MR. SPEAKER: O Eternal and Almighty God from Whom all power and wisdom come; by Whom Kings rule and make equitable laws; we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our Province: grant O Merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy Will; that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the Glory and Honour of Thy Name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.
MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Petition of FOLKERT PLANTINGA, RAYMOND THEMMEN, and others, praying for the passing of An Act to incorporate The Greater Winnipeg Society for Christian Education.
MR. W. B. SCARTH, Q.C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Petition of St. Charles Country Club, praying for the passing of An Act to amend an Act to incorporate St. Charles Country Club.
MR. M. E. McKELLAR (Souris-Lansdowne): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Petition of E. R. R. Mills, Jeannette S. Moss, Fanny F. Goldenberg and others, praying for the passing of An Act to incorporate Grand Chapter of Manitoba, Order of the Eastern Star.
MR. SPEAKER: Petitions. Presenting Reports of Standing and Select Committees.
Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
Orders of the Day
HONOURABLE DUFF ROBLIN (Premier): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, may I refer to the custom of this House to seek an early opportunity to bring to remembrance the name of former members of this House that have passed away since our last meeting. And today it is my duty, Sir, to present two such motions of condolence to the families of those of two members of this House who died since we last met. I would like to move, Sir, seconded by the Honourable Member for Ethelbert that this House convey to the family of the late William Lisowsky who served as a member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement and its appreciation of his devotion to duty in the useful life of active community and public service and that Mr. Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, it was not my privilege to know personally the member whose name we remember today though I believe there are a number in this House who did have the pleasure of sitting in this Assembly with him. He was a representative, Sir, for five years of the constituency of Ethelbert. Mr. Lisowsky was not born in Canada. He came to this country at the age of 17 years from the Ukraine and I think that it speaks well for his life and work to think that he was able to become a member of this Legislature and to represent ably, as I am sure he did, the people of one of the important constituencies of the Province of Manitoba. I am glad, Sir, that the Honourable Member for Ethelbert has allowed me to couple his name to mine in presenting this resolution to the House as I know that he will be able to speak about this honourable gentleman as well.
MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the First Minister for giving me this opportunity to pay tribute to a man who was a very close personal friend and a friend of our family for many, many years. As the First Minister mentioned, Mr. Lisowsky came to Canada as a youth, 17 years of age, without any knowledge of the English language and in the few years after he arrived here, he was able to qualify as a public school teacher. It was in that particular profession that I first became acquainted with him. It is well known to the members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that a great many
immigrants from various parts of Europe, especially from central Europe came over here for one primary reason and that was to take advantage of an opportunity to make the lives of their children better than what their own was.
The Lisowskys as well as many others had to work pretty hard in order to gather enough to put their young son William, through school. He repaid them many fold. He was one that always was very deeply concerned with the plight of his fellow citizens and he was always ready and willing to assist in any way he could. He entered politics in the disastrous thirties. He was always, as I have said, a very close friend of our family. My father was a sitting member at that time for the Ethelbert constituency and he was defeated by Mr. Lisowsky who ran on the Social Credit ticket. These political differences were never allowed to interfere with our personal friendship. Knowing Mr. Lisowsky as we did, we were satisfied that he felt that there was an opportunity to serve his fellow men. He felt that probably there was the chance that he could put them into better circumstances, make their life a little easier and he was convinced that that was one way in which he could do it.
He served the people well and until his death he assisted in community efforts and took part in any public service that was open to him. He moved with his family from north Manitoba nearer to Winnipeg when his own children were growing up so that he could give them the opportunity to attain a higher education that what he did. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this was one man that really dedicated himself to the service of his fellow citizens and I consider it an honour to be the seconder of this motion.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, our group wishes to join with the First Minister and the Honourable Member for Ethelbert to endorse the resolution presented before you. I did not have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Lisowsky but I do always admire anyone, particularly those who came here immigrants of their willingness of entering public life to serve the province, to serve Canada in the interests of the people he belongs to and at the same time, honoured himself and honoured the Ukrainian immigrants in Canada who are now representing public life in many legislatures and parliaments in Canada. I say that it is a very great accomplishment for a man that came to Canada, without the language and manage to not only occupy a high position as a teacher to train others, but also the fact that he was willing to sacrifice his time and probably his financial future, to enter public life.
We join in the sympath expressed and we hope that many other of the immigrants will be encouraged by his memory to enter public life and make their contribution to our province and country.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as one of the comparative small number who are now in the House who had the privilege of sitting with Bill Lisowsky, I would like to join in the expressions of condolence and appreciation that have been tendered by members who have preceded me. I think it is correct to say, as the First Minister has said, that it is, and others, it is very much to the credit of a young man who came here without knowing the language of this country and without knowing its customs, and certainly with very little of this world's goods to endow, and yet was able to make such progress that for a period he was honoured with the confidence of the constituency of Ethelbert. And then as the honourable gentleman who now occupies that same seat, the Honourable Member for Ethelbert has said, these folk were largely encouraged to do this because of the fact that they wanted to give to their children better opportunities than they had had themselves. And that is certainly equally true. I think there is a third thing that should be mentioned in the same connection, however, and Bill Lisowsky would have been one of the very first to say it, and many others can join in that expression too, that it is a pretty good country, a mighty good country that gives this opportunity to people who come here in that way. It is a pretty good country that gives them the chance to so improve themselves, to so accept those opportunities that they can become a representative of a large community in the legislature and it is a pretty good thing about the people of this province and this country with all the deficiencies that we have, and we have a great many, that we can all work here as one people when we arrive here. And Bill Lisowsky is only one and he would be the first to admit this too, only one of a great number of the race to which he belonged who have come to this province and to this country and made a similar contribution. And I want to join with the expressions of appreciation to Mr. Lisowsky and the condolences that were
extended to his family.
MR. SPEAKER: Will the members please rise in tribute to the late member?
MR. ROBLIN: I wish now, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable Member for Osborne to move a second resolution of condolence and respect in these words: that this House convey to the family of the late Edwin A. Hansford who served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement and its appreciation of his devotion to duty in a useful life of active community and public service and that Mr. Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I count it as a very great privilege to have served in this Legislature with such a man as the late Mr. Hansford. He had a fine open happy character. It epitomizes everything that I think of when I think of the term "a good citizen" because, certainly, that he was. He was a Nova Scotian by birth, I believe, and he served in the first war in which he was very seriously wounded and bore the effects of that for many years. He was a man who held many important positions in the trade union movement, particularly in the railway field which I believe was his special interest, his occupation, his life's work in many ways. He sat in this House for eight years as a member in the opposition and for a number of those years, he sat as the Leader of the C.C.F. party. After he left this House, he became a very distinguished mayor of the city of St. Boniface. I can remember, Mr. Hansford Sir, vividly because I sat almost behind him on the other side of the House and had an opportunity to watch him as he took his part in public affairs, to observe the sound leadership that he gave to his party and to reflect upon the balance and humane view that he always tried to bring to the affairs of the province that were discussed in this House. He is a man, Sir, that I think we will all remember with affection and with respect.
MR. LLOYD STINSON (Leader of the C.C.F. Party): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being named seconder of this motion and I want to thank the First Minister for so doing. I asked a long time friend of Ed Hansford this morning what he thought the chief characteristic of our departed friend was, and he summed it up in one word - "Friendliness" - and I think every member of this House who knew Ed would agree with that. He had a genuine liking for people and people in return liked him. On the other hand, he had a quick temper and he could be fierce in his condemnation of any injustice that he could see or of anyone that he thought was unfair.
His greatest public service was, I think, to his own city of St. Boniface. He served not only as mayor of that city but for fourteen years he was an alderman there and I think that it was during that period that he won the support and the friendship of many people. He accepted nomination in 1957 in the constituency of St. Vital after strong persuasion from members of our party. And I think if his health had been maintained, and I say this will all due to respect to the present member for that seat, that he would have been elected in St. Vital. I don't think anyone in that area, in the St. Boniface and St. Vital area could have defeated Ed Hansford and it was not just because of his party, it was because of his own personality as well. He had a tremendous personal following and it was because of his service and because of the way in which he carried out that service that he was so popular a candidate.
As the First Minister has said, he was a faithful trade unionist, and held many offices in the labour movement. In addition to that he was a labour representative on the Board of Governors of the University of Manitoba. And when I spoke yesterday to an official of the University about Mr. Hansford, it was said of him that he was level-headed and that was the description given by the University president, of Ed Hansford, that he was level-headed.
And so, Sir, we regard this as a sad occasion. Ed Hansford was not only a co-worker, but a personal friend of mine. For some time I sat behind him and for a short period in this House, he sat behind me. Our personal relations were always of the best. So we wish to associate ourselves with this motion of condolence to Mrs. Hansford and the other members of the Hansford family.
MR. R. TEILLET (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be remiss in my duty if I did not add my words of condolence and certainly words in support of this motion of
condolence to the family of Ed Hansford. I did not have the privilege of sitting in this House with him. I succeeded him here. However, I did have many opportunities of knowing Ed Hansford. I say with all sincerity and I know that he would have me say this, that in all the times that I have known him, Ed Hansford was to me a friend and a counsellor. Although our paths may have differed, in some broad approach to problems that face us in our communities, I invariably found agreement not only in the aims but in the means to those aims, in anything that we ever discussed that we both thought would be of benefit to our city and to our community.
Perhaps where I did learn to know him best, as a member of the Advisory Board of St. Boniface hospital, because there I believe those very human qualities of Ed Hansford that have already been referred to, perhaps were given an opportunity for expression in a field where you are actually dealing directly with human suffering. His contribution to the administration of St. Boniface Hospital, his attention to those factors that affected directly not only those who had need of the services of the hospital but their families and those who were affected directly or indirectly in any way, gave Ed perhaps that opportunity of showing those qualities which were inherent in him, those qualities that have already been referred to here.
