Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 13 (26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-13

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Volume IV No. 13 February 4, 1960 2nd Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. -Queen's Printer for. the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

DAILY INDEX Thursday, February 4,1960, 2:30p.m. Petitions: Hutterian Brethren . . . . . • . . . . • . . . • . • . • . • • • . • . • • . • . • . . . • . • • • . . . . . • . . • . . . 269 Introduction of Bills: No. 63 (Mr. Ridley), No. 64 (Mr. Johnson; Gimli) .•.. ........•• 269 Second Readings: Bill Nos. 18(Mr. Carroll), Bill No. 19 (Mr. Carroll) .•• ...• .••.... 269 Bill Nos. 20,27, 43, 45 (Mr. Lyon) No. 46 (Mr. Evans) ....• ..••.... ..• .•.. 270 Throne Speech Debate: Mr. Tanchak • . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . • • . . • . . • . . • . • • • . • . • . • • • . . . . . . 271 Mr.

McKellar •..• .. .•... .....•.• .••.•• .. ...•.•..• •..... •. ..•••• ·• . . . • . . . 27 4 Mr. Prefontaine 276 Mr. Shewman ...... .. .. •.•.. •..• ....•• ...••••. ....... ••.• . : . • . . . . • • . • . . 281 Mr. Froese . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . • • • • • • . • . • • • • • . • . • • • • • • . • • 283 Mr. Molgat • . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • •.. . • . • • • • • • 284 Mr. Guttormson ...... •..•... •.• .•...•. •.. • •..• .•.•••.•.• •. •••...•..••..• 287 Mr.

Lyon . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . • • • • • . . . • .. . • • • • • . . . • • . • • 288 Mr. Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . • . . . . • . . . . • • • • . . • • . • . . . . • • . • • . • . • • • . • • • . • 295 Division ....•.• , . . . . . • . • . • • • . • . . . • . . . . • • • • • • • . • • • . . • • • . . . • • . . . . • . • • . . • • 296 The Progressive Index of Votes and Proceedings wlll be published on Tuesdays on the last page.

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Thursday, February 4th, 1960 Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reacfuig and Receiving Petitions MR. SPEAKER: I might inform the House that we have again 14 identical petitions to be read, and is it the wish of the House to take them as read-- Read one maybe? Act. MR. CLERK: The petition Springfield Hutterian Brethren. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees Notice of Motion Introduc tion of Bills Mr. Ridley introduced Bill No. 63,

an Act to amend the Department of Municipal Affairs Mr. Johnson (Gimli) introduced Bill No. 64

an Act to amend the Health Services Act. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Educa tion)(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to direct your attention to the group to your right hand in the gal lery, 39 pupils from grade eight in St. Mary's Academy. They are here with their teachers Sister Patrick and Sister Frances Christopher. I am certain that we would like to extend to the pupils and their teachers our very'warm welcome. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. EDMOND PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would like to ask the Minister if he desires or if be intends to table the Municipal Financial Statistics this year, and if so, when. MR. RIDLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the Honourable Member for Carillon for asking me this request. I had intended to table these in the estimates, but if it is the request of the honourable member and the members of the House I will table them in the House tomorrow. MR. LEMUEL F_ARRIS (Logan): Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to say it seemed to me that I am the only Liberal in the House according to this news report here -- that the party to my right here, they've all turned Conservatives. So I am the only Liberal here and I have been turned out of my caucus room and I hope that this is rectified so I can go back again. MR·. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Mr. Carron presented Bill No. 18 for second reading. HON. J. B. CA..lffiOLL (Minister of Labour) (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to this Bill.

The first part deals with the four percent of wages deducted from those engaged in the construction industries, the contributio n that's made by the employer on behalf of an employee. The way the Act reads at the present time it is paid on all wages. This Act would pay on wages for regular hours only and not for overt ime wages. This brings it in line with the currect practice of the construction trades in Manitoba. The second part of the Act deals with the change from the contribution being made by way of stamps and entries in stamp books to the contribution by cheque.

Under the Act that was passed last year this was to take effect as of January 1st for administrative purposes. It is much more desirable that this should take effect as of July 1st, and this applies only to the method by which the employer makes the contributio n to the fund. It doesn't in any way affect the amount that the employee will be getting. · Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. Mr. Carroll presented Bill No. 19 for second reading .. MR. CARROLL: Mr.

Speaker, under this Act which has been in force a good many years the employee has a right under this Act to recover from his employer wages up to $200. We propose to increase this to $500 more in line with what is reasonable these days. Now the second part of the Act amends a

section which says "the legal fees applied to the claim which was made"-- now we propose to change it to read "where the amount ordered to be paid, the legal fees may be collectible" and we have added another category. I believe February 4th, 1960. Page 269. '

(Mr. Carroll, cont•d.) ••••. that the explanatory notes are very explicit in-this regard. Mr: Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. Mr. Lyon presented Bill No. 20 for second readiJJ.g. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. LYON: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, this is one of those rare amendments which explains itself. Mr. Lyon presented Bills No. 27 and No.43 for second reading. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 43 an'� Act to amend The Election Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General. _ HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General)(Fort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, with the concurrence of the House I would ask that this matter stand and if the House would give me their further indulgence I would like to request at this time that we allow the matter to stand for per haps ten days to two weeks before it's considered. MR. SPEAKER: Agreed? MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lake side): Mr. Speaker, might I ask the honourable the sponsor of the Bi ll if the reason for asking it to stand is because it is considered advisable by the government to discuss this matter in the committee that is already going to be dealing with some questions on the Election Act?

MR. LYON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is certainlypart of the reason. Ithinko ne ofthe other reasons is perhaps the fact that we have a number of committees already going, the members of which would also be on Elections and Privileges, and I thl.nJc perhaps if a bit more time were given some of the members, perhaps including the Honourable Leader of the Opposi tion, would have more time to devote to the Privileges and Elections committee. MR. SPEAKER: Order stand? Mr. Witney presented Bill No. 45 for second reading. Mr. Evans presented Bill No. 46 for second reading. HON.

GURNEY EVANS (Provincial Secretary)(Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to explain the principle of this Bill. When The Public Printing Act was passed the Queen's Printer had no equipment of his own, and there is one clause, and I think possibly two, in the Public Printing Act which seemed to forbid or seemed to preclude the Queen's Printer actually doing the printing of such things as the Statutes, the Orders of the Day and other material of that kind. The purpose of this amendment is to make it possible -- make it quite clear that he is entitled to do so.

There have been a number of infractions in this regard in the past quite inadvertently. Office consolidations from time to time have been printed, and in my experience in the House we have had temporary Orders of the Day placed on our desks by either typewriter or photographic reproduction, particularly between sittings of the House, and so it was thought - advisable to correct the Act in this regard. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, I was int erested to hear the Honourable the Minister say that there have been infractions of the Act, because I well recall these occasions coming up, but I do not consider them to be in fractions of the Act. In fact, I think if the Honourable the Minister would look at the

section immediately preceding the one that he is amending, that full authority is given there for the practice that has been carried on in the past, and in my opinion -- in my opinion -- authority sufficient to cover what the Honourable the Minister is wishing to do now. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the explanatory note says that the wording of the

section "apparently" excludes the possibility of the work being done in the office of the Queen's Printer. I notice that the Honourable the Minister uses the term that "it seems to preclude this work being done." Well now, I don't believe it is a.t all useful for we laymen to start getting into arguments with the lawyers.

I find that usually it is impossible to get them to clarify their expressions in this regard, but I'm quite sure in my own mind that section (9) of the Act--be cause this came up on the occasions that my honourable friend has mentioned -- that section (9) of the Act makes it quite plain that its printing that is not done by an employee of the govern ment or on government machinery, that must be let by tender and must have a contract. And then it is true, it's true that the very next

section goes on to say that with regard to the Votes and Proceedings, the Orders of the Day, the Statutes, Public Accounts, etc., that with regard to them there shall be a contract. But it doesn't say that they must be let only in that way, and I maintain that the earlier

section covers that completely. However, no reason on that account Page 270. February 4th, 1960.

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) •• ••• to object to the Bill going to committee, and we can have other legal authorities besides the HonoUrable Minister and myself there to debate this matter. But the question that I would like to ask, and the only reason that I raise this point, is because my 1 honourable friend suggested first that there had been infractions -- which he was kind enough to suggest were involuntary ones -- I insist there were no infractions. The second one was that he said that they were going to correct the situation. I don't th ink the situation needs correcting.

But perhaps it needs clarification in the language, because evidently not all the law officers of the Crown understand the language of the Statute as well as I do, and perhaps we had better make it plain enough so that they will do so. But the question that I really rose to ask my honourable friend -- because of this, be cause of the evident interest in this matter -- is it the intention of this government to do more . and more of the printing -- here in the offices or somewhere under the auspices of the Queen's Printer, rather than continuing a practice of "letting" a good bit of this out by contract?

Now I am not at the present time arguing the point of whether that is good, bad, or indifferent, holding as I do to the view that private enterprise is entitled to exist in this community. I am not a believer in the government doing everything, and I have watched with interest the evident inclination of the so-called Conservative Party of leaning in that direction -- toward the state doing more and more, and more, becoming closer and closer to my honourable friends the CC F.

And I think the House is entitled to be told when we're on a matter of this kind whether it is the intention of the government to now still further expand a very large branch of a department in order to go further and further into the printing business. That is the point that I think arises mainly in this connection. MR. EVANS: If there are no further remarks or questions, Mr. Speaker -- I wouldn't wish my honourable friend to take it th!i.t I had intended to criticise his administration when I used the term "infractions to the Act".

I had not meant to criticise in that sense and I think perhaps he realized it at the time. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolseley): He's lucky this time. MR. EVANS: I wasn't intending to criticise my honourable friend over trifling matters of this kind, but there are differences of opinion. Advice to me by those in touch with the legal aspects of tbis matter is to the effect that this needed clearing up, so we are proposing to clear it up. I might say that with respect to the Queen's Printer doing more and different things, we'll do it only where there is a clear saving or a clear increase in efficiency.

Perhaps the honourable members have noticed the new forms of the Orders of the Day. Well the Orders of the Day are now being printed by the Queen's Printer, and the Journals will be reproduced at the end of the year by the same method, with a total saving estimated at $2, 800, an argument which I think should be strong in my honourable friend's min(j. So that where clear advantage to the public service or to the public purse can be seen, we propose to take advantage of the Queen's Printer's machinery. ])!ffi, CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, before my honourable friend takes his seat could I ask him a question. MR.

EVANS: Why certainly. MR. CAMPBELL: If the Orders of the Day are already being printed in this way, and if the Honourable the Minister is convinced that this Bill is necessary then there is an infraction being perpetrated at the moment, is there? MR. EVANS: Not however, for the first time, Mr. Speaker. I am following the preced- ent established by my honourable friend. MR. CAMPBELL: But we didn't admit it was an infraction. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned Debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St.

Vital for an Address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to his Speech at the Opening of the Session. MR. JOHN P. TANCHAK(Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I am going to omit the usual congra tulations and so on, since this is the second time that I am speaking on the Throne Speech, and as you know, Sir, I always wish you well anyway . I will try to be briefer this time than the last time. We will go back to last Friday and refer to what-the press likes to refer "the blast given us by the Honourable First Minister". I February 4th, 1960. Page 271.

