| 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | |||||
| 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 |
| 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 |
| 101 | 102 | 103 |
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, and accomplish it perfectly for the Glory and Honour of Thy Name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.
Prayers
Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
Notices of Motion
Introduction of Bills
HONOURABLE GEORGE JOHSNON, M.D. (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Education, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 20, an Act to amend the Alcoholism Foundation Act and the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
HONOURABLE DUFF ROBLIN (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Minister of Agriculture, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 40, an Act to amend the Executive Council Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
HONOURABLE STERLING LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Minister of Labour, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 38, an Act to amend the Interpretation Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
HON. 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. 35, an Act to amend the Summary Convictions Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
HONOURABLE JOHN THOMPSON (Minister of Labour) (Virden): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable, the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 9, an Act to amend the Muncipal Boundaries Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Committee of the Whole House.
HON. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Provincial Secretary, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, to consider the proposed resolution on the Order Paper under my name.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the chair.
HON. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the subject matter of the proposed resolution recommends it to the House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide, among other matters, for
(a) the making of grants from the Consolidated Fund to assist in provision of housing accomodation for elderly persons.
(b) the giving of guarantees of loans made for the purpose of constructing, acquiring and reconstructing, renovating, or repairing elderly persons housing accomodations, and
(c) payment from the Consolidated Fund of remuneration to employees required for the administration of the necessary statutory measures.
HON. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, this resolution I think is largely self-explanatory, and it is an extension of the Elderly Persons' Housing Act for making provision therefore of increased grants to non-profit organizations, municipalities or groups of municipalities, and provision for certain Government guarantees of such loans as may be required. Also for administrative staff, to encourage and facilitate the construction of such housing and to license these and supervise elderly persons' housing accommodation. When the bill comes before the House I would be glad to go into the financial details at that time.
MR. LLOYD STINSON (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, we welcome this type of legislation, and there are one or two questions I should like to direct to the Minister. Is the Government considering nursing homes as well as housing accommodation for elderly persons? In some other jurisdictions Provincial Nursing Homes for senior citizens have been erected and are in operation; and has the Government in mind, in that same connection, the setting up of what is known as geriatric centres for the treatment of elderly persons?
MR. R. W. BEND (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Chairman, so that the Minister could answer all questions at once, I know as he says, this is self-explanatory and I believe it amends an existing act, which I think I know something about. But I was wondering if the Minister would be kind enough, when the bill comes up for second reading, to bring us up to date information-wise as to the additional units that have qualified under the act, and so on, with respect to beds, and location, and so on, in order that if I ask those questions at that time he might be prepared.
HON. G. JOHNSON: I'll take notice of the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville's questions and try and have that ready at the second reading. I would like to say that this really cannot be explained, I don't think, until second reading. There is a little more liberalization in the accommodation that will be given in these units, but it doesn't include nursing homes per se. Also as far as geriatric centres go, I personally visited such units in another province and our terminology will have to come to a common ground in the province, so that we all know what each other are talking about. The term "geriatrics" implies really aged institutions whereas, for instance in Saskatchewan, such an institution has many younger people in it. And rather than call any institution - geriatric or chronic, we thought more of the word 'convalescent', so when you speak of geriatric centres, we will talk of convalescent centres. That is not included in this proposed elderly persons' housing but I think I can explain that more fully at that time if I may.
MR. STINSON: I am glad to hear that the Minister has paid a visit to another Province. That shows that he is broadminded and willing to study what's going on in places like Saskatchewan, for instance, and so far as the terminology is concerned, I don't think it matters very much what word he uses -- 'convalescent' suits me fine. In fact, it perhaps will convey to the public something that is better understood than the other term. Now, I think the Government should take into consideration the setting up of Provincial nursing homes and convalescent centres, if we may use that particular term in place of the other. And I would urge upon the Government that Provincial nursing homes for elderly persons be considered.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall this resolution be adopted?
ASSEMBLED MEMBERS: "Aye."
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the Committee rise and report? ... Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has adopted certain resolutions and directed me to report the same.
DR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Roblin, that the report to the Committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
HON. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Provincial Secretary, that leave be given to introduce a bill, No. 18, an Act Respecting Housing Accomodation For Elderly Persons, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
HON. G. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would wish to table a return to the Order of the House No. 2.
HON. DUFF ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to lay upon the table of the House the following reports:
Regulation Respecting the Form of the Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance cards made
pursuant to the Insurance Act.
Statements made pursuant to Section 20 of the Public Officers Act. Report of the Treasury Board on the Statement of the Public Accounts for the Province of Manitoba for the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1958.
19th Annual Report of the Manitoba Civil Service Superannuation Fund.
A Report of any Overdraft or Lines of Credit arranged since the last report of the Legislature, as required by Chapter 272 of the Revised Statutes.
A detailed Statement since a similar statement was submitted to the Legislature last, and
The Report of the Administrator of the Estates of the Mentally Incompetent, and
A Copy of the Royal Commission on Flood Cost Benefits - 1958.
And in connection with the latter report, Sir, which has been in the hands of the House for a few days now, I would like to have permission to make a statement that will reflect the Government policy in connection with that and other matters.
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Minister have leave of the House to make the statement.
MR. ROBLIN: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the House concerning a matter of some significance. Recently a number of major developments have occurred relating to proposals for water control and conservation in the province. The Government intends now to make known details of these developments and to outline its policy in this regard.
Our province is a collecting reservoir for waters originating within our own boundaries and within drainage basins extending much beyond our borders. These waters are a great natural resource. They consitute an important basic element in our economic development and in our future growth and prosperity.
Nature, however, does not always regulate and distribute water to the greatest advantage in terms of the welfare and economy of man. In some seasons, and even through protracted periods of years, the water in our rivers and streams and in our lakes is so low as to impose serious loss upon our people. There are important areas in this province where a chronic shortage of water is impeding proper and orderly development. In other times and seasons, rampant flood waters spill out beyond their usual course, bringing destruction to cities and towns, devastation to agricultural lands, and major dislocation of our commerce. High lake levels encroach upon and destroy property and disrupt recreational and business facilities. In human terms, few of our people have not at one time or other been aware of the extreme anxieties that arise from floods or the threat of floods.
