Manitoba Hansard — 1 May 1962 (Sitting 88, 26th Legislature, 5th Session)

26-5-88

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Vol. VII No. 88 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, May 1, 1962. 5th Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

'THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9:30 o'clock, Tuesday, May lst, 1962. Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Notice of Motion Introduction of Bills Orders of the Day. Bill.No. 40 was read a third time and passed. Bill No. 98 was read a third time. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that these questions of borrowings are a very contentious issue between the parties, I think I should ask for a recorded vote on this. Mr.

Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Yeas and Nays please, Mr. Speaker. --(Interjection)--No, I want to find out where you stand. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have the Yeas and Nays please on this vote. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. · A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs.

Alexander, Bjornson, Carroil, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Hamilton, Harris, Ingebrigtson, Jea.Dnotte, Johnson (A), Johnson (G), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, Martin, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Roblin, Schreyer, Seaborn, Shewman, Stanes, Strickland, Wagner, Witney, Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Dow, Froese, Hillhouse, Molgat, Prefontaine and Shoemaker. MR. CLERK: Yeas 32; ·Nays 7. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. Third reading of Bill No. 131, the Hon ourable the First Minister. Bill No. 131 was read a third time and passed. MR.

GILDAS MOLGAT (Leader of the Opposition) (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the same procedure would apply here and we will ask for Yeas and Nays on this one. We certainly disapprove, for example, of the road program that my honourable friend is undertak ing when he is doing it all in his own constituencies and none in the constituencies of our group, and we certainly do not approve of that political technique. MR. ROBLIN: The honourable gentleman has asked for Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker and I endorse his suggestion. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. MR. D. L. CAMPBELL: ..••.•. his comments, I'm sure. MR.

ROBLIN: No, because they're inaccurate • . MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Froese, Groves, Hamilton, Harris, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (A), Johnson (G), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, Martin, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, JReid, Roblin, Schreyer, Sea born, Shewman, Stanes, Strickland, Wagner, Watt, Witney and Mrs. Forbes and Mrs.Morrison. NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Dow, Hillhouse, Molgat, Prefontaine and Shoe maker. MR. CLERK: Yeas 35: Nays 7. MR.

SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried .. Adjourned debate on the proposed reso lution of the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce and the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. There was some dispute last evening whether this motion was in order or not and I have perused it and I find that it is in order. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I regret I must challenge that ruling. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. May lst, 1962 Page 3163

MR. SPEAKER: The question before the Jiouse is that the ruling of the Chair be sus tained. Those in favour please rise. A standing vote was taken with the following result: YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Groves, Hamilton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (A), Johnson (G), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, Martin, Roblin, Seaborn, Shewman, Stanes, Strickland, Watt, Witney. Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. · NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Dow, Froese, Gray, Harris, Hillhouse,Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine, Reid, Schreyer, Shoemaker; Wagner. MR.

CLERK: Yeas 27; Nays 16. MR, SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. The motion before the House is the proposed motion in amendment thereto by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, ancf the proposed motion and the amendment of Mr. Molgat to the moti6n of the •••• Are you ready for the question? MR. EDMOND PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words on this motion which I believe to be a very important motion. I am very sorry that my genial friend the· Minister of Agriculture is not present because my words will be mostly directed to him, Sir.

I feel that the speech that he made is one of the most astonishing and incredible speeches that the Minister or anyone could have made in this House. There's a lot of talk these days with respect to a certain dance which is called the twist. Now if ever a member of this House was twisting it certainly was the genial Mi'nister of Agriculture yesterday. He tried to present a case which could not be presented by anyone. He had no argument.

He proved it by quoting from all kinds of documents starting in 1894, going to the present day to Miss Judy La Marsh; going back to DBS and the Free Press and all kinds of quotations tiiider the sun. He started by telling us that he was a farmer and that he believed in free trade. I was tempted to ask him, well why don't you belong to the party which believes in free trade in Canada, and I had no chance to have the floor, of course, and I did not want to-disturb him while he was reading from the!>e authorities here, there and everywhere, and I let him go on. But, Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister could not see the forest for the trees. He mentioned Laurier as protectionist because of a certain thing that he might have said in 1894 or 18 96.Mr. Chairman, does not the Minister know that there was an election in 1911; that it was fought on the question of free trade reciprocity? Doesn't he know that the Liberal party took a stand in favour of reciprocity, where the Conservative party was against reciprocity with our best cus tomer, the United States? This is historical. The two parties took a definite stand at that time. The Minister should know that.

That's the forest -:- the trees are possibly a quotation. I don't know if it's in context or not, but the position of the Liberal party was made clear for every one to see. Mr. Borden at that time took a definite stand -- no reciprocity with the Yankees. Canada can take care of itself. Doesn't need trade with the Yankees.

And then the Minister should very well know that the progressive movement in the western provinces was founded and established exactly to fight for free trade and that this progressive movement, after having been in Ottawa a few years, represented by TomCrerara nd a few others, they decided that the party that favoured trade the most of the two parties was the Liberal party and they joined the Liberal party because they realized that they could not themselves form a government in Canada, because that was the free trade party -- the Liberal party.

And then we know very well that in 1930 there was an election again in Canada. Mr. Bennett, the leader of the Conservatives, made the famous statement, "�o truck or trade with the Yankees. We blast our way to the markets of the world." If he was -- if anyone was a protectionist, it was R.B. Bennett. That's historical. The Minister should have known that. And then we come to John Diefenbaker -- another one who starts by blasting the Yankees. Our trade should be reduced by 15% with the United States. Was that favouring trade? It certainly wasn't.

It seems to me ridiculous to claim that the Conservative Party is a free trade party in Canada and the Liberal party the protectionist party. It's ridiculous. When we realize that since John Diefenbaker is First Minister, he has turned down the British government when they sent a High Commissioner to Ste. ·Adele, Quebec, I believe, they were offering free trade. What did the Conservative government do? No, we don't want free trade with Great Britain. No. And then what about the tariff barriers that have been increased on woollens, on cars. What Page 3164 May.lst, 1962

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd) •• ; ••• about voluntary quotas with Japan? What about this famous discussion in Ottawa when the Conservatives wanted to give the Minister of Finance full auth ority with respect to articles of a certain class and kind in order to resell them against those for protecting Canadian industry? Everybody knows that. The Minister should know that.And what stand did the Liberals take on that occasion? They certainly opposed it as free traders would because this was a device· to increase tariffs.

It seems to me ridiculous for a man who comes here and states he is a free trader to claim that the.Liberals are.the protectionists in Canada. It doesn't stand up at all in view of.all the evidence, the evidence that everyone in this House knows very well. I think he knows it too. And it was a twist to really try to present the case to· this House; Maybe he himself after wantilig to present an argument convinced himself, but he convinced nobody else. It's a case, I believe, of the wish bei.lig father to the thought. He would like to see his party a free trade.party but it is not and it can't be changed. Mr.

John Bracken tried to change the Conservative Party to.bring it along the lines of the Liberal Party-'- a free trade party. He did not succeed. He didn't go to first base. Everybody knows that; The big shots, the big fellows, -are around Toronto and St. James Street, Mont real, and they see to it that with the Conservatives the protectionist industrialists are protec- , ted. And the farmers of western Canada suffer. Oh, there have been stop-gaps, arrange ments.

But it was funny that' the Minister yesterday mentioned that more money was involved last year in trade with other countries, but he failed to mention that if we considered that in the light of constant dollars trade is lower than it was. Our dollar is riot worth a dollar at the present time. Now I .certainly will not take much time to quote newspapers, except one little paragraph from the Free Pres,s of yesterday, and I think that this authority is much better than the authorities that we heard yesterday on different matters; and in the Free Press of yesterday we have this statement.

"Canadian Trade --on which our whole prosperity depends." I agree fully. "Canadian trade has not kept pace with the rest of the world under the Conser vatives. Canada is the eighth country now in the world with respect to trade. It used to be the third country in the world." Now I certainly agree with that one hundred percent. Now the Minister yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture followilig on the :fuotsteps of the Fii-st Minister, predicted a famous victory for the Conservatives in this coming election.

Forty-eight of the western three prairie provinces -- 48 members for the Conservative party -- and that would be a godsend for western Canada. Mr. Chairman, what an illusion! What an illusion. The Conservatives are at the end of their rope at the present time; the end of the road; the end of the·rope, too. The Conservatives do not last long. In this century of ours, Conservative governments have not lasted more than five years. The people have proven that they can't put up with Conservatives for more than five years at a time. Sir Robert Borden was elected in 1911 - - in 1916 the war was on.

By the grace of Sir Wilfrid Laurier they gave him a year extension. In 1917 they went to the people as Unionists -- not as Conservatives. Oh no, they couldn't go. They were afraid, and they knew they couldn't win, so on their own steam they had five years under Borden and then Bennett came; in 1930 great promises, "blast our way into the markets of the world" and everything. Now how many years did he get? Five years -- 1930-1 935 , and the people of Canada were fed up. They could not put up with him any longer. Now Diefenbaker has had five years and that's the end of it. The pattern is going to go on.

You'll see on June 18th, and you know, Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives speak of the "six-buck boys" because there was an increase of $6. 00 in the old age pension after the forty that the Liberals had given of good money, I would like to call the Tories the "five-;-year Tories". They've had five years under Borden, five years under Bennett, five years under Dief. Mr. Speaker, I for one -- I know the situation quite a bit in Canada.

I read French papers and I meet a lot of people, and I would like to ma ke my prediction for this election and it is this: the Conservatives will lose six seats in the Maritime Provinces. If you want me to tell them by provinces I might do so. One in Newfoundland. One in Nova Scotia. Four in New Brunswick. They'll get possibly the four in Prince Edward Island -- they could travel now on this famous causeway that's going to be built.

They could travel to the firm land on Dief enbaker bridge., but that might help to elect a few other than Conservatives in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick who want something too ai:id apparently they haven't got it -- but six that the May lst, 1962 Page 3165

(Mr. Prefontaine ; ·cont'd.) ...• Conservatives will lose in the Maritime Provinces. Now com ing to Quebec, that.• sJ;he disaster area as everyone knows. The great disaster for Diefenbaker is that Duplessis hai .die d and his machine has crumpled completely -- his electoral machine down there. And it is a iact that there have been accounts wild, there have been all kind of scandals in the Province of Quebec arid that the Province of Quebec feel that they're not well represented in Otta wa, The Quebec famous trip to the citadel was not a great success ..

That's the disaster area,· and that's where the Conservatives will lose 46 of their 50 members. Everybody admits it -- any body who knows anything about Quebec. Well that's 46 and six-"-that's 52;and now we•recomingto Ontario. What'sthe situation in Ontario? The situation there is that Frost has left the team. Frost was a good Conservative �.- a good friend of John Dief and he was popular in Ontario but the situation has change dvery much. The New Party is making some headway. The Liberals are making some headway;and out ofthe64that theConservatives have they 'll wind up l osing 30.

Now add 30 to 52 and you have 82 that the Conservatives are losing before they get to June 18th. Now what· about Manitoba? When I.was talking recently to a Liberal. from the east he was telling me that the Liberals would elect 141. 11Well,n I said, "you. seem possibly optimis tic. How many do you think the Liberals will elect in Manitoba? 11 "Oh, 11 he said, "about .two." Well," I said, "You're wrong. They'll elect seven or eight and the NOP will elect three or four in Manitoba. " He was pessimistic about Manitoba, Certain ly the Conservatives will lose seven in Manitoba, if n ot much more.

