[Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions.
Reading and Receiving Petitions.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Notice of Motion.
Introduction of Bills.
The Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare.
HON. GEORGE JOHNSON, M.D. (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Provincial Secretary, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 26, An Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act, and that this same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
DR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Education, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 27, An Act to amend The Public Health Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. James.
MR. D. M. STANES (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Wellington, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 73, An Act respecting The Town of Gimli, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Committee of the Whole.
HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution, as set out on the Order Paper under my name.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Honourable Member for St. Matthews to take the Chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Committee read to receive the resolutions?
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, 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. Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Public Schools Act by providing, among other matters, for the making of an allowance for the cost of used text books now owned by a school district or school division, in computing the amount of the grants payable in respect of expenditures for text books.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, this bill is to authorize the expenditure of money for the purposes indicated in the resolution and it's part of the plan of providing text books as approved by the Legislature at our last Session.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, can the Minister indicate who will ascertain the value of the used text books, and whether it's a certain proportion of the initial cost?
MR. McLEAN: The valuation will be performed by members of the Department -- I shouldn't say that -- by the school districts on the basis indicated by the legislation, which will be a percentage of the present cost of the text books in question.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, if these books still could be used; then why not use them for the school children now? If they cannot be used, who would buy it?
MR. McLEAN: They are being purchased for use and will be used by school children.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, have you any idea of what the overall cost of this might be; has there been any estimate on that at all?
MR. McLEAN: No, there hasn't been because we are not at the moment aware of what number of texts are available.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution.
MR. C. E. GREENLAY (Portage la Prairie): Is there any provision to be made, wherein say a place like Portage la Prairie probably the pupils all own the books? Now then, will they just be left to hold the bag with those books or will there be some provision whereby the school districts might be able to purchase them from the pupil and then be recompensed from the government sources to make them on an equal footing with others?
MR. McLEAN: That is a matter of detail, Mr. Chairman, which is covered by the bill, but it is proposed to provide for the purchase, not only from school districts, but also from individual owners, provided the texts are in satisfactory condition, and everyone will be on an equal footing in that respect.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the Resolution be adopted?
Resolution No. 2. Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Education Department Act by providing, among other matters, for authority for the Minister to purchase new and used text books for free distribution to pupils, and for an increase in the reserve for working capital advanced to The Manitoba Text Book Bureau to a maximum of six hundred thousand dollars and for the expenditure from the reserve for working capital aforesaid of not more than two hundred thousand dollars in payment in whole or in part of the purchase price or cost of renovation, or both, or of the cost of erection of a building for carrying on the operations of the Bureau.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, this is a companion measure to that which we have been discussing and is to provide the necessary funds for the Text Book Bureau to carry out the functions indicated in the resolution. The bill, of course, we will be able to discuss the detail of it on second reading.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I may be out of order discussing this under this heading, but I have received many complaints from school children that they have to buy new text books every year when the old text books are still in good use, and could be used by many who cannot afford to buy books all the time. After all, if free text books are not given away as free as they would like to be. The question is: Can the old text books be still used, in this way that there may be changes in the text books but are the changes sufficiently important for the education of the children to require them to buy new text books every year? In other words, can you go back to those who publish the text books or to those authorities who bring the text books, and say here that a certain subject here in the old textbooks, and although it's an improvement, is the improvement worthwhile to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Department of Education, by the school boards, and by the parents?
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps this is not quite on the point of this resolution, but I have no objection to simply saying that of course that problem will not be a problem with individual students or parents, because the Province of Manitoba will be bearing the entire cost of the text books so that, where they are changed there will be no cost involved from the point of view of the individual. I would strongly suspect that the administration will be very anxious to do just what the honourable member has suggested, because it will be public funds that will be spent on textbooks and that it will be the view that text books should not be changed unless there is some substantial and good reason for doing so.
MR. L. STINSON (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that the honourable members of the official opposition have not contested this item, because they claim that the government is going too far and too fast, and the government in this respect is going beyond the recommendation of the Royal Commission. As I recall it, the Royal Commission recommended that 50% of the cost should be borne by the Provincial Government, and in this respect, of course, we are not complaining, because for many years in that bad Province of Saskatchewan they have had a policy of this kind, and it has been the policy of our party that text books should be free. And so I might pose two questions, although I know it isn't really in order to ask the honourable members of the official opposition, except in a rhetorical sort of way, why they haven't made a protest, and ask the government why they have gone beyond the
recommendation of the Royal Commission. And in asking the government that question, I want it understood that it's not phrased in a critical way, because we approve of this measure. But I wonder what is the thinking of the honourable members on this point. And it would be interesting to get the thinking of both of the so-called major parties with respect to this matter.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, ... my honourable friend I never can resist the tempatation to answer his very interesting questions. And in case he would like to have me reply before the Honourable the Minister does, I would simply point out that even though we admit that this was not part of our programme, we agreed in principle with the programme that was presented to us at the extra Session last fall, and we are simply being consistent and going along with the programme as brought forward. Now, I don't suppose I should attempt to answer for the Minister in any way, but I think one thing the Minister should propose to my honourable friend is that what his real concern is, not that the government is going further than we did, or further than the Commission recommended, but that in so many ways it's going further than even the C.C.F. has been proposing. And that really is my honourable friend's concern. So if he wants to rephrase his question to the Minister and ask him, why in so many ways they are going away beyond what the C.C.F. has ever recommended, that would be a perfectly proper observation.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, what the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition has said just simply isn't true and he knows it isn't.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, answering the question that was directed to us over here, I would just say this, that we are as interested, indeed if not more interested, in the provision of equal opportunities for a good education for the boys and girls of the Province of Manitoba as the members of the C.C.F. Party. The C.C.F. Party is not the sole repository of concern for education or any other matter. We here, not only are going to do as much in those fields where we have the proper function to discharge in that regard as any other government in any part of Canada, but I would hope that in many respects we would be the leader in these fields.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, if I might just get back to the actual resolution for a moment. I noted that in the resolution proposed by the Honourable the Minister, that there is provision for working capital for the renovation or purchasing of a building in connection with the distribution, I presume, of text books. Now, I would like to ask, I am not sure as to whether or not the present building which is being used for the Text Book Bureau on Notre Dame, I believe it is, Ave. East, is the property of the Province of Manitoba, or whether it's under rental. If it's under rental, does this maximum of $200,000.00 apply to possible renovations in that building or does it apply to a possible purchase of the building which is not now owned by the province?
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to have to confess that I am not too certain whether the Province of Manitoba owns the building that is presently being used, or whether it rents the building, but in any event it doesn't make any particular difference because ... (thank you) ... we have no intention of renovating the building; it is quite unsatisfactory for the purpose for which it is being used, and if any building were purchased it would be a building more suitable and more satisfactory for the purpose of the Text Book Bureau.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the Resolution be adopted? Shall the Committee rise and report?
[Mr. Speaker resumes the Chair. ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has adopted certain resolutions and directed me to report the same.
DR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Roblin, that the report of the Committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 76, An Act to amend The Public Schools Act, No. 3, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 77, An Act to amend The Education Department Act, and that same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to consult the House on the matter of our meetings for the rest of this week. I would suggest that it might be convenient if we should not meet on Friday, which is Good Friday, but that we should adjourn Thursday evening and resume our sessions at 2:30 the following Monday afternoon. And perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that other members in the Chamber would like to give their views on that suggestion.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, I think the plan that our Whip will be in consultation with the other Whips during the afternoon, and I'd prefer that the discussion should be deferred until the Whips have had an opportunity to discuss the matter.
MR. ROBLIN: That's agreeable, Mr. Speaker. While I'm on my feet -- same point or ...
MR. STINSON: ... the same point. I wondered -- I concur in that. But I wondered if the Honourable the First Minister could tell us what his intentions are with respect to interim supply. He showed some concern the other day about needing money and I wondered if he would be wanting to move into that particular phase of our work at an early stage.
MR. ROBLIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was the second point that I was going to suggest. This is Government Day. I was going to suggest that after we had taken the questions and Orders for Return, which perhaps we should proceed with right now, we should then skip over to the adjourned debate on the sub-amendment on the Throne Speech and proceed with that, and it would be my hope -- I don't know how well-founded -- that we would finish with that order of business in time to get to the supply motion again later on this afternoon. Just the sub-amendment. If we should not reach that point then we'll probably place it at the head of the agenda tomorrow, or something of the sort.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, there is an element of risk in that for the honourable gentleman. The members of the Official Opposition might have changed their minds overnight and would support the sub-amendment and then the honourable gentleman across the way might be in a difficult position.
MR. ROBLIN: Yes Sir, there is an element of risk. I remember that last Thursday at about, well on in the proceedings, we came to the order of business for supply, and it was my hope that we should proceed with it then, but it was not the wish of the House that we should, and I must confess that my view on the matter did not prevail. On that Thursday occasion the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. took occasion to observe to the House that it was quite all right because government business came first on the following day, namely Friday evening, in the evening session. Which I must say, I took as some indication that he would be willing to sit on the Friday evening session. And yet, when the Friday came around I found there was no such intention and we didn't sit Friday night and we didn't get to that order of business. So I do admit there is an element of risk attached in the procedure that I`m following here today, but I'm just afraid that as I had to adjust myself to the first risk, I'll do my best to adjust myself to the second one.
MR. R. W. BEND (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about procedure there is a Bill, No. 43, that the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks and I are concerned with that is quite important, and at a committee meeting tomorrow, the second reading would be routine, I would leave it to the Minister to say a few words. He knows of the importance of it too, and I was wondering if it would be at all possible to get second reading of that bill today because it is very important to the people concerned.
MR. ROBLIN: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker. This is an important item and my honourable friend, the Minister of Education, raised the point with me this morning, and I've given him an undertaking that insofar as I can, I will arrange to have this dealt with early in the order of business tomorrow.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, just in connection with the discussion that's taken place with regard to supply. I agree with what has been said by both the Honourable the First
Minister and the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, re the necessity of getting on with supply, particularly supplementary supply. But when the Honourable the First Minister suggests that he was prevented from getting on with the supply motion because of us not sitting on Friday evening, I would like to point out that it was away back on Tuesday of last week, a week ago yesterday, that the Honourable the First Minister indicated to this House that it would be proceeded with the next day. And the next day. That is a week from today, a week ago today. The Honourable the First Minister had every opportunity in the world to proceed with it at that time. Why he changed his tactics before, I do not know, but if it had been proceeded with at that time it would have been perfectly in order and supply would have been entered upon.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that we are going to pass it anyway.
MR. BEND: Mr. Speaker, coming back to Bill No. 43, I appreciate the First Minister's concern, but the Municipal Affairs Committee meets tomorrow morning, and so if we didn't get second reading until tomorrow afternoon, we would be too late for that meeting.
MR. ROBLIN: I'd be quite willing, Mr. Speaker, after we've finished with the sub-amendment debate, if we do, and with supply, to give that motion next place on the list if it's possible to get it in this afternoon.
HON. JOHN THOMPSON (Minister of Labour) (Virden): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to bring to the attention of the House an announcement made yesterday in the Federal House of Commons with respect to the winter employment situation. I should like to read a telegram which was received by the Honourable the First Minister from the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, as follows: "Several provinces and many municipalities have requested an extension of the municipal winter works incentive programme for a further period. In view of these representations, the Federal Government, subject to the concurrence of your government, has agreed to extend the programme in your province to May 31st, 1959. Letter follows. Similar wires have gone forward to Premiers of all provinces." And that's signed Michael Starr.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that our government made representation to the Federal authorities in this respect and suggested an extension of the winter work incentive programme, in addition apparently to some other provinces and municipal governments of the country. It is therefore our intention to extend our programme for the additional month, for the month of May this year, both with respect to our contribution to the Federal programme and to our distinctive Manitoba winter works programme.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. R. TEILLET (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, if I may take this opportunity. It has become a tradition in this House that once during the regular session the Société St. Jean Baptiste of St. Boniface extends an invitation to the members of the government, the members of the Legislature, and the members of the press. It is my pleasure today again to extend that invitation to all concerned, to a pea soup evening in St. Boniface next Wednesday evening. [Repeated in French. ]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for requesting from you so late in the day permission to distribute these reminders and invitations. I would also apologize to the members who receive these for the fact that I got them so late that I did not have time to even trim the paper, so if you will bear with me nevertheless, and perhaps you might use that little extra piece of paper to note for what notes you require yourselves, to remind yourself not to miss this evening which has been traditional and I think we have all enjoyed so much. I wonder if, Mr. Speaker, with your permission if I may have these distributed.
