Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 37 (26th Legislature, 1st Session)

26-1-37

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and-, PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. w. Hard.son Volume m No. 37 July _30, 1959 lst Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans •. Queen,s Printer fOr the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

INDEX Thursday Evening, July 30th, 1959 Page Bill 105, re Order of St. Benedict, introduction, Mr. Stanes •• • u... .. ... .. ... . . . . . . 1421 Bill 104, re Real Estate Agents, introducti on, Mr. Carroll • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • 1421 Bill 5 2, re Utilities Board (Mr. Carr oll) Third Reading: Mr. Paulley, Mr. Carroll • • • • • • 1422 Bill 81, re Child Welfare (Mr. Lyon) Adjourned Second Reading: Mr. Roberts • • • • •• • • 1423 Mr. Scarth, .Mr.

Lyon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1425 Division • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. .. • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1428 Bill 94, re School Act (Mr. McLean) Second Reading: Mr. McLean . .. • • . . • .. •• • • . . 1428 - - Mr. Miller • . • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • 1430 Mr. McLean ............................................................ 1431 Bill 95, re Law of Property Act (Mr.

Lyon) Second Reading:· M..r. Lyon •• , •• • • • • • • • • • 1431 Budget Speech Debate: Mr. Seaborn •• •...... ... • • • ••• .. • ... • • • • .. .. • • .. • .. • • • • • • 1432 Proposed Motion, re School Construction (Mr. Miller) Amendment (Mr. Schreyer) Mr . McLean, Mr. Wagner • • • • • • • • • .. • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1437 Mr. Cobb ••••••••••••••••• •••••••• �.................................... 1438 Proposed Resolution, Amended, re Deficiency Payments, Mr. Schreyer.............. 1438

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8. 00 01 clock, Thursday, July 30th, 1959. Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees. Notice of Motion Introduction of Bills. MR . D. M. STANES (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move seconded by the Hono11r able Member from Lac du Bonnet, that leave be given to introduce Bill No. 105,

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate the Sisters of the Order of St. Benedict, and the same be now received and read a first time. Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities) (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Honourable the Provincial Secretary that Mr.

Speilker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a: Committee of the Whole House to consider the followmg proposed resolution: Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Real Estate Agents' Act by providing among other matters for an increase in the registration fee payable by real estate agents and real estate salesmen. Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and asked the Honourable Member for St. Matthews to take the Chair. MR .

CARROLL: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the subject matter of the proposed resolution, recommends the same to the House. Mr. Chairman read the proposed resolution. MR . CARROLL: Mr. Chairman, the principle of this proposed resolution is to increase the fees for real estate agents and their salesmen, and to set up the necessary machinery for the Registrar or the Board, to properly test applicants entering the real estate profession, to make sure that they are fully infor!I)_ed.of their responsibilities to the public.

We propose to do this by examination which wili be approved by the Board, or by the Registrar, or by such other person. as may be named by the Board. We hope in this way to make sure that the peo ple entering this profession are properly qualified people with an understanding of their duties and responsibilities. We feel that it will raise the standards of et�cs and performance of the profession. It has been referred to the Real Estate Boards, and has their approval. MR . R. PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF Party) (Radisson): Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if the Minister would be kind enough to tell us b,ow much the fees are going to be raised, and also, is there any fee for the examination that is contemplated under this provision? MR . CARROLL: The fees for the agents will be raised from $10, 00 to $25. 00, Sales men from $5. 00 to $15.00, and there was a $2.00 fee for any changes made to a license, such as, I suppose, change of marital status and things of that kind, or a reinstatement of the license. There will be no further fee charged in connection with the examination that will be given. MR . D. L.

CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, one question that I would like to ask is why is it necessary for this Bill to come in with a message from His Honour ? HON. DUFF. ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): I can answer that to some extent, Sir, in .that it was jus4it was deemed advisable by our legal authority that it should come in, and we are acting on his advice. MR .

CAMPBELL: My understanding is that -- I wouldn't oppose my judgment to that of the legal counsel in this matter -- but my understanding was that unless the Government itself is contemplating an expenditure, that just because we were raising fees -- or my honourable friend the Provincial Treasurer wouldn't want to call it a tax -- but even though we might call it a tax so long as it's incidental to the other people, I thought it was only the July 30th, 1959. Page 1421

(Mr; Campbell, cont'd.) ..•. e:qienditure here. However, there is no e:qienditure as far, as the Government is concerned I presume, in this connection is there? Do they, the Government -- there's no increase in the membership on the Board or the payment to the members of the Board, or anything of that kind? · MR . ROBLIN: I think probably the reasoning lDehind the Legislative Counsel's act ion was the fact that conducting the exammations win cost nnney; it might be that. It's for that reason, I believe, that he wanted it brought in this way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution be adopted? MR.

N: SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Is there a diff erential between the city and rural real estate agent, as regard the fee; is there a different fee for Brandon, Winnipeg and the rural areas? MR. CARROLL: No, it's the same fee -- city or country. ·MR . CHAIRMAN: Resolution be adopted? Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has adopted certain resolution and directed me to report the same, and beg leave to sit again. MR. W. G. MARTIN (st. Matthews): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move seconded by the Honoura ble the Member for Winnipeg Centre, that the report of the Committee be received. Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move seconded by the Minister of Health and Public Welfare, that leave be given to introduce a Bill No. 104,

an Act to amend the Real Estate Agents• Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time. Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, the other day I requested of the Minister of Pu blic Utilities a breakdown of the e:qienses incurred in respect of the in quiry on distribution of gas. I am wondering when I may be receiving the information I requested. MR . CARROLL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that will be tabled in the House tomorrow. (Inter jection.

Pardon?) Tomorrow; it's ready today, and I'm sorry, I should have had it in with me this evening. MR. PAULLEY: Thanks very much. MR . CHAIRMAN: Orders of the Day. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR . CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Attorney-General that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Committee to consider the following Bill No. 52,

an Act to establish a Public Utilities Board. Mr. Speaker read the motion, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, and asked the Honourable Member for st. Matthews to take the Chair. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 52,

Section 1 ..• MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, just before we proceed with the Bill, I would just like to say that in Law Amendments Committee this morning we raised some objections to certain sections of this Bill, and in our opinion the Bill itself did not contain sufficient authority for the Board in respect of the distribution of natural gas. However, at that time, after a consider ab le discussion, the sections were all passed. We did not have any written amendments to offer in respect of the Bill. It was pointed out to us that this Bill did apply also to other utilities.

I merely rise at this state of the consideration of the Bill to say that we are not going to oppose the passage of this Bill, but to draw to the attention of the Committee that in our opinion, par ticularly in respect of control over the distribution of natural gas, that there is ncit a provision within the Bill itself to make it obligatory on the Utility Board to investigate the effect of sub sidiary companies in respect of natural gas.

I thought Sir, that I should make this statement and say that we are not going to oppose the consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole House, but merely point out that while agreeing with the passage of the Bill as such, we have those reservations, and do think, despite the fact that we know that there is anot her Bill before us in respect of natural gas, that there should have been provisions, in our opinion, to give Page 1422 July 30th, 1959.

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd.) •... more authority to the Utility Board to investigate the effect of subsidiary companies in respect of natural gas particularly, and public utilitie .s in general. MR . CARROLL:_ Mr. Speaker, we anticipated our Honourable Leader of the CCF's opposition to this _.... on this particular matter, and we are prepared to introduce an amendment to the Bill at a suitable stage as we proceed, which will , I believe, take care of that objection that he has with respect to subsidiaries or compames in which they have an interest -- or in which some of the directors may have an interest.

I believe our amendment will be satisfac- tory to the Leader of the CCF Party. · MR . PAULLEY: May I say then, Mr. Cl?-airman, I thank the Honourable the Minister of Public Utilities for consideration of the points which we raised this morning, and appreciate very much the fact that the Government has given the matter consideration and do propose an amendment, which we think is rather vital insofar as this utility is concerned. Sections 1 to 54 (

a) of Bill 52 was read

section by section, subsection, etc. and passed. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to interrupt the passage of this Bill, but did I understand the Honourable -- the Minister of Public Utilities was kind enough to send over. a copy of the amendment and it refers to adding immediately after Clause· 8 to subsection (1) of

Section 82. Now it appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that

Section 82 is just a single clause without any sub-clauses, is it? MR . CARROLL: ••. •• The Public utilities shall enter into a contract, other than the contract for the _provision of the service of the utility, with a company or a firm .•..... MR . PAULLEY: Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Chairman. I was looking at the Bill on Municipal ••••.••• I must apologize, I left my glasses at home -- right amendment -- wrong Bill. Sections 55 to 82 of Bill 52 read

section by

section and passed. MR . CARROLL: •...•.• It hasn't been read out as yet. MR . CHAIRMAN: •..••.. "i" is the amendment, (

i) enter into any contract, other than a contract to _provide the services that the public utility provides at rates approved by the Board with a company or firm in which the owner of the public utility, or. the director thereof has an interest, unless the board has approved the contract. Sections 83 to 116 of Bill 52 read

section by

section -- _

preamble -- MR . M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, before this Bill is passed I would like to ask a question. It may have nothing to do with this Bill. How many municipalities are still under the Public Utility Control? MR . CARROLL: I believe it's eight -- there were seven, and one has come under re ce ntly to make a total of eight, I-believe it is. MR . CHAIRMAN: Title.Bill be reported. Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker? MR . MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House has considered Bill No. 52 as amended and directed me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Hono11rable Member for Winnipeg Centre that the report of the Committee be received. The Speaker _presented the motion and_ after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Educlltion · that Bill No. 52,

an Act to establish a Public Utilities Board be now read a third time and passed. The Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney General for second reading of Bill No. 81. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR . S. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): Mr.

Speaker, we were all shocked some months ago at the case of the child of the Jehovah's Witness faith, who lost his life in a city hospital, possibly because he, or at least it was presumed by many, because he did not receive a blood transfusion in time, and I share this great feeling of sympathy for the child -- I am sure we all do.