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd.) •••.. must admit that I rather enjoy those blasts, and I wish that I had the oratorical ability that the Honourable the First Minister has, and I really enjoy all his speeches in the House. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything that be does have to say. I noticed last Friday that he did mention that our party, especially our leader, could be accused of hypocrisy. This doesn"t make sense to me at all at that time, but towards the end of the speech, .when the Honourable the First Minister did say that our leader is always sincere, it made less sense than ever.

And as far as our leader being sincere, we've always lmown that he was sincere. Evidently the Honourable the First Minister has just found that out. Now as far as deciding on a leader for our party, I would say that we in our group are capable -- I think we lmow where we are going-- and furthermore, I think that that's our business. What prompted the Honourable the First Minister to say "you do this" or "you should do this" -- I just can't understand, unless it's a force of habit, or practice makes perfect.

Thank goodness that we in our group are still democratic enough and free enough to do our own thinking indivi dually and we haven't got a dictator to tell us what we should do. Now! would like to say a few words about agriculture, especially the Minister of Agricul- �-- ture, and I'm not going to criticise him. I understand that, This is his first year in that position, and I know that he is sincere in what be is doing. But part of his speech prompted me to say a few words. It seems to me from what he had told that the Minister of Agriculture is a pessimist.

In other·words, be has evidently-- in listening to a speech -- and the impression he gave is that he might as well throw up his hands, the farmers' problems are incurable as witnessed by what he had said about Sir Galahad. And the Minister lops one head. HON. GEORGE HUTTON(Minister of Agriculture)(Rockwood-I berville): Hercules, my friend. MR. TANCHAK: Oh Hercules, I'm sorry. I meant to say Hercules. Thanks for the correction-- lopped off one head and the dragon sprouts three more heads. MR. HUTTON: Just two. MR. TANCHAK: Just two. Well I hope you have the power to lop off the other two. Yes.

I haven't got the Hansard before me, but that's the impression that he gave me -- that he's quite a pessimist. But I still wish him well and congratulate him on still hanging on to his post. I'm not blaming him for the policies that he inherited from the Conservative Party. They are quite cumbersome and I am sure that he will try to do the best under the circumstances. He also mentioned that if it was possible he'd still stand at that huge cash register, the Provincial Treasury, and he would dole out money to the farmers. Well it's too bad that he has just found out that the Provincia.J.

Treasury is not a well -- an �inexhaustible well. It's just too .( bad, the farmers would have been showered with money , if it was. Talking about an empty Treasury. I recall in the last election campaign Conservative speakers, and this includes at least one Cabinet Minister, and this is what they had to say "The opposition is criticising the Conservative Party for spending so much money," in fact, this has been mentioned in the House here before. And these are the words almost exactly the words that he said at this meeting. He said "Don't listen to the Liberals. They are always pessimists.

The province has all kinds of money, all kinds of money to implement all their promises. Don't listen to that. And even if the province didn't have the money it is quite fashionable" (is the word that . he used) "to go out and borrow money. All big business does that, why shouldn't the province? Money makes money". Well to leave an impression like that with the people, I don't think it's right, especially for some of the people from the government. What has happened? Some of them took the speaker at his word and probably they have become too extravagant when it comes to certain public works.

In fact, they are not being very economical. Later on when it comes time for this I will bring one of these up, where public money has been wasted, and why? Just because the government has plenty of money. I think that this encourages the people of Mani toba to live about a year or tv.o years ahead. The government borrows money., why can't we? What about all these time payments? Credit? Go to a large department store at the middle of the month-or at the end of the month, and see the line-up, people paying their instalment plans. ·Now what is that leading to?

I think that most of the people are living at least a year ahead of their income. I know in particular it new development. ( and I took the time to ask questions) and about 98% of the people living in this new development do not own their houses. They bought Page 272 . February 4th, 1960.

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd.) •• •.. their house on the instalment plan, then the father bought the car on the instalment plan, and even the fur coat that the housewife wears was bought on the instal ment plan. The frig was bought on the instalment plan. Maybe that's t'he right thing to do. I do not know. That's their own business. But if the government is a partner in this too, a sys tem like that -- I don't think it is quite right. We must think ahead. What would happen -- the economists say that 1962 may be -- I hope it isn't -- a hard year -- what may happen if the income was to be cut off?

I say that these people would probably lose their houses, even some of their rings -- some people are even wearing wedding rings that are on the instalment plan. MR. HUTTON: Who's the pessimist now? MR. TANCHAK: I said I hope it does not happen, but in case it does. I don't really be lieve it will. I wouldn't be as great a pessimist.

Now the honourable members across, one of them at least, did say, "that I say that the Conservative Government has redeemed every promise that they made during the election cam paign." The most important promise that was made was no tax increase, and I say that that's where the government failed sorely. There has been a tax increase, so why say that all the promises were fulfilled. Daylight saving time was mentioned. I'm not going to say too much about it. I will just say that it is time that the supporters of the daylight saving time wake up.

Why fool themselves that four o'clock is five o'clock? · · Now coming to something that really deeply concerns my own constituency and maybe some other constituencies, and that's Predator Control. I have had the honour of speaking to honourable the minister and he assured me that he would look into it, but if it ever comes up before the House I'd like members to know about it. As you know Ridgeville is the largest con centrated turkey area in the Province of Manitoba. That's where the best turkeys come from in Canada. In the last few years, especially the last three years we had no predator control there at all.

The farmers lost through predators, in some cases as high as 10% of their flocks. At first when the predators started bothering them they used to set up radios on the fence around the ra.ige, about two or three radios, and had them going full blast all night. This kept the coyotes and the foxes away. But this last summer it didn't seem to help, they seemed to enjoy the music and they q_ame up for more. They have tried other methods and it is just impossible to keep them away.

And it's not only that but there is quite a number of sheep farmers-- far mers, you can't call them ranchers, they're not too large -- these coyotes and foxes are getting after the sheep. One farmer this last week-.end complained to me about and says it is getting so bad that coyotes are sleeping in the haystack next to the barns waiting for the sheep to come out and have them for breakfast. He says they howl at night -- I come out with a shotgun _and let a blast go, then from all directions east, north, south and west the coyotes answered me. They're so brave that they're not even afraid of the shotgun.

I don't know , I've talked to the people there about this poison bait, some of them are afraid of it. The dogs may get poisoned, and most of them feel that since we have two Indian Reserves there, several years back the Indians did a thorough job in controlling these animals. If the government did send out a man from the office to control these predators, the coyotes and the foxes, I think the Indians would be deprived of that extra revenue that they depended on in the past.

So some of the people feel that these Indians on the reserves are not making as well as they should, that maybe the government should look into the possibility of bringing back the bounty system. True, some complain that in the past the Indians kill off-- pick off the little ones, the young, the litters, but leave the fe males go, because they always wanted to have some revenue for the coming year.

At Ridge ville we were. able to overcome that because we have a turkey association there and the turkey producers agreed and they told the Indians that for every adult fox or coyote that they catch our association paid double. In other words if they got $5.00 bounty, our association or individual farmers paid them another $5. 00. So that wasn't a problem there, and they did a good job of controlling these predators. The Municipality of Franklin again is paying a bounty, but the Indians do not qualify, they have to be local resident farmers in the Franklin Municipality and I don't think that is quite fair.

Of course it's a problem that I should take up with the Franklin municipality. I expect to hear more of this from the honourable minister. I noticed yesterday when I spoke to him, or was it the day before yesterday, with his usual jet propelled speech, he was right there, February 4th, 1960. Page 273.

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd.) .•••. and he phoned several people. He was right at the job and I con gratulate him. I'm sure I'll get re sults from the honourable minister. Now I have another problem; I have quite a few complaints. This concerns probably the Department of Public Works, Utilities and Mines and Natural Resources, the three departments . In southeastern Manitoba, away along the botmdary most of the people work in the bush, that's their chief source of revenue especially in the wintertime.

Now operators in these forests who purchase timber sales, or work - operate under the public auction sales, are required by regu lations to cut and remove the product within a certain time: In most cases they can only do it in the wintertime because they have to swamp the products out. They do it in the wintertime when the roads are frozen solid. Now with the exception of some of the largest operators, most of these operators depend on being able to hire local trucks to take this product to mar ket.

These truckers whom the operators hire are· not in business as such truckers, they are really farmers, might be fishermen, workers, laborers, common laborers, somewhere out in Manitoba, or it could be small timber operators . The se people during the winter months are trying to earn a few doll'lrs to supplement their meagre income during the summer and thereby probably stay off relief. Now until the spring of 1959 truckers could truck these products out for these operators by simply obtaining a monthly parmit for $10.00, and then it was renewable monthly for the rest of the season.

But in the fall of 1959, I think the regulations have been changed-- at least that's what my information is, the regulations have been changed-- and they issue a permit for one or two weeks, which is not renewable at the present time, and if the trucker wishes to continue trucking the products he'd have to purchase a CT license. Now it does not pay them to do so because this is seasonal. A CT license may cost anywhere in the neighborhood of three to four hundred dollars. It doesn't pay them to do it, because the business is seasonal.

Now this operator has no alternative but to buy his own truck and do his own trucking, which he cannot afford to do because he has no use for the truck after the season is over . And it does create a hardship. And most of them fear that the spring is just around the corner, it may be here today, starting today and thly fear that they'll not be able to take the products out. And I think it's the Carrier Board which is setting up scales in southeast Manitoba for the prupose of checking overweights .

Now at this time of the year when roads are frozen and when it is a case of emergency, I think that the government should ease off these regulations and allow extension of permits for the season, and also ease off load restrictions. I think it would be a great help ·to the people of southe astern Manitoba. I am not asking the government to break laws or anything, I am just asking the government to ease up. Evidently according to what my information is, that this is the first winter that.t hese laws have been enforced. There was one more item that I was going to bring in, but I think I'll let it stand.

I'll not bore the members and the Speaker anymore. I'll let it stand until we get into the estimates. Thank you. MR. M. E. McKELLAR (Souris-Lansdowne): Mr . Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to you and hope that you will enjoy your life in your high office for many years to come.

I have sat in this Legislature for the last four se ssions including this one and some how or other I always -- it must have been my fault, because this is the first time that I have ever spoken on the Spe ech from the Throne, so I thought tha t I would like to say a few words at this time and tell you maybe a few words something about the constituency that I represent, the constituency of Souris-Lansdowne.

Before that I would like to offer my congratulations to our four new members here in the legislature and after hearing them on their speeches I think that they will make excell ent mem bers for their own particular constituencie s. The Honourable Member for Cypress whom we all admire for being the first lady member in this legislature for many years, she represents the constituency to the ea st of mine. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain who represents the constituency to the south of mine , I know that we will also hear a great deal from him .

And also the Honourable Member for Arthur who represents the constituency to the west of mine, I know he will ably represent th at constituency. It has been brought to my attention at the present time that I have a lady to the east of me, a liberal to the south of me, and an under taker to the north of me, so I should be well looked after. I must say that to those who are not acquainted with our part of the province that I Page 274. February 4th, 1960.

(Mr. McKellar, cont'd.) ••••• represent a constituency which is mostly agricultural and encir cles the City of Brandon which is the Wheat City of our province. It takes in also on the south end towns such as Glenboro which is made up of a lot of people who are of Icelandic origin, and- the Town of Souris to the southwest which is predominantly an agricultural area with largely - used to be a CPR town, but as most of you know the CPR has changed into mostly dieselization now and many of the men have had to obtain other occupations.