The management of our water resources presents a challenge of great magnitude. The Government is developing a major long-term program of water control for Manitoba, with conservation as its main point of emphasis. Conservation implies the retention of surplus waters in some seasons in order to supplement deficiencies in other seasons or in other areas. It permits the maintenance of more stable river flows and lake levels, and lends itself to a greater development of hydro-electric potential. It provides a reservoir of water for domestic and industrial purposes, and gives to agriculture a means to broader diversification by irrigation. Our first objective in water policy must be retention for future use wherever this is physically and financially possible and wherever it is found to be in our best long-run interests. Retention of water can also be of great value in the control of floods. When flood control cannot be accomplished by retention of surplus waters upstream of the threatened areas, then a means must be sought of letting the destructive surplus waters pass the flood-prone areas more quickly, by-pass them entirely, or in some other way prevent excessively high flood stages in places where damage is severe.
Very large problems of water management confront us in the Red and Assiniboine River Valleys. The areas embraced by these two great river systems contain a majority of the people of the province, a heavy proportion of our industry and commerce and an important segment of our agriculture. As a result of the dense concentration of population and investment close to these rivers, flooding brings about devastating losses of property and income. Water control, therefore, is of paramount importance.
The flood losses sustained in the Greater Winnipeg area and in the upper Red River Valley in 1950 were of great magnitude. Substantially greater losses would undoubtedly have been
sustained in 1956 had the flood threat of that year materialized. We have documented evidence that in the nineteenth century three very much larger floods occurred at the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers which, were they to recur today, would bring about staggering losses indeed. Serious floods also occur on the Assiniboine River with rather greater frequency than on the Red River. With the present high stage of economic development in these two river valleys, we can no longer afford to expose them to flood danger. A substantial measure of flood control is imperative.
Following the 1950 flood, the Government of Canada established the Red River Basin Investigation, which undertook an engineering study of the causes of such floods and possible remedial measures. The Report of this authority entitled "Report on Investigations into Measures for the Reduction of the Flood Hazard in the Greater Winnipeg Area" was received in October, 1953. The Report described a number of engineering works which would provide varying degrees of flood protection to Greater Winnipeg at costs ranging up to $76 million in 1953 prices.
The Manitoba Government arranged to have made a benefit cost study of this whole problem of flood prevention, extending the enquiry beyond the Greater Winnipeg area into the urban and agricultural regions of the Red and Assiniboine River Valleys. Accordingly the Royal Commission on Flood Cost-Benefit was appointed in 1956. This Commission has now reported to the Government.
The Commission's study is a very thorough one. Costs suggested by the Red River Basin Investigation were brought up to present day prices. The average annual cost of each project or combination of projects was determined, taking into account annual interest, amortization and maintenance charges. A very careful and complete analysis was made of property and income losses that would be caused by floods of varying magnitudes throughout the valleys of the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers. By computing the probable frequency of floods of different sizes and levels, and by determining the value of the resulting flood losses, the Commission calculated that on the basis of present property and income, the average annual economic loss in the province would be approximately $14 million. This means that over a very long period of time we can anticipate floods of different sizes in the Red and Assiniboine River Valleys which will result in a total economic loss averaging about $14 million per year. This figure will, of course, increase year by year as future development occurs.
The measure of the economic efficiency of flood control projects is called a benefit-cost ratio. The benefit-cost ratio is the relation between the annual benefit of a flood control project and the annual cost of providing the project.
The Commission found that a combination of three major engineering projects would be the most effective means of providing flood protection for Greater Winnipeg and for the Assiniboine Valley, as follows:
(1) Greater Winnipeg Floodway around the east side of the Metropolitan area.
(2) Assiniboine River Diversion into Lake Manitoba.
(3) Russell Reservoir on the Assiniboine River near Millwood.
The combined capital cost of these projects was estimated to be $72.5 million. The average annual cost of the projects, amortized at 4% over a fifty-year period, was determined at approximately $4.0 million. The average annual benefit was calculated at some $10.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio would therefore be 2.73, a very favourable ratio indeed. This combination of projects under average estimated conditions would provide virtually complete flood protection to all parts of Greater Winnipeg behind the existing primary dyking system for all floods up to 169,000 c.f.s., which is about 60% larger than the 1950 flood. These projects would also provide a high degree of flood protection throughout most of the Assiniboine River in Manitoba, including the rich farming areas between Portage la Prairie and Headingley, the City of Brandon and the valley flats from Brandon to Millwood. The Russell Reservoir would have the added feature of providing a better and more assured water supply for the towns and cities downstream of Millwood.
The Red River Basin Investigation, 1950 to 1953, considered it improbable that a suitable site could be found for a reservoir on the Assiniboine River between Brandon and Portage la Prairie. However, current studies indicate that such a possibility exists. A reservoir of this might prove more favorable than the Assiniboine River Diversion into Lake Manitoba and the Russell Reservoir Combination. Further study during the next few months may confirm this possibility.
With regard to the upper Red River Valley, the Royal Commission found that due to the nature of the terrain and the type of floods in that area, there are no known methods of protecting the upper valley as a whole which have an economic justification. The Commission found that construction of a dam and reservoir on the Pembina River at an estimated capital cost of $5.1 million could not be justified, in combination with the other projects recommended, on the basis of flood control benefits only. However, the Commission recommended that detailed engineering studies be undertaken to determine potential additional benefits obtainable from the reservoir in terms of an improved water supply. It was further recommended that potential flood control and water supply benefits be examined for smaller reservoirs on other tributaries to the Red River. These aspects of the problem, together with alternative ways of protecting towns and villages in the valley south of Winnipeg, are now under study or will be taken into consideration in the near future.
Flooding along the lower reach of the Seine River between Ste. Anne and Winnipeg has been a source of economic loss. As a result the provincial Department of Public Works recommended that a diversion be constructed from the Seine River at Ste. Anne into the Red River at a point north of St. Adolph, a distance of 17 miles. In 1955, Seine River flood protection was referred by the Province to the Federal Government, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, for an appraisal. In its report to the Province entitled "An Investigation of the Flood Control Proposals on the Seine River," dated June 1st, 1956, the P.F.R.A. concurred in the recommendation of the Provincial Public Works Department that this diversion was the most satisfactory and economical way of obtaining the desired flood protection. Their estimated cost of this project was set at $1,678,000 which, revised to today's prices, is about $1,800,000. While no detailed benefit-cost analysis has been made of the project, there is ample evidence that a benefit-cost ratio above 1.0 could be anticipated.
