Manitoba Hansard — 25 January 1960 (Sitting 5, 26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison V'.>lume IV No. 5 January 25, 1960 2nd Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

DAILY INDEX Monday, January 25, 1960, 8�00 p.m. IntroductionofBills: Nos. 20,3, 19, 49, 36 .•........•. ..•••••...••••.....••.•..• 49 Questions: Mr. Gray, (Mr. Carroll), Mr. Dow (Mr. Lyon), Mr. Wagner (Mr. Witney). 50 Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr. Froese . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • 50 Mr. Orlikow .. •... ...... ....... . " . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . • • . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . • . 53 Discussion on Point of Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • . . • • . . • . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . 55 Mr.

Orlikow . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . • • . . . . • . . . . • . • . . • . . • . . . . . . • . . . • . • 58 Bill No. 2 (Mr. Hutton) Second Reading: Mr. Campbell . • . . • . . • • • . . . . . • . . • . • . . • • • . . • 60 Mr. Roberts . . • • • • . • . .• . . . • •• • • . . • . • . . . . • . • . • .. . . . . . . •• • • . • •. . . • . • . . • . . 61 Mr. Hutton (Rockwood-Iberville) , • . . . • . . . . . . . • • . . • • • • . • • • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . • 62 Bill No. 4 (Mr. Johnson, Gimli) Second Reading: Mr. Campbell .. ................... 62 Bill No. 5 (Mr.

Roblin) Second Reading ................. , .. . . . . . .. .. • .. . . . .. . .. . • • 62 Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Gray, Mr. Roblin . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 63 Bill No. 6 (Mr. Roblin) Second Reading • . . • . . • • . • . • • • . • • . . . . . . . . . • . . • • . • . . . • • • • • . . 64 Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roblin . ..... . . . ... ;.................................. 65 Bill No. 8 (Mr.

Johnson, Gimli) Second Reading . . . . • • • • . . . . . • . . . . . • . • . • . . • . • . • • • . . 65 INDEX TO VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS, 1960 Introduction of New Members . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr. Groves, Mr. Jeannotte, Mr. Camp bell . . . . . . . . . 6 Resolution: Rules (Mr. Lyon), Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Paulley . . . . . . . • . . . . . • • . • . . . . . 32 Motion: Election Act (Mr. Lyon) Mr. Paulley, Mr.

Campbell ......... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . • 34 Introduction of Bills: Nos. 43, 27, 14, 18, 45 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. 35 Orders for Returns: Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Dow .................................... 37 Speech from The Throne Debate: Mr. Paulley .. .................................... 38

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Monday, January 25th, 1960. Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees Notice of Motion · Introduction of Bills The Honourable the Attorney-General. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) {Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources that leave be given to introduce a Bill Number 20,

an Act to amend the

Interpretation Act and that the same be now received and read a first time. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. LYON: 11r. Speaker, I beg to move seconded by the Honour2.bl'l the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources that leave be given to introduce a Bill Numhe-...�,

an Act to Cor rect Certain Typographical Errors in the Statutes and that the same be now l·eceived and read a first time. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and foilowing a voice vote declared the motion carried. HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities) (The Pas}: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Health and Public Welfare that leave be given to introduce a Bill Number 19,

an Act to amend the Wages Recovery Act, and that the same be now received and read a-first time. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and fGllowing a voice vote declared the motion carried. HON. GUP.NEY EVANS (Minister of �ndustry and Commerce) (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speak er, in the absence of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General that leave be given to introduce a Bill Number 49,

an Act to amend the Noxious Weeds Act, and the same be now received and read a first time. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. WlR. SPEAKER.: The Honourable the Member for St. Vital. MR. F. GROVES (St. Vital): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move seconded by the aonourable Member for Winnipeg Centre that leave be given to introduce a Bill Number 13,

an Act Respect ing the Arborg Memorial Medical Nursing Unit District Number 36, and that the same be now received and read a first time. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. lVIR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, before you proceed with the Orders of the Day I should like to lay on the table the Report of Board of Internal Economy Commissioners for the fiscal period ending the 31st day of March 1959, the 20th Annual Report of Superannuation Board for the year ending March 31st, 1959 and the Report of the Department of the Provincial Secretary with which is included the report of the Queen's Printer for the fiscal year that ended on the 31st day of March 1959. MR SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Wellington. MR. R. SEABORN (Wellington): Before the Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker, I have the distinct pleasure of inviting you and the other honourable members of this Chamber to our pop concert next Sunday. Our brilliant young conductor Victor Feldbrill will be on the podium and he has chosen a program I know that will appeal to everyone o{us. This orchestra in t..l!is com munity has been recognized as one of our major orchestras in Canada and it has recognized its responsibilities in our community not only in Winnipeg but all over the province. It has travel led to Lynn Lake, Churchill, Brandon, Winkler, Virden and everywhere has received enthusi astic response.

We have been to the Lakehead, I think there were about three thousand people who listened to us there, and in the near future we will be journeying to Dauphin and to Kenora. The orchestra is endeavouring to bring the magic of its sound to many people all over this land January 25th, 1960. Page 49.

(Mr. Seaborn, cont'd. ) .. of ours. It is in every sense a. cultural organization in which we can all take pride. Before I take my seat I would like to thank the government for the material and moral support it has given to us and everybody connected with our orchestra is indeed very grateful. I hope the members will accept this invitation to come and hear us next Sunday. Thank you. MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Can he inform the House as to the number of unemployed in this province now com pared with last year at the same time? MR. CARROLL: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable member for giving notice of this question. The number of unemployed in Manitoba as of January 21st was 31, 352, that is January the 21st, 1959. This year it's 31,662. MR. N. SHOEMAKER {Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are pro ceeded with I would like to ask a few questions of the Honourable the Minister of Public utilit ies. Now the questions concern the system of TV towers that were built by Northwest Electron ics a couple of years ago at four points in the province.

Now the questions are number one; fol lowing erection of the TV towers at the four points in the province, was a thorough test made to establish the worth of the venture? Number two; if so why were not the people in the areas ad vised so that they could assess the value of the project for them selves? Number three; if dif ficulties have been encountered what are the possibilities of overcoming them in the near future?

Number four; will the public be advised as to the future outcome of the venture and number five; if the system is finally approved by the Department of Transport is this government still inter ested in providing TV between Winnipeg and Dauphin? MR. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, in view of the large number of questions I'll take this as notice and endeavour to answer another day. MR. E. I. DOW (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Hon ourable Minister of the department concerned.

When will the final report of the Norton Enquiry re oil leases and mineral rights be made available to this House? MR. LYON: I would expect, Mr. Speaker, within the next 24 to 48 hours. MR. P. WAGNER (Fishe r): I'd like to direct a question to the Honou:r:-able Minister of Natural Resources. Whether he is aware that deer is starving i.n the northern part and inter lake area, particularly around St. George Lake and if so if feeding is going to be carried on? HON. C. H. WITNEY (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources)(Flin Flon): Mr. Speak er, I wish to thank the honourable member for notice of this question.

Unfortunately, this after noon we were unable to obtain information from the area. I hope to have the information tomor row and advise you further. Will. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. WITNEY: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed, I'd like to lay on the table the Report of the Board of the Manitoba Farm Loans Association for the period ending March 31st, 1959. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Member for St.

Vital for an address to his Honour the Lieutenant-Go vernor in answer to his speech at the opening of the session, and proposed motion and amendment thereto by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the proposed motion of the CCF in further amend me nt thereto. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. J. M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, I deem it a great honour and privilege as the Member for Rhineland to be the successor to the late W. C. Miller.

I considered him a personal friend of mine and wish to join with the other honourable members of this House in ex pressing sincerest sympathy to the Miller family in their bereavement. He was a person held in high esteem by my constituents and indeed by the people of the province. For many years he served in this House in various capacities under different administrations and served well when he headed the Department of Education and endeared himself to many. I hope to be able to serve the people of my constituency in the capable manner to which they are accustomed.