I am going to miss Ed Hansford very greatly. I could even at the beginning, during, or after a political campaign, go to him, call at his home where one was always well received, discuss with him problems that affected our community and never at any time did he ever hesitate to give me the advice that I sought to help me to work to the end that we both wanted. I think it can be said, in all truthfulness, that St. Boniface is today a better city, it is a better community because Ed Hansford had passed there.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, having the honour to represent part of the constituency where our late friend had the honour of being the mayor, I feel that it is proper for me to add to the tribute that is being paid to a man. Not only was my connection with Mr. Hansford that of politics, we also had dealings because we both worked for the same organization, the railway. As has been said, Mr. Hansford was an ardent trade unionist, he was a general chairman of his organization.
I had the honour of having him as my co-mate in the federal election in 1945. We were not successful in our endeavours but I learned at that time from Ed Hansford that there is more in a campaign than simply winning it. It is the understanding and the ability to take a defeat gracefully. And I am sure at any time when Mr. Hansford in his political career was defeated in his endeavours for public office, he took them gracefully. And I think, generally, Mr. Speaker, that is the way he lived. He leaves behind him a very fine wife, a very fine family which I think are a tribute to him and we know that his name will live in his constituency in the minds of people who believe in freedom and uprightiousness for years to come. I join in the tribute to his memory.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the late Ed Hansford was so well known by so many members of this House and certainly by such numbers of the public that there seems to be little need of us to attempt to say too much about him. On the other hand, because as with many others he was a personal friend of mine as well as a fellow member of the House for quite a long time, I would like to join with the tributes that have been paid to him and the condolences that were extended to his family. It has been mentioned here that Ed Hansford had a great career in public service, a really great career. I think as the Honourable, the First Minister, has pointed out that that public career began almost with his duration service in World War I and the serious wounds that he received at that time were something that would have certainly curbed, if not entirely thwarted, the energies of a lesser man for a long time, if not forever, and certainly they did contribute to his early passing. It has been mentioned also that Ed's vocation was with the Canadian National Railways and in that work he was tremendously interested and laboured diligently with his colleagues being of power, I am sure, in the Brotherhood of Trainmen. His service on the Board of Governors has been mentioned and I am sure that he did bring that institution the good fellowship and the practical outlook that he at all times exhibited.
We have to admit that in politics he supported the C.C.F. He had been an executive member for some time and a president of the Manitoba organization and certainly rendered great service to the C.C.F. party. A good many years ago he became an alderman of the city
of St. Boniface and he served there for 14 or 15 years. Later, after service in this House he became the mayor. He was a candidate at one time, in Federal affairs as well as in Provincial. In 1945, I believe it was, he was elected to this Legislature and stayed here for eight or nine years and for a period of four years led the C.C.F. party in this House. I believe he is one former member where the retirement was voluntary. It is always interesting to see that some people retire from here voluntarily.
But I think, Mr. Speaker, and this has been also said, that these things do not tell the Ed Hansford story because his activities outside and his interests outside of his public affairs, though they were certainly distinguished, his activities outside and that personality that we have spoken of are the real story of Ed Hansford -- the community interests that he had -- the interest that he took in his more than one fraternal organization -- in the church, and above all, in his family. As the Honourable Member who has just spoken and the successor in the seat say, he has a very outstanding family, just the kind you would expect Ed Hansford to have and he was tremendously proud of them. And then his friends. He had a wonderful capacity for making friends and it was able to completely transcend any differences of party politics or differing points of view, and so that's why I think that he leaves behind him so many real friends throughout the length and breadth of this country. I certainly agree that St. Boniface, this House, Manitoba and the community at large is much the better of people like Ed Hansford, having been with us for a good life-span, and I sincerely extend my sympathy to the members of his very fine family.
MR. GROVES (St. Vital): I would like to add just a few words to what has been said of the late Mr. Hansford. I was not personally acquainted with Mr. Hansford, although for many years he was my member in this House, and although he and I did not see things eye to eye politically, Mr. Hansford was well regarded in my part of the constituency, and I think we would all agree did an excellent job of representing those people in this House. For the last few months I was Mr. Hansford's member in this House, and for the past few months of his life he was practically a neighbour of mine in that he lived only a few streets over from myself in St. Vital. Although as I say, I was not acquainted personally with Mr. Hansford, he and I were both members of the same church, United Church of Canada, he and I were both members of a great fraternal organization to whom I heard much of Mr. Hansford's devotion and service to his fellow man. It, therefore, gives me Mr. Speaker, great pleasure to add my condolences to the resolution that has been presented at this time.
MR. SPEAKER: Members please rise in solemn tribute to the late member.
MR. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are reached, I beg leave to lay on the table of the House the annual report of the Department of Public Works.
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Education. This morning's Free Press carried a story under the headline "Clergymen Protest Exclusion of Metis from School District." It goes on to refer to a letter which has been sent by the Minsterial Association of The Pas with regard to students living at Young's Point, near The Pas, who have been denied the opportunity of attending schools in The Pas, and the story quotes the letter as saying "the decision is discrimination determined in part by racial origin, and further we conclude that the Board was influenced by views expressed on other occasions by certain members of the School Board and Council to the effect that the children involved were undesirable because of their home background." It says the association has asked the Minister of Education to overrule this board's decision. I wonder if the Minister can tell us something about this, Mr. Speaker?
HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member drew to my attention yesterday the news report to which he has referred. I perhaps should explain that there is presently underway the consolidation of certain school districts in and about the Town of The Pas, and the letter to which he has referred arises by reason of the fact that the Ministerial Association feels that the place called Young's Point should have been included in the Consolidated School District. It was not, and they have written to me. Within
a matter of about 15 minutes from the time of receiving the letter yesterday morning, I telephoned the President of the Ministerial Association at The Pas to point out to him that the Minister of Education has no discretion whatsoever in this matter and that an appeal to myself was of no avail. I pointed out to him the procedure that was available, and offered to him, the services of course, of the School Inspector, to see that their appeal was properly brought to the attention of those concerned.
I think I should point out, however, in fairness that the suggestion of racial discrimination is probably an accurate one, because the arbitrators, two of them, one came from Swan River, two came from Flin Flon and of the three two of them were police magistrates, who I am certain would view the matter in a judicial manner and I think that the suggestion of racial discrimination is probably not well founded.
One other aspect, while I am answering the question, is with respect to the people who live at this particular location. The Department of Education recognizes its responsibilities with respect to these children and will discharge them in accordance with the usual method and see that they are provided with education, whether it's in The Pas or elsewhere will really make no difference. We will see that they are provided with the necessary educational facilities.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, before Orders of the Day, I wish to present a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. Namely, the matter of urging the Government of Canada to disallow legislation enacted by the Province of Newfoundland aimed at the destruction of the Trade Union Movement, and in accordance with the rules I would submit this now to you, Sir.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, if you would kindly read that resolution again I think it would help the House because there may be a point of order involved in this.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, a matter or urging the Government of Canada to disallow legislation enacted by the Province of Newfoundland, aimed at the destruction of the Trade Union Movement.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, there is as I suspected on first hearing, two points of order, at any rate, that occurred to me as to why it would not be proper, within the rules and traditions of the House to proceed with the adjournment, with this motion to adjourn, so that we might discuss the matter that the Honourable, the Leader of the CCF Party has raised.
I think the first point that I would like to make is on the question of urgency. Now there is some difficulty in understanding at times the nature of the resolution that may be brought in this connection and the relationship of urgency to the resolution. I submit, Sir, that the authorities that we have at hand quite clearly lay it down that the urgency of the subject matter is not the point that is under question, and I for one will make no comment upon the urgency of the subject matter of the motion that is before us. The question of urgency has to do with the urgency of debate. In other words, is it essential for the public interest that we should debate this matter at this present time, or are there reasonable opportunities to debate the same subject later on in accordance with the regular procedure and rules of the House.
Now on that point, Sir, I would submit that whatever one thinks of the urgency of the subject matter -- and it is certainly a matter of national interest -- and I'm quite certain on that point, there is really no urgency of debate, because everybody knows that the Dominion Parliament itself, the Attorney-General there has not yet received a copy of the law to know what is in it, as to whether it should be disallowed or not -- and maybe my honourable friend has received a copy of it -- but it's certainly not in the hands, according to yesterday's paper, of those who have the responsibility for dealing with it. And secondly, I would suggest to him that he will have an opportunity in the Throne Speech, which is going to be next item under discussion, according to the, the Order Paper, either at some quite reasonable time, Monday or Tuesday, to ventilate this whole matter to his heart's content. I'm sure that ample room will be found within the reference of that speech to debate this matter.
So, on the question of the urgency of debate I submit to you that there is no such urgency. And I would refer you, Sir, in the matter of authority to Beauschene, the third edition, and to paragraphs 172 to 180 which deal with this matter in particular, and I would particularly,
without reading all of those sections which bear on the same point, perhaps I could restrict myself to the meat of the matter which will be found in paragraph 174, and this is what it says, "Urgency within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means urgency of debate when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussions take place immediately." That is the first point of order, Sir, that the urgency of debate does not exist in this connection, and therfore, this matter is not in order at the present time. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss this in the normal procedure of the House.
But there is another rule, Sir, that is well established in connection with this matter, by which it is also out of order at the present time. And that is, it has to do with a matter that is not within the administrative competency of this legislature. We have no authority to deal with this matter within the power of this province. It clearly lies within the power and jurisdiction of another House.
Only the other day in Ottawa an attempt was made to move the adjournment and it was ruled out of order on the grounds that it was not within the administrative competency of that House. It didn't deal with the precise point that is being raised now, but it did deal with the matter of maintaining law and order in Newfoundland, which bore on exactly the same point, the labour disturbances there. And in that debate, in that attempt to adjourn the House, the speaker there ruled that on this matter it was not within the competency of the House. And I would refer you, Sir, to paragraph 175 which reads as follows on this matter of responsibility, "the definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion of which a member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under standing order 31, must involve the administrative responsibility of the Government." Well clearly, Sir, this does not involve the administrative responsibility of the Government. And it goes on to give a number of instances of cases of that sort where administrative responsibility is not involved. So while by no means attempting to deny the national importance of the subject matter which my Honourable friend would like to debate -- because without doubt it is a matter of profound national concern -- I submit that it is not entitled to be debated now under the rules of this legislature. My first ground is that the urgency for debate is the question at issue, not the urgency of the subject matter, and secondly, that it does not come within the administrative responsibility of this government. So I would say that on either of those two counts, Sir, it is not in order and it should not be proceeded with and that my Honourable friend should debate this matter on the Throne Speech or another convenient opportunity which is open to him.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm rather intrigued by the fact that the Honourable, the First Minister came prepared today with his rule book open at the right page.
