[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.
MR. K. ALEXANDER (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Swan River, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 89 - An Act to authorize the Town of Dauphin to make a grant to Dauphin General Hospital 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: Orders of the Day.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the First Minister? My question is whether he intends to have for the next election a new voters' list or is he going to use the last year's one.
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Are you talking about the voters' list, Mr. Speaker?
MR. GRAY: Yes.
MR. ROBLIN: It is my anticipation that a new voters' list will be made up next election.
HON. JOHN THOMPSON (Minister of Labour) (Virden): Before the Orders of the Day, I would like to table the Report of the Greater Winnipeg Investigating Commission. This report, I might point out, is in four volumes. Volume 1 contains the investigations, findings and recommendation of the Commission. Volume 2 contains the briefs which were submitted to the Commission in the course of its hearings. Volume 3 contains a collection of statistical data. Volume 4 contains a draft of legislation. This draft I might say has not yet been completed -- that is the draft of legislation -- but is expected in the very near future. I wish to add that only Volume 1 which contains the investigations, findings and recommendations of the Commission has been printed; and of course a printed copy will be distributed to each member immediately.
I would also like to table the Annual Report of the Department of Labour for the year ending December 31st, 1958.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker ... will there be copies for all the members of this ...
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, copies will be distributed immediately.
MR. CAMPBELL: This afternoon?
MR. THOMPSON: This afternoon.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day --
HON. MARCEL BOULIC (Provincial Secretary) (Cypress): I wish to lay on the table an Order for Return, No. 6.
MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
May it please Your Honour: The Legislative Assembly at its present session passed several Bills, which in the name of the Assembly I present to Your Honour, and to which Bills I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.
MR. CLERK: Bill No. 5 - An Act to validate By-Law No. 3465 of the City of Portage la Prairie.
No. 7 - An Act to validate By-law No. 42 of the School District of Norwood No. 2113.
No. 12 - An Act respecting the Glenboro Medical Nursing Unit District No. 16B.
No. 14 - An Act to validate By-law No. 538 of the Town of Gladstone.
No. 34 - An Act respecting the Rural Municipality of Whitewater and the Minto Cemetery Company.
No. 43 - An Act respecting the Consolidation of The Municipal School District of West Kildonan No. 8, The 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.
In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these Bills.
MR. SPEAKER: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in session assembled, approach your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and Government, and beg for Your Honour the acceptance of this Bill:
No. 53 - An Act for the granting to Her Majesty Certain Further Sums of Money for the Public Service of the Province for the Fiscal Year ending the 31st day of March, 1959.
MR. CLERK: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to these Bills in Her Majesty's name.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Before the Orders of the Day, on behalf of my colleague and desk mate, the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, he has asked me -- he is unfortunately absent today -- to remind the members that the evening tomorrow night by the Associate St. Jean Baptiste in the Cercle Ouvrière Hall in St. Boniface will still be on regardless of the state of hostilities in the House -- whether we are in a state of peace, cold war or hot war by tomorrow, you are all welcome in St. Boniface.
MR. P. WAGNER (Fisher): Before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister for Labour. I issued for a Return Order March 17th and I didn't get an answer. Does he intend to give me an answer?
MR. THOMPSON: I'm sorry, could you repeat that question - I didn't hear it.
MR. WAGNER: There was an Order of the House to issue for Return on March 17th, the volume of work done in the constituency of Fisher for relief of winter unemployment; the areas where such work was done; number of persons for whom winter employment was provided in the Fisher constituency; the amount paid as wages to those persons for whom winter employment was provided.
MR. THOMPSON: ... information on that, I hope to be able to give you the answers.
MR. WAGNER: Before we leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I have here a document which I am sure will be of great interest to the members of the Legislature, in that I hold in my hand a copy of the Book of Remembrance -- which brings into an affectionate and glorious remembrance -- the names of the men and women who gave their lives in the Second World War. As the House will know, Mr. Speaker, it is planned that at the national capitol and in the Federal Parliament Buildings in Ottawa, that a chamber will be prepared where the original of this book may rest in a somewhat similar fashion to the Book of Remembrance that lies there now in respect of the men and women who died in the First World War. The authorities have thoughtfully sent to us here a copy of the Second Book of Remembrance which contains the names of our war heroes, the men and women of our Navy, Army and Air Force -- those Canadians in the Armed Services of other nations, and Allies of the British Commonwealth, who gave their lives for Canada and the defence of the sacred liberties of all mankind.
I take the liberty now, Sir, of bringing this volume to your notice and asking that it be laid upon the Table of the House so that in due course we may find a proper resting place for it here.
MR. CAMPBELL: I think that we folk on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the Honourable the First Minister with regard to the placing of the original of this Book of Remembrance along with those of other provinces in the national shrine that is to be dedicated for that purpose -- already dedicated for that purpose, I believe -- and I think it's an excellent idea that we should have a copy here. I would think it belongs in this building someplace, perhaps in the Library or the Archives, where it can be preserved as a copy of the one which will rest with all of the names of the brave of all of the Provinces of Canada in a national shrine at Ottawa.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate our group with what has been said. Our hope and prayer is that the sacrifice of these men and women will not be in vain.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the First Minister. Could he indicate when the address for papers that I asked for early in the Session will be presented?
MR. ROBLIN: Which address is that, Mr. Speaker?
MR. GUTTORMSON: One pertaining to the correspondence between the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada on the Flood Plan. The other one pertaining to the Fairford Bridge. Correspondence between the two governments.
MR. ROBLIN: We have still to hear from our counterparts in Ottawa in respect to those two documents, Mr. Speaker. But I'll tell my honourable friend what I'll do when I do get the permission as I expect I will, whether the House is sitting or not, I'll be glad to let him have copies of it.
MR. R. W. BEND (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, would that also apply to mine -- which had to do with correspondence between the two Governments on Hospital Insurance?
MR. D. SWAILES (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, as there are quite a number of lists of questions that are being asked and further information sought, I wonder if we can have an undertaking that this information will be provided, even if the House should prorogue in the meantime. Will we get that information afterwards if we don't get it while the House is in Session?
MR. ROBLIN: Perhaps the best thing to do is just send a copy of the information concerned to the person that asked it and the Leaders of the two Opposition Parties.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day -- Address of Questions.
Address for Papers.
The Honourable Member for Flin Flon.
MR. BEND: In the absence of the Honourable Member, Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Ethelbert Plains, that a humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, praying for copies of all correspondence between the Government of the Province of Manitoba and/or the Manitoba Telephone System and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and/or the Government of Canada with respect to television and written after June 1st, 1958.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, last night we had a little discussion -- I'm sorry, am I interfering with one of the orders? Carry on. Excuse me, I thought you were through.
MR. BEND: I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains, that a humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor praying for copies of all correspondence between the Government of the Province of Manitoba and/or the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board and the International Nickel Company dealing with the 5th and 6th generating units at Kelsey Hydro-Electric plant written after June 1st, 1958.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders for Return.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Seven Oaks, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing all the items appearing on the Order Paper -- in my name.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for Inkster, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing the questions standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Inkster.
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): ... the license, Mr. Speaker, I presume the honourable member means the new types permitted under the legislation of 1956, that is beverage room, restaurant, beer and wine dining-room, and cocktail room and cabaret?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, we had some short discussion last night about the propriety of making my honourable friend, the Member for St. Matthews, the Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker of the House, and it was decided not to proceed with the motion then because
it required some consideration on the part of some honourable members. I understood at that time from the Whip of the C.C.F. Party that it would be in agreement with them; and I have now received word from the Whip of the Liberal Party that they would not object to such a motion which will require unanimous consent, so I would move therefore, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that the rules of the House be suspended, that William G. Martin, Esquire, Member of the Electoral Division of St. Matthews, be Chairman of Committees of the House.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourn debate.
MR. ROBLIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the question that the House must decide is whether it intends to proceed with the private members' motions to stand in precedence on the Order Paper today, or whether we will revert to the Committee of Supply in which we were last night. I'm prepared to move that we move into Committee of Supply, but it will mean, of course, that we cannot proceed with the private members' motions that are on the Order Paper, which they're entitled to have proceeded with, and I would therefore ask whether we have unanimous consent to this. Probably the best thing to do is for me to move the motion and then we can have a proper discussion of it.
I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the interim supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion. ]
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, so far as our group is concerned, we are completely in favour of this procedure, because evidently the important matter to get disposed of now is the interim supply and we have undertaken to see that its passage will be expedited so that His Honour can come in for Assent if that is the intention of the Government tonight; and we will be prepared to pass it through all of its stages today, with some consideration no doubt, but still we will certainly be prepared to first move into the Committee of Supply at this time and to guarantee that as far as we're concerned the business of passing the interim supply through all of its stages and even though it should be necessary to do so under suspension of Rule, can be accomplished today.
MR. S. JUBA (Logan): I do not concur with the motion that we dispense with private members' day.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, in that case may I suggest to the honourable members who are concerned with private member resolutions, that they ask that the matter stands, in that way we will be able to overcome the objections and proceed as has been agreed by the Liberal Official Opposition and was agreed by our party yesterday.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, fortunately we have in our group a very clever fellow in the Honourable Member for Radisson, and I think he has found the solution to this matter, and we certainly gave an undertaking yesterday that we would not stand in the way of having interim supply passed and we wish to stand by that undertaking now.
MR. ROBLIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the proper course now would be for me to withdraw the motion that I put and we can proceed with the ordinary order paper and see how far we get.
MR. CAMPBELL: ... if we can have unanimous consent to the withdrawal of the motion.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member have consent of the House to withdraw the motion? Agreed.
Adjourned debate on the Proposed Motion for second reading of Bill 42. The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. (Stand)
Adjourned debate on the Proposed Motion of the Honourable Member for Inkster. The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre.
MR. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Fisher. The Honourable Member, the Minister of Agriculture.
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration) (Turtle Mountain):
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Elmwood. The Honourable the Minister of Labour.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia. The Honourable Member for St. Matthews.
DR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville. The Honourable Minister for Education.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Education I would ask that this matter stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for St. John's. The Honourable Member for River Heights.
MR. W. B. SCARTH, Q.C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Radisson. The Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne.
MR. M. E. McKELLAR (Souris-Lansdowne): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. The Honourable Member for Churchill.
MR. E. J. WILLIAMS (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. The Honourable Member for Brandon.
MR. R. O. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for St. John's.
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the Proposed Motion of the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. The Honourable Minister of Public Utilities.
HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities) (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. The Honourable Member for St. Matthews.
DR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Pembina. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye.
MR. S. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks.
MR. A. E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Pembina.
MR. M. E. RIDLEY (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia.
MR. SWAILES: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Motion of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia.
MR. SWAILES: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet.
MR. A. A. TRAPP (Lac du Bonnet): Due to the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this matter be allowed to stand. (Stand)
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate, the Honourable Member for Hamiota and the amendment thereto, the Honourable -- [Interjection] -- Oh, yes. Proposed Motion of the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, I regret my inability to make this speech. I can assure you it's an excellent one but I have to have it stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate of the Proposed Motion of the Honourable Member for Hamiota and the amendment thereto. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that now we have reached government's orders here, I would now move my motion that the House resolve itself into Committee to consider the interim supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion. ]
MR. JUBA: Mr. Speaker, only yesterday did we hear complaints in this House that there was no freedom of speech, or at least there has been a certain number of attempts made to curtail the freedom of speech, and here we have had ample opportunity and all the members here decided to keep quiet on the issue.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: The House do now resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews please take the Chair.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the House will have noticed the absence of the Honourable the Minister of Education. I have to report, Sir, that about 11:30 last night, while riding as a passenger in an automobile, he was involved in a serious accident just outside the doors of this building. As a consequence he has been removed to the General Hospital where he is now. I am very happy to tell the House that as far as one knows at the present his accident is not a very serious one although it will incapacitate him for a few days; consequently he will not be able to be here and exchange confidence with my Honourable Friend, the Member for Rhineland -- something which I am sure both of them were looking forward to. However, in the meanwhile, the Honourable the Attorney-General, who is the Acting Minister of Education, back-stopped insofar as my limited knowledge of the subject serves, and other members of the Cabinet, but will do our best to answer questions on the business of the year that's ending that may be put to us.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all the members of the House will be very sorry to hear that the Honourable the Minister of Education has met with an accident. This is the first intimation I had of it, and I think the Honourable the Minister of Education has been doing a great deal of work in the last few months anyway, and I think there was quite a disposition so far as our group is concerned to not question him at any great length here today, and as far as I'm concerned, I would content myself with simply asking the Honourable the First Minister to convey to him the regards of our group and wish him speedy recovery.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, we regret very much the absence of the honourable gentleman, particularly because of the accident, and we certainly wish him well. He's a fine man and we enjoy his friendship and we look forward to seeing him again soon.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I know my colleagues and myself appreciate very much the kind words that have been said and I will make sure they are conveyed to the Honourable Minister. I must tell you, though, that he gave me his assurance that he would be out and about when voting day turns up.