MR. ROBLIN: [Reply in French. ]
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, is the invitation stands good, irrespective of the fate of the sub-amendment?
MR. TEILLET: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to inform the honourable member that whether or not the Legislature is in existence at that time, the Société St. Jean Baptiste will be pleased to receive all the members of the House as well as members of the press.
MR. BEND: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I was wondering if the Honourable the Minister of Health had the answer to my question yesterday regarding Glendale Nursing Home.
DR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, no. The question was -- "Have we issued the Glendale Nursing Home a license." No, the Glendale Nursing Home is operating on a license from the City of Winnipeg and no provincial license.
MR. BEND: The type of license I meant was a private hospital's license.
DR. JOHNSON: No -- no private hospital license has been issued to that hospital.
And, Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, if I may, I would ask permission to make the following statement regarding an order of the House, No. 2, because it is clear to me that remarks made last night by the Honourable Member from Portage casted some doubt on that particular return to the House. The Honourable Member from Portage la Prairie made the following statement last evening when speaking on the debate of the resolution regarding nursing homes, proposed by the Honourable Member for Neepawa. And I'm quoting now -- "but, Mr. Speaker, here is the fly in the ointment. We come down to the third question -- the number of pensioners, if any, who have been granted supplementary payments and the amounts of such payments. Mr. Speaker, the answer to that, and I would like to read it fully -- 'As supplementary payments to pensioners are paid by municipalities and are a discretionary matter with the municipalities and as these payments when reported by the municipalities are often not separated from other municipal relief payments, it is impossible to state exactly how many pensioners are receiving supplementary payments or the amount of such payments. However, from the ledger of municipal claims in 1958 compared with those in 1957 there does not appear to be any significant numbers or amounts of supplementary payments.'" That was the question. Now, Mr. Speaker, and I am still quoting -- "I take it from that that the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare is not able to tell us what aid is being given to persons in receipt of Old Age Assistance and Old Age Security, but I wonder if he has never heard of the pink forms -- the Form A specials which are made out by the municipalities every month, Mr. Speaker, on which you list all of the persons in that particular category that are getting assistance from the municipality and the province says 80% of that assistance and in some cases that is maintenance of the individual in a home. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this return is completely erroneous and give us the wrong impression."
Now, the particular point at issue, I thought, was question No. 3 of the Honourable Member for Inkster, and the answer given to that question in the return. Question No. 3 was the number of pensioners, if any, who have been granted supplementary payments and the amounts of such payments. Now the answer given in the order was as the member from Portage quoted: "as supplementary payments to pensioners are paid by municipalities and are a discretionary matter with municipalities and as these payments when reported by the municipalities are often not separated from other municipal relief payments, it is impossible to state exactly how many pensioners are receiving supplementary payments or of the amount of such payments. However, from the nature of the municipal claims in '58 compared to those in '57 there didn't appear to be any significant numbers or amounts of supplementary payments." Now, I would like to make it very clear that we were honestly trying to answer the question of the Honourable Member for Inkster that the meat of the question is -- "the number of pensioners who have been granted supplementary payments and the amounts thereof". The Honourable Member for Inkster did not ask as to the payments made to nursing homes or institutions for the aged. The honourable member did not ask for the number of people who received supplementary assistance. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie was almost correct when he said that there are Form A specials which are made out by municipalities every month and on which the municipalities list all the persons that are getting assistance from the Municipality, and where the province pays 80% of that assistance. These are the monthly reports of municipalities and supplementary assistance as such as defined in the Social Assistance Act, and such assistance includes supplementary payments of cash for pensioners, supplementary dental, optical for pensioners, payments in homes for special care; payments for board of pensioners in homes of private citizens; provision of drugs; and payments of transportation for medical reasons. In other words, Form A special to which the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie referred, even though columnized to cover these items, includes information not only on supplementary payments to pensioners which the Honourable Member for Inkster was asking, but also all supplementary assistance as such as defined in The Social Assistance Act.
My Department, in trying to provide the answer to questions from the Honourable Member
for Inkster, first went to these forms of return to try and add up all those columns which would reflect supplementary payments to pensioners, however, they encountered the following difficulties. The municipalities in many instances were not using the proper columns in completing the returns. For example, in April 1958, 186 municipalities out of 190 completed the form. Of these 186, 60 municipalities reported no supplementary assistance of any kind. This left 126 who reported supplementary assistance. Of these 126 reports, 34 or over 25% were definitely unclear and questionable as to whether the amounts claimed were supplementary cash assistance, or boarding home payments, or nursing home payments. In addition to this the most populace municipality in Manitoba, the City of Winnipeg, last summer declared the supplementary payments or cash assistance would not be given to pensioners as a matter of policy, claiming that such payments were a provincial responsibility. Furthermore, the City of Winnipeg could get no financial advantage by claiming the cost of pensioners in nursing homes for a straight 80% reimbursement because their total welfare expenditures were so far over one mill that they were already receiving 80% for the group in nursing homes. Accordingly, we found they have not made out any special reports on Form A for supplementary assistance, but have simply made their claims on the 80% over one mill formula and have described the payments to nursing homes as social assistance. When these matters were reported to me by my Department, it was quite clear to me that it was really impossible to give the number or amount of supplementary payments to pensioners. I am certain that the answer which we did provide is wholly truthful and not erroneous or "giving the wrong impression" as claimed by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. Thank you.
MR. GREENLAY: With regard to this particular matter, the Honourable the Minister has suggested that this statement is completely correct, and leaves the proper impression on the people of Manitoba and on anyone who consulted. I don't wish to speak at any length with regard to the whole matter, but I want to draw this particular point to the attention of the House, that -- Mr. Speaker, if a person reads the answer to question 3, the impression is left that there are no old age pensioners as called as such, including the two groups, receiving any supplementary assistance in Manitoba -- that is the impression that is left by the answer to question 3 and that certainly is erroneous. I incidentally have a statement here from one municipality and it shows quite clearly there are seven people receiving extra assistance in that way, and it seems to me that if the City of Winnipeg is not including those bills in their returns on the pink sheet that they are losing out, because if you will check back carefully you will find that in the last year while they were getting 80% of everything over one mill, they were not getting 80% of the total bill. They were getting about 65% of the total bill and, therefore, they were losing out some small percentage on the pink sheet.
MR. BEND: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question of the Honourable Minister on the same point. I noticed where he said that very often the municipality was not separating. Now does the Department take steps to make sure that this municipality knows that this particular kind of a charge against it where it is given -- it can be dental; it can be optical; it excludes medical I believe, I'm not certain about that, it's some time ago, but those charges where they are given to this particular group of citizens automatically qualify for 80% return from the provincial government while the other branches of its welfare costs do not qualify for 80% but 80% only after one mill. Now, since no doubt it is occurring because the Minister has mentioned that very often the municipalities haven't separated the two in their forms, my question is, what steps does the Department take to draw to the attention of the secretary of the municipality that they are losing money by not reporting on the pink sheet? Now that is with the exception of Winnipeg. I understand quite well the Minister's point there, and I understood Winnipeg's point too, because it is 80% either way cut out filling this other form, but with municipalities other than Winnipeg.
MR. A. A. TRAPP (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day.
MR. BEND: ... write and ask him when he has the answer right there. What kind of nonsense is that?
MR. ROBLIN: ... further to my honourable friend.
MR. BEND: Well, I asked him a question. I just wanted an answer.
MR. ROBLIN: Very good, we'll give you an answer. You ought to know because you were in charge of the Department for some time.
MR. BEND: I'm not asking when I was in -- I'm asking what they're doing.
MR. ROBLIN: We'll be glad to tell you. You just let me have a chance, we'll be glad to tell you. Where we find in any of these forms that the answer given to us does not appear to disclose all the information, as the Minister said, we write and ask the municipality to give us the information but we find great difficulty in getting that reply from them, and the answer is ultimately found when the auditors go out to check the thing in the course of time but it doesn't enable us to give information on a current basis when that is being done.
MR. BEND: I wish to thank the honourable member. That's the answer I wanted. I didn't want to make a federal case out of it.
MR. ROBLIN: And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, when our policy comes in they won't have to bother because we will be taking 100% of that cost.
MR. BEND: That's fine, I wondered -- I'm glad -- It took me five minutes but I got the answer.
MR. ROBLIN: Oh, you're a pretty persistent fellow.
MR. TRAPP: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to say that I am sure that we are very pleased to hear the statement announced to this House by the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding the extension of the winter works programme -- the announcement of the Federal Government. There is also an announcement very recently that is also of great concern to many of the people of Manitoba and that is the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture regarding the lowering of the floor price on hogs. I would wonder if the First Minister would care to make a statement to the House on that important matter.
MR. ROBLIN: No Sir, I won't make a statement today. Unfortunately my honourable colleague has got the flu and he will be in bed for a couple of days but we will try and take notice of the question so that he may be able to comment in due course.
MR. SPEAKER: ... questions. The Honourable Member for Assiniboia.
MR. D. SWAILES (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House, I would like to submit the questions that are listed under my name.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of Return. The Honourable Member for Burrows.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable Member for Burrows, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing the items listed in the Honourable Member for Burrows' name.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for Radisson, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing:
(a) How many prosecutions under the Sports Angling Regulations were made in 1956-57, and 1957-58.
(b) How many convictions resulted therefrom.
(c) How many prosecutions under The Game Act were made in 1956-57; 1957-58.
(d) How many convictions resulted from them.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia.
MR. SWAILES: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return giving the information requested.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing:
(1) The number of winter work projects undertaken by government departments for the winter of 1958-59.
(2) The location of such project.
(3) The number of persons employed on each project.
(4) The number of "Man Days" of employment provided by each project.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, if I may -- I am sorry I wasn't quite quick enough in connection with the question which appears first under the Orders of the Day. We accept the question. I would like to point out that it will take a little time to get the information that has been requested, particularly in view of the fact that it deals with the subject of reading, but we will
do our best.
MR. SPEAKER: I would enquire of the First Minister if at this point he wishes to go to the ...
MR. ROBLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that at this point we proceed to the sub-amendments to the Throne Speech which is now marked "Stand" on the Order Paper, as I understand there are a couple of gentlemen from the C.C.F. Party, and perhaps others, who would like to speak further on this sub-amendment and if we may, I would suggest that we proceed at once to that order of business.
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Hamiota for an Address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to his speech at the opening of the session and the amendment to the amendment thereto. This Order is open.
MR. F. L. JOBIN (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, if the member of the C.C.F. would care to speak first?
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honourable Member for Flin Flon. Mr. Speaker, may I at this time extend to you the customary good wishes to you in the demanding position which you occupy. I would also like to extend congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. These two men, the Honourable Member for Hamiota and the Honourable Member for Wellington, show themselves to be men of ability.