I notice that tonight's papers refer to this Bill 81 as the Jehovah's Witness Bill, and as such I think that it is receiving great popularity, or it's experiencing great popularity amongst the people of the Province, because so many of us felt so helpless at the time when this young lad lay ill in a hospital in Winnipeg. But I think we should not lose sight of the clauses that are contained in this Bill and the possible uses that can be put to them, other than the treat- July 30th, 1959. Page 1423

(Mr; Roberts, cont'd.) ••.. -ment of children such as this boy of the Jehovah's Witness faith. Because, I don't think that in this type of Bill we can include too_ many safeguards to protect the rights of each and everyone of us, and the rights so far as is possible, or as is right, of every parent to determine how their chilfuen are to be treated. Now the Hono'.ll'able Attorney-General in his introduction of the Bill, has stated that since 1936 it has been the law that no child would go without medical care, he said "medical care or treatment" • I suppose that is correct, I notice that one of the amendments in theBill of Bill 81,

Section 19 are the inclusion of the word "or treatment" after the word "care". The Honourable Attorney-General stated also when he introduced this Bill was that it was mainly to change the machinery, whereby the substance of the law co•lid be better administered. I think this is very important; I think this is quite the theme of the amendment because of the Bill being presented in amendment here, because it does, by changing the way in which the law can be administered, it also increases the severity of the law. And the.

Honourable Attor ney-General also stated that this bill, or this type of law has been utilized many times in Ontario, or at least a number of times and I suggest that that increases the reasons why we should give it close surveyance, because if this is the case then it possibly will be used here too. The Honourable the Attorney-General stated also that it was never the intention of this Legislature that the 14-day clause in the Welfare Act would be used as an impediment in the road of bringing proper medical care or treatment to a child in physical distress.

Bµt I do suggest Sir, that the 14-day clause was intended as a safeguard and surely that was the reason that it was placed into the original Act, that it was intended as a safeguard to protect against the indiscriminate use of the Act. And we are, with 0'.11' amendment here, under certain cases of great need, presumably or at least we are lifting this 14-day clause out and making the laws of the Act more rapidly effective.

So in effect, by reducing this or lifting out this 14-day clause under certain circumstances, we are reducing to some extent of course, as we all know, the right of the parent to decide what is best for his child. Under

Section 24 of the Welfare Act by adding subsection 2 (a), we are adding a clause in cluding as to one of the things that a Judge has the right to authorize in certain cases, the words "Surgical operation, medical or remedial care, or treatment". We are adding these rights to the power of the state. I've read the Welfare Act tonight and I do not believe that we had the right to perform surgical operations on children without the parents consent. If this is the case of course, it is a very serious infringement I believe, on the right of the parent.

I agree that it is considerably -- or at least I feel that it is considerably different, it's considerably further along in the rights of the state to include the right to operate on a child . I agree that it is morally wrong, morally incorrect for the state to stipulate that they can take it upon themselves to, under certain circumstances and with proper jurisdiction, perform an operation on a child without a parents consent, this may be going beyond our rights. I don't believe that we could place too many safeguards in this Bill. The right of the parent is per haps not almighty, but it is very, very great.

And I feel that this is a place where we must tread with a great deal of caution. I hope that going through the Bill in Committee, that we will have the good sense to amend it to provide the greatest possible protection to the parent. I suggest that in

Section 1 of the Bill to amend the Child Welfare Act, under subsection (a), that we should take out perhaps "or treatment" because if we mean by treatment, blood trans fusions, I think we should say so. I think we should spell it out in the Act, because treatment could be a great deal of-things besides blood transfusions. And further along in the Bill here,

Section 3, I don't think that we should give the Justice of the Peace the power which he holds · under this clause. I'm perfectly aware that under the Child Welfare Act, we do give the power of the Justice of the Pea,:e to start this proceeding; but we must remember that we're taking a great deal more responsibility into our hands with this amendment, and with that, I think that we should increase the safeguards, and I suggest that only a Judge should have the right to issue the Search Warrant. Under

Section 5, fourth line, it reads: "The Judge on investigation, may require and hear the evidence of at least three duly qualified medical practitioners." I suggest that it should read "shall require" -- should require -- the Judge on investigation should require - shall require and hear the evidence". Make it mandatory because this is -- as I say, we're taking a great deal of responsibility _into the hands of the State -- let's make it as safe as Page 1424 July 30th, 1959.

(Mr. RobertE>, cont'd.) .... ��sible. And further along in th� 1:1ame new

section 2 (a), which we are adding to

Section 24 of the Welfare Act, I wonder it we should include "surgical operations"? There's a very great moral right at stake here and I think I believe as greatly as anyone, as we all do, in our per sonal liberties. I think it ,...,, @.S I said -- I think it is morally incorrect to withhold food or care, in extreme cases, or P.lood from children in need. And therefore I think our Welfare Act is necessary.

But thi13 Uberty that we all cherish may be infringed upon if we give too. many powers to someone ot)wr than the parent of a child, if it is deemed wise, to particularly do many things to the body qf the child including operation -- and there's a very wide scope in the word "operation". I t�nk the Committee should be careful to increase all the safeguards possible to prevent any possibility in the future with some group perhaps, of indiscriminate use of this Act.

I don't think we should ever put ourselves in the position of putting too many of the powers -- those powers rightfully belonging to the parent -- into the hands of the state. MR . W. B. SCARTH (Q.C.) (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, just in very brief answer to the honourable the member who just spoke. It is of course the desire of.every member in this House to respect the religious scruples of all classes and of all sects; but, there are certain times when that cannot be done.

For example the Mormon religion -- and within their code they may have two or more wives -- but yet if a Mormon within Manitoba decided to perform a bigamist marriage, I think we would all know what would happen and it would not shock the Honourable Member from La Verendrye if a person who performed a bigamist marriage were dealt with. So Sir, I say that it is not always that the beliefs of certain others can fit in to our society, much as we would like to respect them. MR . ROBERTS: On a point of order, I didn't mention religious beliefs at any time in my speech and it wasn't even on my mind as a matter of fact.

I was speaking of the rights of the parent. Surely we have those rights the same as the Mormons or Jehovah' s Witnesses or anyone else. MR . SCARTH: •.. • As I understood the honourable gentleman -- (Interjection) -- any way we've got on it so now we'll get off that. I would like to point out to the honourable member that outside of Winnipeg -- Greater WiIL>iipeg -- there are only five resident judges within the whole Province of Manitoba. That is Morden, Minnedosa, Dauphin, Brandon and Portage la Prairie.

Now if this Act is to have any sense or to accomplish its purpose, it stands to rea son that often our wishes would be defeated if we were to have to go -- as the Honourable Member for Melita pointed out -- 90 miles to get in contact with a judge to get a search warrant if that judge, perhaps where there were not readily available three doctors, had to get three doctors before making an order.

I submit Sir, that the Bill -- I know it is only to be used in a question or in a case of extreme measures -- but, if it is to have effect, then somebody must . be given the power to act and act immediately if the child's life is to be saved. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? HON, S. R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, there are one or two points that perhaps should be replied to before the question is put.

Like the Honourable Mem ber for La Verendrye, I and the government naturally believe that we are restricting our selves to the question of blood transfusions, that blood when necessary should be given, and· we believe of course that

an Act like this is necessary. And that is exactly what he said. And believing that, we believe that there is no use having upon the statute books

an Act whi.ch gives certain subi;tance of power to the Director of Welfare or to the Director of the Children's Aid Society, if j;here is placed in the road of those two persons an insuperable block around which they ca:n't g�t and over w):µch they have no recourse in cases of dire emergency. So I found his remarks ;ra'!;her an anoi:paj.y because he said on one hand we must.protect the liberty of the in divudual and yet on the P!;h�r hand he believes that this type of bill is necessary. I can assure the honourable member� Mf.

Speaker, that we have put nothing more into these amendments than was absolutely necessary to take out this block about which I spoke yesterday, and I think the subject matter 9f which is clear to all members of the House. Now to deal specifi9a).ly with some of the points that were raised, going in inverse order. First of all, tJw Honourable Member from La Verendrye and I believe the Honourable Member from Ca rillon, ·both stated that in

Section 5 of the Bill -- I know that we shouldn't be referring to specific sections at second reading -- but since they have been referred to, I July 30th, 1959. Page 1425

(Mr: Lyon, cont'd.) •••• think I shall have to reply in kind, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, that this should be made a mandatory section, whereby the judge -- and judge by the way is de fined as meaning a Juvenile Court Judge or a Police Magistrate -- whereby the judge may hear three duly quilified medical practitioners who have been appointed by the Minister of Health. Why do we say "may" rather than "shall"?

For the very simple reason· that in some parts of this province, it is very difficult if not impossible, to get three duly qualified medical prac titioners on to the spot in time for them to examine the child and then give their evidence before a Court. And we want to leave some flexibility so that a judge hearing one of these cases which arises in a situation of emergency, he may -- looki:ilg at all of the facts of the case -- say "well, if there is only one doctor here I must take the evidence of one d:>ctor rather than wait i a day or two days or three days for other doctors to be flown in" and so on.

That is the simple reason why the provision was not made mandatory. I can only say that in the case which has been dis cussed in connection with the amendments before us, that the first action that the Crown took, was to consult the two attending physicians and then to consult a third haematologist who was called in by the Crown to examine this boy and to get the benefit of bis advice as a neutral and independent observer and a neutral and independent medical man to find out just exactly what the situation was from a specialist's standpoint.

So I think it only stands to reason that any judge hearing a case like this would certainly avail himself of the right to have three me.dical men appear before him if that was physically possible. But if in the time it was going to take to have three men appear before him, the life of the child was going to be in extreme jeopardy, then I think at the same time that judge should have the right to say, "Well, I will hear what medical evidence I can on the spot", because what is most important and what is foremost in bis mind will be whether or not the child's life can be saved.

