| 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | ||||||
| 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
| 121 |
| Page | ||
| Committee of Whole House ..................................................................... | 107 | |
| Bill No. 50 (Mr. Willis) re Public Works Act | ||
| Questions: Mr. Wagner, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Molgat, Mr. Hillhouse, ............. | ||
| Mr. Molgat, Mr. Hryhorczuk, Mr. Campbell. | ||
| Bill No. 37 (Mr. Willis) re Agricultural Societies ....................................... | 109 | |
| Questions: Mr. Campbell, Mr. Gray, Mr. Schreyer, Mr. Roberts, ............. | ||
| Mr. Molgat, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Molgat. | ||
| Questions ................................................................................................ | 111 | |
| Mr. Orlikow (Mr. Willis), Mr. Paulley (Mr. Willis), | ||
| Mr. Roberts (Mr. Willis), Mr. Gray (Mr. Johnson), | ||
| Mr. Guttormson (Mr. Willis), Mr. Roberts (Mr. Roblin), | ||
| Mr. Guttormson (Mr. Evans), Mr. Wagner (Mr. Roblin), | ||
| Mr. Schreyer (Mr. Roblin), Mr. Molgat (Mr. Johnson), | ||
| Mr. Schreyer (Mr. Willis), Mr. Desjardins (Mr. Roblin), | ||
| Mr. Tanchak (Mr. Roblin), Mr. Campbell (Mr. Roblin). | ||
| Bill No. 2 re Economic Development (Adjourned) | ||
| Mr. Molgat ....................................................................................... | 115 | |
| Mr. Wright ........................................................................................ | 116 | |
| Throne Speech, debate (amendment) Mr. Christianson ............................ | 116 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Pensioners (Mr. Gray) and Amendment | ||
| Mr. Cowan ....................................................................................... | 118 | |
| Mr. Groves, Mr. Miller, Mr. Cowan .................................................. | 119 | |
| Mr. Gray, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Roblin, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Campbell ........ | 120 | |
| Business of the House, Parliamentary Association .................................... | 120 | |
| Mr. Roblin, Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Gray | ||
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker.]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports of Standing and Select Committees
Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration) (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House to consider the following proposed resolutions: One by myself, resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Public Works Act by providing for the payment by the Crown of three-quarters of the cost of constructing, improving, repairing, servicing and maintaining secondary highways. And by myself, resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Agricultural Societies Act by providing, among other matters for, an increase in the maximum amount of grants that may be made to agricultural societies in respect of the number of their members and the amount of prize money paid by the societies; and the making of grants to agricultural societies for the purpose of assisting the societies in constructing permanent buildings, purchasing equipment, repairing and improving buildings and the land of the societies.
[Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote declared the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House.]
MR. WILLIS: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor having been informed of the subject matter of the proposed resolutions recommends them to the House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution No. 1. Resolve that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Public Works Act by providing for the payment by the Crown of three-quarters of the cost of constructing, improving, repairing, servicing and maintaining secondary highways.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, in regard to secondary highways in the past it has been the policy that the Provincial Government would pay two-thirds of the cost of construction and of maintenance; and under this resolution the government will in the future pay three-quarters of the cost of construction and of maintenance for secondary highways.
MR. PETER WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, whether it would concern the market road in disorganized territory for gravelling or it wouldn’t concern at all.
MR. WILLIS: This does not concern anything except secondary highways. In your case the answer is no.
MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, the Honourable the Minister has often told us of the change in specifications in the road building program in the province. Has any changes been made in the specifications or the state of a road—it’s necessary for a road to be in before it is called a secondary road?
MR. WILLIS: It must be a thirty foot top, all weather, gravel.
MR. PAULLEY: The same as it was before then, Mr. ... no change in specifications?
MR. WILLIS: No change in the specification. The only change is the amount which we—we set aside for the purpose. Not two-thirds but now three-quarters.
MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Chairman, could the Minister tell us how, I presume a main market road in a municipality becomes a secondary highway. I think that’s the procedure—how is that done?
MR. WILLIS: Under the ordinary system the municipality makes application firstly to the department for a road to be included in their market road system. It first becomes a market road; and having become a market road it becomes eligible for grants from the department. After it has become a market road it is eligible for an application to have it declared a secondary
highway, which in the past has been one whereby the province pay two-thirds of the cost and the municipality pay one-third. If this is passed, it will mean that those conditions will be the same except that the province will pay three-quarters of the cost, and the municipality 25%. A market road west must now be a 24 foot top road. A secondary highway must be a 30 foot top road all-weather service.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, the next step past the secondary highway is as I know doubled. It can either become a provincial trunk highway or another road. Is that correct? And if so, how do either of those steps come about?
MR. WILLIS: They come on the recommendation of the chief engineer and largely they are established by the matter of traffic on the road; and the secondaries, usually we leave them one, two or three years in order to establish that traffic, otherwise in most cases the chief engineer will not recommend that they become trunk highways. In result not all secondary highways become trunk highways, because after they are built in many cases they fall to establish enough traffic in order to become a trunk highway. But those are the steps by which they do—then having become secondary highway—application can be made whereby they be made a trunk highway if it is agreed to. Of course on the basis of a trunk highway the province pays 100% of the cost all around.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, I understand you correctly when you say that the surface of a secondary highway must be 30 feet.
MR. WILLIS: Yes.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Is there any standard width to the shoulder of that road?
MR. WILLIS: No.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Is any shoulder required before you will approve that road as a secondary road?
MR. WILLIS: There is no complete strictness in regard to that; but ordinarily it is at least a four-foot shoulder, in order that one may pull out and fix a tire or anything of that sort—but that’s the ordinary qualification. You’d have great difficulty in getting it declared a secondary highway if you didn’t also have in addition to that a four-foot shoulder in which you can pull out.
