| 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | ||||
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 |
| 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 |
MR. SPEAKER: O Eternal and Almighty God from Whom all power and wisdom come; by Whom Kings rule and make equitable laws; we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our Province: grant O Merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy Will; that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the Glory and Honour of Thy Name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.
Presenting Petitions.
Reading and receiving petitions.
MR. CLERK: The Petition of Folkert Plantings, Raymond Themmen and others, praying for the passing of an Act to incorporate The Greater Winnipeg Society for Christian Education.
The Petition of E.R.R. Mills, Jeannette S. Moss, Fanny F. Goldenberg, and others, praying for the passing of an Act to incorporate Grand Chapter of Manitoba, Order of the Eastern Star.
The Petition of St. Charles Country Club, praying for an Act to amend an Act to incorporate the St. Charles Country Club.
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting reports of Standing and Select Committees.
Notice of Motion.
Introduction of Bills.
HONOURABLE DUFF ROBLIN (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 45, an act to amend The Insurance Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 3, an act to amend The Insurance Corporations Tax Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 58, an act to amend The Department of Industry and Commerce Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable, the Provincial Secretary, I move, seconded by the Honourable, the Minister of Education, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 11, an act to amend The Companies Act, the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
HON. JOHN THOMPSON (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable, the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 60, an act to amend The Municipal Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable, the Attorney-General that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 48, an act to amend The Local Government District Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. F. GROVES (St. Vital): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from St. Boniface, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 7, an act to validate By-law No. 42 of the School District of Norwood No. 2113, and that the same be now received and read a
first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. A. E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville, that leave be given to introduce a bill, 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, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. C. L. SHUTTLEWORTH (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Carillon, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 59, an Act to Amend an Act to Incorporate the Village of Erickson, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. C. L. SHUTTLEWORTH (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Member for Carillon, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 5, an act to validate By-law No. 3465 of the City of Portage la Prairie, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. R. O. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Pembina, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 8, an act to amend The Brandon Charter, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. M. E. McKELLAR (Souris-Lansdowne): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Arthur, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 34, an act respecting the Rural Municipality of Whitewater and the Minto Cemetery Company, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Hamiota, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 12, an act respecting the Glenboro Medical Nursing Unit No. 16B, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Lac du Bonnet, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 14, an act to validate By-law No. 538 of the Town of Gladstone, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. W. B. SCARTH, Q.C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Member for St. Matthews, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 44, an act to validate By-law No. 608 of the School District of Winnipeg No. 1, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Member for Winnipeg Centre, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 51, an act to amend The Public Schools Act (1), and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
HON. ERRICK WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolutions as listed on the Order paper.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Honourable Member for St. Matthews to please thake the Chair.
DR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): To consider the resolutions.
Resolution No. 1. RESOLVED that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Department of Agriculture and Immigration Act and certain other acts to provide, among other
matters, for the establishment of a Water Control and Conservation Branch of the Government, the employment of staff, the transfer to the Minister of the Department of the jurisdiction, authority and control over water control matters, and where necessary for the purposes of water control the acquirement of land and other property, the construction of works, and the making of examinations and surveys.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, you were faster on the draw than I was there but may I say now that His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the subject matter of the proposed resolutions, recommends them to the House.
The first resolution, Mr. Chairman, is to bring water control and conservation under one authority within the Department of Agriculture.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, I think we can at least give the Honourable, the Minister, full credit for brevity in this connection. We had gathered as much from reading the resolution, and I must say, as far as I am personally concerned and I think most of my colleagues, it is not our intention to break the rules by attempting to debate the subject at this stage. I realize that frequently the fact that we are supposed at this stage to simply decide whether a money resolution of this kind, or a bill imposing the expenditure of money should be introduced, and that being the purpose at this stage of the proceedings, we are not supposed, I think generally speaking, to debate the points at issue, but we're prepared to take that position, but I would want it to be understood that in allowing these resolutions to go along in the spirit in which they are intended, that we are not committing ourselves at all to principle, and in some of these at least, (and I think this is one that we are discussing now and I shall not make this statement on every one of them) in some of these at least the principle runs very, very close to the expenditure of money itself and we may at a later stage have something to say about that but it's not our purpose to hold them up at this stage.
MR. L. STINSON (Leader of the C.C.F.) (Osborne): ... statement of the rules but I think we are able to ask certain questions at this stage. Control over water control matters. Does this include flooding of any sort?
MR. WILLIS: It will deal indirectly with flooding matters, yes. It will become the water authority, Mr. Chairman, conscious as I was of the great performances which are to follow, I thought in this particular instance I should be most brief and consequently I did that in deference to the Leader of the Opposition. (Thank you.) But I think it largely speaks for itself, and one could speak an hour or two on it but that will come later when we get down to the detail, as the members in the House know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can the resolution be adopted? Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Department of Agriculture and Immigration Act by providing that monies be paid from the Consolidated Fund to assist students in beginning, continuing, and completing courses leading to a diploma in agriculture.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, this makes provision for the payment of bursaries to students studying agriculture at the University of Manitoba in the diploma course. In the past we have had bursaries paid to those in the degree course only, and this makes provision for bursaries to be paid to those who are in the diploma course, which is merely a two year course at the University of Manitoba in agriculture.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can this resolution be adopted? Resolution No. 3. RESOLVED that it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish an authority to provide for the development of the natural resources of the province and the encouragement of industrial enterprises, and to provide, among other matters, for the employment of staff and payment of their remuneration.
MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, this provides the means by which the Government functions in connection with developing natural resources within the province may be co-ordinated with two objects in view, one, to increase the efficiency of that process, and second, to give due consideration and very careful consideration to the public interest in any natural resource development that may take place.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, in this connection, am I given to understand that in this matter, insofar as it deals with the encouragement of industrial development, that this may be auxiliary to the Industrial Development Bank Loan Fund which we set up at the last session, and is it the intention of the Minister to introduce through this resolution
... amendment to that legislation? It appears to me that in reading reports of the news that the objective behind this is principally the development of our natural resources. In that of course the Press and ourselves may be in error. But when I see on the resolution the encouragement of industrial enterprises, I am wondering whether or not this is something apart from the Industrial Development Funds Act which we set up at the Special Session of the Legislature.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can the resolution be adopted? Any further questions?
MR. EVANS: I would be glad to answer them one by one - I thought it might be a convenience if I answered them all together. The answer to the Honourable Member from Transcona's question (Radisson). I beg his pardon, Mr. Chairman, I knew him so long and in such a friendly way on the back bench there under the name of Transcona that I can hardly ... myself. This act is entirely separate from the Manitoba Development Fund. It is not intended to be an auxiliary to it. The reference to industry therein really means that any natural resource development as mining, etc., does involve industrial aspects as well as natural resource aspects, and so it is not intended by the working of the resolution to indicate that this fund will have any effect of amending the Industrial Development Fund which is already in operation.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister say that this measure will involve a certain amount of economic planning? I can recall the Honourable gentleman voting against a certain amendment of ours upon one occasion because it contained the single word 'planning'.
MR. EVANS: I don't recall the incident to which the Leader of the C.C.F. party refers. Business of all kinds is supremely good at planning and any continuation of the economic development of the province will also involve planning.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further question? Can the resolution be adopted?
Resolution No. 4. RESOLVED that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Child Welfare Act by providing, among other matters, for the examination of certain children by medical practitioners to determine whether a particular surgical operation or medical or remedial care or treatment is required for the health or well-being of the child, and for the payment of the costs incidental to such an examination.
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is stated in the body thereof. It is raised as a money resolution because limited amounts of money will be required to pay for any medical practitioners who are appointed for the purposes set forth in the resolution. The amendments generally to the act will be of a limited nature, to clarify and to expedite procedure for dealing with cases of neglected children under The Child Welfare Act.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, tell us what does he mean by 'other matters'?
MR. LYON: I don't think that the Honourable Member, Mr. Chairman, would wish me to go into detail at this stage. All I can say is that there will be limited amendments to The Child Welfare Act to clarify some existing provisions and to expedite the action that can be taken under that act through the courts in order to bring assistance of a medical sort to children who are deemed to be neglected children within the meaning of the definition contained in that act.
MR. STINSON: Will the matter of administering blood transfusions be included in this ... measure? ...
MR. LYON: Not per se. But the whole question of medical care and treatment will be dealt with. If blood transfusions can be deemed to be a part of medical care and treatment, why yes, of course.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, might I ask the Honourable Minister whether or not consultation has been held with the Solicitor-General of Canada in this respect? I raise this point, Mr. Chairman, because it's my understanding again, reading newspaper reports that some possible similar circumstances prevailed in other jurisdictions where there was some reference to the legality of it.
MR. LYON: No, Mr. Chairman, no consultations have been had with the Solicitor-General of Canada. Some consultations have been had with the Department of the Attorney-General of Ontario.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Those in favour of adoption of the resolution? Passed.