Anybody knows. that who knows anything about politics. Now add seven, at least -- add seyen to 82, you have 89. Let's go to Saskatchewan. They'll lose about 10 of the 17, possibly -- maybe eight -- let's say six. That's 93 •. In.Alber t;i. the Social Creditors will elect at least four. I don't know about the others. And in B. C. , that's another trouble area. for the Conservatives, and we're up to over 100 seats that the Con servatives will lose, Mr, Speaker. They can't form the next government.

It's. a dead sure thing, and although the Minister of Agriculture the other day while speaking on the motion of the NOP on agriculture, while talking with respect to the Member from La Verendrye, he was having a good laugh. He was very happy, seeing success ahead • • • MR. SPEAKER: Order! MR. PREFONTAINE: Am I doing anythin g wrong, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: Well I think you're making an election speech on the -"'.(Interjection)- • the Honourable Minister for Agriculture. We're expected to be discussing a motion, not an election campaign. MR� PREFONTAINE: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a great surprise to me Sir.

This is a great surprise to me --knowing that the Minister of Agriculture yesterday was speaking and suggesting that 49 western prairie seats would go to the Conservative Party and the First Min ister mentioning that he was sure the Conservatives would be re-elected. You did not call them to order, Mr. Speaker, I humbly suggest. And· the day before yesterday or two or three days ago when the Minister of Agriculture was talkin g back to the Member for La Verendrye, he went on for 20 minutes -- a political. speech.

Now this is the last day and I am kind-hearted and l accept your suggestion, Sir, and I've said just about. all that I want to say, except to say that the sub-amendment is a negation of the amendment. I'm sorry, I don't want to dispute again. We have challenged your ruling, Sir, and I believe that it should not pass this House. The amendment is a proper amendment.

It shows in det.ail and in truth what we want this pro vince to stand for, to stand for a better . • • for free trade, and this is the only· thing that was saved -- Western Canada; freer trade with all countries in the world based on solid deals with countries in the world, and I say that this will come about with the election on June 18th of a party that is the free trade party in Canada, when we get rid of the protectionist party. HON.

GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Heal.th)(Gimli): . . . • champion of 183 means tests in the Province of Manitoba in his time be good enough to indicate possibly the number of seats which Man itoba will lose to the Liberals in the next election? MR. PREFONTAINE: •••. understood the means test part of your question. Will you repeat it please? HON. J. A. CHRISTIANSON (Minister of Welfare)(Portage La Prairie): I don't think he really wanted an answer to that question, but we've heard a lot of -- I'm sorry -- well I was up before ·you were the last time, Sir.

We've heard a lot of smear and vilification about the Con servative Party's program and record of trade policy, and Mr. Speaker, I think before we get Page 3166 May lst, 196 2

(Mr. Christianson, cont'd.) ••.• too much further away from the track we should just have a look at the facts and see what the facts say. In 1956, Mr. Speaker, the deficit in Canadian commodity trade was nearly one billion dollars. This --(Interjection) - constant dollars? In 1956 dollars it was nearly one billion of them, and by any size that's an awful lot of dollars. That was the result of 22 years of Liberal free trade policies -- 22 years they had, and that was the final result. The last full year they were iii office the deficit was one billion dollars. Five years later, MT.

Speaker, five years later, after Conservative mismanagement and mis:-:, rule what was the situation? The surplus on commodity trade was $179, OOO, OOO --.that's a net change of $1, 179, OOO, OOO. 00. Now the members opposite can holler about constant dollars. Well I trunk if.they ex amine the books they'll find that the change, the inflationary factors that were evident in the economy between 1958 and '61 are practically nil, and between '56 and '58 were v�ry slight indeed, so that little ai;ide just doesn't hold any water.

The other trung is, Dominion Bureau of Statistics is the source for this information. --(Interjec;ition) -- It's in the library. I implore you to go and look at the record before you start. making any wild statements about the Cons,er., vative mismanagement of trade policies because, Mr. Speaker, nothing iE? further from the truth. The facts remain that the Conservatives in five years were able to change a one billion dollar.deficit inta a $179, OOO, OOO surplus and at the end of those five years both imports and exports rose to record levels. Now they can say all they .like, Mr.

Speaker, about Liberal free trade, and they can say all they like about what the Conservatives have done but, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people will recognize the facts -- they'll recognize the record of tre mendous accomplishment in the last five years, accomplishment such as this country has never seen. I have on my desk the latest report for the week ending March 24th, of the Dominion, , . Bureau of Statistics with regard to labour.

The number of people employed has increased in March, 1962, to 5, 894, OOO -- more people working today than ever before in the history of Canada and more people earning more money than ever before in the history of Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, if those facts don't mean anything to the members opposite, I suggest that they're just blind in their partisanship. They should examine the facts just a little bit and give some credit where obviously tremendous credit is due. MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the New Democratic Party)(Radisson): Mr.

Speak er, I don't know whether the Honourable the Minister of Welfare was talking to the resolution, the amendment, or the fast-fading epistle of John D. What in the world the figures that he had to suggest to us have to do with the resolution that's before us is far beyond me. I want to attempt -- and I say, Mr. Speaker, a plague on both of your parties. I don't think that either one of them, if we'r1:1. going to talk politics, has realistically approached the problems of Can ada, and I don't think Mr. Speaker, in this.

House -- and I regret this very much -- that in this resolution that we have· before us, that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have spoiled what was originally a reasonable resolution that was proposed by the Minister of Industry and Commerce in this House. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what would have happened to this re solution had not John Diefenbaker called an election for June 18th.

I suggest that had he not, that we would have been dealing with the proposition of the governnient of Manitoba in an en de·avour to achieve greater boundaries and bounds for our trade for the Province of Manitoba, as the original resolution suggests. Now at the time of the introduction of this resolution, I at least, as one in this House, was smcerely desirous of making a contribution to this debate in what I thought was the best interests of the Province of Manitoba.

I first of all find that through the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party that a political question had entered into the resolution, and with the sub amendment of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture yesterday, the whole purpose, in my op inion, of the original resolution has been defeated. It had been my original intention, Mr. Speaker, to propose what I think would have been a reasonable amendment to the original resol ution, having in mind what I thought might have been something that would have aided the Pro vince of Manitoba in its deliberations and its explorations for better trade.

And if we're talk ing politics, I suggest particularly to the Conservative Party in this House to consider the orig inal resolution as proposed by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and the amendment to the amendment that we have before us today to consider. And I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, they are so divergent that it's almost humourous, because in the original motion as proposed by the - May lst, 1962 Page 3167

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd.) • . government through its Minister of Industry and Commerce, theywer ec riticizing, in effect, the attitude at that time of the Conservative administration in Ottawa. In the introduction of the resolution my honourable friend made bold of that and.said, "We don't agree with the policy of the Conservative Government at Ottawa in respect of their approach to the ECM. And therefore, we're prepared on behalf of the Province of Manitoba to say that firmly, that we 're interested only in Manitoba. " What a difference it made, J14r •. .

Speaker, to the destiny of the Province of Manitoba, the mere calling of an election by the Prime Minister of Canada. And I say, while I can play politics just as good as the next one, I hope, and just as ready, I say that it is regrettable so far as the Province of Manitoba is concerned that this resolution that started out auguring well for the Province of Manitoba has been just turned around by both Liberal and Conservative into a political fight.

I wrote my remarks; and I am going to present them to the House because of the fact that I cannot now pre sent an amendment to the motion, because it's obvious that the amendment as proposed by the Honourable the Miriister of Agriculture.will be accept.ed by the Ho\l!ie, which will mean an en dotsation of'the policies of Ottawa which I reject and which the Government of Manitoba orig inally rejected on the introduction of this resolution. --(Interjection)-- No, I can't. Well yes, however I have to --' other appointments, and I want to. put my statements in respect of ECM on the record, Mr.

Speaker, and Pm going to choose to do it at this particular time and give my thoughts and expressions of what I think should have happened to the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce for his consideration in an:y case. And as I say, Mr. Speaker, these remarks were made, or at least compiled, long before the turn of the events in respect of this resolution at the end of March. May I first of all say we welcome the opportunity to discuss at the provincial level the problems which we may face if ]3ritain enters the European Common Market.

The Minister of Industry and Commerce in presenting this resolution has brought to our attention some of the difficulties that Manitoba may have to solve. I must say his approachis somewhat refreshing after the approach of his fellow Conservatives at Ottawa to Britain's entry into the ECM. HON. G. EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce)(Fort Rouge): You say you were going to talk about Manitoba. MR. PAULLEY: Yes, yes, I was talking of your approach to the situation, Mr. Minister. This was your approach, and I say that your approach was refreshing. MR. EVANS: Thank you. 'MR. PAULLEY: After_:..

I must say his approach -- and I'll repeat this for my hon ourable friend's benefit -- I must say his approach is somewhat refreshing after the approach of his fellow Conservatives at Ottawa to Britains' entry into the ECM. And that was my inter pretation of my honourable friend's remarks on the introduction of his resolution, and I think that if my honourable friend would read his statement which I have, he would find that my state ment now is the proper one. There is no doubt but that Canada and indeed, a:n the Common wealth, will have to make major changes in trade patterns when Britain joins the ECM.

I say "when" rather than !'if", Because it is almost certain that Britain will join the Inner Six. I do not think that we here er the other nations of our Commonwealth can and should dictate as to what Britain's policy should be. Over the years, the Mother Country has endeavoured to pro t.ect her family and I wonder sometimes whether her children have fully appreciated this. Bri tain was invited to join the signers of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. She did not join because of her concern for the Commonwealth.

Even now, she is attempting to obtain protection for the Commonwealth countries as she considers joining the European Common Market. We, here in Canada, should not complain too bitterly, I think, because rather than.support Britain we have directed our trade to the south of us. The fact is that Britain buys far more from us than we buy from her. In 1960, we sold Britain about $325 million more than we bought from her. On the other hand, about 70% of our total imports in 1960 came from the United States. We pur chased about $700 million more from the States than we sold them.

The unfortunate fact, the unfortunate fact, is that much of our import trade from the United States is comprised of buy ing back manufactured products made from raw materials exported by us. This indicates to me that greater activity is required in the expansion of our secondary industries here. If as a result of Britain's entry into the Common Market we lose our favourable trade balance tariff, this becomes increasingly important if we are to put Canadians back to work. Were we in a Page 3168 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd.) • • position to produce more manufactured goods than we might be enabled to supply other Commonwealth countries with the goods they require for their development. · It is interesting to read the reports of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conferences and note the fears of nearly all of these countries if Britain joins the ECM. We were critical of the action of our federal government at Accra when :Britain's.plans were first made known. We can be critical; but let's not forget that all the Commonwealth nations expressed similar views -- Austrailia and New Zealand even more so than Canada.

It could be that Britain as a result of these expressions of fear will exert more energy in dealing with the �er Six to ob tain more favourable terms of entry into the. Common Market for the protection of at least our agricultural trade. It seems to me Mr. Speaker, that Canada has four alternatives in dealing with the problem. We could presume that there would be no great change for us if Britain joined the Common Market. I suggest this would be like burying our heads in the sand.

