Manitoba Hansard — 21 July 1959 (Sitting 30A, 26th Legislature, 1st Session)

26-1-30a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IN DEX Tuesday, July 21, 1959 Committee Report, Private Bills, Nos. 43, 44, 64, 68, 77 Page 1159 Bill No. 94, Introduction, Mr. McLean •••• • -. • .. . • • • • • • .. . • • • • • • • • . . • • . . • • • • • • • 1159 Annoillicement re Royal Visit: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roblin . • • • • • • • • • 1159 Questions 1161 Bill No. 35, re Treasury Act (Mr. Roblin), Third Reading: Mr. Molgat • • • . . • • • • • • 1161 Mr.

Groves • • • . • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • . . • • • • . . • • • . . • • • • • . • . • • • . • • • . • . . • • • • • . . 1163 Mr. ·paulley •..•.•• •. .. •• •. •• .•• . .• ...••••. ••• .•..•. _. ... .. ..... •• • . • • 1164 Adjourned Debate, re Implement Tax (Mr. Ridley): Mr. Molgat . . • • • • • . . • . • . • • • • • • 1165 Mr. Ridley • • . • • . • . • • • • . • • • • . ..• •• . • • • • . •• • . • • • . •• • • . • •• • . . • • • • . • . • •• . 1166 Adjourned Debates Minimum Wage (Mr. Harris), amendment (Mr. Groves): Mr. Orlikow • • . • • . • •• . • . 1166 Mr;· Campbell, Mr. Gray ••••• .•. •. ••.

" . . . • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • . • • • . • . • . • • • 1167 Divisions: Amendment to Amendment, Amendment • • . • • . . . . • . • . . . • . • . • . 1168 School Grant Formula (Mr. Miller): Mr. Schreyer .......... .... .. . : .. . • .. . • • . • . . 1168 Deficiency Payments (Mr. Schreyer), amendment (Mr. Alexander): Mr. Orlikow .. . 1169 Mr. Baizley, Mr. Orlikow, Mr. Hutton .. .. • • .. . . .. ... ... • . • • .. .. .. .. .. 1172 Mr. McKellar • • • • • • • • . • . • . • . • . • • • . . • • • . . • . • • • • • • . . . • . • . • • • • . • • • • • • . . • 1177 Permanent Speaker (Mr. Campbell), amendment (Mr.

Lissaman): Mr. Paulley • . • • 1177 Mr. Gray, Mr. Groves • .• . • . . . • • . . . . .• . • •• . . •• •• .. •• .• • • .• .• .• • • • . • • . 1180 Mr. Desjardins, Mr. Groves, Mr. Roblin, Mr. Campbell . • •• . . • •• • • • •• • 1182 Second Readings Bill 79, re Greyhound Racing (Mr. Hillhouse): Mr. Baizley • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • . 1182 Mr. Hawryluk • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • . • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1183 Mr. Schreyer, Mr. Gray, Mr. Scarth, Mr. Alexander ..... .... .. ..... ... 1185 Mr.

Hillhouse • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • 1186 Division • • • . • . • • . • . . • • • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • . . • • • . • . • • . . . • . • • • • . • • • . . • • • • . 1186 Bill 76, re School Trustees Association (Mr. Lissaman) .. . .. .. .. ... ... . ..... .. .. · 1187 Bill 85, re Town of Gimli (Mr. Stanes): Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Jobnson(Gimli) Mr.Stanes 1187 Bill 72, re l\iargarine (Mr. Seaborn) • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . . . • • • • . • . • • • . . 1187 Mr.

Shewman, Amendment • . .• . • •• • • •• •• •• • • •• •.• • • • •• . • .• • • . . •. .• •. •• 1191 Mr. Gray, Mr. Miller •••••. •• •••••••• .••• •••• •.• ••• • •••• :. .. .. ... .. .. 1192 Division on Amendment ...• ... •..••.•..• ..••..•.•• ..• •.. ...... .... .. .. 1193 Committee of Supply Municipal Affairs, Administration: Mr._Paulley • •• •• • • •• • .• •• • • •• •• • • • .. . • •• .. • 1194 :Mr. Campbell . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • . • • • . . • • 1197 Mr.

Orlikow ••• • , •• •••• •• ••.• .• •. •. • ; . • . • • • • . . • • • • . • . • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • • 1201 Mr. Paulley, Mr. Campbell, l\'lr. Thompson .. ....... : • • .. .. .. • • • .. • • • • • 1203 Mr. Roblin . . • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • . • • • • • . • • • • 1204 · Mr. Campbell . . • • • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • . • . • • • • • 1206 Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Thompson .. ... . .. ... .. .. ... . . .. .. .. ....... ·• • .. • . 1208 Mr. Paulley, Mr.

Thompson .. .. .• .. ... .. • .. . .. ..... ... .... ... .. .. ... 1209· Mr. Prefontaine • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • . . • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • ... • • • 1211 Estimates ... ........ . .... ... ... . .. .. . .. .... ... .. ... .. ... . . ..... ..... 1212

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:0 0 o'clock, Tuesday, July 2lst, 1959 MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, just before 5:30 I asked permission to ask a question of _the spo:tisor of this Bill and of course, you recall I was informed that I have to make some com ments in order to ask that question. In. doing so Mr. Speaker, ·I'd merely like to say that inso far as I am personally concerned I might well be disposed to supporting this Bill providing some information were given that I must confess I did not find after reading the Bill.

For one thing, although the Bill provides for the setting up of the machinery for a Greyhound Racing Association, there is no :information, at least if there is I did not see it, no information as to the length of the racing meet, whether the racing will be only during the duration of the exhibi tion week itself or not, the limits of bets in the pari-mutuel, and so on, Mr. Speaker. I realize that some members of this group are not disposed to voting for any legislation that would e:itt.end the amount or the number of racing days in this province , and in a sense I feel very much as they do.

However, it could well be that if this Bill would provide for the setting up of Greyhound Racing Association which would provide for racing only during exhibition week, perhaps as the honourable member for st. George said, it perhaps would be better than to - provide better entertainment even though it is gambling, than is the case now because they spend - a good many people lose money rather unfairly in these , shall I say, these "gyp joints" that go on in the midway. That's not the fault of the exhibition itself I suppose , though I do ask these questions Mr.

Speaker, and I anticipate when the honourable member for Selkirk speaks on this Bill, that he will giv.e-this House that information. MR. GRAY:rM r. Speaker, I'm not opposed to any club or charitable organization like the one that's involved here, to give them the incorporation they asked for, but principally I'm opposed to horse-racing in general, I opposed the extension of the days last year, and I cannot agree with allowing another gambling so to speak of dog racing. I think the dog has a dog's life as it is without having to race for it, and if that

section is taken out, I would be prepared to let the Bill go the second reading, if a promise is made. (Interjection)

Section is of dog racing. Now if the whole Bill depends on dog racing I must, I must oppose to go on second reading although I seldom do it, qecause this is purely and simply another gambling ••••••••• because if it's not gambling, you don't need to have it, we are not doing it for the pleasure of it, or for the entertainment. It's true that the - in an exhibition there are other evils there who take away the money from the average working boy and girl.

I refer to the what do you call it -' stunts that they have there, but we cannot control it, so naturally my opposition to it will not help, but as far as dog racing, I definitely oppose it, I don't think it's a good thing, we futve now legally a given -- about over 50 days of horse racing, we have the harness racing and I think we should leave the dogs alone, and that's why I intend to oppose this Bill going second reading. MR. W. B. SCARTH (River Heights): Mr. speaker, there seems to be a misunderstan ding-On the part of certain members in the House in regard to this Bill.

No Bill which this HOU93 could pass would authorize the betting on dogs, because we have not got that power. It is true the Federal Go�ernment has given to the ;various provinces authority to allow pari mutuel betting on horses, but on horses only, so that in justice to the Bill, nothing that this House can di> will authorize pari-mutuels on ·dogs.

During the course of questioning, I did ask the honourable the member for Selkirk, who is sponsoring the Bill as to why a Bill of this House was sought instead of incorporating the Dog Racing Association, or whatever you may call it, in the ordinary method by application for letters patent, and I hope to do that, and so long as there's not understood that this House directly) or indirectly is sponsoring pari-mutuels on dogs, then I can see no -- I do not see why I should oppose the Bill. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr.

Speaker, on rising to speak I'm afraid I'm going to have to dis agree in a certain measure with my seat mate, here ,and I hope that he doesn't kick me in the shins when I sit down, because I would like � go on record as supporting those who ,are not in favor of this Bill going to second reading, and the honourabl_e member from River Heights mentioned a very pertinent point and that was the fact that �e Criminal Code will not allow legalized betting on the dogs, and yet every member who has gotten up in this House so far and spoken I believe, . has emphasized the fact that everybody is going to bet on these animals July 21st, 1959.

Page 1185

(Mr. Alexander, Cont' d.) ••••• running around the track , and that the y're not going to bet on pari-mutu els, and I think we have to assume by past records that they are going to bet on races, where are they going to place their bets ?

And they will be placill?; with illegal operato rs down town , because th ey're going to find a place to place their bets, that has been proven south of us here in the country , and I think by setting this up and aut horizing the racing of greyhounds, that there will be encouraging of -- setting .up of illegal betting houses in Winnipeg which will be very difficult to enforce and we will be giving a foothold to , I think an opportunity as well as a foothold to illegal bet ting operations in the City of Winnipeg which we might find in the future, after it' s been in operation for. a while, a very difficult thing to stamp out , and I think for that reason as well as the moral considerations of enlarging gambling opportunities in the province, for that reason alone , the fact that gambling -- or betting on dogs is prohibitted by the Criminal Code, that we should give a very careful look at this Bill before allowing it to be passed on second reading.

MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? The honourable member is closing the debate . MR . T. P. HILLHOUSE (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, first of all dealing with the point raised by the honourable member for Roblin, I would like to point this out. That the Red River Exhi bition Association could, without coming to this House by way of this Bill, could have had Greyhound Exhibition Racing. There's nothi ng in our law to prevent it .

Now by coming to this House they are asking that they be incorporated by a Bill of this Legislature , to pave the way for an application to the Federal Government to obtain an amendment to the Criminal Code, and I wish to assure every member of this House, that if thi s Bill is passed, that the Red River Greyhound Racing Association will not conduct Greyhound Racing in Manitoba unti l it is legalized under the Criminal Code, so as far as the honourable member for Roblin is concerned I think that answers his point . Now as to the question asked by the honourable member for Brokenhead, I think that answers it too.

Quite frankly the reason why they have come here is simply this. That they realize that if they did, in order to build up a lnrlng for· Greyhound Racing in Manitob a, if they did give exhibitions of greyhound racing in Manito ba, they'd know that the re would be illegal betting on the side and that is what the y're trying to avoid. Now even if this House passes this Bill, it doesn't necessarily follow that you're going to have greyhound racing in Manitob a, be cause the association will not start greyhound racing in Manitob a until they can operate through pari-mutuel machines.

Now once they can operate through pari-mutuel machines, this House would have jurisdiction by

an act of this Legislature to control the times when tho se meets would be held the same way as they can control the horse racing in Winnipeg today . Now I think this Bill should go to the second reading, so that members of this House will have an op portunity of hearing from the Board of Directors of the Red River Exhibition Association as it is known just now, but I can assure you that the only reason why they brought this Bill here · is simply because they do not want to have greyhound racing until it can be done legally.

