this Bill to go before the people before it becomes law. I do�•t believe that no group of ll men were ever given as wide powers as these ll elected, or 10 elected and 1 appointed men will be given when this Bill becomes law. They have clear sailing for four years; no re spon sibility to anyone, and they can force the municipalities to pay taxes to this super-level of government.

These municipalities, area municipalities, will have no right to refuse to pay. They will be just collective agencies for this super-gove rnment. And I say that this is wrong. I say that this should not be done without a vote to the people, because--cer tainly they will require a lot of money; they will have the power to spend and spend. It's not like an elected council; goes to the people every two years. Tha t's why we have close elections in the munici pal field because there is no opposition to keep tab of the expenses of the majority or the govern ment.

It's a different field of government altogether and that's why we have elections every two years . But now we are giving these men--whom possibly the electors will not have known much before, possibly they will be men who have no experience in municipal affairs-- we are giving these men a blank cheque to operate for four years . Mr. Speaker, the idea of Metro government seemed good in Toronto when it was first invented. It was invented by the Ontario Municipal Board and they thought it would do marvels. It has not done marvels.

They are reaching an impasse right now and the Ontario Municipal Board in studying the question in other cities in Ontario are not recomm ending the Metro sys tem like the Toronto system. They are recomm ending straight amalgamation. The Royal Com� mission in Alberta has recomm ended straight amalgamation of the cities of Calgary and Edmon ton. His Worship Mayor Juba speaking in B.C. last week was reported in the press as saying that this level of government would cost a lot of money to the taxpayers of Greater Winnipeg. As far as he is concerned it is only a second best proposition . To me it's a third best.

And at least it should not be passed without going to the ratepayers . I say that the ratepayers of this city are not informed. I say it is wrong for the members of this House to assume the respon sibility that they are assuming at the pres ent time because they are not responsible for the majority of them , for the 30, 35 of us . We are not responsible to the electors of Greater Win nipeg . We cannot be held to account by the voters of Greater Winnipeg. I say that I can't see it in my heart to impose this new level of government without the people having a chance to find out more about it.

It was plain at the hearings before the Law Amendments Committee that even the municipal men them selves were not fully aware of what was involved in the bill. Many mun icipalities asked for a referendum-- four or five I believe asked for a referendum , and private individuals asked for a referendum . I think the suggestion of my leader is a good one, that the government should take it into consideration and announce that this bill will not be proclaimed before a vote is taken of the citizens, of the electors of Greater Winnipeg. MR. FROESE : Mr .

Speaker, before the matter is brought to a vote I would just like to make my position clear . I'm going to support the Leader of the Opposition in proposing the amendment calling for a referendum . I definitely feel that when we set up legislation and impose legislation on half the people of Manitoba without giving them a chance to voice their opinion on such legislation it is not fair, and this matter should be brought to the people giving them a chance to vote whichever way they please and I would support-the amendment. MR •. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to now close the debate . Do you want to speak? MR.

CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Honourable the First Minister is plan ning to speak, or perhaps he is asking a question. I submit to you Mr. Speaker on a point of order the the First Minister has no right of reply on a motion for third reading . MR. SPEAKER: I believe that that's correct. Are you ready for the question? MR. PAULLEY: Mr . Speaker, just before you put the motion. I don't think that there is any doubts as to where I stand in this matter.

I have made them known on two or three occasions as to the reasons why I would support the passing of this bill without the reference of a referendum to the people of the Greater Winnipeg area. I realize in doing this, Mr. Speaker, that there will be many who disagree with me, but as I have said before it is a question on which I feel rests an obligation on we as members of this Legislature, after we have heard representa tion from the heads of the councils in Law Amendments Committee; and while there were two or Page 1804 March 21st, 1960

(Mr. Paull ey, : cont'd.) ••.• three of the-municipalities which appeared before that committee on Law Amenqments who suggested a referend� .!. with the possible exception of one or two, the point was not pressed in my opinion at any time . I'm trying to point out that the same prin ciple is applicable to some degree in respect of local councils themselves when they are chan ging their policie s, that if the principle attempted to be establ ished by some members of the opposition that no council or smaller organization would be able to change policy without a referendum to the people .

And I maintain that it is an onus on those who are elected to accept this onto themselv es. Now then I was somewhat amazed this afternoon to hear my friend the Attorney-General be so positive - - ah yes, my honourable friend says one issue -- and this' issue is one which my honourable friends to my right can say is one issue far more important in their opinion, might I sa y, than the question of a referendum on Sunday Sports -- and I was amazed this afternoon when I heard my honourable friend, the Attorney-Ge neral, declare with all the vigor at his command --b:ingo'. Why?

A referendum in respect of Sunday Sports because it was the only democratic way of handling this, that and the other. And that is the point that my honourable friends on mjr right are attempting to establish in this instance. But it is, however, a point with which I dp not agree; and I do that in all honesty and sincerity . As I have said on other occasions, inithis matter I'm prepared to accept the consequences. I'm going to vote as the dictates of my conscience and what I feel is in the best interests of the municipalities in Greater Winnipeg and I am going to vote for this bill without a referendum.

And I have pointed out that one of the rea:sons that I'm doing this is because of the fact that unle ss I was sure, if I felt in my heart that 1 it would be rejected by a majority of the people in the area then I would vote differently, b�t I'm convinced that a majority of the people as expressed through their elected representatives support this, and as I have said before while there is opposition to it, I feel duty bound to support it even though it may not meet, ot my action may not meet with the app roval of many. So I. say, Mr.

Speaker, that is the stand that I've took consistently in this matter, and while I appreciate many of the arguments of my honourable friends in the official opposition, I still think that I am correct in the stand that I am taking. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, the last remarks of the Honourable Leader oithe CCF Party of course should not go without answer, particularly when reference was made to a debate on another matter that occurred this after noon with respect to the question of a referendum.

Of course at that time I was looking at the clock and as 5: 30 came around I had further notes to speak about a referendum and one of those notes--an d I 6an produce them if the Honourable Leader would like them--one of the notes that I failed to eXIlound upon was this, that I hold with the view that a referendum must be dealt with on one issue only, and it must be an issue which concerns the individual morality or conscience of the individual.