Resolution No. 5. RESOLVED that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for
Inspection Juries for the inspection of Public Institutions, the payment of remuneration to jurors, and the payment of the cost of lodging, food, and transportation.
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this resolution is largely self-explanatory in the resolution itself. I believe members of the House will recall, Mr. Chairman, that in the Throne Speech reference was made to the fact that this would mean a partial re-introduction of the old grand jury system, that part of the old grand jury system which has to do with public inspections of government institutions and the purpose, of course, of the bill, when it is proposed, will be to insure greater public participation in the running of these institutions, that is, insofar as the inspection by the public is concerned, to see that they are being run in accord with proper principles.
MR. STINSON: Are you satisfied that the old grand jury system was a real genuine success? I've heard it argued before and I know that it has been said in this House, I think perhaps by his leader, and certainly it has been promoted by the Winnipeg Tribune, that this is a very wonderful idea. Now, I'm not completely sold on this old grand jury system myself and I wonder if the Minister would care to make some comment on that.
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I would say this, that if the system results in only one good idea in ten years being brought forward, then I think it would be well worth the small amount of money that will be spent on it. Aside from that altogether, I think the fact that the public as members of the jury panel, will be allowed to go through the various institutions, will have a salutary effect, not only upon the Government but upon the members of the public whoare privileged to do this and to see that their Government is attempting to carry on, and to operate these institutions in a proper manner. And if the Government is not so doing why then of course it will be up to the jury to so tell us, and we, as I say, if we get one good idea every ten years why I think the expenditure is well justified. As to whether or not it's the perfect idea, I don't think any idea is perfect. I would remind the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. party that this system is still carried on in Ontario with some considerable success and I think it's well worth re-introducing into Manitoba to see what can be gleaned from it in this province after its absence for so many years.
MR. STINSON: I don't want to throw cold water on anything that might be worthwhile. I agree with the Minister that if one good idea comes out of it then it would be worth doing because there has been in this particular field a lack of progress and a lack of ideas for a long time. And I just wondered if reviving this old grand jury system was the thing to do. Perhaps something more modern might be the thing to do. Have the officials of the department had a look at what is done in states like Minnesota and California and New York where they have made quite remarkable progress in this type of thing and in the United Kingdom?
MR. LYON: Well, I can assure the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. party, Mr. Chairman, that this is only one of a number of steps of which he will probably approve as the years go by which this Government will bring in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Shall the resolution be adopted?
ASSEMBLED MEMBERS: "Aye".
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution passed.
RESOLVED that it is expedient to bring in a measure to insure that residents of the province do not lack the basic necessities of life and to pay for the costs of the provisions thereof from the Consolidated Fund -- Mr. Johnson.
HON. G. JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare): Mr. Chairman, this resolution introduces the Social Allowances Act which requests that the House consider the advisability of increasing expenditures under this Act to provide amongst different things, the transfer of the aged and infirmed in institutions from municipalities to the province; a transfer of child welfare maintenance from the municipalities to the province; also cash assistance and other services to the needy aged, and provincial assistance to the long-termed assistance type of family and for desertions over one year, such as a father in jail over one year, and also aid to the immigrants and Indian people of the province. This is a new Act and I would be only too glad to go into this in greater detail when the Bill is before the House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I have such a high regard for the person who is
... this resolution that I hesitate to use my Honourable friend's language - "throw any cold water on it" but the language here is so expensive that I would want to protest because I would hate to admit -- I wouldn't admit -- that residents of the province have in recent years, under the good government that they have had, lacked the basic necessities of life or means of obtaining them -- because I do not blame my Honourable friend for introducing it in such extended language as that but I think it is a reflection upon the municipalities of this province if that were allowed to go through without any protest and then also a reflection on the former government. I wouldn't want to see a reflection on either one and I freely absolve the Minister from having any such intention at all because I am sure that this language is drafted by the Legislative Council, not by him. But I think municipalities of this province have always seen to it so far as the residents of their municipalities are concerned, and we have seen to it as far as those in unorganized territories are concerned, that they did not lack the necessities of life.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, that's a rather remarkable statement from the Honourable gentleman that no one has lacked the necessities of life in this province because of the welfare program of the municipalities and the wonderful program of the previous government. I hope that in Hansard that the proper inflection will be given to my words. Sir, I would hope that the Honourable, the Leader of the Opposition would not fight the last election all over again at this session and that at every opportunity defend every action of the government that he headed in days gone by. I think that he is entirely too sensitive on that point and he's going to have to get used to the idea that that government is now a matter of history.
Now, I would like to ask the Minister if in the broadening of this welfare coverage if consideration was given to separated and divorced mothers. I was glad to hear him say that something would be done for those whose husbands are incarcerated in jail because that is a point that we have raised from this corner for many years. And in some of the provinces, they have included other classifications and I'm wondering if in this Act, he intends to bring in the separated and divorced mothers. Also I would like him to clarify the point with respect to deserted wives.
MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (Burrows): Mr. Chairman, just a further clarification in regard to the basic needs of the old age pensioners in this case. Does it mean that the old age penioner in need will get glasses and dental care, and is the means test involved in this case as well?
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, at the present time the province does not pay allowance until desertion is up to four years, I believe. This is reducing that -- after one year the province will assume responsibility.
Also, with respect to the services of the pensioners, I would ask my Honourable friend to wait until the bill is brought down in greater detail and I think I can clarify all these items. I can say this -- not a means test, a needs test.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): ... May I ask the Honourable Minister, whether in the meantime, has anything been done for the old age pensioners to implement their need since the resolution was passed unanimously in this House at the last session?
MR. JOHNSON: This is the bill in response to the resolution passed unanimously in this House last fall. You can understand the vast amount of work that has been necessary to get into this field and to come up with a realistic program which I am sure you will concur with when it's explained in full.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, did the Minister say that this is in response to the resolution that was put forward at the session last fall? Because that was the resolution of an opposition member, a resolution that had been put forward by him for 18 years in a row. Eventually he seems to have won a certain degree of success in that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Shall the resolution be adopted?
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clear the air. This program for meeting the needs of the older people of this province has certainly been a special baby of mine for many years and was certainly also in the election platform of my party in the last election.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, my Honourable friend was not in the House before so that he wasn't able to put forward his ideas in this respect and, as for his party, it took them a long time to come around to this. They didn't have it in their party program for very long
and I can certainly refer to the records and show where year after year they voted against it.
MR. ROBLIN: ... Mr. Chairman, I feel that I am going to be sensitive, if my Honourable friend opposite can be. I think I will be sensitive for a minute or two and remind my Honourable friend that ever since I have been in this House I have been voting for resolutions for assistance to our elderly citizens. Now, that is a matter of record and while no one wishes to quarrel with the particular interest of my Honourable friend, the member for Inkster in this matter, I think we can all agree to share some of the glory in this respect. We have the particular glory of bringing the measure in.
MR. STINSON: I like the mixture of emotion and slight tinge of anger with which the First Minister concluded his remarks. He might turn to his seat mate, the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, and ask him about the old days when the Conservatives voted against these measures, and they are not so long ago.
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Turtle Mountain): ... Mr. Chairman, I think it will serve no useful purpose to thrash old straw but if the Honourable Member would like to thrash the straw, I'll be with him.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Shall the resolution be adopted?
ASSEMBLED MEMBERS: "Aye".
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution passed.
Resolution No. 7 - RESOLVED that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Hospital Services Insurance Act by providing, among other matters, for the inclusion of additional persons as dependents entitled to insured services.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, we are proposing to introduce certain amendments to the Hospital Services Insurance Act and these concern mainly the liberalization of the term "dependent". We consider this desirable in the light of our experience to date which indicates that there are certain inequities and administrative difficulties in the present legislation. I might add that this refers mainly just to three smaller items in the long list of amendments we wish to propose for the next collection period.
MR. PAULLEY (Radisson): ... Mr. Chairman, I trust that in this resolution that the Minister and the Government, while the wording of the resolution doesn't indicate such, but I sincerely trust that the Government and the Minister have given consideration to those persons who are not dependents, who are at the present time not on social assistance or old age assistance and also are in a predicament at the present time of having to pay their hospitalization premiums.
I recall to a large body of citizens in the province who for some reason or other have not applied for social assistance and being between the ages of 65 and 70, whose total incomes are less than those which would entitle them to old age assistance. And also to that considerable number of citizens that we have in the Province of Manitoba who have not as yet reached the age of 65; who through some circumstances or other have not applied for social assistance to their municipality or to the province and are having, at the present time, to pay for the premiums under the Hospitalization Act.
I sincerely trust, Mr. Chairman, that this resolution is broader or that the bill, when it comes in, will be far broader than the resolution stands when it says "additional persons as dependents entitled to insurance services". Because I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this House, that there are a considerable number of individuals, who through some feeling of independence or otherwise, have not applied; either because of the fact that they have not as yet reached the age of 65 or for some other independent reason they have not applied for the privilege of not having to pay the hospitalization tax. I sincerely trust that the Minister and the Government when they introduce this bill that in that bill there will be provisions for these people of whom I speak.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Shall the resolution be adopted?
