Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 18 (26th Legislature, 3rd Session)

26-3-18

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Name ALEXANDER, Keith BAIZLEY, Obie BJORNSON, Oscar .F. CAMPBELL, D. L. CARROLL, Hon. J.B. CHRISTIANSON, John Aaron CORBETT, A. H. COWAN, James, Q. C. DESJARDINS, Laurent . DOW, E. I. EVANS, Hon. Gurney FORBES, Mrs. Thelma FROESE, J. M. GRAY, Morris A. GROVES, Fred GUTTORMSON, Elman HAMILTON, William Homer HARRIS, Lemuel HARRISON, Hon.Abram W. HAWRYLUK, J. M. HILLHOUSE, T.P.,Q .C. HRYHORCZUK, M.N., Q.C. HUTTON, Hon. George INGEBRIGTSON, J. E. JEANNOTTE, J. E. JOHNSON, Hon . George . JOHNSON, Geo. Wm . . KLYM, Fred T. LISSAMAN, :R. 0. LYON,H on. �rling R., Q.C. MARTIN, w·. G. ·McKELLAR, M. E. McLEAN,H on.

Stewart E.,Q .C. · MOLGAT, Gildas MORRISON, Mrs . Carolyne ORIJKOW, David PAULLEY, Russell PETERS, S; PREFONTAINE, Edmond REID, A. J. ROBERTS, Stan ROBLIN, Hon. Duff SCARTH, W .B. , Q.C . SCHREYER, E. R. · SEABORN, Richard SHEWMAN, Harry P. SHOEMAKER, Nelson SMELLIE, Robert Gordon STANES, D. M. STRICKLAND, B. P. TANCHAK, John P. THOMPSON, Hon. John, Q.C. WAGNER, Peter WATT, J. D. WEIR, Waiter WITNEY, Hon. Charles H. WRIGHT, Arthur E. Electoral Division Roblin Os borne Lac du Bonnet Lake side The Pas Portage la Prairie Swan River Winnipeg Centre St.

Boniface Turtle Mountain Fort Rouge Cypress Rhine l and Inkater St. Vital St. George Duff erin Logan Rock Lake Burrows Selkirk. Ethel bert Plains Rockwood-Iberville Churchill Rupertsland Gimll Assiniboia Springfield . Brandon Fort Garry St. Matthews Souris-Lans downe Dauphin Ste. Rose Pembina St. John's Radisson Elmwood Carillon Kildonan La Verendrye Wolseley River Heights Brokenhead Wellington Morris Gladstone Birtle -R ussell St.

James Ham iota Emerson Virden Fisher Arthur Minnedosa Flin Flon Seven Oaks Address Roblin, Man . 185 Maplewood Ave., Winnipeg 13 Lac du Bonnet, Man. 326 Kelvin Blvd ., Winnipeg 29 Legislative Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 86-9th St . , N. W. , Ptge. la Prairie, Man . Swan River, Man . 512 Avenue Bldg ., Winnipeg 2 138 Dollard Blvd ., St. Boniface 6, Man • Boissevain, Man . Legisla tive Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 Rathwell , Man . Winkler, Man . 141 Cathedral Ave ., Winnipeg 4 3 Kingston Row, St. Vital , Winnipeg 8 Lundar, Man.

Sperllng, Man . 1109 Alexande r Av e., Winnipeg 3 Holmfield, Man. 84 Furby St ., Winnipeg 1 Dominion Bank Bldg ., Selkirk, Man. Ethelbert, Man. Legislative Bld g., Winnipeg 1 Churchill, Man . Meadow Portage, Man . Legislative Bldg . , Winnipeg 212 Oakdean Blv d., St .James, Wpg. 12 ·Beausejour, Man • 832 Eleventh St., Brandon, Man . Legisl ative Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 . 924 Palmerston Ave., Winnipeg 10 Nesbitt, Man . Legisla tive Bldg . , Winnipeg 1 Ste. Rose du Lac, Man. Manitou, Man. 179 Montrose St., Winnipeg 9 435 Yale Ave.W., Transcona 25, Man . 225 Melrose Ave., Winnipeg 15 St.

Pierre, Man. 561 Trent Ave ., E.K il d., Winnipeg 15 Niverville , Man . Legisla tive Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 407 Queenston St., Winnipeg 9 Beausejour, M� . 594'-.Aj:iington St. , Wfunipeg l.i> ·Morris . Man. · Neepawa, Man. - R�s�ell �. Man�_ 381 Guildford St. , St. James, Wpg. 12 iiamiota , Man . Ridgeville, Man. Legislative Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 Fisher Branch, Man . Reston, Man . Minnedosa, Man . Legislative Bldg . , Winnipeg 1 4 Lord Glenn Apts .1 944 Main St ., Wpg.1 7 . /

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2: 30 o' clock, Tuesday, March 7th, 1961 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Pres enting Petitio ns, Reading and Recei ving Petition s. CLERK: The Petition of Isbrand Rempel, and oth ers, praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Assoc iation for Retarded Children in Manitoba . MR. SPEAKER: Pres enting Reports by Standing and Select Committe es. Notice of Motion. Introd uction of Bills, HON, GEO . JOHNSON (Minister of Health & Public Welfare) (Gimli) intr oduced Bill No. 37 ,

An Act to amend The Hospital Services Insurance Act. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Industry & Commerce) (Fort Rouge): Mr . Speaker, before you proeeed with the Orders of the Day, I wish to lay on the table of the House a reply to a question by the Honourable Member fo r Brokenhead, date d February 21s t, 1961, relative to the A. D. Little Company of Cambridge, Mass achusetts . MR. MOHRIS GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

About ten days ago, or 12 days ago, I was asked a very slimple question on some figu res for the Social Allowance Act. I think a steno grapher in the offi ce could have given it to me , but the Administrator ref used; the Deputy Minister refused; and I phoned the Minister 's secretary. Finally, I placed an Order fo r Return. It's still not here, and personally, I think it should have taken only three minute s to give me these figu res. MR. JOHNSON (Gimli) : Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the question which has been asked by the Honourable Member from Inkster, we have pretty well got this information ready and it should be tabled in a day or two . When he approached the Deputy Mi nist er, they started to assemble th is , Some of this is up to fairly recent inf ormation, and I have to trust the staff that they are doing everything they can to get the exact figure s that the honourable member has asked for, and this will be returned; but there was no reluctance on our part, Mr.

Speaker, not to meet the' demands of the honourable member and I think the Order for Return is the proper meth od, MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John's) : Mr . Speaker, about a week or more ago, we asked for an Order for Return showing the cost to date , to the province , of the Bran don inquiry. Now I assume the costs are pretty heavy but surely th ey're not so heavy that it take s all this time to tabulate it on the adding machine . I wonder when we can get that , Mr. Speaker . MR. LAUR ENT DESJARDINS (St.

Boniface ): Il me fait plaisir de pouvoir par votre intermediaire presenter a tous les membres de cette Chambre 50 jeunes hommes de l'Institut Collegial Provencher de St-Bonifac e accompagnes de leur profe sseur Monsieur Antoine Gaborieau. Il me fait bien plaisir de voir que ces jeunes s'inte ressent aux aff aires municipale s et je suis sur que je puis en votre nom et aussi au nom de tous les depute s ici leur souhaiter la bienvenue. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to introduce to you and to all the members of this House, 50 young men of the Provencher School, St.

Bonifa ce , accompanied by th eir Prof essor , Mr. Antoine Gaborieau. It is indeed gratif ying to see the se young men taking such interest in politics and municipal affair s, and I am sure that in the not too distant future we mig ht be able to see some of those intelligent faces sitting here and being with us here in this Chamber. Thank you. HON. GEORGE HUTTON (Minister of Agricultu re)(Rockwood-Iberville): Mr, Speaker, I, to o, would like to take this opportunity to introduce some guests that we have with us today in the gallery. Mr.

Suwala, of the Tecumseh School Dis trict , has brought in 5 young people who are in Grades Vll and VIll in Tecumseh School and I would like on behalf of the members to welcome them here today , and to hope that they will take away something with them today that will not only help them understand their history lessons, but will help them to underst and the procedures in the process of democratic government. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. March 7th, 1�t61 Page 563

MR . M. E. McKEL LAR (Souris-Lansd owne): Mr . Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would just like to mention here that last week we heard about the very important curling game between 4 members of our party and 4 members of the Liberal Party. I would like to extend, on behalf of 4 members of our Party here , a challenge to the members of the press to a curling game at a date convenient to both parties. I think that we have 4 members here who are very high class talent, and we would like to find out how good a curler the members of the press are. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Questions -- the Honourable Member for Gladstone . MR. NELSON SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr ._ Speaker, the question occu rring in my name is

(1) What was the provincial financial contribution to the resort area development adjacent to the PFRA Dam at Rivers, Manitoba?

(2) When was the contribution or contributions made ? And

(3) Is this policy applica ble to other similar areas such as Neepawa ? Mr. Speaker read the questions. MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Speaker, am I expected to say anything further or will it appear in ..... MR . SPEAKER: Questions are not debatable . Was that in the form of a motion or are you just asking the question? MR. SHOEMAKER: I understand that the answers will appear in Votes and Proceed ings . MR . SPEAKER: Orders for Return. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. GILD AS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose) : Mr . Speaker, I beg to move that an order of the House do is sue for a return showing :

(1) The date when the move into the Norquay building was started.

(2) The date when it was completed or , if not yet completed, the date when it is anti cipated it will be completed.

(3) Whether tenders were called for the moving contra ct .

(4) Whether they were opened in public.

(5) What were the tenders .

(6) If tenders were not called, whether estimates· were requested.

(7) What were the estimates .

(8) Which firm or firm s, or individuals did the work.

(9) Whether they were paid by hourly rates, contr act, or other method.

(10) The amount paid to each firm or firm s, or individuals concern ed.

(11) What was the total costs of the moves. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER : Ad journed debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for lnkster and the proposed motion in amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie . The Honourable the Leader of the CC F. MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF) (Radisson) : Mr . Speaker, my words in connection with this resolution will be brief.

I princi pally adjourned the debate the other day because the sponsor of the main resolution, the Honourable Member for Inkste r, was out of town. However, after the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie had proposed the amend ment and the Honourable Member for Cypress had spoken in this connection, !thought that itwg_s incumbent on me to say a word or two briefly in connection with the res olution. I think, Sir, that it will be understood by the House if I rise and oppose the amendment to the amendment.

This could lead conceivably to a return to the jungle , in respect of Old A ge Pensions or Social Security Allowance s, paid at the federal level. We had that sort of a situation for many many years and it wasn't until after constant endeavour by our group here in the Province of Manitoba, and in the federal field, that the means clauses in conne ction with old age pensions was eradicated from social security allowances. I can see a grave danger, Mr . Speaker, to amendments of this nature being introduced here in the Legislature of Manitoba.

It is quite conce ivable that our federal authorities could construe from a resolution or amendment of this nature, that the basis of a means test, or to use the phraseology so well-loved by our friends from acr oss the way as the needs test � the federal· authorities could make this applic able to many other conditions of grants, which would add to the burden of our old age and blind pensioners. And indeed, while the resolution does not include th em , those in receipt of other pensions as well . I was sur prised the other day , quite frankly, Mr .

Speaker, to hear the Honourable Member for Cypre ss give us as illustrations the fact of sons and daughters of old age pension ers visi ting them and having a cup of tea or a lunch with the old age pensioner, and it was an indication to me that she was suggesting that if this wasn't done the $55. 00 a month-would be adequate. I really don't think that my honourable friend meant what it sounded like , because Page 564 March 7th, 196 1

(Mr. Paulley, con t'd. ) .•••. I am sure that she would recog nize, as we all recognize that when people reach the age s for which they qualify for old age pensions , they have enough problems; they have enough loneline ss without visitations from their friends and childr en . I would like to sugge st to my honourable friend that if, as a result of these visita tions the $55.0 0 may not be enough, may I sugge st that that is an indication , Mr. Speaker, as to why the basic pension of $55. 00 should be incre ased, as a right , rathe r than on a means or a needs basis . Surely to goodness , Mr .