They could have greyhound. racing now without bringing this Bill in here, but by doing that they woul d have illegal betting on the side and tha t's what th ey're trying to avoid. Mr. Speaker presente d the question and after a voice vote declared the Nays have it. A MEMBER: Ayes and nays Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House, second reading of Bill No. 79,

an Act to incorporate the Red River Exhibition Greyhound Racing Association. Are you ready for the question ? Those in favour, please rise. A standing vote was taken, the result being: YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Gutto rmson, Harris , Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Miller, Prefontaine , Roberts , Schreyer, Shewman, Stan es, Tanchak, Wright . NAYS: Messrs. Alexander,. Bjornson , Boulic, Carro ll , Christianson , Cowan, Evans, Gray, Groves, Hamilton , Hutt on, Jeannotte , Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym , Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martlli., Orlikow, Panlley, Reid, Ridley, Roblin,.

Scarth, Seasborn, Smellie, Thompson, Wagner, Weir, Willis. MR . CLERK: Yeas - 14; Nays - 32. MR . SPEAKER: l declare the motion lost. Second reading of Bill No. 76,

an Act to in corporate the Urban.School Trust ees' Association of Manitob a. The honourable member for Page 1186 July 21Bt, 1959.

(Mr. Speaker, Cont'd. ) •••••• Brandon. Mr. Lissaman presented Bill No. 76 for second reading. MR. R. 0. LISSAMAN (Brandon) Mr. Speaker, certain members have called for an ex planation of this Bill, I think there's no need of a great explanation; the Bill is self-explanatory. It is the usual application of incorporation of a body of a similar nature. There are no unusual powers granted to the organization, as I see. I don't know whether the Minister of Education might want to comment on this, but I see no great need of any lengthy explanation, Mr. Speaker. After a voice vote, Mr. Speaker declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 85,

an Act respecting the Town of Gimli. The Honourable Member for st. James. Mr. stanes presented Bill No. 85 for second reading. Mr. Speaker read the motion. MR. D. M. STANES (St. James): Mr. Speaker, all the lanes in the Town of Gimli are privately owned -- owned in fact by some 800 people. This Act is sought by the Town of Gimli in connection with a plan recently made by the town in order to create lanes. The original plan did not provide for these lanes. That's why they are privately owned.

Expropriation could have taken place under 3 7 of the Act, requiring the Clerk to serve each owner with notice of expropriation, giving the amount of the intended compensation, et c. , but the cost, Mr. Speaker, of that would be approximately $2 . 00 a head, or $2 . 00 each for each certificate, mak ing a total cost of $1 , 600. 00 not including, in addition, the administrative cost. The people of Gimli have requested that this be taken place, do not wish the expense to rise any higher than poss_ible, because it would come out of the taxes, and therefore, that is the reason for this Bill to come in.

It has the full consent, I understand, of the people of Gimli. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, if what the honourable member says -- that they have the full consent of the people of Gimli, why is it necessary to expropriate? Why don't they con sent to the passing of the By-Law and accepting nil as compensation for land being taken? There is a principle involved in this Bill and the principle is, that we are giving our stamp of approval to a municipality confiscating private land without compensation and I am opposed to it. MR. SPEAKER: Ready for the question? MR.

JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, if I would be permitted to say a few words. The Bill as presented to the House here was not brought forward until after very much discussion by the solicitor to the Town of Gimli, and by the town council. And I was under the impression, not knowing the legalities of it, that this was, according to the solicitor of the town whom I have spoken to, that this was -- would be a very wise move in view of the apparently gre1tt deal of cost and so on that the town would have to go to in order to obtain this property otherwise.

I would very much like to see this Bill go to Law Amendments in order to - or to the Co!l1mittee in order to have the representations made • As I understand it, it does involve a considerable sum of money to do it in any other fashion except this. MR. SPEAKER: •••• the honourable member speaks, he closes the debate. MR. STANES: Mr.

Speaker, I had the same reaction as the Honourable Member from Selkirk, and I had many discussions with the officials in Municipal Affairs here in this build ing, and I was assured that this was the way in order to save some money -- in other words, to save at least the $1 ,6 00 .0 0 which consists of at least $2 .0 0 for each Search Certificate. I have been assured that there is no other way of doing it without increased costs , and I have been assured that the people of Ginili are behind it, so I am personally satisfied. Mr. Speaker called for a voice vote and declared the motion carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 72,

an Act to amend the Margarine Act. The Honourable Member for Wellington. Mr. Seasborn presented Bill No. 72 for second reading. Mr. Speaker read the motion. MR. R. SEABORN (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, during the last session, Mayor Juba en deavoured to present a Bill to amend the Margarine Act, and if his effort can be included in the number of times the attempt has been made to have the colouring ban on margarine July 21st. 1959 . Page 1187

(Mr. Seaborn, Cont' d.) ••••• removed, this will be the ninth consecutive time that this matter has been placed before th is House for its consideration. The honourable members are probably aware that 46 of the 48 sta tes to the south of us have removed the restrictions on margarine, but Sir, I was absolutely amazed at the background of discrimination and persecution - yes, I said persecution -- that existed before the se curbs were finally removed. During the iast war , a professor in Iowa State College began writing pamphlets about wartime food product ion. His name was Oswald H. Brownless.

In a simple, businesslike fashion, he stated that a very serious butt er shortage was in existence, that feed and farm labour was so scarce that the re was little chance of this shortage being relieved. He concluded that since margarine was just as nutritive as butte r, and could be produced more· cheaply, he felt that the housewives should be able to get more margarine. The moment the pamphlet came from the press, there was the very devil to pay. Blasts of anger shattered the calm of Iowa, Wisconsin and the Dakot as , and the dairymen demanded professor Brownlee's scalp.

Professor Brownlee was forced to leave and Doctor Schultz , his department chief, had to resign, and the President of Iowa state College endeavoured to pacify the dairy int erests by disowning the heretical tract . This is just one episode in a fantastic series of manoeuvres that went on to bar a cheap and wholesome food from millions of American kitchen s at a time when butte r was so short that many, many homes had no spread to put upon their bread.

The dairy men's lobbies had piled on so many taxes and contrived so many hampering regulations that over two-th irds of the retail grocers in the Unite d state s did not consider it worth the effort to stock margarine on their shelves. Despite the critical nutritional shortage existing at that time, margarine was cooped up in a legislative hoosegow. A bewildering network of state tariffs and petty regulations were put into effect to . force the people to buy butte r or nothing at all . In time s of peace, this would be completely indefensible.

At a time wh en we were all locked in the greate st fi ght of our lives, it approached

an act of sabotage . Here were some of the restrictions placed upon margarine in the year 1943 in the United State s. The margarine manufacturer had to lay out $600 .0 0 for an annual federal license, then he paid a federal tax of ten cents a pound if the margarine was coloured; a quarter of a cent if it was white . The wholesaler's federal license cost $4 80. 00 if he was so foolish as to handle coloured margarine, but only $200 .0 0 if he confined himself to white margarine. Afte r that there came the retailer's licenses.

On top of this th ere were the other discriminatory laws which were designed to prohibit the sale of coloured margarine. For example, if a restaurant coloured its own margarine, it became a factory in the eyes of the law, and was compelled to pay the $600 .0 0 manufacturer's license. And to further reve� how stringently these laws were enforced, in 1943 the officers cracked down on the Home for Incurables and the Retreat of the Little Sist ers of the Poor in Virginia.

Unable to get butter at that ti me; those in charge had managed to obtain some white margarine with its envelopes of dye, and had coloured it in the kitchen . Thus they had become illicit margarine manufacturers, and they were fined for their heinous crime . In 1941 the American dairy interest made no bones about their real intention. The Dairy Record of June 18th of that year, said it very briefly and to the point: "In short, the dairy in dustry must set as its goal the complete extermination of oleomargarine.

It must never rest until the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine has been outlawed ." Fortunately this period of open conspiracy in the Unite d Sta tes came to an end, for as I pointed out earlier, all but two of the sta tes discontinued this shameful practice . However, during this period, the situation in our own country was not very much bette r. For many years this country was the only country in the world where a complete ban on the manufacture and sale of margarine was maintained. The ban was contained in

Section 5 of the Milk Industry Act. In 1948, because of the untiring zeal and contin ued attacks of Senator Eular, the Su preme Court of Canada declared that the ban on margarine was illegal and beyond the powers of the Federal Government. For a few weeks in that year Canadians right across· the Dominion could buy coloured margarine.

But it was not long, however, before the dairy inter est and the Provincial Governments realized that it was within the legal power of the provinces to pass their own restrictive laws, and almost simultan eously every province, with the exception of Newfoundland, enacted restrictive laws on margarine, designed to discourage the sale of margarine. These laws in reality have had little effect, for in 1958 well over 145 million pounqs of margarine were purchase(j.. It is obvious Page 1188 July 21st, 19 59 .

(Mr. Seaborn, Cont'd.) ••••• then, that the removal of the ban would not materially affect the margarine consumption at the expense of butter. But it would not be entirely correct to say that the law banning the colour in margarine has been ineffective , for what it has actually done is to irritate and anger .literally thousands of homemakers in rural and urban areas alike. This year, as we consider this Bill before us, we will have to take a new look at our stand in this matter .

It is becoming abundantly clear that the controversy is not solely confined to rural and urban areas, but is in reality discrimination against one phase of our agriculture in favour of another. Our dairyherdshave remained static during the last 25 years; in fact the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa reported a continuance of the decline in the number of dairy cows that first became apparent in 1957 . This report is contained in the Current Review dated January 1959.

The actual truth of the matter is that productivity in terms of increased milk per cow, is growing at only 1 1/2% per year as against an annual population growth ofnear ly 3%. It must be obvious that as the demand for fluid milk increases, there will be less cream available for the making of butter. Agricultural authorities admit that there is no real surplus of butter today, and if we are to become self sufficient in the supply of the necessary fats in our diet, it is inevitable that Canada must look to the fats that are obtained from vegetable oil sources.

It is true that Ottawa shows a surplus of 93 million pounds of butter for the year 1958 , but if we will pause and reflect that there was over 30 0 millions pounds of margarine and shortening sold during that same period -- if it were not for the presence of these vegetable oil products we would have seen a shortage of over 200 million pounds of butter. Our country must look for additional fat supplies.

It was not surprising for me to learn, therefore, that Manitoba last year devoted_ over 670, 000 acres of her arable land to the growing of oil seed crops , of which over 81, OOO acres had crops which provided the ingredients for margarine . The farmers received over 14 million dollars for their oil seed crops, compared to approximately 13 1 /2 million dollars received for creamery butter -- an increase of 50% over 1957 . Now Mr.

Speaker, I must confess that I was somewhat perturbed at the suggestion that the geographic and climatic conditions of our province were not kindly disposed to the growing of oil seed crops, so I approached the Agricultural Department of our University about this matter. I was informed that to some degree this statement was true, but the Agricultural Department has been highly successful in developing a breed of the soya bean which will be ad mirably sUited to the conditions in Manitoba.

They were so optimistic that they predicted an even greater acceleration in the fantastic growth of our edible oil crops -- in fact they expect that the soya bean will replace flax in importance, and flax occupied over half a million acres in Manitoba last year. At a time when there is considerable discussion going on in regard to the desirability to have more di versified farming, which our own Minister of Agriculture also advocates, I think it is very important for us to pause and consider this great potential -- this golden opportunity for a tremendous expansion of vegetable oil crops.