While I'm on my feet, Sir, perhaps I can answer one of the questions that was put to me last night in connection with pensions. Now the question arose in connection with the carrying out of the amendments to The Superannuation Act that was passed last year by which it was agreed that certain retired civil servants who, at the date of their retirement, were not eligible for pensions, could make application under certain terms and conditions, and I promised to give a report. I must confess that I was a little optimistic about the number -- I think I said 75, when actually it is 57 that have been considered, but I give the following information to the
Committee as requested by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.
As a result of the 1958 amendment to The Supperannuation Act, 57 pensioners have submitted applications for augmented allowances and eight unpensioned persons have submitted applications for gratuities.
The following 33 persons who were receiving pensions under The Superannuation Act as at April 1st, 1958, have been granted effective April 1st, 1958, pension increases in the amounts shown. J. A. Boivin - $8.58. H. E. Boyle - $5.15. G. E. Brennan - $19.94. J. Bokowski - $2.42. J. E. Butler - $2.07. H. S. Cameron - $1.37. R. G. Carmichael - $11.84. G. R. Denton - $3.46. A. R. Doig - $4.61. A. Jones - $7.01. R. Dewar - $7.87. R. H. Ford - .79¢. W. Glennie - $1.39. J. C. Gordon - $16.24. A. E. Hall - $2.54. S. Hardiment - $88.24. E. J. Jewers - $61.04. R. Law - $17.06. N. McGregor - $16.82. Mrs. E. McLeod - $2.78. J. R. Montgomery - $9.64. Mrs. E. M. Morton - $18.59. W. T. Pierce - $28.95. J. E. Reid - $24.33. G. S. Rutherford - $43.75. N. B. Sharpe - $7.37. D. S. Sinclair - $9.28. D. Smith - $41.85. R. N. Snider - $8.84. T. J. Taylor - $9.45. W. R. Taylor - $5.05. T. J. Williams - $3.75. D. H. Wilson - $2.06.
The following eight persons who had not received pensions under The Supperannuation Act but who had retired or had passed the age of retirement under The Supperannuation Act were granted, effective from April 1st, 1958, monthly gratuities in the amounts following: J. D. Cameron - $40.62. Lillie E. ... $12.25. Arthur Cole - $12.76. Donald Grant - $25.67. Mrs. M. Howe - $16.26. Mrs. M. Richmond - $22.69. Dr. Alfred Savage - $59.18. Roy W. Webster - $34.88.
There are two pensioners whose applications for augmented allowances were not approved. Those are - Richard Crofton and S. W. Sands.
There are 22 pensioners whose applications for augmented allowance have not been finally dealt with. They are: Mrs. E. Aikin, W. R. Badger, M. Barr, D. W. Bell, Miss A. Blay, Miss J. Buchanan, R. Cambray, Dr. C. R. Donovan, J. Garrioch, J. ..., A. E. McHugh, Dr. A. Moore, A. P. Paquet, G. Parfitt, W. C. Pringle, C. F. Prodan, W. J. Restall, F. Schofield, E. Tredway, F. E. Humphrey, J. A. Wakefield, and G. J. White.
There will be other persons affected by this legislation from time to time as they retire. The above information deals only with those pensioners who have retired before April 1st, 1958 when the new provisions of the Superannuation Act came into effect. So that is the report, Sir, on what has happened under that Act.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the First Minister has the answer to the question I asked in connection with the Comptroller-General's office as to any staff that was added between July 1st and now?
MR. ROBLIN: No, I haven't got the answer to that yet, Sir, but I am expecting it momentarily.
HON. MARCEL BOULIC (Provincial Secretary) (Cypress): Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition and the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. and different members have asked information about the civil service last evening. I will try to give you all I have on that this afternoon. I think it would be better to go back a number of years. The civil servants on strength as of February 28th, 1953 was 3,317. A year later on February 28, 1954 - 3,500; in February 1955 - 3,617; in February 1956 - 3,784; in February 1957 - 3,926; in February 1958 - 4,078. And on June 30th - 4,530. It must be noted here that in the last four months of the previous administration the number increased by 452. And then February 28th, 1959, 4,936; an increase in the last eight months of our administration - 406. Between June 30th and February 28th - 229 employees were required for hospital services; and approximately 160 were required largely because of the change from the 42 to the 40 hour week for institutional employees.
Now, Mr. Chairman, several of the opposition members have also asked for information regarding categories of civil servants whose rates of pay have been changed between July 1st to the present. The number of classes whose rates have been changed is 96 out of approximately 550 classes. It is estimated that approximately 600 employees were affected by these rate changes; and these rate changes affected just the professional and technical personnel which the government found in extremely short supply and where emergency action was
obviously required if government services were to be maintained. All other civil servants come under the provisions of the pay increase schedules based on prevailing rates as determined by the Department of Labour survey. These rates, of course, will apply to the new fiscal year and this is, therefore, an item in next year's budget which is not being considered by the House. It could also be noted that advertisements are appearing based on the new schedules where this is essential. Now, Mr. Chairman, I can give you -- I think information about rates were required. I can give you the list of these if you desire, if the committee wishes. For the sake of clarity maybe I should read the pay ranges which have been abolished and then I could read the new schedules. There is, of course, quite a number of that. Director -- these are abolished: Director of Psychiatric Services - the pay range was ...
MR. SWAILES: Does the Honourable Minister propose to read the whole of that list?
MR. BOULIC: Oh yes, this is for sake of clarity; it's information and we've heard a lot about curtailing of free speech yesterday, I'm ...
MR. STINSON: If the Honourable Minister wants to indulge in this exercise of his vocal chords we have no objection.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, we would like to get some individual classes. It would not be necessary to get them all. I would be interested in knowing what the pay range now is for school inspectors, just as an example, in order to compare with school inspectors. I'd be interested to know the pay range and I recognize that there are different classifications within the services, but of engineers and also of agricultural representatives. Now I don't need to know them all, but just the pay ranges from the low to the high.
MR. BOULIC: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition is asking about school inspectors, probably referring to advertisements he is seeing in the newspapers now which are requiring inspectors for the coming term, which will come under the new budget. This new schedule doesn't apply for the actual employment at the time.
MR. MILLER: Surely, surely they will be hired now. I suggest to you that at the beginning of the school term none will be available.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, ... hired now because our budget is not going to be passed and considered and the new plans, which are under our budget -- I don't see how we can possibly proceed with them because we haven't got the money to do so.
MR. MILLER: You know, Mr. Chairman, I am awfully sorry that the Honourable the First Minister saw fit not to proceed with his budget.
MR. ROBLIN: I was willing to give it and allow you to talk about it. Read Hansard.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, as far as we're concerned all I'd be interested in getting would be the salary schedule now. He doesn't need to dip into the future at all. I would just be interested in knowing the present salary schedule.
MR. ROBLIN: That isn't what my honourable friend asked for last night. He asked for what increases had taken place, consequently, we have here the information on the increases but not on the present salaries. We would have to go and find that out.
MR. CAMPBELL: That is exactly what I asked for, because if increases have already taken place then the present salary schedule will show what increases have taken place.
MR. ROBLIN: They haven't taken place, therefore they are not on this list.
MR. CAMPBELL: Well, if they've not taken place then the salary will be as it was before and that is the one we want to get. We just want to know the salary of the school inspectors now -- the range.
MR. ROBLIN: That's ...
MR. STINSON: If there is no difference, why read the list? It would take an hour to read that list and I think that in itself would be a curtailment of free speech here, because it would prevent discussion of other departments, and if each Minister should get up and spend an hour reading some list that is of no importance, it would be some debate.
MR. ROBLIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we will give whatever information the House requires. I think what we were asked to provide -- now if my memory serves -- what we were asked to provide was a list of the increases that had taken place under our jurisdiction that weren't the normal increments in matters of that sort. Now we have that here - that's the information we have here. And only those classifications for which there was an increase arranged by us that
was not in the normal structure are included here. School inspectors don't have to come upon that because their increases were worked in as part of the overall increase that was to have come into effect tomorrow had our budget been proceeded with. But I'm sure that my honourable friend, the Provincial Secretary, will be glad to read out any particular category that is in here that was asked for. Now engineers are one. They're here; and we can certainly restrict the answer to engineers if that would suit the committee.
MR. CAMPBELL: I can take it, Mr. Speaker, that inspectors salaries have not, as yet, been increased?
MR. ROBLIN: That's right.
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, that's good.
MR. ROBLIN: We'd better read the engineers out ourself - it's on one of these pages here. Yes, they're on schedule "A".
A MEMBER: I would suggest that we get a copy of that.
MR. BOULIC: Yes, copies of these are available.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, ... copies, even though we don't look like it, we can read too.
MR. BOULIC: Well you see, Mr. Chairman, if I have to dig out the different ones - the list is pretty long, I admit - but if I have to dig out special ones, it takes quite a bit of time.
MR. BEND: Just table the whole list.
MR. BOULIC: O.K. We can do that.
A MEMBER: Good - Good.
MR. BEND: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to check on some figures, I believe the Honourable Minister mentioned that there was a growth in the Civil Service of somewhere around 400 - I don't know the exact figure - between January and June, and then he gave a similar growth after the new administration took over. He mentioned the two causes of growth for the last six months, but is it not true that the reason for the growth in the first six months was also primarily the M.H.S.P. as well as swinging over from the 40 to the 42 hour week in institutions? Is that not so?
MR. BOULIC: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for Rockwood was there previous to June 30th. I wasn't there - he should know.
MR. BEND: I just wanted to make sure that that was understood.
MR. CHAIRMAN: When we left last night we let this item No. 5 stand over. Does that -- questions have been dealt with now? Item 5.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, is the House satisfied that up to date we've cleaned up the back-log of things that stood?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. ROBLIN: I would just like to make sure that we are in agreement. Anything ... [Interjection] ... Oh, Comptroller-General. All right, we'll try and get that.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, before leaving Item 5, if I may, I'd like to ask the Minister whether the employees in the new Agricultural Credit group that we have set up are Civil Servants - that is, do they come under the Civil Service or not?
MR. ROBLIN: Yes, they are.
MR. MOLGAT: They do?
MR. ROBLIN: Yes.
MR. MOLGAT: How about those under the Industrial Credit Development Bank?
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration) (Fort Rouge): No, Mr. Chairman, those are employees of Industrial Development Fund, a separate corporation.
MR. MOLGAT: Those are not under the Civil Service as such?
MR. EVANS: That is correct.
MR. MOLGAT: How about those under the Manitoba Development authority?
MR. EVANS: There are no employees - it hasn't been established, as you know. As the honourable member must be aware, the Act has not been passed and established as the authority.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, dealing with employees, I asked for an Order of Return showing the number of new employees engaged from July 1st to December 31st, 1958, who are not subject to the provisions of The Civil Service Act. In reply the Order for Return said
that there were no Civil Servants -- no Civil Servants have been engaged by the Civil Service Commission except as provided in The Civil Service Act. But The Civil Service Act has for many years specifically excluded certain categories of employment from the provisions of the Act. The examples include sessional employees of the Legislature, time certificate employees, and employees of the various boards and commissions. Actually, I don't know whether I was clear in my Order for Return. That is what I wanted, because they weren't included under The Civil Service Act. I wanted employees who had been engaged by the government since July 1st for various boards and commissions and it is not in the return.
MR. ROBLIN: What do you mean by boards and commissions? Because -- are you talking about telephone commission, and the Hydro-Electric Board and people like that? If you would give us the specific detail that you want we'll do our best to get it.
