| 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | ||||
| 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 |
| 251 |
| Page | ||
| Statements: Mr. Groves, Mr. Lissaman, Mr. Desjardins ...................................... | 235 | |
| Questions: .......................................................................................................... | 235 | |
| Mr. Guttormson (Mr. Lyon), Mr. Hillhouse (Mr. Lyon), Mr. Guttormson
(Mr. Boulic), Mr. Desjardins (Mr. Roblin). | ||
| Bill No. 2, adjourned debate, Mr. Witney ........................................................... | 236 | |
| Mr. Scarth .................................................................................................... | 239 | |
| Bill No. 50, adjourned debate, Mr. Willis ........................................................... | 240 | |
| Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Desjardins ....................................................................... | 241 | |
| Mr. Roberts, Mr. Willis ................................................................................. | 242 | |
| Motion To Go Into Committee of Supply. Mr. Roblin ......................................... | 242 | |
| Mr. Paulley, Mr. Molgat ............................................................................... | 245 | |
| Bill No. 60, re Water District, Second Reading: Mr. Scarth ................................ | 245 | |
| Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley ........................................................................... | 246 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Pensioners (Mr. Gray): Mr. Shoemaker ........................... | 248 | |
| Division on Amendment (Mr. Guttormson) .................................................... | 249 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Minimum Wage (Mr. Harris) and proposed amendment
(Mr. Groves). | ||
| Ruling by Mr. Speaker .................................................................................. | 249 | |
| Speech in French (Mr. Roberts) ......................................................................... | 251 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
Orders of the Day
HON. GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Before the Orders of the Day, I should like to make a Return to an Order of the House concerning the motion of the Honourable Member from Burrows.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day
MR. LEMUEL HARRIS (Logan): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I should like to draw attention of the House to the gallery where there are three grades from the Dufferin School in the Logan constituency, with their teachers, Miss I. Gayowski, Mr. D. Crocker, and Miss J. McLeod, who is an exchange teacher from Great Britain.
MR. FRED GROVES (St. Vital): Before the Orders of the Day, I would like to bring the House's attention to two minor errors in Hansard, Volume III, No. 10, page 167. I am quoted as saying that "I belong to a party that does not believe in sending pious resolutions to Ottawa that can solve this and many other problems". The "in" should not be there and "that" should appear before the word "sending". The inference as it is in Hansard is that I am agreeing that sending pious resolutions to Ottawa can cure these problems.
And also Hansard Volume III, No. 11, page 184, about the middle of the page, I was talking about the Honourable Member for Logan and I am quoted as having said "that his doom of a national wage" and that should be "his dream".
MR. R. O. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to take this opportunity to invite the members of the legislature to attend the Provincial Exhibition at Brandon which is to be opened by the Premier on June 29th. I was a little disappointed when I went into one or two departments here to see if we were taking advantage of the tremendous tourist attraction that we have in the provincial exhibition, hoping that I would be able to obtain a few pamphlets advertising our Manitoba exhibition and found that little or nothing was available. I think all members realize the value of the provincial exhibition which is held at Brandon, to agriculture and to trade and to business in general in the province. Particularly of interest to the members, I would like to assure the members that if they haven't yet obtained guest passes to the exhibition they will be made available to them, and at noon there is a Trade Fair luncheon held in the Prince Edward Hotel to which all the members will be most cordially welcomed, and guests of the Trade Fair. Then there will be a visit to the grounds following this, and at four o'clock a reception will be put on by the Chamber of Commerce of Brandon. Following that there will be a buffet luncheon at which you will be the guests of the Provincial Exhibition Board. Then in the evening for those who wish to, guest privileges will be extended to see the attractions on the grandstand, and if any members would wish to bring their wives with them they will be more than welcome. The Trade Fair might be the possible exception because usually it is attended by a male audience but even here wives will be most welcome if members would care to bring them along. I would appreciate it very much if the Whips of the various parties would give me a list of the members who might attend the exhibition Monday so that I might see that arrangements are all made at the other end. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. ELMAN GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Attorney-General. During the course of the year the Manitoba Gazette weekly has a list of those persons who have become Commissioner for Oaths, and I've noticed the average number is about 20. It varies from time to time - for instance, on May 30th we have 20; on June 13th I don't see we have any; but on April 11th, the week after the election was called, there were 860 persons made Commissioner for Oaths. Could the Minister tell us the reason for the big number at that particular time?
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I think the copy of the Manitoba Gazette to which reference is made by the Honourable Member, I think that is the edition in which those persons who were acting as returning officers and deputy returning officers, perhaps even as poll clerks at the education referendum, I think that is the date on which their appointments appeared in the Gazette. Of course that election was held on the 31st of March - all of the appointments were made prior to the 31st of March. I think the Honourable Member will appreciate that it took quite a fair amount of paper work and signing by the provinicial secretary and others involved to get all of these things completed. The list in total was not published, I think, until that date. That is the answer I can give to his query.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The Election Act covers those persons, returning officers in the election though, don't they?
MR. LYON: No, the Election Act covers only those officials who are engaged in provincial elections. The Municipal Act and the Public Schools Act under which we were operating did not make provision for the taking of oaths or affidavits by deputy returning officers. In order to counteract this oversight actually in the Act, all of these persons had to be appointed commissioners for the purpose of administering oaths on election day.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Honourable the Attorney-General a supplementary question? Were these commissions just for that specific purpose, terminating after the election?
MR. LYON: Yes, that's true, Mr. Speaker, they were issued only for that purpose and will be revoked.
MR. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to congratulate the St. Boniface Kiwanis Club on its 35th anniversary and wish the members continued success.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Provincial Secretary. Last session he assured me that ticketed stubs on cheques for government employees would be soon put into effect. This weekend I checked into it again and the employees affected tell me that they are still not getting stubs on their cheques. Could you tell me when this is going to go into effect?
HON. MARCEL BOULIC (Provincial Secretary) (Cypress): As soon as the equipment for it is ready.
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, in the absence of the Honourable the Minister of Public Utilities, I would like to direct these questions to the Honourable the First Minister. In view of the report from Ottawa that a license for C.B.C. French language television station in St. Boniface is being held up by the federal cabinet, and in view of the known fact that a French T.V. station is urgently needed in Manitoba, did the Government send any recommendation to Ottawa? (2) If not, does it intend to make any immediate recommendation? (3) If so, what kind of recommendation would that be?