Speaker, that after the contribution that these people have made to Canada and to Manitoba, they are entitled by right to more than just the meagre living that $55.0 0 may give them today . The Minister of Health and Welfare points with pride , with some justification to his Social Allowances Act which, as he cal ls, is on the needs test basis. The obje•�tive of this reso lution is in re spect of the unive rsa l pension right across the whole of the Dominion . I do not think that we cannot help but gain if we supported this resolu tion in its original form in this House .

We are deali ng today with great misg ivings of the fact that we have with us a considerable amount of unempl oyed. You may say to me , what is the relationship between unemployment and the granting by right, in our opinion, of a more reas onable pension to our old age and blind pensioners ? I think it is a well known eco nomic and basic fact that in periods of recessi on we should increase , rather than limit or hold at ridicu lously low limits , the amount of money available for distribut ion . I sugge st, Mr .

Speaker, that insofar as our old age and blind pensione rs , with their meagre income of $5 5. 00 a month, that they could be ass isting in the problems of unemployment were this increase granted. It can be well said that many who do not require the old age se curity pension are now receiving it. We recognize that, but would my honourable friend suggest that after the many years of endeav our, and united endeavour by all of the political parties in Canada, that we should return back to a means test as we had formerly.

May I sugge st to my honourable friends who do not seem inclined to support this re solution that the real alternative , if there is afear of the increase in the amount of money because some of those may receive it that do not need it, the answer would be a return strictly to the basis of need, or means, or call it whatever you will . And I'd sugge st, Mr . fl'peaker , that no one , no political party, even the so-called forward-looking party of my friends opposite , would sugg est a return to that .

After many years of fight , it has become the acc:epte d method of old age security and blind pensions in the Dominion of Canada, that it should not be with a means or a needs test, to use the phraseology of the amendment. So I would sugge st, in all deference to the mover of the amendment, that unless he is prepare d, unless his party is prepared to return to the former means test or needs test in res pect to all old age pensions and blind pensions , that he should withdraw his amendment.

As I say, the only answer to the criticisms which I have heard in respect of the increase is because somebody who doesn't need it is now getting it , and will gain as a result of the increase from $55. 00 to $75 .0 0 a month. I re iterate , Mr . Spe aker, that if that is the oppos ition to the re solution as such, the mover of the reso lution or the amendment, and those who support it, should stand fi:rmly by their convictions and simply amend the main re solution by calling for a change in the basic principle of our Old Age and Blind Pensions Act and forthwith call for a means test right from the start.

Therefore , Mr . Speaker, I say we cannot accept the amend ment as proposed by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie . MR. A .• J. REID (Kildonan): Mr . Speaker, in speaking to the amendment of this resolu tion , it is true in Manitoba that people really believe that all old age pensioners are taken care of, beca use of the high pressure propaganda and window dressing by the present government . Why even the Honourable Member from Cypre ss has been taken in and believes it . Well, Sir, it 's not so. They are re sting their amendment in this case on change in the resolution on a basis of need.

Well , they all need it, only in their amendment, everyone would have to prove it. Well , Sir, I'll guarantee $55 .0 0 to anyone in this House who can exist on it for a month. It is absolutely impossible , just for a bare existence , right from sc ratch and no assistan ce . I I agree with th•� Honourable Member from Cypress that welfare workers are doing a good job, but neverth eless , not like her, do I feel sorry for them or sympathetic , because they get well paid on the sufferings of others .

It is absolutely tommyrot to say that old age pensione rs need assis tance from welfare workers to budget their meagre $55 .0 0 a month. What they need is more money, not advi ce . Also, that they give their money away to their daughters and sons and haven't any money left. What money -- $55 .0 0 a month ? It is also mentioned that many old March 7th, 19€il Page 565

(Mr. Re id, cont'd. ) • • • • • age pensioners feed their familles on a pension, that they are left in dire circumstances. Well, Sir, most of the cases that I know of, if the family didn't assist the old age pensioners they'd starve half the time. As any sensible person must reali ze, $5 5. 00 a month these days ls just a mere pittance, regardless how simple or how humble your require ments are, Slr.

You know at .one time we had no old age pension plan , and when it was proposed you heard the same cry as now, we can't afford it; it will ruin the economy of the country -- it was either the Liberals or the Conse rvative s, it makes no difference. So that aspect, Sir, we shouldn't worry over, whether the economy of the country can carry the load or not. Remember these people were also taxpayers for many years and paid for others. They should reap their benefits now. Well, Sir, it's up to us to say whether we can afford to give our old age pension ers a decent standard of living .

It would not only benefit them , but would benefit our whole market if pensioners had sufficient money for necessities of life . Also , they would not seek employment. Actually , Sir, what old age pension should do, everyone that needs should file an appli cation with the Health and Welfare Department, and then we would have a true picture of what they are really doing, because it has been mentioned that the government has hit the hard core of help that is needed in this province. Well, Sir , the hard core is first to crack the Welfare Department. That is the most difficult part of it -- to show them your need.

They won't assist you in paying any debts which you have acquired recently due to medical bills, because if a person is taken ill suddenly and does not carry a Medicare card, it's just too bad. I invite any member to go to Medical Arts Building, Room 322 . There you can talk with the reception ist and she will tell you of case after case of old age pensioners having acquired heavy medical bills and trying to pay, out of $55 . 00 a month, a couple of dollar s on their debts . These people have been refused assistance , because debt was acquired before they applied. How silly and stupid that sound to me , Sir.

Naturally if they had no debts , they wouldn't need help; but the Department says "sorry" -- and this we call justice . All we are asking for is a decent standard of living for the old age pensioner. The public should smarten up when they wat ch, year after year, the two old line parties refuse to help, except when they are forced to gain popularity before Federal elections. Yet, mark my words , the Federal Government will boost it up before the next election , yet our pre sent Provincial Government hasn't the gumption to just propose to them at the present time that assistance must be given.

That is what people should remember, not all the election propaganda which they spread on pretty thick. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. RICHARD SEABORN (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia 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 motion of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable Member for LaVerendrye. -- Order stand.

Adjourned debate of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain and the proposed motion in amendment thereto by the Honourable the Leader of the CCF Party. The Honourable Mem ber for Brandon. MR. R. 0. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr. Speaker, I find this situation developing -- by the proposer of this resolution, puts me in a bit of a quandary. Here we have a group of people on this side of the House who protest that local real estate taxe s are becoming too heavy; that the taxpayer should be relieved; and at the same time , in many instances, \lrging the expenditure of greater amounts of money by this province. Now , Mr.

SpeakeF, I think this is · a situation that develops very frequently when we have costs shared by various levels of government. I have noticed, through my years in this House , that whenever sharing grants are involved, each government tends to look upon the money that it is going to spend as its own personal money, and in many instances, doesn't realize or forgets that ultimately the taxpayer must bear the burden of all the costs; and all the costs, of course , are split between various forms of taxati on.

So that in the interests of good government, in the interests of the citizens who the government represents, and not only represents but should protect from the ever-increasing burden of costs, the overall picture should always be looked at rather than the narrow viewpoint of how much this is going to cost my particular level of government or this Page 566 March 7th, 1961

(Mr . Lissaman , cont 'd .), •••• particular group of taxpayers. The resolution , I think , over looks the fact that once money has become available in surplus quantit ies to any group of citizens then that particular group tends to spend up to the limit of their budget -- (Inte rjection) -- I beg your pardon ? -- Well I'm speaking of if this is increased to include a surplus. Now we're all familiar that a church group, for example , if they're runn ing a little tight we have real eeonomy pract ised. This is true of any group of citize ns.

If they're held a bit tight, then we get economy in their operations because they .have to look at their dollar before they spend_ it, :md examine the numbe r of dollars they have. It is my content ion, Mr. Speaker, and subsequent to these points I'm going to enumerate first, I'm going to propose a few ideas of my own affecting the economy of school building in this province , but it is my contention that while probably at present the actual costs of average school rooms are very closely approach ing the maximum set now , this maximum should not be raised to $20 ,0 00.

As proof of this, I took the trouble to go to the Department of Education and asked for a list of the schools that have been built during '59 and '60 which have succe ssfully been built unde r the present limita tion of $15 , 000 per class room. I have a list totalling 21 schools in '59 and 18 schools in 1960 , all of which came in under the maximum limit; and the size of these schools range from a 57 classr oom school in '59 down to a one classroom school . All came in under the limit. In 1960 , 18 schools from a high large size school of 63 classrooms down to several one room schools came iin under the limit.

The most recent figure to be opened in public bidding, I understand , was the Hastings School at St. Vital, a school of 30 rooms which ca me in at a little over $11 , 000 per room. So, M r. Speaker, I would contend that from examination of the se figures that certainly , while it is always good to examine limitations set by government in regard to any t:lrlng of this nat ure , certainly there is no conclusive evidence to point to the fact that the limit should be raised. It should not be ' in my opinion, in the int erests of econ omy to the taxpayer.

I would like to sugge st to the government , and to this House , a few ideas of my own which I believe would be of great economical inte rest, not only to the government but to the taxpayers of this provin ce . I know that in certain quarters these suggestions may raise a scream of ang uish, but, neverthe less , I'm going to propose them . If I were in a sort of a dictatorial position I would call for a competition among archite cts for all the various classe s- and don't confuse that word classes with classrooms -- all the various types of schools that we need in this provinc e.

I would call for that competition with the understanding that all plans became the property of the Province of Manito ba, and then , as the property of the Province of Manito ba, would then become available to the various school divisions at no cost. Now I will elaborate on tlrls as I go along . But immediately of course you would say, well what you 're asking for is stagnation . We're going to have one type of school and we'll go on and on and on.

Well, I would, having then called for this competition and having the plans at my disposal, I would set up ac committee of people from the practical end of the building field, ce rtainly represen tatives of the archite cts; representative s of the sub-trades; and representative s of the actual users of the schoo ls , probably represented by the teach ers; and form a small group who would review these plans annua lly.

In all buildings that are built, "bugs" present them selves - objec:tions to the design in layout and so on; correct these as we went along; keep the plans from becoming obsolescent or obsolete; and make any minor improvements in aesthetic appearan ces. This could be done for a period of five or ten years, whatever period of time you wished to set, at whi.ch time you could then , feeling that new developments had nece ssitated it, then you could call for a further competit ion. But during this time these plans would be available to the divisions at no cost to them .

Now I know immediately, too, in your criticism of this suggestion you're going to say, well local conditions vary. The building we built here may not be suitable in anot her location. Basically, I would sugge st to you that the only ob je ction you could raise on that ground is to the soil bearing capacity , as to whether the soil was of such a nature to carry the building designed, as it would be with the particular type of foundat ion.

One thing that this group would have to do would be to take the responsibility , of where you have poor soil conditio ns , of providing a modified foundation plan to carry the loading which poor soils might not withstand. Now them you say, well if you have this type of competition, we're going to screa m that probably we are ignoring the aesthetic end that we're going to have many schools which look March 7th, 1:961 Page 567

(Mr. Lissaman, cont' d.) ••.•. the same . Per sonally, I see nothing wrong with this. None of us object to buying a Chevrolet car on the grounds that there are thousands and thousands of other Chevrolet cars available. These would be good schools . We 'd analyse them and try to improve them so that they were perfect -- letter perfect at the time. And per sonally , I can see nothing wrong with 3 or 4 schools in the same locality all looking the same, if necessary, in the interests of economy. I would go even further than that .