For the past few days, Mr. Speaker, we have seen an array of speakers get up and speak on this sub-amendment dealing with almost everything that one could conceive of except the subject matter of the sub-amendment itself. Now, I am a new member in this Assembly and I should at this time say that I am quite in awe with the way in which the business of this House is being conducted. Certainly when there is serious work to be done it is done with dispatch. But in addition to being, shall I say over-awed, I am also quite amused as well with some of the remarks that are tossed back and forth from one side to the other. The Honourable Member for Rhineland last night made some reference to the classics -- Julius Caesar I believe it was -- and at this time I would also like to have the indulgence of the House to refer to a classic. Being a junior member I, of course, refer to a junior classic, namely Alice in Wonderland. As I said before, we have dealth with almost everything in debate on the sub-amendment except the subject matter that is involved, so I say that now we in this Assembly know just what the author of Alice in Wonderland meant when he wrote, and I quote: "The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things; Of Shoes an ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings; And why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings". Well, perhaps that is a little facetious, but I feel that if the member for Rhineland can make a good point with a reference to the classics, I would avail myself of the opportunity to do so as well.
Now, I would not want to depart from the practice of this House in taking part in this debate, and I understand it is the practice to deal with a variety of subjects. We, in this province, have seen quite a substantial programme outlined in the Throne Speech, that is to say, it is substantial in length and it does offer, I say again, offer a great deal in the way of progressive legislation. I am sure that a good many people in this province will also agree that a good many of these proposed matters have been long in coming and have been long overdue. I would like to take the opportunity to say a few words about education. Now a good many speakers from the Liberal Party have had quite a bit to say about education, particularly the way in which the vote -- the referendum regarding larger school divisions was conducted by the government. During the last Special Session, as you know, all of us in this Chamber pledged ourselves to support of that particular legislation, pledged ourselves in support in principle. Well, then came the opportunity to do something concrete and substantial about it -- some members did not take advantage of the opportunity to do just that. In the months of January and February, some 15 to 17 meetings were held in my constituency, at which school inspectors and one or two Ministers of the Crown spoke. Now I attended ten of these meetings and I spoke on behalf of the legislation to the best of my ability. I was somewhat surprised to hear some honourable members from the Liberal party make such a to-do about the alleged fact that the Ministers of the Crown were over-emphasizing the money able because it seems to me that in this particular case the money angle was very important. I heard some Ministers of the Crown speak and, while it is not my intention to defend them, I must say that certainly I could in no way see
how they were speaking too much about money and too little about anything else. I think that insofar as education in this province is concerned, we should not have any more recrimination. The divisions have become a reality and let us go on from there. I know that it rankles quite a bit to see Ministers of a government sort of carry the show, and I suggest that that is why there have been some recriminations from over there. It rankles, but we have to expect that and suppose it's no more than natural.
I do not wish to create any partisan ill-feeling here, but I cannot leave this field of education without making some reference to the way in which one or two Liberal members conducted themselves during this campaign to have the larger school areas voted into being. I know specifically of honourable members speaking mildly in favour from the platform and then speaking against it in person, that is to say, in private conversation with some people. Now that I consider being regrettable, certainly it was not in keeping with the unanimous action which transpired in this Legislature last fall.
One matter of rather more specific nature, perhaps the Minister of Education will consider it as being a local affair and too specific, but I must take this opportunity to point out once more as I did some time last week, I believe, and I refer to the situation which exists in the local School District of Cromwell. The Honourable Minister knows of it -- the answer which he gave me last week I do not consider satisfactory because there is more involved than he cared to admit at that time. The situation briefly is this. That school district was under the administration of an Official Trustee of the Department of Education for 17 years till last June, at which time last year the citizens -- residents of that school district, were more or less prodded into taking over control of the affairs of that district. They commenced to construct a one-room school on the school site and I understand that the Department of Education must O.K. such construction. Now then, the Department of Education granted permission, gave the O.K. to the construction of the school on that site, they handed over control of the affairs of that district to a local board, all the while knowing full well that the school site was in dispute as to titled ownership. Now there is a legal fiasco there. I admit it's, speaking in this Chamber, comparatively small, but it is a matter of principle and it seems to me that it is no more than right that the Department should share the legal costs. I thought that I would take this opportunity to point that out to the Minister.
Now, insofar as agriculture is concerned, I did want to take this opportunity to say something, and I did have something to say, but because of the unique situation which we are today, the Honourable the First Minister would like to get to the estimates and I would like to accommodate the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville and my colleague from Seven Oaks; I would like to in my own way make it possible that we do get to that bill so I shall at a more opportune time arise to speak on agriculture.
But I do have something to say today about health insurance. We have heard, not too much I admit, from the members over there; we have heard some statements from the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare; and almost all of these statements were to the effect that health insurance was impractical, unrealistic, irresponsible action on the part of the C.C.F. to suggest it, and so on. It was also suggested that health insurance as it exists in the legislation of Great Britain is not desirable at all. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of meeting too many people from the United Kingdom, but I have met some, and almost all, with the exception of one, almost all were unanimous in the opinion that health insurance as it was provided in Britain was indeed a very, very good piece of legislation. You will find articles in newspapers; you will hear statements by certain influencial people to the effect that health insurance is not desirable in this country. Oh, I think that is quite understandable. The Medical Association will try and block health insurance to the bitter end, and I don't think I need tell the members of this Assembly that the Medical Association is the tightest in its union in this country. As a matter of fact, they are so closely joined together in common purpose and their over-riding purpose today, Mr. Speaker, is to block health insurance. They are so closely knit that they will, I admit, block health insurance for quite a number of years yet. But I contend that before I am old and grey, we will see health insurance implemented on the Statute Books of this country.
Now our resolution calls for this government to take the intitiative in promoting a health insurance scheme. I am rather sorry that certain members in this Chamber saw it fit or
expedient to say that that was irresponsible of us. Especially it rankles when it comes from the members of the Liberal Party because, Mr. Speaker, I have here proof that there are Liberals in this country who think differently than these Liberals do. I have here a copy of the Speaker's Handbook issued to all Liberal Candidates by the Liberal Federation of Canada, and I turn to page 301 and I find at the top of the page an item referring us back to 1948, when the late MacKenzie King was speaking on this matter. And I take this opportunity to read one line: "when he", that is to say, Mr. King, "announced this system of federal grants, he pointed out that they should be regarded as 'fundamental prerequisites to a nation-wide system of health insurance'." Not only is that in print but it is in bold face print, so it is not asking too much of the members of the Liberal Party to at least give this serious consideration. All I ask is that they refrain from saying that it is unrealistic and impractical. There are a good many things which have been proposed by the C.C.F. during the course of the last 25 years which were, at the time of proposal, denounced as being impractical. But today, some of these very measures are embodied in legislation and in the Statute Books. I know that newspapers do not, at least the editorial policy of the newspapers in this province, is not to grant us one iota of credit where credit is due, but there are some newspapers in this country which are independent and which do at one time or another print statements that are quite indicative and which are quite revealing. And they are not biased newspapers. Some of them are large newspapers with a national reputation. I would like to, at this time, read just one or two excerpts from such newspapers. The Star Weekly -- certainly not a small biased newspaper -- certainly no one can say it is a C.C.F. newspaper -- on the 30th of November, 1957, we see this printed in the Star Weekly, and which proves my point: "Proposals that were denounced 25 or 30 years ago when the C.C.F. was coming into being as dangerously radical or downright impractical, today are embodied in whole or in part in a good many pieces of Canadian Legislation". Now that has been the situation down through the years ever since the inception of my party of which I'm proud to be a member. And although in a Democracy it is, of course, the privilege of honourable members to agree or disagree as they see fit, in view of certain statements which can be proven it seems to me not fitting that at least this particular resolution or sub-amendment should not be denounced as being a pipe-dream. It is worthy of serious consideration, and as I said before, it will be effected into law before too long.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to change my trend of thought a little bit to take this opportunity to thank the Honourable the First Minister for giving assurances to the Honourable Member for Selkirk and myself, as I associate myself with the statements made by the Honourable Member for Selkirk in this particular respect, for giving assurances that the level -- the water level on Lake Winnipeg would not be in any way altered, that it would, shall we say, create or affect adversely the people living in the immediate surrounding area to the south of the Lake, because as the Member for Selkirk said, which is perfectly true, there are a good many sections of land that would be inundated if the water level were raised even so much as a foot and a half.
MR. ROBLIN: ... to interrupt my honourable friend unnecessarily, but he hasn't quite repeated what I said. I'm not going to correct him now, I'm just going to say, that I'm referring to Hansard for the exact wording of my statement -- just a shade of difference between our meanings.
MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if there is a difference, I'm sure that the Honourable the First Minister said something fairly similar to that, for which I thank him.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Opposition, under the British Parliamentary System of Government, have a certain function to perform and it is at certain times quite difficult. The situation as it exists here in this Assembly, this Legislature, is proof of that. However, as we in the C.C.F. intimated last year we would support good legislation -- I don't think anyone can say that we have departed from that resolution -- we will continue to do so. It has been quite difficult to sit here and take some statements which were aimed directly at us, but I suppose that that is politics. I suppose it is inevitable. I was rather amused to hear the Honourable the First Minister reply the other night to my Leader's question regarding his influence with Ottawa. At that time the Honourable the First Minister stated that Government today is conducted on a business-like basis. There is no amount of friend to friend relationship allowed to enter on matters of vital concern. Now I think that that was a very good statement by the First Minister, but I would ask him how he reconciles that with the statements made by some of his party
candidates out on the hustings. And if this statement was used once, it was used a thousand times: You have to elect or rather you should elect Mr. So-and-So because he is the Conservative candidate, and if you people in this constituency want to get something from the Government, and the Honourable Member for Wolseley -- the Honourable the First Minister today -- he will be the Premier, so if you want to get anything from the Government, you must vote for the Conservative candidate. Now, how does one even try to reconcile statements such as these? As I said before, I did want to accommodate the Honourable the First Minister with regards to the estimates, and the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville with regards to that bill that he was referring to earlier today, so I shall say but a few more words.
[Mr. Schreyer spoke in French - this portion will appear in a later edition of Hansard. ]
MR. F. L. JOBIN (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, may I take this particular opportunity, an opportunity that I didn't have at the Special Session, to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this House, and while I certainly admit being a party to opposition at your election time, it certainly was nothing of a personal nature, but rather it was because of a principle that I believed had not been adhered to, and once the matter of principle was disposed of, I freely admit my pleasure in seeing you in the Chair. I say this because of your years of experience and years of service to the Province under this House, and certainly because of your devotion over the years to the operation of this House; and so I do not hesitate to say that the honour is rightfully yours. And may I too, Mr. Speaker, express appreciation to the mover and the seconder to the Address in Reply to the Throne Speech. I felt really sorry for them because they had to wait until 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon before they were able to deliver their addresses, and having been a seconder myself, I know how they must have felt sitting there waiting and waiting for their turn, but certainly the delay did them no harm because they performed admirably. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that they did extremely well, for in fact they were, as we know, thanking the Lieutenant-Governor for the Throne Speech, and with all due respect to the Lieutenant-Governor and to custom, the members I think did an excellent job on a bad case. The Throne Speech, I must admit, contained many good items but on the other hand it directed much unwarranted credit toward the Government, and finally I think there were some mighty important omissions in the Speech itself. So I would propose this afternoon, and I will before I'm through say something on the sub-amendment, but I would like to point out -- stick pretty well paragraph by paragraph to the Throne Speech.
And starting right at the beginning of the Throne Speech, we are informed that we are looking forward to the visit of our Queen and Prince Philip - a great truth indeed - but why go on to say that the Government hopes that the people from all parts of Manitoba may see Her Majesty and that the Sovereign may be able to have the opportunity to see many aspects of life in this Province. Why not instead admit failure? Why express hopes when we know that this Government failed to have the Royal Party see northern Manitoba, or has the northern vision become so dim that they do not want our visitors to see the north, our mines, our lakes, our forests and certainly our seaport of Churchill. I notice that from here the Royal Party is to go to Sudbury. We of the north are proud of the north as we are of our Monarch, and we do want her to see it and we want her to visit us.