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I think we must first of all examine the premise of the honourable gentleman's question as to whether the news report does represent the facts of the matter. However, we were aware of that report as he was and without wishing to say whether the report is true or not because I actually do not know the details, I do know that the Honourable the Minister of Public Utilities is in the east at the present time discussing television matters with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and/or the Board of Broadcast Governors - I'm not just sure which, but he is down in eastern Canada at the present moment on these very matters.
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, and this question of this television in St. Boniface - will be brought up, I presume?
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned Debate on the Proposed Motion of Second Reading of Bill No. 2, the Honourable Member for Flin Flon.
MR. CHARLES H. WITNEY (Flin Flon): Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make my first speech in this House on a bill that I feel will have great impact on the development of northern Manitoba. A bill, which, I feel will help to match in some respect the boundless faith and the boundless enthusiasm for the development of the north country which represents some two-thirds of this province. And I have listened with interest to the criticism that has
been brought toward this bill and noted with respect the experience and the respect that the honourable members who have criticised it have had in this House. I have also noted, and noted with pleasure, that there was no real opposition to the bill. In other words, when the bill comes to a vote, as I read Hansard and understood from what the honourable gentlemen said that they would vote in favour of this Manitoba economic development authority. But I do believe that the criticism that they have brought, must be answered in order that this bill may be started on the right foot, for I think it is one of the most important bills to northern Manitoba, the area that I know most of at the present time, to come before this House for some time. I have noted that the major criticism of the bill has been duplication, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not duplication but coordination. For what this bill does is bring to the one table at the one time not only the bodies who make policy, but also the technical people who have a fund of information at their fingertips and who can, at one time, deal with the various problems that arise in development of industry in this province. And in the north country industrial development is far from easy. The north country does not give up its riches with ease and it will require an efficient, planned program to successfully develop industry in northern Manitoba. I see that this economic development authority is the right step in the direction toward that efficiency.
We have had the experience of the system of government that I would term the departmental system in development of the north country, and I contend that it has not been successful in the past. I have been part of delegations, I have had a part in briefs, when we have come down before various departments of this Province, of this Government, to present our problems, and we are always listened to with interest, we are always listened to with sincerity, but after we leave and after the problems have been presented, we have the feeling that they did not quite strike home and that nothing would be done. I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that it was intentional that nothing be done; I feel rather that the problems were of such magnitude that the individual departments that they were presented to felt that they were large problems and with busy desks, that they were too large to really tackle or to really consider and to take action on at that time.
Now with this economic development authority, we will be able to present problems to a body which will meet again at one time and across one table and will be able to consider all the aspects at that one time.
Now, just some examples of what we have not obtained with a system that has not had an economic development authority. I should like to point out to you that we still - despite the problems - we still lack secondary industry; we have still to develop in an efficient manner the wood products industry that has great potential in northern Manitoba. We have still to really tangle and to really work out our problems of transportation and communication. We have still to really obtain results in the problem of freight rates, and we are still, in northern Manitoba, which represents two-thirds of this province, dependent primarily upon the mining industry. And the mining industry, when it is an active industry, presents a good deal of revenue, but the mining industry operates on a non-renewable asset. We cannot re-grow gold, we cannot re-grow zinc, we cannot re-grow lead, we can only pull it out. And we must find something, we must develop the other renewable assets of the north country and develop them soon to help balance the economy of northern Manitoba. I see in this bill which calls for an economic development authority the means of doing that. We have in Flin Flon a long life; we have ore; and we have a company that explores for ore constantly. We have a smelter and that smelter assures that they will continue the development or the exploration for mineral resources but in my constituency we also have a community that was once a very active, a very lively mining town and one which was beneficial to this province in money returned. That was just a few years ago and now you can go to that town, Sherridon, and you can be depressed inside of an hour, by the deserted buildings, by the boarded-up school which is being subjected to vandalism, by the buildings that are being taken over by the government because the taxes have not been paid because there is no income, the buildings that are being inhabited in more numbers by people, the Métis and the Indians, and increasing a welfare problem. And Sherridon, which was once a mining town, a mining town which made money for the Province of Manitoba, now costs us money in welfare. Now the Manitoba Economic Development authority, I believe, can help to prevent such tragedy. I don't personally believe that Sherridon should
have closed down and there are people who still live there in the faith, and an honest faith, that it will come back. But the system that we had did not keep Sherridon alive. This economic development authority may fail also, but I do believe that it is one step in the right direction to preventing such tragedies from happening again and I would suggest to the Honourable Minister that the economic development authority makes sure that such matters do not occur again. In Sherridon there is pulp, there is fish and there is still exploration for mines all around it. And in Flin Flon, while we do have one industry, we would be benefitted greatly by a secondary industry. And we have investigated the problems or investigated the zinc casting business; we have wondered what we could do with the raw material which is developed by our mine; we have even looked to such small industries as the souvenir industry but to date we have none. I believe that with this economic development authority new co-ordination of all these problems through them being presented to all the men at one time and across one table - men that can develop policy, the technical men, that these problems will not seem as great as they seem to the individual departments. I take a look in the north country at Churchill and at Cranberry Portage, and Cranberry Portage has wonderful facilities for tourist development, and the Port of Churchill, which is the only inland sea-port in Canada and which could greatly benefit from more development. And I see five miles away from the townsite of Churchill, a very modern army camp, and across the road at Cranberry a very modern radar site, and in the townsites no modern facilities, and I believe that had there been an economic development authority or some system such as presented by this bill that there would not be everything on one side of the road and nothing on the other. The water mains go right down the borders of the town of Cranberry and if Cranberry had modern water facilities and modern power facilities - we have recently had to buy their generators - I'm sure that it could develop in a few years' time to one of the most attractive and the finest tourist resort areas in the province. And in so doing, not take tourist traffic just across the border but take tourist traffic from the border up 565 miles of road which, thanks to the Honourable Minister of Public Works, will be a "Class 1" highway in a few years' time, and on taking them from here the full distance, benefit by the money they spend in gasoline, in meals and in accommodation. An economic development authority that could have recognized those problems at Cranberry could have recognized that possibly co-ordination, when the money was being spent for power, for sanitation facilities, for a defence site, could have been used across the road or just five miles away to the benefit for years to come of a municipality.