I'm particularly interested in economy and I would go through the details and -- for example, you will find if the windows and frames are wood, you will find a multiplicity of various designs and details on the frames and windows, and I would standardize them. I'd take the advantage of standardizing to the ultimate degree , so that schools of this particular period of years employed various types of design all accept able but uniform throughout the schools , so that replacements could be made easily. You wouldn't have the extra costs of grinding special knives for each run of millwork for each individual school .

You'd try and standardize on the mill design. Now I would also pay attention to true economy, because I think there has been, over the past few years, a tendency of school boards to examine only the prime or principal cost -- the capita l cost of the building. Now there are other costs which enter the picture , which must be considered in the interests of true economy of building.

For instance, I don't suppose there's ever a building been designed that you couldn't take those plans to practical people in the prac tical building field and have them suggest that this particular item would be very costly to construct by changing the methods , and we could arrive at greater economy. Then the matter of maintenance , for years and years in the building field we came gradually to evolve interiors , smooth finishes, plaster finishes that you could wipe down and wash easily.

Over the past few years, in the interests of the aesthetic , or the attractive , the beautiful, architects have tended to go off on a tangent into texture surfaces; and you know that if you had a porous tex ture in a kitchen, you'd be hopeless to keep that kitchen clean. Therefore , we should examine all these various things in the interest of maintenance costs.

And then heating -- I suspect that there are a great number of these buildings that have been built in the past few years, examining only the initial cost, the capital cost, which are very poor buildings, very co stly buildings when you consider what it costs to heat them through the years.

These are things which are largely beyond the reach of an ordinary school board, composed of laymen that know literally nothing about building construction; and it should be the duty of the department re sponsible for asking for schools being built in the province , to examine these various factors and see that the people of this province get the very most in economy for their dollar being spent . Now some of these items will raise the initial cost.

If it's found necessa ry to build a building a little war mer, to include more insulation, change the design to get warmth and ease of heating, then certainly that is going to have the effect of increasing the capital cost. But in referring back to my idea of looking at the ultimate economy to the taxpayer , then it's good business to put that little extra into the building in search of that greater economy.

I think that there is only one question that we , either as taxpayers or repres entatives, should ask ourselves in the extra expenditure of dollars in school buildings, and I think that this is a question that many boards tend to forget. They forget this prime question that they should ask themselves -- Is the expenditure of this extra dollar going to educate any one boy or girl in Manitoba better than he has been educated in the past , and if the increased cost is for beauty , well you can afford to buy beauty when you have got the extra dollars to buy it. That, in my opinion, is the question.

I think that there is a real tendency on behalf of architects - and it's understandable , and it's natural, and it's healthy -- a real tendency to build attractive , beautiful buildings that they can point to with J?ride.

You or I would be the same in their position, but th ere is also the tendency on the part of boards , and I am not castigating school boards in this group , there is a definite tendency of groups of peo ple interested, and tempted to build monuments , so that a few years after they're off the board they can point with pride to this building and say, "Now look what we accomplished when we were on the Board ." Now basically, there is nothing wrong with this. It's a natural· tendency; it's human.

It's a human failing, but the point is that if we can afford extra frills , fine and dandy, but when we have this tremendous explosion of population where we have to expand so many of the educational facilities in this country, I think that the prime interest should be always that of ec onomy. If these few sugge stions have any value , and they're to be found to contain any merit by the Minister, I Page 568 March 7th, 1961

(Mr. Lissa man , con t'd .) ••..• would be very pleased to have further discus sion with him on this. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR . E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead) : I beg to move , sec onded by the Honourable Mem ber for Fisher, that the debate be adj ourned. Mr. Speaker pre sented the motion. MR . SPEAKER: Adjourned debate standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Elmwood. The Honourable Member for St. Jame s. MR . D. M. STANES (St. Jame s) : Mr. Speake r, much has been said on this re solution, or this kind of re solution, in past se ssions .

I have not been in favour of it or the intention which you imply to the re solution, and I'm still not in favour of it becau se , in my humble opinion, this type of res olution covering social and labour matters are not in the long term in terests of the labouring force of Manitoba. Mr. Speake r, there are two parts to this resolution. The first

part concerns the minimum wage , which this reso lution requests the government to take steps to inerease to $1.2 5 . The second

part is that they approach the Federal Govern ment to have thi. s done across the country. Mr. Speak er, in dealing with the first

part very briefly, I consider this inflationary. It results in the reduction of the value of the dollar and not only give s in the long run no beneficial return to the individual paid , but also increases considerably the already considerable hardships on those people in our province and in our country who are dependent on a fixed income . I fully app recia te that such a reso lution is· very popular. All of us , including myself, welcome an increase in pay , but I think it is for us to look a little beyond this charitable standpoint and look upon the long term as to what the person' s going to get.

Frankly, I feel that the cure in the long run is worse than the disea se. My honest belief is that the real cure is the oppo site way. The real cure is, if we could, is to reduce the wage s and thereby reduce the cost of living; thereby giving the person a greater ret urn for his efforts. MR . S. PETERS (Elmwood) : What about profits? MR . STANE S: .Ah, that's a very good point. Are you figuring gross or net ? MR . PETERS: Both kinds . MR . STANES: You might say, Mr . Speak er, that we are speaking here of a minimum wage . We are not speaking of an ave rage wage .

But I was very interested to listen to the Honourable Member for Elmwood when he quoted, or stated his own wag es. Well , I think, insinuating that the two are wrapped up into one -- I think they are wrapped up into one . I don't think one can touch the minimum wage without affecting the standard or the ave rage wage . So theref ore , we are really speaking about the two things in one . MR . PETERS: I never mentioned my own wage at any time. MR . STANES: I beg your pardon. My honest belief is that the present safeguards have proven themselv es, to some degree , adequate to take care of the situation.

If they have not in some isolated case s, then I think we should turn to those safeguards which we have in exis ten ce. We have , for example, the normal balance between the employer and the employee which, I under stand -- in fact I know of several cases where the Department of Labour of this province has stepped in and have been of considera ble assis tan ce. We also have , of course , the unions who, in my opini on, have been doing a very fine job, and I'm quite certain that they are capable of looking after those who come under their auspice s. After all, Mr.

Speake r, if a man is not paid what he thinks he is worth, there are a numl:er of steps that he can take in order to cure that situation . Pe rhaps our trouble is that we think we're worth more than we really are . The minimum wage , working agre emen ts, trade agreemen ts, and so on, do not produce the security that some people think . The real security which we all know in our inne r heart , is within ourselves. That is the secu rity we have . And I believe that government action should not be taken in this or in any other case until all othe r methods have failed.

In my humble es ti mation, all other efforts have not failed in this case . Remember this res olution concerns a minimum wage , a minimum wage of protection; not a fair wage. The second part of this deals with such legislation through the Federal Government across the country. We are all perfectly aware that most industries in this province ,e xcluding agriculture, depend upon raw material from other parts , mostly down east. If the standards of living and the standards of wage were brought up in the se parts to that of eastern Canada, it March 7th, 1961 Page 569

(Mr . Stan es, cont' d.) ••••• would remove one of the greatest incentives for industry coming to these parts. I fully appreciate that nearne ss to markets is a great advantage , but only at a price. With the increase in freights , this is another disadvantage to our industry - from maintaining our industry in these parts.

Consequently if we did have a wage , a minimum wage across the country, it would bring up our wage scale , our standard of living to that of the east, and there would be very little advantage to those alrea dy manufacturing in these parts and new manufacturers in coming in; thereby increasing the wages of the employee and, in the ultima te, destroying the employer. As I said before, the increase in the basic wage , or the . minimum wage across the country, would take away .the many advantages for manufacturers being in these parts and would create more unemployment , and we have enough already.

Con sequently , Mr . Speaker, I cann ot support this resolut ion. MR. GRAY: Mr . Speaker, I still remember very vividly, during the depression years, the unemployment . Those who were receiving relief were allowed to earn $10 a month, and the $10 a month then became the miniml.\]ll wage of $10 a month with quite a few. We are dealing with human beings. We are not dealing with cjifferent characters, different aspirations and different ideas . We are now dealing altogethe r with people who all have hearts.

They may have hearts -- others are broken -- so when we found out that some of the big blocks and apartment homes have hired men, give them a little 2 by 2 room and pay them $10 a month- that is all they were permitted to earn -- the wages at that time were $10 a month, so that this government, not this government but the government of that time, had decided that the minimum wage be 259 an hour. Records are here. And the minimum wage of 259 an hour at that time became the maximum with many. Not with all perhaps, but with many.

Then the depression was eased a little and the unemployed commenced to work, The employer did not come up to raise their wage s, except for certain individuals which they had to have. Some times they were exported labour from other countries because they had to have that particular profession. So it's the workers -- the unions have demanded high wages from time to time. I do not recollect what any government in this province has offered willingl y, came up with a bill , that they are going to increase the minimum wage at this session.

I have never yet heard the Lieutenant-Governor reading his speech from the Throne suggesting, that the minimum wage were 509 an hour , or 359 an hour is still being ••••• compul sory to 60 or 75, so naturally we had to fight for it, so we are doing it now . This similar motion has been defeated a year ago , it was defeated three years ago , and it may be defeated now; but unless we ask for it , we'll never get it. Now secondly, higher wages creates a bigger purchasing power, and this in itself is a good thing, it creates work.

The tragedy which credits so much goods are now being impor-. ted from other countries, like Germany and Japan -- I am not interfering with the trade agreements of the Federal Government, they know best -- creates unemployment right here. So at least when a man works, let him earn the $1.25 minimum, and don't forget, the minimum will become the maximum. Surely to goodness they are entitled to have it -- $1.25 an hour - eight hours a day. That' s the maximum that people work these days, outside of the Legislat ors. It 's not sufficient to maintain an average family of four or five.

Rent is high, rent is twice as high as it was; food is three times as high as it was at the time when they were getting 35 and 409 an hour. I know from personal experience when I was getting 109 an hour , I probably wasn't worth any more than 109 an hour, but at that time I could buy for the 109 an hour just as much, if not more, than I am buying now . Bread was 49 a loaf; meat was 59 a pound, and butcher meat, don't forget. So I feel that this request is a very very reasonable one . It's in the interest of the people .

Don't forget again that the majority of the population in our corn- . munity are the workers, the builder s. It's true that 25 or 30 years ago , or 40 years ago , they built this immense buil ding at a low wage at that time -- at a low wage -- still we have a monument here to show for it. Now I think that the wages must be protected. If you leave wages on the basis of demand, supply and demand, I don't think that it would protect the workers for a livelihood and, in the long run, they'll come back to us. If they haven't got any work, if they don't earn enough , they come back to the state and ask for help.

Let them be self-supporting rather than helping them. I remember that during those days of relief, we had suggested at that time that instead of giving them relief, le t's provide work for them, and the powers to be at that time felt that Page 570 March 7th, 1961

(Mr. Gray, cont' d. ) ••••• relief was a little bit cheaper. That's why with employment, even at the rate of 25� ·an hour. We gave, and justly so, the farmer the full price . We protect his price on butter; we protect the price on eggs ; we protect the price on other commoditie s. Surely to goodness a human being is just as entitled to be protected as much as chattles and produce and products, which is also very very important. So I think, personally, that this request is a very good one. We have already on the Statute Books, legislation protecting the workers. We realize already their needs .

We realize that they require protection from the state and we have agreed to protect them in every other way, We have a Department of Labour checking up that every employer pays good wages; whether they have sanitary working conditions; and whether they work propers hours and so on. Everything is already on the Statute Books. All we ask is a penny more, a loaf of bread more , for those who produce the wealth of the world. MR . ORLIKOW : Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak in this debate , but the speech of the Honourable Member from St.