I also have in my constituency the residential area of Shilo which represents 2,500 population. The Honourable Member for Cypress here has the campsite and this here line goes right through the middle of Shilo. She has one half and I have the other half. I would like to say a few words on agriculture being that is my occupation, but I think I'll leave that over until the estimates come up on agriculture and say a few remarks on that important subject.

This session reminds me of a program that many of us liar in th'l mornings -- the ones who are able to be up at quarter to eight in the morning, on a local station here -- "Beefs and Bouquets". And we are really getting lots of beefs, a few bouquets, beefs from the other side and a few bouquets from this side, and it is very interesting to hear them. The only thing we haven't got the man on the station there in the morning to kind of listen in. I am sure that he would admire some of the criticisms that have been suggested to us.

I would like to say how much that I enjoyed the other day the Honourable Member for Carillon's speech. We always enjoy listening to him. He gives us something to think about and take home. Good logical criticism, and something I think, which members of the Opposition could well take from him when he presents his speech. There has been a number of speeches too from the Opposition which I thought that the criticism wasn't of a very high nature, but may be they had a purpose in giving it.

I was also interested in listening to our new member, the Member for Rhineland the other day, when he was speaking on his Social Credit theory, and I often wondered what Social Credit really was, whether it was a bunch of oil wells or a 5% sales tax. I could never figure out which it was. But in any case they are doing a good job in both those provinces, but I don't th ink. the Social Credit theory has ever been told anyone as far as I can find out. It's just a bunch of oil wells and a 5% sales tax.

Well I don't want to keep you here very long because speech making-- isn't my --I don't earn my living, should I say through speaking --I earn it riding up and down the field on a tractor. And I would like to say too about the criticisms that we heard, every time we hear the Honourable Member for St. John's speak he always brings up this favorite subject, Kelsey, and I- - about these long hours, and I was wondering if the Honourable Member for St. John's was at that gathering last evening when he heard the owner of this hotel mention about working all these long hours as he did when he came to this country.

He came with $15. 00 and he still has the $15. 00. A MEMBER: •••..• fifteen cents. MR. McKELLAR: Fifteen cents I should say-- and worked all those long hours for I think it was 12 cents an hour and he didn't complain, and look where he is today. I was wondering too if I could ask the Honourable Member for St. John's if there has been any man quit at Kelsey on account of those long hours. I don't believe that any man would quit on account of long hours. All they're interested in is making more money.

We have heard a lot in the last few speeches about the last election from the Oppositions especially on the liberal side, and I have been particularly interested in elections, because not only have I been in two myself, I had the opportunity to be partly involved in three by-elections, and we were al·ways rapped for these higher taxes. But the part that amazed me in all those · speeches was every man on the liberal side was offering extended services and more taxes- something which I couldn't understand their theories -- how they were going to do both. MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): You're confused. MR.

McKELLAR: I don't think I was as confused as the men who were offering them. But I think that they should give that considerable thought from now on, and in many of their speeches before they carry on any longer with them. Now I had a bunch of notes wrote but as I am a curling enthusiast, I got all wrapped up '-:1 a curling game and I was late for the session and now my speech doesn't seem to come to me, but I would like to say that our problems today whether they be in agriculture -- and agriculture February 4th, 1960 . Page 275 .

(Mr. McKellar, cont'd.) •••.• I think is one that now is holding the line -- I think we each and every one of us whether we be labourer, I think that we have to be satisfied at least to keep it on, the line instead of trying to be anxious for increased wages and also making higher profits. Because sooner or later if this carries on we're going to end up -- priced ourselves out of the world market, and then we'll have to hit the bottom and start all over again.

And this is where, iifter taking a trip this year, I find that is the biggest worry in our world today, and I think most of us will come to the conclusion tha t our standard of living in this part of the country is as high or higher than anywhere in the world. So let us all hope that each and every one of us in the Province of Manitoba, whether have a business of your own or working as a labourer, or .. being a farmer, that we'll all co-operate and try and do our very best to make this province of ours one of the best in the future to come. MR. E. PREFONTAINE: Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that you will Sir, and the honourable members will remember that yesterday before the Orders of the Day I directed a question to the Honourable the Minister of Public Works. I had in mind two things, one to prepare the way for a speech on roads in southeastern Manitoba, and another to know the answer that was given by the Honourable Minister to the delegation that met him the day before yesterday. We have quite a road problem, Mr.

Speaker, in southeast Manitoba at the present time, and the citizens of that part of the province have been coming regularly now for a month and a half to the doors of the government and especially the Minister of Municipal Affairs. There is a sixty-four dol lar question going on at the present time: Has the government enough money to build two trunk highways parallel to each other within three miles for half of the distance of 14 miles and five miles apart, and away from the other one, for a distance of the other half ? That's the big question down there. And I would like to tell you a little bit, Mr.

Speaker, of the history of this discussion and I will try to make it as short as possible. The members know very well, Mr. Speaker, that for many, many years, southeast Manitoba and eastern Manitoba as a whole have been neglected in the way of roads. That went on until the famous discussion and debate with respect to the location of highway 75 from Emer son to Winnipeg. Before that, there was only 32 miles of trunk highway, gravel road from Win nipeg to Ste. Anne des Chenes. At tha t time the Member for Carillon, as some of you remem ber, fought as hard as he could.

He lost the fight but the Winnipeg Free Press was generous enough to say that although the fight had been lost with respect to that particular road, that southeast Manitoba had been placed on the map of the province with respect to road construction for the future. Now at the same time the people of eastern Manitoba became very much road conscious. An association was organized by the name of the Eastern Manitoba Development Board.

That association was composed of nearly every municipality in the eastern part of the· province--that's east of the Red Riv er--every municipality, town, village and Chamber of Commerce. This association did a lot for the people of eastern Manitoba and the· people of eastern Manitoba owe many thanks,to K. R. Barkman, the ex-mayor of the town of Steinbach, the first president of the Eastern Manitoba Development Board, and to Mr. Armour McKay, who was the chairman of the road committee. Now that association had prepared what they called, in 1951 or '52, I believe, a target road system for eastern Manitoba.

They wanted to have the north and south roads on the south ern part of the eastern

section of the province built first--number 12 and number 59. A.c"'ter wards, they suggested that there should be three east-west highways; one which would be an eastern extension of the Number two on the west side of the river; the other would be an ex tension of number 23; and the other Morden-Sprague road or an extension of number three or number 14 on the west side. And they came repeatedly, year after year, to the government of the Province of Manitoba to make their presentation. They came to the Minister of Public Works. They were always well received. The government of the day realized that these men were not going to present the case of one particular

section of the community or one particular road. They were interested in developing a great system of trunk highway for eastern Manitoba. And the roads were developed--number 12 and 59, as I said. In the winter of 1958, they made a presentation and said it was time, because these two main north-south roads had been finish- . ed, or just about finished, to start on the east-west connections between highway 59 and high way 12. They recommended that the first road to be built would be the what we call the 13 mile road, --the old Piney Highway from the St. Pierre corner, six miles north of St. Pierre Page 276. February 4th , 1960.

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd.) .• to Steinbach. The Honourable the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Robertson, called me in. He says now we have to make a decision with respect to where the east-west connections between the two main highways in the southeast should be made. Well, I said, I know that the first one should be the Piney Highway to be reconstructed and built on a trunk-highway standard. And I know that the Morden-Sprague road to the south should be done.

Now between these two roads there is 27 miles, and between these two roads, there is number 23 that was already at that time built from Morris east 17 miles to La Rochelle. I knew that if this construction went straight east from La Rochelle, it would miss the village of Grunthal by three and a half miles. The village of Grunthal is a fair size village--about 500 people--and I know that these people were entitled to something. They had at that time in 1958, and they still have an all weather market road; pretty rough because of the condition of the soil; hard to keep in shape for smooth travelling.

And I discussed the matter with my colleague at the council table and the Cabinet and my colleague told me that his engineers had recommended that Grunthal should be given a secondary highway, but that the main trunk highway would be built straight east from La Rochelle to number 12 to serve the communities down there of Pansy and Barkfield and to serve the province as a whole, because highway 23 is part of a highway that is intercontinental--international, I mean.

It was muted by the Eastern Manitoba Development Board for years and years, and there is a 13 miles stretch left undone, and that is from La Rochelle to number 12 highway. He told me the engineers were favouring that location for a trunk high way; that to build a trunk highway through Grunthal from st. Pierre to Sarto would be illogical; that it would not serve the province as a whole; it would be more of a local highway than a trunk highway. So I had to announce that decision to the people of Grunthal. They were not very hap py, but for a while they took it quite well.

They realized that their location was such that it was difficult to build a trunk highway there; that to detour the number 23 through Grunthal would mean to add 12 miles and provide a zig-zag and a jog there that would hamper everyone who wanted to travel that road--because there is a lot of people who want to travel. Now they're jog ging along because the new construction has not been done. And they were happy for a while untH the election was declared in 1958.

And lo and be hold, there was a Conservative nominating convention in the village of Grunthal and the next day we heard that the Conservative Party, if it were elected, were going to build a paved trunk highway through the village of Grunthal from st. Pierre to Sarto. I would like to quote just one sentence. It's by the candidate who had just been chosen. He is quoted in the Carillon News. I doubt if the story is true. I don't think it is. "Dr. Gauthier told the audience that Roblin had promised"-! am reading as it is printed--"had promised a paved road between Sarto and st.

Pierre within two years if his party was elected to power". Now this spread like wildfire in the whole community. A MEMBER: What is the date of that newspaper? MR. PREFONTAINE: The newspaper is the Carillon News, May 16th, 1958,--spread like wildfire. And I might say that I was most unwelcome in the village for a while, although I held a meeting and think I held my own. I told the people down there that I was sorry, but that the engineers, according to my colleague , the Minister of Public Works, had recommend ed that a trunk highway should be built some other place in a straight line from La Rochelle.

The election was held and I got a minority vote in the poll of Grunthal and nowhere else in the whole constituency of 23 polls. Well after the election things quietened down a little bit, Mr. Speaker. There was a session of the legislature, as you will remember, and at that session, the Honourable the Minister of Public Works at that time brought in a road program. I have the Hansard here of July 20th, 1959, where �he whole program is printed.

And after the hon ourable member delivered his speech and pointed to every highway with the number and the mileage on each and every one of thein, I asked a question, and I'm quoting: "Mr. Prefontaine: Mr. Chairman,· may I ask the Minister one question? I am told that a road is going to be built which is called the Sarto-Grunthal-St. Pierre Road and I see no mention of this road on your roads program. I am wondering if the road will be built, arid if so, out of what appropriation? Mr.

Willis: Now there are"--the first part of his answer is not reported--It goes on--"the decision from the municipality in that regard". He said, and I remember, "We are waiting for the decision from the municipality in that regard, and there would still be aid to the municipal ities, other·ones out of which they could be built . It is our expectation that it will be built. February 4th, 1960. Page 277.

