Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 40 (26th Legislature, 1st Session)

26-1-40

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Volume ID No. 40 August 3, 1959 lst Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. s. Evans. Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

INDEX Monday morning, August 3, 1959 Ic elandic Celebration, Mr. Johnson (Gimli) ••.....•.. ;. .. .... .... . .. ... ... . .... . .. 1477 Question .•.. ••.••....• • .•..••.•. ••.•.•• : •••••..••••••. �. .. . • . • • . • • . • . . • • . • • . 1477 Budget Speech Debate: Mr. Roblin............................................... 1477 Division on amendment to amendment • • • . • . • . • . • • . • . • • • . . • • • • • • • • . • . • • . • • . 1481 Adjourned Debate, re School Constructi on Cost (Mr. Miller): Mr. McKellar . . • . • • • . • . 1481 Adjourned Debate, re Permanent Speaker (Mr. Campbell), amendment (Mr.

Lissaman), further amendment (Mr. Miller): Mr. Shewma n, Mr. Campbell • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • • 1482 Mr. Paulley; Division on amendment to amendment • . . • • • . • . • • . • • . . • • • . • • • . . . 1483 I

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9:30 o'clock, A.M., Mond:;i.y, August3rd, 1959 Opening Pr:;i.yer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions. Reading and Receiving Petitions. Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees. Notice of Motion. Introduction of Bills. Orders of the Day. HON. GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to dr aw to the attention of the House that today is the celebration of the 70th annual Icelandic celebration held yearly in Gimli on the first Monday in August. I regret very much, Mr.

Speaker, that the House is sitting today and depriving the honourable members from a day away at the lakeside to listen to the eulogies , to the Icelandic pioneers of Manitoba. I'm sure the Member for St. George and Lac du Bonnet are out scurry ing their constituents over to the peer of all constituencies - Gimli. MR. P. WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture: So far the team or the man that was supposed to investigate the flooded out area in our locality has not appeared. Will he appear this coming spring or summer?

HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture) (Turtle Mountain): We have a meeting of the team once a week and at the last meeting our instructions were that they were to get him out there as quickly as possible. I expect that will be very soon. I'm a little surpri>0ed that he has not been there already. He was instructed to contact the government representative out there - what is it you call him - the district representative, yes - he was instructed to go to him first and get instructions from·him and go on from there.

If he's not been -- I'll check on it -- and see if he's been there or if he has not been there, why he has not been there. MR. W. C . MILLER (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to correct a statement made by the Honourable Member for Brokenhead on July .30th when he spoke on the debate in connection with the School for the Deaf, and on page 1420 he said "l do know of some six -- seven parents who, when having met the then Minister of Education, who is now the Member for Rhineland, the then Minister of Education, he promised them verb ally that with the resumption of peace these facilities or other facilities wuld be provided." Mr. Speaker, I never met such a delegation - I promised them nothing, verbally or written. MR.

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Honourable the First Minister and the proposed motion in amendment thereto by the Leader of the Opposition, and the motion and amendment, further amendment of the .Honourable the Leader of the CCF Party. The Honourable the First Minister. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, in the past few days we've been having some debate on the government's financial policy and this morning I would like to say a word or two in respect of the amendment proposed by the Leader of the CCF Party critical of the government's financial policy, calling for non-confidence in the government's financial policy, and an appeal which was supported by the Honourable Member for Brokenhead and the Honourable Member for St. John's. I have had some difficulty in linking up the words of the motion with the substance of the · speeches.

The motions regret the fact that the government has failed the necessary steps to insure an adequate income for labour and those engaged in agriculture, and has failed to under take a vigorous program of economic development. But I can't recall having heard from any gentleme:p. opposite just how the government had failed in promoting an adequate income for labour and agriculture unless one were to include the debate on deficiency payments, in which case we certainly were asking for more money for the farmers though perhaps not in the wording of that resolution.

But when one considers that within the realm of a provincial government, when one considers. what we have done within that realm, I think we have some reason to defend ourselves against these allegations of neglect -- for in substance that's what it is -- neglect of August 3rd, 1959. Page 1477

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) .-... the fair and proper interests of the farming and labouring communities. I think a very brief reference to what has been done might be in order although I don't intend to make any ex-tended comments.