We could attempt to seek closer trading arrangements with the· United States, but when we depend on them at present for 70% of our trade, I doubt whether we could expand much unless we in creased our manufacturirig output and they were prepared to accept it. Third, we could attempt to replace Britain as the supplier of much of the industrial machinery and heavy equipment bought by the other Commonwealth countries. This I think is an interesting possibility, but again this would of course depend on greatly increased industrial growth in Canada.

And fourth, we could seek closer ties ourselves with the Common Market countries. This would seem to me to be the best alternative at the present time. It is interesting to note that the volume of trade has increased between these countries since 1955. Our exports in.1955 to the Common Market countries was $262 Million. In 1960 this had al most doubled, at lea st ithad reached$436 millions of dollars. Our imports from the Common Market countries in 1955 was $149 Million; and in 1960, $29::! Million. However, much more could be done, and that is of course the purpose Of the resolution before us.

And I must qualify that state ment now, Mr. Chairman, that was the purpose of the resolution before us, and lam sorry that that is not the purpose of the resolution as the suggested amendments are before us at the present time. But, I would like to make a few suggestions, because we're still suggesting even in the amended resolutions a trade mission to the ECM, and I would like to make a few suggestions at to the composition and function of the proposed trade mission. First of all I think that it should be small in number, about 12.

Mention has been made of a mission of about 75; I think this would take on the aspects of a "Cooks Tour" and achieve but little. I would suggest that · the mission be financed by the government and supplied with sufficient funds to enable it to spend about two months abroad to thoroughly study the situation and also to prepare compre hensive reports dealing with the various aspects of the mission. Three, the purpose of the mission should be to establish guide lines of action to be recommended to Ottawa.

Four, the mission should be comprised of two or three fully qualified experts in the field of agriculture, the extractive industries, the manufacturing industry and labour. These experts should have a grounding in the fundamentals of international trade as it affects these sections of our com munity which I have mentioned. And fifth, the mission should work in close contact with the Committee on Manitoba's Economic Future and a representative of this committee might well be included in the personnel.

I offer these suggestions and comments in the hope that they may be helpful in advancing the future of Canada and of Manitoba. I suggest that if this proposal of a trade mission is adopted it can only do the job if it is well equipped for the purpose with qualified personnel and is properly financed. Now as I said, Mr. Speaker, those remarks were compiled before the political impli cations got into the resolution of my honourable friend. I give them to him now as a, what I think, may be a constructive suggestion as to the trade mission itself and the purposes behind it.

We certainly cannot support the amendments of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture; we did not intend, because of the political implications to support the amendment of the Liberal party. We regret, as far as we are concerned, the change that has overcome this resolution because we did feel in its original presentation and the reasons for its presentation, that some good for Manitoba would result as the result of a trade mission. And now Mr.

Speaker, it is with great regret that the whole· resolution has been macelated, and the whole purpose has been defeated because ·John Diefenbaker called an election for June 18th. Because I'm positive in May lst, 1962 Page 3169

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd.). • inmy mind, Mr. Speaker, thatif thathadn't beendone tbe original resolution would have been one which I, and I'm sure all of my group, could have sup ported in the best interests of Manitoba. So when I say, Mr. Speaker, a plague on both the Liberals and the Conservatives because this is just another instance where, because of their political feelings and their political immaturity they have defeated a proposition which could have augered well for the advance of the Province of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, I think I might just say a word or two at this stage because I don't propose to make any remarks either now or even on the main motion. I think it can be generally said that both the Opposition parties support the idea of the trade mission overseas. That was the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke. In fact he gave it an endorsation and quickly left that field. He imported into this dis cussion a political wrangle which will have no effect upon the mission taking place because it's my

interpretation that this has the general support of the House, and depending on the outcome of the vote on the resolution itself, the mission is. still endorsed. I am in business on behalf.of the Province of Manitoba.

It is my job to see that as much is done as possible in the primary industries and the extractive industries and the .secondary. industries to increase the economic output, which in my book means to increase the number of jobs in Manitoba; the number of opportunities there are for Manitobans to earn a good and sat isfactory living; and that is the policy that I am pursuing in my department, and with the endor sation of the idea of the trade mission, which has been voiced in the Chamber and which will depend on the outcome of the vote, of course, but which will still be endorsed, I hope, by this House when it comes to vote.

I have listened with a good deal of interest --there is little, there is nothing else apart from the endorsation of the general idea by the Leader of the Opposition that I can really pay attention to within the limits that I am setting for myself --but I have listened with interest to the constructive suggestions that have been put forward by the Leader of the NDP Party, and I would point out that once again the NDP have been paying attention to the business of Manitoba while the.

Liberal Party have been, if-not obstructing the-business of getting ahead with Manit oba, have at least been trying to throw up smoke screens and to distract attention and to fight political battles which, while they have some place in this Chamber, should not be allowed to obtrude 'themselves upon constructive suggestions put forward, in a very serious vein, I might point out, to this House for their consideration.

I think there is a difference of attitude between the two opposition parties as different as day and night in the way in which they have approached the serious problems of Manitoba, particularly during this session - one showing a consider able sense of responsibility, and the other not. The New Democratic Party showing the respon sibility and the Liberal Party not showing it. Now with respect to the practical suggestions, I would like to discuss just for a moment the idea that the mission should be as small as 12 persons.

I think in the mission there will be the element that my honourable friend calls for, namely, the experts, the people· with particul ar technical responsibilities, to learn about the matters that must be studied: foreign trade, customs duties, matters of that kind; the customs of the advertising field in Europe, where goods must be advertised; how the corresponding organizations to what we know here as adver tising agencies, the wholesale and retail channels. These things must be studied and there will be this element in the trade mission.

We hope, however, to go farther; to arrange at the same time for other people to accompany us, to hold practical business conferences with their coun terparts overseas with the object of negotiating actual business deals, or 'coming in contact with their counterparts with the eventual result of contracts and business being the result. He mentions a period of two months. Our present plan is something of the order for six weeks, so we're not too far apart on that. It will be long enough we hope to make a serious study in each of the countries affected.

He says that the object should be for guide lines for action at Ottawa, and here is where I would take issue. I believe certainly that any export trade from Manitoba and from Canada must be very considerably influenced by the foreign trade policies of the country, and this is perfectly obvious. But I think there is a very great deal that Manitoba and Manitoba business men can do by themselves within the framework of whatever the commerce laws are at the time. Page -3170 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Evans, cont'd.) • • There have been a number, and a pretty fair number of most encouraging attempts on the part of Manitoba businessmen to get busine'ss overseas. Some items are quite surprising. A Winnipeg firm has obtained considerable business in automobile frost shields, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout Sweden and a number of other European countries. It would not have been my expectations that a company in Winni peg could work up a business of that kind in those climates, but it has happened.

Others have sold footwear in the United Kingdom, particularly the moccasin type -- a new interesting Canadian-style item which has found acceptance in the European market. There are many other items. We're having encouraging results in some agricultural products beyond grains and the usual items that. we consider for export in the agricultural field.

So we will continue to urge upon the officials at ottawa trade policies which are favourable to exports from Manit oba; but in addition to that we will try to sell our own wares direct in Europe 'and the United Kingdom and the other parts of the -- any other part of the world for that matter. One of our main efforts will be concentrated on the United States in the nearby part of the United States; but we' re also developing connections in South America, particul·ar ly in. MeXico, · and those countries will in due course be subject to the kind of development that we hope to make in Europe as well.

When the trade mission returns it will, of course, come direct in touch with the Com mittee on the Economic Future; because the future of so many of the segments of the economy that are being studied by the Committee will depend in some part; in some cases a greater part, in some cases a lesser part, upon the export markets that can be developed, and it will be an object of policy for this trade mission to return and give to the Committee on the Econ omic Future all of the information that they have been able to develop; and, of course, they will have access also to the report when it is written.

So I simply ask the House to endorse this resolution, having in mind particularly the operative parts. I say that it has been my

interpretation that the trade mission has been en dorsed and it would strengthen the hand of Manitoba to know that the House had supported a resolution that called for a trade mission to take Manitoba's own business in hand and develop as much export market as possible for it. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, may I just put a proposition to my honourable friend? If he assU'res me of the defeat of the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, then · I'll support his original resolution. MR.

SPEAKER: The question before the House is the amendment to the amendment · to the original motion proposed by the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. PAULLEY: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture to the motion proposed by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce.

The amendment to the amendment reads as follows •..• A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan,· Evans, Groves, Hamilton, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissa.man, Lyon, McKellar, Martin, Roblin, Seaborn, Shewman, Stanes, Strickland, Watt, Witney, Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. NAYS: Messrs .. Campbell, Desjardins, Dow, Froese, Gray; Guttormson, Harris, Hillhouse, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine, Reid, Roberts; Schreyer, Shoe maker, Tanchak and Wagner. MR.

CLERK: Yeas: 28; Nays: 19. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. The question before the House is the amendment of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition as amended by the motion of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion-carried. MR. MOLGAT: Yeas and Nays on the same division, Mr. Speaker? MR. ROBLIN: Agreed. MR. PAULLEY: Agreed. May lst, 1962 Page 3171

MR. J. M. FROESE (Rhineland): Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is the motion of the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce as amended by the amendment to the amendment. . Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. MOLGAT: Same division, Mr. Speaker. MR. ROBLIN: Agreed • . MR. PAULLEY: Agreed. � • . FROESE : Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned.debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable the Minis ter of Health and the proposed amendment thereto by the·Honourable the Leader of the Opposi tion. The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR.

DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, the subject of this resolution is'one which is of vital inte,rest to the people of Canada as a wh>le • .I don't know the purpose of bring ing this resolution before the House. There certainly is not too much value in·trying to discuss it on the last day .of this session. However, Mr.

Speaker, l rise because we in this group find it impossible to vote for the resolution as proposed by the Minister or by the -- or to vote for the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Official Opposition -- because it is obvious to us that this resolution, even as amended, is attempting to do the impossible. Let's just look at the resolution. The resolution in the

whereas ,section says that the government believes that a medical care plan shall. be universally available. Well, Mr. Speak er, .I suggest to you that universally available is not at all the same as universal. And in the third.sec¥on of the wherea::i it says that not only shall it be only universally available but it shall be voluntary, and we know from experience, Mr.

Speaker, that the best voluntary plans -- and such plans as the Manitoba Medical .Services are good plans insofar. as they go -- but the best voluntary plan only �eets the needs of a majority of the people, but certainly do not meet the needs of all the people. And in the resolve part, this resolution talks about the plan being universally available on a voluntary basis, Mr •.

Speaker, it is the contention of the members .of this group -- as it is the .contention of the largest group in the community: organizations such as the Canadian Labour Congress; organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, have expressed themselves and expressed themselves very explicitly on this question of the voluntary type of plan. The vol untary type of plan, Mr.

Chairman, has been endorsed by the self-interest groups; by the med ical profession which has a stake in wanting to run the plan, or any plan as they see fit, not as the public wants it; and by the private insurance companies which are in the business of making money for their shareholders rather than in the business of providing service as cheaply and as· effectively as possible. So Mr. Speaker, we in this group have no alternative but tfr vote against this resolution and against the amendment.