MR. ROBLIN: I thought they were going to do it, not you, that's why I got fooled.
MR. STINSON: Even with knowledge of the subject matter involved, the detective service operated by the Government seems to be pretty effective.
ONE OF THE MEMBERS: We're not wired, are we Duff?
MR. STINSON: And so we have now the Honourable, the First Minister presenting us with these technical objections to debating this matter today. I would say, Sir, that freedom, a matter of freedom is always urgent, and there is, an infringement upon the rights of organized labour in the Province of Newfoundland, which is within the Dominion of Canada, that should be of concern to us and we should debate it today whether it's embarrassing to the government or not.
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources): Embarrassing to which Government?
MR. STINSON: We ask here that the Government of Canada be urged to disallow this legislation. That is the gist of the matter in the resolution. My Honourable Friend argues it is outside the jurisdiction of the Province of Manitoba. We frequently urge action upon the Federal Government.
MR. ROBLIN: Ah, but stick to the point of order. I didn't say you shouldn't do that.
MR. STINSON: My Honourable friend if he so desires can make another speech, although I don't think it would be in order. He made one yesterday that was out of order. Perhaps he couldn't get away with it today.
The point of the matter seems to be that the Government doesn't want to debate this matter today. It's an embarrassment to the Government, therefore, they want to shove it off to a future occasion.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is not yet before the House. Speak to the point of order.
MR. STINSON: The point of order, Sir, has been raised that it is out of order for these technical reasons, I simply submit the argument on the general principle that we should be permitted to introduce this matter at this time because it is a question of concern to everyone in Canada. It infringes upon the rights of organized labour, upon the rights of individual freedom, and therefore it comes within the competence of any legislature to debate a matter of this kind.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the point of order I would refer you, Sir, to our own little red book on page 11. It seems to me as though the point or order raised by the Honourable, the First Minister, was a little premature, because as I read the rules -- and please be assured, Sir, I don't pose as an expert of them at all -- but as I read the rules, section 3 of rule 27, "the member shall then hand a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who if he thinks it is in order, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the House to proceed. If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests the members who support the motion to rise in their place" -- which has not been done thus far, "and then the Speaker calls on the member who has asked for the leave." It says that without the requisite leave or support the motion cannot be made, and I find nowhere in the list of restrictions of motion of the point raised by the Honourable the First Minister. Therefore, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that until you have ruled whether or not the matter is debatable, the point that's raised by the Honourable the First Minister, itself is a little premature in this discussion.
MR. D. SWAILES (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I too, would like to deal with the two points raised by the First Minister. His first was that this was not a matter for urgency of debate at the present time, and I contest that opinion, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter of vital importance to everyone in Canada, not only to those in the Trade Union Movement. It's a violation of the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Declaration of the United Nations. And this is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss this important matter, therefore the urgency stands.
And then the second point that it is not within the competence of this legislature to make such a recommendation. Over and over again, Mr. Speaker...
MR. ROBLIN: No, no, that's not what I said. No, no, you've got it wrong. Must involve the administrative responsibility of the Government, something we're directly responsible for.
MR. SWAILES: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are responsible on many occasions. We have the responsibility of making recommendations to other bodies, and on those two grounds, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the objections of the First Minister are not weighty enough.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, like my Honourable friends who have spoken, I don't profess to be an expert on the rules either, because I have found through a lot of occasions of this kind that opinions honestly differ in the interpretation of these rules...
MR. STINSON: ... all speak on points of order.
MR. CAMPBELL: Well nearly always, and at least in this case I have to come to your rescue because you haven't made a very good job of it...of picking out the obvious answer that you could have made. Your colleague behind you did considerably better but I have to prop you up once again.
MR. STINSON: Prop me up well.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I haven't the little red book in front of me but I have
referred to this on other occasions, and it's something that we should I'm sure keep continually in mind here, that is that it's only in cases where -- I'm not certain of the words -- but it's the customs and traditions of this House, as well as the rules, the rules, the customs and the, I don't think the word is traditions, practices; the rules, the customs and the practices of this House shall prevail, and where they are not applicable, then the rules, customs, practices of the House at Ottawa. And there is no question, Mr. Speaker, I think, if you will go back through the records you will find that the rule itself is capable of the interpretation that the Honourable member for Radisson just proposed. You will find that the rule itself bears an interpretation favourable to the position taken by my Honourable friends, but certainly that the practices have, the custom in this House has been, and I have protested against it when I was over on that side.
MR. ROBLIN: You used to make me sit down on that point, when you were over here.
MR. CAMPBELL: I used to argue with more force and logic than you did today, that this matter of urgency should be considered, that we should consider putting that in our rules, because I have pointed out, and you were a very unwilling pupil when you were on this side of the House.
MR. ROBLIN: You're a good teacher, I learned that lesson.
MR. CAMPBELL: You didn't agree, but I pointed out that I thought that we should consider revising our rules and our practice to bring it into conformity with what is done in the House of Commons in Ottawa. But we have never done it and the rule obtains, as the Honourable Member for Radisson read it and the custom has developed here over many years and I submit Mr. Speaker, that where we have a rule, or even a custom or a practice that we have adopted here, that it's only right that we should follow it unless we change the rules, and I must say that I would be in favour of changing the rules because I think the question of urgency should be a key-point as it is in Ottawa. But we've never done that here. What our rule 16 or whatever it is says, is that the Speaker, if he thinks it is in order, it's not a question of whether he thinks it's urgent or not, if he thinks it is in order. That refers to the preparation. So, I submit Mr. Speaker, and I want to make this very plain, that I am certainly not associating myself with the argument that the Honourable Gentleman will perhaps advance, I have no idea what he is going to say, I will quite probably not be in agreement with it, going on the lines of general practice, but I once again assert...
MR. STINSON: Oh, pre-judging.
MR. CAMPBELL: It's not a case of pre-judging, it's that I know you. I once again assert that old Parliamentary principle that even if my Honourable friend is going to say something with which I heartily disagree, he still has the right to say it.
MR. STINSON: Good for Voltaire.
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, that's who it was, eh? In this case - good for Stinson, because, for once I think he's right. Now I think he's right for the simple reason that this has been our practice, and read rule one, and that says that the rules, customs and practices of this House shall prevail and only when our own rules do not cover the situation do we revert to the ones that my Honourable friend was speaking of.
MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, as the second oldest member of this House in the way of years of sitting in this legislature I think I can corroborate what the leader of our group has just stated, that our practice has been that we have allowed discussions of this kind when the Speaker has ruled them himself as being allowed to be discussed, and I am very much surprised that we've had such a technical discussion brought forward by the Leader of the Government today, as of this minute. I think that if we want to follow the precedent that we should allow this discussion to go on.
MR. SPEAKER: I...in perusing the resolution...the word urgent, of course, sticks in my mind, and the Leader of the Opposition will have the opportunity tomorrow or the next day to debate the matter on the Speech From the Throne...pardon...Leader of the
CCF Party, sorry. It's not my function, of course, to decide the question of policy, but my function to enforce the rules of the House. The rules of the House of course, are restrictive sometimes, and I feel that I have to look at the definition of the word urgent and my inclination is to rule out of order the resolution.
MR. STINSON: With respect to you, Sir, I challenge the ruling.
MR. SPEAKER: I haven't got it with me, but somewhere in the Rule Book, Dominion Rule Book, the question of allowing a motion of this kind does not properly come before the House ruling, but in this circumstance I would call in the Members and let the House decide.
MR. ROBLIN: ...Mr. Speaker, just so the the House will know that your generosity in this matter. There is a ruling in paragraph 172 that there's no appeal from the Speakers decision that a motion to adjourn the House for discussing an urgent matter of public importance cannot be made unless the main member's statement shows that there's an actual urgency for debate. So that technically you're not obliged to respond to the Honourable Gentlemen's request for an appeal. But, I for my part, have no objection to one taking place if you wish it.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, once again on the point of order. I would wish to say only this. That I agree wholeheartedly with what the First Minister is saying with regard to the practice at Ottawa, but I reiterate that the practice at Ottawa is binding upon us only insofar as we do not have a rule, custom or practice ourselves, and I suggest to you, Sir, that we have the rule, the custom and the practice, and there's no question about the practice in this regard either, that any time that the speaker gives a decision with which any Honourable Member does not agree, that Honourable Member has a right to appeal the ruling to the House.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to challenge the ruling.
MR. SPEAKER: Call in the Members.
[A standing vote was recorded and the results were as follows:
YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Boulic, Carroll, Clement, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Groves, Johnson, Lissaman, Lyon, McDonald, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Ridley, Roblin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Williams, Willis.
NAYS: Messrs. Bend, Campbell, Gray, Greenlay, Guttormson, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Jobin, Juba, Lucko, Miller, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine, Reid, Roberts, Schreyer, Shoemaker, Shuttleworth, Stinson, Swailes, Teillet, Wagner, Wright.
MR. CLERK: Yeas: 26. Nays: 27.
MR. SPEAKER: There is a motion before the House moved by the Honourable...
MR. STINSON: May I proceed, Mr. Speaker, .... Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. SPEAKER: Moved by the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, seconded by the Honourable Member for Radisson that a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussion, a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the matter of urging the Government of Canada to disallow legislation enacted by the Province of Newfoundland aimed at the destruction of the Trade Union movement. Are you ready for the question?