James, it's so full of mis conceptions about the economic situation in this country and so lacking in social conscience , that I feel it incumbent to say a few words. I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Member from St. James would suggest that an increase in minimum wages to those people who are now in the lowest income groups in this country, is inflationary. If it is true , Mr.

Speaker, and I reject that completely, then surely it is even mo re true that those who are in the higher income brackets, who get increases, are contributing as much or more to inflation than those in the low income brackets . Not a word about that from the Honourable Member from St. Jame s. Today's Winnipeg Free Press carries an interesting story apropos of this question, Mr. Speaker. It's headed on page one , "Best Paid MD - Manitoba leads rest of Canada" and here is just one sentence from this article, Mr .

Chairman , and I'll quote from it: 'The medical profession led all Canada in average income - $15, 264 per doctor. In Manitoba the average doctor earned $18 ,2 41." I didn't hear a word from the Honourable Member from St. James about the fees earned by doctors. I want to be very clear, Mr . Speaker, I'm not being critical of doctors . I don't think they are making too much . I think they work very hard and they are entitled to what they make, I didn't hear a word about the increase in the profits which is being made by Canadian busine ss.

No, we just heard the usual old-fashioned Tory refrain about the low in come groups . This speech should have been made 20 years ago before the Conservative Party changed its name to Progressive Conservative . That's where the speech fitted in, Mr. Speaker , not to this so-called forward-looking Progressive Government. Mr . Speaker, the honourable member talked about increasing the minimum wage as being inflationary, Well, why didn't he give the Minister of Health and Welfare a lecture when we increased the Social Allowances?

Surely if increasing the minimum wage is inflationary, then increasin.g the Old Age Pension is inflationary; increasing the Mother's Allowance is in flationary. Are those inflationary? Why didn't you vote against it, if this is inflationary? It's inflationary because you didn't propose it. That's the only reason which you are suggesting, Mr. Chairmru1, that this is nonsense from beginning to end. Now the honourable member says that if we increase the minimum wages we will drive manufacturing away from this province. Mr.

Speaker, this indicates to me that the honourable member knows nothing, or virtually nothing about manufacturing in this province; because in fact, Mr . Speaker, who are the people who are now getting the minimum wage of 66� an hour, that magnificent and satisfying amount which the Manitoba Government thinks is enough for the people of this province . Is there anybody in the .manufacturing industry making 66� an hour ? Of course there isn't. The people who are making 66� an hour are people who are in the ser vice fields.

There are virtually no people in manufacturing making 66� an hour , so you can increase the minimum wage from 66� to anything over it and you don't affect the cost of pro ducing goods at all, and the honourable member ought to know it. So much for his economics . And one' other matter which he suggests, that if we increase wages , we will drive business and industry which wants to come in here, we will drive them away. Well, Mr . Chairman, let's just look at that suggestion.

If this is true , if business and industry, if manufacturers look for low wage areas in which to locate , if this is the big factor , then it's very strange, Mr . Speaker, that we don't have a rush of manufacturers opening plants in provinces like Manitoba and the Maritime Provin ces. These are the traditionally low wage March 7th, 1:961 Page 571

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd.) .•••• areas . Why aren't they flocking in here? If you look at what is happening to manufa cturing; if you take a look at where the business and industry which employ large groups of workers are locating; you find a very interesting thing. They are locating in the Province of British Columbia; they are locating in the Province of On tario; they are locating in the City of Montreal, which is the high wage area of the Province of Quebec . Why aren't they locating in the backwoods of Manitoba if low wages encourages them. They're locating in precisely those areas, Mr.

Speaker, in which the market is and in which the skills are, and the wage level is not the important fact or. If it was , they would have been coming to Manitoba; they would have been going to the Maritimes; which they are not doing. Mr . Speaker, one other matter and then I'm through. The honourable member intimated, I'll use the word which the Honourable Member for Swan River used so well the other night, he infe rred that in our resolution we were proposing that this province do something about mini mum wages by itself.

Now I don't think that the -- (Interjection) -- Yes you did, and if you read Hansard tomorrow you'll see that you suggested that. I don't think that the honourable member could have read our resolution, because our resolution was drawn up specifica lly in the way it was , Mr . Speaker, because we realize that it is difficult , if not impossible, for one province to raise its minimum wage. Now I draw to the attention of the honourable member, and of the government, that the Province of Alberta recently raised its minimum wage to 859 an hour, so it can be done.

We recognize that Manitoba is not in the first line of economic development; we recognize that one has to be very hesitant in recommending improvements, because if one is too drastic , one certainly won't get the support of members opposite. They have to be very cautious in everything which they do. So we didn't for that reason, propose that this province act on its own. What we suggested is very simple , that we ask the Federal Government to convene a meeting of all the provinces and to try to get national action by all the provinces . I want to close , Mr .

Speaker, by suggesting to the honourable member, and to the government, that they might well take a look at what is happening in the United States. United States recently had an election, and elected a new President.

In the last couple of days I saw a report that a Gallup Poll, which was taken in the last week and which asked the people of the United States what they thought of the job which the President was doing, showed that 72% - I'm speaking from memory and I may be out a percentage or two , but I don't think more than that -- 72% , a higher percentage than ever supported President Eisenhower, thinks that President Kennedy is doing a good job.

I want to suggest to the honourable member that if he hasn't looked at the press clippings lately, he should, because on� of the number one proposals of the President of the United States is that the United States adopt a minimum wage policy of $1.25 an hour. And I like to think, Mr .

Speaker, and I'm going to close on this note, that the people of .C anada are not second class or third class or tenth class citizens , that we 're just as good as the people of the United States or anywhere else; and if it's good enough for the United States to have a minimum wage of $1.25, then I think it's good business for the people of this country. MR . E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member per mit a question ? Why doesn't the Province of Saskatchewan have a minimum wage as suggested by the resolution, and why don't they fo rward such a resolution to Ottawa? MR .

ORLIKOW: Mr . Speaker, the Province of Saskatchewan can't have a miillmum wage of $1 .25 for precisely the reason which I mentioned earlier, that is , that no one province can do this on its own. This is why we're suggesting a national policy. As to why they haven't, I'm not even certain that they haven't. I'm concerned with this Legislature and what's good for the people of this provim e. I think it's good that we suggest this to the Federal Govern ment. If Saskatchewan will go along I'll be very happy. M aybe they've already done it. I don't know. MR . ROBERT G. SMELLIE (Birtle-Russell): Mr .

Speaker, would the honourable member permit a question? Did the honourable member see the other item in the press, I believe of last night, wherein it was stated that most of the legislation which the new Kennedy administration had brought in to the United States is patterned directly upon legislation introduced by the Federal Government of this country? MR . ORLIKOW: I saw where a certain Cabinet Minister suggested it, but I take that statement, like most of the statements which come from that side of the House and from most Page 572 March 7th, 1961

(Mr . Orlikow·, eon t'd.) ••••• of the Conse rvative members, with more than a pinch of salt. MR. REII>: Mr . Speaker , I wonder if the Honourable Member for St. James would per- mit a question? He mentioned •••• MR . DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolseley) : This is not in ord er, MR . SPEAKER: It's not in order to ask the Member for St. James a question. MR . FRED GROVES (St. Vital) : Mr. Speake r, I move , seconded by the Honourable Member from Winnipeg Centre, that the debate be adjourned. Mr . Spea ke r presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR .

SPEAKER: Adjourne d debate standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks . The Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare . MR . G. J.OHNSON (Gimli): Mr . Speak er , I just want to join in this debate for a few minutes concerning the sugge stion of the Honourable Member from Seven Oaks that the diag nosis and treatment of cancer be entirely paid from public funds . Ce rtainly I share, and I'm sure we all do , the genuine concern of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks for the catas trophic illnesses of any kind , particularly a dreaded illness such as cancer .

And I thinl.;: we have to be concerned when we notice the cancer registry since 1941 , when it had 6964 reported cases, now carries -- the registry of cases over the years totalling 41, 000 , which averages out around 2, 000 new cases reported yearly; with 2669 in the past year . Now these are all statistics we know, but it just shows the magnitude of the disease; and catastrophic illness from any cause is becoming a concern of governmen ts; and we are dealing with the medical and so cial problem. In that I agree with the honourable member.

I would liike to point out, however, the bright side of the story in the Province of Mani toba, for which certainly this government takes just part of the credit since we have been in office in the last couple of years. But gradually we have seen evolve in this provinc e, in the ·f ield of cancer, a completely comprehensive free biopsy service. In this past year we saw the Medical Association and the hospital authorities get together to introduce a completely compre hensive tissue se rvice , that is, all tissues removed in all hospitals are now examined.

Through the introduction of the Hospital Services Plan across Canada we see the catastrophic burden of hospitalization removed from the backs of the people; we see , while in hospital, complete in-patient diagnosis investigation as part of the hospitalization program. In this province , through our Cancer Tre atment and Research Foundation, at total public expense , all radiation therapy, treatment with radium, cobalt, radio-active isotopes, chemotherapy -- all this is provided at public expense . And I think my honourable friend and I come back to the same question we did a year ago -- what is left?

Well I think we have to agree that what is left is the diagnosis of the illness by the private physician and the surgery by the private surgeon. Now in the past year and a half we have been working in this area quite actively, and for the recipients of public assistance in this provinc e, we have initiated a humble beginning in the area of the provision of comprehensive coverage for those people who are direct responsi bility of the Province of Manitoba.

We have found that wherever a physician or surgeon in this province refers a patient to the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, this foundation carries this service . We find in this province , unli�e some areas, a most comprehensive prepaid medical care plan covering 388 , 000 people in theprovince, which is available to those who have the means to purchase premiums . What is left is the large area of so-called medical indigency; those who are not in receipt of pu blic assistance and those who are not able to pay their own way .

Here I think, we should record that a private physician can refer a patient on diagnosis to the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, and the complete diagnostic and treatment facilities are available through the university clinics of our teaching hospitals. The future role, and how this is going to evolve as comprehensive care becomes more univer sal, is a very real problem which both the profession and the unive rsity authorities in this province are looking at at this very time.

I think we must always, I feel , be aware of the tremendous contribution, and I know my Honourable Member from Seven Oaks doesn't question this at all, but the tremendous contribution that has been made by these clinics in the future ; and I think with the introduction of comprehensive hospital care programs across the country and the necess ity to centralize high cost diagnostic and treatment facilities at key points to prevent unn ecce ssary duplication will, despite what may happen in the future , tend to bring these people to central points which will be staffed, no matter what we do , much in the same March 7th, 1961 PagE> 573

(Mr. Johnson, Gimli, con t'd .) ••• , .m anner as they are today by o:ur senior physicians and our leaders in the medical and surgical field who are concentrated at these points . But I submit -- the point I want to make , Mr . Speaker, is that I think the answer is not to pick out conditions of illne ss as a basis for a program. I think over the years we have seen this in the area of tubercul osis , mental illne ss, TB contr ol. We've picked these things out one at a time and made them complete public responsibilitie s for various reasons which are now no longer val id.

I think we should just say at this point, that the services for diagn osis , the services for treatment , the availability of many to make thes e services available unto themselve s, exists, And governments have becom e. -- this gove rnment has already become· involved in the comprehensive care to the reci pient of public assistance , and I think govern ments we see across Canada , and parties, Mr.

Speaker, are becoming increasi ngly more concerned with the in troduction of comprehensive medical care plans � But I would submit to . this Legislature that much groundwork has to be done ; much groundwork has to be accomplished in the area of laboratory and X-ray facilities; much has to he done as to what the future role of our university clinics are going to be ; centra lization of these servic es; and I don't think the time is right to fragment our efforts by picking out these individual conditions one at a time . I think we're better to look at the whole overall picture . These are all of my remarks , Mr.