It has been estimated that if the Canadian manufacturers used only domestically produced vegetable oil, in 1965 there would be the n.eed - for the equivalent of 2 million acres of soya beans alone. This would mean a revenue to vege table oil farmers of over 100 million dollars, or nearly eight times the value of soya beans grown in 1958. · Where else in Canadian agriculture does such a fantastic opportunity for ex pansion exist?

If we could capture the true picture -- realize the wonderful opportunity that exists for oil seed agriculture in this province , we would only J:e too anxious to make it as lucrative as possilile for the farmers growing these crops . We must, therefore, remove any obstacles-that hinder this progress. We must remove the discriminatory laws that are desig ned to restrict this end product. If we remove this ban, it will be a mighty great step in the right direction.

We will not only benefit agriculture but we will also benefit countless thous ands of housewives who will be relieved of the silly, messy job of having to colour the margarine themselves. I believe Sir, that the great increase in agricultural activity in this direction will bring with it increased industrial activity. It is quite conceivable that additional oil processing plants will spring up in other centres similar to the one now established in Altona. The vege- · table oil plant in Altona is a co-operative venture with a membership of around 3, 300 , most of them farmers.

An industry that is supported by a prosperous agricultural economy is, of course, the ideal type of industry and as the agricultural department of the University pointed July 21 st, 1959 . Page 1189

(Mr. Seaborn, Cont'd. ) ••••• out, these plants would not only provide a ready and accessible market for the far mer's produce , but they could well provide employment for farm labour during the off season. I could enter into comparisons and perhaps present the facts and figur es that I have un covered in my research, but actually it would serve no useful purpose. I recognize, and I am sure every honourable member will agree, that a prosperous Dairy Industry is of vital impor tance for the health and welfare of our people.

However, in view of the fact that the number of our daii-y cows have remained around 3 million head for the last two decades or more , despite the prodigious growth in our population, I submit that the two sources of necessary fats must be recognized as necessary to each other, and far from being opposed to one another, there are, in fact, compatible. · The Canadian dairy farm ers actually have a very important interest in the margarine in dustry, for they supply the milk that goes into its manufac ture. I understand that about 16% by volume or 1. 5% by weight, of margarine, is skim milk solitls.

Surely then, the dairy farmers is dependent upon the margarine industry for one of his major products. It follo ws, theref ore, that if the dairy farmer fav ours the colour ban and the continued imposition of the extra 10% sales tax imposed to restrict the sale of margarine, he is automatically fa vouring the restric tion of an important niarket for one of his own products. Now I have not touched on the matter of colour, and I must say that I have avoided it pur posely. However, I would like to say this.

It is axiomatic in our society that freedom of choice in the market place is an essential part of our way of life . Consumers must have the freedom to choose the products they wish to buy, and furth er, they have the right to expe et that the pro ducts will be in the form in which they wish them, and at the most reasonable price. Good dairy butter is i ndeed excellent stuff and everyone loves it, but its producers ought to be satisfie d to sell their great, appealing commodity upon its merits in the free market of our country.

I know that there will probably be attempts to modify this Bill, but any action designed to circum vent or change the meaning of this amendment, will, in effec t, be an attempt to keep the present restriction in the Margarine Act -- to continue the indefen sible discrimination that ex ists, an action that I can assure you will not meet with very much favour among the good ladies of our province. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge the honourable members to reappraise their position ori this very important question.

It is not, as I.have endeavoured to prove, simply a question of the city dweller trying to impo se his will upon his country neighbour. It is far more serious than this. It is a controversy that will continue to plague us until we realize that we cannot favour one part of our agricultural economy at the expense of the other. The time has arrived when we cannot evade this issue any longer. We must recognize the challenge of these great new crops in Manitoba, and our.great University has done much to promote this challenge.

To me it seems rather ironic that we vote so much money for research in that fine institution, and then we turn around and try to frustrate their success by continuing to support the discri mination against margarine. Let us remove the ban and free ourselves from a legislation that has proven itself so very unpopular and unfair to the people of Manitoba. Now before I sit down I would like to read two letters I have received. The first is from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and it reads, as follows : "Dear Mr.

Seaborn: We have noted that you are attempting to free v egetable oil seed agriculture from restrictions on the end-use of the oil seeds they grow. Because we have tremendous faith in the great potential of vegetable oil seed agriculture from restrictions on the end-use of the oil seeds they grow. Because we have tremendous faith in the great potential of vegetable oil-seed agriculture in the west, we would like to congratulate you on giving this kind of leadership. Few people realize that such products as margarine, shortening, salad, and cooking oils are agricultural products.

The potential for vegetable oil seeds grown in Western Canada is very great indeed. Furthermore , these are cash crops and a ready market is available for them. Thoughtful people who know the real 10ng-term interests of Western agriculture will appreciate your efforts . The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. C. A. Warren, Manager." · The second one is Ontario Soya-Bean Growers Marketing Board. "Dear Mr. Seaborn: Thousands of Ontario soy bean far mers are behind you in your fight to free margarine from restrictions. There is a great future for Canadian vegetable oil seed farmers and for such Page 1190 July 21st, 19 59 .

(Mr. Seaborn, Cont' d. ) ••••• agricultural products made from oil seeds as shortening, marga rine , salad and cooking oils. We join with the Altona growers and Manitoba consumers in the support of your effort. You are giving real leadership to an important segment of Canadian agriculture -- and we certainly hope your Bill to remove the colour ban from margarine will receive the approval of the Manitoba· Legislature . You are striking a blow for freedom for farmers and consumers. Yours very truly, K. A. Standing. " MR. H. P. SHEWMAN (Morris) : Mr .

Speaker, speaking to the question of colouring of margarine , I hadn't realized that as the previous speaker from Wellington had mentioned, that this is the 9th time that this question had been before the House. Now we have heard quite a few pros and cons as far as the colouring of margarine is concerned but I would like to see an investigation, an enquiry into this question of colouring margarine. We know what the cost of margarine is today, Mr . Speaker, and if margarine was to be coloured, is there any guarantee that it wouldn't go up 5 or 109 a pound within the next year , and if that should happen, Mr.

Speaker, what would the benefit be to the consumer? And we know that there is only two com panies in Manitoba that are manufacturing margarine today although there is 12 or 14 companies across Can ada that do manufacture margarine today, and I am safe in saying that possibly they would employ 100 to.125 employees in manufacturing all the margarine that is consumed in Canada. And we are led to believe , and I think I am pretty close to a statement that I'd make that possibly 1 in 6 in Manitoba today are employed in the dairy industry and we have to weigh these facts, Mr.

Speaker, to see, just which is the best economical set-up for the people of Manitoba, and we talk about coloured margarine being a good thing but my information is that there's only two provinces in Canada today that have coloured margarine. If coloured marga rine was the right thing, Mr. Speaker, what's wrong with the other eight provinces? Now these questions that I would like to see answered, before we have a vote on this coloured mar garine. Now we know that the butter price is controlled and Mr . Speaker , what would happen to the prfce of butter if the controls were lifted?

Now these are questions I would like to have answered before I take a vote on the colouring of margarine . We're told today that the previous speaker mentioned that there's 93 million pounds of surplus butter . That's true , there is, and/ we have spent a good many thousands and thousands of dollars in Manitoba to further the dairy'/ industry. Now I think it' s possible that we could have an investigation into these questions� d I think it might be possible, Mr. Speaker , I don't know, I'm asking the question.

It mignt be possible to mix margarine and butter to give the people of Manitoba a better spread than the margarine by itself. Now there's been some talk in years gone by. The Honourable Member for Wellington mentioned tonight the edible oils that are grown in Manitoba, and I should say possibly that could be grown and my information is that the edible oils that are used in margarine today are mostly imported. He mentioned growing soybeans. They grow a good many acres amd a good many thousand and thousand of bushels of soybeans but they are exported.

Now, Altomi. that's a .••••• plant, but my information is that they import soybeans to give them enough oil of the type they require and the same with our rapeseed that are grown in Manitoba. It's exported, and the companies that are making this margarine , manufacturing this margarine today, Mr. Speaker , in Canada, are importing coconut oil and other oils, cotton oils and other oils, im porting coconut oils by the boatload ac<d fish oils and whatever ingredients they put in to this margarine and they buy just whatever is the cheaper. Now I'm asking these questions, Mr .

Speaker , because I'm going to move an amendment here that I want these questions, I would like these questions answered before I can vote on the margarine question, so Mr .

Speaker, I move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Souris Lansdowne, that Bill No. 72 be not now rea d a second time but the Government of Manitoba give consideration to the advisability of es tablishing an Independent Board of Enquiry into the economic and social consequences of the colouring of margarine similar to butter as it affects the producer and consumer of both but ter and margarine in Manitoba, with instructions to report to this House at its next regular sitting. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. GRAY: Mr.

Speaker , may I speak -- I should speak to the amendment only but would you permit me to mention a word or two on the original Bill? MR . SPEAKER: Has the Honourable Member got leave of the House? July 21st, 19 59. Page 119 1

MR . GRAY: Mr. Speaker, the amendment ••• MR . ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to inte rfere with the Honourable M(l:tnber and I'm sure that he can frame bis speech in such a way that it really is focused on the amendment which case our rules can be inviolate I'm sure ,-, a little discretion would be permitted but please let's not get too far away from the proper procedures. MR . GRAY: As far as the amendment is concerned, now I only have one word about it.

This is one of the amendments that is being introduced here very often with a coated bitter pill, in other words they don't want -- I'm not suggesting that the mover had it in �d but us ually they don't want to vote for it and they don't want to vote against it so they com.ei ill with an am,endment. (Inte rjection) If I've done anything wrong, I'll apologize before he gets \IP· Mr. Speaker, the CCF group agreed to disagree so I'm speaking entirely on :µiy own be half. At the outset I would pray to the members of this House to believe me that my igterest is entirely with the dairy industry .

I know the importance of that industry. I need jJir;i !Illlk for my children and my grandchildren, I need the butt er, I need the other product s il,llQ lt;lt me assure this House that I have never tasted margarine and margarine does not cc;imli! into our home, but I cannot see where colouring margarine would further interfere with thEl dairy in dustry. Eight years ago, the Legislature at that time, when they granted permJ!'l�!on to manu facture margarine, they knew that margarine would interfere with butter but they !ltill gave permission to manufacture margarine.

All they ask now is colouring to do away wm1 the nuisance of colouring itself personally. Why was the manufacturing of margar� �imted? Because on account of the low wage for the average household, margacine was veiry II11J9h less, very much economical and very much cheaper than butt er . Now once it was grantr;id °!JY the Legislature and I believe it was granted at that time purely on economic reasons !!Jld !!�thing elRe, then I don't see why are we .afraid to allow the housewife to buy coloured marg:lrine. I think that margarine and butter are competit ors.

We see margarine advert ising !lll ove:r, we see it in signs and the movies and the press - all over. We don •t see anything until tjle last day when I saw in the press sent in to me about advertising butte r; it 's not advertising butt er , it's against margarine, we haven't seen any sales talk and a sales program of the daiPY ilJ.dus try in the interest of butt er.

So I say that while I protect and will protect the dairy �!j!µ!li:ry, realizing the great importance of that industry very great importan.ce - much greater ;"!i.� the margarine industry, once they were granted the manufacture of margarine, for God' a !>!Ike, why are we afraid to have coloured margarine and not have all the humans in the citY �El:l'El telephoning every MLA in the city that they want coloured margarine. Personally I do�'t 13ee any harm in it at all, and I intend to support the Bill and I say th is , that the dairy industry should carry on a campaign for the consumption of more butt er.