And in this bill that we have before us we have 200-odd sectio ns, each of which might concern the irufividual morality or conscience of the individual if he were prone to look at it that way. So while the Honourable Leader of the CCF Party no doubt agrees with the government Sir, he took the opportunity to try to tUrn the government's words through the words of one Minister against it. Of course as is usual With the ..• · MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Spe aker, I wonder if the Honourable the Attorney-General would permit a question.

Did not the honourable gentle man this afternoon say that he was speaking as a private member of this Legislature and not as the Attorney-General when he was speaking on Sunday Sports ? Then how can he in all justification say to me this evening that I attempted to take his remarks and turn them against the government ? Because if he didn't believe that he was speaking as a private individual this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, then assuredly I did. MR.

LYON: Well of course, Sir, I have the happy but perhaps strange faculty to the Honourable Leader of the CCF of believing in everything that I say both as a priyate member and as Attor�ey-Gen eral and both the two together can stand any criticism that he can attempt to make_ against either approach, and I will stand by whatever I said either as an individual member or as Attorney-General in this government. And so I say to him, Sir, that the issues on this matt�r are much different because you have such things as issues in this bill as to whether or n�t (

a) there will be a referendum: (

b) whether or not there will be a referendum on money matters; (

c) what the remuneration will be for the individual council lors; (

d) whether or not they sh01pd have planning under their control;' (

e) whether or not transit should come under March 21!>1-; f1960 Page 1805 -I

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd .) .... their control in entirety, and on you could go through tli.e alphabet and double (

a) and double (

b) and so on down the line.

And so I say that while a person migh t on Sunday Sport have a conviction in his mind one way or the other' to expect that same person to be able to answer 200 and some odd questions in one vote is rather ridiculous , and so as usual I say, Sir, that the Leader of the CCF Party had diverged from what is commonly known as the field of logic and had gone into a field which was perhaps more familiar to him but rat- her strange to the rest of tis. · Now, Sir, there is very little that has been said tonight that is dese :r;ving of too-much reply because we have heard all of these arguments before and I think they've been answered before in a much more fitting or suitable manner than could I answer thell} tonight.

The Hon ourable the Member from st. Boniface wondered why somebody from the suburbs hasn't spoken before, and I'm quite happy, Sir, to have this opportunity to speak as a m�mber who represents three suburban municipalities in the Greater Winnipeg area, Charleswood, Tuxedo and the Municipality of Fort Garry.

I'm quite happy to tell him that not from one of my constituents, Sir, have I had a request for a referendum on this matter, not from one, and to tell him, Sir, further that I think the people of the City of Winnipeg, of Greater Winnipeg, are cmppletely happy with this bill -- not in all respects, no -- there maybe small matters here and there that they disagree with, but I think they admire the forthrightness of the government in coming forward with a bill which generally speaking meets the approval of these citizens, and generally speaking is one which they will support.

Question is made tonight about a vote on this bill before it is implemented. What should we vote on? What section? Are we going to vote on whether or not there is planning ? Or are we going. to vote on whether or not there is transit? Are we going to vote on whether or not there should be a common assessment for the Metropolitan area? What is the one question that you are going to ask the people of Greater Winnipeg to vote upon? Whatis the one question, Sir, I say to the opposition that they are afraid to answer in their own minds? What is that question?

We have been blamed tonight for playing politics if you please with the Metro Bill. The Honourable the First Minister when he stood up and introduced this bill at second reading, his very first words to this H01se were that we will welcome and accept reasonable and con structive suggestions to improve this bill. And what has been the course of the government throughout Law Amendments, at second reading and so on all through the debate ? To accept those suggestions which the government thought were constructive and which were meant for the wellbeing of the citizens of Greater Winnipeg.

The Honourable the Leader ofthe Opposition has been good enough tonight to admit that . It's a shame that other members of his party would not go along with him because we have not approached this bill from the standpoint of being a dictator or a creator, as the Honourable Member from st. Boniface would say, of municipalities. We have not approached it from that standpoint at all. We have approached it, Sir, from a stan point of what is best for Greater Winnipeg. What do most of the people in Greater Winnipeg want?

Ifthe Honourable the Leader of the Opposition will turn his mind back to- when these representations were heard he will recall--he will recall just as well as the rest of us, that of those who appeared before the Committee there was the City of St. Boniface; there was the Municipality of Assiniboia and there was one other municipality whose name escapes me right not -- Transonca -- and there was the Communist PartyofCanadawho spoke in favour of a · referendum for this bill. And what about all of the other municipalities in Greater Winnipeg? They didn't mention it, Sir.

They didn't mention it because they realized that the government, and for that matter the opposition at that stage, were trying to bring forward a Bill which was in the best interests of all of the people of Greater Winnipeg. They realized just as well as we do here tonight, Sir, political considerations aside, and I underline that point, political con siderations aside, that t �is is not the type of issue that can be decided on bY referendum, and the Leader of the CC F Party knows that just as well as I do .

I don't have to. preach any lecture· to him tonight on the duties of an elected represeit ative of this legislature,. none at.:all .. because when we are discussing individual morality and conscience, that is one thing; when we are dis cussing what is in the best interests of the bulk of the majority of the people of one area, that is another thing; and he knows that just as well as I do and I am surprised at the approach and at the attack that he makes on third reading of this Bill; although I must say that I appreciate that he comes back to his original point and qupports the non-referendum. on this Bill at �his Page 1806 March 21st; 1960

(Mr. Lyon, cen t'd.) ..•• time. We have heard tonight, Sir, that the government is bribing St. Boniface, if you please, because we include certain amendments in the Bill which were asked for b:Y the Council of the City of St. Boniface , We heard tonight and we heard the other night in comm ittee that to include English and French , or French , as official languages was duplicity on the part of the govern ment. But I ask the Honourable Member ••.•. MR. �ESJARDINS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not imply that at all.

The first cla use -;Canadian cit izen, that is--and we know that French and English is covered by that is--but not the same clause--it doesn't say anything about French and English. And as the Attorney-General, I would like to ask him .a question. Do you think that that is proper to put in there? ! What would your judgment be if they come and ask you aftercthis, what are we going to do? There's a man that's trying to test this and he'll speak only French . He's asking for everything should be translated in French . Is that feasible? Do you think I'm trying to knock the French people ?

