Manitoba Hansard

Volume II No. 11 - 2:30 p.m., Thursday, March 26, 1959

Page Index


Table of Contents


2:30 o'clock, Thursday, March 26th, 1959

[Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions.

MR. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): I beg to present the petition of Dario Perfumo, Keith Routley and Arthur Smith, praying for the passing of An Act to incorporate Council 1107.

MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): I beg to present the petition of Arthur Parker, Hugh Mailey, Claire Halstead and others, praying for the passing of An Act to incorporate The Denturist Association of Manitoba.

MR. SPEAKER: Reading and Receiving Petitions.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

MR. M. E. RIDLEY (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CLERK: The Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs beg leave to present the following as their first report. Your committee met for organization, and appointed Mr. Ridley as Chairman. Your committee recommend that for the remainder of the Session, the quorum of this committee shall consist of seven members. Your committee has considered Bill No. 5, An Act to validate By-law No. 3465 of the City of Portage la Prairie; No. 7, An Act to validate By-law 42 of the School District of Norwood, No. 2113; No. 12, An Act respecting the Glenboro Medical Nursing Unit District No. 16B; No. 14, An Act to validate By-law No. 538 of the Town of Gladstone; No. 34, An Act respecting the Rural Municipality of Whitewater, and the Minto Cemetery Company, and has agreed to report the same without amendments. Your committee has also considered Bill No. 43, An Act respecting the Consolidation of the Municipal District of West Kildonan No. 8, the Municipal District of Old Kildonan No. 2012, The School District of West St. Paul No. 4, and the School District of Parkdale No. 1927, and has agreed to report the same with certain amendments, all of which is respectfully submitted.

HON. JOHN THOMPSON (Minister of Labour) (Virden): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Brandon, that the report be received.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Notice of Motion.

Introduction of Bills.

Committee of the Whole.

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the resolutions standing on the Order Paper, with the exception of that in the name of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, which I would ask to stand, due to his absence through illness.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]

MR. SPEAKER: And would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the committee ready to receive the resolutions?

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the subject matter of the proposed resolutions, recommends them to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution No. 1. Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Workmen's Compensation Act to provide, among other matters, for the inclusion of clerical workers among the workmen to whom the act applies, increase in the amounts of compensation payable for permanent and temporary total disability, the payment of compensation for diseases only partly due to employment, the payment of compensation to certain workmen injured outside of Manitoba, increases in the amounts payable to foster mothers, widows, invalid widowers, dependent children and orphans, and an increase in the allowable maximum average earnings of a workman.

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I believe the resolution as set forth explains very clearly the purpose of the Bill. We intend to remove the absolute one year bar to applications


which has caused considerable trouble in the past, and as you know has necessitated the introduction of private bills. We plan to give increased benefits to widows, orphans and dependents. There will be a considerably wider coverage provided in this bill, to include clerical workers, employees of wholesale and retail establishments, hospitals and nursing homes, the employees of hotels and restaurants, and of private radio stations. There will also be a broadening of the definition of the term "accident" in the present act. We also plan to provide a form of medical appeal. Under the present act, as I understand it, or under the present practice, the Workmen's Compensation Board may, if they in their discretion wish, provide an appeal for any applicant who is dissatisfied with the judgment given him. We propose to give every applicant for workmen's compensation as a right, an appeal to an advisory committee which will be computed of five persons, medical men, who will adjudge his position and advise the board on the merits of his case. The only difference between the present situation and the proposed one is that the applicant will have that as of right. I think, Mr. Chairman, that there is no further need for comment, but I will be pleased to attempt to answer any questions.

MR. D. SWAILES (Assiniboia): Mr. Chairman, these changes are all very welcome. A good many of them are long overdue, but there has been one very serious omission, as far as I can judge from the explanation that has been given. After quite a number of years of discussion, we were successful in bringing the pensions payable to all widows up to the level of the pension paid to widows whose husbands are killed, at the present time. In the past, those payments have been very, very low. It meant the adoption of a new principle, and that principle was adopted with respect to widows. A little later, the same principle was adopted with respect to children. However, there still remains a large group of men who were injured many years ago, whose compensation is based on the wages of that particular time, and whose payments now are absolutely inadequate. I have in mind, for instance, two railway men who were injured in the 1920's. They are total permanent disability cases. The amount they are getting at the present time would have been about 60% of their earnings at that time. That's the amount they are getting now, coming to about $50.00 a month for permanent, total disability. These men, if they were working now, would be earning between $400.00 and $500.00 a month. The compensation they are getting for permanent total disability is around $50.00, and I do hope, although it has not been mentioned here, that it will be included in the bill when it is submitted for consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted? Resolution No. 2. Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Workmen's Compensation Act by providing, among other matters, for the application of the Act to Employees of the Crown.

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, there's actually proposed in this measure, no change in the present practice, no extensive change. I understand that Crown employees have been covered, but apparently by Order-in-Council. There is the opinion that legally there might be some doubt as to the position of Crown employees with respect to their right to compensation and their right to come under the Act, and the purpose of this bill is to clarify the position and to bring by statute of the House all Crown employees under the Act.

MR. C. E. GREENLAY (Portage la Prairie): It seems to me that the situation was and there may be some necessity for some clarification, but certainly the situation as understood by the former administration was that the employees came under the provisions of the Act. The only difference was that the Crown, the government paid out of funds those amounts which were allocated to the individual, and each individual case by the Board. The Board considered the cases -- The Compensation Board considered the cases in the same way as any others, but then they just drew on the government, or the government paid over such amounts as were required to discharge the allowances which were made to the various individuals, rather than paying the money into the Workmen's Compensation Fund, and letting it be paid out by the Board. It was paid over as required from the province.

MR. R. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, would I be correct in understanding that the Crown in this instance means the Crown in the Right of Manitoba, or could it be construed by this resolution that an arrangement has been reached whereby the Crown rights of the Dominion would also be coming completely under the provisions of the Act?

MR. THOMPSON: This measure concerns the Crown in the Right of the Province of



MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted? Resolved that it is expedient to bring a measure to validate Order-in-Council 1443/58 and to validate the guarantee given thereunder by the Government of Manitoba of the principal and interest of debenture bonds issued by Co-operative Prairie Canners, Ltd. Mr. Evans.

MR. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): Mr. Chairman, the members of the committee may remember that last year, an act was passed permitting this loan to be made by the fund under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture. By Order-in-Council the government guaranteed the debentures of the Co-operative Prairie Canners, Ltd., and I referred to this case, I think last year when we were discussing the establishment of the Manitoba Development Fund, as a sort of pro forma case that would be similar in most respects to the cases which would come before the Manitoba Development Fund. Here was a case where the co-operative itself had been able to raise a certain amount of money. They had been able to persuade, or their credit was sufficient, that the Industrial Development Bank of the Canadian Government was able to make them a loan of $65,000.00, but there was a gap in the middle of $50,000.00. Arrangements were undertaken before the 1st of June, and the arrangement was completed by an Order-in-Council of the present government. This is merely the act which validates that Order-in-Council of the present government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted? Committee rise and report.

DR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Roblin, that the Report of the Committee be received.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour.

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 87, An Act to amend The Workmen's Compensation Act 1, and that the same be now received and read a first time.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 88, An Act to amend The Workmen's Compensation Act 2, and that the same be now received and read a first time.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]

MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 81, An Act to validate Order-in-Council No. 1443/58, and the guaranteeing of the debenture bond issue by the Co-operative Prairie Canners, Ltd., and that the same be now received and read a first time.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to make a statement which I trust will be welcome to the House respecting the possibilities of flooding in the Red and the Assiniboine Valleys in the coming year. Statement is one that has been released by the Flood Forecasting Committee which, as the House knows, keeps an eye on this thing and this is what they have to say -- "The Flood Forecasting Committee met on Wednesday afternoon of March 25th to review flood prospects in the light of the snow survey just completed by the Water Resources Branch of Manitoba and Eastern Saskatchewan. The committee points out that since its last meeting on February 18th, favourable weather conditions have prevailed in both the Red and Assiniboine basins. Precipitation in these water sheds has for the most part been below average. Another favourable aspect of the recent weather has been the thawing in the daytime and the freezing at night which has permitted a good deal of snow run-off water to get away gradually. The snow survey undertaken last week shows that snow has largely disappeared from the Souris and Qu'Appelle sub-basins of the Assiniboine River watershed. On the Red River however, almost complete snow cover still exists along the lower reaches. The committee's conclusions are that damaging floods will not occur on either the Red or the Assiniboine Rivers, even if heavy rainfall occurs over breakup." That is their statement, Sir, and I am sure we receive it with a good deal of thankfulness and very much hope that it turns out to be an accurate forecast of what we might expect. There is, of course, the risk of ice jams on the Assiniboine which produces flooding on occasion which


really has nothing to do with the overall problem, but it's very distressing just the same for those who have to suffer from it, but I thought the House would like to have what I think is a reasonably optimistic forecast from this committee as to what we might expect. I would also like to say, Sir, that after questions or when the Orders of the Day are called, that I would propose the House would move to the motion to go into the Committee of Supply which now stands in the name of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to ask through you, that members of the House join with me in welcoming to the gallery on your immediate right, a very important group of people. These are students and the teacher and members of the School Board of Flee Island School District No. 527. I am very pleased to see that the honourable members of the House recognize, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the most important communities in the very best constituency in Manitoba. The students are from Grade 9, 8, 7, and 6. They didn't bring the members of lower grades with them because they felt that the day would be a little bit long and they are accompanied also by Miss Marilyn Remis, the school teacher, and members of the School Board. Due to the courtesy of the guards they have had a very fine look around the building, they've enjoyed it greatly, and they are now going to stay a little while in the gallery to watch the members of the House at work -- I am sure they have enjoyed themselves very, very greatly, and they would like to express through me their appreciation and their good wishes to all of you, even the government side.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fitting that our visitors should know that the Honourable Member for Flee Island is one of the most highly respected and widely regarded gentleman in this House and also in the province, and I would like to say, Sir, that anyone who comes here as a friend of his is a friend of ours.

MR. CAMPBELL: I'm glad that's going to be on the record, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad for once that we have a Hansard. I would have asked my honourable friend to put it in writing otherwise, but now we've got it anyway.

MR. L. STINSON (Leader of the C.C.F.) (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, after what has transpired, I am a little afraid to say anything at all because what goes on the record may be held against me in some days to come, but on behalf of my party I'd like to welcome these young people and their teacher and their trustees and we've heard a great deal about this famous place Flee Island -- I must confess that I haven't seen it but I'm going to remedy that one of these days and I am sure that we will find some very fine looking young people out there and I would like to be associated with the generous words of the First Minister when he paid that tribute to my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, this morning when the Municipal Committee met to consider among others, Bill No. 43, I undertook to have copies of the amendments prepared for the members -- I now have them and would like to hand them to the Clerk and suggest that during the afternoon they might be distributed. There is a copy here for each member of the House. If I may, also, I should like to table at this time the orders and regulations issued and made under Parts 19, 20 and 21 of The Public Schools Act. Those were the parts of the act which were enacted at the Special Session last fall and I now table the orders and regulations made under those provisions.

MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I again have to correct a statement attributed to me in Hansard, page 298, March 24/59. This is what I have been quoted as saying -- "The Leader of the House, the Leader of the Government is a very, very evil man." Now at the time, at the time, Mr. Speaker, I was praising the excellent qualities of the Leader and what I said in effect was -- "that the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Government is a very, very clever man" and then I go on to describe his various qualities -- able, able, very, very able man, so I am very anxious to have this corrected because it would detract from the affection and high regard I have for the Honourable the First Minister.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, my correction that I would like to make isn't of the serious import of that of my honourable colleague, but the sense of what I said -- I find it difficult frequently to get the House to see the sense in what I say -- but the sense of what I said, I am afraid, is unintentional and is unintentionally distorted by the way it is recorded on Page


330 just about the middle of the page -- "Mr. Campbell: That is what I am suggesting too. My only point" -- and this was in reply to what the Honourable the First Minister had said -- and I was agreeing with him -- "that is what I am suggesting too. My only point is that the amendment bill would stand as it is one adjourned." Now I am sure that it was due to my poor enunciation that this mistake was made, but I am sure that what I said was "my only point is that the amendment still would stand as it is one adjournment", instead of "one adjourned". It's not a serious omission or change, but I would rather have it appear in the proper way because as with some of our remarks here, when there is an interjection or something like that, maybe we have trouble enough making sense as it is, but if anything like that gets in it's even worse than usual.

MR. SPEAKER: Did I understand the First Minister to say that at this point we would --

MR. ROBLIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if you will, I would ask you to commence with the adjourned debate on the motion that the House now go into Committee of Supply, that stands in the name of my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the motion of the Honourable the First Minister, that the House now go into Committee of Supply. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I didn't attempt to ascertain from my honourable friend the First Minister, as to what the procedure would be today, but, and I am not at all complaining about this procedure. I had rather expected that in order to add to our progress here that it was likely his intention to go to the motion following this one and the one with respect to Rule 23. And then I had expected that perhaps after that one that it was likely his intention to sort of merge this debate with the next one.

MR. ROBLIN: Now that's a suggestion that's worth considering. If the House is willing to do that, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why we couldn't do that. It might mean that we would have to re-arrange some of the wording on the Order Paper to fit, but that is if it is put forward as a suggestion and it's possible in parliamentary terms, it certainly would suit me but, I was merely wishing to observe as closely as I could the regulations.

MR. CAMPBELL: As far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, I certainly see no objection to it being done in that way because certainly when on the Orders of the Day, government business has been reached, it is quite within the authority of my honourable friend the First Minister, to call the orders in any way that he wishes, and therefore if he wishes to proceed to that other one, I would be perfectly agreeable. If on the other hand, he prefers for me to proceed on this one, it's all right too.

MR. ROBLIN: On reflection, I think we had better proceed as we are.

MR. CAMPBELL: I am afraid that in proceeding on this, that I will have to, to some extent deal with the next rule as well, because it seems to me that what we should do at this time is curtail debate by mutual agreement on this motion and then move forward on to the other one and I have no wish if that is agreeable to the House, to the Leader of the House, I have no wish to delay at all at this stage. But if on the other hand, it is thought that we are going to act on this motion and go into Committee of Supply at this stage, then I would have to make the reservations so far as our group is concerned that we are perfectly willing to cooperate to the fullest extent in passing the supplementary estimates, because we realize that time is running out with regard to the termination of this fiscal year, and I think we would be prepared to pass the supplementary estimates with a minimum of discussion, that we could do that quite quickly. But if it is intended under this motion and going into the Committee of Supply of dealing with the Interim Supply for a quarter of the next fiscal year, that is now before us in estimates from His Honour, then my colleagues and I would have to take the position I think that we couldn't give an undertaking to proceed with those quickly, but we would be prepared to do, if that is the intention of the government, would be to try and sort out those estimates that simply must be passed before or immediately after the end of the fiscal year so as to not embarrass the government in any way with its payrolls and social service cheques and other things that have to go out on time, but that full consideration would be given instead to the budgetary items under the next motions following the one dealing with Rule 23.

Now to repeat, if it's the wish of the government to go into the Committee and pass the supplementary estimates at this time, we are quite willing to do so. On the other hand, we think it would be much better to, after that has been done, to let this motion go or else let it


stand until the full year's estimates -- as I understand my honourable friend intends to bring them in -- are referred to this same Committee of Supply so that they are all before us. I hope I make myself clear to the Honourable the First Minister, that we're not attempting in any way to hold up the works and I might say now that it is our intention to move an amendment to the motion not in any way defeating its purpose but simply adding to it to make it plain that full consideration will be given to the full budget when we arrive at that stage.

MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree with the position as set forth by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it would be in the interests of the work of this House if we did have things sorted out here and have an understanding of what the procedure is to be. I concur that passing the supplementary estimates should be done quickly and there is nothing really there to keep the House at all. That's really a matter of routine and it happens every year, but it would seem unusual for us to go into Interim Supply and hold lengthy discussion on the various items if we are going to have a discussion on the budget itself and on the estimates, so it seems to me that this would be a good time for us to make a decision as to what the procedure is to be.

MR. ROBLIN: If nobody else cares to speak, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could deal with the points that have been raised. It is the intention of the government now to proceed with both supplementary and interim supply in the manner that was suggested when I introduced this motion, and I quite appreciate that when we get it into committee that the House and the committee, masters of their fate, and they, if we get to committee, they will decide what to do with supplementary and interim supply when we get there. So I do suggest that we should pass the motion and take those matters into consideration in the committee. In giving some reasons as to why we wish to proceed with interim supply as well as supplementary, in spite of the fact that we may be on the verge of hearing the budget as well, I would point out this, that if the budget is heard this afternoon, or Monday, or very shortly, that even in that case there doesn't seem to be any reasonable prospect that it will be passed in that length of time that stands between us and the end of our fiscal year and even in spite of the fact that the budget might be introduced at that time and we might be having some discussion on it, we would still arrive at the point where on April the first we would not have the money we require to carry on the government. Now that means that we're going to be in a tricky constitutional position here. And certainly if the government cannot get interim supplies from the House it probably has no alternative but to make it quite clear that that must be a want of confidence matter. I think there's no question but that we will have to take that stand. In the committee we can probably have a more fruitful discussion of the matter so I won't press that point at the moment but I would point out this, that the interim supply we are asking for is not based on the budget that we trust may be presented later on today. It is the interim supply on the old budget. ... [Interjection] ... Yes, it is. Yes, it is. On the old budget, and therefore does not involve the House in any way in approval of what we might be suggesting in the new budget that we are ready to bring forward now. So I don't think it unreasonable to suggest to the House that we must have interim supply between now and the end of this month and that this is a reasonable way of getting it because we will not, under any likely circumstance, be able to get it any other way. Now if I'm wrong in my reasoning why, then in committee we can discuss the matter and see where the matter stands, but I would suggest that we move into committee and proceed with supplementary and then we can talk about interim.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The supplementary estimates. The Provincial Secretary. Item 3.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a good plan if the Honourable the First Minister, would just once again outline very briefly, I am suggesting briefly, maybe he wants to govern himself according to his own conscience in that regard, but outline once again just the difference between the supplementary and interim supply, because we have a lot of new members here and it may be that some of them are not fully aware of the distinction between the two, and I think the very fact of the difference between the two is one of the reasons that some of us look on the two as being of very different import as far as our discussions are concerned at this time. Just so that everybody knows the background of the interim supply, I would


suggest that be done.

MR. ROBLIN: As you know, this has already been done, but I will be quite happy to do it again. The explanation of supplementary supply is simply this -- that at the beginning of the fiscal year certain sums of money were voted for the carrying on of the government service during the year, and as happens in the human affairs, it sometimes is impossible to estimate the requirements correctly, and in cases where the amount of money appropriated at the beginning of the year is insufficient to cover what was actually spent during the year, then the government returns to the House by this method of supplementary supply and asks the House for additional money to make up the funds required to pay the bills for this year that is just ending, and to make up the sums which were underestimated at the beginning of the period. That is the supplementary supply bill and that is the first one before us and as we proceed through it, the Ministers or myself will give some explanation for the reasons for the excess. In most cases they are pretty well obvious, but we will do our best to supply any information that committee requires on that.

Now the matter of interim supply is something quite different. Interim supply is necessary because of the fact that it will not be likely that we vote the budget for the coming fiscal year by the time March 31st rolls around, which is next Tuesday. And if it is not voted by next Tuesday, why then the government has no money to carry on the operations of the province. In order to provide them with the funds to carry on the business of the province, this interim supply bill is brought in and it asks for a certain portion of the previous year's estimates to be re-voted in order to give the government money to pay its bills when the first of April begins. So these things are quite different in their character. As a rule, supplementary estimates do not call for much discussion, although they certainly are entitled to some and in previous cases neither has interim supply, but evidently it will be different on this occasion.

MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, ... these figures -- finally -- up to the end of March?

MR. ROBLIN: These are our best estimates for the period ending at the end of March, and we believe are ample for the purposes mentioned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Department of Provincial Secretary - Item 3 - Total $3,000.00. Education.

HON. MARCEL BOULIC (Provincial Secretary) (Cypress): Mr. Chairman, this item of $3,000.00 is comprised of two issues of the Gazette in the previous year they were short of approximately $1,000.00 which covers two issues and we are providing for enough money to pay the complete 52 issues this year and about $2,000.00 for the normal rise in costs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Department of Education 2A - Education Grants.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a few questions and I'll ask them on all items that I'm interested in so that the Minister can answer. First item - School Districts Capital Levy Support last year was voted $1,200,000.00. You're asking for another $225,000.00 -- is that to an increase in building over our estimates or has there been a sub-appropriation transfer, which is quite possible under the general grant structure?

The "B" I take it $175,000.00 is the additional money required under the bursary policy over and above the amounts voted last year, and this was due to the announced policy of the previous administration, I take it.

Brandon College would mean an increase in the number of students attending, I take it.

School division boundaries commission, the item of $28,500.00, I take it, includes the remuneration of the boundaries commission, the expenses of the boundaries commission and all advertising, and so forth.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the first item under "A" the School District Capital Levies Support. The capital grant system was first introduced and authorized in 1957 Session of this House and it was something new and it was not until December of 1957 that the necessary regulations were actually made and that the application of the regulations was the work of paying out the grants; and computing the grants was done during the months of January, February and March of 1958. But before the departmental officials had an opportunity of determining the precise amount that would be required, they had to prepare their estimates for the year 1958-59, and in doing so, not having sufficient information at the time that the estimates were prepared, they underestimated the amount of money that was required for that purpose and it


is now found that $225,000.00 is required in order to provide the moneys required for that particular purpose. ... [Interruption] ... No, Mr. Chairman, there wasn't.

Under General Grants with respect to scholarships and bursaries, at the time that the estimates for the present fiscal year were introduced, a new system of scholarships and bursaries was in the planning stage and it was not known how much money would be required, and my information is that the Minister of Education at that time informed the House that the new system would cost approximately $385,000.00, and stated further that approximately $300,000.00 would have to be provided for this sub-appropriation by a supplementary estimate or special warrant. Now, actually only $175,000.00 is required and that is the amount shown in the supplementary estimates.

With respect to the Teacher Training at Brandon College, the estimates for the year were based on an expected enrollment of 75, and since September of 1958 there have been slightly above 100 students so there is an increase in the number of students. In addition, the previous per capita cost was $550.00 and it has been found that the cost or subsidy or payment which is made to Brandon College has been running at $637.00 per student, so that the amount of money shown there is the combination of the increased enrollment and the increase in the amount of the payment with respect to each student.

Under the item (5) Miscellaneous -- that covers $1,390.00 which was the cost of printing the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Education. No account was taken of the possibility of that expenditure apparently at the time the estimates were passed, and an additional sum of $1,200.00 for the printing of the bill, which was Chapter 7 of the Statutes of Manitoba, passed at the Special Session of the Legislature having to do with the school division plan and making a total of $2,600.00, but only $2,000.00 is required by way of supplementary vote because of under-expenditures in other categories.