ASSEMBLED MEMBERS: "Aye".
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution passed.
Resolution No. 8 - RESOLVED that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for making of agreements with insurers for the establishment of a plan of group life insurance for public servants of the province, and for the payment from the Consolidated Fund of such
amounts as may be required, together with contributions from the persons insured, to implement the plan aforesaid.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the Provincial Secretary, is not able to be with us tonight so I agreed with the consent of the Committee to offer an explanation of this matter which pretty well speaks for itself in the terms of the resolution.
We have held consultations with the members of the government service in order to develop a group insurance plan for their benefit, and this resolution is the necessary form that we go through to bring that bill into the House. I think that it is a very straightforward matter and is covered in the terms of the resolution itself.
MR. GRAY: ... and what actually will the province do in dollars and cents?
MR. ROBLIN: Well, you will have to wait until the bill is presented, Mr. Chairman, to find out what the principles are and then you'll have to wait for the budget and the estimates to find out what the money is. But the House will be informed of all those matters at the proper stages.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, would the First Minister tell us if this is going to be handled through an insurance company?
MR. ROBLIN: It very likely well. We gave consideration to the proposition of being self-insurers in this matter and our studies indicated that perhaps the most economical way would be through a recognized insurance company.
MR. STINSON: Do you have tenders from various companies?
MR. ROBLIN: That is our intention.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted?
ASSEMBLED MEMBERS: "Aye".
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution passed.
Resolution No. 9 - RESOLVED that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Highway Traffic Act by providing, among other matters,
(a) for the appointment of a Highway Safety Board and the remuneration of the members thereof, and the payment of a fee for appeals thereto; and
(b) for the appointment of a Highway Traffic and Co-ordination Board and the payment of the out-of-pocket expenses of the member thereof;
and to provide further for the fees to be paid in respect of certain P.S.V. and C.T. trucks and trailers.
HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities) (The Pas): Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to set up an Appeal Board for those persons whose driving priveleges have been suspended or whose motor vehicle registrations have been suspended.
This deals with suspensions under section 115 of the Highway Traffic Act and section 134 of the Highway Traffic Act. It deals with those suspensions which come as a result of driving while impaired or whose licenses have been suspended at the discretion of the registrar. This Board will hear these cases and where they feel that there is undue hardship, they will be able to suspend the, or be able to re-instate the driving privileges or the registration of the motor vehicle.
We are also setting up a Highway Traffic and Co-Ordinating Board which will deal with such matters as "speed zones" and the equipment that goes on vehicles. They will be able to tell us whether, for instance, the frost shields and things of that type, the equipment that is used on motor vehicles is satisfactory in accordance with the Act.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether or not this Appeal Board which is the intention to set up by this legislation will be a judicial board comprised of judges and the likes of that, or gentlemen who are learned in the law, or will it be ordinary individuals with a reasonable amount of common sense that can look into all these matters as you, Mr. Minister, and myself may? And also whether or not this Highway Traffic and Co-Ordination Board will be comprised of individuals who are apart from those who are in the highway traffic business itself?
MR. CARROLL: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we are getting into some of the detail of the bill. However, I do hope that the people who serve on this Appeal Board will be men of common sense and I think that the other board they will be people with considerable
technical experience.
MR. STINSON: Is a part of the program of the Government to take care of unemployment within the ranks of the Conservative Party?
MR. ROBLIN: Lloyd, there is going to be more of this before long.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted?
ASSEMBLED MEMBERS: "Aye".
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution passed.
Resolution No. 10 - RESOLVED that it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish The Department of Public Utilities as a department of the Executive Government of the province and to provide, among other matters, for the appointment of staff and payment of their remuneration.
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Chairman, this establishes this department as a regular department of the Government. In past the Minister in charge has been designated as the Minister in charge of the Motor Vehicle Branch and the Manitoba Power Commission and Manitoba Telephone System, Municipal and Public Utility Board and the Motor Carrier Board, in charge of the Highway Traffic Act and Taxi-Cab Act and Movie Censorship Board. These will all be incorporated together with the Hydro-Electric Board in one department. We feel that it will make for more efficient operation of these very important utilities as well as these other functions which are carried out by the department.
MR. R. S. CLEMENT (Birtle-Russell): Mr. Chairman, with all these departments instigated, will it be necessary to have a Minister of Public Utilities? [Interjection]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted?
ASSEMBLED MEMBERS: "Aye".
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution passed. Shall the Committee rise and report?
[Mr. Speaker resumes the chair. ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, The Committee of the Whole has adopted certain resolutions and directed me to report the same.
DR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the member for Winnipeg Centre that the report to the Committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Education that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 57, an Act to amend the Department of Agriculture and Immigration Act and certain other Acts and to establish a Water Control and Conservation Branch and the same be now received and be read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Education that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 29, an Act to amend the Department of Agriculture and Immigration Act and the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
HON. GURNEY EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 2, an Act to facilitate the economic development of the province and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
HON. S. R. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 55, an Act to amend the Child Welfare Act No. 1, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Minister of Labour, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 56, an Act to provide for inspection juries for the inspection of public institutions and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Education, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 49, an Act respecting social security for residents of Manitoba and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of
Education, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 50, an Act to amend the Hospital Insurance Act and that same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 19, and that respecting the provision of group life insurance for public servants of the province and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 15, an Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Welfare, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 39, an Act respecting the Department of Public Utilities and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. ROBLIN: There is a statement that I should like to make at this time and, in view of its nature, I hope the House will allow me to read it.
Mr. Speaker, I take this early opportunity to make a statement now on one of the most important matters of policy that face a Provincial Government. I am prompted to do so not only by the intrinsic importance of the matter but also by the fact that in recent days demands have been made by leaders of parties in opposition for a statement of government views in respect to Dominion-Provincial relations generally, and in particular to some of the fiscal and economic matters of immediate urgency to Manitoba. The Government of Manitoba regards our fiscal and economic relations with the Government of Canada as a working partnership. Changing circumstances of need and purpose require periodic review - revisions in the agreement and other machinery through which this Dominion-Provincial partnership operates. This is particularly true with respect to the present tax sharing arrangements between us. The Government of Manitoba contends that the present arrangements for the sharing of major tax revenues does not reflect the full and heavy measure of responsibility pressing upon the provincial side of the partnership. Together with their municipalities, the Canadian provinces are the field force of economic endeavor in this country. As our provincial responsibility for development grow and as demands increase for the provincial services necessary to foster and support to this development the shortcomings of the present plan are increasingly obvious. It is upon the soundness of provincial economic progress that the development of the Dominion depends. For these reasons and because nearly 18 months have elapsed since the last Dominion-Provincial conference was recessed, we are pressing for a resumption of that conference. Demands for public investment and welfare services by provinces and their municipalities alone, call for prompt decisions if only of an interim nature to insure the provinces have the means to carry out their present responsibilities.
We are indeed gratified that the Government of Canada has recognized the need for a thorough re-examination of the tax sharing and other arrangements now in operation, but we have also stressed our conviction that an immediate upward adjustment of the provincial portion of the tax sharing arrangement is necessary. The present formula is based on ten percent of personal income tax collections and nine percent of corporate profits, plus 50 percent of the succession duty tax as being available with an important equalization factor to all provinces. The recent extension of the 1958 interim relief of an added three percent of the personal income tax raising it to 13 percent is, of course, welcome. But we do not believe that it provides adequate or even minimum extra revenue for the years ahead. Certainly it does not go beyond the next few months' requirements. We have informed the Government of Canada of our views that both equity and need demand an immediate decision to provide an equalized provincial share of not less than 15 percent or personal income tax collection and 15 percent of corporate profits together with an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the revenue that the former federal succession duties would have provided. We will press for this decision at the proposed meeting of Provincial Treasurers to be held in conjunction with the continuing committee for
Dominion-Provincial fiscal and economic matters. The present tax sharing system has proved to be extremely valuable. Despite its shortcomings we recognize the necessity to continue this system for a period of study required to produce a more ideal arrangement. We welcome the initiative of the Government of Canada in seeking that better arrangement and we are ready to work diligently and co-operatively to improve and to stabilize the natural relationships within the Canadian federation. The proposed meeting of the continuing committee must however be a prelude to a resumption in the near future of the full Dominion-Provincial conference. This is particularly true for Manitoba as there are a variety of other matters in addition to tax sharing arrangements which are also ripe for consideration and I propose to refer now to some of the more important of these problems.
At the head of the list I place the situation in respect to our agriculture economy. Governments have been attempting both at the federal and provincial level to provide a measure of security for the farming community. In its efforts to adjust to an ever-changing situation, agriculture has been called upon to bear a burden often in excess of the burdens borne by other sectors of the economy. Uncertainty of income, risk of great or even total loss are the perpetual partners of the prairie farmer. The Government of Manitoba feels the prime responsibility to speak strongly on behalf of Manitoba agriculture.