I'm saying that you're trying to bribe and you're trying to bribe� rt.llt. LYON: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for st. Boniface has his own code of ethics. I � ow what the code of ethics of this government are and I can assure him tonight, Sir, that ours are different from his; and that our reasons for putting this in the Bill are much different from any reasons he might have in his mind. MR. l;>ESJARDINS:. Answer my question. Will he !!JlSWer my question, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: Order ! Order� MR. DESJARDINS: He can tell me if he wishes to answer my question. MR. ROBLIN : The Honourable Member for St.

Boniface is making a nuisance of him self in this room . MR. DESJARDINS: I'm asking for a question. I'm asking ifhewants to answer my ques tion or if he 9oesn't want to answer my question. MR. SPEAKER: According to the rules of the House a member is not required to answer questions. : MR. DESJARDINS: No, but he can tell me, Mr. Speaker, if he doesn't wish to. MR. SPEAKER: Order ! MR. t YON: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would be happy to answer any question that the Hon ourable Member for st. Boniface can pose at any time, any place .

And I merely say to him this, that if this Act says that a man should be able to speak English or French that that is what the Act means . That is exactly what the Act means, and it would not be put in this Act unless that is what it was intended to mean. And as I say to him, Sir, insofar as the conscience of this govel'flment is concerned, we are clear on that point. I dOn't know to whom_ he has been talking, or from whom he received his advice, but I can tell him, Sir, tonight that whatever this Act says insofar as this government is concerned, that is what the Act means.

He need not point the finger of scorn at this government for adopting recommenca tions that are brought forward fro� his Council in the City of st. Boniface--I may say recomm endations to which a great deal more attention is paid by this government than any that might come from .the honour able member . And so when we are accused of bribery -bribery in connection with this Bill, I can only turn back my finger to the Honourable Member from St. Boniface, and say to him, examine your own conscien ce, Sir, as to who is bribing whom, because we know where we stand on this Bill.

We know whose demands we are meeting on this Bill and we say to him, Sir, who does he represent other than himself--other than himself. I don�t think there is too much else, Sir, that I can say in connection with the Bill and in connection with the remarks that have been raised tonight except to say this, that it is the duty of any government, whether it be Conservative, Liberal, CCF or whatever the case may be, it is the duty of any government to weigh and to weigh seriously those representations that are made to it by the area or member municipalities of an organization such as Metro-Winnipeg will be.

WE!. have attempted to weigh those representations •. ·ld o not think anyone, Sir, in this House can complain that this government has not attempted to .give force and effect to those representa�ons which we thought would be in the best interests of all' of the people of the Metro Winnipeg ar� a. We must maintain a sense of proportion in this matter . We must not be swayed by those semi-emotional appeals that are made at the odd time by cer tain persons, some of whom may be members of this House. We must do what in our cm1sciences we think is the best March21s i, 1960 Page 1807

(Mr . Lyon, cont' d.) .•••• for all of the people of this area and, Sir, this Bill, amended as it is and improved as it is by amendments received from the opposition, from member munici palities anp. so on,. represents I think tonight a true distillation of the opinions, and the best opinions, and the best judgments that has been brought to bear upon it by those people in the province who are interested in it. And we we have no hesitation, Sir, in recommending this Bill to the House .

We have no hesitation, Sir, in refusing the suggestion of the Opposition opposite for a referendum, none whatsoever; because we feel that what we're doing is in the best interests of all of the people of Greater Winnipeg, especially including the people of the City of St. Boniface, and future years will .have to pass before we can prove, perhaps before we can prove that what we say tonight is the truth as we feel it in our hearts . We have not played politics with this Bill as some members opposite have been wont to do. We have not at all, Sir .

We have approached it in a frank and an honest manner all the way through, and I can only wish as I take my seat tonight, Sir, that that attitude could have been adopted by the Honourable Member from st. Boniface and some of his colleagues before they made some of the speeches that they have made in this House tonight. MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr . Chairman, may I ask the Honourable Attorney-General a question? Will he kindly name the colleagues of the Honourable Member for st . Boniface that you have in mind as playing politics with this issue? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I think Hansard speaks for itself. Mr.

Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: The Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Certainly. Call in the members . A standing vote was taken, the result being: YEAS: Hon. Messrs . Roblin, Carrell, Hutton, Johnson, McLeail, Ridley, Evans, Lyon, Thompson, Witney, Messrs •. Lissaman, Shewman, Hawryluk, Paulley, Gray, Hryhorczuk, Alexander, Scarth, Mrs . Forbes, Messrs .

Martin, Cowan, Groves, Corbett, Wagner, Wright, Orlikow, Molgat, Hillhouse, Guttormson, Watt, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, stanes, Smellie, strickland, Weir, Seaborn, Johnson (Assiniboia), Baizley, Bjornson, Klym, Hamilton, Reid, Peters, Harris, Shoemake, Roberts . NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Prefontaine, Tanchak, Desjardins, Dow, Froese . MR. CLERK: Yeas 47 - Nays 6. -\ MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. Adjourned debate on the motion of the Honourable Member for Osborne, Bill No. 98,

an Act to provide for certain exemptions to the Lord's Day Act, be now read a second time . The Honourable the Minister of Education •. HON. STEW ART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr . Speaker, after the oratory that has taken place in the Chamber this evening I am somewhat hesitant to offer a very brief contribution to the debate on this Bill. I should like to say that it is my intention to vote for this Bill on second reading to send it to the Law Amendments Committee .

I do not do so, however, with any great enthusiasm because of certain reservations which I have con cerning the principle that is involved, but I am attracted by the suggestion which has been made by the Honourable the Minister oi Agriculture and I would propose to support that, and perhaps other amendments and restrictions, if the Bill reaches Law Amendments Committee. I rise, Mr . Speaker, because it seems to me that there is a good deal of illogic gets into a discussion of this sort.

When one begins to speak about 'Sunday Sport", that is the common expression that is used to refer to this type of legislation and to this particular Bill, rather strange propositions are presented . I am interested, for example, in what was said this after noon by the Honourable Member for St. Boniface when he suggested that if you were against this bill you were suggesting that people should remain in church all day Sunday or should remain in bed all day Sunday. Well of course, Mr.

Speaker, that's all just nonsense and does little credit to the intelligence of this Chamber to present such a line of reasoning to the House. The fact of the matter is, Mr .