MR. HILLHOUSE: The Minister is no doubt aware too, that there are a number of original Dominion Government road allowances in this province that are only 55 feet wide; and some of these Dominion Government road allowances had been taken over as secondary highways, which has necessitated the municipality in question going to the capital expense of acquiring additional lands. Now are you in your construction costs now, going to include in those construction costs the capital expense of acquiring additional lands?
MR. WILLIS: We are.
MR. HILLHOUSE: You are?
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister possibly inform the House of the anticipated costs of this change from 66 2/3 to 75%?
MR. WILLIS: That, of course, is not possible to assess because of different locations and the different costs in those different locations—whether it be heavy soil or light soil, and there is a big variation in regard to it. Any assessment in regard to the cost per mile would just be a guess, which could easily be proven to be inaccurate, depending upon where you went for that purpose.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, do I take it from that that the government has proceeded to propose this change without having any idea whatever of what this cost might be?
MR. WILLIS: As far as the present is concerned—you mean from 66 to 75.
MR. MOLGAT: Yes.
MR. WILLIS: For roads already constructed we were able to estimate, of course, accurately that amount. It’s just a matter of the number of miles multiplied by the difference between 66 2/3 and 75 on it, and you could get an accurate basis of calculation there—and that has been done before we proposed it to the House.
MR. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Chairman, did I understand the Honourable Minister to say that there are roads already completed which will qualify for the 75%?
MR. WILLIS: In the future all secondary highways will be 75%. That includes those already constructed, no matter whether it was five years ago or ten years ago.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): I presume, Mr. Chairman, that what the Minister means is that the maintenance and repair will be 75% on those already taken over.
MR. WILLIS: That’s true.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution No. 2. Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Agricultural Societies Act by providing among other matters for (a) an increase in the maximum amount of grants that may be made to agricultural societies in respect of the number of their members and the amount of prize monies paid by the Societies; and (b) the making of grants to agricultural societies for the purpose of assisting the societies in constructing permanent buildings, purchasing equipment, and repairing and improving buildings and land of the societies.
MR. WILLIS: This increases our contribution to agricultural societies under The Agricultural Societies Act, and while I am speaking just to the principle at the present time, it includes ‘A’ Class, ‘B’ Class, ‘C’ Class fairs which will be increased. It also includes buildings on a proper basis of scale depending upon whether it’s ‘A’ Class, ‘B’ Class or ‘C’ Class fairs. When we get to the bill I’ll be glad to get into them in detail, but in general the money grants are increased from 50% to 65% all along the way.
The grants, of course, for buildings as far as the different fairs are concerned are on a graduated basis whether they’re ‘A’ Class, ‘B’ Class or ‘C’ Class, and in some cases depending upon how much the society itself has paid out in money grants. In other words we try to avoid giving money grants to a fair which is here today and gone tomorrow. They have to establish in the past—in most cases the amount of money which they paid out themselves on prizes before we pay a share of the cost. That I think, in general, is the principle. I think some of it has been published before.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask—the Honourable the Minister has given us some indication of the increase in the grants to agricultural societies. I don’t think he gave us any indication of the amount of grant toward the buildings, except that they were graduated as between A’s, B’s, and C’s. Could we have the information as to approximately what the grant is on buildings in the different categories?
MR. WILLIS: Well I try to avoid that, but I’ll give it to the member. These are the grants to ‘A’ and ‘B’ Class societies—50% of the costs of such construction, equipment and improvements up to but not exceeding $10,000. In any one year. And the total aggregate grants to any single ‘A’ or ‘B’ Class society not to exceed $60,000, that is over all the years they must not in total have more than that amount.
Then to the ‘C’ Class societies—‘C’ Class societies which in the preceding year paid out prize money and the total to exhibitors in the amounts ranging from $1,000 but not less than $2,000, may earn grants for construction of permanent buildings, for improvements to buildings and/or grounds, for the purchase of equipment in an amount not exceeding $750. In any one year.
And then ‘C’ Class societies which in the preceding year paid out to exhibitors prize money in the total of $2,000 or over, they earn a grant for the construction of permanent buildings, for the improvement to buildings and/or grounds, for the purchase of equipment in the amount not exceeding $1,500. The total aggregate of grants paid to any one ‘C’ Class society for these purposes shall not exceed $9,000 in total covering all the years.
No grant shall be paid to an ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ Class society for buildings, improvements or equipment unless the society before commencing construction, improvements and repairs, or purchase of equipment, has filed a statement of such with the Minister and he has approved of the plans and specifications—in other words, to avoid a waste of money.
MR. CAMPBELL: Would the Honourable the Minister give us the ‘B’ Class fairs as well. He gave us A’s, B’s and C’s ...
MR. WILLIS: Yes, they were included in the first item. ‘A’ and ‘B’ Class.
MR. CAMPBELL: Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman. The only other question that I think I have at this stage is: Is the Minister aware as to whether the federal policy with regard to giving grants for the construction of fair buildings is still in effect?
MR. WILLIS: It is.
MR. CAMPBELL: Then would the Minister agree that this is a duplication of a federal policy?
MR. WILLIS: It’s an addition, and we looked it over with some care—the officials did—and largely we don’t get into trouble as far as they’re concerned—but this is in addition to that federal policy.
MR. MORRIS A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, do I take it this represents the agricultural exhibitions in different parts of the province? If it is, has the department or the Minister part of an eye on the midways they have there in these agricultural exhibitions where this province is increasing the grants?
MR. WILLIS: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that we can control the midways—although some of them are very interesting as you will know—but our sole interest is in agriculture and I don’t think that form of pulchritude comes under agriculture—and therefore we deal only with the amount of the grants, and we do not control the midways.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Would the Minister clarify his statement as to just what is meant by the statement that $60,000 will be paid in total for all years. Just what is meant there by “all years?”
MR. WILLIS: It might easily be an annual grant of $5,000 for 10 years.