They should carry on a cam paign to show them that butter is -- it's my statement and I don't want anybody to challenge me is healthier. It' s .nat ural, it's more natural. I'm not worrying so much now about the farmers who grow certain oil grain for the purpose of manufacturing margarine because as the Honour able Member for Morris said that most of them is being imported anyway, but tha t's not the point . My point is,, don't create any more nuisance to the housewife because this colouring idea will not hurt the butter industry or the dairy industry any more.

It's up to the dairy in dustry to fight margarine on its merits . It maybe th at the margarine price will go up after it's coloured. Manufacturers will, because after all it's a private industry and they will not hesita t e for a moment if the traff ic will bear it, to raise the price. It's so much better for the dairy industry. Ji they raise the price on margarine there 111 be no inducement for the people to buy margarine, because I don't think personally that anyone is buying margarine be cause they like it more than butt er.

They buy it because it's half the price of butt er, and it is a lot with a family with children -- it means quite a bit to help their weekly food bill. So I feel personally that th ere's no particular harm done in allowing margarine and I say again that my interest is in the dairy industry but I don't see how margarine does any harm to them . If it did harm them , it did eight or nine years ago when margarine was allowed to be manufactured and 'sold in this province. That was the time to stop it; we stoppe d it for years. Finally we weakened -- once we've weakened, let's weaken a little bit more. MR . W. C.

MILLER (Rhineland): I wonder if the honourable member would permit a questi on? Is he for the amendment or against the amendment, because whatever he said I did n't hear one word in connection with the amendment. Page 1192 July �lst, 19 59.

MR . GRAY: I am definitely against the amendment because it's just putting it in plain unparliamentary English, 1 passing the buck. ' Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Yeas and Nays? Those asking for Yeas and Nays please stand. Call in the members.

The question before the House is that Bill No. 72 , be not now read a second time , but the Government of Manitoba give consideration to the advisability of establishing an independent board of enquiry into the economic and social consequences of the colouring of margarine simi lar to butter as it effects the producers and consumers of both butter and margarine in Mani - toba, with instructions to report to this House at the next regular sessi on. Those in favour of the motion please rise. A standing vote wl).s taken, the results being as follows: YEAS: Messrs.

Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Boulic , Carroll, Christianson, Cobb, Cowan, Evans, Groves, Guttormson, Hamilton, Hryhorczuk, Hutton, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli) , Klym, Lissa.man, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Molgat, Ridley, Roblin, Roberts, Scarth, Schreyer, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stanes, Thompson, Wagner, Weir, Willis , Witney. NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Gray, Harris, Miller, Orlikow, Paulley, Pre- fontaine, Reid, Seaborn, Tanchak and Wright. MR . CLERK: Yeas - 38 ; Nays -1 2. MR . SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. The Committee of Supply. MR .

ROBLIN: The main motion as amended Sir, I would suggest would be the next order of business . MR . SPEAKER: The main motion as amended? I took it that we didn't put the main motion when it is being not now read the second time . The main motion as amended. Tho83. in favour • • ••• MR . ROBLIN: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker. I'm not at all sure but what you are right. MR . SPEAKER: Just to make sure we'll put the motion. MR . MILLER: You're all right. MR . SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? MR . LYON: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest with respect on a point of order, that your original thought in this line was quite correct.

The amendnient was that the Bill be not now read a seccind time . Then there was a declaratory principle that followed. The House has ag reed that the Bill be not now read a second time, so I suggest with respect there's nothing that the House can do now. The declaratory principle is before the House . MR . SPEAKER: Committee of Supply. MR . CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker , may I speak on the point of order, because I hope you won't let these advisors that you have lead you astray because if you have any doubt at all on that matter , I would suggest that you reserve your decision, because the fact is that I'm sure that every motion once amended must be put as amended. And of course the effect of this would be that the Bill is not now read the second time . Of course it would! But we still have to se cure the opinion of the House on whether the motion, as amended, is or is not -,.-you are per fectly right in putting the motion, Mr. Speaker. MR .

SPEAKER: It is my personal opinion after reading the rules that there is an excep tion to this one, but I'll reserve it and look it up. It might be better, but I'm rather sure that I'm right that there is no motion to be put before the House on this type of an amendment. Committee of Supply. MR . ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker , seeing that government business has been reached, I won der if I might ask you to call the Adjourned Debate on Bill 52 before the Committee of Supply. MR . SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill 52 . MR . ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate.

I looked at the Order Paper and I must admit that I assumed that we would go in order and that we would be in Supply and that this wouldn't come up and I would ask it to stand over till tomorrow. I'm not trying to hold the business up; I'm just not ready at the moment . MR . ROBLIN: The.re's no objection to that, Mr. Speaker, if it would accommodate my friend. In which case, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable Minister of July 21st, 1959 . Page 1193

(Mr. Roblin, Cont'd.) ••• • • Municipal Affairs that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majes ty. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: The House do now resolve itself into a Committee of Supply and would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews please take the Chair. MR . CHAIRMAN: Department 12 -Municipal Affairs. Item 1. Administration. . MR. PAULLEY: Mr .

Chairman , if I recall correctly, just as the House was about to rise last evening, we had had a discussion in respect of the situation at Thompson where un der the terms of the agreement of Inco, it appeared as though, not only appeared, it was a fact that the rights of municipal organization were under considerable restraint. Now then; the Minister told us in reply that insofar as the government of today was concerned that no further or new agreements containing clauses of this nature would be entertained or entered into by the administration. And we can appreciate very much that statement of the Minister.

Now the, looking over the actual - and further to that, Mr. Chairman, the Minister in formed us, if I recall his words correctly or suggested rather than informed us , suggested to us that he hoped in the year 1962 that there would be a change in Thompson and that a town would be incorporated.

Now it appears to me , reading the agreement, since last evening's sitting of the Committee, that notwithstanding the incorporation as a town, a village or a city, that the basic objections which at the present prevail in Thompson will still continue, because as I read the agreement --while there are provisions in the agreement for the setting up of a village, tov"n or city, the agreement still carries the same phraseology in respect of that as it does at the present time insofar as local administration, administrator is concerned.

In other words, that the Company and the province must agree to the incorporation of a town. And I would suggest that notwithstanding the statement of the Minister of the probability of the incorporation of a town in 1962 that miless there's some amendment to the agreement that the situation will not change at all . Now I would suggest to the Honourable the Minister that

whereas I cannot find in the agreement any provisions for re-negotiation of the agreement in respect of this setup, but I would earnestly suggest to the Honourable the Minister and to the government that notwithstanding the absence, as I read the agreement and I may be wrong in this, but notwithstanding the absence of any clause permitting negotiations written into the agreement, I would suggest to the Honourable the Minister that if he does nothing else, that he attempt to get the company to agree to a revision. in respect of these agreements by mutual consideration and understanding if it's not possible under the strict terms of the law.

So much for Thompson. Now then, it's my understanding or I know, Mr. Chairman, that representation has been made to the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs in respect of Snow Lake. I have a copy of what I believe was a brief presented to the Minister in respect of Snow Lake pointing out certain, what appears to be , restrictions on individuals in the area which are now under the jurisdiction --which is now under the jurisdiction as I understand it of Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting and formerly was under an agreement by Brittania Mining--that's my understanding.

Now, when we were discussing the other day the Bill introduced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs dealing with Local Government Districts and the change in the method of- and the Bill provided for the election of representatives to the Local District Government Council --there were exceptions if I recall correctly made in respect of both Lynn Lake and Snow Lake? And also - are there similar agreements dealing with some of our northern communities such as Lynn Lake and Snow Lake similar to those of Inco?

And if there are, I would suggest to the Honourable theMinister that if in those agreements there is not clauses for negotiation prior to the full expiry of the agreement, that the government undertake by moral persuasion or any other method deemed advisable to them, to get the agreements changed to give these people in that area, a greater

part in the administration of their area. Because it appears to me that while we here in this Legislature and indeed in the rest of the Province of Manitoba, are continuously casting our eyes to the north and imploring industry and government to take under full cognizance the advantages and desirabilities of developing the north that at the present time , if my information is correct, the greater or a considerable portion of the whole of the north that is inhabited are being deprived of the right of full Page 1194 July 21st, 1959 .

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd.) ••••• participation in municipal government. So I earne stly make an appeal to the Minister to take those points under consideration. I have raised one or two questions which possibly he will comment on after I'm through. Now then, Mr . Chairman, apart from the north and in order to expedite the business of the Committee , I'd like to make one or two other general comments in respect to the Depart ment of Municipal Affairs.

I was very glad to hear the Minister say that at the present time the general state of the municipalities in respect of tax collection and tax arrears - pretty good shape. I think we're all happy about that because there is no question of doubt that unless we have a stable government at our municipal levels we can't have it at the provincial level, we can't have it at the federal level because notwithstanding the fact that we generally consider that municipal government is the third level of government. I still think it is possibly the · most important.

But I would like to hear from the Minister one aspect of the municipal picture which he didn't touch upon or I didn't hear him mention, and that is the situation insofar as the debt picture of our municipalities.

And I think this is a very important aspect of Municipal government and I think it is something that has caused trouble in the past, be cause in general good times our municipal councils, pressured to some degree by the local taxpayer who desires expanding services and local improvements , increase municipal debt and while we are not looking or thinking of any period of adversity I think it is a pattern which municipal governments have followed not only in Manitoba but elsewhere, that in periods of reces sion or little harder times, the municipal governments are the first to feel the pinch in respect of incoming revenues.

As we know today, that in increasing our municipal tax burden it is not only the question of the actual capital expenditure itself but the ever increasi11g rates of interest having to be paid on our bonds, the situation could adversely affect our municipal - ities in a very short period of time . So I, Sir, would like to hear from the Minister a state ment of the growth of the debt picture of our municipalities and while I appreciate the fact that insofar as his statement to this House is concerned and his responsibility to the House is concerned, it only deals with strictly municipal debt.

I would request of the Minister if it's possible for him to accompany the statement of that picture with a statement as to the school debt picture of our municipalities as well • Because I think, if I'm right and I believe I am, that it is too bad really for us in the Legislature that when we are considering the Depart ments of Education that this picture is not before us .

We are concerned with municipal debt under the Department of Municipal Affairs but generally in respect of the debt of the school districts - this doesn't seem to me, at least in the past, have been a statement of the debt picture of the school boards.

We do get in respect of taxes when we're considering education and the likes of that, but I don't think we get as clear a picture in respect of school debt per municipality as we should have when we're considering the total of municipal debt. , So I do hope to hear from the Minister - if he hasn't that, would appreciate the question asked to the Municipal Debt picture -- how much has it increased in the past three or four years and the possible pattern for the future.

Now Sir,. talking of municipalities and under the general item of administration I'd like to make a suggestion to the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he should call a conference, or the First Minister, to call a conference of all of our municipalities. In Saskatchewan and I must interject - that everything that Saskatchewan does, in my opinion is not right -'- but in Saskatchewan they have what they call a 'continuing committee on local government.' Now back in 1952 and 1953 we did have a thorough investigation by a committee appointed by the former administration into municipal government.

That committee made its report and there was much good came of that report. Among other things , however, that hasn't happened, was a completely organization of all our municipalities.

