Manitoba Hansard — 60 Page 1979 (Sitting 56A, 26th Legislature, 2nd Session)

26-2-56a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Index for complete Votes and Proceedings follows page 2011.

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Saturday, March 26th, 1960 MR . · CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? HON. GURNEY EV ANS (Minister of Industry & Commerce)(Fort Rouge): Mr. Chair man, I support my Honourable Friend from St. Matthews that this Bill should be dismissed. I think I can state my position in not more than four or five sentences. This Bill would open the way to professional show business on Sunday. Professional show business on Sunday would hurt the Sabbath. Professional show business on Sunday would hurt amateur sport. We should kill this Bill now. · · MR. ELMAN GUTTORMSON (St.

George): Mr. Chairman, before the noon hour the Minister of Agriculture spoke against this Bill because of the clause that said 50% was required to decide whether Sunday sport would be allowed in a municipality, and he is s11pporting the Mi:D.ister of Education for 60%. Well the Attorney-General, I thought, gave an excellent rea son why 50% was adequate. The people in this Legislature are only required by 50% vote. He's afraid a minority group is going to get this in. Why would a minority group get the Sun day sport issue in?

If the other people aren't interested enough to get out and support it, I suggest they can't be opposed to l.t too seriously. In this House today we have a government which is runn ing the affairs of this province and they weren't elected by a majority. If you take the popular votes in this province you will find that there is more people voted for the two opposition groups than the government in power, but this is the way our democracy works, and I suggest that 50% is certainly adequate because practically in any issue, whether it's in this House or in the House of Commons, it is decided on the majority. MR.

RICHARD SEABORN (Wellington): Mr. Chairman, I must support the Honourable Member for St. Matthews too, for I think there are too many issues involved here for us to vote on too rapidly. First of an, I do not think that sport and agricultural activity should have been included together in one Bill. That is why we have just heard various arguments on just one side of this Bill, namely sport, and no one has considered what the outcome might be of such a broad definition of recitals_, concerts, culturiu and artistic activities.

I don't want to belabour this point too much but I can well see the possibility of some professional singer pre senting a so-called recital in a night club perhaps, sponsored by some non-profit organization. The complications in this issue is too formidable to contemplate, and although I don't want it to be construed that I am against any advancement of our cultural organizations, I must in principle oppose the passing of this Bill because of the complications that could well come about through a lack of definition in this respect.

The fact that I think that this Bill is of major importance can be verified from the fact that I have relinquished a program this afternoon on the CBC to vote against such legislation being placed upon our statute books that would under mine the Lord's Day and render it less significant in our lives. The fact that I have made arrangements with someone else to conduct my radio program should, I think, prove how strongly I feel about this matter. MR. E. I. OOW (Turtle Mountain): Up until just before the lunch hour, the rural point of view in regards to this Bill had not been developed too much.

The Honourable Member for Morris spoke my views.

In the rural areas, particularly in the area where I come from, we are a religious group of people; we observe all the laws of the country; and we do develop all the sports; and if this Bill goes through, in my opinion, it seems to be one of the predominant factors today in this debate that we're proponing sport, that in the rural area I would think it would be a retrograde step and the sport would not be developed because there would be nothing but a state of confusion in regard to this permissive legislation that council had to put through and, therefore, on that grounds --I'm not against sport, Mr.

Chairman, I have possibly played as much sport as anyoody in this Assembly and I'm all for it, but I am not in favour of this Bill. HON. CHARLES H. WITNEY (Minister of Mines and Natural Rosources)(Flin Flon): Mr.-Chairman, before the question is put, I have not taken

part in this debate because I felt that when the Bill came in that the minds of the members were made up when they came into this House and all the oratory, no matter how eloquent it might be, would not change that posi tion. The Bill came tcf second reading and members said that they objected to it in principle :MI.reh 26th, 1960 Page 1979

(Mr. Witney, cont'd.) .••• but they would allow it to go to committee which it did. It has now come out of committee and we have had various amendments made, which I felt would meet the various points of view, and that this Bill would pass in third reading and we would be able to have Sunday sport. As you know, I come from a community that has had Sunday sport for a good number of years -- about six years.

We have been in Flin Flon area for some 30 years so we've had some 21 years under the Lord's Day Alliance Act where Sunday sport wasn't per mitted, but for six years we have operated Sunday sport and not to deliberately defy the law. The people up there wanted to have a jtinior hockey team.

They wanted to have something to show pride in their community and one way to have a junior hockey team was to tie in with the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League, which meant tying in with Prince Albert, with Sask atoon, with Regina, but Flin Flon was a long way away so they had to make some arrange ment whereby they could get suff icient money to overcome the travelling costs and some way that they could help to co-ordinate the travelling activities of these teams.

One way to do that was on Sunday when they could get more people out to their games; when the teams could come in on Saturday, play Saturday and play on Sunday. For that reason they went ahead and did it. Now there were people in Flin Flon certainly who didn't appreciate this idea. The Flin Flon Ministerial Association raised objections to it and they still raise objections to it, but I must say to them and to credit those people in Flin Flon who don't believe in it, that they have rec ognized that the majority of people do.

They have stated their· objections; the Ministers have stated their objection from the pulpit; they have told the people how they stood and then they have allowed the majority to rule; and it's all credit to them. Now in the six years that we have had Sunday sport, the moral fibre of Flin Flon has not deteriorated one iota. Just as with the rural people our people there are religious people; they are good living people; they are active people; they are community-minded people; and it has done nothing to the town detrimental at all.

In that six years we have another Catholic Church; in that six years we have another United Church; in that six years we have another Anglican Church; in that six years we have another Salvation Army Church; and we now have another church pending for the Lutheran people; and the people in Flin Flan, despite their Sunday sports, have supported some 13 churches and are increasing those churches. The ladies' organizations, the men's organizations, the children's organizations are all active, are all strong despite this Sunday sport.

Su:c:day sport has had no detrimental effect at all upon the moral outlook or upon the whole community effort in Flin Flan. Now I suggest to the members here that they should take a look at that very seriously because it has been shown in six years of operation that there is no harm done by it. Now naturally I think the majority of people in Flin Flan would want me to vote for this Bill, which I will, but I vote for it too because I think it's right.

I believe in this Bill and I would like to digress just for a moment to point out to you that there are other illustra tions of people who have lived with Sunday sport -- commercial, professional, professional performances, amateur sport for years; people who have lived hundreds of years longer than we have; and I look to Europe and I look to Great Britain. They have had it there for many many years with no harm.

If there had of been harm I suggest to you that during the last world war, when they were being blitzed and when they were with their backs up against the wall, that the fibre of the nation would not have been there to resist and to fight back as they did. And that was a religious influence there too. It had never been subjected to any prob lems or to any loss of interest by the people because of Sunday sport, either professional or amateur. Now I note, Mr.

Chairman, that many of the members here say they are going to vote against this Bill after we have gone through all these hours in this House, all the hours in the committee, because of this clause in here, this

section in here where we're just going to allow a straight majority vote. I would like to ask them to think that over again. It's a demo cratic principle and surely after all the time that we have spent, after the briefs we have heard, after the hours of arguing and rangling on it, surely we're not going to kill it now. Surely it should.be allowed some time to see how it will work because it'll come back again. And they say that we're not ready for it. We'll never be ready for it until we face the prob lem and try it--never.

We '11 never be ready for it next year if we hoist it for a year, and if we hoist it'for a year then we'll never be ready for it in the year to come. Page 1980 March 26th, .1960

(Mr. Witney, cont'd.) ••• • Now I feel qUite strongly about it, and as I say I've been quiet all this time but I felt that it was of little use to add to the mass of words because it seemed to me that the members had their minds made up even before they came in here. But I thought when we had got into this stage of third reading, and after the amendments had been made which were in many effects a compromise, that the Bill would go through.

Now this last ditch stand has disturbed me greatly and made me feel that possibly I didn't do my duty toward the people of F1in Flon in arguing prior to this point, at this late date, but I certainly hope that it does go through. I believe in it and just take a good look at Flin Flon if you're worried about what will happen because of Sunday sports. I would also like to say that because Flin Flon was able to play Sunday sports imd able to participate in the junior hockey team, we have aided amateur hockey right across the country.

That community was able to bring a team up from practically . nothing until it won and brought out West for the first time in many many years the Memorial Cup. I don't say that out of pride alone, I say it to you because when that Cup came out here it rejuvenated many more amateur hockey teams, amateur hockey teams right across the west. The Sunday sport has been a benefit not only in Flin Flon, where we have shift work and where we have active people who need an outlet for their energy, but also to the rest of the country in what it has done with a strong active junior hockey club.

Right now we're in Edmonton play ing against Edmonton. It has done no harm in Flin Flon and the people in Flin Flon who do not agree with Sunday sport have had the good sense and have had the courage to let the majority rule up there, and if they didn't agree with it with such force and emphasis they just didn't go to the sport thatwas being played on Sunday. I think those that are so strong against Sunday sport rather than restricting those who want Sunday sport should just practice that principle. If they believe in it that strongly just don't go; and allow those who wish to, to go. HON.

GEORGE HUT TON (Minister of Agriculture) (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Chair man I'd like to ask the Honourable Member from Flin Flon one question--if he would answer it. Is there any doubt in your mind that if the 60% clause were in there as to whether it would pass in Flin Flon? MR. WITNEY: Flin Flon? Commercial sport or Sunday sport in Flin Flon at any rate, I think Mr. Chairman, would pass whether it was 65 or 70% in the Flin Flon area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tha question before the House.-or Committee, is tilat Bill No. 98 be ·not reported. ·. Mr.

Chairman put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. A standing vote was taken the result being: YEAS 19, NAYS 3.0. MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Committee rise and report? Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker the Committee has considered Bill No. 98 and has agreed to report the same with certain amendments. MR. KEITH ALEXANDER (Roblin): Mr. sPeaker I beg to move seoonded by the Honour able Member from Rupertsland that the report of the Committee be received. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. W. G. MARTIN (St.

Matthe'ws): Could we have a standing vote Mr. Speaker; the _yeas and nays • . � � . SPEAKER: Those tequeSting y6as ana nays""please stand. HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker I wonder if it would suit the same purpose of my honourable friend, if he would have the vote on the third reading itself, otherwise he might--but of course, if he wants it now he's. entirely within his right to ask for it. MR. MARTIN: What I wanted Mr. Speaker was t� the vote should be recorded in Hansard. MR. ROBLIN: Would third reading be satisfactory rather than report of the Committee? MR.

MARTIN: I'm voting for the recorded vote on the third reading. MR. OBIE BAIZLEY (Osborne) presented Bill No. 98,

an Act to provide for certain exceptions to the Lord's Day Act of Canada as amended for the third time. 1vir. Speaker presented the motion and after av oice vote declared the motion carried. MR. MARTIN: _Call in the members. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. A standing vote was taken, the result being: March 26th, 1960 Page 1981

YEAS: MeSSJ:'S, Baizley, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson, Desjardins, Forbes, Guttormson, Hamilton,. Harris, Hillhouse, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lyon, McKellar, Molgat, Orlikow, I>aulley, I>eters, I>refontaine, Reid, Ridley, Roblin, Roberts, Scarth, Schreyer, Stanes, Tanchak, Wagner, Weir, Witney, Wright. NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Campbell, Corbett, Cowan, Dow, Evans, Froese, Groves, Hutton, Lissaman, McLean, Martin, Seaborn, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Strickland, Thompson, Watt. MR . RUSSELL I>AULLEY (Radisson): Mr.