I suggest to you also, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has become a wonderful market for industry and ten provinces realize it. Ten provinces are actively competing for the industrial dollars and I suggest that we in this province have yet to attain our fair share of it. With an efficient organization for industry to go to, I see it as a wonderful promotion for this province. We have our Industrial Townsites Act and the mining companies must go to the Department of Mines and Natural Resources, to the Department of Public Works, to the Department of Public Welfare, to the Department of Industry and Commerce, to the Department of Education, and how many letters, how many sub-meetings, committee meetings, how many phone calls, inter-office memos are necessary, I hesitate to think. But you do know that industry often complains of frustration and delay in governmental procedure. In this economic development authority I see those frustrations and those delays being nullified and to industry, with thousands of dollars to spend, by merely wanting to get down to the job of developing it and investing it to their benefit and to ours, this efficient method of dealing with their problems will be a great promotion.
We have heard, Mr. Speaker, this matter called window-dressing. I'm in the advertising business and I believe in window-dressing. Every, or many major corporations and businesses use window-dressing because it attracts customers and that's what we want to do. We want to attract industry so if it is window-dressing, I believe it is to our benefit.
I should like to point out to you another problem which is developing for industrial development of the northern country. We have the Arthur D. Little Report which has recommended concessions and we have the prospector, and the prospector can honestly say, and proudly say, that because he had the courage and the fortitude to penetrate the bush and the rock, to take his canoe, his kicker, and to go into country that no one else would think of going into, isolated and lonely country, that we have Flin Flon; we have Lynn Lake; we have Snow Lake
and we have Thompson, for the prospector was the base of all those communities. And we have the problem of modern technology now, in the exploration of minerals from the prospector and it will be a severe problem. I believe it can be adequately handled, or better handled by an economic development authority.
I should like to mention, too, that I agree with the Honourable Leader of the Opposition that we must not allow government expense to become overbearing, but I also contend that we will have to spend money in order to make money and if this is going to cost us a few thousand dollars to make hundreds of thousands of dollars then it's well worth it and we should get on with the business of Manitoba, that we should get on with the business of Manitoba efficiently, co-ordinated and effectively through the Manitoba Economic Authority.
MR. W. B. SCARTH (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, as a past resident of the country from which the Honourable Member for Flin Flon comes, for 13 years, I feel that I should at this time compliment the Honourable Member for his belief in that great country from which he comes, for his optimism and for his ability to put across to this House and to the people of Manitoba, what the mining area of Manitoba really means and Sir, if I may with deference say, I adopt everything that the Honourable Member from Flin Flon has stated.
Now I would like, for a very few minutes, to deal with the criticism to this bill brought forward by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. It was, as I understood their speeches last Monday, expressed by them that they would not oppose the passage of the bill but what was the use of it? That was the intention which both the honourable gentlemen intended to convey to this House and Mr. Speaker, I might say that with every deference to those two experienced parliamentarians, I was disappointed in the narrow view which they took of a very well conceived bill. Now if you will read the remarks from Hansard and I'll refer to them - passages from each - in a very few minutes -- one can only come to the conclusion that both of the honourable gentlemen, leaders of their respective parties, either only cursorily read the bill or (b) they did not understand its import, or (c) if they did understand its import, they got lost in their own eloquence and made some very rash statements. This bill, the development authority bill, is not complex. It's simple; it's straightforward, and it hides nothing. It should be borne in mind by this House that the board to be created has not executive powers. It is true it may make contracts with engineers or surveyors or geologists or something to make surveys, but it is not a combination of government departments. What this board is being set up for is to get in touch with the world at large and influence capital and other people who might be interested in coming into Manitoba to develop our mines, our resources, and add industry to our province. Now, how is this to be accomplished within the bill? The two things, by appointing to the directorate, the First Minister and three other cabinet ministers named - that adds no expense to the Province of Manitoba - (b) by constituting a board consisting of the Executive Director, four Deputy Ministers, three Public Utility Chairmen and the General Manager of the Manitoba Development Board. Mr. Speaker, by this type of appointment we have a cross section of top Civil Servants, top utility men, and at a meeting of this co-ordinated body, one or other of those experts will have the answer to any question that might arise and sound decisions can be readily arrived at in place of one Cabinet Minister or one Department endeavouring to make a contact and then having later to get in touch with certain other departments who might be affected by an impending contract in regard to some industry. This form of government operation is as the honourable members of the two opposition groups, not new. To my knowledge, Ottawa had very similar boards during the wartimes - inter-service committees comprising perhaps deputy ministers down - and why did they have it? Just to accomplish the one purpose so that if one departmental officer did not know the answer then somebody else did, or the information could be readily obtained and business expedited.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to, I suggested a few minutes ago that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition had best concede the Bill. I wish to refer to No. 10 Hansard of June 22nd, Page 146, and the Honourable Member in speaking of this bill said, "It's duplication - all the way through". Then speaking of the Director he said, "Is his staff going to be senior to the staff of the Department of Agriculture?" Well again, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this is not an executive body, it may not sign any contracts on the part of the Province of Manitoba - if authorized by Order-in-Council it may negotiate for industry but negotiate only, and if any
contract is signed then naturally it is signed by the appropriate government department under the seal of the Minister of that department. So that when the Honourable Member fears that it can over-ride the Minister of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture, then I can state that definitely it cannot, constitutionally or otherwise. Again, Mr. Speaker, I call direction to Hansard 147, in the speech of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition - "I think one of the greatest needs is for both the Federal and Provincial Governments to endeavour to be businesslike governments, to stop being politicians." The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on May 14th almost practiced what he preaches.
I now refer, Mr. Speaker, to the words of the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. on Page 148 of the same edition of Hansard when he says, "Throughout the whole of the bill, Mr. Speaker, all of the provisions in, simply say, in respect to the board and the directorate that it can do certain things and it appears to me that it is possible for the Executive Council of the government to enter into concrete agreements with private industry and other corporations for the exploitations of our natural resources, and we as representatives of the people of Manitoba in this Legislature are not informed of it at all." I believe, Mr. Speaker, if the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. will go into matters further he will find that every Minister of the Crown is responsible for his actions to this House and that responsibility cannot be shifted on anybody else, and again I suggest that the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. spoke without either giving this bill adequate consideration or giving his own words adequate consideration, whichever you choose.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F.) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, if I may interrupt the honourable gentleman on a point at this time. I think the inference that I was making and maybe my verbiage wasn't correct, but in the important consideration of the exploitation of our natural resouces my inference was that this Legislature and not any minister should decide when those should be given away.