MR. STAN ROBERTS (La Verendrye): Mr. Chairman, in certain conditions such as the Red River Exhibition and other fairs that haven’t got a permanent site yet but are very obviously permanent exhibitions, are these people eligible for construction grants too, as well as those who are established in a site?
MR. WILLIS: I should think so—yes.
MR. MOLGAT: Is it the intention to start these increased grants immediately this summer?
MR. WILLIS: If they could be used, they would be available this summer as soon as they are passed by the legislature.
MR. MOLGAT: Will they be retroactive? I’m thinking, for example, of the Red River Exhibition which is, as I understand, being held very shortly and probably will be held before this bill has gone through the full process in the House.
MR. WILLIS: To the best of my knowledge the answer is “no”.
MR. CAMPBELL: ... I think it is a fact—I’m not certain of this—is the Red River Exhibition now listed as qualifying as an ‘A’ Class fair?
MR. WILLIS: No.
MR. ROBERTS: The Red River Exhibition was accepted by this House in Manitoba as an ‘A’ Class fair but hasn’t been accepted federally yet as an ‘A’ Class fair. There was a bill in this House last year or two years ago.
MR. WILLIS: I think it is correct to say in any event that it has not been accepted by the Department of Agriculture for Manitoba as being an ‘A’ Class fair for these grants—only Brandon is there.
MR. ROBERTS: I would like to have you check that, Sir, if you will please, because I think the Province of Manitoba has accepted the Red River Exhibition as ‘A’ Class for the provincial grant.
MR. WILLIS: I’ll be glad to check that.
MR. CAMPBELL: I wonder if the Minister would get, Mr. Chairman, at the same time, perhaps he knows now, the number of ‘C’ Class fairs that would qualify?
MR. WILLIS: I’ll get that for you. I don’t happen to have it with me. It’s much larger, of course, than the ‘A’ and ‘B’ put together.
MR. MOLGAT: ... Mr. Chairman, could the Minister inform the House what the anticipated total cost of this change will be?
MR. WILLIS: The amount will appear, Mr. Chairman, in the estimates in regard to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the Resolution be adopted? Will the committee rise and report? Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House have adopted certain resolutions and have directed me to report same.
[Mr. Speaker moved that the report of the Committee be received.]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
[Mr. Willis introduced Bill No. 50, an Act to amend The Public Works Act.]
[Mr. Willis introduced Bill No. 37, an Act to amend The Agricultural Societies Act.]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John’s): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I’d like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery opposite, of the Grade IV class from the Luxton School under Miss Thompson, their teacher. This is a school in my constitunecy and I, for one, am glad to see students so young interested in seeing the House and how the House conducts its business.
Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I have several questions to direct to the Minister of Agriculture, notice of which I gave him several days ago. First—how long did the study of the people of Indian ancestry in Manitoba take to prepare? Second—how much did it cost? Third—how many copies of the report were printed? Fourth—how many have been distributed to date? Fifth—how can interested individuals or organizations obtain copies? Sixth—what plans has the government to implement the report in whole or in part?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I’d be glad to take this as an Order for Return and bring down the information.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I’m sorry I didn’t inform him of this previous to entering the House. Is it the intention of the Department to have appraisers assess the extent of the damage caused by the recent Seine River overflow? And if so, are they surveying the situation now or will they be in the very near future?
MR. WILLIS: We are, at all times, in touch with the situation and have engineers in the area. We are, next week, having a meeting with all the concerned municipalities to discuss the matter with them at that time.
MR. PAULLEY: Will the—a supplementary question if I may, Mr. Speaker. Have the government considered making any cost-benefit survey to them who have been affected by this, or has the government any formulae for compensation to those affected?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, all this will arise, I think, out of the discussion which we will have with the municipalities next week, and I wouldn’t like to say in advance just what will happen. It will depend a great deal on their requests.
MR. S. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a question regarding that—at least the press reports indicated the meeting was to be held tomorrow with the municipal people of the areas concerned. I have received several requests from municipalities saying that they had not been invited, and today I would like to ask that question—when is the meeting going to be held and are all the municipal people involved going to be invited, and are the members of the Legislature who represent the areas going to be invited?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I have been away some two days in regard to it—I have been away from the House, but if the honourable member will give me the names of the municipalities concerned I would do my best to see that they were invited if they are concerned. Certainly not every municipality, but if they are concerned and I think he will know whether they are or not, we would be glad to have the names of those municipalities because the instructions, I understand, that were set out were that all municipalities concerned would be invited to the meeting.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I was asked by someone to ask this question from the Minister of Health and Public Welfare, whether there is any health danger in the flood district.
HON. GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the honourable member from Inkster’s question, there is no health danger. As I indicated the other day, the hypo-chloride tablets were distributed to all those who had basements flooded and four of our Department of Sanitation have been in the area—that comes under the local health unit where one of our doctors is in charge of the operation. It was decided that typhoid inocculations would not be necessary although the material is on hand, and I have a very complete report here dated yesterday—as of last evening—which gives us no cause for concern at this time.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. The other day, in your absence, I directed a question to the First Minister regarding the road leading north from Gypsumville which was prompted by a news item. Could you tell me to what point from Gypsumville is this road going to be built? When is construction going to start? Is the province going to pay the full cost and, if so, what percentage? The First Minister at that time replied: “When my information is available to the
House with respect to such a road construction, I’ll be glad to see that the honourable member is informed.” A news item in a weekly newspaper commenting on this report—the editor orates ...
MR. SPEAKER: Order! You may ask a question—not make a speech.
MR. WILLIS: As far as the questions are concerned, I think the honourable member will have to wait a short time because decisions have not been made on that question as yet. We are in negotiation with the Federal Government in regard to it. We, ourselves, don’t know ourselves as to what the answer is. When we get that answer, I’ll be glad to inform him.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, a subsequent question—the road is being planned though—to go north from Gypsumville?
MR. WILLIS: It is now being considered. It has not been finalized.
