Manitoba Hansard

Volume II No. 7 - 2:30 p.m., Friday, March 20, 1959

Page Index


Table of Contents


2:30 o'clock, Friday, March 20th, 1959

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.

Presenting Petitions.

MR. CLERK: The petition of Earl Malcolm Campbell, James Arthur Eldridge and others praying for an Act to incorporate the Wildwood Club.

MR. SPEAKER: Reading and Receiving Petitions.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Notices of Motion.

Introduction of Bills.

MR. S. JUBA (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Osborne, that leave be given to introduce Bill No. 70, an Act to amend the Margarine Act and that same be now received and read the first time.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion. ]

MR. L. STINSON (Leader of the C.C.F. Party)(Osborne): Mr. Speaker ... did not consult me about this seconding and I am not accustomed to seconding motions without having been consulted.

MR. JUBA: Can I get your permission?

MR. L. STINSON (Leader of the C.C.F.): I don't know what is in the bill, Sir, and I'm not prepared to second it.

MR. JUBA: It is coloured margarine.

MR. CAMPBELL: ... how far you go along this front desk ...

MR. JUBA: Mr. Speaker, if the Honourable Member wants to withdraw as a seconder could I introduce another seconder? I have other alternatives.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no motion before the House, I think what you should do maybe is to ask to withdraw the motion and re-introduce it at some future date.

MR. JUBA: Mr. Speaker, may I withdraw the motion and have it re-presented?

MR. SPEAKER: You have my permission, by leave of the House.

The Honourable Member for ...

MR. JUBA: Can't I re-introduce that motion, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it's not before the House until it's read. The motion is not before the Legislature until it has been read by the Speaker.

MR. JUBA: This margarine question has been killed in more than one way.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital.

MR. F. GROVES (St Vital): I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Rupertsland, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 65, an Act to amend The Chiropodists Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights.

MR. W. B. SCARTH, Q.C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I moved, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 32, an Act to amend The Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District Act and that the same be now received and read for a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't get the seconder and ...

MR. SCARTH: St. Matthews, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: I beg your pardon.

MR. SCARTH: St. Matthews, Sir.

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

MR. SCARTH: This time, Mr. Speaker, I have written so that it can be read. I move, Sir, seconded by the Honourable, the Member for Winnipeg Centre, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 42, An Act to amend The Greater Winnipeg Water District Act and that the


same be now received and read for a first time.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable, the Minister of Health & Welfare.

HONOURABLE GEORGE JOHNSON, M.D. (Minister of Health & Public Welfare)(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Provincial Secretary that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 21, an Act to amend the Anatomy Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.

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

HON. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Education, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 23, an Act to amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

MR. P. WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Acting Public Works Minister. Whether or not the government intends to construct access roads in 1959, to the villages of Komarno, Malonton, Fraserwood, Meleb, Rembrandt, Sylvan.

HONOURABLE ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Acting Minister of Public Works)(Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get the information for the Honourable Member. I didn't have notice of the question and therefore, I haven't got the information. I will have it for you on Monday.

MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable, the Minister of Education. He is reported in the daily press as having said at a nominating convention that Government members have a better entree into Government departments than do other members. He is quoted as saying - "If you have a Conservative M.L.A., you will have a better entree into the departments of the Government and of having adequate consideration given to your problems. There is no question that a member on personal terms with the Government can in a very real measure, serve his constituents with more ease and more effectively than can a member of an opposition group." The question is, is it the policy of the Government to discriminate against those who live in constituencies that are represented by members of the Opposition?

HONOURABLE STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education)(Dauphin): No discrimination, Mr. Speaker.


MR. R. W. BEND (Rockwood-Iberville): ... It is not a rule I rise, Mr. Speaker, to correct Hansard and it makes it doubly difficult to correct it when you can hardly see it or find it. But, when I asked, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member about, the Honourable First Minister rather, "does the Honourable First Minister believe that it is the duty of a representative of this House to tell a person how to vote?" - he said very emphatically "No, Sir, never in my life" and then he went on to amend, well, never is a long time and finished the answer. Now, it is put in Hansard "A member said 'No, Sir, never in my life'". It was the Honourable, the First Minister who said "No, Sir, never in my life." I would like that correction made.

HONOURABLE DUFF ROBLIN (Premier)(Wolseley): ... anyone, 'never in my life,' but I have sure tried to persuade a lot of people.

MR. BEND: I knew you would like me to correct that.

MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Last summer when representatives of the Manitoba Federation of Labour met with you to discuss the virtual impossibility of organizing workers at Moak Lake, you suggested to them that these difficulties would be overcome once the hotel at Thompson was built, and you intimated this would be completed in the near future. According to my information, construction is proceeding at a snail's pace. Could you tell us, Mr. Minister, whether the hotel will be ready for occupancy this summer, and if not, whether any other accomodations might be made available to union organizers interested in servicing the present members or organizing those still unorganized?

HONOURABLE J. THOMPSON (Minister of Labour)(Virden): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the Honourable Member for St. John's, I would like to state that in my opinion,


hotel accommodation will be ready this summer. I think accommodation for a few will be ready by the first of April. We have during the past several months made representations to the INCO Company and to others concerned to persuade them to prepare accommodation as quickly as possible. I have actually received some pictures of the present structure of the hotel under construction which I will be glad to show the Honourable Member at his convenience. It is going up, and as I say, there will be some accommodation by the first of April, but the hotel -- in answer to his question -- will definitely be ready this summer.

One other factor arises - there are 100 homes already built and in use in Thompson and I am sure that any member, any representative of the Labour Union or any other citizen of the Province could make arrangements to stay at any one of the 100 homes if the owners or tenants as wished, but there is accommodation there in the form of private homes which any person could arrange to obtain. There is one other factor I would mention that lots are available for purchase, and I am sure that if any member of a union desired to buy a lot right now and build a home in Thompson, that he would be able to do so.

MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Sir, a supplementary question. On September, I haven't got the correspondence here, I intended to raise it on another occasion -- but on September 8th of last year the representative of the Steel Workers' Union wrote to the local Government administrator asking for permission to buy a lot for a home and for permission to buy a lot in the business section for construction of an office. Now a copy of that letter was sent to the First Minister and the reply received from the First Minister was that he hoped the matter would be arranged shortly. To date the union has not received any reply form the local Government administrator telling him that they can buy a lot, or when, or what the conditions are. I am glad to get you explanation and I will certainly pass the information along, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. THOMPSON: ... I would like in reply to your supplementary questoin to say that I believe the answer of the local Government administrator at Mystery Lake, was that as soon as the legal sub-division of the lots had taken place, then anyone could apply, but at the time at which the labour union made application, there was no completed sub-division of the lots in Thompson. Since, and I think he stated in his letter, I believe I received a copy, I think he stated in his letter that after sub-division of the property then was the time to apply for a lot. Now that, of course, has since been completed.

MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable, the First Minister. What percentage of the Flood Control cost will the municipalities concerned be asked to pay?

HON. DUFF ROBLIN: I am unable to answer that question at the present time because as the Honourable Member knows we are awaiting discussions with Ottawa on the total question of the Flood Prevention Plan. It is my hope, however, that we will not ask municipalities for anything.

MR. WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Utilities. Whether steps have been taken to extend bus services from Hodgson to Koostatak?

MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): ... the acting Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. JOHN CARROLL (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I think certain steps have been taken to have that bus line franchise extended. Now whether there have been any steps taken recently or not, I am not aware. I know that there was an application some time ago before the Board. I don't know whether there has been any recent application or not. I could find out and let you know.

MR. STINSON: ... undertake to give us a definite answer?

MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): I would like to be excused for having got up too soon, a few minutes ago. I would like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Municipal Affairs and ask him when he expects to table the report of The Greater Winnipeg Investigating Commission?

HON. MR. THOMPSON: The question, of course, was asked the other day by the Honourable Member for Logan and I told him I thought it would be within ten days or two weeks. I have since been advised by the Queen's Printer that they promise the report not later than the 31st of March, and that is the only information I can give you. It will be tabled, of course, as soon as the copies are printed.


MR. S. JUBA: ... that matter, the municipalities have agreed to have this report tabled in the Legislature first before the copies are released to the various municipalities. Well, on the assumption that the House is dissolved, where do we stand? Will we get a copy?

HON. MR. THOMPSON: I would say in answer to the Honourable Member for Logan, Mr. Speaker, that definitely as soon as copies are printed, they will be distributed. We are having 500 copies prepared and they will be distributed the very moment they come off the press.

MR. JUBA: My question, Mr. Speaker, was primarily that when the Honourable Minister got all the municipalities together, they had moved and this motion was carried that the reports should not be released to the municipalities until such time as it was tabled in the House. Now, I made the point very clear, that there was a possibility that the House will be dissolved before this report is available, but now there is a tendency that the House will be dissolved. Now, I don't know, if it is intention of the Minister to abide by the decision of the municipalities or not. Now if you are going to release this report, then you are not abiding by the decision as set down by the municipalities at the recent meeting with them.

HON. MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I feel that we are abiding by the decision. The decision was, as I recall, at the meeting of the various representatives of the municipalities of Greater Winnipeg was that the report be tabled in the Legislature if it was ready by that time. Now, I think it is understood that if the House is not in existence when the printing is completed that it will whenever it is completed still be published. We will publish the report as soon as it is ready. We can't very well publish it or distribute copies before they print it. The fact that the House might not be in existence before it's ready will not interfere with the date of the publication of the report. And I repeat again, it will be distributed to everyone as soon as the printed copies are available.

MR. WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Public Works Minister. Under what qualification in disorganized territory do market roads come to be constructed, proclaimed or announced?

HONOURABLE ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Public Works)(Turtle Mountain): I will be glad to take that as a notice of question and get the information for the Honourable Member. I would like to see it in writing and also the question which he asked previously. I am just writing him a note now, would he please give it to me in writing? I don't know what you said. And would you put both of them in writing, please? And we'll be able to get a correct answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

HON. DUFF ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay on the table of the House a copy of the Public Accounts for the last fiscal year and also a return to order of the House, No. 5, on the motion of the Honourable Member for Radisson.

HONOURABLE STERLING LYON (Attorney-General)(Fort Garry): Before the Orders of the Day, I should like to lay on the table of the House a copy of a nil return under the Controverted Elections Act (a) from the Court of Queen's Bench, (b) from the Manitoba Court of Appeal. They say that eight copies of these have been forwarded to the clerk for distribution in the usual way. I would also like to lay on the table of the House a copy of the report of the Commission on Uniformity of Legislation for the year 1958 and a copy of a nil return under the Trade Practices Enquiry Act for the year ending 31st December 1958.

MR. S. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): ... Before the Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. I've had a delegation of woodsmen from the reserve area east of here who maintain that they have been told that they will have to vacate the forests, will have to get out whether they have finished cutting their permits and sales, whether or not they have finished cutting them by March 31st. If this is correct, could you tell us why?