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the government on this behalf but if any really fine deal comes up whereby industry wants to come into Manitoba and establish a mine or something, or put up a pulp mill, and we have got to call a meeting of parliament to approve it, we won't get very far, and the Honourable Member from Flin Flon will be quite right in that we would be somewhat slow in getting industry in this province. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just make these remarks. We in the government ranks welcome criticism; it's a necessary role in all parliamentary procedure; it keeps the government of the day straight; it straightens out our thinking upon many occasions but if criticism is to be any good, let it be given with thought, let it be given fairly, justly and with every sense of responsibility.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
HON. G. EVANS (Minister of Mines & Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that the debate be adjourned.
MR. SPEAKER: Did you not speak before on this debate?
MR. EVANS: In that event, Mr. Speaker, I would be closing the debate on a motion that I introduced.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I don't object to what's being done; the only point is that there may be some honourable members who do not realize that if that adjournment is taken then their opportunity to speak has vanished. I think most of them do understand that - I have no objection, it's only that, well, that they all understand the situation.
MR. EVANS: Do you wish to allow anyone else to go ahead before I place my motion?
MR. SPEAKER: No one else wishes to speak or adjourn the debate. Declare the motion carried. Second reading of Bill No. 50. The Honourable the Minister of Public Works.
HON. E. WILLIS (Minister of Agriculture & Immigration) (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Bill No. 50 - an Act to amend the Public Works Act - be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable the Minister of Public Works, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Education, that Bill No. 50 - an Act to amend the Public Works Act - be now read a second time. Are you ready for the question?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is really a bear for punishment.
MR. CAMPBELL: I'll do my duty.
MR. WILLIS: This bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with secondary highways only. It changes the government contribution to their construction and mainenance from 2/3 to 3/4, whereas in the past the government's contribution has been but two-thirds, in future the government, if this bill passes, the government's contribution to secondary highways for maintenance and construction will be seventy-five percent with twenty-five percent payable by the municipalities.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I'm not opposing this bill; as a matter of fact, I heartily concur in it, but the other day when the Honourable Minister introduced it, I asked him a question as to whether or no in the three-quarter costs were going to be included capital costs as well as acquiring additional land. Now this bill does not make any change in the present wording of that particular section of the Public Works Act; the particular section of the Public Works Act as it stands today without considering this bill is that the government pays two-thirds of the cost of the work. Now that is in Section 21 (2). In Section 21 (1) work is referred to as the construction, improvement, repair, surfacing or maintenance of a secondary highway. Now the Honourable Minister has stated that it's going to be his government's policy to include capital costs in the three-quarter cost that you are going to assume but in view of the fact that it was always construed in the past that capital cost was not considered as a part of the construction, improvement or repair cost of a secondary highway, I would suggest to the Honourable Minister that when this bill comes into committee that it's made abundantly clear that the word "improvement" also includes capital costs, that is for acquiring land, additional land. Because if the past government was correct in its interpretation of that section and you are not changing the wording of that section, other than changing two-thirds to three-quarters, we might find ourselves in the same position as we were before and have to pay 100% of the capital cost of acquiring additional land.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the point raised by the Honourable Member is a good one. Our instruction to the Legislative Council was that it was to include capital cost, that is to say, the requirement of the right-of-way. I will double check with him and we'll always have a chance in the third reading. But that is the purpose and object of the bill.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, if I am in order now - I don't know if I am - I'll rely on your judgment for that - and if the Honourable Minister of Public Works would care to answer this question. When is a highway considered a secondary highway? It seems that even the municipalities themselves or some municipalities are not too sure of that.
MR. WILLIS: A secondary highway is a secondary highway when declared to be so by Order-in-Council. It then becomes a secondary highway. The ordinary specifications of a secondary highway is that it is a 30 foot top, all weather road, but the matter of what is a secondary highway is an Order-in-Council of the Government declaring it to be so just the same as you create a highway as well, by an Order-in-Council declaring it to be so.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. STAN ROBERTS (La Verendrye): Would you kindly explain, Sir, the difference between a secondary highway then and other roads then? You have some roads you call other roads, isn't that correct? 100% other roads - don't you refer to roads in that manner? Is there a difference between them and the secondary highways?
MR. WILLIS: Ordinarily you have under 'other roads 100%', certain roads in unorganized territory which are cared for by the government, they pay 100% of the cost. Sometimes too, 'other roads 100%' are declared before everything has been done in regard to a trunk highway. The purpose of that is a very good one, which isn't always recognized in this House, and was not recognized by the previous government. When you have a road which is '100% road' it isn't listed as a trunk highway, and therefore it doesn't mislead anyone as to whether it is complete or not. I think the most outstanding example as I understand it was in the Province of Saskatchewan, when the then Mr. Gardiner felt the pressure was so heavy that he must declare more trunk highways, so he declared 8,000 miles of trunk highways over night - put the signs on them and they appear on the map. And those people who went guided by the road maps got stuck in the mud and became C.C.F.'ers. Hence the long tenure of office of the C.C.F. Party in the Province of Saskatchewan.