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I got up too soon. It wasn't meant as any discourtesy to you. I'd like to begin by giving a little bit of background in connection with the International Woodworkers of America and their attempt to organize the loggers in the Province of Newfoundland. It was in 1956 that this trade union started its work there, and the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company refused the I.W.A. access to camps which are scattered over a wide area of the Province. Unable to enter the woods by road, the organizers walked through the bush. In some instances, they used planes to land on lakes, then walked out to the highway some 150 miles visiting the camps on the way. The first application for certification as the recognized bargaining agent was made by the I.W.A. to the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board in January of 1957. The hearing was held in March and the application was dismissed on the ground that the I.W.A. did not meet the technical requirements of the Newfoundland Labour Relations Act. It seems rather unusual that it should be ruled that way in view of the fact that the union was able to present records showing that they had dues-paying members to the extent of 80% of the employees. Organization was resumed after that setback, and members were resigned, and local organizations were established in accordance with the ruling of the Labour Board. A new application was made, supported this time by 92% of the employees. A hearing was held in June of 1957, and as a result, a government-conducted vote was ordered by the Board to determine whether the loggers wished to be represented by the I.W.A. The vote was held in March of 1958, and 86.4% of the loggers voted for the I.W.A. The union was certified by the Board May 1st, 1958. It was a long, hard uphill struggle for the International Woodworkers, but they eventually thought that they had made the grade, and that they were the certified representatives of the loggers.
The union's delegates entered into negotiations with the Company on June 17th, 1958. The union proposed wage increases, a reduction in the 60 hour week, and an improvement in camp conditions. Improvements in camp conditions such as reducing the overcrowding in the huts. There would be as many as from 50 to 70 men in double decker beds in huts not large enough for such a number of occupants. The men wanted better food; they wanted some bacon and eggs and fresh meat. These surely were reasonable requests. These negotiations extended from June until October. They apparently take a long time in the Atlantic provinces to talk things over. The Company agreed to consider some improvements in camp conditions, but they flatly opposed any increase in wages or any reduction in the 60 hour week. The men were asking for a reduction from 60 hours a week to 54. The Company was opposed to that type of improvement. The union then applied for a Government Conciliation Board which as appointed and sat for eight days. They heard representatives from both the Company and the union. The Board brought down a unanimous report. That is something that is of the utmost importance in this argument. The Conciliation Board brought down a unanimous report, signed by the impartial chairman and representatives of both the Company and of the union. This report recommended a wage increase which would establish a base rate of $1.22 instead of $1.05 per hour, and a reduction in the work week of 60 to 54 hours, effective January, 1960, without loss of pay. This, Sir, must appear to everyone as a reasonable settlement of the matter, and remember that it was unanimous so far as the Board was concerned. The Board's report was received December 9th, and the I.W.A. wired the Labour Minister, the Hon. Charles Ballam, accepting the Board's proposals, but the Company rejected it. Remember that this was a unanimous report. The union accepted it, but the Company rejected it. The union then undertook a strike vote. Written approval had been received by the Company for access to camps to conduct this vote, but then the Company reversed its position and refused access to the camps. However, the vote was proceeded with and in some instances, the loggers walked ten miles to
cast their votes in ballot boxes along the highway. A committee headed by the Mayor of Windsor conducted the count and they reported that the loggers had voted 98.8% for a strike, so the strike was called for December 31st of 1958. Great resentment was caused by a ruling of the Government that anyone holding a union card would not be eligible for welfare benefits, even though the man concerned was not employed at the time of the strike. This was at the beginning -- the strike was called December 31st, '58.
Sir, this is the kind of thing that breeds not only resentment but violence. The leaders of this union have at all times appealed against the use of any violent measures. The leaders of this union are responsible men, and remember that it is the union that is affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress which is the official body for organized labour for the whole of Canada. I personally abhor violence, we all deplore the use of violence and I am sure that every labour leader in Canada deplores the use of violence. The leaders and officials of the I.W.A. and of The Canadian Labour Congress are responsible men. I cannot say as much for Premier Smallwood who has been both intemperate and abusive in his language and in his tactics. He said for example that his Government and here I am quoting -- 'will never work with the I.W.A., will never talk to them, will never answer a letter or telegram from them, will never have anything to do with the I.W.A.' -- and that is a rather dignified remark, statement, coming from Mr. Smallwood, his other language is perhaps not quite in order in this House.
Now Sir, this is a strange way for the leader of the Government to talk about a legitimate trade union, which was certified by the Labour Department of his own Government, after going through all the proper procedure. We find Mr. Smallwood's behavior incredible. How can a man with any knowledge or regard for democratic traditions or democratic rights talk and act like he does? He actually has been acting like an agent of the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company -- a very large corporation -- with many, many millions of dollars in its coffers. No doubt at the bidding of this Company, Smallwood has undertaken to smash trade unionism in the Province of Newfoundland. He has undertaken to organize a company union which will be under the thumb of the Company and of the Government. This man in an unprecedented exercise in dictatorship is prepared to destroy the rights of free man in the Province of Newfoundland. He is demonstrating that it can happen here. We used to have a name for this back in the 1930's and 1940's -- we called it facism. History shows that when there is an infringement of human rights it is like a disease that spreads. When the right to collective bargaining is threatened the destruction of other rights is usually not far behind. Now Sir, I wish to ask some questions; Where do the so called Champions of Liberty stand on this issue? Where does the Leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba stand on this question? Where does the Leader of the Conservative Party in this Province stand on this issue? Both Liberals and Conservatives in Newfoundland are supporting this anti-labour legislation. Where does the Winnipeg Free Press stand on this issue, that great spokesman of Siftonism? The Free Press still carries on its mast head the phrase "Equality of Civil Rights", but it has yet to print a single word on its editorial page in connection with this crises in Newfoundland. One can imagine what might be said if some other type of Government was in office in Newfoundland. One can come to only one conclusion, that the Free Press is anti-labour. However, its news editors don't seem to be quite so timid as those who write for the editorial page. I have here a copy of last night's Free Press in which there is a rather revealing picture on the front page -- a picture which shows the police attacking the huddled form of a striker who, according to the photographer, was knocked to the ground, beaten and finally taken away unconscious in a cruiser car. And it seems incredible that such an event would be taking place in Canada.
We have had certain items in the Winnipeg Tribune of a different character. I think perhaps the stories that have been printed there by Charles King have been excellent. He says the charges against the I.W.A. are legion -- this is from the issue of Feb. 27th -- the charges against the I.W.A. are legion, but in a week in Eastern Newfoundland, I have not been able to find any solid evidence to support this. And editorially the Winnipeg Tribune has spoken in no uncertain terms -- they say in one paragraph that these incidents should not be permitted to obscure the essential fact that the union was willing to accept the findings of the Conciliation Board, while the Company was not. Under these circumstances the union had a perfect right to go on strike to enforce its demands. Premier Smallwood's duty was to maintain order and nothing more. He had no right to interfere as he did, and no right to vilify the union the way he
did, to scream that his Government would never work with its officials, talk to them or answer communications from them. He had not a semblance of right to outlaw the union from the island. So we have one newspaper that is prepared to come out in support of trade unionism and of freedom.
Now Sir, I said a few minutes ago that we deplore violence and we regret very much the death of the policeman in Newfoundland, but I am convinced that if blame is to be attached in this connection or in connection with violence of any other kind that that blame lies right at the door of the Premier of Newfoundland. And it would appear from accounts that have appeared in the Toronto Star by reputable newspapermen that it has been the police who have taken the initiative so far as creating scenes of violence are concerned. And now the Smallwood Government with the support of both the Liberals and Conservatives have passed legislation decertifying and outlawing the International Woodworkers Union. Smallwood's government wants to move organized labour right out of Newfoundland altogether. They are even presenting a bill there to ban strikes in that province. This action has gone so far that the Canadian Congress has urged the Federal Government to disallow this legislation, and I think the C.L.C. is absolutely right that the Federal Government should act quickly and disallow this anti-labour legislation. I doubt if the Federal Government will do it -- some times governments show courage. But I am inclined to think that in this instance that they will not do it.
Do you, Sir, recall the Padlock Law of the Province of Quebec? It comes to mind just at the moment. For years and years the Federal Government of the day was urged to disallow that act and they did not act upon the matter at all. And it was only after about 20 years that it was disallowed by the Supreme Court of Canada. But for all that period of time that nefarious piece of legislation was on the Statute Books of the Province of Quebec and that it was because of a lack of courage on the part of the Federal Government of that day that they did not take action in that connection. The C.L.C. feels so strongly about this that they are lodging a complaint with the I.L.O., the oldest United Nations Specialized Agent so that this matter is not only going to be debated in our own country and in our legislature here, it is going to the United Nations, to the International Labour Organization of the United Nations. I want to give you a quotation from one of the statements of Claude Jodoin, President of the C.L.C. Just a few days ago he said this, 'The issue is no longer a dispute between the I.W.A. and Smallwood but a struggle between those who cherish freedom and the rule of law and those who oppose it'. It is time, Sir, that we made ourselves heard in this province on an issue as fundamental as this. I say let all parties in this House repudiate the anti-labour tactics of Premier Smallwood and stand in support of labour's rights.
