| 69 | 70 | ||||||||
| 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 |
| 81 |
| Page | ||
| Pakistan Visitors, Welcome ...................................................................... | 69 | |
| Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roblin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley | ||
| Introduction of Bills .................................................................................. | 69 | |
| Nos. 61, 62 (Mr. Stanes) | ||
| Questions ................................................................................................. | 69 | |
| Mr. Gray (Mr. Roblin), Mr. Gray (Mr. Lyon) | ||
| Tabling of Return ...................................................................................... | 69 | |
| (Mr. Johnson (Gimli)) | ||
| Question of Ministry .................................................................................. | 70 | |
| Mr. Gray, Mr. Roblin | ||
| Speech From the Throne, debate, Mr. Wright ............................................ | 70 | |
| Mr. Seaborn......................................................................................... | 72 | |
| Mr. Paulley, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roblin ........................... | 77 | |
| Mr. Paulley, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Schreyer, Mr. Seaborn ......................... | 78 | |
| Mr. Gray............................................................................................... | 79 | |
| Second Reading, Bill No. 2, re: Economic Development (Mr. Evans) .......... | 79 | |
| Second Reading, Bill No. 10, re: Co-op Canners (Mr. Evans) .................... | 81 | |
| Second Reading, Bill No. 18, re: Companies Act (Mr. Boulic) .................... | 81 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Before the regular formality of the House, I should like to introduce to the House two distinguished gentlemen from Pakistan, Messrs. Nisar Un Nabi and Abdul Haleem. These gentlemen are making a study of our tax structure in Canada for the Government of Pakistan.
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): I'm sure the House joins with you in your welcome and members may be interested to know that the purpose of these two gentlemen's visit to Canada is to study in particular methods of income tax collection and particularly the special branch which looks after those who perhaps are not anxious to pay their tax. I'm quite sure that our experts in this country may be able to give them some worthwhile information on that very important topic.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that members of our group would like to join in the welcome that you and the Honourable the First Minister have extended to our distinguished visitors from Pakistan. They would be able to stand the hospitality of Manitoba until the budget debate is begun in this Chamber. I think perhaps if everything that the First Minister has been saying on the hustings is true that he'll be able to give them some idea of how to -- have very great expenditures without any increase in taxation -- maybe they can avoid them completely.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to also associate our group with our distinguished visitors here to Canada. I am sure that it is a pride of all of the member Nations of the British Commonwealth, that spirit of cordiality and friendship that exists between us. And on the particular subject of taxation, I'm sure that a visit to Ottawa, particularly with our present administration there, will reveal many, many ways of extracting from us Canadians many dollars and cents and crown shillings and pence, and we welcome them.
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
[Mr. D. M. Stanes (St. James) introduced Bill No. 61, an Act to amend an Act respecting the School District of St. James No. 7. ]
[Mr. D. M. Stanes (St. James) introduced Bill No. 62, an Act to amend the St. James Charter. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, may I direct a question to the First Minister? Will the Premier announce the Government's intention re: the rehabilitation of the Point Douglas area if the City Hall is not constructed on that location?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that I can make no statement on that subject at the present time.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask another -- direct a question to the Attorney-General. Was the increase on liquor made for the purpose of liquor control or added profits for the Government?
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Honourable member for Inkster for giving me notice of this question. I would say that the increase in the liquor prices by the Commission was for the purpose of compensating for increased Federal Taxation applied on this item.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
HON. GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): ... wish to table a return to a question of June the 15th by the honourable member for Elmwood.
MR. J. A. CHRISTIANSON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the
Day, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a very important event in the agriculture calendar of the year. The 49th Annual Western Canada and Manitoba Provincial Plowing Match, which is sponsored by the Portage la Prairie Plowing Match Association, will be held tomorrow in the Portage district -- a very worthwhile event.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The honourable member for Inkster - question to the Ministry.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, may I beg leave to move, seconded by the honourable member from Kildonan, that an order for return on the items appearing on the Order paper.
MR. SPEAKER: Who was your seconder?
MR. GRAY: Kildonan.
[Mr. Speaker put the question. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, I would like to make a comment on this question. I think it is somewhat similar to one that was proposed recently, and I am just wondering if the honourable member would consider withdrawing it for this reason. Many of the questions raised here are really the subject of a debate, it seems to me, rather than for questions in the ordinary way. I agree that many of the points raised are interesting, and we have information to give on these points, we would be glad to give it -- but it seems to me that it would be -- lead to a better exchange of information if the honourable member would leave this matter over until the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture are before the House. One will see that there are a wide variety of items mentioned here which don't lend themselves to any short answers; they lend themselves to an extended explanation and possibly to an interchange of questions arising from that, and we really have no desire to refuse the question as such because we're anxious to provide the information. But I do ask the honourable member if he would not consider the advisability of withdrawing this question and asking the same -- and bringing up the same material when the estimates of the Minister are before the House, because I feel sure we can give him a fuller and more complete discussion of these important points at that time.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection of withdrawing it for the time being, but the only point I want to make is this. I get my wisdom from asking questions. Now, when I come to the estimates then I haven't got the information, and perhaps the Minister in charge of the estimates will not have the information at that time. By putting this on the Order paper I'll probably have the information and it gives me a better opportunity to discuss the different matters - items more intelligently. You must realize that I've got to labour on a very, very small vocabulary in this House. So I'll withdraw it for the moment, but perhaps informally, may I ask the Minister in charge to give me the information, so I could perhaps show him that I'm just as wise as he is.