We intend as f300n as thi.s amendment has been voted upon to move an amendment which will meet the requirements of the people of this province. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, just one short thing about the amendment moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition, .in which he calls for retaining the free choice of patient and doctor. Mr. Speaker that

section of the amendment is completely unnecessary. There has been no suggestion to my knowledge by any group, by any party, in the last 20 years in this country which would affect in any way the status of the patient and the doctor in as far as it has to do with the service provided for the patient by the dfrctor.

There isn't a member of this House, there isn't a person in Canada anywhere who can suggest that the members of this group, that the members of the Canadian Labour Congress, that the members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have sugges� d that there should be any change in the professional re Iationship between the profession and the patient. There certainly .have been suggestions that there be a change in the financial arrangement, but .this has nothing to do with the medical relationship between the doctor and the patient. Now, Mr.

Speaker, because I think it's important, I want to read into the record -- I think members will know that I have .spoken on this subject before and that our position is very clear -- but because it's so well put, I want to read into the record, because}here isn't any thing I could say which could express better what is wrong with the voluntary approach -- I want to read into the record the

section of the brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Page 3172 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Orlikow, con t'd .) • • Agriculture to tbe Royal Commission on Health Services , and if the Minister of Health hasn't seen it I suggest to him that he get a copy. I want to read into the record,' Mr . Speaker, the

section iii. which they deal with this question of voluntary versus universal coverage . Before I do it I want to point out that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, in this province , represent not only the Manitoba Federation of Agriculture and Co-operation, but represents every wheat pool local in this province -- pf which there are 225 ; every United Grain Grower's local in this province -- of which .there are some 55 or 60; represents organizations like the Dairy and Poultry Co-<>perative, so that when I read this Mr .

Speaker, members will realize that this represents the thinking of a very sub stantial part of the rural community of this province . And here is what they say, and mem bers will find this

section in the brief beginning on page 9: "The Canadian Federation of Agri culture is of course aware that there is basic opposition in the medical profession to universal he3l.th insurance under government plan. The preliminary submission to you of the Canadian i , Medical Association is not clear on this point but subsequent submissions by provincial asso ciations have been.

We gather that much of the medical profession views with favour, instead of universal coverage under state auspices , the progressive development of voluntary insur ance plans enlarged, co-ordinated and supplemented by government payment of premiums un der these or special plans for indigents and others judged unable to pay as determined by means test. In their view it seems universal coverage might be substantially achieved .in this way.

It seems to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture the essential difference in these two concepts which forms the source of the controversy; this is apart from the vital question of whether the voluntary approach would in fact achieve adequate coverage and other issues of a kind, is this: the voluntary plan approach however elaborated or supplemented leaves very much in the hands of the medical profession the questions of administration of most of the plan, of rates of remuneration, of control or misuse , of organization of medical services, of co-<>rdination with public health services and so on.

The governmental approach, even on the fee for service basis , does open up an avenue of review by government and/or by a commis sion of some of these things and a continuing interest and responsibility of government in others, all in the interests of the effectiveness and reasonable economy of the services given and on ·behalf of the consumer.

On this controversial question we may confidently say on be half of our members that they do not see what is wrong with the injection into this great and vital area of service , that is medical care , an element of public responsibility not only in suring for universal coverage , but for how the job is done and how much is paid to have it done. In both the voluntary plan and the government plan approaches heavy institutionaliza- tion and systemization of health services is involved in the development of what will virtually be a great public utility.

The differences are �hat in one case the voluntary scheme approach, there is no assurance that the job will be done fully and adequately and equitably from the point of view of coverage and incidence of time. , In addition, the medical profession is essentially left with exclusive jurisdiction and control. In the other case , full and adequate coverage of the need can be assumed and the public is given a reasonably authoritative role in saying what it shall pay to do the job and in some limited but important respect perhaps how it shall be done.

" The view that the involvement of the state to this degree is destructive of the freedom of the medical profession and an ultimate threat to its professional integrity seems to us to be really a cynical one. It assumes a degree of irresponsibility on the part of the public and a • • • • of motivation on the part of the medical profession that does not seem to be to our people to be acceptable. In any case it is the view that The Canadian Federation of Agriculture does not share .

We would not for a moment deny or under-rate the great importance of main taining in the medical profession very high standards of integrity, professional competence and ideals of public service. Nor would we deny the need to pay our doctors very adequately. We would not deny that the practice of medicine must be left to medical people. We do not see how or why universal medical insurance, governmentally established and administered should destroy these things; rather it should provide the economic basis upon which to build new and improved standards of service and responsibility." Mr.

Speaker, there is the' statement of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture repre senting the majority of the rural people of the Dominion of Canada. It is a statement which · May lst, 1962 Page 3173

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd .) . • . has been said in virtually the same words on many occa- sions by the Canadian Labour Congress representing a million and a quarter working people of this country. So, obviously, Mr .

Speaker, it represents the views of the majority of the peopie of this country, who have in fact rejected the voluntary plans which are now proposed by the government and accepted by the member.s of the ,Official Opposition as practical -- they have in fact. rejected the voluntary plans as being unworkable and not being as effective as .the universal.plan operated by the federal government in co-operation with the provinces. Mr. Speaker, we are not opposed to the medical profession; the co-operation of the. medical profession is a must in the operation of the health services of this country. But, Mr .

Speaker·, .the desires of the medical profession, their desire to be completely free of any kind of control is something which cannot and will not be tolerated ·by the people of Canada. I want to say this Mr. Spea,ker; before I sit down th.at the medical profession of Canada will live "in. a not too distant future to rue the completely irresponsible and the completely intemperate attack whichthey·.are making on every proposal, or coming from any source, for a medical plan which they do not control. And I want to predict, Mr .

Speaker, that. in 10 years the medical profession of Canada will look back on the antics of the Saskatchewan Medical Association and regret the day that they did not accept the reasonable. offers which are being made. in the Pro vince of Saskatchewan; because within 10 years , Mr . Speaker, we will have in this country a medical plan which will control the profession much more tightly thf!Il anything which has been suggested by the Saskatchewan Government.

And we will have it because the doctors of this country are not prepared to be reasonable, are not prepared to co-.operate in working out a plan which .will protect the public and protect them, and they will have a plan which they will regret much more .than the. plan which has. now been proposed by the Saskatchewan Governmfilnt. But, Mr.

Speaker, in the opinion of the members of this group and .the .opinion of the members of the.vast bulk of the public , as expressed in a.section.of the brief of the .Canadian Federation of Agriculture which I just read, the voluntary plan which is being proposed by this government cannot work.. and will not work as effectively as a universal plan operated through the co-operation of the federal and provincial government. That being the case 1 Mr. Speaker, the members of this group will vote against the amendment and the resolution as proposed. Mr •.

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. ORLIKOW: The yeas and nays , Mr. Chairman. · MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.· The question before the House is the Amendment proposed to the motion proposed by the Honourable the Minister of. Health. The amendment reads as follows • • • • ·A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins , .Guttormson, Hillhouse, Prefontaine, Roberts , Shoemaker and Tanchak • . NAYS:. Messrs.

Alexander, Bjornson, Carroll, Christi anson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Gray, Groves, Hamilton, Harris, Hutton, lngebrigtson, Jeannotte, .Johnson (Assiniboia) , Johnson (Gi;mli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, Martin, Orlikow; Peters, Reid, Roblin, Scarth, ·S chreyer, Seaborn, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Wagner , Watt, Witney, Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. MR. CLERK: Yeas 8; Nays 37. MEL SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. The mo.tion. before the House is the proposed resolution by the Honourable Minister of Health, Are you ready for the question? MR.

ORLIKOW: I move, seconded.by the Honourable Member for Fisher that the de bate be adjourned. · MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear your seconder. MR •. ORLIKOW: The Member for Fisher. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ·. MR.· SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition informed me that he. would be absent for awhile on account of a television engagement so he would request that this matter stand again until this afternoon, and we would be agreeable to that. But I think Page 3174 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Roblin , cont'd .) . if any other member of the House wishes to speak on this motion that perhaps they could do so now and we could look forward, perhaps hopefully, that the Honourable Leader's speech this afternoon would be the last one cin this motion. So if anyone else cared to speak now, I would suggest they do so ; otherwise we 'U let it stand. MR . SPEAKER: Anyone wish to speak on the motion? Order stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Attorney-General . The Honourable Member for Brokenhead. · · · MR. E. R .• SCHREYER (Brokenbead): Mr .

Speaker, .the wording of the resolution which was moved in this House by the Attorney-General -- the wording is such that mu�h of it commends itself to our support. On the other hand there is no clear indication by this govern ment whether or not they are in fact recommending to the House , Sche.�ule "A," in its �ntirety. or whether they are simply asking us to follow the procedure of forwarding

Schedule "A" or the draft act to the Standing Committee on Statutory Orders and Regulations, and that is not very clear . It's not my intention to speak at length at this time because the Attorney-.General bas made a very clear lucid statement on the Act itself , and then right after that the Member for Lakeside gave a very informative address on that point. At the risk of repetition however, I feel that I must express so far as our group is con cerned, certain strong reservatiqzis which we have regarding the draft act itself.

One of the fi:rst objections has to d0 with the fact at the last conference dealing with the amending proce dure was held in camera. This seems to have been unnecessary in vie_.; of the fact that in the past this has not been the practi.ce . In 1950, in 1935 , and there was one in between that es capes my mind at the moment. Besides , this is the kind of thing that needs the. broadest and most open public discussion. Admittedly -- that's why we're forwarding it to a Standing Com mittee where we can hear public make representations .

Well then why was it the meeting at the Dominion-Provincial level was held in camera ? I believe it is a fa.ct that the Cm adian Association of Law Teachers objected to that practice of last year. _Besides that point, which is a digression, I would state categorically that we in this group oppose, we oppose an amending procedure which is the ultimate in rigldity , and as orie looks at the act which is put before us ,

Schedule "A", I think that here we hav� an amending procedure that is almos.t the ultim ate in rig:\dity. Part one of the Act deals with the procedure for actual amendment; and in part one there are two sections that are of primary importance .

Section two of part one is the entrenchment claus e and

Section 2(

a) is the paragraph that en trenches all of the

Section 92 of the BNA Act. In other words the legisla tive power of the Province it is proposed can be altered only with the express consent of all ten provinces. This is the ultimate, as I say, in inflexibility .

Section 5 on the oth_er hand,

Section 5 of part one is, as the Member for Lakeside said, a very sensible provision. It is a well drafted and sensible provision which. would provide a flexible procedure for amendment. The only unfortunate thing in that regard is that there will be precious little that

Section 5 can apply to; so what point in having a sensible provision in the amending procedure if it will not be applicable to very much, and it is because of

Section 2 of

Part 1, going to be practically rele gated to inconsequential mat ters contained in the BNA Act . Under the provisions of

Section 5 the !llllendment could be called out transferring powers from one level of government to the other. -- upon the concurrence_, of course, of two-thirds of .the provinces, seven out of ten, containing at least 50% of the popula tion, based on the bicentennial census .• I ask the Attorney-,General just what could

Section 5 of

Part 1 apply to; what powers or matters of consequence could be effected by the procedure of

Section 5? Now, of course, let us hope that Canada is the kind of nation that is going to undergo great change in the future - both short-run and long-run -- and because of the hope that we will .undergo change in this country, it is therefore very necessary that we have the kind of constitution which will allow us to change the matter of Dominion-Provincial powers as the country's economic needs under go change.