Speaker, and I commend the House to these remarks. Thank you. MR . SPEAKER: Are 'you ready for the question? MR . PETERS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Logan, that the debate be adjourne d. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Brokenh ead. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR . SMELLIE: Mr. Speaker, as the Honourable Member for Roblin is absent at the moment, I request the ind ulgence of the House to have this matter stand .

MR . SPEAKER: Order stand. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonde r if it would be in order if one of my colleag ues spoke on this resolution and then the adjournment stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Roblin . MR. SPEAKER: Agreed. MR . ARTHUR E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Recent studies, Mr . Speaker, both private and public , have revealed disturbing deficiencies in the fitne ss of American and Can adian youth. Since the youth of our nation is one of our greatest assets , it is imperative that we do something about improving the physica l standards of this asset.

I also deplore the fact that most people, by the time they have reache d their 30's have resigned themselves to an inactive , premature middle life. President Kennedy said rec ent ly, and I quote, Mr. SPeaker, "that physical fitne ss is not only one of the most important keys to a healthy body, it is the basis of a dyn amic and cre ative inte llectual activity . By keeping physical fitne ss in the forefront of the nations concerned, the Fede ral Government can make a substantial contribution for improving the health and vigour of our citize ns ." There are those , Mr.

Speaker , who would say, "Why all this concern for physica l fitne ss ? Are our children really less fit than those of other countrie s?" Well in the United States, 68% of the children who took the Krause-Webber tests failed;

whereas ill. Europe only 8% failed. An authority on this subject info rmed me that, in his opinion , about 30% nf our children in Winnipe g only would pass the test. In view of the fact that what takes place in the Unite d States today usually happens here tomorrow, I think we had better be concerned about this matter, In my opinion , one of the greatest disservices done to our nation was the withdrawal of the Federal Government of their support in 1955 from the Federal-Provincia l Scheme for Physical Fitn ess. The province followedby repealing the Manitoba physical Fitne ss and Recrea tion Act of 1945 .

A committee of in terested grou ps and individ uals approached the government , that's the Manitoba Government , Mr . Speaker, with a request that a study of provincial needs be made . In March, 19 57, the Legislature authorized this study and, as a result, ·an excellent report on physica l educa tion and recrea tion in Manitoba was issued in Ju ne , 1958 . Despite the good work of many people we have here , Manitoba has just been floundering around in this important matter of physical fitne ss. If there ever was justifica tion Page 574 March 7th, 1961 •

(Mr . Wright, cont'd.) .•••• for going it alone, this would be the time . We are not making full use of our schools either, Mr. Speaker. I know of an instance where a square-dancing group was ref used the use of the school gymnasium. Although this building was designed with the full evening use , with wash-room facilities adj oining, in spite of that, it's only being used for the school portion of the day. A recre ational program for our older folk too, in my opinion, would help to reduce the cost of caring for many of our senior citize ns.

At present we have no recrea tional servi ce, no department assigned to assist in this type of progr ess . It would seem to me that the res ponsibility should be delegated to one department , so that it would not be necessary to apply to the Minister of Education, which is the procedure at prese nt. Leisure time is becoming a problem as well as a blessing. Even labour leaders of the stature of Waiter Reuther are becoming conc,erned over its use. People very close to the problem of physical fitness are worried less much be done for recrea tion and little for fitness programs .

Our Falcon Lake area is an example offered by many, and though it is consid ered a wonderful re sort , its cost is now in the millions. We suggest that $50 ,0 00 be allocated for advancing the cause of physical fitness,. It is a well known fact that rural young people who are coming to the urban areas at an ever-incre asing rate , are not learning the skills of physical fitness necessar y to adapt them to eity life. I suggest, Mr . Speaker, that there are few ways of spending money that will bring larger div idends than that of investing it in the futur e health of the people of this province . MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR . PETERS: I am given to understand that it's going to stand in the name of the Honourable Member from Roblin. MR. SPEAKER: I didu't hear what you said. MR. PETE RS : I believe this order was supposed to stand in the name of the Honour able Member for Roblin. ;::, MR . SP.E:AKER: Agreed. Ad journed debate on the proposed motion standing �the name of the Honourable Member for St. John' s •. The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. MR . WRIGHT: Mr .

Speaker, in starting, I wish to acknowledge the good work done by the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce in the prepara tion and pre sentation of their fine brief to The Winnipeg <City Council on the need for low-ren tal housing in Greater Winnipeg. It's not ·o ften that we see eye to eye with this group, and when we see one of their conclusions reading like this -- and I would wish to quote, Mr.

Speaker -- under Clause (c) , it says , "Notwithstand ing the historic stand-of the Chamber of Commerce against subsidie s, the disad vantage of subsidies is outweighed by the advantages of having more people adequately housed at rents they can afford to pay. " I think, Mr. Speaker, that this statement dese rve s applause. In looking over the brief we see the needs for this type of housing; the need for and desira bility of low rental housing in Greater Winnipeg. Now if we accept the following premi ses, and I'm read ing from the brief again, Mr.

Speaker, "if we accept the following premises the problem is simplified:

(1) It is Agreed that all Winnipeg citizens should be adequately housed.

(2) An individual cannot be expected to pay more than 25 or 30% of his income for unserviced living accommodation.

(3) Since the lowest cost adequate accommodation which can be provided for a family of five, unde r

Section 16 of the National Housing Act, 1954, is $64 per month for a three bedroom unit, the wage earner must e.arn $233 per month.

(4) At least 1/5 of the families in Greater Winnipeg earn less than this figure. In the CPR and Notre Dame area, in a study of 195!5 , 77 .3 % of the families had incomes of less than $200 per month. The unknown factor of cost-sharing by the province 'is considered to be a major prob lem, and if we are ever to get a wor thwhile program of low-r ental housing launched in Greater Winnipeg, the Government of Manitoba will have to appropriate funds to assist." Mr. Speaker, only two provinc ial governments in Canada have not seen fit to assist in this worthwhile work , the Province of Alberta and our own.

Last Saturday's newspapers announced that the government is about to embark on a road building program which vvill cost in the neighbourhood of $400, 000, 000, financed over 20 year s. A program that will rebuild every road in Manitoba. Surely the time has arri ved, Mr. Speaker, when housing, especially housing for our low income groups , deserve s a rating comparable with that of roads, Greater Winnipeg is a low wage area as compared with many March 7th, 15161 Page 575

(Mr. Wright, cont'd.) ••.•• other cities. From the 1955 Department of National Revenue Publication, "Taxation Statistics, " we learn that in the Greater Winnipeg area, 26, 560 people are earning less than $2 , 000 ; and 63 , 000 people in the Greater Winnipeg area are earning less than $3 , 000. Now I am disappointed that there is nothing in the estimates for urban renewal or slum clearance . According to last evening's Winnipeg Tribune, The Winnipeg Council of Women are certainly concerned, and there are many more public-spirited groups concerned also. I want to read from last night's Winnipeg Tribune, Mr.

Speaker, "The Winnipeg Council of Women will reportedly act as spokesmen for three other womens' groups, Council of Jewish Women, The Ukrainian Women's League and the Catholic Women's League." And I have just noticed the paper of today which reports, and I probably should read you the headline in tonight's paper -- "$8 .4 million approved by the City Council for housing. Decision follows five women's briefs". While I don't care to go into the details, because I haven't read it, Mr. Speaker, I think we should be concerned when public-spirited groups such as these are so worried about it.

I should say that council also approved an effort to bring the Provincial Government into the public housing program. Now to me , that seems a sad state of affairs when council is trying to bring the Provincial Government into the public housing program. One would think that, knowing this urgency, that the Provincial Government would get its ear a little closer to the ground. We were impressed by the speed in which the government implemented the recommenda tions of the Royal Commission on Education in regard to the larger school divisions, imple mented it even before the final report was re� eived.

Of course we know that an impending election sometimes provides much incentive in getting things done . To the question, Mr. Speaker, where is the money coming from? I would answer that it will come from the same source as that that ·was allocated for the golf course at Falcon Lake, for the sewer and water installations that are there; the same place its coming from to make a park across the street from this building; from the same source that will pay for rebuilding all the roads in Manitoba.

In July , 1960, when the First Minister was alarmed over the City of Winnipeg considering the building of a new City Hall across the street, it did not take long to come to a decision and to make a firm offer in regard to urban development and slum clearance. Has there been any abatement of the problem since then? Do we need more than the recent tragic fires to re fresh our memory? Have the pictures in our daily papers, showing the deplorable living conditions among many of our citizens, not aroused our concern:?

Is it not a fact that the shortage of decent living accommodation is responsible for maintaining these fire traps at rents that are unreasonable? In fact, rental values have increased and inspectors think twice before they condemn these buildings, because of the very shortage of adequate housing. Was the government more concerned in Ju ly, 1960, in making this offer about the proposed site of a new City Hall than they were about slum clearance in general? I do not like to think so, Mr.

Speaker, but the fact remains that there is nothing in the estimates that I can find, unless there is something in the capital estimates, that there is nothing for this urgent need. The clipping referred to a minute ago also mentioned, and I quote again, Mr. Speaker, "Alderman Peter Taraska told a meeting Saturday of the Citizens Committee on Low Cost and Subsidized Housing, that City Council should make an announcement about slum clearance within two weeks. Alderman Taraska assured the board that Council was interested in an urban renewal project for the Burrows-Fyfe area and Jarvis Avenue districts.

The committee meeting decided that members of the Advisory Board should call on Premier Duff Roblin to . ask the government to share in the cost of slum clearance for projec ts undertaken by the city. An immediate start on such projects would help to ease unemployment, said one mem- ber of the Advisory Board, Mrs. G. D. Noble." I wish to point out again , Mr. Speaker < that it seems strange in this day and age that we have to impress upon the Provincial Govern ment the need for assistance in this matter. I wish to refer, since I quoted it in the

article , Mr. Speaker, on the Burrows-Fyfe area. As I said before, although I see the large head- lines in this evening's paper about a $8 .4 million housing council, and my eyes scan where the United Church had looked upon the whole project rather dimly because it points out that some of the more modest programs which could be implemented almost immediately had not been given serious consideration. Page 576 March 7th, 1961

(Mr. Wright, c�on t'd.) ••••• In this fine brief prepared by the Chambers of Commerce , I wish to draw your attention to an extract here called "Study No. 5", which mentions this Burrows-Fyfe projec t and it gives a complete picture from accommod ation, capital costs and so on. I do not wish to burden the House with this, Mr. Speaker, but to point out that the total cost of this is $723 .

The Federal Government are willing to put up 7 5% of the cost, which leaves $180, 81 0 to be borne perhaps equally by the Provincial Government and the City of Winnipe g, which would make the government 's contribution to this projec t $90, 000 . Now could anyone suggest a better way to in vest it than for the welfare of our citizens in this regard?

Economists are telling us that the transforma tion from a war eco nomy to one of sanity and peace can best be accomplished only if governments are wise enough to give priority in the huge spending ne cessa ry to accomplish this , to education , health and welfare, unemployme nt, housing and plann ing. I just read Stuart Chase's new book,"Live and Let Liv e", and it contains a good defini tion, in my opinion , of the word "planni ng" -- calls it intelligent co-operation with the inevita ble- in telligent co-operation with the inevita ble .

In 1956 the Liberal Government did not heed the warning that unle ss a new deal in education was forthcomin g, the inevitable would happen. It did. And unless my friends to my left heed the warning signs that much has to be done to improve living conditions of many of our cit izens ; that they must extend intelligent co -operation with the other levels of government to achieve this; then they will be replaced by a govern ment which wiU do these things .