MR. SPEAKER: Do I take it that the honourable member for Inkster wishes to withdraw the motion? Has he the leave of the House to withdraw the motion?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion withdrawn. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourn debate, the honourable member for Inkster. The honourable member for St. George.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Proposed resolution, the honourable the Leader of the CCF Party.
MR. R. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure there's no collusion between the honourable member from St. George and myself, but I would request the indulgence of the House to allow this matter to stand.
A MEMBER: 'Collision' -- there'll be collision before the Session is over.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Adjourn debate on the proposed motion of the honourable member for Birtle-Russell and the amendment to the amendment thereto. The honourable member for Seven Oaks.
MR. ARTHUR E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you on your election to the highest office this Assembly can bestow, and I wish you continued good health for this important job. I wish to compliment the honourable member for Birtle-Russell and the honourable member for Springfield for the able manner in which they moved and seconded the address and reply to the Speech From the Throne. No doubt we will look forward to many
fine contributions from them to this Assembly.
It is being said by many responsible people that the social sciences are not keeping up with the technological and scientific advances of today. Many articles are written today under the heading "In a Changing World". You see it all the time -- "Agriculture In A Changing World" and they talk of vertical integration and its threat to the family farm. We see railroading today in a changing world, and their problem of whether or not to ask for increased freight rates or to accept government subsidies. Medicine in a changing world today with a shortage of hospitals and adequately trained staffs is presenting a problem in today's field of medicine. Teaching in a changing world too has gone through new trends. Even illness today has taken on a new complexion. We have an increase in mental illness; and also the growing problem of alcoholism. And while everyone agrees that we are living in a fast changing world, a world which can produce a new plane or a new rocket every few months, yet we see slow progress being made in a thing that really counts -- our ability to live together in an atmosphere of happiness. What is holding back the social sciences? Certainly not a lack of interest in the part of our people because there are always more candidates for the nursing profession, for social workers. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the real difficulty is found in the failure of governments to provide proper recognition for people in this type of work.
I saw an article the other evening in the Tribune, "...Says Student Nurses Deserve $100.00 a Month Pay". Well, perhaps they don't expect a hundred dollars a month, because after all they are going through a period of training - they serve three years. But do we really look at this in a proper light? For instance, a student nurse in going through her three years of training is in residence, thereby she is prohibited from going out and getting summer work - whereas young people going through University are able to get out in the summer months and make a little bit of money. So perhaps they should be paid something in consideration for that. I predict that despite their wishes - I'm speaking of nurses in particular, Mr. Speaker - despite their wishes to refrain from becoming unionized on account of working with human souls, they will be forced to follow the example of the teaching profession, in order to get this proper recognition. Now we of the CCF have adopted the slogan 'Humanity First' because we believe just that. And if we look to our neighbours to the west, the Province of Saskatchewan, we find that this is not just an election slogan. The Saskatchewan Government, not yesterday, but ten years ago, was the first in North America to establish supplementary allowances for Old Age Pensioners, it was the first to establish a comprehensive hospital plan; and was the first and only Canadian province to institute free cancer treatment. It was under the cancer program that the first Cobalt bomb in the world was built, a service which has been extended throughout the world. Saskatchewan, according to Dr. Carl Meninger, famed psychiatrist, is the only place in the world - or one of the few places in the world - that has sufficiently trained personnel to cope with mental illness. In last Saturday's Tribune, there appeared a news item from Saskatoon and I would like your permission to quote it, Mr. Speaker. This Tribune of June 13th, "Drug Cure Reported For Schizo Patients -- Saskatoon. Schizophrenia the world's most serious mental illness is being successfully treated at the University of Saskatchewan by drugs," a conference of learned societies was told on Friday. And not long ago on television on the C.B.C. we saw a similar program in regard to the research work that is now going on in our sister province of Saskatchewan.
I tell these things, Mr. Speaker, not to bolster my party's ego, but sincerely to ask this Government to keep an open mind and to investigate these matters, which are being so successfully dealt with so close to home. Take the subject of free cancer treatment. Is there anything more pathetic than to see the head of a family come down with this insidious affliction which can last for months, and even if cured it leads to serious financial hardship and worry at a time that they are least able to stand it.