And let us avoid any type of procedure which will provide one province the right of veto -- the right of a veto over every future amendment that might affect the legisla tive authority of nine other provinces. Even if the other nine provinces want a particular amend ment they may very well be hamstrung and frustrated in their desire for change. Now, of course, there are some , and I propose now very quickly to get to the -- what I consider to be the heart of the matter -- and then leave it at that. There are some who will say May lst, 1962 Page 3175

(Mr. Schreyer, cont.'d.) • • that we must have adequate safeguards to protect long- standing privileges and. certain rights of minorities -- and no one in our group would want to dispute that for one moment. As a matter of fact we would say emphatically that this is neces sary, this kind of safeguard 'protection. But let's be academically accurate. Let us aclmow ledge that there is a fundamental difference between fundamental rights, minority rights, things like freedom of speech, religion, use of a language, religious heritage --- fundamental minority rights.

Let us acknowledge that there is a difference between that and the kind of rights which might be referred to as provincial rights. The rights of a province are not t�t fundamental and basic at all and so why should they have to be entrenched,. but yet that is what is proposed in the procedure. in

Section 2 of

Part 1: We say tha.t minority rights should be entrenched and that the famous Diefenbaker Bill of Rights; which really doesn't have much effect in its present status, be given entrenched. status in ·any constitution we may subsequently arrive at, and be protected from any free and easy a:meriding procedure . Until the Bill of Rights that Diefenbaker pi-oposed, · and is now in law, until it is entrenched, it in fact will not be a bill of rights in the truest sense of the word. Just one or two other points , Mr. Speaker.

As emphaticaily as we say that minority rights should be entrenched, we say just as emphatically that provincial powers should not be so entrenched as to require un3.n:imity in order to a.Iriend them; in order to change in a chang ing world. Now this isn't hard fo realize . I realize, of course, what the main problem is. It is the problem of a dual culture nation, or cortntry -- Canada; the people and the government of the Province of Quebec are somewhat uneasy that any diminution of provincial powers mtght, they think will necessarily lead to infringements upon minority rights.

I don't think- this is a correct assumption on their part, but I suppose three hundred years of anxiety about the pre servation of their culture has had this result in that province . But I still think that rather than be hasty and accept a procedure that is too rigid, rather than that, we should wait; let us wait. In Quebec the feeling and temperment of the people is changing.

They are still as anxious as ever as I can understand it fo preserve t,heir cultural heritage, but' they seem to be changing insofar as their attitude to Dominion-Provincial relations of an economic nature are concerned and so let us wait and hope. Now, of course , in

Part 2 there is what some might consider to be very important pro vision there which allows for flexibility, because in

Part 2 of the draft act there is provision there for the delegation of power, as opposed to transfer of power. Well delegation is all well and good, but it's only a second-best sort of alternative. There are se veral things here in Canada that simply cry out for action by the federal authorities; the matter of ratification of labour conventions ; the matter of having more adequate provision to deal with security • • • . , the matter of a national labour code and standard.

All of these things could, I suppose, be dealt with by making us e of the delegation provision; if we did have the constitution amendment in law' but it's not' it is not. as reliable a means of dealing with the economic needs of this country -- and the constitutional needs I sui)pose. You know what could happen, Mr.

Speaker, under the delegation proviso of the draft act it's conceivable that much needed action could be taken by the federal government in con junction With three or four, four or five provinces rather; but it's also equally conceivable that we can have situations arising where provinces that should be entering beca use of direct connection with the particular problem might elect to stay out; we can even have provinces with-drawing after a particular program is initiated, and all this seems to bear strong possi- bilities of inertia and inaction. · .

I just wanted to close by saying this: Why should we accept rigidity for the sake of re patriating our constitution? If it has to be so rigid, leave it where it is, leave it where it is . Let us wait for time to work its effect on people. Let us try again sometime hence . Why should we accept rigidity? Why should we accept unanimity, the unanimity principle? Do you know that there is no other federal state in the world that has this unanimity principle, for anything, even fundamental human rights .

We say all right for human rights , basic rights, yes; but not for provincial rights which are of an economic nature , like property and civil rights - - 1013 of

Section 92 of the BNA Act. The procedure in the United States for amending the constitution is based on a two-thirds vote of congress, three-quarte rs of the state ratify ing and the constitution is then amendable. We ll, do you consider this to be flexible? Two Page 3176 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Schreyer, cont' d. ) • • hundred years and more of American experience has shown that even this two-thirds principle, two-thirds and three-quarters principle is pretty rigid. Now if we're going to introduce unanimity we're really; going to have a strait jacket constitution if we extend this unanimity beyond the matters of basic minority rights . I can just see what would· happen. We would throw upon the courts the entire onus of

interpretation that the judges of the Supreme court would have to interpret. in order to make the constitution make sense in keeping with the spirit of the times . And I don't think that this is desirable. I think that that is the' function of government' representatives duly elected by the. people, and they should be able to deal with constitutional amendment if it's flexible enough. So I would .suggest -- 1 want to get from the Attorney-Generai some advice , it's rather awkward, but I would like to know whether supporting the draft act going to this committee, does that imply approval of the draft act itself?

Because if it does , then I would be forced to move an amendment, and I'm not just sure what -- but in order to expedite matters I would point out that while we approve of the resolution which will have the effect of sending the draft act to standing committee for further study and consultation with the general public and inter ested individuals, we are not in favour -- let that be understood -- we are not in favour -- of the draft act itself.

Unless there be doubt about that , I move, seconded by the Honourable Mem ber for Kildonan that the motion be amended by inserting after the word "approval" in the 30th line thereof the following: "and

whereas consideration by the Committee on Statutory Regula tions and Orders of the draft act or as set out in

Schedule "A", does not imply acceptance of this draft act by this House. " Mr . Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SCHREYER: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Call fu the members . The question before the House is the motion of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead that the motion be amended by inserting after the word "approval" in the 30th line thereof "and

whereas consideration by the Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders of the draft act · as set out in

Schedule "A" , does not imply acceptance of this draft act by the House." A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: ·Y EAS: Messrs. Gray, Harris, Orlikow, Peters , Reid, Schreyer, Wagner. NAYS: Messrs . Alexander, Bjornson, Campbell, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Desj ardins, Dow, Evans, Groves, Guttormson, Hamilton, Hillhouse , Hutton, Inge brigtson, Jeannotte,Johnson(Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, Martin, Prefontaine, Roblin, Roberts , Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stanes , Strickland, Tanchak, Watt., Witney, Mrs . Forbes and Mrs . Morrison.

MR. CLERK: Yeas: 7; Nays: 39. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. Are you ready for the main motion? MR. PREFONTAINE : Mr . Chairman, I feel that I owe it to myself to make a few re. marks on this motion which is very important because it deals with matters that are. affecting every Manitoban. I say I am supporting the motion that is before us .

I will add that I would hope that it will afford the members of the committee to look into the past a little bit, to exa mine their conscience and this House should examine its conscience with respect to the manner in which .the constitution has· been observed in tbe Province of Manitoba, because as far as I'm concerned, and as far as the famous decision of the Privy Council has decided, the constitution of Canada has not been observed in this province . Now Mr . Chairman,

Section IV of

Schedule "A" mentions , and I quote: "No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to education in any province other than Newfoundland, shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislatures of all the provinces other than Newfoundland." This is a guarantee that no changes would be made with respect to education without there being unanimous consent. And when it talks of the Constitution of Canada, it talks of different acts as per

Section VIII . The constitution of Canada includes The Manitoba Act. Now what did the Manitoba Act say with respect to private schools, to .education?

Section XXII of Manitoba Act, and I have Statutes of Manitoba, Appendix (b) , Dominion Act,

Section XXII . I read: "in and for the province the said Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provision: 1. Nothing in any such law sha:ll prejudicially affect any right or May lst, 1962 Page 3177

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd.) • • privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law or practice in the province at the union." This is the Consti tution of Canada; the Act of Manitoba is part and parcel of the Constitution of Canada. Now this

section was violated in 1890. There was a lot of litigation about it, but a final decision was made by the Privy Council and it said that the rights and privileges had been prejudicially af - fected, and summonsed the Province of Manitoba to do something about it, to compensate those who were deprived of their rights and privileges. This has not been done until today, Every da y in this province the Constitution of Canada is being flouted, Mr . Speaker.

This is a thing that I must, I owe it to myself to say to this House at this time, and I do hope that this House will realize that all the talk about rights being entrenched does not mean very much until some thing is done about it and I say that there'll be some people in this House who will claim until the end of day that something has to be done about it, and Ido hope that the members who Will be on the Committee on Regulations -- on this Committee after its formed; will look at the situation and see whether something could not be done to see that what was entrenched in 1870; wha t was promised in good .faith to the then inhabitants of Manitoba, and what they believed would be the Constitution, firm as rock and solid, that this would come to pass in the Province of Manitoba, which is at the present time the only province where the Constitution has been flouted.

I'm sorry that I have to say these things, Mr . Speaker. I believe they are true and I believe I have a right to express my mind. And I do hope that when our delegates meet with other provinces they will go into the past and they will find some way of recommending to the government and to the legislature that something should be done in order to· do away with what I believe is an injustice. I'm sorry that I had to say this.

I could not let that pass because I feel I am .represent ing some people in this province who have felt for 70 years now that there has been no solution of this problem and take the stand that no problem is solved until and unless it is solved on the basis of equity and justice. MR. MORRIS GRAY (Jnkster): While we introduced an amendment which we thought. would be an improvement to the general bill, we are going to support the resolution.

We feel that -- and this. is not to be construed upon me personally and the group, but particularly per sonally, by any disloyalty to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and to Her Majesty. I think perhaps, Canada with a poptilation of 18 or 19 million should not have to go to the United King dom the same as some of the municipalities come to us for improved legislation which they feel is in the interest of the citizens of Winnipeg.

I feel that Canada, of which I have a right -- was given the right to me to speak as a naturalized citizen who has all the privileges of any other one, and one who has lived here for half a century, makes my modest contribution, I do not want anyone to think that because of my not being a native of Canada, and in supporting this resolution, there is. any disloyalty. I'm as loyal as anyone, as I said, to the Parliament of the United King_dom and to Her Majesty. We are going to support the original resolution. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote ·declared the motion carried .• MR.

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Fisher; and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Souris-Lans downe. The Honourable Member for Brokenhead. MR. SHCREYER: Mr . Speaker, I said when speaking on the resolution on Repatriating the Constitution that I wouldn't be long and it turned out that·I was fairly lengthy in my remarks. This time I promise to be shorter and I will keep that promise . There's really no need for me to speak at any length on this resolution. Not because it's not important.