MR. PAULLEY: Possibly it's my own fault, Mr. Chairman, in not spelling out boards and commissions. Actually what I had in mind, and I can appreciate the difficulty of being able to understand what I meant in this -- actually what I did mean was the new boards and commissions that may have been set up, or have been set up by the new administration. So I wonder, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of what I've now said, that that might be coming if it includes those new boards and commissions which have been set up by the government since July 1958.
MR. ROBLIN: That is new boards and commissions that don't come under the regular Civil Service?
MR. PAULLEY: That's correct.
MR. ROBLIN: Ah Ha! Well, I think the only ones that you will get there - working on my memory, Mr. Chairman - would be either of the two boards that my honourable friend mentioned. His is under the Civil Service so there would be a nil return on that, and the other ones haven't been hired yet because -- Oh, some have been hired, have they? -- Yes, there's a few that have been from departments to the Industrial Development Fund. If you'd like to name the funds or the organizations, we'll get the specific answer, but it's going to be hard to satisfy my friend if he doesn't do that.
MR. PAULLEY: I had in mind -- one was the, as I understand, the new employees who were hired for the purpose of assistance to the Treasury Board. That was one I had in mind. And also as I understand it, it might be that the individual concerned is under The Civil Service Act. As I understand it, according to press reports, there were a number of advisers to the Executive Council. I believe the First Minister -- one is the Mr. Bedson by name, I believe -- that is the categories which I had in mind.
MR. ROBLIN: The employees to the Treasury Board come under the Civil Service in every particular, and if you want them, that of course is not included in your original question at all. If you would like them, I'll give you the names right now. Here we go: Mr. C. D. Smith, I. S. M. Partridge, H. C. Taylor, A. P. Wiseman, H. Hollis, B. Hambly, and S. Jones.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Department of Education: (1) Administration - $139,724.00.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you and the Committee how sorry I am to hear of the accident that befell the Honourable the Minister of Education. I want to say that I hope that he will soon be able to return to his work in the department, and as has been suggested by the First Minister, that he will be able to take part in the coming campaign. I was looking forward to a friendly discussion on the Item No. 1, because I seem to recall that on this item, when I sat in his Chair, the members of the opposition always had a great old time. And I was hopeful that the Minister would be in fine fettle that I, too, would be able to enjoy that exchange. I want to assure the Acting Minister, however, that in the enforced absence of the Minister his duties will not be too great, because he is fortunate in that the department -- the permanent officials of the department are most devoted Civil Servants. It is a well run department. The devotion to duty, particularly of the senior members is outstanding --
A MEMBER: Hear! Hear!
MR. MILLER: -- and I'm glad to hear the "Hear, Hear", and I'm glad to suggest to the honourable members opposite, that while they take credit for almost everything that has been done by the previous government, or initiated, I've yet to hear them say that they take credit for the excellence of the permanent staff of the Department of Education.
I just want to say, that what I've said before, there is not too much purpose in going into the interim estimates too carefully because there's nothing new - no new developments contained in them and, of course, we can not discuss at this stage the programme, and may I say a very inadequate programme, outlined by the Honourable the Minister of Education on the amendment to the amendment to the Speech from the Throne. I want to reiterate that in my judgment, the government has no educational policy. They had none before the last election -- they have none now. They rely entirely on the findings of some board, or commission, and then -- or on a policy initiated by the previous administration, and then they joyfully claim it as their own. I would like to know, too, when they intend to implement their campaign promise, namely, the assurance to the people of Manitoba that they would pay 50% more in educational grants. I would like to know, too, what they have in mind for those areas, which in their wisdom in the recent vote decided to vote "No", are they going to leave them in the position of being not only deprived of additional grants, but also of subsidizing those people as provincial taxpayers who voted "Yes"? I think that is all that I have to say at the moment. I know the Acting Minister has all the answers at his fingertips and I'll be glad to hear from him.
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member from Rhineland does me honour when he says that I have all of the answers at my fingertips. I hasten to assure him that I haven't. I'm only human like he -- only perhaps a wee bit more aggressive than he was.
A MEMBER: ... positive.
MR. LYON: Positive? I'd thought you has said "popular". I wasn't going to ascribe to that honour myself. His remarks are of some considerable interest though when he says that this government has no policy in education, and when he says that this government is wanting in certain fields of policy insofar as next year's programme is concerned. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the people of Manitoba will agree perhaps with me when I say that this government in the past nine months has done more to change the field of education in Manitoba than the past government did since 1923, since 1932, or since 1948, whichever date you want to start from. If you want to take 36 years, that's fine by me. If you want to take only the past 11 years, that is still fine by me, because the comparison is still as valid. There has been a reform in education in the past eight months, the likes of which have not been seen in this province since Confederation, and I think it does not do particular honour to the former Minister of Education of this province to "pooh-pooh" as he has attempted to do -- not successfully -- to "pooh-pooh" the attempts that were made by this government, and I admit - I admit quite freely the excellent service that was given to this government by the senior and the junior ranks of the Civil Service within the Department of Education to make this programme a success.
Now I had the pleasure during the recently concluded Educational Campaign to share the platform with the Honourable Member for Rhineland, speaking at a town within his own constituency. I had the pleasure of sitting back and listening to him expound upon the reservations which he had to the education plan for some 25 minutes. I had the further pleasure of listening to him expound upon the good points which he found in the new division scheme for approximately five minutes, and when that was through, I was happy to be able to stand up and say that I thanked him for sharing the platform with me, and I meant that most sincerely. And I mean it now, because I think he was doing his duty as he saw it within his limited light, and I'm sure that he only made reference to these reservations -- not for political purposes at all, but because he honestly believed them, and I'm not trying to be facetious when I say that, but none the less, I suggest that it is just exactly that type of leadership which the Honourable Member from Rhineland was giving to the Department of Education which resulted in him receiving the rather abusive treatment which he claims he received when he came to this item in the estimates in years gone by. And I would suggest to him, that if he would use the Honourable the Minister of Education -- the present Minister as an example, why, perhaps he might not have received the abuse in days gone by that he did. I can't help but recall now as I think back to that meeting that we attended. The honourable member made references to the fact that a number of people there probably thought he was going to make an election speech and talk about the ills of the government -- that is the present government. I suggested to him, and to the audience at that time, that if he were to make such a speech, of course, it would be the shortest speech on record, because you can't talk about nothing for very long. But, none the less, I
have no hesitation in saying that -- in rebutting most completely the allegation that is made by the Honourable Member for Rhineland that this government lacks an education policy. I think the people of Manitoba know better. The people of Manitoba have demonstrated by their vote on the recent division plan, not only that they approve of what we are doing, but that they are wholeheartedly behind it to the extent of seven to three. And if that, to the Honourable Member for Rhineland, indicates a want of education policy, why, of course, I can't do anything to correct his thinking at this stage. But I can only submit to him that we are doing in this field what we think has to be done, and what we think has to be done immediately, and we are doing these things as best we can. We're not perfect at all. We're receiving excellent assistance and have received in the past, and will continue to receive in the future, excellent assistance from that Civil Service to which he has paid just tribute, and we are thankful that they are there. With those remarks I think that there is very little else that I can say on this item.
MR. MILLER: I just want to say one word, Mr. Chairman. I said that the honourable gentlemen opposite have no educational policy of their own. They can't think of anything themselves. They have to be led. They have to adopt a policy that is found for them. They can't do their own thinking.
MR. ROBLIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, we've heard everything! We have really heard it! There sits the man, Sir, that for the nine years I was in this House, used to tell us that he was all against compulsion -- he didn't even like the word "leadership" because to him it was the equivalent of compulsion. There sits the man that failed to do the things that needed to be done in education, and he says we have no policy. What did he do? What did he do? He appointed a Royal Commission. If he had a policy -- a policy that he believed in and a policy that he would get behind, why didn't he bring it out? How many years did he have to bring it out? Plenty. And show me the occasion, Mr. Chairman, show me the occasion where my honourable friend opposite was able to convince the colleagues in his Cabinet that they should do what we did in defence of our education policy, and in defence of the policy that we put before the people. When did he get them out on the hustings, Mr. Chairman, and tell the people of this province what the government thought was a good plan in education? Not compulsion, not shoving it down their throats, and how often did he charge me with that when I wanted to do something in this field? But by taking them to them with a proper plebiscite along the lines of the Royal Commission on Education, and we felt strongly enough about our policy, Sir, that we turned out en masse -- 176 meetings were addressed by members of the Cabinet, and some 600 or 700 meetings were held all over the Province of Manitoba. And he tells us that he had an educational policy. His policy was to dodge and duck, and when you can't dodge and duck any longer, appoint a Royal Commission.
MR. MILLER: Well now, Mr. Chairman, who changed his policy, if he had any? Look into the records. What did the Honourable the First Minister suggest, together with my honourable friend the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, what type of organization did he suggest? Why was I chastised? Because I said that the people of Manitoba were not ready to accept the Dauphin-Ochre type and that is why we initiated the policy covering secondary area, and we invited the honourable gentlemen opposite to help promote that policy, and they were conspicuous by their absence. What did the Honourable Member for Brandon say? Why should we help promote the policy, to which he agreed with, but ...
MR. LISSAMAN: ... on a point of principle.
MR. MILLER: ... but he said, why should I do the work that you're paid to do? He said that at the last Special Session. And so I say, and I think I'm correct, that the idea of the secondary area was initiated in this Chamber by us when we were the government. The idea of the secondary area was accepted by the Royal Commission which we appointed. The idea of the secondary division was adopted by the present administration and they sure -- and I must give them credit -- What was the Honourable the First Minister always so fond of saying? Sweeten the pot, hang out the carrot. Well, they hung out the carrot and they sweetened the pot, and they were successful.
MR. LISSAMAN: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is twisting my words just a bit. I accused him of having the responsibility, and a responsibility which in my opinion he neglected over the years, if I may remind the honourable gentleman. He's so proud of this
Royal Commission. When did the Trustees Association first demand a Royal Commission? When I first entered this House in '51, and you persisted -- the honourable member persisted in waving aside these demands for a Royal Commission. At last public pressure grew to such a point that he couldn't hold the dyke anymore. His hand was no longer big enough to hold the wall of water away, and it washed him and eventually his government off the picture. And the people of Manitoba have answered the question, whether the original -- the previous government had any educational policy and whether they were progressive. This government for the first time in probably approaching half a century took a policy to the people, staked their existence on it, and sold it to the people believing it was good -- and then you say this government has no educational policy. This government is returning responsible government to the people of Manitoba. The honourable gentleman says that they have no policy in education. Look at the sad picture of the last eight or nine years and see if you can say that.
MR. MILLER: Sad picture of the Honourable Member for Brandon in matters educational. He professes great interest in education. As long as he's been in the House he never attended a meeting in connection with changes in administration. I've never seen him at a School Trustee Meeting, I've never seen him at a meeting -- and there were 57 of them in his own area.
MR. LISSAMAN: I've not seen you at a lot of meetings that I've been at either.
MR. MILLER: You saw me more than I saw you.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, I thought that education was supposed to be something separated from politics, and here we have a battle royal going on between the other two parties. Well it's not a battle royal yet, it hasn't reached those proportions. But it would seem to me that the Honourable Member for Rhineland is demonstrating his usual full-headed stubborness, and it would seem to me that the Honourable the Acting Minister of Education is going to develop into the very same kind of personality, and I would think that for a new Minister he is a pretty cocky fellow. And if we had the opportunity of stretching this Session out a bit we might put him through an intitation, which might be of some value to him in his progress in political life.
MR. EVANS: You might learn something too.