But the fact that we have increased the estimates of the Department of Agriculture as much as we have done; the fact that we have set on foot a very greatly expanded agricultural research program; the fact that we have undertaken to improve the technical education available for young men and women interested in farming; have increased the number of bursaries and scholarships; have increased the effort being put into farm management operations and matters of that sort; have provided for an agricultural research institute at the University of Manitoba; is I think some evidence that we are meeting our responsibilities in this matter.

Then, too, the reform in education which was very largely for the benefit of people living in rural Manitoba; the increase in grants for roads for local purposes as well as for other purposes; and the other measures that have come before the House in this session, I think are evidence that such a charge cannot be sustained. My honourable friends are well aware that we have no control over prices - I think we have discharged our obligations in the field in which we have some responsibility including agricultural credit in crop insurance.

When we come to the matter of labour this government introduced the most far-reaching reforms in the Workmen's Compensation Act these last few days that this province has seen since the Act was first put into effect. We have amended the vacations with pay Act in order to be fair to those who are in working positions. The Labour Relations Act; the Labour Depart ment Act has been amended; and today the workers of Manitoba receive the highest wages on the average that they have ever received and there are more working than ever were working before.

And while I would be the last one to suggest Sir, that we have reached the stage of perfection -- because we know there is much to be done and no reason whatsoever to be satis fied or to use a more expressive term, self-satisfied, with the efforts that have been made to date -- nevertheless I do thin k they are creditable and not such as to call for the defeat of the administration. But these matters were really not dealt with in any considerable way as I read the speeches and listened to the speeches of my honourable friends.

There were one or two matters bearing on financial policy that I feel I should mention. The first is the charge of the Leader of the CCF Party that Manitoba received less per capita than any other province in Canada from our finan cial arrangements with the Dominion of Canada and in particular with our tax-rental proposit tion. I'm quite at a loss to understand where he got his figures or how he got his figures because they simply cannot be reconciled with the facts that are available to all members of the House.

The facts that are available to all members of the House and have been for several years, are first of all one of principle, namely, that our tax-rental arrangement with Canada, Manitoba and all the other provinces is operating on an equalized basis. Not only do we get the share of the personal income, corporation, succession duty taxes that our province engenders, but we also receive in addition to that an equalization payment; and the purpose of the equalization payment is to bring the payments to this province up to . the average of the top two provinces of Canada.

So on a basis of strict fact there is only one province in Canada which gets a higher tax-rental payment when all calculations are made in this way than the Province of Manitoba, and that is the Province of Ontario. All other provinces are equalized to the average of the two highest provinces in Canada namely, Ontario and British Columbia and as Ontario is the high est, naturally it is a f ew cents above the rest of the country.

So to make a statement like that without any further explanation indicates that the speaker is completely unaware of the basis of principle on which the taxation policy and the tax-rental policy rests. And I am at a loss to understand how anyone could have remained in this House for the number of years my honour able friend has and be in that frame of mind. It may be however that he is not talking about tax-rentals. It may be that he is talking about all the payments the provinces get from the Dominion of Canada. Well it's true there are other payments.

For example the four Atlantic provinces get what is called an Atlantic Grant. That is a grant that has been agreed on for 5 years in order to take some recognition of the difficult circumstances in which the Atlantic provinces find themselves. It is not properly speaking, part of the tax-rental assistance but suppose we add it in, and suppose we addin the other statutory grants that the provinces get from Canada, which my honourable friend appears to have done, and add in also the statutory Page 1478 August 3rd, 1959.

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) .... per capita payment that we receive from the Dominion Government. Now apart from the shared cost programs for which I have no calculation ai;d which were not mentioned by my honourable friend, these are the payments that the provinces get from Carnda. And if you take them all into account -- and they are not part of the tax-rental deal -- but supposing you take them into account and I think my honourable friend must have, because that's the only way I can come even close to reconciling what he said with the facts, you find that even there Manitoba is not the lowest province in Canada.