Little did I realize when a friend of mine and myself paid Mr. Miller a visit last year when he ex- . pressed concern as to who would replace him when he was no longer on the scene that I would take his place in the House for Rh ineland. I never expected to at that time. Now I certainly could not go on without saying some words about my local constituency. I think i.t is one of the finest, if not the finest in the province. We have the rich agricultural Page 50. January 25th, 1960.

(Mr. Froese, cont'd.) •• land in the southern part which we call the "Garden Land of Manitoba" and we have a very industrious people who reside in that area and who have progressed over the years. This-constituency is diversified in agriculture and we grow many of the special crops such as sugar beets, sunflowers, canning crops and the like. We also have industry, local in dustry in our constituency that was put up by the people of the constituency.

They put up the funds and ventured into new industries that had not been here in the province heretofore and they come through remarkably well both in the vegetable oils and the canning and other industr ies. But we also have something else in our constituency of which I am very familiar and that is credit unions. I think it is one of the foremost in the province with the best run and with, I think, some of the best credit unions operating in this province. We have many members and the assets of these credit unions have increased tremendously over the years.

Even this last year I think the increases will amount to close to 30 per cent which is very high indeed. How ever there are also matters pertaining to credit unions which I feel should be brought to the at tention of the members of this House especially some that are very close to my heart. I feel that credit unions should be made available to all the people of this province and the community credit unions of which we have in my constituency makes this chance or this available to the people of the constituency. However that is not the case with community credit unions in the city and some other areas.

In the City of Winnipeg people are deprived of becoming members of credit unions because of the very fact that charters are not granted for community credit unions. There seems to be some inconsistency in the policy that the department is furthering when a certain credit union in this city can embrace all the members of the City of Winnipeg yet when it comes to community credit unions that would like to charter a certain area of the city, it is prevented from doing so.

Certainly this matter needs attention and at some time during this session I would like to have an answer from the Minister of Agriculture under whose depart ment credit unions are operating as to the policy of this government in connection with commun ity credit unions in Greater Winni.peg. Now I have some speaking of my constituency. Heel it is one of the very best. And to top it ·an off they have now embraced social credit, which I feel is the crowning event at this last elec tion. It is an honour indeed for me to represent Social Credit and the principles for which it stands in this House.

It is my intention today, in speaking on behalf of my constituents anci the movement I represent, to ask that this House give serious by-partisan consideration to the pro blems which face our province and which appear to be absent in the text of the Speech from the Throne. However, before going into those matters I wish to give credit where credit is due. I commend this government for its establi.shing the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation which has been functioning now for the last year and is proving very beneficial to young and old er farmers.

It is filling a need present for a long time and should have been tended to much earlier. Further, I commend this government for its stand on behalf of the farmers of Man i toba in opposing the application of the two major railways of Canada in their attempt to destroy the Crows Nest rates for grain.

The farm ers of our prairie provinces are already at a disad vantage wh ere rail costs factors are concerned on the products they sell and on the products such as farm machinery that they buy and further increases could and would only result in great er hardships for the prairie citizens, regardless of the source of payment.

While I commend our government in continuing its search for new i.ndustry and the assistance given new industr ies and I can speak of personal experience in this matter when last year this government sup ported the raising of funds for prairie canners at Winkler, I can hardly agree though that in dustry is flourishing in Manitoba. Turkey raising, hog raising and egg producers receiving up to 15 cents a dozen are a real and essential part of industry in Manitoba and can hardly be said to be flourishing due to the very depressed market conditions.

How long farmers will be able to carry on at these prices is questionable . Immediate assistance is needed. Associated in dustries such as hatcheries and feed companies, machinery dealers and distributors are begin ning to feel the results of this depression of price. A temporary relief is found for the house wife's problem in lower food prices on farm commodities but in most cases these are very min or savings compared to the disastrous effect on our prime industry.

Our farming communities this year face a worsened condition with regard to disposal of farm commodities, the farm pro ducts and greatly increased incomes and while minor assistance is mentioned in the Throne Speech there is little that will alleviate the fundamental cause of causes of our problems. January 25th, 1960. Page 51.

(Mr. Froese, cont'd.) .. Reference is being made to the losses suffered as the result of adverse weather conditions and the action that has been undertaken by our government together with the Government of Canada. Notwithstanding the worthy intentions whereby payments of·eert:ain amounts are to be made to specified categories of farrre rs, the situation continues to be one of great con cern. The prime worry of every farmer in Manitoba continues to be the further decline in in come and programs of the nature mentioned in the Throne Speech do not in any way reverse this trend.

I would humbly suggest that this government and this House gi.ve serious and deliberat ing consideration to the serious problems which face our agricultural citizens in order that a just and equitable solution may be found. The big cause and the main factor is the prices re ceived for farm commodities, especially grain. The price the farmer receives for wheat, oats and barley is all important, so important that many other problems would be solved 1f the price were right. Prices of grains mentioned have not risen or increased any for a number of years. To the contrary they have gqne down in some instances

whereas the items the farmer buys have steadily risen so that a bushel of wheat will only buy the equivalent of half as much today as would have been the case say ten years ago. Since the Federal Government assumes full res ponsibility through its crown corporations the Canadian Wheat Board for the sale of our wheat and the price obtained they should be evermore concerned with the farmers' plight, for the Fed eral Government determines to a large degree the farmers 1 income by establishing prices on commodities the farmer sells.

This Manitoba Government should urge and make representa tion on behalf of the Manitoba farmers to the Federal Government to obtain a better price for wheat. The price of wheat in Canada is based on the export price received from other countries. I maintain that a separate price be established for wheat used and consumed in Canada, the price of which would have some relation with what the farmer has to buy. In other words, what would constitute parity price. I am not recommending subsidies or handouts but rather a two-price system.

Surely we should put an end to having the farmer subsidize the Canadian citizen in re duced prices for his wheat. Too often the impression or inference is left on the city peoples' minds when final payments are made to producers as though these were handouts when actually they are monies held back that belonged to the producer in the first place. The farmers are up·; against it from another angle. More experienced farm help is leav ing the farm and he is forced to compete on the labour market with much higher wages being offered in other employment.

Add to that the security available through unemployment insur ance and you no longer wonder why they leave the farm. This government should make every attempt to get farm labour included in the legislation so as to qualify for unemployment insur ance. If nothing is done about it, matters wi.ll continually get worse; It should receive im mediate attention by the government even though it be a federal matter. I believe that as yet it is much too early to fully judge whether the larger school divisi ons have been as successful as the Throne Speech would assume.

The Royal Commission Re port states on page 275, 4d, that it has not yet been gi.ven a sufficient trial. There are and will continue to be many new problems resulting from the formation of the new school divisions and I believe that extreme care must be exercised in avoiding destruction of the rights of the indi vidual which seems inevitable under the policy of centralizing.

Further to that instructional grants should be made available to all school districts alike, division or non-division, or else the very legislation that would supposedly equalize would tend to disequalize and make second class teachers in non-division areas. In all fairness citizens in non.,-division areas are entitled to the same instructional or teacher grants and should not be penalized for casting their votes a certain way. Considerable mention has been made lately to the recommendations of the Royal Comis sion Report with regard to government support of separate schools, parochial schools and so forth.

I trust that this government ani this House wHl give fair and serious deliberation to this problem which has been with our province and our country for many years. I would humbly sug gest that this government examine the question in its entirety and base its decision on justice for the individual, fairness to one and all and protect the rights of every citizen. Surely these private schools are deserving of some support.

My constituents are deeply concerned and have expressed themselves in no uncertain terms regarding an apparent amendment or bill to come before this House regarding the Mani toba Dental Association Act. It would seem that costs of dentures could and would be increased Page 52. January 25th, 1960.