Speaker, if I may while the vote is being tabulated-- the reason for my jumping around here, I thought that the motion was in the re verse and that's why I moved over. MR. CLERK: Yeas 34, nays 19. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. MR . ROBLIN: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we now proceed to the budget debate. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the motion of the Honourable First Minister, and the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. Are you ready for the question? MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether there is anybody else who wants to speak either for or against the amendment that is before the House , but I think that before. the vote is taken I should make a few comments on what has been said in connection with this matter. I'm very happy, Sir, that I do not feel there is a great deal for me to reply to, be cause at this particular stage in the proceedings I doubt if the House wants a very lengthy speech, and I'm not entirely sure that I'm in a position to give one, because in the last days of the session we do find ourselves somewhat pressed.

I want to make just a passing reference to the speech that was made on this resolution by the Honourable Member for St. John. My impression is that he didn't have complaints of a major nature against this government , although he might have some reservations about another one. But there was one general point perhaps that deserves a little attention and that is his suggestion that we were not raising enough money by our natural resource taxation policy. He pointed out that Saskatchewan obtained $22, 500, 000 from such sources

whereas our source is 2. 9 million. Now I'm not suggesting for a moment that he said there was a direct comparison between those two sums and, indeed, that is the case, there is no direct comparison. But perhaps I should make a comment or two on what the facts are in that con nection. There are two main sources of possible revenue in natural resources, one from oil and the other from minerals. And in connection with oil it should be pointed out I think that the amount of tax you get depends on two things really, or three things of course, but two . basic factors.

First, how much of your land is under crown reservation, and secondly, how big your production is; And if anyone examines the situation in Saskatchewan, they will see that they have a very much greater percentage of their oil being found on crown lands than we, and also that their volume is very much bigger indeed. So that accounts largely for the difference. In fact, if the Saskatchewan government applied the same taxation

schedule to their oil revenues as we do, they would get not less money proportionately but more� because in Manitoba we obtain a royalty oft2 1/2% on the total production, on all production from a well. In Saskatchewan that is not so according to my information. They obtain 5% on the first 600 barrels of production, a combined rate of 7. 7% up to 900 barrels of production and 11.4% up to 1500 barrels of production," Those percentages are all less than ours. We _obtain 12 1/2% and the average size of Manitoba wells is 450 barrels of production per year.

Therefore, if the Saskatchewan rate were applied to the Manitoba wells we would get less revenue, actually, than we do at the present time. So while it is perfectly true that we might think of increasing that royalty, yet I think a comparison would indicate that at the present time we are better off, from a revenue standpoint, doing what we do rather than follow the Saskatchewan line in trut respect. _ Now the very large bulk of their revenues from this source comes from oil, but some comes from minerals and I'd just like to take a look at that.

Now it is true that the mineral taxation rate in Manitoba is 8% where;.s in Saskatchewan it is 12 1/2%, but the main difference in the amount of money received is not really in the rate of tax although I will admit that sub stantial difference. The main difference is in the taxable value of production of the mines in the two provinces. For example, in the last year of record Saskatchewan had a total mineral !>age 1982 March 26th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) •• •• production of 95,000, 000, of which 60, 000, 000 came from uranium. We, of course, have no uranium whatsoever here. Our production in the same period was $26,000,000. But the point I want to make is, in that period which is the one under discussion, Manitoba mines were not making enough money to be eligible for taxation at all under the regu lations that have been laid down, and may I say by the Federal Government, and which are part of the tax-rental agreement. So our main difficulty in Manitoba was to get a profitable mine.

The first thing you have to do is to find the goose that lays this golden egg before you can try to get some of the wealth that's produced. In that period the Sherritt Gordon Mine at Lym! Lake, and the San Antonio Gold Mine at Bissett were not subject to ta.xatio�. They had a nil assessment. The mine that was subject to taxation was the Hudson Bay Mining and Smeltfug Company at Flin Flon. They took a large part of their revenue and they spent it in exploration, and because they did that, that portion that was spent in exploration was exempt, which again reduced the taxable amount that was open to us.

And with that discovery money they found Chisel Lake and Stall Lake, which I think everyone will agree is good and will ultimately redound to the benefit of all of us. So certainly, while. it is good, it results in a smaller tax revenue to us.

Now I want to make it clear that a higher mining tax is certainly possible; but I want to warn the House that the results we get from it will be limited, and I think limited to a greater extent than seems to be realized by members who are criticizing our taxation policy in this respect, and that when you compare the very large sums obtained . from Saskatchewan with the rather modest sum, and I am frank to admit that we obtain here, there are reasons for that which are much more important, in my view, than the rate of taxa tion.

Now that's all I want to say about that, and that's all I want to say about that speech that was made because it seems to me that was the one point about which I would like to make the position clear. We might get more mcney if we raised the taxes. I don't rule out that possibility, that is always possible; but it will not result in large revenues of the sort that seem to me were hoped for by those who feel that our taxation policy is too low in this respect. Now, Sir, I want to say a few words about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, which I enjoyed very much. I think he made an excellent reply.

In fact I think that is one of the most vigorous and brisk speeches that he hao made in the House, and while I am going to be critical of some of the things he said, I would like to say that I would have been very happy to have made such a good speech myself when I was in his position, or when I had some res ponsibility for criticizing the financial policy of the government. And I think we all enjoyed it.

However, there are some things that he said which he will naturally expect me to con trovert or try to argue against, because I feel that they are something less than fair to the policy that the administration is following .• I am not going to cover all those points, I don't think he would expect me to, but I want to touch on some of the main ones. The first one that I want to refer to is farm credit, because he feels and I believe he feels it rather strongly, that the government has not delivered the goods on farm credit.

He feels that we have fallen somewhat short of what we set out to do in respect of this matter. I would make no claims for perfection either but I do say that we have, in a large measure, and I think in a totally satisfactory and supportable measure, lived up to what we set out to do.

He. accuses us, and I think this a verbatim record of his words, I quote as follows: "He led", and I think he is talking about me, "He led, and I say this deliberately, he led deliber ately the farmers of this province to believe that they were going to get farm credit on a much more generous basis than they had been receiving it before." Now that's the view that my honourable friend puts forward. He says that we promised farm credit on a much more gener ous basis than we had been receiving it before.

I maintain that we promised that and I main tain that the farming public are getting it, and I want to give the reasons why I think that case can be made. In 1958, when our policy was enunciated, members will recognize that prac tically the main source of farm credit at that time was the Federal Farm Loans Act and it was by and large with that Act that we were measuring ourselves. Under that Act the ceiling allowed for loans was $15,000; under our Act it is $25, 000.

Under that Act the security was limited, which limited the whole base of the loan to security of land; under our Act that was widened to include livestock, chattels and machinery. Under that Act there was no provision for young farmers; under our Act there is a provision for young farmers and at a very special March 26th, 1960 Page 1983

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) •••• interest rate of 4%. Under the Federal Farm Loan Act, appraisals were limited to the saleable assets, and that is a very important thing when considering the amount of money to be loaned. Under our statutes, and I'd like to make use of a statement pro vided to me by the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation which is operated by an indepen dent board of directorate as you know, they say that in lending their money they place as much importance on the character and credit rating of the applicant as we do on the assets that he may possess.

I think that's the critical point that needs to be made clear, that under the Manitoba Credit Act they do place as much importance on the character and credit rating of the applicant as they do on the assets that he may possess. So I say, Sir, that when you con sider that comparison of the credit situation in 1958, when our policy was designed, -and the present time, I think it is not unfair of me to claim that we are, in fact, making farm credit available on a much more generous basis than they had been receiving it before.

I think that is borne out not merely by a comparison of the regulations or the lending policy of the two organizations concerned, but also on the results of that policy, because during the last year of the Federal Act some 2 1/2 million dollars was lent at an average of $5,000 a farm. During the first year of our administration of our Act we have authorized $4,000,000 plus at an aver age of $10,000 a farm.

Now that's exactly double in terms of the farmers that get money out of it and it seems to me that that does stand up to the claim that we made that we should have a much more generous method of providing credit to the farmers of Manitoba.

And I think I can go farther than that and say that when you consider that we are looking forward to dispersing up to $6,000,000, which will be three times what the old farm loan did in its last year, I think that one can make a case that our Farm Credit Act is much superior to anything that the far mers of this province have had before and it measures up to the claims that we have been mak ing for it, that it is much more generous than that which my honourable friend describes to me.

I say they are getting it on a generous basis; I still say they are getting it on a sound basis; that I think they are getting it on a much more generous basis than heretofore; and I think the regu,;. lations and provisions of the legislation, the policy of the Farm Credit Corporation, and the actual results in terms of sums lent to farmers, adequately substantiates that statement. I won't labour it any more. Now I want, also, just to make a reference to another statement my honourable friend made in connection with some of the matters that are of dispute between us, and this is in con nection with roads.

He said in his address, "Mr. Speaker, our road program was a good one," by which of course he is referring to the road program of the previous administration. "Our road program was a good one; I don't have to defend it, it defends itself." That's the quotation that I'd like to make some comment on. Well I suppose there are a good number of members in this House, and probably many members of the general public, who really are not aware of the basis on which the criticisms which we raised in days gone by in connection with the govern ment's road program were based.

I am sure there may be a number of people who think that we just thought it up ourselves or that this is our own private views on this matter, but of co urse those who took

part in the deliberations of the last Parliament in Manitoba know that that is not the case. They know �hat the finger was pointed at the road policy of the previous administration, not only by us bufby the Kellogg Stevenson Investigation that was made into the Department of Public_ Works. Now the Kellogg Stevenson people were hired by the previous administration to come and take a look at their Department of Public Works and report on it; and they made a report. For my mind it is very largely based on what they said, that criticisms of the previous road policy should be based and should be considered.

I would like just for the record, though I know this is old-hat to members who have been here for some time, I would like to read on the record for those who are new exactly what those people said about the admin stration of the Department of Public Works at that time. I am going to quote from reports that were made on this matter by one of the local newspapers, and I quote: "Administrative faults which are costing the Manitoba Government many thousands of dollars yearly have been exposed in a series of efficiency studies tabled at the last session of the Legislature.

Witnesses" -and I am skipping around here, these are extracts from the various articles and I don't pretend that they entirely follow one another but the sense follows,_and the data supporting each one of the assertions was carried by the newspaper at the time. I have them_ here but I don't propose to trouble the committee with reading-them all. The first one, however, was "Administrative Page 1984 March 26th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) ••••• faults which are costing the Manitoba Government many thousands of dollars yearly have been exposed in a series of efficiency studies tabled at the last session of the Legislature." And it goes on, "Weaknesses were discovered almost everywhere in the area of investigation. The findings can be a source neither of pride to the government nor of comfort to the public." Then further along we get the quotation of "Muddle in highway planning." "Manitoba is paying in higher costs for the lack of long-range planning into highway construc tion.