Speaker, there is no restriction on what any ,of us as individuals may do in the way of recreational activities on Sunday any more than any other day of the week; and we are perfectly free at all times , ·and in such ways as may engage our fancy, to enjoy recreation on Sunday; and that goes the whole gamut of from the Sunday picnic with the family to skiing in the winter, skating and indeed playing hockey with our friends if we desire to do so. Page 1808 March 21st, 1960

(Mr. McLelll;l, !::ont•d.) • • It is wrong to suggest that there is anything that prevents any of us from enjoying recreational activities on Sunday; and equally wrong to suggest that tho se who do not favour the principle involved in this Bill are the reby suggesting that we should all be living in some �ort of straightj acket for the 24 hours of the day which are designated as Sunday under the provisions of the Lord's Day Act.

But while it is true that. there are no rest rictions on our individu� activity on Sunday, this Act is not in any way designed to enlarge our personal .liberty with respect to Sunday and does not do so . The important impact of this particular Bill, Mr. Speaker, is not in the permis sion which it contains, or the reference which it contains to the p;rovision of or the conduct of a public game or contest or a performance, but it lies in the words "admission fee". In othe r words, the purpose of this bill is- to make it possible for people with wha tever reason they may have to charge an admission fee.

In othe r words, what prompts this type of legislation is a monetary matt er, not any necessity for having freedom for any of us, which we already have. But it is to permit the making of money for whatever purpose one might have in mind, and I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that tho se who are most active, I'm not speaking of course of the Members of this Legislature, but those who are most active in pro moting the reCJ\lest for what one might call, with respect to those who sit opposite , a liberalized Sunday, are thinking not in terms of the freedom of any citizen but rathe r thinking in terms of in what manner that will allow them to make more money. · I think we should clearly understand that that is wh11-t is involved and rid ourselves of this nonsense that so many people speak as though this we�e necessary in order to confer some freedom on people.

Those who. promote these ideas are not the slighte st bit in terested in our freedom • They are inte rested in ways and means of rbaking money and let us recognize .that in the clearest possible ter ms. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that something else must be rem em be red, that the title of the Actl which is prop.osed to be amended is the Lord's Day Act , and I think that title has some signfficance that we might well remember on an occasion such as this . I am not particularly inj:erest ed inwhat Mr.

Laurier said when this Bill was introduced in 1906 in the Federal Parliament , that is I am not particularly inte rested in the reasons which he may have given for haviil g such a Bill, but it should not be overlooked, Mr. Speaker, that the basis of our society is ithe christian ethi c and maybe there are other religious beliefs which are equally as good as Christianity . I'm not in· a position competent to make any comment about that .

But we come from: the christian tradition and I suggest that the observance of the Lord' s Day is in itself an important aspect of our religious background and our religious beliefs, and that we should not rightly whittle away at the aspects of that day in relation to that important basic concept of our civilization because of the importance of maintain ing that basis of our life and our belief.

We must not forget that many of the things that we do, many of the things that we urge, indeed many of the things that we advocate in this House are done because of the christian beliefs that have come to us and are part and parcel of our life. I should like to remind the House that that aspect of the Lord's Day Act, and whether or not it is totally effective is of course a matter of question and certainly it isn't totally effective, but that it should not be overlooked.

I think that th ese are times when we might well consider strength ening rathe r than weakening the importance which the observance of the Lord's Day has in our life, in our com munity life, and in our way of living. I am int erested, Mr.

Speaker, that of course tho se who advocate thi s, and do so in the sweet name of freedom, don't really mean freedom because they wouldn't, as one of the members informed us, he wouldn't agree that this should apply to gambling or to horse racing; and yet it is difficult for me to see any logic in saying that I can take my family to a baseball game and pay an admis sion charge but I couldn't take the same family to a horse race and pay an admission charge. In other words, that' s a device to sort of bolster up tbe argument in favour of this type of Bill. I IPention these thin gs, Mr.

Speaker, because I feel it is important that we place this legislation in its proper context, namely, that it is a means whereby, under certain clr curilstances, groups of people or perhaps even individuals may be able to make money. during a certain part-·of Sunday; and that any other reason _is really nothing more than window dressi ng under all of the circumstan ces. It is for that reason, Mr.

Speaker, and I realize of courJe the -difficulty of enforcing the present law--it' s a very difficult matter -,-but it is for the reason that what seems to me to be the basic purpose of this legislation , that I am anxious that some . m6re restrictions should appear in this Bill before it becomes part of the law of the Provi)lce of Manitob a. March 21st, 1960 Page 1809

MR. M. N. HRYHORC ZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Speaker, this Bill has re9eived considerable attention by the members of the House . I think we've heard some of the best speeches of the sess ion on this Bill . They've been very well thought through and well prepared, which I'm not I must admit, but I enjoyed listening to both the pros and cons. I'm somewhat disappointed though in the cons, especially in the attitude of the argument made by both the Honourable the Minister of Education and the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture . They both told us they are opposed to the principle of this Bill. Mr.

Speaker, if you are oppo sed to the principle of a Bill, how can you make a further statement and say I want this to go to the Law Amendments because there are certain things that I'd like to see changed. Well no matter what changes are made, Mr . Speaker, the principle is still going to be there. If you change the terms of referendum or anything else in that nature, where does it change the prin ciple?

I think that both the honourable ge:ttlemen should have stood foursquare on the issue, stayed behind their consciences and voted against this Bill on second reading, because cer tainly they gave us no reason why they would allow it to go to Law Amendments . I was somewhat surprised to hear the stand taken by the Attorney-General, immaterial of whether he took it as a private member or whether he did so as the Attorney-General . His arguments were not strong, Mr. Speaker. His heart did not seem to be in the side that he was taking. He had quite a bit to say about Sunday being the day of rest, but, Mr.

Speaker , that is not quite the

interpretation that I put on the Sabbath. To me it is day of meditation; it is a day reserved for the spiritual rather than the materialistic, and that is the difference . betwe�n Sunday and every other day of the week. And the quote that the Honourable the Attorney General had in support of the stand he took was certainly not one worthy of too much considera tion. He had one other argument, that this is an old statute, dates away back to 1906. Well we've had some laws of behavior laid down to us about 2, 000 years ago and they're just as sound as they were the day they were pronounced.