HONOURABLE GURNEY EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Honourable Member for La Verendrye for his courtesy in giving me notice of this question. It is true that the regulations called for all work to be completed by the 31st of March because of the fire hazards that normally exist at that time when the slash that results from the woods operations is burned. It is the practice on those occasions when the fire hazard is low, to permit a few extra days. It is impossible at the present time to say what the fire hazard conditions will be in any part of the woods. But we propose to follow the usual practice of allowing the operation to continue to


the last practical moment, but no guarantee beyond the 31st of March.

MR. S. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): I have a question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct to the Minister of Public Utilities concerning the Manitoba Telephone Systems. They have an agreement with the Greenland and Chortitz local telephone exchanges, made an agreement in which the Manitoba Telephone System would take over these exchanges, and the original agreement was that there would be on the farm rural lines six to eight parties on each line. Now according to the plans that are out, there are at least 12 to 14 farmers being put on each line as I have seen. Is this correct and is this the policy of the new telephone exchange to have this many people on each telephone exchange?

MR. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of my Honourable friend from La Verendrye I'm informed that the system is designed to have a maximum capacity of 10 telephones per line. It cannot exceed that number, and we hope, of course, that it will have less than that on each line.

MR. JUBA: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to announce that it was recommended by the Finance Committee of the City of Winnipeg that the 1959 taxes be increased by one mill.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to lay on the table the report of the Workmen's Compensation Board for the year ending December 31st, 1958.

HONOURABLE STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education)(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I wish to lay on the table of the House the annual report of the Legislative Library, Province of Manitoba for the year 1958.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.


MR. D. SWAILES (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House, I would like to submit the questions that are listed under my name and also with the permission of the House be excused from reading them out because it's a rather lengthy list.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we not require a motion for this?


[Mr. Speaker presented the question to the House and the House agreed. ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia.

MR. SWAILES: ... that an order of the House do issue for a Return showing the information requested, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks.

MR. SPEAKER: Moved by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that an order of the House do issue for a Return showing: (1) a change, if any, that has been made since July 1, 1958 in respect to the regulations governing the administration of Mother's Allowance; (2) the payment now being made to mothers; (3) the reduction for payments that are made on account of income received by the family other than Mother's Allowance; (4) the additions of assistance, if any, that may be given to the families in need.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia.

MR. SWAILES: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks that an order of the House do issue for a Return giving the information sought.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that an order of the House do issue for a Return showing: (1) the number of new industries established in Manitoba in 1958; (2) the location of each such industry; (3) the numbers of employees employed by each of such industry; (4) the original captial invested in each industry; (5) the number of business failures in Manitoba in 1958; (6) the total liabilities involved in such failures.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows.

MR. R. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable Member for Burrows, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that an order of the House do issue for a Return showing:


(a) What was the number of children admitted into the care of the Department of Social Welfare -- (i) Children of unmarried mothers; (ii) Apprehended through neglect in the years 1956, 1957, 1958; and

(b) What was the average cost for full maintenance per child, per month, for the children committed as wards of the government in the years 1955-56, 1956-57, and 1957-58.

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

MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move in the absence of the Honourable Member from Burrows, seconded by the Honourable Member for Kildonan, that an order of the House do issue for a return showing: What amounts of revenues have been received by the Government during 1957-58 for: (a) Big game licenses; (b) Upland bird and water fowl licenses; (c) Trapping licenses; (d) Sports fishing licenses; (e) Commercial fishing licenses.

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

MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable Member for Radisson, I beg leave to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Elmwood ... Maybe I'll come back into this House sometime this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, it is the Honourable Member for Burrows - I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Elmwood, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing: (a) How many barrels of crude oil were produced in the Province of Manitoba during the years 1954, '55, '56, '57, '58. (b) How much money was received by the Government for royalties or produced for each of the years 1954, '55, '56, '57 & '58.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia.

MR. SWAILES: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that an order of the House do issue for a return showing the inforation sought here.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Inkster.

MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, may I beg leave to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, that this House request the Government to petition the Federal government for an increase of all Old Age and Blind Pensioners in the province from $55.00 to $75.00 per month.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for Inkster, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, that this House request the Government to petition the Federal government for an increase of all Old Age and Blind Pensioners in the Province of Manitoba from $55.00 to $75.00 a month. Are you ready for the question?

MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, one of the oldest members in this House and perhaps the brainiest, outside of my honourable leader, once objected to members reading their speeches. Since then I have observed that those who read their speech hold their speech in their hand and those who do not read their speech have their speech on the desk, or have better eyesight. In view of the fact that I have to quote some figures, I would be permitted to hold the figures closer to me, and I can assure you that the figures that I am going to quote are not mine but they come form a reliable source, and I have no intention to make too many personal observations. The Resolution speaks for itself. It has nothing to do with the resolution passed in the last session to do something more for the Old Age Pensioners which we will have an opportunity to discuss it when the bill of the Honourable Minister of Health will be presented to this House.

Since 1949, Mr. Speaker, the purchasing power of the dollar has been rapidly depreciating so that the $55 per month which the Old Age Pensioner receives today is worth only $43.58 in terms of the 1949 dollar. This is based on the consumer's price index for December 1958 which was 126.2. Therefore since April 1949 when the pension was set at $40 the Old Age Pensioner has received only $3.58 increase in the purchasing value of his pension. In other words the pension has been increased in real value by 8.9%. On the other hand, the cost of living has increased by 26.2% during the same period. Thus we see that the increase in the Old Age Pension has not kept pace with the rising cost of living.

Another point ... in 1949 when the pension was set at $40 per month, the gross national product stood at $16 1/2 billion. The gross national product for 1958 was estimated to be $32 billion, or an increase of 95% over the 1949 figure. If the Old Age pensions were related to the rate of the increase in gross natural product since 1949, then the amount which the pensioners should be receiving is $78 per month. This is more than we are asking.


Another point of interest is found in the survey made by the Ontario Welfare Council, as it appeared in the Globe and Mail of February 19, 1959: "The Old Age Pension is $55 a month, but the Ontario Welfare Council shows a person needs from $86 to $98 per month for modest living. The pensions of a man and his wife would total $110 but the same survey shows they jointly need from $135 to $149." Then what are they supposed to live on? Their savings presumably, but how many have it? The compulsory retirement plans put people out of jobs at the age 65 or younger. Many are being laid off at 60. They are replaced by younger men, so that by the time they reach pension age of 70 their savings or their other help are likely gone.

With reference to those persons receiving pensions who are not actually in need of it, in my opinion they are such a small percentage based on the number of old age persons who were put to the Means Test before they were transferred to the Old Age Security Branch in 1952, and the large number that is being transferred by the Old Age Pension Board in Manitoba to the Old Age Security when they reach the age of 70. In other words if you are taking the figures only of this province, it indicates that at least 75% are on the Means Test. It means that they have no other income at all and this may apply throughout Canada, naturally. And the 25% or less of the others may be justified for the reasons I am going to state right now.

I am of the opinion -- although I have no evidence to support it -- that very many of the senior citizens in Canada who are not in need are not applying for this benefit. I don't say all, but a very big percentage. The total number of persons receiving Old Age Security as of March 31, 1958 in Canada was 827,560. The number receiving Old Age Assistance under the same date in all provinces of Canada is 92,484. According to the Annual Report of the Department of National Health and Welfare 1958, 20% of all persons between the ages of 65 and 69 received Old Age Assistance, under the Means Test.

I do not think we can assume, however, this 20% represents accurately the number in need. I am sure there are persons in need of assistance who have not applied because of the embarrassment of subjecting themselves to a Means Test. And I have already spoken in this House many times of the miserable situation, the tragedy, of a man applying for any help under a Means Test. This is one reason why the C.C.F. have advocated the abolition of the Means Test at 65. It is true that pensions would be paid to some who do not need it. In reply to this I may state that the majority of the people are not to suffer for the small minority; and secondly, in such cases the money would be returned to the Treasury through income tax levies. If a person is very wealthy the $50 - $75 which he will receive, the biggest portion would go back to the Income Tax. I also think that from the Administrative point of view it would be easier to pay to all persons a pension when they reach age 65 than to attempt to distinguish between those who need and those who do not, and there will be a great saving in the administration if you have all receive a pension of $75 at the age of 65.

For the information of the House, may I state that the total cost of the Old Age Security for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1958, was about $475 million, and the cost of the Old Age Assistance for the same period was about $25 million. My point is this: the majority of our senior citizens who have made this country rich and developed it to the extent where the gross national product for 1958 was estimated at $32 billion, there is no valid reason why the 15 million population in Canada should not take care of less than a million of our senior population in a more humane way than some people are trying to have us believe.

The Bill of the Honourable Minister of Health before the House on some improvement for the pensioners under the Means Test in this province is very much appreciated, but it does not solve the main problem nationally, and that is what the population asks for: an expression of opinion of this House that they are not opposed to a national program, and they are not to put out any money as this is not a money matter. It is just an expression of opinion that we here in this House believe that the senior citizens who have no other income should not be allowed to exist or starve on $55.00 a month, although I don't say that $75 is sufficient, but they're not asking for it. We should not allow it. It's only a matter of principle, and as I said, those who do not need it, so many of them are honest enough not to apply -- I don't say the others are dishonest, that's their privilege -- but at the same time, many do not apply and those who do apply much of the major part of their pension is going back to the people. I respectfully ask that this motion be passed here as an expression of opinion to give our moral support to


the general situation in Canada without affecting directly taxes put upon our own people in the province, because they will not indirectly, perhaps in the long run they will, but direct taxation we will not be responsible for it. And I think perhaps the federal government may be thinking the same way and it would be encouragement for them if this province would say, as far as we are concerned that we have no objection.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

MR. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews, that the debate be adjourned.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fisher -- Proposed Resolution.

MR. WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Brokenhead, whereas the Agricultural Support Bill of the Federal Government does not give any assistance to the growers of wheat, oats, and barley in Western Canada; and whereas the need for such assistance is shown by the fact that in the period since 1947, the costs of the goods which farmers have to buy have risen by approximately 50%, while the prices received for wheat, oats, and barley, have dropped by about 21%.

Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this House, the Government of Manitoba should use its influence as spokesman for the people of this province, to impress upon the Government of Canada, the need for cash payments to western farmers, to make up the deficiency between costs paid and prices received, in order to assure to western farmers a standard of living comparable to the average enjoyed by the people of Canada.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion. ]

MR. WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak long on this resolution, but I would like to make some comments on it. First of all, the agriculture is the only source of food and fibre in this country. This is true, not only of this country, but, the Canadian farm has been traditionally the bread basket of the world. We will never forget, I am sure the members of the government do not forget, that in the First and Second World Wars -- perhaps to a greater extent in the Second World War -- the farmers of Canada provided food enough not only to feed the population of this country, but to send food to Great Britain, France and our allies. Yes, agriculture is the source and the only source of food and fibre in this country, without which there could be nothing else. We can talk about our manufacturing industries, important as they may be, our processing industries, our professions and everything else, but without the food and fibre upon which mankind depends, there could be none of these other good things of life.