I consider it in my humble opinion to be "The most important resolution on the Order Paper. However, it's been dealt with by the Member for Fisher on two occasions this session and there's been a good deal of interchange of opinion on this important matter, so it only remains for me to say that I have to regret the continuing attitude of the Minister and some of his associates, the Minister of Ag riculture, continuing attitude of defeatism -- and there is no better word to explain it. There's no need for me to go into detail as to why there is justification in this resolution and what we are asking.

This resolution has the effect of asking for changes being made to the Agrictiltural Stabilization Act, which will have the effect of giving farmers of western Canada a fair share; · anda more just portion of the national income. Farmers have never asked for more than this. They Page 3178 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Schreyer, cont'd) .-.. : want a fair share , nothing more and nothing less and there can be.no doubt in anyone's mind, ifhe is_ a fair person, that there has notbeen com_ing to the farmers ofwesterp. Canada, such a fair share -- either in the mid 50's under a Liberal Administration at Ottawa, nor in the last five years under a Conservative Government. I could say that I agreed with the Minister of Agriculture when he spoke -- I did agree with him to a large extent when he spoke yesterday about the trade policies, Liberiil vis-a-vis Conservative.

I think he had a fairly good case to show that a lot of the Liberal criticism about the Conservative trade program was unjustified, because I think trade is the kind of thing which all administrations try to do their best; and as far as I have been able to determine, tradewise, the Conservatives cannotbe criticized by the Liberals because they have been doing just as well, if not, I think a little better, I _think that is a fact. I know the Liberal federal candidates are going to make a large hue and cry about how trade has been mishandled, but I'm also convinced that they will be using a motherhood argument.

They try to leave the impression that only they are in favour of freer trade ecetera, ecetera. Like everything else , whose against motherhood, whose against freer trade? But I can't agree with the Minister when he starts talking about agriculti.iral prices .

I promised to be brief, I spoke about three-quarters of an hour last year . and the year before, I know what the Minister, what his views are, he knows what mine are, there's no point in dragging this out. · But I do want to point out once again to the Minister and his colleagues that they can not really shore up their federal counterparts who are now trying to get re-elected; they can't back them up or shore them up on their agricultural price program because the Stabilization Act of 1958 was a hoax at its inception, and still is.

Can anyone deny that in the last five years under a Conservative Government farm net income has declined in five consecutive years? Last year of course there was the drought, but even making allowances for that, there has been a consecutive decline in farm net income. And if the Conservative agricultural program as regards prices was so good as the Minister of Agriculture here would like us to believe then the oppo site should have obtained -- in other words , consecutive increases in farm net income .

The Minister �ade some reference about the fact that it augers well for western Can ada to have 47 out of 48 Conservatives in a block in Ottawa. How well has this turned out? It was so bad last year and the year before that even some of the western Tories had to kick over the traces once in a while. I think the Minister is aware of the remarks made in the House of Commons by the Conservative member of Parliament for Rosthern constituency when he soundly criticized the agricultural price stabilization program of the Conservative Government. I think he called it retrenchment from an already established position.

In other words the impli cation was that instead of improving from a given plateau there seemed to be retrenchment and decline in returns to farm producers . I will close by saying that I find it very confusing at times to listen to the Minister, because he on one hand will say. "We have the same goal as you; we have the same goal of par ity of price ; but it's the means of attaining this at which we differ.

" Well I would like to know how you can attain the goal of parity of price unless you implement in the final analysis, unless you implement a program that will give parity prices, and that will stop the exodus from the farm. And I don't want the Minister to deiiberately misconstrue what I mean in that regard . When I say stop the exodus from the farm I do not mean that al_l the young people must be kept on the farm; that the farm has to be subdivided so that each can remain on the farm. I didn't mean that at all.

The Minister in order to make a point resorted to this argument 'of teduction to absurdity, whic_h is of course invalid. . . I also could not understand what the Minister meant when he said that the present policy -- he called it a policy -- the present policy of the federal government as regards acreage pa yments was really taking the place of a two price system. I believe he said that.

Well I con tend that the acreage payments that have been by intermittently, and not regularly by the way, by the Diefenbaker government is nothing more than an emergency program that has to fill the gap in the absence of a true and consistent and sustaining program for agriculture .

And don't let the Minister deny that acreage payments are only an emergency measure because in the amendment to the resolution, the amendment as proposed by the Member for Souris Lansdowne, which I believe is the Minister's colleague, on page 10 of the Order Paper, he refers to the acreage payments as an emergency program, and I read "Be it resolved this May lst, 1962 Page 3179

(Mr. Schreyer, cont'd) ••• •• House is of the opinion that the government should give considera tion to the advisability ecetera." Point 1,2,3 ,4. Point 4: "Utilize temporary measures such as acreage payments and other emergency programs" -- "And other emergency programs." In other words, acreage payments are a stopgap emergency measure. In other words, it's not policy at all. In other words, what the Minister has suggested; namely that this acreage pay ment is serving instead of a two-price system, is not correct.

In other words, there is no federal progrllI!l, the Conserva,tive Government has no pro gram as regards prices. Two things' they rely on, the Stabilization Act which is a hoax, was and is; and secondly, acreage payments, and they're only tempora,ry. So in the final analysis the farmers of western Canada will have to look elsewhere if their dem,ands -- and I suggest just demands -- are to be met. Now without getting into a long ••• , •••• let m(l say that parity prices is not some idle dream; it is not an economic impossibility; it is nothing mote than a fair share of the national income.

Let's not hear any nonsen_se al:)out not having adequate figures so that we know what the cost of production is, etcetera. We've got illuetration stati.ons to do research; we've got electronic computers; we can figure out what the average CO,$t of production is, and we can do it rather smartly. That is11,1t the problem. The problem is rather one of ineptituqe, indecision, delay and procrastination by the vecy government whose leader promised in such ringing tones for 17 or 16 years that what the fiq;mere needed was parity. They've never got it yet. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. J. D. WATT (Arthur): J'4r.

Speake:r, if no one wi.shes to s,peak,at this ti;me I'd like to move the adjourmnent� seconded by the Honourab!e Member from Morris. Mr . Speaker put the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable the Min ister of .<\griculture. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition_. Oh,, I think we've changed - that order stands -- MR. ROBLIN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I think we're on the resolution of the Honourable Member for Fisher, in which I notice you have reserved your decision as to the admissibility of an amendment by the Honourable Member for St. George. . :MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Fisher and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Souris Lansdowne. MR. ROBLIN: You've got the wrong one, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I might say that I have prepared a ruling on the amendment -- I seem to have the wrong order paper here.

Ruling on the proposed motion in amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for St. George. The amendment reads as follows: "The motion be further amended by striking out all the words after theword"f arms" in the third line of the

preamble of the amendment and substituting therefor: "whereas municipalities are finding it more difficult from year to year to construct roads to the standard demanded by today's traffic, and

whereas the formation of school divisions has imposed further obligations on the municipalities to raise the standards of roads used by school buses; therefore

be it resolved that the government give consideration to the advisability of changing the present cost sharing policy on the following roads: 1. Main market roads.and bus routes in municipalities from 60-40 to 75..::25 basis. 2. School district roads in unorganized territories from 50-50 to 75-25 basis. 3. That the cost of all snow plowing in unorganized territories be shared on a 75-25 basis on all roads except those classed as school bus routes which remain a 100% provincial responsibility. 4. The cost of snow plowing in municipalities be shared cin a 75-25 basis.

I might say that in my ruling that the adjourned motion proposed by the Honourable Member from Fisher and the proposed amendment thereto to .the motion proposed by the Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell and a further proposed amendment to the amendment of the Hon ourable Member for St. George. I'm now ready to give to the House my decision as to the admissibility of the subamendment. I rule this motion out of order on the grounds that it does not amend the amendment.

I would quote 205 , Page 174 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules which reads as follows: "It is the practice in the United Kingdom House of Commons that an amendment to a p:i;t>posed amendment called a sub-amendment in Canada , cann ot be moved if it proposes to leave out all of the words of too proposed amendment. In such cases the first Page 3180 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Speaker , cont'd) •••• amendment must be negated; this rule is now accepted in Canada. " It would appear that if the amendment to the amendment was allowed tO stand and the House de feated the sub-,amendment a1so defeating the amendment to the ori� motion, the original motion would then be out of order due tci the fact that the House would have already decided not to do that which the motion asks it to do. A decision would 3.lready have been made by the House on the question . The question before the House is the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Hon ourable Member for Birtle-Russell .

Are you ready for the question ? MR. PETER WAGNER (Fisher): Mr . Speak er, I would just like to say a few words on this amendment, and I yet have to see in this House that any resolution that is presented by this side of the House is not amended, or I would say is ..••.••• Now all these , unfortunately, is amended and prolonged; however I was hoping since 1958, Mr. Speaker, that something would be done about the roads , that the burden from the taxpayer or the local man would be eased off on roads.

However I was hoping that the resolution, or I would say help would come from that side of the House -- from the government side of the House -- because when anything comes out from this side of the House we never have it run through. We never succeed because the governmei;i.t with the majority always defe ats us . However , I was hoping and I was hoping and my hopes didn 't seem to materialize .

That's why I brought the resolution and I brought this resolution only on one little item , because I felt that possibly if I can get the government to approve this resolution under disor ganized or unorganized territory, then possibly automatically they are going to ease the burden from the municipalities included.

However, it's not so the case and we have to have a study, according to this amendment, and I believe I personally have no choice , or our group has no choice , but go along with the amendment, but I would like to say that I'm hoping and I'm looking forward that when this study comes back, that the government is going to implement, because the study may come back with good signs , which I would agree very much possibly, but the government is not forced to implement it, and there again our road problem will be where it started. However, Mr.

Speaker, with these few words I want to state that we will support the amendment because we have no other alternative. Better half a loaf than nothing. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Main motion as amended by the amendment. Mr . Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. The Honourable Member for St. Boniface . ThB Honourable Member for St. Boniface is closing the debate. MR .· L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr.

Speaker, last evening when we left the Chamber the Honourable Leader of the NDP expressed his concern that he would have to listen to me again after listening to me yesterday. Now I certainly llllderstand this .

After all, I was one of them that listened to three speeches on disarmament from the same member in the same af ternoon, so I will assure the House that I, at least, because of that will not be very long, but nevertheless the parliamentary procedure in this democratic set-up that we have here when everybody tries to play the rules, is a very good system , and it gives a chance for somebody that makes a resolution sometimes to have the last word, and if he's misquoted or there are certain things that aren't clear , or if the opposition to his resolution try to change his words , well he has a chance to rectify that to a point.

Now first of all, apparently I'm told that a newspaper reported me last night calling the Honourable Member from Birtle-RliBsell a "chipmunk" and I might say that this is definitely not true. The chip munk,a very cute animal as you know, is very quiet on the ground; you don't hear anything about the chipmunk but at the least sign of danger it whips up a tree and "yap, yap, yap." And this is just a private matter with the members of too opposition and the Whip of the Conservative Party who, not himself, but his action reminds us of a chipmunk when he's hiding behind different people in different seats.

