Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 52 (26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-52

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Volume N No. 52 March 23, 1960 2nd Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

DAILY INDEX Wednesday, March 23, 2:30 P. M. Committee Reports: Privileges and Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1869 Bill 43 re Election Act (Mr. Evans): Mr. Paulley (Amend); Mr. Campbell, --- Mr. Prefontaine . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . 1869 Mr. Lyon, Mr. Gray .. .......... .... .............. ................... 1870 Mr. Schreyer, Mr. Molgat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1871 Mr. Hryhorczuk, Mr.

Orlikow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1872 Mr. Paulley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 1873 Mr. McLean . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1875 Mr. Desjardins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1878 Mr. Froese; Division on amendment; Mr.

Evans . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1879 Bill in Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 1880 Law Amendments (Mr. Lyon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 1881 Bill 7, re Fuel Users Tax (Mr. Roblin): Mr. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1882 AdjOUrned Debate re Report on Rules (Mr. Lyons): Mr. Molgat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1882 Mr.

Hryhorczuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1883 Budget Debate: Mr. Froese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1884 Mr. Cowan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 1886 Bill 122 re Seven Oaks S. D. (Mr. Wright) • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1888 AdjOUrii.ed Debate re Agricultural Support (Mr. Wagner): Mr.

Paulley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1888 Mr. McKellar (amendment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1890 Re Teacher Grants (Mr. Tan chak): Mr. Tanchak . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 1892 Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1894

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Wednesday, March 23rd, 1960 Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Industry & Commerce ) (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I beg· to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. MR . CLERK: Your Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections beg leave to present the folloWing as their First Report. Your Committee met for organization and appoint ed the Honourable Mr.

Evans as Chairman. Your Committee recommends that for the remain der of the Session the quorum of this Committee shall consist of seven members. Your Committee has considered Bill No. 43,

An Act to amend The Election Act, and has agreed to report the same Without amendment. Your Committee also recommends that a Special Committee to consist of Honourable Messrs. Lyon, McLean, Ridley, Roblin; Messrs. Alexander, Cam·iJbell, Dow, Orlikow, Paulley, Shewman, and Smellie, be appointed and instructed to consider the Election Act With a view to recommending such amendments as may be deemed to be necessary to bring the said Act into conformity with present-day elector al practices in other jurisdictions, and to provide a more orderly and efficient conduct of the elections in the Province of Manitoba. 2.

That the said Committee makes its report and such recommendations as it may deem advisable to this House at the next ensuing Session, and shall have power to sit during recess after adjournment or prorogation; and shall also have for the purpose of the enquiries, all the powers, privileges and immunities of commissioners appointed under

part V of the Manitoba Evidence Act. 3. That the Provincial Treasurer be authorized to pay out of Consolidated Fund to members of said Committee the amount of such expenses incurred by the members in attending the sittings of the said committee during recess as may be deemed necessary by the Comptroller General; all of which is respectfully submitted. MR . EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney General that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House •... • MR. SPEAKER: The motion first. MR.

EV ANS: I beg to m.:>Ve, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General that the report of the Committee be received. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR . RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks that the report of the Committee on Elections and Privileges be not received in respect of Bill 43. Mr. Speaker put the question.,' MR. PAULLEY: Oh, I've spoken a lot this morning. MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, I was waiting because I thought perhaps the Honourable the Leader of the CCF was going to speak to his amendment. I am not a member of the Committee on Privileges and Elections anQ_ so it's not -- not at present, but I would like to record my objection to, once a�ain, to Bill No. 43. I think it is particularly inappropriate that when the Select Committee on election matters is being set up by the very same motion that this particular Bill was proceeded with.

I'm sure that I had a misunderstanding as far as the intention of the governments were concerned, be cause I thought that they had agreed to leave this over until the committee met to consider election matters in general, but I believe that was just a misunderstanding. Regardless of when it came up, however, I would still have been not in favour of reducing the times, as Bill No. 43 does. So as far as I'm concerned I will be voting in favour of the amendment. MR. ED MOND PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that I also favour the amendment very strongly.

I believe that this is another move to place the Opposi tion in a more difficult position at times of election. The job of the Opposition is difficult enough. The government is always well prepared for an election; it has the funds, it has the publicity, it has its famous information service at its disposal, and it has all the staff. It's all ready -- its propaganda has been prepared years and months in advance and they want to March 23rd, 1960 Page 1869

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont• d) ••. have the Opposition unprepared. They want to have it all their own way. And we have two examples today of the fact that this government would like to assure themselves as much as they can the possibility of being re-elected again, and to place the Opposition in more difficult c:Lrcumstances all this time, in restricting the powers to debate in this House, restricting the time that they will have to prepare themselves for an election when an election is called. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (F ort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, I couldn't let the remarks of my honourable friend froni Carillon go unanswered, because, of course, it raised a very interesting suggestion that even 44 days was not enough to save my honourable friends opposite in 1958, so I don't see what their particular concern is about this government at the present time. Now we rehearsed all of these arguments, I think, ad nauseam and in committee this morning, and I was interested to note that at least one member of the Liberal Party who is on that cor:�mtttee supported the amendment to the Election Act.

I'm not going to go into a detailed examination of all of those arguments again, Sir, except to repeat the highlights which are namely: that this amendment marely restores the minimum and maximum times in Manitoba, the minimum time in particular, to what it was for many years and what it remained I think until1948 or '49 thereabouts --I don't have the file in front of me; second ly, that this amendment will bring Manitoba into conformity with other provinces in the rest of Canada.

Olr good Province of Saskatchewan to the west, they can call an election in 34 days, Sir, 34 days, and in Alberta if you go there, no minimum time at all; they can call it tomorrow and have the election two or three weeks hence if they want; Now I know that I am not going to convince my honourable friends opposite, Sir, about these matters, but I do want these facts to be on the record that there is no hidden "cloak or dagger" aspect to this Bill at all.

It is merely a straight, I think rt>ery straightforward Bill brought forward to bring the Election Act and the minimum and maximum times more into conformity with, what I would say, 1960 demands. It is realistic, Sir, for the time. (Interjection) As a matter of fact, Sir, as I mentioned when I stood up I had not intended to speak except for --as usual my honourable friend from Carillon made some remarks that forced ma to come to my feet.

I don't think there is anything more to be said; I reject out of hand the suggestion that this is a move by the government to favour the government or anything like that all; it is not that, Sir, because if it were that we certainly wouldn't be bringing it forward. And I don't think that any useful purpose can be served by my expounding further on what I think I said this morning, what has been said on previous occasions in connection with this Bill. MR. MORRIS A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Attorney-General gave us some reasons for •.•••.••.•• , but he did not state what is his actual objection of giving more time. After all he's a great believer in democracy. He wants the people of this prov ince to elect the best people possible --(Interjection) the best people possible to elect -- well if they are then they got elected, and the public wants the time to know the people; the public-wants time to find out everything about them.

And whether they are Conservatives or Liberal or CCFers, one thing is sure, that we've got to have people that the public knows and not elect them on the basis of their party entirely but elect them also in a personal way. Then there is a handicap as far as the CCF group is considered anyway, that we have no money coming in from anywhere (Interjection) Okay, now you have your opinion, I have my opinion; I say there is no funds -- v.re collect dollars, we have raffles --we have no funds given to us by anyone, because no one will give us funds, and those who are our friends have no funds to give us.

But what I can't understand is what is the objection of more time. Not a single word has been stated why. Why should you deprive us of carrying on a longer campaign2 If you are a good man and the government is good, why are they afraid of giving-us a few more days? Why argue about it entirely, I think it ••••• MR. PAULLEY: It's because they know they're just not that good. - MR. GRAY: I think it's foolish. I think this is not even democracy. !think the public won't stand for it.

The fact that you are elected --accidents do happen, !-don't know, and if you're elected then the people think you are the best party, the best men, well all right they'll re-elect you again. But give somebody else a chance to prove that he is good. Why hang on to it yourselves? I cannot for the life of me see any particular reason, anY sensible reason of not giving the other people of the province outside those who support the Conservative Party Page 1870 March 23rd, 1960 / /-

(Mr. Gray, cont'd) •••• a few more days to go to the people and try to sell their ideas to them. MR . LYON: Will the honourable member permit a question? Surely he is not suggest ing, Sir, that these supporters of the Conservative Party are more intelligent than the support ers of the CCF Party and don't require as much time as those supporters. MR . GRAY: •••.••.••• if we had the facilities ••. MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenbead): Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a few things with regard to this motion.

First of all, it would seem by the comments made by the Honourable the Attorney-General that there is no real issue involved here. The government merely feels that it would expedite matters to pass this motion -- to make this amendment. But I think they must have some reason which they have not revealed to us. After all they have gone to the trouble of drawing up legislation to change the Election Act. Now if they've gone to that trouble they must feel there is a very big and worthwhile reason for changing it, and certainly we haven't been told what it is.

Now I think that the question of efficiency doesn't enter here, Mr. Speaker. In the first place during election tinie the more time that is given to the actual cam- · paign the better. And I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker, Who will deny that during election campaigns that the spirit of politics -- political fever runs high, and people, generally speak ing, people tend to be caught up in that fever, and I think that the more time given for people to make up their mind the better.

It's common knowledge that the political party that can get the jump on the other politicill party -- the Opposition have a head start because, I think, it's also • • • (recording difficulty, one or two words missing) , .... a lot of people like to jump on band-wagons. Quite often they do not consider the issues in as dry a manner as they should. And I think that election campaigns should tend to be dry rather than one of emotion -- and there is emotion, Mr. Speaker.

And the more you cut down the length of the election campaign, the more the people will decide on the basis of emotion rather than on issues themselves. So, (I nterjection)-- in 1938 -- I don't know, Mr. Speaker, I haven't followed that closely -- but I dare say that we should consider this particular problem on the merits of it without referring to any particular jurisdiction. Is it a good thing to hDld an election in as short a time as poss ible, or is it better, Mr.

Speaker, to draw it out a little longer so that the fever may subside and that the people may decide how they will vote on the face of the issues that come up:? And the longer they have to decide issues the more prudently, the more wisely they shall cast their ballot. I think it would be absolutely ridiculous to reduce the time period. Just let us suppose, Mr. Speaker, that we reduce it to say a period of 20 days. In 20 days, there's only enough time for the fever of the election to reach its peak and the votes will be cast more on the basis of emotion than on anything else. And is this good?

Now what harm is there in having the election period as long as it is now? What harm is there? There's no harm, Mr .. Speaker, and so I think that members of this Assembly on both sides of the House should seriously give consideration to supporting the motion of my Leader, because I think that when all is said and done, it would be in the best interests of having fair elections, having seriously thought out elections, and generally speaking, it's in the best interests of-democracy. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr.

Speaker, I really think that the point here is that due to the fact that the government has decided to set up a committee that will sit during the time that this session ends and the next session, to consider this whole matter of elections and the Election Act, that it would be in the interests of the governmant itself so that the accusations that are being made with regards to their motives on this Bill. And I think that in view of the way it 's being brought in that it's a fair accusation to be made.