MR. SWAILES: Mr. Speaker, I want to supplement very briefly what has been said by the Leader of our group, and particularly his reference to the fact that this is no longer an issue between Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland and the International Woodworkers Union but it is an issue with, with we are all concerned, an issue of the preservation of human rights. A few weeks ago in this Chamber, in this building, we celebrated very solemnly the Tenth Anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. And one of those Human Rights is the Freedom of Association and it is this freedom of association which is now being assailed by Premier Smallwood and by the Government of Newfoundland. As our leader has pointed out, the Woodworkers Union obeyed the law implicitly from the very beginning. Those loggers who were working in Newfoundland were natives of Newfoundland -- in the earlier years they were organized into what was to all intents and purposes company unions dominated by that Anglo-Newfoundland Development Corporation. And in those earlier years that Company made tremendous profit out of the low paid labour and the long hours that were worked by those loggers. Then the woodworkers were invited into Newfoundland, they began their organization, they lived up strictly to the letter of the law, they finally were certified in accordance with the law, they applied for a Conciliation Board in accordance with the law, the Conciliation Board Report was unanimous in their favour, they accepted the report of the Board, the Company rejected it and therefore strike action was the only alternative left. And mind you, under the Legislation of Newfoundland, if the union had violated any of the terms of their Labour-Relations Act the union could have been prosecuted, but there has not been a whisper, no indication whatever that there has been any violations of the Newfoundland legislation by the International
Woodworkers of America. Now this is not merely a matter now of Newfoundland. This is going to place the whole of Canada on the black-list of the United Nations and, believe me, it's going to give the Soviet Union and the associated governments of the Soviet Union a real weapon with which to make further attacks on the West. Now what course of action will be followed I do not know at the present time, but the very least, Mr. Speaker, that we can do is to express our opinion and try to bring pressure on the Federal Government to take the steps that it should have taken a week or so ago to prevent the actual enactment of this legislation. And that is what the resolution asks -- that we do urge the Federal Government to take this action which should have been taken long ago.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, as a Liberal I rise to support the motion of the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party. I believe that the action of Premier Smallwood in enacting legislation making illegal the I.W.A. and another trade union in that province is a denial of our inherent rights under our constitution, -- the right of free association. And I feel that this has brought into sharp focus the absolute necessity of our in Canada, without any further delay, enacting into the B.N.A. Act those rights which should be respected, not only by the Dominion but by each province. For a long time I have felt that there was inherent in our constitution certain rights; the right of free association; the right of free assembly; the right of freedom of religion; the right of freedom of speech. But what has happened in Newfoundland clearly shows to us that these rights exist simply in theory and that they can be, by a sovereign legislature, destroyed.
I believe that this, the resolution of the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. or the motion of the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F., strikes at a very basic principle in our society and I think that this House should support that resolution.
MR. F. L. JOBIN (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not going to speak for the Liberal Party as such, but I remember reading last week an article that the leader of our party had given in Ottawa some time in November, and I would like to read just one paragraph, and I think anybody in a party likes to have foundation for his beliefs, and I would like to read one paragraph that to my mind satisfies me in this issue, that the leader of our party, Lester Pearson, had to say at Ottawa at that time. And he says that to give one illustration only as why we Liberals will in the future as in the past, initiate and support policies to protect and advance the legitimate rights of all workers as citizens including their right to bargain collectively. I don't know too many of the circumstances other than what you read in the paper of what's been going on in Newfoundland, and with all due respect to the newspaper and the radio, we all know how things can be blown one way or the other, not with the idea of distorting facts but witht the way it's written, and I certainly am not going to pass judgment on what Mr. Smallwood has done or has not done -- I will repeat my understanding of the Liberal principles in the words of Lester Pearson and again to quote "in the future as in the past, initiate and support policies to protect and advance the legitimate rights of all workers as citizens including the right to bargain collectively". A right I think that was, from what little knowledge I have, a right which I think Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland did take away from the workers of Newfoundland.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, this is not normally the sort of resolution which comes to a vote. The usual procedure is that when all have spoken who wish to speak and the mover has had his final say in closing the debate, the usual procedure is to ask leave of the House to withdraw the motion. So that it becomes incumbent, I think, upon me as leader of the government to say something about this in this way in order that our position may be clear owing to the fact that no formal vote will likely follow at the conclusion of our debate here today. I would like, first of all, to say that to the best of the information that is at my disposal the Honourable, the Leader of the C.C.F. Party made an accurate presentation of the facts that are known to us. As usual, I think he made a good speech. I must reiterate my opinion that that speech would have sounded just as good on Monday night to me or on Tuesday afternoon as it does today, and probably would be just as effective I'm sure for the purpose for which it was designed, but nevertheless the House has determined to hear it today so I tell him that I was very interested indeed in his statement. There could be no question that we are dealing here with a very extraordinary situation. One which as far as I know has not occurred in
labour-management relations or in governmental activity in labour-management relations for some time in this country, and it is also quite clear from the facts that are available to us that matters of great principles and moment are involved in this. And I want to perfectly clear, Sir, that I do believe that the leader of the C.C.F. Party is quite right when he says this is a matter of great importance to the public. Our disagreement as to when and where it should be discussed in this House is quite another thing, and that question, I think, is understood by all. But I believe that all would also agree that he is right in his view that this is a matter of great public importance to all the people of Canada as well as to the citizens of the Province of Manitoba. We appear to have had a situation whereby a trade union matter has been conducted entirely in accordance with the law on the part of that trade union. We have a situation where in accordance with the laws of the province the correct procedure was followed and that insofar as the law provided all measures were taken to insure that things proceeded on a perfectly proper and legal basis. And after having gone through that procedure, after having had conciliation and matters of that sort in the regular way, after having received a verdict from the Conciliation Board which I believe was unanimous on the points concerned, we find that there has been a road block thrown in the way of normal completion of the labour-management negotiations. And it seems to me, I must confess, that the throwing of that road block in the way in which it was done can be described fairly as an arbitrary use of power. It seems to me that that is a fair description of what actually has taken place in Newfoundland.
Now I find some difficulty, I admit, in trying to tell the people of another province or the members of another legislature how they should conduct their affairs. I am sure that we would be very jealous of our autonomy and our authority in this House here within the limits that the consitution places upon us, and we would not welcome direct action from other provinces in connection with our affairs. But I do believe that it is right and proper that we should form some assessment or some judgment of what has happened, and I believe it to be an arbitrary use of power. I believe that the ordinary rule of law that should apply to all citizens has been abrogated -- perhaps constitutionally, I don't know, -- but at any rate it has been abrogated by a legislature and the ordinary rule of law upset to deal with the particular circumstances, and it seems to me that whatever the provocation, that that must described in the terms in which I have used. It is a matter of the greatest regret to us that not only should there be this interference with the usual procedure but that it should have resulted in violence. To have a dead policeman to account for; to have strikers lying unconscious on the ground, to be photographed, are things which appeal to no Canadian as being representative of the regular conduct of life and affairs of this country, and can only be regarded with the greatest of regret by all of us wherever we happen to live in this land. And I must say that I am in agreement with what has been said on this point about the use of power. There may be -- (I only put this in because it is a possibility), -- there may be facts that are not known to us here that would justify such an action on the part of the legislature of the Province of Newfoundland. I am in no position to talk about those, but if the information that has come to us is the full story, then I think that expressions that I have used must stand.
Now the leader of the C.C.F. Party when he was speaking asked me where the Progressive-Conservative Party of Manitoba stood on this matter. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that his question was entirely rhetorical because I am fairly well satisfied that he knew very well where the Conservative Party of Manitoba, insofar as I am able to represent it, stood on this matter which received certain currency in the press -- a statement which I made at the request of labour leaders of Manitoba who asked me the question that my Honourable friend asked today, and a statement which as far as I am aware they have received with satisfaction. And I am going to take the liberty, Sir, of reading it to the House now because I feel that it sets forward our views as well perhaps as may be. This is what I said on Tuesday, March 3rd last. "In the Province of Manitoba we have a well-understood machinery of law for the settlement of labour-management disputes which is working well. The government of this province has every intention of respecting the letter and the spirit of that law. I believe that only where such a policy is followed will we be able to establish harmony and good feeling between those who are interested in such matters. I would certainly regard it as a great mistake if Manitoba were to depart from such a principle. We can only observe with regret this principle being
violated in other provinces." That is the end of the quotation, Sir. And while I am speaking on this point and while this general matter of labour-management relations is before us perhaps it would be as well to remind the House of what His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor said yesterday in reading the Speech from the Throne, in which he expressed his satisfaction with the peaceful and orderly and well-manned and well-behaved situation that exists in this province and the state of good relations. And I think I should and can say this, that exists between labour and management, and I trust the government in this province, in the settlement of these very important industrial matters which are the bread and butter of so many of our citizens here in the Province of Manitoba. And I for one am proud of that situation. This government takes no particular credit for it because we know that it has developed over years of co-operative effort and trial and error. We have had our troubles here, and they have been serious troubles and difficult troubles, and there are men alive that still remember them. But thank goodness we have learned from those troubles and since those days we have evolved the system that we have now. That works, I believe, with a great deal of good effect to the maintenance of industrial peace and to insure a reasonable measure of justice to all concerned in this great problem in the Province of Manitoba. Those are the views of this government. That is where we take our stand. We believe that our system is good and we intend to do everything we can to see that it is maintained and where possible approved, and we can only view with regret if a similar situation is not obtained elsewhere.
I want to say something about disallowance, because that was the main point that my Honourable friend wished to raise. That of course is a matter for the Federal Government to decide and in matters of disallowance there are many weighty considerations brought to bear which will be the responsibility of the federal authorities to decide. I rather incline toward the view that the first step that they should take would be to examine the legality or the constitutionality of what has been done in Newfoundland. As I said previously this afternoon, to the best of my knowledge the actual law itself, the statute that was passed, has not yet been received in Ottawa, I certainly have heard nothing of it and it is impossible to pass any view on its legality, but it seems to me that consideration ought in the first place be given to a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to deal with the question of constitutionality. Probably in the long term it would be better if the matter could be settled on that basis rather than by the power of disallowance and I would think that if my advice is consulted, and I am very much afraid it will not be, not within the sphere of my responsibility, but speaking as a private citizen, I would probably like to see reference made to the Supreme Court when this matter of disallowance is under consideration.