As a matter of fact Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, then Manitoba and Saskatchewan tied for middle position followed by Alberta, Ontario, B. C. and Quebec, all of which get less on a per capita basis than the Province of Manitoba. Now I'm not going to be too harsh with my honourable friend because I agree with him that we want a better tax deal for the Province of Manitoba and insofar as he maintains that point of view I am not going to quarrel with him.

But I do say that he'll have to get busy with his arithmetic and his facts and his figures in order to get a better example of our situation than the one which he gave us the other day, because it simply bears no relation to any set of facts that I am able to uncover in this connection. And if my honourable friend would be inter ested in having the exact situation I'll be very pleased to see that the information is passed across to him so he won't make that mistake again. Now a word or two about tax revenue from natural resources.

My honourable friend seems to be alarmed that our take from natural resources is not significantly higher, if any higher at all, than we have seen in other times.

Oh yes, here's his statemert -- talking about our statement that 1959 would see brighter prospects in the natural resources development field he goes on to say that's all very well, and if I may paraphrase him and I trust do him no injustice, "that's all very well and the citizens of Manitoba may expect returns but what about this situation where the revenue from that source is half a million dollars less for the current fiscal year than it was a year ago -- something is wrong." He never gets around to saying what is wrong .

From one point of view he does say that our tax rate is not high enough -- and we 111 simply have to disagree for the moment on that one -- but there is no element of recognition in my honourable friend's speech nor in the comments of the Honourable Member for St. John's that shows that they have any conception of how that tax is raised. I get the impression from listening to their speeches that it's our fault if we leave the question of level of taxation alone, that it's our fault that the taxes are a little bit higher or a little bit lower this year than the previous one.

Well of course the fact is that the taxes obtained from those two sources in the case of mineral taxes are related primarily to the profits of the company. If the company makes less money then our share is down. It's as simple as that; and that is the reason why our estimated share for this coming year is down is because of our estimates of the tax situation that the companies in that particular field seem to be faced with.

And in connection with stumpage which is the other main natural resource tax on forest products, again too, that is related to the volume of pulp and paper that is made and the number of trees that are cut down. And if you cut less down you get less taxes, and it's just as simple as that. But we are optimistic about this situation, because unlike my honourable friends we understand Sir, that the take from a natural resource development is not limited to taxation. - important and valuable as that is. The benefit to the people of the province to which we referred is of course the benefit in jobs.

And we are neglecting labour I am told. Not long ago in the Workmen's Compensation Committee discusssion we found out, if we were in any doubt about it, that the miners in north ern Manitoba are the best paid people in the province as far as their labours are concerned. Frankly Sir, I don't grudge them a nickle of what they make because anyone who has been work ing in a mine knows that that's a hazardous occupation for which not everybody is temperamentally fitted.

But nevertheless, whether the goyernment is getting taxes in this coming year or not, jobs are being created by the score and by the hundreds in northern Manitoba today, and we think that is of some benefit to the people of this province. We don't despise them; and we say that if we're defending our statements about natural resource prospects for Manitoba, that we are on solid ground in saying that in this coming year the people of this province will benefit very greatly indeed. I want however, and I'm not speaking for any length of time Sir, to pass over to what my August 3rd, 1959. Page 147.9

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) •... honourable friends appear to have made their main attack, their main charge on the government, when they dealt with the way in which the finances of the provinces were being managed, particularly in respect of the projected surplus of 5. 3 million dollars. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition say that if we had a surplus of 5. 3 million dollars it meant either over-taxation or under-provision of services - unless - because he was very careful to skid over to the "unless" very quickly, because he knew how absurd that state ment was -- he knew how absurd that statement was.

If he has any knowledge of the budget that he heard he knows perfectly well that we not only have a current budget to meet but also a capital budget to meet, because he slipped over very quickly from his over-taxation charge and his under-provision of services charges, into saying that if these things don't hold true - which is his word in connection with it -- "if they don't hold true, I say that it is wrong for us in our taxation policy to finish up the current year as indicated by the Provincial Treasurer with a bank surplus or surpluses of monies of 5. 3 million dollars, while at the same time we are going out borrowing at the very high rates of interest which we going to pay and it's wrong," he said -- he said it a couple of times.