But I think it would clear the air both from the standpoint of the government and the standpoint of the mem'Jers on this side of the House if that Bill were referred to that Special Select Committee that will sit in between the sessions. After all, there'll be many other subjects to be brought up at that committee; that Bill can be decided at that time in the proper way. Surely the government intends that committee to do soma work. This particular bill is one that could.be very well discussed there instead of being brought up at this ·time.

I think that would suit the purposes of my honourable friends ·across the way, just as �ell as our own. I don't believe they intend to have an election betWeen the prorogation of this .session and next January. There's no immediate rush on this thing. The whole thing could be handled in that fashion, in the best �terests of all the parties in this House, and in the best interests of the province itself. So I would ask the government to reconsider this and whether this would not be the best solution, March 23rd, 1960 Page 1871

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd) .••• to simply refer the Bill to this Special Select Committee. MR . LYON: Would the honourable member permit a question, Mr. Speaker? Does he agree with me that when this amendment is passed as the government suggests it should be, it will not then become a part of the Election Act, which will then be considered by the committee this summer? MR. MOLGAT: Yes, undoubtedly that is true, Mr. Speaker, but what is the point then, of making a change in the Election Act now, at this particular stage, when we're going to discuss the whole of the Election Act during the course of the summer?

It just seems to be a pointless procedure. What is the use of it? To pass a bill at this session and turn around · and refer it immediately back to a committee that's going to sit in any case. I say, let the Election Act stand as it is now, have the committee this summer, make all the changes that are necessary, then the whole thing will be done on a consistent basis. I cannot see the reason for the government wanting to act otherwise; it just doesn't make sense. MR . M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (EthelbertPlains): Mr. speaker, I think I should try and answer the question asked by the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose.

To me it's quite obvious why this particular procedure is being followed. The government is beginning to realize that its position is not as strong as they had hoped it would be. They're beginning to disclose quite a number of things that point that way and two of them are before the House today, and this is one of them. Now why bring in this legislation? Because it is in a sense a direct ive to the committee that will sit as to what the government favors. And if that is a fair way of doing things, then I don't know the meaning cif fair. I agree entirely with the Member of ste.

Rose that why bring in a piece of legislation covering a point which you hope to refer to a committee which is being established, and the only answer is that this is a directive to that committee; and I for one, Mr. Speaker, know that this is going to be adopted by the committee because of the government majority on that committee. We are told in advance what's going to be the report of that committee .. And if that is the way a democratic government is supposed to be run, then I don't see too much democracy in it.

I think it is entirely wrong in principle, when you intend to set up a committee for the purpose of considering matters of this nature and immediately before that ccimmittee is set up, you tell them what kind of a report you want, because this is what you're doing. Then what other conclusion can we come to, that the govern ment is not certain of its position. It is using every trick in the bag to strengthen their position in the hope that they will find themselves back where they are for four years after the next election. Well, it is this type of legislation, Mr.

Speaker, that defeats that kind of a govern- ment. · MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, will the Honourable the Attorney-General permit a question? I would ask him what disservice to the public good is the present le�slation of elections doing? In other words is the present legislation respecting election period doing any disservice in his opinion? MR . LYON: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that it's in order so I won't ..• MR. SPEAKER: I don't know if it's in order myself. MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr.

Speaker, I think it's fair to say that really we are speaking here for the record because this proposal comes from the First Minister; it was suggested to him privately and I think, publicly, that this matter be stood over --or informally I should say, probably, and formally --that this matter be left to the committee, and I think he indicated pretty strongly, and we have it here today that the Bill is to be passed now. Now, I can see no value to this. Certainly if the committee is to discuss this matter, it could have been left to the committee.

I cannot accept the explanations which have been made as to the reasons for this Bill. Any government, whether the provincial or federal, any government, whatever the party it may represent, have all the advantages when we have an election as we do in our system on dates which are not fixed in advance, on dates which the government picks. Now, the government--whichever, this government or any other government--can begin preparing for elections a year or more in advance, can begin prepar ing its organizations, can begin preparing its platform, can begin to make nominations and so · on.

This is denied to the Opposition; the Opposition parties have to guess, and inasfar as we reduce the time between the announcement of the election and the election, we reduce the opportunities of the Opposition parties. There isn't any question about that at all, Mr. Speaker. Page 1872 March 23rd, 1960

(Mr. Orlikow, cont'd) •••• I want to sugge�t. Mr. Speaker, that had this proposal, this same proposal which is now made by this government, had it been made by the former government, the first person to have attacked itin the House and outside of the House •• .. (Interjection) •. It's not the law now. :MR. LYON: It was in 1946 - 48, and they changed it.- · :MR. ORLIKOW: And they changed it, that's just the point.

But I'm saying that if the former government had proposed reducing the time that the first person who would have attacked them would have been the present First Minister, and he wouldn't have attacked them· as we are, in a few minutes, he would have talked on and on and on. He would have brought in his most extensive quotations about parliamentary democracy and the rights of opposition and the rights of the people. The Honourable the First Minister is wonderful at that; he was wonderful when he was on this side. It doesn't suit his purpose now; he wants to ensure re-election and so he is going ahead with this.

I can't see any other reasons for it and certainly I intend to oppose the suggestion of the government. :MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I introduced this motion. I did not speak to it •. Am I in order to say anything in connection with it in view of the fact that I did not speak, only presented the motion? I leave myself entirely in your hands. :MR. SPEAKER: I would think that it would be in order for you to speak. :MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, the reason that I presented this motion this afternoon was because of the committee held this morning to consider this amendment.

I had spoken at great length as to why; in my opinion, the government should not present the Bill that they have. Now, it is perfectly true, Mr. Speaker, as has been said in this House, that there was a conference called by the Honourable the First Minister, at which there were in attendance, the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and myself, dealing with the questions of revisions to the Election Act.

And this, Sir, as you are aware, evolved around the debate which took place at the first session of this present Legislature where members of all parties had stated that in their opinions, that there should be changes made to the Election Act, in order to make it a better Act in the conduct of an election. Now then at the conference -- and I'm sorry the First Minister is not here -- at that conference that I refer to, the First l\IIinister did say to the Honourable Mr. Campbell and myself, that the government intended to bring forth an amendment to the Election Act, without saying what that amendment would be.

Now then, we have before us now, an amendment which can alter the colli"se of elections in a very, very important manner. (Interjection) My honourable friend says "ridiculous" • Well, Mr. Speaker, all that I have to say to my honourable friend is that his relative number of years in the politic3.1 arena may well justify his remarks, because after all, figuratively speaking, insofar as politics and elections are concerned, he's a relative greenhorn, and I can understand him saying that it is "ridiculous". And I've heard other utterances from my honourable friend that only substantiates what I have just said.

However, one of the things that he has based his argument on today, and he did it this morning in the committee, was because of the fact that certain other jurisdictions have a similar amount of days in respect of the length of time between the issuance of the writs and nomination day. I suggest to him now, as I did in the committee this morning, that that does not make it rig}lt. He loves to refer to the Province of Saskatchewan, and in this particular instance he is saying because this is so in Saskatchewan, it's right for Manitoba.

We, insofar as our group is concerned, have proposed on occasion that we should adopt certain legislation which is legislation in Saskatchewan, and the.first defender of the way of Manitoba is my honourable friend. So certainly, Mr. Speaker, there's no consistency at all in my honourable friend. And I think as the session goes on, in due respect to my honourable friend, that is becoming more and more evident. Now then, Mr.

Speaker, at this morning's committee meeting, some of the rural mem bers on the committee, and indeed my honourable friend,. the Attorney-General, said that due to the new and improved modes of transportation, we don't require the length of time; we can get along and around far more rapidly now than we ever could before. There may be some validity in that approach insofar as the rural areas are concerned where it is still possible to hold such things as public meetings.

I suggest to him that insofar as the suburban areas are concerned and the areas that are urban, that that is not so; that a candidate today in these urban and suburban areas in order to tell his story to the electors, has to do it by word of March 23rd, 1960 Page 1873

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd) ••• mouth and personal contact. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken,' it was the Honourable Member for st. Matthews, at one of the conventions of the Conservative Party, mentioned something akin to what I'm saying at the present time, that through teas and the likes of this and the glad handshake of the candidate is the only way of reaching the elector ate within the constituency. (Interjection) Yes -- yes. And mind you, I agree with my honour able friend that it was a newspaper report, but I think that it was a reasonably fair assessment of the situation, Mr. Speaker.

So I say, that the re are two basic reasons why I have proposed this amendment. First of all, the government has not established a case as to why this is necessary now. No I And I will admit that I'm one of the denser members of this Legislature . . MR. CAMPBELL: Hear! Hear! . MR . PAULLEY: •••• because I cannot understand it, and I think that being in accordance with the possible thinking of my honourable friend, the Attorney-General, that it is imperative that he convince me -- which he certainly has not done. So I say, Mr.

Speaker, that first of all, the government has not established with any logic, the reasons for this; the normal life of this government -- and I say it will be the end of the life of this government -- will be two or three years hence. And then, of course, they will not be occupying -- and this is a predic tion based on their conduct-- they will not be occupying the position they now hold. However, that is in the hands of the electorate. MR . LYON: Hear! Hear! MR .

PAULLEY: So I say that is one reason that they have not established in: any degree at all a reason for the reduction in the time between the issuance of the writs and nomination day, and secondly .••• MR. LYON: You don't believe in repetition do you? MR . PAULLEY: Well, sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it's necessary to be repetitious in order to penetrate the skulls of certain individuals. MR . LYON: You're speaking for those behind you are you? MR . PAULLEY: No, no, I' Ill speaking to those directly in front of me and far be it from me, Mr.

Speaker, to look directly at the individual concerned, and I am sure he will not take anything that I am saying in a personal nature, but he knows of whom I speak. But, Mr. Speak er, first of all I say that there has been no case established by the government; and as has been pointed out here, and I think this is more than important, the report of the committee has told us that a committee will be sitting between sessions to consider all aspects of the Election Act.

And surely in the name of fairness and common reasoning, that committee could consider this very important part of the Election Act; unless, and I say this advisedly, unless the govern..: ment intends, insofar as that committee is concerned, to take the same attitude of any proposi tion or proposal that is made by those of us on this side of the House in respect of considera tion of any aspect of the Election Act. And I say this, Mr. Speaker; ••• MR. LYON: Would the honourable member permit a question? MR . PAULLEY: As soon as I'm finished. MR . LYON: All right. MR. PAULLEY: I say this, Mr. Speaker •••• MR .