(Mr. Froese, cont'd. ) .. as a result if the btll were passed and dentures for that matter would notas readily be availableespeciallyinrural parts and ther eby cause undue hardship. It definite ly should not be supported. Mention is made in the Throne Speech of Hospital Insurance Plan and health and welfare services. I can only hope that this government will walk very carefully when easy paths of socialized health care enters the picture. It is my sincere belief that proper economic climate would readily enable people to care for their own health and welfare.

Were are government to leave with our citizens a greater portion of their own earned income and decrease their tax re quirements, our citizens might very well provide their own care instead of resorting to social istic measures. Debt financing of hospital plans, equipment a.ndso forth have greatly increased the cost of hospital services and this debt financing i.s primarily responsible for the need today of such programs as Manitoba Hosoital Services Plan.

Our citizens today are slowly being de prived of basic and fundamental freedom as a result of contimted gr qwth of bureaucratic governmental bodies and! would urge my fellow members, this government and my fellow citizens to be extremely wary of the socialistic type of program to which this hospital services plan belongs. And there fore I would not support the amendment for a comprehensive health insurance scheme as pro posed by the CCF. Our government is to be commended for the

part 1.t has played in assisting together with our National Government, tubercular immigrants during the World Refugee Year. But surely, we in Manitoba and in Canada are but playing with human lives when we limit the number to 100 persons. Surely one of the most bountiful nations on this earth can do much more than this mi nute action would indicate when millions of persons are still homeless, sick and suffering as a result of the Second World War. We, in Canada, can do much more than this.

Public welfare is still a very important field in our province and will continue to be so until we solve the economic problems involved. Our aged, here in Manitoba, receive rather poor treatment of the four western provinces, yet we continue to talk of the surplus foods and so forth which these people need and should have to maintain a minimum standard of health. Our disabled persons still are refused assistance in many cases because of lack of finances. In concluding, I wish to draw, to this House, attention that every problem which confronts this House has roots centered in financial causes.

Our school problem would melt away i.f we could solve the economic quarrels of where the taxes are to come from and where they are to go. Our health problems would diminish and citizens could care for their own needs were this government to urge the adoption of a sensible economic system rather than the present debt creating depression-inflation one. We are daily being told that we must curb expenditures as individuals, as business men and as governments, and yet we today have the greatest abundance of material goods that we have ever known.

Surely common sense must make i.t obvious to even the most unlearned mind that you cannot have busy factories, employed people, a high standard ·of living, with all people spending money and yet we have economists advising left and right that we must curb, cut and stop spending money. I know that i.t i.s perhaps futile for me to mention these things today, but surely we cannot continue to ignore the depth of the deficit which we are digging here in Manitoba by debt-borrowing, and, i.n Canada, by continuance of the insane debt building financial policy.

I urge this government and this House to give serious thought to the pitfalls of the present policy and in the spirit of true wisdom, to reverse this course which leads to debt, bankruptcy and loss of fundamental freedoms and follow a policy which will lead our people to freedom, haopiness and truth. MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question before the last speaker takes his seat? Will you permit a question please? Yes or no? Can he explain what does he mean by the state ment that the government give some support to private schools? MR.

FROESE: I don't know whether I would be prepared to answer that at this time. At some future time I will. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR . D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne, particular ly to the mover for the somewhat unorthodox presentation which he made in his beginning. Mr. Speaker, I think that this Speech from the Throne is significant in the sharp difference in the emphasis in the field of public welfare between this year's and last year's speech.

During the January 25th, 1960. Page 53.

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd.-) .. last session, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Public Wel fare made the statement, on Page 878 of Hansard, and I quote, "I think that the Bill which he was introducing was one of the most forward and progressive welfare statutes to be considered by the legislature since the first Mothers' Allowance was passed in 1916." Mr. Speaker, some of us on that occasion questioned just how much this Bill would mean in actual facts to the people who supposedly it was going to help.

The Honourable Minister took the time, and I'm very grate ful that he did, during that speech to list ten categories of people who would be entitled to assist ance as a result of this Act. I don't know whether he remembers what he said but he says he has forgotten and I am going to take a couple of minutes to list them for him. First of all--no dictionary--first of all, he promised that the people who needed help would get--there would be lOO% provincial responsibility in the care of the aged and infirm in institutions.

He promised that there would be lOO% provincial responsibility for neglected children in care of Children's Aid Societies. Third, he promised social allowance for the aged, blind or disabled by way of cash allowance and/or health service. Fourth, he promised social allowance to the Mothers' Allowance types of cases.

Fifth, he promised oomplete provincial responsibility on the basis of need for all widowed mothers with children; mot;hers and children where the husband has de serted the family for over one year; mothers and children where the husband is .in gaol for over one year; unmarried mothers with two or more children; immigrants and Indian people; mothers and children where due to the physical or mental disability or incapacity or due to disability after 90 days creates need. Now this was promised in the Bill, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it was promised before the House met, during the election before the last session.

Speakers on the government side went from one end of this province to the other saying that if members on this side in the Opposition had stopped these people from getting assistance because we turned the government out of office--Well, somebody says "here! here!" We asked the Minister, when he made this wonderful speech, when this program would start and the Minister said he hoped that it would get started in- October or November of 1959. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's almost the end of January of 1960, and what do we find? The government now announces that on February 1st two and a half of these ten points will begin.

And which two and a half points are these? First of all provincial responsibility for the care of aged and infirm in institutions. Now this will take the load off the municipalities and that's a good thing. But it will not mean one extra cent for the people who are in the institutions. Secondly, assistance for neglected children in care of the Children's Aid Society; and that will help the municipalities: But it doesn't mean an ex tra cent for the people in the way of assistance. Third, social allowance for the aged, blind or disabled by way of cash allowance.

That's a wonderful thing, but on February 1st, the Act will be proclaimed, then the application forms--! hope--then the application forms will be available . .According to what the Minister said during the last session, the people will probably have to wait for three or four months before they can get assistance. And I want to tell the Minister this that on the basis of the progress that they have made to date, I'm doubtful if it will be done in less than six months, so that, in fact, it will be almost two years since it was promised be fore any assistance is given. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not so worried about what the members on this side of the House think about the government's promises, but I thilik the people in the categories which the Minister listed last July--the Minister said that they would get assistance- ! think that they are entitled to some statement from the government as to when they are going to get this assistance. If it has taken the government over a year to get started on two of the ten points, I calculate that it will be just about the time of the next election before, maybe, all the rest of tliis will be done.

Maybe, I'm doubtful about that! -I think that the government owes it to the people to give a statement as to the timetable which they intend to follow. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, thanks to the Member for St. Vital we are given a little extra information, that is, if he has any inside in!ormation, that there is going to be some labour legislation. I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that in the Speech from the Throne, there was no mention of labour legislation.

Here we have had 'l year in which the Minimum Wage Board has been meeting-- I presume they're going to make some kind of recommendations--! doubt that it will be recommendations with which I will agree completely but I assume that they will make some recommendations--we understand that the Fair Wage Board has been meeting. I assume that they're going to make some recommendations despite what _the Minister of Labour, although last :;'ear. he wasn't the Minister of Labour, despite what he said during the last session Page 54. January 25th, 1960.

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd.} •• about the happy situation at Kelsey, the government has found it nec essary to appoint a one-man enquiry commission to look into conditions at Kelsey, one would · have thought that the government would be bringing in and announcing some labour legislation. But this is '!lot announced in the Speech, Mr. Speaker, and I want, in view of the fact that the government does announce that they will be beginning another Hydro-Electric development at Grand Rapids, I want, Mr.

Speaker, to put into the record now some of the things which have gone on in Kelsey, for which, of course, the government Department of Labour takes no res ponsibility, because it's really the Department of Public Utilities' business and the Department of Public Utilities takes no responsibility, because it's really the Hydro-Electric Board and Hydro-Electric Board sloughed off the responsibility because they only let the contract and so in the final analysis through this ring-around-the-rosie, nobody takes the responsibility and the people who are working there suffer and suffer considerably.