Mr. Speaker, it's not only wrong it's stupid. It's not only wrong it's inconceivable. I really couldn't believe that my honourable friend meant it seriously, but then he was reinforced by the Honourable _Member for Brokenhead, and then shortly afterwards the Honourable Member for St. John's went to the trouble to tell us what this would cost in terms of compound interest without taking the pains to find out whether we paid compound or simple interest.

It would have been more interesting for the purpose of discussion if he found out the facts about that first, but he wanted to make the picture as black as he could. But Sir, I find it incomprehensible that thre gentlemen in tbe opposition who have some knowledge of these things should take such a view. What kind of a financial kindergarten do my honourable friends operate? What kind of an Alice in Wonderland do they think the Provincial Treasury is?

They are seriously telling us, and they tell the people of Manitoba and it's in headlines in the paper, words to this effect; that we are going to accumulate a surplus of 5.3 million dollars, put in the bank and leave it there and while we have that good money available at our hands in order to fulfil an election promise, says my honourable friend, we will go out and borrow. (Interjection) I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if anyone can sit in his place today and nod his head in confirmation of such a point of view, certainly hasn't the foggiest idea of sound fiscal policy and financial management.

I want to tell you Sir, that every cent this government has, regardless of whether it's called current surplus or what it's called, is put to use. We do not hide our money in a sock and put it away where we can't get at it, and say that's our surplus, we're not going to touch it, we're going to run out and borrow some more money at 6%. Whoever heard of such a nonsensical arrangement -- policy. MR . R. PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF) (Radisson): What did you do with the 3.6 of last year? MR . ROBLIN: We used it.

We used it just exactly as we're going ......• That illustrates the whole point (Interjection) My honourable friend hasn't the faintest idea of how the financial operations of the treasury run. MR . PAULLEY: Hear. Hear. MR . ROBLIN: Not the faintest idea. Because Sir, we take these monies and where are they? Supposing we had this 3.7 that my honourable friend talks about or the 5.3. Do we put that in the bank waiting to come down here and make a statement about surplus?

Do we put it in the bank awaiting until we go out and borrow some money at 3% or 5% or 6% and leave it alone, untouched and secreted in a sock and under the mattress? Nonsense. We use it; We use it from day to day and every cent of the money that we have Sir, we use from day to day. And my honourable friend doesn't need to be a financial wizard to know that: All he has to do is to listen and all he has to do is to read, because if he had listened to what I said when I made my Budget Speech, the answer would be perfectly clear; you will find it on page 1372 of Hansard.

"We will have the authority" I said, and I included these words - " and this is important". That's not me speaking now, that's the quotation, but it certainly went over my honourable friend's head. "We will have the authority, and this is important, to charge these and other capital items to our current surplus account fund during the current year." As clear as crystal, underlined, he was asked to look at it, told it was important, but it goes over their heads just like a wave over a rock. (Interjection) Further on Sir, (Interjection) further on Page 1480 August 3rd, 1959. I

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) .••• Sir, that was what I said when I spoke in the House, if he cared to read the written statement he would find the same words on page 22 of the budget. "We will also have authority to charge these and other capital items to our current surplus account fund during the year." When we brought in the capital bill and we discussed

Schedule "C" I said the same thing all over again. The same thing. It's in the actual language of the speech that was delivered at that time. It's in the actual language of my Budget Speech; it's in the ac tual words of the printed budget address that was printed in this House. But my honourable friends chose to ignore it or else they didn't appreciate the significance of what they read and what they saw. Well Sir, I am going to say no more except that in my opinion the financial criticism that is brought against this government by the CCF Party does not stand. Mr. Speaker presented the motion.

A MEMBE-R: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the amendment to the amendment to the Budget Speech which reads as follows: "and we further regret the government have failed to take the necessary steps to assure an adequate income for labour and those engaged in agriculture and have failed to undertake a vigorous program of co-operative development." A standing vote was recorded the results being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hawryluk, Miller, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine, Reid, Wagner, Wright.

NAYS: Messrs. Baizley, Boulic, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Hutton, lngebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Ridley, Roblin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Weir, Willis, Witney. MR . CLERK: Yeas 14. Nayes 28. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. MR . K. ALEXANDER (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Honourable Member from Ethelbert Plains. If I had voted, I would have voted against the motion. MR . SPEAKER: The question before the House is the amendment to the Budget Speech. Are your ready for the question?