Secondly, agriculture is the basis for many of our secondary industries. I sometimes feel resentful when I hear people who are interested primarily in the secondary industries -- manufacturing and processing -- treating agriculture as if it were something unimportant. They should realize that without agriculture probably anywhere from 40 to 50% of our secondary industries would not exist because they are built around what is produced on the land. The people who find employment in these industries would have no income. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is self-explanatory, because the principle of this proceeding has been presented in the past to the Federal Government as well as to the Provincial Government by the C.C.F. members of both Houses. The farm organizations also delegated such briefs, urging the government to bring agricultural commodities into the same bracket. To bring living standards of the farmers as in other phases of the economy.

I personally recall, Sir, in February 1956, when I was one of the delegates representing the whole interlake area, District #5, of Farmers Union, to the former government at Ottawa, urging stability in the agricultural economy, we, that is 80 or 90 of us from the whole west, also met with the Prime Minister, as of now Mr. Diefenbaker, but at that time the Prime Minister was only a leader of the Conservative Party. Mr. Diefenbaker stated, as I recall, that if we had the right type of government, namely a Conservative government, not one field of economy would suffer. What we need is stability to be brought forward to the whole nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disturbed by the attitude of our Honourable Minister of Agriculture, but on the other hand, I am not too surprised, due to the statement made by my leader that some of our own ministers are Tuxedo farmers. Agricultural Minister stated $1,500.00 was too steep for farmer, or rather way up in the skies; also that small farmer would not benefit. Did he give any thought to a farmer who is in livestock or poultry department?


They are just to happy that the large grain producer is not diverting his management into livestock to create a large surplus in the livestock department. Also we have a bill, 237, which is a Civilization Bill, which is supposed to take care of that field. I'm sure the Honourable Minister knows $1.00 per acre was paid only on permit book holders. There was a terrific amount of dissatisfaction among those farmers that had no permit books -- had no need for them. I must say, with all sincerity, that some got that treaty money after going through a lot of red tape. Mind you, there are some that still are fighting for it and may not get it due to not having a permit book in the past. So what is so good about $1.00 per acre payment? Also, the Honourable Minister states that he saw farmers off on stations leaving for Ottawa. The handshake does not bring the farmer expenses paid.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore if the farmer has only 50 acres, multiply on the average of 30 bushels. It brings to 1500 bushels per year. Also the deficiency payment is requested for years '55, '56 and '57. It would bring, roughly speaking, for example, that he sold wheat only in the amount of 1,000 bushels, never mind the 1,500, but 1,000 in '55, in '56 and then naturally you sow the third crop oats. That would bring oats to up to 1,000 bushels. He would have received according to farmers' requests under deficiency payment for '55 - '56 fiscal year at 22¢, $220.00. For '56 and '57 at 35¢, $350.00. For '57 and '58, oats at 12¢, $120.00. So a farmer would have received in total $690.00, that is, in my own calculations. Conversely $1.00 per acre, this farmer would have received for three years only $150.00. But Mr. Speaker, the government did not have a plan to pay $1.00 per acre for the three years, or even to continue to pay the following year. So the small farmer would have received only $50.00 rather than $690.00. I should like, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to outline or refresh the memory of the members of this House by giving some facts and figures. Agriculture in Manitoba is big business -- somewhere in the neighbourhood of $251,000,000. We have 40,000 farmers in Manitoba. I shall at this time mention statistics covering only for one commodity -- and it's grain. In 1947 farm costs went up 50.3%; in 1958 farm prices went down 28%. This is what we farmers call the two-way stretch. Our prices down -- wheat 20.8%, barley 29%, oats 36.7%, flax 45.5%. Now other prices up. Weekly earnings 77.3%; gross national products 100%; wholesale price index 59.5%; freight rates 120%; and now even more. What are we going to do about this? Unbelievable but true. Manitoba farm cash income in 1947, $181,793,000.00. In 1957, $204,350,000.00. Up $22,557,000. Manitoba net farm income in 1947, $104,782,000.00. In 1957, $77,100,000.00. No other business in the world can operate on basis such as this. Why should we? Farmers make up 13.6% of the population; farmers received 5.6% of the national income. Their rightful share should be 13.6%. The objective of the farmer is parity for agriculture. This means receiving our fair share of the national income. We ask only for reasonable returns -- not priority -- but parity. Not favours but fair play. No charity but justice. Not handout but handback. Only once in the history of western Canadian agriculture has the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat been lower than it is at the present time, and that was during the great depression of the '30s. In 1946 it took one box carload of grain to buy a small combine, while now it takes 2 1/4 box carloads -- that is, 1,845 bushels compared with 3,963 bushels.

Protection for others. It has been argued that the Canadian economy cannot afford to guarantee the farmer a parity price for his produce. The fact remains, however, that this is precisely what we do for every other section of the economy. The gold mining industry is subsidized to the tune of some $40,000,000 a year; The Gordon Commission estimated that our Canadian tariff system costs the people of Canada over one billion dollars per year. This is money which all the citizens of Canada pay in order to protect Canadian industry against its foreign competitors. If we can afford to pay over one billion dollars a year to give our manufacturers a price for their products, which will bear a fair relationship to their costs, then surely we can afford to pay to our farmers a few million dollars to give farmers a price for their products which will bear a fair relationship to farm costs. Parity should not be too difficult to obtain. I should like to quote from a clipping I have here, date March 12th, 1956, where in the House of Commons, Mr. Diefenbaker submitted a resolution (that's when he was in the Opposition) "In the opinion of this House consideration should be given by the Government to the possibility of introducing during the present session, legislation to create a parity of


price for agricultural products at levels to insure producers a fair cost-price relationship." This speech commences on pages 2020 of Hansard. Mr. Diefenbaker made a powerful case for parity prices. In doing so, he made the following ringing declaration; "The squeeze which the farmer suffers results in the disparity in the relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices the farmer has to pay."


When they are in proper relationship parity is established. And it is parity that the farmer organizations across this country are asking for today -- not charity but parity. And I leave it to you -- one dollar an acre -- is it parity or charity? I believe the question of fair farm prices is one of our biggest national problems. Rising costs, caused by inflation and by administers--prices of large manufacturing corporations are at the root of the many problems facing farmers and workers alike. During the five years farmers have literally got it in the neck and labour too is being hit with the same club. Living costs are climbing rapidly while at the same time the wheels of industry are slowing down and unemployment is increasing. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I do hope that for the well-being of my fellow farmer and for the good of the agricultural economy as a whole that this resolution will receive the favourable consideration of this House and later of the government of Canada.

MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that the debate be adjourned.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution, the Honourable Member for Elmwood.

MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Radisson, whereas the cost of living has been rising steadily since the end of World War II; and whereas average wages have been increased in order to keep in line with the cost of living; and whereas in many parts of Canada, including Manitoba, minimum wage rates have not kept pace with the increased cost of living and a general increase in the wage rates, resolve that in the opinion of this House the government of Manitoba should take the initiative in proposing to the federal government that in conjunction with all the provinces steps should be taken without delay to institute a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour for all workers in Canada.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion. ]

MR. PETERS: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak very long. I want to place before this House a few figures compiled from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I will start off by -- there is no doubt that the cost of living has increased taking 1949 as a 100 basis, cost of living has now increased to 126.1. So there is no doubt that the cost of living has increased; that the wages have increased to keep pace with the cost of living. I'll give you a few figures taken from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics under man hours and hourly earnings, the average hourly earnings from the first quarter in 1949 to the first quarter in 1958 under the heading of Canadian Industry. Motor vehicles in 1949 was $1.21 per hour - in 1958 $1.99 an hour; construction trades, $1.01 an hour in 1949 - $1.78 in 1958; heavy electrical machinery and equipment, $1.18 in '49 to $1.90 in 1958; total iron and steel products, $1.09 in 1949 and $1.87 in 1958; primary iron and steel, $1.12 in '49 - $2.19 in '58; products of petroleum and coal, $1.23 in '49 - $2.29 in 1958; pulp and paper industry, $1.13 in '49 - $2.05 in '58; new products, $1.04 in '49 and $1.70 in 1958, which clearly shows that the wages have increased to keep in line with the rise of cost of living.

Now the basic wage of certain industries have risen in 1949 to 1958 from 70¢ in 1948 to $1.50 in 1958 in the steel industry. In the packing house industry, the wages have increased from 1950 of $1.06 to $1.67 in 1958. That is the basic rate, not the average hourly rate.

Also some figures here from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics taken in 1955; a survey was taken of 787 families in Halifax, Toronto, Kitchener, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. The families averaged 3.22 persons and their average expenditures for the year were $4,424, broken down into housing, furnishings and heat, etc., $1200 per year; food, $1121; clothing, $380; auto and other transport, $468; medical and personal care, $278; recreation, $178; smoking and beverages, $172; gifts, donations, $103; personal taxes, $246; security, $183; education, reading and miscellaneous, $95, which totals $4,424.

Now, that was taken on a survey of 787 families. I don't know who the Dominion Bureau of Statistics went to see, whether they went to see the people in the high income brackets or who, but it took those families that much to live per year. Now how can anyone, with the minimum wage that we have, not only in this province, but across the rest of Canada, expect to ever buy a home or any of these necessities that these 787 families had? Now the reason that I say that the provincial government should take the initiative to contact the federal government and institute a national minimum wage act is this -- that if you pass it in one province for $1.25 an hour, you will chase industry out. We agree with that. Because if you have a minimum


wage of $1.25 in Manitoba and you have a minimum wage of 60¢ in Quebec, you can be sure that industry will run to Quebec. Therefore that is the reason that I believe that this government should get in touch with all the rest of the provinicial governments and, as quickly as possible, have a conference and see what they can do about this minimum wage act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

MR. D. SWAILES (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Burrows that the debate be adjourned.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia.

MR. SWAILES: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, whereas constantly recurring mass unemployment, causing losses in wealth production amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars every year, causing untold distress and demoralization for thousands of families, is the most serious problem facing the people of Canada today, be it resolved that in the opinion of the House, the government of Manitoba should urge upon the government of Canada, the imperative need for immediate and effective action in conjunction with provincial and municpal governments, to assure that, through the medium of public works, fiscal, financial, and educational policies, there shall be useful and productive employment for every person able and willing to work, in every part of Canada.