If I recall correctly the Minister of Public Works talking on his estimates the other day made mention of the fact that some of the large municipalities, some of the small municipalities, and as I remember the report of the Committee on Municipal Government there were certain suggestions made by the Committee as to a re-org anization of our municipalities.- There were also certain con siderations given in the report as to another redivision of responsibilities as between provincial and municipal governments.

And I appreciate very, very much that since that report was made that many of the suggestions made by the Committee have been done and that the prob lems insofar as finance is concerned have been overcome to a considerable degree , and that July 21st, 1959. Page 1195

(Mr. Paulley, Cont'd.) •• •• • the provincial authorities over the past four or five years have absorbed a larger share of the cost and in some respectE the municipal responsibility such as illustrated by the Social Allowances Bill which we have now before us --the Social Security Bill. But I do think, Mr. Chairman, that rather than the Legislature or the government passing legislation telling the municipalities what we're going to do or what we're not going to do, that we should actually call in our municipalities to an over-all conference.

I appreciate vecy much the work that is being done by the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Urban Association and the Suburban Association -- they are only a small nucleus - now as I under stand it the conference in Saskatchewan originally was held with all municipalities represented in a common conclave with their government officials and as a result of that every municipality individually had an opportunity of forwarding their own ideas and I think much good was done in that respect. So I suggest to the Minister that he give consideration to a conference of this nature. Now one last thing, Mr.

Speaker, the other day, I believe yesterday, I drew to the at tention of the Honourable the Minister of Public Works what! thought was a bad situation in reapect of the highways leading into Victoria Beach and he suggested to me that I should talk to his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because the municipality came under his jurisdiction in respect of the by-law which was passed back in 1933 , so I now ask the Honour able the Minister of Municipal Affairs what, if anything he can do in respect of this archaic by"'."law which prevents the use to a full degree of Victoria Beach by those who are paying motor vehicle taxes ? • •• •••••• • Continued on next page.

Page 1196 July 2lst, 195 9.

MR . CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, might I ask the Minister whether he would prefer that he would deal with the questions that have been asked now, or as much as I wish to make some remarks with regard to the discussion that' s taken place to date on Thompson, if he'd prefer to deal with that question first and then continue. I'll -- well I' m encouraged to deal with the question of Thompson, Mr. Chairman, because of the fact that the Honourable Mem- . ber for st.

John's last evening opened this discussion with regard to it and then the Honourable the Leader of the CCF Party tonight has teed off his discussion also with reference to Thomp-; son and I'd like to say somethirg about Thompson and the agreement that was entered into ' there -- into in that connection because I wish that I could have delayed this discussion until I had an opportunity of reading Hansard. Unfortunately last night' s session, and I'm not com plaining about this, was not available in Hansard until this evening.

I tried to read it imme diately I got in here this evening but the discussion on Margarine and other matters and the vote on the amendment, were all so interesting that I found it impossible to concentrate on. it and I just have not been able to read what transpired last night but I heard it all - I heard it all, and I wanted to check again in the written Hansard to see if the discussion really read the way it sounded last night because I was quite amazed at the turn that that discussion took. I wasn't, of course, amazed at what the Honourable the Member for st.

John's said, be cause quite frankly I don't know just what point he was making -- apparently he wanted to make a trip up to that area and did succeed in making one, but just what particular subject he was discussing I wasn't too sure .

Maybe it was so late at night that I was not my usual bright self, but one thing I was siire of was that he was very critical of the agreement that had been entered into by the former government1with the International Nickel Company and I wasn't surprised at that because when we hear the honourable member and some others of his group, not all of them I'm glad to say, when we hear them talking about the big companies as they like to call them, in general, it' s their stock in trade to always criticize the big companies, practically everything is wrong with them .

Just this afternoon' we had an example from the same honour able member who insisted on detailing to the House the huge profits that had be'en made by cer tain companies and I was glad when the Honourable Member for Osborne asked him -- what in vestment had gone into those companies on which those profits were made ? The honourable member had conveniently forgotten to cover that subject and didn't make any effort to supply the information when it was asked. That's quite understandable for my honourable friend from St. John's.

What was not understandable to me was the almost abject submission of my honourable friend the Minister to the tack that the Honourable Member for St. John's took be cause unless I misunderstood what he said last night -- he stood there at nearly half past eleven and repeated over and over again -- well, we're not responsible for this agreement, the other folks put this agreement in. If we were doing it we wouldn't do it the same way - I quite agree with the honourable member -- I agree with what he said. If it comes up for renegotia tion we will renogiate and we'll strike out some of these things.

Now I understand my honourable friend from St. John's taking that kind of an attitude. I certainly don't understand the Minister of a government that pretends to be so anxious to develop industry in the north country. What's wrong with this agreement? What's wrong with it? I had something to do with this agreement -- quite a little bit. We knew something of the develop ment that was going on up there for a long time before the period that' s spoken of when the agreement was negotiated and signed.

I don •t know just how long that company was exploring in that area but I would sayJhat it was in the neighborhood of te� years, and I have been told, because I was there on several occasions when the work was going on, when the area was com pletely in the rough and then when development started ana' then once later when it had consi derably progressed. In the interval I saw a great deal of officials of the company.

We were quite close to developments but it was not until the l.ast two years before the agreement was signed that there was active negotiation and discussion between the government and this com pany . During that time there was active negotiation, I 'have no reason in the worl d to disbe lieve the statement that was made to me by representatives of that company that by that time - by the time that we came to negotiating an agreement that they had invested a sum in the neigh borhood of ten million dollars up there in exploration.

Tha t' s characteristic of what these companies have to put into a new development before even the agreements are negotiated, and they had in that time made widespread explorations . �·/ July 21 st, 195 9. Page 1197

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) .. •. I !mow that a lot of the members will want to say that if it's re ported that they didn't !mow at that time the full body of ore that they had, that they had not at that time struck the highe st grade, that they have since found.

I !mow that some of the members would say "Oh that' s just what they tell you." But whether you agree with the reports that were made or not, the fact was that for years and years and years , this company had extensive ex ploration work going on there and they located a body of ore that at the time they negotiated these agreements, they believed, and I think they believed it sincerely, that it was not high grade but that the amount of it was such -- the indications or the amount of it was such that they had a big operation, that it had to be a big operation in order to be economical.

And so we had the discussions with them and those discussions extended over a long time, a long time, and the fin:il ones when these agreements were negotiated we had the men who have been spoken of in this Committee on more than one occasion, the top civil servants of this province, sitting in with us, with the members of the Cabinet, to advise us and we held many meetings with them apart from the Company as well as with representatives of the Com pany and the agreement was worked out by mutual agreement, and we weren't in agreement on all the questions when we started. Not by any means .

I think if you asked the representatives of the INCO Company, you will be told that they found, and I give the credit to the senior offi cials of our government who sat in with us rather than to the members of the Cabinet, because they naturally were better informed on the details of the se matters than we - the INCO people will tell you that they had a very, very intensive discussion and that they did not get by any means everything that they wanted.

On the other hand they had to agree to some things that they didn't want and that in the end we worked out an agreement, the one that my honourable friends and the Minister are so ready to criticize now, we worked out an agreement that has been responsible for the INCO Company coming in there . And my honourable friends from the other side would like to take credit now for what the INCO Company is doing. And when the Honourable the Member for St.

John's criticizes the agreement in almost all its phases and the fact that the resident administrator is a joint employee and that the co operation agreement of both the company and the government is required in filling that position, he seems to see, and the Minister agrees with him, that there's something sinister about an arrangement of that kind. And the Minister is quick to concede that if it ever comes up for negotiation, we'll see that that is changed. I wish the Honourable the Minister of this Depart ment, Mr.

Chairman, had the gumption to stand up my honourable friends from this group in the way that the Honourable Minister for Public utilities had the other night. Because he told the CCF people some plain truths when it came to talking about conditions in the north.

He !mows something about conditions in the north, and I was very glad to see that one Minister, at least, was re ady to stand up and defend the position of private enterprise against the folks that would wish to - I won't say "drive the m out of the Province" - but certainly make them less welcome in the province than some of the rest of us would like to m ake them . And I ask the Honourable Minister, where are my friends who were going to develop the north country?

Where are they going to get with their development if they' re going to let every thing that comes up in this House drive them into a defensive attitude of saying- "Yes, yes, we agree with you, if that ever comes up we'll have to see that it's changed". Now my honourable friends talk about the concessions . The concessions that were made to this company. Of course there were concessions made . The great concession is to open up the northland for development - the wealth that's in there. And I don't use the term "exploita tion". I say development - that's what it is - development.

And you have to do that in order to open up that kind of country. And there have to be millions of dollars go in before you even ar rive at that stage and they went in in this case . And what was the concession? A large area. Yes, of course, it sounds big when the Honourable Member for st. John's rolls off the numbers of acres . It sounds big, but for an operation the size of that you need a territory - you need some size to it, and certainly we gave a longer lease than had been the case beforehand. I haven't even had the opportunity of reading that lease again.

Quite frankly I looked for it quickly in my office and I didn't find it and I do not remember the terms exactly. But as I remember the situation, a 21-year lease was the longest that could be given up to that time. If I remember correctly, we amended the Act in order to make it available, make it possible for this company or other people, other companies that want to go into the north to get some kind of guarantee of Page 1198 July 2lst, 1959.

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) .•.. renewal of three 21-year leases . If any of my honourable friends, if they were in business, if anybody here were investing that kind of money in the northland or any place else, they'd want some security of tenure too. And what was the amount of money in this case, in addition to that that had already gone in that I was speaking of? Som ething in the neighbourhood of 17 5 million dollars, Mr. Chairman, was the estimate . The townsite, the mill, the smelter and later on a refinery.

If my memory serves me correctly I saw it an nounced not long ago that the company has now decided to proceed with the refinery. That was - and if I remember correctly as well, the government attempted to take some credit - as they usually do - well, it certainly isn't correct if the government tried to take any credit. Well, if they didn't they acted differently from their usual procedure .

But if they didn't try to take some credit, I think they at least made the announcement and left it to be inferred that it had something - yes, the facts were given in such a way that it looked as though it had happened since this government came into office. -- (Interjection: It certainly did) -- When we were negotiating -- yes, my honourable friend is trying to take credit for it now. That• s what I. ex pected. Exactly what I thought. And the facts were stated at the time these negotiations were in progress that the mill and the smelter would be built, that the refinery would come along a little bit later on.

But anyway, those are the two big concessions as I remember it. A large area, 63-year lease, and what were the -- if you want to call them concessions ? What did the company undertake -- and I don •t remember all of them either. But they undertook to put 17 5 million dollars in there and I think that' s quite a concession, if you like to use that word, to open up the northland. And another concession that we agreed to, was to supply the telephone service in some reasonable length of time . I don't remember whether there was a date on that undertaking which was to be paid for, of course, by the users themselves .

And then, of course, we agreed to provide power, and it's true that the powersite, if you want to call that a concession, made the INCO development at Thompson pos sible. It's equally true that the INCO development at Thompson made the Kelsey powersite pos sible too, and the powersite won't be only for that particular in dustry.

Since the present government has come into office, and I give the Honourable Minister of Public Utilities credit for this, since this government has come into office, they have gone along with the project to the extent that I believe that they have already given authority for the power installation to be extended to take care of further requirements in that area. But just as surely as Kelsey made Thompson possible, Thompson made Kelsey pos sible.