Flooding on Lakes Winnipeg, Manitoba and Winnipegosis have also caused concern. These lakes are the collecting reservoirs for a major part of the runoff from the Province of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the North Central United States. Wide fluctuations in the levels of these lakes occur. Extensive agricultural and other settlement has taken place along the lakeshore. The most recent high water period from 1953 to 1957 resulted in much damage, loss and hardship to an important section of the province.
The Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba Board was established jointly by the federal and provincial governments in 1956 to survey the lakes and to determine what development and control of these waters was physically practicable with particular reference to flood control and hydroelectric power development. The Board submitted its Report, entitled "Report on Measures for the Control of the Waters of Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba," in June 1958. The Board found that Lakes Winnipeg and Winnipegosis, together with the Nelson River, would be very significant in future hydro-electric power development but that the cost of preventing shore line damage around these two lakes was excessive. The Board also found that regulation of Lake Manitoba within a two foot range of elevation 811 to 813 under conditions existing during the period of record, could be achieved at a capital cost of $1.6 million. This regulation could be obtained by enlarging the Fairford River channel and constructing a control dam in the enlarged channel.
Following presentation of this report to the government in June, 1958, the Province made a benefit-cost analysis. The study found that with an estimated captial cost of $1.6 million, the total annual cost would be $85,000, including interest at 4% and amortization over a 50-year period, together with maintenance and operation costs. The average annual benefits were found to be $155,000 calculated from a detailed estimate of the damages occurring during the recent high water period and relating this damage to previously known high water levels on the lake. The resulting benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 indicates that regulation of Lake Manitoba in this manner would be economically feasible.
I have dealt at length with water control projects proposed for the Red and Assiniboine River Valleys and for Lake Manitoba. These are areas where problems of water resource management have affected a very large part of our population, where flood losses have been the most costly, and where undesirable effects on the economic growth and prosperity of the province have been evident. These areas of water control are by no means the only areas into which public enterprise can profitably be directed. Taken as a group, these projects do provide us with a bold new framework on which a well integrated water control program can be based,
and from which it can develop in new directions. They constitute a program which extensive and thorough hydrological and economic studies have shown to be sound.
Soon it will be nearly a decade since the disastrous flood of 1950 struck at the heart of economy of this province. Today we are still no closer to having any permanent defense against a recurrence of such floods than we were in 1950. I wish to assure the Honourable Members of the House and the people of Manitoba that the Government will not delay further in obtaining the defences that are so vital to us. The Royal Commission on Flood Cost-Benefit reported its findings to us at the beginning of January of this year. We have had that report under intensive study. We are prepared to make an immediate start on a comprehensive program along the lines indicated by the Commission. For this purpose an appropriation for initial work is being asked of the Legislature at this Session.
The program of water resource management which we propose is one of substantial magnitude, with benefits to broad areas in the province. It involves water storage and flood protection in the Assiniboine River Valley, regulation of the levels of Lake Manitoba by a control on the Fairford River, the completion of the Seine River Diversion, and the development of protection for the upper Red River Valley as further study may show feasible. The provision of a major floodway will protect the municipalities of Greater Winnipeg. The estimated cost of the total program is $85 million and the benefits in the future will far outweigh this cost.
While our proposal is of paramount importance to Manitoba, it is clearly of benefit also to areas beyond our boundaries. It calls for co-operation between the Federal Government and the Province in the joint development of the national economy. It is comparable in scope and principle with developments that have been undertaken on a Federal-Provincial basis in other parts of Canada. The South Saskatchewan River Development in our sister province to the west and the Fraser Valley Dykes in the Province of British Columbia are closely parallel to our integrated scheme of water control projects for Manitoba. In Saskatchewan and British Columbia, as in Manitoba, we have examples of large developmental works which are not only of great importance within a particular province, but also are of fundamental interest in the wider regional and national view. These considerations justify a large measure of financial participation by the Federal Government in our water control program. We have proposed to the Government of Canada a Federal contribution of 75% of the total cost and Federal financing of one-half of the remaining 25% share.
Negotiations with the Federal Government need not delay making the initial preparations necessary for these works. The Province will move ahead immediately on the assumption that the Federal Government will share in our program on a basis at least equal to the formula being applied to the main reservoir aspects of the South Saskatchewan River Development. We propose an immediate start on:
(a) The Greater Winnipeg Floodway;
(b) Control of Lake Manitoba by the Fairford River Works;
(c) Completion of the Seine River Diversion; and in addition: -
(d) The Portage la Prairie Diversion on the Assiniboine River and the Russell Reservoir are being held in abeyance temporarily pending additional studies on alternative works on the Assiniboine River;
(e) Further studies to protect the rich agricultural area and the towns on the upper Red River Valley south of Winnipeg will be made as recommended;
(f) At the same time the possibility of controls on the tributaries to the Red River, including the Pembina Reservoir, will be investigated further.
We believe our proposals to the Federal Government are sound both technically and economically, but also are fully in accord with recent precedents. An annual cost of $4 million will secure an annual benefit of $11 million.
Nor are we forgetting the intangible but cardinal factor of community safety and freedom from the annual threat that property and perhaps even lives may be sacrificed to the whims of a river. This increase in security is of great value, and is entirely supplementary to those other benefits. This is truly a project for the promotion of greater prairie prosperity, and one of national import in any Federal development of resources in partnership with the Province.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): I realize that a statement such as the First Minister has just made is not open for debate at this time and it is not my intention to debate it. I realize also that the Honourable, the First Minister, does not need to answer questions on it unless he wishes to but seeing that the amounts involved are so large, I listened with particular interest his statement regarding Federal participation in the cost. I understood him to say that it should be a co-operative venture with the Federal Government, that assistance had been asked of them, a formula had been recommended to them -- the question I would like to ask is, have they any assurance that they will receive that assistance?
HON. DUFF ROBLIN: We have not yet received any counter proposal, you might say, or any official comment from the Federal Government on the proposals that we have given them. We have, I have no authority at the present time to state what the Federal attitude will be. We think that we have a good case and we intend to do our best to promote that case with them. And I am expecting that within a reasonably short time that we will be able to come to grips on this particular matter. As far as the Government is concerned, we believe that it is proper and right for us to proceed, at the present time in this coming season, with certain preliminary works that are necessary before the thing can be proceeded with, and we are going to ask for money from this Legislature to do so.
MR. S. JUBA (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I may be permitted to ask the Premier a question in view of the fact that he has stated the Government water policy. I would like to know if there is any foundation to the rumors that are circulating at the present time that there is a possibility that the Government will acquire or intends to acquire the Greater Winnipeg Water District, that is the aqueduct of the supply system of the Greater Winnipeg Water District?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, that is purely a rumour and it is the first time I have heard it.