We have already demonstrated our vital interest in provincial and national policy in the fields of agricultural credit, crop insurance, production and market research. Other long-term agricultural policies including soil and water conservation can be undertaken most effectively by means of the Dominion-Provincial co-operation. However there are some interim decisions particularly in matters of market and price which are most urgently required. The factors bearing on the cost-price squeeze in our agricultural economy may well require protracted investigation and debate if they are to be clearly indentified and properly eliminated. But the effects of the cost-price squeeze on the farmer's well-being crystallized as they are in declining net farm income cannot be left to protracted discussion. There may be room for differing views on the various solutions put forward but most of us will agree that the farm problem is real, acute, and demands action not only by government but by the industry itself. While doing what we can as a province we believe it is our responsibility also to request a place among the top priorities for discussion and decisions respecting outstanding agricultural questions at the full Dominion-Provincial conference level. A greater measure of equality between agriculture and other sectors of the economy is our constant goal.
Based on the recommendations of the various recent studies on water control, the Government of Manitoba have prepared an extensive programme for flood control and water conservation. The cost of the works to be constructed approximate 85 million dollars. We have presented our proposals to the Government of Canada with the expectation of full federal co-operation in the financing of that very large expenditure. I shall set forth Manitoba's position in detail in respect to these water control matters in a separate statement shortly. Other major capital undertakings such as our road expansion programme and northern resource development also call for partnership between the governments. We contend that such partnership demands financial participation by the Government of Canada to an extent that is adequate to insure provincial and national progress.
The Universities are facing the need of a large extension of their facilities. This poses problems for them such as not been encountered since the end of World War II. This province stands ready to meet the needs of our institutions of higher learning to the limits of its capacity, but federal aid is essential if we are not to turn deserving students away in the future.
Similarly, technical training for our citizens is also a challenge to our partnership. Manitoba and Canada will require each year many technically trained workers as our community progresses, and our technical educational system will be called upon to provide them. Here again we look for increased partnership with the Dominion Government in this field.
We shall continue to press for changes in the hospital services programme. Surely it is agreed that mental and tuberculosis care are essential in a comprehensive health plan and that there is no logical reason to exclude them from the hospital service programme. It is equally logical that the costs involved in these two areas of health services are no different from the remainder of the hospital plan. If one set of costs is shareable so ought to be the other. We are asking the Federal Government to accept this principle. The provinces now carry out the
hospital plan and many other programmes originated at the federal level where the costs are shared with the Federal Government. Even with such sharing, costs of administration are wholly excluded from eligibility for reimbursement by Canada. Under these programmes where the province provides the bulk of the services and bears much of the real cost, federal contributions which do not share administrative burdens are clearly less than equitable. We have now been invited to make proposals to the continuing committee for the inclusion of administrative costs in the shareable operation of such project and we shall press our case vigorously.
It would, however, be unbecoming if we should fail to emphasize the substantial progress that has already been achieved over the past nine months in establishing better arrangements in many fields with Government of Canada. The strengthening of the continuing committee is one evidence of this of course, but there are more immediate benefits to record. In recent negotiations major improvements have been achieved in some of our most important Dominion-Provincial programmes. Significant federal concessions have been made in respect to welfare undertakings. This Government is preparing to introduce a new and progressive social welfare programme. This has been one result of the co-operative efforts of our two governments. Arrangements have been signed by which the Government of Canada proposes to share equally with Manitoba over the next five years a large investment in resource roles. Extensions of this policy may be expected. We also benefit from new interpretations in policies between Ottawa and ourselves in the matter of winter employment, out-patient services, sanatoria beds, low cost housing, hostels, natural resource development, and disability benefits and others.
While we have, of necessity, emphasized the magnitude of the tasks yet to be done, we acknowledge thankfully the many and increasing advantages accruing as the result of new co-operative projects by the Government of Canada and Manitoba. This record is our best reason to believe that we can fulfill our hopes for further progress in this direction. We believe that the Dominion-Provincial partnership will grow in scope and in usefulness and it is in this spirit that we weill press for the solution of outstanding problems. The Government of Manitoba believes firmly in action as well as in discussion. There must be the means to effect policy as well as the means to frame it. We feel that the full Dominion-Provincial conference, a meeting of the Premiers with the Prime Minister continues to offer the best forum for the exchange of decisive points of view. Our policy calls for (1) an immediate interim increase in the equalized provincial share of the Federal-Provincial tax arrangement using as a basis 15 percent of personal income tax collections and 15 percent of corporate profits and 50 percent of the revenue that the former federal succession duty would have provided; (2) Co-operation in the treasurers' meeting and the continuing committee to develop a well-prepared agenda leading to (3) a full Dominion-Provincial conference at an early date to deal with those important matters of public finance and national economy which now demand action.
This statement I think, Sir, will make clear the government's policy in the number of important fields to which I believe the members of the House are entitled to the information.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the statement that the Honourable, the First Minister has just given to the House will be on the record here and will appear in due time in Hansard, but in order that it might be available first of all I suppose to the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party and to any of the other private members who wish to speak, could the Honourable the First Minister have a few copies distributed at the close of this evening's session?
MR. ROBLIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a few and I will be glad to see that they are handed to my Honourable friend, the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, and there are a few extra copies as well although I fully expect that it will appear tomorrow in Hansard as well.
MR. STINSON: My Honourable friend is more than generous.
MR. JOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time, and I am quoting no rules, but I would like to arise to protest the lack of courtesy that we have just been treated with, particularly in view of the fact that the leader of our party is slated to speak tonight. There is no urgency about the matter. I know that you can quote that in years past perhaps announcements have been made. I recall some of them in regard to provincial relations that had to be made; budgets had to be met; but there certainly was no urgency tonight and it may be smart tactis -- smart politics -- but as a member sitting in this House, I think it was a most discourteous act.
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on proposed motion of Mr. Strickland, the Honourable Member, for address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to the speech at the opening of the session.
HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, just before the Orders of the Day, if I may, I would like to direct the attention of the members and our attention to page 14 of the Hansard report where I was answering a question by the Honourable Member for St. Johns and in the second paragraph down from the top of the page, the second line referring to racial discrimination, I said "is probably not an accurate one", the word 'not' was omitted from the printed report, I would just like to draw that to your attention. The balance of the statement says in effect the same thing and it's just an omission of the word 'not' in that line.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, if we ever get into the correction of Hansard again, goodness knows when I will get on to speak, but if we're going to do this now I might as well call attention to one error on page 30 appearing under my name, "Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the member asks to be withdrawn, may I have his permission to ask him a question?" I can say I would like very much to withdraw the member that was asking the question but I have never been able to do so and I think the record should be corrected because what I either said or intended to say that the Honourable Member has asked that the motion be withdrawn and I wanted to ask him a question before that was done.
MR. R. W. BEND (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, with respect to Hansard, is it the intention of the Government to supply magnifying glasses so we will be able to read this print?
MR. STINSON: ... these gentlemen when they get time to read Hansard. There may be errors here that I am unaware of.
ONE OF THE MEMBERS: There's lots of them.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Adjourned Debate. The Honourable, the First Minister on a proposed motion of the Honourable Member from Hamiota for Address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to his speech at the opening of the session. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, far from considering it any discourtesy that the Honourable the First Minister has done me in presenting the statement that he has to the House tonight, I am very appreciative of it because I think it will be quite useful to me in the few remarks that I have to make here this evening. I would like, however, to begin those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating you on your evident good health and your resumption of that position of great importance in this Legislative Assembly. I know that I can lay no claim to having been an enthusiastic supporter of your election to that high office, but I repeat what I said before, that my feelings on that at that time were simply because I was anxious indeed to see the programme that we had instituted mvoing toward a non-partisan choice of the speaker with the likelihood of him remaining permanently in the position rather than any reflection on the person involved, and while I can't honestly and cordially wish you a long tenure of office, I certainly wish you the very best of luck during the time that you are in office.
And I should, of course, extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I can certainly say one thing for them, I think they established a record for brevity, and I am sure before I have finished this evening that a lot of people will wish that I had been able to follow their example. And even though their addresses were brief they were to the point and they were very, very timely. I think they set a high standard in another regard, that both of them showed great loyalty to, even enthusiasm for the present government, and I congratulate them on that -- a good thing to have a good opinion of your friends in that way and I think the high point perhaps in regard to that appreciation of the government was struck by the mover when he said, as appears on page 32 of the Hansard that is before us this evening, "this government has now kept every promise ever made from an election platform". Now whether that's an accurate transcription of what the honourable gentleman said or intended I don't know, but it is a pretty wide statement. I am sure that he's sincere in making it but it is taking in a lot of territory because, as a matter of fact, it reminds me of a farmer neighbor of mine who used to say when he signed a note 'Thank Heaven that debt's paid'. Well, there is a lot of paying to be done here yet. Then these promises that are made, whether in an election campaign or whether in a Speech from the Throne, is something that we have learned to be just a little bit suspicious of. We have heard a lot about promises in the last while.