MR. ROBERTS: A question, please, to the Minister of Public Works—regarding the areas in the southeast flooded, the municipal people are becoming very excited because they have not received any particular communications from your department as to the meeting that is being proposed or what help they might get. For instance, do the members of the legislature from the area know when the meeting is going to be held and will they be invited to it?
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer that because in the absence of my colleague I have some—the other day I had some information in connection with it. It was first intended that the meeting should be held on Friday and I gave the House that information—I think tentatively. It has now been decided that it would be better to hold it until Monday. It will be held at 10 o’clock in the Cabinet room and we are inviting only the reeves of the areas affected. Letters have, I believe, gone out to those. I can give the House, after a consultation, a list of the municipalities concerned and we believe it to be all inclusive—if it is not, we will be glad to extend it to include any who may inadvertently have been omitted from that invitation.
MR. ROBERTS: Just for clarification, was it intended that only those who were flooded in the Seine River flood, as distinguished from the flood of the Manning Canal, the flooding of the Teulon Creek and so forth, to be invited—which is the same area really.
MR. ROBLIN: We are inviting every municipality that we think was involved in the recent flooding. We are not restricting it to any one watercourse.
MR. GUTTORMSON: I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. Is it true that the government has refused permission to a Winnipeg Creamery to sell milk directly to the consumer at Falcon Lake? A subsequent question—is it true that the government’s reason for doing so is that it wants to develop Falcon Lake’s retail outlets in a planned and orderly way and doesn’t want competition and free enterprise in the area from Winnipeg? Is it also true that the Winnipeg Creamery insists on delivering to the consumers and objects to government interference and free competition in this area? And finally—is it true that the man who runs this creamery is Mr. William Kardash, formerly the Communist member of this legislature?
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, in view of the extent of the questions raised in this question, I’m going to ask that the honourable member give me notice of that question and I’ll be glad to reply at a later session.
MR. P. WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Public Works. What will happen in disorganized territory in view that these municipalities were called? Since Teulon is in the Rockwood municipality possibly you’ll let them know. But what happens in further down north in the disorganized territory? Has anybody been informed that such a meeting is taking place on Monday, such as local administrator or somebody like that?
MR. ROBLIN: Perhaps I might answer that question because I believe my honourable friend seems to be referring to the recent flooding we’ve had. Is that correct?
MR. WAGNER: Yes.
MR. ROBLIN: The people who are being invited are those who are in southeastern Manitoba who might be said to be, generally speaking, in the same watershed. That’s not an exclusive definition. I think there is one municipality and perhaps more that’s not in the same watershed that are invited. Insofar as local governments are concerned, the Minister of Municipal Affairs exercises the municipal function in respect of them and his department will be representing those people.
MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister. Is he aware that there are ten sections lying through the municipality of Brokenhead which have had extensive damage due to a flood which occurred almost at the same time as the one in the Seine River basin? And supplementary to that, I’d like to ask him if he has any intention of inviting the reeve of the municipality of Brokenhead to this meeting on Monday?
MR. ROBLIN: I do not have them on our list at the present time, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be glad to examine that situation, although I do not think it likely they will be asked. I will be glad to examine it and if I’m informed there is a case, we’ll certainly include them.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. MOLGAT: Before the Orders of the Day, I’d like to address a question to the Honourable the Minister of Health. I think most of the members yesterday received an envelope marked “The University of Manitoba Report on Radioactive Contamination in the Northern States on Cereal Grains.” Has the Government of Manitoba undertaken any survey here in Manitoba so far? Is it planning on any survey? Is this report that we received yesterday a publication of the University of Manitoba and, if not, could he tell us what it is?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, concerning this question, this brings into focus the whole problem of radioactive fallout which has been under discussion now for the past eight or nine months. I think I have seen the article you refer to. This is sent to you by an individual on the University staff who is very interested in this problem. We have had two meetings with Federal officials from the Director of Environmental Sanitation at Ottawa and his deputy last February, when this problem was discussed, and also recently had this group meet with the university officials and with our Provincial Board of Health. At that time we decided with these men present to set up a committee—an advisory committee to the Minister within the province where we thought we could see what means we could take to study this problem locally in addition to what is being done federally. The figures are quite controversial and it is a very long story. I’d be quite willing to have a more accurate statement prepared if the member would allow me and present this to the House tomorrow.
MR. SCHREYER: Before the Orders of the Day, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, a question of which I have given him notice. However, I realize that he hasn’t been able to be here in the last two days so he may be indisposed to answering it. In which case he may take this as further notice. (a) How many applications for farm credit were made under the provisions of The Farm Credit Act to date; (b) The number of applications approved to date; and (c) The amount loaned by the Farm Credit Board to date.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be very glad to accept that as an Order for Return and get the information for you.
MR. L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct this question to the Honourable the First Minister. Is the government contemplating taking any action in regards to the short time that the Queen will spend with the veterans at Deer Lodge Hospital on Her coming visit to Winnipeg? That is, will the government endeavour to have this period lengthened a bit?
MR. ROBLIN: I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of saying a word on this subject. Perhaps I may give more information than the actual question itself calls for because I’m sure members of the House are interested in this topic. I, today, was able to give the leaders of the opposition parties a booklet which gives the outline of the Queen’s visit to Canada from coast to coast. I warned them when I gave them that that the information for the Province of Manitoba had been changed somewhat since that was printed but, roughly speaking, it represents what is going to take place, and anyone who has had an opportunity to glance over that booklet will be well aware of the tremendous nature of the undertaking insofar as it concerns Her Majesty and the Prince Philip. We are very conscious, indeed, of the particular problem raised by the question, namely, the period of time which the Royal Party will spend at Deer Lodge Hospital. I’m well aware of veteran opinion in this matter having been associated with the Canadian Legion for many long years—many pleasant years—and it certainly was the concern of the government that the utmost consideration should be given in connection with Deer Lodge. In fact, our original proposals to the Royal Committee in Ottawa, who have the fundamental responsibility for this matter, made provision for a longer stay at the veterans hospital by reason of the fact that it was to take place on the following day, before departure from Winnipeg rather than on the first day of their presence here. That was given consideration. Unfortunately,
there are certain rules laid down by the National Committee in connection with this visit in respect of consideration of time and they were such that it appeared to be impossible, or at least undesirable if the rule was to be adhered to, for Her Majesty to visit the veterans hospital on the second day of her visit here as originally suggested. We had to accept that ruling with reluctance but I must say that the official from Ottawa who had to deal with this matter was pretty convincing in dealing with the time element and the necessity of allowing—of realizing that we are dealing with human beings here as well as members of the Royal Family, so it became necessary to revise the plan and to put the Deer Lodge visit in on the first day.