Surely the elimination of slums and the creation of a healthy environme nt, particularly where there are large numbers of children concerned, is a matter of vital importance . There are other reasons that make early consideration of this problem of housing so neces sary, such as the reduction of municipal costs for welfare, police , juvenile court, etcete ra, many intangible things too. It is also good business prac tice as the Federal Government puts up 75 perce nt of the costs and the city possibly 12 per cent -- 12 1/2 perce nt .

For every 12 1/2 cents that this government would in vest, one dollar is put into circula tion . Of this dollar spent on construction 35 cents is for direct labour, and a substantial portion of the balance remains with the community . We hear much about "do it no w" , Mr . Speaker . Men and materials are available, but what about the money? The l<'ederal Government has appropriated money the City of Winnipe g is willing ; it now remains to be seen whether this government is really sincere in this most important task, and the time to do it now is March, 1961 . MR . SPJ�AKER: Are you re ady for the question? MR.

JAMES COW AN (Winn ipeg Centr e) : I move , seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews , that the debate be adjourne d. Mr. Spe.aker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried • • • • • • • • • • • • • • continued on next page March 7th, 1961 Page 577

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Logan. The Honourable Member for Souris -Lansdowne. MR. McKEL LAR: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the indulgence of this House to let the matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Order stand? Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honour able Member for Brokenhead. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. J. A. CHRISTIANSON (Portage la Prairie}: Mr.

Speaker, this, on the face of it, looks like a very good resolution, and if the number of times it's been before this House and un der the variety of sponsorship ln which lt's been here is any indication, it has much to commend lt. It seeks to rectify the inequity that must inevitably result when an arbitrary boundary is drawn in the field of assessment or of taxation. Those who fall just outside the llne are auto matically hurt or seem to be unjustly dealt with. However, we must look a little deeper and examine some of the implications that are attendant on this resolution.

What would happen in the unincorporated villages of Manitoba where we have farmers living who have their farms ln the same municipality but removed considerably from their dwelllngs? Under the terms of this resolution those dwelllngs would then be exempted from taxation, and what effect would this have on the whole structure of the unincorporated villages --on their abillty to meet the burdens of education and other things that fall in their jurisdiction ? The same thing is true in the cities and in the towns.

Conceivably a man could live in Winnipeg and if his total income was from farming, his house in Win nipeg would be exempted from taxation. That may seem like stretching it quite a blt, but the legal

interpretation would be there, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the lawyers are quite capable of putting the

interpretation en it. A MEMBER: Why don't you stretch it a llttle more ? MR. CHRISTIANSON: Now the whole subject of exemptions is at present under review by the Municipal Inquiry Commissi on. Over the course of the last many years the whole tax base , the whole municipal tax base has been badly eroded by special exemptions from one sort and another, and this has created more inequitie s than I think it has sought to cure because it unfairly loads the balance of the taxable properties in the municipalities with the total load. The new economic blood in Washington, D.

C. is currently proposing that in the field of income and corporate tax in the United States that all exemptions should be removed. This would have the effect of broadening the tax base and lowering tremendously the tax rate. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps it's time to have another look at the whole field of municipal tax exemp tions, and that in the long run the inequities may be cons iderably reduced if this were done. Now last year, Mr.

Speaker, a similar resolution was brought before this House and it was passed, and the recommendation of the House was that when the 1 report of the Municipal Inquiry Commissi on was brought in, that full consideration should be given to that report. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we would be serving little use in making further amendments to The Munici pal Act at this date; that we would be much better advised to wait until this Inquiry is received and to give full consideration then to the report that is handed down. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, would the honourable member permit a ques tion?

What Mun icipal Advisory Commission is he referring to? MR. CHRISTIANSON: The one which Dr. Fisher is Chairman --the Municipal Advisory Commissi on. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a supplemental question? What has that Commissi on to do in respect of this Legislature, for it's my understanding that's an independent commissi on betWeen the union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Urban Municipal Association. MR. CHRISTIANSON: I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that there couldn't be a better organiza tion set up to inquire into the whole field of municipal legislation and to bring in suggested re commendations for the changing of that legislation. MR. PAULLEY: Might I ask one further supplemental question ? MR. ROBLIN: He called your bluff. MR. PAULLEY: Who said so ? MR. ROBLIN: There are rules. Look it up. MR. PAULLEY: Where? MR. ROBLIN: Look it up. MR. PAULLEY: Yes, you look it up, Bud, because you haven't got it right on this one. Page 578 March 7th, 1961

(Mr. Paulley, ,cont'd. ) .•••• Is there any obllgation on this commissi on to report to this Legis lature ? MR. CHitiSTIANSON: We ll, Mr. Speaker, I think the commission was set up. Well now, I'm not completely clear on this, whether lt was set up by the Legislature or the government, but I suggest, Mr. Speaker that the report wlll be the subject of discuss ion ln this Legislature ' as soon as lt ls made, whether lt is made to the Legislature or to the government. MR. SP E:AKER: Are you ready for the question ? MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q. C. (Selkirk) : I move, seco nded by the Honourable Member for St.

George,. that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead. MR. SClffiEYER: Mr. Speaker, this ls perhaps the third or fourth attempt ••••• MR . SPEAKER: I believe that you would have to move the resolution. MR. SCHREYER: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the HonourablE> Member for Seven Oaks , the following resolution:

Whereas The Agricultural Stabilization Act of the Federal Government has failed to provide to western farmers a fair share of the national income; And

Whereas the prices of basic western farm commodities have continued to deteriorate while the costs of commodities and services the farmers must buy have risen steadily, particularly in the production of wheat, oats and barley; And

Whereas the ap plication of the SO% national ten-year average calculation of prescribed prices ln the adminis tration of the Act has failed to provide parity prices to farmers based on cost of production; And

Whereas the use of the SO% national average to arrive at a prescribed price on any com modity without consideration of Increased production costs or the amount of deficiency payments paid in any year will automatically curtail the value of The Stabilizatlon Act each year to the point where it will become ineffective as a price support program ln Canada; Therefore

be it resolved that this House urge the Government to give cons ideration to the advisability of us ing its influence upon the Government of Canada to provide necessary changes ln the admlnlstratlon of The Stabili�1atlon Act, ln such a manner as to provide the farmers of Canada prices based on parity in line with full production costs, in order that the family farm wlll be assured a standard of living comparable to all other segments within the economy. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the que stion ? MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, as I was attempting to say just a minute or two ago, this is perhaps the third or fourth time that either myself or colleague from Fisher, have at tempted to introduce this resolution in this Chamber. We do so without apology at this time because so far as everyone knows the problem la still with us in even an aggravated form.

Original Bill No. 237, which was passed ln Federal House of Commons ln the winter se salon of 1957-5S, la not coping with the problem of farm prices --and of course this is no surprise - at least it's no surprise to we in this group, because at the time when it was brought in to the House of Commons, CCF spokesmen were well aware that this was nothing much more than a hoax which the Federal Government was attempting to perpetrate upon the farmers of this coun try.

I might say that a good many keen-minded people were taken in by it, including some rather outstanding members of parliament, including one or two from even the CCF Party. They were fooled by the provisions of Bill 237. And at the time I recall them saying that this legislation appeared to have the makings of answering at least a good part of the problem of farm prices. But there were some, even then, Mr. Speaker, who saw through the implications of the bill and who saw full well that it would not cope with the problem . So today, some three years later, Mr.

Speaker, we are stlll faced with the cost-price squeeze in agriculture farm debt despite whatever my honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture , tries to make of it, farm debt is :rising and rising substantially. According to a press clipping, December 23rd, I note that farm debt in Manitoba stands at S4 million 7, the highest since the depression, and an increase of SS% since 1950. Now I know that the Minister tried to explain this away by say ing that land values had increased, but I defy anyone to even so much as intimate that farm land value has increased anywhere near half of SS%.

So let's not try to becloud the issue by saying that farm debt has increased but so has land values, lt's simply an absurdity. Let's face the fact that farm debt has increased and it's increased tremendously because of the altogether March 7th, 196 1 Page 579

(Mr. Schreyer, cont'd. ) ••..• insufficient farm price structure which exists in this country. Now I know that the basic problem involving prices is to be taken in conjunction with the matter of markets, but there again, certainly we cannot even hope to grapple with the proble m of prices if we're not willi ng to accept a poss ible one of two propositions with regard to marketing of grain, and I shall come to that lat er. At this point, Mr.

Chairman, let me make the assertion that it serves some of the government leaders in this country right, it serves them right for now being faced with the problem of unemployment. It's a pity that this has to be taken out on the people affected. But some years ago when they were asked to take adequate steps towards the provision of parity prices for farmers, they procrastinated on this and tried to shelve it by means of a spurious agricultural bill which wasn't intended to do the job. So what's happened? Since 1958 we've slid into a recession, we've slid into a recession, Mr.

Speaker, which I submit, and which I contend is a farm-led recession. If farm prices had been adequate throughout the period 56- 57-58, I doubt that the recession we are now in would be anywhere near as deep as it is. And I have adequate proof because in the United States the situation is much the same, thanks to the policies of the Republican Administration under Ezra Taft Benson, they fell into the same mess as the case here in Canada. Ezra Taft Benson tried to fight surpl us, rather than the matter of price and as the result of that, the farm economy sluffed off into a decrease -- and what happened?

They're facing a recession there too. A recession which is, in the words of Waiter Reuther, a labour man, a recession which he contends is a farm-led recession, and I want to quote simply two or three sentences from Waiter Reuther's testimony to the American Senate Committee on agriculture, and he says this: "A drop in farm income of 1. 6 billion over a two-year period with the end not in sight does not indicate a sound financial condition for the country. It is not sound for agricult Ure, and therefore it is not sound for the national economy as a whole .

I am of the opinion that a one billion dollar drop in farm income results in a $240 milli on drop in farm spending for machinery and other goods and services, which effect is felt and its accumulative effect upon the rest of the economy.

Normally farmers use more steel in a year than goes into the output of automobile s; more petroleum than in any other industry; enough electricity to meet the needs of cities;" -- and he names some of the biggest cities in the country -- "It is clear, therefore that agricultural purchasing power must be maintained if a faltering farm economy is not once again allowed to drag the rest of_ the economy into a farm-led depression. " And, this, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, are the simple facts of it.

We're in a farm-led recession because the present Federal Government has not, by any stretch of the imagination, come near to tackling the main proble m. How to tackle it, Mr. Speaker?

Well, we can do one of two things; we can pass an intelligen tly worded resolution, which will put farm prices on an intelligent formula basis with proper limi tations to prevent the enriching of those who need it least -- I'm sure that the Minister would agree with that; or we can take the other alternative and pass some spurious amendment which would have the effect of calli ng for acreage payments or some other rather silly arrangements which nobody really asks for, which nobody really wants , except members of the group opposite.

Let us for once and for all, acknowledge the proble m; let lis acknowledge that the solution lies in a formula price system, with proper lim itatlons . Now I know that the Honourable Minister· thinks more and more keenly about the proble ms affecting agriculture than a good many people -- sometimes he's hard to follow however, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to quote just a sentence from what he had to say speaking to this resolution last year. He seems to admit that the proble m is there and so on and so forth-- "And in order . to solve this proble m we have to spend money.

But it's going to take time and we have to spend it in the right pla ce , and in the right way, if we 're going to ·effect a solution to the present cns1s. But if we do this indiscriminantly without solving the basic and fundamental proble ms in agriculture, in the long run we're doing no one a favour." What are the basic and fundamen tal proble ms in agriculture, Mr. Speaker? Isn't this and the proble m contained within the con text of this resolution, the basic proble m? What are the other basic proble ms? They're other probl ems, but they're ancillary , they're not basic.