Most highway projects are now compres sed into one year. Location work is done in the fall, plans and estimates are drawn up during the winter, construction takes place in the fol lowing summ er. The big advantage of the system is that it provides quick results; the less obvious disadvantage is that it is conducive to wait. The study also disclosed that supervision of field projects is inadequate to guarantee efficient spending of public funds.

" Then they go on to say on another occasion, referring to the same report, "the Manitoba Government pro bably lost $100,000 on its bridge program last year due to lack of planning. This is a central finding of an efficiency survey of the Bridge Division of the Highway Branch. The study was carried out by an outside firm of management engineers. Main criticism of the Bridge Division thus parallels the criticisms of the Highway Branch as a whole which was discussed in a pre vious article," etc. etc. Well, Sir, there's a wealth of material that I'm not going to quote to the House at the present time. MR.

GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, can the First Minister tell us who the author of those articles was? MR. ROBLIN: It appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. I wonder if I can recall who the author was -- it may well have been. However, it's not ne_cessary to rely on the author that wrote these articles. I merely quote that for the sake of being able to compress the mat ter into a small compass because it is open to any member of the House to get a hold of that study, which I believe is in the Library here, and read it for themselves, every word of it, and there are pages and pages of it.

So I say, Sir, that our original stand iD. connection with tl;)e question of highways is based not only on our own opinions of this matter but also on the results of a study of an efficiency review carried out under the instructions of the previous administration, and done at their request. Now, Sir, 1 think I may surprise my honourable friend by telling him that I congratulate him on making that sudy because I think he did the right thing to make it. And I think I may surprise him further if I say that I'm not going to be too critical of the fact that those studies disclosed an unsatisfactory situation.

I'm not going to be too critical of that at the present time because it is perfectly true that in ttis field of endeavour one runs into serious difficulties, and what we are trying to do now is to correct those difficul ties and correct those mistakes and errors of administration and the policy which were dis closed. I do not claim, Sir; that we have succeeded entirely in doing that. It can't be done o.vernight. All I say is that we have made a good start, and given a little time, we will have those matters put into shape.

So this is a continuing problem, but I think that this report of the Kellogg Stevenson people in connection with highways is fundamental to any discussion of the rightness or wrongness of what has been going on or any consideration of the criticism that is raised from time to time. It seems to me that this impartial report on what the state of the inghway Branch was, is something which none of us can' ignore. We-certa:i.n.J.y don't intend to ignore it on this side of the House and we are doing our best to put right, and I believe we're having some success in putting right, those major errors of policy.

The first one in connection with planning we've discussed till! suppose we're pretty well tired of the subject in Committee of the Whole, and we 're trying to get on with that and the House knows what we are doing and the House knows that we are in the process of complet ing our own plan in that respect. In the matter of engineers, which was very important in this report, we have hired a great many more as the House already knows; and for which I suppose we•ve.been criticized by those· who think the Civil Service is expanding too fast.

Maybe we still haven't enough, but we have a great many more than when we came into office and we think many of these defects which were disclosed in this way are now being taken care of. So I want to mention that point. Now another odd point here or there throughout the speech which perhaps I should just mention, because I think in one case at any rate there's an entire misconception of the matter. We were criticized because of our suggestion for tax-free bonds, and the suggestion was made March 26th, 1960 Page 1985 _., ..

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) .••• to the House that all this does is bonus boupon clippers at the expense of the Federal Treasury. Well I don't think that if you think that matter through you can logically come to that conclusion, because what is the result of a tax-free bond? Well the result, if the experience in the United States is any criterion and I think it is, is that the bond sells at a much lower rate of interest because the tax-free aspect of the matter enables that to be done.

And because it sells at a much lower rate of interest then the taxpayer of the municipality or the province pays a much lower rate of interest, and that is the main and prin cipal advantage in my mind to this kind of an arrangement with respect to the sale of municipal and provincial bonds for certain types of social capital. So I think that point should be made clear. It's not the coupon clipper.

It may be that the coupon clipper does get some advantage out of this, I wouldn't deny that, but I would say that the man who gets the real advantage is the municipal or the provincial taxpayer which I think we would all approve of. Now passing on, we have this reference to tricky bookkeeping about the interest on the public debt, and more than one member spoke about that. Well I can't understand the criticism.

I don't want to go into it too deeply because we did it pretty thoroughly the last Session, but I'd just like to make the point that the tricky bookkeeping which seems to be in question is the matter of offsetting interest on the public debt. Well I would like to point out to the House that it was the former administration in 1934-5 fiscal year who initiated the practice of offsetting interest when they took the interest of the utilities and offset it against the public debt. We have followed that one step further by taking interest on other earnings and offsetting it against the interest on the public debt.

Now I don't think my honourable friends were wrong to do it in '54, not at all, I don't think they were wrong to do it. As a matter of fact the Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows the interest burden on the Provinces of Canada in that way, pre cisely in the way that we 're doing now. It seems to me that it's not completely accurate to describe that as tricky bookkeeping. I don't think it is that at all. I think it's a perfectly natural and logical thing to do and which was done previously, and which certainly is recog nized by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics itself.

Now, Sir, I promised not to keep at this too long and I want to keep my word. There are just, I think, two main points I want further to mention. I'm not going to talk too much about U.

S. borrowings because when we borrowed previously the Provincial Treasurer of that day said, and I quote: "We still believe that we can save some money for the taxpayers of Manitoba by doing some of our necessary borrowing in the United States." My honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition was Provincial Treasurer at that time and I think he was right in that statement, and I think we've adopted exactly the same attitude today.

But now you'll say to me, and a number of people have been saying I notice, well that isn't what you said in 1952, You had another tale then, quite a diff erent one, and we heard a number of extracts from my 1952 speech on the borrowing policies that I was suggesting at that time. And I want to say it was good fun. I w3.11t to say that my honourable friend did a very good job with that speech, and as far as the debating points are concerned, I think he did well and it lent a little colour and interest to what he had to say.

But I wonder, Sir, whether it really constitutes an effective criticism of the present government's policies, because my honourable fr iend, I'm sure, knows that speech pretty well by heart. I think I can make the statement saf ely that every year since that speech was made the Grits have trotted it out.

They've trotted it out every year and I thiDk the Honourable Member, the Leader of the CCF Party, will remember on more occasions than one that that speech has been used to good effect by some of the gentlemen over there. --(Interjection)--Well I want to come to that because both they and my honourable friend -- I'm not so sure about him, I won't include him in this -- but some of the gentlemen over there have been overlooking something. Surely they have be_en overlooking the fact that the answer to that taunt, that jibe, and it's an effective one let's face it, is so obvious.

The· answer to that charge is well known to every intelligent voter in the Province of Manitoba and there are a great many intelligent voters in the Province of Manitoba. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't obvious to some members of the House, because eight years ago it's true to say that the policy that was advocated by my party at that time could fairly be described as the policy of restriction and the policy of go slow. But, Mr. Chairman, we changed that policy.

It became clearer and clearer with the passage of time that that policy was not suited to the needs of the people of Manitoba and the people of this province, Page 1986 March 26th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) •••• and we changed it. And we changed it for a policy of growth and expansion and: investment, and not only that, Sir, we didn't hide that change of policy under a bushel. We made no attempt to try and persuade anybody that we were still following the same old lines. Nothing of the sort. In fact we fought three by-elections and two general elections, not on the policy of '52 which my honourable friends refer to but on the policy of investment and of expansion and of growth in the Province of Manitoba.

That's exactly what we did and we went to the people on it; .and we made our position quite clear. I would say that if a policy of restrictions and go slow had been desired by the people of Manitoba there would have been very little point in replacing the Grits, because they .were obviously the acknowledged experts in tmi.t field, as I believe they are today.

The trouble with their method if you ask me, Sir, and it was so obvious in trotting out this speech of 1952 or whenever it was, the trouble with that method is that while they have forgotten nothing, as is obvious from what we hear in this House, it is equally true that they have learned nothing; because in those intervening years that new policy has not only been put into a force by this party but it has been approved by the people of Manitoba, and that is why we are here and that is why they are there.

And just so long as they continue to introduce amendments of this sort, I think they'll be there for a long time. Well, Sir, that really isn't the main burden of what my honourable friend had to say though. The main burden of what he had to say was in connection with the net debt, that it's up 20% --it's up 20.0% since the present government came into office--extravagance, impru dence, too much debt -:-typical situation. Well, Mr. Speaker, what is the net debt of the Province of Manitoba?

The net debt of the province consists of the money which we were authorized by this Chamber to borrow for certain public activities. And I think it is necessary if we are to refute the charge of extrav�gance and imprudence in raising this debt 200%, that we should examine what those authorizations were. I'm sure everybody here know's it. We were authorized, for example, to borrow $6,460,000 for public buildings.

We were authorized to borrow $330,000 for the acquisition of land and land settlement projects; Natural Resource projects and Recreation projects, '$671,000; Soil Erosion and Water Control, over a million dollars; Seine River and Flood protection, $500, 000; Agricultural Research, $937, 000; acquisition of real property, $350,000; and since we came into office, on roads, some approximately 52 or 53 million dollars; and that's what we borrowed the money for.

In my speech I made the suggestion that if anyone thought the borrowing was too high or if anyone believed that we were open to criticism for raising the debt, it might help a logical discussion of these matters if they said what they opposed in those borrowing projects. It might have been helpful if we had been told at the time by those who now oppose what has happened, if they had been able to tell us what it was about our borrowing policy that they didn't like, and where they thought it was against the best interests of the people of Manitoba that these borrowings should not be made.

I've never yet heard anybody respond to that suggestion in respect to our borrowings. In fact, I'll go further. I will say, and I think this is correct, every 'man Jack' of the honourable gentlemen opposite who now criticize us, supported the projects and the borrowings that were included in our authorization. Every 'man-Jack' of them supported these things. They may say, oh well maybe we did but you've still been imprudent and extravagant. Well, was it imprudent to improve the research facilities of the uuiversity? Was it extravagant to provide money for old folks' homes?

Was it imprudent and extravagant to proceed with the rebuilding of the highway system as we have done? Was it imprudent and extravagant to proceed with drainage projects of great importance, natural resources, recreational projects? Which one of these policies of the present administration did my honourable friends object to? Where did we go astray? What was wrong? We have not heard.

And I'm not talking about this year's borrowings, because they don't enter into this matter; I'm talking about the borrowings of the appropriations of the last two sessions that make up the money which is included in this 200% that is being talked about. Well, Sir, you may say "I approved of the borrowings, but I think you're extravagant and imprudent in the way you spent the money". Has that case been made? Has that point JJeen substantiated? We spent a lot of the money by handing it over to Brandon College; we spent a good deal more by handing it over to the uuiversity and agricultural research.