There are some basic principles that never get old or never get out of being the kind of principles that deserves support, and I certainly do not see too much logic in that argument. MR. LYON: Would the honourable member permit a question, Mr. Speaker? MR. HRYHORCZUK: Certainly. MR: LYON: Would the honourable member answer me this question. Is he opposed to newspaper reporter s reporting on news events at 10:00 o'clock on Sunday morning? MR. HRYHORCZUK: Well, what has the question got to do with the bill before us ? MR. LYON: That• s a provision of the Lord's Day Act, Sir . The Act which he says is up to date.

MR. HRYHORCZUK: Are you asking another question or are you making another speech? MR. LYON: I'm just telling you the facts you were asking. MR. HRYHORCZUK: Well, unfortunately Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General is not one who can take criticism, and I would suggest in the most friendly way to him, that it would not hurt his case a bit if he paid just a little more attention to other people's opinions. He might get a surprise, he might learn something, and he'd also find out that he's just as likely to be wrong as right, and there'll be many a time he'll have to change his opinion.

So I'd walk lightly arid listen to all the arguments and not be too hasty in feeling offended when someone does not agree with his argtiment. Now he said to us , "I am not in favour of an open Sunday." Well, of course not. He's not in favour of the open door policy--but he's quite prepared to let some one get a foot into that door. He doesn't seem to realize that the door may open inch by inch and before he knows it he'll have an open Sunday and that is the danger that some of us foresee . It's this continual chipping away at the very foundation of our structure of our way of life.

It's a little chip here and a little chip there that is weakening that structure and may eventually cause its collapse . We take some of these things as being insignificant, they won't hurt. But it's like arsenic that you can take in little doses, it won't hurt you, but eventually the effects will be there . And I for one am so strongly convinced that if it were not for the teachings of Christianity that our civilization would have been a long way behind the standard at which we .find it today.

It is these teachings that have made the progress in the Western World, and we can't afford even to throw away the smrulest particle of it. We can't say because this I agree with I shall hold, and this I disagree with therefore shall cast it aside . It just caa•t be done Page 1810 March 21st, 1960

(Mr. Hryhorqzuk, cont'd. ) •.•• in that way. . Now there is one other thing, and it was mentioned by the Honourable the Minister of Education and I think that this is one time that we cannot afford to lower our guard at all . I think this is one time that we who believe in these principles must stand steadfast no matter how insignificrant these little invasions may seem to be. Now insofar as recreation is concerned and relaxatiop and so forth, we've reached a five day work week; there is plenty of time for that on the sixth day; why utilize the seventh also?

But I think there is one other argument that is very important and that is that this is a matter for the Federal Government to decide on. The Lord' s Day Act is a Federal statute and I think the Federal Governmen t is evading its respon sibility. If there are to be any changes, let those changes be made where the Act came into being in the first place and whose responsibility it is . We spend a great deal of time and effort to bring about what we call uniformity of legislation trying to obtain uniform legislation through out the provinces . What we are doing here is going in the opposite direction.

And I say that the proper place where this Act should be dealt with is in the House of Commons at Ottawa. Now there are times, Mr. Speaker, when the members of this House have to take the role of leadership and the role of responsibility. We know very well that it is not always those that are right are the loudest; in fact we often find the reverse. And I say that on this bill it is time that we, as responsible members, gave leadership to the people of the province and oppose this bill. MR. EVANS: Mr .

Speaker, it seems to me that we have a matter of some importance to decide and one that has urgency to it because the enforcement of the present Act is difficult and the Atto� ey-General has indicated to us, extremely difficult. And so I think the question has to be fac:ed. It is mainly for that consideration, Sir, that I feel this bill should go to com mittee and fur that reason I shall vote for it.

I do I\.ot accept the view of the Member for Ethelbert Plains when he says that this is a clear case of principle on which one can vote, the issue being so clear that at this stage it can be decided by a vote and either accepted or rejected. This whole matter is a mass of contra dietary principles and of confusion I feel, and my hope is that in committee some amendments can be proposed, and we hope accepted, which will clarify the situation materially. There are two principl$s in this bill and they seem to oppos.e one another.

One is the right of a munici pality to consider its own affairs and so order them that it will suit the majority of the people living there,i and that should be a very strong prinqiple before us in this Legislature.

It's a matter to w�ch I think all the individual members give consideration and one with which weighs with me . opposing that, however, is the fact which has been pointed out I think clearly by the Minister of Education, that this bill proposes changes in something that is fundamental in our Canadian life and one on which not only the Church rests, but in my opinion which has a pro found influence upon family life in Canada and in Manitoba, and as such is a matter of extreme importance .

I think the preservation of Sabbath as we know it, and as I for one and other honourable members of this Legislature believe in it, on the religious basis of it, is a suf ficient argument for many of us . But it can be carried further and the very practical advan tages to family life pointed out where other attractions which would separate members of the family in different directions are restricted within reasonable limits and opportunities afforded th!l family to take recreation together are matters which should be encouraged. Now why then should the Provincial Government take a hand in this?

It seems to me that a powerful argument is to be found in the fact that one municipality, perhaps in the Metropolitan regions, perhaps a small municipality could very well decide the question for the whole met ropolitan axjea, as for example if Brooklands were permitted to continue with Stock Car Racing, the matter of Stock Car Racing would be decided for the whole of the metropolitan area and perhaps a v.iider area as well. And so it does become an inter-provincial matter and one which is properly 'considered by the Provincial Government.

I am for the maximum opportwiity for people to participate in sports on the Sabbath. I consider sports in which one takes parts one self, whether it be anything as already mentioned this evening from the picnic to team sports . ill. which people can g!'lt together for their .O'YJl recreation on!y, are things to be encouraged and are proper pccup ations on the Sabbath. I am for amateur sports, and here is where one of the confusions �xist, and I don't know whether we can resolve it or even start to resolve it in com mittee.

It �s so hard to define these days what is amateur sports when connections can be I March 21st, 1960 Page 1811

(Mr. Evans, cont'd.) •••• traced between professional organizations, professi onal sporting organizations and their satellite clubs in the junior and juvenile and other leagues. Money plays its

part in those things; arrangements are made by which players in amateur leagues are in fact pledged to professional organizations while still playing in the amateur ranks. Those matters are extremely difficult and that aspect of the matter I think cannot be resolved by any thing we might do in committee.

Nevertheless I would like to see as much study given as pos sible to bolstering amateur sport in Manitoba, and one thing that I foresee would be this, that if the truly professional teams of either football or hockey were allowed to perform on Sunday they would be such a competitor for truly amateur sport that amateur sport would lose its opportulrlty to play on Sunday. Because no one, probably including the players themselves would want to go to see the amateur game if there were a professi onal game in pr0gress at the same time .