Mr. Speaker, there was a selling job to be done here and someone failed to do it successfully. I omit now a detailed reference to the matter of tax-sharing agreements with Ottawa because my Leader has already done this, but I have this to say of the taxpayer, that it made me boil just recently when I completed my 1958 Income Tax Return, and when I realized that the many hundreds of dollars that I have paid into Income Tax, 13% were coming back to this Province. Boiled, because -- and this statement has been made before and it should be repeated time and time again -- I say boiled because in April of '57, Mr. Diefenbaker stated that the Provinces and the municipalities must have the financial resources to carry out their responsibilities and that he would, when elected, convene a Dominion-Provincial conference to bring about a settlement of these particular financial problems. Has this been done? They called a conference, it's true, and as I remember, it lasted two days. And so I think it's true to say that a conference has not been called to solve these problems. And what has this particular provincial government done to bring about and force, if necessary, such a conference? And again, nothing. So I repeat a recently coined phrase which I think is very true, and I think it goes something like this, that "What Dief can do, Duff can do better." I think this is especially true when it pertains to stalling on embarrassing matters and situations.
And now I do want to, and again, going through the Throne Speech paragraph by paragraph ... to the government for its announced policy of implementing recommendations of the Flood Commission and Lakes Board. But here let me remark as I will elsewhere in my remarks this afternoon, is action on studies initiated by the former government. An action that would have received attention by whatever party was in power. But I must say that I personally am disappointed in the plan that we have, and that plan is based solely at this time, on what Ottawa is going to do. $85 million -- Ottawa you pay 75% of it and help us finance half of the remaining 25%. I don't think that's too much or too great a plan.
And now in the Throne Speech, we come to a couple of very innocuous statements, dealing
with first of all the unprecedented level of aid to communities; and secondly, a new method of financing by guaranteeing the payment of securities issued by the various public bodies. However, if this latter means diversion of funds merely to temporarily delay tax increases then Duff -- the government had best prepare themselves for a fight.
Then on Agriculture, I couldn't help but -- as I heard the speech and then as I read it, make the observation that of what a very pious and vote-catching sentence is the one which reads: "a healthy and progressive agriculture is the backbone of our provincial life". And so I say, as it has been said in this House but again it bears repeating, if this is so, and it is so, why did this government not show a bit more co-operation and support to the recent farmer delegation to Ottawa? The government promised 50, I think it was, according to the Winnipeg Tribune, increased sums for water control, drainage and land and water conservation. They anticipate increased activity in agricultural development and research at the University of Manitoba. They talk of more provisions for degree, as well as diploma students. They're doing to provide for expansion and improvement of agricultural services in farm management and extension services, and then for the extension of grants - increased assistance for agricultural fairs. And, Mr. Speaker, you've been in this House a long time. Some of us have been in here 10 to 12 years, so I ask those of you that have been in the House for a considerable length of time, what is so new and so gallant about all of that? These things have been taking place year after year in this House, and we certainly can truthfully say we did it well. I'm certainly no farmer, but I've sat in this House, as I've said for 10 years, and I've helped vote money over the past for these particular aspects of agriculture, and I contend that we need have no shame for what we have done for agriculture in the past. And certainly, Mr. Speaker, as our revenues increase, so should our expenditures for agriculture. And I then don't hesitate a minute to say that the government are trying to make big fellows of themselves by merely carrying out policies of the former government. More -- but they're getting more revenue, so they're spending more money. The government says that they will introduce new measures to assist in the supply of potable water for the countryside of Manitoba including the Pembina Triangle. Why wouldn't you of the government do this? Because you approved a bill in this House last Session, and introduced by us, which gave Duff the ball rolling in this direction. We sought and found a solution to this problem and I would hope that you would have the decency to carry it through.
And then again, going through the Throne Speech, you promised - No. 9 or 10, about this time - a system of crop insurance. We've heard quite a bit about crop insurance. No one denies the necessity of this, but your scheme had better be good and more than legislation enabling our farmers to participate in some half-baked measures that Ottawa is sure to introduce and with which they would hope to hood-wink our farmers.
And now with respect to the Department of Public Works. We heard of increased assistance to municipalities for roads and bridges - they're going to ask Ottawa for more financial assistance and that you're going after more highway rail crossings, and again what is so new and glamorous about that? Again I say we did it when. And certainly we built and reconditioned many provincially owned public buildings in our day. And what of the new provincial building here in Winnipeg, and the new provincial building at The Pas that we authorized and actually began construction on. And again under the Department of Public Works I believe we witness a bit of back-tracking and indeed a contradiction of some things that were said last fall during the Special Session. Let us look at the paragraph in the Throne Speech that reads: "my government has entered into a contract with a leading authority on highway planning for the purpose of securing its advice on the planning of our highways for years in advance of their actual construction. This will be in addition to work now being carried on by the Department of Public Works." It's true that the speech said that the planning would be carried on as I read - would be carried on in additon to work now being carried out by the department. Work, that the Minister told us, that was going on last fall. So we were planning last fall but we're going to plan again. And if you read a government press release of February 27th, 1959, I'm sure you will wonder just what planning was done before we engaged the Automotive Safety Foundation, because the projects of this foundation as outlined in the press statement read as follows: "The first project in which the foundation will aid Manitoba gives the establishment of a suitable organization to conduct highway planning and a sound operating programme for such an organization." I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the planning the Minister told us he was going to do in the fall had been neither
suitable nor did it have a sound operating programme. And the second project again, according to the report, will be an engineering study of Manitoba's long range highway needs based on existing traffic volumes and projected future volume. And here all of the time last fall I thought that our bigger and better road programme was based on such a study. At least that's the impression that the Minister of Public Works conveyed to me. And so, my guess is that the Minister's plan to plan didn't pan out. I would suggest too, that last fall when we voted the $33 million dollar highway construction programme, and when we were sure that the government was well prepared to spend the money according to a plan, that the only plan this government had was a plan to impress the voting public. I challenged then, and I do so again, the fact that $5 million was ear-marked for the north on No. 10 highway, and that it would be a physical impossibility to complete the job in a year. We voted money then in the fall so that we could get on with the job. And, Mr. Speaker, it's a good thing we voted lots of it because this winter it was costing extra money - for men to shovel snow out of the way so that engineers could shoot level. And then I think the crowning feature of this new authority on highway planning is that the head man is a United States highway planning expert. I have nothing against an American, Mr. Speaker, and I raise the point, certainly not to object, but to remind this House that the members of the government when they sat in Opposition often questioned me as Minister of Industry and Commerce about engaging American experts. In those days it was a disgrace but today it's O.K. [Interjection] ...You fellows did too.
And now I want to go on to a pet project of mine, or pet love of mine, and that is the matter of mines and resources and I want to refer to that part of the speech that dealth with mines and resources. And I wonder, Mr. Speaker, just what would have been written into the Throne Speech had not the government the Arthur D. Little Report on northern Manitoba? For in truth, any of us that has read the report and have read the Throne Speech will agree that all that has been done is to incorporate some of the main recommendations into the Throne Speech. I'm pleased certainly, and I thank you, and I'm pleased with the plans for the north. And then why shouldn't I be pleased, coming from the north? But I am especially pleased because the plans come from a report on a study which cost over $80,000.00, a study that I initiated; a study that I worked on; and a study that I, as Minister, was personally responsible for during the year and a half that it was under way. And again as in the case of the flood studies, in regard to the commission on education studies, I have this to say, that no matter what government was in power these matters would have been attended to. If the government wants to scoff at that particular type of statement, or some of the members of the C.C.F. group, I would ask them is it not a fact that the former government acted fast and thoroughly on other commission reports handed to it in the past few years? And I would remind you of studies and reports on action on the liquor laws; on redistribution, regardless of who introduced the resolution in the first place; and in regard to municipal-provincial affairs.
Well, now, Mr. Speaker, what do we get for the north as a result of the report and as a result of the Throne Speech? We get expanded geological mapping programmes -- fine -- dandy, we get roads to resources, and again let me remind you that we started the road to Snow Lake and Thompson. We're going to get hydro-electric power for the north, and again we started Kelsey. The new government only gave an O.K. to add the fifth unit and start on the sixth. And listen to this, and I would like to quote again from the speech: "studies will be initiated into transmitting power to sites where it can most readily be utilized by consumers both near and far." Studies, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat "studies" and I claim that this is a far cry from the promise to actually do, that the present First Minister, the present Minister of Utilities and the Conservative candidate for Flin Flon made during the past election.
HONOURABLE J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities) (The Pas): ... any promises like that...
MR. JOBIN: Well now, I haven't got all these particular quotes here but on a point of privilege at some suitable time I'll quote them to you.
MR. CARROLL: You cannot, sir.
MR. JOBIN: I can! Again, Mr. Speaker, studies they're talking about they are going to undertake when the Minister of Utilities, in a press release last fall, stated that there are areas within economic reach. If he was so darn sure of himself last fall, why the studies now? You know I'm beginning to suspect a little bit of political propaganda and I say this because last fall
the same Minister of Utilities told us that the decision to go ahead with the fifth unit at Kelsey and the foundation for the sixth unit was, and again, I quote his words - "an expression of faith in the future of the northern part of this province." I wonder if it was faith or was it an indication by International Nickel that they would need more power. If it was faith then why are they now losing faith by conducting studies as to how and where they will transmit the extra power? And if it was faith and not because of INCO, how did this government convince the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board to spend $5 million on speculation? Because the present Minister of Public Utilities knows only too well, from personal experience, how the arguments of The Pas and Flin Flon Chambers of Commerce for investment in northern hydro-electric power on faith in the north failed to convince, not this Government or the former Government but failed to convince the Hydro-Electric Board in 1955 or '56. [Interjection] You're just going to study what is up your sleeve, what kind.... And, Mr. Speaker, this government, this great new government of ours has the gall to make mention, and thus subtly take credit for mining development at Thompson, at Stall and at Chisel. Surely they know that we did it when.
I have no fault to find here with the plans and hopes for southeastern Manitoba but again let me remind you that we initiated the inter-departmental studies that the government, if it lasts, will undertake. And I know somebody who will stand up and say 'Ha! Ha!' This report sat on the Minister's desk for months but Ha! Ha! That report, as I recall, was handed to the Minister maybe a year ago February, March, whatever it was, at which time we were in Session, following which we entered into an election. This was a criticism that some Minister, I think perhaps the Minister of Mines and Resources, made some place else but he knows full well why it wasn't acted upon. It was only tabled in February. We were in session, then we went into an election and unfortunately for this grand province of ours, we were not returned, and we were temporarily delayed in implementing it.
And now when it comes to commercial fishing, humph, I really get a laugh! I'd like to read you extracts from a Government press -- fellows -- I would recommend, Mr. Speaker, I'd recommend that all of the members of the House request the Information Service to send them copies of press statements. At one time, if I may deviate for a minute, this was the practice. And when the Honourable Member from Carillon was in the Union Nationale, -- no, no, the Union Democratique - he objected and criticized the Department of Industry and Commerce for sending these press releases out. I think that it's too bad that he did because when that happened they quit, and only those that ask for it now get it. I'd recommend to all of you members that you get those press releases. They are informative; they help you to know when the hunting season is on and the rest of it; but oh-h-h! Is there ever some great statements in there. This is one - this was dated October 31st - this is a government press release, October 31st last year - 'final stage in the investigation of fishermen's problems by Honourable Gurney Evans begins Monday with a first of a series of individual interviews with fish company officials. The Minister already has undertaken an inspection, a tour of fishing stations and fish processing plants and has held a number of meetings with fishermen both in groups and individually.' That's good! It goes on to say that "once the companies' views are obtained and pertinent information supplied, Mr. Evans and his department officials will then draw plans aimed at helping solve the problems of Manitoba fishermen." How different - how very, very different, Mr. Speaker, from the Throne Speech which promises efforts will be made to assist commercial fishermen - commercial fishing through research into fishing and the methods and through implementing measures, to restore and maintain the prosperity of fishermen. My government has engaged the services of a consultant, who has been instructed to report on all aspects of game, fur and fish administration.