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd.) •• Mr . Prefontaine: May I ask then if the municipalities will be asked to pay a part of the construction of that road? Mr . Willis: They have been so asked" . That was in July 1959 . Nothing was done in 1959 on that road. As I said before, I don't think the promise had been made by the Leader of the Conservative Party as reported in the paper, but in the spring of 1959 ,' when the election was announced, there was a lot of activity on-that road. Surveyors were working, planting stakes all the way from the village of Sarto through Grunthal to St. Pierre .

In fact, they were so busy that they were planting stakes also three miles further south of the proposed straight highway, leading everyone to believe , I suppose, that they would build it too . I don't know. There was another nominating convention in Grun thal again, and again, according to the people downthere--'although the newspaper doesn'.t re port it--the road was promised. Of course , we heard that the Conservative Party would have a five-year planning program for highways but , apparently, this particular road was promised without having had much study. But the stakes were there .

It was important in the election and the member for Carillon sitting here now lost this poll by a huge majority that time . He lost only another poll except the home town of the new candidate in Steinbach--and by a small minority. Now that was the last election and things were still--and there was no action and the people around Grunthal were getting to doubt the words of those who had told them that there would be a pave d highway within two years. And they were getting restless and they started to come to ask for action, according to their statement, on the promises made by the Conserva tive Party.

And lo and behold, I read in the Carillon News of December 23rd, 1959 , this story, quote --big headlines--"Sarto-St. Pierre Road for sure in 160--Willis . To many residents in Hanover and St. Pierre municipalities who use the Sarto-St. Pierre road; the biggest Christ mas gift this year may be an announcement by Public Works Minister the Honourable Errick F. Willis, that the Sarto-St. Pierre highway will be constructe d in 1960 . Mr. Willis made the announcement to a delegation that called on him regarding this matte r a few days ago.

The road will be built to trunk highway standards at lOO% government cost at a total cost of approx imately $355 , 000" . Now I don't believe , Mr. Speaker, that this story is true in the Carillon News. I believe that some of the delegate s had taken near promise as a real promise and I don't think that the Minister of Public Works at that time--remember the date , December 23rd 1959--would have told them any secrets of the coming road program, especia lly due to the fact he was going to assume pretty soon another position. I don't think that this promise was made . This promise was made to whom?

The names of the delegation are printed in here . Delegati on was headed by the defeated Conservative candidate in the constituency and his agent, and a few others who had worked so hard for the Conservative Party during the election. There was no reeves with them--no member of the Ea stern Manitoba Development Board, that ap peared before the minister at that time . And the se people who were told, apparently, or led to believe , that this road would be built, bought a full page in the Carillon News . They were so happy--"New Rorizons for 1960" --and then, in big headlines: "Our sincere thanks to Peter J.

Thiessen, official Progressive-Conservative candidate"--there 's a mistake--it says Pro venche r, but it should be Ca rillon--"and to the Honourable Errick F. Willis for the hard work on our behalf to help to make this project become a reality" . If this is not politics , I don't know what it is, Mr. Speaker. MR. A, CORBETT (Swan River) : May I ask the honourable member a question? MR. PREFONTAINE: Yes, certainly. MR. CORBETT: Would a promise made in 1959, in December--could you class that as an election promise? MR. PREFO NTAINE: That is the fulfillment of an election promise--that's what I would suggest.

Now, following that delegation , the Eastern Manitoba Development Board met with the government , and I would like to compliment the government this time , the gqv ernment represented by five or six Cabinet ministers, I believe including the Minister of Pub lic Works--met the Eastern Manitoba Development Board, an independent body of easterners, thinking of what's best for the whole of eastern Manitoba, and that body presented again their reque st that they had presented to the previous government : that No . 23 highway be built in a straight line from La Rochelle to No . 12.

The municipality of De Salaberry is on record as· wanting that ; the municipality of Hanover, the municipality of Morris, the town of Morris, the Page 278 . February 4th , 1960 .

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd.) •. municipality further west; they all wantthat straight road and that was presented to the government and the government said it would take the matter into consideration. A little later, another delegation met with the Minister of Public Works.

And I might say that this delegation was headed by the Reeve of the municipality of De Salaberry, and he had invited the member for Carillon , who, after all , should be the representative of the people because he's elected, and this delegation of some 40 people representing people from the Pansy District, the Barkfield District, the La Rochelle District and the Dufrost Dist rict made a pre sentation to the Minister and they were well received.

Word got around that to those who are favouring this lOO% trunk highway, this zig-zagging trunk highway, that may be they would lose out so they organized a stronger delegation again, and some of you might have been surprised to see so many cars around the buildings a few days ago--about 75 strong- there were cars picking up people in the country . It's an important road certainly, Sir, but the delegation came here.

I asked the minister what these people had asked and the minister told rile they had asked for a lOO% government highway through Grunthal and he told me that he told them that he would take the matter ln consideration. He didn't say sympathetic consid eration. Now here is where the matter stands. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to these people over there first that they shouldn't become too enthusiastic when the gove rnment mentions that the government will take a matter into consideration, or even when the government says that government will do it.

I would like to recall the old saying that there is quite a difference between women and govern ments. They say that when a woman says "yes" she means maybe; when she says "no" she means maybe; and when she says "maybe" she means "yes'.' . But with the governments , it's the other way around. When governments say "yes" it means maybe, and when they say "maybe" it means no. Now I would like to tell to the government that it's important--(interjection)--1 know quite a bit about government. It's important--this is worse than others .do .

I would like to tell the Premier of this Province ?Jld the Minister of Public Works to do the right thing. The right thing is to build this road where the engineers previously at least had recommended--! haven't dared to ask for their suggestions at the present time--to serve the best interests of the whole province and to build a trun.. li: highway in a straight line and to give Grunthal an ac cess road towards St. Pierre. That's where they want an access road and it would come with in the policy of the government, I'm quite sure.

I was present at the annual meeting arid ban quet of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Minister of Public Works at that time said that the government had a policy to build access roads within five miles of a trunk highway. Well as the crow flies, Grunthal would be five and a half miles from highway 59 , but to build there would serve no good purpose because it happens not to be inhabited, and there would be two or three river cross ings to make. I would suggest to the governmert that they would save money by building where these people from Grunthal and St.

Pierre want them to build a trunk highway--to build an access road. It is needed. There is a powder milk plant in Grunthal and it's a nice community. They deserve a better road than they've had and I'm sure that if the Liberals had remained, they would have had a better road too. And I say that by doing that, Mr . Speaker, and Mr . Premier, you would prevent a blot on your record . Because if that highway is built according to the suggestion as appeared in the Carillon News, it will be a sorry day for eastern Manitoba. But don't neglect the people who need the road in Grunthal.

And go along Ylith your policy of building an access road because St. Pierre is quite a town. That's where the people of Grunthal want to come for hospitalization; to go to theatre; to go to the covered skating rink; to go to the bank and also the liquor store--although they don't use it very much. Now just briefly, I want to touch on another matter.

Speaking on the Station CKRC , as reported in the Tribune of January 21 st, the Premier is reported to have stated--the Prem ier said, and I'm quoting from the Tribune--the Premier said that "opponents of the govern ment would oppose the new education plan as too costly" . It was true he said this year's edu cation appropriation would be the largest on record, but opponents would not tell the public- opponents would not tell the public that high school enrolment was up 12% in rural areas alone and it was up--no, 12%--and in rural areas alone it was up 30% .

He chastises us because we do not inform the public about those facts, and all the time, Mr. Speaker, I've been saying February 4th, 1960. Page 279 .

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd. ) .. that he should have known that we did not have the report for the year 1959 of the Department of Education . We did not have that information. We could not in form the public about these figures and I would like to say that he is the man who is not telling the whole truth. This leaves the impres sion that there is, for this year , an increase of 12% in the whole Manitoba and 30% in rural Manitoba.

Well I have here the report of the Department of Education which shows the en rolment for the years from 1930 to 1958, and it shows that there ts an increase every year--there has been an increase every year. There has been an increase from the years 1955 to 1956 from 24, 676 to 26, 800 ; from '56 to '57 from 26 , ooo""to 28, 000; from •57 to '58-- 28 , 000 to 30 , 000 ; an average increase of 8. 8, 6. 5, 7. 2, and 8. 0. Now why didn't the Premier--why did not the Speech from the Throne tell the whole truth?

I am very pleased tn see that there is a larger increase this year but this appears to me as a thing which should have been told to the people of Manitoba, and that we should not have been blamed because we suppo sedly did not tell the people that there was an increase. I am very happy that there has been an increase, but it is not as sensational. I wish it were as the announcement that was made. Sorry that I have spoken again a long time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continued next page. Page 28 0. February 4th, 1960.

MR. H. P. SHEWMAN (Morris) : Mr . Speaker, if it wasn't for the breach of the rules of the House I would address you as Mr . Manitoba, That name is becoming quite popular with you, Sir. all across Manitoba for your fair judgment and the way you conduct the business in this House, and.I do wish you the very best, Mr. Speaker. And I would like to congratulate the mover and the seconder on the Speech from the Throne .

I was not here when it was delivered, but in reading it over I can see them in action and will congratulate them on the wonderful job that they did in telling the people of Manitoba just what we're doing and should be doing . I would like to say a word to the new members in the House because it' s ten years ago that I came to the House , and there's not too many left in the House now as of ten years agci .::.:: that were here ten years ago.

And the first thing I would suggest to the new members is that they go back and read the journals that are printed and obtainable in the House from every Session that's been held for years back, and I think by reading them they would reach the con clusion that the reason of the defeat of the Campbell Government in 1958 was for promises that they did not keep , and I think you will find, Mr .

Speaker, the Leader of our Party, in 1950, the first session that we attended here together, started in making promises that year that he ever became the leader, the Premier of this province, that he would fulfill those prom ises. Now that is just a word of advice to the new members -- to go back and read those journals .

I will just quote a part of the Speech from the Throne of 1957 when the then present government had this to say as far as agriculture was concerned, and I quote: "i n balance of returns from products which the farmer sells, as compared to the increase in cost of goods and services he must buy, is of foremost concern to this government." Now when you read those journals you will find out why the people changed governments, because if there was ever half�promises made in the ten years of my experience in the House , it was every time there was a Speech from the Throne read . Now we go back to crop insurance.

The Honourable Member from Brokenhead paid me a tribute and I respect him for it. In 1953 we did have the honour - or I did have the honour of introducing crop insurance , The previous government had the Crop Insurance Commission's report of 1940 which they shoved away some place where I, or I guess nobody else, could get a copy of it . I had to go 50 miles south of here to get a copy of the report of the 1940 Crop Insurance Commis sion . That report was made by the chairman and the comm ittee of that time -- commi ssion of that time, and the chairman of that commiss ion was W. J.

Parker who has been head of the Manitoba Pool Association for a good many years -- and a sound man, a sound business man with the very best judgment. And that report states that it was necessary and is necessary that there be a crop insurance plan -- scheme for the Province of Manitoba. And if my memory serves me right, and I would suggest to the new members to go back and read those journals, and since 19 53, and without fear of contradiction, every crop insurance resolution introduced into this House was watered down until it wasn't worth the paper that it was written on. No action -- no action whatever .

And now that the Federal Government and the Manitoba Government, which is the first to enter into a crop insurance scheme, is taking action, we're being criticized and quite severely. We don't mind being criticized, as the Lead er of the Opposition used to tell us when he sat over here, if it was constructive criticism, but I have yet in this session got to hear any constructive criticism as far as crop insurance is concerned . Now you will find these things, these resolutions that were presented by our Leader of the House today, in the last ten years, if you read the journals . Then we have flood control.