Now certainly I would say that this is just a private joke betw!*ln the members and the Whip -- he knows what he reminds us of -- and certainly we would not be against charity and to say that he looks like the chipmunk. So now that we have that straight, Mr. Chairman I'd like to say that.I liked the attitude of the Honourable Member for St. John's yesterday evening. He felt that perhaps my motion May lst, 1962 Page 3181

(Mr. Desjardins, cont'd) •..•..• shouldn't have been brought in - he was fair enough to state that --' but he also felt that if the people, if any members here felt that it shouldn't be brought in, they should vote against it, not try to change everything and bring another amendment that's frrevelant to the main motion. Now I certainly do not think that everybody should join me if they don't believe as I do . I understand this; but I don't like this attitUde of the government of always trying to change your words or trying to play politics on everything.

I ·stated yesterday that I thought this was a wish y-washy amendment. The Honourable Minister of Health did not agree with me ; took exception to this ; but he said nothing that would change my mind. Now I feel rather sorry for him. I realize that he's very set in his ideas and he 'has very good ideas , but he is'part of this goverriment and it's pretty difficult for him to change these 'things. Now I appr'ec'ia:te and that! would s;i.y, Mr.

Speaker, that myintention has never been to embarrass him. _I wouldn't have said anyting if there would have been either just a negative vote 6n thls or for amendment' , an amendment bringing in constructive criticism. Because after all we 're ask�d by the Leader of this House on many occasions, and we 're told that it is our duty to br�g in constructive c_riticism , to have a policy on things, and this· is what we 're trying to do in.our oWI1 humble way.

Sometnnes we're not as bright as some of the boys on the other side , but we fry; and, Mr. speaker, I think that even one other member. the Honourable Member from Swan River, I clon't think that he would vote for my motion but at least yesterday he show ed that he had no respect for the kind of amendment that they were bringing -- he was against it. Now yesterday I was happy that the Honourable Minister of Health spoke on this . I think he should. I think that he's 'one of the ones that we should listen to; but he certainly disappointed me last night.

Nciw the Minister of Health when he has something that he really believes in, you caidell right away; He gets up, and at times he explailis things pretty well -- too well so metimes . The members of the Opposition they don't like it. But yesterday was weak because he didri 't believe what he was saying at all. He was telling me -- and this is not personal.

As I say, he is the Minister of Health, a good one and a good doctor, but be 's also a member of -- unfortunately for him -- he's a member of that government, and it's pretty clifficult to try to co-ordinate both these positions together sometimes with the kind of dfctatorship that we have sometimes on the other side . Now the Minister of Health stated that my motion was wrong because it wouldn't do anything. well this is what we're here for, to help each other, and if · that was the case why wasn't there an amendment that would clarify that? I wouldn't object. I don't care if there's any credit to get.

I don't care if there's any credit on this at'all. But this wasn't done. Ther.e was nothing constructive done fromthe other side . Now the Honourable Minister said that this wouldn't work because I'm including the doctOrs in this. Well this is absolutely wrong. This is once that Iill respeCt the opinion of law yers before the opinion of doctors. We seem to have a kind of a battle between the two in this session these last few days with my honourable friend the Member from Selkirk. But this is what the motion said, the first

whereas, "at the present, the members of many -'-", not all, many --" different branches of the healing arts have been extended the priyilege of using the title "Doctor. " Well that 'explains everything. "Many." It wasn't said "all" but "many", and then later on there was on:ly two points that be covered. This other one that be doubted the validity -- by my motion that we would -- questioned the validity of some of the· doctors that have different degrees from different universities outside of Canada and so on. Sometimes they haven't even got a doctor's degree. Well I think that the first

whereas also explains this : "extend the privilege." Well we do not consider the degrees that we give to those people as a privilege, but as a right. Now , Mr. Speaker -- and let's say that this has been wrong; this is only a

whereas; what does this motion, actually what am I trying to do with it? I'm trying to help the people; I'm trying to help those people of the healing arts that are called doctors now because I'd like to see them stand on their own two feet. I've explained that I do not want any restrictive legislation on this. I'm not trying to take the title of doctor away from anybody that has it now ; what I'm saying to them , get organized; have a little bit of courage and go in with the university if you're doing the right thing; go in with the university and get recognized. And this is what they need .

They'll have to fight for this the same as the medical profession did before. And I'm suggesting that -- nothing else. I'm -- at no time have I tried to restrict them from operating -- from practising. I'm not suggesting that the people shouldn't go to them . Page 3182 May lst, 1962

(Mr . Desj ardins , cont'd) ••.••• I said myself that I believe that I had nothing to do with a lot of them but that I've had experience with chiropractors and on a limited field I respect them, but I also feel that they should stand on their own two feet. What would be wrong with -- let them operate the way they are, the same thing , except don't call them doctor . Don't call them doctor because they don't deserve it.

Now I had a letter today from a person who is definitely agaiilst my motion , and i•n just read the firs t part: •iI take great exception to the proposai made by backbencher Larry Desjardini> to prohibit any member of a recognized heali ng art from using the term, Doctor. n She tbJ.nks this is awful. Now, the Winston Dicti� nary, Coilege edition, defi nes the word - doctor as followa: 1. A 1i.cen!iled physician or surgeon. Now do they qualify mi.der this? This is her definition, not mine , Weli no. EveryboQ.y wili agree with me, they don't qualify ttii der this .

Now Z; the holder o:f the highe st degree given by Uilive rsify or college in any of severfil branches of learn,ing. Do they quaiify Wlder this ? Now she.'s very .disturbed. She gi ves me the definition. That1s exactly what I want• i would like to see the ordin ary chiropractor jU.st Mr. so and so, chiropractor, stand on their own two feet, give good work, the people that want to go to them -- fine . Not dO like this man that we have aromi.d here that -- he's not a chiroprac · tor, he 's a chiropodist .

He's advertising so and so -� doctor -- with signs this big, and at the e:o.d of it, there's letters like this that he's a chiropodist. And the people go to hini, a lot of them; because they think. he 's a doctor . And that, I think, is wrong. If you people don't agree with me , well vote against this , but I think the princ iple is wrong -� definitely wrong. Let hini operate. Ii he doesn't want to go, to better hi mself, to get any better education on this , ii he wants to just have this, well that -- there'i; somebody pointing the finger at three , I'd like to know what it means.

Have I got three minutes left, or have I been speaking three min utes . MR, CHRiSTIA NSON: Three tim es. MR. DESJARDINS: I've repeated that three tinie s? - (inte rjection) -- Maybe I'll re peat it another time so everybody will understand. Anyway, I'm suggesting that we should iet those people practice but just as Mr. , so and so , chiropractor.

Now. if a chiropractor or chiro podist wants to better htinself, wants to help the public , because if they have better learning and be better , :wants ta be recognized by unive rsity. may be they'll get together with those people and it is unfair to say here that the medical men are against them. This is definitely wrong. You can't stand on the fence on this and say they're partly rig ht and they're partly wrong. That's wrong. There's no jealousy in that at all. They don't have to be jealous of the chiropodist or the chiropractors.

Now maybe the uniVe rsity auth orities will say all right, we'll giire them the title of, the degree of doctor, once they've lear ned the fundamentals in medicine , because you can't just stop and say, this is a bone; this is the way you treat it; everything is related in the human body; and they might say, well you just follow this course of pre-med like an ordinary doctor does, then take your two years and you will become a doctor. And I would like to see this . Therefore you'd have a chir opractor that would be a doctor and then they would:o.'t have to apologize for anythin g. It would be doctor, period.

They would be just as qualifie d. And the others that feel that they know enough to do their work -- and apparently this is permitted -- now let then:t do their work. Mr . so and so, chiropractor or chiropodist -- and let them not borrow something that they have no right to call their own. This ii; all I'm trying to do. Now; as I said, there's another .thing . For this government, or any government. We know that there will be a medic al plan coming in and it will be pretty embarrassing because we won't know what to do on this .

We won't know what to do and this is what I'd like to see is now prepare the way for this and have a definiti on. that is the only thing. I'm not saying I've got all the answers. What am I saying ? The "whereas" we know, it doesn't mean that much. The actu al thing is the "therefore." And this is what I say: "Therefore

be it resolved that a committee" -- not me -- "that a committee of this House be set up to consider the advisability of recognizing only doctor degrees properly conferred. " Is that such a bad thing? Are the other members of government so afraid of this that a committee -- well let's look at this . You all agree that there's a problem. The Honourable Member from Birtle-Russell has agreed himself that there's a problem, but he doesn't know what to do about it, so he woUid ask Ottawa, well you define it. You define it. I mean why are we so afraid to stand on our own two .feet? If I 'm wrong, just May lst, 1962 Page 3183

(Mr; Desjardins, cont'd) ••••••• vote me down but' don't bring a wishy-washy motion like this . Well I guess that this should make it clear. There have been a lot of jokes about this and I think this is too serious , this is too serious to fool around on this and I feel that what I'm trying to do -- I'll stand or fall on this thing, on my intention, not somebody else's intention. And it's never been said that I'm trying to restrict them -- this ls for the fourth.time for the Minister of Welfare -- that I'm trying to restrict these people. I'm just trying to help them .

Ana' I do.· l'ndrying to help them, trying to help the public, and I'm trying to help any govern menttliat will have to deal with them when we have this medical plan. Thank you,M r. Speaker.' Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. DESJARDINS: The yeas and nays please, Mr. Speake:!,'·-. 'MR� SPEAKER: Call in the members. :MR. ROBLIN: ... _ •• nays , Mr. Speaker, I think we have to have at least three • . , MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the motion proposed by the HOnourable Member for St.

Boniface, which reads as follows. -- (interjection) -- Those in favour of the motion please rise . ·· · ' A standing vote was taken the result being as follows: . · YEAS: Messrs . Alexander, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson. Cowan, Evans, Gray, Gro�es', Hamiltan, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (A) , Johnson (G) , Klym , Llssa man;· Lyon, .McKe1lar, Martin, Roblin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewm!!Jl;, SWellie, Stanes , Strick land, Witney, Mrs� Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. ·NAYS: Messrs .

Campbell, Corbett, Desjardins, Dow, Guttormson, Harris, .Hillhouse, Orlikow , Prefontaine, Reid, Roberts0 Schreyer, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner • . MR. C'LERK: Yeas 29; Nays 15 . Mr. Speaker declared the motion carried. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would you make it plain that the motion that has j'ust carried was on the motion of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface as ainended by laSt night's vote. You stated it at the time Mr. Speaker, in calling for the vote, that it_was on the motion of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. Inasmuch as the Honour able Member for St.

Boniface and his colleagues voted against the motion, I would want it to be recognized that it was the motion of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface as amended by last night's vote. . MR. SPEAKER: The motion of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface as amended. · · .. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Logan and th� p:i;oP�sed amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Selkirk. · ·M r. · Speaker put the q�stion and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. l\m.. T.P. illLLHOUS E, Q.C. (Selkirk): Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

The question before the House is the proposed amendment proposed by' the Honourable Member for Selkirk to the motion proposed by the Hon ourable Member for Logan. A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows : ·Y EAS: Messrs . Campbell, Desjardins, Dow, Guttormson, Hillhouse , Prefontaine, Roberts, Shoemaker and Tanchak. NAYS: Messrs.

Alexander, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Gray, Groves, Hamilton, Harris, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (A), Klym, Lissa man, Lyon, McKellar, Martin, Orlikow, Reid, Roblin, Scarth, Schreyer, Seaborn, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Wagner, Witney, Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. MR. CLERK: Yeas 9; Nays 34. . MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment lost • . The question before the House is the proposed resolution, proposed by the Honourable .MemberJor Logan'. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member is closing the debate., � .: · · MR� L • HARRIS (Logan): Mr.