Under the item of School Division Boundaries Commission -- that item takes care of the payment of the honoraria to the members of the commission -- $1,500.00 to the Chairman and $1,500.00 to the Vice-Chairman, and $1,000.00 to Mrs. Milton, Mr. McIvar and Mr. ..., all the members of the commission. Other items charged in that appropriation include a new map of the school districts of the Province of Manitoba which was prepared in connection with the work of the Bondaries Commission; the preparation and printing of maps of each of the proposed divisions showing, in the first instance, the boundaries originally proposed and, in the second, the actual boundaries on which the votes were taken; the cost of advertising the hearings of the Boundaries Commission; stenographic and office expenses; and travelling expenses of the members of the Boundaries Commission. For all of that $28,500.00 is required.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, are the newspaper advertising costs included in that? I noticed there were quite a number of advertisements appearing in various papers. Are they included in that?

MR. McLEAN: The advertising of the hearings are the only matters that are included in this item.

MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, are the costs of the votes on the schools divisions included in this, or is that covered somewhere else, or was it provided for?

MR. McLEAN: It is not included in this, Mr. Chairman. Now, I haven't the proposed estimates for the coming fiscal year before me but my impression is we haven't paid for it yet and it will come up in the estimates that will be before the House for the next fiscal year. Those costs are not included in this item.

MR. PAULLEY: Will the advertising as raised by the Honourable Member for Rhineland also be a deferred account in the next year's estimates -- that is, the advertising of the vote itself?

MR. MILLER: I notice quite a few advertisements appeared in all the local papers in the various divisions and I imagine that there were some costs in connection with that and I am just asking whether that's in the $28,000.00, or was it paid out of other departments -- out of appropriations payable by another department?

MR. McLEAN: I think, Mr. Chairman, that it was paid otherwise and that this item does not include the items to which the honourable member has referred, but if you wish I could get a specific answer to that question. I confess quite frankly I don't know -- I would say that


it is not included in the $28,000.00, I know that, but where it was paid from, if it has been paid, I'm not able to answer at the moment.

MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, in connection with printing -- is it the policy of the government to place their orders for printing with union shops so that there will be a union label?

MR. ROBLIN: Our printing is handled entirely by the Queen's Printer, and insofar as items that are tenderable are concerned, it is done by tender, but a great deal of the printing is done by our own staff here. There is no direction to him that I am aware of with respect to the union label.

MR. CHAIRMAN: School District Grants --

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, before you go on with that, the Honourable the Minister has kindly consented to bring the information to the attention of the committee and when we are dealing with interim supply, for instance, we would be very glad to have that information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: School District Grants - $225,000.00. -- Passed.

General Grants - Scholarships and Bursaries - $175,000.00 -- Passed.

Total - $400,000.00.

Item 3 - Teacher Training - Brandon College Elementary Teacher's Training Course - $13,000.00 -- Passed.

Item 5 - Miscellaneous (c) Printing (Reports, Registers, Curriculum) - $2,000.00 -- Passed.

School Division Boundaries Commission - $28,500.00 -- Passed.

Total - $30,500.00.

Grand Total for the Department - $443,500.00.

Agriculture and Immigration - Administration --

MR. C. L. SHUTTLEWORTH (Minnedosa): ... Agriculture and Immigration -- the $2,695.00 -- salaries. Is there an increase in staff or an increase in salaries?

MR. ROBLIN: No, Sir, it is just the fact that the Minister's full salary happened to be charged to this account, wherreas only one-half of his salary was provided in the estimate. But I would like to tell the committee we are not paying him twice. The second item perhaps I could explain in his absence. It has to do with Horticultural Societies grants -- increases in membership and exhibits has resulted in a necessity for increased prize money -- that's what this is.

MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say on this point in connection with grants, that the Agricultural Memorial Museum at Austin have been in touch with me lately and they have indicated that the $500.00 grant that they have been receiving in the last two or three years for their Threshermen's Reunion has not been paid as yet this year. Now I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that while time is running out that the government would see fit to pay that $500.00 grant, because I really feel that in the work of the Agricultural Museum, and in the Threshermen's Reunion, we have something that is rather unique in this province and something that is of great interest to the rural people and something that is of great value, particularly to future generations. Last year at the last day of the Threshermen's Reunion I understand that there was over 2,000 people attended, and they do have -- and it's growing year by year. The first time that I attended a Threshermen's Reunion there was only a very small crowd indeed, and not a great deal of interest. But the interest is growing rapidly, and we've had a number of very, very devoted people over the years that have pressed the building of that museum. We also have the problem of capital assistance and I hope to discuss that at some later time in the House, but I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the government would certainly, and I'm sure they will, forward the $500.00 grant to the Threshermen's Reunion. I'm certain it will be appreciated not only by the committee themselves, but by the people of rural Manitoba.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, we realize that the Honourable the Minister is not here and perhaps no one of his colleagues is familiar with this particular point, but the matter that the Honourable Member for Minnedosa has brought up is very important to this organization because it has extremely limited funds and I'm sure that this government would not be unwilling to pay a commitment that the former government had made, because I'm sure they would recognize the fact that we were not usually over-generous. They would be the first to admit that, wouldn't they? And this one I'm sure was made in good faith, and this is an


organization that has very limited funds. As the Honourable Member for Minnedosa has said, they're doing good work. I don't know whether the Honourable the First Minister has visited that Threshermen's Reunion. I think it perhaps makes a greater appeal to people of my generation than it does to people of his, because the old-timers have a certain nostalgia, maybe, for the steam-engines and the old-time threshing and that sort of thing. But even so, I think it is well worthwhile that the younger people too get an opportunity to be acquainted with the implements that had so much to do with agriculture in the days that they represent. They put on quite a programme out there -- I would like to tell the Minister of Agriculture if he were here that I took part -- I took part with reasonable success in a bag-tying contest there where you had to tie the bag with the Manitoba bag knot and push it down on the platform, and it had to hold; and you had to pick it up again by the top and the bag knot still had to hold; and I even won my way into the finals, showing that at one time that I did tie some knots that stayed tied anyway. Then I took part in the sheaf-tying contest. Those contests -- the Honourable Member for Minnedosa observed my performance in that and he's chuckling about it because I certainly wasn't a finalist there; in fact I was fourth in a class of four. But I made it plain to them that when I ran a binder the sheaves were tied. I never got very well acquainted with tying the sheaves by the straw itself, but there's a real work being done by these people -- a real work against considerable odds, and I would recommend to the government that they do two things: check this payment that was promised them for this fiscal year, and then check into the arrangement re: a substantial grant to erect a building there. I don't know how many of the members of this House have attended that reunion, but last year there were fifteen, I think it was, steam engines of the old type in a parade -- all steamed up and all running, and a lot of them ticking them off very nicely too -- all running around the big acreage that they have there. And there was an old-time threshing machine that I believe was right in the neighborhood of 50 years old actually doing some threshing, and the way both the engine and the separator were running was really something to behold. And it sure showed what could be done by proper care of implements. And this is quite a development. I do not expect any of the Ministers perhaps to be familiar with this, but I would suggest that you take it up with the Minister of Agriculture and see if some support can be given to a very worthwhile endeavour.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, a surprising number of Ministers are familiar with this organization judging from the pressure they put on the Treasury to do something about the capital requirements of this institution. We will certainly look into the $500.00, it will go out if it hasn't gone out, you needn't worry about that. I must say that last year a surprising number of people who didn't get money out of the former government were able to get it on that occasion, and I also pass the observation that I'm sure that as far as sheep are concerned my honourable friend is without a peer in the House.

MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, the qualifications that the Leader of the Liberal Party has with sheep and everything else, I am just wondering why he was afraid to support our amendment last night.

MR. CAMPBELL: In case the transcriber gets the same term that my honourable friend the First Minister did, the word was "sheaf", not "sheep". "S H E A F". They don't at these Threshermen's Reunion either thresh or tie sheep.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1 - Administration.

(a) Salaries - $2,695.00.

Agriculture and Horticultural Societies - $3,240.00.

Total - $5,935.00.

Health and Welfare.

MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, before the Minister speaks or gives answers, I see there is a $600,000.00 deficit, or not a deficit but underestimated, under a $19,000,000.00 estimated budget, so I think perhaps having in mind Bill No. 49, An Act respecting Social Security of Residents of Manitoba, that they should not make any further mistakes of underestimating. The second question is: that the $445,000.00 underestimated in the assistance of municipal aid expenditures, I would like to know of what does it consist?

HON. GEORGE JOHNSON, M.D. (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, I'll try and explain these. If I could go through them one at a time -- the (a) # (2) there, which is in the appropriation VIII-3 (a)(2) Supplies and Expenses - $16,000.00 -- this is


the over-expenditure because of extra costs of rentals of equipment and so on, and the extra work in registering -- that is initially and continuing registration of the welfare recipients for hospital premiums, that is, the Mother's Allowance, Social Allowance, Ward Cases, and so on; and secondly, the new administrative procedure re: unemployment assistance agreement, and these were the new forms that were prepared when the straight 80 - 20 form that was applied to nursing homes last April 1st and the expense involved in seting up these forms and distributing to the municipalities. The Department estimated on February 28th that they only had $6,500.00 left in this appropriation and estimated they would probably require $22,500.00. That gives you the figure $16,000.00.

Now the next item, on Social Assistance of $150,000.00 -- this was because there were two factors involved here. First was the increase in the numbers of patients in institutions -- they estimated last year on about 135, this is from unorganized where the province pays for these people, and there actually ended up to be 180, and that was an expenditure of $23,000.00 of that $150,000.00; and secondly, the increases in costs of transient and non-transient bills from the municipalities was $127,000.00. These are the municipal cases that charge 100% to us, and in last year's estimate in this particular item -- I looked up the figures -- the estimate was $360,000.00 and it went to $487,000.00, which makes a difference there of $127,000.00, so you have $23,000.00 plus $127,000.00, giving you that $150,000.00.

Then in the next item, of VIII 3 (a)(8) Assistance for Municipal Aid Expenditures -- this was the municipal relief was up from roughly $2,700,000 to $3,300,000 because of the lack of a fall-off of the welfare relief during the summer months. These are where we reimburse the municipality, and it stayed high. And also the policy of 80% of the cost to the aged and infirm in institutions caused another portion of that. I divided that down, in that on the new policy of 80% of the cost of the aged in institutions, the budgeting was for $100,000.00 in this particular appropriation, and it came to $210,000.00; and of course, reimbursement for unemployment relief to municipalities had counted for the remainder up to $455,000.00. I might add that your estimated reimbursement of Ottawa on Social Assistance this last year was 1.2, but of course with this extra provincial expenditure we get an estimated reimbursement from Ottawa, instead of $1,200,000.00, $1,600,000.00, and that I think is really the total story here.

MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible for the Honourable Minister to tell us approximately the amount of the Social Assistance that has been given actually to the old age pensioners by the municipality over and above their pensions?

DR. JOHNSON: I'll take notice of that. I might say first of all, Mr. Chairman, that that is what we were talking about the other day there on this new form which is a Form A, and the Honourable Member for Portage mentioned the other day, the municipalities in sending these back to us would lump Social Assistance, that is, everything under one column and they could go back when the municipal auditor -- they could ferret it out, and if you wish that I will ask the Department again to -- and I'll see what we can do on that and I'll report to you.

MR. GREENLAY: If we're clear on that, then it would include all of the assistance given. The other day in some of this discussion we got off on the basis of cash assistance, but I think in the case of most of these people, either good provision or maintenance in a home is just as good as cash. And I think we should have the complete picture of the assistance which has been granted and been made available to that group.

DR. JOHNSON: I'll do my best to try and get these.

MR. R. W. BEND (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure I have this right. I think I understood the Minister correctly but I want to make certain. This $455,000.00 increase actually represents only one-half the actual cost, is that correct? You're not putting in for the amount that you get back from Ottawa as well, are you?