Now there was a suggestion made that the word "treatment" should be taken out of Cla'.lse (

o) of

Section 19. It presently reads "medical care" and in my humble opinion and in the opin ion of the law officers of the Crown, medical care does cover surgical or operative treatment of any kind. But to make doubly sure, we1re putting in the word "care or treatment" because those are the exact words which are used in the Ontario statutes -- Medical care or treatment. We do feel at the present time and o:!:' course when we acted on the case that was before us, we felt that there was ample authority under the Child Welfare Act for surgical operations or any type of treatment tq be given under this wording.

But of course, we all have a tendency I think, to think entirely in terms of blood transfusions, in terms of this one instance, case, that was before us last fall. I should like to point out to honourable members of the House, Mr. Speaker, that there are other types of cases which are not of such an emergent nature, but where relatively fast treatment is required. Now if I could just take a moment, I would like to detail one or two of these cases that we have had since the Holland case ' -- cases which came to the· attention of the Director of Welfare. One of these was a little boy of about eight years of age.

He was flown into Winnipeg from an outlying district as an emergency case because of an accident in which his eye was punctured. People in the Children's Hospital where he was admitted didn't even know the name of his parents. His home was in an extremely remote area in the north part of the province. The hospital tried for two or three days to locate his parents or establish contact with them and when they failed to do that, they then got in touch with the Director, be cause naturally they had to get in touch with the parents to perform the medical care or treat ment that was required to help this little boy.

The Director when he was apprised of the situ ation, immediately apprehended the child pursuant to the present sections of the Child Welfare Act; consents· were signed for the medical care that had to be given and there was also a personal undertaking on behalf of the Director to secure consents from the parents just as soon as that was physically possible. These consents were held up two or three days because of bad weather conditions in the north.

The doctor in the case, however, just took a chance and· went ahead with the operation without the parent's consent and only on the word of the Director who subse cµently gave him his consent. When the doctor was exploring the .. eye previous to surgery he determined the damage had been so extensive and had lasted so long without repair that he couldn't save the sight of that eye.

And it is suggested that in a case like that, is the type of case that might well be brought within the am but of these amended sections now so that remedial care, truly emergent remedial care., can be given to a child in a circumstance just such as that Page 1426 July 30th, 1959.

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd.) .••• where there is no question of religion or no question of beliefs in volved at all, but purely a question of the physical distance of the parents from the child and the inability to obtain consent of the parents to have proper treatment carried on.

The Honourable Member for La Verendrye says, 11why do w� permit surgery?" It's my opinion, and I've had it confirmed by members of the medical profession that one must perform surgery in order to give even a blood transfusion because the skin must be severed and you must sew the artery in order to get in and to get out --that is to get the blood in and then to sew it up after the blood has been given.

So that is why the term "meilical care or treatment'' is used because we want to make sure that if surgery is necessary as it is in the case --in one instance of blood transfusions --that that surgery can be undertaken without delay.

I repeat for the benefit of the Honourable Member for La Verendrye and certainly for the benefit of the Honourable Member for Carillon, that there is nothing in this Bill which changes the substance of law of the Province of Manitoba because it has stood this way for the last 23 years and all we are doing is changing the procedural matters which blocked the proper appli cation of these sections in true ·emergency cases. There was a question raised as to whether or not a Justice should be allowed to take in information under this particular section.

I can see no harm in that at all, because there are more Justices of the Peace throughout the country than there are Judges --and a Judge again is defined as a Juvenile Court Judge or a Police··Magistrate. A Justice of the Peace can take an information for murder, a Justice of the Peace can take an information under the Criminal Code for practically every offence mentioned in that code. He can take an information under any Provincial Statute.

It is a semi-judical act in that the.Justice niust determine in his own discretion whether or not, based upon the information before him, there is s:.ifficient reason to believe that a warra.'llt should issue. And it is a semi-judical act in that respect, but I have no hesitation at all in saying that a Justice should be allowed to issue a warrant on information being laid before him.

I would not want to see this restricted to Magistrates be ca use of the point that has already been mentioned, there are more Justices of the Peace around Manitoba --especially in northern Manitoba, and of course that point has been strong in our minds that we must so draft the law as to suit all parts of the province --and especially in northern Manitoba --Magistrates up there are practically as scarce as people. We have only three Magistrates - one Magistrate in Churchill, one Magistrate in Flin Flon.

We have Justices of the Peace at other centres throughout the north though who are more readily avail- able and so I say that that

section sho,.lld be left as it is. · I think honourable members should realize Mr. Speaker, that a Justice of the Peace is not empowered· to hear one of these cases; only a Juvenile Court Judge or a Police Magistrate is empowered to hear a case and to make the order. And that while the child is under appre hension, it should also be remembered that all that is being done there is that he is kept in the hospital or he is kept at the place where he is foun::l or in some shelter.

No care or treatment, remedial care or treatment of medical or surgical type can be given .him until such time as the Judge, having heard all of the evidence in the case, makes an order committing the custody of that child to the Director; and then the Director must look at the case --he then becomes the parent of the child in effect and he must look at the case and say •aye' or •nay' as to whether or not that operation will proceed.

Let us not make the mistake of saying that the Co�t is order ing any remedial care or treatment; the Court is not doing that; the Court is merely transferring the custody of the child, either temporarily or permanently, to the Director of Welfare or the Director of the Children's Aid Society and that Director in turn assumes the role of the parent and then gives the consent. This is no change from the law as it has been as I say, for 23 years; this is no change from the law as it is in Ontario and as it has been in Ontario for a good number of years.

There was a question raised by the Honourable Member for Carillon about the reduction of age. I think inadvertently I might have said that 21 was the age. Actually 18 is the age that applies to this part of the Child Welfare Act; these sections would not apply to any child over the age of 18 years. I must say that I would not agree that the age should be red1ced. For one reason the Juvenile Delinquents Act which is brought into force in Manitoba --Federal sta tutes brought into force in Manitoba by operation of Order-in-Council. It has been for a number July30th, 1959. Page 1427

(Mr� Lyon, cont'd.) • . • • of years, and still continues to be the opinion of the government that children should be considered as children within the meaning of that Act until they reach the age of 18 years. That is but another example of where we choose to treat children as being of the age of 18 years -- up to the age of 18 years. I do not think that even in modern times that it's too much to say that a child up to those tender years of 18 years should receive this pro tection if and when it is required. I don't believe that there were any other points.

If I have omitted any points perhaps I could be reminded of them, but I don't believe from the notes I have taken there were any other points that I have missed. · The Honourable Member from La Verendrye did say that we were abridging the 14-day clause -- tha:t is the 14-day notice should be left. The 14-day notice to parents is left in the Act, and it's only in cases of dire emergency or where the exigencies of the case require it that the Judge can.consider whether or not he will, or what type of notice he will give to the parent.

If the child's life is in jeopardy the Judge may then say I will not give any notice to the parents because it's a matter of life or death, but that is the only way in which the present

section or subsection (6) of that

section bas a1 all been cut away. And that of course is the heart of the amendment which is before us, merely to cut away this 14-day waiting period which will not permit us to act with sufficient speed to enable those who require help. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . LYON: Yeas and Nayes, Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Call in the members. MR , W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker .......... members stand up. MR . E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr.

Speaker, on a question of privilege I would like to make my stand known at the present time on the vote tha11s going to take place. Since the Minister has declared that he would refuse any amendment to the bill I will vote 'no'. MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is second reading of Bill No. 81,

an Act to amend the Child Welfare Act 2. A standing vote was taken, the results being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Bjornson, Boulic, Carroll, Christianson, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Des jardins, Evans, Gray, Guttormson, Hamilton, Harris, Hawryluk, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jean notte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Orlikow, Paulley, Reid, Ridley, Roblin, Roberts, Scarth, Schreyer, Seil.born, Shoe maker, Smellie, st�es, strickland, Tanchak, Thompson, Wagner, Weir, Willis, Witney, Wright. NAYS: Messrs. Miller, Molgat, Prefontaine. MR . CLERK: Yeas - 45; Nays -- 3. Mr.

Speaker declared the motion carried. MR . PA ULLEY: May I announce to the House that there was no Party Whip on insofar as this resolution is concerned in our party. Each individual was on their own. MR . MILLER: Mr . Speaker, ..••.•. • I say that the same applied to our group. MR . SPEAKER: Order. Second reading of Bill No...... (I:rterjection) MR. MILLER: •• • No, I would suggest that the whip was in evidence. MR . SPEAKER: Order. Second reading of Bill No. 94,

an Act to am mend the Public School Act No. 3. Tue Honourable the Minister of Education. HON • S. E • McLEAN (Minister of Educa tio:Q.) (Dauphin): Mr,. Speaker I move seconded by the Honourable the Ml nister of Agriculture that Bill No. 94 be read a second time. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR . Mc LEAN: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is supplementary to, and in addition to, Bill No. 14 which has certain amendments to the Public Schools Act, and the provisions here would have been incorporated in the earlier bill except for the fact that we were not able to have them ready in time.

I would just like to indicate briefly the provisions in the Bill. First, the Bill provides that returning officers and deputy returning officers appointed for the purpose of any election under the Public Schools Act, shall have the necessary authority to take oaths and affirmations. The House will remember that in connection with the School Division vote on February 27th it was necessary to appoint a v el'Y large number of Commissioners for Oaths because of the fact that we had neglected this measure -- this provision in the Act last fall.

Then too, provision is made for payment of mileage to members of Division Boards and Area Page 1428 July 30th, 1959

(Mr. McLean, cont'd.) .... Boards while travelling on business of their Board. This again is a matter which was drawn to my attention by some members of the House, that we had omitted to make specifi� provision for payment of mileage, and did appear so far as School Divisions were concerned; mileage was only allowable to trustees for attending meetings,

whereas the fact is that they do have to make trips for other purposes in their work as trustees. Provision is further made for the disestablishment of school areas; at present, school areas come into existence after a vote but there has never been any provision for the disestablish ment of a school area, and provision is now made for that to take place on petition, after five years, and not more than seven years, after the formation, and the provisions are identical with the provisions that apply to School Divisions.

It was necessar-f to make a provision with respect to the only school area that is in existence at the present time, and for the purpose there the five year period is stated to run from the lst of July, 1959; that is simply to take care of the fact that it has actually been in existence already more than five years.