And so I think it's in the interest of truly amateur sport that profes sional sport be excluded from Sunday. I am against show business on Sunday, particularly profes sional show business . I see little difference between the profes sional members of a hockey team or a football team and the professi onal members , shall we say, of a the atrical troup or anyone else performing on a Sunday. They are working at their· ordinary trade on Sunday and they are providing entertain ment. I class entertainment, good entertainment, things worthy in themselves, but in my opinion not things to be continued on the Sabbath.

Perhaps not because sitting in the open air and watching a football game or a baseball game or in an enclosure watching a hockey game is a bad thing in itself, because it isn't. At least it's in the fresh air; but it's the multiplier that worries me . If professi onal performance can be permitted by professional athletes, why not theatrical troups ? If we stop there why not go on with the moving pictures and any other form of entertainment? What, for example, is bowling?

It might very well be regarded as a par ticipation sport and such illustrations in my view, merely point up the difficulty of trying to make common sense delineations between these different classes . I see a great many difficul ties in the Bill, practical difficulties which I hope, may in some way be less ened when we get to committee . I have great difficulty myself with any definition of non-profit as it appears in the Bill. It may well be that an organization might be organized for profit but not make a profit, and you ask yourself then whether that organization would come within the definition of the Bill.

You might very well have an organization not put together for profit or declared in their charter to be a non-profit organization, but they might indeed made very large sums of money which they put away in reserve s. Or either of those organizations might so arrange their salary schedules and lists that any money that they do make does, in fact, find its way to the people interested in it or the supporters or promoters of the enterprise, and in that way constitute themselves, in my opinion, a profit making organization.

I have great difficulty seeing how this phrase ''non-profit" could possibly be interpreted within the me aning of the Bill. I have already mentioned my difficulty concerning the distinction between amateurism and profes sionalism and I won't pursue that futher . I have great difficulty in understanding what things would be regarded as suitable enter tainment for the Sabbath and what would not. I must say that the selection of the items in the Bill does not appeal to me as items that are being forbidden. Horse racing certainly, because normally speaking the horse racing industry depends upon gambling.

But then we come to boxii:g, wre stling or judo which are forbidden either as exhibitions or as contests . If those things, why not other body contact sports, of which certainly football and hockey are two? A nd does a breach of the law exist, for example, if a fist fight breaks out at a hockey game or during a football game? Certainly that is either an exhibition or a contest in boxing, at least for the time being.. Perhaps I am being a little facetious there but I think it does illustrate a point.

But then the list of things that might well be considered for inclusion on the Sabbath goes on from there and can run down a great many things including shooting gallerie s. Now the shoot ing of a rifle for example, at a target, is a good healthy recreation, a game of skill. I doubt vecy much if the shooting that goes on at ordinary shooting galleries can be regarded in that class. Perhaps I have done no more, Mr.

Speaker, than to rehearse some of the difficulties that have occurred to me and to say that I do not approve of a Bill which would permit the enter tainment business, particularly the professi onal entertainment business, to become well Page 1812 March 21st, 1960

(Mr. Evans, 'ccint'd.) •. •• established and to spread on Sundays.' I do favo�r any move that can allow people their own recreation and their own exercise in the way of participation sports on Sunday. And.fio in the hope that some of these matte'rs might be straightened out by further discussion in Committee, I shall vote for the Bill, but as perhaps I have made plain , with no enthusiasm for the principle which I consider to be apparent in the Bill as we have it before us now. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? . MR. J. P. TANCHAK (Emers�n) : Mr.

Speaker, if nobody else wishes to speak I move, seconded by the Honourable .Member from Ste. Rose that the debate be adjourned. MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker. I wonder if we could ask the honourable member if he .wollld consider -speaking this evening. The matter is not debatable, but simply I would ask if he .could cons#ier continuing with 1;he debate tonight in the hope that we might bring this matter to a conclusion. MR. T.ANCHAK: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to say very much to certain thoughts that I want to devel op. Therefore, what I have to say will be very, very short, at this time.

It seems to mE(! that several Cabinet Ministers have spoken on this and although there seems to be a principle ;involved, the way I take it, that mos.t·of these Ministers seem to favour at least the Bill to go as far as Committee. And it seems odd .to me that the government did not bring this in as a-government bill. Maybe it's another case similar to the one on margarine--that the governme�t was spineless in this matter. (interjection) · Well -they didn't bring it in--they we.re afraid to� en.act the legislation . It seems to llle -tha:t --(Interjection)--spineless I said.

It seems -to me that some areas of Manitoba, ·some municipaliti es are in favour of Sunday sports, some other arkas are not in favour, so as far as I am concerned I'll have to admit that at the present time l still really haven't made up my mind.

Therefore, I see no harm at all , since ttis is a permissive bill, if we do pass it in here it will not become binding on the different municipalities, it would just be a permissive bill , that the municipalities before they in their respective areas do allow Sunday sports will have to have the approval of the people by a refer• endum or something, I see no harm whatsoever of allowing this Bill to-come before Committee. And I think that's about all I can say at the presen: time. 1 thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Axe you ready for the �estion? MR. C-AMPBELL: ·Mr.

Speaker, before the honourable member closes the debate; I was hoping that I would not have to speak tonight because I have already spoken more than my usual �ota today. But I woUldn 't want th� Bill to g0 to vote withou,t expressing very briefly my opinion on iL .I agree wholeheartedly-with the position that was taken by·the :Honourable the Mbrl.ster ofEducation so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned and believing with that, agreeing with him in regard to the principle, I simply ·can't .see -how 1 could vot� for the Bill to go to Commit1:ee.

My understanding of the procedure here is that if you disagree with the prin ciple you vote against the Bill , and I definitely disagree with the principle, because I think that not only is this the foot in the door but it's actually getting the door open qmte widely so far as some area-s are concerned. Now it's true that the people of the area concerned will have the opportunity of voting on it, but it's also true I think, that it will be represented, that this Legisla tive Assembly has given a lead or an endorsation to the idea of commercial Sunday sports.