[Mr. Speaker presented the motion. ]

MR. SWAILES: Mr. Speaker, it's nearly a quarter of a century since the John Maynard teams, economists, pointed out ways and means by which governments could assure full employment, where they could use their powers over the money supplies to keep the economies of their countries in balance. When private industry was slacking, governmental expenditures be increased, and when private industry was active, then governmental expenditures should decrease. And it's almost incredible that in Canada, this year, in a country which has so vast an amount of natural wealth, wealth which has been undeveloped, -- a country with a relatively small population, -- should have at the beginning of this year, in 1959, more than three-quarters of a million workers unemployed. And in the area served by the Winnipeg Employment Office we find that at the end of February, 23,899 men and women, who are able and willing to work, without employment. At the 12th of March this has been reduced to 23,240.

Now in this group of unemployed workers there were some 1300 skilled carpenters; a similar number of taxi, truck, and tractor drivers; 1314 sales clerks; 1434 general office clerks; 664 textile workers; 599 construction machinery operators; 497 waiters and waitresses; and 446 metal workers; and something like 15,000 other general workers with miscellaneous skills. And more serious still, Mr. Speaker, if some of the forecasts that have been made from this side of the House and in the press gallery are correct, that by Wednesday of next week will be added to this the total of unemployment, some 57 unemployed members of this Legislature.

In wages alone, this large number of unemployed, represents a loss in wages alone of something approaching a million dollars a week. But when the loss of production, and the loss of service is taken into account, the material loss is tremendous. But this material loss, as heavy as it is, fades into insignificance, compared with the untold misery, the unhappiness and demoralization which is ruining the lives of thousands of families almost within a stone's throw of this building.

I'd like to quote, very briefly, Sir William Beveridge. He says this: "Society exists for the individual. A person who cannot sell his labour is told in effect that he is of no use. That is a personal catastrophe." This is true even if unemployment insurance is available. Idleness curse -- the feeling of not being wanted -- demoralizes. And while some unemployment insurance may ease the situation for a worker, the enforced idleness and the lowering of income brings all kinds of stresses into the home. The assurance of full employment must be the responsibility of the state. No one else has the requisite power. It's a responsibility of the state to protect its citizens from mass unemployment, just as much as it is to protect them against attacks from abroad or from robbery and violence at home. And Professor W. Wing, economist in the University here in Manitoba says this, "that if private enterprise is unable to achieve a high level of income for the people, there's no justification in limiting public projects


to non-competitive activity". And the fact that we have so many unemployed after all the years that have passed since the teamsian ideas were established, points out, very clearly, the miserable failure of our government in this country to do their job properly.

We've had for almost a century, alternating Liberal and Conservative governments. And under each type of government, we've had recurring mass unemployment. And now, we have more unemployed than at any time since the depression of the thirties. I think it's just about a year ago, in March of last year, that John Diefenbaker was going around telling us that no one in Canada would suffer as a result of unemployment. The slogan was "Follow John." Now it's been very, very easy to follow John, because the path has been downhill all the way and it's still leading downhill. And it's no coincidence, -- it isn't just a coincidence, -- that in Britain too, with a Conservative government in power, that the volume of unemployment is greater there now than at any time since the second world war. And it's not only the industrial workers who are suffering, because the causes of mass unemployment also lead to farm depression. In fact, they react on each other, -- that depression in itself is a factor which leads to mass unemployment.

And I think it's becoming to be more and more clear that our governments, both federal and provincial; by basing their policies on the economic theories of free enterprise; by basing their activities on the lines of industrial activity -- leaving the industrial activity to the industrial managers to carry on as they think best -- this is the kind of thing that's landing us into mass unemployment every two or three years. We had the first recession -- it began -- the warning came -- in 1950. The Korean War came along and that stopped that process of recession. Then we had another one in 1955. We had debates in this House in 1955 on the employment situation that existed at that time. Now we're in the winter of 1958 and 1959, -- only three years later -- and again we're in a period of recession which is worse than any since the end of the war. And judging from those figures, -- judging from that progression then, -- we can expect another recession worse than any of the others, in 1960 or 1961.

We can take some little comfort from the fact that the conditions have improved slightly in the last months of 1958 and that the signs are a little more promising. But still they are not too good because, there are signs which are pointing to worse situations that we simply cannot ignore. For one thing the volume of captial investment, both public and private, is lower than it was last year. We are finding as the result of action being taken in the United States, that there are difficult times ahead for our oil industry. There is a possibility, too, that in 1962, the United States government will decline to purchase any more of Canadian uranium. These things are going to have a deterrent effect on the economy here in Canada.

Now there has been quite a development since the end of the war in two directions. One, of course, has been the development of automation. And this is an accelerating progress. Every idea which leads to the production of more wealth, with fewer workers, in a shorter space of time -- every such idea gives rise to half a dozen others, -- and we are finding now that with a smaller number of workers, in a shorter space of time, we can produce more goods than ever before. I think it was in Newsweek a couple of weeks ago where the statement was that Ford and General Motors had produced something like 50,000 more cars in December of 1958 than previously, with something like 30,000 fewer workers. That gives some indication of the development in that particular direction, -- something that simply cannot be ignored and which is inevitably contributing to unemployment unless the steps are taken to check it.

The other development is the greater and greater control being exercised over our economy by the larger industries. And in fact, it is the development, in no small measure, of monopoly control. And I have here a few figures and the first quotations are from the United States Temporary National Economic Committee. And it says that "monopoly, in its various forms, is perhaps the most important single reason for the existence both of unemployment and rising prices." And that of course has been a character of the recent depression because, along with the mass unemployment, we've had the unusual spectacle of increasing prices. They go on to say this -- the same committee -- "monopoly causes an uneconomic allocation of productive resources" -- that's the United States Temporary National Economic Committee -- "monopoly causes an uneconomic allocation of productive resources that prevents full utilization of productive capacity. By refusing to sell at figures that would move his goods, the


monopolies leave factories idle and labour unemployed. It contributes to inequality of income". And then they go on to say this: "There are many forms of monopoly. Appreciable monopoly power is said to exist whenever a single seller, or a number of sellers in unison, control enough of the supply of a broadly defined commodity, to enable them to augment their profits by limiting output and raising prices."

And then here's a quotation with respect to concentration in Canadian manufacturing industries. This is dated 1957. It is by Dr. Gideon Rosenbloom of Queen's University. It says this -- "that concentration in Canadian manufacturing is high. Those with very high concentrations are primary metals, automobiles, railway equipment, cotton textiles, cigarettes, distilleries, industries processing non-metallic minerals and chemicals, glass and compressed glass." It goes on to say this -- "that with very few exceptions, comparable industries are more highly concentrated in Canada than in the United States." And he gives instances of these particular industries. And I'll just read one or two of them off -- "and in these industries, three firms, account for the following percentages of employment: In the tobacco industry, three firms account for 84.5% of the employment; in distilleries for 84%; in cotton thread, 94%; in pig iron, 91%; in autos, 87.5%; in steel ingots, 76%; in aluminum and nickel, three industries account for 100% of the employment; in gypsum products, 91%; in glass, 91%," and so on. There's a whole list of industries showing the concentrations of the manufacturing industries in Canada.

Then Dr. Rosenbloom goes on to say that "monopolistic practices can take place without a concentration of employment or production if there are such factors as conspiracy, interlocking directorates, trade associations" and so on. It goes on to say this: "Interpreting our findings, regarding the level of concentrations, other aspects of industries and structure also influenced business policy. We do not measure the importance of collusion, public regulation, trade association activities, interlocking directorates, identity of creditors or stockholders of different firms, and other ways in which the policies of firms may be co-ordinated. Only detailed investigations can deal effectively with the combination of concentration of economic power with collusion, conspiracy, interlocking directorates" and so on. "And we know that the consequences in the United States have been the price fixing, limitation of output, the suppression of new products, excessive power in a few hands", and so on.

Now, that has been a development in Canada in recent years and it has contributed in no small measure, not only to the increased volume of unemployment here, but has contributed in no small measure to the agricultural depression because, by control over their prices, by control over the prices of the things they sell and by control over the rights of the power to purchase, they have contributed to the depression as well as to the unemployment in the industrial field. So, I think it points up clearly the need for a different line of action by governments both in the federal and in the provincial fields. Not only must those activities be curtailed, they must be controlled. If they refuse to be controlled, they should be expropriated. But we should be taking very, very definite steps to assure, that as far as Canada is concerned, that we do maintain something like steadiness in our economy, that we maintain as far as possible and I think we can attain a pretty high level of employment steadily throughout the year in every part of Canada.

One of the most temperamental factors in the economy is the factor of private capital investment. That is dependent in no small measure on the anticipation of products and it's on account of the temperamental nature of private investment that do contribute to these ups and downs in our economy. And so, we suggest this: We think it's a very sound suggestion, that public and private investment should be planned; that is should be guided, and it should be undertaken to assure a steadily increasing and balanced capital development with the actions guided by the need of the community rather than by the possibilities of profit in any particular direction. And as an immediate activity it is necessary to start planning for the prevention of winter unemployment next winter; it is necessary to start that activity now. We did have a conference on seasonal unemployment in Ottawa in June of last year but that was actually too late to get the machinery into motion. I think for the last eight or nine years, I think, I have been submitting suggestions into this House on courses of action that could be taken to prevent recurring winter unemployment. And now is the time to begin to plan for next winter. There should be continued emphasis on construction, not only for homes for those people with large


incomes, but also for those who cannot afford to buy homes of their own. That means that for us that there should be a subsidized low rental housing. As a matter of fact, the whole sections of most of our cities that are so ugly that they should be wiped out and should be renewed. We need terrific expenditures on schools, universities, hospitals, highways, parks and recreational facilities.

One of the outstanding economists in the United States, Kenneth Galbraith, one of his recent books is called The Affluent Society - and in this book he points out that in our society today we have people who are spending literally billions of dollars, approaching the public from what they call the depths of psychology persuading them to buy things that they don't need, that we have the powers of production beyond our powers of consumption and yet in this whole North American continent we are absolutely poverty stricken as far as schools, our social development is concerned. But we certainly need to develop in that line, rather than develop in the line of producing and asking people to purchase more and more goods.

Consumer purchasing power needs to be increased by higher wages all down the line. Higher Old Age Pensions, Family Allowances, Health Insurance, longer vacations, shorter working week and so on. All these will help to provide higher levels of consumption and higher levels of employment because, of course, a consistent consumer demand is one of the important factors in maintaining the high level of employment. I think I had here some of the suggestions that have been made in the past which are now underway. We had suggested new office buildings for the staffs of this governnment here, instead of the makeshift offices that they have been living in up till now, and that is under way, we are very pleased to know that.

We had suggested years ago, I think in 1955, that flood control works on the Red and Assiniboine Rivers, and this of course should be extended to an overall programme of water control. And again in 1955, and in the years prior to that we were recommending higher investment on highway construction, and that, even now, needs still greater expansion.