LYON: I hope that's possible. MR. PAULLEY: •.• .• that if the same attitude is going to be taken in respect of additional amendments to the Election Act that the government and the Attorney-General is taking in respect of this, let the government go ahead and change the Election Act as they see fit, be cause we're only proposing to them reasonable consideration and serious and earnest consider ation in respect of the whole act. And they appear to me, today, to be adamant in respect of this, that that consideration will not be given. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I was just going to ask the Honourable Leader of the CCF Party that having had the decided advantage of sitting on a committee which the government called together to consider the question of the rules of this House, would he think that that committee was handled in the way he is imputing the go,vernment might handle the Elections · Committee? Does he find any complaint with the way that committee was handled? MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to answer that question, and I can answer my honourable friend this v.ay, that there is a difference in the approach between the two committees.

The government did not have the presumptive gall before that committee met to bring in any Page 1874 March 23rd, 1960

(Mr. Paull ey, cont'd) ••.•• legislation to change it. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, they are, and there is a big difference between the two. MR. LYON: Would the honourable member permit another question, Mr. Speaker? Does he not recall getting a list of proposed amendments to the rules of the House at the first meeting that the government presented to that committee? MR. PAULLEY: I did receive, Mr. Speaker, a list of rules which it was proposed to give consideration to the changing thereof, not definite legislation to change it. And I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, there's a vast difference. · HON.

STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I should like to take just a small

part in this debate. First of all with respect to the provisions of the Elections Act, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is completely fair; it's the same Act that applies to all candidates and all political parties and the ... MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my honourable friend would permit a question. Is it not normally so that the government knows well in advance of the issuance of writs as to when they're going to be issued? MR. Me LEAN: Not ever having been in the position of making that decision, Mr. Speak er, I am unable to answer the question. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Speaker, may I ask the honourable member another question? Was he not a member of the Cabinet at the time that the last election was called? MR. McLEAN: That date was not set by the GoverDJDent of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. MR. PAULLEY: Not the second election; they didn't call that one. MR. McLEAN: While I suppose the Honourable the Leader of the CCF Party would classify me in one sense in the same category as the Honourable the Attorney-General since I have only been a candidate in two provincial elections, I have had some experience, both in federal elections and provincial. elections, prior to that time.

Not always a completely joyful experience but certainly very instructive. And as we all know, election campaigns are going on all the time; any candidate, any political party that hopes to be successful is continually conducting its campaign. The new.campaign starts the day after the votes have been counted in any particular election. Indeed; .last night the Leader of the CCF Party was outlining in a general way, the campaign, the platform of the political party which he says is coming into being and which he hopes will some day sit on this side of this House.

These things are going on all the time and in many instances candidates are nominated long before an election is called; they formulate their program and policy and advocate it and there is no restriction in that regard. So. far as the formal aspect of the campaign is concerned, we• re all on the same footing. MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, Iw onder ifthe Honourable Minister would permit a question? He says that we're campaigning between sessions. I wonder if it would be possible for the opposition members to have the use of the ministry of propaganda that the government has? MR.

McLEAN: There is, however, Mr. Speaker, in my mind, a much more important aspect of this matter that has not been discussed or mentioned during this debate, I should like to place before this House for consideration the idea that the principle of what is involved here is indeed more democratic than the present legislation and makes for a greater and better exercise of democracy than the legislation does at the present time. Members of this House are in a position, a particular position, as members of the Legislature, and we are in possession --we follow a certain line of activity with respect to public affairs.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is important, it indeed is the whole basis of our democratic system that it be possible for the largest number of men and women in our communities t� offer themselves as candidates for election to this Legislature and indeed to all legislative bodies.

And I should like to suggest to the members of this Committee that one of the reasons, one of the reasons, or I'll deal with two .of the reasons, two of the reasons that more people do not do so is first, because of the personal .Cost in terms of·dollars, and from some experience I know how costly an election can be as indeed I'm sure all of the members here do, and the amount of time involved in an election campaign, and I'm certain that there is not one member in this House who does not know of a number of people who simply could not under any circumstances be a candidate for membership in this House because of the time involved in an election campaign� March 23rd, 1960 Page 1875

(Mr. McLean, cont' d) •• , . Now it is true that reducing the amount of time as proposed by this bill, does not remove entirely the problem that is involved, and that is why I say that the principle involved is important. In theory if you wanted to prevent large numbers of peopie from being able to engage in, and to be candidates for election, you would have an election period probably 6 or 9 months long. That would ensure that many people couldn't even think about it.

And of course if you wanted to go to the other end of the scale to make it possible for the largest possible number of people to be candidates, you would reduce the amount of time much more than is proposed by this Bill. The point I'm making Mr . Speaker, is that this far from being some restriction on the democratic process, is a step in the right direction in that it will make it possible for some people who could not now under present circumstances take the time and afford the time involved in an election campaign, it would make it possible for them to. do so if it was their desire.

And I think it's of the utmost importance, that indeed Mr.

Speaker, there are two things we must do if we're going to maintain the democratic process: one is to reduce the cost of elections, an� the second is to reduce the amount of time that is involved in election campaignin g. ' As to the need or as to the question of whether this particular amendment is premature, of course if it is our opinion--speaking in terms of the government--if it is our opinion that the principle involved here is worthwhile, then of course we have a duty to bring the legisla tion before this legislature and to have it considered an d acted upon at the earliest opportunity ..

It would not be right if we thought that something should be done and we should stand by and take no action. There could be--as indeed there were between our last sitting and the present sitting of this House, by-elections which would be affected by what we do here. --(Interjection) I suggest that the importance of the measure lies in the fact that it is our opinion that this is worthwhile and that it should be done now so that it might apply should it become necessary. One final point that I should like to make Mr .

Speaker, and that is that some reference has been made to the fact that a committee has been established and will be sitting between now and the time of our next coming together here which will consider and bring in recommendations respecting the Elections Act and election procedure; and of course the fact that this particular measure may become law at this time does certainly not prevent that committee from consider ing it along with the other provisions of the Act and of course reporting to this legislature on any change which it may consider advisable. There is nothing to prevent that taking place.

Indeed that committee might make several recommendations including a recommendation on the same subject matter as is the subject matter.·of this bill. And this action in no wise res tricts or hampers or impedes the work which may be done by that committee; and so I think that the arguments that have been advanced Mr. Speaker, are not very -- perhaps I should not say weighty because all arguments advanced are weighty -- but they are not such as to persuade the members of this House to vote against the immediate implementation of this bill. MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr . Speaker, why the rush?

Is the Hcuse going to be dissolved after this session? If the House isn't going to be dissolved after this session, why implement this resolution now when you're going to consider the whole matter during recess? Why the rush? Give the Opposition a chance to say their little piece. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the last speaker would permit a few questions. I had some difficulty understanding his arguments. MR. SPEAKER: •..•.. in the speech between. The Honourable Me mber for Selkirk just spoke. MR.

MOLGAT: Well I got up the same time as he did for the purpose of asking a ques tion and I thought that he was asking a ·question of the front benches. MR. SPEAKER: Technically you're out of order. --(Interjection)-- You must ask the question immediately the man sat down. , . MR. PAULLEY: The Honourable Member-for Selkirk did ask a question at the time .... MR. SPEAKER: Go abead and ask your que.stion. MR. MOLGAT: Thank you, MI'1 Speaker. I just wanted to get clarification on the argu ment of my honourable friend the Minister of Education.

He said that elections actually start on the day that the last election is won ••.. (Interjection) •..• Well that is my question, Mr . Chairman. I had to refer to his statement in order to ask my question. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is not making a speech, I. hope. Page 1876 March 23rd, 1960

MR. MOLGAT: No, no, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't think of doing that. -(Interjection)- But if I may start again on my question, and my question is this, Mr. Speaker; that the member stated that the election starts on the day the election is won - the next electi 0n starts. Then he proceeded to tell us that this will improve the situation for new members because they can have a shorter time .•.• MR . SPEAKER: Order. Order •.•. MR . MOLGAT: .•• in which to campaign. I want to know which is which •.. MR . SPEAKER: Order. Order. Ask your question, please. MR . MOLGAT: Well all right then.

Are people who propose to run for election to start campaigning as you suggested on the day after the first election is won, or are they to start on the notice that is given by the issue of the Writ of Election? You stated both in your speech. Which is it? MR . McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd be very glad to answer the questions, but mayJ make one clarification, that I did not say that it starts the day after the elction is won, because of course not all of us win.

I said after the ballots in an election have been counted, the next day is the start of the next election; and I made it quite clear that I was speaking with respect to the principle in this bill of the formal time of campaigning. MR. MOLGAT: I regret I don't see this time nuances in it. However I have another question ••.. MR . SPEAKER: Order ••• MR . MOLGAT: I have another question, Mr. Speaker. The honourable gentleman said that any time that they had some changes to propose they should bring them in immediately, and that is the reason for bringing in this Act now..

Have they other changes that they intend to make in the Election Act? -- (Interjection) -- No but have you other changes that you intend to bring in? MR . McLEAN: Do you see any before you? MR . MOLGAT: Then what is the purpose of having the committee sit during the summer if my honourable friends have no such proposals? MR. McLEAN: The Act is quite clear, Mr. Speaker.

The reason for the committee is that at our last time of meeting, some criticisms were made of the previous election that had taken place -- of in fact our last provincial election -- and a number of the members opposite asked that the whole Election Act and the election procedure be reviewed and this committee has been appointed at their request for that purpo se. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the speaker a question? Was that not agreed upon, and were there not complaints from all sides of the House rather than just those oppo site?

Because I can recall my friend the Honourable Member for Brandon raising some, and that had bearing on it ••• MR . SPEAKER: Order •••• MR . PAULLEY: •••• because of questions raised by all members _of the House rather than just the opposition, that this committee was decided upon? MR . SPEAKER: Order. MR . PAULLEY: There's no order at all, it's a question to the speaker •••• (Interjection) MR . MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask before the next speaker rises, ifimay ••• MR . SPEAKER: I'd say that the government can decide any matter of policy that they wish to. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, that was the point that I was raising. The Honourable the Minister of Education •.• MR . SPEAKER: Order ••.•• MR . PAULLEY: What is the Order? (Interjection) •.•. Look, you just sit down. You've already spoke awhile. I'm speaking to the Speaker and the Speaker is standing up because I'm speaking to him. At least I believe so. MR . SPEAKER: I only made a statement. MR. PAULLEY: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, but the point is, and I'm sure that you are fair enough to listen, the point that I'm raising is that the Honourable the Minister of Education said that this is the result of the fact of complaints of opposition; and my question was, is it March 23rd, 1960 Page 1877

(Mr. Paulley, cont' d) .... not ·a fact that all members irrespective of their party raised this question and that as a result this commi ttee is being set? MR. McLEAN : Mr. Speaker, the request for a review of the Election Act was made in this House by the Honourable the Leader of the CCF Party. He was the one who raised it. He had a number of complaints . When he did so, a number of the other members of the House said that there were other ma tters which, if such a comm ittee were established, should be examined by the commi ttee .

The compla int was made by the Honourable the Leader of the CCF Party •••. --(Interjection) -- MR. EVANS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It does seem to me that this series of questions has gone beyond reasonable limits . It does seem to me that most of the questions have the effect of repeating statements that the honourable members, either themselves or other members have made during their principal speeches . I ask you to consider Sir, whether these are within the limits of normal questions? MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question •••• MR. SPEAKER: Order. . MR. MOLGAT : Order? MR. SPEAKER: Order.