We don't like to bring up these old sores because I think some of these old sores will never oe healed. The peop1e of the valley, I think have prove.d that, in 1958 an.d 19 5·9, that t�ev're still old sores . The Premier, in 1950, had one of the grandee.t opportunities to help the people of Manitoba at large if he would have followed through the encouragement that he had from the Liberal Government in Ottawa at that time. But no, he did not do it .

And in our resolutions to help the farmers in years gone by, such as loans to farmers, assistance to farmers on freight rates and such like, you will find the resolutions put forth by the party that's in power today watered down until they don't mean anything. That' s why the people of l'.'Ianitoba wanted a change. They wanted a government in here t!J.at would live up to their promi ses, which this government is doing. And they say there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne . I don it know -- maybe they didn't read it but I have read it over and there is a lot in the Speech from the Throne .

It not February 4th, 1960 Page 281

(Mr . Shewman, cqnt' d) .....• only forecasts what we should be doing and what we will be doing this term, but if you look into it you can see a bright future for the people of Manitoba; things that will be started that we'v e asked for in the last ten years and no start made on them . Then, Mr . Speaker, I think if I'm going to be critical of the present government I will try to be in a constructive way. I think what should be done is something done about these stamps -- these trading stamps. Now I'm safe in saying, Mr .

Speaker, that a vast majority of the merchants that are compelled to handle these. trading stamps today are not in favour of the scheme, and I'm safe in saying, Mr . Speaker, that it would and could and does raise the cost to the producer at least 2% at the present time, or maybe more, and I think this govern ment would be doing the duty that they owe the people of Manitoba to look into the trading stamp business. Now it's quite true that these stamps are bought from companies, and the majority of these companies exist and have their home offices and their plants in United states.

There's only one company in Canada that I know who have developed their own stamps and their own premiums and that is Loblaw' s. Now they would help the consumer in reducing the cost of the products that he has to buy. Now just as an example , Mr. Speaker, you can buy a package of oatmeal with the premium in it, which might be a cup and saucer or a small bowl or some

article such as that, it will cost you 65 to 67 cents a package, and without the premium it will cost you 40 to 43 cents a package. Now there is a great deal more value, more oatmeal in that package, and I think you will find that all along the line, and I would like to suggest to the government, Mr . Speaker, that they would set up a branch of economy to the farm organiza tions in Manitoba.

It wouldn't have to be large, possibly one individual -- a man that would be an expert economist, that could work throughout the year with the farm organizations that we have and delve into economics as far as farmers' farm problems are concerned. And when they would present a brief to this House I think it would be something that we could look at in a reas.onable light and a sound light.

And I think another thing I would suggest to the government, and this is something I think is very important, that we should have a study and research work done on the minerals that are being fed to our livestock and our poultry.

I, last summer, went out and the only fowl I could get was a hen that was scratching around the farmyard, and I bought that hen, and I also bought a chicken that was raised in one of these chicken ranches, and I think if I haven't got the best cook in Manitoba I got one of the best, and she cooked both those birds in the same manner and the same fashion, and there's as much difference between the taste of that poultry as there is between night and day.

Now I think something should be done, and I think if we follow through with beef and pork we should have more research to see what effect these miner als are having on our food, because Manitoba is known throughout the world as producing some of the finest food in Canada. It's not so long ago -- I'm just back from Kingston, Jamaica, and sitting in one of their finest restaurants over there a chap said to me, "Harry'' , he said, "I'd give a five dollar bill just for one feed of that good Manitoba bacon." It's a long ways from here to Kingston, Jamaica and, M:r;.

Speaker, when we are in that good country south of us we'll find the menus headed with Canadian bacon - Manitoba bacon, or Manitoba ham, and I think it's our duty to preserve that. And I think another thing that we'v e got to give thought to, Mr. Speaker, we have land in Manitoba that is costing this government, plus the Federal Govern..ment, thousands of dollars a year that should never have been put into grain production, and some day soon that land has to be taken out of grain production, and I think today we should be paving the way whereby we can take that land out of production.

It will mean re-education in a good many cases, moving farmers off farms or finding suitable employment for them in other occupations, but I think, Sir , that is a must, and I think if we look into the fact that we are paying in some districts more in relief than the country is worth, and that is going on year after year, and I think that's some thing that we should be looking into . Now, Mr.

Speaker, we have been reading in the paper and the party to my right, the CCF Party, are trying to move the farmers, and of all the songs that they've been singing, I haven't heard of one that would have any enchantment as far as the farmer was concerned. They are · talking along these lines, if the farmers and the labour would only unite, that we might be able to give Manitoba and the Dominion of Canada a better standard of living; a better government. Would this problem not come into the picture that every time .. ......... These are questions Page 282 February 4th, 1960

(Mr •. Shewman, cont'd ) ...•• . �I think, when the time comes, that the farmer will answer for himself in no unce rtain terms with a big "No". A MEMBER: What happens now ? MR. SHEWMAN: What happens now ? -- (Interjec tion) -- and I would say, mind you, I have every sympathy with labour . It's not so long ago that I was driving four horses in the bush, Mr. Speaker, for $12 .0 0 a month , in the Fort William district, and labour is well organized in that district today and they are giving their just dues and maybe a little better. It's the same across Ca na da . And there is one thing, Mr.

Speaker, that we've got to remem ber, if we're not very careful, of pricing ourselves out of ma rkets. And where will labour be then? And I would say that farm industry does need some attention and my advice to the government is to take the long range view in facing these problems today, and for the good of Manitoba we have to take the long range view . And I would honestly say this, that I hope the two opposition parties in this House, before this sessio n is over, will come forth with some constructive criticism that will help the problems that we are facing today . :rvm. J. M. FROESE (Rhineland) : Mr .

Speaker, before I go on with what I have to say, I would like to mention that we have in our assem bly hall here this afternoon with us Miss Halldorson of this fair city, who was a member of this House at one time repres enting the Social Credit movement of Manitoba . Now I couldn't go on without making some comm ent after what the Honoura ble Member for Souris-Lan sdowne said this afternoon . No doubt he will be interested to know, that as far as I know, I have not brought in or mentioned Alberta at one time or another during this sessi on .

However, since he has brought up the matter I wish to tell him a few things about Alberta and what Social Cr edit has done for that provin ce . Social Credit, as you know, was elected in Alberta in 19 35, just after the province had reached the age of 30 years, and at that time the Province of Alberta had a debt of $167 million . Now the Social Credit admini stration there reduced that amount by $19 million in a short period of time before they ever produced oil, since oil was mentioned by the honourable member .

And today, that very province has reserves of close to $400 million which is being put to use by being lent to the municip alities at very low interest rates to make local improvemen ts , so that in itself speaks well for Social Cre dit in Alberta . Now, a second matter, I feel that Social Cred it has a better chance of electing a govern ment in Manitoba than either the Liberals , Conse rvative s, or CCF have of ele cting a govern ment in Alberta .

At pres ent the government in Alberta is in a quandry as to who is the official opposition since both the Liberals and the Conse rvativ es have a repre sentation of one each, so that in Manitoba we have as much represen tation in Social Cred it than either of the other parties have in Alberta . One thing further, my friend mentioned that Alberta got rich through its natural resourc es such as oil. Well, we in Manitoba have natural resources too, and I think probably in greater supply than Alberta has . And what is the policy of our gove rnment ? What are they goiP.g to do with these natural resource s?

Can not they be put to use for the people of the province so that they will benefit by them ? Surely some time during the ses sion I would like to know as to what this governme n t intends to do with these resour ces , how they are supposed to be developed and how the people are going to benefit by it. Now I would like to turn to what I had to say in the first analys is , and that is in respect to teacher grants for non-di vision areas .

Presently, as we know, the school districts of non-divi sion areas receive a teacher grant of $2 ,5 00 for qualified teachers of elemen tary grades , and $1 ,2 50 more for secondary teachers who are instructing in the secondary grades;

whereas teachers instructing in schools within divisio ns, their school districts receive teacher grants for elem entary grades from $2, 400 to $8 ,7 00 depending on the qualification of the teach er and the length of service . For secondary teachers this varies from $3, 500 to $9 , 7 00, also depending on the qualifications and the length of service .

Now I wonder, how can our govern ment justify such variations between grants to school districts when they are providing the same instruction; teachers of like qualificati ons , certified and licensed to teach by the same govern ing body; following and instructing the same curriculum ; and I would suppose that teachers have at heart the children attending their schools as much as those in non-div isio ns .

Probably more so , because of living in closer proximity to the children's paren ts , thereby gaining a better background and knowledge of conditions and circumstances which will tend to provide a February 4th, 1960 Page 283

(Mr. Froese, cont'd) •.... better understanding, for in the long run, divisions will centralize the school system more and more. We know that and can see that from present happenings . The teachers in non-division districts are doing as good a job as those elsewhere . 2)uring the time of teacher shortage in elementary grades, few permit teachers were engaged by districts in non-divisions and,therefore, retained a relatively high leyel and standard of educ ation. Government inspection is carried out in these schools and reports have been favorable, to my knowledge.

In all, the teachers in the non-division districts are doing a very good job of instruction, on the average, as good as you can find anywhere in Manitoba, if not better. I would also like to mention that many fine teachers have come through these very schools, and I think perce ntage-wise, much higher than cany other area as far as production or produc ing teachers . Why then make second class teachers of them by allowing less grants toward their salaries? Has the inducem ent grant or higher grant paid to Dauphin-Ochre paid off?

How have they over the years produced -- or have they over the years produced - better quality of instruction? Better students over the years than elsewhere in Manitoba? Certainly if we are going to pay inducem ent grants, or premiums, we should be assured of some results or better results from pupils and teachers in division areas . The people in non-divisions are contributing to the general fund of the province from which these grants are paid. Likewise, the funds received from the Federal Government through our tax rental agreement are based on a per capita basis.

Does it not seem reasonable to expect an equal share of the teacher grants on that basis? I am sure that if we tried to be, and were trying to justify the matter, this would be granted. I therefore request that this government give serious consideration that all sc hool districts in the province receive teacher grants in accordance and as provided for in the governm ent grant sched ule towards teach ers' salaries as set down in

Schedule 'A' , Manitoba Regulations #7 4 -- '58 . Further to that, I would like to mention that the recent Manitoba School Trustee conven tion which has a paid-up membership of over 1, 200 members, and of which over 600 delegates were present, that a resolution was submitted to that body and passed by a good majority. And I would like to read that resolution at this time: •Whereas some regions. may not have seen fit to vote in favour of a school diYision plan at this time, and

whereas there is apparent need for additional flmds to compete with other divisions rec eiving increased grants, and

whereas the people of such divisions are contributing in taxes on the same basis toward the general flmd of the province from which educational grants are paid, therefore

be it resolved that we urge the government to provide increased financial support towards instruction in these divis ions on a compara ble basis with that of the other established divisions". Mr. Speaker , I have presented this case as best I could, and I hope that the government will give its fullest consid eration to this matter. I thank you. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (ste. Rose): Mr .