Now, when you consider that the primary purpose of the visit, in my estimation, here in Manitoba, I think that first consideration would be given to the children. I’m positive that the veterans themselves would entirely endorse that stand in respect to the priority given to the young people in the province. Among all the considerations that I know the committee took into account, the question of giving the maximum possible opportunity for young folk to see the Royal Party, was uppermost in their minds. The second consideration, and I think the veterans would approve of this order, would be for the veterans themselves, and you will notice that of all the different groups in the community, I think they are the only ones that are singled out for special attention in this particular way.
Now, that still doesn’t get around the fact that the stay at the Deer Lodge Hospital is very short. My advisors who are responsible for dealing with this matter, and particularly the rulings we have received from Ottawa, they have informed me that this seems to be the best arrangement that can be made under the circumstances. I’ve got a hunch, however, that when Her Majesty gets to Deer Lodge that she isn’t going to leave there in ten minutes time because we are familiar with her views and with the way in which she handles her public responsibilities; and I have a strong feeling that whatever the agenda may say, the chances are that when she and Prince Philip and the veterans get together, they may be there a little longer than the schedule shows. I do wish to assure the honourable member that the government itself does not regard this matter with complacency. We’ve done our best to make some more suitable arrangement. The plain fact is that every time we come up against this problem we seem to be stuck, at least on paper, with the arrangement that the honourable member refers to. Now, our hope is that all the veterans in the hospital who can be moved will be brought down to the front lawn, if it is a fine day, and that Her Majesty will see fit to walk among them as she usually does on occasions of that sort. If the weather is not good, the intention I believe is to make use of the Memorial Pavilion at the Deer Lodge Hospital and also the canteen, for the purpose of having the veterans in the hospital presented to Her Majesty in the same way. The veterans’ organization will be at Deer Lodge in full strength—we trust with their band, so that as well as those confined to the hospital the generality of the veterans may also have a special opportunity in this respect.
That gives the House, Mr. Speaker, some background, I think, of some of the difficulties involved in this matter. Certainly I’d like to express the government’s view that we regard ten minutes as a very short time indeed, and we just hope that it may be possible for all the veterans in the hospital to have some contact with the Royal Party when they are there. If any member has any suggestions as to how we might improve those arrangements, I’d be delighted if he would get in touch with me, and we’ll see if we can put any practical suggestion into effect.
MR. JOHN P. TANCHAK (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I’d like to direct a question to the First Minister. As I understand it, that only the—coming back to the flooded area—only the Reeves are invited. If the M.L.A.’s representing those areas are not invited, are they welcome?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, as far as I’m concerned, the whole membership of the House may attend this meeting if they wish to.
MR. TANCHAK: Could you tell me whether the Reeve of Franklin Municipality will get an invitation? Because I know he is most anxious to attend.
MR. ROBLIN: No, I can’t answer that, but as I said previously, we’ll produce the list of Reeves that are being invited and we can find out whether his name is on that or not.
MR. TANCHAK: Thank you. I would like you to add it if at all possible. I thank you.
MR. ROBLIN: Well, we’ll give it consideration but I warn my honourable friend that we have to make sure that it’s those municipalities who are in the direct line of fire that are concerned here.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the question that I was going to ask the First Minister with regard to the Royal Tour is nothing like as important as the one that he was discussing a few minutes ago, but I noticed when he was speaking—this is preliminary to the question, very brief, Mr. Speaker—that the Honourable the First Minister referred to Her Majesty and Prince Philip. I don’t fault him for that because that’s the way I have been referring to them, but I noticed that the program of the Royal Tour mentions quite frequently the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. Is it not correct that it is Prince Philip?
MR. ROBLIN: I think both the Royal Tour and the First Minister are right on this occasion. I think his correct title is The Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh and if you wish to give him his full description that would be the way to do it as far as I’m aware, but I must confess that I’m not an expert on a terminology of this sort.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Honourable the First Minister if it isn’t a fact that very few of us are experts on this sort of thing, but surely the people who are preparing the tour are experts on it and shouldn’t it be seen to that the correct designation is used?
MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 2—The honourable member for Ste. Rose.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon on the Throne Speech debate my honourable friend the Attorney-General gave us, in his usual modest fashion, some very glowing accounts about his side of the House and, in particular, said at that time that they were a government of action and not a government of words. It’s unfortunate, however, that he has been unable to convince his colleague and desk-mate, the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, of that very commendable practice, because as I read Bill No. 2, I find unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that this is much more words than action. In fact, I think it would be fair to say it’s almost pure words. I realize the danger in getting up and being the least bit critical of this particular bill, because my honourable friends across the way will say—“Oh, you’re opposed to development and you’re opposed to progress and so on.” That’s not at all the case, but I think it’s absolutely fair that we should make it clear here in the House what this bill does do and what it does not do, and in spite of all the statements and the very pious-sounding intentions, with one exception, I cannot find that this bill does anything except exactly what the previous government was doing; what the present government has been doing; what the government should be doing; what any government is put into power to do. If we want to find that out, all one needs to do is look at the purposes. They’re outlined in this bill, and to begin with, it says the purpose is the development of the natural resources of the province and the encouragement of industrial enterprises. Now, Mr. Speaker, what else than that has the government been doing in the past? What is the purpose of having the Department of Industry and Commerce that my honourable friend heads in the present ministry? Isn’t that the job of the Department of Industry and Commerce? And you go on through the other sub-purposes that are indicated in here and it’s the same thing all the way through.