Sit down please. It didn't seem to me that you were raising a point of order with the Chair. You were attempting to ask a question of the Honourable the Leader of the House • MR. MOLGAT : Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the point of order made by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce ? MB.. SPEAKER: You may. MR. MOLGAT : Very well then, Mr. Speaker. I submit that the questions that we're asking are perfectly legitimate questions. If the government does not wish to have questions answered that's fine. Tha t's their privilege. They have the majority in this House.

But the questions that we've asked are perfectly legitimate questions. They're questions arising out of th•3 statemen ts ma:Ie by my honourable friend, and if that isn't proper, then I submit that this gover.nm·3nt doesn't need this side of the House at all. That they can proceed to run the whole show themselv es, which is apparently what they want. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member for St. Boniface wish to ask a question? MR. L. DESJ ARDINS (st. Boniface): Yes, Mr . Speaker, I've been liste:ting here and I think that there's a lot of things that doesn't mak e--a lot of statements that dJesn•t stand up .

I'm very disappointed and surprised at the lack of logic of the Honourable the Minister of Education. They've tried to ask hlm tb.at in the question--question period, I should say be_. cause this is all that this has been, but my H:mourable Friend from ste. Rc•E:'J :'. 3 :wt as good as that--at that he's not quite the expert that the Attorney-General is. He has quite a way of asking a question amd making a speech like he did when the Honourable Member from Broken head was speaking.

But it was stated in this House today that the election or the campaign started--was stated by members from that side of the House that the campa ign started imme diately the votes were counted. Well ma ybe they act like that, ma ybe we don't; in fact we've seen that in this session; we believe that they keep on all through the sess ion also. But if that is the intent I wonder where he feels it will encourage more people if it takes four or five years--a campaign of four or five years. I don't think that that's right.

Now this other thing they say that there was a statement made the government can do what they want. That's true, and in a dictatorship too--in a dictatorship they don't bother --(Interjection) -- Was that a question you wanted to ask; because you usually wait until I can't speak any more. If you have a question, stand up ••• MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Honourable Member for St. Boniface has the floor. MR. DESJARD INS: Thanks very much.

I think that we understand that the government- the democracy, the government has the majority and they vote, but at least if they want to be so darned obvious as they are today why go through a procedure of naming a committee--it's. true the Leader of the CCF Party did ask for this committee-- and everything should be studied in there. They more or less are admitting that this is the only thing they want to see changed . And I've asked some of the members who've been here for quite a while and they don't recall that this was asked when the Liberals had form ed the government.

Maybe it didn't suit them to have this change then. So I think if we're going to look at that, if we're going to be serious, Page 1878 March 23rd, 1960

(Mr. Desjardins, cont'd.) ••• we• re not going to try and fool each other, go through a proced ure and waste the time--that if we're going to have a committee to name this--to study this it should study all phases not, well if the Conservative Party or the government want this, this is it. And I was right when I said Conservative Party. - They want this, we'll pass that right away, the rest well go ahead it might take two or three months, we might have a by-election. Now they say when you have something to decide, decide it now, do it right away because you owe it to the people.

I think that the same member that said that, he has a question in front of him that we've been waiting for a long time to hear something about. Now there's a little 'Colombo Plan' here, they'll probably die on this thing but it was in the Order paper. There's a lot of things like that. Sometimes it suits them to bring something fast and to railroad something and other times just wait and see . The Metro was very fast and other things we have to wait quite awhile.

Well, I wish that the members opposite us would give us an idea of what they want, make up their mind; are they going to be logical or are they going to one day decide something and the next day change all those things . We don't know what they want to do. It's pretty hard; we know that they control this House, they've been doing a very good job of ramming things down everybody's throat, but at least they could pretend that they want this to be democracy or not be so insulted when we call them dictators, and that's what they've proved -- the Attorney-General tonight. MR . J. M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker, just a few words on my behalf--no, P,ve not spoken. If the government is so intent on reducing the time to conduct a campaign and eager to see more participants in the elections why don't they rather set a limit on the amount that a candidate can expend. In that way it would limit the activities or the campaigns of the people so running. Then secondly, what I would like to see is that those deposits be reduced. Certainly why should we have a $200 .0 0 deposit in Manitoba when the like amount is for a Federal election; cer tainly ours should be lower than the amount stipulated for a Federal election.

So that, in my opinion, we need a longer period to conduct campaigns and especially for those people that haven't got the time. They will probably have more spare time over a longer period of time so in that way will be more able to conduct a campaign as they saw fit. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . PAULLEY: The yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members .

The question before the House is an amendment to the motion which reads as follows: That the report of the Committee on Elections and Priv ileges be not received in respect of Bill 43 . Those in favour of the motion please rise . YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Froese, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hawryluk, Hill house, Hryhorczuk, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine, Reid, Roberts, Schreyer, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner, Wright. NAYS: Messrs . Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Mrs. Forbes, Messrs.

Hamilton, Hutton, Ingebrigtsoil, Jeannotte, Johnson (Gimli), Johnson (Assiniboia), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Ridley, Scarth, Seaborn, Stanes, Thompson, Watt, Weir, Witney. MR . CLERK: Yeas 21; Nays 29 . MR . SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. The motion before the House now that the report of the Committee be received. Are you ready for the question? Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney General that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the following pro;>osed resolution: that a special committee to consist of the Honourable Messrs . Lyon, Me Lean, Ridley, Roblin, Messrs .

Alexan:ler, Campbell, Dow, Orlikow, Paulley, Shewman and Smellie be appointed aud instructed to consider the Election Act with "a view Jo recommending such rupendments as may be-deemed to be necessary to bring the said Act into conformity with present-day electoral practices in other jurisdictions, and to provide a more orderly and efficient conduct of the elections in the Province of Manitoba. 2.

That the said Committee make .its report and such recommendations as it may deem advis able to this House at the next ensuing Session, and shall have power to sit during the recess and after adjolJ.rnment or prorogation and shall also have for the purpose of the enquiries, all 1'4arch 23rd, 196.0 Page 1879

(Mr. Evans, cont'd .) ••• the powers, privileges and immunities of commissioners appointed und•3r

part V of the Manitoba Evidence Act. 3. That the Provincial Treasurer be authorized to pay out of the Consolidated Fund to members of the said omn'littee the amount of such ex penses incurred by the members in attending the sittings of the said Committee during recess as may be deemed necessary by the Comptroller General. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews please take the Chair . MR. EVANS: Mr.

Chairman, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the subject matter of the proposed resolution, recommends it to the House. MR. CHAIRlVIAN: That a Special Committee to consist of the Honourable Messrs . Lyon, M·JLean, Ridley, Roblin, Messrs .

Alexander, Campbell, Dow, Orlikow, Pa".Illey, Shewman and Smellie be appointed and :instructed to consider the Electio:1 Act with a view to recommend ing such aC'Ilendments as may be deem_ed to be necessary to bring the said Act into conformity with present day electoral practices i'l other j·rr1sdictions, and to provide a more orderly and efficient cond·.w·� ;)f the elections in the Province of Manitoba. 2. That the said committee ma\�z its report and SLlcb. :..·ecommendations as it may deem advisable to this HollSe at the next e:1s,�ing Ses·J!.on.

Shall have power to sit during recess after adjournment or prorogation, and shall also have for the purposes of enquiries all the powers, privileges and immunities of commissioners appointed under

Part 5 of the Manitoba Evidence Act. 3. That the Provincial Treasurer be authorized to pay out of Consolidated Fund to members of said committee the amounts of such expenses incurred by the members in attending the sittings of the said com mittee during recess as may be deemed necese ry by the Comptroller-Gen eral. MR . PREFONTAINE: Mr. Chairman, I for one cannot see why we should try and copy what's going on in other jurisdictions with respect to this matter. Why can't we strike out from this resolution the connection or the allegation that we should necessarily follow what they' re doing somewhere else?

Can't we run our own show, ·our own business here and do what we think we should do with respect to our legislation ourselves? I think that this suggestion should be struck out of this resolution. That members should consider what is fit to do, proper to do for the Province of Manitoba. We are trying to imitate too much what is going on in other parts of the country. In certain matters they're not applicable in our own juris diction here, and I take strong objection to this language that is inciuded in this motion. MR. LYON: Mr.

Chairman, we would be quite happy, I think, to listen to any sugges tions the Opposition might have to improve the wording of it. So far as I' m concerned it's merely a matter of semantics. As I recall when the first resolution was brought in there was some question as to why these words were not added, and they were merely put in to clarify the question of other jurisdictions; but so far as the government is concerned, I'm sure we're quite happy to hear any reasonable suggestion for improving the wording of the resolution. MR. EVANS: Would the honourable member care to propose an amendment. MR .

PREFONTAINE: I haven't the wording before me and I just can't draft an amend ment without having the proposal before me . (Interjection) ••.• My suggestion was to strike out any references as to what's being done in other jurisdictions • MR . EVANS: Would it suit my honourable friend if we took out the words "i n other jurisdictions". Simply said "t o bring the Act into conformity with present-day electoral prac tices and to provide a more orderly and efficient conduct" .• etcetera. Just simply eliminate the words "in other jurisdictions" . MR .

PREFONTAINE : I think that would go a long way toward meeting my objections MR . EVANS: I think that's what my honourable friend wanted. Well would my honour able friend care to move that; this being his idea? MR. PREFONTAINE : Yes, I will move that, Mr. Chairman, along the lines as was sug gested. Mr . Chairman took a voice vote and declared the amendment carried� --leaving out the words "i n other jurisdictions" • MR. CHAffiMAN: Agreed? Are you ready for the queation? MR. MOLGAT: Mr .

Chairm an, before the question is placed, I wonder if I could ask the mover of the resolution whether the government intends to suggest other changes in the Election Act apnrt from Bill No . 43 which was discussed earlier today? Are there other Page 1880 March 23rd, 1960

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd.) .•. changes proposed in the Act on behalf of the government? MR. EVANS: I am not aware of any, but then I might say that I was not on the --it woul dn't have any bearing I think on the rules of the House Committee -- I can say for myself that I have no knowledge of any. MR. MOLGAT : I wonder if there are any other members of the Cabinet - possi bly the Attorney-General or the Minister of Education who would have any views to express on this subject. MR. LYON: I think, Mr .

Chairman, that when the Comm ittee meets, we can possi bly answer that question much better for the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, if we have any suggestions to ·offer at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN : The resolution be adopted as amended? The Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. Mr . Speaker, the Comm ittee of the Whole House has adopted certain resolutions as amended and directed me to report the same, and ask leave to sit again. MR. li'l , G. MARTIN (St. Matthews) : Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre that the report of the Committee be received. Mr .