Speaker, first I would like to join with the other members who have spoken in this debate so far in congratulations to you, Sir, to the mover of the addr ess in reply, to the new ministers on the government side, and to the four new members in the House. I wish them all well. I have a special word to say at this time to one of the new members, the lady member from Cypress . I regret she is not in her seat; however, she is within earshot and will, I'm sure, understand what I am saying. I have to say to her that her speech had a tremendous effect on our caucus, Mr . Speaker .

It crea ted a revolution in fact within our ranks, because it marked the end of an era in the Liberal caucus here in Manitoba. It's not really the content of the speech that mattered mind you, but the person against whom it was directed, and to explain my statement I will have to let the House in to confidential caucus secr ets . We have two members in the cauc us, the Honourable Member for Carillon and the Honourable Member for Lakeside, who pride themselves on being the experts in matters pertaining to ladies, and there is a constant conflict between the two as to who is the re al expert. Well, Mr .

Speaker, after the speech given to us the other ni!\"ht by the lady from Cypress, and the obvious rebuff which she gave to the Honourable Member from Lake side in spite of his previous kind co mments about her, the caucus has come to a final and definite conclusion that the Frenchman from Carillon is the winner. (Mr. Molgat spoke briefly in French . Translation will appear in tomorrow's Hansard .) Mr. Speaker , I listened with great interest to the various speeches made in this debate so far by the honourable members and the Cabinet Ministers -i n particular the, I believe, Page 284 February 4th, 1960

(Mr. Molgat, con t'd) ...••. three of them who spoke in this debate . Now I do not propose at this stage in the Throne Speech debate to go into a detailed analysis of the Throne Speech or of everything that has been said . There will be ample time for further debate on details when we come to estimates, and in particular when we come to the budget. But I do want to say something about the speeches that I have heard from the far side , because I don't think that _ they are getting at all at the real purpose for this discussi on .

The sum and substance of all the replies tha± we've heard to date is, ''Why didn't we do it when" , and Mr. Speaker, that isn't why we're here in this House . We're here to discuss the program that my honourable friends over there pre sented to the people of Manitoba in the various elections that we've had ; what they have done about that program so far ; and what they're presenting to this House . We're not here to discuss what we did in the past. Sure that may interest my honourable friends, but that isn't a sufficient reply to the things that they are bringing up .

It's not just enough to say, "Why didn't you do crop insurance -- look at your record on crop insurance, " and so on . The point is, what did my honourable friend the First lV'.inister say to the people of Manitoba in the various election campaigns that his party would do . And what has my honourable friend done about it since ? The speech that we had from the Honourable Member from Morris this afternoon was a perfect example of the type of reply that we've had . What was he saying ? Well he said - crop insurance -- and he told us again how we didn't put in crop insurance and so on.

He told us amongst other things, and I must correct him in this matter , that he went around looking for a 1940 report on crop insurance and he couldn't even find the report. lie had to go down 40 miles somewhere or other to get one . Well I would suggest that is possibly a sample of the normal manner in which my honourable friend operates because if he had simply gone to the legislative library, exactly 40 feet from here , he would have obtained a copy of the report at that time. But, Mr . Speaker, we never said that we put in crop insurance .

What the Hon ourable Member from Brokenhead told us the other day about the history of crop insurance was relatively correct as I recall it, but nowhere in there did we say to the people of Manitoba - "Re-elect us and we will see to it that you have crop insurance" . But my honourable friend across the way did, and in no unce rtain terms . There were no ifs, as, and buts in it; there was no statement that we will put in test areas ; no statements that we will give this a trial. Oh no ! Before the election it was a clear-cut bald statement -- we will institute crop insur ance .

And when we said allo_y(>f' the province that it can't be done on a provincial basis; when we outlined exactly what the situation was; -- oh no -- my honourable friend was going to do it. Well now, he's in power, and what does he do? He does not live up to his promise . He gives us a test plan, and his Minister of Agriculture gets up when we say something about it and says that because we say that he didn't put in crop insurance we're trying to scuttle his program . Absolute nonsen se , Mr . Speak er .

What we're saying is simple and straight forward -- you said you would put in crop insurance; you promised it to thlil people of Manit oba in that way, and you're not living up to your promise . And that is the simple fact of it. My . .honourable friend here from Morris spoke about floods. Told about everything we hadn't done on the flood. Mr . Speaker, that isn't the point. We have a new government in Manitoba - the government of Mr. Roblin who is going to solve all the problems of Manitoba if one listens to him . Who told us in this very House some 18 months ago that he would pro ceed on the flood program ?

So far we have seen precious little. When it comes up for dis cussion what do my honourable friends say? "Oh well, it's taking time, and look how slow you were before ." Mr . Speaker, that has nothing to do with it. It's my honourable friend's program that counts and he's not living up to the statements that he made to the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker , we're not here to discuss what we did in the past. We're here to discuss the programs of my honourable friends . His counterpart in Ottawa had great visions . Those_ visions are turning now into, it would appear, hallucinations .

It would seem to me that my honourable friend here is following exactly the same fate. It is said that the Federal Conser vatives had their operation masterminded by an advertising agency. Now I don't know if my honourable friend here used the same advertising agency or not, but the results certainly seem the same . You build up a great program for election purposes the same way as if you are going out on a campaign to sell soap. You ballyhoo it all over the province; you have February 4th, 1960 Page 285

(Mr . Molgat , cont' d) ..••. a strong advertising campaign and all the rest of it; then >.hen you get in power, well, just nothing happens, Mr . Speaker . Well maybe that' s unfair. I �houldn't say nothing happens. I'll be fair to my honourable friend. Certainly things do happen. They have accomplished part of their program . I'm not saying that they haven't done part of it, but it' s a far cry, Mr . Speaker, from what they told us beforehand. Well, I said I didn't want to go into any details on the Throne Speech and I don't intend to, for I want to turn to another matter, Mr .

Speaker, and that is the debate that we had here last week on my motion for the adjournment of the House. I want to make it clear at the outset that I'm not trying to make a martyr out of my honourable friend the Attorney-General. In fact I have nothing to say about the comments that he made at that time. I accept his statement. I know that my friend is a very energetic political campaigner. I may have some reservations about how innocent he was in the matter, but I accept his statement.

I'll not bring that up , but I do have something to say about the statements made by my honourable friend the First Minister who got himself into the discussion at that time, and I think he would have been very well advised to stay out of it because of the statements that he made at that time. Had he left the Attorney-General to ta.\e care of the matter things would have been much better .

First of all, my honourable friend said, and I'm quoting now from Hansard, page 99, January 28, and the First Minister said, "And my view,of the matter is that. after the honourable gentlemen opposite have amused themselves this afternoon at his expense ... ". Mr . Speaker, we were not amusing ourselves at the expense of anyone. The matter that we brought up was a serious matter. It was an extremely important matter pertaining to the rights and privileges of this House and it was not an amusing matter,. and I would like to make that clear to the First Min ister that this was not at all what he pretended it was.

And going on from there my honourable friend gave us a long discourse having nothing to do with the subject about regulations and so on, because I presume he had nothing better to say on the subject at that time, and then he received a note from , I presume, someone in the gallery who was advising him at that stage, and his tone changed completely from one of submission back to that manner, which I must confess he can handle well, and he became most aggressive. He said then, .

"L et me remind them that the incident to which they refer, although we may not regard it as one which we would like to have re-occur, the incident to which they refer is one which they themselves have in times gone by been I thirik guilty of, although they had the good sense apparently to do it where there were no newspaper reporters around". Mr . Speaker, a perfectly unsubstantiated statement coming from none other than my friend the First Minister. A statement for which he has no grounds whatever to be express ing in this House in reply to a very important debate.

Not a single basis on which he could make that sort of a statement. Just an idle charge, and I suggest that that isn't the type of statement that we should have from him in reply to that situation. But he went on from there then and he said that w� done exactly the same thing and specificates us. And what did he refer to, Mr. Speaker? First of all to the Disraeli bridge . Then he referred to the increased provincial grants to the City of Winnipeg which, according to him, had been announced by the Minister of Health and Public Welfare.

Then he said that the former Minister of Education had announced government debenture buying programs. Then he said that the Leader of the Opposition gave away a million dollars of real estate just across the street to the City of Winnipeg . Mr . Speaker, not one of those items is in a comparable position to what we were discussing the other day. There is no similarity at all between the examples that he has used there and what we were discussing at that time in this House. -- (Iriterjection)-- Not at all, it doesn't depend where we sit .

Let us take the actions of my honourable friend since he has been in office. Shortly before Christmas he announced his little Colombo plan. We don't agree necessarily with his Colombo plan, but have we said anything about his announcing an item of expenditure of that type before the House met? No. Let us take the emergency assistance to farmers. There is no complaint on our side that that announcement was made before the House met. Obviously not.

That is quite acceptable in government practice beca use the House wasn't in session, and if my honourable friends between sessions of the House have announce ments to make with regard to expenditures, quite naturally they will proceed to make them as matters of government policy. That' s acceptable, and the same thing applied to the things· that he discussed. Every one of those was announced at times when the House was nQt in Page 286 February 4th, 1960

(Mr . Molgat, cont'd ) •.... ses sion and they were later brought back to the House for discu ss ion . There's no argument on that point. But the point that we are discussing was not that type at all . My honourable friend knows it and I say that his argument was not the type of argument that one would expect from someone in his position. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? MR . GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, last year I approached the Minister of Public Works to construct a bridge on the lower Fairford which was causing considerable discomfort to many residents in the northern part of my constituency.

The Minister at that time, I was happy to say, was agreeable to constructing this bridge on a share basis providing the Depart ment of Indian Affairs was prepared to share the cost . Unfortunately at the time the appropria tions to that department weren't sufficient to allow them to build this bridge and nothing was done on it . This year officials in the Department of Indian Affairs have announced that they are prepared to go ahead with the construction of this very badly needed bridge provided the Provincial Government would share in the cost .

I would like to tell the House how important this bridge is , beca use it divides two Indian Reserv es, that of the Fairford Reserve and the Little Saskatchewan Reserve . Th!ilre is a hospital on one of the reserves and because there is no bridge the residents on the Fairford side are forced to travel 65 to 70 miles to go to the hospital which normally would be roughly five miles if they had a bridge to cross.

Not only will it serve the residents on the two reserv es, it would also be of great assistance to the ma ny farmers in the area who have to deliver their grain to the nearest elevator which is at Moosehorn. While the Government is considering their highway programs and construction programs, I would like to suggest to them that they consider a bridge which would join the two roads on either side of the Narrows on Lake Manitoba.

At the present time highway traffic is forced to use a ferry, and for a great part of the year there is no traffic whatsoever because of the ice conditions, and at night there are no lights on either side of the dock so the ferry isn't allowed to run because of rules and regulations set up by the Department of Tra nsport. Last year I directed a plea to the Minister of Utilities to consider extending the tele phones on road allowances beyond the one mile limit which is now in force .

I think for the most part throughout the province those people that live within the one mile limit are now being serviced and I think it is time now that the government consider extending the one mile limit to those persons who need the telephone so badly, beca use those people beyond the one mile limit are really the people that need the phone more because they have greater distances to tra vel, and I don't think the costs would be too much in view of the fact that there are only isolated areas throughout the province where this service is required.