Now I raised with the former Minister of Labour in the last session, the question of whether or not it was possible for union organizers to exercise their right to talk to workers at the Kelsey project, because after all, despite the fact that the International Nickel seems to own most of northern Manitoba, it is still part of the Province of Manitoba, I asked the Minister whether-- MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q. C. (Selkirk}: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Honourable Member for St.

John's for interrupting his train of thought, but on a question of order, I would like to know whether we are going to be confined to the amendment to the amendment or whether we can cover the waterfront. The amendment to the amendment simply deals with a compre hensive federal-provincial health insurance plan. Now, the Honourable Member for St. John's is speaking on the main motion. I'd like to have a ruling for the guidance of the new members in this House. l'.ffi. R.

PAULJ,.EY (Leader of the CCF} (Radisson}: I respectfully suggest, in all deference to the Honourable .Member for Selkirk, that that ruling has been given by Mr. Speaker on occas ions past, that we have NOT been confined strictly to the question of the sub-amendment. I think that that has been an understanding of this House in the. past and may I respectfully sug gest to you that the point of order raised by my honourable friend is not valid. MR. HILLHOUSE: It's a very valid point of order and I ask for a ruling on it. MR. SPEAKER: I might say that in the past certain latitude has been given.

I think that the.members of the legislature are expected to keep rather close to the subject matter but no ruling has been made that, since I have been in the Chair, they should stick exactly to the subject matters. A little latitude is given but it is expected that they will keep generally in line with the amendment to the amendment. MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition} (Lakeside):. Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, might I remind you that your ruling at the last session dealt with this same question and at that time, as I recall it, you said that because the amendment was in very gen eral terms, and because the sub-amendment was also quite general terms and dealing with an amendment that was in general terms, that you were inclined to allow the latitude that was being exercised. And, Mr. Speaker, surely this year we have an absolutely complete sub-amend ment in that it deals with one subject only. I'm sure, Mr.

Speaker, that you wouldn't want the rule to be laid down here in this House that when we have a particular matter spoken of in the sub-amendment that we can roam all over the world. And I'm sure, Mr.

Speaker, the Honour able the First Minister must agree with this point because I notice that he has not been taking the accustomed place of the Leader of the House in going on with this debate, evidently because he wants to deal with the more general subjects when he speaks, but I urge with all deference, that this is something that we should have a ruling on because if we do not hav� to stick with the subject matter of this sub-amendment then we don't have to stick with the subject matter of any amendment that is proposed. And I think it is a most important point. MR. PAULLEY: ,Mr.

Speaker, in all fairness to-be made to the Leader of the Oppositi on, I think that his point is not taken well at all because we have proposed in this sub-amend ment, the same sub-amendment that we have suggested on two other occasions. Now then, I respectfully suggest to you, Sir, that there is a relationship between the sub-amendment and the amendment as proposed by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition wherein in the . amendment itself, it maintains the promises have been broken,--they're not upheld by the gov ernment.

And I respectfully suggest, Sir, for your consideration, that one of the promises January 25th, 1960. Page 55.

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd.) .. which was formerly made by the government was a fairer deal for labour and that my honourable colleague is dealing with that particular subject. And may I al so suggest to you, Sir, that in view of the fact-- MR. CAMPBELL: That's the one about the amendment. MR. PAULLEY: I wonder if my honourable friend would wait until I'm finished. May I respectfully suggest to you, Sir, that it has been admitted by my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition that we have discussed other things in the sub-amendment in the past and that this be allowed for this session.

We have before us a proposition of the government, to wh1ch we have agreed, that the Rules of the House undergo scrutiny. And I would agree, Sir, that that being the case that past precedents take place insofar as this particular debate from the Speech from the Throne. And then if my honourable friend, with all of his wisdom, desires to put into the rules specifically this question in reference to the Throne Speech which has not, I submit, has been held to in the past, then it would meet with my approval. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, I'm no Solomon come to judg ment on this particular dispute between my honourable friends opposite. Usually I can settle their little squabbles for them but I'm not quite sure that I'm capable of giving an authoritative statement on tonight's proceedings because there's a little something in the arguments of both. My friend the Leader of the CCF Party I think quite wrongly tries to link the debate on labour with the sub-amendment.

Obviously. that has no relation whatsoever with the sub-amendment though it might very well have a relation to the amendment itself, and might be permissible ·.vhen debating the amendment. However I know, Sir, that your predecessor--your immediate predecessor was in my opinion, and I say this with respect, far too lax in his enforcement of the rules in respect of relevancy.

And it is true, and we must admit it, that in days gone by an astonishing degree of latitude was allowed on sub-amendments of this nature, particularly in the Throne Speech debate, and I suppose one reason was in order to get the widest expression of opinion.

However I would suggest, Sir, that in spite of the fact that has been the custom in the past, that there is some reason to think that it has gone too far, and that this might be an appropriate time for you to consider the advisability of adhering to what is the generally accept ed rule, namely, that the speech must be relative to the subject matter under debate. And I imagine that if you were to apply that it would be rather difficult to sustain the point that my honourable friend the member for St. John's should proceed. However in the past I know it has been done. I confess! think it has gone too far.

We ought to be stopped and we ought to think seriously about conforming a little more closely to the rule in that respect, and probably now is as good a time as any to suggest that the matter should receive some consideration. However I know, Sir, that you're better grounded than I am both in the rule and in custom in this legis lature, being one of the senior members of this House, so I certainly would defer to your view ing on the point but I thought it might be well to express those particular sentences. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I rise once again on the point of order as raised by my honourable friend the Member for Selkirk. May I respectfully suggest to you, Sir, that if there was a point of order in respect of this debate it should have been made at the time that the hon ourable member for Rhineland was speaking. That not having been raised by my honourable friend from Selkirk at that time, may I suggest that there is the possibility of some discrimin ation in this case.

And may I respectfully suggest to you, Sir, once again, that what has be come the custom in this House be continued for this session in view of the fact that the rules of the legislature are going to go under scrutiny by a committee of which you, Sir, are a member. And may I also respectfully suggest this, that there may be also at that time a consideration to the strict adherence of the rule of this legislature that every speech be one which is not writ ten, and this is a point which has beeri before this House.

I suggest, Sir, that if we are going to have to abide strictly to the letter of the law in all of the rules of this House or in this rule, then we undertake to abide strictly to them in every instance. Again, Sir, I respectfully sug gest to you that past procedure be allowed to continue at least until the Throne Speech is dis posed of. 1\ffi. EDMOND PREFONTAINE (CarUlori): Mr. Speaker .. .. . . right now on as to whether or not we should stick closely tcl the !'tiles. This is a repetition of a debate that took place in this House in March, 1959, when orte cabinet minister was speaking ·at that time.

Some body got up and asked you to apply the rule in order to not allow the cabinet minister to make a Page 56. January 25th, 1960.

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd.) .. departrrental statement at that time. The Leader of the House at that time suggested that the debate should be allowed to carry on, that there should be a lot of laxity, and I'm surprised tonight that he gets up and says that maybe we should live by our rules in this House. Last March four cabinet ministers made speeches on the amendment to the amendment--departmental speeches--all their programs. The Minister of Public Works told this House at that time on the same debate how many miles of road he would build and which particular miles he would build. I remember exactly.

I read, in fact, today the whole darn de bate that took place at that time. Sure--on the same sub-amendment. And after discussion, Mr. Speaker, after the Leader of the House had urged you to allow this discussion to carry on last year, I'm surprised that this year he would want us to stick by the rules. MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker .. .. .. I have been here and there's been five speakers includ- ing yourself, and everyone I remember had a lot of latitude dealing with amendm rots to the Throne Speech, whether the rules were adhered to or not.

But I think that it is impossible and I don't think the House will benefit by it if each and every one, especially on the Throne Speech, would speak and have to make three speeches instead of one. And particularly this will affect me and liable to prevent me from speaking because I can never be in order. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, that is something that none of us would wish to happen. My honourable friend's speeches are always of great interest, whether he is in order or not. But on this occasion, Sir, perhaps it might be well to allow the honourable member to proceed with his speech.