Now I have said on public occasions that I do not think that 'Duff' is as bad as 'Dief' yet in the matter of promises. I think his record has been better than the one down east, but the implementation of these, I think, will take a lot of doing and a lot of heart-searching by the tax-payers later on. In extending compliments, I think I can most conservatively say to the Honourable the First Minister, that I can give him credit for some things that are very important indeed, and I am doing this perfectly sincerely because to attempt to deny -- and I shan't go into the fulsome praise that my honourable friends the mover and seconder of the Address did -- but I think anyone would be simply missing the point if they were not prepared to admit that the First Minister of this province is a very able young man. No question about that -- and a very industrious young man -- very industrious. And I have found -- I haven't found perhaps, but I have formed the impression from the many years that I have been watching people in public life that the difference between those who seem to get along well and make a contribution is much greater in the field of industry than it is in ability. Generally speaking, in my opinion, the ones who seem to make a great mark are not those who have any great difference in ability from the rest, but just plainly those who work hard. And when you've got the combination that we have got in the First Minister of this province who combines first rate ability with great industry, then he is in a position to make a contribution. And I say that quite sincerely and without any reservations. Then I know that my honourable friend, will think that having said that, that likely there is going to be a little bit of a reservation appear later on, but not on that scope. The reservation that I would make is this -- that if you have that great ability and if you have that great industry it is very important indeed, and I say this with equal sincerity, to be on the right track because if you are not you may go quite a distance astray before the position is recovered.
And that brings me to the question of the promises that have been made and the -- and not only the promises that have been made -- but the projects, the proposals that are outlined in the Speech from the Throne, because once they appear in the Speech from the Throne here
they are not only promises from then on, they are acutal projects that this government has undertaken to implement and we in the House have to consider them in that light.
Though we have not lacked in promises in the last few years both federally and provincially, we've had lots of them. I really can't help but think of the ones, and I know that my honourable friend opposite will not like me to dwell upon the federal ones, but I think they're necessary as background when we are discussing a matter so important as promises and the projects and proposals that are based upon those promises. We can't help but think of the promises that the present Prime Minister of Canada made with regard to the Federal-Provincial taxation agreements and the statement that my honourable friend made this evening simply points up the fact -- just emphasizes the fact that I was going to bring forth -- that after all those glowing promises that the conference has not been reconvened for, as he said, practically 18 months -- and that was to have been done in a matter of a few months. The arrangements that were going to be so greatly improved remain just as they were approximately -- well less than -- for longer than a year's standing.
Then the promises that were made to the municipalities -- I may have a word or two to say about that later on. Promises that were made about parity of farm income, promises that were made about reduction in spending and reduction in taxation at the federal level. And the people of this province and this country, I am sure, have not forgotten those promises, and they hold the Prime Minister of Canada responsible, and I suppose quite a few of them recall, as I have done, that the First Minister of this province has said that the Prime Minister of Canada is his teacher and he is going to school under him. According to the Winnipeg Free Press of November 8th, 1957, the Honourable the First Minister of this province -- he was not in that position then -- said, "Mr. Diefenbaker is a good teacher. I'm going to school under him. We're going to give the same effect to our promises when we form the government in Manitoba as he has at the federal level", and that probably might be right, but if back in 1957 the P.M. of Canada was the teacher of my honourable friend, he certainly got an exemplification tonight of the fact that the First Minister of this province is trying to get into partnership with him now because the First Minister of this province who used to talk to us when we were over on that side of the House about the way we were leaving everything to the Federal Government -- passing the buck to them and asking them to do all of this -- really gave us a statement tonight that indicates that he is trying to become more than a pupil of the Prime Minister, he is going to get into partnership with him and that very soon. Well, I wish him luck in those things because the matters that he mentioned there are of great urgency and I think they should have been dealt with a considerable time ago but inasmuch as they haven't then they should be put in hand immediately.
And it is quite different as far as the situation is concerned between Ottawa and here however, because it remains, as I mentioned a minute ago, with the people on this side of the House as to whether these proposals will be implemented or not. In Ottawa once they go into the Speech from the Throne all the government's got to do is stick together and there is no question about it. Here there is a lot of questions and I think that we have to consider very, very carefully. We -- I mean all of us on this side of the House -- we have to consider very, very carefully and responsibly whether the general programme that has been proposed here and the actions taken or the things that have not been done, if unbalanced, this government is entitled to the continued confidence of the House and of the people of Manitoba at the moment, then if we decide not, then the people of Manitoba themselves will give the ultimate judgement. I am very much afraid that although the Honourable the First Minister has said, and he prides himself on this, that his government believes in action, not talk -- and there's been a lot of action, I freely grant that -- a lot of action -- but though they do that yet, in the major spheres their accomplishments I think are not great and we have to give consideration to that situation. I guess that is the real difference between the government of today and the former one. The present First Minister of this province went up and down the length and breadth of this province and he didn't of course hesitate to say the same thing in the House here, proclaiming that I personally and my government as well was too cautious and too careful. Well, every man is entitled to his opinion and I have been coming regretfully to the conclusion that my honourable friend himself is inclined to take his government with him and go too far too fast. I think this
is a case in point and it will be for those of us here on this side of the House to give consideration to those matters as the Session proceeds.
But to get back to this matter of promises -- as I say, we've had a great many of them in the last few years. We've got pretty used to them. I know that some people are skeptical about them, and I want to recall to this House what a couple of authorities on the matter of promises have said. And I turn first to a record of this House back in February of 1957, and the present Minister of Agriculture was speaking. He was speaking about the Speech from the Throne that had been entered upon at that time. Here's what he said as recorded in the debates of that day, February 4th, 1957, "Tonight I want to discuss particularly the remarks of the First Minister, who has just taken his seat. His defense of the government, the defense of a government which is indefensible. The Honourable the First Minister wondered where they got the idea that this was a Santa Claus Government. I don't mind telling him that I read it in the head note of the Free Press, that good Liberal newspaper. The head note was Santa Claus comes on duty, and he did. The Free Press, as usual, knew what the government policy was to be." I might just pause to remark that this time both papers seem to know what the government policy [laughter] ...lot of other people. "The First Minister has complained that there is something of a cynical attitude by the general public in regard to the Speech from the Throne. Why is it cynical? Well, it's cynical because it's been done so often. Each year before an election, you always have the same type of treatment given to the people. This time it's going to apparently run into some nine million dollars. The last time it was merely three and three-quarters million dollars before the last election." Then I intervene, and say, "Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to interrupt my honourable friend, but I must as him to change that statement. I did not say that I felt that there was a cynical attitude on the part of the public, I said the Opposition". The present Minister of Agriculture replied "It is the Opposition that has the cynical attitude", and I said "yes". That was the statement, and the honourable gentleman said, "I accept the correction", and it was a valid correction as members who were in the House at that time will recall, because it was the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. who had referred to our Speech from the Throne as cynical, because of the number of promises that he said were made in it, when he said it was just before an election.
Well, anyway that's what the present Minister of Agriculture said about a Speech from the Throne that offers a lot just before the election. But he had good reason for saying that, because he was following along the line of another distinguished authority, because just a few days earlier, on January 31st, 1957, the present First Minister had this to say, speaking on the Speech from the Throne. "It has been predicted, and it seems to me correctly, that this is the opening gun in the general election which lies before us. Though the gifts have yet to be unwrapped, Santa Claus Campbell" -- that was an unusual term for me -- "Santa Claus Campbell and his merry reindeer of the Cabinet have arrived with the election pack which they hope, Sir, will provide something for all the boys; I would think the girls too. It seems to me that the honourable gentlemen opposite have calculated that this display of election goodies, valued in the amount of nine million dollars will provide them with nine million dollars worth--nine million dollars to fortify their Dutch courage for election day. And Sir, if that is their consideration I invite them to take the plunge without delay." I reiterate my honourable friend's sentiments of that day, and even though the amount is now considerably increased, I still suggest to him that what he advocated then is a good idea. But then, that was 1957.