Then we have the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan. It is a step in the right direction, but it has many weaknesses. First of all, there is not sufficient dependant coverage -- and I would also like your permission, Mr. Speaker, to read a letter from one of my constituents because I raised this question in the House last fall, and this is only one of many that we received. It is written to myself. "Enclosed you will find information pertaining to our family in regard to the new Hospitalization Scheme." This, by the way, was written on November 2nd, 1958. "The eldest member, a sister of our family, is recipient of the Disability Allowance Plan, that is
according to the certificate they sent us in the mail. My other two sisters" -- I'd like you to get the picture of this family without a father struggling on to keep the home -- "my other two sisters, as well as myself, each pay the single rate of $2.05 a month. Previously I paid Mother's hospitalization through my pay, as I have claimed her as a dependent since Dad's death in '52. Mother earns no money, and received no pension whatsoever. We have a 17 year old brother who is in high school, and he has been registered with Mother as a family at $4.10 a month, and she has been billed $24.60 to be paid in full on November 30th. As it now stands our family pays $11.45 a month" -- I think it's $123.00 a year, Mr. Speaker -- "Why Mother has to pay a family rate and we three sisters an individual rate is beyond us. Furthermore, when this present scheme came into effect, we enquired as to our respective dependents, and were given to understand that Mother, being a widow without a pension, was not liable for any payments whatsoever. Apparently not everyone connected with the offices of the Manitoba Hospital scheme is fully aware of the rules and regulations and, consequently, have been misleading many of us." I think that there was little misunderstanding there, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that was the case, but this was the impression given to these people. "Further, if the Federal Government allows us to claim mother and brother as a dependent, placing us in the same category as a married man, but on a woman's wage, why doesn't the Provincial Government follow suit in regards to their hospital scheme and allow us to pay a family rate? It seems to me the Provincial Government should have looked into every aspect that exists or might arise before forcing their scheme on the public without benefit of a vote. Any efforts by you on our behalf will be appreciated." Now this is a fair sample, Mr. Speaker, of what we are getting in regards to the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan.
The matter of six months prepayment, in some cases $24.60, works quite a hardship on our elderly citizens and because of their conscientiousness they are living on a limited budget trying to make ends meet, and when they get this $24.60 bill, it certainly upsets them. And I think that is one of the things that is inequitable about it. Our municipal councils also are not pleased with the residence qualifications because very often they receive notices from John Doe who is in hospital, and although he has not lived in this municipality for years, at least for a year or so, he has been transient and he hasn't established residence elsewhere, so the municipality suddenly finds out that they are responsible for this bill. Sometimes too, young fellows who are say the age of 18 leave home and wander around, and when they become 19 they apply for a job. The employer has to suddenly make sure that they are registered because they have failed to do so on becoming 19 years of age. I think we should take a good look at such things.
Such things as the minimum wage in Manitoba -- is .60¢ an hour in these days a decent wage to provide a person with a fair standard of living? And under Workmen's Compensation legislation - is $65.00 a month for a widow and $25.00 a month for a child sufficient? And although we regret the failure of the government to take the initiative in promoting a comprehensive health plan up to this date, we are hopeful that they will soon see the light. Like many other proposals which we are making in this Legislature, our policy is based on the premise of helping those who need this help most. And I agree that we should get on with the business of Manitoba, as we heard during the election, but let us never forget that we have an even better slogan, and that is, "Humanity First."
MR. R. SEABORN (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to convey my heartiest congratulations to you on your re-election as Speaker of this House. It is tangible evidence of the great confidence that has been shown in you, and I hope that God will grant you wisdom in your responsible position.
I would be very remiss if I did not extend my warm appreciation of the manner in which the mover and seconder presented themselves, for it was indeed excellent. And I think we must agree that they are representative of the fine calibre of the representatives that make up the present Conservative Party. Too, I would like to join with the others in offering my congratulations to the new House Leader of the C.C.F. Party. I do not envy him his new duties for he walks in footsteps of very capable men.
I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am greatly perturbed at the fate of the once great Liberal Party, as every one who loves liberty must be. The astonishing depreciation of this once great party is a real cause for alarm, for it creates a vacuum into which the Socialist
Party is only too willing to enter. It is well known that the so-called "new party" seems to be starting with the astonishing objective of taking over the Liberals - in other words, the mouse aspires to swallow the elephant in order to avoid the truth of the matter; that a weak splinter party of the left is trying to get itself again into the position of a weak splinter party. It is well known that I am no lover of the Socialist Party. I believe that Socialists have always been lazy, grasping, envious, preferring to take the fruits of someone else's labour rather than cultivate their own. They are also the great exponents of the Welfare State, and we know from observation that the Welfare State cannot function in freedom, and must force its phoney alleged benefits and spurious social security, by progressive instalments of totalitarian compulsions and conscriptions. Six and a half years of Socialist rule in England has proven the validity of this harsh diagnosis.
MR. GRAY: MR. Speaker, I have no objection to what anyone says about a Socialist Party but the words used is unworthy of a member of this House.
MR. SEABORN: I didn't hear what the honourable gentleman said but -- in the spiritual accountancy of human liberty and social progress, a Welfare State always has been and probably always will be an embarrassing liability. As the great Pitt once warned us: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
During the last session the C.C.F. members endeavoured to make it quite clear that they were the representatives of labour, a role the trade unions seemed to accept, for I know far too well the difficult time I had in Wellington against a determined Socialist Party with seemingly limitless funds. Too, another member rose from a chair and endeavoured to prove from Sacred Scripture that Socialism was a philosophy of Scriptural foundation, and I would like to see for a few moments just how valid these claims are. Now, of all the forms of human association, the association of men in trade unions is more relevant to Socialism than any other. The rise of trade unions for the protection of the workers, for the enhancement of their bargaining power through collective negotiations, and therewith for the improvement of their wages and conditions of work as well as the outstanding developments of the era of free enterprise. Bitterly opposed at first by the employers as undermining their own power; by political economies on the ground that their interference with the laws of economics could not fail to be injurious; and by the State, in the interests of the employers and in obedience to the economists, they have long since won for themselves an assured place in the national life of civilized countries. The freedom of the workers to associate in trade unions is now recognized in all democratic countries as being not only right and just, but a convenience to employers and a buttress to the State.