[Mr. Speaker put the question, and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, perhaps I may be allowed to make a brief statement concerning some of the more interesting points in connection with the estimates that have been tabled in order to give members a bird's eye view of what they contain. Although I am aware, Sir, as we all are that there will be a very detailed discussion as we proceed. The estimates for the fiscal year 1959-60 that are now before you are, with few exceptions, the same as those placed before the Legislature at the last session. I would like to draw your attention to changes that have been made since that time. Estimates have been increased by $247,640 to provide for the cost of the present session of the Legislature. Estimates for the Department of the Executive Council have been increased by $420,000 to provide for the cost of the election which has just taken place and to provide for the expenses in connection with the visit of her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness, the Prince Philip to the Province of Manitoba in July of this year. $11,000 has been added to the Department of Agriculture in conservation estimates to provide for the cost of transporting fodder this spring. An amount of $275,000 has been included in the Department of Labour estimates to complete the provincial share of the cost of the winter work program which did so much to minimize unemployment in the province last winter. The balance of the estimates are identical to those presented at the last Session. The estimated expenditures for the fiscal year, 1959-60, total $84,601,442, exclusive of capital supply. This compares with the estimates for the 1948-49 fiscal period of $69,713,000 after adjusting for capital supply items which were previously included in main supply and for interest on loans and securities now shown as a reduction to the interest on public debt rather than revenue. The estimates, therefore, reflect an increase in government spending of approximately $14,900,000 to be allocated as follows: Education, $6,000,000, Agriculture, including Water Conservation and Control, $1,100,000, Administration of gaols, courts and detention homes, $400,000, Health and Public Welfare, $3,100,000, Mines and Resources, $300,000, Public Works, $1,300,000, Industrial and Commercial Development and Promotions, $300,000, Increased Salaries for Civil Servants, $950,000, Improvement in Other Government Services and Facilities, $500,000, Cost of Election, Present Session, Royal Visit and Winter Works Program (as previously noted), $950,000, totalling the increase of $14,900,000, previously referred to. The details of these programs will be fully explained by the various ministers having charge of the services. However, I would like to briefly explain
the object of these programs. EDUCATION: On the 27th day of February, Manitoba citizens voted overwhelmingly for a change in the system of education. A change considered to be one of the greatest single advances in this field for Manitoba in the Twentieth Century. The division plan of administration will go far in the creation of equal educational opportunity for all children in Manitoba. Through a new grant system it is the intention of the government to increase the money that is made available to the municipal organizations in this respect. In the current fiscal year the province will be spending an additional $6,000,000 for educational grants. I might explain that the new system is effective for only seven-tenths of the current fiscal year. For a full year, under the new grant structure, the province will pay $7,500,000 more than under the previous arrangement.
AGRICULTURE: It is the objective of the government to stimulate and indeed to revitalize and expand the services that can be provided to the farmer. The agricultural policies of the government have been well publicized and I'm happy to say our program of benefits in this most basic of Manitoba's industries has been well endorsed by the farmers in the province as comprising measures which are not only essential but long overdue. The estimates of the Department of Agriculture provide ample support for this greatly expanded, direct and indirect, assistance to farmers. The many new and enlarged programs include loans to young farmers at low interest rates, increased staff of agriculturists and home economists to bring the facilities of the department directly to the people for whom they are intended. Intensified research programs for crop diversification and livestock improvement, increased provincial bursaries to put the agricultural education facilities of the province within reach of deserving students, and new assistance and expanded support for agricultural fairs. The expenditures outlined in these estimates will give both immediate and long-range support in this very important part of the province's economy. A new division will be established in the Department of Agriculture, which will take full responsibility for the integration of our vast water control projects and henceforth the department will be called the Department of Agriculture and Conservation. The estimates will provide for the necessary staff in engineering to get these projects under way, and provide increased assistance for municipalities in carrying out their related projects.
A major increase in the estimates of the Department of the Attorney-General has resulted from the necessity of providing additional man-power to implement the 40 hour week in institutions. In addition, provision has been made to employ an increased number of probation officers. The Department of Health estimates are up by $150,000 over last year. I would like to explain that although we are greatly expanding the health services in almost every field, and providing additional staff in mental institutions to implement a 40 hour week, the cost of these new and expanded undertakings has largely been absorbed by the reduced provincial costs of hospital services, resulting from the operation of the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan. Legislation will be introduced at this session that will greatly expand the welfare services of the province and you will find that estimates have increased by about $3,000,000 in this branch. We must keep in mind, however, that these are cost-sharing programs with the Federal Government on which we have negotiated for increased federal participation. The increase reflected in these estimates is the gross increase. Estimated recoveries from the Federal Government showing substantial gains for the province will be shown when the revenues are before you. The future economic growth of this province will be influenced greatly by the manner in which our natural resources are developed and managed. The government has made provision in the estimates for the Department of Mines and Natural Resources to speed up the exploration of our mining areas. The Forestry Branch has provided for additional personnel to carry out a program of forest inventory and management. The Fisheries Branch will be carrying out a research program designed to improve the fishing on Lake Winnipeg for the benefit of the commercial fishing industry. Considerably more money will be spent on recreational development to make the province even more attractive to the residents of the province and at the same time to improve the tourist industry. The government is convinced that large dividends will be reaped from planned investment in the vast resources which we have at our disposal. While there have been minor additions to maintenance staffs of public institutions to provide for the 40 hour work week, the major share of the additional spending in the Department of Public Works is directed toward providing sufficient technical staff to provide the most complete and efficient planning and engineering service for the vast highway program that this province has now before us.
Plans are also being implemented to increase the assistance to municipalities where necessary, to ensure that the local phase of road development does not lag. The government believes that an adequate, well engineered network of highways is essential to our expanding economy. Estimates of the Department of Industry and Commerce have increased from $800,000 to $1,100,000. By increasing expenditures one third, we can provide this department with the strength needed to promote the balanced industrial growth of the province to an extent which will ensure an ever increasing number of jobs for our young people, and will gradually make it possible to diversify our industrial structure in the province. You will also note that the estimate contained $950,000 to provide salary increases for Civil Servants. The government has reached the point where it is difficult to hire employees of the calibre necessary to carry on the province's business with existing salary levels, and even more important we have reached the point, in many cases, where we are unable to hold our existing skilled and competent staff. New salary levels have been established which will provide the means whereby government employees can maintain standards of living commensurate with that of similar employment outside the public service. Expenditures in other phases of government activity have been increased only after thorough investigation as to need and improved efficiency. The government has found it necessary in many cases to provide the facilities and personnel to cope with the ever-increasing complexity and the cost of doing business today in Canada. Where we find that departments need assistance in reorganization and advice in respect of improving methods and techniques and where more planning for the future is clearly necessary, it is our intention to provide that essential advisory service. The estimates that have been placed before you will provide the means whereby the various departments of the government of Manitoba can carry forward the kind of services and programs that will promote the sound development of the economy of this province.