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. EVANS: Mr . Speaker, I beg to move seconded by the Honourable the Attorney General that a special committee to consist of the Honourable Messrs . Lyon, McLean, Ridl ey, Roblin, Messrs .

Alexan der, Campbell, Dow, Orlikow, Paulley, Shewman, and Smellie , be appointed and instructed to consider the Election Act with a view to recommending such amend ments as may be deemed to be necessary to bring the said Act into conformity with preseht day elector al practices and to provide a more orderly and efficient conduct of the elections in the Province of Manitoba. 2.

That the said committee make its report and such recommenda tions as it may deem advisable to this House at the next ensuing session, and shall have power to sit during recess after adjournment or prorogation, and shall also have for the purpose of. the enquiries all the powers, privilege s and immunities of commis sioners appointed under

Part 5 of the Manitoba Evidence Act. 3. That the Provincial Treasurer be authorized to pay out of Consolidated Fund to members of the said committee the amount of such expenses incur red by the members in attending the sittings of the said committee during recess as may be deemed necessary by the Comptroller-General . Mr. Speaker presented-the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, with some hesitation I beg to pres ent the seventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Law Amendments. MR.

CLERK: Your Select Standing Committee on Law Amendments beg leave to present the following as their seventh report. Your Committee recommends that the fees paid in respect to the following Bills : Nos . 28, 2 9, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 , 38, 39, 40 , 41, be remitted less cost of printing. Your Committee has considered Bills Nos . 108 and 118, and has agreed to report the same without amendment. Your Committee has also considered Bill Nos . 116, and has agreed to report the same with certain amendments; all of which is res pectfully submitted. MR . LYON : Mr .

Speaker I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Public Works that the report of the Comm ittee be received. Mr . Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . LYON : Mr. Speaker, the resoluti on is necessa ry as a result of the remittance of fees on the Hutterian bills and I therefore move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Public Works that the fees paid in respect of the following bills be remitted less cost of printing. Bills 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 , 38, 39 , 40 and 41. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. l\1R. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, befo�e the Orders of the Day, !w ould like to direct a question to the Honourable the Attorney-General,. and I must apologize to him for not having given him notice of this question priorly, and he can take it as notice if he so desires . The question is this , Mr . Speaker .

In view of the racial atrocities which have occurred in South Africa in the past few days, has the government given any consideration to requesting the Manitoba Liquor Control Commissi on to cancel or defer the purchasing any further March 23rd, 1960 · Page 1881

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd): ••• purchases of liquor products produced in South Africa? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I can answer without notice having been given, that as yet no such consideration has been given. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, can I ask a subsequent question? Will consideration be given to this matter? MR. LYON:: Mr. Speaker, I'm being asked to asvise as to what recommendations or what policy will be decided by the Executive Council and I'm afraid I can't answer that question. MR. SPEAKER: Order of the Day. . MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I should like to lay on the table of the House revised and corrected pages from the annual report - it's page 8 revised, of the annual report of the Liquor Commission. I gave the House notice that these pages would be distributed when printed, and I now lay them on the table for distribution to the members . MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Second Reading of Bill No. 7, the Honourable the First ·Minister. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable the First Minister, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General that Bill No . 7,

an Act to amend the Motive Fuel Users Tax Act be now read a second time . MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, is this the resolution that deals with the ••• (In terjection ••• Pardon? May I say a few words about it please? As the outset, of course, the resolution which is before us is entirely somewhat modified, perhaps watered down •• MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my honourable friend has the correct order on the agenda, or on the order paper. This is the second reading of Bill No. 7 on the Motive Fuel Act. MR . GRAY: Just a moment please . oh I thought this was first time .

I apologize . MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should offer a word of explanation, that the main purp'ose of these amendments is to strengthen the administration of the Motive Fuel Users Tax Act. At the present time, users of motive fuel which is almost entirely diesel fuel are not taxed at the time of purchase but are required to report their purchases later and pay the tax at a subsequent time. By this amendment; persons who receive fuel into a fuel tank of an engine or machine must pay the tax to the licensed dealer who sells it at that time, and he must remit the tax to the government.

Thns to the extent that.vehicles and machines use motive fuel, the operators will pay tax in the same way that those using gasoline in vehicles or mac hines pay their tax. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Attorney-General. The Honourable the Member for Ste. Rose . · · MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, it may appear rather odd that I who was a member of this Special Select Committee, should be rising at this time to speak on the report of the Committee .

I would like to point out however, that I was unfortunately absent at the last com mittee meeting. I was at all the others but could not be at the last one, and it was my inten tion at that time and I believe that the leader of our group, who was there , did propose, at that time, that some changes be made with respect to Rule 34 in particular. And those were not accepted by the committee .

I would like to point out as well that I think our stand was made clear during the deliberations of the committee that we felt that this restriction was not nec essary, and I'm referring to the time of the Throne Speech debate and that we abstained from voting on this particular rule when the time came in the committee • One of our members had appeared before the committee to make his stand in this respect. Now last night there was an amendment proposed to the motion that is before us and quite correctly you ruled that it was out of order, Sir. So I do not question at all your ruling on the subject.

The subject matter of the amendment, however, did seem to me to offer a very reasonable compromise on this subject and I ap'(>reciate that it is now before the House . I do think, however, it was a sensible compromise and I regret that it was framed in such way which y()u could not, in any way, accept it as being proper. That is the extent of the comments I wish to make at this time on my own behalf, Mr. Speaker . It is possible that there will be some changes made to this motion yet and ! just want to make my point clear that while I was on the committee, this is Page 1882 March 23rd, 1960

(Mr. Molgat, cont•d.) •••• one rule in which I think possibly some leeway should be allowed . MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a feeling of considerable justification · and maybe some indignation but with very little enthusiasm because I know that what I have to propose is not going to be accepted by the government. It looks like a hopeless battle from the past performances in matters of this nature, but I do think that one of the duties of the Opposition is to express their opinions , even when they know that the conclusion is more or less foregone. Now inasfar as this resolution is c_oncerned, Mr.

Speaker, I am not in accord with several of the changes, but in particular, and I'm going to confine myself to Rule 34, for the past number of years, Mr. Speaker, our economy has been buoyant and consequently, our programs have been enlarged -- the amount of money that has been spent by the government is enlarged from year to year, and you would think that there would be considerably more rea son for debate, you would consider that our sessions . as of necessity, would be longer if they were given the same attention as they were in the past.

And for that reason and others, which I'll mention in the course of my talk, I cannot see why the Throne Speech debate is being cur tailed. After all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to our form of govern ment. It's a party system government, and the Opposition, in order to have that government function properly, is just as important as the government itself. Take away the rights of the opposition and we no longer have a democratic form of government.

And every time you cur tail the possibility of the Opposition expres sing itself on any of the programs of the government, you at the same time are hindering the efficiency of the Legisla ture. And for the world of me, Mr . Speaker, I cannot imderstand why the government is so adamant in cutting down on the num ber of days to be utilized in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. This is the one debate that I consider is very, very. vital during any session.

The Throne Speech sets out the pro gram of a government for the coming year and this Throne Speech receives wide publicity; the people of the province through the radio and the press and through the TV and every other source of information, are given full details of what the government proposes to do. And if _ there is any place during the session when the Opposition should participate in the debate, it's on the Throne Speech. This is the one opportunity that the Opposition has of pointing out the weaknesses of the government program and criticizing what they feel should receive criticism .

Now the changes in Rule 34, according to my

interpretation of it, leave only one full day for a debate on the main motion. There are three days allotted to the amendm ent and three days to the sub-amendment. Well, if we are going to follow the rules pretty strictly, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is one of the reasons why these rules have been changed so that we conform to them a little more in the future than we have in the past. Then any member who gets up to speak on an amendment will only be able to speak on the subject matter covered by that amend ment, and the same applies to the sub-amendment.

I could readily see more reason to have the amendment . and the sub-amendment confined to one day' s debate and the rest of the seven pro posed days to the main motion. Because with 57 members in the House--or 56, not including you Sir--at least 50% of them, and I think that if we check the records, we'll find that more than 50% of the members take

part in the Throne Speech debate. If they are only allotted a portion of an hour, one day is not enough for all of them to express their opinions . If the government hopes to put the Opposition in the position where it will not be very effective as criticism , then I say that this is a move very similar to Bill No.4 3, where the government is using every endea vour to cut down the effectiveness of the Opposition, with nothing else in mind but the coming election, when and if it does come . Now I don't think that is fair any more than I thought that Bill 43 was fair.

I have an amendment to propose, but I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am rather disappointed at the attitude the government has taken in this ma tter; I do not think it is reasonable, and I do think, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee should be reconstituted and the matter referred back to it. And accordingly, I make the following motion, Mr .

Speaker, seconded by the Honourable Member for Carillon that the motion be ap1ended by adding the word 'not• after the word •stop' in the first line thereof, that the following words be added after the figures 1960 in the fifth line thereof: 'but that the report of the committee be referred back to the special select committee for further consideration and thatthe special select com mittee be reconstituted for that purpose.' March 23rd, 1960 Page 1883

MR. SPEAKER: I might say that I think I should have a look at this one and possibly tomorrow we'll deal with it. Proposed resolution by the Honourable the First Minister. Order stand. Adjourned debate on the motion of the Honourable the First Minister and the motion and amendment thereto by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and a further motion and further am endment by the Honourable Member for St. John' s. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. The Budget Debate. MR. J. M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker, this is my first opportunity that I have to speak onlhe budget as such, that has been brought down and my first words would be one of congratulation to the Premier, although he is not in his seat today, for bringing down a bal anced budget. But I think that is as far as I can go. There are quite a number of matters con tained in the budget to which I cannot agree and cannot go along with and to start the thing off on page two--and I'd like to read one paragraph on the top of page two: "The fun damental strength of Manitob a's economy has been clearly established.

There has been higher employ ment, higher personal income, increased production and sales, expanded savings, improve ment in nearly every sector all during the period of uncertainty in the capital markets and the l::):ade channels". This, apparently, is a statement of confidence and strength in the economy of the province today. However, the situation is not as rosy as all that and we have many in dications and reasons for it. Some of these have already been discussed in comm ittee and es pecially on the resolutions that were dealt with and some of them are still on the Order Paper ..

Farmers today are in a squeeze. This is a well known fac t, and in my opinion, this govern ment should assist farmers in trying to secure for them a better deal, better prices fo r the commodities they have to sell, especially grains. In certain other commodities in liv estock and so on, this is not nearly as severe, but on grains especially, the price of wheat has gone down in the latter years; decreasing the purchasing power of the farmer.

Further, he is lim ited in his sales because of the delivery quotas imposed by the Canadian Wheat Board, there by regulating and lim iting the income of the farmer to a large degree. The agricultural situa tion is not so buoyant as Manitoba's agricultural production would appear to indicate, because of the increased costs the farm er has to contend with in the things he has to buy. This govern ment should make every effort to secure better prices for the far mer and, once more, es pecially on grains, and not leave it to the farm organizations who are struggling to make head ways on this matter.