As we go back a little further, before the honourable the present the Honourable the First Minister didn't have the cares of responsibility of leading his party in this House -- they could give themselves even more rope in those days -- here is what he said on the Budget in 1953, reading now from the transcript of the House Debates, April 9th, 1953, Mr. Roblin speaking -- this is not the whole quotation, I assure you it's not out of context, "Here we have, Sir, a budget of 54 million dollars, three times what it was in 1939. Though I must frankly admit that it is something of a habit these days, both in Federal politics, and Provincial politics, (it sure is ...) that after a government has wended its way for three or four years along the path, that it should feel impelled to do something for the boys." Now these words come back, "particularly if it would seem that an election might be in sight. Thus it is that we see governments reducing taxation, making additional grants, providing extra services, and measures which might be good in themselves, but appear, to some of us at any rate, to take on the
appearance of the debate coinage of political manoeuvres." Well, that's pretty colourful language, the debate coinage of political manoeuvres - and I simply leave it there without comment on this Speech from the Throne that we had presented to us a few days ago. And I recognize my two honourable friends from whom I have quoted as authorities on the subject, and I say to them, that if it took three and one-quarter million dollars in 1953 to screw up our Dutch courage, and if it took nine million dollars to do the same thing in 1957, then I think that their Dutch courage must be at a pretty low ebb today, because the Santa Claus that we had around in those times was just a pigmy in size compared with this year's edition. And, I regret my honourable friend's edict of that time, that if that's your consideration, take the plunge without any delay.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, this is something [interjection] -- I think my honourable friends were serious when they said it at that time, and I think they should be serious about the proposals of today. I think we should look at these things seriously, because no matter if these things do look like a Christmas tree now, don't make any mistake about it, that the family that's gathered around will have the price tags hanging on the branches a year from now, or less. And that's something that we're all so prone to forget or neglect that somebody, sometime, has to keep reminding the people of that fact that sooner or later the bills come home to roost. And that's what we would like to ask now.
My Honourable friend, the First Minister, has given us a statement tonight that's supposed to tell us something of the government's position with regard to a lot of important matters. I think he should take the opportunity of this debate to tell us about the financial situation so far as the measures proposed in the Speech from the Throne are concerned. Because it could be, it could easily be, and we have to recognize this possibility, it could be that because of the decisions of this House, that we don't get to a budget debate, and it should be -- it should be, it is the responsibility of the government to place the facts before the members of this House and the people of Manitoba regarding what is going to be the cost of what is proposed here, and I'm not asking where is the money coming from. I've been accused of that on many occasions. I have never asked "Where is the money coming from?" I've always stated where the money is coming from. The money is coming from the taxpayers. That is what they need to be reminded of. But I do ask -- what is the cost? What is this likely to cost the taxpayers of Manitoba? That's where it's coming from, and how is that money going to be raised? Now, ordinarily this would belong to the budget, of course, but in case we don't get to the budget, in fairness to the government itself, it should have a statement on this very important matter. There is an impression abroad, and I don't hold the First Minister responsible for making a direct statement on this, but there is an impression abroad that the First Minister of this Province has said that all of these things that he's going to do, particularly the extra cost of the educational program, can and will be implemented with no extra taxation. Now I admit that what the Honourable the First Minister said in this House, was that there would be no -- he expected that there would be no extra taxation next year. That's what he said last fall, and that's the year that we are in now. And that was quite, to me, a proper statment but the impression has gone abroad that he has said and is saying that these greatly increased expenditures will not mean any increase in taxation. That's definitely the impression, and I say that it's impossible if they are proceeded with.
Just as an example, and it's only one example, this is an article from the Free Press of January 31st this year, and it quotes Premier Duff Roblin -- the television appearance in Brandon Friday night renewed a pledge made during the last session of the legislature -- "that implementation of the Province's new education legislation can be handled without an increase in taxes and without an unbalanced budget". And that has a similar statement -- has appeared many, many times, and so far as I know has not been corrected, and -- out if it puts in this year, this year, [interjection by Mr. Roblin] -- no, that's right. We want them, because I maintain that if my honourable friend can do these things that he's talking about, then I say to the other members on this side of the House, that if he can do all these things we have every right to leave him there because no one else has ever done it, and the Prime Minister of Canada said the same thing before he was elected, and perhaps even after he was elected, and has he done it? He's my honourable friend's teacher. He's come a very, very long way from doing it. And I maintain that my honourable friend can't do it here either. Anyway my contention is that
that should be cleared up. Let us have the facts, and then we will be able to discuss it in better terms.
Now, it's true, it's perfectly true, Mr. Speaker, that when our government was in office, and I'm not going to disappoint my honourable friend by reliving the past as he calls it, or words to that effect. It is true that when we were in office we made in a practice to pay a good bit of what could be considered capital expenditure out of current revenue. It's true that we paid off quite a bit of the debt of this Province, but putting more debt on for productive purposes at the same time as we were paying off old debts, or dead-weight debt. And I want to ask the House, Mr. Speaker, and the public, is there any person who disagrees with a policy like that in good times, providing services aren't suffering? Now, my honourable friends here, some of them over there, will say "yes, but services did suffer". Well, I'm not going to debate the issue now, but so far as I'm concerned, I still have no apology to make for the financial policy that we pursued because I believe that it was in the best interest of the Province of Manitoba, and I think that that will be showing up very greatly as time goes on. Now, in this current year's budget, the one that is just finishing now, there is something, I think, in excess of eight million dollars there that we were paying -- were planning to pay out of current revenue, that is for capital expenditure, buildings mainly, and road construction. And as honourable members know, we were spending and the present government is spending much more money for the highways of this province, than we're taking in in revenue. And what is wrong, let me ask you, with paying the portion that's -- or some of the portion that's not covered by revenue from the highways, out of current receipts if you're able to do it? And what's wrong with paying off some of the debts when times are good, because we're going to have to continue in the Province of Manitoba regardless of what government is in office -- we're going to have to continue borrowing large sums of money for captial purposes no matter what government is here for many years to come, and if we don't show some inclination to reduce the debt when times are good, what is the rate of interest going to go to on the huge capital sums that we must continue to borrow in order to keep up with the development of this province? And I say to my honourable friends that I'm sure they are reaping, to a considerable extent in the borrowing that they are doing now and will have to do, the rewards of the careful financing policy that we employ.
Now they could of course use that eight million dollars -- if they borrow that amount of money -- they could, without increasing the size of the budget, they could have that amount of elbow room, but the -- according to the figures that they themselves have given, the educational program alone will take at least a major part of that, and then they can use the reserves, of course, that had been built up, and I understand that it is their intention to use those for The Farms Loans Act, and The Industrial Fund Act, and that is quite proper. But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that you can only use them once, and after that -- after that either taxes have to be increased or the money has to be borrowed. And if you borrow the money, the taxes have to be increased anyway because certainly interest, and I hope some of the principal has to be paid back ... the money can be repatriated from the utilities to the extent that that can be done, but I understand that the Minister of Public Utilities has already made a statement that Manitoba Power Commission costs are up so much that rates will have to rise some of these times, and surely those utilities are not in a position to repatriate all of the money in order for the government to use it. And even if they did, is that a sound method of finance? However, that can be discussed at the proper time, and my honourable friend will get the opportunity of telling us what he intends to do in that regard, and it is only proper, I think, that he should.
We admit that we paid a good bit of capital and provided for a good bit of deficit reduction out of our current assets. I think that was a good idea. If this government, Mr. Speaker, by the progress that we see up to date -- if this government is left in office for even a comparatively short time, I'm positive that they are going to reverse that procedure, and they're going to be not paying capital and providing debt adjustments out of current revenue. They are going to be doing the other thing -- they are going to be borrowing for current purposes. And when any government does that -- and it's being done at Ottawa at the present time, Mr. Speaker -- that's what's being done now by the Ottawa government because of the same kind of a program that my honourable friends are implementing here. When you do that you're really on the slippery slopes. When you do that, as Ottawa is already doing, and have huge governmental
expenditures, plus borrowing, and not living within your income, then there's no question in the world that you add to the difficulties of inflation, and in my opinion, inflation is one of our very serious problems at the present time.
Inflation, so the economists tell us, have already taken away quite a portion of the extra amount of money that was given by the Ottawa government to the Old Age Pensioners. It's robbed them already. It's robbing a lot of other people and, Mr. Speaker, the people -- and I know that the Government of Canada is much more to blame than this government in that regard -- but the people of Canada, in my opinion, need to pay a lot of attention to the financial policies that are being employed now, because they're leading us further and further along that road to inflation that's going to be very, very serious for Canada, if it isn't corrected soon. When that happens, taxes have to go up, and money buys less and less, and that's the position that Canada appears to me to be facing now.
Well now, I can't blame the government of a province in the way that I do the one of the Federal Government because, after all, one thing that my honourable friends over there can't do is print money. But the government at Ottawa can, in effect, and that's a great danger. But they can do the same kind of thing by failing to live within their income, and it just adds to the general difficulties.
So, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I'm just in my usual position of trying to make it very, very plain that the people should be tremendously tax conscious these times. I don't think they are sufficiently tax conscious. And if they were, they would have something to say to governments, both Federal and Provincial, that are continuing with this "spending spree" that is envisaged in the Speech from the Throne today.
If the present rise, or the rise that we've been having recently in the economy, continues to the extent that our revenues are buoyant enough to take care of these additional expenditures, then that's something that will be a ... factor, but are they likely to do that? I don't see anything in prospect, perhaps with the exception of the gasoline tax, that shows much promise of doing that. Certainly it doesn't appear, with all due respect to the statement that my honourable friend has made tonight, it doesn't appear that the government at Ottawa is very likely to come along and help out the situation as far as Manitoba is concerned. Certainly their estimate of last year failed very, very drastically to meet the predictions of that time. And if that doesn't happen -- we don't have a rise in the revenue from present sources, then there is only one thing to do with the kind of expenditures that we're facing here, and that is to put on taxes, and I'm sure that my honourable friend will have to do. And what will he put on if that time comes? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is not likely anything left but the sales tax, and I don't think that the Province of Manitoba is very anxious to see a sales tax imposed.