DR. JOHNSON: No, that's the actual assistance given by the province to the municipalities. In other words, the net figure ... [Interruption] ... Yes, that's the total figures and the assistance for municipal aid that we paid out. The municipalities, instead of billing us an estimated $2,700,000.00, they billed us an estimated $3,300,000.00 on municipal aid alone. The reason why the municipal reimbursement was up was because of the unemployment load not going down during the summer, and (b) because of the increased aid to patients -- in the aged and infirm in institutions. Do you get it?

MR. BEND: I don't know if it's clear yet or not. The point that I was wanting to get at


for certain was this. Now this additional $455,000.00, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister is requesting here, am I right in assuming that he only spent part of that, that some of it is coming back from Ottawa? Or does it mean that the total cost of this additional help is greater than this figure? That's the point I want.

DR. JOHNSON: I'm not hitting the point here. I think it's my own fault probably. For instance, last year the vote in the assistance to municipal aid expenditures, that vote, VIII 3 (a)(8) was $1.6. Well, that is up, by $455,000.00 to $2,055,000.00, so that means that we haven't got our reimbursement from Ottawa back on that yet. Isn't that true? So that's what I meant, Sir.

MR. BEND: In other words, you will be getting a reimbursement on that $455,000.00.

DR. JOHNSON: Yes, on these two items last year our estimated reimbursement would have been $1,200,000.00, but because of our increased expenditure, our reimbursement will be $1,600,000.00. ... [Interruption] ... No, no.

MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, you may not be able to answer now or you may not be able to answer. Is this increase due entirely to an increase in the indigent load on the municipalities, or is some of it due to an increased amount given by the municipality to recipients of Social Assistance?

DR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, the impression that I got from the staff was that the major cause of this increase -- but we will have to separate it out as the honourable gentleman mentioned, and I will try to do that further. But it was all lumped together, you see. But from the previous year's record, for instance, they could pin it right down as I indicated earlier in certain cases here, it was largely taken up by the increased 80% formula for the aged and infirm in institutions, and also the fact that unemployment relief didn't go down. So it wasn't so much the fact that municipalities were giving more in other than the way of cash or so on. We have no way of knowing exactly how much, but it would indicate that there was not much.

MR. BEND: Just to make certain. I know one of these estimates, at the time we were estimating before we weren't quite sure and I'm not at all surprised on that -- requiring more. But really your major increase was due to a higher level of unemployment.


MR. GREENLAY: Mr. Chairman, there's something that I would like to draw to the attention of the committee at the present time. It harks back to the years that have gone by when we had a lot of criticism of the plan that we put forward with regard to the assistance of the elderly people. But I think the fact that we are now getting to the place where we're wondering about the total amount that was given, and that it has been supplied over the year, that I think that we should draw to the attention of our C.C.F. friends who objected so strenuously to that programme that it really does work. It really does work, and that the municipalities are not so hard-hearted as what they had led us to believe. They kept saying: well the municipalities won't do it, won't give them anything. But, Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand here the return for one month on which there are seven elderly people that are taken care of in various items, and it amounts to some $425.00 for that one group alone, and for seven people you can figure out what each one of those persons is getting. And the honourable gentlemen of the C.C.F. particularly were suggesting that we should grant a supplementary allowance of approximately $10.00 -- up to $10.00 per person. Well, I wonder how the $10.00 per person would fit into $425.00 for seven and I wonder how far it would go on taking care of those elderly people.

MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, what the C.C.F. did say is two things. One is that we did not want a recipient of the Old Age Pension living in the same municipality, probably in the same town, and probably years ago he had a very big business, or was a big farmer, knew everyone, and some of the young people came out and became councillors of the municipality, and he did not feel like bending on his knees before the younger people whom he had ... and probably handed over candies to them. Oh yes, yes, that's a ... to apply. That's number one. And secondly, when we asked for an increase, we asked for a minimum increase and not a maximum. At least $5.00 a month or $10.00 a month is the minimum increase which helps them out a little. It's not a maximum and even if we increase the pension to $75.00 a month it's still not enough -- sufficient with everybody. And why pick on every damn thing -- excuse me, I apologize -- and why pick up the popular sport -- at any time when everybody


goes wrong whether it rains or shines, the C.C.F. is to blame. We will assume the responsibility -- I know you don't like us -- you showed it yesterday when you opposed a very, very progressive legislation by our sub-amendment.

MR. GREENLAY: I would say that rather than being opposed to this principle, I think that we have shown by this policy, as we argued here in the last Session, that this policy covers something far and beyond what the honourable gentlemen were suggesting because here are some of the figures -- that it's costing $66.00 additional to keep some of these people. It's costing -- in one particular item here, there's $80.00 with regard to one individual for the month -- for one month. Now that includes clothes and it includes the cost, the additional cost over and above the $50.00 from the pension to keep that particular person in the home, and, Mr. Chairman, I can still contend that this is a proper way, of properly seeing that these elderly people are properly taken care of and I know particularly this council, that -- of this municipality where this return is from, that no individual has to get down on their knees and beg for anything. If the individual needs it they are quite delighted and willing to make the allowance of whatever amount is necessary to see that that person is kept in comfort and that all of their needs are taken care of. And far from having to get down on their knees, I think the members of the municipal councils of the Province of Manitoba should be held in a higher regard than that.

MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, my honourable friend from Portage la Prairie, along with other members of his party, feels under obligation to justify everything that the old government did. They're very jealous of their position and they feel that they must always fight the last election all over again and justify their actions at every turn of the road. Now the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie has one pink sheet and he is basing his case on that one little piece of paper -- oh, the Minister said that it was due in large measure to unemployment and that is a matter that is disturbing I'm sure to everyone, because so far as unemployment is concerned one of the most serious aspects of it now is that people have been unemployed over such a long period of time, and they are no longer able to get unemployment insurance so there are more people on social assistance and receiving supplementary aid because of that very fact. And I'm sure that everyone now should be concerned about the number of people that have been unemployed for a long period of time and that's one of the main reasons for this increase. Now I think my honourable friend must bring more than one little pink sheet of paper to prove his case.

MR. GREENLAY: That little pink sheet that he speaks about is for month and this goes on and that's with regard to the elderly people. You're starting --

MR. STINSON: For one municipality?

MR. GREENLAY: Yes, for one municipality -- a lot of municipalities, and I contend that the most of them will treat these people in the same way but you have got over onto another argument where you're starting to argue about the unemployed. I wasn't talking about the unemployed.

MR. STINSON: The unemployed are in this figure too.

MR. GREENLAY: No, Mr. Speaker, the pink sheet that you are referring to me having in my hand has nothing to do with the unemployed.

MR. STINSON: We were talking about $455,000.00.

MR. GREENLAY: We were talking about this pink sheet and you were talking about me having one pink sheet and you start to talk about the unemployed. Mr. Chairman, I have some white sheets here too. I have some white sheets here too which fills out the rest of the picture for that particular month. Mr. Chairman, if you run down the list of the people in this municipality who are getting assistance and you talk about the people predominantly being unemployed, there is one person on there unemployed - one person that comes in the category of being unemployed. All of the rest of them are social assistance. Well, Mr. Chairman, unless other municipalities are completely different than this, then unemployed is not the big portion of the cost which comes in here from month to month. We've got all the different categories in here certainly. We've got the costs for goods and provisions supplied; we've got the costs for homes of special care; we've got the costs for drugs, dentures and eye glasses; and I might say in this municipality all those things have been provided as well as medical care where it's required. And then my honourable friend would -- the medical care I don't think


has been included in here -- I don't think it's entitled to be included in here but, Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that the municipalities are prepared to see that the needs of the people of that municipality are taken care of whether it's refundable or not, and whether it comes in the class of drugs or eye glasses or every day provision and necessities of life.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, this was just a quiet little discussion of the supplementary estimates and I wonder if we could just proceed with them. I understand there are certain differences of view between honourable gentlemen all over the House and it's appropriate to debate them, I know, but I would suggest there is a more suitable occasion to do so than right now and, if the committee would be willing, let's get on with this relatively routine operation and save the big guns for a further occasion.

MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I agree most heartily with the Honourable the First Minister, but I think I should be entitled to a comment or two on the remarks of my honourable friend from Portage. Unfortunately I'm not a Secretary-Treasurer of any municipality and I don't have any pink or white slips, but I would like to draw to the attention of the committee ... [Interruption] ... Yes, I have been a mayor -- a darn good one. As a matter of fact, incidental to that, as mayor I'm sure that during my period of office the recipients of social assistance in my municipality were treated with more consideration than they were in many municipalities which others in this House may have had dealings with. But apart from that -- apart from that, Mr. Chairman, I would like in all deference to the remarks of the Honourable Member from Portage la Prairie, and I agreed to some degree in this contention insofar as appeals to municipal councils were concerned, but the government of which he was a member, after years of argument from our group, agreed that those requiring social assistance could by-pass their municipal councils and make a direct appeal to the Department of Social Welfare.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. 3(a).

MR. CAMPBELL: I also agree completely with what the First Minister has said, that we want to stick to the subject here, but when my honourable friend, the Leader of the C.C.F. Party gets up and accuses us, when we're trying to talk the business of this House, and this is serious business, these social welfare cases. When he gets up and accuses us of fighting the election over again and says that we ...

MR. STINSON: Your colleague accused me first and you know that if I'm accused I'm bound to come back.

MR. CAMPBELL: Well, of course -- I wonder if he was right! I was going to say that when my honourable friend does that and accuses us of fighting the election over again, and that we feel obligated to do so, we're not interested in the election that's over -- maybe a little in the one that's coming, but we are not fighting that one in here either because what we're trying to do is make an honest point; not to defend what we were doing -- what we were doing is past and gone and that's all right, but to make the honest point that has been made here and that is that it's absolutely unfair to the municipal people of this province to suggest or insist that they are unwilling to undertake responsbilities of this kind. The honourable -- the gentleman who just spoke -- the Honourable Member for Radisson, by his own admission and I affirm it too, was a good mayor, and I'm sure that what he says is right that they looked after the people there. And I want to warn this government that they will find when they're taking over the people 100%, to be looked after from the department of the government rather than through the municipalities, that they'll find that they have a great deal less efficient management than they've had up to date. And as far as the Honourable the Member for Inkster saying that we always attack the C.C.F. because we don't like them -- it isn't that, we do like them. I like every one of them, and no one of them any more than my honourable friend for Inkster. This isn't a personal matter and there's an honest difference of opinion here between the C.C.F. members and our group -- there has been for years and they're just as honest in their opinion of it as we are in ours. I've no doubt of that, but we've had the advantage of being in office. We know what these problems are, and we have dealt with the municipalities. I'm not fighting the election over again but I still say that the system that we had in vogue is one that gets the best of service for the people who need it most and can be done with the best interest of the taxpayer in mind; and the interest of the taxpayer, even in matters like this where a lot of people, and I'm not trying to be snidey towards the C.C.F. when I say this, that where a lot of people, because of the sentimental


approach that is so easy to adopt in connection with this kind of a discussion, a lot of people let their hearts run away with their heads, and the thing to do is to keep administration as close as possible to the local people and you'll find that they are not derelict in their duties or responsibilities. And we do love the C.C.F. -- we have nothing against them in the world.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, let's call it a draw. Everyone's expressed their views; we know where each of the two parties stand -- let's just settle and get on with the business.

MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the Honourable the First Minister has to admonish us every time we wish to rise to speak.

MR. ROBLIN: I'm beseeching you; I'm not admonishing you.

MR. STINSON: To make a speech, and when he was on this side of the House he made more speeches than anyone else, perhaps with one exception.

MR. ROBLIN: Yourself.