But tell me, Sir, can trade unions exist in a Socialist State? The question may appear paradoxical. Is it not a matter of history that the State denied recognition to trade unions until it was wrung from them? And is it not the case that most trade unions are becoming deeply committed to Socialism? Are not the trade unions becoming the solid core of the C.C.F. Party? Mr. Speaker, the questions are absolutely fair, but it is not difficult to prove that trade unions as we know them today are a phenomenon of the age of free enterprise. They will be an intolerable nuisance in a Socialistic State. They may not be altogether suppressed, but they will be turned into instruments of the State.
Now, we must not be misled by the tension which exists between the trade unions and employers in free enterprise. We can find many examples from the physical world to show how tension preserves a state of equilibrium. The tensions of the muscles in the human body, the play of gravitational forces in the solar system, the respective pull of the sun and moon in producing the tides, are perfect examples of the self-adjusting forces which maintain the efficiency of the system of free enterprise. In this system the tension of employers and trade unions is an essential part in settling the proper level of wages, the proper length of the working week, the proper standard of the conditions of work. As in physical systems, if the tension becomes excessive, the system snaps; and danger would arise if the tension between employers and trade unions were carried too far. But within proper limits of play it is the best method yet found for securing necessary adjustments in conditions of remuneration of work. But tell me, Sir, what will be the place of trade unions in a socialist society? In a socialist society there will be only one employer - the state, although that fact may be disguised by the use of local authorities and public boards; for, according to the Socialists of which the C.C.F. is an
an important part, all the means of production, distribution and exchange will be communally owned by the state or controlled by it. The natural tension between the trade unions and employers thus brings the workers into conflict with the state. The demand for higher wages or a shorter working week, or improved conditions now becomes a demand on the state; and to strike for these objects is to strike against the state. How then is the trade union's action to be distinguished from disloyalty? How is a strike to be distinguished from mutiny or rebellion? The answer of the Soviet Union is very clear. For trade unions to demand higher wages, fewer hours or improved conditions is treason. For trade unions to strike is rebellion and is treated as such. The functions of the trade unions in the eyes of the Kremlin is not to demand concessions from the state, but to act as public relations officers on behalf of the government. The business of trade unions is to explain government policy to the workers and get the necessary response from them. In 1930, in the 16th all-union congress of the Communist Party, it was decided that it was the duty of the trade unions to take the lead in promoting socialist competition and in organizing "shock brigades" to raise output. This point of view has ever since prevailed in the Soviet Union.
Webb makes this very interesting observation: "Not unnaturally, the lesson was very hard to learn. It has taken more than a decade to persuade the strongest defenders of trade unionism that its functions as an 'organ of revolt' against the autocracy of each capitalist employer, and as an instrument for extracting from his profits the highest possible wages for the manual workers whom he employed, had passed away with the capitalist employer himself." The trade unions of western Europe and America have no illusions about the so-called trade unions in the socialist republic of the Soviet Union. The two types of bodies have absolutely nothing in common but the name; and they have found it utterly impossible to work together in the World Federation of Trade Unions.
MR. PAULLEY: I wonder if the honourable gentleman would permit a question? You made the statement that the Soviet Socialistic Republic -- you're referring to that by name, or are you convinced that what they have in Russia is socialism?
MR. SEABORN: The communists themselves do not profess to have communism. They claim that they are instituting socialism underneath the ...
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I am not suggesting what they claim - I'm asking the honourable member what he thinks.
MR. SEABORN: I think that they have socialism in the Soviet Union. The American Trade Unions are wedded to free enterprise, and most of the European trade unions, and many trade unions in Canada, are working vigorously to promote socialism. Are they not digging their own graves? In answer to the Leader of the C.C.F. over there, I might as well tell him what I'm thinking. I believe that there is no fundamental difference between Socialism and Communism. The names "Socialism" and "Communism" are only different names for the same thing. The Kremlin may thunder at the West, and the West may thunder back just as loudly, but to me it would still be possible for life in a socialist Europe or a socialist Canada to be of the same pattern as life in Communist Russia. J. Edgar Hoover defines Socialism as the first or lower stage of communism, and he is right. Professor Cole, in the Encyclopedia Britannica, writes, "that the distinction between socialism as represented by the various socialist and labour parties of Europe and the New World and Communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only Socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith." The Oxford English Dictionary defines socialism as "a theory of policy of social organization which aims at or advances the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all." The same dictionary defines communism as "A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members." Now, Mr. Speaker, any member who detected a difference between the two definitions might justly be accused of pedantry.