I could go through the whole list. We· spent most of it on roads and in spite of what my March 26th, 1960 Page 1987

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) .••• honourable friends say, I am confident that the improved standard that we have introduced into our road building program justify the statement that the money is being spenf in a proper and prudent way in those matters. But even if one had to concede that there was a failure to spend -every dollar of that money in the best possible way, which I don't concede, how can that idea be linked with the 200% increase, because even the most casual administration of that expenditure of money wouldn't allow you to criticize the whole 200% as my honourable friends do.

I do not think their case holds together in logic or in fact. I say this, that when I consider the allegations that have been made I find myself placed in a very difficult position, because I find honourable gentlemen opposite supporting the cause of the increase in the net debt and complaining about the consequences. I fail to see how you can make that statement. I say that in that case there are really only two possible conclusions that an impartial observer can draw when you find people supporting the cause and complaining about the consequences. The first conclusion that you may fairly draw is stupidity.

I don't draw that conclusion, because I know my honourable friends are not stupid, that they can follow through on cause and effect just as carefully as anybody else. So I say that when they approved and supported the cause, they knew what the consequence would be then just as any logical sensible person does. So it can't be stupidity. That brings me to the only other possible conclusion, brings me to use a description which I dislike to use but which I think fits the case. The second possibility that I draw from the situation in which my honourable friends find themselves is 'humbug'. Humbug, pure and simple.

They supported the cause; they knew what the consequence would be; now they complain. That's humbug. I think the House knows it's humbug; I think the coun try knows it's humbug; I think my honourable friends know that it's humbug. And with those thoughts in mind, Mr. Sp13aker, I suggest that this amendment ought not to pass. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Honourable the Leader of the House with the vigor in verbiage that he has dismissed the amencbnent of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

But I don't think and it's not my purpose this afternoon or at any time to defend the Liberal administration or to come to the support of any amendment proposed by the official opposition. But as one of those who is in opposition I do not think that we should let go unchallenged some of the remarks of my honourable friend opposite. And I might say to use a well hackneyed phrase in this House that I did not intend to speak on the amendment to the main motion, but I feel impelled to. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, I feel impelled to speak to the motion before the House at the present time because it appears to me very, very obvious that the Leader of the Govern ment has established a factor which we of the CCF have always felt applies to both the Conser vative and Liberal Party here in the Province of Manitoba.

When the Honourable the Premier was dealing, as I understood him, with the reasons for his attitude during the time of his speech that was referred to by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, he indicated to me that the reason that he advocated that policy was because that was the tenor of .the times, that the Liberal administration of that day had adopted a policy of go slow, and the reason that they advocated a policy of going slower was because they felt that it was politically expedient to do so; and, transversely, that they orily now are advocating a policy of going faster because in the opinion of editorial comments ari.d public opinion they now feel that their policy should be that of going faster. .What does this mean?

This means exactly what we of the CCF have always said and repeated in this House, that neither my friends opposite or my friends right have any uniform and progressive planned policy, other than that of expediency that which in their opinion-- and in this I include both of them -- they feel that the dictates of public opinion dir ects them. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that at the time my honourable friend the Premier of the Province of Manitoba made his speech, that then we, as we do now, advocate an advo cated progressive legislation for the Province of Manitoba, and indeed, for the whole of the Dominion of Canada.

So I say, and I repeat once again that insofar as the destiny of our. pro vince and that of the Dominion, that the policies of both parties has and is now -- and to com plete the phrase, appears to and always will be -- a policy of a hit-and-miss basis, Now then my honourable friend in his rebuttal today has criticized us on this side of · the House because we supported all of the increased borrowing and the expanded programs of the Conservative Party. I say, Mr. Speaker, that there may be some justification for that Page 1988 -March 26th, 1960

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd. ) •• •• aspect of it except for one very important aspect which my honour able friend omitted, because he on behalf of the administration which now governs Manitoba said that he could do all of these things without increasing the tax burden on the people of the Province of Manitoba. That to me, Mr. Speaker, is the most vital.

Now then, I have said before that insofar as our group is concerned we'll accept our responsibilities because we voted in favour of the increased health and welfare program; because we voted for expanded educational facilities and costs within the Province oLManitoba among other increases in the various departments . We say, without equivocation or reser vation of any kind, that as far as we are concerned we accept that responsibility.

But what my honourable friend has dodged this afternoon, and I think is vital and important, that he said on behalf of the Conservative Administration of Manitoba that this would be achieved with out tax increase. My honourable friend wound up his remarks by reference to the word 'humbug', which was used so well by that great champion of democracy�-Sir Winston Churchill. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is humbug to attempt -- the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Government- to say to us that we have not had tax increases in the Province of Manitoba.

I say 'humbug' because my honourable friend opposite attempts through a narrow definition between fees and actual taxation to substantiate the position of the government. I say, Sir, if there is any humbug at all that it is in that contention .

Two and a half million dollars in beer increase prices , is that not in effect, having the same result insofar as the people of Manitoba, than if my honourable friends had called a spade a spade and simply say, "in respect of beer sales, we're going to put on a sales tax of a limited percentage to achieve to us the same amount of money?" I suggest that there is no difference. It still has to come out of the pockets of the consumer .

We have just passed amendments to the Highway Traffic Act wherein the Minister of Public Utilities is going to increase from $1 to $3 the charge in respect of having further examinations in respect of driver licences. Almost every edition of the Manitoba Gazette that we've received, there has been another change in fees, which the people of Manitoba have to pay. Tho se Canadians who originally came from other lands who are desirous of wanti.D.g to Anglo-Saxonize their name now have to pay a greater fee. The government tell us that this is only to pay because of the increased cost in the service. So I say, Mr.

Speaker, in all deference to my honourable friend opposite that our criticism of his admi nistration and the reason that we are going to support the amendment as proposed by the official opposition is simply because , notwithstanding the fact that we voted for the increased borrowing with the debt increase in our provincial debt, coupled with this was the firm statement and the firm commitment of the administration that this would not entail any tax increase.

And I say, and I want to thank my honourable friend the Leade r of the House for drawing back to my attention this word 'humbug' , because I say it is humbug on the part of the administration to say what tbey had promised was all of this without any increase on the tax burden of tbe people of Manitoba, and say, that call it what they will or what they like,it is out of the pockets of the people of Manitoba that this additional revenue is coming and will have to come . - In conclusion let me repeat my first remarks that the policy of the Conservative Party today, as it was in 1952 when my honou:mhle friend made the speech that was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, was only dictated by what appeared to be popular without any planned program that will ensure to the people of Manitoba any material benefit for the future .

MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose) : Mr. Speaker, before we come to a vote on this amendment I'd like to say a few words , part of it arising out of the comments of my honour able friend the First Minister, this afternoon. First of all , some of the comments that he made, for example with regards to roads -- I do not propose to discuss all over again the roads program -- but my honourable friend always likes to bring that one up and how the Kellogg Report stated that we built poor roads and so on and so forth.

This was used most effectively, no doubt, against us during the various election campaigns, but the fact is still, Mr. Spe aker, that whatever my honourable friend says, immediately after his government came in power they proceeded to raise very substantially the load limits on the very roads that they had been criticizing for so long before. They had not built one single mile of road March 26th, 1960 Page 1989

(Mr . Molgat, cont'd.) •••• that they had planned when they did ·this . It was entirely on the roads that had b�en built by the previous administration, the very same roads that they had gone all up and down the province criticizing, and their first action was to contradict exactly and completely the statements they had been making by proceeding to raise these limits. My honourable friend speaks about "tricky bookeeping" . Well , I think that the state ment is fair. My honourable friend doesn't hide the information so far as this matter of the debt, that's true, but he changed the method of accounting.

And the timing of that change is the reason for our statement that it's tricky bookeeping. It's true that he still shows it in the accounts but when we were in the government we showed that item of loans and investments, the income from it under our estimates of revenue, it came there under the Treasury. My honourable friend decides to change it, that's fair; he wants to show it as an offset in the estimates on the public debt page . But, when did my honourable friend decide to do that and what does he do with it when he makes that change? He does it just before the election.

He proceeds to give us the estimates, this was in March 1959 ; and on the public debt page at the back he, by bringing in this loans and investments income shows that the net cost is $7, 000. And this was used during the election campaign to show what my honourable friends were doing. And that's why we say it was "tricky bookkeeping" because that was all that my honourable friend was doing. My honourable friend then speaks a great deal about the new policy of his group. Back in 1952 they were a " go slow", in 1957 , '58 , '59 they have become a "go fast".

Well he speaks a great deal and says that we were too slow, we didn't do things . Mr. Speaker, I reject that charge . I claim that the previous government made a consistent growth, made consistent investment in the development of this province. And one need only to look at the various bud gets over the previous years . When I first entered this House in 1953 the budget at that time was approximately $53 , 000 , 000. In 1958 , the last budget that the previous government pre sented, it was something in the vicinity of $80 ,0 00, 000 .

Insofar as the utilities were concerned the same thing happened, there was steady progress; in the Telephone System, the Manitoba Power Commission and the Hydro Electric Board. My honourable friends now make a great deal of the Grand Rapids Development. Well I ask them, who is it that planned the Grand Rapids Development? It was the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board and it was done under this administration.

And the planning of the whole development of hydro in this province is one of the outstanding developments anywhere in Canada, because no province has been able to go through the procedure of expansion that we went through in the development of hydro power and of all power, retaining costs in line and always having the adequate amount of power ava ilable. The Grand RaPids Development is one of a chain of planned projects and planned over a long period of time . And I know that my honourable friend knows it. But insofar as the budget itself is concerned, Mr .

Speaker , my main objection is the same as that of the Leader of the CCF . My main objection is that my honourable friends across the way, in the election campaigns,campaigned on the basis that they would fulfil all of their programs without increasing taxes. And now when they present us with this budget, the same statement comes out as we had last year in the budget, that all this is being done and no increase in tax. Mr. Speaker, that is not a correct statement. My honourable friends have increased taxes substantially.

They don't like to use the word -- they rather claim that the fee is not an increase in tax, my honourable friend has covered that, I won't go into detail into it. I want to cover in some detail two aspects of the tax increase and that is the tax inc rease on liquor and the tax increase on beer. At the present time this matter of liquor revenue is one of the main items of revenue in this province . It is one of the large items on the revenue side. In the summer of 1959, or rather the spring of '59, the Federal Government in their bt..d get increased the excise tax on liquor.

The increase that time by the Federal Government worked out to a cost increase �o this government comes to something in the vicinity of 11 cents per 25 ounce bottle . In addition to that the Federal Government increased the sales tax at that time from 10 to 11 percent; and this woUld mean approximately 2 cents on the cost to this government. So the total increase in cost at that time in liquor was approximately 13 cents a bottle; and yet what change was there made in the selling price by the Liquor Commission? It was raised on the ave.rage 35 cents.