MR. STINSON: Oh, I learn something everyday and I have often learned something from my honouralbe friend who has just interjected. The matter of Dauphin-Ochre and the type of larger school area that prevails there was mentioned by the Honourable Member for Rhineland, and we certainly advocated that type of larger school area from this group; but then when the government came along with this plan based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission we were prepared to support it on the grounds that it was a step in the right direction. And we did support it. Although no one invited us to take much part in it -- as a matter of fact, if it hadn't been for the C.B.C. I perhaps wouldn't have had a chance to say anything. The government sent out a list of speakers and didn't include my name and perhaps that was a proper way for them to conduct that particular campaign. They extended a general invitation to opposition members to take some part in it, but there were no meetings in my riding -- Winnipeg went in automatically, so that I'm rather grateful to the C.B.C. that we were given the opportunity of stating our position, and we did it in unqualified terms. We said we supported the plan and we asked the people of Manitoba to vote for it, and so I don't think that the government should take complete credit for this. I don't think that they should use this as a political weapon in this House, or even outside of it even though they deserve some credit for the action that they have taken, and we are prepared to extend that credit to them. As for the Honourable Member for Rhineland, he is sitting on this side of the House and his members are sitting on this side of the House because for the long years that they were occupying the other side they did so little. And I think that the people of Manitoba understand that. Everywhere you go in this province at the present time people are saying, "The Liberals are dead". As a matter of fact, at the moment I would give them three seats. I'll give them one in the front row, one in the second row, and one in the back row, and that's all, because they have failed the people of Manitoba and they failed the people of Manitoba in the field of education. But, Sir, don't let the honourable gentlemen opposite take complete credit, because last fall at the Special Session we all had some part in this thing. And remember that there was a Royal Commission, and I would remind honourable members that the first suggestion in this House for a Royal Commission came from this group. The Honourable Member for Assiniboia had a
resolution, which was debated in this House, on the subject and which was turned down by the government of the day. And then the next year such a commission was appointed, and that commission made a thorough study of education in Manitoba. They are still at it. There is to be another report to come yet. But in view of this history, and in view of what took place at the fall Session, and in view of the campaign that was conducted in connection with the divisions, I don't think that the government should take 100% credit for what has taken place.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, ... agree with the honourable gentleman. I don't think that we are trying to take a 100% of the credit for what took place because there are a great many other people who are in on this beside us. There were uncounted numbers of ordinary citizens who believed in this; there were members of school boards and municipal councils and others of this sort that gave us help without trying to involve the department in any way in a political decision. They certainly approved heartily of the administrative aspect of this and did their best to support it, and to all those people we must share the credit, and there are others. Whenever a meeting was called in a constituency the school inspector was asked to notify the member for that constituency of the meeting and, as far as I'm aware, that was done, and the member had an opportunity to attend in his own constituency should he wish to do so. But I have never had an opportunity yet to do something which I have long wished to do, and that is to express my appreciation for what my honourable friend who has just spoken had to say on the television when he spoke on this very matter. There were three of us -- there was myself; the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville, about whose performance I shall say nothing; and the Honourable the Member for Assiniboia, the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, who spoke out freely and frankly on this matter; and I'm sure that the general public, regardless of politics, were pleased to hear his expression on that occasion. So I would not by any means attempt to take the whole credit for this. And I refer also to my honourable friend, the Member for Springfield, with whom I had the pleasure of occupying a platform. He also did his part. And my colleague, the Minister of Education, gave me a similar report on the Honourable Member for Selkirk who also was very open in his view on this matter. And to those gentlemen I certainly wish to extend my thanks and offer to share whatever credit there is in this.
But we do come back to this, and I'm not complaining about this because it's a fact of our life, that regardless of who supports it the government has to take the responsibility for supporting it; and had the vote gone the other way, I'm sure that we would be taking the political discredit that might be involved with it, so perhaps it's only natural for us to attempt to show the House that we did do our best to give leadership in this very important matter. But by no means do we wish to say that we are entitled to the whole credit and we are quite willing to share the credit with those other people who, in my opinion, have earned some right to be considered.
MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Chairman, the opening of the Session indicated that when we came to this particular department the discussion and the questioning would be very brief, but I believe that the Honourable the First Minister and the Acting Minister of Education have brought on something that could have been very easily avoided and for which there was no necessity.
The former government was just as much interested in the welfare of our children and their education as the present government is. And I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that what the present government has achieved is a far cry from what the Royal Commission had in mind when it made its recommendations. The Honourable the Acting Minister made the statement that they have accomplished more in eight months than the former government did in any number of years. I'd like to point out some of the facts, Mr. Chairman. Only a year ago the grants of the City of Winnipeg were increased slightly over 40% in the one year, which is very little less than what they have been increased under the present plan. The Honourable the Acting Minister stated that we didn't do much towards education. I'd just like to remind him that our grants to education during those years did not amount to 50% but went into the hundreds of percent. It isn't so very long ago when the basic grant to the school districts was $200.00 per school. This has now been raised to $2,500.00 -- 12 times as much as it was -- not 50%. But that isn't the gist of the whole matter, Mr. Chairman. The Royal Commission, after making very careful studies and making a full investigation, came to the same conclusion that all of us have at one time or another and that is, that every child in the province should be given an equal opportunity. And that equal opportunity business has been played to the skies by the present government and I hope by the time I'm through, Mr. Chairman, we'll find out that this government has not created equal opportunity for the children of this province -- not by a long means. They have increased the grants but I'd like to refer to page 38 of the Royal Commission Report -- "what does more money mean in itself?" And I read from the Report, "but it is also the opinion of the Commission that great care must be taken to ensure that such considerably greater sums do not go only to increase the cost of the present standard of education but instead produce a proportionate, indeed more than proportionate, improvement in the quality of education in Manitoba. It is a simple matter to spend more money on education. It is a more difficult task to spend it in a manner which will improve edcuation". And I may interject here, Mr. Chairman, that what the plan that the government has put into effect so far does not do this. There is considerable evidence and frank admission by outstanding Americans that while they spend proportionately more on education than any other country in the free world, it has brought them not the best but possibly the worst education of all. Then the Royal Commission in its reasoning set up two basic facts as to how we can attain equality of opportunity in the province. No. 1 was to increase the facilities in the province; and the other was to improve the standard of our teachers. And it stands to reason that without proper school facilities and without proper teachers, there is no chance for equality of opportunity, and I say, Mr. Chairman, that neither of these things have been done by the present government in their plan. In the first place, the Royal Commission envisaged a large school where there could be a diversity of subjects taught; where the accommodations would be the type of accommodations that are now found in the City of Winnipeg; and I say to you that under the way the present act reads and the way some of the divisions have been established in the Province of Manitoba, that that particular basic element is not in our legislation or does it appear in the Province of Manitoba.
I could quote from the Commission -- from the Commission's Report to substantiate this particular statement, but I would only refer to a few pages in order to keep this discussion down to a minimum. We look at page 57 -- "That so far as possible there be in each division but one high school unless there be in a division a sufficient number of high school pupils to warrant two or more high schools each of not less than 12 classrooms". Now the Commission plainly stated that equality of opportunity is only possible if you do this, and I say, Mr. Chairman, that this has not been done. I'll speak about my own division -- No. 34. As I said before, it's a monstrosity and it's an impossibility to bring about what the Commission envisaged. It just can't be done! Where is your equality of opportunity? Where is your equality of education? What about the other side or the other factor that enters into this -- the quality of our teachers? Mr. Chairman, salary alone is not going to improve the quality of our teachers. You say so because you are basing your argument on the fact that you have created more money for the
schools, therefore, you have equality of opportunity, and it is not true. How do we know whether you are finished or not? You may think you are not finished but there may be a lot of people that think that you are finished. And I do not wish to impute any political motives to the government in this regard, but I do say to them that they are not giving all the facts to the people of this province.
One other factor, or the other factor that was the basis of these recommendations was merit rating of teachers, and I say to the government that they didn't have the courage to lay that fact four -- squarely before the people of this province. They evaded the issue. And if we turn to the Report of the Commission we'll find that, as far as merit rating is concerned, they tell you quite plainly in that report that they are recommending the particular standard of salaries on one condition -- that there be merit rating. Has the government followed that recommendation? They have not. They have not! What have they done? They set up another committee -- a red herring and nothing more because surely, surely, Mr. Chairman, we can give the Commission at least credit for having gone into this particular phase of the matter very carefully. Why another committee to study the matter? Procrastination -- that party of action. That's all it is -- just plain procrastination. If they would only have brought in the recommendations of the Commission as you will find them in the Report, then I certainly wouldn't rise here today and question their political motives. But I do question them, Mr. Chairman, because they have evened it, overlooked and evidently had no intention of following the recommendations of the Commission as they are set out in that report. They were lost as the Honourable Member for Rhineland said without any educational policy and they were saved by the bell -- the interim report of the Commission.
A MEMBER: Who asked for it?
MR. HRYHORCZUK: But they didn't have the intestinal fortitude to do what the Commisison recommended that they do. For example, as another example of political motives, the Commission said that wherever a division is established containing a unit, like the City of Winnipeg, the 75% or 85% construction grants were not to be made there. They are only to be made when the boundaries of the original district had been changed because they entered into a division. My honourable friends across the way saw fit to make this policy one across the board in direct contradiction to what the Commisison had recommended. So I say, Mr. Chairman, when the government takes upon itself a cloak of innocence and tells us that they have a plan that will give equal opportunity to students and to our youth in the Province of Manitoba, that is not true, because they have not gone even one step towards that possibility. All that their plan has done is change the incidence of taxation and created divisions which have no purpose. In the City of Winnipeg what purpose have they served? What purpose have they served in the City of Winnipeg or any other of these large districts that automatically became divisions? What purpose have they served outside of getting additional grants? And as I pointed out previously last year the former government gave the City of Winnipeg just about as much increase in grants as this government did, and we did it as a matter of duty. We did it because we felt it should be done. Not so that we could create something upon which to build our political prestige. And I say, Mr. Chairman, that that government has a long, long way to go before the children of this province have an equal opportunity in education.
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I feel that some of those remarks at least deserve a reply. I am particularly interested to hear the Honourable Member from Ethelbert Plains speaking to this government about procrastination. I thought that he was the expert in this field, and therefore we listened with a great deal of interest to what he had to say about this particular topic. I say advisedly that he is the expert in the field because on assuming his former office, I found that within two weeks I had to seek permission from the Provincial Treasurer to build a $100,000 building which through procrastination he had ...
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Chairman, I wish that the Acting Minister of Education would leave those remarks until we come to his department and I think he will change his tune when we get there.
MR. LYON: I think also, Mr. Chairman, of another building that we had to complete through procrastination on his part had not been done for a good number of years. I'm speaking of the Home for Girls, and so ...
MR. HRYHORCZUK: It still hasn't been done.
MR. LYON: And so I say, Mr. Chairman, that I listened with some attention to him when he speaks on the question of procrastination because he knows far more about it than perhaps anybody else in this House.
The other point that I'm interested in is his statement to the House that this government has no policy or plan on education. He reiterates the point made, not too successfully, by the Honourable Member from Rhineland. Well, I would ask the Honourable Member from Ethelbert Plains and his leader and his colleagues sitting about him, what did they do after the government had announced what its plans and its intentions were with respect to education in Manitoba? Well, they came into the Special Session last fall and in the committee stage, it's true, they made a few suggestions, but nowhere did I hear any suggestion from the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains that he, as he has just finished stating, was completely in favour of one high school for every division in Manitoba. And if that was his opinion today, was it not his opinion back ...
MR. HRYHORCZUK: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't expressing my opinion. I was telling the honourable gentleman what appears in the Report of the Royal Commission -- not what my opinion was.
MR. LYON: Well then, Mr. Chairman, if he doesn't like that tack, I would refer him to the three-ring circus which was called the Liberal Convention in January at which time, not only the Honourable Member from Ethelbert Plains but his leader and all of his colleagues and all that are left of the members of his party in Manitoba, had something to say about education in Manitoba. And their deliberations were quite interesting. They came out in favour of the Royal Commission Report but against the way the government was putting this plan into action in Manitoba. I've made the statement before and I make it here that they came out riding two horses and on the 27th of January, as all one rider will do when he's trying to ride two horses, they fell flat in between them, and the resounding thump was heard all over the electorate of Manitoba. And so they ask us, where is our plan for education? I would refer the Honourable Member from Ethelbert Plains to a statement reported in the January 30th edition of the Free Press covering that convention of which I speak. And one of the delegates to this convention was a man by the name of Bob Clement of Brandon. And he is reported as having made this statement: "If we criticize the Conservative party on this", meaning education, "we're criticizing the Royal Commission Report", he declared. And that's rather a logical stand for him to take because after all his party had just gone on record as supporting the Royal Commission Report. "No, no!" shouted other delegates. I take it that the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains was among those who shouted "No, no!" And he says further, "I wonder if we're not getting off the mark a little quickly", said Mr. Clement, "to criticize a government which has acted promptly when we waited ten years to act". Well now, if the members opposite don't like what I say about their plans for education, do they pay any more attention to what their own members of their party have to say about education? I merely have to point out some of these things in reply to the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains because obviously in the past nine months he has been wandering in some particular wilderness of which we are not aware. He talks to us about such things as what we are doing to improve curriculum, merit rating, and all of these other items. And I suggest to him that perhaps the Honourable Member for Rhineland has been in the same wilderness with him because he knows as well as I do, having set up the Royal Commission, that there is another part of that report to be made. And certainly we're waiting with great interest to see what this expert body, set up by the Honourable Member for Rhineland, after considerable prodding, what this expert body will have to advise on these different subjects. And I don't think that that could be called procrastination. I don't think that that can be called procrastination at all.