We suggest that there should be an increase in the age for compulsory attendance in school. At the present time in Manitoba, with the exception of Winnipeg, that age is 14. It should be increased at least to 16. There are something like 1200 young people in Winnipeg alone who come onto the labour markets every year. In line with what I said a few moments ago, we should give much greater assistance in the construction of new schools, -- not only secondary but elementary schools and that some of the older schools should be torn down and replaced. We should initiate discussions with the municipalities. It's time and long overdue when there's another provincial-municipal conference particularly to deal with the public works that could be carried out.

And another thing that we have requested over and over again -- that this government should initiate conferences with business concerns, with industries who are interested in avoiding seasonal unemployment, -- and that is not merely confined to the construction industries because there are many other industries where the employment is seasonal, -- where they could be fitted in and where they could be complementary to each other, and these conferences should include the economists that may be available, the engineers, the architects, the public works officers of the provincial government and the municipalities. And even now, as I have said before, there is a great need for roads, and drainage and bridges, etc., particularly in the Interlake country that has been mentioned by our colleague from Fisher. And, if it should develop, as a result of experience that new industries can be located which would be useful industries and that private capital is not available then we should use public funds and start those industries up under public ownership. Then, of course, I think I have mentioned before, the need to increase consumer purchasing power, in the increase in wages, the reduction in the work week, longer vacations, the maintenance of income through periods of illness and so on.

So, Mr. Speaker, again I want to quote the portion of the resolution that in the opinion of this House, the government of Manitoba should urge upon the government of Canada, the imperative need for immediate and effective action in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments to assure that through the medium of public works, fiscal, financial, and educational policies, there shall be useful and productive employment for every person able and willing to work, in every part of Canada. And I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if this government does take the initiative in this line; if this government will take the line of action that is suggested that it will be doing a service, a great service to all the people of Canada.


DR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Winnipeg Centre, that the debates be adjourned.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville.

MR. R. W. BEND (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Ethelbert, resolved that this House request the government of the Province of Manitoba to consider the advisability of rescinding the present secondary school construction grant formula and replacing it by one that will provide from the consolidated revenues of the Province of Manitoba 75% of construction costs of all secondary schools within any division.

MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): I might advise the House that it is my intention to not accept this resolution on the grounds of anticipation. I might say that it's mentioned in the Throne Speech debate announcement of increased grants for the educational system which would very well include capital grants structure of the government. The honourable member, of course, can make his speech on the Throne Speech debate but the rule of anticipation is that two debates on the one question is covered by our rule No. 31 and the rule reads as follows: "No member shall revive a debate already concluded during the Session or anticipate a matter appointed for consideration on which, or if which notice has been given". That's Rule 31 of our own Legislature and, Sir T. Erskine May's parliamentary practice also extension on page 403, "a motion may not be anticipated a matter already appointed for consideration of the House, whether it is a bill, or an adjourned debate upon a motion". And Beauchesne's Parliamentary rules and orders, third edition, citation 182, also states "determination where the discussion is out of order on the grounds of anticipation regard shall be had by Mr. Speaker the probability of the matter being anticipated and brought before the House within a reasonable time. The anticipation rule which forbids discussion on the matters pending on the order paper being forestalled, depended on the same principle as that which provides the same rule being twice read in the same Session". I would invite debate on that.

MR. BEND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I didn't see anywhere in the Throne Speech where construction grants were referred to.

MR. MILLER: On the point of order, I might say this -- I concur with the statement made by the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville, but I suggest to you with all great deference, that in this case, anticipation doesn't apply because only the other day the Minister, in another debate, set forth the plans mentioned in the Throne Speech. We heard nothing about construction grants whatsoever. As a matter of fact, we heard his statement in connection with another matter that I propose to bring up at a later date that the government policies will not be changed in connection with the four proposed divisions who didn't vote yes. Now I suggest to you that in this case, anticipation doesn't apply. The Minister had an opportunity to make a full statement and he stated at great length the policy of the department and certainly indicated no change in the matter of construction grants, and I suggest with deference that in this case, the rule of anticipation does not apply.

MR. SPEAKER: I would read the citation in the Speech from the Throne. My Minister informs me that their proposals for the introduction of school divisions met with the approval of seven out of every ten who voted, accordingly you will be asked to provide for increased provincial grants to the educational system. An amendment on respecting school boundaries and other matters which are also being proposed.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I also agree with the statement that you have made with regard to anticipation in general but again, with all respect, I suggest to you that definitely the question of anticipation is not an issue here because nothing in the Speech from the Throne or the Minister's statement, that we have heard, covers this point in the resolution. I suggest to you, however, that there is one clear way that the practice that was always followed in this House, and I'm sure in Ottawa too, that there is one way of putting this matter at rest and that is, certainly, that if the Minister rises in his place, any member of the Cabinet rises in his place and says that this is going to be done, then certainly the matter of anticipation is covered and if the Minister makes the statement that what is suggested in this resolution is the policy of the government then I'm sure you are perfectly correct. But as for anything we have heard up to date it's not correct.


MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to influence you in your decision, in fact, I had been looking forward with anticipation to the debate on this resolution. I have some material prepared. I think the only comment that I would make is that during my what has been referred to as somewhat lengthy statement the other day, I pointed out that there would be considerable increase in the amount of money made available for grants for the operation of our schools. That was all that was said and I did not, of course, as has been indicated refer specifically to construction grants. Subject to whatever ruling your Honour wises to make in the matter, we have no particular views and indeed would welcome a debate if it is in order under the rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I might say in my opinion, of course it's contrary to the rules of the House. If the Honourable Minister of Education would like debate on the matter, well, we can maybe change our ruling. I think of course that the proper procedure is for myself to rule it out of order and there is an appeal of the House on this particular matter and settle it in that manner.

MR. ROBLIN: Sir, if I might just make a small contribution to the discussion. I think that there is good grounds for your ruling that it is anticipatory because we all know that in normal course of events we would expect, after a while, to get to the estimates for the Department of Education, where this particular item would appear -- this matter of capital grants and where there would be opportunity for a very full discussion. So that I think that under normal circumstances one would be inclined to say that your ruling was one that would stand the test, but I think we must fact the fact that there are certain abnormalities about our present situation and that is, that it is quite likely, and I think we must face the fact it is quite likely, it is possible that we might not reach that stage in our proceedings where this matter would automatically come up for discussion.

Now if the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville wants to make sure that it is discussed before that certain event might take place it would prevent discussion at a later date, then I for one would be in favour of saying that if that's the case we should possibly take notice of our particular situation and allow him to do so. I suggest, Sir, that I would be rather uneasy if the honourable member felt that he would not have an opportunity to ventilate his opinion on this matter and with respect, Sir, and again subject to the special circumstances in which we find ourselves, I think it might not be out of place if we would allow the honourable member, or you Sir, would allow the honourable member to make his speech because he might not have an opportunity to make it at the customary place.

MR. STINSON: I would suggest that we follow the suggestion made. We don't want to be challenging your ruling every day, Sir, in this House and so far as the present situation is concerned I'm inclined to think that we should settle it in an amicable way and in the interests of discussing the matter, let us proceed. I would suggest that the honourable gentleman be permitted to make his presentation.

MR. SPEAKER: It is quite apparent, of course, that with a House as constituted at the present time, that rules can be set aside by those who are not in control of government. Of course that is no concern of mine. If I'm against the government or against the opposition on a ruling that has no bearing on the issue at all. But in view of the fact that if a division were taken on this matter, it certainly would carry and the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville would be permitted to speak and in view of those circumstances I would put the motion of the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville, seconded by the Honourable Member for Ethelbert-Plains, resolve that this House request the government of the Province of Manitoba to consider the advisability of rescinding the present secondary schools construction grant formula, replacing it by that which provides for consolidated revenue of the Province of Manitoba, 75% of the construction costs of all secondary schools within any division. Are you ready for the question?

MR. BEND: I appreciate the courtesy you have extended to me. I know that since it is only a matter of a short time since this vote has been taken, that normally before one would suggest certain changes, one would think that better let it go for a while to see what develops. However, there is one change so important and so necessary that I think in this case, it is a worthy exception to the rule. In the first place, if one reads the Royal Commission's Report, one is immediately convinced that the major recommendation of that report was towards the


centralization of high school education in Manitoba. It is not my purpose on this occasion to speak of the pros or cons. I simply state that fact and once, it seems to me, that the Commissioners had made up their mind, that this was one of the most important things that should be brought about, they of course, proceeded to arrange their suggestions with respect to grants structure with that in view and consequently there came about a sliding scale of construction grants beginning at 40% which the present grant is for four room schools and proceeding up through the various steps, which I need not mention because everyone is familiar with them, up to a 12 room high school or greater -- calling for a 75% contribution. And now then in the course of events since the presentation of the Commission's report, one important thing has occured and a second one almost as important, which has certainly demonstrated that centralization, as the Commission envisaged it, is not going to come about. I refer Sir, of course, to many of the rural divisions -- I wouldn't say all of them because I am not familiar with them all, -- but of those of which I am, I would say that two things have worked against that coming about. No. 1 -- the boundaries as was set up and I criticize no one here, and this is not a critical speech in the sense of being destructively critical, I am hoping to be constructively critical and I am stating these things only as they appear to me. And so when the divisions were set up rurally, the size of them, the size of these divisions in my humble opinion, rendered centralization as the Commission was recommending an impossibility. Distance, and the fact that although the Commission was thinking in terms of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 or 60 divisions, only some 40 odd were set up. This made, of course, divisions larger. It would be inconceivable in many of the divisions to have one or two larger schools because of the distance to be travelled and so I maintain, Sir, that this being the case the inducement, heavy inducement for a 12 room or better school is no longer justified because it is not bringing about the aim that rendered that suggestion the one to be seriously considered at the beginning.

The second thing I would like to refer to, and again I do not say this critically, simply as a statement of fact, that the spokesmen in the various centres who spoke on this, pointed out to the people concerned, that they need not interfere with their high schools at all which was quite true and when that question was being asked, as asked it was, the spokesman, the policy makers pointed that out -- quite rightly so -- and that is not the point I'm trying to make. But it was clearly stated to the people concerned that there need be no change in the location of the high schools or the size of them, that that was up to the board that would be elected. So there were two things that occurred, Mr. Speaker, which in my humble opinion, definitely made it change. It changed the situation from the one that the Commissioners foresaw, and since this is not going to bring about the type of centralization that runs through that report, then I think we better examine it then in the light of our experience today. The larger areas will be able to qualify and that is good. I am not complaining about 75%. I am simply saying that we must have equalization. This has been also a theme much spoken about; the equalization of opportunity; the equalization of cost; a fairer way of sharing the costs of these schools. Now, since centralization, I maintain, Mr. Speaker, cannot come about to the extent that was hoped for by the Commissioners, then I say what is the situation in these rural areas? The situation in these rural areas will be building, or where their requirements might very well need a smaller school, and there will come into play an inducement which can very well result in an unwise decision. Why anyone considering the building of a school -- because if it stays at four, it's 40%; if they add a couple more rooms it becomes a higher figure; and if they stretch it to 12, it becomes 75%. Or, if in their wisdom they decided they do not want that size of school for their particular area, new rural areas where the population might not warrant, then the local taxpayer whom we have heard a great deal about is going to have to contribute a much greater percentage than his counterpart, shall we say, in an area in which the division is much more heavily populated and not so large in terms of miles. And so, in one place 60% is raised by the local group, in the division true enough, but by the local group, and in larger centres only 25% need be raised.