Well now what is that spread between that 13 cents inc rease in cost and the 35 cent increase in selling price if nothing but an: additional tax? I cannot Page 1990 March 26th, 1960

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd.) •••• see how else it can be described. Insofar as the beer prices are concerned it is much more difficult to make an analysis because the change in pricing, setting up of a quota system for various hotels and so on, makes it very difficult to get an analysis, _ but the closest check that can be made - and I haven't found that my honourable friends have obje cted to these statements -- is that it's something in the vicinity of $2 million plus or minus of additional revenue to this government. Now what else is that, Mr. Speaker, but an increase in taxes?

I cannot see how my honourable friends can describe it in any other way. I want to go on though Mr. Speak er, to some other matters that have come out of this budget. My honourable friend this afternoon made a reply on some of the subjects that have been· brought up , but there are a number of them thit he ·did not discuss . Last night certain questions were asked on the matter of the City Hall. This afternoon when the First Minister was speaking we gat no indications whatever what the Government plans in this respect --no reply to any of the questions that had been asked.

Last night as well, questions were asked on certain revenue items presented to us, particularly the sundry item under Treasury. The re was no reply by my honourable friend this afternoon in that regard. In their speeches on the budget debate my Leader and the Member for St. John's asked some questions about the projections to costs in particular in the Department of Health and Public Welfare and the Department of Education. We've had no reply on these matters and these are extremely important because my honourable friends so far have just started on these programs.

The total cost will be a great deal more than what we have been advised up· to date. My honour able friends have given us no indication whatever of what that cost might be or of what the plans of the government are in regard to paying for them .

This budget has been balanced by my honourable friends through taking in surplus from previously, through increases in fees, increases in liquor costs; but the projection of costs on these two departments in particular make it virtually impossible for my honourable friends to continue operating in the black, or even to pretend to be operating in the black as they are doing now. My honourable friend the First Minister sbitkes his head.

Well, he has reason to because he has made certain state ments that- -we'll wait, we'll remember--after the election victory my honourable friend made the statement then that the sales tax was as "dead as a dodo". We shall wait and see . The financing of my honourable friends will reveal itself as time goes on. We shall see how dead the sales tax is , because these things will have to be paid for. There is no turning back on the programs now and the statement that my honourable friend made that this could all be paid for without increases in taxes are not true now and they'll be even less true in the future.

I want to cover only one item more, Mr. Speaker, that my honourable friend made no comment on in his reply, and that is this matter of the change of the policy of this govern ment with regards to the sales of their debentures and bonds . It had been the policy and my honourable friend stated in his speech that these were previously sold on a tender basis , and that has been changed; and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a dangerous change. It is a change which I think is not in the interests of Manitoba.

I think that in spite of my honourable friend's statement that so far it has proved very successful, that that is not quite the case . In his budget speech he told us , page 36 , "We believe that this system is the best under the present circumstances and this view is supported by the outstanding success of our first issue under it" . Mr. Speaker, I ask, what proof has he exactly that this issue has been an outstand ing success? I presume he would say because it has sold.

Well, we don't know how much of it has been sold, but I submit that the selling success of the sale of an issue has mainly to do with its price, and that the price at which this issue was sold is the proof of whether or not it's a success, not the fact that he's changed the system of selling it. Now I see no possibi lity, Mr. Speaker , of checking under this new system on whether or not the gavernment is ·getting the best deal in its financing. What proof have we got that this government sold these bonds at the best price available?

Under the previous system of tender all the firms who were interested in purchasing government bonds made a firm bid. Once that bid was accepted they paid the price and the government got its money. Under this new system, what is the policy? Do the fiscal agents quarantee the price to the government? This last issue was put up for sale at 99 .2 5 for the 1968's and 97 .7 5 for the 1980's. What happens if it doe sn't sell com pletely at that price ? Does the government get that listed price? Does the fiscal agent guarantee it? We haven't been advised of it. March 26th, 1960 Page 1991

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd.). ... My honourable friend says that this is the best system under the present circumstances, and yet the Winnipeg Tribune on the 7th of March had a headline at that time "Bad Time for Manitoba Issue". It says : "the issues came at a rather bad time. The recent Province of Saskatchewan seven and a half million 6% April 1, 1980 debentures originally priced at 99 1/2 now are selling at 98 ; while the six million Newfoundland issue still remains partly unsold". Then it goes on to tell us about some corporate issues. Now why is it that Manitoba found itself going on the market at this time?

I presume under the advice of the fiscal agents. Then I think the question arises; can we depend that the fiscal agents are actually working in the prime interests of Manitoba? After all these fiscal agents have responsibilities to others ; not only to other governments but also to other private investors and to other private corporations going on to the market. In this particular case , my honour able friend tells us that the Wood -Gundy group are the one who are the fiscal agents. I believe it's correct that they are also the fiscal agents of the Province of Ontario.

Now I think the question arises: if Ontario wants to borrow some money and Manitoba wants to borrow some money; Ontario is very many times more important to the investment world than what Manitoba is. As a client Ontario would be much more important to the fiscal agents than what the Prov ince of Manitoba would be . Now who would get the best advice ? Who woi.ud get the first advice ? It seems to me that under this fiscal agent system clashes of interest are almost bound to develop. We have no indication whatever from the statement of my honourable friend that this isn't the case .

I submit that this change is one that can have very serious implica tions for the Province of Manitoba. We have no indication whatever that we're getting the best deal . We don't know whether we're getting the best advice. We can only depend on what this group tells us, and if it doesn't work out, it's the Province of Manitoba who pays . It seems to me that we need and the province needs a much better explanation than my honourable friends has given so far about this change in policy. Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote declared the motion defeated. MR . D. L.

CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside) : The ayes and nays please, Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the amend ment to the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means moved by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition which reads as follows: This House regrets that the Government while failing to keep many of its important promises including that of no tax increases have through extravagance and imprudence raised the provincial net debt by more than 200% . Are you ready for the question?

A standing vote was taken the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Dow, Froese , Gray , Guttormson, Harris, Hillhouse , Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters , Prefontaine, Reid, Roberts, Schreyer , Shoemaker, Tan chak, Wagner, Wr ight. NAYS: Messrs . Alexander, Baizley , Bjornson, Carron , Christianson, Corbett , Cowan, Evans, Mrs . Forbes, Messrs. Groves, Hamilton, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assi niboia), Johnson (Gimli) , Klym, Lissaman, Ly on, McKellar , McLean , Martin, Ridley, Roblin, Scarth, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Watt, Weir, Witney. MR.

CLERK: Yeas, 20; Nays , 33 . MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. Motion before the House, the motion by the Honourable the First Minister, that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Are you ready for the question? MR . EDMOND PREFONTAINE (C arillon): Mr . Speaker, the order for a return that was tabled yesterday has given me ample material to make a 40-minute speech but I do not think I will do so, although I have felt and I still feel that the duty of a member of the Opposi tion is to oppose.

I think that there must come a limit, but if I did choose to make that speech I would like the members to believe that it was not my fault, that it is the fault of the Minister of Education who took two months practically to supply an answer to a very simple question. I do not want to be a kill-joy and I reserve my right possibly to use that material on some other occasion, but I would like to take advantage of this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to tell the House that if I have opposed, at times I have been alone, like this morning, I have Page 1992 March 26th, 1960

(Mr. Prefontaine, cont'd.) •••• done so with the full knowledge that it was my duty to act according to the dictates of my conscience; and I did it sincerely with the full responsibility that I believe i<� placed in me to express my opinion at all times. But in view of the remarks made by the Honourable the First Minister after I said a few words this morning, I feel that he misinterpreted to a certain extent my few words this morning.

I was referring to Bill 43 , which I believe restricts, not the rights but the abilities of the Opposition at a time of a gen eral election to present its case to the people; and also with respect. to the change in the rules, especially the change in Rule 34. These are two documents that were passed by this House that I believe I opposed, and they restrict the rights and powers of the opposition.

I did not want him to infer from these .remarks that I was intimating that he, during the course of this Session, had been unduly restrictive with respect to the rights of the Opposition, and I would like to say that I believe that he has been fair with the Opposition; be has not wanted to cur tail debate or stop debate or stop adjournments, that weive had our full chance according to our rules to express our opinions at all times. So with these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I think I will, for this Session, stop speaking. MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhe ad): Mr .

Speaker , I believe that the time now would be appropriate to, before you put the question, to bring to the attention of this House a matter which amounts to a grievance, and a grievance of considerable proportions in this province . I'm referring of course to the crop damage and loss that many f;trmers in Manitoba suffered last fall, and we all know that this government decided to go along with the other two prairie provincial governments and the Federal Government with regard to making emergency pay ments to farmers suffering such losses .

But I would like to point out, and it has been pointed out already but no answer has been given, Mr . Speak er, so I would like to point out again to this government that the situation that is existing in this province with regard to this question is cert ainly somewhat less than desirable. There is dissatisfaction and there is growing dis satisfaction among rural folk in Manitoba with this government's decision not to make the Federal-Provincial Emergency Assistance payments to all those who received or thought they would receive PF A assistance.

I believe that there is good reason for farm folk to be dis satisfied, chagrined with the decision that this government made, because in most cases where PF A has been paid it has amounted only to nominal sums, and in the whole general area of Eastern Manitoba, a vast majority of farmers who received PF A in fact received the minimum, practically, of $1 .00 an acre -- in some cases • 50� an acre . What makes the situation so hard to swallow, Mr.

Speaker, is simply this, that a lot of farmers who have received PFA would have been much better off if they could have refused it and qualified for the Federal-Provincial emergency payments. In many cases the difference amounts to $1. 50 , $ 1. 80 per acre , and on a 200-acre farm, calculate it out and it runs into a considerable sum of money. Now why should this situation exist in that way? Not only that, Mr .

Speaker, I believe that this government by refusing to make payments to all those who received PF A has in fact failed to drive a good bargain with the Federal authorities, because it's true that this government may have saved a million dollars but they have also lost out on bringing into this province about a million dollars in Federal funds by way of the matching grant or matching payment formula. In the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan the provincial governments have deemed it fit and proper and fair to make payment wherever loss occurred, regardless of whether PFA would be received or not.

Now naturally it cost the provincial governments more money, but they brought into the province considerably greater sums of Federal money than we have. Here in Manitoba the overall cost of the emergency scheme will amount,to somewhere in the neighbourhood of one million four or thereabouts, of which Federal money there will be approximately $700, 000. In the case of Saskatchewan there will be over 2 1/2 million dollars of Federal money coming in.

This wll.l help to keep the economy of the rural part of that pro vince, and could have had the same effect in this province , keeping the economy more bouyant than it is. We cannot see that this government should remain stuck on its original decision not to make these payments to all crop loss farmers. I say that, Mr . Speaker, and that is not the only note of disappointment. There is still another. I believe that this government has, by making this segregation, has brought on itself a situation of mass paper work and mass confusion in administering the payment from March 26th, 1960 Page 1993

{Mr. Schreyer, cont'd.) •••• the fund, the emergency fund. Not only has there been undue delay in mailing out payments to the many farmers but some farmers are not even aware yet if their fields have been inspected or if they haven't been inspected; and some do not know, those that have been inspected, do not know whether they will qualify or not. Now in Saskat chewan and Alberta the overall scheme , the payments and all that , were over about 30 to 40 · days ago . Here, I doubt if we've reached the half-way mark toward conclusion of payment and allied matters.