My honourable friends in the C.C.F. Party would say that we get a large part of our revenue from the Federal-Provincial Taxation Agreements and they in turn -- a large part of them are made up from the income tax -- that the income tax should be boosted federally in order that we'd get a greater share. Well, I have some figures with regard to the income tax, and I think in this vein of trying to make people a little tax conscious, it might be worthwhile to mention the imposition of income tax in Canada. I shan't take the time to deal with Manitoba by itself although the figures are here, but when we take the income tax payers of Canada as a whole, and by the way this is for the taxation year 1955, and the source are the National Revenue Taxation statistics put out in 1957, because they aren't kept very much up to date -- there may be a later one out now, but this is the one that I happen to have. Looking at those figures, you'll find that the highest number of taxpayers -- and this is in all of Canada -- the highest number -- the largest group of taxpayers of them all was in the two to three thousand dollar bracket. Now it's customary to talk about income tax as catching the wealthy man, but the largest group numerically in Canada in that year was in the two to three thousand dollar bracket; the second largest one was in the three to four thousand dollar bracket; the third largest one was in the one thousand to two thousand dollar bracket; the fourth largest one in the four to five thousand dollar bracket; and taking all of those together there is 87% -- more than 87% of the income tax payers in Canada come from those brackets -- $5,000.00 and less. And yet a great many people think that that's a -- who want to soak the rich, think that's the way of doing it. Income tax people -- 87% of them are in the $5,000.00 or less category, with the biggest single group of all, almost a million, in two to three thousand. And of course everyone knows that they don't
pay the same proportion of taxes -- of course not -- 87% of them, and only less than 13% in the $5,000.00 and up class -- of course they don't -- there aren't 87% of the taxes paid by those, but there are more than 50% of the taxes. They pay more than 50% of the total taxes that are collected by the Federal Government. I think that's something that all of us need to reflect on, if we're looking around about what would be the likely next move in taxation, because income tax hits the person who in these times is getting what we might call a pretty modest salary.
It is interesting to notice that if you take the per capita tax across Canada as a whole, it amounts to -- not per capita of the amount that paid income tax, but the whole per capita of Canada -- it amounts to just a little over $66.00. And a calculation that was made, I think by the Gordon Commission and supported by some other people who have considered the same matter on more than one occasion, and used by our province in its last submission to the Federal-Provincial conference on financial arrangements, pointed out that it's estimated that the tariff -- the tariff policy in Canada costs the consumer on an average of $63.00 per person. In other words, we're paying pretty nearly as much in tariff as we are in income tax. While I haven't the figure for sales tax I imagine that if they could be provided from those provinces that have them it would be found that their composition would perhaps reflect upon pretty much the same group. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should be getting pretty tax conscious in the Province of Manitoba and I do ask my honourable friend, and I take it that he is promising to do it, to give us a statement on this, even on the Speech from the Throne.
Now, there are a lot of other important matters, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to conclude my remarks by referring to just a couple of them.
You will notice that unlike the position that I took at the time of the Special Session in the fall, I have not attempted to go through the Speech from the Throne clause by clause. It would be very interesting to do so because there are a lot of interesting projects suggested there, but it would take more time than I would like to use tonight and as well as that, we will get an opportunity to debate each and every one of those as they come before the House. So, I have chosen to deal with what might be called general principles rather than details on this occasion, and if my honourable friends say that I have been dealing with things that are to quite an extent in the Federal field as well as the Provincial field, then I think that is particularly appropriate in view of the statement that the Honourable the First Minister has made tonight, and I didn't know he was going to make it, because he has just point out some of the matters that I think are most important to the Province of Manitoba because the Speech from the Throne itself, Mr. Speaker, makes mention of the fact that so far as the agricultural situation is concerned, that those matters that are of -- it doesn't call them primary importance, but I do, markets and prices are generally outside the provincial sphere. That's true, Mr. Speaker, that's what my colleagues and I said all through the years when we were sitting over there, but my honourable friends who now occupy those benches, used to try to pretend that there was something that we could do about it, and they used to say all the time, they used to frequently, continuously use the term "you're passing the buck to the Federal Government".
When we tried to point out, in fairness to the people, that the things of major concern to agriculture lay in the national or even the international field and that we could do very little about them except make representations to the Federal Government and that was the proper thing to do, our friends, who are now over there, used to attempt to laugh us to scorn by saying "yes they did, Mr. Speaker, you remember it very well". And now, now the Speech from the Throne, their Speech from the Throne, makes the statement that those matters and they are the matters of primary importance, are outside the jurisdiction of the Province of Manitoba. Well, they're correct, they are, but I ask my honourable friends -- what have they been doing about them? What have they been doing about these extremely important matters that are outside of their immediate domain, but with regard to which they can exercise a good deal of influence on the policy of the Federal Government, particularly in these times when they have friends at Ottawa? And, when my honourable friend the First Minister stands up there tonight and reads a statement of several pages that tells what they are going to do with Ottawa, I just wonder what my honourable friend would have said if we had taken that position. He would have said -- "After you folks being in office here for so many months you're just now going to arrange with Ottawa to do these things, you have to depend on Ottawa."
Well, they do have to depend on Ottawa I grant that, but why haven't some of these things been done already, particularly with regard to the agricultural situation? Now my honourable friend the First Minister, a good many of these colleagues, particularly those in the back benches, the old timers of them, aren't many of the old timers there, pretty new group, but the Minister of Agriculture, who is now the Minister of Agriculture, never took so much interest in Agriculture, but the First Minister certainly did, at least he said he did, although I recall that approximately a year ago right now when the agricultural estimates were before the House here, my honourable friend wasn't even here and the most of his colleagues weren't here either. You will recall the occasion, Mr. Speaker, because you were almost by your lonesome here on the front bench. I don't think my honourable friend was on the front bench, was he at that time? That's right, my honourable friend was in the second row I think, and the Honourable Member for Manitou-Morden is it -- was in the back row and I believe that was the group. Yes, I ... and my honourable friend, Mr. Speaker, you strove manfully here to try and keep the discussion going until the First Minister and his colleagues would get back from listening to his teacher down at Steinbach. Three men, three men only and that night we passed something around 20 million dollars of estimates in total, including the whole of the Department of Agriculture, my honourable friend the First Minister who took such a great interest, he wasn't even here. As I say, the Minister of Agriculture never did take much of an interest in Agriculture, I think that is probably why he was put into that position because he at least wouldn't be encumbered by any preconceived ideas on the subject, he could give his imagination free rein. But so I understand, my honourable friend is one of those gentleman farmers and he talks like it.
Well now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to agriculture, because after all this is this year, not last year, with regard to agriculture, what is the situation? I think it can be stated pretty simply and that is the question that is generally referred to as the cost-price squeeze, and maybe it is over-simplifying it, but isn't it time that the public as a whole recognize that the great difficulty that agriculture faces today is the fact that since World War II, even later than that, at least since World War II, that the costs of those things that the farmer has to buy -- he has to buy a lot to continue in production these days -- have risen approximately 50% while the price for those commodities that he sells, not all of them, but some of the main commodities like wheat, oats and barley have gone down 20% or 21%. Those are the figures that have been used quite extensively by farm organizations and by the mass delegation that went to Ottawa.
I reviewed a periodical that is put out by one of the grain firms here in the city recently and it seemed to me that their figures seem to indicate a drop in prices even greater than those that the mass delegation were using. But taking those as the figures, does it need anybody to recognize the difficult position that agriculture is placed in when its costs continue to go up and the prices that it receives for its product continues to go down and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight at the moment. Perhaps no end in sight to either one of the tendencies, because I think in fairness, -- oh for goodness sake, I am not trying to blame labour for all the price rise, I think that the -- and I'm not complaining about that side of it, but I think to be realistic about it, we must recognize that it is not likely that the labour factor is going to come down appreciably, and it is a very important factor in the price rise of the cost of production of the farmer. Well, there isn't anything likely to occur there to help the farmer and if we don't see anything in the international, it really extends to the international area, toward getting a better price for the farmer surely to goodness it is only fair, particularly when there are things like the tariff that add to his cost of production. Incidentally that is a position my friend the First Minister has taken when he was on this side of the House and I don't recall him protesting against the tariff increases by the present Government of Ottawa. I wonder if he did? But he'll tell us. But if he didn't he was allowing to go without protest one of the things that means a great deal to agriculture because when it's made more difficult for goods to come in from Europe or any other country that purchases from this country, particularly food supplies, then he certainly is hurting the position of agriculture, and that is exactly what has happened. But if there isn't anything we can see at the moment, isn't it only right that the farmers should ask the rest of the economy which has been enjoying pretty good times on the whole to consider some of these programmes, or some combination of these programmes, that might alleviate
the situation? Well, I guess that is what the Farm Delegation went to Ottawa to do and where were our friends, the Government of this Province, at that time, and what did they do to help in the situation? Well, they met here, didn't they? And they issued a statement so I'm told -- that was quite a statement. According to the Winnipeg Free Press of March 7th this year, the Conservative caucus sent the following telegram to Prime Minister Diefenbaker, "Manitoba Provincial Conservative Caucus much appreciates your reception of mass farm delegation on Tuesday, March 10th. We are glad to remember your special interest and special knowledge in this connection, although deficiency payments are only part of the the whole picture, we feel confident the meetings between yourself and farm leaders will be helpful in reaching a fuller understanding of possible solutions."