And as the Minister of Education has so well pointed ·out, that is the reason for this Bill being before us . It's not a �estion of individualfreedoms; it's not a �estion of discrimina tion against anybody at all; it's commercialized Sunday sport� Quite frankly I think that it's a mistake to give encouragement, the encouragement that would flow from the Assembly here endorsing the principle of that Bill . I am opposed to it, Mr; Speaker, and being opposed to it on principle , I do not intend to support it going to Law Amendments Committee. -MR. FROESE: Mr.

Speaker� I too·a:tn notprepa.tedtonightto speak on the Bill as such, but -t too would like to voice my disapproval of the Bill. I couldn't go along with it on principle . lthitik it vioiatesthe sanct!.tY of the LOrd's Day and thepbs;;rvance o-f it, and I too feel that it iS ju,'st to get} a� foot ih the door so j;hat eventUally Sunday as such Will not be observed as we know it is today. . .. �- .

Further, as already mentioned by one of the. ministers that it was hard to police it at some stages .�t tlie pr!lsent time and I am sure ·that_even though they c:auld make the Bill as proof, as sure as p�ssible that there would not be any :policing to be done; they would soon find that March 21st,. i960 Page 1813

(Mr. Froese', cont1d.) •... there too would be -loopholes left, through which comme rcial organ izations would try to capitalize on. Therefore, I voice my opinion in opposHion to the Bill at this tim e. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The honourable member is closing the debate. MR. 0. BAIZLEY (Osborne) : Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good� dea! of interest to the rem arks that have been made by the honourable members on this Bill and. particularly the views of the Honourable Member for St. Matthews .

I paid particular attention to his thoughts because to my mind here for the first time was a man who could state succinctly, and with an integrity of mind, the case against the playing of games on Sunday. Mr. Speaker, I say for the first tim e because I have not yet heard one telling argument against it. It is not enough to rely on platitudes nor to attribute to such activities the probable moral degeneration of our society .

The fact of the matter is that we are not mora lly degenerate and no one can honestly say that participation in athletic endeavour has a tendency to that end, whether such participation as contemplated in the Bill is on that day or on any other day. Anyone who had the foresight and good fortune to witness any of the Sunday hockey games held in thi�;� city during the past winter could no doubt but have been impressed by the marked predominance of family groups in attendance at these games , where fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, joined as one to participate together in the family life of their commu nity.

Is it bad that these family groups, ma ny of whom enjoyed the same participation at their churQb that morning, should continue it on into the afternoon rather than going their separate ways? Mr. Speaker, after having listened so carefully to the remarks of the Honourable Mem� ber for St. Matthews and the other honourable members of this Ho use, I still not have heard a telling argument against this Bill, but in any event, none of the rem arks were directed to the principle of the Bill now before this Hou se . This Bill is not designed to impose Sunday · sports on an unwilling community .

It is merely directed to providing the machinery whereby the members of any community may exercise their democratic privilege of determing their own destiny. In a democracy it is only trite to say that apart from legislation, which is dir ected to the raising of revenue for government purposes, only those things should be prohibited by law that are either bad per se in the sense of being criminal or undesirable in the judgment of the commu nity.

No one can suggest that the playing of sport on Sunday is intrinsically bad, and the Bill is only directed to allowing the members of the comm unity an opportunity t;:> g!n their judgment as to whether or not it is undesirable. Under the circum stances, to vote against this Bill is to vote against the democ ratic right of the individual to exercise his free choice in making his judgment known, and I would urge all the honourable members to give it their sup- port. · ( Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. FROESE: The nays, Mr. Speaker, please. MR.

SPEAKER: Did the Honourable Member request a recorded vote? Call in the Membe rs. A standing vote was taken the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Carron, Cowan, Desjardins, Evans; Mrs. Forbes, Messrs. Groves, Guttormson, Hamilton, Har ris, Hillh ouse, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, · Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia) , Llssam an, Lyon, McLean, Molgat; Orllkow, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine·, Ridley, Roberts, Scarth, Shewman, Stanes, Strickland, Tanchak, Thompson, Wagner,- Weir, Witney, Wright. --·· NAYS: Messrs.

Campbell, Corbett, Dow, F;:oese, Hawryluk, Hryhorczuk, Johnson (Gimli), Martin, Reid, Schreyer, Seaborn, Smellie, Watt. MR. CLE.RK: Yeas, 37; Nays, 13 . MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, you wUI have noticed that I refrained from voting no doubt and that is due to the fact that I was paired with the Honourable the First Minister ... Had I voted I would have voted against and I have, as the Hmio�ra bie M�� ber fo� Selkirk said the other day, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Honourable the First Minister would have voted for. · MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, if this is possible I would request that we revert ·to the Page 1814 March 21st, 1960 .

(Mr. Evans, cont'd. ) .. •.• item under Committee of the Whole House, the resolution standing on the Order Paper under the name of the Honourable the Attorney-General. The reason I hesitate is to ask you, Sir, whether this is possible for this item after the Orders of the Day have been callJd. We would like to get this resolution through. I believe it's non-controver s�al and would .be a great convenience if this could be put through this evening if there is no technical diff icttlty in the way. MR. CAMP BELL: May I say, Mr.

Speaker, that it's quite possible by unanimous consent, and as far as we're concerned we recognize, or at least we expect that it is non 'controversial, and we'd be quite willing to agree. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, as far as we're concerned I think it was ·understood that we would do that because of the fact that at the commencement of this evening's session we went into the adjourned debate on the budget held by my honourable colleague the member for St. John's, . but I would ask the House Leader to consider afte r this has been done that that final izes this evening's business.

I did have a conversation with the Premier as he was leav ing this eveni� and he suggested that at 11:00 o'cl ock he could see no reason why we shouldn't quit. I've no clbjections to this and would give consent to it, not on the understanding that we do that, but I do suggest that to the Honourable Ac ting House Leader. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to move -- oh, I'm sorry. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, it's quite agreeable with me. MR. EVANS: Mr; Speaker, I just mention that it had been my intention to move the adjournment o� the House when this item is complete.d. MR.