Now these different points that are mentioned now -- I think those are about all of any importance that were raised in the last words that we heard. I suggest that we are thrashing a lot of old straw. The people of Manitoba indicated, in rather a salutary way, their intention to accept this new plan. Regardless of what is said across the way, we're attempting to get on with the new plan and this is only the beginning of some of the plans that we have for education in Manitoba. Again I stress the fact that we are not perfect -- neither was the Honourable Member for Rhineland when he sat in this office, but certainly we are attempting to the best of our ability to implement those ideas which we feel will be in the best interests and to the greatest
benefit of all of the people of Manitoba, particularly the young people of this province.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable the Acting Minister talks about implementing. I want to know when the Honourable the First Minister intends to implement his pre-election promise, namely, the 50% increase.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, one of the most famous of all remarks I guess in this Chamber is that I didn't intend to take part in this discussion. I was one who really did not intend to take part in this discussion. I had thought also that the fact that the minister was not here, and I see that the Acting Minister certainly avoids the issue very well and talks about extraneous matters which is perhaps the training that he has received, but we wouldn't maybe have got into such a debate as this one, but seeing that we have, seeing that my honourable friend the Attorney-General has paid such good attention to the convention that the Liberal-Progressive Party had in this city a short time ago -- that is the correct name -- my honourable friend had it wrongly. Well, that's the Press. My honourable friend was quoting from the Press. He quoted it accurately but the correct name is "Liberal-Progressive". Incidentally, the honourable gentleman may not know it but the correct name of his party is Progressive-Conservative. He probably doesn't know that either. Anyway, at that convention -- I would just point out to my honourable friend that the difference between our conventions and those of the party to which he belongs is that we have "free speech" at our conventions, and the delegates are not only encouraged but they make use of the opportunity to express lots of views, and they're not all complimentary to the members of the House or to the government record. If they think that needs to be discussed, they are quite willing to discuss it. Now that's not the same at my honourable friend's conventions -- not the same at their conventions, and I can understand why he would be astonished by that having happened at our convention because they keep theirs under very good control. They keep them under such good control that they have never yet let it be made public what they did at the Leadership Convention after they chose Mr. Diefenbaker. The light of day has never reached in to the platform that was drafted at that time. They not only keep the discussion private but the conclusions that have been arrived at as well. Now I want to say to my honourable friend that to the best of my knowledge, and I was there all the time, not one member of the Legislative Assembly who was at that meeting took any part whatever in that debate -- not one. And if he's correct in assuming that my honourable friend was among the ones who shouted "No!", I can't guarantee that, but I'm quite certain that not one of us took part in that debate at all. We wanted to hear -- this applies to myself as well as the rest, I'm sure -- we wanted to hear what people who met this thing for the first time would say about it and that discussion was a completely free and wide open one. It's true that some of them were quite favourable to the plan that had been proposed whereas others, as you could see by the resolution that was adopted, were not so favourable. But the fact that I want my honourable friend to understand is that the members of our group who sit in the House here were taking no part whatever in that discussion and not any in leading it either.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that it's very interesting to listen to these political discussions but I would suggest to you, Sir, that you call the next item on education. Let's get down to the subject of education. But just before I sit down I'd like to ask my honourable friend why his party has the word "progressive" in it? And the same question applies to my honourable friend across the way. Why should this good word be abused in this way by parties that don't deserve to make use of it? However, this might stir up some more trouble and perhaps you, Sir, should exercise your authority as Chairman.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I maintain that the only ones who have a right to call themselves "progressive" are those who are willing to be conservative enough to look at the lessons of the past and to take into account the resources of the state that they're administering when they are deciding on policies rather than being so absolutely open-handed with other people's money that they would run the province into bankruptcy in a comparatively short time.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, Sir John A. McDonald couldn't have done better.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, you'd have to modify Sir John a little bit if it's to fit my view of the subject, because I've always been one of those, Mr. Chairman, who believes that money is a tool that you should use and the proper judge of stewardship is whether that tool -- whether the money is used as your master or whether it's a tool. And we on this side are making the best use of our money for the people of this province and we are making a prudent and a proper use of it.
MR. CAMPBELL: ... is using a very large implement -- that's all that I can say.
MR. A. A. TRAPP (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the subject that we were discussing and that was education. Much has been said of the equality of opportunity and I just want to raise one point that has not been raised yet in this House. I also come from a constituency that has within its boundaries a division that could be considered a monstrosity, and being a division of that size, one no doubt would become aware of the inequality of opportunity by the very fact of the distance from one end of the division to the other. And the point that I would want to make at this time is this: I think one of the most important things in rural Manitoba in order to give equality of opportunity for education is the matter of transportation. I think that we can all say that it is easy -- it is a simple matter to build schools. It is also a simple matter to hire teachers but, in the rural parts, the most important point is to get the pupils to the schools. I think that that is one of the greatest problems that municipal men throughout rural Manitoba will have in implementing this or in assisting to implement this educational programme of this government.
Now, so much has been said for what this government is doing to provide equality of opportunity and so forth. And while the next words that I may say may not pertain entirely to education, they may pertain to the Department of Public Works, however, they are so very closely linked to education, to the education of our children in rural Manitoba that I feel they must be said now. Which is the road system, and I ask you gentlemen, which is the road system that will carry the children of Manitoba -- of rural Manitoba to their schools? It is the market road system in my opinion. It is the market road system -- the network of roads linking one community with another throughout rural Manitoba -- that is the system, in my opinion, that will have to transport our children to their schools.
Now it was with interest that I listened to the remarks made by the Honourable Minister of Public Works when he suggested or when he outlined the assistance that they will give to municipalities in the coming year. And I noticed that he said secondary highways were to receive an upward revision in grants, and upon checking, I found that there was nothing actually being done for the market road system of Manitoba and I wondered why. I found there was a $500 grant to be given to municipalities to facilitate the snow-plowing of the market road system, and there was an increased grant for bridges, but bridges are not the main thing. A bridge only occurs at a stream and streams are not too frequently found across the rural parts of Manitoba. And I found that our secondary highway system only has 332 miles so the increased grant there did not mean too much. If the secondary highway system was to carry any amount of pupils and a secondary highway system certainly won't carry most of them, it will be the market road system. And I say that in order to facilitate and to be able to say that we are giving equality of opportunity to all people or all children of Manitoba, I feel that we must have an all-weather market road system -- the kind of a system where you can travel in the summer, in the fall, in the winter and in the spring. Now what has this government done in looking forward to assisting this market road system to be built up to an all-weather standard? There is nothing. And how many miles are involved in this? 11,000 miles -- approximately 11,000 miles of market road system throughout rural Manitoba, throughout the organized municipalities, and until that is done, no matter who is in government, no matter who is in office, they will not truthfully be able to say that there is equality for opportunity. They will not be able to say that. This I feel will be the biggest burden that the rural municipal men ever had. I feel that this will be a nightmare to the municipal men throughout rural Manitoba because they will be called upon to provide a service that they are incapable financially of giving, and I feel that is a very important point for rural Manitoba. I feel that this is where, in view of the fact that there is no additional assistance in sight at the moment, I feel that this is where the executive of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities should approach the government with the aim being to, over the next period of five years to get an increased grant yearly, an unconditional grant to build up the market road system so that we all can say in rural Manitoba as well as the urban areas that we now have equality of opportunity for education.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Administration.
MR. BEND: Mr. Chairman ... this. I'll be very brief because I know there's been a full discussion and many of the things that ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I would like to say that we are having a very full discussion and sometimes we are getting very far removed from some of the points we have before us but we want to make some ...
MR. BEND: This is brand new, Sir, and it's right on the target and I'll be brief. I have a resolution on the Order Paper, Mr. Chairman, and I know that the way events are proceeding that it will be very unlikely that that will be dealt with. I had intended to ask the minister this. I, like the others are sorry he's not here, but I think that either the First Minister or the Acting Minister can give me the information I seek.
I pointed out at the time that trends since the actual setting up of the new educational plan had definitely defeated one of the main recommendations of the Royal Commission and that was towards centralization, because of the size of boundaries and so on -- size of divisions rather. And I have in my resolution recommended that in the light of this, consideration be given with respect to construction grants since now in these areas it will not be able to take advantage of the inducement that was originally intended. Does the government feel that there will be any change in this grant system? In other words, the minister had the debate adjourned and I know he was ready to express to express his feelings on it. Could they be expressed by anybody else on that side?
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I have the advantage of hearing the remarks of the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville speaking to this resolution when he introduced it. I may say at the outset that a lot of what he had to say had a lot of truth in it, and I know that he put a coniderable amount of thought into what he said before he made any remarks on this topic. However, I think that in one respect at least, his reasoning was somewhat off the line that perhaps I would follow or perhaps the Minister of Education would follow, in that he made the assumption to begin with that this would be the situation, in other words, that the situation of which he spoke would come about. Now I would only make this comment, that this is only an assumption at this stage and that actually neither the honourable member nor myself nor anyone in this Chamber can actually determine what the situation will be until we see this new plan in operation. But certainly we are very much aware and alive to the problem which he poses and should that problem come about, why of course then study will have to be given along the lines indicated in his resolution. But I think it would be perhaps presumptuous of us, and perhaps anticipatory of us if we were to move ahead at this stage without seeing the plan in operation -- without seeing actually how the school construction plans proceed. We don't know what these division boards are going to do. They are the soul masters of their own preserves; they can build as they see fit. I think we will have to see the plan in operation for some time before we can make any knowledgeable decision upon whether or not what is suggested by the honourable member is what actually should be done by the Legislature. But I can assure him that the point he raised is always with us and that as soon as we see a situation developing along the lines that he indicates, why then, I think it will be incumbent upon the Legislature to take some action to correct it as he has suggested. But in any case, we are certainly alive to the situation and we are prepared to give it study as he has recommended, but that is as far as we can go at this stage.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 2(a) - Education Grants.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add a word to what has been said and that is I know that the Minister of Education is not only studying this matter but that he was preparing to report to the House on it, but evidently that's not to take place at least for the next little while, but I don't want anyone to think that this is a dead issue.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, in the Special Session last fall this group supported the general principles of the government with regard to the new plan for education and, as the First Minister has said, the leader of our party took the occasion to give wholehearted support to the general principles of this plan on T.V. However, we have had since the fall the beginning of the plan and the institution of the grant system as provided under the plan and I must say, Mr. Chairman, as a member for the City of Winnipeg, that I am not entirely happy with how this is working out and I see grave difficulties in the future. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I'm sorry that the Honourable Member for Logan, who is also the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, is not here. He is very quick to criticize other members of the House; he's very quick to suggest that we're not doing our job. At this moment we are discussing a matter which, according to the members of City Council last night, prevented them from finishing the completion of their budget and yet the Honourable Member who should be here and could be here, to give us their opinions has as usual taken off to look after other business. I would say this if he was here as I say it now, because this is where he should be.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Minister when speaking in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, on the amendment, said on page 95 of Hansard - "that this plan will relieve in large measure the real property from the burden of school finance, transferring a larger share to the tax base which we have in the Province of Manitoba." Now, Mr. Chairman, we agree completely that this is a worthwhile objective but this unfortunately is not working in the City of Winnipeg and I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in the next few years it will work even less and will affect all, certainly all the urban areas around Winnipeg. Now let's take a look at what happened -- I'm not being critical, I'm merely saying that this is something which, whoever is the government is going to have to give some very serious thought to. Now this year the City of Winnipeg receives in increased grants, under the formula worked out in the new legislation, roughly $600,000.00 more than they got last year. Now this is largely as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Now the Royal Commission made certain other recommendations. They recommended that the teachers' salaries be increased to the point where they have a maximum of between $8,000.00 and $9,000.00, depending on their qualifications. Now the teachers of Winnipeg, and I should say the teachers of all the urban areas at least, were very happy to get that recommendation and they've set that, and I think legitimately, as their goal. But the Royal Commission suggested that at least as far as grants were concerned that the grants be based on a system of yearly increments which would take a teacher 44 years I think, to reach. Now the teachers were certainly unwilling to accept this 44 year increment because if you take a teacher who gets his Master of Arts and his Degree in Education, he would be at least 25 before he got that and so when he retired at 65 he obviously couldn't even get to the maximum. So they of course, rejected that and they have negotiated much more liberal salary increments with the result, Mr. Chairman, and I know that the First Minister and the Minister of Education know it, that while the City of Winnipeg got $600,000.00 in increased grants that, in fact, the increases which they gave to their teachers amounted to $1,600,000.00 for this year.