Now, Sir, I would like to deal with two other matters. The first arises from the remarks of the honourable member from Inkster, last session, when he expressed his great surprise that an artist, like myself - and I thank him very much for his acknowlegment - should prove
to be such a champion of free enterprise. A notable warning about the potential dangers for the arts in a socialist state was given about twelve years ago, 1947 to be exact, by Mr. J. B. Priestley, who is generally credited with left-wing views. He was addressing a traditionally socialistic audience, the Fabian Society to be exact, in the period of the first socialist government with power in Great Britain. Mr. Priestley's argument is so penetrating, so revealing and so witty that I commend it unreservedly to my hearers, even to those who would normally look askance at his name.
There is first the danger that arises from the elimination of the traditional patrons of the Arts and the substitution of the new, untried patrons of another type. "The artist", said Mr. Priestley, "tends to be afraid of socialism and feels that he may be called upon to sacrifice too much for it. The artist wonders, rather dubiously, about the socialist atmosphere of co-operation, committees and common sense. He asks himself how he will like it when splendid generous patrons are replaced by earnest dreary city councillors, and he is apparently ready to reject the devil of commercial exploitation, but cannot look forward to the deep sea of Arts Councils and Art Committees."
Mr. Priestley himself says this - "I, for one, do not want a society in which art is laid on like hot and cold water. One day perhaps, when another generation has grown up in a true socialist atmosphere, the general attitude may be quite different, but as people are at present and will in the near future, they tend to undervalue what is given away for nothing or for very little."
Then Mr. Priestley next considers the danger that the State will interfere with the Art: "Then there is another kind of control that the State would soon begin to exercise if it were responsible for maintaining its artists. It would remind them that he who pays the piper calls the tune. It would begin to dictate what kind of art that these state servants must produce." That this is true is dramatically illustrated by the treatment meted out to three of Russia's leading composers - Shostakovitch, Prokoviev and Khatchurian. On February 11th, 1948, the central committee of the Communist Party pronounced that the works of these three great composers reflected "the spirit of the modern capitalistic music of Europe and America," and deplored the fact there had lately "not been created a single Soviet opera that stands on the level of the Russian operatic classics." Soviet musicians were accused of "formalistic distortions and anti-democratic tendencies alien to the Soviet people and their artistic tastes," and I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, presenting the ridiculous charges made against the great artists of that country. Their critic is the central committee of the only political party allowed to exist in Russia. It is true that this example of artistic intolerance comes from the Socialistic regime of the Soviet Union, but any socialist state would inevitably be led sooner or later along the same path. No Sir! You can keep your socialistic philosophies. I, for one, will continue to champion the cause of free enterprise, and as long as I live, Socialism will have an adversary.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I would like to consider the scriptural foundation of socialism. Last session, as I mentioned, a member brought his Bible along with him and proceeded to quote chapter and verse from various books of the Old Testament in an effort to prove his point. This member is of course aware that socialism and communism originally came from the same source. The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published in 1848. The argument might be advanced that our friends across the way are not quite so virulent - not so vindictive - as the Socialists in existence in the other parts of the world - but the principles they follow are the same, as revealed in the Regina Manifesto which has not been materially altered since that time. However, I am digressing somewhat for I desire to find out whether Socialism and Religion were compatible.
Now, Religion is the channel by which the great majority of mankind make contact with the ultimate reality of the universe; and therefore the freedom of religion - the belief and practice, is even more important than the freedom of artistic expression which I mentioned a few minutes ago. Now what place will religion have in a Socialist state?
Now it is clear that religion cannot co-exist with Marxist socialism. For Marxist socialism includes not only the three fundamental doctrines - absolute control of the means of production, distribution and exchange - but it also includes a materialistic philosophy which allows no place for religion. According to Marx, God is only the reflection -- or, as modern
psychologists would say, the projection -- of the social and economic relations existing in society at a particular epoch. The idea of God has no substantial reality, and it will disappear from the minds of men when they have become emancipated from the toils of capitalistic production. Marx writes for example: "The omnipotence of God is nothing but the fantastic reflection of the impotence of people before nature and the economic social relations created by themselves. Such religious reflections of the real world will not disappear until the relations between human beings in their practical everyday life have assumed the aspect of perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations between man and man, and as between man and nature. The life process of society, this measuring the material process of production, will not lose its veil of mystery until it becomes a free association of producers, under their purposive control."
According to Marx's view, religion has acted as a powerful ally of the capitalist system by reconciling people to their lot on earth. And borrowing a phrase from Charles Kingsley, Marx has declared religion as an opiate of the people. Engels wrote that "when therefore man no longer merely proposes but also disposes -- only then will the last extraneous force which is also reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect".
In spite of this, many social democrats would hold that it is possible to separate the economic tenets of socialism from Marx's materialistic philosophy; and that a non-Marxist socialism need not be in conflict with religion. Indeed "Christian Socialism" exercised a very powerful influence in England at one time, and is still not without its power to attract. However, Lenin despised "Christian Socialism" as the sorriest sort of "socialism" and its vilest perversion; and is equally condemned by other orthodox Socialists. Now, if "Christian Socialism" finds itself attacked from the side of the Socialist, it is also bound to come under fire from the side of Christianity. Socialism and Christianity take fundamentally opposed views regarding the nature of man -- Socialism taking an optimistic and Christianity a pessimistic view of human nature.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I hate rising at this point but I must raise objections to the strength of some of my honourable friend's statements in regard to Christianity and we as Socialists. I pride myself as being a true Christian and also a Socialist, and I think the honourable member is going beyond the bound of propriety in some of the statements being attributed to Socialists and to Christians. For again I re-affirm my faith and indulge in the practice of that daily, and three times on Sunday, and I object to this type of a criticism of our belief.