Now, what a wishy-washy kind of a thing that is. And that comes from the Caucus of the Honourable the First Minister who tonight says in this statement of his, that first on the list of things that they should take up with Ottawa will be the agricultural situation, and when they had the opportunity to support a mass delegation that was going down there to discuss those problems they send a fence-straddling resolution of this kind. Well, I don't think that is very much support for the position of agriculture. [Interjection] We'd have done a lot better, my honourable friend, as we did. ...
A MEMBER: Fence-straddling was your specialty.
MR. CAMPBELL: Well, honourable friend, we had to straddle it quite often because you were always on both sides of the fence and we had to keep track of you.
One of the things -- well, old friends will fall out at times, you know -- one of the things that contributes to the lack of understanding and that is the greatest difficulty, I think, at these times is the lack of understanding of the farmers' position. If they could get this, and that is one of the reasons that the mass delegation to Ottawa was arranged, I'm sure, was to give some publicity, these are the days when you need some publicity about these things, to give some publicity to this situation. Let the rest of the people of Canada know what it is, because if they know, I think you can depend on them to look at the matter pretty carefully, and as evidence of the fact that so many people fail to take into account the factors that are involved, and particularly that factor of the greatly increased cost of production that the farmer faces.
I turn to another authority on agriculture, the Premier of Manitoba, this is an article that he has contributed to the Monetary Times Annual 1959, the Honourable Duff Roblin, Premier of Manitoba, he is giving a review -- the heading is "Wide Diversity of Production Contributes to 1958 Steadiness" - this is supposed to be a review of economic conditions in the Province of Manitoba. I don't intend to read very much of it but when it comes to agriculture, this is said, "Agriculture production is unexpectedly up from last year and wheat deliveries reached an all-time high." Let us examine each of these in turn. He had mentioned other things besides agriculture. "Manitoba's agricultural industry experienced a remarkable recovery in 1958, due to serious lack of rain, crops were pretty well written off by late June. However, the rains came in time and the yield has been found to be considerably above average, in certain instances record yields were experienced, favourable harvesting conditions were partially responsible for the output of major crops being well above a year ago," and no complaint with that but that is so characteristic of the fact that many people who attempt to speak for agriculture are telling the story of the production and the gross income and forget or neglect or don't realize that the other part should always be told with it of the increasing costs, because that is the key point here, that just to quote the gross production or to say that yields are up or more grain has been marketed without telling what is left to the farmer after the costs have been paid and that there is no statement of that. And I can find statements of the Minister of Agriculture of this Province that are similar to that one, leaving out the essential part that the public should be made aware of, that even though the gross figures may be considerably up that the net is still down. There are several other quotations there that I intended -- would read if my time wasn't already taken up. One is by the Federal Minister of Agriculture, says the same thing but I will give him credit, I'm not going to read it, but I will give him credit that after talking about these great productions, he does have the grace to say later on, it's a very mild reference, it's true, but he does at least pay some attention to the fact that the costs also have risen somewhat. And that's the mistake that so many people make, I'm sorry to see my Honourable friend the First Minister of this Province fall into that error of stating that gross productions without
the fact that the costs have been more than eating up the difference in many cases, the differences in the rise in production.
Well now, when the delegation arrived at Ottawa, after having this forthright telegram to sustain him, the Prime Minister of Canada promised consideration that after what he had been saying about what he was going to do for the farmers through the years and the definite promises that he had made with regard to parity of income for the farmers, and that in spite of the fact that before the delegation had ever arrived there the Minister of Agriculture had said no. Well, I'm sorry about the Minister of Agriculture taking that position because I, honourable members know, I have said in this House before that I was quite hopeful of him coming along well.
Well, Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know that I'm about through, but I must say just one word on the question of Federal-Provincial agreements and there again I'm indebted to the Honourable the First Minister for the statement that he made tonight because if anything was necessary to underline and emphasize the fact that there has been little or no productive action by my honourable friends in this matter it was the statement that was made here tonight. Thank goodness his own statement, as I listened to it, thank goodness it admitted the fact that the one thing that is likely to be productive with regard to those conferences is the fact of gathering together the Cabinet of Canada and the Premiers of all the Provinces to sit down together -- I'm glad that he said that -- because I was going to say it. I was going to say it in the connection of pointing out that this suggestion of the continuing committee doing the work that this conference should do is just nothing but a shadow in my opinion. I don't say that it won't do any good, of course it will do some good, it is always good to get people together that way, but if all the Provinces had their First Minister as a Provincial Treasurer as this Province has, then it would be quite a different matter. But they don't have that, I know of only one other that has, but when you get the Ministers, the Provincial Treasurers together and particularly when you leave the most of the work to a continuing committee of civil servants you simply cannot make the progress, can't expect to make it, that you do with the kind of conferences that we have had in the past. And yet, my honourable friend the First Minister, seems to be not satisfied but at least willing to accept the position that that's the kind of conference that he is going to get in the immediate future. And last fall when we met here in October or November he told us that while he couldn't make a definite statement with regard to the reconvening of Federal-Provincial Conference that he had been in touch with them and he thought that one would be held, he'd gained the impression that one would be held before the current arrangement of these extra grants expired at the end of this month. Well now, it hasn't been held and we don't see anything in the statement the Honourable the First Minister has made tonight that gives any definite indication of when it will be held, adn I ask him why not? Surely to goodness that is one thing, surely at least my honourable friend could have used his undoubted and proper influence with the Government at Ottawa to at least have got a meeting on Federal-Provincial financial arrangements, but no. And I would just wonder, Mr. Speaker, I can't help but wonder if my honourable friend has either been made aware or else has the conviction himself that the answer is going to be "No" to Manitoba's plea and he doesn't want that to get out before an election. That is why he's not too anxious to have a conference, that's why he's not pressing too hard, because last fall he told us that we could depend upon him, that regardless of the political complexion of the government at Ottawa we could depend upon him, that he would do everything in his power to see that Manitoba got the right kind of a deal. I believed him then, I really thought he would, but I don't think he's done it in the meantime. I think if he had done everything in his power that there would have been a conference held before this time and I'm afraid that my honourable friend is doubtful of the outcome.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we're faced at this time with the decision as to whether we should, under the circumstances, express confidence in the government of the day or not. Personally I'm not prepared to extend them that compliment. I think that so far as making an effort in a lot of these things that they have been promising, that certainly they have been diligent. I have been inclined to wonder if some of their diligence hasn't been inspired by an interest in keeping themselves as much as possible in front of the public. I have the feeling that they are still running an election and may be running one soon again. They have been running an election all the time they have been in office, one of the reasons they have been keeping themselves so active. And with the things they have been doing within their own sphere I haven't too much complaint
because I do give them credit for having worked hard, for whatever motives, in the few short months they have been in office. But in the sphere that is even more important these matters of the farm situation, the basic federal consideration to this province of the Federal-Provincial Taxation Agreement, I think, Mr. Speaker, that they have failed lamentably and that this House should pronounce an adverse verdict upon them. So Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move a vote of want of confidence couched in usual terms and dealing with only two of these matters of which I have been speaking, I think it's not quite fair that under the circumstances that we should pronounce upon their financial record until at least the First Minister of the Province has had an opporunity of stating his position, so we didn't include that in our amendment. But these other matters of the agricultural situation and the Federal-Provincial Taxation Agreement, I think are in an area in which they have failed greatly and that failure should result in a want of confidence vote by this House. So, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Minnedosa that the following words be added to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, that this House regrets that Your Honour's government, in spite of its promise to promote Manitoba's best interests in connection with our province's main source of revenue has failed to even secure a meeting of the Dominion-Provincial Fiscal Conference. We further regret that with regard to agriculture Your Honour's government, while attempting to escape responsibility for the most urgent problems by declaring them to be generally beyond the Provincial sphere, failed to support the farmers of Manitoba in their recent mass delegation which urged the Government of Canada to place agriculture in a position to obtain a fairer share of the national income.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. STINSON: I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Inkster that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 2:30 the following afternoon. ]
Page revised: 21 September 2009