MR. STINSON: Well all right. Between us we made quite a few.

MR. ROBLIN: Agreed.

MR. STINSON: Now my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition said that he was only trying to make an honest point, which was an unusual thing for him. Well, I said that with a smile. Well, I see that I've roused the ire of the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville so that may produce another speech, and when he gets rolling why it will be a 40 minute speech. We have never at any time said that the municipalities were unwilling or that the municipal officals were unkind or lacking in responsibility. We just said that this was a system that didn't work well because the people concerned did not want to make application to the local official to the local municipality -- and my honourable friend says that we have had the sentimental approach to this matter -- well, all other provinces west of the Province of Quebec, I think, have had the same policy with the exception of Manitoba so they're all guilty of being sentimental. I had something else to say in mind, Sir, but I think it might be unparliamentary so I'll sit down.

MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. Johns): Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this, that we have never said that the local municipalities can't do it or won't do it but it seems to me that as long as the local municipalities try to do it that what you have inevitably is a vulcanization policy. One municipality is more willing to do for the old age pensioners than the other and so the benefits must inevitably be different in every munipality. We have felt and still feel that this is wrong, that the people of this province are entitled to the same benefits whatever the scale decided by the government and the department is. I want to say also, Mr. Chairman, that while I don't question the cases which the Honourable Member from Portage la Prairie gave, this may work very well, in a small municipality. I can assure him that as far as the City of Winnipeg or any of the municipalities around it are concerned, that I have yet to meet a municipal official or a welfare official who would consider for one moment trying to administer it on the local level, and certainly in Winnipeg there was never any suggestion on the part of any municipal elected or permanent official that the City should try to do it -- it's completely impossible in a city the size of Winnipeg.

MR. R. TEILLET (St. Boniface): Mr. Chairman, I certainly can't let that last statement go by without comment. The honourable gentleman takes in a great deal of territory. I suggest to him that he go and have a chat with the welfare officer of the City of St. Boniface and ask him if he is unwilling to look after the people in need in that city and I'd rise to his defence because I believe there is a gentleman who has done a splendid job in that city, that council has done very well by its people and I suggest to you that the province will never be in a position to do better, perhaps do a lot less.

MR. R. O. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr. Chairman, ... over there. It's very amusing but it's slightly confusing to me. The Honourable Member from Portage la Prairie spoke of a "pink sheet" and someone over here referred to a "white slip" and I think the minister referred to a "form". I wish they'd tell me what this quarrel started over in the first place.

MR. SWAILES: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you will find the answer to this if someone can provide the figures to show how many, since the change was made, made their applications directly to the department rather than to the municipal council. If we can get those figures that will perhaps provide the answer.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 3. Welfare Division.

(a) Public Welfare Services.
(2) Supplies, Expenses, Equipment & Renewals$ 16,000.00
(4) Social Assistance150,000.00
(8) Assistance for Municipal Aid Expenditures455,000.00
Department Total621,000.00

Public Works ...

MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: What is this item, Mr. Chairman? What is the increase for?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Public Works -- Acting Minister -- not here. Passed?

MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: Oh, just a moment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, is the increase due to the increase in long distance calls to Ottawa?

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I dare say that a small fraction of it might be attributed to that source, but what has happened is that a certain number of telephones have been moved around with relocation in offices of that sort and they ran out of money to pay for that kind of thing. That is the main item in there, I'm advised by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Expenses.

Public Works - $1,000.00 - Passed.

Municipal Affairs - Administration.

(b) Supplies, Expenses, Equipment & Renewals - $8,500.00

MR. PREFONTAINE: Can you give us an explanation, Mr. Chairman?

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, that item concerns the expenses of printing the report of the Greater Winnipeg Investigating Commission. The cost will be close to $10,000.00 for printing that report, of which we require the sum of $8,500.00.

MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to my honourable friend, and he's an old friend? Was this printing done in a union shop?

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, we asked the Queen's Printer to do the job and I don't know just how much -- he did a lot of it himself. He tells me that he possibly saved the province a considerable sum of money by doing a lot of the work but some went out; now he put it wherever he thought he could get it done the quickest. I don't know the details of that but he was in full charge of the printing. He may have had it in a union shop -- I don't know.

MR. ROBLIN: Perhaps I had better say something here, Mr. Chairman, because I had some dealings with this body as it is a Royal Commission or at least a commission of some sort -- I'm not sure of the exact description. They themselves made the arrangments in the first instance for printing without prior consultation with us and we found that the price was quite high. When we learned of this fact part of the arrangements had already been made so there was nothing that could be done about that, but we consulted with the Royal Commission once again and were able to come to some understanding with them for a slightly less expensive method of printing that was originally adopted. Even so, it comes to an extraordinary sum, I quite admit, and I just regret that it was not possible for us to move before we did because we lacked the information from the commission itself. However, in their defence, it must be said that there are a large number of graphs, charts and tables which they wish to put into this report, and as a result, a rather expensive printing operation is involved. So I don't wish to give the impression that I'm being unduly critical of them, but merely to give this explanation as being the actual course of events.

MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, as it appears as though this is on supplementary estimates, I would have two questions. Is the printing going to be completed with the passing of this amount, and as it is close to the 31st of March or the end of the fiscal year, if this includes the amount necessary for the printing of the report? We would also imagine that the report would be completed by that time. Is it now going to be tabled ahead of the time that the Honourable the Minister suggested it could in the House? ...

MR. ROBLIN: ... and printing are completely unrelated facts.

MR. PAULLEY: Oh, no they're not, -- an expenditure in the current fiscal year.

MR. ROBLIN: Well, you hold it over.

MR. THOMPSON: As I said earlier in the Session, it has been promised for 31st of March or sooner. I have no reason to believe that it will not be here at that time. We expected it by that date.


MR. CHAIRMAN: ... passed -- $8,500.00

Department of Labour --

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I thought I should make a little comment on these items. The first one is entirely a question of a salary adjustment; the entire minister's salary has been charged to the Labour Department, heretofore it had been charged part to the Labour Department and part to another department of government.

The supplies concern items of equipment required by the Labour Department, one of them of which is a new cash register; they're handling considerable sums of money there now, and some other items of equipment. This year we were host to the Canadian Association -- that is, last summer we were host to the Canadian Association of Administration of Labour Laws in Canada, and we had an expense there of $800.00. The Employment Standards item, item 3, concerns certain readjustments in the department and new items of equipment as a result of the amalgamation of the Wages and Hours Division and the Industrial Accident Prevention Division, which are now of course combined under the Employment Standards Division.

The other items concerning Concilliation Boards and Industrial Disputes include the expenditure of the Moak Lake Enquiry Commission and of the investigation into the Greater Winnipeg Printing Trades. Part of the first one, that is of the Moak Lake, had been provided before -- this is a balance; and the other concerns the Greater Winnipeg Printing Trades Enquiry Commission.

Now the other item, of course, concerns the expenditure on winter employment projects. It asks at this time for $100,000.00. We have to date committed ourselves in winter employment on the basis of applications received and approved to $346,223.60. This amount -- perhaps I should set out the total federal and provincial projects first -- the total number of federal projects approved has been 77 and of provincial 58, a total of 135 projects. The total number of man days of work provided has been 107,103; total number of men employed 1792; the total value of projects, federal and provincial has amounted to $4,636,846.00. The amount, as I have said, required at the present time, till the end of this year to meet our commitments under the agreements with the municipalities in accordance with the project, is $100,000.00.

MR. BEND: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the honourable minister can give us any idea of how many men these projects employed who would have otherwise been unemployed -- in your winter works project.

MR. THOMPSON: I'm not sure that we could give a figure such as that.

MR. BEND: I know, Mr. Chairman, it would be hard to get an accurate figure but I thought maybe an estimate.

MR. THOMPSON: No, we only know that we have provided 107,103 man days of work under the provincial plan and the federal plan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Item No. 1.

MR. GREENLAY: Mr. Chairman, I take it that these questions could be on any one of these items. I've been sort of waiting to get down to this winter work one with one very small question. The $100,000.00 which is suggested that should be appropriated here or voted here, would be an estimate of the amount of the contribution of the province up to the end of the fiscal year. Is that for work which would be done up to the end of March? Is that the basis?

MR. THOMPSON: No, it's the amount of money we need until the end of March to meet our obligation under the agreements with the municipalities. We have approved, as I say, provincial contributions at the moment of $346,223.60. Our share under the provincial plan is positive -- that's $104,054.00. Our share under the federal plan, which is 30% of the payroll of those who, as you know, are in certain categories, perhaps is somewhat of an estimate, but this $100,000.00 isn't exactly the amount required at this date. It is the amount which we need under the agreement which has been applied for to date by the municipalities. There are still a number of applications to come in for money.

MR. GREENLAY: I think that the honourable member and I agree that this is the amount of money which will have been earned from the province by municipalities up to the end of March, and not taking in the whole project but just the amount of contributions which would be forthcoming from the province for the work which has been done up to the end of March -- not for the whole project. That is, when they go along and work on a project and the returns are sent in for the month, as you get by each month a return is sent in for that month, and I was


wondering if this $100,000.00 is the amount which would be in the returns claimed up to the end of March, -- not for the whole project, but just for the work which has actually been accomplished, and the portion which the province would pay back to the persons who are operating the project. I think we agree on it. I don't ...

HON. JOHN THOMPSON (Minister of Labour) (Virden): I want to make it clear that we're committed as of the end of March to much more than that figure.

MR. GREENLAY: Yes, that's right. That is, that the total of the total projects, when they're completed, will be much greater than this hundred thousand -- will be this other figure that you set out as $346,000.00, as I take it -- but that the amount, that which will have been earned by the municipalities up to the end of March, -- is this other figure.

MR. C. L. SHUTTLEWORTH (Minnedosa): ... $100,000.00 include the recovery from Ottawa?

MR. THOMPSON: No, that's our share entirely.

MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: That's just your share.


MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1. Salaries, $550.00; Supplies, expenses and equipment, $5,300.00 - Total, $5,850.00; Item 3. Employment Standards Division. Supplies, etc., $800.00; Labour Relations Division - Conciliation Board. (1) Board Fees, $3,300.00; Expenses, $1,800.00 - Total, $5,100.00; Winter Work Projects, $100,000.00 - Total, $105,000.00. Workmen's Compensation Enquiry Commission, $900.00, -- a total of items five and six, $112,650.00 and the grand total for all departments, $1,195,585.00. The interim supply estimates ...


MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the interim supply as I mentioned earlier, we feel that this is in quite a different position to the supplementary supply, and what I would propose to the First Minister as I think is a very good idea that we should move into Committee so that we can debate this back and forth if necessary without infringing on the rules at all. What I would suggest to the First Minister is that according to the convenience of the government as they wish to do these things themselves that we would be prepared as far as my group is concerned to have the Committee rise and report the supplementary estimates and go through with concurrence at any time that suits the convenience of the government, and under suspension of rules, if that is wished, anything that facilitates the passage of the Supplementary Estimates. And then we would propose because those are the ones that I think quite properly should go through immediately, then we would propose that the other estimates simply stand in Committee here, and that we proceed again with the government having the right to call the business in any order that it wishes, that we proceed to the next item on the order paper, which if cleared will mean that we can - that the budget can be presented at any time - then as I understand from the undertaking that the First Minister has given, that it is his intention to proceed with the - by laying the estimates for the full year on our tables or by presenting the Budget Speech, or by some one of the methods open to the government, and that a motion be presented to refer those estimates to the Committee of Supply, so that we can have them before us, and then my suggestion would be but we're not necessarily adament on this point. My suggestion would be for the consideration of the Honourable the First Minister, that the interim Supply to be asked for, should be attuned to the estimates for the coming year rather than this year, but so far as we are concerned, so long as we have the estimates before us, for the coming year, then we wouldn't stick on that point, if the government think that these estimates would be sufficient for them. But the point that we do make, very seriously, is that we are not prepared to proceed with these estimates now, without a good deal of discussion. But if we have the full estimates before us for the coming year, which I take it that the Honourable the First Minister has promised to us, and which the motion that's on the Order Paper certainly seems to portend then with the full estimates before us, as far as we are concerned, we would be prepared to pass very quickly and even under suspension of rule, if necessary, a proportion of those estimates, and I have no objection to the figure that has been mentioned here of one quarter of them, or we'd even be so willing to co-operate that if that does not appeal to the government, and they want, perhaps because they don't want to print new interim estimates or something of this kind, we'd even be prepared to consider the proceeding along the same lines with these estimates. But what we are very anxious to have is the full estimates before us for the coming year. Now, I must say so that as far as we're concerned, the whole picture is before the Committee. What we want is a full disclosure of the budget, and I'm sure that's what my honourable friend the First Minister has in mind, because that's what he has promised to the House. Well, then let us put these through with all dispatch, and have the other estimates presented as soon as Rule 23 has been dealt with and again I must say that we propose to offer an amendment to the motion that my honourable friend has on the Order Paper, but it does not, in any way, prevent the budget being proceeded with. In fact we think it facilitates it, because that's exactly the end that we wish to accomplish. So our proposal is, we'll facilitate even to the extent of suspension of the rule, if it's required, the complete passage of these estimates that have just been dealt with through concurrence and through the various stages of the Supply Bill itself, if that is the wish of the government. Then our proposal would be that the next item of business on the Order Paper should then be taken up, which clears the way for the full estimates for the year ending March 31st, next, be laid before us, at which time we would certainly also be prepared once those are before us, and once we have the undertaking that there's going to be a full budget debate and consideration of the estimates in a properly constituted committee, that we will then facilitate the passage of those interim estimates, based either on the new one, that we would prefer - it could be based on the new estimates - but if there's some objection to that, we'd be prepared to consider proceeding with these estimates at that time, and would be quite prepared to see that those, as far as we're concerned, are passed before the end of this year, and the concurrence as well, and even the Supply Bill under suspension of the rule if necessary.

MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition has made the position of his group very clear indeed, and so far as we are concerned, we consider it to be a


reasonable proposal. We certainly do not wish to hold up the passing of interim supply, it is not our desire at all to handicap the government in any way in conducting the business of the Province. And, so we would co-operate fully in that respect. I think the suggestion of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition that we should have a full disclosure of the budget, including the new estimates, is a proper one, and I think that it would be more realistic to have the interim supply based on the new estimates. It would be a sort of academic sort of debate to have discussion on interim supply based on the old estimates although if that is the way that the government wishes to do it, we are prepared to go along with that. But I do support the Honourable Leader of the Opposition in his contention that it would be advisable for us to have the whole picture, to have the whole picture to have the estimates tables as well as have the Budget Speech. To have an opportunity for full and thorough discussion. I think that if we're to have a Budget Speech, then there should be an opportunity for full and thorough discussion. I think that if we're to have a Budget Speech, then there should be an opportunity for an analysis of that Budget. And so I simply say that we take the same position actually as the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly we are prepared to co-operate completely in facilitating the work of the administration so far as the supplementary estimates are concerned and interim supply.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, there are some points that I feel that I should place before the Committee in connection with this matter. First of all, we share completely, the views of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, and the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party, that there should be a full disclosure of the Budget statement as far as the Provincial Government is concerned. In fact so completely do we share this view, that we have placed on the Order Paper as the honourable members know, a resolution to suspend a certain rule of this House which impedes the laying of this information before the House, so that we may be able to do so. And we are ready and willing to make that full disclosure when the motion - when that particular matter comes up for discussion. We've undertaken to do this, insofar as it lies within our power to do it, and that is a qualification which I think is of some importance, because it must be recognized that our power in this Assembly is limited. Actually we have no power in the sense that a government usually has of being able to secure a majority vote for its proposals in the Legislature for matters of this sort. I made it clear that when I spoke about this proposition of disclosing the budget as I did previously, that that condition would obtain within our power. But so far as lies within our power, we will undertake that we will complete that undertaking that we have given to the House.

Now, let me deal with the second matter that I have noted here, namely the question of interim supply. I appreciate the suggestions that have been made on the other side as to various methods of dealing with this matter. However, I think it must be admitted that it is our responsibility as a government to take the responsibility for the particular way in which this matter is to be done. And we are afraid must adhere to our original plan that we would like to have these estimates deal with in the way proposed and that we should secure this interim supply. I want to stress the fact that there is no connection between this interim supply in detail with the budget that we hope we may present shortly. They are two entirely different matters. We're not asking for anything in this interim supply that represents a departure from the previously established and accepted policy in this House, as it was proposed at the last budget time. In our interim figures we have excluded those of a capital nature, or those of a nature which should not be included in a temporary proposition - we have taken them out. Because you will notice that our total is some 16 million whereas otherwise it might be some 25 or 26. So we have endeavoured to take out even matters of that sort. All that we are trying to do is to ensure that we have money to carry on the government for a short period after the end of this month. No one can tell what is going to happen between now and the 31st of March. I think it would be ill-advised of me to make any assumptions regardless of what may be said on the other side of the House as to the course of events following this discussion of following the resumption of debate on Rule 23, when we leave this particular committee. Their amendments will be offered, we do not know what they are, though we may have some ideas as to what they are, and one does not know how that will turn out. So I'm simply saying, Sir, that we have to take the responsibility of asking for interim supply and we take the responsibility for asking for it in this manner. We freely admit it is at the discretion of this House to decide whether or not we shall be granted that interim supply and that is the matter which is before us at the present time. But I think I will have to take my stand on this basis, that there is nothing in this matter that is being dealt


with here now that need prevent us from having the full picture. There is nothing in this method of introducing interim supply that I'm adopting here today or recommending to be adopted today, that in any way will interfere with the disclosure of the full picture as it affects the finances and budget and policies of this government and the people of this Province. Let that be perfectly clear, and that as far as lies within our power that full disclosure will be made to the members of the House. I simply say that it is our responisibility for determining the method in which interim supply shall be granted. In our judgment this is the right way to do it. If the House thinks we are wrong then they can, of course, deny us the vote that we seek. But I think I must clearly state our intention to stand by what we have proposed here.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable the First Minister has mentioned that in this matter the government is following the established procedure with regard to interim supply.

MR. ROBLIN: I'm sorry if you got that impression, because I think I made it clear when I introduced the motion in the House some time ago that there were certain real differences of methods in proposing this interim supply and I quite acknowledge those differences.

MR. CAMPBELL: I was referring not to what my honourable friend said at that time, but what he said just a minute or two ago, and I understood him to say, during the course of these remarks, just before he sat down that we were following the previously established procedure. However, I don't...

MR. ROBLIN: I'm sorry, I meant the procedure that I had suggested when the motion was...

MR. CAMPBELL: That's quite okay. I accept my honourable friend's version of it and certainly he did, when making the motion re: supply a few days ago, point out that there were some obvious differences from the usual procedure. But the main difference, I think and the one that I think the Honourable the First Minister did not mention, or if he mentioned it it escaped my attention was that always before, in my memory, the Speech From the Throne has been concluded before interim supply was introduced. So that that is a vital difference in that the confidence of the House had already been established in the government before interim supply was introduced. Now that's a difference. But I'm not quarrelling over that because we recognize that we are meeting under unusual circumstances. So far as we are concerned, we want to proceed in an orderly manner, and I know that the First Minister has said and I believe him, believe that he means it, that the government will do all in its power to see that a budget with a full disclosure and full opportunity to debate it is placed before this House. He's given that undertaking and I accept it completely. Now what I suggest to him is that we opposition groups, if my honourable friends from the C.C.F. will co-operate, we are in the position to put it within his power to do that very thing, and we intend to do it because we want him to have that opportunity and we will certainly support the suspension of Rule 23 for this Session, and we'll certainly support that, and we have the amendment to offer when the proper time comes that I'm sure is an improvement - a guarantee - the only guarantee that I think can be given under these circumstances that there can be a complete and full discussion of the budget position.

So, I suggest that inasmuch as the government has made and I certainly do not challenge their good faith in this -- I know the First Minister means it, an engagement has been made that the budget will be presented if it's in the power of the government. Now we propose to make it within the power of the government to do that, and the way to do that, I suggest, is to not consider interim at this time but to rise and report the supplementary estimates, finish them up if we wish, proceed with the discussion of the next item on the Order Paper, get that one cleared, bring in the budget and we will undertake from my group, and I gather from the remarks of the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, that his group will also undertake - we will undertake that we will see that interim supply is voted before the end of the year. Now I give that undertaking. My honourable friend has given an undertaking on behalf of the government of what will be done. I give that undertaking on behalf of our group, and if the Leader of the C.C.F. Party is willing to do it, we can place the government in the position that it is perfectly sure - 1) That Rule 23 will be suspended for the rest of this Session, that the Budget can be brought down, and that interim supply can definitely be voted before the end of the fiscal year.

Now Mr. Chairman, under those circumstances, I suggest to my honourable friend the First Minister, that he think this matter over because I'm sure - I've given a lot of consideration


to it, and I'm quite certain that he has too - I'm sure that this procedure is the better one and because what would happen alternatively is that we would not refuse to consider these estimates. But look at the position that the whole House would be put in because we would feel it incumbent upon us to debate a good many of these items to a considerable extent, and we would find it very difficult to pass that Budget until the extension is before us in the form of the 1960 estimates. So I honestly think that this is a much better proposal that we're putting before the committee and I would urge the First Minister's consideration of it.

MR. STINSON: You take it - it's your turn.

MR. ROBLIN: All right. I'm delighted to have all these assurances as to what is going to happen with the interim supply and the budget, and we will be delighted to do our part in seeing this budget speech is made. However the government has decided that as regards interim supply, 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush', and we intend to continue with our request to the House that this method be adopted. Now the issue is clear. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party say 'no' on this particular procedure, and we say 'yes'. Now it's perfectly true that there's room for argument as to which of these two ways are most desirable, and I don't begrudge my honourable friend his point of view on it. It's a perfectly understandable point of view. Nevertheless, we have had the responsibility of bringing this in, and I think that we're entitled to have our view on it as well and we think that this is just as satisfactory a method, if not a better method than the one that has been suggested. So I simply repeat that the government's policy has been stated in the committee and I'm afraid we will adhere to it.

MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition left the matter open, that if the government insisted upon doing it this way, that he would not press the matter. That was my understanding. He thinks his method is better. And the way he argued it, it seemed to have a lot of logic in it. But if the government insists that we should have interim supply now on the old figures then I can see no harm in it. I actually do think that there may be more logic in the position taken by my Honourable Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but as I recall his speech, the one before last, that he left the matter open. He said that his group would agree to whichever decision the government made. So that I don't think that we need to make, perhaps, too big a thing out of this, and everybody is in a co-operative mood so far as getting the interim supply passed. Nobody seems to want to deny the government their right to issue some cheques next month, so that I suppose that on this particular point, we should follow the procedure as suggested by the Honourable the First Minister. Now, I don't want anyone to assume because I've said this, that we think that the suspension of Rule 23 is a great and wonderful thing. And that, as a matter of fact, is not under discussion at the moment. That is a separate order of business, and we'll have our say on that particular subject when we get to that part of the Order Paper. But the government must have interim supply. Everybody agrees that we should do it one way or another, and our honourable friend over there insists that it be done his way, well I suppose we should let it go that way.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to debate this matter at undue length, but where I've been in agreement with both of my honourable friends is this, that certainly we are willing to see interim supply granted under some method because, of course, as I said earlier, we want to see the government kept in funds to carry on the necessary work. Pay salaries, send out the cheques to various recipients. Of course we want to see that, but the reason that I appear to be persistent on this, is that we are so convinced that the other is the better way and because it is so readily to our hands, because all we need to do, Mr. Chairman, all we need to do is move on to the next motion. We will facilitate its passage and then the estimates can be brought in, laid before us; there's no delay - no nothing - and on that being done which implements to a considerable extent the undertaking of the First Minister, on that being done with those new estimates before us for the coming year, we are prepared then to pass either these estimates, although we think the others are better, either these or a quarter of the other estimates with again, a minimum of discussion and with, if necessary, the suspension of the rules, and in my opinion, that's a much better way than proceeding in this manner.