I think, Sir, that that is all that I care to say on this subject matter this afternoon. I wish to say again that the question of urgency insofar as the subject is concerned, the question of its importance to the nation and to the peaceful development of our country, is a very great one. I have never denied that; I do not deny it now. I wish that to be clearly understood. I'd like also to say, Sir, that the government of this province made its position, I think, fairly clear to the general public on March the 3rd when the statement that I read to you was given to the public and to the Press and to others who were interested. I hope, Sir, that some way will be found to bring things back to normal and to reaffirm again the great principle of the rule of law in provinces of this country. The whole of our democratic fabric of government is built upon that concept of the rule of law, the whole of our democratic concept of government is built upon the notion that parliaments or legislatures, even if they happen to be supreme or sovereign in any particular sphere in which they legislate, will not have recourse to arbitrary action of the nature that has been described here today. When that is done we destroy the confidence that we should have in our legislative machinery. When that is done we are striking a serious blow at one of the great principles on which the democratic view of life is based, and in that point I am entirely at one with those that have spoken here on this debate this afternoon. And I earnestly hope that we may yet as a result of this, reinforce this bed-rock principle of our constitution and see to it that the rule of law does prevail and that arbitrary use of power does not occur in the Dominion of Canada or any of its provinces.
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a good deal of interest to the statement of the First Minister. With the general principles I agree completely and I am
gald that he made the statement which he did. I must however, Mr. Speaker, disagree with the effect which would take place if the Federal Government were to follow the suggestion made by the Honourable the First Minister. Reference to the court, Mr. Speaker, is something which takes considerable time. We are not dealing here with something which is abstract, something which can take the usual course of time in which no difficulties will arise; we are dealing here with the livelihood of thousands of people, we are dealing here with violence which has occurred. A death took place several days ago. The Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. has already expressed his opinion on use of violence. We all feel that way, but in these conditions, Mr. Speaker, violence does take place. I saw a reference in a newspaper that the Attorney-General of Newfoundland expects that an indictment will take place for murder. I want to say Mr. Speaker, that I think the man who should be indicted is the Premier of Newfoundland, who created this difficulty by his one-sided support of the big business interests of Newfoundland. There was no difficulty until he put his support behind the companies. And this is not the last incident, nor will it be the last. This morning's paper carries a news report that rocks were thrown by a crowd through the windows of the International Woodworkers of America headquarters. I quote further. "A wall of R.C.M.P. constables formed in front of the I.W.A. headquarters to stop the surging mob from getting in the building." This sounds fine, but then it says "No injuries or arrests were reported as a result of the demonstration." Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how long I could stand outside these walls of this building and throw rocks through the windows of this building before the police would take action. But apparently the R.C.M.P. (I think they can get positions at the nod from the Premier of Newfoundland) isn't going to act.
And so I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Federal Government follows the advice suggested by the First Minister that this strike will be lost long before the Supreme Court can make a decision on it. And it seems to me that unless the Federal Government will move to disallow the legislation that in fact democracy as we know it will have ceased to be. Mr. Speaker, we like to think that ours is a really democratic country. We like to think that the things which have happened in other parts of the world will not take place here. We report with scorn, and I agree, incidents like took place in Hungary in the last couple of years. We report with scorn on the difficulties which take place in some of the South American countries with their policed states or some of the countries behind the iron curtain. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this kind of action which is taking place in the Province of Newfoundland is permitted to continue then we might as well admit the facts, that democracy as we know it, no longer exists in this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has not yet spoken. I don't know whether he intends to or not. I know that in years gone past he has taken the view that his is the responsibility of dealing with matters which are provincial, and to a large extent I respect his opinion, but I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think that now is the time for him and for others in his party to speak first of all as Canadians, not as party members, and to disassociate themselves completely with the actions of the Newfoundland government, and to use whatever influence they have as members of the same party, although from different provinces, to express to the Government of Newfoundland the complete support of the people of Manitoba regardless of party for the rights of Canadian citizens in every province to belong to trade unions of their choice, not of the government; to bargain collectively; to deal in the manner in which the laws of Newfoundland and the other provinces provide. I say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, this is a time for us to speak, not as members of a particular party, of any party, but to speak as Canadians, and I would certainly urge the Leader of the Opposition to do this in this debate on this occasion.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Oppositions) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I rise not in response to the exhortation of my Honourable friend, because if his eyesight is reasonably good he will have noticed that I was getting on my feet when I yielded the floor to him. However, I think this is a matter on which a good many of us should express our opinions. It is true that I have said on other occasions when I have been asked to comment on something that has taken place in the other provinces, that not being on the ground and not knowing the circumstances there, that I would think that the local people are much better able to deal with it than I. And certainly it seems to me that when you have the members of at least two parties in the
Province of Newfoundland right closely in touch with this situation, and you have them represented as well in the Federal House of Commons, that for us to be debating this matter in any detail is quite superfluous. But a matter of the statement of general principles, as the Honourable the First Minister has done, I think is quite appropriate, and far from having any objection to doing that, I welcome the opportunity of doing so. I do not pretend to be able to speak with any authority on the conditions in the Province of Newfoundland. I have not made the research into the situation that the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party has. I can't comment on the provocation that either side may or may not have had, but I am perfectly willing to comment on the general principles, and I think that that is what we should confine ourselves to, in addition to making suggestions as the Honourable, the Leader of the C.C.F. Party has done, as to what we would recommend in this situation.
Now I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am well acquainted, very well acquainted with the Premier of Newfoundland. I have known him ever since he came to occupy that position. I have met him on many occasions, at provincial conferences and others, and I know him quite well, and I consider him to be a personal friend of mine. I know, however, that he is inclined to be quite aggressive, quite emphatic, and I have no hesitation in saying that in this case it seems to me, looking at it from a long way off, because I have not made any attempt to get in touch with him, to get his side of the story or the other side of the story as well, it seems to me that the action that he took was precipitate and that the language that he has used was intemperate. I would think that it becomes the head of a state anywhere, -- and I commend this to my Honourable friend, the Leader of the House here, -- I think it behooves the head of a state at any time that even if he has a very disagreeable duty to perform, even if he feels that he has to undertake some matter in the public interest that requires extremely firm action, and even though he feels that the other party or parties are greatly in the wrong, that there still is a standard of discussion that should be maintained. I think that applies not only to the head of the State, I think it applies to a great many of the rest of us as well. I think it is a good thing for us to remember that in the Legislative Assembly. And so I would judge from this distance that the very aggressive, precipitant action that appears to have been taken by the Premier of Newfoundland, and his very intemperate language whether justified or not, has likely contributed to the difficulty there.
Now so far as the general attitude toward what we call labour is concerned, I would like to say that I consider myself, and have always considered myself, to belong to the working class. I'm a farmer, and I think all farmers feel a natural affinity for the labouring class. We are all workers. We know what it is to work, and I honestly believe that the feeling that a lot of people have, that the labouring people, as the term is used, are in some way different to the rest of society, is a fallacy that we should get rid of very quickly. And I deeply regret to see the tendency of a lot of people to blame the labouring group as a whole for the misdeeds, and there are misdeeds, if we can believe the records that have been made public in the United States and to a lesser extend in Canada. If we can believe those records then there are misdeeds that certainly seem to me to need correction and with the so-called leadership of some of the labour organizations, and I have nothing to say that I could say too strongly without being intemperate myself, that to condemn the kind of action that have been exposed, if we can believe the papers that we get from the United States and their official documents, the reprehensible actions that have been exposed down there. But the mistake that a lot of people make is of going on and blaming the rank and file of the labour party, the labour people, the labouring class as a whole, because of the misdeeds of some of these reported, -- and no doubt correctly reported, -- misdeeds which have been unfortunately all too common. And I want to do, as one of the general principles that I think we should keep in mind, I want to express a complete vote of confidence in the rank and file of the labour people themselves that does not extend in all cases to their leaders. Now I think that the heart and the mind of labour as a group is completely sound and very responsible, but the labouring people, because of the type of union organization that they have got in many cases has lost control in my opinion, of the active management of their affairs in the way that they have allowed some of these other things, or it has been possible for some of these other things to go on. Now that's not restricted to the labour people themselves. We know that it happens in many other cases. The point I am making is that I think it is grossly wrong and unfair to blame the labouring people as a whole because of what
has been receiving a great deal of public attention, and rightly so, of the misdeeds of some of the labour leaders. I believe that the labouring people, and I put myself in with them because, I say again, I think if there are any working men in the world, the farmers belong with them, to be reliable and responsible and sane and sober and intelligent and capable of looking after their own interests. And that's the thing that I would like to appeal to them to do, to take more of an interest in their own affairs and see that they clean house. Now I must say, to be fair about this thing, that I also have the feeling at times that some of the labour spokesmen in this Chamber here are men who have not come, -- and this doesn't apply in all cases, -- they are not men who have come through the labouring ranks themselves, they are not usually farmers or men who have worked and earned their bread by the sweat of their brow, (and well I was as a matter of fact) and (you took a pretty early opportunity to get off of it too) and I think that even the political leadership -- not that I'm charging them with any of the misdeeds and corruption that have been unveiled in the United States -- but I think that even they are inclined at times to not keep closely enough to the rank and file of the party. And that is the greatest thing that is needed in my opinion, is for the labouring people to take control of their own organizations and if they will do that and clean up their own organizations, there won't be this kind of trouble. Now as to what situation applied down there I don't know and I am not prepared to pass judgment upon it until I do. I say that I think the action that was taken by the Premier was precipitous; I think the language that he used, for I heard him and saw him on television -- I think that it was intemperate and not calculated to settle a difficult problem of this kind, in the best way. But as to the recommendation, and consequently I was all in favour, even to the extent of having regretfully to disagree with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I was quite prepared, anxious to see this debate proceed, thinking at the time that perhaps the suggestions made would not be ones that I could fully support. And quite frankly, I would not be prepared to support the suggestion for disallowance of the legislation at this time, because there again I am in agreement with the general position taken by the First Minister. I think to ask for arbitrary disallowance by the Federal Government or for the Federal Government to arbitrarily disallow this legislation is an action that should be taken only after the very, most careful consideration, and something that we in the provinces should be very, very careful about recommending. Because, Mr. Speaker, according to the constitution of our country, the written part and the unwritten part of our constitution, we are just as supreme in this legislature in our own field as the Government of Canada is in its field, and we ought to be mighty careful about urging disallowance in any case, but I do agree also with my Honourable friend, the First Minister, when it comes to the question of referring a matter of this kind to the courts. Thank goodness it is true that in this country -- my Honourable friend makes a plea for us getting back to the rule of law -- I endorse that plea, I think it's right. We want to have respect for the rule of law, and I know that my Honourable friends would reply that they want to be sure that the law is fair and that it's been passed with good judgment behind it and not because of vindictiveness or something like that, but this has been made the law, if I read correctly with the support of all the parties in the Province of Newfoundland and I think the thing to do is suggest that this legislation be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada because, I repeat, that thank goodness the people of Canada as a whole have a greater faith, and I think it's justified, in the courts of this country than they have in the politicians of this country. And I think that that's a justified faith because the politicians, regardless of where they sit, and regardless of whether they are in a provincial chamber or the Federal House of Commons, the politicians are apt, at times, to play a bit of politics with almost any subject that comes up. And the safeguard against that sort of thing is the court, and I would favour referring this matter to the Supreme Court to settle this question once and for all as to whether this is one of the matters that comes with provincial jurisdiction, because it's a mighty important one and will continue, perhaps, to gain importance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know that I have covered all the points that were asked of me. I support the propriety of bringing this question before the House today, because I think that it is the type of thing that we should be discussing here. I do not find myself in support of the urging that the legislation be disallowed because I think that's something that we have to be very, very careful about, and I would not want to pass judgment upon fellow legislators by saying, with the little bit of information that I have at present, that an act that was passed with the
consent of all the members of the province that's the closest to the situation, is, to use the language of my Honourable friend, aimed at the destruction of the Trade Union Movement. I don't know whether it is or not, and I think that the question would best be decided by referring to the Supreme Court of Canada -- the question of the constitutionality of this legislation.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some doubt as to whether I have the right to close a debate of this kind, and in this connection I have consulted an authority in the matter, the Honourable Member for Rhineland adn he hasn't come to a definite conclusion in the matter himself, but he has come up with some very interesting information. To begin with, the point is not covered in our own book of rules, and then, in Beauchesne he has discovered and drawn it to my attention these interesting points. But if debate is over at an early hour, it is the custom for the mover of such a motion to withdraw it and then the House proceeds to its appointed business. If debate is carried to closing time, the motion is automatically carried. Now, Sir, if I can talk for 45 minutes the motion then is automatically carried.