HONOURABLE GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, before you come to the Orders of the Day, may I lay on the table of the House the following: The Annual Report of the Department of Mines & Natural Resources of Manitoba for the period ending March 31st, 1958; The Annual Report of the Department of Industry and Commerce for the period ending March 31st, 1958; The Report of the Board of the Manitoba Farm Loans Association for the period ending March 31st, 1958.
HONOURABLE JOHN CARROLL (Minister of Public Works) (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to lay on the table of the House the Annual Report of The Municipal Public Utility Board for the year ending December 31st, 1958, and the Annual Report of the Manitoba Power Commission for the year ending March 31st, 1958.
HONOURABLE MARCEL BOULIC (Provinical-Secretary) (Cypress): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I wish to lay on the table of the House, the report of the Department of the Provincial Secretary which includes the report of the Queen's Printer for the fiscal year that ended on 31st of March, 1958.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Honourable, the First Minister, as to the number of these reports that are going to be distributed individually and what ones we will have to look to the Clerk's office to receive?
MR. ROBLIN: If my memory serves, Mr. Speaker, it has been customary in the past for one copy, perhaps to be made available to the Leaders of Opposition Parties without any further ado and that they request any further copies that they require. So I would suggest that if the Honourable gentleman will inform the Clerk of the House how many copies he would like, I am certain they will be provided for him.
MR. CAMPBELL: Well, there are quite a few -- I beg your pardon -- Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that it has been the custom that a good many of these, such as the Power Commission, the Department of Education report, the Department of Health & Public Welfare have all been individually been distributed on presentation and I just want to be sure that that practice is being continued. I presume it is.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, we are following in the path that has been so well worn by my Honourable friend, in that respect.
MR. CAMPBELL: That is all I wanted to assure. That will be very encouraging to the Province as a whole.
MR. D. SWAILES (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask whether the copies of the
reports of Industry & Commerce and Mines & Natural Resources have been printed and whether they will be available to each member.
MR. EVANS: I think at this very moment, Mr. Speaker, they are being distributed now.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the First Minister. If the Federal Government is unwilling to share in the cost of these projects, is the Provincial Government prepared to carry them out alone?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, my Honourable friend knows perfectly well that he is not entitled to ask questions of that sort which bear on the advice the ministry will give the crown in the event that certain hypothetical matters take place.
MR. L. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister. I will give him a moment to cool down. I want to direct a question to the Honourable the Attorney-General. Is it his intention to table reports of the gaols and penal institutions?
HONOURABLE STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): I have the reports, Mr. Speaker, in hand at the present time which will be tabled at any time.
MR. C. L. SHUTTLEWORTH (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, might I enquire from the Minister of Agriculture when he expects the report of the Department of Agriculture to be tabled?
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture) (Turtle Mountain): It is now in course of preparation, I should think in a couple of days.
MR. SWAILES: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Labour could let us know whether or not the personnel of the Minimum Wage Board have yet been determined and can he give us some idea as to when the Board will begin to hold its meetings?
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, the personnel of the Board has been determined and I believe that they were called for yesterday. The first meeting was convened for yesterday, the 17th of March, no, this morning, I'm sorry, the 18th.
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on proposed motion for address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to the Speech at the opening of the session and the amendments thereto. The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, may I offer my compliments to you, Sir, looking handsome and healthy in your present location? May I too congratulate the mover and seconder who made such excellent speeches in regard to the Speech from the Throne.
I have listened with care to the Leader of the Opposition, also the Leader of the C.C.F. party. I should like, in the first instance, to try and answer one of the many questions asked by the Leader of the C.C.F. party in which he said "What will the Tories do for agriculture". I should like to take a little time to answer that question, and if perchance I should stick a little closer to my notes than is my custom, it will be in order that my speech may be briefer and perhaps contain more details.
While this Government has only been in power some eight and a half months, we do suggest that material progress has been made and I should like to detail a number of items in that regard:
1. We have provided agricultural credit on a long term basis for farm people in a manner which is receiving quick response from agriculture in Manitoba.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the sub-amendment deals with the comprehensive Federal-Provincial Health Plan and this is not agriculture.
MR. WILLIS: If the Honourable Member had been listening he would have heard the two speakers, as was their right, go over the whole field and as was indicated, the Leader of the C.C.F. party spoke on health and I quoted from his speech in regard to agriculture. Indeed, the Leader of the C.C.F. party went as far as New Zealand in his speech. ... [Interjection] ... Thank you, don't send me to that other place.
MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hesitate to interrupt my honourable friend and I certainly agree that as far as the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. party and I were concerned, we wandered over a lot of territory. But my contention is that that has always been done with regard to the Speech from the Throne itself and to the amendment that is proposed because they tie in so closely and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when you come to a specific amendment dealing with just one matter, and only one matter, that it is
neither within the rules, nor has it been the practice of this House, to have the same latitude.
MR. STINSON: The essential thing in a Want of Confidence amendment or sub-amendment is want of confidence, not the items listed as to why a want of confidence is felt, and that has been the practice, certainly at Ottawa, and I can't cite cases in our own House but I do know that it is the general practice to cover the field. And I think it would be a mistake to have the debate circumscribed in this way; certainly the essence of any Want of Confidence motion is want of confidence in the government.