Then, too, I don't think this should come as much of a surprise but a lot of farmers, who happen to live in a PFA zone and who took it for granted that there was not much use in applying for the Federal-Provincial emergency aid because they were in a PFA zone, they now find now, Mr. Speaker, in the last week or two , they have discovered that they have been rejec ted for purposes of PFAA and they haven't even made application for our paym ents yet becf!.use they felt that .they would qualify for PFA so they naturally didn't apply under this scheme . So what is the overall effect going to be ?

They found out last week they'd been rejected from PFA. They've probably started to apply last week and are applying this week and probably some will next week. I understand that the deadline is not a rigid one, even though it was supposed to be the 23rd of January . Inspection might be made sometime in April wherever inspection is necessary. I understand it won't be necessary in all cases.

They might receive payment sometime in May or June, sometime during or after the seeding operations; and in view of the fact that springtime is always a time of stress of expenses for farmers, it would seem that this government is guilty of not taking all these things into con sideration when it dec ided to refuse making the emergency assistance payments to all farm ers who had suffered crop loss. Just let me give you a brief illustration of how many farm ers in.the ri:mnicipality of Brokenhead--now I'll just take one municipality. Wholesale number of sections have been excluded from PFAA payment.

I have here a list of about 25 sections- that's in one municipality. You can imagine how many farmers are involved. All of these farmers did not apply to the province for assist ance thinking they would get PFA. Well now, if they are eligible for the provincial aid nq:w that they've been rejected from PFA, I think that we can expect the administering of this provincial scheme to take at least another three months before it's all cleared up; because as far as I'm concerned, the applications are just starting to come in because _of the mass rejection of eligibility by PFAA authorities.

I would like to take the opportunity to read in this Assembly a resolution passed at the last meeting of the Manitoba Farmers' Union local at Ladywood, and it goes as follows : "Be it resolved that this meeting of the Manitoba Farm ers' Union sub-district meeting held at Brokenhead, go on record as in favour of reques ting our MLAs and the Minister of Agricul ture to change the crop disaster plan for snow-covered grain to allow those farmers who have qualified for PFA payments to also receive payments under .the crop disaster plan if they meet the qualifications the same as farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta".

The letter goes on to say, "this resolution was passed unanimously by the farmers present at this meeting and there were around 90 farmers present". I think that I am justified in bringing this matter up, even in this day when there seems to be a sense of urgency of adjourning, because there is a mat ter of urgency involved, Mr. Speaker. I feel that this government, if it has the best interests of the farm folk at heart and I believe that they do have, it's a matter of how to go about achieving this. If it really has this, and I believe it has, as I said, then the government should do one of two things.

And here are the two alternatives, and either one I think would be a great improvement over the present situation. The first alternative would be for this government to reconsider making monies from the Emergency Fund available to all crop loss victims; and secondly, the other alternative would be for this government to study, and it's not impossible, to study ways and means by which payment could be equalized.

By that I mean simply this, that where a farmer, and I believe the member for Turtle Mountain men tioned this, that where a farmer co:1ld have received let us say $300 under Federal-Provincial Emergency Assistance but only received $100 because he happened to be in a PFA zone, and this is possible in many cases, that where there is such a discrepancy that this government make good this difference so that no farmer in this province will in fact be penalized financial, ly by virtue of his being in a PFA district, which is a matter beyond and above his own con trol, so why should he be penalized?

Page 1994 March 26th, 1960

(Mr. Scbreyer, cont'd. ) • • Now there are the two 3J.ternattves and one of these two should be accepted; and I would not have got up, Mr. Speaker, had this government given some tangible answer to the Honourable Member from Turtle Mountain. But when he made his remarks in this Assembly, the Honourable the Premier got up and said, quite properly I suppose, that they would definitely take note of this rather serious matter. So they've taken note, Mr. Speaker, but I think before we members of the.

Asse mbly leave and go back to our home areas, we should have some definite indication of the course of action that thls government intends to fo llow. I say that for a very good reason, because the members of this ·Assembly will recall I directed a question tO the Mlnlster of Agriculture a few days ago asking him if it was true that the gov ern.ril.ent was intending to make reconsideration and ·make monies available to all crop loss vic tims. He gave me an answer which was very-weU definitely which displayed his cleverness and so on. I know the honourable gentleman is clever. He doesn't have to display it.

All I wanted was a definite answer from him and I think we 're entitled to that; and I think the fa rmers of this province are entitled to that answer, Mr. Speaker. MR. SP EAKER: Are you ready for the question? HON. GEO. HUTTON {Minister of Agriculture)(Rockwood:-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a very few words in reply to the Honourable Member for Brokenhead.

I think it's rather useless to try and compare the amounts of money that are being spent or have been spent in Saskatchewan and those that have been spent in Manitoba, for the simple reason that the harvest in Manitoba was far advanced of that in Saskatchewan when the storm hit in the first place. Almost 90% of our wheat was estimated to have been harvested when the storm hit here.

Secondly, the pattern of the storm hitting Saskatchewan and Manitoba was such that when my honourable friend tells the House that Saskatchewan allowed payments to be made to both those fa rmers who had received PFA awards and those who had not, it didn't really mean as much as what he apparently thinks, because in Saskatchewan the people would be disqualified who were in the areas--disqualified because they had their harvest completed, because the area south of the Qu'appelle Valley was pretty well harvested in southern Saskatchewan. And these peopie had their harvest completed.

So I think we should just keep this in mind. The third thing I want to mention is the fact that he -objects, and I think it's typical of the approach of hls group, he objects to a thoro ugh administration of this program� He thinks· that we have wasted too much time. As Minister of Agriculture in this province I'm responsible to the farmers; I am also responsible to those people who support not only agricultural programs but all the programs and policies that are carried on for all the people in this province. I have a real responsibility to see that any policy that is carried out for the benefit of a group-- MR.

SCHREYER: On a point of order, I think my remarks are being miscontrued by the Honourable Minister. What I did object to was the fact that a deadline was drawn in January, a deadline which did in fact make it impossible for those people who might be rejected by PFA to apply, and they're only now beginning to apply. That's what ! object to. MR. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I took a diff erent

interpretation of what the honourable mem ber had to say. I know very well that when the deadline was announced there were o·�tcries in this Legislature that the fa rmers weren't being given enough time, and then the outcry today is of a different nature. They say that it is unfair to deny an acreage payment under the Federal Provincial snow-covered crop assistance to a man who has received PFA. I would like to point out to this House, Mr. Speaker, that I have corresponded with some far mers in this province who don't qualify for either program, and there's nothing I can do about it.

They're the fa rm ers that I fe el sorry fo r-farmers who were in ineligible PFA areas who had their crops har vested, who received less than eight bushels of wheat per acre or its equivalent, and they don't qualify for either one. They're the ones I feel sorry for and there isn't a thing in the world that I can do about it. I'd like to point out, Mr.

Speaker, to the House, that there was correspondence tabled in · this Legislative Assembly which outlined the progress of our negotiations between the provinces and Ottawa in this regard, and amongst that correspondence was a letter fro m the Honourable Minister of Agriculture of Alberta , Saskatchewan and Manitoba in which we asked the Federal Government to bring out a program, a temporary program which would extend to the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, ·who found themselves outside a PFA eligible area, and who found that they had lost their crop.

We asked this because we knew that the PFAA .program March 26th, 1960 Page 1995

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd. ) .. has limitations, and one of the limitations of that program is that it can't deal with an individual farmer and his need; and recognizing the limitation of PFAA we asked the Federal Government to extend a temporary program for this year only because of the nature of the loss and because so many farmers had lost on an individual basis and did not quali fy under PFA. We asked the Federal Government to do this. Their offer was, as you all know, for provincial participation and Manitoba did not change its mind.

Manitoba went ahead with a program which would extend benefits to every farmer in the province who could qualify under the 50% clause--to every farm er in the province so that every farmer, who didn't qualify under PFA, could qualify under the special program. This is what we did. We know it has short com ings and no one is arguing that point.

At the same time I must say this, that the bulk of comp laints that you have brought to my attention have come from one area of the province where PFA was granted, PFA awards were granted in general, and that to duplicate the payments to the farmers east of the Red River would p•1t us in the position where the farmers in one part of the province receive two payments where the farmers in the rest of the province receive one . Now it's true that the farmers of this province contribute to PFA. I agree with that. I agree that they contribute and this is their money.

But at the same time there is no more jus tifica tion for giving farmers two payments on one side of the river,and in the maj ority of the cases in western Manitoba, having circumst ances where they can only qualify for one payment, than there is for making sure that all farmers get some help under one or the other of the programs. As far as the equalization policy that you have spoken of, I wasn't being funny or smart the other day in the Legislature when I told you that we had this policy under constant considera tion.

We have had ever since we introduced it, because introducing it we knew that there were going to be exceptions to the rule. And it has been under constant consideration am it is at the present time. But I am in no position at the present time to make any announcement with re gard to these exceptions. And I can only make that announcement if it is proved to myself and my colleagues that it is feasible and that it is administratively possible. These are the prob lems that we face. It is all very easy, Mr. Speaker; to say that here 's a case; make an excep tion ; here is another case; make an exception.

But you have to have a rule to go by. You just can't go by rule of thumb in administering these programs. And we will do our best and if it is possible to do any more we will do it. There isn't much more, I think, that needs to be said on this particular question. It's been thrashed out many times over. I think that we have--our program has been of real assist ance; I shouldn't say real assistance, but material assistance to those who were wiped out to a large extent. Certainly I am sorry, with the rest of my colleagues, that there isn't more that we can do.

I am happy for the fact that I can feel that this has been administered soundly and responsibly, not only to the farmers but to all the citizens of this provinc e. Mr. Sp.3aker presented the motion . and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, if you would ask the Honourable Deputy Speaker, as suggested this morning, to take the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Comm ittee of the Whole House. MR. ROBLIN: Com mittee of Ways and Means, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: Comm ittee of Ways and Means. Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews please take the Chair? MR.

ROBLIN: There are certain questions that were asked previously, Sir, that I'll be glad to deal with now if members would like to raise them. MR. CAMPBEL L: There is one that the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose and I have asked with regard to this new plan of dealing with the debentures of the province. Under this system do the comm ittee that is mentioned guarantee the sale of the debentures at a certain price ? MR. ROBLIN: Yes, Sir. The Commit tee bought the debentures from us at a firm price.

Now in connection with this matter I wish I were at liberty to inform the Com mittee of the people whom we consulted who are not interested in any way in this matter, because we took very careful pains to consult, I may say, the very highest non-political, non-financial in the · sense of raising money, authorities that we could, in the Dom inion of Canada. We did not enter into this policy lightly or without taking the trouble to make those enquiries. And the advice we received is the advice we acted upon when we put up this new arrangement. Now members also Page 1996 March 26th, 1960

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) •. asked, what do they get for doing it. They get one percent. Now that compared, Sir, w lth 1. 07 4% on our last tender sale, so in effect these people do it at a cheaper price or I won't argue about that, I'll say the same price, as is done under tender, so that there is no extra advantage accruing to them there. Now if there are other questions on the point, I'll do my best to deal with them. :MR. CAMPBELL: ..••.. was my second one about their service charge.