Now this method was the only way that we could proceed a week or ten days ago, and at that time this method was the perfectly proper one I would think, because there was no suggestion at that time that Rule 23 should be suspended. But once the First Minister stood up in his place


and said that it was the intention of the government to bring down a budget and that he would do everything in his power to see that that was done, then this other method became available and I am sure that my Honourable friend must have had something in mind like this himself, because we have been more than a week with that other motion standing on the Order Paper, and he made no effort to proceed with it when government business was reached. And I assumed that the reason that he was letting it stand, once he had made the announcement about being prepared to bring down the full budget, was that he intended to follow the method that I am suggesting. And that method now is available -- it wasn't before. And this is the way, I am sure, that we can proceed in the most satisfactory manner.

Now, once again I know what my honourable friend is like when he makes up his mind so perhaps there's no advantage in me beseeching him to use his own words or imploring him, was it, about the curtailment of debate. But once again I would urge him to consider this method - look how simple it is. We simply rise, and at the earliest convenience of the government, we complete the supplementary, that can be done as far as we are concerned -- under suspension of rule, it can be done immediately tonight if the bills are ready. If then the next motion is proceeded with, the estimates laid on this table of the House, and we go in to committee on them, and at that time -- that time, when we have those we're perfectly prepared to also pass the interim supply based on them, is our first recommendation, but, if that for some reason does not appeal to my honourable friend, then these that we have here, but we would much prefer to have the whole supply situation -- the whole budget position before us when we take that action.

MR. ROBLIN: ... the final statement I trust on this point, Mr. Chairman, and it's simply this. My honourable friends opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, he says "you can have interim supply on my terms," that's the long and short of his proposition and we decline the offer.

MR. F. L. JOBIN (Flin Flon): I think that statement should be corrected -- and the Leader of the Opposition said and the Leader of the C.C.F. said -- and I repeat what they said that they will not stop or impede the passage of these if the Leader of the government insists. So, that's a lot different than what the Leader of the government is now inferring that we said.

MR. STINSON: My honourable friend, the First Minister should withdraw that remark, he must have wax in his ears or something. He can't make a statement like that with all these witnesses about, and I think that's most unfair. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard him say in ten years in this House. I've said a lot of foolish things myself, but by Jove, that takes the cake, and he just can't get away with that.

MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the argument presented by the Leader of the government is based on the old adage that "one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." This seems to me to imply that he has no confidence in the undertaking given by the Leader of the Opposition, that the Leader of that -- this side of the House is ready to allow him to get the money that he needs to operate this province. And, he has this definite undertaking, and I think that he should accept it because otherwise some people will be inclined to believe that there is a refusal to give the full -- the full consideration of the state of the affairs of this Province of Manitoba budget-wise, because the budget is not only a speech with respect to monies and how it will be raised, but a budget is composed of two things -- the estimates - the estimates of the expenditures to be made, and also the estimates of how the money is going to be raised. So that it seems to me, that before any opposition worthy of the name agrees to pass an interim supply it should at least have the full supply before it.

MR. GREENLAY: I think that one of the important points in this has maybe been over-looked to some extent, although the leader of our group has set it forward quite clearly. I think that if we go on with interim supply at the present time as he has said, there will be no doubt considerable debate and discussion on the various items which are included in here, and I think rightly so, not having anything else before us. And so, Mr. Chairman, I think that it could be that this might take some considerable time where the other method is one which will facilitate the granting of the interim supply and will defer the discussion until a later date with regard to the estimates for the coming year. I think that's important.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... question?


MR. CHAIRMAN: We haven't got to one. We were about to read the Resolve of the Interim


Supply. Order! You all have these papers before you. I presume you've kept them, and the resolution is; resolved that a sum not exceeding $16,723,405.00 be the amount of the interim supply estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960, laid before the House at the present Session of the Legislature, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the Honourable the First Minister is refusing to entertain the suggestions that have been made from this side. Well, I can only say that I think that is a grave error on the part of my honourable friend, because the procedures that we recommend would provide for supply -- interim supply, we guarantee before the close of the fiscal year, and quite frankly, we do not like this procedure as well. I think if this procedure is going to be adopted, then we will at least have to give consideration to the individual items rather than passing the motion in the way that has been suggested here. We have a perfect right to ask for them to be considered item by item.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, the items are listed here and as far as the government is concerned we recognize the right of the committee to discuss them as long as they like.

I would say this, that the principle involved in this appreciation of money, of course, is not that of the itemized approval of the various accounts that are listed here. All that is being asked for really is a lump sum to carry on the administration of the province for the -- until such time as the regular budget is passed. Now, in order to do that, it is necessary to make reference to the itemized list of the accounts last year, and I suppose if members of the House wish to discuss them seriatim - one at a time - starting in with "Assembly" and working through, well, we certainly have no power or wish to prevent them from doing so -- let them go ahead and do so. We'll do our best to -- with them, but I simply say that the amount being asked for in a lump sum does not include capital items; does not include statutory items; but merely these items that are necessary for the day to day operation of government business. So, I merely say that by way of explanation of this resolution and the various sums which go to make it up.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I think that the statement that the Honourable, the First Minister has just made simply points up the fact of how much better it would be to proceed in the other way, because he has said himself that here we are -- here we are, passing in here, a very substantial amount of money - almost $17 million dollars, which he would ask us to pass in a lump sum, and bearing some relation of course, but not being truly indicative of the figures for the coming year, that we should be considering.

Now, if we were having the full estimates before us, then when we discuss these items we're talking about the increases that our honourable friends propose, and here we are instead, I had no objection - none whatever, to this method when it was proposed a week or ten day ago because it was the only thing that could be done under our rules, but with the suspension of Rule 23, already provided for, this -- well but [Interjection]. Pardon? It is already provided for my honourable friend because you have undertaken to move it, and it's on the Order Paper, and both groups have undertaken to support it. So, it's already provided for, that's the term I used -- that's the term I repeat. [Interjection] It's still provided for--it's still provided for because the amendment will add to it, not detract from it. It's already provided for. It will strengthen it, because we are entirely in agreement that the budget should be brought down and a full disclosure made. The amendment will not weaken it in any sense -- it will stengthen it -- so it is provided for, and with that already provided for, then it becomes so easy to have the estimates for the coming year before us rather than these for the past year.

Mr. Chairman, I protest against this type of a stand by the government - I protest in the most vehement terms, because I think it's completely undemocractic, and that the House, particularly one constituted in the way that we are, should be prepared to take into consideration the suggestions that we have made.

MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the Honourable the First Minister doesn't want to listen to any logic or reason this afternoon. He has made up his mind and we might as well get on with these estimates, and I think that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition is correct when he says that they should be taken up item by item. We can't pass 17 million dollars just in two minutes in some flippant fashion, and some examination of the activities of the various departments must be made and this seems to be the only opportunity that we have to do so -- at this session. There may be other opportunities, we don't know. But surely


there should be some place during the course of the session for an examination of the departmental work, and we have no alternative now but to do it in this way. So that, the First Minister has laid down his own little law that it must be done in this particular manner. So, on this side of the House, we have no alternative but to examine these estimates item by item. But let me assure him that it will not be done with any thought of delaying the work of the House or by crippling the administration so far as paying the bills are concerned. We are quite prepared to have the business of the province continue, as of April the 1st of this year. We're not going to throw any roadblocks in the way at all -- we just want to have a proper discussion.

MR. CAMPBELL: With that statement that's been made by the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F., I find myself in agreement because certainly we do not want to be placed in a position by the arbitrary, and I repeat and emphasize arbitrary action of the government, of having the public feel that we are refusing to vote supply. Because if we didn't vote supply, and if my honourable friend did what he would like to do under those circumstances, and try and pretend that the situation was intolerable, then he would be in the position that he would be financing by special warrants -- and we're not in favour of financing by special warrants. And so, I suggest that the only way to do to avoid my honourable friend having the opportunity of doing something of that nature is perhaps to proceed with these estimates item by item. But I would like to remind my honourable friend, and I'm not going to do him the injustice of asking him to restate his position. I simply remind him that he has given a firm undertaking to this House, that the government will not take advantage of the fact that we pass this supply and dissolve the House without bringing down a budget, if it was within his power and we are going to make it within his power to do it because we want to see it. And, I give him the undertaking that we will see that it is within his power, and a full budget, and that that there be full consideration of the coming year's estimate. That's what we understand, the Honourable the First Minister's statement to mean, and if that isn't what it means, then he'd better say so now.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Chairman -- I must say that I repudiate entirely any suggestions that we are proceeding in an undemocratic or arbitrary manner, as has been suggested by some of my honourable friends opposite. I merely say that we have this view of our responsibilities in placing supply before the House. Now, I think we are entitled to have that view, and I don't think that it deserves the descriptions that have been made of it.

My honourable friend opposite has said himself that this was the procedure that he would have undertaken some time ago, and that is the one we did adopt. One doesn't know what will transpire from here on in. We thought we would come to this item much sooner than we did, but we didn't, and perhaps we should have made arrangements to see that we did, and so, we accept any blame there is attached to that. It simply occurred to us that we would come to it in the normal course of business, until events of the last few days showed that that wasn't to be the case. So, we feel that this is a defensible way of introducing this piece of business into the House. Now, I naturally regret if it doesn't meet with the unanimous support of members of the House, but nevertheless, we must re-affirm our position that we think that this is an eminently satisfactory and practical way of doing it. Now, I don't want to re-hash everything that has been said heretofore, but I merely state that that is our position.

Now, with respect to the budget, I would like my honourable friends to read carefully the words that I used when I spoke on this matter. I am going -- giving those words, or making the proposal that I suggested at that time and placing before the House the motion that is on the Order Paper today. I think that the Government went far farther than constitutional usage or any considerations of that sort would entitle anyone to expect it to go. Nevertheless, we have made that statement, and I will bring down the budget if it is within my power to do so.

Now, the words that I used are cleared on Hansard. Those words and those words alone constitute my undertaking to the Chamber, let that be clearly understood.

MR. STINSON: I take it then that the strategy of my Honourable friend is to bring down the budget and then taking a leaf from the book of John Diefenbaker -- Wrong Way Corrigan Diefenbaker -- and promptly walk over to the Lieutenant-Governor, and ask for dissolution of the House. And, that is the only deduction that one can make from what he has said. He will feel that his undertaking has been discharged once he has made his budget speech, and then, there would not be an opportunity for analysis and for a full and proper discussion of that budget.


MR. JOBIN: Rather than have assumptions of what the First Minister means, may I ask him does his statement mean that he does not anticipate even if given the opportunity, of bringing in the detailed estimates for the Province of Manitoba for the year 1961 or whatever the current year is?

MR. ROBLIN: It would be my hope to place the estimates before the House.

MR. JOBIN: And to deal with them and have them passed if it's within your power?

MR. ROBLIN: Who know what will happen?