Speaker, in speaking to the resolution, I would like to make some comment on the remarks the Member for Winnipeg Centre made on this resolution. The honourltble member' said there are not enough skilled workers to go around and he said that -- Ol" remarks to that effect -- that tbe people that would go outside would be the people that were not skilled and therefore they should be paid less than the people that are skilled in Page 3184 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Harris, cont'd) ••••••• the city. Now I don't think that those remarks are very good, be cause I feel that the people in tliacity go out on these various jobs and they're all skilled. They all can show that they've had years of experience on these particular jobs so I don't think that that argument will hold water at all. A person can hire any kind of workman but that does not mean that he's a qualified tradesman, and with regard to a 40 hour week, is that not proper with the backlog of unemployed we have in Manitoba?

We ask them to work 120 hours .in two weeks at straight time and from 25 to 35 cents an hour less. When a workman leaves the city to work on a campsite be has to keep two homes going, and with the long hours and less pay it does. not give him much encouragement. We have been shown how other countries of the world have no unemployment and have to import labour. What is wrong with Manitoba? Is it wrong thinking on. our part? Or are we bogged down by the morass of the past . Where is all the progress we were to be shown? Now, Mr.

Speaker, in concluding the debate on The Fair Wage Resolution, l will sim ply point out why it is necessary to have one zone cover all of Manitoba; the difference in the cost of living between the north and other points of the south of the province. We contend we have solid proof that an average family living in the north, for a variety of reasons, pay more than a family living in the south.

Our main contention lies in the fact that while many prices are comparable, the basic needs of housing, fuel, insurance, electricity and taxes are much higher and place an unfair burden on the budget of the construction worker who lives north of 53 • We have some prices on construction of new homes and I' 11 quote you the difference. For a 1000 sq. foot home, Winnipeg price $12 , OOO ; Dauphin price $13 , OOO; The Pas price is $14, OOO . Conclusion for an average comparable house: The Pas 16 . 6% higher than Winnipeg; The Pas 7 .6% higher than Dauphin.

Taxes on comparable housing 96 to 100% higher in The Pas than in Dauphin. Taxes were taken from houses of a comparable age and type. Electicity, 82 .28 higher in The Pas than in Dauphin. An average bill for a year was utilized here and the prices for the actual kilowatt hour used in The Pas was compared with prices for the same kilowatt hour in Dauphin. The yearly prices were $206 . 00 in The Pas to $113 . 00 price in Dau phin. Percentage-wise the cost in The Pas, 82 .28% higher. Fuel oil 22% higher in The Pas than Winnipeg. Prices delivered in The Pas 22 .4 per gallon. Prices in Winnipeg 18.4 per gallon.

This does not take into consideration comparisons in temperature between The Pas and Winnipeg. 27% higher in The Pas than in Winnipeg -- gasoline. The Pas, No. 1 gas 49.9; No. 2 gas 47.9; white gas 36 .9; Winnipeg No . 1gas 39.9, No . 2 gas 36 .9, white gas 32 .9 . These prices are quoted under normal conditions and they do not get any further ad vantage, the south gains through gas price wars. There are no price wars in the north. We have made a comparison of yearly operating costs for an average family, one family living in the north and one in the south.

The family living in the south; food for the month, $120.0 0; for the year $1,4 40.0 0, taxes for the year, $159.0 0; electricity $113 .00; oil heat $193 . 00; total $1, 906 . 00. A family in the north: food for _the month, $141 . 00; for the year, $1,6 95.0 0; taxes for the year $314,0 0; electricity $206 .00 for the year; oil heat $269. 00; a total of $2 ,484. 00. Now, Sir, it shows that there is a difference yearly between the two of $578 .00, the actual cost differential of $578 .00 per year for a family in the north as compared with one living in the southern part of the province .

This is where we show wby we need to amend The Fair Wage Act. This figure, as previously pointed out, is derived from only four items -- taxes, food, electricity and beat. Likewi se , we have not made a point of the fact that these people in the north do not have access to such further cost saving features as natural gas for heating purposes; nor is the town located near industry so that freight and express rates are not a factor; and that the Welfare Department also allows a 25% increase in food and clothing allowances for welfare cases north of 53 . Mr .

Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SCHREYER: The yeas and nays , Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The motion before the House. is the proposed resolution proposed by the Honourable Member for Logan which reads as follows: ''Whereas The Fair Wage Act now sets the rate paid -- (interjection) -- Those in favour of the motion please rise . A standing vote was taken with the following result: YEAS: Messrs. Gray, Harris, Orlikow, Reid, Schreyer and Wagner. May lst, 1962 Page 3185

NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Bjornson, Campbell, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Desjardins, Dow, Evans, Groves , Guttormson, Hamilton, Hillhouse , Hutton, Inge brigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (A) , Johnson (G) , Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, Martin, Prefontaine, Roblin, Roberts , Scarth, Shewman, Shoemaker , Smellie , Stanes, Strickland, Tanchak, Witney and Mrs. Morrison. MR. CLERK: Yeas 6; Nays 36. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. Adjourned ••••• Do you propose to go to one o'clock? MR. ROBLIN: I'm just relying on my memory here , rMr. Speaker. Is the usual time 12·:30 or 1:00 ? MR. SPEAKER: 12:30.

MR. ROBLIN: I'd be prepared to go to 1:00 if members don't object, and then we could quit at 1: 00, but I leave it to the opinion of the House, otherwise we may be a little bit rushed this afternoon. MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): You have our permissfon. MR. SPEAKER : Agreed. MR. ROBLIN: Thank you Mr . Speaker , Then we'll carry on till 1: 00 o'clock. MR.

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks and the proposed amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Selkirk and the proposed amendment to the amendment of the Honourable Member for Selkirk, the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. 0. F. BJORNSON (Lac du Bonnet): It's al<?ng time since I adjourned the debate on this, Mr . Speaker, and I almost forget who I adjourned it for, but the Honourable Minister of Welfare would like to speak on it at this time. MR. CHRISTIANSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't propose to say very much regarding this resolution.

The amendment proposed by the Honourable Member from Selkirk is not really of any great substance, if I may suggest. Had he been in the House.during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Welfare he would have realized that all the things that he wishes to accomplish by his amendment are in fact already being done, so I really donit think that his amendment adds very much to the amendment which the Honourable Member for Cypress proposed to the original motion.

Now he had some rather harsh things to say about this government while he was proposing the amendment, ·a nd about our motives in proposing the amendment to the main motion. He accused us of being immature, that we had to reaffirm our belief in our princip les. Well, Mr .

Speaker, I suggest with the greatest of deference that we must reaffirm our principles every time we find somebody getting up on the opposite side of the House endeavouring to change our principles, and if we were not being continually faced with resolutions by the opposition, suggesting that our principles somehow left a tremendous amount to be desired, or were not in fact being carried out, we wouldn't find it necessary to once more stand up and state our principles in clear and concise terms, so that the members opposite will know what we mean. As the Honourable the Minister of.

Health has remarked on so many occasions, the osmotic pressure has to continue to increase before this wonderful social allowances principle that is adopted in our legislation can creep into their minds so they really appreciate and understand what we are trying to do. So Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we must vote against the amendment of the Honourable Member for Selkirk on this motion. MR. HILLHOUSE : , ••••••• amendment. It's some time since I made that amendment, I believe that I did say that the government ••••• MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I draw my honourable friend's attention to the fact that he has undoubtedly exhausted his right to speak on this subject. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPEAKER: Amendment proposed by the Honourable Member for Cypress to the motion proposed by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. · Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Main motion as amended by the Honourable -- the motion of the Hon ourable Member for Cyrpess. Are you ready for the question? MR.

HILLHOUSE: .•.•. say a few words, after listening to the Honourable Minister of Welfare speaking. I hadn't intended to speak on this up until that point, but he accused me Page 3186 May lst, ·1 962

(Mr. Hillhous�, cont'd) •••••• of using unkind words to the government, accusing them of being immature and requiring the reassurance of this House about their legislation. Well I think the truth of these statements was evidenced this morning by the very speech made by the Honour able Minister, and I think this amendment that was made by the Honourable Member for Cypress is a childish amendment and it isn't necessary, nor is it essential.

Everyone in this House voted fer this Social Allowances Act and there's no reason in the world why any government member should come into this House from time to time when resolutions are brought in, ask ing all members of the House to reassure them that they did the right thing when they did vote for it. Mr . Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adj ourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm in the position of the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet.

It's so long ago that I adjourned this debate that I have forgotten for whom I adjour ned it and I don't suppose anybody is interested. As a matter of fact at that time I had thought that the Honourable Member for St. George was going to speak and I believe I announced that once, some weeks ago, but. his better sense has prevailed at this se�on of the year and so I would ask it to be held now only for the Honourable the Leader of this group to close the de bate, which would mean, of course, that no one else could speak after that time, so if anyone wishes to speak now, we'd be very glad to have them do so. MR.

CHRISTIANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say just a few words on this. I think I can do it before 1:00 o'c lock. I was a little surprised at -- when I noticed that the Honourable Member for Lakeside had adjourned the debate and I was quite interested Di hearing what he had to say. I think I can say I'm relieved to hear that he adjourned it for someone else. I think this subject was covered pretty well in Public Accounts Committee and all the members who were there I think got a pretty clear and concise idea of how accounting and auditing is carried out presently in the Government of Manitoba.

However, for the benefit of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead who was not in Public Accounts Committee , and be� cause the records of the Public Accounts Committee are not kept in detail, for the benefit of the honourable member, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, should he desire to con sult the record on this I would like to say a few words about the accounting procedures in the Government of Manitoba. First of all, let me make it very clear that every department does its own accounting. It looks after its own accountants; it has its own accountants which do that work.

The Comptroller-General then does the auditing for each department, and he audits these records in a very thorough and profess ional way, and he audits every aspect of a depart ment's operations, including checking inventory and stores on a test basis. And anyone who's had any experience with the work of the members of his department will know that they do their work in a very thorough and efficient manner. The Treasury also looks after all the money that comes in and they look after all the fi nancial aff airs. But here also the Compti:oller-Gen eral does the auditing.

He counts the cash and he counts all the other items that they have in stock from time to time. And he goes further than that. If he .f inds irregularities, or if he finds improper -- I shouldn't say improper but inefficient methods of operation being carried out by any of the departments, .he draws it to the attention of the departments. One that has come to my attention was several years ago when he changed the method of calculating the gas oline tax tankage losses and saved the government a considerable amount of money in that regard.

Now he has one other important function that seems to have escaped the notice of some of the honourable members, particularly of the NDP . He does a pre-audit. Every cheque that's issued is issued with the authority of the Comptroller-General. The department accountant prepares the vouchers and before the payment is. made this voucher goes to the Attorney:-Gen eral and it's checked for accuracy by him and it's also checked for legislative authority.N ow this is a most significant point.

If there's any irregularity that the Comptroller-General dis covers at this point, he then ref uses to make payment and he info rms

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-5-88
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 5th hansardpdf 88.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c1bd867f8c2f4b8eb63725d30d7aae3ed6d0ec6a

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