Then I had asked with regard to what is the interest cost to the government of the province on, while I am at it: this loan, this recent loan, the $15 million of last fall, and the US loan. :MR. ROBLIN: The $15 million loan just negotiated averages out about 6. 25. Now I won't guar.antee that one�tenth of a percentum one way or another but that's about it; may be a little higher, may be about 6. 26 or 7, but it's in that general neighbourhood. Regarding the US bor rowings the cost in US funds '?/aB 5. 412 to the Government of Manitoba.

When brought home the cost in Canadian funds was 5. 77% and as I explained in the House in Committee there can be a switch of 11 points as of when we borrowed it in the exchange rate before we are any the worse off, and we know that switch hasn't taken place and every day that passes we're making· a little more money on the deal. MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the Provincial Treasurer in plain language? If you need, say, a million dollars today in US funds, what would be the exchange on the exchange of today or your buying future exchange? :MR. ROBLIN: .

You can't buy futures on foreign exchange except for one year in advance. You can probably get 12 month's futures on it, but we don't do that as a rule. We buy it on the current rate of exchange. Now I should have said something else, that the cost of commission on the US borrowings that we did was . 5% and just for the sake of the record the cost of com mission of my honourable friend's borrowing was 1. 5%. MR. GRAY: It's still not clear to me. Perhaps I am too tired with this sess ion.

You can go to the bank today, for instance yesterday, and purchase American funds for 4 1/8 or 4 2/8; where is the commission coming in? · MR. ROBLIN: Oh, the commiss ion that I am talking about, Sir, is not the commission on buying the money. The commission is the sale to the agency in United States that arranges for the borrowing. It's another commission altogether. MR. J. M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, will the bonds or debentures that will be sold, will they all be of one term; let's say all 20 year; all at one--? MR. ROBLIN: Well they are and they aren't. Some are for one term and others a split.

In the $15 million issue some are for 12 years and some are 20. Mostly they went for the long term. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I think the Honourable the First Minister gave us the cost to the government, the interest cost to the government on just two of those .loans. Did he give us the one, the very recent one? And the one last fall? :MR. ROBLIN: ••.••• the one last fall--haven't got that here--it's a six percent coupon, and I can give my honourable friend this information, but I am afraid I haven't got the exact figure. The par value is $10 million.

We receive $9, 817, 600 and the coupon rate was six, so our cost was--! don't know-! think it was 6. 1, 2 or 3 and was borrowed for hydro. I would also like to say that my honourable friends opposite asked me when we were in the speech for some information about what money we got on the borrowings of last year. If you will turn to the last page of the budget speech and that table, there is a list of debentures is sued amounting to $56 ,9 25, 000. We received, for that par value; the proceeds to us were $52, 973, 970. 16 , a differential of approximately four.

Now I think that calls for some explana tion, and the explanation is this, that members will see that the rate of interest, the coupon rate of interest was extremely low on most of those items. It was 2% on four or five issues; 2 3/4, 3 3/4, etcetera. The reason Why that is possible is because some investors will prefer to take part of their return in a capital gain rathert han in the interest rates. This eaables us to sell the money--to buy the money at very low coupon rate, but it calls for a discount.

In ef fect, we actually get in all those circumstances, though I haven't got the comparable figures here, I give the Committee the assurance that we actually bought that money at less than the market cost would have been under any conceivable calculation, because these were private ar rangements mostly to suit private people's particular financial requirements. They were very March 26th, 1960 Page 1997

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) .. good deals for the Province of Manitoba, and despite the fact there is a $4 million discount as you might say, it really represents cheaper money than we can ever ob tain on the market. Now let me just follow that further. My honourable friend the Member for ste. Rose was very upset, it seemed to me, that we had abandoned this tender system; and one would imagine from that that my predecessors had always u:sed it. Well they didn't by any long manner of means.

For example, when I came into office I found that on April 1st of 1959 they had sold without tender $1 7, 087, 14 9. 48, not by tender. --(interjection).--Well, I've got more than that if they want them ; I'm going back into '56 and 157; I'm not going to quote them all. But here's the interesting part; what was the discount on that $17 million? The discount was $5, 12 6, 693. 97- $5; 1 million discount. Now there's nothing wrong with it. It was a good deal, but it indicates the kind of thing you get up against and you can't, I think, make a sweeping statement one way or the other on this point.

It seemed advantageous to my predecessor at the time to borrow $17 million without tenders and at a discount; and I think he was right to do it. All I want to say is that we're doing some of the same things from time to time. MR . CAMPBELL: •.•... the fact, Mr. Chairman, that I think my honour able friend will have the--through the Treasury Department, will have the experts available to him who can check on that one or the other ones that he has mentioned, and he will find I'm sure that those borrowings were below the current cost of money on the market at that time, and-- MR. ROBLIN: I well believe that. MR .

CAMPBELL: Yes, I'm sure they were. And that particular one that my hono urable friend mentioned was quite an unusual arrangement as Pm sure he appreciates. But generally speaking, I think my honourable friend would agree that generally speaking, we followed the tender system. We didn't of course in the United States--that was a private deal too--and even though my honourable friend says that the commissi on that they paid down there was less than what we paid at the same time, I still say that the arrangement that we made at that time was a much better one than the one that has recently been made.

Now there are differing circum stances on account of the present interest rates of course, but I think that borrowing in the United States has turned out to be exceptionally good from the province's point of view. MR. ROBLIN: We don't dispute those facts. All I'm saying ls that you just can't make a general statement and say this must be the policy on finance. What you have to do is play it by ear. We've got to take the circums tances as they arise and use your best judgment on them.

Now I would be the last one to say we don't make mistakes on it, but I simply say that you have to deal with these things as they arise. MR. CAMPBELL: .••.•• Mr. Chairman, that in asking for the details with regard to the almost $5 mi llion of apparent discount, in my case, that was not a criticism either, because I could easily establish approximately a million dollars of it from the Public Accounts that we have before us now. I was assuming that a million dollars of it was contained in the United States loan of $20 million.

The balance of roughly $3 mi llion I had no doubt would be the apparent discount on these very low interest borrowings, the type of which is shown in the present Public Accounts. I quite recognize that the information that the First Minister gives as far as I am concerned is fully authentic and I have no criticism of it whatever. It is a fact that to some of these big organizations these times that the capital gains position, and I presume the better that they are doing financially the greater weight that particular feature has with them, does mean that some of those arrangements can be made quite satisfactorily.

It was not a criticism as such; it was a request for the information to be placed on the records. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that my hon ourable friend the First Minister and I will have ample opportunity in the future to discuss this matter of tenders on the deben tures of the government. I think that it would be a fair prediction to make that my honourable friend will return to the tender system, because I am sure that he will find that the present system does not protect his interests as the Provincial Treasurer and the interests of the pro vince in the way that I know he wants it done.

So I think we '11 be back to that one as the time comes. Insofar :ts our operations when we were there, I think he will find that there are only two cases where we did not use the tender system. Both of them have been referred to by my leader. There was the purchase--! think it was BC in the case of the $17 million, and the Ame rican purchase before that. Insofar as these figures that my hono urable friend gives us on Page �.998 March 26th, 1960

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd. ) •• the last page, I wonder if it would be possible in the future to include there as well the cost, actual cost of the.,-or the selling price of the debentures. He gives us there the coupon rate and the par value. I just wonder if it would be possible in the future to have an extra column indicating what the actual selling price was so that for future comparisons the committee would have the information. MR. ROBLIN: There is something I think that should be said about this question of the agency versus the tender.

I quite agree with my honourable friend when he says that we may re vert to the tender. That's certainly within the realm of possibility. The real compelling fac tor in the judgment of my imancial advisors, not all of whom are on the staff of this govern ment is the state of the market. If the market is overcrowded with new issues then the syndi cate -system is the way to sell a clean issue and get your money and keep your reputation in good shape.

When that situation impro ves, and I might say there has been a phenomenal im provement in the market in the last three weeks, why then you go back to the tender system. It's just as si mple as that.

It's a question of the state of the market; and I want to assure my honourable friend that if in our opinion the state of the market justifies abandoning the syndicate system or whatever we call it and going back to-, the tender system-, no one will be happier about it than I am, because I quite see the point of that. · But I want to stress that these things are not- you don't decide them on the basis of a general statement. I think you have to deal with the circumstances of the market at the time, and that's the main point that I want the committee to keep in mind. - MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions?

Are you ready for the resoluti on? Main supply reso lution: resolved that towards making good certain sums of money g:i-anted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1961, the sum of $89, 527 ,7 79 be granted out of Consolidated Fund. Resolution passed.

The supplementary estimates: resolved that towards making good certain further sums of money granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province for the fiscal year end ing the 31st day Of March 1960 the sum of:$3,2 49, 750 be granted out of Consolidated Fund: Are you ready for the question? Passed. Capital supply resolution: resolved that towards making good certain monies for various capital purposes the sum of $208, 275, 000 be granted out of Consolidated Fund. Resolution be adopted? That's all then. The committee rise and report? Call in the Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means have. adopted certain resolutions and directed me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. MR. MARTIN: Mr . Speaker, I beg leave to move seconded by the Honourable Member for Cypress that the report of the Committee be received. Mr . Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN presented the resolution from the Committee ()f Ways and Means for sec ond reading and concurred in. MR. RQBLIN introduced Bill No. 113,

an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the ·province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March· 1961. MR. ROBLIN: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm out of order here.- (interjection) --I read it, I read the motion for concurrence, but you haven't read the-- MR.

CLEBK: Resolved that towards making good certain further sums of money granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1960 the sum of $3, 241, 750 be granted out of Consolidated Fund; resolved that towards making good certain sums of money granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the prov ince for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1961 the sum of $89,5 27 , 000 be granted out of Consolidated Fund; resolved that toward. making good certain sums of money for the var ious capital-purposes the sum of $208, 275, 000 be granted out of Consolidated Fund.

Mr . Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the· motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Now itru st, Mr . Speaker, it is in order tom ovefirst readingo�Bil1 No. 113. Mr . Speaker presented the motion an4 after a voice vote declared the motion carried. Mr. Roblin introduced Bill No. 121,

an Act for granting to Her-Majesty certain further sums of money for the public services of the province for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March 1960; Bill No. 127,

an Act to authorize the expenditure of monies ·for various capital March 26th, 1960 Page 1999

purposes and to authorize the borrowing of the same (1); Bill No. 128,

an Act to 9.uthorize the expenditure of monies for various capi tal purposes and to authorize the borrowing of the same (2) ; Bill No. 130,

an Act to authorize the expenditure of monies for cap ital purposes of the Mani toba Hydro-Electric Board and to authorize the borrowing of the same. MR. ROBIJN: Mr. Sp·::!aker, I move, seconded by the Hono·�rable the Attorney-General, that Mr. Sp::!aker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee. to con-· sider Bills Nos. 113, 121, 127, 128 and 130. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. 1\IIR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews please take the Chair? Bill No. 113 was read

section by

section and passed; Bill No. 121-- 1\ffi. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, we 've arrived at a place in our session where--it's frequently happened in the time that I sat on that side of the House--that we seem to get a certain amount of criticism in the Press or even from the public, because of the fact that the impres sion seemed to be that when we did things in this way that we•re doing now, that because I think it does look a little unintelligible to the person who is just. looking on perhaps from the public gallery, the way we pass these bills so quickly and even in comm ittee pass them so quickly.