Why you fellows are even worse than we were at iniating studies of this and that. I say there was a lot of big talk in October and all the commercial fishermen now are going to get, is a bunch more research and studies.
MR. EVANS: You will find it says that ...
MR. JOBIN: And so, Mr. Speaker, we are going to provide camping sites -- this is in the Throne Speech -- we are going to provide camping and picnic sites in co-operation with the government of Canada along our highways. What's so new and glamorous about that? We did it when, and who, if I may ask, made the start on the ski resort movement in Clear Lake if it
wasn't the former government? And when it comes to encouraging, through financial assistance, and I think it is more than that, the formation of a travel and convention association, -- I'm all for it. But, Mr. Speaker, are we sure that by this move we didn't kill the one that was underway in the City of Winnipeg, where properly it belongs and where it should function and originate? But on this particular subject I will reserve judgment until more details are available.
But perhaps the best example, Mr. Speaker, of "phoniness" in the Throne Speech is contained in this statement: "My government is anxious to assist in the extension of television to all parts of the province. To this end an offer will be made to the federal authorities to provide on an annual rental basis a northern microwave television link". I say "phoney" and this isn't meant to be a pun. I say phoney because the Manitoba Telephone System now have microwave facilities into Flin Flon and the federal authorities know this. Federal authorities know that they can arrange for a microwave television link if they want to even before your government make such an offer.
MR. CARROLL: Will the honourable member permit a question?
MR. JOBIN: You better make it better than the last one.
MR. CARROLL: What's phoney about the offer?
MR. JOBIN: What's phoney about the offer? Because the C.B.C. and Ottawa know that they can do this thing without making the offer. The C.B.C. didn't wait for Manitoba to make an offer to transmit television across Canada. C.B.C. made a deal with the Telephone Company that run the Trans-Continental Telephone System, and if C.B.C. want to put television up north they don't have to wait for an offer from you people. They will go to you and say Manitoba Telephone System, we want to rent your facilities. That's why I say it's "phoney".
Now, Mr. Speaker, if this offer is picked up, what does it mean? It means that if the extra facilities were installed and extra facilities would have to be installed, that it would cost at least a million dollars and that the Manitoba Telephone System would, I think, have to ask approximately $220,000 annual rental, based on captial recovery, based on interest and based on maintenance. I'm not, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that this government should ask for less but I do say that they'll have to do much better than to make an offer if they want to prove to us that they are, and again I quote, "anxious to assist". Sure, the Winnipeg Tribune criticized the former government for its actions in regard to television. They talked about it being duplication and what is more duplication than our being into the farm loan business and the industrial loan fund? To the Tribune that's not duplication but T.V. is duplication. I'll admit it is duplication and we'd have never even started or it had the C.B.C. or the federal authorities shown any interest in it. I would say this: Ahh! On to an election, Mr. Speaker! Where did I get the clue -- the tip and again I'm going to deviate. February, February, -- pardon me if I may, Mr. Speaker, -- I just remembered -- I'm glad you brought this up. [Interjection] I'm very pleased that you brought this up. Where did I get the tip? Where did I get tip? And is this strictly election? I'll admit that the origination of it is strictly election. But what election?
George Hees, Federal Minister of Transport, said in Flin Flon today that his department is going to approve application by a private company to bring television to Flin Flon by means of relay system. "The obligation has been made", stated Mr. Hees, "and I am personally going to recommend that it be approved". Sure it came from an election, the idea, but this was the federal election and this was a press release at Flin Flon, March 5th, 1958. And again to repeat, Mr. Speaker, the only reason we went into it is because the C.B.C. wouldn't do a darn thing about it and the federal people weren't doing anything about it. This deal was to install television in Flin Flon at a cost of $180,000. It became apparent that the people of Flin Flon weren't going to do it and we knew that the people from here all the way north were interested in television. And we made an attempt, an honest and a sincere effort, to get television to our people when it was apparent, as I said, that the C.B.C. wouldn't do it for years. And as far as I'm concerned, the present Minister of Public Utilities has done nothing but hinder the efforts of the Company who were endeavouring to bring this service to parts of Manitoba. (Here! Here!) Now I notice in the Throne Speech this government ...
MR. CARROLL: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Jobin. I would like some examples of these ...
MR. JOBIN: Now I noticed in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, that this government is negotiating with the government of Canada for a common solution -- I'm glad the Member from Churchill is here -- this government is negotiating with the government of Canada for a common solution to the many problems of development in Churchill. I would say, and he'll agree with me to a certain extent, this is well for these problems involved -- electricity and sewer and water and roads and condition of Indian and Métis settlements in the fringe areas surrounding Churchill. Problems, true that are common to many communities, but particularly true and troublesome for Churchill because of the nearness and the presence of the Army camps. But at this point, and this is where we break off friendship, the Honourable Member from Churchill -- at this point I do want to point out the emptiness of the government's particular statement in this regard, -- on February 10th, 1958, Mr. Campbell sent a letter to the Ottawa Minister of Public Works, Mr. Howard Green, outlining the Churchill problem and offering solutions to its problems. I know what was in the letter because I helped draft it and I know what was in the letter because the then-Minister of Public Utilities and I held discussions in Ottawa a month before the letter was sent with the Minister of Public Works and some of his other officials discussing these particular problems. Well, Mr. Speaker, that was over a year ago and now I'm extremely pleased to hear in the Throne Speech that this new government of ours -- love 'em -- are still negotiating for a common solution. Meanwhile, the problems at Churchill are getting no better. And then too, in the Throne Speech, we know that there will be established an economic development authority who will be particularly active in the north.
Thank you, Mr. First Minister; thank you, Arthur D. Little Report. But, Mr. First Minister, what of the development fund to finance special projects and provide development subsidies that the same report recommends? And indeed the report says and I would quote, "the size of the fund", -- this is the development fund, not the industrial development loan thing that we set up here last fall, but this is something entirely apart and the report says this: "The size of the fund should be determined by the Manitoba government in the light of its assessment of the importance of the development of northern Manitoba's resources to the province as a whole". So, Mr. Speaker, am I to assume that because there is no fund that there is no importance? Where in this instance is your vision?
I certainly wish you well in your efforts to achieve lower development freight rates to and from northern Manitoba but if you were as successful as you were in convincing Ottawa that they should do something permanent about the recent freight rate increases, which we quote our beloved First Minister, "are inequitable, prejudicial and detrimental to the economy of Manitoba", that if we have to wait for some action on those northern rates that we had to wait down here, then we'll still pay plenty in northern Manitoba for freight.
I was glad to hear too that the officials -- well that your government is working closely with the officials of the Lakehead cities and other provinces to ensure the maximum benefit of the St. Lawrence Seaway into Manitoba. And I say glad, because I'd sure hate to see all of the work that the former government did to get the show on the road going to waste. Now time forces me to omit any detailed analysis on education and penal reform matters, but I do say that the government seems to be on the right track. Thanks in the first case to the commission reporting on education, which even the former Minister of Education would have implemented.
And now we come to another study, and this time, this is another study, -- and this time it's a commissioner to review the oil leasing practices within the province. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, after having sat in this House for ten years, but particularly the last two years, that this was not necessary, that the present Premier knows all of the answers on this particular subject.
Health and Welfare looks good to me but I do think after the performance last night that maybe we should learn a little bit more about what these grants were and what they're going to be and give the whole entire picture. And so, though I do say that generally speaking, Health and Welfare does look good -- but I do want to remind this House that with regard to old age pensioners, -- and I'm sorry that the Honourable Member for Inkster isn't here -- that with regard to the old age pensioners that the policy of the former government was not as miserly as some would have us believe. The policy, and many of us know it, and many of us have forgotten it, and many of us don't want even to remember it, but that policy was that the municipalities paid the shot and the government or the province reimbursed 80% of the cost. That was
for cash supplementary, dental or optical care or anything in that regard. Now personally, and I'm only speaking personally, not as a former minister but as a member from Flin Flon, I was never satisfied with our old policy of leaving this matter of welfare up to the municipality nor was I ever completely satisfied -- you've heard me say it in the House before -- nor was I completely satisfied with the extent to which we did go but in fairness to the former government, I did want to remind the members of this House the former policy, the former 80% policy.
And now I must say though that it is with regret that the only reference I heard in the Throne Speech towards the implementation of the report on Physical Fitness and Recreation in Manitoba was to the effect that a proposal will be made to enable, enable municipalities to provide for the support of public recreation and that consideration would be given to provide qualified leaders through training courses. Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough.
And thank you, Mr. Minister of Public Utilities, for having acted on my request to extend the Driver Improvement and Control Programme to Flin Flon, and even after it was announced -- I don't know why -- but even after it was announced in the Throne Speech I see in the Flin Flon papers that that's not good enough; they had to write a letter to the minister to find out if he really meant what it said in Throne Speech. I don't know why they had that kind of an impression.
Now, another two or three minutes to pose a question and to ask where in the Throne Speech is there any reference to correcting an abuse that some of the very, very gallant knights in opposition last year and now the government fought so valiantly for, and of course I refer to liquor advertising. I have always been inclined to permit it in view of the fact that national publication is so engaged. True, the former government would not agree to it and they were certainly taunted on many occasions by you, Sir knights. I imagined that you would have the courage to change the situation. And one other abuse that the former government failed to correct because it was stated that a longer period of experimentation was needed, was the ten o'clock closing of our beer parlours. Mr. Speaker, surely we, in Manitoba, are sufficiently adult enough and experienced in the new liquor laws to permit beer parlours to remain open until midnight, the same as we let the other outlets. Is it not just a bit too ridiculous for us to continue to tell our grown adult population that if they drink beer in beer parlours or mixed beverage rooms that we think ten o'clock is late enough for them to be there? And on the other hand we permit the cocktail bars and the others to remain open until midnight.
Switching now from those subjects and again to an omission in the Throne Speech but something that was said here in the House. We were told last week that the report on the Métis and the Non-treaty Indians was in the hands of the printers but we were not told, and I believe it to be a fact, that the report was in the hands of the government for approximately a month. Why no mention of this in the Throne Speech? Is the government not prepared to act on it? No, Mr. Speaker, and I have, as I said when I started off, gone through the Throne Speech, given credit where I think credit is necessary; pointed out omissions; pointed out a lot of places where a self-directed unwarranted credit is going the way of the government; and so I cannot help but say that the Throne Speech, while forecasting some good policies, and I admit that, is much too hollow in many of its passages and fails to indicate action on many other pressing problems of this province. And as the Throne Speech itself is concerned, it is not just good enough.
Now speaking on the sub-amendment and I told you that I would because I want to express my opinions on this subject and because I want to -- and I'll only be a minute and a half if I may --
MR. SPEAKER: You have three minutes.
MR. JOBIN: I have three minutes? I could dig up some quotes to the Honourable Minister of Public Utilities maybe, but I speak on the amendment because I want to express my opinion on this subject because I want to be considered to be in order. I have this to say: I do know that some of the members on this side of the House think the sub-amendment calls for outright socialized medicine and, as such, they may oppose it. If they think so, I don't blame them because your leader took us on a grand tour through New Zealand, England, Sweden and -- However, others feel that perhaps we, having just started now a national hospital insurance scheme, that perhaps we should get it going perfectly before undertaking something new and again that's not an unreasonable situation. And then still others while favouring medical insurance want to be sure that it will not be socialistic but rather contributory as is our hospital
plan. And finally some of our members favour a catastrophic type rather than a complete and comprehensive scheme as outlined by the Leader of the C.C.F.
And if I may just clear up a point that the Honourable Member from Brokenhead -- he mentioned what the Liberal platform was -- I would like to read, if I may, it's very short -- this is the Grit University Publication -- its platform highlights of the Liberal party -- briefly it says: "That the present National Health Insurance plan be followed up by a medical, dental and surgical programme". The resolution of the ... Tut! Tut! Tut! But this to some people is a lot different than what you were advocating. You were advocating socialized medicine. This doesn't necessarily say socialized medicine any more than we have socialized hospitalization today and I say we haven't it.