MR. ROBLIN: I would add a word to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We've heard a lot from my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, about customs here and I must say that I was just a little bit surprised to hear him say just now that it was not the custom to do what my honourable friend is proposing to do - because many a time and oft over the past few years, have I had him couple me, and as it happened my good friend, the Leader of the C.C.F. party together in replying to a Want of Confidence motion and deal with every matter that was brought up by either of the two speakers and then some on occasion, in connection with the debate on this motion. So I think, Sir, that we should debate it in that wider sense, because after all the life of the government is at stake here, and surely we have a right to defend ourselves against the charges that were brought against us when Want of Confidence was moved.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I am not worrying very much whether a government is at stake or not, but in the 18 years that I have been here I have never heard yet that someone called a point of order in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. His two predecessors have always given as much freedom as we would like to take on the general debate or on the general motion, on the main motion, or on the amendment or on the amendment to the amendment. Because, otherwise he will create that each and every one instead of speaking once, he will speak on the amendment to the amendment and he will make another speech to the amendment and another speech, if the House is still alive, to the main motion.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I want to say and this is on the point of order, that I thoroughly agree with what the Honourable the First Minister has said with respect to my replies on more than one occasion, but if he will consult the record with regard to those occasions he will find that the amendment itself or the amendment to the amendment, or both, as the case might be, was so wide, so wide because my honourable friend used to use one that was all inclusive. It was the general ineptitude of the Government or something of that kind and my honourable friend did the same type of thing and we have had sub-amendments that were many paragraphs long that covered the field. Under those circumstances, I agree completely with my honourable friend and, certainly, we did the same thing. But where there is a specific item, as in this one, I maintain that it is necessary to stay to the one subject.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, if I may add a word to what has been said, once again I don't profess to have too much knowledge of the rules, but once again referring to the little red book -- while it isn't setting out the rules of order of procedure of the House, you will find on page 47, on discussing the procedure after the opening of the House, in the final paragraph it says this: "It frequently happens that an amendment is moved by the opposition, which usually takes the form of an expression of regret that the Government has not done or left undone something which it should not or should have done." In this case, the debate can be broadened out to include the subject of the amendment. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in accordance with past custom that we have done that. One honourable member mentioned the fact that the Leader of the C.C.F. party even went into New Zealand. This is perfectly correct, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, how could we have proposed the type of amendment which he did to the amendment of the official opposition if he had not stated his case first? And I think that there is ample provision in the past for this. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, the other day on another point of order, drew to the attention of the House that while certain rules may be interpreted one way or the other, that the prime consideration of our House here should be past customs and allowances in debate, and I suggest, not that I am attempting to rescue the Honourable Minister of Education, but I would support the contention that he has the perfect right to discuss the subjects that he wishes to discuss on this. We would welcome his comments on them.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, following up the remarks made by the Honourable Member for Radisson. He should keep on reading. Ample opportunity is afforded on the motion to go into supply for the very wide discussions of matter of general government concern extending beyond those permissible during the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Now, my honourable friend from Inkster says that it would mean that you would hear the same speeches all the time. I suggest that it is entirely the case if we permit discussion of everything on a specific amendment to the amendment which deals with one subject matter only. If we permit that rule to go into effect, then it would mean that the Leader of the C.C.F. party could debate the whole matter over again on the same speech practically that he made on the amendment and so on. I think that one speech on each amendment is enough. ... [Interjection] ... Well, I think with the presentation that my honourable friend gives, it would take more than one speech -- two speeches.
MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion, the trust and privilege of this House has been that a wide-open debate has taken place on the Throne Speech and I don't follow the reasoning of the Liberal party where they are in opposition and tend to restrict debate in this House. I would think they should be speaking on the other side of the question and allow the motion full debate in the Legislature. It is my opinion that the debate should continue.
MR. JUBA: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of information, would it be possible for a member to speak purely on the amended amendment and also speak on the amendment, and then also speak on the main motion providing he stays within the realm of the subject matter? Is that true?
MR. SPEAKER: He would have that right.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to appeal your ruling because I don't think we want to have the rulings appealed here too frequently. But I do want to express my own opinion that the procedure that we followed from the one that is being advised now. I must express my disagreement but I do not intend to appeal the ruling.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that discretion is the better part of valour, that under this system that I will just make one speech as otherwise I would likely make three 40 minute speeches. And I thank the Member for St. George, not yet a minister.... [Interjection -- Not ever.] ... He is not persuing the proper course to get there, I think, but I thank him for the interruption and I assure him that I will not mention his name at all in the entire address. And so, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was ganged up on, --
1. We have provided agricultural credit on a long term basis for farm people in a manner which is receiving quick response from agriculture in Manitoba. Applications for farm loans are coming to us in every mail and to date we have received not less than 600. Our policy provides loans up to $25,000.00 to one farm borrower with up to 30 years to repay and these loans can be paid off at any time without notice or bonus. Additional provision has been made whereby for the first three years it will be unnecessary for the borrower to pay more than interest while payments on principal will be delayed to a later date. We have secured as manager, Mr. R. C. McLennan, who has had long experience in administering the Veteran's Land Act and we also have received several applications from persons having experience in the employ of the Veterans' Land Act administration, several of whom we expect to add to our staff. As we will be inaugurating supervised credit along somewhat similar lines to that of the Veterans' Land Act, we are happy to believe that we will start operations with a thoroughly experienced staff. We are happy to learn today that the Government of Saskatchewan is copying our system and is inaugurating similar farm loan provisions about a year later than we did.
2. Provision will be made during the present Session to change the name of the Department from Agriculture and Immigration to that of Agriculture and Conservation.
3. At the present time we have eight acts on our statute books dealing with drainage and water control and they are under control of three different departments. You will be asked to approve legislation bringing all of these acts under one control in the Department of Agriculture. This, we believe, will help to bring order out of chaos and will eliminate overlapping and will increase efficiency. In future, any municipalities having a water problem will be able to take its troubles to one authority and that authority will be able to give advice and engineering assistance and some financial help. As a part of this program the present Watershed and Soil Conservation Act will be replaced by the Watershed Conservation Districts Act but all of those
portions of the former act which are of value will be retained.
4. Together with water conservation, special emphasis will be laid on conservation of soil and more efficient land use. This will include promotion of increased forage crops under which policies more than two thousand farmers have purchased seed for the planning of 30,000 acres in 1959. This will mean that about one-tenth of our total agricultural acreage will be planted to forage crops.
5. For 1959 it is estimated that one and one-half million trees will be set out in shelter belts on farms under an increased promotion policy.
6. There will be an extension of soil conservation clubs which now number 56 with a membership of over 900 farmers.
7. Field crop trials to test seed on all soil zone types within the province will be increased and expanded.
8. The program of weed control will be greatly expanded and the weed control branch will be transferred to the Soils and Crops Branch in order to make it more efficient and effective. It has been reliably estimated that weeds take an annual toil of $1,000.00 per Manitoba farm and we are now discussing with the Union of Manitoba Municipalities suggestions for giving additional assistance to municipalities for the purpose of bringing about an overall coverage of the province in weed control rather than the present methods which vary from good weed control to no weed control at all.