And in addition to that, the company agreed at the same time, and I presume it is right in the same agreement - it may be a separate one - but they agreed to loan towards the building of Kelsey a sum of 20 million dollars - I think it was - at a very low rate of interest. I hesitate to quote it in these days of high interest because I believe it was 2% - 2% . Well, I think that those - I don't like the word concessions, but if you are going to use the word concession, then I think those were some from the other side . And then what about the other things that they were going to do .

And I am sure that I can't recall all of them, but they took responsibility for the laying-out of the townsite. That cost something by itself, and I think they employed and I know they paid for experts in that re gard . I don't remember just who it was; I think it was the same people that do the Greater Winnipeg area here .

Then having laid out the townsite to go ahead and build it if you please, to construct the roads, the streets and the lanes and the sidewalks, to construct and equip the fire hall, to builp. an assembly hall, to put in sewer and water, septic tank sewage disposal sys tem, to provide schools, hospitals - as a matter of fact I believe that the estimate was, cer tainly based on 8, OOO population, I think the estimate ran to something like 70 schoolrooms when the population got to something around that figure.

They were the ones, I'm sure, that were going to erect an electric power and light distributing system which under the agreement and by agreement, I admit by agreement, could be taken over by the Manitoba Power Commis sion and no doubt a good many other things . And because of these expenses, because of the ex perience that had been - that the officials of our departments knew of in other areas like that, I remember that they were very, very careful. And I recal l Mr .

Murray Fisher, in particular, in this connection, they were very, very anxious that we should write into the agreement a couple of specific things. One was the sort of a formula about exactly how these -- my July 2lst, 1959 . Page 1199

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd .) .... honourable friends are so critical of the fact that they say they are exempted from taxes. Why would they be exempted from taxes? Because they built all these things . They did the job. They build them . This townsite alone, I think, is estimated to be eight or nine or ten millions of dollars. But there was a formula written in there as well, by which the company would, as tax payments, would provide the district with its money to car ry it along. And --yes, I don't remember the formula exactly.

And in that ' same connection, and I remember this very, very clearly, in that same con nection it was our officials who wanted the stipulation in there about no shanty towns being al lowed to develop around the fr�es . And it wasn't for the purpose --we had no thought of keeping my honourable friend from St. John' s out, when we put that in. It was simply because arising from experience that had been gained in similar areas that they knew the tendency that there was for the fringe area to develop in that way and to present problems in later years .

Well then, I come to the part on which the Honourable the Minister is so particularly sensitive and my honourable friend from st . John's -the part about the hiring of the Adminis trator. And we thought -certainly I thought -that it was quite right that the company should pay a part of that man's salary. I'm certain that if we had insisted that we could have got the company to agree to us paying all of his salary. And I'm certain that if we had insisted, that we could have got the company to pay all of his salary. But we thought that it was a good idea to have a joint arrangement with regard to this man .

I make no apology whatever for the fact that where people that do a thing of this kind, on a scale of this kind. to aid in the development of a part of our province that we want to see developed, that's going to mean the development of a great deal more of it, that made the Kelsey Power station possible, that will make other industries up there 'possible, that is in very fact, opening up a huge area - we thought it was only right that they should be continued in a partnership with regard to the Adminis trator there. What' s the matter with that? What' s sinister about it?

I don't know; I don't know why my honourable friend the Minister has to retrea t in the face of a barrage from my honourable friend from st . John's who is only running true to form of trying to· damn the so-called big companies -for almost everything that they do . Of course, we agreed to an arrangement of this kind, and as I listened to the Honourable Member for st . John's last night with his tale of woe about how difficult he found -it to get into that area up there I thought that as much blame attached to the Honourable the Minister as to anybody else that he mentioned.

Be cause if the Honourable the l.Vtinister had wanted to deal with the !NCO people up there, I'm sure he would have found that they would have been prepared to even take my honourable friend in as a visitor or a guest if he wanted to .

Because we have found them the most reasonable people, all the time, to deal _w ith, and I know --I'll anticipate the reply that my honourable friends will make -they will say, sure ·you found them reasonable to deal with because you were giving an empire away to them . - (Interjection: Hear l Hear !)--Sure, that's the attitude of my honourable friends , but I ask my honourable friends how much development in the north would you get if you continued to take the attitude that they do all the time ?

You wouldn't get any, and you can't start the Government of Manitoba into the business of going up there and developing the north country or things of that kind. How would we have got along if my honourable friends had been developing the oil industry or anything else? We had a little discussion of that here the other night . · And if my honourable friend, the Minister of Labour and Acting Minister of Municipal Af- fairs doesn't stand up better than he did last night to that kind of an argument from that kind of quarter, his government isn't going to get much investment in the north country either. l\IB.

SCARTH : Mr. Speaker, will the Honourable the Leader of the Qpposition permit one question? I' m taking the word of the Honourable Member for St. John's, that the Adminis trator was administering 975 square miles of Crown lands in the neighbourhood of Thompson . or surrounding it. Is there any particular reason; or I would like to know, in the former government's thinking, in allowing. an Administrator appointed partly by other people and not entirely responsible to the government, to administer that large an area of lands owned by the people of Manitoba ? l\IB.

CAJ\'lPBELL : Now once again, as I remember the agreement, the area outside of the immediate townsite had to be subject to a lot of discussion by itself. Because there was that question and my honourable friend reminds me of it when he asks me this question. I hadn't thought of it before. There was that question of how high a stack they would have to have, . Page 1200 July 21st, 1959.

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) .... and for what area would they be absolved of damages to growing trees and all this sort of thing.

I would say to my honourable friend that my understanding is that the Administrator is technically and actually responsible for the administration of the townsite - he may have some duties outside , I don't know of them - but if he has any at all I'm sure they're purely nominal because the department itself, in co-operation with the officials of the company, I think, carry on even under the agreement as far as the big area is concerned, and there were some very, very intensive discussions in regard to those provisions too . MR . ORIJKOW: Mr. Speaker, I' m not going to be very long.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition makes a long attack on me, on which he spends very little time discussing the matters which I raised. I can tell the Honourable Leader of the Opposition that in my · opinion at least, this was not a good agreement financially fo:r the Province of Manitoba. But I did not discuss this aspect at all yesterday. I took the trouble to read what I said in Hansard · last night - I did not discuss the financial arrangements at all last night. That was not the sub ject for debate last night, nor is it the subject for debate tonight.

If we have an opportunity sometime to discuss it, I may have som ething to say. I was discussing, Mr. Chairman, I was discussing only the arrangements which as a result of the agreement had to do with the munici pal organization. Now let me tell the Honourable Leader of the Opposition - he admits it was late and he maybe didn't hear exactly what I said - I had no particular desire to go to Thompson then, nor have I now. But Mr.

Chairman, the. law of this province, laws probably passed while the Honourable Leader of the Opposition was in the government, if he was not then the First Minis ter, the laws of this province provides that working men may, if they so desire, join trade unions . And if they do join trade unions, and if the majority working for a company join a trade union, they shall be certified.

Now the agreement which was made by the former government - the Honourable Leader of the Opposition says that they had no desire, and I can't quote him verbatim_because he spoke only tonight - but as I understand it, he says that he had no desire to keep people from joining unions. I believe that; that that wasn't his intention in signing this agreement. And I believe that the Deputy Ministers who advised him also didn't have that in tention. But, Mr.

Chairman, the fact is, and the facts can be verified very easily, and I can supply the Leader of the Opposition with the people involved and many of them I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, many of the le aders of the union involved are not CC F'ers , so this is not a political issue . The fact is that the agreement was used for almost two years to keep union organizers from entering that area. This is how I got interested in this particular pro blem . So much for that. Now, Mr.

Chairman, as far as the agreement is concerned -- (Interjection) -- Yes, they• re there now, but they were not there until the beginning of this year. Now, it may be that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is right, that this was a package deal and that the province had to take this whole agreement or INCO wouldn't have gone into the north country. I don't believe that, Mr. Chairman.

I don't believe that Internation Nickel Company was so determined tci control everything that if we had said to them, you can't have a power of veto on who the Local Government Administrator will be, that they wouldn't have gone into Thompson. I can't be.lieve for a moment that if we had said to them as

Section 35 of this agreement says, , that the munic�pality may not be organized without the consent of the company, that they wouldn't have gone into Thompson. The Honourable Minister $·aid yesterday that he expects by 1961 that the municipality would be functioning and that they would elect a council and so on as other municipalities do . I believe that; I believe INCO will agree to that. And I see no reason why this provision had to be in there .

I think it is an infringement on the rights of the people who are going to live there and I don't think that any government is mo rally justified in signing that kind of agree ment. Now the Honourable Leader of the Opposition talked about the amount of money which the company had put into the building of a townsite and he's correct, and the money which they put into the townsite should be recognized in the agreement as to the amount of taxes which they pay. There should be room for negotiations.

I certainly agree with him that one can't expect the company to p�t in the amount of money which this company put in and not make some kind of agreement, but what the Honourable Leader of the Opposition did when he was in the July 21st, 195 9. Page 1201

(Mr . Orlikow, cont 'd .) .... government , was to make an agreement whereby this company is exempt from the payment of municipal taxe s forever. Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is not justified today - can never be justified - and I suggest, Mr . Chairman, despite what the Leader of the Opposition has said, that as far as I'm concerned, I said nothing in principle yesterday for which I have to apologize. I think the things which I said yesterday were correct and I stand by th em. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Chairman, in order to correct my honourable friend, what we did was make an agreement as I recall it, which said that they would not pay taxes forever - if he wishes to use that term - because of the fact that there was written right into the agree ment in very definite terms what costs they would carry - the costs - and my guess is, and · this was discussed at the time that we were negotia ting this agreement, our estima te was, and I think it still would be that they will continue to pay, no matter how big the population grows, the company will pay the big bulk of the taxes there for all time to come.

So it's quite right to say that no taxe s, because they pay the taxes . MR . ORLIKOW : Mr. Chairman, I'll finish after this . I'm just reading the one para graph from the agreement and I'll leave it to the members of this Committee to make up their own minds.

Section 25 of the agreement will be found on Page 17 - "No property , real or personal, of mining company, constructe d, owned or used for any of the purposes mentioned in Paragraphs 23 and 24 hereof, will at any time be subject to municipal distric ts , school dis tricts or other local government assessment taxes and rates of any nature or kind whatsoever". Well, Mr . Chairman, I'll le ave it to the Honourable Minister of Education - that's the end of the quote - whether he would want an agreement so that forever no taxes pi lieu of school costs will be paid. MR .

CAMPBELL: That' s exactly the program - that 's exactly the procedure that my honourable friend adopts in discussing all the matters here . The same thing as with the com pany, tell about the huge profits , but tell nothing about the volume of business they do, tell nothing about the amount of money they have invested on which they make tho se profits . And he reads the

Section here but he doesn't pay any attention to the other sections -- and there are several of them - that deal with the obligations of the company to carry tho se very costs that he is talking about . (Continue d on next page) Page 1202 July 21st, 1959 .

MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong this argument - I think we've had enough. The points that were raised by my colleague and myself dealt with were whether or not the people in the area should be entitled to full participation in municipal government which we consider is a basic right of all residents of the Province of Manitoba. And I think that is the issue. Insofar as the concessi ons are concerned that is a matter apart from the question under consideration.

But I would suggest to my Honourable Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, that it's not only developm ent com panies develo ping in the north, such as Inco and the like who ::mild schools, build fire halls, make provisions for roads, streets, lanes , water installations as he enumer ated, because I think that all me mbers of the Com mittee with the possible exception of the Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition, judging by his remarks tonight, are fully .aware that in the Greater Winnipeg area and in our suburbs in particular, development com panies are coming into the area and are providing or building all of these se rvices, in some cases they're build ing schools, presuma bly without cost to the municipality.