Now, I hope the Minister doesn't come back and say "well, you knew this when." And did you read Hansard, Mr. Speaker, or did the Minister on that point "all", and I was very glad that the stenographer underlined when I said "Did you say all?" and I know it was a slip of the tongue, Sir, but if you read Hansard you will find you did say "all". I hope he does not come


back, Sir, and say to me, "Well, you knew this before." Certainly we did. But there was a reason for it being there. A fundamental theme that runs through that report -- centralization. Now, since things have occurred which prevents that aim to be realized to the extent in which the commissioners saw or foresaw, then you better take a look at what that inducement does and is doing. And if the Minister can say, Mr. Speaker, after looking at it that this is fair and equitable, that this is treating all concerned alike, then I for one would be very disappointed. And so the case is simple -- I don't intend to belabour the point all afternoon. I say it in a hope of being, as I said at the outset, constructively critical. I believe that this must be re-examined because no one could foresee, and I know it was true in the hospital plan and I'm sure it was true in this one, could foresee or foretell exactly the trends that would develop. And there will be other things, and one might suspect that those changes need to be made. I know of one or two; I am not speaking on them at this time, Mr. Speaker, but where one is so self-evident, where anybody who looks at it for a moment can see that this is the case, then I am sure that this very progressive government over the way will have already seen it and will have corrected it. Thank you very much.

MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Speaker, I would like to support what my colleague the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville has to say on this particular motion, and I would like, Sir, to point out a specific example in support of what the honourable member just had to say a few moments ago.

I will talk about the division, within which my constituency is found, and in order to give you the proper background, Sir, I would like to go back to the sittings of the Boundaries Commission. You will recall that when this matter was discussed on the floor of the House of the Special Session, and also in the Committee stage, that the members of this House were assured that no division would be set up without giving the people of that particular division -- proposed division -- an opportunity to have their say as to whether they approve of that particular division, or disapprove, and to make any complaints that they feel were justified.

The Boundaries Commission, in setting up what is now known as Duck Mountain, Division No. 34, held four meetings in this division. The proposed boundaries included the Rural Municipality of Gilbert Plains and any townsites in it; the Rural Municipality of Ethelbert; the Rural Muncipality of Mosey River, within which boundaries is located the village of Winnipegosis; and the part of the unorganized territory lying north of these municipalities. At these meetings the complaints that were lodged were not serious, and on the whole the recommendation of the Boundaries Commission was accepted by the people living within that boundary. The Boundaries Commission moved on from this division to an adjacent division and, while holding its sittings there, it was suggested by a section of that other division that they would like to belong to Duck Mountain #34. The Commission, in its wisdom, added a whole municipality to the originally proposed Duck Mountain #34. No further meetings were held in Duck Mountain Division #34 after the addition of a whole municipality to that division. Nobody was consulted or asked as to what they thought about it. It was approved by the Minister without consulting anybody within the original proposed Duck Mountain Division #34, and when the people of Duck Mountain Division #34, including myself, discovered that the original boundaries had been changed to the extent of adding a whole municipality and making a monstrosity out of that division, we were too late and were unable to do anything about it. Now, I want to say to the Honourable Minister that that particular laxity or disregard for public opinion nearly gave us a "No" vote in that division.

Now insofar as grants to the schools are concerned -- construction grants -- let's take a look at Duck Mountain Division #34. By adding the St. Lawrence Municipality to the originally proposed boundaries division, you have an impossible situation for centralization. It just cannot be done! Now I agree entirely with my honourable friend when he states that the whole key to that legislation and everything else is centralization. I was at one of the meetings that the Honourable Minister held in my division and on questions asked him as to whether it would be necessary to do away with the high schools as they were established, I would say that he very neatly evaded a definite answer, by saying, "Yes, you can have centralization but not of necessity. That will depend upon your Division Board. They will do as they see fit." If they want to -- I'll come to the evasion in a moment -- there are some people in the House who haven't too much patience, I see -- and if the Honourable Minister, instead of giving that


answer, had said that the ultimate objective of this legislation is to centralize education. I believe it would have been closer to the answer that was expected than the one he gave. If it isn't the ultimate objective, and I think that the Honourable Minister is right in making that statement, but it is one of the fundamental objectives -- let us put it that way.

Now getting down to the matter of construction grants... [Interjection] ... If the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party will see me after we adjourn, I'll tell him what the difference is. Now this is one case where we're not going to have the equal opportunity that has been talked of so loudly and so long and so much in the last few months. During the Special Session I raised this particular objection on the floor of the House -- that I thought it was unfair to saddle a partially settled area, which generally comprises of a poorer section of our community, to bear 60% of the cost of construction because they could not afford to build a bigger school than a four-room, or did not need one larger than a four-room school, saddle them with 60% of the cost and give those districts which are financially able, give them 75% of the cost of construction. And if you want to equalize opportunity, Mr. Speaker, if you want to equalize it all along the board, and your physical facilities are important, I do say to the Honourable Minister that his scale should be reversed. The 75% should be given to the poorer districts, and the 40% to those districts that are able to look after their own construction. But I'm quite prepared to go along with the suggestion of my honourable colleague and I do believe if you wish to equalize opportunity, this is one way in which you can do it. And that is equalize the construction grants on high schools in the province. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, than in that particular division that I've been referring to there will be at least -- at least three high school districts, because it is physically impossible to have any less. And when the time comes I can give the reasons why I think so. I don't think that one -- not one of these three -- will qualify for the 75% grant; and I also say, Mr. Speaker, that not one of them are in the financial position of a great many urban centres in the same financial position and are not as well able to consruct these school buildings.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood -- Brokenhead.

MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have this opportunity to say a few words regarding this resolution. I think that the two previous speakers have raised a very important matter and I would very much like to go along with them on it, but I cannot help but feel that because of one or two things that are left unsaid in the context of the resolution, because there are one or two omissions, we might be making a mistake. What I am referring to is specifically this: the Interim Report and the ensuing legislation passed at the last Special Session, I think, have succeeded quite well in establishing a fairly important principle in education, namely, that secondary education and secondary educational facilities should be, in this day and age, centralized as much as possible. And of course I would stress that last rider as much as possible. Now then, according to the resolution as it reads, all schools -- all secondary schools -- should be built on the 75 - 25% formula, and that is not quite specific enough because I know this much from my experiences during the course of the campaign to sell the secondary area, I know this, that in some areas where there could very well be a larger school constructed, there would not be if there were not some inducement toward the building of a larger unit -- larger school. But then again, if you look at the map of the larger secondary division of northern Manitoba, and specifically my own area comprising the divisions of Agassiz, Lord Selkirk, Transcona-Springfield, you will see that for geographic reasons it is almost impossible to construct large secondary schools in certain areas and so, because there is no provision made -- there is no provision made to work out this -- I realize it is a difficult matter -- these people are being unfairly -- shall I say unfairly dealt with. I wouldn't want to use the word "discriminated" again. Now then, I'm not quite sure in my own mind just how this could be worked out because it is, as I said, a complex matter. I feel that there should be an inducement toward the construction of larger high schools -- I don't think there's one member in this House who would deny that centralization of secondary education should be encouraged, but as I said before, again, where it is geographically impossible to build the larger schools, the people should not be penalized in those areas. So perhaps you will have to have some kind of a flexible arrangement made, but nevertheless an attempt should be made to accommodate this, and I would like to say to the Honourable Minister that during the course of that campaign


to sell the larger secondary school area, I did my best and I hope that he will not take my words today as being in opposition to that. Thank you!

MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, the other day when the Honourable the Minister of Education was speaking on the subject of your health and other things, he placed members on this side of the House into three categories and I was slighted a little bit, I think, perhaps because I felt that I should go in the "A" category and I wasn't even mentioned. ... [Interjection] ... Because I went out and attended and spoke at and spoke in support of the school division at nine meetings, and I also attended three boundary commission hearings -- and at each and every one of them I spoke in support of the plans. So, when I was reminded of the system that was used a couple of years ago in the elementary high school in placing the children in their various standings, I think they used a couple of years ago in the elementary high school in placing the children in their various standings, I think they used an "O", "S" and a "U", which the "O" meant they were outstanding pupils, "S" satisfactory, and "U" unsatisfactory, I thought perhaps the Honourable Minister of Education might have placed us in that category. However, during these meetings that I attended with other speakers, most of them school inspectors, I know that I as well as the inspectors did, in speaking at places where the towns and villages were rather small, we tried to assure them that nothing would happen to their present high school set up, and I cited examples to prove that that would be so. I know I mentioned in particular, I think they call it the Cypress Secondary Area #3, or something like that, and I said when they were discussing the creation of that particular secondary area, that the town of Austin, Sidney and McGregor were all concerned as to where the big high school would be, and I said now here is what has happened. Each one of those villages or towns still have their high school, and just last year in addition to that, rather than transport a group of pupils from Rosendale they built a new one-room high school down there. And I tried to point out the fact that there was no concern at all for these smaller places as regards the loss of their high school. But, I know that in going to and from these meetings with the inspectors that we discussed this very subject of the school construction grants quite frequently. In fact, I think we mentioned it on every occasion and I said I would always bring this point up, that this is the one feature that I don't like about it. It's true that we did point out the fact that while we couldn't guarantee where these new high schools would be placed, since that was the duty of the elected boards, that we felt that they would remain where they were. But it does place the newly elected boards in a very, very awkward position when they come -- when they must consider the erection of any new high school in the division. It puts them in a very, very awkward position because they have this construction grant feature staring them in the face at all times. So I would suggest that, and recommend that the department give very, very serious consideration to this resolution.

MR. J. TANCHAK (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words at this time. I'm fully in support of this resolution and I can also see that the stand that the Honourable Member for Brokenhead did take, and to some certain extent I do agree with him too, because when this plan was first placed before us, I really and truly believed that it would be a certain form of centralization of high schools and I, even now, I believe that centralizing high schools would give all the students -- all the pupils in Manitoba an equal opportunity. But some of you probably, maybe the Premier -- the Honourable Premier -- the Honourable First Minister -- may say what right has he got to speak here today. His division, or the people in his constituency did not accept the division. Reference was made to that...

MR. ROBLIN: We respect the decision of the electors whether "Yes" or "No", and believe me I wouldn't quarrel with any member's right to speak, nor would I quarrel with the right of any member of the general public to vote "No" on this isssue. It has been done. That was why they were asked to vote and we respect that decision, and I want that clearly understood.