During the course of the debate on the Throne Speech members on the other side of the House have chasti sed us regarding our remarks about crop insurance . As you well know, Mr . Speaker, the members on the other side of the House promised crop insurance imme diately upon being elected to office. On the same platform where these promises were made , this group said we wouldn't put in crop insurance unless the Federal Government was prepared to share in the cost because we said it wasn' t workable, and we still say the same thing. Now they go around bragging that they're putting in crop insurance . Wel l,. Mr.

Speaker, we have n't got crop insurance - we have test areas . And what part of the plan is the province sharing in? What right have they to brag? Mr . Speaker, the only part that they are sharing in is 50% of the administration costs . They're not contributing og a dime to the cost of premium s. In the last sess ion the Minister of Agriculture said in this Hous e that crop insurance legislation would be introduced within a matter of two or three weeks . In the two or three weeks past he made another annonncement that there'll be no crop insurance this year .

The Federal Gov ernment suddenly introduced a crop insurance plan in such a hurry they never gave any farm groups an opportunity to present briefs on the ma tter. --(Interjection)-- What was that ? JVIR. K. ALEXANDER (Roblin): They presented a brief at the Law Amendments . MR. GUTTORMSON: I said the Federal Government if you were listening. And why didn't the Provincial Government put in crop insurance ? Because of the very sma ll portion of money that the Federal Government was going to put into the plan.

As the Act is now draft ed, the farmers must pay 80% of the premium , the Federal Government 20% ; the Federal Government sha.res in 50% of the administra tion costs and the province 50% . In case of February 4th, 1960 Page 287

(Mr. Gutto rmson, cont'd ) .... disaster, as the Act is now drafted, the first call for payments of loss would come from the premiums collected from the farmers . The seco nd call would come from rese rve premiums collected from previous years, Mr. Speaker, but once these reserves are used up the province then must supply the first $20 0, 000 . If further money is required the Federal Government is only required to lend them 75% of the required money. The province must find the other 25% . This very fact -- this disaster clause could break the plan.

In PFAA, the Federal Government pays 50% of the premiums and lOO% of the admin istrat ion. If this government wants to make crop insurance successf ul they've got to share in the cost of the premiums; and the Federal Government must share on the disaster losses; otherwise crop disasters of succes sive years would no doubt break the plan, possi bly for all tim es . Last October we experienced in Manitoba a very severe .crop disaster - the worst in the history of the provi nce .

And on the very small basis that the Provincial and Federal Governments are paying losses, we can readily see what such a disaster would cost the crop insurance plan . Many farmers now in Manitoba believe that the premiums set -- the cost of the premiums today will be a permanent figure . This isn't a fact . The Premier has said that crop insurance must function on an actuarial basis, that the government -- and he him self has said that the government will pay all losses -- dis aster losses in test areas . Therefore, if he wishes ----- HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley) : You're not quite right. MR.

GUTTORMSON: Let me finish and I'll correct you . MR . ALEXANDER: You'r e quite confused. MR. GUTTORMSON: Not as confused as you are . If we have a disaster this coming year there is no question that the premiums collected from the farmers won't handle it, and the province will have to absorb the other loss. On the basis of the Premier' s statement that he wants it to work on an actuarial basis, what• s going to happen in 1961 ? The premiums are going to go up . There is considerable doubt amongst the farmers that the government will be able to obtain 25% to sign up for the plan .

Information that I have received indicates that the better-off farmers are the ones interested in the plan. The farmers of the highest risk and those that are less forhmate financially appear to be the least interested in the crop insur ance plan beca use of the extremely high premiums . These are the farmers that need the help with crop insurance the most. Many farmers are also doubtful as to whether they should go into the plan in view of the high premium and the rate of benefit that they will receive . How many years does the government intend to have test areas before they put the plan· into effect?

To my knowledge they have never said. But I have talked to farm authorities and they speculate that it might be as many as 10 years, or longer, before the plan is put into effect. The way the government is conducting themselves now, I have every reason to believe that the government doesn't want crop insurance in Manitoba. They'd like to see it fail---- MR. ROBLIN: The farmers want it more than you do . MR. GUTTORMSON: And then they'll go and tell the public, well we tried, but you didn't want it. It is so designed that it won't work.

Many of the farmers in this province are of the opinion that if they purchase crop iilSurance they will no longer require hail insur ance . But , Mr. Speaker, this isn't a fact because crop insurance works on the average yield of all acres . A farmer could conceivably lose 75% of his crop through hail and still not be eligible for a single cent . For this reason it is imperative that the government participate in crop insurance to reduce the rate of the premium , because farmers in high hail risk areas will be forced to purchase hail insurance even if they go into the crop insurance plan .

I would sugg est to the government and members on that side of the House to stop trying to alibi by blaming the previous government for not putting in crop insurance . They'll have no excuse because we saicf it couldn't be done and they have now found out that you can't operate a crop insurance plan without federal help, and as it is now, the assis tance is so niggardly from the federal scale that in all probability we'll not have a plan function on a sound basis until both govern ments change the Act . MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, may I at the outset, Sir, compliment Your Honour on taking your seat as the head of this House again this year and on displ aying as you have, and as has Page 288 February 4th, 1960

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd} ...... been mentioned by many of my colleagues and members opposite, that usual impartiality in that judi cial sense for which you are well known in this House and beyond this House . I should like also, Sir, to associa te myself with remarks which have been made by the many other speakers who have participated in this debate with respect to the kind words said about the mover, the Honourable Member from St . Vital, and the seconder, the Honourable Member from Rupertsland.

I, too, should like to pay my respects to the new members of the House on all sides, particularly to our lone friend from the Social Credit, the Honourable Member from Rhineland, sitting as he does isolated up by one corner, with good on his left and not so good on his right. I had not intended, and I know that this is an axioma tic statement and perhaps one that is used when it is not intended to be used, but I really had not intended to participate in this debate . But there were some remarks made this afternoon, Sir, and some that were made earlier on this same motion which I think deserve some comment.

I should like to refer, of course , initially to the remarks of the speaker who has just taken his seat, the Honourable Member from St. George . If I have difficulty in remembering the name of his seat it is be cause , of course, he is a farmer who happens to live in my constituency of Fort Garry. He of course is a self-styled authority on crop insurance . He tells us now, in fact, Sir, he just finished taking his seat after saying that this government was guilty of bad faith with respect to the crop insurance plan that it enacted during the last ses sion of the Legislature .

And I say to him here today, Sir, that if this government was guilty of bad faith, if this plan will not work, why did he or members of his party not bring forward constructive amendments that would make it work? Are they to be sitting here just as dolts -- dolts in this Hous e, not participating in the debate? If they felt that this plan wouldn't work why didn't they stand on their feet and say that when the matter was before the House last session? I think anyone who has one grain of common sense will realize that these niggling harping attacks have no substance whatsoever . No substance, in fact , whatsoever.

And to repeat what my colleague the Minister of Agriculture has said before, they would like nothing better than to see this plan scuttled -- nothing better at all. I advi se the Honourable Member from St. George , Mr. Speak er, to read his own newspaper, the paper which employs him. Read the comment they had on their editorial page last night about crop insurance .

"It' s a good thing for Manitoba; it's a good t.i.ing to help stabilize the farm economY''· That' s what his own employer says and he of course in this House, for what reasons I won't attempt to conjecture, for what reasons I don't know, he in this House tries to say that not only is his employer wrong, but of course the whole House was wrong last year when they voted for crop insurance and when he voted for crop insurance, as he most certainly did , in this province . . .. .

I would suggest that a little less wind and a little more practical common sense applied to this problem would be much more befitting the past tradition of the party which sits as the official Opposition in this House . Now I would like to turn for a moment or two, if I may, to remarks made by the Honour able Member from Ste. Rose . He was involved -- he's another one of these farmers of course who lives in the City of Winnipeg -- he was involved in a discuss ion of attempting to get the debate , as he put it, back onto the track. He was at tempting to say in eff ect, Mr.

Speaker, that all that has come from this side of the House has really missed the point completely, and that really the point that they are trying to make is this -- let' s forget the last 36 years in Manitoba and let' s start from July 1, 1958, and we'll just talk from that point on . But you bad fellows, you always want to talk about things that started in 1922 or 1936 and so on and so forth. Well I say to him, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Manitoba know more than the members of this House. They are not going to be buffaloed by that kind of talk.

Because as much as he would like to erase that record he can't do it . He can't do it . And there is a living monument in this province to that "do nothing" record -t hat •tio nothing" record that we had for so many years . And some of those living monuments are the people of this province . Some of the children who were forced to quit school because there was no high school to go to and who are now condemned for the rest of their lives to stay in a certain status or position because , having ability, they were denied the opportunity to carry on.

I don't wonder that my honour able friend would like to wipe the slate clean because those people remember . Those people remember. There are many others who are going to remember . The people of Winnipeg February 4th, 1960 page . 289

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd) ....• remember . The people of Greater Winnipeg -- they remember the flood in 1950 . They know the difference . They' re not being misled at all by this foolish talk from across the way about why isn't this government speeding up on flood control. Such utter "tommyrot" has never been uttered in this House before ... MR. GUTTORMSON: ........ ..•. pretty good job ofit . MR. LYON: From August when the money was voted, they say, "What have you done in the last six months ?" MR. GUTTORMSON: Nothing. MR.

LYON: And then when we turn around, Sir, and say, what did you do in the last nine years, they say, ''Oh, but that doesn't matter. We're only concerned with six months, not nine years." Now that's the logic of their argument. MR. GUTTORMSON: Six months l Nearlytwo years . MR. LYON: So I say, Sir, to my Honourable Friend from Ste .· Rose that much as he would like to eradicate that record, he can't do it . He couldn't do it in June of 1958; he couldn't do it in May of 19 59; and he won't do it in 1962 or 1963 or 1967 or 197 2. That is a fact.

I don't think there is too much else that he said that was deserving of comment. I appreciated the oratorical length to which he flung himself while making reference -- I think pei·haps he was out of order, but while making reference to a debate of perhaps one week ago. And I think it seems only appropriate that again today I stand up to follow, all but for one, to follow this honourable member because it seems that whenever he gets to his feet there is something that stimulates me to get to mine and to make reply to what he has to say.

Now there are one or two other points that I think should be mentioned today, Mr. Speak er . I enjoyed, as we all do in this House, the remarks of the Honourable Member from Carillon, not only the other day but his rem arks upon this debate which is now just concluding. I enjoyed particularly his remarks about the Sarto-Grunthal-st.

Pierre road, and whether or not he is aware of it, I doubt very much if he is, I, in the service of my government and the service of my party during the last electinn campaign, went down to his constituency to see if I could convince some oft hose good people that perhaps, perhaps, no matter how beloved he . was, not only by this House and I know by good numbers of his own constituency, but perhaps, maybe a Conservative could do a job for them down there .

And after speaking at a meeting in Sarto, one of the old-time residents of that district came up to me and he said, "You know, " he said, "We like what your government is doing. You get things done . You go ahead and build roads . We can see this going on around Manitoba. You have given us a new education scheme; we can see that in Manitoba.

You have other plans and we know that what you say you will do, you will do ." And he said, "You know", and if I may use the language that he used, he said, "E ddie is a good friend of mine", he said, 'There is no man in this constituency that I like or know better, but, " he said, "the greatest contribution insofar as roads that Eddie has given to this constituency is the kindling that he has left here". And I said, ''Kindling , Sir, what do you mean?" He said, "All of those stakes that Eddie used to have put up before the election to indicate roads that were subsequently never built." MR.