After all, he was well launched into it and I for one would have no objection if we might consider this perhaps more closely when the Special Select Committee meets, and we might be able to come to some agreement there as to what attitude we wish to take on this partic ular point. So in spite of the interjection of my honourable friend from Carillon, who has a re markably good memory, I would offer this suggestion thatweallow the honourable gentleman to proceed and we can perhaps have a further discussion about this at the Special Select Committee. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, speaking again on the point of order, I have no objecti on in the world to us arranging if by mutual consent, and certainly I don't wish to interfere with the remarks of the honourable member for St. John's, but when the honourable the Leader of the CCF Party asks why was this point n ot raised when the honourable member for Rhineland was speaking, there's a very obvious answer, I think, to that. Because the honourable member is a new member of the House. He was speaking for the first time and the honourable member for St. ·Andrews and I had discussed the matter.

We thought we should not raise it at that time be cause of him being a new member. But my honourable friend for St. John's is not. He's well acquainted with the rules and I think that was a proper attitude to take in that regard. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. So far as the point of order is concerned, it's true what my honour able colleague says, that the Honourable the First Minister took this position a year ago, but two wrongs don't make a right. The Honoura)lle the First Minister was wrong the other time.- (Interjection)--No, I never descended that track--absolutely never.

My honourable friend was wrong and that's what brings him into the discussion again because he was wrong. He knows it and he admits it tonight. --(Interjection)--Yes, that's a point of order, and it does make a diff er ence, Mr. Speaker. It makes a great difference where you sit in these matters. And there's no point in carrying on with the wrong practice. As far as my honourable friend's suggestion about letting us leave this until the rules are decided, the rule is clear. The rule is clear al ready, Mr. Speaker.

However, I have no wish to interrupt the speech of my honourable friend any longer if the House is prepared to hear him. I was trying to help the government out in this matter because I know what it is to sit on that side of the House and hear the people on this side of the House continually break the rules. I was anxious to help them in this regard. And, Mr. Speaker, there's no question about what's the right thing to do and I'm sure that if you take a little time to consider it that you'll arrive at what is the right thing. MR.

SPEAKER: I might say that by nature I am in favour of free speech as far as it's possible to have free speech, and the tendency is that the freer you allow the debate the further out the debaters step until you get to a position where the situation is not good. And we will take this unde;r,advisement, priwill, ;:mdthe.honour:;J,ble me.Q:Jber for St. John's, Ib elieve, sho�ld be. allowed to continue his speech. January 25th, 1960. Page 57.

MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I'll begin by saying that I hope the time taken to dis cuss the point of order is not deducted from my time. Mr. Speaker, in considering what I was to say tonight, I decided to restrict myself to discussing three points. Now I don't intend to discuss the procedure or rules. I'm following the practice as I have seen it in my three sessions here, in which we have been given fairly wide latitudes. If the House want to restrict me to the subject of the sub-amendment it simply means that I would make another speech later on this week.

This way I intend to speak once only on the Throne Speech and that's all. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I· can get back to what I was trying to say when I was so summar ily interrupted. During the last session the former Minister of Labour gave assurances, and what he said can be found in the Hansard of last session, that it would not be difficult, it certainly would not be impossible for union organizers who wished to go to Kelsey to process their regular business to get in there. They might have difficulty, he said as I remember, getting in there by train, but they certainly could fly in. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I have in my possession and I can give to the present Minister of Labour, if he's interested, sworn_. affida vits by two union organizers to the effect that they have not had free access and they do not have free access at the present time to the workers at Kelsey. I made the statement; I asked questions; I made the statements during the last session that workers were working extraordi nary long hours at the Kelsey project. And the present Minister of Labour made a remark, I hope it was somewhat facetious, that they didn't mind doing it because they had no TV, they had no girls, etc., etc., etc.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I've had the chance, the opportunity to meet some of the people who went to Kelsey to work and came back. Part of my work, Mr. Speaker, is to work with trade unionists who are new Canadians, and the people I happened to meet are people who came here froi:n Portugal recently, I want to tell the Minister . of Labour some of the facts which! learned in case he doesn't know about them. Here. is the case of one man, and I have a copy of a sworn affidavit which he supplied, one man who wen.t into Kelsey on April 16th of 1959, He stayed there until October 17th, 1959 -- 185 days, Mr.

Speaker, and during that time he worked a total of 2,2641/2 hours. Well, it worked out to 12 1/2 hours a day for every day that he was there. In_ . one two-week period he worked 224 hours, an average of 17 hours a day. And when I asked him why he did it, he gave me a very simple explanation. The company told him that if he wasn't prepared to work those hours,. he could take the next train out and they would get some body else to do it. I think, Mr. Speaker, this is a very poor introduction to the Canadian way of life for a potential new citizen to this country. I raise it at this time, Mr.

Speaker, because I hope that before the next power project is begun at Grand Rapids that the departments coi:J. cerned -- the Department of Labour, the I;Jepartment of Public Utilities, and the Hydro-Electric Board can get together; can sit down in a conference; can quit saying, well, it's your baby; and can establish· regulations to protect the health and welfare of people who are encouraged to go to these places and work, because they're just as entitled to the protection of our laws and to decent working conditions and hours of work as anybody else in this province • Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to deal with the subject of our sub-amendment in which we ask this House to consider the question of a comprehensive health insurance plan. I was some what surprised to see the columnist in the Winnipeg Tribune dismiss our amendment as being "old hat". I don't thi.nk it's "old hat". It's the first proposal in this province by any political party that this province and this country begin such a project. The only thing that is "old hat" about it, Mr.

Speaker, is that four or five or six years from now the other parties will· adopt this policy just as they have adopted other policies in the past proposed by members of this group. In 1947 the Province of Saskatchewan set up Canada's first provincial hospital insurance plan.

Today every province in Canada �xcept Quebec,_ and I want to poi.Jlto1.1t to t.he . iionour:ible' Member for R.hilieiaiid who gave us a little iecture abolit avoiding socialistic- schemes, that the Province of Alberta and the Province of British Columbia, which are now administered by Social Credit Government, have adopted and are administering hospital insurance plans which, by his definition, I would take to mean that he considers .socialistic.

Now this plan in Saskatchewan was adopted despite the usual opposition of the other political parties and of organizations such as the insurance companies which had a vested interest in hospital insurance at that time. And yet since 1947, as I say, every province with the exception of Quebec has Page 58. January 25th, 1960.

(Mr . Orlikow,c ont'd.) ••• • adopted a form of hospital insurance because the people of Canada have demonstrated that they wanted such a plan. This year the Province of Saskatchewan has announced that they will institute a com prehensive health insurance plan next year. We in this group believe that the reasons for their decision to move in this field apply with equal validity to all the other provinces , and that in the next ten years other governments will have to follow the lead of Saskatchewan in this field as they followed the lead of Saskatchewan in the field of hospital insurance .

Now it has been suggested that we don't need a comprehensive health insurance plan; that the plan won't work; that it isn't financially feasible. And these are important questions which have to be asked, but we believe that they can be answered in broad general outlines today and that they can be answered affirmatively. Such a plan can be established and will work. It has already been es tablished in its broad outlines in countries such as Great Britain and in the Scandinavian coun tries.

It has been argued that we already provide medical care of high quality to the people of this province and, therefore , a government sponsored program is unnecessary. Well we do have good medical care, Mr. Speaker, of this there can be no question, but there are many people who are unwilling or unable to seek medical assistance when they need it because of the high cost involved. The Canadian Government cmducted a Canadian sickness survey in the year 1951, the results of which were published jointly by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the -Department of Health and Welfare. And if, Mr .

Speaker , members are interested, if they would turn to Volume 9 of that report they would find the following facts , and I quote: "ill health among persons in the low income group is more serious than among those with a medium or high income". Further they say, "While the low income group reported proportionately far more disabling illness than other income groups, they received much less physicians' care .