So let's not have any more skirting of an issue. Now the Honourable Minister's colleague , on page 330 of last year's Hansard did come out rather forthrightly and admit that "The Federal Government has not come to grudge", I think were his words, "The Federal Government has not come to grudge with the central Page 580 March 7th, 1961

(Mr. Scbreyer, cont1 d. ) ••••• problem. " But then what did the Honourable Member from Hamiota do? He brought in an amendment which advocated the Federal Government taking cer tain action to solve the problem consisting of the consideration of acreage payments again, and so forth and so on. A stop-gap measure, perhaps; a solution, certainly not. And I think the Honourable Member should realize that. So what are the prospects of atte mpting a permanent, or at least not a permanent, but a fundamental solution to a fundamental problem?

Well, we can look as far as we like but we have to face the problem of economics in a broad way. I would like to quote just a sentence or two from an interview held with John Kenneth Galbraith, whom I'm sure all of you are familiar with, and he's asked th is question: "Do you see a solu tion to the farm problem in this country?" Of course this is pertaining to the U. S, but I think that we can glean a lesson or two from it. And he goes on to say th is, and I think th is applies to Canada, espec ially so; "The difficulty about the farm problem is that we haven't really tried . to solve it".

I don't think we have so far; not by acreage payments, Mr. Speaker. The essence of our farm difficulties in the se last years is that we've had price supports at levels just low enough to anger the farmer, and our egg and hog deficiency payment programs perhaps fall into that category,. So we'v e had price supports at levels just low enough to anger the farmer and just high enough to have to make him produce the maximum extent. That combined with the technological revolution of the last years has resulted in a perfect flood of production, expecial ly in wheat and feed grains.

He goes on to say th is: "We must guarantee an adequate price based on production, cost of production. There must be reasonable limits on the amount of production that is guaranteed in price. " And I think that even though this man is an economist and removed from the practical requirements of politic s, he has hls finger on a very, very im portant view. It's the view that I certainly haven't heard from my friends opposite. I certainly haven't heard it from my friends opposite, and I don't know how long they're going to atte mpt to sit here ani try and evade taking a definite stand on this resolution.

There's a saying among teenagers that "If something happens, I'll just die. " Well, I wouldn1t .want to say that here but, if they had tried to amend it .again, Mr. Speaker, by bringing in a request for acreage payments , then, -- if I don't die, perhaps some farmers will, though. MR. HU'I'TON: Will the Honourable Member from Brokenhead permit a question ? MR. SCHREYER: Certainly. MR. HU'I'TON: Will he advocate production controls for agriculture in Canada? MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I'll deal with that question near the end of my remarks. Not right now because .•••.•• MR. HUTTON: Yes or no. MR.

SCHREYER: Oh, just relax Mr. Minister. -- (Inte rjection) -- What happens to an administ ration which concerns itself with the matter of surplus production and tries to solve the agriculture problem by trying to cut down on the production by means of non-incentive prices? This is what E2l!'a Taft Benson atte mpted to do in the State s, and the picture of American agri culture from 1953 to 60 is indeed a disma l one.

Let me just quote you some figures; Net income in 153, 15 billion; in 1960, 11 billion; parity ratio from lOO% down to 80%; farmer's share of the co111 sumer•s dollar down 10%; farm debts up practically, well it's up 84%; a dis mal record for an administration that atte mpted to solve it Ln the wrong way. Why be concerned for surplus production. I don't know that any government has even the moral right to consider surplus production a curse. It seems to me it is more of a blessing. Goods certainly can be used Lf the administration has some initiative and some imagination.

Now I was glad to see in last night's and today's paper, that the Honourable Minister in Manitoba is volunteering to lead a march on Ottawa to try and sell the idea of the need for Canada supplying needy countries with surplus grain. There's only one thing gratifying about that, Mr. Speaker, and that is the fact that, for the first time that I know of, a Cabinet Minis ter ls endorsing the idea of supplying needy countries with surplus food. Certainly in itself this idea is not new.

Let me just quote , or point out to you th at the idea of supplying food to the needy people is an idea which the Canadian Labour Congress advocated several years ago; be fore that the old CCL and PLC. The CCF as long as 20 years ago advocated this. The Inte r provincial Farm Union Council advocated this 10 years ago. Nobody seemed however to give it the amount of credit which such an Idea should have received. There was always fear of spoiling the normal markets. Mr. Speaker, I contend that you can't spoll markets where Maxch 7th, 196 1 Page 581

(Mr. Schrey er, cont1d, ) ••••• they're not. There are no markets for a good many products exlstlng in the under-developed countr ies; there are no markets to spoll among the starving people of India, Pakistan and Africa, and so we certainl y can't be spoiling any markets . So what's kept us back?

I don't know, but I think --and I don't think I'm far out - I think the reason we have been kept back fro m any kind of mass ive food surplus distr ibution program is the fact that our leaders did not have the daring and the initiative, and as a result of that, not only have people been left starving across the seas, but back home we have been left with a surplus which was left to accum ulate in the bins, in the storage facllltie s throughout the country, to eat up huge federal appropriation s by way of storage charges and so on, doing no one any good. I sim ply must read to you, Mr.

Speaker, where , in an old program dating back to 1955, the the CLC, -- this is 1956 -- advocates full support for Columbo Plan, technical assistance, food disposal progr ams, long -term loans and so on. The implication is clear. Oh yes, the National Farmers• · Union, several years ago called for the establishment of a National Food Bank through which surplus foods could be purch ased by the Federal Government. But at that time, Mr.

Speaker, when these things were advocated, these people looked upon it as though they were mad, and today I can quote you fro m the Winnipeg Tribune of --no dates on it, but it's only two weeks ago I think --where the Tribune in an editorial is advocating this approach; "So far" and I quote: "Food gifts have contributed relatively little to the export of Canadian grain, but it is possible than an active food for peace program will take a bigger portion in the future.

These are the directious we should be looking for in a real reduction of our wheat surplus since it is evident that reliance on a traditional market, while necessary, will only keep the carry over at or near its present level. " The implication is that a food disposal program to help people who need it, across the seas, wlll not in any way, or any substantial way, impede or damage the normai markets ; and so why hav en't we been doing this before ?

We haven't, and as a result of the plle-up, adverse publ icity was engendered in this country, which more or le ss created in the minds of most non-agricultural people the impress ion that we cannot begln to offer adequate cost of production prices to the farm, or guarantee these prices to the farm people , because this would sim ply encourage a greater surplus production. To me this is one of the most unfortunate developments of the post-war period. In the United States it is worked in the same way and the Minister of Agric ulture has fell for it.

Last year when I said in this House that the parity price program as practiced immedi ately after the war was not a fallure , the Minister got up some time later to say that the price support program ln the United States was a failu re. Depends what he means by it; if he means the way practiced by Ezra Taft Ben son, I agree with him; but if he means that the concept of a guarantee farm price program will lead to disaster, then I could n't disagree more.

I think that certa inly it is time that we come to grips with this probl em; it's time that we accept the prem ise that government has responsi blllties to the agricultural segment . so far as price is concern ed; it's time to accept the pre mise that government has respons ibl.llty towards the mark et, not only so far as normal markets are concerned, but also respons ibility to make available on a mass ive scale --and not just to talk, but on a mass ive scale --"food for peace" ln the nature of 80, 90, 100 mllllon bushels a year -- even more. Destroy normal markets ? Well, I'll let you think about that.

While I'm on the matter of normal markets , Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the present Federal Government has a clean slate or not in doing its utmost in expanding normal markets .

Certainly I do not wish to become embroiled in an argument of the present govern ment's tariff polici es, but lt seems to me that when you try to discoura ge the sale of goods ln this country by a country who is buying wheat fro m us, that the government isn't doing too much for the far mer, and I am ple ased to note that the Canadian Labour Congre ss, which you might ordinarily think would support tariff incre ase, came out flatly in opposition to any in crease in tariff that mi ght be harmful toward the farm community. I was pleased, Mr.

Speaker, last night to hear the Honourable Minister say that he was not opposed to farm subsidies per se. He is not opposed to them - you did say that didn't you, Mr. Speaker? MR. HUTTON: I did n't say per se. MR. SCHREYER: The inference then - (Interje ction) --Well I said, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Minister was hard to follow and there is proof that this is the case, because I certai nly thought that he mea nt that. The point which I am trying to lead to, Mr. Speaker, is Page 582 March 7th, 1961

(Mr. Schreyer, cont1d.) ••••• sim ply this - as I said, lt is unfortunate that within the minds of the non-agrir�ultural population of this country, a bias has been bullt up, one way or another, in oppos ition to any type of government program of price subsidy. And yet ls this so justified; is it so wrong to ask for farm price support in view of the fact that in the manufacturing segment of our economy, in our industrial segment, there is one type of subs idy after another out of the public purse, to protect and keep that particular industry buoyant.

The oil industry has its de pletion allowam:e s; manufacturing industries have their tariffs, and I don't see them go ing down. Transportation has its subsidies; gold has its subsidies, too. I did this last year and I want to read into the record again, Mr. Speaker, the words of a soc ial sc ientist of an Ameri can univer sity who is spe aking on the moral economic problem of subs idies, on subsidies for agriculture.

He· happens to be a Jesuit and a social scientist and he says this: "Those who oppose subsidies to farmers, those who denounce them must obviously not consider the huge subsidies to the ma ll-order and the newspaper people with their special malllng privileges; the metal and min ing industries, the aircraft and airline companies, the oil industries, electric power comp anies with their enormous write-offs", and he goes on and I conclude with this: "Anyone who is eager for a free market for agriculture should pause to consider the implications of the -- should try to restore the free markets then to the steel industry, the automob ile industry, the drug indus try.

" It seems grossly unfair, Mr. Speaker, to expect agricultural prices to be left in an open market atmosphere to the extent that they are when the prices of so many other commo dities are administered in this country. It seems to me that as a result, the fact that agriculture has led -- and I us•3 that term advisedly - has led the rest of the economy into a recessi on, and we're scoot ing from one recess ion into another now, Mr.

Speaker, it seems to come every 18 months , we're out of one, we're into another -- that this problem can best be licked by attack ing it at lts source, and that is -- agricultural prices. And what better way to conclude, Mr. Speaker, than to point out that the present legisla tion on the Federal statute books, which is supposed to guarantee some semb lance of protection, is not accom plishing thls purpase. I am sure that my colleague from Fisher would agree with me wholeheartedly. We want normal markets expanded. The Federal Conservative Govern ment with its tariff program isn't too succes sful there.

We certainly endorse the idea of a "Food for Pear�e" program on a mass ive scale; we endo rse it because we were the first to pro pose it, and ce:rtainly no one -- but of course when we did that some years ago, we were looked upon as though we were quite mad and frothing at the mouth. Now I see res pectable people and res pectable news media are advocating the same thing.

For instance, raise the parity level; .let us look upon food production and food surplus as a bl essi ng and not a curse; let us make the best use of it, and I call upon members oppos ite to engender within themselves enough intestinal fortitude to act as some of their federal counterparts from Saskatchewan have done. I have a clipping here to the effect that -- oh yes -- "Western Tories Revolt" -- See some of them have enough fortitude to revolt when things get rough enough. They revolted against proposed tariff policies of the present Federal Government. One of them, the Conservative MP from Rosthern, Mr.

Nasserden, was the only one who had enough fortitude to get up -- (Interjection) -- Yes, the guts, plailllly speaking, to get up in the House of Com mons and really take the government to task for the dismal showing and performance that they have perpetrated in this Blll 237. It's been a farce from the day it was put on the statute books and it's continuing in that manner. So that's why, Mr.

Speaker, my colleague and I and others thought it as ext re mely important now as it ever was to bring to the attention of the present Federal Government the need for some thing really substantial in the way of farm price support legislation. Now then, to answer my honourable friend's question. He asked me whether I was ln favour of production controls. I would be in favour of production controls to the extent -- and I think the econom ist here puts it rather well --"In some cases controls wlll work.