Now the Manitoba Liberal-Progressive Association, at their annual meeting, passed this resolution -- just so that you C.C.F. fellows will know our platform and you fellows on the Conservative side as well -- it passed this resolution: "Resolved that the Manitoba Liberal-Progressive Association favours the establishment by co-operation between federal and provincial governments of measures that would preserve every citizen and family of many crippling burdens, of medical, surgical and dental costs. To this end, such costs would be covered from a Medical Insurance Fund when, but only when, they exceeded a moderate proportion of a person's or a family's income". In other words, a type of catastrophic.
However, however, however, for myself, I am inclined to vote for the C.C.F. subamendment with the clear understanding that I'm not voting for socialized medicine but rather -- all right, all right, it's coming to it -- at least -- okay -- but I'm voting for it and I would support not socialized medicine but rather a type of medical insurance similar to our hospital insurance, that is one in which people contribute and none of this $5.00 registration and get the rest from the corporations and the mining companies -- that's what you're talking about and that's what you perhaps -- in one of your resolutions. But that isn't what I want. I want a health insurance plan, medical insurance where I contribute and one in which the medical profession will not be regimented or socialized any more so than are our hospitals under our present Hospital Insurance scheme. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I don't know whether we need any further clarification from the honourable gentleman or not, but I'd like to comment that I think he's being logical and that he can support the resolution as it reads because it is stated that we want the government to promote a comprehensive federal-provincial health insurance plan and I would expect that he would vote for this after what he has said.
MR. JOBIN: I'm going to.
MR. HAWRYLUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity of conveying my sincerest congratulations to you. I have known you for the past ten years, and in the years that you've been in the House, you were the agricultural spokesman for the Conservative party and you did a very, very fine job. And also since you've taken over the post as Speaker of this House, you have definitely shown to the members of this House, your complete impartiality in the votes that you've cast and in the fairness of some of your decisions this past and present Sessions.
I would like to also congratulate the mover and seconder of the speeches they made. First because of its brevity and, most important, because of its constructive suggestions and ideas that were expressed in their speeches.
But now I'd like to say that I intend to stick strictly to the sub-amendment. There has been a great deal of latitude given and I wish to express my feelings about the sub-amendment and on hearing the Honourable Member from Flin Flon, the fact that he is partially convinced that it has some merit, I think we have gone a long way in the C.C.F. group in converting and probably will convert a few more members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, the world at large recognizes Canada as one of the most important nations, not only in the international field of politics, that is NATO, but the fact that we are considered the bread-basket of the world. And there's no question in the minds of our people and our government that the future development of Canada is most optimistic -- most optimistic -- and that it will affect every man, woman and child living in this country.
We are also aware of the fact that we have many excellent forms of social security legislations in the books, such as unemployment insurance, old age and blind pensions, family
allowances, workmen's compensation, and other types of social legislation. And there's no question in my mind, and the minds of the people, that they have been most useful and beneficial to every citizen living in Canada. And I also know that no government, whether it be a Canadian government, -- a provincial government or the United States, wherever these legislations have been put into effect, no government would dare take any part of any section out of that law. But, Mr. Speaker, there are still many aspects of our Canadian economy which is far from satisfactory and that is because, I believe, a definite comprehensive health insurance plan of which we feel will come -- it's inevitable, whether it's a year from now or ten years from now -- it's inevitable that it's coming and will be put into effect and which our people will definitely reap the benefits. And this desire for a new health security is not something new. We have read from time to time that our people were told by the previous Liberal government in power at Ottawa and other governments as well, that after World War II, which was fought against aggression, that there would come a better way of life -- a better chance and a full and healthful living for everybody. This was the promise given by the nations who pledge themselves to the ideals and objectives of the Atlantic Charter. And we are fully aware that great medical and scientific progress has been made in Canada for the past 30 to 40 years. But we have a tremendous job to do, and that is to improve the health of our people in this country. The National Health Plan is nothing new. This has been stated by my honourable leader. It's something that has been in effect for many, many years in many of the European countries of the world. Sweden, Germany, England and, I think, to some extent, New Zealand, is practicing. And why has it been implemented? Because it has been found that it is the best means of meeting and distributing fairly the cost of illness, and of improving the general health of the nation.
We are all aware of what a lengthy sickness can do in a family, -- the great financial loss it can bring to an individual and to the family. And example that was given by the Honourable Member for St. Johns this week stated that he knew of a person who had to give medical care to his wife, and the cost today amounts to $6,000. I can relate other examples of a similar nature. It'll take years for that individual to repay that debt to the doctors, to the hospitals. I know and I feel that the comprehensive health insurance plan that we are asking for your support, would be carried on and operated on the same basis as life and health insurance, where the spread of the cost of the illness would be shared in the whole community instead borne fully by an individual or the family.
It is a known fact that the medical profession, irrespective of whether it's in Canada or United States, is one of the toughest closed union shops of any profession of its kind in existence, and has been for many years, trying to stave off a national health insurance plan. As a matter of fact, I read an article a few years ago back that the American Medical Association has been throwing into the kitty, a million dollars a year, in order to advertise and advocate every possible move against a national health plan in the United States. A million dollars a year has been thrown in the kitty! And I think the medical profession is doing no differently here.
We are fully aware, that we have had some plans in operation -- the prepaid medical and hospital plans that we have had in operation -- now that we've got the provincial health plan, is definitely and has been a step in the right direction, and they no doubt will constitute a further step to the national health plan, which is a must.
The national health plan, as I said before, was nothing new. It was first advocated about 50 or 60 years ago in Germany and has been in effect since then. And in England it has been in effect much longer than we probably think -- it's approximately 40 years or so ago, -- and is also in effect, and I don't know whether the members are aware, in some forms and phases, and in some case complete comprehensive plans are in operation in about 20 to 30 other countries of the world. Now, in Britain for example, the National Health Service is a result of 100 years of planning and experience. And what does it provide? You ask any Englishman that has arrived in Canada, and I have met many of them -- I would say that eight out of ten have expressed the one thing that the National Health plan is one of the best things that could have happened in England, -- one of the best things that could have happened. And I happen to know at least a half a dozen in the teaching profession right now. And there isn't one that was critical of the health plan that was in effect. As a matter of fact, I will give you one instance of a man who was teaching on the staff in Winnipeg. And I'll give you probably his name and the school. I
... to know him. He happened to be here and I said, "Where is your wife?" He said, "My wife happens to be in England". I said, "Well, when is she coming over?" "She is not coming over until she has her child". And I said, "Well, she could have had the child here in Canada". "Oh, no. That National Health plan there will pay for all that there". That's exactly what the words were from this gentleman who has become a Canadian.
And from time to time, we on this side of the House, as well as in Ottawa, have spoken on this matter for many, many years. And David Cole, a very respected member of the Liberal party, who is now the present day senator, a most respected gentleman, had this to say: "There can be no denial that the medical services today are woefully inadequate in this country and the price for medical care must come as a right, as a right, and not as a dole".
Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the progress that medical science is making in this day and age, but we are also aware of the medical costs for curing an ailment. I have an example of a person that I know right now who has a rare form of Bursitis, -- something that the doctors say that they can't guarantee the cure of. The pills, the cortisone and a variety of others that are being invented, run into tens of dollars, tens of dollars. If he becomes a case for the municipality, he gets it free, but if he's working for a living, he has to pay that and it comes into large amounts of money -- not just $2.00 a week gentleman -- it runs into tens of dollars a week in order to get this pill. Not that it will cure him, but it will relieve the pain in the shoulder so that he can carry on a normal day of work. And that could be multiplied a thousand fold -- a thousand fold.
But I think there are other examples which I can use, which I feel that if we had a form of comprehensive hospital plan, these costs would be definitely reduced. Now what does the Wall Street Journal state about the health plan in England? It says the health service set-up by the Labour government is so popular -- this goes back to 1951 -- that no political party would survive that would try to destroy it. We have used some information from McLean's but there was one section that I think was omitted, and it's important. We have heard comments that the medical profession in England was dead against this National Health Plan -- dead against it -- all because it would deprive them of extra money in private practice. And yet, by the report that was made to the McLean's magazine showing that active Diptheria cases have dropped; that T.B. has dropped; Scarlet Fever has dropped by two-thirds; that the life expectancy of the child has increased, and that the contributions are very reasonable -- 25¢ to 35¢ for men per weekly contribution and the contribution of the head of the family covers his dependents. And then this paragraph. "Wasn't this reason for the fact that the people in England have raised the health percentage to what it is today, is because they have had the opportunity to visit the doctor; to have care taken at the right time? And as a result, the health of the people in the past ten years has reached a very, very high level". And what does the British Medical Association say? "It's because it's brought about this health level, better preventive care for youngsters." So states the British Medical Association. It's in McLean's.
Now we've had in the sister province, operating a comprehensive plan of Saskatchewan which a former minister, Mr. Bentley, stated that 90% to 94% of the people there would violently oppose the discontinuance of this hospitalization plan. I have met people who have moved into this province. There's one thing they regret very much. There is that wonderful plan that was in operation and is in operation of the C.C.F. but you ask them about their health plan and there isn't one, unless he is prejudiced against the fact that it was started by the C.C.F., but if he's honest, he'll admit the fact that that was one of the finest things that the C.C.F. government ever introduced in the Province of Manitoba. It doesn't matter who comes in if he's fair and honest about it, and we find that in Saskatchewan that 94% of the people appear to be covered by this insurance, probably more. And up to the time that this government saw fit to introduce a Provincial Health Plan on a minimum scale, we had a problem with our old, the aged and the chronically ill. We did have a problem, where they could not even get--outside of being a charge--but the fact that they were not able to get a Blue Cross assistance, because of their age.
I do not want to belabour the House too long. I think that our Canadian people and in this province, if you were to make a Gallup Poll, I challenge any member across or any member in the House, if you were to ask ten labour men, ten school teachers, ten white-collar people and
any other profession, that I would venture to say that eight, nine out of ten would say, "you just go ahead and give us a comprehensive plan. We won't mind paying the extra few cents. If I don't have to use it but somebody else will have the privilege of using the service of a doctor, of the hospitals, in all its ...." You make a Gallup Poll of those people I mentioned and I can say -- I can assure you, that they will be most happy to provide extra money for that service, whether it's the responsibility of this government or that of Ottawa itself. And I know that the Canadian people do not want to have this set aside time and time and time again. As the Honourable Member from Brokenhead mentioned, "this is something that has been bandied about, kicked about like a political football for the past 40 odd years, if not more. I cannot understand it, because this type of health insurance is inevitable. It's coming as sure as today is Wednesday. It might take another year, another five years, another ten, but it's inevitable that it will be a fact in the country of Canada.
And in closing, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that there is a real need for this plan. Let's forget about party politics. Just let your heart, common sense, guide you in the decision that you are to make this afternoon. Forget about party politics -- I think we did that last year in the Special Session. We did that last year when we came about in regard to the larger school areas, wholeheartedly supported the idea because it was something that was a must. And as a member -- I have been a member of this House for ten years, and I recall that ten years ago we, on this side of the House advocated and other members did too. Finally we saw the light, and we wholeheartedly supported one of the most progressive acts that could be made in the Province of Manitoba. We all saw the light -- we all agreed. It was wholesale uniformity. There was no bickering. We didn't say that because you are a Conservative or C.C.F. and so and so. We thought it was the best plan for our children and the Province of Manitoba. And I would like to say a little further more on this matter, but I have every intention to talk about it in another speech. Therefore, if we saw the light, and we were agreeable on a bill that is going to be a credit to the Province of Manitoba, then I think, honourable gentlemen, that you should let your heart and not your prejudices against party policies tell you that this sub-amendment of ours is going to be the best thing for your members -- for your members of your constituency as well as the members of mine. And I leave it to you to let your conscience be your guide.