Turn around then and look at the personnel that this is inteded to cover. First of all we have there the Directorate, and who do we find on the Directorate? Well, none others than my honourable friends in the front row across—the President of the Council; the Minister of
Mines and Resources; the Minister of Industry and Commerce who, at the moment, happens to be the same man; the Minister of Public Utilities; or the Minister of Public Works. Excactly the same gentlemen who sit on the Cabinet; exactly the same gentlemen who head these departments. Who do we find on this board? The Executive Director—well now, there is the one exception in the bill, setting up a new position of executive government, but other than that, who else? The Deputy Minister of Mines and Natural Resources; the Deputy Minister of Industry and Commerce; the Deputy in Public Works; the Deputy in Public Utilities; Chairman, Hydro-Electric Board; Chairman, Power Commission—I understand those two terminologies will be changed but at the moment they read so; Commissioner and General Manager of the Manitoba Telephone System; and the General Manager of the Manitoba Development Fund. Mr. Speaker, all those people are presently employees of the Government of Manitoba, civil servants, or members of the Cabinet. This bill does nothing more than to merely do and put down on the Statutes what these people should be doing in any case when they’re doing their jobs. It seems to me, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is nothing more than window dressing. I will admit that it will do no harm, that’s quite correct it—well, one little bit of harm which I suppose we can forego—it will cover up the Statute books with another unnecessary piece of legislation, but apart from that, will not be too dangerous because by and large, with the exception of the Executive Director, it’s all the same gentlemen again and I presume they’ll be continuing doing the same jobs as they are doing today. But, of course, my honourable friend has a good reason for putting this forward. During the election campaign it was said that they would promote the industrial development and the great north, that my honourable friend from Flin Flon across the way, I’m sure, will be telling us about later on in the session and, of course, the results have been good. I see that the papers have had headlines, such as, “Program calls for Tapping Manitoba’s Rich Resources” or “Manitoba Wealth-Tapping Planned - Largest Unused Reserve.” All of which, Mr. Speaker, is excellent, but I submit that it has been done in the past; that the present government is doing that; that it has in its present organization, in its departments exactly those functions; that all this can be done without this bill and this bill, therefore, falls down to being purely and simply window dressing. Having said that, I will nevertheless not oppose the bill for the simple reason that, as I said before, while I can see little good coming out of it, insofar as a change in policy and so on, it’s the same thing that has been going on, neither does it do any major amount of harm.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. A. E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): I wish to say a few words on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think that we’re opposed to the bill in principle, although I agree somewhat with my honourable friend to my right here, but we notice in the bill here one thing, “that the authority through the Directorate shall at least annually report to the President of the Executive Council.” Will there also be an annual report to the Legislature? That’s something that we would hope because the Executive is composed of Cabinet Ministers, and we would hope that that would be the case. Also, we are just wondering how much planning is going to be done. It’s true that the board will have the power to appoint architects, engineers and the like, but we are just wondering to what extent real planning will be done as far as our natural resources are concerned, Mr. Speaker.
MR. CAMPBELL: I move, seconded by the honourable the member for Rhineland, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on proposed resolution, the honourable member for Birtle-Russell; and the amendment thereto. The honourable member for Portage la Prairie.
MR. J. A. CHRISTIANSON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to offer my congratulations to you on your re-election to the high office you hold and fill so ably. We pray that your tenure in that office may be long and pleasant. I would like also to add my congratulations to the honourable members from Birtle-Russell and from Springfield on their very capable presentation of the Address in Reply.
Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some doubt as to just how long it has been since Portage la Prairie was represented in this House by a Conservative member, but it is sufficient to say that it has been for quite some time, and it is with great humility and a full realization of my own shortcomings that I take my place in this Assembly. My every effort shall be to fulfill the
confidence and trust that the people of Portage la Prairie have placed in me.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has expressed considerable pessimism as to the economic future of this province and its ability to pay for necessary and long overdue services and improvements to its public works. This is, in fact, the basis for his amendment. I would suggest that there is no foundation at this time or in the foreseeable future for any pessimism about Manitoba’s economic future. Manitoba is booming with new economic activities. You all know of the tremendous developments going forward in the north, and the far-sighted policies, power and road policies of this government which will provide the essential services required for continued expansion in that area. A short drive around Winnipeg will show even to the most casual observer the tremendous vitality. All types of construction goes on at a record pace, all the more remarkable because it has been proceeding at this pace for some several years with ever-increasing energy.