9. Agriculture in south-eastern Manitoba. An inter-departmental committee has been created under which assistance will be rendered to south-eastern Manitoba by various Departments of the Government but in particular, the Department of Agriculture will render assistance by the following means, namely -
(a) soil surveys for the area have been arranged for the summer of 1959 and when collected will provide basic information for deciding the most efficient land use,
(b) the tree nursery of the Forestry Service has been instructed to increase its tree nursery production to twenty million trees by 1970, half of which will be reserved for planting in south-eastern Manitoba for shelterbelts and future forestry use,
(c) estimates of the Department of Agriculture will include provision for a regional extension co-ordinator who has already been employed, who will undertake studies and develop programs for the area and who will co-ordinate the programs and activities of all agricultural representatives in south-eastern Manitoba.
10. Livestock. Last year gross sales of livestock in Manitoba exceeded $71,000,000.00 and livestock is possibly the most prosperous section of agriculture in Manitoba at the present time.
Much work is still to be done in improving the quality of our beef cattle and for this purpose we have employed additional livestock in order to bring to the attention of all farmers the opportunities for increased income by increased beef production.
11. Publications and publicity. It is proposed to re-organize the Publications and Statistics Branch under three divisions, namely, Publications, Statistics and Radio and Television.
Presently our statistics division is most inadequate and will be greatly improved. There are great opportunities for delivering information to the public by radio and television which are not now being fully used. We therefore propose a radio and television division for the purpose of organizing and developing programs of agricultural information for presentation by radio and television.
12. Extension Service. There are now 36 established agricultural representative offices including ten district home economists. For the purposes of providing additional service, provision will be made for eight more full time agricultural representatives and also four additional home economists.
13. Farm business groups. We now have five farm business groups with a membership of 120 young farmers and our aim and object is to increase this to 26 farm business groups. Under this system young farmers enroll for a four-year course which will include meetings held monthly at a local centre with specialists from the Department of Agriculture doing the teaching.
14. Extension Liaison Officer. A special liaison officer employed by the Department of Agriculture will be placed at the University of Manitoba to gather, prepare and report the
latest information from the Faculty of Agriculture and make it available to agricultural representatives and our special radio and television division.
15. Regional Offices. Regional offices have been created at Brandon and Dauphin including specialists in agricultural engineering, farm management, field crops, livestock and soils. This will give much more efficient coverage to all of Manitoba.
New Agricultural Society Grants. We propose new prize money grants for agricultural societies as follows:
(1) Prize Money Grants.
(a) The "A" Class Exhibition grant maximum on prize money paid out to exhibitors has been increased from $4,500 to $8,000. Exhibitions of course qualifying - Provincial Exhibition, Manitoba Winter Fair, and the Red River Exhibition.
(b) Grants to "B" Class Exhibitions (Carman, Dauphin, Portage la Prairie); and to "C" Class fairs be increased from 50% to 65% of the prize money paid to exhibitors.
(2) Grants - Buildings, etc., "A" and "B" Class Exhibitions.
Grants to "A" and "B" Class Exhibitions for permanent buildings, repairs, and improvements to buildings and grounds, and for purchase of equipment, one-half the amount expended but not exceeding $10,000.00.
The programme in respect to building, repairs, etc., must first be approved by the Minister.
(3) Grants - Buildings, Repairs, etc., to "C" Class Fairs.
(a) "C" Class fairs which in the preceding year paid out in prize money to exhibitors $1,000.00, but less than $2,000.00, will receive a grant of $750.00.
(b) "C" Class fairs which in the preceding year paid out $2,000.00 or more in cash prizes to exhibitors, a grant of $1,500.00.
The programme in respect to building, repairs, etc., must first be approved by the Minister.
(4) Grants - Membership.
Present maximum of membership grants to agricultural societies of $100.00 to be increased to $200.00, by amending clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 35 of The Agricultural Societies Act to provide that 400 members be the basis for computing the membership grant at the rate of 50¢ per member, (whereas it is currently 200 members at 50¢ per member).
Horticultural Society Grants.
(a) Membership grants to be increased as in Agricultural Societies.
(b) Grants on prize money paid exhibitors to be computed on the basis of 65% of prize money actually paid exhibitors. Current basis 50% of prize money paid out.
17. Bursaries for Diploma Students. In addition to bursaries for students at the University who are seeking a degree in Agriculture, bursaries will also be provided for students in the Diploma Course in Agriculture. This will provide a maximum total of $1,200.00 for a student taking a two-year course. If the student engages in farming, the debt will be written off on the basis of 33 1/3% for each 12 months so employed.
Research at the University. Arrangements have been made for a greatly expanded program of research at the University of Manitoba which will call for an expenditure of over $2,000,000.00, a large portion of which will be for buildings. The research will cover a large number of items and will make possible a program much larger than has ever been attempted by the Faculty of Agriculture in the past. The Faculty of Agriculture will in effect be carrying on specific research for the Department of Agriculture in this Government and this will call for greatly increased expenditures of which you will receive details in due course.
19. Crop Insurance. We have been reassured only today by the Federal Minister of Agriculture and his Deputy that they will introduce crop insurance at the present Session of the Federal Parliament and their advice to us is to await details in order that our crop insurance legislation may be co-related with the Federal act, thereby bringing about maximum benefits. We, in this Government, are ready, and willing and anxious to bring forward crop insurance at the earliest possible moment at the Present Session of this Legislature.
I thought I might turn to the question of highways in the Province of Manitoba, to report to the House in regard to the vote which they were good enough to give us at the last Session, amounting to $33 million. May I tell you that in addition to the $33 million which has been voted, there will be an additional and new vote in the present Session of the Legislature so that more money may be available, -- we'll let you know very soon -- substantial, shall we say -- substantial.
Since October, 1958, we have let 62 contracts and in most cases they are now working on those contracts, and there are 12 more which are now advertised. And we anticipate, and the engineers anticipate, that on this basis of letting contracts in the fall for the coming season, that we will save at least one to two months as far as construction is concerned. In addition to that, of course, we are giving much useful employment at the present time in various parts of Manitoba in regard to our road programme. We were able to do this, because in the fall, we placed in the papers an advertisement which we called "An Intention to Invite Tenders", and then, in this intention, we indicated where the roads were, so that proposed contractors could go and examine them before they were under snow. As a consequence, they got the necessary information so they could bid at any time; and you will see each week in the newspapers, advertisements in regard to asking for tenders on road building contracts and this will continue through March and April and May. At the present time it may surprise you to know that this fall we let four paving jobs for construction early next spring. The contractors were very happy to get them. [Interjection] I have not been entirely sure about that -- I hope that the Minister won't be making such dreadful speeches as he made in the past saying we wouldn't give him a nickel--the former Minister who ministered well to that area when he was in. [Interjection] And so, the question of the Haskett Road will have to wait, but I don't mind telling the Member for Rhineland that I had some of his friends in there or voters anyway, I don't know whether they're friends or not, this past week, seeking grants on other roads other than the one which he now advocates, and I will have to come to a difficult decision to decide between these men who came in the delegation and the Honourable Member for Rhineland, to find out which of them really has the information because they have made contrary requests.