I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this will be even worse next year and in succeeding years because while the grant schedule under the plan called for increments of $100.00, the increments negotiated by the City of Winnipeg called for increments of $200.00 or $300.00 a year, so that instead of a million dollar differential which we have this year it will get worse each year. Now members of the former government used to imply if they didn't say it directly, that this was all due to the fact that Winnipeg was being too generous in its negotiations. I want to point out to the members of this House, simply, that so cautious were the Winnipeg School Board in their negotiations this year; so cautious in relation to what the other municipalities around Winnipeg did, that the City of Winnipeg will this year lose somewhere between 25 and 50 teachers to the suburbs around Winnipeg, including, I might point out, the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville who is going to West Kildonan.
All I'm pointing out, Mr. Chairman, is that while we support in general the principles enunciated in this plan, I want to suggest to the Members of the government, and to the First Minister and to the Minister of Education, that there are a lot of problems which still have not been solved, and that in some respects to what the Minister talked about that the burden of costs in the field of education would be shifted more and more to the province, that I'm sorry that I don't see this happening under the present set-up, certainly as far as the urban area is concerned
because, as I see it, Winnipeg is caught in the squeeze this year. I talked to some people from the suburbs who tell me that this year they're just about going to break even but that next year as the increments increase, as I have already pointed out and the grants stay at the $100.00 increment that they're going to be caught in the same cost-price squeeze that we heard about education -- in the field of education.
MR. F. GROVES (St. Vital): I hope that the Honourable Member from St. John's was speaking just for the City of Winnipeg in his earlier remarks. I don't think that this new school plan should be blamed for the trouble which the City of Winnipeg is apparently now having with their School Board or for any failings which the Winnipeg School Board might have insofaras their budgeting and financing are concerned. I would like to inform the House that insofar as the constituency which I represent here that today they're voting on a by-law, a money by-law in which they are asking the residents of St. Vital for the sum of $1,475,000.00. The new provincial grants are going to take care of some $680,000.00 of that expenditure and, furthermore, the School Board of St. Vital intends to absorb the difference and to present to our rate-payers this year a balanced budget and a budget with no increase in taxes over last year -- so that this new plan is working out. Now those of us that had the pleasure of speaking at the meeting in which we endeavoured to sell this plan to the public of Manitoba, we didn't claim that it was perfect, that it was going to solve all the problems of education, and I think the Honourable Member from Rockwood-Iberville will bear me out in this because I said it from the same platform that he shared with me at Argyle, and I said that time and I said at these other meetings that this plan had lots of bugs in it but a lot of these bugs weren't going to come to the surface until the plan had a proper chance to work, and I maintain that this plan hasn't yet had a proper chance to show what it can do for education in Manitoba. But just on the financial aspect alone, what we've seen already in some of the divisions and what I've seen alone in my own division, I think this plan is going to be a big benefit, not only to the boys and girls but to the municipal taxpayers. What might happen two or three years from now I don't think that we should really consider at this time. We realize that education is going to become more expensive and probably further adjustments are going to have to be made.
And I would also like to point out in connection with this new school plan, that their first reaction in our own constituency, in my municipality, was that practically the reverse to what I've heard from some of the other members from the other constituencies in that our School Board and our Council felt that it was foolish to have a system where we would be having eight school boards instead of seven and they took immediate steps to consolidate the eight school districts that were situated within St. Vital and we now have one Consolidated School District which has been declared a division. So that I think that the school trustees, the people that are responsible for education in our division have taken the right approach to this thing; they made it work for the taxpayers of their district; and I think that we are all going to be better off, not only financially but from the point of view of the education of our children.
And let's face it, there is another six or seven million dollars of provincial money going into education this year so that it's got to make a difference. Now there may be some divisions where it won't make any difference but there must be all kinds of them where it is going to make a difference, so I say let's give this plan a chance and let's worry about the bugs after we've seen it in operation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: ... Emerson.
MR. TANCHAK (Emerson): Mr. Chairman, I'm not rising here to criticize the government entirely but there is a certain point I would like to bring here and that is, as you all know, that part of my constituency did not see fit to accept the division. Now as I understand it, these people are to be penalized just because they exercised their democratic right. They are to be penalized by not being able to receive or they will not receive the same grant as far as teachers are concerned. We know that under the present legislation the government may go as high as $11,000.00 per teacher per year in a district that has entered into the division plan, and a district which did not vote itself into this division plan remains at $2,500.00. I do not think this is fair; I do not think it is democratic; I think it's unjust because let us look -- let us note that it wasn't the individual school districts that raised the salary scale of teachers in the Province of Manitoba. It is the government that deliberately did this and I do not think that the different districts should be penalized. I have no quarrel with this salary scale, no doubt that in the near future probably
it will improve the teacher situation, definitely in quantity and probably, I hope, in quality, but I do not think that the government should penalize these people by withholding the teacher grants from them.
Now let us take a look at some of these divisions. For instance, in my own there are certain school districts that voted for the division, in fact I have one that voted almost 100% for the division -- to be included in the division, but the boundary did not accept this plan - the boundary division. Therefore, this school district will be penalized to the extent that they will not be receiving the grants. Now take on the other hand a school district like East Kildonan who did not vote in favour of the school divisions plan but the division that the school district is in has accepted the plan. Isn't that fantastic? They did not - they rejected the plan but they're going to get the teacher's grants and I do not think that this is right. We've heard quite a lot today about an equal opportunity to every child and if the government thinks it is right to penalize these people because they did not vote for the plan, I do not think that the government should penalize the children through the salary schedule. I think that the government should re-consider this and give an equal opportunity to every child. We know that before the last election the people in my constituency unconditionally were promised a 50% increase in school grants and I say that regardless whether they voted these or not, that they are entitled to this promise and I would like to see that that promise would be kept.
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I would only make mention of this fact in connection with the voting on school districts it's perfectly true that some of these individual districts within divisions voted against the plan but nonetheless the idea was that what the whole decided would guide and would decide the scheme. I don't think the Honourable Member from Emerson should find the situation so reprehensible when he considers particularly his own situation as a member of this Legislature because he must be continually asking himself, if he thinks that way, what do the people of Emerson and of Dominion City think of him as a member because they voted quite conclusively against him, but nonetheless he is a member and it's on the same principle that all of one area must vote on a matter of this sort, and so I would suggest to him that he consider his own situation before he casts bricks ...
MR. TANCHAK: Honourable Minister please -- he stated that the people of Emerson voted for it, and the people of Dominion City voted for it -- that is not true. The people of Dominion City rejected the vote three to one. The people of Emerson didn't.
MR. LYON: I was talking about you, not the division, Sir.
MR. TANCHAK: That ... answers my question now.
MR. ROBLIN: ...spend all afternoon, Sir. We're still at Item 1 and we've got some way to go and we haven't all the time in the world unfortunately. Would we agree to pass on?
MR. CHAIRMAN: ...
MR. LUCKO: ... two minutes, it will only be only a minute and a half. I've noticed on March 26th when the Minister was in his seat a question was asked him - whether promoting the school publicity on the radio and newspapers the firm whom the government obtained, whether it was in the supplementary estimates. The Minister replied - "No, it will be coming in the interim estimates" and his opinion was that they weren't paid. Well, that's fine, I had an order on return for question on that if they weren't paid, but I would like the Acting Minister to tell us the name of the firm. Whether they're in this province or any province I want to congratulate them on the good job they did on promoting that and I'll tell you the reason for it - an election is coming and maybe I can hire them for my own promotion. So I would like you to give me the name of the firm. That's my question.
MR. LYON: I'm sure that the Honourable Member, Mr. Chairman, will need such assistance and I will do everything within my power to endeavour to give him the name of the firm as soon as I can find out.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): I would like to ask the Acting Minister or the First Minister if this $4 million dollar appropriation under item 2a includes appropriations for the establishment grant to the ...
MR. ROBLIN: No, Sir. The figure we are looking at now is exactly one-quarter of what was granted last year and refers only to the grants that were in effect before the last general election.
MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman - in that case, may I follow this up? Where, if any place, is there provision made for the payment of the establishment grants?
MR. ROBLIN: I'm afraid I must say that in line with so many of the policies of the government which require money, this House is not voting money for those things. This House has rejected the government; rejected its plans and proposals; didn't hear the budget; and they're not being asked to vote that kind of money - so its simply not included in these estimates.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, the honourable gentleman rejected himself. I insist upon this interpretation of what happened yesterday.
MR. ROBLIN: Read the editorial in the Free Press tonight and they can set you straight. You read them very frequently.
MR. STINSON: I haven't had a chance to read the newspaper as yet, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not always guided by what they say.
MR. ROBLIN: A great mistake ...
MR. STINSON: My honourable friend is an apt pupil of editorial writers and he keeps one eye on the newspapers all the time, I realize that but ...
MR. ROBLIN: I keep the other eye on you too -- you're a pretty good fellow to watch.
MR. STINSON: Well, I think that my honourable friend, he is protesting a little too much. Every time he rises today he makes the same point -- almost every time he rises and I think that he is completely mistaken.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 2a -- Grants -- Passed. Item 3.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, just before we leave that item I would like to ask one question in answer to the First Minister, the Acting Minister of Education, in connection with the establishment grants for the new schools division. Now the First Minister has said that because of the fact that his government has been defeated that there is no provision made for the establishment grants of the schools division and numerous other expenditures. It is my conviction and opinion that at the Special Session of the Legislature last year the legislation was passed which set up the establishment grants and, despite the fact that the estimates that we're concerned with at the present time as far as the amount of money is concerned, is based on a quarter of last year's estimates or the estimates which prevailed before the general election a year ago, by the legislation that we passed in this House at the Special Session and which if I understand correctly was given Royal Assent and agreed upon as a statute binding this legislature or this government, then the establishment grant should be properly payable and not as the Minister said because of the fact - to use his terms - of the rejection of their policy, that it's not there. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it should be there.
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the concern of the honourable member and I can only assure him that had he seen fit to give us the money we would be only too happy to give it in turn. But if it will make him feel any better and certainly I have no hesitation in saying this, that five of the establishment grants have already been paid as required by statute and if this lump sum is voted as we are asking the House to do so now, we will find the money within the lump sum that is voted to make sure that these grants are paid.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, that's a slightly different statement than the one we got from the Honourable the First Minister.
MR. STINSON: It sure is. The Honourable the Acting Minister informed the First Minister of what he has just said.
MR. ROBLIN: I appreciate your interest in the Honourable the Acting Minister. I think he's doing a pretty darn good job myself. I'm going to listen to him carefully. I advise you to do the same.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Teacher training - $26,520.00 - Passed. Item 4 - Student Instruction - $263,594.00 - Passed. Item 5 - Miscellaneous - Teacher's Retirement Allowances Fund... Manitoba School Journal Printing, Advisory Board ... Agreement Board, incidentals, Alcohol education, Royal Commission on Education - $149,150.00 - Passed. Agriculture and Immigration.
MR. GRAY: May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Immigration? My question is that as the Minister of Agriculture and Immigration, I don't see a single item for Immigration.
ONE OF THE MEMBERS: You're so right!