In my own constituency, historic Portage la Prairie, we are literally bursting at the seems. Commercial building still in various stages of construction at the end of 1958 totalled $2,777,000. New commercial construction started so far this year totals $510,000.00 to which will be added at least a further $300,000.00. Residential construction totals $330,000.00. Now, the total equalized assessment of the city is $11,000,000.00 and here we have construction presently underway to a total value of $3,628,000.00 or nearly 25% of total assessment. Surely this is good reason for optimism. But even more significant is the type of industry we are attracting—basic food processing industries which will not only change the employment picture in our city but will directly affect the prosperity of farmers in the Lakeside constituency. Greater diversification will stabilize the whole economy in central Manitoba. On top of this, Mr. Speaker, the city is presently completing a major reconstruction of its sewage disposal and water distribution system at a cost of one and a quarter million. In July of this year, sewage will be pumped to a new sewage lagoon. This, I believe, will make Portage the first major centre to have stopped using the waters of a river for sewage disposal. We are justifiably proud of this achievement, and what is most important, we are now in a position to service any and all types of food processing plants or any other plant or industries where disposal of organic waste is a problem.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the increased expenditures that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition complains of so bitterly are due in large part to the failure of the previous Liberal Government to keep pace with the economic development of the rest of Canada. Their cautious, caretaker administration failed to grasp the tremendous post-war opportunities, but lived in fear of what they considered was an inevitable economic catastrophy. Their false economy and lack of foresight have cost us dearly and we must not delay in bringing our services and facilities up to an acceptable modern standard. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government is doing all that is proper and necessary to get our rightful share of Federal tax revenues and that instead of crying for more we should display some of the energy and initiative of our forefathers and grasp the many opportunities which are open to us today. The future of Manitoba is bright with promise. We must not let gnawing doubts or memories of past failures deter us from taking full advantage of this grand moment. With optimism, confidence and enthusiasm we can make this beautiful province of ours the envy and pride of Canada. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. MOLGAT: I beg to 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: Adjourned Debate on Proposed Motion of the honourable member for Inkster. The honourable member for Winnipeg Centre.
MR. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, last fall the parties of this House, in fact all the members of this House, voted unanimously in support of the resolution proposed by the honourable member for Inkster requesting that this Provincial Government give assistance to elderly pensioners and blind persons on pension in need. That resolution made sense and this government now proposes at this session to introduce legislation to implement that request. The government has gone far beyond the request set out in the resolution. It is going to relieve municipalities of the entire cost of caring for elderly persons in receipt of pensions and blind pensioners and disability pensioners. The province has been successful, too, in persuading the Federal Government to pay half of the cost of this additional assistance with the exception of medical, optical and dental care. The CCF asked that the old age pension and the other—and the blind persons pension be increased from $55.00 to $75.00 a month for everyone. This is contrary to the opinion of the leaders in welfare work in Canada. Only this year the Ontario Welfare Council in a report on economic needs and resources of older people in Ontario and the Canadian Welfare Council last June, in a report, recommended that the present pensions stay as they are and that additional assistance be given those who need additional assistance. This is contrary to—to the statement of policy of the CCF as set out by the honourable member for Seven Oaks when he said that their policy was to help those who need help most. For after all, why should the taxpayers help those who don’t need help? Just because one is old doesn’t mean that one must—that one has nothing or has no assets or has no income or is unable to work.
We all know that many—that some of our wealthiest people in this country are old people—some of our millionaires. We had one person who held himself as a sort of an example of one who is in receipt of the old age security pension, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Louis St. Laurent, a wealthy corporation lawyer. And we have in the city a law firm where the oldest member is 92, the next is 87 and the third is 85. The fourth one is quite junior, he has only been with the firm for four years—and these—for fifty-three years—for fifty-three years—and these four men all work a full day’s work and all make a good living. So there are quite a number of our elderly citizens who do not need assistance and I don’t—I do not think that we should be giving them additional assistance. As a matter of fact, in the age group of those between 65 and 70 in Canada some 20—only about 20% receive the old age assistance pension, and the number that require additional assistance who are over 70 years of age is also limited. It is estimated at about 30% and that estimate is taken from the fact that about 30% of those over 70 in Manitoba who applied for remission of the hospital insurance premium were granted that remission. And also in Sasktachewan where they pay old age and a supplement to those over 70 years of age who need it, about 30% of the people in Saskatchewan over that age receive it. So it would—we would be paying, roughly speaking, this additional money to a great many who do not need it.
The honourable member from Inkster says we should all support his resolution because his request is for help from the Federal Treasury, but his request is not really for help from the Federal Treasury. His request is for help from the taxpayers in Canada, from the men in the street. That—the Federal Treasury will distribute it, that is certain, but the Federal Treasury in turn collects it from the taxpayers, from the man that pays income tax, from the man that buys something at the store and pays a sales tax when he is buying—making that purchase or perhaps is paying a larger price because of the large corporation tax paid by the corporations in Canada. 3%—some 3% of the present sales tax now goes towards paying for the present old age pensions in Canada. And we would find, I am sure, that if we increased our old age—the old age pensions from $55.00 to $75.00 for many who don’t need it, that we would be taking away money from many young men with families who perhaps have quite low incomes and who need additional money far more than some of the more wealthy people in this country. We should be helping those who need help and not be taking it away from some of those who can ill afford to pay additional taxes.
The burden would be great, too, in Manitoba. The additional cost of such a scheme, giving it to just those that get it now, would be $14,000,000.00 a year, and throughout Canada would be $223,000,000.00 a year. But, of course ,increasing the amount that would be paid,
you would be increasing the number that would be eligible and it is estimated that the increased cost in Manitoba would be, as a result, about 18 1/2 million dollars a year. The honourable member for Inkster says that 50% of the increase would be paid back in the income tax, bu that is not true either, for when you look at your income tax schedule, even with the increases that go into effect on July 1st, you will find that a couple with an exemption of $2,000.00 a year has to have an income of $6,000.00 a year or over $500.00 a month—has to have an income in excess of $6,000.00 a year before they pay 20% on any of their income, and before they pay 50% on any of their income, even with the new increases, such a couple would have to have an income in excess of $27,000.00 a year. That is a very large income which very few people earn in this country, and so we would find not—we wouldn’t find 50% of this additional money coming back to the government through the income tax.
In Saskatchewan we do not find the CCF Government following the policy advocated by the CCF in this House. Saskatchewan has a lot of wealth that we haven’t in Manitoba through its oil and gas resources, and one would think that if they thought it was a good policy that they would at least give everybody over 70 five or ten or fifteen dollars a month, but they don’t do that. In fact, they don’t do even as much as is proposed in the legislation to be introduced in this House. The Saskatchewan Government only pays supplementary allowances to old age pensioners over 70 years of age. They pay no supplementary allowances to those in the group between 65 and 70; they pay no supplementary allowances to those in receipt of disability and blind pensions. So we, in our efforts to help those who need it, are going further than they are in the next province and we are going to help those who need that help.