We propose this year to increase the road grants to the municipalities -- you will notice in the Speech from the Throne, it said "Increased assistance will be given to Municipalities for the construction and maintenance of their roads and access roads." Aids to Municipalities, Unorganized Territory, Towns, Villages, and Cities will be continued, with increased grants in the following fields:
(i) Secondary Highway grants for construction and maintenance will be increased from 66 2/3% to 75%, excepting bridges over $100,000.00 total cost where we will pay 80% of the cost.
(ii) In regard to Bridge Grants for the main market roads, not including Trunk Highways, where we pay 100%, and not including Greater Winnipeg, where we have a special arrangement, they will be increased from 60% Provincial Share to a sliding scale as follows; 60% on first $10,000.00 of cost; 70% on next $15,000.00 of cost; 75% on the following $15,000.00 of cost; 80% on all costs over $40,000.00.
(iii) Grants to Villages and Towns for arterial street improvements, percentage will be increased from 50% to 60%.
(iv) Grants for Surfacing Main Market Roads will be increased from 50% to 60% to encourage the upgrading of the Market Road System.
(v) Right-of-Way costs formerly paid for by the Municipalities, but not including Greater Winnipeg, will be included in the total cost of each project.
(vi) Snow Plowing grants on a 50/50 basis will be increased for Rural Municipalities from a maximum of $500.00 to a maximum of $1000.00 to take care of the new school system. Villages and Towns that did not receive any assistance for snow plowing, - they will now receive grants of up to $300.00 on a 50/50 basis.
(vii) Towns and Villages which do not receive a mileage grant for maintenance of Provincial Trunk Highways will be assisted on a 50/50 basis, to load and haul snow from the curb or ditch line of Trunk or Secondary Highways, within the business section. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that in the past in a number of cases we have highways which go down main streets and when the snow plow went through and piled the snow on the doorways of
the storekeepers, they did not appear to be pleased. Consequently now, we will help them with the removal of that snow.
A new policy on access roads is being adopted whereby the Province will bear the cost of providing access roads from provincial trunk highways to main market centres, to provide for year-round movement of persons, goods and services on an integrated highway system.
In all this special arrangements will be made in regard to the Greater Winnipeg area, as has been done in the past, because there you have special conisderations such as that of the Disraeli Bridge.
We have been talking in the past in this Legislature in regard to planning. We believe that we have now employed the best planning organization on the continent, to do our planning for us, and their assistant chief engineer is now here on work, -- Mr. James O. Granum. He is now here at work in regard to the planning of our highways. We have signed a contract with Automotive Safety Foundation, which is a non-profit organization dedicated to highway planning and traffic safety. May I say that this organization did the planning for the Province of Ontario, and has just completed the work; this organization did the planning for the State of Minnesota and 23 other states of the Union, so that they have a terrific experience in regard to planning of highway departments so they may plan many years ahead. Mr. Granum of the Foundation, is now in Winnipeg, working with the Department of Public Works to assist in the organization of the nucleus of a "Planning and Design Division" and is starting a needs survey.
The object of this programme is to prepare a long-range plan for the development of our Highways System, taking into consideration economic growth, structural strength, traffic density, and traffic safety.
I have had several conversations with Honourable James Allen, formerly Minister of Highways in the Province of Ontario -- who is now their Provincial Treasurer -- in regard to this organization, and for it he has the highest praise. Particularly, he has singularly high praise for Mr. Granum, who happens to be the man who has been sent here to set up our organization. I've also been talking to the Highway Commissioner for the State of Minnesota, and he merely confirms what Mr. Allen told me, that -- to use his language -- "these men are the best in the business". And so, we hope to emerge shortly, the proper planning division far superior to anything in Canada, with the possible exception of the Province of Ontario.
May I say too, that we have made arrangements for to provide increased protection of highway rail crossings in several new locations.
In August 1958, Honourable George Hees, Minister of Transport, announced an increased grant to bring the Grade Crossing Fund from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000.
The Board have requested our recommendations for the Manitoba Highway System. This Department are planning for protection of at least twelve different locations per year, and the following locations have been suggested to the Board: C.P.R. & P.T.H. 3 West of Morden; C.N.R. & P.T.H. 5 Ashville; C.N.R. & P.T.H. 12 East of St. Annes; C.N.R. & P.T.H. 15 East of Dugald; C.P.R. & P.T.H. 9 Selkirk By-Pass; C.P.R. & North Perimeter Road Beach Line; C.N.R. & West Perimeter Road Harte Sub.; C.N.R. & West Perimeter Road Gladstone Sub. (Overpass); C.N.R. & south Perimeter Road N. of St. Norbert O'pass; C.P.R. & South Perimeter Road N. of Grand Pointe.
There may be others which may be added providing we can get the necessary assistance from the Federal Government.
The following buildings are being assisted by the Department of Public Works: The addition to the psychopathic building in Winnipeg is completed and renovation of the existing building is being proceeded with. The new administration building at The Pas will be occupied in May of this year. The steel erection for the new administration building on York Avenue in Winnipeg, is progressing quite well; a contract has been let for the pre-cast concrete floor slabs and the general contract is now out for tender. The addition to the Land Titles Office at Brandon is complete and occupied. An additional minimum security building has been completed at Headingly Gaol. A tourist reception building will be completed at the International Peace Garden on Provincial Trunk Highway No. 10 in time for the opening of the tourist season. Property is being acquired and plans are being prepared for the "Rehabilitation Hospital" in the Winnipeg General Hospital Area. Tenders are advertised for the construction of the Girls' Home in West St. Paul. Regular maintenance and repair to all provincial buildings and
properties are being carried out in the usual way.
In the addresses which have been delivered, I should like to refer at least briefly to the Leader of the Opposition, who says, -- as I would expect him to say -- that "this government has gone too far and too fast." The Leader of the Opposition again, for probably the tenth year in succession, has referred to the possible necessity of a sales tax and that has always been his warning as far as this Legislature is concerned. I think it probably arises from a Scottish background, and he can't help it if he happened to be born Scottish instead of Irish, but it must be a matter of regret to him on many occasions. May I assure him too, that as far as we are concerned, we will strive to the best of our ability to get a fair share of the national income for farmers by any reasonable means.