MR. CAMPBELL: ... I think we should move a vote of censure on the Honourable Member for Rhineland.
MR. STINSON: ... Well, according to my authority the motion is automatically carried at the time of adjournment. However, I am not going to take such an unfair advantage. And as the matter is somewhat in doubt I will be very brief.
MR. MILLER (Rhineland): ...rules, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, custom, and it is, -- according to Beauchesne -- the custom both in Ottawa and here that the member who proposes a motion to adjourn that he asks that the motion be withdrawn and then we go on to proper business.
MR. ROBLIN: ... That is certainly the custom here -- I hesitate after what I heard from my Honourable Friends opposite two hours ago to refer to Beauchesne -- but it is certainly the custom of this House.
MR. STINSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, apparently it would be within the scope of this custom for me to make a few closing remarks and then ask for the withdrawal of the motion. I almost talked myself out of it. First of all, I want to extend apologies to the mover and seconder of the address and reply because we have just pushed them right off the stage here this afternoon, and it does seem a little unfair. But they will have their say a bit later and I hope that they will be given a good hearing. I know that they will.
I want to thank the Honourable Member for Selkirk for his immediate support in this matter and for the forthright statement that he made. He happens to be one of the few Liberals in the Liberal party, and so it is not surprising that we should hear from him in this connection. I also want to thank the Honourable, the First Minister, for his frank statement. He didn't have much reservation in the matter and he did seem to believe that an arbitrary use of power had been used in this connection. I support my colleague, the Honourable Member for St. John's in his contention that a reference to the courts would take so long that there would be great hardship so far as the people of Newfoundland are concerned. This matter deals with life and death and the means of livelihood, and the Federal Government I think should act in this matter. We're not asking that they act in an arbitrary way; we're not suggesting that they should disallow this without study and without proper consideration. The Honourable, the Leader of the Opposition, indicated that we were asking the Federal Government to arbitrarily disallow this without proper consideration of the matter. We would expect the Federal Government to look at this carefully and seriously, but I am concerned that the Federal Government should act. And I would remind the House again of the Padlock Law of the Province of Quebec. That was allowed to drag through the courts for approximately 20 years before the Supreme Court eventually disallowed it. Yes, and I'll admit this, that when the Alberta legislation, in connection with freedom of the press was passed, that the Federal Government acted without too much hesitation. Of course, in that matter, perhaps there were some political considerations that provided them with a motive. So that that perhaps can be taken as an illustration of sorts that the disallowance is something that can be done without too much delay. In any case, it is our opinion that the Federal Government should act upon this as rapidly as possible.
Now, the Honourable, the Leader of the Opposition, with his usual caution discussed this matter at some length and I must congratulate him upon approaching it in a reasonable way. He told us that he knows Premier Smallwood personally, that he knows that he is sometimes a bit intemperate and that he acts upon impulse, and in this case he admitted that his
action was precipitous and his language intemperate. Well, that was going pretty far for our cautious friend. He made another point, that only farmers and people that he called labouring people, work. Well, I am inclined to think that there are many other people who work; there are many people in the professions, there are school teachers, there are people in the medical profession who work hard, there are politicians who work hard. And many of whom are underpaid, and not appreciated.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would just simply like to sum up by saying that I appreciate the way in which the House has received this motion. It has been considered in a very serious vein. It has been given a thorough discussion and, after all, it was something that was put before the House without warning, and I think that the debate has been excellent. And there is a certain unanimity here that I must confess that surprises me. And I think it is an indication that so far as democracy in the Province of Manitoba is concerned, that we have not too much to be concerned about in matters of this kind. But so far as the issue itself is concerned, we should be greatly exorcized over it and greatly concerned because it does affect every single person in Canada and even perhaps beyond the boundaries of our own country.
Now, Sir, in compliance with the custom and the rules of the House, I ask for permission to withdraw.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the Member asks to be withdrawn. May I have his permission to ask him a question?
MR. STINSON: If he promises to make it a good one.
MR. CAMPBELL: If it was a good one I wouldn't address it to my Honourable Friend. Mr. Speaker, my Honourable Friend has said that it is his expectation that the Federal Government would consider whether they should or should not disallow this legislation. But I want to ask him, is it not a fact that what he is asking in this resolution is that we are urging the government to disallow, not to consider?
MR. STINSON: Yes, that is a proper interpretation and that is our opinion, that the Federal Government should disallow this legislation. That is how we feel about it. This is the belief that we hold, this is undemocratic legislation and that it should be disallowed. My reply to him indicated that I would not expect the Federal Government to do it without consideration. They surely are responsible enough that they would look at it carefully and use their best judgment in the matter. Our judgment is, so far as our group is concerned, that this is bad legislation, it is undemocratic and it should be disallowed. So, Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, according to the custom, I must now ask for permission to withdraw the motion.
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party has permission of the House to withdraw this motion.
Agreed. Motion is withdrawn.
MR. F. L. JOBIN (Flin Flon): Before the Orders of the Day, if I may just impose for a minute. It is a fact that it is custom that as the session proceeds as long as we're going to last, that we should extol some of the accomplishments and feats of the people of Manitoba and I think it rightly so that we should do such a thing. I think it is only right too, that in this we should consider ladies first. I think it is only natural, too, that when we consider feats and accomplishments that we should think of Flin Flon and I am reminded, and I would like to remind this House, that as of yesterday the lady curlers of Flin Flon, representing the Province of Manitoba, won the Western Canada Ladies Curling Championship. I think we can say the Canadian Curling Championship, because there's no lady curlers down east of the calibre of championship. So I am sure that we are all proud of the ladies of Manitoba, and particularly the lady curlers of Flin Flon, and I am sure that this House would have me convey the undivided congratulations to those ladies.
MR. S. JUBA (Logan): Are we still before the Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker? I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and that is to find out when the report of the Greater Winnipeg Investigating Commission will be tabled in the House.
MR. JOHN THOMPSON (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, I may say that it will be tabled as soon as it's printed and that should be within ten days or two weeks.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): ... Orders of the Day. I think it would be unfair for the mover and seconder to commence at this late hour. I was just wondering whether the First Minister would adjourn the House now.
MR. ROBLIN: ... do that if it meets the wishes of the Members on the condition that we reconvene at eight o'clock to continue our business. I think, as a matter of fact, if I could just add to that statement, I think that my Honourable Friends who are moving and seconding have composed addresses to this Chamber of an admirable brevity, which I commend to some others around here, and I think they would probably -- I am willing to include myself in that -- and I think that probably they would wish to get on with it now rather than to have this thing continue. And I would suggest that we do here and now.
MR. SPEAKER: Consideration of the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. The Honourable Member for Hamiota.
MR. B. P. STRICKLAND (Hamiota): Mr. Speaker, I deem it a very great honour as the Member for Hamiota to have been asked by the Premier to move the address and reply to the Speech from the Throne. In greeting you, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the second Session, let me say how happy I am to see you resume your duties. I know you will again bring dignity and honour to this House and that all of your decisions will be made with fairness and impartiality.