I could have brought in the two-price system for wheat, which we recom mend and endorse, and I think that should be implemented by our Federal Government. I could also bring in another matter, the matter of distribution. I think that is one of our chief troubles of today when our wheat cannot be sold to other countries except for Canadian cur rency. We should be willing to extend credit to these countries that need our credit to buy our wheat and thereby enable better sales, so that the fa rmer in western Canada can sell their produce that they have produced.

Further on page five of the BudgefR eport, the Minister states and further substantiating the healthy state of the economy, and I quote, "Bank clearings in Manitoba have emphasized the healthy state of the economy. .More than 16 .7 billion in cheques cashed in Manitoba during 1959". Further he goes on to say, "Another indication of the sustained strength of income in the province was the record of some 19 1 million in life in surance purchased during 1959. Bank savings deposits continue to represent another great reserve.

" I think these are very splendid--this is a very splendid report in that way but then he goes on to say, "Over 16 5,000 people were gainfully employed in the province during the past six months. A number appreciably higher than during the same period of a year earlier. However, we must continue to seek a long-term solution to problems facing those of our work ing fo rce who find themselves temporarily deprived of their normal opportunities during the off-season period. And our efforts as a government are predicated on this premise".

I am pleased that the government is recognizing and endeavouring to do something on this matter as pertaining to the unemployment situation, especially those off-season workers. I would like to impress on him once more the seriousness of the plight of the farmer and far m-worker in this regard. I have done so earlier during the session and I would like to repeat that the farm er and the farmworker are in a serious state on this--in connection with this problem.

The farmworker facing the insecurity of the off-seas onal unemployment coupled with lower wages and unable to secure unemployment insurance, is leaving the farm for other employment, cutting in and adding to the unemployment situation in the cities and urban centres, when Page 1884 . March 23rd, 1960

(Mr. Froe se, cont'd. ) .• farmers need this experienced help on the farm. This situation is more serious than many people realize, and is getting worse as time goes on. Many farmers would be only too happy to participate and provide this insurance for their workers if permis sible. Therefore, I would urge this government tO make repres entations to the Federal Govern ment on behalf of the farmers to extend the Federal Unemployment Insurance Act to cover and include farm workers in their legislation.

On page 14 and 15 of sections dealing on education, and here I would just like to read one or two sentences , and I quote ; I might remark here, Mr. Speaker, that our contribution to edu cation will aggregate 32 million on revenue account in 1960-161, and will represent some 34% of the total Provincial Budget. This compares wi.th 19. 6 million allocated in 1958-159 or 24% of the budget.

While I congratulate the government on the amount, the 32 million already mention ed, or contribution to be spent on education for the coming year, and respect their pride in in creas ing this percentage from 24% of the budget allocated in 158-'59 to 34% of this year's Pro- . vincial budget for 1960-'61.

However, with educational departm ents geared to increase costs, and commitme nts on an estimated basis, the government better watch should time get worse, for these percentages could change very ra pidly, and I think that is a well known fact that if your costs are increasing and should times get worse, that your budget in total will go down, that those percentages naturally will increase terrifically. I must also say that I regret that the government has failed to treat the electors and taxpayers alike in failing to provide for like teacher grants for all areas of the province.

The people in those areas are entitled to the same treatment, having to pay to the government coffers, the general fund of the province through various taxes, yet denied to recei ve the same return. Certainly we cannot pride our selves in a democracy continuing to hold a club over a certain

section of the province because they do not see eye to eye with the government of the day. The government should reconsider the matter se riously and impartially and bring justice to bear. Mr. Speaker, when the First Minister who is also the Treasurer for the province _ _states on page 25 under the

section of .Public Debt, and I quote, "That needed capital additions and im provements can not now be financed from revenue in view of the heavy and unavoidable cur rent demands "• I must take issue on this statement. After going to great pains to substantiate that economic conditions in the province are healthy and one of confidence and strength he's going back to practices made in depress ion years, when money was borrowed for relief purpos �s and set up as a capital item. While it can be excused in hard times, it certainly should not be indulged in in good times. As proposed by the Treasurer under

schedule "C" that's of thl.s report that we received on Capital Spending, consist ing of grants to universities of Manitoba, the Brandon College, hospitals and homes for the aged, a total amount of $5,935 ,250, will be capitalized when they are given away. These capital ttems will show on our balance sheet as intangible assets like the funds given for relief. And I cannot condone this practice. Gifts that are made should come from current revenue, since there is nothing to show for, otherwise, and as such are fictitious assets on the balance sheet. Further, the amount on

schedule "B " should be provided for out of current revenue as well, such as as a,o-ricultural research, $1, 700, 000, and many of the ot hers listed. The $20 million for highways should not be capital ized, for when are we going to pay for them ? If we continue the present practice, within a few years' time our annual payments on these loans will increase to the stage where we will be un able to make them and also carry on our road-b uilding program, in addition to those payments. The cost of road-building should be paid from current revenue in order to keep on building roads which, in my opinion, is ess ential. In to.tal we have roughly a total of

schedule (

b) and (

c) of $32 million that should not be capitalized at all especially in these good times as the Min ister pointed out. Further, I would like to refer to the financing of our public debt and according to the es timates this is up 2 1/2 million over the previous year and which will continue to rise since more debt is graded year after year.

And as the economists state today that they expect a re cession in 161 or 162, this could have a decided effect on the US dollar so that by the time we will be making repayments of some of these loans that are consummat ed at preseit, will have to be repaid with probably paying a premium on it as well. Further to that, I would like to rl:)ad from the Wood, Gundy & Company report. It's a report on Canadian government and municipal finance statistics and I was interested the other day when the Leader of the Opposition drew March 23rd, 1960 Page 1885

l (Mr. Froese, cont'd. ) •• attention to the Province of Saskatchewan which apparently is on the road to repaying their capital debt at a faster rate than we do. And I have some statistics here that I would like to read to you. Apparently as at March 31 st, 1959, the debenture debt of the Province of Saskatchewan was $339 million, add to that the treasury bills outstanding another $23 mUlion, makes it $362 million. That's $378 per capita debt for Saskatchewan. In addition to that they had new borrowings, during the period March 31 st to November 30th, of $15 million.

Coming down to Ontario--Ontario had a debenture debt of $1, 529, 000, 000 and other obli,-_ gations outstanding of $257 mlllion, making it a total of $1, 787, 000, 000; a per capita debt of $257 mUlion. In addition-to that, they also made new borrowings o£$100 million. Then we con tinue and go on to British Columbia and the debenture debt listed for British Columbia is $162 million plus treasury bills of $17 million, making it $179 million or a per capita debt of $103 . But for-the first time in many years there was no new borrowed money for capital purposes.

Then going on to the Province of Alberta, the debenture debt of that province was $20 million and treasury bills $8 million, a total of $29, 153, 000, or a per capita debt of $16. 36. They had no new borrowings and didn't have any for many years, but on top of that they have close to $400 million in reserves. Then coming to Manitoba--Manitoba had a debenture debt at the end of March 31 st of $204 million plus treasury bills of $53 million, or a total of $257 million, making it a per cap ita debt of $230.

Now in addition to that, new money was borrowed to the tune of $53 million so that that $230 per capita is increased substantially. We have been advised by the First Min Ister that further monies have been borrowed since, and from the capital that is supposed to be secured, roughly $208 mlllion, this will double the amount of our indebtedness and bring the figure of $230 to double the amount that it is at present. Now certainly we cannot continue to go on indefinitely like this and bring the province further into debt.

I think it is time that a pay as -you-go policy was adopted by this government so that we would not be creating any unneces sary debt and thereby improving our condition. Surely we do not want to follow the example of the Federal Government in the way they did their re-financing job of the conversion loan, costing the people of Canada mlllions of dollars. Then I think the government should do something about it and develop our natural re sources to create another supply of revenue for this province.

Certainly when, as already men tioned the other day, when Saskatchewan has 15. 8% of its revenue from natural resources and mineral resources and Manitoba only three percent of its budget, or 2: 9 million, there's a lot of room left to improve. I might mention at this point that Alberta budget of $328 mllllon for this year; and the estimated revenue from oil, natural gas, and other natural resources will amount to $135 million.

Last year this item was $127 1/2 million or the amount budgeted for last year was $34 million less, so that surely we in Manitoba should make every effort to develop the natural resources that we have so that we too can, and the people in our province can benefit by the natural resources that we have . Speaking on the amendment that was n:ad e by the CCF group, I could support the last part of the resolution pertaining to improvement or to the part that says the government is failing to obtain sufficient revenue from our natural resources.

I am heartily in agreement with that, but I could not go along with the first part which introduces planning and which would result in regulations and so forth. I would naturally like to amend that resolution to read "that the government is failing to obtain su:fficien t revenue from our natural resources to eliminate borrowing for current and capital purposes" , but since this would not be in order, and being a one-man show here I wouldn't have a seconder, so I won't propose it at this time. That, Mr. Speaker, are briefly some of the comments that I had to make.

I know that from the press reports, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada says that we might experience tight money policy for the coming year again, that we might have the same merry-go-round on this subject in the coming summer.

According to press reports I think the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who is the authority on money .matters in Canada and who regulates the flow of the credit in our Dominion, I think he is the one that naturally knows because he has the power to regulate it, so that I hope that this government will revise its plans for the future and that they will continue to go on a pay-as -you-go policy. MR. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a thought on this Budget debate. The Leader of the Opposition spent considerable time criticizing the Page 1886 March 23rd, 1960

(Mr. Cowan, cont'd.) •• •• amount of the debt of the Provincial Government. I have been in this House for almost four Sessions now and we have had a lot of proposals for the expenditures of money in this House, and every expenditure that has been proposed has been supported by the Official Opposition excepting for the sum of $1, 000 in respect of the increase of the salary of the Leader of the Official Opposition.

So when the Leader of the Official Opposition is criticizing the amount of the debt that we have here, he is c.riticizing to a large extent the actions of his party in supporting every one of those expenditures that have been proposed in this House and, in fact, they have asked for many many more a.O.ditional expenditures. During the Throne Speech debate in this Session, I counted 21 additional expenditures that they advo cated and after that they advocated many many more, particularly upon roads.

So when the Liberals criticize the government for the amount of the debt, they should explain to the people that they supported every measure that went to make up that debt. They supported every item of expenditure and they advocated many many more expenditures which, if they had been adopted by the government, would hav.e made the debt a great deal higher. MR. s. ROBERTS (LaV erendry): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Member from Gladstone, that the debate be adjourned. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried • . • • • • • continued on next page March 23rd, 1960 Page 1887

MR. ARTHUR E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks) presented Blll No. 122,

an Act to amend and interpret The Consolidated School District of Seven Oaks Consolidation Act, for second reading. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR;' vVRlGHT: Mr. Speaker, I just would like to make a few brief comments in regard to this Bill. Honourable members wlll recall, about a year ago, the School Districts of Park dale, West St;" Paul, Old Kildonan and West Kildonan were placed in a consolidated school dis trict, and of course since that time the Minister has declared it to be now the Seven Oaks School Di vision No. 10.