" The option should be given to the producers and if they choose to have controls for the sake of having price support, that ls their privilege. But in either case, Mr. Speaker, there's no dilemma. You cari guarantee prices by having production controls. There's another way. To me it appeals slightly more,. and that is to have price support up to -- up to a certain level of production, beyond which let the .product be sold on the glorious free open market. Let the government step in and do so:t:rB thing as far as food for peace is concerned.

Perhaps we shall now, because the Honourabie Minister, the first Cabinet Minister that I know of who has endorsed this as Page 583

(Mr. Schreyer, cont1 d. ) .•••• heartily as he did, and I hope that most members here will be in a position to support the resolution. MR. JAMES COWAN, Q. C. (Win nipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit a question ? MR. SCHREYER: Certainly. MR. COW AN: In your resolution, and several times in your speech, you referred to the "cost of production". Now I'm from the city and I'm not very familiar with cost of producing grain, and I was wondering if you could tell us what is the cost now of producing a bushel of wheat, a bushel of oats and a bushel of barley. MR. SCHREYER: Well , Mr.

Speaker, that cost would vary with the locale, with the farmer, with the producer, etcetera. If the member is referring to the average, there is a national average, a regional average. I really don't know what figure or what he is referring to. If he wants the average for western Canada, I think that I could get him the figure. It might be a little old but I think I could get him a figure reasonably close. MR. COWAN: I think we should get an up-to-date figure, after all we're voting on this resolution as to the cost of production and we should have a little bit more information as to what we're voting on. MR.

SCHREYER: We ll, Mr. Speaker, before the honourable member has to vote on this, I will try to -- I can almost guarantee him that information. MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Honourable Member for Broken head a question. Does he think that the present price of wheat under the Wheat Board -- the present Wheat Board price --is below the cost of production or does he wish it raised higher? MR. SCHREYER: Is the present price --(Interjection) --Oh, I would think so. MR. McKELLAR: We ll, do you think so though? I mean, that's what I want to know. MR.

SCHREYER: We ll, I'm of the opinion --yes, of course. MR. McKELLAR: In all cases, is that --are you looking at the small farmer or the big farmer? Who do you think is suffering? MR. SCHREYER: Now look, Mr. Speaker, I don't mind answering questions, but there is a principle involved here and members should concern themselves with the principle. If they want to know the cost of production per bushel in some location or another, then they should hire the services of an economist. I don't think I have to answer specific questions like that, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! Are you ready for the question? MR.

PETER WAGNE R (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Seven Oaks , that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Leader of the CCF Party. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to allow this resolution to stand. MR. SPEAKER: Agreed. Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks . MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Matter stand.

Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honour able Member from St. John's. MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of this House to let this matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Second reading of Bill No. 34. The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. GEORGE JOHNSON (Assiniboia) presented Bill No. 34,

An Act to incorporate The Association of Assessing Officers in Manitoba, for second reading. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. JOHNSON (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, the Association referred to here was formed during the latter months of 1955 when its present constitution was drafted and the first inaugural meeting was held on January 18, 1956 . The objects of the Association are: to co-ordinate the work of all assessors and to help any assessor who may have need for joint co-operation from this group; to improve the standard of assessment practice and to act as a clearing house for Page 584 March 7th, 1961

(Mr. Jobnson, <lont'd. ) ••••• the collection and distribution of information and research relat ing to all phases of asses sments; to foster the development of equitable uniform and related assessmen ts throughout the province; to co-operate with agencies and others interested in as sess ment procedure. Regular membership in this Assoc iation is open to a duly appointed offi cial or any person engaged by a municipal corporation in assessm ent appraisal work.

Any in dividual interested in the theory and practice of municipal assessment, appraisal work, but not ellgible for regular membership, may apply for an assoc iate membership. Subscribing mem bers consist of any corporation representative interested in the principles and objects of the Asso ciation. Total membership to date numbers 85. Assoc iation activities consist of a pro gram of monthly meetings at which guest speakers are invited to talk on subjects allied to the assess ment field. During the course of its existence this organization has held discuss ions on assessment problems of var ious kinds.

The Assoc iation of Assess ment Offic ers have also ad vised and ass isted with the formation of an assessment manual and rating text which is presently in use in Manitoba. A series of lectures along educational llnes have been held for assessors. These lectures have been well attended and a great deal of interest has been shown by the mem bers; as a result the membership of this Assoc iation have indicated a strong desire to pursue their studies further.

In order then that we may work in closer alliance with the Unive rsity of Manitoba, and so that any credits awarded for study and proficiency in the field of assess ment appraisal valuation may be given due recognition, this Assoc iation has deemed it advis able to seek corporation. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that most of the members in the House have had at some time municip al experience and I feel that on many occasions, particularly at times of Courts of Re vision, that the knowledge of the assessor is of such vital importance , and that on many occa sions , perhaps due to lack of interest on the assessor, that differences of opinion have come up for debate. It i.s my feeling, Mr.

Speaker, that the incorporating of this Assoc iation will strengthen the assessors who are so vital to all municipal ities, and I feel that this Blll should receive the unan imous support of the members of this Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: Are you re ady for the question? Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 25. The Honourable Member for Brandon. MR. LISSAMAN presented Bill No. 25,

An Act to amend

an Act to incorporate Braridon College Inc orporated, for second reading. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. LISSAMAN: Mr. Speaker, there's really no explanation required, I believe, in this particular bill.

Members will recall that Federal Govern ment loans to CMHC became available as was anno unced in the Speech from the Throne in Ottawa, to colleges on the construction of dorm itories, and since there was some doubt in the solicitor's mind for Brandon College that we had the power to place mortgages upon any of our properties, this amendment was thought desirable through our charter to give us that authority and take advantage of low interest rates that might be available in these loans to us. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 14. The Honourable Member for Winn ipeg Centre. MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Vital, that Bill No. 1�l,

An Act respecting The Royal Trust Company Mortgage Corporation, be now read a second time. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, this is sim ply a blll to enable this company to carry on a loan business in Manitoba and they are not asking for any speci al privilege. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 20. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. PETERS: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take

part in this debate. My colleague, the Honourable Member from Fisher, prompted me to take

part in this debate, In the few re marks he had made, he had mentioned that the manufacturers of margarine, also manufacture soap. Certainly they manufacure soap; they manuf�cture peanut butter too, and they process March 7th, 1961 Page 585

(Mr. Peters, cont'd. ) ••••• beef and pork. But they don't use the same equipment, Mr. Speaker, so I thought I would --usu ally my honourable friend, the Member from Fisher, has his facts pretty straight, but this time he was just a little bit out. One thing I was interested in, Mr. Speaker, the remarks he had :(Ilade about, I believe it was the Netherlands, that was very interesting --there was apparently 100, 000 people who broke out in a skin rash or some thing.

What I was interested in out of those 100, 000 that they found 60, 000 beds, hospital beds, for these people, so they sure must be a lot better off as far as hospital beds are concerned than we are here. So he did bring out a few good points anyway, Mr. Speaker. Now we've been reading a lot about butter consumption going down each year, and, Mr. Speaker, people that are us ing margarine don't use it because they want to use it; it's because they are forced to use it.

On the money that they are earning today --it was pointed out by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks in his speech today that in the City of Win nipeg, there are 25, 650 people earning less than $2, 000 a year. Those people, Mr. Speaker, can't afford to pay for butter the price that is beit\g asked. Now, I would go along with anyone, that we would even ban the manufacture of margarine if you would give everyone in this country an adequate income that they could afford to buy the superior product. They're not us ing it, Mr.

Speaker, because they want to, because they're saving money; they haven't got it in the first place, and that is the reason, the one and only reason, that they use margarine. You could colour it black, they would still have to use it because they couldn't afford to pay for - (Interjection) -- If you bring up the minimum wage to $1. 25, I'll go along that we colour lt black. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are also in this province about 80, 000 people in the old age group, that is 65 years of age or more, and these are the people that I am concerned about.

I have talked to many of them and they don't have the money to buy bu tter. They have to use margarine and they like to have it coloured yellow, and it is usu ally the husband that has to do the colouring, and that's the ones that I've been talking to and they say, "Please can't you do something about it, my wife is getting after me and it's a pretty messy job. " These are the people, Mr. Speaker, that I am concerned about; these people in the old age group. They de serve a little consideration.

After all, they're the pioneers of this country --just a minute, you'll have your chance, ju st sit down and watch yourself. You'll get your chance. --(Inter jection) -- Mr. Speaker, these people in the old age group, they came to this country from over the seas; they built this country up --(Interjection) --Sure, so did the farmer, and if you want to know something, the farmers are using margarine too. And why are they using it? Not because they want to, because they have to; they haven't got the money to pay for butter.

They're using it and lf you want to know there are three main distributors of margarine in the City of Win nipeg, and we'll call them Company A, Company B and Company C, and of their total production of margarine, Company A sells 55 percent of their volume of margarine in the city, 45 percent outside the City of Winnipeg area; Company B sells 60 percent in the city, 40 percent on the outside; and Company C, 65 in the city and 35 percent in outside areas. So you see, Mr. Speaker, that it isn't just being used in the city, the farmers are using it too, and for the reason that I stated, Mr. Speaker.

Not because they want to, but because they have to. MR. GUTTORMSON: Could I ask the member a question ? MR. PE TERS: Go ahead. MR. GUTTORMSON: Are all these people outside the City of Win nipeg farmers ? MR. PET ERS: I didn't say they were. I said they were outside the Win nipeg area. They might come from Swan River, maybe Dauphin --(Interjection) -- FUn Flon. I sound like a stationmaster now reading out these. So, Mr. Speaker, it's not a matter of choice that they use margarine. It's forced on the majority of people to use this spread; it's cheaper. Butter is in the range of 70 cents a pound.

There was an ad in the paper the other day, and I helleve the Safeway Stores --five pounds for 99 cents. Now certainly you don't expect a person on the old age pension, or a small pension, or the minimum wage, to be paying 70 cents for butter when they can buy margarine five pounds for a dollar. Mr. Speaker, I think I've said enough on this matter for the time being. Let's all settle down and get on with the vote. MR. GRAY: Mr.

Speaker, I could almost guarantee that my few remarks will not change the minds of anyone in this House, but in fear that my grandchild will ask me "Where were you in this famous debate on margarine", I just want to be on record. In the first place margarine Page 586 March 7th, 1961

(Mr. Gray, cont1d. ) ••••• was forbidden entirely in this province. Finally, the province de cided to allow the manufacturing and selling of margarine; but they protected themselves with the colour. I think once we allowed margarine to come in, the fight for the dairymen should have been held at that time. But the House at that time decided, rightly or wrongly, that mar garine should be allowed to be manufactured •.. ••••.• and sell over the counter. At that time, of course, margarine attracted, as my colleague said, on account of the price and the price only. Believe me, Mr.

Speaker, I've never tasted margarine. I've never had a pound of mar garine in the house. I always use butter. I also fully realize the importance of the dairy indus try, particularly for Winnipeg City. We need their milk, we need their cream, we need their other products,, and we should not do anything to hurt them. But in my humble opinion -- that's only an opinion of one man, 'cause others have a different opinion; that's why they talk when I speak. - (Inb�rjection) - that the dairy industry will not suffer because of margarine. -- (In terjection) - How do I know?

Because the dairy industry have not done anything to my know ledge, or very little, to sell butter, advertise butter. -- (Interjection) -- Oh yes, Oh yes, Oh yes -- the same as they do margarine. And the price is also a great factor. I have supported margarine every year it came up here. I'm going to support it this year, and for one more reason -- call tt politically or not, it's immaterial, I'

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-3-18
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 3rd hansardpdf 18.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b44ad8209143e724054b78f89d9ca708bb64a4c8

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