I know of one case in which they did build a· fire hall, presumably without cost to the municipality. They build roads , install water and sewer presuma bly, or on the surface without direct cost to the municipality. So I say that others are doing it in this area without any strings attached insofar as municipal government after that is done.

It is true as my honourable coll eague has pointed out that in the terms of the contract, those portions of the developm ent in Inco perta ining exactly or specifically to the operations of the com pany have been exempted from scho·ol taxes and the like, but such is not the case in respect of the other services. There are charges, as I read the agreem ent for use of the sewer and water facilities ; there are charges can be made for the use of the schools after they have been built, with the exce ption of the properties concerned with the operation of the developm ent itself.

One would imagine to hear the Leader of the Opposition talk, that after all these things have been built by the Com pany that there are no further charges. Even in resp ect of the hos pital which was built by Inco as far as a capital expenditure is concerned - anyone who requires hospitalization in Thompson in that hospital, has to pay for it so. I suggest that insofar as that aspect of it and I think that's the point under consideration, it is no differ ent than what is happening here in the suburban area.

So I suggest to my hoaourable friend that he should brush up on these things and the point at issue was not that at all, but whether or not the res idents of the area should have a right to full participation in municipal govern me nt. Certainly, there were conces sions made in respect of land; in respect of taxation inso far as the com pany itself was concerned.

We have a difference of opinion whether that should have been done or not and that's a matter of opinion, but I think and our main paint is that in respect of the administration of the municipal authority in that area, that the former govern ment erred in not making provisions or allowing provisions which debarred the resi dents in the area to a full participation in municipal government and that to me, Mr. Chairman, is the issue here - not the other points raised by my hoaourable friend. MR. CAMPBELL: My honourable friend, Mr.

Chairman, wants me to brush up on some of these matters that he's mentioned with regard to the development com panies that come in and do all this building - carry all the cost of them themselves. Let me ask my honourable friend. I realize that those com panies give considerable employment while they're doing the building of the houses and putting in the se rvices, but do they give em ployment to the people who live in the houses as well ?

This com pany will give employment to a huge number of people and that's what my honourable friend and his.group should be interested in - the sam e as the rest of us should. · MR. PAULLEY: I agree with my honourable friend that they give employment to a huge number of people. But when in giving that employm ent they deprive them of being ordinary citizens - I say that is wrong. HON. JOHN THOMPSON (Virden) (Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs): I would like to make some comme nt on the discussion which has taken place between the honourable gentlemen opposite.

I do want to say this , that to my mind the Lead·3r of the Opposition has gone far beyond the subject which we have under discussion or which we had under discussion last evening. The sole issue was the problem of local government administrator and whether he should be paid partly by the com pany or any com pany or entirely by the government or the department by whom he is employed. Should an employee of the Province of Manitoba be also July 21 st, 19 59 . Page 1203

i (Mr. Thompson, cont'd. ) .... employed by some other person or f�m and be paid also by that other firm or person? That i.s the entire issue before use. There 1 s not other issue. There was no criticism that I made of the great investment which has been:: expended by the International Nickel Company in Thompson, or by any other exploration or mining company in the north. We welcome the capital to thi.s province.

But the only issue is, as I've lstated and if the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition had read Hansard - I have the copy here - he would see that I said one provision - if we renegotiate, one provision which we would have in any future contract would be that the focal government administrator would be the emplJyee solely of the Depart ment of Municipal Affairs and of the Province of Manitoba. That is 1the only issue and I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am quite confident that the mining companies will agree to that proposition.

I feel confident that now the International Nickel Company would agree to it. I feel that they would say, if you want to pay the administrator, pay him. In fact the Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting Company which as everyone knows, have taken over the Snow La..\e site and have purchased the contract with the province of the Howe Sound Company, at the mine 'll'hi.ch was operated by the Brittani.a Company. They have approached us now and asked for some renegotiation on that agreement which they have purchased for Howe Sound.

They are absolutely agreed to this principle; they're not against thi.s principle; they simply say if you want to pay the administrator, pay him and we say we do want to pay the administrator. We feel that an employee of the Department of Municipal Affairs should be solely an employee of the Department of Municipal Affairs and should be paid only by the Department. There is no problem here of exploration in the north, or mineral investment in the north, of the activity of mining companies in that great northern area - that is not the i.ssue before us in this Depart ment of Muni.ci.p al Affai.rs at all.

It i.s simply a simple and straightforward principle that employ ees of the province should be paid and controlled by the province, and I say when the Honourable the Leader of the Opp:isition says that we quickly conceded to the suggestion of the Honourable Member for St.

John's, I say to hi.m that there was no quick decision there, that that is a matter on which we have taken a firm stand on a matter of principle and there is no retreat from pri.nci.ple i.n thi.s respect - there's no retreat before the advance of the Honourable Mem ber of the CCF Party or anyone else - we're standing firm, we're not retreating. We say that employees of the province should be under the control and the pay of the province. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm very glad indeed that the Minister of Municipal Affairs placed this matter in its proper, accurate perspective.

He correctly stated the issue that was before the House last ni.ght. Now I'm going to properly surprise my friend the Leader of the Opposition in saying to hi.m that I think that he i.s right, although perhaps he chose the wrong moment to do i.t, I say that he i.s right to defend i.n general principle the arrangement that was made with the International Nickel Company because I believe that in general principles, the arrangement that was made was good for the Province of Manitoba.

I believe it was bene fi.ci.al for the development and the exploitation - although no one likes the word, I suppose - of our mineral resources to the welfare and benefit of the people of Manitoba that such an arrange ment should be made. And I want that poi.nt to be made perfectly clear. He said, in the course of hi.s remarks, one or two things which are not really germane but perhaps I should refute them because they are incorrect when he accuses us on this side of wishing to take the credit for this arrangement.

I spoke on the general subject of government policy in connection with north ern development a few nights ago; included in my remarks a statement that we did not claim any credit for the International Nickel deal. Insofar as the refinery is concerned, if he reads the agreement, he will discover that the International Nickel Company made no undertaking to build a refinery in Manitoba.

In fact when I visited their discovery site at Thompson about a year ago, I asked them on that very point and they told me that they had made no decision to build the refinery i.n Manitoba, but that they. had the right to take the ore out either via the Hudson's Bay route to be refined in the ....•..• Nickel Refinery in South Wales or either to be refined at Port Colburn, I think it is, or one of the other towns in Ontario where they operate a refinery.

After that discussion with them, months after that discussion with them, they came to the government and sai.d that they had decided to build a r.efinery in Manitoba - not called for in the original agreement, but that they had decided to do i.t and that was the announce ment that we made at that time and that announcement in i.ts particulars i.s correct, and it is an announcement which we as a government were in a.position to make because we had been Page 1204 July 2lst, 1959.

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd. ) .... advised by the International Nickel Company of that same. I agree with my honourable friend when he makes the general proposition that people who are prepared to invest large sums of money in the Province of Manitoba, particularly in north ern development, are entitled to have their capital investment protected in all reasonable ways.

And I want to tell my friends in the CCF Party that is our hope that in days to come, we will be bringing in agreements to this Legislature or making agreements with people who wish to develop our northern resources - in which we will be quite willing to recomme nd that there should be that kind of protection offered to people who are willing to invest their money.

That principle is a sound one and also if it involves some form of fix ed assessment in relation to taxation and that after all is the agreement that my ho;iourable friends over there are objecting to so strenuously when they talk about permanent relief from taxation - if there is to be some agreement in that respect it can be justified. One may argue about the amount of the tax in lieu that they will pay, whether it should be at $180. 00 per capita for the people in that locality or some other agreem ent, and there is room and scope for argument.

But the general principle that they should be accorded a privilege of that sort is one with which I do not quarrel and I say that i� general terms the agreement that was made with the International Nickel Com pany an� the Government of Manitoba was one which I would support - I am not critical of that agree ment in the general sense, and I say that it was good for Manitoba that we had it and we hope to make agreements of a generally similar nature with o�er people as time goes by. In respect of the problem that my Honourable Friend the Member for St.

John's raises, I would like to say that when this matter first came up we spoke with the International Nickel Com pany and while we were not able to obtain the changed attitude in respect of visits to Thompson that we thought were desirable, nevertheless in fairness to them, it must be stated that as a result of our representations they agreed to use all speed in making available for any visitor of Thompson some form of accomm odation, and that was the nub about which the quarrel revolved with respect to my honourable friend and his associates and the International Nickel Company.

And they undertook to advance as best they could the provision of that kind of accomm odation which under the terms of the agreement as they were written and as we had to · operate them, was within their province to decide and it must be said in fairness to them that they did undertake to speed up that kind of accomm odation so that those who wished to go into that particular territory were able to do so.

And I think it would be wrong for anyone to try and spread the impression in the House that the attitude of the International Nickel Com pany and their administrator, and he is their administrator for all practical purposes, was one of complete non co-operation in matters of this sort because it simply doesn't happen to be the case.

So I think that as far as my honourable friends in the former government and ourselves are concerned, that we are not so far apart as far as principlE) is concerned in this matter in res pecting the general agreement as might have been gathered by the rather emphatic remarks made by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. He told us that perhaps he wasn't too bright when the argument was going on last night and I think that perhaps that might be the case.

It's always dangerous to argue from the particular to the general the way my ho;iourable friend did, because having said what I have said, that does not mean to say that there are not aspects of that agreement which, could be improved and improved to the benefit of the general public of Manitoba. I must frankly say there are aspects of that agreement which could be improved to the general advantage of the people of Manitoba and one of them is the point which was dealt with by the Honourable Minister.

Members must remember that he was speaking as Minister of Municipal Affairs on a specific municipal problem and he made the statement that he made in respect of that specific problem and as he has stated tonight, the government of the day had decided that any agreements we made with development companies of this sort could be improved in the particular that he mentions and he has already given the committee the information that not only is it desirable that they be improved by that they can be improved and that other development com panies in roughly similar situations will agree to what we think is a reasonable change in that arrangement, namely the one that the Minister has stated emphatically here tonight.

So I think we should get the discussion back into perspective which is in connection with this one matter. If anyone thinks that this administration is adopting a policy advocated by the CCF Party in respect of our natural development resources as a whole then they are July 21st, 19 59. Page 1205

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd.) .... very much mistaken because we are not. We believe that people who come into this province and are willing to do what Inco are doing are entitled to receive assurances that their capital investmen t will be protected - are entitled to make arrangem ents with the government of the day res pecting their taxation problems because of the investm ents they are making . It is wrong to say that they are not contributing to taxation in that area.

They are - there may be some argument as to whether it is enough - I'm not going to go into that particular argument, but it is certainly a fact that they are making a contribution and a very substantial one, and furthermore unless my memory mislea ds me, there is an escalator clause in that particular agreem ent to the effect that if circum stances alter suffici ently then the amount of the annual paym ent per capita that the com pany have agreed to make in lieu of muni cipal taxation - and I say it again, in lieu of municipal taxation - there is one that will vary as the circumstances vary as well.

I bear correction on that point, but it is my clear recollection at any rate that that is the case. So I want to make it quite clear that we are not allowing ourselves to be pushed around by representations made in this Hous e.