PRE FONTAINE: What are you talking about? ....•••••.. MR. LYON: Some reference was made today by the Honourable Member from Carillor: to the effect that there were perhaps some stakes put up in his constituency, and I can only assure him , Sir, that if they we re put up I would expect wholeheartedly that some action will follow. But I know that he knows whereof he speaks when one of his own constituents tells me this rather enjoy able story about him . MR. PRE FONTAINE: ......... You generalize too much. MR. LYON: I don't want to get down to too many slivers, if you'll pardon the expression.

One other point upon which I thinl;: some comment might be made today, Mr. Speaker, has reference to the remarks made by my good friend the Honourable Member from Selkirk the other day when he was participating in this debate. Now I want to preface what I say, and I say it with a smile and I say it will all sincerity, that there is no man in this House whom I respect more than the Honourable Member from Selkirk. We have had battles in court from · the time I was first starting in the practice of law and he was a defense counsel and I was a Crown counsel .

He had more clients acquitted probably than I had convicted when he was defending these cases . I've travelled with him over the bumpy roads in the inter lake circuit Page 290 February 4th, 1960

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd) .•.•. and I know him quite well and I respect him . I know nothing in his character that I do not respect . He is an able lawyer, an able member, and may I go further, Sir, and say an ornament to this House . If I may be allowed, I should like to quote from an

article which appeared recently in one of the local papers - an editorial comm ent "Under the Dome" -- ''One thing about Tommy Hillhouse, the Liberal MLA for Selkirk, can be said with out qualification. He is liked and respected by every member in the Legislature . He is invariably fair, sometimes almost non-part isan; and his knowledge and understanding of the law excite admiration ." Sir, with that statement I heartily concur .

It was, therefore, with ag reat deal of surprise and I must confess with a wee bit at least of regret, that I heard some of the remarks which the honourable member uttered the other day. He made some general remarks about the civil servants of this province. In making those general rem arks he particularized about the department which I have the honour to head . And yvithout meaning to do offence to what he said but without intending to quote at great length, I think his words could be summarized somewhat this way .

He said that up until the present government took office that Manitoba had the lowest number of civil servants per capita of any province in Canada. That statement I understand is true . And I further understand that the statement is still true, notwithstanding that the bad Tories are now in government in Manitoba .

I might point out, just to digress for a moment, I might point out that one of the greate st increases in the civil service has been bro ught about by the Hospital Plan which was invoked -- proclaimed the day we came into office, and so I don't think my honourable_ friend in all fairness would like to saddle us necessarily with the responsibilityfor that increase . We will take responsibility for an increase in the civil service when we gave civil servants a 40 -hour working week in all of the institutions necessitating some increase in staff to compen sate for the shorter hours worked by those persons.

He mentioned the -- MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE , Q.C . (Selkirk): To put my honourable friend's mind at ea se I didn't make any suggestion that the re had been any increase in the civil service . What I said was, as of the date that we left, we had the lowest percentage per capita. I don't know. what the situation is. MR. LYON: That is accepted, Mr. Speaker . I merely for the records state the situa tion is the same . A.�d we're as happy in that circumstance as I am sure my honourable friend was in his .

He mentioned-the nu mber of former appointments that had been made from the Cr own Attorney ranks into different offices in this government. Then he came to a most interesting part of his speech where he sugge sted, and I give him credit beca use he only suggested it, and there was a veiled implication there that the mora le was perhaps lower L'l the civil service because of one judicial appointment which had not apparently been made from the ranks, as he said. And he asked the question, I suppose it was a rhetorical question at the time, why has this government departed from the practice ?

And then there were other remarks which he went on to talk about -- another position which was open in the government . Now I say to you, Sir, that I found these remarks to be most interesting . And I was all the more surprised to hear them coming from the Honourable Member from Selkirk who , as I h;1ve said, is an able lawyer and a man who perhaps as well as anyone in this House knows the workings of the Attor ney-Gen eral's Department and knows the prom otional plans and so on and so forth. He is so well versed in the law, may I say, Mr.

Speaker, that I perhap s drew the inference myself th at he might have been preaching for a call. And I can only assure him that if ever the honourable gentleman wants to preach for a call, either to come over to this side of the House or perhap s to do service to the public of Manitoba in some other way, his call will not fall on deaf ears insofar as I am concerned. lVIR. HILLHOUSE: I think the price that the Honourable Attorney-General has put upon the call is far too high . MR. LYON: I want you to have something for your old age, Sir.

But this very interest ing implication was made that the morale of the civil service was not good. Not as good as it formerly was when the government of which he was then a member was in office . MR. HILLHOUSE : ..... ........•.... I never raised that or even applied it in what I said. I said that the morale of the civil service of Manitoba had always been high and one of the reasons for that was due to the fact that there had been promotions within the service . February 4th, 1960 Page 291

. MR. LYON: Yes and then, Mr. Speaker, if I may and I would certainly be the last one to try to put words in my honourable friend's mouth, because he has been very clear always in what he says, but here is what he said. "Now these are a few of the people who I know and have been promoted within the service and it's true that they have all been promoted within the Attorney-General' s department. Now I wonder whether this government has departed from the practice of promotions within the service . Recently there was an appointment made -...J• and then he went on to discuss that question .

"I have no complaint to make," he said, ''about the individual in question . That's not the point. My point is why was an outsider given that job when there were men within the service who are quite capable of filling that job. What I am trying to avoid is the old pork barrel." Perhaps my honourable friend forgets his words but these are the words as I find them in Hansard, and then he went on to_ discuss the position of the Commissioner of the Workmen's Compensation .

Now I suggest, and I could be totally wrong and if my honourable friend says I am, of course , I take his word for it, but I suggest that there was a veiled implication there that perhaps morale had suffered because an appoint ment within my department had been made from outside of the civil service.. Well first of all he says that the morale was good when he left government. I ask a few rhetorical quest ions , Mr. Speaker, to the Honourable Member from Selkirk and his colleagues.

Was the morale of the civil service particularly in the Attorney-General' s department good between 1949 and 1957 - eight years when eight lawyers left the service of the department and one deputy minister resigned? Was that a sign of good morale? Was the morale of the Attorney General's department good in that same period when after we came into office we found for instance to use only one example, we had to raise the salaries of the senior crown attorney from a maximum of $7, 320 to a minimum of $8,7 60 and raise the maximum to $10, 200 in order to retain these good men.

Was that an indication of the morale in the Department was good? And let me make this point clear, Mr. Speaker, when I mention in what I say I am not implying criticism of any of my predecessors in office; I think I made this point last year . They worked with what they were given but I think there was an overall attitude pervading in the government against them which meant that we had to pinch here, tighten up there . Lawyers , other professional men just wait and so on; meantime while they were waiting they left the service .

I think if the honourable member will recall that I was pleased to serve in that depart ment for some time and perhaps had things been different I might have been around to take one of the appointments which he now complains of today, but things did not turn out that way. But if he's seriously suggesting that those are good examples of good morale which ex isted in the days when his government was in power then he goes on to make the statement or the implied statement that perhaps morale has suffered because promotions were not made from wi:thin the service .

Well, I think that proposition should be examined and very briefly in the 18 odd months that we've been in office there are a few promotions that I can make ref erence to which probably would be of interest to the honourable member - one of which he mentioned himself and unfortunately he didn't give us credit for it, and that of course -- I'm not going to mention names, just the positions, because I think they'll be known to the honour able members opposite . Now one of the senior city police magistrates was appointed shortly after we came into government from the civil service .

The senior Crown Prosecutor of the City of Winnipeg was appointed after we came into government from within the civil service . _ The Deputy Legislative Counsel was appointed to his position after we came into government from the civil service -a new position was created. A new sheriff was appointed to replace the retiring sheriff at Dauphin from within the ranks of the civil service . A new superintend ent at the Brandon Gaol was recently appointed to succeed Bill Sutherland who retired after many long and good years of service to this province, again from within the ranks of the civil service .

A new district registrar was appointed, a lawyer at Brandon, to succeed the former district registrar who had retired, again· from within the ranks of the civil service . These are only a few that I make mention of and because my honourable friend particularized on lawyers and on the Attorney-General's Department I think I should only reply in kind. If I were to broaden the field, of course, we could discuss hundreds of cas es . But going from that point on, Mr. Speaker, I think we are entitled to say that his speech was most mteresting for what it didn't say.

Now this practice of appointing people from within the service, I take it from what my honourable friend said, was a hallowed practice . followed by the Liberal Page 292 February 4th, 1960

(Mr . Lyon, cont' d) ••...•• Government when it was in power -- a very hallowed practice which if digressed from at one time by this government will represent a deterioration in the morale of the civil service . Well I ask my honourable friend whether or not these facts are not true. A few years ago -I think it was four or five years ago - the necessity arose to appoint a new high sheriff for the Province of Manitoba by reason of other promotions and the present high sheriff was brought in from outside of the Civil Service and appointed by the former government, and let me make this point crystal clear, Mr.

Speaker, I say there is nothing at all wrong with that - nothing at all wrong, but I merely point out to them that if this principle is so hallowed there is one example - there is one example where they broke it themselves. I see nothing wrong with it myself; in fact I wouldn't think it was even worthy of comment but I merely point it out to the honourable members opposite.

As I say, Sir, if this practice is so hallowed, why is it that the second last appointment to the Juvenile and Fai:nily Court of the City of Winnipeg, the same court to which my honourable friend refe:::s when he makes reference to the last appointment, the second last appointment to that court was made by the honourable members opposite when they were in government . . • . . . • . . • . • . . . Continued on next page February 4th, 1960 Page 293

MR. HILL!! OUSE: Does the Attorney-General object to the appointment of a woman? MR. LYON: And I make this point, :Mr. Speaker, I only make this point. I don't object to the practice at all, but I' m saying this, that if the practice is so hallowed, why did the Lib eral members opposite, when they were in government and the last appointment they made to the Juvenile and Family Court , go outside of the civil service to get the person they wanted? And they got a very distinguished lady barrister as my honourable friend has mentioned--and I applaud for getting .

I applaud and I say there is nothing wrong with it at all. But I do fail--! do fail to see the reason for chiding this government for doing the self-same thing that the former government did when they were last in office. Was the counsel that my learned friend or my honourable friend gave to me tha other day--did that fall on deaf ears in his own party? Or did he not believe in it then? I merely try to point out that we are doing the best we can.

We are trying to get the best people we can as I am sure the honourable members opposite did when they were in power, but I do think that this situation should be pointed out for the edification of the honourable members opposite. And of course, if I can retreat into the mundane and repeat the phrase that has been used so often in this House, does it not look, Sir, like an example of "do as I say but not as I do" because I'm only trying to point out the facts of the situation.

The hon ourable member on reflection, I think, will admit there is probably littl e or no substanc e to what he had to say in regard to this alleged complaint. I think he would want us to do--in fact I know, Sir, he would want us to do exactly what we are doing--trying to find the best people at all times to fit the job and I think and I will say this, Ithink that by and large that was what the attempt was being made under the former government--� find the best people to fit the job. And I know that he would want us

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-13
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 13.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b49983bab7bc8c4729bbacfd24ab75f17ed0f1c7

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