Mr. Speaker, you will recognize that those few remarks by no means constitute an adequate explanation of all the matters in the estimates and they will be dealt with by the respective Ministers as we proceed, but I thought it might be useful to the Chamber if I were to offer some bird's eye view as it were of the overall situation as it appears to us as we present these estimates. Perhaps it would not be out of place at this time to say a word that may be of some assistance to the new members when we go into our next stage, which is the committee stage, to examine these estimates and to perhaps offer a suggestion as to how they may best follow the proceedings and compare the changes in the financial allocations that are being made. If you'll examine the book of estimates which everyone now has, you will see that it contains the amounts on the left hand side of the page that were requested for the fiscal year that ended last March, and on the right hand side of the page, the amounts that will be voted by the House if they are approved in this Session of the Legislature. So by looking at the page of your expenditure estimates, you can form a rough idea of the changes in money terms as between last year and the year that we are asking to be financed now. And that will give you an idea of some of the changes that are being made in the various activities of government departments. Further than that, if it is of interest to members, they can get some good information, I think, from the Public Accounts, because these take into account the, not last year but the year before last, so they give us a picture for the third year. On page 143 of the Public Accounts, you will find the actual expenditures that were incurred in the year ending March 31st, 1958, for the various votes and items which are covered in the estimates that we have before us now. So that if you wish you can follow the progress of expenditures through these three years in this way, and it may perhaps throw a little more light on the detail of the accounts concerned. In any case, it is the responsibility of the Ministers to do their best to answer any questions that members might have on the various items that are affected and to explain, I trust, in an intelligible manner the plans and the program that the government wishes the House to approve at this moment. So with those words, Sir, I take my seat and will allow others to contribute to this debate.
MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, will there be copies of the formal statement made by the First Minister available immediately to the leaders of the other two groups?
MR. ROBLIN: I'm sorry -- it will be in Hansard tomorrow, but not available at the moment. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to consider I had not risen in my place because I notice that on second readings we're getting into the habit of having it turned into a question period, which is not the intention, and while questions should be answered, I think perhaps
it could best be done after the whole collection has been made and the replying minister knows what the total amount of questions are. So I just prefer to take note of that question in case there are other points that other members would like to raise.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the First Minister for his brief outline. I would like to have had a copy of his statement so that we could have considered it this afternoon. However, as he said we'll wait till tomorrow to read it in Hansard. But there is one thing that raises a question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the estimates, if I recall correctly at the last session of the last Legislature, we passed a partial estimates or supplemental estimates, dealing with the first three months of the now current year which expires, if I am correct, on the 30th day of June, which is next Tuesday. Now it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it will be a miracle or an impossibilty no matter whichever way you chose to look at it if by that time we have finished scrutinizing the estimates for the fiscal year '59-'60 and I would like if he's in a position to do it, for the Provincial Treasurer to give us a statement in effect to that situation and as to whether or not further supplemental estimates will be necessary to carry on at least until we have finished the scrutiny of the full estimates. And also, Mr. Speaker, I think in the past years on the presentation of the estimates by respective ministers, we've had some confusion as to whether the minister would give a broad statement as to his department on the introduction of his departmental estimates or whether or not he would prefer just simply to deal with them item by item. I wonder if the new government has got together to arrive at some basis as to whether or not the respective ministers want to make a general statement or deal with the items as they come. I think it would be proper for a reply if there can be one on that. But I think I'm primarily interested, Mr. Speaker, in the question that I raised first as to the supplemental estimates if necessary to conduct the business of government and get on with the business of Manitoba after June 30th until we have supplied capital and considered the estimates.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, will you be answering the question or closing the debate?
MR. SPEAKER: I will be closing the debate.
MR. MOLGAT: Well, if no one else wishes to speak, Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker put the question, and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 58. The Honourable Member for Carillon.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I would ask in the honourable member's adsence that that order be allowed to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 60. The Honourable Member for River Heights.
MR. SCARTH: I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. James, that Bill No. 60, an Act to amend The Greater Winnipeg Water District Act, be now read a second time.
A MEMBER: Would you please explain?
A MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, the Bill in question being brought forward by the Utility, The Greater Winnipeg Water District, is of some urgency and I'll refer now to Section 1 of the Bill as written. That is purely an administrative section which endeavours to overcome a little difficulty experienced by the Greater Winnipeg Water District in that the mayor of the City of Winnipeg was not always available to chair the meetings and when the acting mayor took his place, sometimes he was and sometimes he was not qualified to give the meeting the leadership which it required by reason of fact that he was not thoroughly acquainted with the workings of the utility. They now provide under this section for a permanent chairman elected by themselves. Section two, Mr. Speaker, is a little more involved and, if I may for just a minute, give a history of this utility, I'll do so. This utility, Greater Winnipeg Water District, commenced operation in 1919 or about 40 years ago and at that time there were 9 original member municipalities: Winnipeg, St. Boniface, St. James, Fort Garry, East Kildonan, West Kildonan, Transcona, Tuxedo and St. Vital. Since that time, by agreement with six other municipalities the Water District is now supplying water. At the present time the maximum pipe line capacity into Winnipeg is fifty million gallons per day and Winnipeg city has at one time -- or has constructed sufficient reservoir capacity perhaps to look after the needs of Winnipeg proper, and
sufficient pressure tanks, but Winnipeg proper of about 240,000 and Greater Winnipeg, or the greater area being serviced by this utility of 440,000 people, make a different picture and with very limited other -- three other reservoir capacities -- three other reservoirs, in other municipalities, there is not enough water to go around in these drought periods in the summer. It is true that the Greater Winnipeg Water District will correct this situation and there is now under construction, or contemplated for immediate construction, an additional 13,000,000 gallon per day supplementary pipe line together with added reservoir. But this will not be into operation until the fall of 1960. The utility, therefore, has to have the 1959 summer period and the 1960 summer period to look forward to in case of drought. This bill came up at the last sitting of the Legislature and was questioned on a second reading by the Honourable then Member for Portage, who resides in Assiniboia, and then the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. And it was felt, without going into the details, Mr. Speaker -- I considered that their perhaps objections or questions were tended to -- toward the view that there might be discrimination by the utility between municipalities. Now, this bill is endeavouring to get over just that one thing, discrimination. Last year at one time at the eastern boundary of Assiniboia there were 2 pounds pressure of water. One hesitates to suggest what would have happened had a conflagration broken out. Also in Fort Garry at one time I know in one golf course that water would not come from any tap, even in the basement floor of the clubhouse. What is the situation? The utility Greater Winnipeg Water District had for some years been endeavouring to get the 15 municipalities to pass a uniform by-law where they will restrict, when necessary, the sprinkling of lawns, of gardens, boulevards and golf courses. But certain municipalities passed a by-law, certain others did not. The result of it was that again those living in the western area, such as Assiniboia, Charleswood and so forth, were short of water and there wasn't enough to go around. Now, all that this latter part or Section two of the bill provides is that the Water District itself shall be empowered if the situation warrants or requires, that they pass uniform restrictions, restricting, say, the odd numbers of every resident in every part of the districts of the 15 municipalities concerned on certain days and vice versa the following days. I have a letter from Mr. Hurst, the engineer for the City of Winnipeg, that there will be no discrimination. I've been assured by both Mr. Bond, council for the Commission, and Mr. Bubbis that there will be no discrimination, and the latter two gentlemen, if this goes to committee, will be present at committee to answer questions.