Those in favour please ...... , . MR . G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. George that the debate be adjournE!li. MR . ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I can't persuade my honourable friend to speak now? After all we'll be back at 2:30 this afternoon. MR . MOLGAT: No, I would prefer to speak at 2:30. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR .

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the proposed motion amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Brandon, and the proposed further amendment of the Honourable Member for Rhineland. The Honourable Member for Morris MR . ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I believe Sir, you have overlooked the second item on the agenda. The resolution about construction grants on schools, where my honourable friend the Member for Souris-Lansdowne has the adjournment. MR . SPEAKER: Pm sorry.

Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honour able Member for Rhineland. The Honourable Member for Souris Lansdowne. MR. M.E. McKELLAR (Souris-Lansdowne): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the many speeches regarding increased grants for secondary schools which merely states that all secondary schools regardless whether one room or twelve in any area in the Province of Manitoba will receive a grant of 75% towards construction costs.

Now in the Royal Commission report it stated that only schools of twelve rooms or more would receive grants of 75%, and in the Bill that we passed last fall it stated, after it had considerable discussion, we come to the conclusion that after four rooms and up to twelve on a

schedule we would receive from 40 to 75% of construction grants. Now, I think most of us lmow that is only nine months away and up 'till now, most of the School Boards haven't got down to deciding where and when they are going to build new schools. So I think with that understanding - I think August 3rd, 1959. Page 1481

(Mr. McKellar, cont'd.) .... it would be ill-advised at this time to change the Bill which we passed last fall. And with that few words, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment to this reso lution, seconded by the Honourable Member for Minnedosa that the resolution be amended by striking out all the words after the word "request" in the first line thereof and substituting the following: "The Minister of Education to study the construction grant

schedule applicable to secondary schools in school divisions with a view of recommending to this House such changes therein as may appear practicable and advisable in the interests of students attending second ary schools within Manitoba." Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The motion as amended. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member, the Leader of the Opposition and the motion in amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Brandon and further amendment of the Honourable Member for Rhineland. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. H.P. SHEWMAN (Morris): Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate on this resolution I did so with a doubt in my mind whether this resolution - the amendment to the amendment - would be in order. Now I am not quite clear yet as to the amendment to the amendment.

But in my opinion it reverts it right back to the original resolution and I don't think it's the proper resolution so I am not supporting it. MR. SPEAKER: I might say that I looked at this resolution and in my opinion, it is in order. It's almost in the nature of a six-months hoist; it asks the House·to do something that they should do now at the time of the selection of the next Speaker which may be two or three months hence. Are you ready for the question? MR. D.L.

CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): I am sorry to hear the Honourable Member for Morris say that he is not prepared to support this amendment and I hope that does not represent the view of the government. Because I think as the Honourable Member for Rhineland said the other day in moving the amendment to the amendment, that it is a conciliatory move and one that would allow the government to accept it without any qualms of conscience whatever. I was glad to hear Mr.

Speaker say that he believed it to be in order because I would have been disappointed if it had been declared out of order for the -- because it seems to me that it adds a very important qualification to the amendment that has been moved I by the Honourable Member for Brandon. Now, I'm not going to speak at any length at this stage, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to point out to the honourable members that I can understand how members of the government might feel that there was an implied criticism of the government, the First Minister, in the original motion. Certainly not one of ,Mr.

Speaker, but of the government, inasmuch as the clauses that the Honourable Member for Brandon wished to strike out, were to some extent mentioning the fact that the procedure that had been agreed to had not been followed at the last Legislature or this one. And I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when I was preparing, with the help of some of my colleagues, this resolution, I tried so far as was compatible with what we believe to be the facts of the case to not criticize the government any more than was nece ssary.