The low income group had a significantly lower proportion of persons reporting physicians' care and also a much lower average number of doctors' calls and clinic visits per person than did other income groups. " So do they say the differences in the amount of health services received by the various income groups is greatest in the case of dental care. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics recently compiled some figures which give some indication of the results of spending of money in the field of health by the various provinces .

In the table in which they report on the infant mortality rate for the various provinces, this is the death rate per 1,0 00 live births, for the year 1950 they list the Province of Saskatchewan as having an infant mortality rate of 32 per 1, 000; the Province of Manitoba an infant mortality rate of 35 per 1,0 00. By 1958 in the Province of Manitoba we have dropped only 5 per 1, 000 to 30 per 1,0 00; in the Province of Saskatchewan they have dropped from 32 to 25 . They have the lowest rate in the Dominion of Canada. I think that this can be explained if you look at their expenditures .

For the year ending March 31st, 1959 , the Province of Saskat chewan spent for health $38 ,30 0,0 00, 28% of their total expenditures. In this Province we spend $11 ,7 70, 000 , only 10 .9 % of our total expenditures . If you take it on a per capita basis, while Saskatchewan was spending $43 . 00 per person on health, we were spending $14. 00 per person. And I think the infant mortality rate demonstrates what can be done by wise spending of money in the field of health.

A comprehensive health insurance plan should provide universal coverage and should provide for the payment through taxes collected by the province for the bulk of the cost of such a plan. The plan would not only solve the difficulties of a large proportion of our people who cannot meet the cost of present vol1lntary plan such as commercial insurance, or even the Man itoba Health Service , but would also place real emphasis on measures of preventing illness which present pla.n.E! _ do not do.

We believe that a comprehensive health insurance plan has already demonstrated in the countries which have adopted it that it will work, and it will work for the benefit of the people . In Saskatchewan they have already adopted, on a regional basis , such a plan. They began in the Swift Current area in 1946 with a comprehensive plan. It covers 50, 000 people living in an area 12, 000 square miles a side. Under this plan the people are entitled to medical or surgi cal care on a regional basis . They are entitled to 75% of the

schedule of fees for medical or surgical care outside the region, that is , for specialist services which ?e not available in their own region; they are entitled to 75% for em�rgency cases; they are covered for out patient services in hospitals; they are covered for radiological service. They've hired a January 25th, 1960. Page 59.

(Mr . Orlikow, cont 'd. ) • •.• full-time radiologist in their region. Dental services for children under 12 years of age are provided. The plan is administered democratically by a representa tive board from all the interested groups including the public and the medical profession. It has been said by some people that a comprehensive medical plan will not have the co-operation of the medical profession. In fact in the Swift Current region the number of doctor s, since the institution of the plan, has gone up pretty sharply.

Now we beli�ve that if such a plan was adopted in this province we would accomplish a number of things . By the application of a free payment principle , costs would be shared by the entire population in accordance with their ability to pay. At the present time I'm sure that every member of this House will know of cases in his own constituency of people who have practically been bankrupt by heavy medical ex pense s. This is no criticism of the doctors . This is actual facts , and present plans simply don't provide for complete coverage.

We believe that universal coverage would guarantee equal coverage to rural and urban people , for persons in all occupational groups; and for those in low, medium or high income groups . We believe that a higher quality of service would be provided because such a plan would encourage group practice arrangements. It would tend to encourage disease and disability pre vention becoming a major objective of such a plan.

Unlike the voluntary plans which are not concerned with much except the payment of existing bills , we belie ve that it would promote the education of more doctors and the further training of doctors , and that such a service would en courage and help pay for this greatly increased number of highly qualified specialists who are need ed. These things we believe can be achieved. They have been achieve d in other areas and they could be achieved in this province if the Provincial Government would take on the job of es tablish ing such a plan.

Surveys which have been made by gallup polls have proven time and time again that the people of Canada and the people of this province are in favour of a compre hensive health insurance plan just as they favoured the comprehensive hospital plan. Organiza tions represent ing labour , representing farmers , have passed resolutions from year to year endorsing such a plan . Mr . Speak er, in proposing this amendment we feel certain that we are expressing the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of this province who would want to see health services provided for all, regardless of their ability to pay.

MR . SPEAKER : Are you ready for the question? MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move, se conde d by the Honour- able Member for Kildonan , that the debate be adjourned. · Mr . Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 2. The Honourable the Ministe ro f Agriculture. HON . GEORGE HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker , I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister for Mines & Natural Resources, that Bill No . 2,

an Act to Amend the Animal Husbandry Act, be now read a second time . Mr. Speaker presented the motion . MR. HUTTON : Mr . Speaker , it is felt that this piece of legisl ation is no longer of economic importance as it was in years past when the horse was such an important factor in the development of the Canadian west, and that there is no reason to keep this legislation on the statute books . I would point out that the Province of Alberta has repealed their legisla tion in this respect. I would also point out that ,

whereas in 1916 there were over 12 00 stallions exam ined in the Province of Manitoba, in the year 1959 there were 85 stallions enrolled under this legisla tion . MR. CAMPBELL : Mr . Speaker, I don't intend to carry my obje ction to . this bill to the extent of voting against it, but I would suggest to the Honourable the Minister that when it is considered in committee, that the opportunity should be given to hear from the Horse Breede rs' Assoc iation , because my own guess is that they would not agree with the government that there is no reason to keep this legislation on the statute books .

I have not had the opportunity of checking on the figures but I am indebted to the ministe r for giving them just now , and I gather ed from what he said that even now with the great decline in the horse population that he has mentione d that there are still 85 registrations under this Act. Well , surely, Mr .

Speaker, 85 is a pret�y considerable. number , I recognize that the horse busine ss is certainly different to . what it used to be back in the 1916's that he mentione d and in the early 20's , but on the other hand , even with 85 to be looked after, I think that it is going too far to repeal the part of the Page 60. January 25th , 196 0.

(Mr. Campbell, con t•d. ) •••• Animal Husbandry Act in its entirety. Surely the breeding of stan dard bred horses is of some consequence these times in this province, and I am sure the breeding of thoroughbred horses is , and the recreation ponies, riding clubs , and all the rest. It's a small industry, it's true ; nothing of the importance that it used to be , but still enough that I would think it well worth while to keep the legislation on the statute books. And then, it may surprise some honourable members of the House, Mr.

Speaker , if anyone should suggest that maybe to some extent the horse is coming back; not coming back to the -- ho, ho--not to the extent that it will ever again compete with the tractors on the farm; certainly not to the extent that it will compete with the automobiles on the h,ighways -- not in that way, but there has been a tendency for a lot of farmers in recent years to pick up horses again so that they will keep a useful team around. And surely , surely, we should give to those people the same protection that has been given throughout the years .

Now if there is _ a large staff required in the Depart ment of Agriculture in order to do this, I would be the last one to suggest that we should go to a great expense or a continuing expense , in proportion to what it used to be , in order to keep on a service that isn't used to anything like· the extent that it was before, but I am sure that all the work that needs to be done can be done by people who are readily available , and I notice that the explanatory note deals with the horses being inspected from the standpoint of unsoundness. That is not the only provision of that part of the Act as I recall it.

There is at least one other ad vantage in that Act to the horse breeders that I think is very important. So , while I do not in tend to oppose the bill going to committee, Mr. gpeaker, I do put on record my opinion that this is still a service that is of some value to the horse breeders of this province, that they have _come to expect it through the years .

It is not one that requires the addition of any staff whatever; it can be easily done by veterinarians that they have and laymen who are quite competent to do this work, and that consequently before it is passed finally--and perhaps it will be passed, if the government insists on it--but before that is done, that we should give the horse breeders an opportunityl to express their point of view at the Agricultural Committee . Now, the minister didn't say, Mr .