MR. SPEAKER: I suggest to the speaker that he refrain from connecting Socialists as being non-Christian.
MR. SEABORN: Well, Sir, I would like to say this -- that if any tourists went to eastern Europe, in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, you would notice that there has been a clash between Socialism and the manifestation of Christianity.
MR. PAULLEY: I agree possibly with the honourable member in that, but in his discourse he has coupled us up in the theories of Socialism with those over there, and I resent and regret very much that in his oration he has attempted to carry that through into our beliefs in Christianity.
MR. SPEAKER: The speaker may not attribute wrong motives to any one in the House and I think he should refrain from that particular angle of his speech. I might also point out that he has wandered quite a long way away from health insurance. I have been ...
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I have no wish -- and I'm speaking on a point of order -- I have no wish in the world to get into the argument between my two honourable friends, the one who has the floor and the honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, but, on the other hand, as I have been listening, and I've been listening very carefully, I think that the honourable member has been dealing entirely with the principle of a political party rather than with individuals and I don't think that at any time that he was attempting to relate the least that he's speaking of -- to direct them toward individual members of this House. And as I understand the rule, Mr. Speaker, we cannot challenge the good faith or question the motives of members of this House, but I think there's no objection at all to us having our opinions and expressing them with regard to political parties. In fact, I voice some very strongly with regard to some political parties, and I think I should still have the opportunity of expressing them. Now, I don't think that my honourable friend was intending to attack the religious beliefs or question the religious convictions of honourable members of this House, or of that party.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with what the Leader of the Opposition has said on this point. My honourable friend is discussing a philosophical concept here, and I think he is well within the bounds of propiety in stating his views on these particular matters. Now, I have been here before, Sir, and I've heard people who espouse the socialist point of view describe those who did not agree with them as being heartless monsters -- that's in the implication of what they have said. And there's some members in this House today who describe the harshest of views and the harshest of motives in dealing with human beings to people who didn't agree with them. I'm not talking about myself but I remember sitting in the Opposition -- when I was sitting beside members of the C.C.F. -- hearing them describe to members of the government an attitude of mind which certainly reflected no credit on them at all if it were true. And very seldom -- I can't ever recall having heard objection made on the grounds that this constituted a personal reflection on those who were then charged with the administration of the government. I haven't heard any personal reflection made in the speech that is being delivered here this afternoon, but I have heard a discussion of points that have been raised previously by gentlemen opposite. They took their stand on various points of view with respect to religion and it could be argued just as fairly that when they took their stand on religion, they were reflecting on those of us who didn't agree with their political philosophy. Now this afternoon, for once in a very long time, the shoe is on the other foot, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should allow the honourable gentleman to continue what he has to say in the conviction, and I'm sure that he would subscribe to this, that he is casting no reflection on individuals in this Chamber, but he is expounding a series of views on a political philosophy which I think anyone in this House is entitled to do. I think those who feel themselves injured by this should relfect that the expression of opinion is not against them as individuals. We respect each other as individuals here, but we certainly have a right to examine all the aspects of a political philosophy which may be introduced into this Chamber.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have no objections whatsoever to the statements of the honourable the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the House. I think I was quite within my rights and my privileges to raise the objections that I did with respect to the remarks of my honourable friend from Wellington. Now, it is true that in the course of his speech he has not referred to us here in this group by individual. That has not been done, it's perfectly ture. But I still reiterate what I say, that the imputation is there to a group of us being unchristian, which we are not. And while the First Minister is perfectly correct in saying that the rules of this House do not permit those sort of imputations on a personal basis, and that the border line would have been met had he addressed it to me personally as the Leader of the C.C.F. He would have done outside the bounds of the debate here in this House. But I still reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that I was perfectly justified in coming up to my defence and to the defence of those in my party who feel the same way as I do in respect to our respective religions.
MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that the -- Order -- Order -- before this session is over -- Order -- I take it that the honourable member will indicate that there is nothing personal in his remarks, and he may continue with his speech.
MR. SEABORN: Mr. Speaker, I was not dealing with anything else but Socialism. And Socialism is something that, as Mr. Atlee said, is something that we must face. It is the challenging question of the twentieth century. Mr. Atlee claimed that .... Beg your pardon?
MR. CAMPBELL: ... again so we ...
MR. SEABORN: Well, I will not carry on too much. I'm just going to close -- All right, fine. I was going to suggest that if "Christian Socialism" finds itself under attack from the Socialist side, it finds itself under attack from the side of Christianity, for Socialism and Christianity take fundamentally opposite views regarding the nature of man -- Socialism takes a very optimistic and Christianity a very pessimistic view of human nature.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the honourable member for Wellington?
MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable member accept the question?
MR. SEABORN: Yes, surely.
MR. SCHREYER: I'd like to know simply this. On what basis does the honourable member base that observation that Christianity's view of man is a pessimistic one?