MR. C. L. SHUTTLEWORTH (Minnedosa): In the estimates for the progress that has been done as far as P.F.R.A. is concerned, I wonder under either administration or agriculture if the Minister could report to us on the work that has been done in co-operation with P.F.R.A. in the province during the past summer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Under Item 1 now - administration.
MR. STINSON: Sir, I wonder if the Honourable the Minister would make his speech now on deficiency payments?
MR. ROBLIN: That would take the rest of the night.
MR. F. L. JOBIN (Flin Flon): Mr. Chairman, in this particular estimate I'm referring not to the budget that hasn't been given but to the Throne Speech that didn't contain any reference to the Métis and Non-Treaty Indian Study. Is it not a fact that this final report was handed to the government some weeks before the Throne Speech was given and is it a fair assumption that because it was that the government intended to do nothing about it?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, in regard to immigration, the Department was named the Department of Agriculture and Immigration at a time when they did something about immigration, and when apparently they had representatives in the United States and elsewhere seeking to get people to come to Manitoba to take up agriculture. Stince that time, it has become of lesser importance, this time we're changing the name of the Department to Agriculture and Conservation, instead of Agriculture and Immigration because immigration has ceased to be important as far as the Department is concerned, although we still get inquiries from different parts of the world asking advice in regard to coming to Canada to take up agriculture.
With regard to P.F.R.A., mostly it is a continuation of the projects which we have had in the past; they are studying new ones, but there is not a great deal to report as far as P.F.R.A. is concerned, except to say that they are continuing those projects which are two and three year projects, which the former minister knows about, and they're investigating others in the province which they haven't yet commenced on but, the work is going forward and they've been very energetic in regards to it.
I do not think deficiency payments had anything to do with the present argument, but for the sake of the Leader of the C.C.F., may I say to him that deficiency payments are important, and do bring democrats to agriculture.
With regard to the Métis, the report - two volumes of the report came to us just yesterday, we have not yet received the third volume of that report, but just yesterday, to me, was handed the first two volumes of the report, we did not have it previously, and we have not yet got the third volume of that report. But, as soon as we have the three volumes we will, as soon as we possibly can, we will release it to the public and volumes will be available to the members.
MR. STINSON: The Minister has said that deficiency payments do bring benefits to the farmers. Will he answer this question: Do the deficiency payments that are being paid by John Diefenbaker and Company bring benefits to the farmers?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, I trust that you will agree with me, the question is too silly to answer.
MR. JOBIN: Mr. Chairman, following the question re: the Métis studies, I understand the Minister to say that they received copies yesterday of Volume 1 and Number 2, my question is -- my inference, not my accusation - but what I wish to infer is that surely if you as Minister of Agriculture and didn't receive it -- that surely the First Minister, or the government - someone in the government received the initial draft -- it's not customary, I would hardly think, for a government to have a report published without having looked at it, and I am not suggesting that you would attempt to change it, but I would think that before you would have it printed, that you would at least have had it submitted to you, and I ask was not that done?
MR. WILLIS: It was not submitted to me, to the best of my knowledge it was not submitted to anyone else.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: Mr. Chairman, in connection with deficiency payments, I don't think that the question that was asked by the Honourable, the Leader of the C.C.F., is a silly question at all. It certainly isn't a silly one in the minds of the people out in the country, but the Minister of Agriculture has such a limited knowledge of this subject, in my opinion, that he's not able to answer the question.
When he made his speech in the House the other day, he suggested that he preferred the
acreage basis of payment instead of the proposed basis of payment that the farmers proposed at Ottawa. Well now, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't make any difference which method you use, it's still a deficiency payment. It's still a deficiency payment -- whether you make it on an acreage basis or whether you make it on a bushel basis -- it still is a deficiency payment to agriculture, and I think we want to be very clear on that point. But, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that as far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned, he hasn't too much interest in deficiency payments, but it's of great interest to the farmers of Manitoba.
MR. TRAPP: Mr. Chairman, there is a question that I'd like to direct to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, in a recent statement he made to the House, in regard to the delegation to Ottawa, regarding the deficiency payments, he said that the $1,500.00 ceiling that they asked for was away up in the clouds. Would he tell the people of Manitoba, the farmers of Manitoba, through this House, what, in his opinion would be a proper ceiling?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, it is completely incorrect for the Minister -- for the Member from Minnedosa to say that we are not interested in deficiency payments. The simple facts were, before the delegation went east, the federal government had, in effect, refused deficiency payments, therefore, it was certainly my opinion that the delegation should have taken another attack in order to get more money, and I was definitely interested in them getting more money, if they couldn't get -- if they got it by deficiency payments, that was all right in itself. But, the main thing was to get the most money for the farmers of Western Canada -- that's all I had in mind, and I was definitely interested in getting more money for the farmers of Western Canada because of my position here, and because I have been a farmer for many years.
MR. STINSON: Would he suggest that the farmers should have taken -- I assume that he has in mind the same tack that Mr. Harkness took, that it should come in the form of acreage payments -- is that the position taken by the Minister?
MR. WILLIS: It was my personal opinion that as far as the delegation was concerned they should have gone to the minister and said - "If you'll give us deficiency payments, we'll be most pleased, but, if you're not going to give us that then we want compensation in some form or another", whether it's on an acreage basis or bushelage basis the main thing was the largest number of dollars that they could get -- it was the dollars that were important.
MR. RIDLEY: Mr. Chairman, there's one question that I have been asking -- I can probably get the answer here. I've been speaking to quite a few of the delegation that was down to Ottawa, and I have asked quite a number of them what the Liberal party stand was in regard to deficiency payments, I've never been able to find out -- they couldn't find out -- nobody would commit themselves -- probably some of the opposition members could tell me -- that's the federal.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman - two wrongs does not make one thing right. In connection with the name of immigration, it seems to me that the government decided not to have anything to do -- any more with immigration. I think it's a mistake. First of all, they should be interested to see that the proper immigrants -- immigration comes in; secondly, they should be interested in it because of coming in will not replace anyone who has a job in this province; thirdly, there is farm help, there is still men available, population of Manitoba is only 800,000. Immigrants are coming into Canada, and will be coming in, and I think it should be the business of the Province to see that this is before them all the time. I don't agree with removing the name -- at least this reminds the government that there's such a thing as immigration policy, and there is such a thing as immigrants and such a thing as the population of the Province, and once they remove the name, they won't do anything else, so you're just leaving it entirely to the federal or other governments to act in all matters of immigration. I think it's not a wise move to remove it -- although he may not have a programme for it, but there was some time - I remember since I was in the House, that the government of the day was interested in immigration -- it was their business to be interested in -- first of all for the saving human lives, and secondly, for the development of this province, and I don't think you acted wisely in this case.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, those things which we have done in the past in regard to immigration, we will continue to do, but immigration has become of lesser importance due to the fact which was just given by the member who has just taken his seat, and therefore, because we want to place on the masthead those things which are more important at the moment, we replace the word of "Immigration" with "Conservation", because conservation has become of greater
importance for the time being than immigration is as far as the province is concerned, but we will continue to have an interest in immigration.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for Pembina has asked what my stand is as far as deficiency payments were concerned. Well, I want to suggest to him that two years ago we took the stand that his government is taking now, that deficiency payments should be studied, because the report of our Special Select Committee on agriculture reported back to the House, and recommended to the government of Canada at that time, that the government should make a further study of the principles of deficiency payments. And, that was sent forward to the government of the day, and Mr. Chairman, now we have the reverse -- at that time, the First Minister got up in the House here and said, "surely we can do something about deficiency payments -- surely we can do something about parity." Oh yes, I have your speech right here, but I'm -- [Interjection by Mr. Roblin]. Yes, I will -- that isn't what I said that you said about the report of the Committee.
MR. ROBLIN: You read what I said.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: Now, this was taken from the disc in 1957 -- this is the debate on the motion of the resolution setting up the committee, and he says "Now, we come down to parity and price support, here again we don't even express an opinion -- we asked the federal government to talk to some people about it." Well, that's interesting in what has happened in the last few months. "We asked the federal government to talk to people about it." Well, they've been talking to a lot of people about it, they sure have in the last two or three months. We -- the two farm organizations in Canada -- cannot we go as far as to say that it is our opinion that some kind of price support -- some kind of deficiency payment scheme, that will at least enable the efficient farmer to remain in business is a good thing. And, Mr. Chairman, had the First Minister been as bold as that when the march went to Ottawa, he would have been able to give them a good deal more support, but since 1957, the situation has continued to deteriorate as far as agriculture is concerned. And Mr. Chairman, all you have to do is to look at the cost-price squeeze today, even in the last two years -- couple on top of that a government in both Canada and the Province of Manitoba, who are inflationary bound, and there's no doubt in the minds of the farmer that he has to have a deficiency payment.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I simply ask my honourable friend what did he do with his famous agricultural committee report of some thirteen, or fourteen or fifteen items? Almost all of them were referred to Ottawa for one reason or another. When I made that remark about deficiency payments, and price supports -- that was before the present federal government had introduced a measure for price support that we have now, that was before that took place. And, my honourable friend knows very well, it was before that took place, and while that does not mean to say that I am satisfied with what has been done at Ottawa, in this connection, because I'm certainly not satisfied with it. Nevertheless, my statement does not reflect my opinion truly, unless it is said in the proper time context and my honourable friend knows all about that -- he really ought to be careful what he mentions.
Now, the other thing that he should tell the committee about is what did he do about agricultural credit? That was thoroughly discussed among other things that came before that committee -- what did he do about it? Well, he referred it to Ottawa -- he didn't even suggest that he was going to bring in legislation of his own unless Ottawa did something too. This was certainly a tie-in deal. What did my honourable friend do about the major issue of crop insurance when that was before the committee? Again, he was not prepared to take any action on his own -- that had to be referred to Ottawa also. What did my honourable friend do about important matters of conservation and drainage? Something -- to be sure! Oh yes, but far too little, considering the problems that were involved. So, when we come to that area of administration which lay within my honourable friend's control, we find that his record is a very poor one indeed. He could have done, Sir, he could have done - then and there - the things that this government is going to do when it is returned to office after voting day -- the things that are in the Throne Speech -- the legislation that we have brought down before this House, and we're quite willing to talk to any farmer in Manitoba on that record.
My honourable friend's record is a record of trying to explain why he didn't do it when he had the chance.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: My honourable friend has just made an excellent job of skidding
around the issue entirely. We're talking about deficiency payments right now, and sure, all the other things come into it -- crop insurance, and we've made a recommendation at that time, and we carried it through. And we made a recommendation at that time as far as credit was concerned and we'll carry it through. And, I want to suggest to my honourable friend that we haven't heard the last yet on farm credit and on crop insurance and a lot of things. The people in the Province of Manitoba are still -- want to see what comes forth in that regard, but the thing that I'm interested in was that the First Minister said that he isn't satisfied with what's being done at Ottawa at the present time, and I was glad to hear it because I had made up my mind that he was going on what he said last year in this House, when he said that things in Ottawa, as far as agriculture is concerned are being adequately looked at. And, that's the stand that he takes at the present time, and that's the stand that's indicated at the time. And now, I'll quote what you said a year ago in this House, and you talked about those things that you've talked about a good deal, and they're important, and then he goes on to say, he says "I do not suggest - I would not misunderstand -- would not be misunderstood to say that any of the points I have mentioned this afternoon exhaust the possibilities in the field of Agriculture," and he was talking about crop insurance and all those other things. Nor, do I claim for them, that they represent in any way, a cure-all for all the problems, because we know that as well as provincial responsibilities, there are federal responsibilities and that theme is being dealt with I think, in an adequate manner at the present time by another government.
Now, in my [Interjection by Mr. Roblin] -- you made the speech in this House on the Throne Speech on February the 13th, 1958.
MR. ROBLIN: Yes, that's ... it was all?
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: In my opinion ... because he was following John at that particular time, in every footstep and Mr. Chairman, there's nothing that comes out clearer, as far as the march to Ottawa and this government is concerned, they're still following John.
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Chairman, like the Leader of the Opposition, I had no intention of taking part in this debate -- famous last words -- I think, in this House, but also I would like to say my Scotch ancestry goes back as deep as his does, and there's so much free speech around here, I wanted to take advantage of some of it.
The Honourable Member for Minnedosa stated that the Select Committee two years ago recommended that deficiency payments should be studied. He made darn good and sure that he studied them until after the federal election, that was in the offing at that time, was over.