MR. R. SEABORN (Wellington): Would the honourable member permit a question?
MR. HAWRYLUK: Yes, if I'm able to answer it.
MR. SEABORN: But is it not true that the cost of the medical service in Great Britain increased 125% in 1951 over the 1948 estimates? Is it not true that in 1951-52 it was increasing at the rate of 86 million pounds a year ... medical service?
MR. HAWRYLUK: Well may I answer that in this way? If it has anything to do with the health of the population, then it's necessary. The governments of Great Britain and the governments of Canada have spent millions of dollars on experimental aircraft that has become obsolete and we think nothing of it -- millions of dollars -- and yet you get up and say that it's gone up. Let it go up it it's going to help mankind in Great Britain or in Canada.
MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, I have been debating whether I should speak on the sub-amendment or the amendment and I have decided that just in the event that I may get around to speaking about health, I thought perhaps that I should speak this afternoon.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the previous speakers in congratulating you, Sir, on your resumption to the highest office within the gift of this Assembly and upon your usual good appearance today. I would also like to extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply. I must say that with one exception, the Honourable Member for Hamiota and indeed the other one -- the Honourable Member for Wellington made excellent addresses. The one exception I refer to is one that was made by my good friend, and the Honourable Member for Hamiota. And I would just like to read what he did say about me, and this happens to be in Hansard #2 on page 32, he says, "Fourteen years ago larger school areas of administration were advocated and for years only one such area had been formed." The Honourable Member for Gladstone in speaking at a meeting prior to the referendum of February 27th, and I'm sorry he's not in the House at the moment, said that the previous government had tried to sell the idea of larger school units to the people of Manitoba for the last ten years without any success. Now, it is true that I attended 12 meetings in all on the proposed school division, and I think it is also true that the Honourable Member for Hamiota did not attend any of the meetings that I was at, and I do take exception to this statement.
However, there are a couple of Ministers here present who attended a couple of the meetings that I attended, and I think they can confirm what I did say, as at each and every one of those meetings, I generally started off on the theme that it should be non-political. I stated that the idea was not completely new -- this is where I think the Honourable Member for Hamiota was a little confused -- I did say that as far back at 13 or 14 years ago the larger Ochre-Dauphin area had been created, and I did say that since that time -- since that time -- there has been created four secondary areas, the last of which to be created was Neepawa secondary area No. 4. And I also said that my experience as regards the secondary areas, were very satisfactory. They seemed to prove to be what they're worth. And I went further than that, I said that the former Campbell government had appointed the Commission to carry out the Royal Commission on Education and I also stated that I was satisfied that it was the intention of the Campbell government, had they been elected, to act on the recommendations of that report. I did say, however, that I didn't think that if Mr. Campbell had been re-elected that he would have acted as quickly. I'm satisfied that he would not have acted until the full report was out. Now that is about what I had to say on my opening remarks at those meetings, and I know the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce can confirm that, because I think he attended the last meeting that was held in my constituency. I know that the Honourable Minister did come up to me after the meeting and thank me very kindly for the contribution that I made at that meeting, and I already indicated a week or so ago that I felt a little slighted because I didn't receive that leather medal from the Minister of Education. I didn't get into the three categories.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend a lot of time expounding again on the merits of the Gladstone constituency. I went into that in detail at the last session. I think that everyone here is quite aware of the fact that it is one of the best farming areas in the Province of Manitoba. And, furthermore, that they are aware of the fact, that in the Gladstone constituency, reside the finest people that you could wish to meet anywhere in the world. I am proud, indeed, to have been chosen to represent this area and to follow in the footsteps of the late Honourable W. Morton.
Now, Mr. Speaker, during the fall session, and again almost every day during this session we have had members on both sides of the House -- members to my left--accusing each other of being 'fence straddlers' and a lot of other things, and I'm reminded of a little conversation that I had a couple of weeks ago down in Springfield, Illiniois. I was down to St. Louis and we spent a day or two in Springfield - Abe Lincoln's home. I was getting my shoes shined there one afternoon, and the coloured shoeshine boy was talking politics when I came in. And I posed this question to him - I said, "Now down here in the States as regards state representatives and representatives to the Congress, do you generally vote for the party or do you generally vote for the man?" I was surprised at his answer because it did seem that we had something in common. He said, "Oh, well, Boss," he said, "If there is a popular young fellow, with a reputable character, that is running for the state legislature, we generally vote for the man, whereas in
Congress, we generally vote for the party." And I thought well, that does hold true to some degree here. He did go on though and this is rather odd. He said, "You know," he said, "They're all the same though, Boss, they're all the same." And I said, "What do you mean?" And he said, "Well, before they are elected, they all get up and they say, 'my friends, if I'm elected I'll do this and do that and do the other thing'" and he said, "the minute they get elected they say 'my friends, my hands is all tied'". There's one thing though that I am cetain of, and I think that everyone in this province is certain of, that in no one political party do we have all the brains of the province. That is, there are probably good and bad in everybody.
One observation that I would like to make as regards the last provincial election. I do feel certain that Diefenbaker's promises did help to elect this present government. And, our present Premier's close association with the Prime Minister, prior to June 17th, did have some effect on the results of June 17th, and it will be interesting to me to see whether our present Premier attempts to divorce himself from federal politics if we have an election this spring. Now, in all fairness to the Honourable the First Minister, I will have to agree with our Leader that I do think that he is probably making a better job in attempting to keep his promises, than has our Prime Minister. I do feel though that we will find that if all of the promises that appear in the Throne Speech are carried out, that the people of this province are going to find it altogether too costly.
We have in this province, an intelligent group of people, and they are not so gullible as to think that any government is capable of extending all of the services promised without having to pay for them by way of increased taxes. The manner in which some politicians refer to the Consolidated Fund, and that was a word that was certainly used a great deal at the time of the proposed school division campaign -- the Consolidated Fund was used by everybody including myself, and the way that some politicians refer to it, the average 'Joe' would be led to believe that it was a gold mine or an oil well, under the bottom of this building that we are presently in. And my honourable friends know very well what the Consolidated Fund is, and I suggest that any amount of statistics or confusing figures will not confuse the people.
Now prior to June 17th, during my campaign, I didn't pretend to be a Santa Claus, I certainly did not at any time indicate that I was going to go out and try and outdo the other fellow, in giving away their money. In fact, I limited my promises pretty well to this one thing, that I would attempt to serve the entire constituency to the best of my ability. I do recall there was one thing that I said I wouldn't do and I said I would never do anything because it would appear to be for political expediency or because it was politically popular.
Now, I was rather amused and a little bit surprised the other day when this Newfoundland matter came up, and Joe Smallwood was talked about and the various comments that were made by the people that spoke that day. Now, I must admit that I am not fully familiar with what transpired in that Province, relative to the union problems and Mr. Smallwood's actions, but I must say that I think that Mr. Smallwood has taken a very courageous stand against Hoffa and his gangster domineering tactics, and I feel satisfied that there are plenty of union men who would welcome a secret strike ballot under the supervision of the Provincial Department of Labour. In other words, they would welcome the opportunity of doing some spring cleaning of their own and tidy up their own house.
Now, I have a little clipping here from the Free Press. I believe it is a statement made by one of the Progressive-Conservative members in that Province, one James D. Higgins, and he says in part, and I quote, "Mr. Higgins said that for years he had been at opposite poses with Premier Smallwood on political matters, but for the first time in his life the Premier had the support of 98% of the people in Newfoundland." Now if that statement is true, made by that Progressive-Conservative M.L.A.
MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): ...some of the other statements.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Well, if this--I am suggesting that this Progressive-Conservative statement must be true, you see. [Interjection] Then, if that is so there must be a lot of union men in there if 98% of the people are with the Premier.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments, both favourable and otherwise, about the Throne Speech.
I am happy indeed to see that it is the government's intention to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the lake levels of Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba. I informed
the House last fall of the devastating damage that flooding from Lake Manitoba had caused to the excellent farm lands immediately west of Lake Manitoba in Lakeview Municipality, and we discussed that the other day, and whereas the loss in farm revenue alone in the last few years amounted to the complete cost of the Fairford dam project.
I am also glad, Mr. Speaker, to see that we are making progress in establishing this Department of Soil and Water Conservation of which I had a great deal to say at the last session. We in the Gladstone area are very interested in this because every inch of my constituency is within the boundaries of the Whitemud River water shed.
Now, there are a couple of comments that I would like to make, more observations perhaps than anything else, about the Whitemud River water shed, and what has transpired since the first organizational meeting. And, I'm going to read them, Sir, with your permission -- and these are my observations:
Number one, that our agricultural representative in the area was not only the spark, but the fire that has kept the organization going, active and alive from the first organizational meeting up to the present time.
Number two, that during the last decade, soil erosion has become the number one problem facing agriculture in our area.
Number three, that the cosmopolitan population has become aware of the need for controlling and managing our natural resources. They want direction and leadership from the Department of Agriculture. The mixture of nationalities and the wide variation of soil types in the area make it necessary that agricultural extension be brought more and more to each individual farm.
Number four, agricultural extension has not been able to keep up to the extra increase in work during the last two years in our area, at least, because one man can only do so much work, and all the--our agricultural representative has spent so much time on this Whitemud water shed project that he has had to neglect some of his other duties.
Number five, the geographical features of the area make the problems of soil and water common to the entire watershed. Number six, division of the agricultural extension work is more practical than a division of the present area. Number seven, the water shed authorities should have a field man or an executive secretary supplied by the department. This is really the work of agricultural extension anyway, and could be looked after by a division of work with another full-time representative to share the present office.
Now, it is true that when the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture spoke the other day, outlining some of his agricultural policies, he indicated that as regards the agricultural representatives and the areas in which they work, I think he did suggest that there would be eight full-time assistants, and at least four part-time assistants, to the agricultural representatives. Now, if there is one area--any one area in the Province of Manitoba that needs a full-time assistance, I suggest that it is the Gladstone-Neepawa area because the extra work that is involved in this setting up and working full-time practically on this water shed project, it is imperative that we have additional full-time assistance in the Gladstone-Neepawa area. I might suggest that just today I received a letter from one of my constituents, I never have had the pleasure of meeting her, but the letter is dated March the 23rd, so it certainly is quite recent, and she says, and I quote: "Dear Sir, at a Meeting of our M.F.U. local 352, a resolution was formed and I was requested to write you in regard to same. The resolution is as follows: Whereas the agricultural representative district of Neepawa is much too large resulting in poor service to the Municipality of Westbourne; and Whereas the north of the North Norfolk Municipality and the whole of the Municipality of Lakeland are also poorly serviced, therefore be it resolved that we petition the provincial government to create a new agricultural representative area to be serviced from Gladstone." That's the resolution, and I go on, "Mr. Wallace Lee, the present ag. rep. for the Neepawa area is very efficient, but he also is a very busy man. There is so much to do in regard to the Whitemud water shed project which is a very worthwhile undertaking. The farmers in this area are all very much interested in this project. They also feel that it is far too heavy an undertaking for one man when the agricultural representative area is so large. We hope you will give this your utmost consideration. Kindly let us know your opinion of the matter. Thanking you in anticipation." And signed by a Mrs. Shaw. Now that just confirms what I have already said as regards the need for additional help in the Gladstone-Neepawa area.
Now, the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture--I'm sorry that he is not with us today--did mention among other things the new Farm Credit Act, and I'm not suggesting that he was boasting but he did suggest that it was really getting along, that already they had received six hundred applications. Now, he didn't tell us when we might expect to have the money in the hands of the farmers, but yesterday, I went down to the department downstairs and asked for a form together with a letter that accompanies the form when a request is made for an application form, and it says on the bottom here "you will note that loans must be secured by a first mortgage on land which involves an appraisal of the land." And of course, this cannot be done until the snow is gone and the land has dried up. This means that we will not be able to complete any loans in time for spring operations.