MR. SEABORN: If you would just listen to me for a moment, Sir, I think that you will get what I'm trying to get at, that Christianity takes a very pessimistic view of human nature until it's redeemed from its fallen nature by divine grace.
Socialism feels, on the other hand, that by changing man's environments you can change man's nature. Christianity says "no", that you can only change man's nature by changing his heart. That was done 2,000 years ago by Christ. Socialism attempts to do by social construction what, in the eyes of Christianity, religion can achieve by transformation alone in the heart of man. This quarrel that the Socialists have in eastern Europe has primarily involved the Roman Catholic Church. But do not let us make the mistake of supposing that it is a quarrel with the Roman Catholic church alone. Socialism has a quarrel with any religion that claims a sphere of its own in which the state has no jurisdiction. It is a quarrel with all who, rendering unto Caesar that which is properly Caesar's, claim that there is another realm in which God, and not Caesar, is supreme.
I've made quite a controversial speech, I presume.
However, before closing I would like to quote Mr. George Mowbray who wrote in the Canadian Commentator of May of this year. He stated that the voters in Canada "have already made their choice, time and time again, on the proposition 'that our economy should be planned to meet the needs of the people'. The voters don't want it. They can not malarky like this a mile away and the thought of rabble rousers in control of the powerful machinery of government simply does not appeal to the Canadian people." "On the springs of personal, productive effort", says Mr. Mowbray, "depends the pace of progress, the total bill of wealth produced, and the capacity of the society to finance welfare programs. In the economic spheres of politics, the Conservative, not the Socialist, carries the key to the Walter Gorden World". I thank you.
MR. M. A. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, my address in reply to the Speech from the Throne will be delivered here - I hope - if I'm alive - under the main motion. I had no intention to speak today at all but I cannot sit still and see a number of honourable members in this House applauding an individual member with all his rights and privileges he has, to bring up a subject for the purposes of belittling, insulting and degrading a group of people here as one of Her Majesty's opposition groups because he took the word "Socialism" and tried to twist it in his own way, -- and in a false way, may I state. Socialism means only one thing. I could explain socialism in three words. There are two men going to a doctor with stomach ache, -- one from over-eating and one from under-eating, one from undernourishment. If the one that is sick from over-eating gives a little bit to the one that's undernourished then both of them would not have to go for medical treatment. This is "socialism". Socialism, - I consider socialism is - that's all right - I consider socialism is equality. Socialism means that it is unfair for some of them having everything in the world and the others starve. Socialism means that it's not necessary to keep millions of bushels of wheat in one country when many countries are starving. This is what is "socialism". The present government are socialists - they socialize the electrification industry; the socialize many other industries; they are going in the insurance business now -- that's socialism. It's not private enterprise. The electrification of the farm as a private enterprise, would never have done it; it's too costly. And a private enterprise would not consider the benefit of the farmers who get some electrification and which the Honourable Leader of the Opposition was so proud of it, and I congratulated him on many occasions for it -- it keeps the farmer on the land. This is "socialism". And it hurts me to - it really hurts me, for him to get up and say "go ahead, give the socialist as much hell as possible." Fine, and he himself is a socialist by having he electrification in this province. Yes, yes, not no. Canadian National Railways is a socialism. The Trans Canada Airlines is socialism. Yes, you fellows, some of you trying to destroy it, but they will still be there. They'll still be there because we, the members, the anti-socialists, the socialist hatred, those who hate freedom and try to create an atmosphere of anti-religion because we call ourselves socialist. In my opinion it is absolutely unworthy of an intelligent member in this legislature. I say that the Bible is socialist because it preaches equality. We are not responsible for the comments for them to adopt the name socialists -- if they do. Hitler adopted the name of socialists - what did they do to our people? Destroyed 8 million people and millions and millions of graves all over the world and they called themselves socialists. Do you intend to imply - does the honourable gentleman intend to imply that we are Hitlerites? That we are because it's socialism? You could use socialism any way you like but - and I dare say to the honourable member that for a man of artistic inclinations, for a man that claims to be educated, for a man that is higher than the ordinary man because he holds a scientific profession, not only scientific but an important profession, -- to come out and put us indirectly with the Hitlerites and with the Communists, -- believe me when the Communists come I will be the first one to be hanged in the market square -- if God forbid Communism ever comes here. We are opposed to Communism; we are opposed to Hitlerism, and you are trying to defend it - not us. You are trying to defend it. I think this speech is entirely in my opinion, - with all due respect to those who applauded it - in my opinion it's unworthy, unnecessary and creates more discontent than anything else.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 2. The Honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources.
[Hon. G. Evans (Minister of Mines and Resources) (Fort Rouge) moved that Bill No. 2 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House for allowing this matter to stand yesterday as I was not able to be present. I think we all recognize that an opportunity faces Manitoba, and in my opinion a great opportunity for economic advancement by the development
of our natural resources. We are one of the large remaining repositories of these natural resources, - certainly on the American continent, - and one of the most advantageous areas perhaps to found in the world.