Representing a constituency almost entirely dependent on agriculture for a livelihood, it is quite natural that I am primarily interested in legislature pertaining to agriculture. Certainly I realize that any act of the legislature affects all of the people of Manitoba but inasmuch as agriculture is still our basic industry and the backbone of provincial life, I am happy to note that we are to consider many new measures to benefit farming. Throughout the Province of Manitoba we have witnessed an ever-growing interest in the preparation of the seed our farmers plant. Realizing, of course, that the crop can only be as good as the seed it is grown from. A good example of this interest is the new seed cleaning plant at Rivers, Manitoba. I might add that Rivers is within the consituency of Hamiota. The government previously introduced legislation to help finance the construction of such plants, but as the financial interest has proven to be inadequate the government is now asking the legislature to increase this assistance. When we realize, Sir, that the average farm in Manitoba loses approximately $1,000.00 per year through unclean seed, you can see the importance of this step. The farmers of Rivers, prompted by the agricultural society of that area, decided to do something about this annual loss. In less than eigth months from incorporation, this small group of farmers has built a plant capable of cleaning 175 bushels per hour and with a storage capacity of 8,000 bushels. Other farmers see the value of seed cleaning to the extent that this plant is now operating 24 hours a day and farmers from as far as 60 and 70 miles away are making use of this facility. With the increased assistance we are now asking, it will be possible to build many more such plants throughout Manitoba. In this Province, Sir, we are experiencing an ever-growing concern over the number of young people leaving the farms. The hearts of these young men are back on the farm where they themselves should be, but they realize that unless their father, or their parents, have sufficient capital to start them up, and most of them today haven't, it is impossible for them to commence farming, so they drift away trying to make a living in some other field. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, we plan to improve the Agricultural Credit Act, providing special arrangements for young farmers. We are particularly interested that young farmers who thoroughly understand this business take advantage of this legislation rather than encouraging an onslaught of new farmers who have little knowledge of its many complexities. Many of our farmers have a gnawing fear of the ultimate result of vertical integration. A number of them have been forced into contracting with feed and seed plants because of the shortage of agricultural credit. The farmer has always been a proud and independent person and this act will help him to finance his own operations and thus remain independent of big business.
Another long awaited development in this Province is crop insurance and we, from the rural parts of the Province particularly, are very happy that a system of crop insurance will be introduced at this Session. I think practically everyone recognizes today that the economical farm is a highly mechanized and scientific business. Recognizing this fact, the government is promoting bursaries for diploma as well as degree students, expanding research, improving agricutural advisory and statistical services. It is very important further, Sir, that we as a government make sure that our farm people understand the statistical and the advisory capacity from the university, and it might be advisable, further Sir, that we make more use of our weekly papers which get into practically every home in our rural areas. And I might add, for the information of our Minister, that Hamiota has three such very fine newspapers, the Rivers Gazette, the Hamiota Echo and the Shoal Lake Star.
I have no hesitancy in saying that the constituency of Hamiota, which I am extremely proud to represent in this House, is one of the best mixed farming areas in Manitoba. My people in the Hamiota constituency are of an open mind, they are ready and willing to make use of any new ideas that show promise in raising their standards of living. We also have many outstanding agriculturalists, people who are known not only in Manitoba, but throughout Canada for their contributions to agriculture. I might mention the ... Brothers of Hamiota, the Clack Brothers of Rivers, Bill May of Strathclair, Eddie Arnold of Shoal Lake and Neil MacMurchie, the founder of Selkirk Wheat, of The Pas, Manitoba. And there are many others, Mr. Speaker. There's been people like this, Sir, who have been strong promoters of agricultural affairs in rural areas. And these people, among the rest, will be happy to note the increased assistance in this regard.
Turning to education, Mr. Speaker, I feel quite safe in saying the promotion of the new school divisions has been the most notable and progressive piece of legislation ever to be promoted by this House in the last 45 years. I think possibly the House may be interested in learning that I am the first Conservative to represent Hamiota in the last 45 years. ... [Interjection] ... it's still only 35. ... [Interjection] ... try to. This is a matter, Mr. Speaker, that affects the futures of our children. And I believe Manitoba is singularly fortunate in that most of the Members who supported this legislation in the House also supported it on the platform. I think every Member in the House will give full marks to the Minister of Education in his most notable achievement in promoting this plan, and that he has earned for himself an honoured position in the history of Manitoba. I think further, Mr. Speaker, we, as elected representatives of this House, would be very remiss in failing to recognize at this time the outstanding service of the administrative personnel of the Department of Education.
Mr. Speaker, we are to consider other very important measures such as providing higher levels of social security for the aged and infirm. Due to the high cost of living, of many of our older people, the very people who made this Province what it is today, find themselves existing under such coniditions that we in the present generation should be ashamed to have allowed to exist for so long. It is further planned, Sir, to transfer the financial responsibility for these cases from the municipalities to the province.
The proposed amendments to the Elderly Person's Housing Act will make it most attractive to volunteer organizations, charitable groups and municipalities to develop low rental housing accommodations for our senior citizens. And this, Sir, will meet a particular need in the rural areas as well as urban centres.
There is also provision to wholly relieve the municipalities of the financial responsibility for the maintenance of neglected children permitted by the courts.
These are only a few of the measures to be mentioned at this Session but they clearly indicate the aggressive leadership of the present government. A few months ago we heard the saying, "Who has Roblin got?" This government has now kept every promise ever made from an election platform. To do this inside of a year, Mr. Speaker, has required leadership, decision and action. Governments must be leaders of the people and not followers.
Fourteen years ago larger school areas of administration were advocated and for years only one such area had been formed. The Honourable Member for Gladstone, in speaking at a meeting prior to the referendum of February 27th, and I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment, said that the previous government had tried to sell the idea of larger school units to the people of Manitoba for the last ten years without any success. Our government, Sir,
received -- the report is for the administration of August of last year, and within six months through leadership of outstanding quality, courage and ability, practically the whole province has ruled itself in favour of the new method of administration.
Now having touched briefly, Sir, on some of the legislation brought forward in the Throne Speech, I feel that any decisions made in this House, and I'm sure my Honourable colleagues will agree with me on this, that we must -- what must be, and will be, in the best interest of the people of Manitoba as a whole. With these remarks and again expressing the pleasure this opportunity has given me, I have the honour to move, Sir, seconded by the Honourable Member for Wellington, that a humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor as follows: To His Honour John S. McDiarmid, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba, we her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in session assembled, humbly thank your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has been pleased to address us at the opening of the present Session.
MR. SPEAKER: Moved by the Honourable Member for Hamiota, seconded by the Honourable Member for Wellington, that a humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor as follows: To His Honour John S. McDiarmid, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba, we Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in session assembled, humbly thank your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has pleased to address us at the opening of the present session. The Honourable Member for Wellington.
MR. R. SEABORN (Wellington): Mr. Speaker and Honourable Members of this House, I would like to thank the Premier, too, on behalf of the constituency of Wellington, for this honour of having the opportunity to second the resolution in reply to the Speech from the Throne as so ably presented by my friend from Hamiota.
Wellington is a very important constituency for two reasons. First, it is a very potent force in the affairs of the City of Winnipeg and of the Province. And secondly, it happens to be my birthplace and my home. I have watched this district grow from a sparsely populated area to the very important position it now holds. Needless to say, I am very proud of my constituency as I am of my Province and of my native land.
To me, it has been particularly significant that this government first recognized our cultural enterprises which bring returns far beyond any calculation in monetary figures. Such pre-eminently are our schools and above all the school of the future. This is a school with proper recreation facilities, with reading rooms - a place for the day. And for rich and poor alike, the school must supplement the home for companionship's sake. The school is the gateway to the social progress of which we dream. Older people may get knocked out of the shape that they might have been and cannot be remade, but our children are still in the making, therefore, it was gratifying to see the people of Manitoba accepting a new school plan with such enthusiasm. To the schools will be added later, I hope, the great task of building up a whole range of cultural surrounding, libraries, proper facilities and support for our symphony, our ballet, museum, art galleries and other things we possess in common.
The encouragement of free enterprise into our remote regions by the planning and driving of broad highways through the wilderness, the development of our power resources and the transmitting of it to the areas where it will lighten the toil of human labour, we must all recognize is a policy far-reaching in its vision and of great benefit to us all.
Free enterprise, wide-awake to its own advantage, alert to find opportunities anywhere through the length and breadth of our great province, will provide the motive, power and the incentive to develop and populate our great northland. But we must be sure that private enterprise has a real chance, and give it freedom from all forms of taxation that will kill initiative and lead to industrial stagnation. However, the First Minister and his government has reminded us that the greatest of our private industries is agriculture, and towards this, their most earnest encouragement has been directed. We must give the farmer every chance and we cannot do so by applying the socialistic doctrine of taking away his farm. On the contrary, we must see that he can stay on the farm and this I'm happy to note is obviously a major project of the present government.
To those of us who reside in the city, the flood control proposals were indeed most welcome. For many years we have felt a sense of dread at the coming of spring -- at the potential danger that threatened to jeopardize all that we possessed. This project is long overdue. Our society is too complex, too highly industrialized to leave it at the mercy of the uncontrolled waters of the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers. We are relieved that our government recognizes its duty in protecting us from these inundations, both real and potential.
But it is in the field of health and welfare that I derive my greatest satisfaction. I need not hide my elation at the great improvements in store for our older citizens, both on a higher level of social security and in better, more adequate arrangements that will be made for the care and housing of our older citizens. This has been a responsibility that we have been inclined to shun in the past. Many of our parents have lived a hungered and in abject poverty because we were not Christian enough to care what happened to them. It has been said many times before, and I repeat it, all our future must depend on the kind of a future we desire to have.
The more we study political institutions, the more we realize they are entirely dependent on what we call religion, morality, righteousness. We are not necessarily thinking here of religion in the sense in which many people use it to mean the creed and services of the church, although for many, perhaps most of us, it is embodied in that outward and approachable form. And indeed, for nearly all people of today from all teachings of Christianity, the Sermon on the Mount, the sublime ideals of duty and self-sacrifice held up in the New Testament correspond so entirely with what they feel in their hearts that they need no other proof. Seen in this light, all political contrivance is in vain unless it is based on righteousness. Without righteousness, the richer our country, the more rapid will be our ruin. Give us men of goodwill whose hearts are in the cause and our happiness is assured.
Therefore, Sir, it gives me great pleasure to second the resolution in reply to the Speech from the Throne as moved by the Honourable Member from Hamiota.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. ROBLIN: I think we might just as well, eh?
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Member for Rhineland that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared it carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until Monday evening at 8 o'clock. ]
Page revised: 21 September 2009