Under the Public Schools Act now, the Chief Inspector is required, where a school district lies in more than one municipality, to m'ake an apportio nill ent of the monies required for school support, and his apportionment is subject to an appeal to the Equalization and Appeal Board by any municipality that is affected by his apportionment.

Two amendments are included with respect to this -- one, to make the appeal to the Municipal Board since the Equalization and Appeal Board will go out of existence upon the establishment of the Municipal Board; and secondly, to allow the Municipal Board in giving its decision to make its decision effective for a two year period. This is in the discretion of the Municipal Board, and is to cut down the necessity of frequent appeals within a short period of time.

Another provision in this Bill abolishes or repeals, the provision in the Public Schools Act which provides for the establishment of secondary school areas. And this will mean the abolishing of secondary school areas as such, because it is no longer required under the Act in view of the school division legislation which we now have. There is a provision to allow the Minister to designate with respect to any individual district a Board of reference to hear certain matters which we discussed in the other Bill.

That is only necessary because of the. possibility that at any particular time there might actually be two boards of reference appoint ed, and it just simply provides that the Minister shall designate which board of reference shall deal with a particular matter. In order to take care of a situation which has developed in the School Divisions, in this year, we are making provision which will allow School Divisions to borrow money far the purchase of school bases. This is limited to a total of $50, OOO.

It is limited to the year 1959, because of the fact that it is in this year that they are having to establish their school routes and purchase their buses, and requires that the monies borrowed for this particular purpose be repaid within a period of three years. It requires the written approval of the Minister, which will allow for some scrutiny of the borrowing that is proposed; This I say, is a provision for the year 1959, and it would be my expectation that perhaps some provision of a similar nature will be required for the future, but that is not in the present Bill.

A further provision is made respecting a board of.reference, when hearing any particu lar matter which is before it, particularly the matter of a transfer of a district -- the possi.: bility of a transfer of a district from one division to another -- to have a vote of the electors residing in the district which is the subject matter of the application. And then finally, provisions are made for the Boundaries Commission to make an adjust ment in favour of a school district under -- where a school building becomes the property of a school division.

The House will remember that in the school division legislation, it is pro vided that a school building used exclusively for secondary school purposes becomes the pro perty of the school division. It w;i.s thought that the authority of the Boundaries Commission was wide enough to enable them to make an award in favour of the district that had previously owned the school building for the equity that they had in the building. It appeared that that was not the case, and this provision is now made in this Bill in order that that may be done.

And that is a change, or in addition, to that particular provision of the original bill passed last October. I have a further amendment which I will present in Committee, but which I VIDuld like to draw to the attention of the House now, namely, a provision that proposes to deal with a July 30th , 1959. Page 1429

(Mr. McLean, cont'd.) .... situation where a building has obviously been constructed and intended to be used as a secondary school, but where temporarily and at the time that the school division came into existence, a room, or rooms, were used for elementary education purposes. Now, on a strict reading of the original

section in the Act it would appear that such a building, despite the fact that it was in fact a high school building, a strict

interpretation would indicate that it would have to remain with the local school district. We propose to bring in an amendment which will be part of this Bill if it receives acceptance which will allow the Boundaries (}ommission to declare such a bwding a secondary school --for the purpose of that

section of the Act, and to make an awar_!! in favour of the local school district to gover their equity in such a building under those circumstances. There are not many instances of that type of case but there are some which could be ta.ken care of under that provision which we propose to bring in as an amendment when the Bill is in Committee. MR. J\IIILLER: Mr . Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the explanations given by the Minister of Education in connection with .this Bill. And it is true what he says that this Bill is supplementary --Bill 94.

Bill 94 is supplementary to Bill No. 14 which re ceived second reading yesterday. And the explanation the Minister gave was that there was not sufficient time to incorporate provisions of Bill 94 in Bill 14. Well, I don't know what the purpose was Mr. Speaker, but it appears to me that when_. Bill No. 14 has been in the House for a few days and is immediately followed by. _Bill No. 94, that the publication of Bill No. 14 might well have been delayed to incorporate the suggested amendments in Bill No. 94. Now I have no quarrel with some of the provisions of the Bill.

I believe that seeing that we have existing legislation covering secondary divisions that the decision to repeal the sections dealing with secondary areas is quite in order. I think too, that the other amendments that the Minister proposed are quite good, but there is something that I would like to get some more information on, and that is in connection with

Section 3. It is quite true, as the Minister stated, that under the school area legislation --the larger school area legislation --no pro vision was made for disestablishment and I've always maintained that any such provision doesn't mean a great deal. I mentioned that in connection with the debate on school divisions when much was made of the fact that after five years the divisions would be given, under certain conditions, an opportunity to vote themselves out. It doesn't mean a thing, Mr .

Speaker, be cause if the recommendations of the Commission are followed and if centralization is prac tised, it would be an utter impossibility to disestablish without dislocating the economic set-up within the divisions or school areas. It would be practically an impossibility to divide the assets and restore the status quo. So, any provision that provides for disestablishment under these circumstances is just a 'sop' to those who think it might mean <1omething. And I'm quite sure the Minister knows that. He knows that. Now there's one other thing.

When I spoke on the resolution on Bill No. 14, the Minister reiterated and said that he was sick and tired of talking about a vote in the Dauphin-Ochre area. That he said a vote would be taken and, if I remember the Hansard correctly, he said, "I've stated it fifty times but I'll state it again for the benefit of the honourable member". And what do we find now? Subsection (6) of

section 3 says distinctly, "In the case of the Dauphin-Ochre school area No. 1 --a proposal to disestablish the area shall not be submitted to a vote before the lst day of July, 1964, or after the 30th day of June, 1966." Now what does the Minister mean? Certainly he led me to believe and he led the people of Manitoba to believe that the people of Dauphin-Ochre would be given without undue delay an opportunity to say whether they wanted to go into the division set-up or remain as they are.

And yesterday we approved a bill grantiug Dauphin-Ochre school area all the grants applicable to divisions whether the vote was favourable or not. Now I want to know whether this vote will be delayed until 164. I want to know whether in the meantime the only school area in Manitoba will receive the division grants until 1964 and then they will be given the opportunity to decide what type of administrative unit they want to adopt. Now maybe the Minister has something up his sleeve. He's very cagey at times. I remember a speech he made in Brandon and I think he remembers it too.

I think it was before the Chambers of Commerce when he spoke on the relative merits and demerits of Dauphin-Ochre. And on that occasion, at least as I recall the press reports, he was like the girl in the song, "She Wouldn't Say Yes, and She Wouldn't Say No". Now I don't know -ne's quite cagey you know, and I'm always wondering what he'll pull out of his Page 1430 July 30th, 1959.

(Mr. Miller, cont'd.) .... hat. And I think he'll probably surprise me by announcing that at the time of the next municipal elections, Dauphin-Ochre will have an opportunity to vote . And I'd be very happy if that were the case. But I'd like to know bis authority because as I read this Bill, I'm very much afraid that the vote in Dauphin-Ochre will be delayed until 164. In the meantime I'm not opposing second. reading of the Bill. I may have something to say in Committee if the Minister• s explanation when he closes the debate is not satisfactory. MR . LYON: Mr. Speaker •..... MR .

SPEAKE R: The Honourable Minister is closing the debate . MR . McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I have ....••..•.••..... what the honourable member has said regarding the disestablishment and _I must be _perfectly frank and honest and say that the disestablishment of a school division or a school area would certainly pose some substan tial problem s. I don't go along, howeve r, that it would be impossible because I think anything is possible. However, I think we must recognize that it would pose certain problem s.

On the other hand as a matter of policy, when we introduced the plan for school divisions we did pro vide that a vote for disestablishment could take place. That was a provision that was included in the Saskatchewan legislation-when school units were first established, and so far as I know, it has worked satisfactorily perhaps because of the fact that in every instance where there has been a vote they have voted to continue in their school unit. That is something that one cannot really foretell with too great an accuracy.

Now with respect to the other matter, I want to thank the honourable member for bis great interest in that very fine community of Dauphin-Ochre but I think he's confusing vNo dif furent things. First of all, so far as a vote on the School Division Plan is_ concerned that stems entirely from the legislation which is already in existence because the Boundaries Commission recommended a territory for a proposed school division and I said in November last year and have said a number of times since that there will be a vote in the Dauphin-Ochre area as to whether or not they desire to have a school division.

That vote will take place before the end of 1959. There' s no question about that . It has been stated several times and there's been no change and it stems .... .•..•. , , . . . . · MR . MILJ,.ER: Mr. Speaker, I want to interject here -- it has never been stated when the vote would take place. The only statement that the Minister made was in connection with the four proposed areas the other day -- he never made a statemen t to my knowledge in con nection with Dauphin-Ochre . MR . McLEAN: Well, the honourable member hasn't been reading my speeches -as dili gently as he read about the one that I made in Brandon.

But in any event, let it be abundantly clear that the vote will take place before the end of 1959. I'm not in a position to give the exact date because certain work has to be done in preparation for it. But that is something quite separate and distinct from the provisions in this Bill which provide for the vote for the dises tablishment of a school area. Now if we mi ght assume for the moment that the Dauphin-Ochre area became a school division as of the time of their vote this fall, then of course, this parti cular provision would be of no effect. On the other hand (interjection). Yes .

On the other hand, if it remaini3 as a school division, they would have -. the opportunity of voting -- of dises tablishing the area at the time mentioned in the Bill and under those circumstances, and that simply puts them as a school area in the same position as any other school area that might be established unde r the Public Schools' Act . The two things are really quite separate and dis tinct from one another. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 95,

an Act to amend the Law of Property Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General. MR . LYON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources that Bill No. 95,

an Act to amend the Law of Property Act be now read a second time. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? , �MR. LYON : Mr. Speaker, this is a new -- an addition to The Law of Property Act but it's of a comparatively minor nature in that it merely brings into force in Manitoba an amend ment to this Act which has been recommended for inclusion in all provincialstatu�_es of a simi lar kind across Canada by the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation. This July 30th, 1959. Page 1431

(Mr.· Lyon, cont'd.) •••• prov ides, in essence, that a designation of a beneficiary made under a pension or retirement or welfare plan will be sufficient indication for the trustee to pay the moneys out -- the moneys accruing to the partici pating member -- pay it out to the beneficiary designated by the participating member without reference to any testamentary document which may or may not be 1n existence.