The intent of this Bill is to Clarify and to interpret certain aspects of the Blll in regard to transportation and to the apportionment of costs. I don't think it's necessacy,for me to go into this Blll anymore than that, but in the latter part of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, tliere is a clause here- -the Seven Oaks School Division is asking for permission to borrow $65, 000 to apply on a bu ilding which would cost in the neighbourhood of $100, 000 to house lts medical centre or its health unit. We expect to recover fro m the Federal Government and the Provin cial Government some $34, 000.

But this Blll, if passed, would authorize the school district to borrow this money without applying to the municipal board or to submit it to a vote of the ratepayers. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, and the proposed motion of the Honourable the Leader of the CCF in ' amendment thereto, and the further amendment by the Honourable Member for Selkirk. Does this order stand?

Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Fisher and the proposed motion in amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Hamiota, and a fur ther motion in amendment to the amendment by the Honourable Member for Carlllon. The Hon ourable the Leader of the CCF Party. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that has been hanging fire for some considerable time now and possibly it can soon be resolved and go from the Order Paper.

The Honourable the Minister of Agricultur e, speaking the other day, indicated that in general the proposed amendment of the Honourable Member for Cartllon had the support of the House; namely, that they were perfectly prepared to undergo, at least to some degree, co-op eration with the other two prairie provinces in an attempt to get a better deal from our federal author ities in respect of agricult ure. I mi ght say, Sir, that I had the pleasure of talking with the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan and he thinks that this is a fair and reasonable propo sition to be made.

However, Sir, since that time, that is the time that the Honourable the Min ister of Agriculture had spoken on this resolution, if memory serves me correctly, something has happened of very major importance to the farmer of western Canada, in that the great vi sion of Canada has rejected the propositions of western agriculture in respect of def ic iency pay ments and, in eff ect, as some reports have it, that the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker has written off western Canada insofar as the Conservative Party is concerned-- (interjection)--No, it was not a CCF report, my honourable friend.

It was a report in the Winnipeg Free Press. It certainly wasn't a report in the Comm onwealth of the CCF. And I might say too, Mr. Speak er, further to the interjection of my honourable friend, that this attitude has not only been ex pressed by the Winnipeg Free Press; it has been expressed pretty well by every newspaper in western Canada at least, that has the concern of the western far mer at heart.

I think, Sir, that suff ic ient has been said to establish the need of some payment of de ficiency payments to agricu lture and that it would be superfluous for me to go into what are -- --normally termed my "long-winded" orations on this particular subject. But I do say, Sir, that there has been no resolving of the problem at all; and certainly the Government of Manitoba has, with i.ts usual lack of energy, not made any contribution on behalf of the fa rmers. It is some times said, Mr. Speaker, that there has been antagonisms or differences b�tweenthe ranks of labour and of the farmer.

And I want to say today, -without equivocation at�ll, that as far .as I am concerned, as far as my party is concerned, we view with great concern the lack of pur chasing power in the hands of our farmers of Manitoba and western Canada. The question is sometimes asked of us, of labour, as to whether or not we would be prepared to accept a high er -price for agricultural products in order that our £arm commu nity and our fa rm er-s would' Page 1888 March 23rd, 1960

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd. ) .. receive a fairer share of the income. I think I can say, in all sin cerity and honesty, Mr. Speaker, that by and large labour is prepared to accept, if necessary, a two price system of wheat; to accept through annual taxation additional burdens in order that the farmer of western Canada would receive a fairer share of the national income. It seems to me that insofar as the Government of Manitoba are concerned, they talk two ways . The seem to take the position that deficiency payments are no good; that they are not the answer; that they are not acceptable.

On each occasion my honourable colleague from-Fisher has introduced this resolution calling for deficiency payments, members opposite have changed it and watered it down and have said that, in their. opinion, deficiency payments arenotthe answer. I was quite interested, Mr.

Speaker, to listen to a portion of, and then afterwards read the presentations that were made on behalf of the Government of Canada to the Royal Commis sion on Transportation by the Honourable the First Minister, the Minister of Industry and Com merce and also the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture in respect of the problems of Mani toba and the question of freight rates. It's very interesting, Mr.

Speaker, when we read them, to find that in the presentations of each one of the honourable three gentlemen that I have men tioned that they have advooaed, insofar as raiiroad rates are concerned, deficiency payments to the raiiroads. Just by way of illustration, let me just read a quote of the Honourable First Minister of Manitoba. This, Sir, appears on page 36 of the submission of the Honourable Mr. Roblin to the Commission.

It is found on page 36, toward the latter part of the page, subpara graph 85: "As to the actual net losses resulting from trunk line, passenger and related ser vices, if such services are deemed to be in the national interest, then these losses should be met from the Federal Treasury". Isn't that what the farmers of Manitoba and western Canada are suggesting? Here we have the Premier of the Province of Manitoba, saying in respect of the branch lines, in respect of the railways, that if because of those operations they don't make their ends meet, then the Federal Treasury should make up the deficiency.

But what is the _ viewpoint of this government in respect of agriculture? The government says that they recog nize that in respect of a return of an income on cereal grains that there is a deficiency. But they say, the Government of Manitoba, how happy the situation is, so far as Manitoba is con cerned, that deficiencies are being met at the present time because of the increase in their re turn to our agricultural friends by way of livestock, poultry and eggs.

The only justification or the attempt--the government attempts on each and every occasion to look at the overall pic ture of the income to our farm population, taking into consideration all aspects of the agricul tural economy in order to justify their inactivity in respect of deficiency payments to our agri cultural friends. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no consistency at all in the policy of the Government of Manitoba in respect of agriculture.

It is not sufficient, Sir, for the farmer of Manitoba to hear from the Minister of Agriculture and other spokesmen of the government, to say that if we had deficiency payments that the greatest return from that would go to our larg est farmers, because I'm sure that some system could be war ked, an approach made so that if that is the fear that there could be a ceiling on the amount payable to any large scale farmer. I was somewhat amused, Mr. Speaker, the other day, when the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture stood up in this House, on March 7th, and made a statement.

And just to recall to the members of the House what that statement said, I will read it: "Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would Uke to make a statement, a very brief statement that I think is of importance to the farm community.

And now that it is clear that the Federal Government is un willing to give ass istance to prairie farmers in the form of deficiency payments on wheat, oats and barley, it is apparent that a fresh opportunity has arisen to consider ways and means of providing immediate cash ass istance to Manitoba farmers in the way that ls more closely tailor ed to the pa+ticular interests of this province and that would prove to be more acceptable to the .federal authorities._ With this end in view, I would lik� .to ;:tnnounce to this House that the Government of the Province will consult immediately with the farm ·organizations of Manitoba ln an effort to find ·an acceptable formula :that will-enable us t9 present new proposals for cash ass istance from the Fe deral Government at the earUest possible moment".

I say that that was amusing, Mr. Speaker, because it ls an intimation, to me at least, and my

interpretation of it would be that notwithstanding repeated representations of our farm organizations in the Province of Manitoba to the Provincial Governments that those March 23rd, 1960 Page 1889

(Mr. Paulley, cont1d. ) •• representations have not oeen taken heed of at all. And fu rther, that ,£-imply because of the fac t that the Federal Government has rejected the reque st of our farm organizations, instead of approaching the fede ral authority to draw to those gentlemen the necessity of a program of this, they've taken the attitude , well, we'll just tailor our demands until we can get some credit, until such time as our demands are acceptable to th em; in which case then we're both heroes; here in Winnipeg and there at Ottawa. So I say that this is not suf ficient.

First of all, let me repeat that tt's an indication that the government has not given real serious consideration to th e request of our farm organizations in Manitoba; and secondly, because "Mr. Visionary" rejects the proposals then we'll take another look and tailor our de mands to suit his purpose. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not good �nough for Manitoba; it is not good enough for the farming commu nity; it's not good enough fo r western Canada.

So I say to the government, that while I am pleased to note that they seem inclined to agree with the amendment as proposed by my honour able friend the Member for Carillon, let it not rest there.

But notwithstanding the statement made that I have just read out, of the Minister of Agri culture, the thing is not to attempt to agree to anything other than a fair and just return to the farmers of Manitoba; and it is imperative that the Government of Manitoba in no way shape or form attempt to shape its demands, which are just, in order that they meet with the approval of the colleagues of the Conservative Government of Manitoba at Ottawa. In saying these few words, Mr. Speaker, again I say that as far as we are concerned we will support the amendment of the Honourable Member for Carillon.

We would have pre ferred that the original motion as proposed by my colleague the Member from Fisher had been accepted without amendment, because we feel that therein is the "nub and the kernel" of the problems and the answer to the problems of western agriculture . However, in the alternative, we are prepared to accept the amendment and we sincerely trust that the Minister of Agricul ture and the Government of Manitoba waste no time in approaching the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan in an endeavour to work out a solution to the very pressing problems of agri culture. And I want to repeat again, Mr.

Speaker, it is not suff icient insofar as the far mer of western Canada is concerned to simply say, "because you're selling more livestock, more poultry and more eggs, that we can forget about your cereal grain problems''b ecausewe know that the situation can reverse itself insofar as the income in respect of livestock and so on. So I say in conclusion again, we support the sub-ame ndment and sincerely hope and trust that the Government of Manitoba gets up onto its feet and starts taking aggressi ve positive action for the far mers of Manitoba and western Canada. Mr.

Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. :MR. SPEAKER: The amendment to the original motion as amended. Are you ready for the question? MR. M. E. McKEL LAR (Souris- Lansdowne): Mr. Speaker, :i: would like to say a few words on this very important subject that the Leader of the CCF has been discussi ng, and speaking as a fa rmer. I'm very interested in this very important subject, def iciency payments.

I do not agree with the words of the Leader of the CCF that it would assist the farmers of western Canada by paying defic iency payments , simply because all you are saying, that you are paying money to a man who had a good crop and one who did not need defic iency payments. The man who is hailed out, dried out, flooded out, would not get any deficiency payments at all. They are the men who we need to help.

I think that the policies which we have tried to put over in the past, under resolution last year, one of payments by the acreage instead of by the bushel is the one that the farmers of western Canada will accept, I know, if and when they are adopted by the Dominion Government. As we all know, a little over a year ago the Domin ion Government paid out $40 million on an acreage basis, which is paid on a dollar an acre up to $200.

And we all know, as the Minister of Agriculture said the other day, that 71% of the farmers in Manitoba have less than 300 acres, so with that statement I think that most of -us as farm ers: would gain sufficiently if we were paid on that basta.- l d<r not agree -though that a dol lar an acre would be sufficient in this present day to meet the needs of tbfhiverag(darme� I do suggest, personally, that maybe on the basis of $2.0 0 an acre up to Z{}() acres:-woulc:foe more in line to meet the needs of the average far mer. I think that when this delegation went to Ottawa .the other year, led by: Mi;;.