But we felt that the criticism contained by implication in those paragraphs was deserved and should be recorded. On the other hand I could quite understand the position taken by the Honourable Member for Brandon in his amendment and provided the amendment to the amend ment were carried, we would have no great objection to it. So I would suggest to the govern ment members that they accept the amendment to the amendment, because all it does, in my opinion, is that it goes back to what the first two paragraphs of the main resolution mention as having been the unanimous decision of this House. Because, Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Member for Brandon in his amendment did not strike out the first two paragraphs of the main resolution; which means, I presume, that he and government members assumed that those were statements of fact and you will notice that the first one emphasizes the fact that the statutes enacted at the Twenty-fourth Legislature were designed to institute a non-partisan approach to the selection of Mr. Speaker; a non-partisan approach. Then the second paragraph mentioned that it was unanimously agreed by the members of the Twenty-fourth Legislative Page 1482 August 3rd, 1959.

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) .... Assembly that such an approach would encourage the, member so chosen to be completely independent, etc. And inasmuch as the government apparently has accepted those statements of fact -- and I believe them to be statements of fact -- then my con tention is that the amendment to the amendment simply records the opinion of this House, that they should be adopted as matters of principle in connection with the amendment that has been moved.

So I would urge the government members to support the amendment to the amendment in spite of the feeling of the Honourable Member for Morris, and I would think that that would perhaps make the best disposition possible of this important subject, under the circumstances that have arisen. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, just one question. I thought possibly there would have been some further reply from across the way. I do not seem inclined to agree with the Honour able Leader of the Opposition in his contention on this matter.

It does appear to me that despite what the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition has said -- MR. SPEAKER: I thought perhaps you were asking a question. MR. PAULLEY: No, no, I'm just going to make a brief comment or two, Mr. Speaker, if I may. It seems to ine to involve something else. I agree with the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition that the government in its amendment has not chosen to delete the first two paragraphs which set out the legislation which was formerly passed by the Twenty-fourth Legislature; and it does not of course delete from the amendment itself.

But it does seem to me that it would preclude in future considerations, the person of the present Mr. Speaker, or could defer the whole setting up of the thing until a longer period of time. So I may say as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, I don't feel inclined to agree with the amendment to the amend ment. We've stated our position that we will agree with the amendment. I thought in all defer ence to my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, I should make these few words. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. CAMPBELL: Yeas and nays please, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Rhineland, and amendment to the amendment, that the amendment be further amended by adding at the. end thereof the followings words: "When Mr. Speaker has been selected according to the principles outlined in the first and second paragraph of the said motion." A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Guttormson, Miller, Molgat, Prefontaine. NAYS: Messrs.

Baizley, Boulic, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Gray, Harris, Hawryluk, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia),Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Ridley, Roblin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Wagner, Weir, Willis, Witney, Wright. l'v'lR. CLERK: Yeas 5; nays.36 MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

The question before the House is the pro posed motion of the Honourable Member for Brandon and amendment thereto as follows: "That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "government" in line 10, and substituting therefore the following: "Therefore

be it resolved that this House record its opinion that the practices and precedents of the Mother of Parliaments at Westminister offers our best guide in confirming the Speakership as a nonpartisan and independent office and those practices and precedents receive the support of_ the House." MR. K. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, on the last vote if I had voted, I was paired with the Honourable Member from Ethelbert Plains, if I had voted, I would have voted against the motion. MR. SPEAKER: Those in favour please --- MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, I was expecting that someone else would wish to say something, but if no one else is going to speak at this time, I move seconded by the Honourable Member for Carillon, that the debate be adjourned. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: We are now at the end of our Order Paper. I would draw-the attention of the House, Sir, to the fact that a number of Bills have been placed on our desks this morning, August 3rd, 1959. Page 14,83

, (Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) •••. and it would be the intention to proceed with second reading this . afternoon on these unless there is any disposition to proceed now. But I imagine that you would rather wait till this afternoon for second reading. A MEMBER: Not now. MR. ROBLIN: Not now? In that case when the House rises ; the Committee on Law Amendments will meet. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture that the debate do now adjourn -- I'm sorry, that the House do now adjourn, Mr. Speaker, and stand adjourned until 2 :30 this afternoon. Mr.

Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 2:30 this afternoon. Page 1484 August 3rd , 1959.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-1-40
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 1st hansardpdf 40.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c9f1bba6b0466906884d731a0afc65c4b6c08bce

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