The second portion of it has the effect of repealing the rule against perpetuity - the old common law rule - insofar as it app lies to these partic ular plans - pension, welfare and re tirement plans in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the pro posed motion of the Honourable the First Minister that this House now resolve itself :into a Committee of Ways and Means for raising of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty; and the pro posed motion of the Leader of the Opp osi tion in amendment thereto; and the pro posed motion of the Honourable the Leader of the CCF in further amendment thereto. The Honourable Member for Wellington. MR . R. SEABORN (Wellington): Mr. Speaker , when I was a young lad, I was very un decided on which path to follow in life -- business, the ministry or music.

My father, an ex cellent accountant himself, felt I should have something tangible at my fingertips and therfore guided me into his field. I specialized in public utility accounting and was later employed by two utilities, the Calgary Power Company and the Manitoba Telephone System. I !ilso served as an auditor for a year or two with the Alberta Government but music finally triumphed in my life. However, I have never regretted this knowledge. It has served jtl economic stress and it seems that mathematics and art are pecularia rly allied.

My accounting experience did give me a deep app reciation of the Estimates and the pres entation of the Budget by my leader. As I become more familiar with the procedure of the House, I will look forward to partici pa ting more actively in this debate, but it is sufficient for me to say at this time that I disagree with the leaders of the two other parties for I feel that Manitoba has taken a long step forward, and as my step -father would say, "We're beginning to come out of tbe woods at last".

The real reason I have arisen, Sir, is because I understand that this is the most conven ient and app ropriate time to reply to my many critics both in and outside of the House. I am going to attempt to answer some of the far-fetched allegations that resulted from the twisting and pulling at the contents of my contribution to the Throne Speech debate. Although I endea voured to make it quite clear that I was discussing theSocialist philo spp hy and not any

part icu lar individual or individuals -- in which I was kindly supp orted by my Leader and the Leader of the Opposition -- despite these assurances the honourable gentlemen to my left - or to my right rather insisted on taking the whole matter to heart and consequently there began denun ciation commencing in this Chamber and continuing for some length of time in the Press.

Now Sir, I'm not blaming anyone for the condemnation I have received for I re ally should have known better, but I did prove one point, however, and that is that Socialists are extremely touchy mortals, and one of the most unpopular words in their vocabulary is the word "Socialism" • Right at this moment, Mr·. J. McGovern, the Socialist member of Parliament for Glasgow, is being attacked by Mr. Morgan Phillips, Secretary of the British Labour -Party, for a sp eech given in Berlin last April, 1959 . Mr.

McGovern is reported to have said, "There are 26 mem bers of the Labour Party in Parliament who are either Communists or fellow-travellers. He wouid have 70 of them, who, if the Russians were winning would throw off their democratic masks and go over to the Communist side . " Mr. Phillips has called on Mr. McGovern to withdraw his allegations but the Secretary of the British Labour Party did not make a similar allegations on October 5th, 1952. Commenting on the Socialist Party Conference held in that year, Mr.

Gaitskill sake, "A most disturbing feature of the Labour Party Conference was the number of resolutions and speeches wh ich were Communist inspired based not even on the· Tribune so much as on the Daily Worker. I was told by some observers" concluded Mr. Gaitskill, 11that about one-sixth of the Constituency party delegates to the Conference ap peared to be Communist or Communist-inspir ed." And back in 19llo3, that astute statesman, Sir.Winston Churchill, made a radio broadcast to the British people on June 14th.

He warned that "no Socialist government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, shaIJ> or violently worded ex pres sions ofpu bliC:discontent. They would have to fall back on some kind of Gestapo, no doubt Page 1432 July 30th, 1959 .

(Mr. Seahorn, cont'd) .•• very humanely directed :in the first instance ••. " As a result of this speech, Mr. Churchill was denollllCed and ridiculed on every hand, and although it may not have been good electoral tactics, Mr. Churchill has yet to be proven wrong. . However, in :fairness to the gentl e me n opposite, I must confess that I am fully aware that many Socialists have ·been inspired by the thought that they were part of a movement dedicated to the bringing of a new age - an· age which would be as superior to the capitalist age as the �talist age was itse lf superior to the old fuedal sy-stem.

They feel that the organization of our society is never -static, but is in a eoo.timlal series of evolution, and the refore our prese nt capitalist system muSt, in time, develop into the Socialist age . But, Sir, this is flying in the :face of his tory. For one of the many le ssons we should have learned is that Socialism is NOT an advanced stage in the evolution of many but is actually one of the more priiJ:litiw stages . We learn, fur example , that when Pizarro landed in Peru in 1527 , he fOtmd a very ·highly articulated form of Socialism being practiced among the Incas.

All produce,, whether agricultural or industrial, was the property of the State , and the land was distributed among the people for cultivation. And we find, too, that public granarie s were maintained by the State and through them a kind of rationing system . Labour was directed; in fact the Jncas had not only "· communal ownership of the means of production" but they also had a ''Pl anned economy" • All the basic features of Socialism were prese nt, and one of the features that has particularly attracted the archaeologist is the fact that the Incas were, in effect, a huge bureaucra cy.

I would like to sugg est that Socialism is being practised among many of the m-ore primitive African tribes today, and far from "communal owner ship of the means of pro du-eticm" being an advance on free ente rprise , history teaches us that "communal owner ship" :is norm.al ani0ong primitive people, and the institution of private property in the "means of pro duction" has always been the first big step on the road to civilization. Now, Mr. Spe:aker, because of my disapproval of the Socialist philosophy, it has been in ferred that I am therefore opposed to organized labour. And this is simply not true .

I am conneet ed with tbe Trade Uni-on Movement and it is only natural that I should be very concerned over the fact that the Trade Union Movement has tended to enter into an unholy alliance with a p-arl;y with avowed Socialistic ideas and phil osop hy. I ref erred to the fate of the Trade Unions ·in Ib.rasia and.the policy of that Socialist government in respect to claims made against the state by organjzed labour; and immed iately I w� accused of distortion and a personal attempt to em barrass the honourable gentlemen of the CCF Party. They did not like the illustration.

There is apparently a difference .between-the various Socialist parties in existen ce . Howev er, I will acoopttheir protest and in view of the fact I have often heard the ir commenda tion of a sister membership of our great Commonwealth, perhaps they will not mind if I examine tl:ie reiationshl:p of the Trad.e Uni-OR .Movement with the Government of New Zehland . During the last war and the immediate post-war period , the Labour Government in New Zea.land, under Peter F; aser, entered into -a very difficult peri od.

Fraser was affronted by the frequent strikes which, to him, seemed blows aimed not at the existing employers but at the New Zealand Gove.mment itsel f. The more militant unionists were very unhappy about their regimentation in the Fed,eration of Labour, which was formed in 1937 , or the restriction of their aetmns by compulsory lll'hitration and the gove rnment' s 11stabilization11 policy. The go ve�mnent wanted the Unions to act as though industry had been nationalized and Socialism had -already arrived.

When the UBions struck - illeg ally on several occasions, the New Zea land Gave-rmnent "deregistered" them - that is, struck off their regist ration unde r the Industrial Conc iliation -lllld Arb.l:tration Act - and took extremely stern meas ures against the str:ikers . The Trade Unions di-d not fare very well under the Socialist government of New Zealand, headed first by M. J. Savage and later by Peter Fraser , even though seven members of the Labour Ministry had been members of the Federation of Labour - in fact six had been on its exe cutive .

When George Bernard Shaw v:isisted New Zealand in 1934, . he continually referred to it as "Communist". so it appears I am not the only one that can get confused about the distinction that is supposed to be made, but from all that I have said, it must be obvious my concern for my Union brethern is well founded. Not -0nly were my hooonrab le friends offended with me with my ref erences to the Socialistic Republic of Russia. They were displeased that I should quote from Marx and Engels and felt I was most unjust to use such references . Well, that may be so, but tell me gentle men, why July 30th, 195.9 Page 1433

(Mr. Seaborn, cont'd) •• didn't you protest when the British Socialist Gov ernment issued a Ce ntenary edition of Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" :In 1949? This edition was printed with p:nhlic funds • Why did you not also protest this .grave misuse of the. British .Nation's fin ances? The Labour Party in Great Britain are also "de mocratic socialists", wha:tever that. means , and if there can be no reconciliation with the Marxist, as the lmoourable member from .Brokenhead sugges ted, then surely this celebration was entirely on:t of order .

Why didn't you condemn the .British Labour Party as se verely as you have condemned me? The honourable member frrun Burrows €:xpressed his opinion that I � insultillg all those who had fled from the tyranny of the Russian Socialist regime. Sir, I cam.iat accept this charge partieularly where it concerns the Ukrainian peop le. The ho nourable member well knows that I have nmny personal frientls among these peopie, and they would most likely protest being ineluded in the Socialist circles. My family knows the cruel torlllres ufthe Soviet Union.

I have in my hand a medalli-0n won by my uncle when he became tbe tennis champion of all the Rus.sias . His body lay on the stree ts of St . Petersburg, or what is nnw Leningr.ad, for many hours, a victim of the Socialist revolution in Russia. My other uncle� a very successful business man in tbe sru:ne city, last bis complete fleet of four freightors and his lumberln!f induf!try, and the lives of that family were only saved by crossing the ice and by being picked up by a British destroyer .

To say that I am not sympathc...tic to all who love freedom is, I fee l, a mast regre±Uilile staten:rent, parti cularly when reference was made to those w:ho saerifieed so much for it. I am sin-e you will appreciate I had no su ch thought in my mind - in fact :it is beeanse I cherish au.r way of life, conceived in ).iberty, that I challenge the claims of the Socialist philosophy. Lenin called him self a democratic socialist too, but he led one of the bloodiest revolutions in history and brought into being the first truly socialistic state.