There are problems which arise in this connection. It seems to me that if we are to reap the greatest advantage and to avoid as many of the disadvantages that a good deal of planning will be entailed. There will be the requirements of capital and of risk-taking in the financial sense; and perhaps most important of all for those of us in this Chamber will be the protection of the public interest in this matter; to make sure that the natural resources of the province which belong to the people are worked to the greatest possible advantage of the people of Manitoba. In all of these many aspects there is the need for co-ordination of effort. Co-ordination of effort as between the various departments of government, and I think many of the honourable members will recognize, - and particularly some of our friends opposite, - the many problems which come to be faced when a great development of natural resources is brought about. Probably those were faced in very large measure in the creation of the International Nickel Mining Development at Thompson. These problems which range all the way from mineral problems to transportation, to municipal administration or the equivalent, to health services and social services and education and others. All come at a time when the very volume of the work to be considered makes it difficult for each part of the plan to be given adequate consideration.
And so it seems to us in the government that there is need for co-ordination of the various functions to be performed by the government's departments themselves, and also by the public utility and other commissions for which the government is also responsible, and which commissions can also contribute very largely to the planning and to the carrying out and the success of these natural resource developments. And so within the government itself there is the function of co-ordination to be carried out. Now this has been done. In the past it has been possible to, by means of committees I judge, of ministers on the one hand, and of deputy ministers and senior officials on the other, to carry out a form of co-ordination. But there is a further form of co-ordination which should also be under constant study. Our natural resources are influenced a good deal by legislation and regulation in the federal field. There are many ways in which the Provincial Government's work must be co-ordinated with municipalities, and in some cases with other provincial governments and even governments of other nations. There should also be a high degree of co-ordination between the policies of the government and the policies of the private interest which are developing such industries as pulp and paper and mining and water power and others. And so in these great fields of co-ordination, there must be a good deal of study and a good deal of work done.
This is the principle then behind the bill which is now before you for second reading. It provides as honourable members will have seen for a directorate consisting of specified ministers and a council consisting of, practically speaking the opposite numbers in the way of deputy ministers and general managers of the utilities. I might pause at this point, Mr. Speaker, to say that in the printing of the bill, the members will doubtless notice that we have put down the chairman of the two commissions. It was intended to put down the general managers of the commissions in question and amendments will be offered to correct those typographical errors at a later stage. And so this consists very largely of a sub-committee of the cabinet, the Manitoba Development Authority, is in essence a sub-committee of the cabinet under the chairmanship of the President of the Council, assisted by a working committee of deputy ministers, chairmen of the utilities and others who may be appointed or whose advice may be sought on a consultation basis from time to time. It has seemed to us in developing a co-ordinated policy for natural resource development in Manitoba that this degree of coordination is required and machinery is required to carry it out.
The further and very important duty will be imposed upon this authority of establishing and studying out the opportunities which do exist for private enterprise to develop natural resources within the province and to call the opportunities to the attention of the investment world. In the nature of things it is not right for governments to take the degree of risk that is called for in natural resource development; and there are those in the investment world who make a business of developing natural resources of this type. And so it will be the duty under proper safe-guard for the Manitoba Development Authority to call to the attention of the
investment world opportunities for investment in Manitoba.
That, then, Mr. Speaker, is an outline of the principle behind this bill and I should be glad indeed to try to answer questions that the honourable members may care to ask.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. G. MOLGAT (St. Rose): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Selkirk, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 10. The Honourable the Mines and Resources Minister.
[Mr. Evans moved that Bill No. 10 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, at the time that the present administration came into office there was in course of negotiation an agreement with the Co-operative Prairie Canners Ltd. of Winkler under which a guarantee was to be offered by the Provincial Government for a debenture issue by that corporation to the extent of $50,000.00. The corporation had been financed under a series of short term loans which became burdensome because they were not able then, with that short term debt position, to negotiate proper working capital arrangements with the chartered banks. And so the Industrial Development Bank of the Federal Government agreed to make a loan of $65,000.00 conditional upon the corporation being able to float a debenture issue of their own of some $50,000.00. That was possible only with a guarantee, as I understand it, from the Provincial Government. That guarantee was implemented by the present administration under the Order-in-Council number referred to in this motion and this is largely a formal necessity at the moment to validate the action taken by Order-in-Council as referred to, in guaranteeing the $50,000.00 bond issue of this corporation.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 18. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.
[Hon. M. Boulic (Provincial Secretary) (Cypress) moved that Bill No. 18 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. BOULIC: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is to facilitate the holding of annual meetings of companies. Some of the Manitoba companies are licensed to operate in other provinces and it is sometimes found advantageous by the people concerned to hold these meetings outside the province and the tentative wording is adopted from the Proposed Uniform Companies Act.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. WRIGHT: May I ask the Honourable Secretary a question please? What difficulties were encountered which led to this amendment - were there any difficulties?
MR. BOULIC: There has been some in the past. There has been some in the past and there are many provinces that are already on that basis and the Uniform Companies Act will have the same -- is adopting the same wording.
MR. WRIGHT: What sort of difficulties arose in the past which would make this necessary to have ...
MR. BOULIC: I think we can deal with that in Committee.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, as we have come to the end of our Order Paper, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 2:30 the following afternoon. ]
Page revised: 5 June 2010