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I whole-heartedly agree with the suggestion that the honourable the First Minister made a short time ago, that it has become the habit of a good many of us to ask questions on second reading that in fairness to the one who is sponsoring the bill that it's better for him to just take note of the questions and answer them all at once and I'm quite willing for that to be done in connection with this question. I would just like to ask the honourable member, who, I think, has given a very excellent explanation of the purposes of this bill, if he would indicate to us what -- which ones of the municipalities concerned are represented on the board? That does not need to be done until the other questions are in.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, there's one or two points in connection with this bill that I would like to raise and I agree with the bill in principle, that it's attempting to overcome situations that the Water District has been faced with for a number of years, having had the privilege of being on the administration board at one time myself. But a point arises and possibly can be explained either by the sponsor of the bill or explained at the law amendment or municipal committee when it's heard. Now we out in the Town of Transcona are on the eastern end of the line or at least, in other words, we get our water first off of the aqueduct coming into Greater Winnipeg. And for some considerable time, the built-up pressure in the aqueduct was sufficient without the necessity of pumps in our own local pump station and reservoir to supply water to the town. But as a result of the growth of not only our town but of the Greater Winnipeg district itself, and the building of sewerage pumps and this, that and the other, the natural built-up pressure of the aqueduct is being considerably reduced; and our situation there became so bad that just recently we passed a money by-law to make new provisions for another line from the aqueduct into the town. The Council a couple of weeks ago - and here is the main point - the Council a couple of weeks ago of the Town of Transcona passed a watering by-law restricting the use of water for lawns, etc., as suggested by the honourable member in order to assist until such time as our new line is built.
Now my question, Mr. Speaker, would be this. Under the proposed change in the legislation, would the Administration Board have the sole jurisdiction over the restrictions of watering in the respective municipalities? Now we appreciate the fact that most of the municipalities surrounding Winnipeg get their water - I think with the exception of St. Boniface - after the water has been received into the main reservoir on Logan Avenue. Now if the purpose of this legislation, however, is to give them the sole rights of passing by-laws, I can see where there may be difficulties for the Town of Transcona who is a member of the Board passing its own by-law; or would there be provisions to overcome a situation of that nature? I think the people of Transcona would be very much concerned in respect to that aspect of this bill.
MR. W. B. SCARTH: I can answer that question now, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I might say that if the honourable member speaks, he closes the debate. If no other member wishes to speak, you may close the debate.
MR. SCARTH: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. Insofar as the interpretation of Section 39A or the Section 2 of the proposed bill is concerned, the Board or the Board itself would have jurisdiction over every municipality or over all the distribution of water or curtailment of the distribution or water throughout every received municipality in the entire area, and from then on restricted by-laws by an individual municipality would be both unnecessary and, I think, out; because this gives them - now I would suggest this - that the Board may restrict the use of water, but if a municipality for some reason wanted to further restrict it, I don't suppose it could be stopped, but in the meantime the necessity for that does not seem apparent. Oh, there's one -- the next question of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, I'm sorry I was not ready for that, may I furnish that to the honourable member at a very early date?
MR. SPEAKER: The Committee will do -- at committee time. Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the motion of the Honourable Member for Inkster and proposed motion and amendment thereto - the Honourable Member for St. George. The Honourable Member for Gladstone.
MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, the debate on this resolution before us has at least presented the House with a number of eloquent speeches. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that our amendment, though, has been mistinterpreted and I would suggest that the honourable members take time now to reread it.
A brief history of the old age pension plan reveals that it was started as an assistance measure to persons over the age of 70. Now I understand it was first introduced in 1927, and the amount set at that time was $20.00. And in the intervening years - I haven't the dates, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that it was increased sometime later to $30.00; it was increased again to $40.00; it was increased later to $46.00, and in 1957 increased to $55.00 as it presently stands. Now, I wish to repeat it was introduced first as an assistance measure only to our senior citizens and never was intended as a measure to support a standard of living that most of us presently enjoy. But over the intervening years the public associated this pension to a means of security for old age, that is, what they once interpreted as an assistance pension or a means to assist them, has now developed into one that they term as "security for old age". And that does bring us to the point raised by one or two of the members earlier this week as to what standard of living is our senior citizen entitled to. And someone yesterday, I think, suggested that it should be one equal to that enjoyed upon reaching the age of 70. I think that we all agree that while we all recognize the fact that we are our "brother's keeper" that the pension was designed to be one to assure a minimum standard of living.
The pension plan was as I suggested earlier, started back in 1927 when at that time you could purchase a 21 meal ticket for $5.00, and I personally have experienced that. About that time - 1927-28-29 - it was quite possible to buy a meal ticket with 21 meals on it for the sum of $5.00, and you were entitled to eat any 35¢ meal on the menu, and I don't think there was a meal on the menu listed higher than that. You went in and had your meal and they punched it -- the idea was that it was to last you for a week. And at that time too, house rentals were $9.00 to $20.00 a month, and for some number of years I only paid $9.00 a month rent in my own house. Hamburger meat was three pounds for a quarter. Creamery butter was 16¢ a pound; and hogs were sold at about $2.00 to $3.00 a hundred. The government of the day recognized over the years that it was necessary as the cost of living increased, that it was necessary to increase the pension and they did just that and did increase it four or five different times. But apparently no yardstick was ever considered or applied in considering the increases. It would appear to members in our group, at least, that this government is not prepared to support any increase in the federal contribution to the pension and as an excuse to vote against the amendment have belittled the true intention by failing to give it the study that it deserves. We have heard reports from various members as to the exact increase the cost of living has been since 1957; but I'm reluctant to believe that inflation has only taken a 2% "bite" in the last two or two and a half years. The Federal Government has admitted to increasing the money supply by some 12% in 1958 and I suggest that the value of the dollar has reduced accordingly. Inflation is the greatest single threat to the security of our old age. In 1947 I entered into a contract with the Federal Government and purchased a Canadian Government annuity - all that I could afford to buy, and it's a good investment - and I agreed to purchase an annuity that would pay me $50.00 a month at age 55. Now in 1947, $50.00 a month seemed to me like a tremendous amount of money. Today it wouldn't keep me more than about a week, and certainly if I had to live in Winnipeg here, I would probably have to triple it or buy half a dozen of the same size to supply me when I reached the age of 70.