Now, S'ir, there have been many other things said a:bout me, -and none of them particularly complimentary. It would be physically impossible to answer everytbir.g in detail, but I w-OUld like to make a general observation. The substance of much of the criticism has been to the effect that when I oppose Socialism, 1 also opp ose all that is good. The net result of this, of course, is that I am pictured as a cold, heartless creature who has no concern for his fell ow man. There could be nothing more ridicukms than this.

For it must be obvious that when I voted in favour of the Throne Speech, i expressed my BJlPl'-OVal of the many fine things our government intends to d o and which the C. C . F. Party, to a la..."i§e degree, also endorsed, al though not necessarily for the same reasons. Social reform and socialism a.re not DBcessarily one and the same thing. I most heartily agree that the care of our elder citizens, the incapa citated, the widows, the orphans, the mothers and children are inescapable obliga;tions imposed upon any society that clai ms to be ciYilized .

Thexe can be no qn.arrel about the existene.e of thes e kinds of problems, the cll.allenge arises from the method .and the mromer of their solution. To me, and this is my own humble opinion, the fundamental error 1n doctrirutire Soctallstic planning, both political and economi c, is to be found in the fact that it takes .care of everything and everybody except the poor souls who are e�ctetl to enjoy having e vexything planned for them . The plan is .all holy and inviolable. The planner,g are a race a.J?8.rt and when the State becomes the nation's storekeeper, the customer is always wrong.

It is claimed fur economic planning that in no other way is it possible to inaugurate and snstain. a Welfare State., hut the Socialists themselves can scarcely pretend� in the light of practical experience gained within the Commonwealth itself, that it is all welfare. The fact is it offers too much to too many for too little, but in reality it sells too little to too few for too much. Now I would like to give you the conclusions reached by Mx.

Cecil Palmer as he analysed the progress of the Labour Government when it was in office in Great Btitai:n, and I might :re iterate again that this concerns only the Socialist Party m Great Britain and aoes .not refer to any established party in Canada. I should mention that 1\lfr. Palmer was on the executive of a British Trade Union, was an excelle:it jo urnalist and a fine lecturer, and was ruJted for his sin cerity and his keen perception .of public af:fair:s • His analyfils, therefu.re sho uld be of gram in terest to us and particularly to the HO!l:ourable Member from st. Jobns.

I quote: "I think," said :iv.rr. Palmer, "i t can be demonstrated�hat tbe Socialist Welfare state is the negation of demo.cracy for a .number of reasons, 1lll of them being cogent and all of them a per:sonal.ehallenge to our polttical sagacity and sanity. O.ae of the highlights 1n Socialist propaganda ha£ consistfillily reilecled the idea that when the state own the means of production, distribution and exchange, Page 1434 July 30th, 1959

(Mr . Seal» rn, cont' d) ..• when in short, the profit motive was banished in favour of prod uction for use, the so-called working classes would feel them selves and find themselves elevated to proprietorial statur e. The major industr ie .s and utilities are now nationalized, but I have yet to meet a livillg soul in any one of them who is prepared to say that nationalization has given him a boss complex . The very opp osite is the truth. He is now more ruthlessly pegged down to his lowly status than he ever was under competitive free ente rprise.

Even his trade unions have largely deserted. him, for the leaders in them are now in the unenviable position of having to negotiate with the state as employer. It isn't funny and it doesn't make sense. Trade Unionsm, which must be assumed to he one of the props of democracy, is in process of becoming re dundant under Socialism . As the Welfare State evolves towards its final destination, an omni potent .state, the workil:lg classes are going to discover more and more that whoever is to be privileged to enter Paradise, it certainly won't be the m.

They have been encouraged to believe that Socialism in practice would entitle them to a major share in its operations . "The Socialist wolves" ciltltimles Mr. Palmer , "masquerading as labour sheep, wasted no time once they got off. They chose a Trade Union Congress as a convenient platform to tell the de legates who re presented millions of organized workers, that labour was unfit to govern. I am not disposed to quarrel with their decision, but I would have mo.re respect for th eir verdict if they had reached •it .before, instead of after they had collected the parliamentary vot es.

The logical result of this piece of realistic thinking is that the working classes now know that they do not run Socialism. Socialism nms them . And this surely is an

interpretation of democra cy that contains within it self a nemisis for those who accept political promises at their face value." Mr . Palmer con cludes . Now this leads me , Mr. Speaker, to perhaps the most diffi cult part of my task . I have been told that I was utt erly irresponsible, that I was confused, that I should go back to practi cing my arpeggios. Why? Because I dared to mention that the re is no fundamental diff erence between socialism and cOllllIUElism. I was accused of presenting a "hodge-podge" of untruths , that I did not know what I was talking about .

Well I could of course appeal to the Right Honour able John straclley to come to my defense, for after he defined the fundamen tal principles to be consid ered, Mr. strachey stated quite emphatfoally that the type of economic system now being built up :i:n the Soviet Union is Socialism. On another occasion the same Socialist minister declared that Communism is the logical and inevitable end of Socialism. However, I knew that this would not do. I would need more convincing proof than the opinion of a Labour Ministe r in Great Britain, so I diligently searched into the past. My first reference will be Mr.

William Ivens, an MLA who later became very prominent :in the CCF Party . This is an excerpt from a speech delivered on February 24th, 1924. I quote : "The advent of the Labour Government in Great Britain has brought to mind the advent of the Labour Government in Russia in 1917 . Briti sh Labour has adopt .ed an evolutionary, or constitutional method, while Russia adopted the more spectacular method of revolution. There are those who suppose that British Labour could by a bold policy, similarly have overthrown capitalism at one st roke .

Those who think thus, do not reckon on the differen ces between things Russian and things British. The Bolshevik . Government was driven back, by counter attacks for hundreds of miles and could still hold out; more-over capitalism was but a feeble instititi on in Russia,

whereas it found its stronghold in Britain. These things made different tactics ne cessary in Britain, even though the temper of the two peoples might have been the same, which they were not." Yo u will notic e that there is no quarrel about the diff erence of socialist prin c.iples from one country to ano t her. Mr. Ivens points out that a difference of tactics was ne ceBsary to bringthe socialist system into being in the two countries.

Late r, when this gentle man 'Wafl running as the CCF candidate for Ke nor a, Rainy River, fe deral constituency, he pub lished a pamphlet entitloo "Canada-Whither Bound ." Mr. Ivens wrote : " in this paragraph you will find one principle reason why the CCF cannot work with the Communists. This principle is basic to the CCF. We do not believ e in a change by violent means." Mr. Ivens does not say there is a fundamental differ ence in principle between these two reactionary parties. He merely points out there is a clif.Ierence of opinion regarding the means in which Socialism is introduced into this country.

Mr . . Ivens says further, "The door has always been wide open for all per sons who beUeve in Socialism. If the objection is' that the CCF is not radical enough, thein assuredly the remedy is for these persons to become members the rein and thus make it more July 30th , 1959 Page 1435

(Mr. Seaborn, cont'd) •.• radical." Now Nu •. 'Iven•s statement "we do not.believe in a change by violence" is fully supported by E. Jollie ffe, the CCF member of tlle Ontario Legislature • . Speaking in Toronto, on February 7th, 1944, Mr. Jollieffe said, "There is another reason why tt .;nust be emphasized that socialization is a process and not a single step . It must be a pro ee5s because it is physically as well as socially and historically impossible to achieve a socialist e�onomy in any other way. There are no shcrt cuts.

" Some people have had the illusion that a llhort cut could be found by way of revolution. Even where power is suddenl y and violently transferred from the capitalist class to an anti-capitalist political party, it still takes many years to go through the p:r oo ess of socialization. Shortly after the revoluti on of 1917 in Russia, many .industries and ente�s were nationalized by decree .

Yet fur some years following 1921, the Soviets found it necessary to revive private enterprise in many fields .arui let it :function profitably until such time as the .government and its plannj.ng authorities were ready to proceed with the socialization process and a program of planned economic expansion. And here again, we have a CCF member pointing out that the difference .of opinion is one of taclics rather than philosophy, .as reveated m Mr. Jollieffe's Irextpar�.aph. ''That revival of enterprise in 1921 ," Mr.

Jollieff e stated, "was not undertaken because the Soviets liked il or believed in it and it was not done hecause Socialism won 't work, as the capitalist observers tried to make • out. It was done· because of the impossibility .of realizing social pl ru:m.ing and social ownership except .as a process� and becau se of the necessity of .� S-Ome enterprises on a cfq)italist basis while others are being socialized. Industry cannot be socialized in one Jump and revolu tion doe� not provid e any short cuts • " And Mr.

Jollie:ff.e concludes by saying" The transition can be carried through in an. orde.rly way as a process and not a convulsion." That is Why we say in the Regina Manifesto that we do not believe in change by violence. Surely this supports ;professor Col e's contention in the Encyclopaedia Britamlica that "C ommunism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and by making its revolutionary methods a canon of faith.11 I found other CCF members who believe this, Dr. T .F.

Nicholson for example, stated on March 2oth, 1944, "In the Soviet Union, the socialized health system, working in a socialist environment has been instrumental in bringing about a phe nomenal improvement in the health of the whole nation and has provided a military medical corps second to none." And again on April lOtll, the same year, another CCF member , Mr. P. A. Deacon said this: "The USSR has dc;>ne mor e than any other nation in plamiing for use by the people of the nation's resources.

Health services which in the USSR include s housing., axe made tbe first charge on the profits from industry." Again on the 24th of April, 1944, Mr. F. R. SCott, another CCFer stated that ".Russia used her pl anning for great social objectives, the increased standard of living and the defence -0.f her people ." And after this great display of admiration by the CC1' of the Soviet Union, it was rather $�rising to have the Honourable Leader of the CCF in this House protesting that I had coupled them 11.p in the theories of Socialism with them over there.