Speaker , whether any attempt had been made to ascertain the feelings of the Horse Breeders' Association or of them individually, and I would suggest that that should be done. · · · MR. RQBE:RTS.� Mr. Speaker, I would. only like to add to the remarks of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, first, perhaps, by suggesting that if the roads of Manitoba are left in the condition many more falls that they were left in this fall, there will be a tremendous move back to the horse . .

I would like to disagree partly with the remarks of the Honourable Minist-::1r of Agriculture, because in suggesting the reason why he is as!{:�; that this bill be repealed , he seems to saggest that the horse business is on its way out. I think it's quite true that at the present time the horse business is on its way up . We have already passed the l0w point in the numbers of horses in Manitoba, and particularly the light horse business is showing a great revival.

He didn't , the Honourable Minister didn't tell us of the 85 stallions now enrolled in this plan, he didn •t tell us how many of these were light breeds , but I suggest that probably more than half of them were , and would be standard breds , thoroughbreds , or palaminos, and this is one of the really thriving diversifications that are possible to a farmer in Manitoba right now.

It's one of the most profitable divers ifications in agriculture and I think that it's something that the Minister of Agriculture in trying to bring extra income to the far mers of Manitoba should be giving quite a great deal of consideration to.

It has long been policies of provincial governments to encourage diversification of agriculture, and it would be pretty difficult for any government at the present time to encourage diversification towards poultry, or to encourage diversification towards hogs, perhaps cattle, although even cattle are expected to go down in price this year -- or surely we can encourage the diversification towards a branch of agriculture that happens to be thriving at the present time, because all over North America there is a big demand for good horses. Now this may sound surprising, but it's true .

The price of horses has never been higher than it is at the present time , at least in my lifetime, and I don't think that we should too lightly pass over a bill, or discard a bill which was br ought in primarily and still does or has performed a service in improving the type of sire , or in making by law the type of sire a good sire that can be used on the mares in Manitoba, and so I would hope that surely in committee, as the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has suggested, the horsemen of Manitoba will be able to present their case on this. January 25th, 1960. Page 61 .

MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? HON . GEORGE HUTTON, (Minister of Agriculture and Conservation): Mr.

Speak- er, I must admit that I may not be as well acquainted with horse sense as anyone .who carries the name ofthe· Honourable Member for La Verendrye , but I would suggest to the honourable members opposite that when an industry such as the horse industry is operated to the extent. that it was be fore the coming of the internal combustion engine, that it requires legislation, it requires regula tion in order to see that the best interests of these citizens who are involved in this particular field are looked after, but when an industry - and I'm not going to argue that there may be some increase in its importance today as to what there was two or three years ago, or five years ago- but when an industry is relatively small and taking as an assurance that the people who are most interested in the breeding of good horses are very capable and able men and-well able to regulate their own industry, I think that it is no longer necess ary that the government step in on their be half.

I think these people are quite capable, able ,and I wouldn't doubt, willing to run their own show. Mr. Speaker put the question, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER : Second reading of Bill No . 4. The Honourable Minister of Health & Public Welfare. , MR. JOHNSON (Gimli) : Mr . Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minis ter of Labour , that Bill No . 4,

an Act to Amend the Pollution of Waters Prevention Act be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR . JOHNSON (Gimli) : Mr . Speaker, this is a relatively minor amendment to the Pollution of Waters Prevention Act .

At the present time under Subsection 4 which is referred to here , it says , "notwithstanding any other act of the Legislature without a subsisting license from the commission�', that is the Provincial Sanitary Control Commission, 'ho person either directly or indirectly shall discharge or drain, or permit to be discharged or drained, any sewage or waste into any body of water." Now this means that the Sanitary Commission at this time gives a license to any outlet which drains into any body of water, and the Provincial Sani tary Control Commission and the Provincial Board of Health have found certain duplication of effort existing here which they feel unnecessary, and it just says that where the person has a permit now under thePu blic Health Act , that there is really no need to go to the Provincial Sanitary Control Commission, and it's mainly designed, for instance , where a permit is given under the Greater Willnipeg Sanitary District, that is where the Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District gives a license to drain sewage into waters under their jurisdiction, then the Provincial Sanitary Control Commission is not required to issue a duplicating license, and this really comes about as the Greate r Winnipeg Sanitary District has increased its jurisdiction in this area, and mainly designed for that purpose.

MR . CAMPBELL : Mr . Speaker, it se_ems to me that it would be well -- for the two authorities that are mentioned here , Public Health officials and the Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District - wh ile I agree entirely with what the minister has said , it would still be well for them to make their case before one authority. No� as with the other bill, I have no intention of op posing the passage of this to the committee, but isn't one of our difficulties in this regard? Certainly there have been difficUlties in the past, as I'm sure there are in the present.

Isn't one of the difficulties that there are too many people dumping sewage into the streams , and wouldn't it be a good idea, even though no doubt the Health Department and the Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District are perhaps just as capable of judging as the Provincial Sanitary Control Com mission, wouldn't it still be a good idea to have one final authority and let the Department of Health and the Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District make their case with it? If it's an open and shut case , I wouldn't think it would take any length of time.

My own opinion is that anything that we do to widen even the possible abuse of dumping sewage into the streams is a mistake in these times. I wouldn't want to hold up the Department or the Greater Winnipeg Sanitary Dis trict but I think where they would be inclined to do it themselves they'd have no trouble making their case with the provincial party. However I don't intend to oppose the passage.of the bill. Mr. Speaker put the question, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No . 5,

an Act to amend the Insurance Act . The Honourable the First Minister. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, members who have been in the House in the last Page 62. January 25th, 19 60.

(Mr. Roblin, cont' d. ) .••• Parliament will of course recall that every year, I think without exception to my memory , we have bills coming forward to amend the Insurance Act . These bills are usually of highly involved and technical nature, and require some explanation in Law Amendments Committee so that members of the House may be aware of the nature and the full implication of the suggestions for changes that are made , and I must say that I hope that the House will reserve its technical questions for that committee.

I sho uld, however , say in gen eral terms that there is no one principle involved in this particular legislation, but it consists of a number of general diverse amendments to the Insurance Act as it stands now. Sections 1 to 8 of the Bill are the product of the Associa tion of Superintendents of Insurance. This Asso ciation meets annually, I believe, to make sure that we have a very high degree of uniformity among provinces, and they give any proposals a very thorough examination from a technical nature.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive are administrative amendments which are recommended by our own superintendent and which are also designed to be in substantial uniformity with insur ance laws fu. other parts of the country.

The nature of the various clauses explained in the explanatory notes -- they're all different; I don't think it would be perhaps too helpful for me to read those explanations at the present time -- members have already done it -- but I do suggest that we should allow this bill to go to the Law Amendments Committee so that we may then ask the experts in the matter any questions that we feel neces sary to look into. MR. CAMPBELL : Mr.

Speaker , in this case I find myself in entire agreement with the Honourable the First Minister , because what be says is certainly correct according to my re collection, that year after year after year we seem to have quite a few amendments to the Insurance Act, notwithstanding the fact that not long ago this Act was one of the ones that I be lieve was dealt with by the Committe e on Uniformity of Legislation, and I thought at that time that perhaps we were getting to where we wouldn't have to be amending it so frequently.

How ever, I think there is advantage in having the Assoc iation of Superintendents try to get what further uniformity they can -- I note that some of the clauses deal with nuclear hazards and no doubt that is new. I wouldn't want to ask the sponsor of the bill to go into a technical dis� cussi on anyway, and I think it must be explained to us by the experts when we get to committee , and I'm quite in favor of it passing without any further discussion as far as I am concerned. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just make one or two comments on this particu lar bill, Bill No .5.

I believe in Bill No . 6 there 's a further broadening of and changes in the Insurance Act as the result of the Association of Conformity of Legislation.

I think, Sir, this would be an opportune time to once again draw to members of the House and the public generally that due to the changes in technical warfare and science it is now necessary even to come to the situation where our insurance policies must be changed because it is noted in the bill itself that some of these amendments to the Insurance Act deals with the question of nuclear risk, and I think, Sir, that it would only be proper for me to say that it is altogether too unfortunate that in this so--called progress ive world of ours rather than harnessing nuclear energy to more beneficial aspects , that we have to continuously look into our legislation in respect to its ad verse effects.