MR. JOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if I may point out that is the "fly in the ointment". It is also one reason why I think we on this side, will be entitled to debate and question every item in the interim supply.

MR. ROBLIN: Carry on! Carry on!

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I ask the House to reflect on how can the Honourable the First Minister say that they thought they would have reached this item sooner than they have, because they have reached it many times. It's within the power of the government to proceed in any order that it wishes, as soon as government business is reached, and we've reached it every day -- it's been government day since--since I guess about March 17th, me -- on some occasions on private members day.

But let me recall what the First Minister himself said at that time, on page 74--page 74, he said, "there are two alternatives before us" -- down near the bottom of the page. "One is to ask for suspension of the rules and proceed to committee of supply today." Now I should read that in full, I missed a few words, "One is to ask for suspension of the rules of the House --"

MR. ROBLIN: What day is that?

MR. CAMPBELL: The 17th.

MR. ROBLIN: What day of the week?

MR. CAMPBELL: 17th? Tuesday, a week ago Tuesday. "One is to ask for suspension of the rules of the House and proceed to committee of supply today. And, it was my intention to consult the wishes of the House on that particular point. The other plan that is open to us, of course, is to move for Committee of Supply to meet tomorrow." Tomorrow--the next day, which was a government day. Which would be in accordance with ordinary procedure -- "if it meets better the wish of the House, then I would be quite prepared to move the latter resolution," which he had said would be tomorrow. And, a little later on, because I am skipping some of it, we have after a couple of paragraphs - "If we take the usual course, it means that my explanation will be given tomorrow, and perhaps not the same opportunity for consideration that we might have." This was a week ago Tuesday, and this was -- if those words mean what they say -- that we are promised consideration of this matter a week ago yesterday. Now the plain intimation there was, that because we were drawing toward the end of the month, and it's a perfectly reasonable explanation -- that we would move quickly toward supply. And, we were quite in accord with that procedure. But, a little later on, not because of anything that this side of the House did, my honourable friend changes his tactics and has a lot of speeches going on from that side, on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Now -- and then still a little later on, he decides to promise that a budget will be brought down -- and I give him credit for that. I'm certainly all in favour of that. That's a proper move, but the minute that move was made, the situation completely changed because he said that he would move to have Rule 23 suspended and when that was put into motion, then the whole situation changes and becomes available to us to have the estimates of the coming year before us.

But, the important question is the one that was asked by the Honourable Member for Flin Flon. And my honourable friend gave more of an undertaking than he mentioned just a minute ago. Because, if I can find the place, and this is in the Hansard of the next day.

MR. ROBLIN: You're kind of glad we have Hansard now.

MR. CAMPBELL: Well, I've been glad twice today that we have Hansard, because I'm afraid that my honourable friend would be rather a difficult fellow to pin down if we didn't have Hansard. Anyway, on the second last page, March the 18th, "However, there is another objection which I can foresee being raised by some honourable members -- some members may say yes, your argument is right up to a point. They may say, you may be defeated in this House - it is possible that you may be -- the public generally in the Province may be in the throes of an election and this sort of thing may be required. But, supposing it doesn't happen. There are


always two possibilities. One, that the government may be defeated in the House, and secondly, that the government may ask His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor for a dissolution. What about that contingency?" By the way, the word "contingency" is in here as "contingent", but I'm reading it as contingency, because I am sure that's what my honourable friend said. ... Same page I was on when I gave it a little while ago - page 102. And reading the word as I'm sure my honourable friend used it, "What about that contingency? And if we make a vote of this sort, would it not be possible then on the basis of having the money in hand to run the government, for the First Minister and his colleague to go the Lieutenant-Governor and say 'Please give us a dissolution, we don't have to bring in a budget now.'" That's exactly the point that my honourable friend from Flin Flon has just raised. "Please give us a dissolution. We don't have to bring in a budget now. We don't have to place our economic and our financial proposals before the House. We can avoid the necessity of explaining our situation in a full debate, and discussion in this House in terms of budget debate, and just go to the country without having made that form of statement to the House."

Now, that's the point that my honourable friend raised. And here's what the Honourable the First Minister replied. "I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I give a categorical undertaking that no restrictions or reservations whatsoever, that inasfar as it lies within the power of this government, we will bring down the budget; we will have a budget speech; we will place our measures before the House and before the country. We'll do these things if it's within our power to do it. I give my honourable friends positive assurance, that I for one if it is within my power will bring in that budget speech, and that I shall not, together with my colleagues recommend a dissolution to His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, until that speech has been delivered." That is the point that my honourable friend raises, and it's the one on which the First Minister is not prepared to give the same undertaking that he was before, because he gave a categorical undertaking, with no restrictions or reservations insofar as it lies within his power -- "we will bring down the budget, we will have a budget speech, we will place our measures before the House and before the country." Well, what we're asking in addition to that is that the budget speech be thoroughly considered and the estimates be laid before the House as well, and we're entitled to that undertaking because my honourable friend was very brave - very definite about this statement that he made, and I think the province would like to know, if at this stage, he's going to back down on that in any degree whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, if he is, then we'd like to know it right now.

MR. STINSON: It seems obvious to me that the Honourable the First Minister gave this House as the previous speaker has said, a categorical undertaking, to bring down a budget without reservation. Now, I wonder just how these words should be interpreted. Should we place a narrow interpretation upon those words and say that the government should bring down the budget, and then shut off discussion? Would that be bringing down a budget, and would that be bringing it down without reservation? Or, should we put what I would consider to be a broader interpretation and a more correct interpretation upon those words -- that bringing down a budget without reservation would involve discussion of that budget; it would involve discussion of the proposals in that budget; would involve discussion of the estimates in connection with that budget. And it would seem to me that the honourable gentleman across the way wants to have a sort of one-way street, in which the Tories would have a monopoly. Only the Tories would march on that street, because in this connection, with a political trick of this kind, it would be certainly a one-way street as I have endeavoured to describe. Now, when my honourable friend gave the House an undertaking that he would bring down a budget, my understanding was that it would involve a proper discussion of the terms of that budget. He said that he would not ask for dissolution of this House before bringing down the budget. Now today he is beginning to back-track from that, and I don't think it does him any credit. Now I have been somewhat dubious about this matter right from the beginning, about having the budget brought down, because I think it is a most unconstitutional procedure. That of course can be debated on the resolution, but my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, has included me in his remarks so far as saying that it is the proper thing to do. I'm not sure that it is the proper thing to do. It seems to me it strikes right at the constitutional procedure that has been established in British Parliaments all down through the ages, that the government must have won the confidence of the House before it lays its financial proposals before that House, but in these unusual


circumstances it has been thought desirable that it should be done in this way; and we may have to bow to that. Perhaps it is desirable because we're in this House, we're in a peculiar position; but I still don't feel quite right about it, and I wonder just how the First Minister himself feels about it because he's the one who likes to do things in a proper manner, and just because he was challenged by the official opposition to place the budget before the House, does that make it a proper thing to do? Now, I've always thought that the Conservative party wanted to uphold the traditions of parliament, and the proper procedure of parliament and this is something that, to my way of thinking at the moment, goes right against those traditions. Now you could prove me to be wrong. I don't claim to be a constitutional authority, but it strikes me, Sir, that the Honourable the First Minister, is trying to carve out a path for himself here that will be to his own political advantage and not necessarily for the advantage of the people of Manitoba. And I don't think this is worthy of him. Someone the other day -- I think it was the Honourable the Minister of Education, said in that famous speech of his which will go down in history, the one that my honourable friend from Rhineland is so fond of quoting, but he also said in that speech that the present First Minister will do down in history as the greatest Premier this province has ever had. And I'm glad to note that the gentleman in question is modest enough to sort of hang his head down a bit. The Honourable the Minister of Education told that audience of his that the government members would have a better entree to departments and indicated that we should have a one-party state in Manitoba; that we should elect the Tories in every riding and then we would have a wonderful set of conditions in the Province of Manitoba. Then if we had every riding represented by a conservative, then they would have an entree to the offices of the ministers and everything would be lovely and we would have arrived at Utopia in Manitoba. But the way the Honourable the First Minister, is behaving this afternoon would lead me to believe that we are travelling in the opposite direction.

MR. S. JUBA (Logan): Mr. Speaker, as I have stated before, although I sit on this side of the House that does not necessarily mean that the management on this side shares with my opinions ... I certainly retain my political independence and I was very interested to hear some of the remarks made by the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. He went on to accuse the Premier of manoeuvering for political advantage. Now I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the same applies to the C.C.F. and the Liberals. Let's face reality -- let's face reality. No question about that; no question about that at all. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we pass this item of almost 17 million dollars and leave it up to the Premier to dissolve the House when he so desires, because if you continue as you've continued and have continued in the past, in my humble opinion, you're going to see another Diefenbaker landslide in the Province of Manitoba. And I say that for good reasons because I do not believe that it makes way for a good government to have a top-heavy government and therefore I say that the quicker we get down to business and pass this item of 17 million dollars and leave it entirely up to the Premier to call an election when he sees fit, and I think you will all come out on top a little better than carry on the way you are carrying on at the present time.

MR. BEND: Mr. Chairman, following that independent speech, I would like to say a few words because I have watched this with interest, and so far I have not taken part in it at all because I listened with great interest when the Honourable the First Minister presented the speech that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition has quoted from; and although he and I at different times might have not agreed, I certainly felt that he was doing the right thing and hence so far my reluctance to get into this debate which started out over a bit of procedure, and I wasn't too much concerned because I knew that rule 23, its abolition for this session would be, the rescinding of it would be asked for, and I felt that that would be a reasonable request, because I had heard the Honourable the First Minister say that he was anxious, and he said it in his most emphatic manner, Mr. Chairman, that he was anxious to get before the members of this House the financial picture of his government. And I thought that under the circumstances that certainly I could agree with that and now today, following a simple question from my colleague the Honourable Member from Flin Flon -- one which was passing through my mind as this debate proceeded -- now what did the Honourable the First Minister mean, Mr. Chairman? Does the suspension of Rule 23 simply mean that the First Minister is asking the opportunity to give an election speech under the name of a budget speech and then dissolve the House? Is that what he meant? Or did he really mean what I was sure he meant, and sincerely hope he does


mean, that he was going to go as far as was within his power, meaning of course that the Throne Speech could bring an end to that power -- did he really mean, when he gave us that speech that as far as it was possible, he would put before the members of this House, which of course meant the people of Manitoba, the full picture, not a budget speech, and ending at that, because now I have my doubts. I wonder if that is what he meant when he referred the honourable member to his speech, because I believe it does say budget speech. And is that what is meant? A budget speech with no opportunity to examine the finances of the province? Surely that's not what he meant. Surely he doesn't think that that would be playing the game. That we would hear the proposals from that side of the House with no opportunity to examine them, either in a kind of a way that would commend him, or a critical way. Are we only given this sheet of paper here in order that we can try by asking a whole lot of questions that would be unnecessary if the full picture was placed before us? Is that too much? And so far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, I simply say this -- I think this matter should be cleared up and cleared up in a way it can be. The First Minister taking his place, and saying "gentlemen--honourable gentlemen", I suppose he would have to say in this case, "this is what I mean. I want to lay in front of you, and through you to the people of this province, exactly what the financial policies of this government are. I welcome debate as long as I have the power to welcome that debate, and if you or the House sees fit to defeat my government then, of course, my obligation can go no further."

In other words was the obligation, that I thought sure was offered a few days ago, one in which the Session would proceed as far as was possible through it's normal course within his power? That there was no political trickery involved. That is the kind of a speech I would like to hear from the First Minister now so we all know where we are at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is 5:30, and I shall leave the Chair until 8:00 o'clock this evening.

Manitoba Hansard

Page revised: 22 September 2009