I might .add for bis information, but :be µrobably knows already, that the very title bis party usestbe 'Com:Q!<Jnwealth Federation" is the b�a!n chil d of Karl Marx, the great philosopher my hanourshle friends would like to ignore, and ;reveals the debt that this party owes to this man for its essential doctrines and beliefs . When did the great change come in the att itude of the CCF ro the socialists of Rusaia? After twenty years of acknowledged similarity when . did the honourable gentlemen decide that the p.Mneip:les to which they agreerl were no 1 anger in accord one with the other?

I am convinced thl\t the socialists in Russia did not change their 1lttitude .. S-O therefore, the coolness must haVfl IU"isen with Socialist party. In closing, 1\IIr. Speaker, I would. like to say this. That .Socialism and its Welfare State is not an end, it is the means to an end. The end is Communism, the very tbing so many of them � now decrying, condemning and repu.rlia:ting. Russia to tbis very day aclmowledges its indebl;edness to Socialism by inco:rporlrting the word "Socialist" in its republican title.

Every communi!rt state today, withoot a single exception, owes its existence to the pioneering work of the socialists and it is sheer folly to believe that it coultl not happen here. The Weliare State is not a .gospel. it is a technique . Those who are engaged in a conscientious effort to bring it into beiJlg may or may not know the end of the .road, but ignorance of its existence does not abollsb. the road. .It is there. the sign post of the communists who have the. courage of their July 30th, 1959

(Mr. Sea born, cont' d) •• • convictions. Thank you. MR. D. ORIJKOW: (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member would permit a question? No, I am not going to make a speech, not today. He quoted Sir Winston Churchill saying in 1943 that a Socialist Government would have to restrict freedom and de mocracy. I wonder what democratic rights, the honourable member would suggest the Labour Socialist Government in Britain abridged between 1945 and 1950? , MR. SEABORN: I didn't get the latter part of your question Sir. Would you please repeat it? MR .

ORIJKOW: I wonder if you can tell us one democratic right which the Labour Govern ment in Britain abridged while it was in office in 1945 to 1950 ? MR . SEABORN: Yes, they started to get what they termed "Inspectors" which did nothing else but •enforce the rulings of the Labour Government in England. MR. E. R. SCHREYER: (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have 27 questions to ask the member, I move seconded by the member for Kildonan that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR .

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Rhineland and the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead in amendment thereto. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR . MCLEAN: The Honourable Member for Roblin is not here and I do not feel that we should properly ask the House to have this stand any further. I would with your permission and the permission of the House, just like to speak briefly on the amendment which is before the House at this time. I expressed my views with respect to the main motion and indicated the reasons for being opposed to it.

I should like to indi cate to the House that I am equally opposed to the amendment which, as a matter of fact means nothing at all. It is perfectly ob vious when you read the amendment in which it proposes that if all of the members of a board, that is referring to Division Board, charges secondary schools are unanimously in agreement that it is not practical or desirable to construct any school or schools in their jurisdiction of the size required in order to qualify for the maximum grant, that you appreciate the meaning less of this amendment. It is like asking who is in favour of, or who is against sin.

Of course, obviously we are all against it and obviously all divi sion boards would be quite unanimous in their decision to exempt themselves from any requirements -- or at least to vote themselves into a position where they might claim the largest possible grant for every conceivable school that they would like to construct. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed amendment is without meaning, impractical, and would just simply make a mockery of the grant

schedule which is provided with respect to school divi sions and having to do with high schools, and for that rea son indicate my opposition to the proposed amendment. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I feel in view of the words just spoken by the Honourable the Minister, I feel that it is no more than right that I rise and try to defend it at least. Natur ally what I had in mind -- I'm sorry Mr. Speaker, I' m closing the debate, am I not? MR. SPEAKER: No, your not closing the debate . MR. ROBLIN: That is a point the Honourable Member raises, Sir. We don't customarily allow a closing speech on amendments .

It's only on a main motion. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. MOLG1AT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Carillon that the debate be adjourned. MR . SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member wish to speak? MR . MOLGAT: I V.:ould suggest that he be allowed to speak. MR. WAGNER: Well Mr. Speaker, I'm som ewhat disappointed listening to Honourable the Minister of Education when he says that this amendment is meaningless, and that there would be no divisional board agreeing unanimous.

I'm a little bit surprised, because ..•.... (interjection) •.• as far as the 75% school building construction is concerned. Because I can say, I can say in Lakeshore division that you are going to discriminate if you're not going to reverse your decision. Because for example, our Lakeshore division starts from Steep Rock and it continues down to Inwood down to Fraserwood, and there is no place that you will build :in there a school large enough to qualify for 75% construction grant, -- that is twelve room July 3oth, 1959 Page 1437

(Mr. Wagn er, cont'd) ••• school . Therefore, that School Division Board will have to ag ree to build smaller size schools. And what's going to happen? They're going to be discriminated of vocational training because they will be deprived of that opportunity to have a vocational training in a six :room school or a five room school, which, in other words, in a twelve room school it would be a lot easier to get a vocational training. And just for more information for the honourable member or members in the House, I'm going to quote some figures. 1 inquired from the Honourable Member from st.

George whether they could build a twelve room school in Ashexn because it's on the other line, No. 6. He has no vision that they could, I'm going to use the conservative word 'vision'. Naturally, naturally in Fisher Branch we may, we may have a twelve room school, but we would have to haul the children quite a way. Now, where are we going to have another twelve-room school? Nowheres in the Lak eshore division, because Fraserwood is so much closer to Gimli and to the other division .. There you are. And the next plane is Teulon; t'hat1s 70 miles apart.

It's 70 miles from steep Roc k to F isher Branch; 70 miles from Fisher Branch to Teulon or 70 miles to Gimli . Then that Divisional Board will have to build small er schools and they're not going to qualify for 75% of coDStruction grants. And that's discriminating only in that Lakeshore divi sion. And there is no doubt in my mind that there are other divisions that they're going to be discriminated due to the fact that they are so sparsely settled. They're settled in the area; as the Honourable Minister of Agriculture wants to �. that they have no business living there, maybe it's so.

But we are going to penalize these people, they're living in poor land and yet we're going to penalize them - as we used to say, equalization in education. This is not equalization of education be�ause you're going to deprive twelve room school or have a better benefit of a vocational training. Now if you're going to insist that that.school board have a twelve room school, you're going to haul children between 60 miles or 30 miles and we have no road facilities whatsoever to travel in summer and never mind in winter when the drifts are 4 feet high.

And I must remind once more that this should be given full consideration of 75% construction grant of twelve room school . MR . COBB: Mr. Speaker, I think the Honourable Member from Fisher is considerably out of line in his thinking . There is no necessity in any division to build a twelve room school . You can build a four room school with the ancillary room to go with it and get 66 .3% "of the grant. And you do not have to have a twelve room school to have the other types of education such as your commercial course, your agricultural course or what have you.

In our division we have got two applications at the present time for commercial teachers, one in our school that at the present time I helieve has five high school rooms, and in the others on a half day basis each which have less than that. So therefore, you can have, if the division so sees fit to have it, the other types of education in le ss than twelve rooms of any school. MR . WAGNER: Mr. Spe aker , would the honourable member permtt a question? How many rooms do you haYe to have to qualify for 66% of construction grants ? MR . COBB: Four rooms with the four ancillaiy rooms will give you 66 .3 grant.

In other words youtre less than 9% from the maximum grant with that type of school. You can have four classr ooms, an auditorium which is equivalent to two classrooms providing you have 1, 400 square feet, a library with 700 square feet and a laboratory with 700 square feet, and tbat will give you an eight room sc�l. MR . WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, I w-Ould just like t-0 see the honourable member to go .... MR. BPEAKER: You may ask a question. You may not debate. Are you ready for the question? MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Carill on-that the debate be adjow:ned. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead. The Honourable Member for Brokenhead is closing the debate. MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I just found out that one cannot speak on his own amend ment in the conduding stages. However, I did want to say something on my resolution, this particular resolution, on deficiency payments and I will be brief .. It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to introduce new arguments or introduce new statistics in support of this resolution.

I would just like to take a few minutes to try and indicate to members opposite that in voting Page_1438 July 30th, 1959

(Mr. Schreyer, cont'd) • •• for the amendment to this resolution this afternoon they actually acted in a very ill advised manner. As was said upon introduction of this resolution Mr. Speaker, we all agree that there is no disputing the fact that agriculture is in comparatively dire straights today. There is a cost-price squeeze, no one denies it. No one would deny that. agriculture has been allowed to become the pack horse of the Canadian economy� No one denies that. But then when it comes to the matter of finding a solution for this problem, there is where the diversi-on seems to appear. Mr.

Speaker, without going into the intracacies of economics, it should be obvious that there's only one of two things in the final analysis that can be done to solve this problem in agriculture, either prices - agricultural products must be higher, or the cost of production must be lower, machinery must be lower and. the likes. Of course, I dare say that there will be :aome reactionary individuals acro:as the way who would immediately stand up and say that this is sure indication that wages are too high, labour costs are perhaps the main cause of all this.

But I would only like to remind these honourable gentlemen that it perhaps would be much worse for the Canadian economy if wages were not as high as they are, because it is only if wages have a surging purchasing power that the economy can be really healthy. I said some honourable members opposite would no doubt have it. I didn't say anybody said it but I think I understand the mentality of at least some of the members opposite, and I think I can quote from Hansard, Mr. Speaker to try and back up my statement.

On page 1, 177 we have the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne saying, I quote (if I can find it riow) oh yes, 111 think when the Honourable Member from st. John's was so greatly i,nterested in the farmers he is not helping .solve the problem -n ot helpingsolvethe solution when he's trying to raise the increase in the minimum wage per hour, because when he.does that he's raising our cost of production. " · Well that is indicative, Mr. Speaker. There are those who wouid have it that it is labour that is primarily responsible for this problem that exists in the field of agriculture.