The Liberal motion, I submit, is rather ridiculous because of firstly, their past record—up until two years ago the Liberal Government refused to help old pensioners in need in Manitoba beyond the $40 a month old age pension in spite of the fact that in almost every other province in Canada at that time additional help was being given to pensioners in need. And this Liberal amendment, too, is ridiculous because of the fact that it says that the increase should be for 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. I have here the latest reports from the Dominion Government showing the consumer price indexes, and the old age pension, as we know, went up to $55.00 in November, 1957. At that time the index for Canada was 123.3, and the latest month for which we have a figure is April, 1959, at which time the figure was 125.4 or an increase of 2.1 2.1 is equal to a percentage increase of 1.7% and on $55.00 that is equal to 93¢. Not very much—not very much of a proposed increase is included in this Liberal amendment. As a matter of fact, I was surprised to—not very liberal—as a matter of fact, I was rather surprised to find that in November, 1957 the index for Winnipeg was 117.8 and in April, 1959 was 117.7, down .1 of a point. In closing, I would just like to ask the support of all the members of this House to our proposed amendment to the amendment as I feel that it is something that most of the members in this House want, and it is something that we should all support. And I move this amendment to the amendment, seconded by the honourable member for St. Vital, that the motion as amended be further amended by striking out all the words after the word “House” in the first line and by substituting the following: “commends the government for its proposed legislation to assist elderly persons in need.”.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion.]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. FRED GROVES (St. Vital): It’s certainly my intention to support the amendment of the honourable member from Winnipeg Centre.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): I’d like to raise a point of order. I don’t think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a proper amendment. I think the original motion was a directive to recommend certain action to the Federal Government. The amendment of the—the Liberal amendment was a proper amendment in that it carried on a further recommendation to the Federal Government. This amendment substitutes “this government” and is a direct negative to the original motion.
MR. COWAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I submit it isn’t a negative to the original motion. All the amendments and the motion are dealing with the one question,—that is increasing the
amount of money paid to Old Age Pensioners and Blind Pensioners—and this is certainly—this amendment to the amendment—certainly has to do with the question before this House.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, speaking to a point of order, the amendment and the motion is to kill the original resolution, so I don’t care which way they intend to kill it—it doesn’t matter. By moving—by passing the amendment to the sub-amendment the resolution will be killed—it will be known to the public.
MR. MILLER: Out of order!
MR. GRAY: I don’t know the rules.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I might raise a further point to the matter raised by the honourable member for Rhineland. If I understand the resolution it deals very much, in my opinion, in the abstract in that it’s considered proposed legislation; and how, Sir, can we discuss, on this side, a resolution which is dealing with something that’s only proposed. I suggest, Sir, that until such time as we have that proposed legislation before us, and the ideas behind it, that we couldn’t intelligently discuss this amendment to the amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: I’d say that ...
MR. ROBLIN: I’m speaking, Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the last speaker. It may be that he is correct on that matter and the wording of the resolution might better be with respect to the proposal contained in the Speech from the Throne, rather than the proposed legislation. I think probably that would be a more suitable wording of the sub-amendment. And perhaps, I’m not just sure whether we should consider this but, it might be desirable to let the matter stand, Sir, so that we could have a look at the points involved and particularly the wording as proposed; and it might be that if it was in order on other counts that the House might allow the wording to be amended to meet the point raised by the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party. So that if it meets Your Honour’s view, I would like to suggest, Sir, that the ruling stand until we’ve had time to look at it for a little bit. It is a rather complicated point.
MR. SPEAKER: I’m inclined to agree with the Honourable the First Minister. It certainly is a complicated decision to make and I should like to have some time to consider it.
MR. CAMPBELL: May I speak to the point of order by saying simply that I think it is very wise for you, Sir, in circumstances of this kind, to reserve judgment because they are complicated. I think it’s a very good idea because a decision, once made here, is something that has considerable—becomes a precedent, and I think it’s important that we get a decision that’s according to the rules and the practices of the House. Might I suggest that when giving that consideration, Mr. Speaker, that you would also take into account whether this suggested sub-amendment actually amends in any degree the amendment. I think it is supposed to amend the amendment.
MR. MILLER: It must be relevant to the amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: I’ll certainly take that into consideration. I would ask ...
MR. GRAY: Why not also consider whether the amendment originally is in order?
MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party. The Honourable Member for Selkirk.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the House and ask that this matter be allowed to stand. I ...
MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the honourable member for Pembina. The honourable member for La Verendrye.
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House in order that this matter may stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand.
MR. ROBLIN: Well, Sir, all unexpected like we seem to have come to the end of our work this afternoon. So perhaps I might crave your permission, Sir, just to make an announcement that perhaps would more properly be made on the Orders of the Day, but in the flurry of questions this afternoon it escaped my notice; and that is to say that some few days ago we had a communication from the Canadian section of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association asking that two representatives of this Legislature be named to the Canadian Committee of that Association—one of which was to be Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has consented
insofar as he was concerned, and I took the liberty of circulating the question among the whips of the various parties, and also did consult with the leaders of the various parties, and we seem to be of one mind that the honourable member for Selkirk would be a very suitable man indeed to represent this House on that Committee. [Applause.] I approached the honourable member with this united suggestion from all parts of the House and he was gracious enough to accept it—and I think the House perhaps would like to know that our two representatives on this Committee will be Mr. Speaker, and the honourable member for Selkirk.
MR. GRAY: Was age taken into consideration?
MR. ROBLIN: Yes, and he’s just in the right age group, too.
MR. HILLHOUSE: I wish to thank the House for the honour that has been conferred upon me, and I hope that I’ll be worthy of that honour. [Applause]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker put the question, and following a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 2:30 the following afternoon.]
Page revised: 18 July 2010