Weston from Saskatchewan, that they were either mis informed or,they bad a- dream,, but one tha�wasntt Page 1890 March 23rd, 1960

(Mr. McKellar, cont'd. ) • � realistic in the minds of the western farmers for I know that many farmers in my area would not go along with the deficiency payment that was adopted by Mr. Weston and his group that went to Ottawa at that time. In my area we had two hailstorms. I myself was involved. In 1956 I was completely hailed out; in 1957 I was half hailed out. If the deficiency payments were paid I would not receive any money at all , or very littie, but the farmer who missed the hailstorms would get everything; he'd get the big amount.

That is why the farmers of our area, and all over the province that I've talked to, are not in favour of de ficiency payments by the bushel. · I do not think that this matter, regarding news papers, that they thought that the Domin ion Government was selling the farmers down the river; I do not think that they are informed either of the issues at stake at the present time. l think they were taking maybe some of the words out of the leaders' mouth of some of our farm organizations because that is the very policies they have been preaching.

But I think that the farm organizations should take very serious thought before they go suggesting that we should accept the pol icies of pay by the bush el . I think they should take very serious thought in looking into the matter of payments by the acre as was suggested when Mr. Diefenbaker paid out his $40 million the other year. I was very happy, and I'm happy to say, when I heard that Mr.

Diefenbaker refused the farmers when they went down there, by the bushel, because I think that would have been one of the most serious mistakes he could have ever made if he would have said to the farmers that day, "I will pay you $300 million" . Well what would have happened? All the small farmers would have been at his back door the very next day when the farmers of western Canada received their cheques. And for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move this amendment to the mo tion moved by myself, seconded by the Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell, that the propos ed motion of Mr.

Strickland in amendment thereto as amended by the sub-amendment of Mr. Prefontaine, be further amended as follows: By inserting after the word ''Manitoba" ln the eighth line of the amendment the following; "after consulting with the Manitoba Farm Organiza tions, should request the Government of Canada to make immediate cash payments to farmers", and by deleting the word "e xecutive" in the second line of the last paragraph and substituting therefore the word "e conomic". Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. PREFONTAINE : I cannot figure out what that means.

It seems to me that it elim inates the recommendations made in my amendment that there should be consultation with the other provinces , and I just can't see how that can be ruled in order. MR. SPEAKER: Would you say that again please? MR. PREFONTAINE: I just would like to :raise a point of order, that it seems to wipe out something that the House has already accepted. Can you read it again? MR.

SPEAKER: That the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Ham iota in amendment thereto as amended by the sub-amendm ent of the Honourable Member for Carillon, be further amended as follows; by inserting after the word "Manitoba" in the eighth line of the amendment, the following: "after consulting with the Manitoba Farm Organizations, should re quest the Government of Canada to make immediate cash payments to prairie farmers", and by deleting the word"executive" in the second line of the last paragraph, substituting the word "economic".

I think maybe I will have to write this one out to find out what paragraph we 're in here. MR. B. P. STRICKLAND (Hamiota): Mr. Speaker, on this motion, is this not just an insertion in that paragraph? It's not eliminating anything else. It's just an insertion in there; it's not changing the amendment in any way, shape or form. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Hamiota may be right, but the way it's worded, it seems rather hard to get at the present time and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that possibly you take it and have it so that we have it on our Order Paper written out.

There is no reference to deletion, as I understand it, except the substitution of the word "eco nomic" for "executive", but it ts rather hard to follow just on the basis of the amendment. MR. SPEAKER: It should be written out and then we'd know exactly how it sounds. I'll take it under advisement. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Emerson. The Honourable Member for Emerson. I might point out that the March 23rd, 1960 Page 1891

(Mr. Speaker, cont'd. ) .• Honourable Member for Emerson will be closing the debate, and if any other member wishes to speak, he may do so now. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. JOHN P. TANCHAK (Emerson): Mr. Sp.eaker, it seems to me that it is my lot to tangle always with our learned friend the Minister of Education, for whom I have great esteem and high respect, the amiable and able, I would say, Minister of Education. I hope th at when I am through there will be no hard feelings between us.

It seems to me that I here represent a minority group and I think, ln my opinion, that this minority group is being created by the gov ernment. I think that it is the duty of the government to protect the minority groups in Manit oba and th is, I'm afr aid, I cannot say that th at's what the government is doing. It seems to me that I am pleading a lost cause. However, if the re is any ray of hope whats oever, I think it is . my duty and my privilege to keep on fighting for what I think is justice and fair play.

Not so long ago, in the last year, we all know that the present government spent tho us ands of dollars of our money telling us that they were going to give every child in the Province of lYf..anitoba an equal chan ce--every child in the Province of Manitoba! It seems to me that this now has become a mockery and a farce. The children of the res idents of non-division areas I presume are children of Manitoba also, and the government, if the y do not accept this resolution, I'll have to say that th ey're determined not to give th em an equal chan ce.

I think if the govern ment does not accept this resolution it will be deliberately discrim inating against the children of Manitoba in not giving th em an equal chan ce, the children of Manitoba who the mselves are completely defens eless. I agree and I say it is fine to bring in legislation outlawing discrim ination on the one hand and then, on the other hand, practicing discrimi nation of the meanest and the lowest type, the kind of discrimi nation that is being practiced here in this House if the government doesn't accept this resol�tion against our children.

The government; by their actions alone, have raised the cost of education in the Prov ince of Manitoba--raised it drastically . Naturally an increase in teach ers' salaries was ab solutely necessary to hold and attract a better calibre of teach ers, but we must bear in mind th at it was the Conservative Government, the present government, who alone are responsible for this increase in teach ers' salaries. They promised it before the election and this is one promise that they did keep and I think they should have kept.

But at the same time, there was another promise made at the very same time, a promise--they promised to pick up the slack by a definite promise of increasing grants to school s in Manitoba by 50%. The schools in non division areas are also schools -of Manitoba. At th at time they were not so dictatorial as to say that whether you like our legislation or not, we'll for ce you down to your knees and make you do something that you do not approve of. They should have simply had no referend um· and said, "this is it.

Take it or leave it" , cram it down our thr oats, because that's exactly what the government is trying to do at the present time if th ey do not accept th is resolution. I think that the government is persisting in being punitive just because the will of the government was not accepted. Our own money is being held up and ref used to us. The resi dents in the se non-division areas are also taxpayers in the 'Province of Manitoba. They contri bute towards the Provincial Treasury the same as the people in division areas.

They also help to pay the increased tax that was levied by this government, the increased tax which the govern ment pref ers not to call tax, but fe es. The people in the se non-division areas are helping to pay th em. The people in the non-division areas are also helping to pay the increased tax on the so-called "Roblin beer"--th at•s an increased tax.

If the government persists in discriminating against these people, then they should reduce the tax burden of Manitoba to pre-Conservative levels, and I am sure th at th is reduction in tax would substitute for the teacher grants that the government is withh olding from the non-division areas. I am sure that some Conservative members across know what justice and fair play is, but probably they were not too anxious to speak and I presume they may have been whipped in to line. I'm really surprised at some of the members here.

I'm really surprised that the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affair s, wh� also has an area in hts constituency.,;-,a non division area--I'm surprised that he did not speak up for his constituency,. for the non-division area. I'm also surprised th at the Honourable Member for Duff erin, who also has a non-division area in his constituency, he did not speak up for the people in th at constituency. I hope that these two see light and accept this resolution. I'd let the hon ourable member worry in the fu ture.

Of course some of the honourable members did S[leak, buf in all cases ! think that the Page 1892 March 23rd, 1960

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd. ) .. defence, their argument was� very weak and ln many cases lt was ridiculous. We listened to some well prepared, well read speeches. We Eatened to the word "nonsense". One member in particular in his speech mentioned the word "nonsense" at least four times in his speech. He said the government is willing to give grants according to the standard and quality of education. Let us provide it in these areas. Does he think that the standard and quality of education, in my area espec ially, is not good? I'd say that he could not see beyond his nose.

He does not know the existing conditions in some of these non-division areas. Now I'm going to speak about my own constituency, the non-division part of it. And I said before, about half of my constituency either is in remote or in a division, but there is a part that is NOT in a division. I'm going to speak about the proposed Boundary Division, es pecially the western end, where the opposition to division was persistent. I'd like the honour able members to follow me and see whether the quality and standards of education there is be low normal. I say that here the standard of education is second to none.

We have centraliza tion ln the west-end espec ially to a certain extent. This area is almost wholly consolidated. Take for instance the consolidated school district of Em erson. This takes in about eight schools that are consolidated into one. Dominion City Consolidated Schooi District takes in several school districts. It's quite an old consolidated school district. RidgeV'Ule Consolidated School District takes in four school districts which was organized not so long ago. Arnaud takes in several --it's also a consolidated school district.

Green Ridge is one of the oldest consolidated school districts in the Province of Manitoba. It also takes bt several school districts. Tolswi is presently--they have applied for consolidation and I believe that they will be consolidated, , taking in about five school districts.

Now look at the other side. :l!:metson Consolidated School District built a $240, 000 school--just completed this last summer, The Honourable the Minis ter of Mines and Natural Resources had the honour to officiate at the official opening and I am sure that he will agree with me that that school compares to any of the best schools in the Pro vince of Manitoba or in the City of Winnipeg. Ridgeville built a new school and I'm sure that the Honourable the Minister of Education has seen it; and we are proud of that school. It is a new school, just lately built.

Dom inion City recently added new additions to the school. We also provide transportation because, as we know, when a school district is consol idated we have transportation. One of the members did mention the merits of transportation, and I say that the transportation in this western end is even a better system of transportation than the division provides, because besides bringing our high school students to the school we also bring elementary chl.ldren to the same school because it is a consolidated school.

And I think, when any one of the members says that it's nonsense to ask for these grants because the grants are provided on the quality and the standard of education provided, I think that that is ridiculous. I say that the quality and standards of education. provided in this area is good, as good as could possibly be provided anywhere in the Province of Manitoba. True, the east ern half of the proposed school boundary is not consolidated to such an extent but they, too, provide a high standard of education. I can cite examples, many examples.

We've had some students from that area who qualified for scholarships; who qualified for prizes; and they do provide--there's no end. I could give you lists that will read probably for an hour--students who have left the high schools there now who are doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, and so on. There are quite a few of them and I say that we do provide a high standard of education. Mention was made that the divisions will provide a better system of elementary. educa tion.

I don't think that the speaker really meant to say that because the division actually has nothing to do with the elementary system as it is . It was stated that a teacher has to take in seven or eight grades--in a division the teacher would not be required to do that. Seven or eight grades--there are no seven or eight grades, just grade nine. ten, and eleven in high school. I'll not go too much into detail in that. Now integration was mentioned by one of the members.

Maybe it does apply to some non-division areas, but as far as my area and especially the western end, this does not apply at all, because in the western end of this proposed boundary division t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-52
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 52.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c8ea1250944a6a9bd8e6a2dd810f86df20293b17

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