I do not intend to go into any type of profound argument as to the merits or demerits of this, I'd just like to say that surely, surely members should realize that wages in this country have not reached the point where they are excessive. Labour is actually quite ready to help the farmers in their demands for a morcEJ equitable price for their produce (interjection) Huh, that is a verj profound state ment. Further, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the argument for deficiency payments does have a strong moral argument or a strong moral appeal to it rather . At first glance it might not seem to be so.

There are those who would say that we are asking the Canadian taxpayer to foot the bill, to help out the cause of a certain segment of the economy. And so perhaps there could be some who are ag.ainst deficiency payments being made . But I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a strong moral argument because industry has had the benefit of protection -- it was indirect assistance, -- ever :Since Confederation. And when you couple this with the fact or with the statement made by the Ex-Minister of Justice of the Federal Ca binet, Mr.

Garson, two years ago when speaking at a meeting and discussing the problem of the cost-price-squeeze in agri culture, he said that one of the reasons why agriculture was in the situation in which it was, was because of the fact that industry, during the last six years, had been undergoing considerable expansion; the economy was bouyant, everything was so fine�in the early '50's and this had an adverSe effect on agriculture. Well if we accept this, Mr.

Speaker, surely the non-agricultural segment of this country should be willing to accept the fact then - and I say it is a fact - that agriculture requires some type of interim assistance from the Federal Treasury - and no apology for that, Mr. Spe:aker; is neo.essary. · rt has been suggested by some honourable members, I believe it was the Member for Rockwood - Iberville, that deficiency payments is not the best solution. I would only say to that, that certainly we should not be dogmatic about it; it could well be that there is some solution which is much better than deficiency payments.

But it can be said quite emphatically, Mr. Speaker, that thus far the solution has not been evident and has not become know to any body. And if there are so many thousands of farm folk and so many farm organization leaders who feel that under the present circumstances, a system of deficiency payments is perhaps most equitable, most scientific - if you chose that word -t hen why not support it?

If there is a better solution, I am quite sure that those experts, even though they are not academic ex perts - not experts in an academiC sense, those experts in farm circles would be quite pre pared to accept this new solution whatever it might be. But it isn't here, Mr. Speaker. July 30th, 1959 Page 1439

(Mr. Schrey er, cont'd) ..• Conseq uently and quite sanely, we must go along with that which seems to be the best at present . A great deal has been said by opponents or those who have not wished to accept this resol ution on deficiency payments, that farm credit has been provided for farmers in this province by the present gove rnmen t and so on. Well Mr. Speak er, certainly we can agree that the re is a great deal of value in this . I only like to hasten to add, Mr. Speaker that farm credit does not in any way - not in any way - enter into the problem of the cost-price squeeze .

Farm credit enab les farmers to improve or increase their efficiency; incre ased efficiency means higher yields, higher yields mean - it doesn't enhance the prospects for price s. Neve rthele ss, farm credit is desira ble at the pre sent. The government deserve s credit for it. They've gotten credit for it; no one wants to take that away from them . But here is a somew hat different aspect of agriculture . The Provincial Governmen t canno t do very much, being limited by the ENA Act, but they can do something . If nothing el se, they can try and lise the moral approach.

They had the opportunity last fall , or rathe r ea rly this year and they chose to send a telegram which in fact had no particular value at all, none at all. I could be negative and say that it actually harmed prospects - it actually harmed prospects insofar as the delegat ion achieving success in their mission, in their march to Ottawa. But howeve r, I will not say it harme d, I will say that it did not help.

This resol ution was couched. in such a way that this government, without doing anything particularly demanding, could have just used the moral approach and in that way, spoken on behalf of the farming population of this jurisdic tion. Obviously they do not chose to do so and the reason seems obvious now. It must be that they are so convinced that they just cannot embarrass their counterparts in Ottawa. Perhaps it is fear of their Great White Father. MR. HUTTON: Will the Honourable Member for Broke nhead allow me to ask him a question ? MR . SCHREYER: Yes . MR . HUTTON: Have you read the ame ndment ? MR.

SCHREYER: Yes, I did -· MR . HUTTON: It says that an imme diate payment of cash assistance be made ? MR . SCHREYER: I was getting to that, Mr . Speaker, I was getting to that. I was mer ely saying just a moment ago, that among other reasons wjly the provincial gover nmen t did not see fit to use this moral approa.ch it was I>ecause either they wer e afraid to embarrass their counterparts or else they were afraid to disple ase their Great Father at ottawa . Om� or the other. At any rate , it seems like they are on the horns of a dilemna . Well, we have this resol ution with us and what do we - In my opinion, Mr .

Speaker, the amen dment to the reso lution succeeds in doing one thing alright. Perhaps it succeeds in more things than that. It succeeds in becl ouding the issue and no one can dispute that; it succeeds in allowing the Federal Government more time for evasion and delay in acting, and it makes evident that this govern ment is prepared to stall, per haps for a very long time, on behalf of the Federal GovernIIien t . I know that it says that -- asks the Federal Government to make payment of cash assis tance . It doesn't offer a:qything tangible , it doesn't offer anything tangible .

Farmers have gone down fuere with a tangible sche me . (inter je ction) It's alright - it's alright. I was saying, Mr . Speak er, that the farmers went down there with a tangible scheme and this schem e was refuse d. Somebody across the way - I forget who - said that the Federal Gover nment was more apt to give an acreage payment than a deficiency payment of a bushel basis. And I would remind that gent leman, if be is he re , that it was announced by the Federal Government that acre ag e pay ments would be a one-shot affair.

Farm delegations simply chose the way that seemed mo st equitable and most tangible - 1 use that word again . And this resol ution, this amendment ra:ther, certainly does not offer anything substantial for the Federal Cabinet to grab ahold of. And they've :indicated on at least two or three occasions that they want a definite plan. So they have been presented with a definite plan, her e we have a provincial jurisdiction coming up and offering to do something that is the very anthe sises of it -- and so I ask you, what is the sense of that? " Well Mr.

Speake r, I.sa id that I would speak long and before I take my seat, I would just like to remind the honourable gentle men opposite that they had a good deal of opportunity to work against deficiency payment s outside of this House . Members of rural Manitoba who sit over there , I do believe that there were one or two that did have it mind and perhaps did actually do it, and that is that they t:old people who confronted them, that they were not in favour of Page 1440 July 30th, 1959

(Mr. Schreyer, cont'd) ••• deficiency payments. I am sorry the Honourable Member for Roblin is not here however, because he had the opportunity to announce his stand on this. He belongs to the Pool Local at Dropmore, Manitoba; he attended the me eting where the Local decided to endorse deficiency payments . He did not oppose it and I would ask him and I would ask some of his colleagues to convey this to him and ask him why he did not oppose it then, because he was elected and here he is not working along those lines which he had indicated at that tim e . MR .

SPEAKER; You are not allowed to question the action of a Member of the Legislature ? MR. SCHREYER: I'm not questioning his action, Mr. Speaker . MR . PAULLEY: Surely to goodness the honourable member has the right to refer to an incident. He's not speaking in any words deflamatory of the individual mem ber . Surely all of us in this House has recalled statements that other honourable members have ma de from time to time, and particularly, may I suggest to you Sir, during the election.

My Honourable friend, the Leader of the House, and my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, have on numerous times, during this particular session, made reference to rema rks and actions of each of them during the election so I would suggest in all deference, Mr . Speaker, that the honourable member is quite within all of the rules and proprieties of the House in the statemen t that he has just made. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I was not questioning the action of the memb er. I was merely, shall we say, tr<Jing to arouse curiosity as to why he acted in this way.

And there is no reflections on his personal character, Mr. Speaker. Now before I sit down there is one last -- MR . SPEAKER: I would accept your explanation -- don't gb too far. MR . SCHREYER: Well, I can assure you Mr. Speaker . Well there is one last important aspect of this, and that has to do with the question brought up by several members to the effect that deficiency payments on a bushel basis v.i 11 benefit Saskatchewan more than Manitoba. And this has been reiterated several times, Mr. Speaker, and there is no disputing that fact on a deficiency basis .

However, there is also no disputing the fact that on an acreage basis, Saska tchewan would benefit more, there being more acres in that province - more acres under culti vaticm - and if the percentage of the actual payment if it is made, will be greater there because there are more farmers, and so that argum ent certainly, although perhaps have a germ of error to it, does not really enter into the - as to whether or not this reqi.iest is a valid one . And cer tainly, Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion I would like to say that it is extremely regrettable that the governme nt has seen fit to act in this way - in a negative way and to - shall we say, emasc ulate the resolution along with it. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried; MR . SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the proposed mo tion of the Honourable Member for Brandon in amendment thereto. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. MILLER: :Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I could have the indulgence of the House to let this matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Inkster. The Honourable Member for Inkster is closing the debate. MR . GRAY: Mr . Speaker, at this time of the night, I cannot make a good speech - that doesn't mean to say that I could do it better tomorrow - but at any rate, tonight.I have a very good excuse to ask you for allowing the natter io stand. A health excuse . MR. SPEAKER: stand . That brings us to the end of the Order Paper . MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to mo ve, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture that the Rouse. do now adjourn. MR . MILLER: ••••.. is the First Minister likely to have separate sessions tom9rrow again? MR. ROBLIN: Yes, the order of business tom orrow, Mr . Speaker, if I ma y make the announcement, is Law Amendments Committee at 10 o'clock, session at 2:30, and a second session at 8:00 o'clock. MR. MILLER: Governmen t business first? MR . ROBLIN: Yes, that's what the order says, Government business first.

But I feel that we'll cover all the Order Paper as we've done today, and depending on the progress of Law July 30th, 1959 Page 1441

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) ••• Amendments Committee, Law Amendments Com mittee will be called Saturday morning if there iB work for them to do. limagiDe there will be, beciiUBe there may be some B1llB that get second readl..ng tomorrow that will go through. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Tbe House do now adjourn and stand adjourned until 2:30 tomorrow afternoo n. Pagel«2 July 30th, 1959

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-1-37
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 1st hansardpdf 37.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ac2ce4641e1c0dac71322eb569d52270208d66a2

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