MR. TANCHAK: That's fine, I'm glad to hear that there's still a certain amount of freedom of speech. I thank you. But yesterday there was mention made that instead of speaking for the people of a certain part of my constituency, I would have done better to press or to work for the division. But for the information of the First Minister, the area that I was concerned with yesterday -- if the First Minister does not know -- for his information -- I would like to say that that area that I spoke up for yesterday really did accept this division, because part of my constituency accepted this. My constituency is in two divisions.


Now, when we come back to this centralization, I said I was in favour of that and the Honourable the Governor -- not the Governor -- the Attorney-General -- at one meeting at Greenridge he was the speaker there, and I was asked to speak at that meeting. A few days before I came to the Department of Education here, and I asked for some more information. I was told that they cannot give me anymore information because it so happened that that week the inspectors, and maybe some other gentlemen, would have to come in for a lecture or first to get information how to go about it. I did not get any. So at that particular meeting I did not speak when I was asked. I told them I didn't have enough information and did not want to mislead the people. There's only one question that I did put forward when I heard that it was not necessary to centralize, and the only question that I did put up does not defeat the purpose of our bill. There was no answer given right then, but that shows you that I really believed in centralization.

Now, coming to the meeting at Ridgeville. We had a meeting at Ridgeville where the Honourable the Minister of Education spoke, and I'm sure that the Honourable the Minister of Education will recall the concluding remarks I made at that speech. And these were the remarks -- I gave the advantages and the disadvantages there, both of them, and I had reason for that because they clamoured for that -- the people wanted that. And to use the words of some of those constituents -- "We do not believe the ministers and all these other people that are coming to educate us -- they are hiding something. When you get up there you give us the advantages and the disadvantages in them." And that's what I did, but my concluding remark was that the advantages out-weighed the disadvantages. That was my concluding remark and I know that the Honourable the Minister of Education heard that remark. And at certain other places I did state when I was directly asked, "What are you going to do?" and I'll mention a specific case which was Caliento. He says "What are you going to do?" I says I voted for that bill once. That was not a good answer. He says, "Don't be like the rest of the politicians -- give us an honest answer". I said I'm going to vote for it again. Caliento voted 100% for it in that case. And this was the only meeting that I spoke at, and this was the meeting at Ridgeville. I never had any other school division meeting that I did speak at -- only at Ridgeville.

Now to come back to this centralization. In our area or our division is almost 80 miles long and 18 miles broad and we readily can see that we cannot centralize high schools in there. The population in the eastern end is very sparse. We cannot have centralized high schools, therefore I do not see why the people, if they were in a division which they hoped that they will be in the near future because the Honourable the Minister of Education definitely promised at Ridgeville that those people will, this is the words: "If I am still the Minister of Education I'll do everything within my power that you do get a second vote". And that -- I can say that was one promise that swayed a lot of people to vote "No". They felt that why should we vote "Yes" now when we'll get another chance at that. They felt -- let us see how our neighbours are going to get along with that and then we'll have another chance, and it was promised by the Minister.

MR. McLEAN: You think they thought I'd still be here?

MR. TANCHAK: Maybe they took you at your word, I couldn't say. Now when I was talking about disadvantages at the time I did state -- if you want to call this a disadvantage, we may -- we have a beautiful two-room high school at Ridgeville, just completed this summer and I did state if you want to call this a disadvantage -- we may lose our high school because we probably would -- trustees after they're elected -- probably would want to erect a high school somewhere which is more central, and I did tell them that if we do lose the high school we should look at the other side of it -- maybe we should be willing to sacrifice a little, if it brings a better -- a broader form of education. Those were my words. So we should sacrifice that. After all, it's true the Honourable the Minister of Education did get up, he didn't -- he resented this disadvantage, I believe, and here are his words. He says, "We are not here to take away your existing high schools, we are here to enlarge your high schools, and I hope the day will come when I will officiating at a twelve-room high school opening right here at Ridgeville." Those were the words. So, in other words, the tendency towards centralization was out there. The people of Emerson were promised the same thing, they do not have to


centralize. Of course, always there is that it's up to your trustees. But we are not going to. -- You're going to retain your high school at Ridgeville; you're going to retain your high school at Greenridge; you're going to have your high school at Dominion City; and so on all throughout the whole division. Therefore, there was no incentive towards centralization, and if there isn't -- if those people could hold their high schools as they are, I don't see why later on they should be penalized, and just because they do not build larger schools, they should get a grant of less than 75%.

Now on the eastern end of my constituency boundary division, it is almost impossible to centralize, to build a twelve-room high school because it's too thinly settled. And in the far east, indeed it's a remote -- considered as a remote area. If some of the people would like some of the members here, if I may be permitted to say, would like to know the reason why this plan was rejected in the boundary, I could tell you why. And, it wasn't my doing. It wasn't anybody's -- it was just the shape of our boundary of our division. It definitely liked the plan -- no matter where you went everybody liked the plan, but they did not agree with the shape of our division. Why? The western end of our division -- the assessment there runs as high as $5,000.00 and more per quarter, while the far eastern part of our division -- the assessment runs from $2.00 to $500.00 a quarter.

And the Honourable the Minister of Education was asked at Ridgeville "Isn't it true that we will be carrying the burden of the taxation in this end, along the Red River Valley?" And, that's the part that threw that division out, and the Minister did say "Yes". Is that fair? The Minister again answered "Somebody has to pay." That was the answer. And, those were the reasons why they rejected them, coupled with a promise that they will have another chance to take a vote. Naturally, they believe that if they do get another chance, the boundary will be re-organized. They might get a shorter boundary, and they would like to get into the plan. I think these are sufficient reasons for supporting this resolution. I do not think that just on account a twelve-room high school. I think that the 75% grant towards construction should cover all divisions when they earn it. I thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Minnedosa, that the debate by adjourned.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. John.

MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Brokenhead, the following resolution: "Whereas a democratic system of society requires that all of its citizens shall be considered equal before the law; and whereas it ought to be public policy in Manitoba that places to which the public is customarily admitted should be open to all without regard to race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry, or place of origin; and whereas it is desirable to enact a measure to promote observance of this principal; and whereas to do so is in accord with the universal declaration of human rights as proclaimed by the United Nations. Therefore be it resolved that this House approve in principle the passage of a Fair Accomodations Pracitices Act, whereby no person shall be denied the accommodation, services or facilities available in any place to which the public is customarily admitted because of the race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin of such persons or class of persons.

[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

MR. ORLIKOW: On December the 10th, last year, in this building, an important impressive group of citizens, headed by the First Minister, met to celebrate the Tenth Anniversary of the ...

MR. ROBLIN: Headed by His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. ORLIKOW: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I accept the correction -- met to celebrate the tenth signing of the -- Tenth Anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights of United Nations. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to quote just a few lines from that Declaration -- Declaration accepted by the people of Canada. In the preamble it says as follows, "Peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, the


dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." Article 1 says "All human beings are born free and equal, in dignity and right." Article 2 says "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion or political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other standards."

Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have been looking at the democracy in which we live, have been assessing it, have been trying to realize this Declaration. And, in the last ten years, we have had a good deal of legislation enacted to promote the ideas expressed to this declaration. The six provinces, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, we have had enacted laws, outlawing discrimination in employment. In two provinces, Ontario and Saskatchewan, we have laws outlawing discrimination in public accommodation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I speak today it may be three, because the Province of Nova Scotia is considering this matter at this very time. In two provinces, Ontario and Manitoba, we have laws making restrictive real estate covenance illegal. In six provinces, we have the equal pay for equal work legislation. At the present time, the Federal Government is considering the passage of a provincial -- of a Federal Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, this is important progress. What I am suggesting today, Mr. Speaker, is in fact taken almost word for word from the preamble of the Ontario Fair Accommodations Practices Act, passed in 1954, proposed by the Premier of that province. Now, Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the press -- watches the press of Canada, one will see that from one end of Canada to the other, we have had reported instances of discrimination which this bill would go a long way to remove or limit.

I want to quote just a few, taken very quickly from the press -- from the Winnipeg Free Press. On January the 13th of this year, the Free Press reported that in Victoria, British Columbia, a Chinese-Canadian was barred from two private clubs. In December of last year, reported that in Victoria, a Chinese-Canadian was refused permission to rent an apartment in Vancouver. On December the 6th of 1958, the Free Press reported than an East Indian in British Columbia was refused the rental of a house in an all-white district in Victoria. In October of 1958, the Free Press reported two East Indians moved into a house in Vancouver despite the protests of their neighbours. In October of 1958, the Free Press report that one William Richardson was refused permission to buy a lot in Etobicoke, Ontario, because he is a Negro, and quotes his landlord, a Mr. McFarlane as saying "I refuse to sell to Japanese, Chinese or Negroes." On June 19th of 1958, the Free Press reports that a Chatham, Ontario hotel beverage room refused to serve three Negro women. Now this could go on, Mr. Speaker, indefinitely because these are reports which are received almost every week.

Now we have not had ...

MR. GROVES: Will you permit a question? In your researches on this subject, how many cases of this type of discrimination did you find in Manitoba?

MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I was coming to that -- we have not had many cases reported in the Province of Manitoba, although I can tell the honourable member that a few years ago while I was a member of the Winnipeg City Council, we amended the licensing by-laws of the City of Winnipeg because we has a case of a hotel, the Bell Hotel, which refused to rent rooms to Negroes who had made reservations.

We have one group of citizens in this province, Mr. Speaker, against whom there is considerable prejudice and against whom there is, I am satisfied, a good deal of discrimination against. I refer to the descendents of the original inhabitants of this country -- to the Indians. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the report on the Indians and Metis has not yet been tabled in this House, I have no advance information on what the report contains. Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in this subject, I have been attending conferences, organized by organizations such as the Welfare Council of Greater Winnipeg. I have spoken to many people who work in this field, to ministers of all denominations, to social workers, to other people who are interested in this question, and the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in areas in Manitoba, it is on many occasions difficult, if not impossible, for people of Indian and Metis origin to rent rooms in hotels.

There was a report -- a letter in the Winnipeg Free Press in December, which reported that in one of the hotels in the Town of The Pas, people of Indian and Metis origin are urged to


sit in a separate section of the beverage room. I don't know whether that is true -- I checked with people who live in The Pas and they assured me that this is so.

I have been told by residents of Pine Falls that traditionally in the movie theatre in Pine Falls people of Indian and Metis origin are asked to sit in a separate part of the movie theatre. I have been told that this fact is the case in The Pas. I don't know whether all these cases are true, Mr. Speaker, but I do know from having talked to many people of Indian and Metis origin that they feel that they are discriminated against.