We further go on to state now that not only should deficiency payments be studied - they should be paid. And, my own personal opinion, I would like [Interjection] -- Good! Good! Hurray! I would also like to add my personal comment to what the Minister of Agriculture said when he said it was his own personal conviction that as far as Manitoba farmers were concerned we should have pushed a little harder for deficiency payments on the acreage basis, and the reasons for that are this, that an acreage basis is going to bring more money to the Manitoba farmers -- is going to be of more benefit to all the farmers of Manitoba, and therefore, is going to be of more benefit to the Province of Manitoba. Now, some people say, "Well, why did the farmers of Manitoba then go in support of march on Ottawa, which advocated a bushel payment?" And the answer, Mr. Chairman, is very simple -- the situation was this - most of the farmers in my constituency feel the same way -- that they wanted first of all attention focused on the cost-price squeeze on the grain farmers of Western Canada. And, the best way of getting that attention they felt, was a mass delegation with as large a number as they could get -- that was the best way, they thought, of getting publicity. To get that, you had to have unity within all the members of that delegation. The only way they could get a unified basis to work under, was to support the resolution as it came from Saskatchewan, which advocated the acreage -- the bushel payment. Now, there again, was the fact that although a lot of the farmers in Manitoba disagreed with the actual bushel payment, they thought for the sake of unity, and for the sake of publicity impact of a mass delegation that they should support that resolution -- support that delegation, for the sake of getting attention focused on the problems of grain farming, on the problem of the cost-price squeeze in Western Canada.
Now, I still think myself that that is the right attitude for the farmers to take, but I still say that as far as I am concerned, personally that deficiency payments on a acreage plan is a better plan for Manitoba.
I am very much afraid that this idea of bushel payments which had its origin in the Province of Saskatchewan, is once again going to be a plan similar to P.F.A.A., which we got '39 and '40, and as far as I'm concerned, Manitoba farmers got taken in on that. I'm very much afraid this is going to be the same thing.
I'd like to quote some figures I have here on P.F.A.A. On the levy, this is for the years 1939/40 to 1957/58: Manitoba in that plan -- in that length of time -- to its levy on grain solely has paid in $16,031,583.52 There have been 91,600 awards of P.F.A.A.'s and the total payments have been $13,731,544.27.
Saskatchewan, in the same period has paid in $60,832,255.47. There have been awards totalling 592,563 and their payments total $138,440,766.08. As to the comparison of the benefits of that plan, between Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and I would like to go further than this and state that it was the changes in the P.F.A.A. in the last year that was brought in by a Conservative government at Ottawa, they even brought Manitoba's position up to where these figures go. And I would like to say that on that basis, and the crop year of last year that Manitoba's contributions under the levy, were $804,833.00. Their payments were $1,504,739.00, total awards were 6,719. And, as most of the honourable members here who are connected with farming know, that the main changes that were brought in last year by the Ottawa government, was in the size of the areas that were necessary to qualify for assistance under the average yield plan of P.F.A.A. And, that is the first time that Manitoba has ever got more out of P.F.A.A. than it paid in, I think -- I could be corrected on that -- that is my impression. [Interjection] Not the first year? It's the first time that Manitoba has ever received more benefits out of P.F.A.A. than what they've paid in, is that correct? I think, that is my impression, and as I said, that was brought about by changes in the P.F.A.A. -- brought about as an interim measure until crop insurance could be brought in by the Ottawa government. But, to get back to the question of deficiency payments, I still think myself, personally, I think the majority of the farmers of Manitoba think, that the acreage basis is the best plan for Manitoba farmers -- it's going to give them more money, and is going to be the best all around for the Province of Manitoba.
MR. BEND: Mr. Chairman, I just would like to ask a question, and then you could -- I was just going to say after listening to the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, state he was not satisfied with what Ottawa was doing, and then after listening to the First -- I'm sorry, well he's going to be, and I -- the Honourable, the First Minister, I'm sorry, after giving his speech, saying that he was not satisfied with what Ottawa was doing, and then hearing the Honourable Member from Roblin in the first part of his speech, and then again at the last pointing out his thoughts, I was forced to the conclusion that neither one was present at the Progressive-Conservative caucus that sent that famous telegram.
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Chairman, I was at the caucus and I saw the First Minister there as well.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to hear from one of the honourable members opposite -- I had been wondering if they all suffered from laryngitis for the last couple of days, but I congratulate my honourable friend from Roblin because he has found his feet. [Interjection] Oh yes, he ... he's -- I might ask the Honourable the First Minister if his discipline is slipping a bit.
MR. ALEXANDER: ... order. I'd just like to state that as a green member here, I always understood, or I was told that I thought estimates... [Interjections] Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Don't get that chuckle. I was told as a matter of procedure that usually estimates are considered to be a discussion between the minister concerned and the opposition. Now, I find out later on this afternoon that that assumption is incorrect, so I entered into the debate.
MR. ROBLIN: ... this subject gets off the ...
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, is my honourable friend rising to take my position, I had ...
MR. ROBLIN: No, if you want to speak, go ahead.
MR. STINSON: I had the floor.
MR. ROBLIN: Certainly.
MR. STINSON: Now, I'll give my honourable friend time to cool down -- he -- he's going to burst a blood vessel one of these days.
MR. ROBLIN: I wouldn't count on it.
MR. STINSON: Oh well, I hope not. Now, I was interested to hear the comment of the Honourable Member for Roblin. He stated that he thought that the farmers of Manitoba who went on the march preferred the acreage basis. Apparently the implication of that is the farmers did not believe in their own cause. They went down to Ottawa saying one thing and believing something else. Now, that would seem like a rather strange situation because the farmers I talked to who went on this delegation seemed convinced they should have deficiency payments on the bushel basis.
Now the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, a few days ago, indicated that he thought that a $1,500 ceiling was too high. Now, as I recall it, the plan that they had last year on the acreage basis had a ceiling of $200. So, I suppose the assumption is that the proper ceiling -- the assumption that one can make is that $200 is the proper ceiling. Well, I'm just assuming that that is what members opposite believe. [Interjections] Well, all right, you tell us -- you tell us -- you tell us -- tell us exactly what you think, without hedging.
Now, as far as the Honourable Member for Minnedosa is concerned, he's in a rather vulnerable position because when he was Minister of Agriculture, he did manage to hold committee meetings and have reports, and as I recall it he kept one important report on his desk for quite a long time because there was no Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa to sent it to, or rather in the first instance, it was kept on his desk because there was an election on and Jimmy Gardiner was too busy. And then, after the election was over, Jimmy wasn't there any more, and there wasn't any Minister of Agriculture for some time. And there was no one to send it to. But eventually he got it off to the Prime Minister, so that the official spokesman for the official opposition on this subject is in a rather vulnerable position.
Now, some of us on this side are a bit curious as to what motivated the government in sending that now-famous telegram. In fact, who was the genius who drafted that masterpiece? I'd rather like to know, just as a matter of curiosity, because they seem to be on both sides of the question at the same time in that particular telegram.
And then when the Honourable the First Minister was pressed, he eventually told a press conference that it was a proper thing for the farmers to go on this march to Ottawa. He didn't say it was the right thing. He didn't say that he supported them in going. He didn't say that they should have deficiency payments. He just said that it was the proper thing for them to go. Now perhaps he might elaborate a bit upon that statement. I would like to know what his definition is of the word "proper". Now, apparently members opposite are coming around to the position that some form of deficiency payment should be made to western farmers. And of course, with an election around the corner, people can be persuaded to say things and to perhaps even think things that, under other circumstances, they would not do. But I think in this connection, it is rather more important that Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Harkness should be persuaded. These are the men who have the authority in this matter. And across the way we have honourable members who might, if they would, put some legitimate pressure upon the federal government at Ottawa. Now the First Minister has admonished me upon more than one occasion that business is not concluded on the "old boy" basis, and on the old school tie basis between the government. They do things in a proper fashion. And there I go, using that word "proper", and I'm still wondering what the position of the government is on this question.
We have a back-bencher telling us that he is in favour of a form of deficiency payment -- that he thinks that the farmers generally prefer the acreage basis -- and yet the farmers went on a delegation. They went on what was called a "March to Ottawa", and not to ask for payments on an acreage basis at all. In fact, I've heard a great deal of criticism of the acreage basis. And so I simply wonder, Mr. Chairman, now with an election around the corner, just how far can we bring these people along? Just how brave will they be now on this subject? And
they're very anxious to win support in this province. I've never seen fellows so eager in my life to hold down those front benches over there. They're prepared to go the whole hog. They'll promise everything including the moon, although I don't think that the planning board -- what is it? -- I don't think that the Treasury Board -- although I have respect for the Treasury Board and I believe that it is a good thing -- I don't think that they really are in a position to send a rocket to the moon. But this government is prepared to go the whole hog because there's an election around the corner. One of these days we're going to see a banner headline in the newspaper -- Provincial Tory --
MR. RIDLEY: Roblin Re-elected.
MR. STINSON: Well done, my friend. That was a commendable interjection. I admire the enthusiasm of my honourable friend, but I don't share his hopes. Now, as I was about to say, one of these days we'll see a banner headline in the newspapers saying that the provincial Tories are all out for deficiency payments for the farmers of Manitoba.
MR. H. P. SHEWMAN (Morris): We've been accused of everything but stealing horses. I think we've had a thorough discussion on deficiency payments and the march to Ottawa, and I think every member that has spoken here this afternoon has missed the point. When these marchers decided to march to Ottawa, they said it was a non-political march. And Mr. Chairman, what do we read? The C.C.F. party greets them with a brass band. The Liberals are conspicuous by their absence. The Prime Minister of Canada and his Cabinet met the march from Ottawa and did everything they could to make their stay comfortable.
MR. BEND: Would the honourable member permit a question? Would he permit a question?
MR. SHEWMAN: Yes, from the Honourable Member for Iberville, certainly.
MR. BEND: In other words he gave them his regards.
MR. SHEWMAN: And he gave them a sympathetic hearing. He mentioned the fact when the delegation or the farm people were down there last fall. He says, "There's four points that I would like you fellows to go home and talk over and when you come again, bring me an answer for those points, because we're willing to help the farmer of western Canada". He also had the members for Manitoba break up in groups and take these marchers into their own committee rooms and discuss the pros and cons of deficiency payments. And after listening to the discussion in Ottawa, the thought come up about an acreage payment. What should we do for the farm that haven't had a crop? Can we allow 57% of this $300 million to go to Saskatchewan and the other 37% divided between Alberta and Manitoba? Now that was partly the stand that they took to get money, or more money for a better deal for the farmers of Manitoba. And when the Honourable Member for Hamiota stands up and says "we did this -- we've done this for the farmers" -- Minnedosa, -- I'm sorry. My mistake, my mistake -- it was Hamiota -- wasn't it? Minnedosa -- the Honourable Member from Minnedosa will stand up and say, "we'll do this -- we'll do that", and what little bit they did do, Mr. Chairman, was the prodding from the members year after year of a crop insurance resolution being in the House. What happened to it? It was amended and watered down and shoved back where it didn't mean a thing until the eve of the last election. And then the honourable member stood up in this House and said we'll give you crop insurance if you want it -- just before election. They talk about election promises. And the honourable member mentioned ...
A MEMBER: What have you been doing for two days?
MR. SHEWMAN: And the honourable member mentioned about the report from the Agricultural Committee two years ago. That's true -- what the honourable member mentioned, the Leader of the C.C.F. party -- absolutely true. Now where was the assistance forthcoming from your party at that time to help the farmers of Manitoba? Nil -- Nil. Oh, don't do that because that's the truth, and it's only the truth that hurts. And when we asked for a definite farm policy for the farmers of Manitoba, what was your reply? No, -- no farm policy. This government, in eight months and a half or nine months, have brought in a definite farm policy -- a start of a definite farm policy for the farmers of Manitoba. Farm Credit is one thing. Soil conservation and water control is another thing. They're making a start -- they're making a start to help the farmers. And all we're asking, Sir, is a little more time. We'll have the best farm policy of any province in the Dominion of Canada after the next election some time in June.
MR. SPEAKER: It is 5:30, and I shall leave the Chair till 8:00 o'clock.
Page revised: 22 September 2009