SPEAKER: I couldn't hear what the honourable member said. MR. EVANS: I was just inf orming the Leader of the CCF Party it had been my inten tion to move the adjournment of the House when this item was completed. MR. �AULLEY: I wonder, Mr. Speaker; if the Honourable the House Leader would speak to his colleague on the introduction of this resolution and ask him just to be brief. MR. EVANS: He told me two minutes. MR. SPEAKER: Will the House Leader move the motion to come into Committee? MR. EVANS: I think the Honourable the Attorney-General will move the motion. MR. EYON: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Public Works, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Committee of/ the Whole to consider the proposed resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews please take the Chair ? MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor having been inf ormed of the subject matter of the proposed resolution recommends it to the House. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Whereas it is a general principle of the British system of justice that the onus of proof in criminal cases rests on the Crown. And

whereas in some of our Statutes creating offenc es onus provisions have been enacted shifting to the accused the res ponsibility of proving his innocence bef ore the Crown have established a prima facie case . And

whereas it is deemed advisable to review such Statutes for the purpose of ascertainwg whether such onus provisions are necessary or desirable for the proper administration of those Statutes containing such onus provisions, Therefore be it now resolved that a special comm ittee of the House be appointed to review and consider those Statutes containing onus sections with a view to recommending such revision as may be deemed advisable and that the said Committee consist of Hon. Messrs. Lyon and McLean, and Messrs. Campbell, Christianson� Cowan, Hillhouse, McKellar, Orlikow, Paulley, Scarth and Smellie.

And be it furt her resolved that such Committee be authorized to sit during recess after adjournment or prorogation and report at the next Session of this Legislature. And that the Provincial Treasurer bCfl authorized to pay out of the Consolidated Funds to members of the said commit tee the amoup.ts of such expenses incurred by the members in attending the sittings of the said Committee during recess as are deemed necessary by the Comptroller-General. MR. LYON: Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee will realize this is introduced by way of resolution because of the last words· in the resolution, namely those requiring the March 21st, 1960 Page 1815

·t (Mr. Lyon, cont'd. ) ...• expenses of the committee to be paid out of the Consoll.dated Fund while the committee sits during recess. This is a resolution, the announcerre nt of which was contained in the Throne Speech. It is not a new subject matter.

It is one _upon which I'm sure practically all lawyer members of the House have been concerned at one time or another, and one which I think ·deserves the attention of this special committee of the House. to determine those sections which can properly be eradicated from our provincial statutes--those sections which now do place the onus of proving his innocence upon an accused person.

I think it only fair to say that in the past there have been certain statutes passed where the onus was placed upon the accused to prove .his innocence and there have been other statutes passed where a certain other onus is placed upon an accused person to prove certain facts which are within the knowledge of the accused person only, and which could not readily be proved by the Crown, such fact in the latter instance as the possession of a licence or the holding of a certificate and so on and so forth.

Altogether there are, to the best of my information there are some 20 or 24 statutes which now contain onus sections and the Legislative Council and others engag.:Jd with him will be attempting to bring before the committee a comprehensive review of all statutes where these sections are contained. It is the purpose of the Committee to review these sections and to determine whether or not they are serving any useful purpose or whether or net the position of an accused person under a system of law is being unduly prejudiced.

I may say, and I'm sure that other members of the House who have been familiar with our court procedures will agree that in certain statutes that I think of offhand, such as the Liquor Act, the Highway Traffic Act and perhaps one or·two otherswhere a definite onus is placed upon the accused, that these sec tion:> notwithstanding their appearance in the statutes are by and large ignored by the courts of our country and I think p�operly ignored by the courts of our province, because they feel that an undue onus and an undue prejudice results to the accused from their inclusion in the statute.

Basic common law presumption is that a man is presumed innocent until proved guilty and these statutory exemptions to that principle have from time to time grown up in our law in those special Acts where it is thought that because of special circumstances surrounding the commis sion of certain offences that more of an onus should be placed upon the accused.

I think that the time has come and I think most honourable members of the House would agree, that the time is perhaps overripe for consideration of certain of these provisions to determine whether or not it is in the publl.c interest to continue these provisions in our sta�e.f!.or whether or not they should be wiped out and those remaining should only be the ones that provide fo:r: special knowledge on the part of the accused being placed before the court without the onus of the Crown or the prosecutor having to adduce that evidence against the accused.

So I .think this is .a very worthwhile resolution, one that will tend to enhance the administration of criminal justice in this province. I think the comm ittee wl.ll serve a very useful function. It is composed of people who understand the principles involved and I look forward to a satisfactory report being made to. the next sitting of this legislature at it a next regular session when the work of this committee has been concluded. MR. T. P. IDLLHO USE, Q. C. (Selkir k): Mr. Chairman, the official opposition con curs in the intent and purport of this resolution. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, the second opposition concurs also, and there is only one thing that I would point out, that I'm glad that the Honourable the Attorney-General drew to the attention of the committee that we're going to look at this in the view of the best possible legislation on behalf of all the people of Manitoba. The only comment that I will make in con nection with the resolution--it is sort of weighted with the legal profession being 6 to 5.

But I can assure the committee and the House that we laymen who are on the committee will be looking after the best interests of those of the Province of Manitoba who are not members of the bar association. MR. HILLHOUSE: And we'll look itfter him to see that he does. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted? The Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Comm ittee of the Whole has adopted a certain resolu tion and directed me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker I beg to move seconded by the Honourable Member by Cypress that the report of the Committee be received. · · Mr. Speaker presented.the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion.carried. Page 1816 March 21st, 1960

MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker I beg to move seconded by the Honourable Minister of Public Works that

whereas it is a general principle 1>fthe British system of justice that the onus of proof in criminal cases _ _; (Interjection) -- I beg to move then, Sir,. the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker I wonder what my honourable friends would say to me if I asked that we allow one further item to come before the House tonight, namely the second reading of Bill No. 108 . Would that be agreeable to the groups?

We did have the understanding that !'e would 1tdjourn, but if I have consent, Sir, may I ask you to call the second reading of Bill No. 108 . MR. S:pEAKER: Agreed. The Honourable Member for Swan River. Mr. Corbett presented Bill No. 108

an Act to validate By Law iH�59 of the Town of Swan River By-Law iH628 of the Rural Municipality of Swan River; Bylaw No. 127 of the Village of Benito; Bylaw No. 1349 of the Rural Municipality of Minitonas for second reading. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. CPRBETT: Mr. Speaker after all the emotional displays today and the acting on the dictates of the! heart and the conscience, I am afraid that I cann ot qu3.lify on the high plain that all the other :m,embers have

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-50
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 50.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	834cc706136f264bcb0c35fdfd0f964699e9248a

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