I have before me a survey made in the Town of Selkirk, called The Study of Attitudes Towards Indians and People of Indian Descent, which says, and I quote -- the survey was made incidently, by Professor Dallin, and Fraser Earle of the Central...Region of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, and it says 49.7% of the sample survey which they made expressed an unprejudiced attitude towards Indians; 4.7% of the sample was definitely prejudiced towards Indians; 45.6% of the sample were evidently undecided. This is a significant group in that we can speculate that under unfavourable conditions their attitudes towards Indians could be less than charitable. Now, Mr. Speaker, Selkirk is far from being the worst area in the Province, in fact this survey suggests it's one of the better areas in the Province. I'm not suggesting for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that passage of this law would immediately wipe out discrimination, and certainly it would not wipe out prejudice. Prejudice is something which lives a long time. We cannot force people to love their neighbour, but we can certainly insist that in a democratic society, that public places in which people do business ... which serve the public shall treat all citizens regardless of their race, their religion, their colour, their nationality, equal. And, what I'm suggesting here, Mr. Speaker, is simply that we adopt in this Province -- that this House urge the government to adopt a law which is now the law in the Province of Ontario since 1954, which is now the law in the Province of Saskatchewan, and which will very shortly be the law in the Province of Nova Scotia.

MR. PAULLEY: Were you going to speak?

MR. GRAY: I'm not going to speak, I'm going to adjourn.

MR. PAULLEY: No, I'd like to speak just for a moment or two on this very important resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: It appears that we're now within five minutes of 5:30, if it's the intention to not meet this evening maybe we should call it 5:30 now.

MR. PAULLEY: No, you adjourn, just a minute.

MR. GRAY: Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to adjourn the debate at this hour?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, you may.

MR. GRAY: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! Just a minute -- just a minute. Who was your seconder? ... [Interjection] ... It has been moved by the Honourable Member for Inkster, seconded by the Honourable Member for Elmwood that the debate be adjourned. Are you ready for the question?

[After a voice vote, Mr. Speaker declared the motion carried. ]

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of calling it 5:30 at this time, I was going to rise in any case to ask the Honourable the First Minister if he could not consent to moving the adjournment of the House until Monday afternoon. I understand that the Whips have been holding some discussion on this matter, but that, as yet, there has been no agreement arrived at, and I must say that as far as our group is concerned that we would not be prepared to proceed with estimates tonight. And, as far as the other matters are concerned, I understand that some of the members of whom unfortunately I am one, has made some committments for this evening at the time that they thought that it was unlikely that the House would begin sitting on Friday evenings that early. So, I was going to suggest to the Honourable the First Minister as a compromise that we should agree to not meet tonight, but that we should meet at 2:30 rather than adjourning to Monday evening. Now, I think that would be satisfactory to this side of the House, and I would ask him if he would accept that.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to move the adjournment of the House now. We should sit this evening. There are other matters besides estimates to be dealt with, and we can very well proceed with them. We have -- we are prepared on this side of the House to meet tonight, and I suggest to the House that we should meet.


It is true that we have in times gone by, by mutual consent, not resumed our sessions on Friday evenings, nevertheless, as all members know, our rules do call for our meeting on Friday evenings, and that government business shall then be proceeded with, and it was my intention, Sir, to suggest that is what we should do tonight.

MR. STINSON: It would seem to me that there is no urgent need so far as meeting tonight is concerned. We have all next week to deal with the matter of interim supply which is of concern to the First Minister, and there are reasons for that concern, and I am sure that no one wants to prevent the administration from paying their bills, so far as the machinery of government is concerned. But, it is the custom here that at this stage of the session that we do have Friday nights free, and I think there is nothing wrong with us adjourning now and meeting Monday afternoon. As a matter of fact, at this stage of the session, it is usual that we adjourn now and meet Monday evening, and I appeal to the other side of the House to give us some consideration in this matter, because a number of members on this side have other commitments, and can't be here tonight. People do make arrangements, thinking back over the custom of past years, and so I think it would be quite in order and would not work a hardship on anyone, anyone in the Province of Manitoba, if we adjourned at the present time.

MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the First Minister on personal grounds. In addition to serving the people, I also want to serve my God.

MR. ROBLIN: I don't know whether I'm entitled to speak again, Mr. Speaker, but I must adhere to my position. I'm usually amenable to the persuasive language of the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, and I have every respect for the religious scruples of my honourable friend, the Member for Inkster, and -- but I think that we ought to meet tonight. I hear that people make plans -- well, I must say that I've made a few myself, and I find -- the best laid plans often go "agang-aglae". We've had some examples of that already in this session. It's not only the matter of the estimates, the fate of the government is at stake. We are in a very trying situation in this respect, and I think we are entitled to have this debate proceeded with in the orderly manner as provided for in the regulations, and I'm afraid we must adhere to our position and ask the House to meet tonight.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, it's just a few seconds before 5:30, and I therefore move that the House do now adjourn and stand adjourned until Monday at 2:30 in the afternoon.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that that is a violation of the rules of the House. The rules of the House read as follows: "If at the hour of 5:30 p.m., except on Wednesday, the business of the House be not concluded, the Speaker, if in the Chair, or if the House should be in committee, then, the Chairman of the committee shall leave the House until 8:30 p.m." And then, if you will go further over, Sir, you will see that some attention is given as to government business and business of the House, and it makes it quite clear that after 5:30 on Friday that it is a government day. I submit, Sir, in view of the explicit wording of Rule 3 of the House that to move the adjournment at this motion for Monday is contrary to the rules, and if that is the case, it requires the unanimous consent of the House before that motion can be accepted by you, Sir. And I must serve notice that unanimous consent will not be given.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, speaking now on the point of order, you will notice that luckily for my motion that it was presented just before our official clock said 5:30, and as I mentioned it was just before 5:30 very shortly before I admit, but still it got in under the wire, and up until 5:30 that motion is in order. No question about it, and I move it that the House do now adjourn and stand adjourned until 2:30 Monday.

MR. ROBLIN: My honourable friend says it's 5:30, but I say that it's after 5:30 when he moved his motion. He's not in order. ... [Interjection] ... Mr. Speaker, I insist that the rules of the House should be adhered to. Now, we haven't a majority over here, and I know, Sir, that if I appeal to this ruling, and if you think my point of view is right, then once again you may be placed in a difficult position, but I think that we should not allow ourselves to be bullied by the practices of the majority on the other side. [Interjections] We are ready, Sir, to carry on the business of the government of the Province of Manitoba. The rules of the House make it quite clear that we are not asking for anything extraordinary when we suggest that we sit tonight, and I think that we should do so and get on with the business.


MR. MOLGAT: The rule book is quite clear--rule 26, and the Honourable Leader of the Government knows that as well as we do. A motion to adjourn the House, adjourn debate or the House, shall always be in order, except that the motion must be made after the Orders of the Day have been entered upon. There is no question that this is in order.

MR. ROBLIN: It is after 5:30.

MR. GREENLAY (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, the point I want to bring out at the moment is that the Speaker has not declared it 5:30; has not left the chair; and there is a motion before the House that the House adjourn. It is in order and should be voted on.

MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that this motion is not debatable. This motion to adjourn is not debatable, and it's certainly in order according to Number 26.

MR. ROBLIN: The motion may not be debatable, but the point of order certainly is.

MR. STINSON: Yes, the point of order may be.

MR. SWAILES: I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the motion was carefully timed to be presented before 5:30.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't see that I can--it's to... [Interjections]

MR. CAMPBELL: ...Mr. Speaker will allow me to put this as a point of order, even though under circumstances of this kind it is quite possible for feelings to run high. I have a lot of sympathy with the position of my Honourable friend the First Minister, because I've been placed in it quite often. I think if the House--the older members will recollect that at least early in the Session we nearly always acceded to that request--nearly always. There were times when it got along a little later I'm sure that I got a little bit stubborn, but nearly always we acceded to it. Quite frankly, I'd prefer that we didn't have to vote on this motion, and might I suggest to my honourable friend that I'm perfectly willing to withdraw my motion without any malice or vindictiveness whatsoever, if he is willing to reconsider his decision.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not at all upset by this--If I provide a lot of innocent amusement for my friends opposite, that's alright with me. I've only got one aim in mind and that is that I would like to proceed with the business of the House. In my judgment I think we should meet tonight and I'm afraid I'm going to adhere to that position.

MR. BEND: Mr. Speaker, speaking on a point of order, I think it would be nice to draw to the attention of the Honourable the First Minister, the tone of the speech he gave in this House, a very short one, not too long ago, when he said how difficult it was for us in Opposition, since we have no staff and no people to look to, that in order to really carry out our responsibility to the people we need more time than the government members need. This was the tenure of the same gentleman's remarks and this wasn't occurring, Sir, at the first of the Session--here we are here barely over a week into Session, this was well on into the Session in which--and for once the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party has been consistent in this matter, because what he said he said on that occasion, but, the gentleman across the floor is completely inconsistent. We were trying to do it, Sir, well on into the Session, and that was the speech that was given to us, and I say he was quite right--he was quite right, we do need more time than the gentleman across the floor if we're expected to carry out our responsibilities. We need the time over the weekend to be prepared for the debates that are to take place and so on. I simply wanted to refresh his memory, trying my best to recall his words of that time.

MR. ROBLIN: If I may, I hope I won't rise again, Mr. Speaker, because I probably have no right to do so. But I would just like to say this, that I'm afraid that I must stick to my position. However, I know the embarrassment that it places you in because there are arguable points of view on every question that rises here on the point of order, and I must say that we will simply have to rely on you to decide who is right in this particular measure. And I, for one, will certainly take your ruling, regardless of which way it goes, without an appeal from it, but I will insist that a ruling be given on it.

MR. SPEAKER: My ruling on this particular point is--the motion is before the House, it is a proper motion because it was made before 5:30 and I think we should vote on it.

MR. ROBLIN: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. This is a difficult situation for you. I would then ask that we do take a vote on it because I would like to know who wants to work and who doesn't.


MR. SPEAKER: Before the vote is taken, I would just like to point out the difficult position that the Speaker is placed in the House when he sometimes is placed in the position where he has to enforce the rules, yet the voting strength of the House is such that he can't make his ruling stick because of the vote that ensues on the motion. Are you ready for the question?

Those in favour please say "Aye". Those opposed please say "Nay". In my opinion the "Nays" have it and I declare the motion lost. Call in the members. Order! Order!

[A standing vote was taken, the result being:

YEAS: Messrs. Bend, Campbell, Clement, Gray, Greenlay, Guttormson, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Lucko, McDonald, Miller, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine, Reid, Roberts, Schreyer, Shoemaker, Shuttleworth, Stinson, Swailes, Tanchak, Teillet, Trapp, Wagner, Wright.

Messrs. Alexander, Boulic, Carroll, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Groves, Jeannotte, Johnson, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Ridley, Roblin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Williams, Willis.

MR. CLERK: The Yeas - 29; the Nays 25.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, if I may just, on a point of the business of the House, rise to say that I trust we all expect to meet at 2:30 on Monday afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the House now adjourned and stand adjourned until 2:30 on Monday afternoon.

Manitoba Hansard

Page revised: 22 September 2009