Now, I'm not condemning that, I'm glad that they have told the farmers to not count on getting any money until July or August, but I should suggest that a statement of this kind should be made public now, because I know of a lot of people in the Gladstone-Neepawa area who really felt that they would get assistance to carry out their spring programme, and it is quite evident that that will not be so.
I realize that it is common practice for mortgage companies and the Canadian Farm Loans Board to make appraisals or assessments on the land, to determine the amount of the loan they are prepared to allow, but I suggested at the last session and I suggest it again now, Sir, that since most of the farm land in the Province of Manitoba has now been assessed by the Provincial Assessment Branch, that a lot of these loans could be handled by using the figures that are available in the Assessment Branch. That is, we know in the Town of Neepawa for instance, that there is a relationship between the assessed value and the real value, and that that relationship in the Town of Neepawa is -- that is the assessed value as placed by the assessor represents about 50% of the real value. We rely upon that so much so that when a person comes in to list a house, we immediately phone the Town Office to ask what the assessment is, we double that figure and that gives you about the price of the house, and 99% of the time the figure is quite satisfactory to our client. And I suggest that same practice might be used by the Department of Agriculture in establishing appraisals for Farm Loans, and I further suggest that if there are six hundred application forms on the desk right now, perhaps, it's quite possible that the amount that the farmers are asking for would not exceed the assessed value. Well, then, why hold up those farmers, I suggest that you're in a position to give them their money right now.
Another thing that does bother me a little bit is that a number of the people in the constituency feel that it is part of my duty to help them complete the application form. And, I know that the M.L.A.'s are expected to do a lot of work, but gosh! I never did think that it was part of our duty to help complete these, and I don't know where to send them to. Presently I am sending them to the ag. rep's office and letting him assist them in completing them.
We've heard also a little bit about the Crop Insurance or the promise of it, and as the Honourable Member for Flin Flon has suggested it better be pretty good because I don't know what my honourable friend's conception of Crop Insurance is, but I certainly know what a lot of my constituents think that Crop Insurance means, and they think that it means that they will be assured so many bushel to the acre. And if that is so, I am afraid that the premium is going to be plenty high. And, I also suggest further that it would be most difficult for the adjuster, if we do have an adjuster--and I suppose we will have to have, because if it's possible to go into this semi-marginal land--turning the sod over, sow it down to flax or wheat or anything else, insure it for ten bushel to the acre, where they wouldn't have got two bushel to the acre anyway, then it's going to be a pretty difficult job of adjusting the loss.
Now, at the last session of the Legislature I did ask the Minister of Public Works how we went about getting proposed roads on the long-range road building programme, and I think his answer was "just tell me about it and it'll be on there," or something to that effect. Now, I have one road that I would like--I'm giving formal notice now that I would like on this long-range road building programme, and Mr. Speaker, you know the one that I refer to, I believe. It runs through your constituency and through the Honourable Member for Cypress-Norfolk, and that is what is now referred to as the Highway No. 28. Now I realize there is no such a highway in the Province at the moment, but we want to see that there will be one there, and I understand that a delegation met with certain members of the Cabinet a couple of weeks ago and made their presentation at that time so it is my hope that--that this will get on the long-range road building
programme. Now, in the field of Health and Welfare, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Honourable Minister of Health and Welfare. I see that he is not here at the present time, but I would like to thank him for the various favours that he has done for me in the last -- since the last session, and for the replacement of the Medical Health Director in Neepawa. It was rather an unfortunate set of circumstances, but we have had our Medical Health Officer replaced there and I would like to thank him for that. But I wouldn't like him to run away with the idea that I'm satisfied with all phases as respects the Department.
I spoke last evening on the need of extending the Hospital Services Plan to include the care of patients in Nursing Homes, and I have other matters here, Mr. Speaker, but I see that I'm going to run out of time here in a little while, so I think with that, Mr. Speaker, that I did promise that I was going to get around to talking about the comprehensive health scheme but the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville and indeed the Honourable Member for Flin Flon have pretty well expressed any view that -- my views on the subject. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very kindly.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising to a point of order, if I may. It is customary at 5:30 on Wednesdays for the Speaker to leave the chair without the question being put. However, in view of the fact that we've had a very extensive debate so far on the sub-amendments that is before us, and it has stood for a couple of times, I am wondering whether the House would be willing to continue this debate because I think there are a couple of other members who wish to speak, perhaps beyond our usual closing hour, so that we might be able to test the opinion of the House with respect to this amendment this evening. Now, I don't know whether that will meet with the approval of all the members of the House, but I do offer it as a suggestion because we on this side are quite willing to stay and continue this debate if it should be the wish of the House.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, I think that either procedure would be agreeable to us. My guess is, and I haven't been -- made certain of this, but my guess is that perhaps only one of our members would wish to speak, and I believe that very briefly, and perhaps he may not be anxious to speak, so that I would suggest that if there are some who do want to speak, they make it as brief as possible. We certainly want to accommodate them. On the other hand, if they don't wish to speak, I would support the First Minister in the suggestion that we run by mutual consent a little bit past 5:30 in order to complete this phase of our business, and I think we should make that on the understanding though that the other debate -- the amendment to the amendment stand as it is, without adjournment.
MR. ROBLIN: I'm not clear on that, what I was hoping for was that we would continue a little while longer and have a vote on the sub-amendment, and then we would adjourn the House. Is that what my honourable friend means?
MR. CAMPBELL: That is what I am suggesting too, my only point is that the amendment bill would stand as it is as one adjourned.
MR. STINSON: Without a motion to adjourn the debate?
MR. ROBLIN: ... the motion. Well then, why don't we -- Oh! I see, you don't want to lose an adjournment on it. Well, it's quite all right with me.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, earlier today an undertaking was given to the Honourable Member for Iberville-Rockwood, and the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks that a bill, a private bill that they have a keen interest in would be given second reading this afternoon.
MR. ROBLIN: No, it was not an undertaking.
MR. STINSON: Well, if that's not an undertaking then I think that Mr. Speaker, you should call it 5:30.
MR. ROBLIN: Just to get the record straight on that, what I said, and I think the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville will bear me out on this, that the order of business as I foresaw it for this afternoon when we began was that we should continue with this particular debate until we had reached a vote on it -- as I was optimistic enough to think we might do before now, -- that we would then take the supply motion, and then take the prviate member's bill. Now, that was what I undertook to do and I trust that I made myself clear at that time, so I don't feel that I'm in any way breaking any undertaking to the House in proposing what I just proposed.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, that wasn't my understanding of the matter. According to the rules, at 5:30 the House must adjourn regardless of what is taking place, and that you, at
5:30, must leave the chair, according to the rules.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could act as peacemaker under this situation. After all, I understand from the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks and the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville that it is of importance that this bill be proceeded with so, once again, regardless of what the undertaking was, or the understanding of the undertaking, why couldn't we also agree to give second reading to that bill by mutual consent either before or after the other matters -- well certainly they'd have to be after the other matters disposed of?
MR. ROBLIN: I've got no serious objection to that, but it does seem rather odd that we're able to deal with that piece of business when we can't get on with the supply motion, and it seems a little bit -- well, I must admit, I was a little optimistic -- I didn't think my honourable friend was so long winded. Of course I should have known from listening to him over the years that he is an effective speaker and he is entitled to his time. Well, I don't know who brought them all on, but I know a lot of people who have made them. However, I am in the hands of the House. We'll do whatever the Houes wishes.
MR. STINSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not clear about where we stand, and I'd like to be brought up to date. Let the old peacemaker, tell me where we are.
MR. CAMPBELL: The new peacemaker. My concern is simply to see the business of the House proceed with all dispatch possible and I do recognize the position that the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks and the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville have put before us that this legislation is important to them, then I think it would be well if we could have second reading tonight before we rise, and then apparently their bill can go before committee tomorrow morning, and that would meet their objectives, and I think we should try to accommodate them. But, it would be necessary as I understand it, to dispose of the sub-amendment first, and then by consent of the House revert or proceed, whichever it is, proceed to the second reading of that bill and with the understanding that that would be all the work we would do.
MR. STINSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's satisfactory. If I'm now clear on it that we have a vote on the sub-amendment, we deal with the private bill in question and then the House is adjourned.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, just one more point. Am I given to understand in this that insofar as the main -- the amendment to the Throne Speech, -- it stands, it does not constitute an adjournment of the amendment to the Throne Speech? In other words, there would still remain on the Throne Speech, two adjournments. Is that agreed?
MR. ROBLIN: That's the way I understand it -- we're quite willing to allow the honourable gentlemen opposite to take as much time as they like and make as many speeches as they like -- there's certainly no objection on this side.
MR. SPEAKER: As I understand the temperment of the House, I'm not to look at the clock for a little while, and does the Honourable Member for Selkirk wish to speak?
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, all that I wanted to do, and what I had to say to this House, was to explain to the House the reason why I was not going to support this sub-amendment. In not giving my support to this sub-amendment, I don't want it to be construed as a vote on the merit or the demerit of a comprehensive health scheme. The only reason why I'm not supporting this sub-amendment is due to the fact that I don't consider the sub-amendment to be fair. I don't consider that the government has had any opportunity -- it was saddled with a new hospital plan when it came into office, it had a tremendous job to do there, and my position would be the same even if it were a C.C.F. government sitting on the other side of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Question before the House is the amendment to the amendment to the Throne Speech. Are you ready for the question? Those in favour please say "aye". Those opposed please say "nay". In my opinion the "nays" have it and I declare the motion lost. Call in the members.
[A standing vote was taken, the result being:
YEAS: Messrs. Gray, Hawryluk, Jobin, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Schreyer, Stinson, Swailes, Wagner, Wright.
NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Bend, Boulic, Campbell, Carroll, Clement, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Greenlay, Groves, Guttormson, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Jeannotte, Johnson, Lissaman, Lucko, Lyon, McDonald, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Miller, Molgat, Prefontaine,
Ridley, Roblin, Roberts, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Shoemaker, Shuttleworth, Stanes, Strickland, Tanchak, Teillet, Thompson, Trapp, Williams. ]
MR. CLERK: The "yeas" - 12; the "nays" - 42.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. The amendment to the amendment stands.
MR. ROBLIN: You said the amendment to the amendment stands.
MR. SPEAKER: Oh, the amendment to the motion stands.
MR. ROBLIN: Would you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to call for second reading of Bill No. 43?
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 43 -- I'll find it in a moment. Second reading of Bill No. 43, the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks.
MR. A. E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say how humbly grateful I am for this opportunity. I realize that this is not according to the rules of the House, and I have had a lot of help. As you know, it's not often that a new member to this Legislature has the honour of guiding a private member's bill through. In view of the fact that the Municipal Affairs Committee will sit tomorrow morning, I just want to say my sincere appreciation.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville that Bill No. 43, an act respecting the consolidation of the Municipal School District of West Kildonan No. 8, Municipal School District of Old Kildonan No. 2102, the School District of West St. Paul No. 4, and the School District of Parkdale No. 1927, be now read a second time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. BEND: ... opportunity to express my appreciation too, and I do that now.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, before you call it 5:30, the point of order respecting our meetings for the rest of the week was raised earlier in the Session -- I think the Whips have now conferred, and I would like again to propose that we should sit until the end of the evening session on Thursday, and reconvene at 2:30 on the Monday afternoon, and would like to know if that meets the general wish of the House.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, as far as we're concerned in this group we've no objections to that.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I express this to the Whips on the far side that as far as our group is concerned, we are agreeable to meeting on Monday afternoon. There were certain members of our group who would prefer not to meet on Thursday night if that could be arranged. However, there is no major objection raised to it, but it was brought up to the attention of the Whip -- the First Minister -- in view of the religious significance of Good Friday.
MR. SPEAKER: I call it 5:30 and leave the chair until 2:30 tomorrow afternoon.
Page revised: 22 September 2009