MR. GRAY: Mr . Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the mover of this bill . Does this bill come here on the recommen dation of the Superintendent of Insurance, or of the insurance companies? It seems to me by reading the bill, and I agree that I do not understand all the technicalities in the bill , but it seems to me that it favo rs the insurance companies.

If the Provincial Government would inaugurate their own insurance organization and carry their own insurance or a public ownership, I wouldn't mind, but my opinion is that this bill gives considerable benefits to the insurance companies , so my question is whether it comes to the honourable Provincial Treasury after recommendation from our own department or from the insurance companies operating in this province . MR. ROBLIN: Mr . Speaker , in closing the debate I will reply to the remarks of my honourable friend who has just spoken.

I should be very sorry indeed if this bill were subject to the sort of criticism which he suggests might be levelled against it , namely, that it is brought in in the interests of the insurance industry and against the interests of the insured public. I am positive that that is not the purpose of this bill. I should say, if my honourable friend has read it, he will probably observe

Section 7 which reverses the recent decision of the courts which I think is a decision that might be construed as favorable to insurance companies and January 25th, 19 60. Page 63.

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.), ••• unfavorable to the insured public , and yet this bill comes along and reverses that decision and says that from here on in that decision is of no effect insofar as The Insurance Act is concerned. It is the duty of Superintendents of Insurance just as it is the duty of this administration who is responsible for them, to see that bills of this nature are drafted in the public interest.

That is what we are here to do , and that is what this bill purports to do , It may also be that the bill has the approval of the insurance industry and if it has, so much the better, but in our bringing it here and in drafting it, we are guided by the principle that to the best of our knowledge and advice, this bill is drafted to protect the public interest. Mr. Speaker put the question, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 6,

an Act to Amend the Insurance Act. The Honourable the First Minister. MR. ROBLIN: I beg to move , Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Education, that Bill No . 6,

an Act to Amend the Insurance Act (2) ,be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, this is another bill whose general tenor is the same as the first one that I just had the pleasure of moving, namely, that it is an amendment to the Insur ance Act to bring it up to date with modern conditions, but this particular bill, No. 2, is devoted entirely to the matter of life insurance , which is one of the most important and complicated sec tions of the Insurance Act as it stands at the present time.

The present Life Insurance Act was prepared also by the Conference of Commiss ioners on the Uniformity of Legislation in Canada, and has been enacted in the nine provinces of Canada since 1924 and 25 at various periods -- I think it's only the Province of Quebec now which does not have this standard piece of legislation- and this bill is an overhaul and rewriting of the present

section of the Act that deals with life insurance and contains some changes in mechanism and in machinery, cfumges designed to im prove the mechanics of observing and enforcing the legislation. It also includes some very important changes in principle, and while again I must apologize to the House for my lack of expert technical knowledge in this field and again say to them that they must rely on the witnesses before the Law Amendments Committee for any detailed consideration, I do feel it my duty to make that point quite clear. This is quite an important bill in terms of this subject matter.

It is the result of five years' study by the Assoc iation of Superintendents of Insurance in Canada, and it has also been reviewed by the Canadian Bar Association and has their recommendation as well. There is a very extensive preface to the present bill, Mr. Speaker, and that preface speaks much more succinctly and accurately than I could do , the main points that members should look for in this bill. This revision, a complete revision of the Life Insurance Act, is the most comprehensive review that has taken place since its original drafting.

The first and most important .change of principle is one that is described as "Statutory Trust," and as mem bers will see who have read the explanation, this refers to those who are ipso facto preferred beneficiaries in any trust created under life insurance . A very complete study has been made about the workings of this particular aspect of the insurance law in view of modern circum stances and this amendment is a change in the principle affecting statutory trust which is expected to bring it into line with modern conditions and to make it more useful than it has been in the past.

And also , it is believed to provide more protection, particularly for families , than the present regulations do . And then as you will see , going through these explanations , there are passages which deal with protection from creditors who may wish to take assignments of life insurance , protection for wives and children in that respect. There is some changes made in the concept of insurable interests. It is laid down much more clearly than in the past when contracts take effect. There has been much litigation over this subject in the past and this is set out more clearly.

The question about when the premiums are regarded as having been paid and thus affecting the validity of contracts; what happens if there is failure to disclose cer tain material facts, whether that invalidates a contract or not, these are all matters that have caused much concern in the past and this is an effort to clarify these situations .

Matters af fecting transfer of ownership and assignments ; limits of life insurance on children; the capacity of minors under this Act; the right to sue ; incontestability; misstatements of age· and common disaster; just repeating those paragraph headings, Sir, gives you some idea of the important matters which are included in this bill, but I do trust that we will be able to furnish satisfactory explanations on points of detail to the members when this legislation comes to the Committee. Page 64. January 25th, 1960.1

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr . Speaker, here again 1 may say that I'm quite in favour of the retention of this kind of legislation. I think it's very helpful to have as high a degree of unifor mity of legislation as is possible between the provinces. I think it's very helpful to have the superintendents of insurance discussing the acts of the various provinces and getting them i,nto as much uniformity as possible . I think it's il.lso very helpful to have the Committee on Uni formity of Legislation il.lso endorsing it.

So then certainly I think that it's _well to have the provisions of such important legislation -- important contracts as life insurance, set out in clear and definite language that is agreed to by all the provinces and even by the companies in the most of cases. I have read the generil.l explanatory notes that the sponsor of the bill men tions , Mr. Speaker, and I note the work that's been done in this regard. And I observe the sentence , il.lso throughout the draft, that an endeavour has been made to follow the rules and practices of the uniformity commissioners in drafting.

The one question I would like to ask is that, has this legislation actuil.lly been approved by the Uniformity Commission? I couldn't find that the definite statement was made that it had and it seemed to me that perhaps it would be advisable that it should be. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on this item I'd. be glad to elaborate on that point. The man who drafted the Bill for us is il.lso our representative on the Uniform Legislation Committee, the Legislative Counsel, Mr. Geril.ld Rutherford.

And those who know him as well as the First Minister does , and as I am getting to know him, will appreciate what a- - what did I say he was? _:..._ MR. PAULLEY: You have just promoted my honourable friend to First Minister. MR. ROBLIN: Well , I'm afraid I just can't reil.lly undo what the public did. I'll have to admit that he's still the Leader of the Opposition -- much as I try. Mr.

Rutherford is a very, very careful draftsman and a very close follower of the mat ters in connection with uniform legislation and I am sure that when he says that this has followed their recommendations, that that is the literil.l case . Mr. Speaker put the question, and following a voice vote . declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No . 8,

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate "Manitoba Heil.lth Service" Act. · MR; JOHNSON (Gimli) : Mr . Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable Minister of Public Utilities. that Bill No. S,

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate "Manitoba Heil.lth Service " be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker read the motion. MR. JOHN SON (Gimli) : Mr . Speaker , this amendment is mainly brought about because since the inauguration of the MHSP the term MHS , meaning Manitoba Heil.lth Service , and the MHSP, the Manitoba Hospitil.l Services Plan, has been very confusing to a segment of the pub lic and the Commissioner of Hospitil.lizationbrougbtthis to my attention repeatedly in the past six months.

We approached the MHS and asked them if it wouldn't clarify things to have their initiil.ls changed back to the former Manitoba Medicil.l Service and this bill just proposes that. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my honourable friend that the plan has been very,. very confusing. I il.lso agree with the passing of this bill to at least get one aspect of the confusion cleared up. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. · MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce that the House do now adjourn. Mr.

Speaker read the motion and following a voice vote , declared the motion carried, and the House adjourned until 2:30 the following afternoon. January 25th, 1960. Page 65.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bff23635c53438967fb5a6c351fa4a47390f25d3

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