What we are trying to do is to be fair under all the circumst ances and I believe that the policy enunciated by the Mini ster, is fair because it is not ess ential to a fair protection of the com pany's investment in that area that the original clause to the-agreem ent should stand as it was drafted - that other people who are making similar investments will agree to the change of the type that's been described. So I come back to my original point.

I don't blame the Leader of the Opposi tion for de fending his agreem ent because all things considerea it was a good agreeme nt and a good agree ment for Manitoba and make no mistake about that -- on the other hand I think that the Minister is right in taking the attitude he has taken with respect to this one point; I think that his approach is practical, it will not meet resi stance of the sort that would endanger the establishment of industries of this kind in our province and it is someth ing which under all the circumstanc es , the province is right to insist upon.

Come back to my point though -- we recognize the right to pro tection on the part of these large investors in respect of their investment in the province. We intend to deal with them in the utmost of good faith and I think that any problems that we have, can and will be resolved with investors of that sort. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Chairman, once again I'm handicapped by the fact that because the speeches that have been delivered since I spoke were so interesting that it has interfered with my reading of the rema rks of the honourable gentlem an, but I find that I wasn't so dense as the Honourable the First Minister would have me to !lelieve because I now have confirmed by looking at Hansard, which I hadn't had the opportunity to do before, that I was not wrong in my suggestion that the Honourable Member for St. Jdm's covered several other matters beside the question of the administrator.

He covered the matte r, he was reading from Page 1152 tnrn to Page 17 you find clause 25 of the agreement -- ''no property-real or personal of the mining comp any, constructed, owned or used for any other purposes shall be taxed, etc. etc. ". He read that one and comm ented on it very unfavoirably -- said it was so much worse than -- he thought the City of Win_11ipeg had a bad one but that was a lot worse. In my honourable friend's opinion, if I didn't know any more about it than he does I'd think it was bad too. The next one, Mr. Chairman, I thought we had -- no that's the same agreem ent.

Then if you tnrn to Page 27 -- Clause 35 says the ' townsite will not be incorporated as a municipal district, city, town or village until in the opinion of the province and mining com pany, the time will have arrived such action will be taken. 1 And the comm ent of the Honourable Member in other words, Mr. Chairman, the people who call the tnne are not the province but the Inter national Nickel Com pany.

All the way through my honourable friend assumed that there was not going to be co-operation on the part of the compa ny -- all the way through he assumed that this wasn't a partnership or an arrangem ent by agreement, that both sides believed in and we did believe in a com pany that was putting as much into the north country as these people were in having a say in the conduct of the affairs.

I do not agree with my honourable friend the Minister, or the restatement of the case by the Honourable the First Minister that there's any thing wrong at all to having a joint employee in that way and I know from experience that the com pany is most reasonable. What the Honourable the Minister said a little while ago I had already said -- I know that if we had insisted the Inco Com pany would have been very glad to have let us pay for that ma n comp letely. You'll say that it is because of a few thousand dollars that I didn't want that done.

I know that if we'd have insisted that they would have paid for it Page 1206 July 2l st, 1959.

(Mr. Campbell, cont' d. ) .... completely. The fact was that we thought it was only right and fair and we knew from experience in dealing with them that they would be fair about it and I see nothing whatever wrong with it. Anyway these other matters were mentioned by my honour able friend and there are - - if I had time to look I'm sure I could find some others where the honourable gentleman criticize d the.agreement and important portions of the agreement in very critical terms and here's what the Honourable Minister said -- he was not limiting it to a single question. He said -- Mr.

Chairman, I've listened to the Honourable Member for St. John's and I certainly cannot criticize his attitude with respect to this matter. Now my honourable friend, my honourable friend sure will say that this means this matter and I acQept hl:s word for that - if he says that that's what he meant and he intended only that one thing, I'd say that. But to me, that conveyed, that conveyed he was agreeing with what the Honourable Member for st.

John's said and it ce rtainly sounded last night as though he was agreeing with what he said and that's the reason that I -- _and as far as the whole agreement being discussed it's necessa ry that it all be discussed because this particular question hinges on the whole arrangement .... MR.

ROBLIN: If the honourable member will take the trouble to read the next sentence - get the context of the matter he would be in no doubt as to what the Minister was talking about because the very next sentenc e which my honourable friend did not read says -- 'the agreement which was made, as he stated in 156, did contain the provision that the resident administrator of that area would be under the control or subject to the appointment of both the company and the provinc e. ' Now clearly regardless of what the Member for St. John's said and for whicD.

I assume no responsibility whatsoever, the government when replying, was speaking on this one particular point and I don't think that should be overlooked. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, but on the other hand the Honourable the First Minister has just reminded me that we better look a little further still; because I wasn't going to read the whole quotation but it might be well to reread all of the speeches because after all it did happen late at night.

The Honourable the Minister and again I accept his word as to what he meant but the Honourable the Minister went on to talk about; "if the agreement is renegotiated" and it's true that he mentioned that this particular point would be dealt with but in the several mentions of renegotiation of the contract he certainly gave me the impression last night that he was talking about other provisions as well as this particular one. MR. ROBLIN: Well, it certainly isn't correct, Mr. Chairman, and I think that I should say so.

The Minister said as follows -- 111 might say with respect to the Thompson contract or the Mystery Lake arrangements that if the company at any time seeks renegotiations of this contract which is entered into, that we would definitely insist that one of the provi sions should be that the Dep artment of Municipal Affairs, etc. etc. He said definitely, one of the provi sions and the entire burden of his remarks last night was in connection with that one provision so you needn't accept anybody's word for it -- all you have to do is accept what your eyes tell you. MR. CAMPBELL: Oh, no you don't, Mr.

Chairman, because the fact, is that when he says one of the provisions that we would deal with would be this one, that's a plain indication that my honourable friend wants to use a little intelligence on the subject -- it's a plain indic a tion to anybody listening to that statement that he's thought some other provisions would be · looked at as well and that, considered in the light of the remarks of what the Honourable Mem ber for st. Johns had suggested with regard to several clauses of the contract, was a very reasonable

interpretation and can still be read into it from the Hansard. MR. ROBLIN: Not at all, i.f there were other provisions that were to be considere d in this connection they would certainly have been mentioned . MR. CAMPBELL: Not necess arily, because the thing that he said was that one of these -- one of the things that would be dealt with was this. However if my honourable friend. will just keep quiet for a change I am prepared to accept the statement of the Honourable Minister. I'm not prepared to accept my honourable friend the First Minister's

interpretation on it. MR. ROBLIN: Well, I'm afraid you'll have to because I happen to represent the policy of the government when I speak as does my honourable friend, so you've got no alternative but to accept my word on it. MR. CAMPBELL: I certainly do not have to accept your word. I accept the word of the Honoarable the Minister as to what he intended -- you don't know what he intended. I don't July 21 st, 1959. Page 1207

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd .) •... accept your word. MR ROBLIN: We're not nearly so disorganized a government as my honourable friend ran we happen to think the same and do the same and know what we're talking about. MR CAMPBELL: My honourable friend has a quite a time bailing some of his Ministers out at times. � MR. ROBLIN: Not nearly as much trouble as you had. You couldn't even get them re- elected. . MR.

CAMPBELL: My honourable friend has to do all of the thinking for his and I'll tell him on that re-election part that it's easy to get them elected the difficult thing is getting them re: elected, and he'll have quite a time and it'll be a lot harder.if he continues to do all the thinking as well as the speaking for them. MR. ROBLIN: We are looking forward to the chance of taking on my honourable friend in Lakeside again. MR CAMPBELL: I'd be delighted. Will my honourable friend move out there? MR ROBLIN: That's a date. MR EDMOND PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr.

Chairman, I'm not anxious to enter this discussion but I feel that the Minister somewhat mislead the House on two counts. He stated that the government employees should be paid wholly by the province. In a sense this is not true with all his 1ocal government district administrators -- they are not paid by the Province of Manitoba at all. There's no money appropriated for their salary -- they're paid for by a levy on the rate payers and the local government districts. This person that has been selected to work in Thompson, of course there was no levy, nobody to tax, .he had to go there to establish a townsite.

He could not levy for his own salary. We decided to pay him approximately the salary of one of our local government district administrators and I say to the Minister that it is not right to tell the House that no government employee should be paid except only by the province itself because these local government administrators are not paid by the government or the Province of Manitoba. Now he stated again that the administrators, or this particular man should be solely res ponsible to the province.

Well I maintain he is solely responsible to the province, although he gets a certain amount of money from the company. He is appointed by the province after con sultation, can be dismissed by the province and not by the company. The com pany can not . hire him or dismiss him, or fire him. He is wholly under the jurisdiction of the company as far as his job as local government district administrator of the District of Thompson. And i' think that if the Minister was not happy with some of the decisions of the administrator last year, when the Honourable Member from St. John's wanted to get in there.

He just could have called lim in and told him to very well change his attitude or fire him. He had full auth ority. He doesn't have to consult the company to fire him. He would have to consult the com pg_ny to hire another one to take his place, I suppose, but I'm quite sure that my memory serves me right, because I happened to be with Dr. Murray Fisher on many meetings when this ques tion came up.

And I think it was natural that in exchange for the company putting in sewer and water and schools and hospitals and everything that they should have some say as to the Dian who would deal with so much money that they would invest in a townsite. And I say that after all this man is only responsible to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He is the only person. who has authority over him to hire him or fire him. Now I don't know if I should deal with that any more. I have some other matters that I would like to take in with respect to the department.

If the Minister wishes to answer these two points before I go on, he might just ..•...•. .. •.•••. MR. THOMPSON: I would like to comment, Mr. Chairman. It is true that many local government administrators are paid by the local government district. That is, they are paid by the taxpayers of the area but they are under the complete supervision and control of the province. They are appointed by the province; they have been moved by the province; they take direction from the Dep!!rtment of Municipal Affairs.

With respect to the second point, that in this Inca agreement we could dismiss at any time the resident administrator. That is true, but we could not under the terms of the Inca re-employ another resident administrator except with the consent and subject to the approval of the company. The issue is simply that we did not have control or the pre-right to appoint our administrator Page 1208 July 2lst, 1959.

(Mr. Thompson, cont' d. ) ...• because we had to get the concurrence of the com pany to th_e appointm ent. Well, that is the issue. We feel that any one that we appoint :shouid be under our complete supervision and control. As I say, I feel these com p<till.es wi .11 agree to that proposition. Now with respect, in view of th�JJ!C'._t that tb.� resident administrator of Thompson has been discussed not by name but by positi.o!l, f'd,o want to say that I have found a considerable amount of co-op eration from him. I have no compla\nts with the man personally -- no com plaints .

The issue is one of prinei.ple sim ply that, we feel thajt we should have full control of the appoint ment and full control of the position of resident admihistrator. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I've tried to get in once or twice particularly af ter listen ing to the Honourable the First Minister. The other night when we were discussing the question of the north and development, I suggested that the First Minister had used the word "concession". There was quite an argument from across the way that he never used that in reference to the development of the north.

It's clear tonight, with his remarks, that I was correct in what I said at that time. However, I want to assure the Honourable the First Minister of this: Des pite what he said and the emphasis he laid on it, that if we of the CCF formed this government we would undertake to ·make sure that the development com panies who are going to develop the northern area were reaso nably well protected in their investments.

I think it is a truism that in the Provtnce of Saskatchewan where we have a CCF Government, that there has been more industrial develop ment, more development in the field of minerals and oil, than there has been in the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-1-30a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 1st hansardpdf 30a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f3814f4aa2a9ae50ca11d7a8578da8e76aa010b1

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