If our amendment is adopted, it is only one measure to assist our senior citizens and to assure them of a standard of living that they have been enjoying in the past. I am quite aware of the fact that this government has proposed legislation to assist our aged and infirm and I suggest that if they support our resolution that they will have less to pay. The proposed legislation, I believe, intends to supplement those in need - I heard a great deal during the last campaign about the fact that the assistance would be based on a "needs" test rather than a "means" test and there always is a question there as to what constitutes "need". Since it is a fact that all our labour forces use the cost of living index when making demands for increased wages, we believe that there is sound merit in applying the same formula when considering the size of the pension to be granted and/or any increase in the amount of existing pensions. Before any member considers voting against our resolution, I suggest that serious consideration be
given because we say the same principle of applying the cost of living yardstick is correct. We believe our resolution could and should establish a precedent in the future for a sound basis for pension increaess. We don't say that an adjustment should be made each and every year - possibly it should be examined every four or five years - but all we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is as the resolution suggests, that this Government petition the Federal Government to increase the existing old age security, old age assistance, disability and blind pension by an amount at least sufficient to compensate for the loss of purchasing power of the dollar due to inflation since the $55.00 pension was implemented.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, if no one wishes to speak, I want to say a few words on...the debate.
MR. SPEAKER: I think that we are on the amendment to your motion.
MR. GRAY: Oh! I'm sorry.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker preseneted the motion and after a voice vote, declared the motion defeated. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Those requesting Yeas and Nays please stand. Call in the members.
The question before the House is the proposed motion in amendment to the motion of the Honourable Member for St. George, that the motion be amended by striking out all of the words after the words "Government" where it appears in the second line thereof and substitute the following: To increase the existing old age security, old age assistance, disability and blind persons' pension by an amount at least sufficient to compensate for the loss of purchasing power of the dollar due to inflation since the $55.00 pension was implemented.
Those in favour of the motion please rise.
[A standing vote was taken, the result being:
YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Guttormson, Hryhorczuk, Miller, Molgat, Shoemaker, Tanchak.
NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Boulic, Christianson, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Gray, Groves, Hamilton, Harris, Hutton, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McLean, Martin, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Roblin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Wagner, Willis, Witney, Wright. ]
MR. CLERK: Yeas 36, Nays 8.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.
HON. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Vital, that the debate be adjourned -- the debate on the motion.
MR. SPEAKER: I should put the question first. The question before the House is that this House requests the government to petition the Federal Government for an increase for all old age and blind pensions in the province from $55.00 to $75.00 a month.
MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Vital, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F., and the proposed motion and amendment thereto, the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne. The Honourable Member for Brokenhead.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member was called out of town and I beg the indulgence of the House to allow this matter to stand for his return.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Pembina. The Honourable Member for Morris. Stand.
Proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Logan and the proposed motion in amendment thereto - the Honourable Member for St. Vital.
This is the debate that I reserved decision on a matter of precedence and I'm prepared to rule at the present that the amendment submitted by the Honourable Member for St. Vital is in order, and I substantiate that decision by Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms - the 4th Edition 1958, citation 203 - which reads as follows: "It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed; and every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that it agrees to by the House, the question or amendment as amended would be
intelligible and consistent within itself. The law of relevancy of amendment is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion they are admissable, but not when foreign thereto. The exception to this rule are amendments on the question of going into Supply or Ways and Means," and in my opinion the motion is relevant. I might also quote citation 201 of the same book -- Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Orders. "The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in the question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alterations, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon; or present to the House an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question. This may be effected by moving to omit all of the words of the question after the word "that" and to substitute in their place other words of different import. In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment but includes the motive of the amendment and of the motion both matters being on consideration of the House as alternative proposition. A motion may be amended by leaving out certain words; by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; by inserting or adding other words." In my opinion the motion is in order.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to pursue the point or to challenge your ruling. I would just simply like to point out, once again, that the reason that the objections to the amendment were raised was that whereas the main motion dealt with minimum wages across the whole of the Dominion, - the Federal Government in conjunction with the provinces, -- the amendment restricts it just to the Province of Manitoba. And I think, Sir, that in the rule that you quoted - the first one - Beauchesne No. 4, I have Beauchesne No. 3 here and I think....
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, if I might point out order - I do not believe that a ruling of Your Honour is debatable. I think once the ruling has been made that puts an end to the question, with all due respect to the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F.
MR. SPEAKER: I'm glad you raised that question. You may challenge the ruling and appeal to the House, but you may not debate a decision of the Speaker.
MR. PAULLEY: Well, in my innocency, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honourable the Attorney-General, and there will be no challenging of your ruling.
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood has the floor.
MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House that this matter be stood over?
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. - Proposed resolution and standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. The Honourable Member from Minnedosa.
MR. W. WEIR (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I move or -- I beg the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand.
MR. SPEAKER: The order stand.
MR. ROBLIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, this brings our Order Paper to a sudden and abrupt conclusion, so I would then beg to move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Industry and Commerce, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 2:30 the following afternoon. ]
M. ROBERTS: M. l'orateur, c'est avec grand plaisir que je vous félicite a l'occasion de votre ré-élection d'abord comme député et ensuite comme orateur de cette assemblée. Je suis convencu que vous vous montrerez en tous temps juste et impartial dans vos décisions. Nous apprécions votre attitude.
Je désire aussi féliciter le proposeur et le secondeur de l'adresse en réponse au discours du Throne. Ils s'en sont bien acquittés. Au génial nouveau chef du parti C.C.F., mes sincères félicitations.
[English translation of above:
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate you, first on your re-election as a member, and then as a Speaker of this Assembly. I am sure that you will show justice and impartiality in your decisions at all times. We appreciate your attitude.
I wish also to congratulate the proposer and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. They acquitted themselves very well. To the genial new Leader of the C.C.F., my sincere congratulations. ]
Page revised: 23 May 2011