Perhaps even the new members feel that way so I thought maybe I would take two minutes to say to the new members, and any of the public that are listening, that we're doing just the same thing here as we do with any other bill that comes before us. Well, a little different because these are essentially money bills, but the reason that they are delayed until the end of the ses sion this way is because they can't be brought in. I'm not looking for an opportunity to criticize the government in this. I'm trying to say that in this," I think the government has acted in the only way that it can do.

They can't be brought in until the motion has been passed that we dealt with a short time ago. Then I think we are in a pos ition to deal very quickly with them and even "by leave", so that we have all the readings on the same day and Committee of the Whole and all the rest, because of the fact that each and every one of these bills has been gone over in pretty close detail as the session proceeded. Not the individual bill, and not the wording of the bill, but they are practically identical year after year. Let me just summarize in this way, Mr.

Chairman, if I may, that the one you are at now, I think it's 121, is re ally the supplementaries of the present year, which we have already passed item by item as the House knows. The one we have just passed before, 113 , is the current estimates of the year that we're just moving into.

The next one that we deal with, if I'm not O'.lt of order in mentioning this now, is one of the Capital Supply, one portion of the Capital Supply, and it's the part dealing with the Tele phone System, the Power Commission, the Water Supply Board and some buildings and grants and loans, etcetera, which was included in the Capital Supply estimates they had laid before us.

Bill 128, after that, deals with the Agricultural Credit Fund and the Manitoba Development Fund which were, I think the honourable members would agree, ca refully scrutinized at the time we were in Capital Supply; and the last one is the big vote for the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board.

I know that to people who are not acquainted with our system that this looks like a rush and that we pass, as sometimes was said, a great many million dollars in so many minutes; but these millions of dollars have been pretty carefully looked at before this time, and when we arrive at this stage, I think we're in a pos ition to deal with them pretty quickly. I though I'd say that for the benefit of the public and the newer members. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Chairman, I think that comment by the Leader of the Opposition was very well worth making, because to strangers who are not familiar with our procedure this looks like the sort of situation that he described, but we in the House know very well that this is the culmination of eight or nine or ten weeks detailed study, item by item, and Heavens knows how much expenditure of energy and time in talk and discussion in the Committee of Supply .

This is, in a sense then, the formal wrapping up of the real labour of our session; and I do hope that those who are interested enough, either to watch orrecordwhatwe do, will be firmly seized of that principle. Bills Nos. 113, 121, 127, 128 and 130 were read

section by

section and passed. MR. CHAffiMAN: Committe rise and report. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House has considered Bills Nos. 113, 121, 127, 128 and 130 and di rected me to report the same·, without amendments, and ask leave to sit again. MR. J\IIARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seoonded by the Honourable Member for Cypress, that the report of the Comm ittee be received. Mr. Soeaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. BUls Nos. 113, 121, 127, 128 and 130 were read a third time and passed. Po.ge 2000 March 26th, 1960

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, if you and I could capture the attention of the members for a minute or two, I'd like to suggest that the resolution standing in the name of the Honour able Member for .Turtle Mountain on Education grants of 75% would now lapse in view of the Bill that's been passed, and we can move on to the adjourned debate on the proposed resolu tion of the Honourable Member for Fisher and the amendment thereto on which we are awaiting your ruling, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: I might say in respect to the ruling that I find the motion is in order.

I think there was a misunderstanding by everyone in the House, including myself, as to the exact meaning of the motion and I would rule it in order. Are you ready for the question? · MR. PETER WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker , I was sitting here, I believe I said a month ago, and didn't say anything. At least I am going to take the opportunity at the closing of saying something now. I am really surprised and disappointed that such a resolution appears and it's all -- to my

interpretation it reads as consultation with the farm arganization. The farm organization have been functioning for many years and this gove rnment and other govern ments have received delegations and briefs and wha1nots; they could have consulted the farm organization from time to time if they so wished. And now what has happened? They are going to consult the farm organization knowing very well what the answer will be, and then they are going to request the Federal Government, which we know very well what the answer will be as it has been in the press just recently announced.

Therefore, it doesn't give me any choice to speak any length of time or to vote against this amendment, so I say that our group Will vote in favour of this amendment and not to make any long speeches. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The amendment as .amended by the amendment. Are you ready for the question? MR. A. J. REID (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, it would be an appropriate time now to . speak on that question, but I am not going to speak on it . --No, that' s not the one. Mr.

Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The main motion as amended by the amendment to the amendment. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion ca rried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Brokenh.ead, the amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre, and the further amendment to the amendment by the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. REID: Mr.

Speaker, the deck has been cleared now for Sunday sport and it would be an appropriate time to speak on physical education, but I am not going to do it. I think that the Minister of Education should implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Education on Physical Education, and I am sorry we are going to vote both against the amend ment and the amendment because I don't think further study is needed on it and we want action on it. If the members really believe in 'the principle of physical education, they will support the main resolution. Thank you. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. SPEAKER: Amendment to the main motion by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the amendment carried. MR. PAULLEY: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. A standing vote was taken, the result being: YEAS: Messrs . Alexander, Bjornson� Campbell, Carron, Christianson , Corbett, Cowan, Dow, Evans, Mrs. Forbes; Messrs .

Froese , Groves, Hamilton, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Prefontaine, Ridley, Roblin, Roberts, Scarth, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stanes , Strickland, Watt, Weir, Wi1ney. NAYS: Messrs. Desjardins , Gray, Guttormson, Harris , Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Schreyer, Tanchak, Wagner, W right. March 26th, 1960 Page 2001

MR . CLERK: Yeas, 37; Nays , 15 . MR. SPEAKER: I dec�are the motion carried. The question before the House is the mil.:(n motion as amended. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, just before you put the motion I want it clearly under stood as to why we voted against the amendment in connection with this resolution. The resolu tion itself calls for the implementation of the report made to the Legislature by the committee that was set up on Physical Fitness which was submitted to this Legislature on June 26th, 1958 .

Subsequent to that time we did receive a report of the Royal Commission on Education; in the Throne Speech the government announced its policy that it was going to undertake consideration of all of the recommendations of the final report of the Royal Commission Report on Education.

The reason that we have opposed the amendment is because we feel that sufficient study has been given to this problem by the Commission that was set up and made its report on June 26th, 1958 , and that by referring this matter again to the Minister of Education we are in effect going against the recommendation or the adoption shall I say of the Throne Speech which said that the government is taking under consideration these recommendations.

For that reason, not because of the fact that we do not want implemented the recommendations of the Commis sion that reported on June 26th 158, we figure that the reference to the Minister of Education is redundant. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I want my honourable friend to follow me closely here. I'm not saying his argument is unintelligent, but I'm saying it is unintelligible, and I can't understand it. · MR. PAULLEY: Well, I can understand that with my honourable friend. HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr.

Speaker, I was just thinkmg, perhaps I should make this commentt hat.members will not overlook the fact that the Royal Commission on Education made a number of recommendations respecting curriculum, all of which will have to receive very careful study and indeed on which many people are mak ing recommendations now or at least studies and suggestions, and obviously it would not be wise to consider sort of in isolation the recommendations of the committee on physical recrea tion and education, because many of those recommendations must be carried out in the context of the curriculum of the school and which is a subject with which the Royal Commission Report dealt extensively and which will require very careful study.

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 Mem ber for Elmwood. The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR . DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John's) : Mr. Speaker, since we last discussed this resolu tion the Minimum Wage Board has brought down its recommendations, with which I disagree completely.

I think that 66s\ is a completely unrealistic amount, but it demonstrates conclu sively the validity of our resolution because obviously some of the members, certainly the labour members , could only have supported that proposal on the basis that it is impossible for any one province to get very much out of line with the rest. And this demonstrates as far as I'm concerned more than ever the need for action on a national scale. Now action on a national scale may be difficult but it' s certainly not impossible.

It's the way in which we got unemployment insurance; it's the way in which we've had improvement in health and welfare legislation, and it's the only way" in which we can move to wipe out the inequities in wage rates between one region and another, between one province and another. And our resolution in my opinion is more justified today than it was even when we moved it in the light of what the Minimum Wage Board had recommended. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. PAULLEY: The yeas and nays, please, Mr. Speaker. Unless it's the same division. MR.

ROBLIN: I doubt that I'd be willing to agree to that. I think ii might be a much different division. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the memrers. MR . PAULLEY: I would suggest that my friends on the right should decide that . -- (Interjection) -- Not you; them. ' MR . SPEAKER: Qwstion before the House is the adjourned debate on the proposed Page 2002 March 26th, 1960

(Mr. Speaker, cont' d.) •••• resolution of the Honourable Member for Elmwood which reads as follows: ''Whereas the cost of living ••• " A standing vote was taken, the result being; YEAS: Messrs. Gray, Harris, Hawryluk, Orlikow, Paulley, Pet ers, Reid, Schreyer, Wagner, Wright . NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Campbell, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Desjardings, Dow, Evans, Mrs. Forbes, Messrs.

Froese, Groves, Gut tormson, Hamilton , Hillhouse, B utton, Ingebrigtson , Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym� Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar , McLean, Martin, Molgat, Prefontaine , Ridley, Roblin, Robert s, Scarth, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stan es, Strickland, Tanchak, Thompson, Watt, Weir, Witney. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 10; Nays, 44. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolu tion of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. The Honourable Member for St . John' s. MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I stood this for the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. MR. ARTHUR E.

WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to make a few brief comment s on this resoluti on, and to use a time worn phrase, it's with mixed emotions that I do it. On. the one hand I'm honoured because I drew only the fire of a crack Ministe r of the Crown in regard to this resolution , the Honourable Minister of Health and Welfare; and on the other band I'm a .little disappointed because it seems as thoUgh the Private Mem ber's reso lutions have been placed ai,the back of the Order Paper now for some, it seems like two weeks to me, and it seems thai it' s sort of rushing things ai this minute .

However, I'll try to be brief. - The Honourable Minister reviewed my speech and he almost repeated word for word what I said in regard to giving credit to the Canadian Cancer Society and to the Manitoba Can cer Commission. He was sharp however to pick out a mistake that I made, and I thank him for it, because I had no intention of misrepresenting the facts. I said thai there were som� 20, 568 new cases of cancer, when what I really wanted to say

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-2-56a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 2nd hansardpdf 56a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ce3c4e7a61d0e5f3b3622af77bc43330d5e8063b

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