My friend the Irishman who leads the C.C.F. party and who just came into the fold yesterday, and I welcome him ...
MR. STINSON: What fold?
MR. WILLIS: The Irish fold, you crawled in yesterday.
MR. STINSON: ... the government fold.
MR. WILLIS: ... and I welcome you.
MR. STINSON: I don't understand you -- I was in here before.
MR. WILLIS: I didn't think you should have covered as large a share of the world in discussing its problems as you did in your address. I thought you should have drawn the line at least someplace, and left at least some fringes but you covered it all. And strange as it may seem, I must say a word in defense of the Leader of the Opposition, because you needled him pretty badly yesterday. And, you said of him, that he had his feet firmly planted in the 19th century.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, I think I should correct the Honourable gentleman -- that was Jack Pickersgill.
MR. WILLIS: Oh, another Liberal. That I take it, you would agree with me is general Liberal policy in anything. And while I didn't have the correct person, I have the correct phrase. But I was going to suggest to the Leader of the C.C.F. party that this phrase should be slightly changed for him. It should be changed to read "with his feet firmly planted in the clouds from which he has not yet returned", -- so I thought in the address which went so far afield. And then I wondered whether this House was not going to allow me to say a word in regard to matters which were so close to home. May I say a word, too, in regard to the so-called Ottawa march. We in this party sent a telegram which we thought would be helpful to the delegation down there, and would get them an entree. I myself visited the train, and went from one end of it to the other, and I saw not one Liberal there, but I saw several Conservatives. And I was considerate enough to send the President of my Provincial Organization there -- went to Ottawa and on returning gave me a telephone call which he said that he was well treated and I had three other men who came and told me the same thing. [Interjection] I don't know, they were looking for road grants, and they didn't mention it.
MR. BEND: Mr. Speaker, they made an awful mistake if they didn't mention it.
MR. WILLIS: I suspected they were Liberals because mostly they mention it. Even though they are Liberals, they are good Conservatives when they walk in. But I welcome a Liberal who calls himself a Liberal; it's the Liberal who calls himself something else that I have no use for, but I believe a man should stick up for his party and not have it under a bushel like so many on the opposite side had for so long. [Interjection] I'd be willing, I'd be willing. And so, I thought, that in my present position, if I could get a word in here someplace, that I should say that there's nothing wrong with deficient payments as such, but it is true that from dificiency payments, big farmers get the big payments, and if you've got no crops you get no payments as far as deficiency is concerned. And, I thought the delegation should have taken the lead, which the Minister of Agriculture pointed out to them very clearly, that the proper basis was an acreage basis, and those who came back are still of the opinion, too, that they will get it through, an acreage basis from this government this year.
MR. STINSON: Will the Honourable gentleman permit a question? Was there not a ceiling suggested by the last delegation?
MR. WILLIS: That was suggested afterwards according to the statement which I read in the paper today.
MR. STINSON: No, Mr. Speaker, it's right in the material that was presented ...
MR. WILLIS: It was a $15 hundred limit which was pretty well up in the skies.
MEMBERS: No, ...
MR. WILLIS: Now if I could go back for a moment on this field day. I have been on many occasions accused of saying that we are increasing the standards as far as roads are concerned, but doing nothing about it. So I think it is time now that I should say so because we may not be here long, you know. Some say there will be an election, and while we will be back, I wouldn't be able to speak to the same audience as I will today. It would still be the same audience if we were on the other side.
Now I want to speak to the House for a moment in regard to what we are doing because so often I was accused that we were doing nothing about it, so all of you professional engineers should now get out your pencils, and whether they are sharp or not -- well it might be called that, I don't care what you call it -- it is just information.
MR. ROBLIN: And darn good information.
MR. WILLIS: Here are some of the examples which I get from the engineers in regard to the changes which we have made in the increased standards. This is from the Assistant Deputy Minister to me. He said the only way comparison is possible is to consider sections of highways which are paved previous to 1959 and adjacent sections on the 1959/60 programme. These sections must be adjacent so that the soil and sub-grade conditions are similar. The following examples are indicative: (1) P.T.H. No. 5 Norgate south paved in 1958 - Base Course - 2000 tons per mile. Norgate North the next year under the new conditions - 4800 tons per mile -- more than double the strength of the road. Then (2) The Perimeter Road to Claneboye Road - Base Course 1958 - 4200 tons per mile. 1959/60 - 5400 tons per mile -- indicating the increases which have been made.
Now additional Base Course for 1959 has been provided on these roads in addition to others. P.T.H. No. 3 - 21.5 miles - Carman to Morden; P.T.H. No. 3 - 18.5 miles - Killarney to P.T.H. No. 10; P.T.H. No. 4 - 27.5 miles - Shoal Lake to Foxwarren; P.T.H. No. 5 - 40.0 miles - Norgate to Ochre River; P.T.H. No. 5 - 25.0 miles - Gilbert Plains to Shortdale; P.T.H. No. 7 - 11.5 miles - Komarno to Fraserwood; P.T.H. No. 8 - 29.8 miles - Clandeboye to Gimli; P.T.H. No. 10 - 17.2 miles - Cameron School to P.T.H. No. 45; P.T.H. No. 10 - 15.5 miles - Birch River to Mafeking; P.T.H. No. 11 - 15.8 miles - Brookfield Corner to McArthur Falls; P.T.H. No. 15 - 13.0 miles - Transcona to Anola. Memorandum from the Chief Engineer.
A MEMBER: They've had their base course out there.
MR. WILLIS: That indicates the helpful coalition that's going on over there and I think it will come to final fruition next week when we will see what happens at that time.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to interfere with my honourable friend's trend of thought but I wonder if he has the figures if he could tell us how these tonnages per mile compare with the tonnages on highway 75. I realize that highway 75 is a concrete one where he has been talking about blacktop, but so we could have comparative figures, I wonder if he could give those to us either now or later on.
MR. WILLIS: I doubt if they would be of any use due to the fact that you have an entirely different soil condition, and then as far as 75 is concerned it runs through the poorest type of soil which there is in North America. That is to say there are plenty of other soil equally bad, but that's the lowest type, poorest type, as typed by the engineers for road building, and therefore you have a different treatment in other places. But I will try nevertheless to get it for you -- it is interesting and useful. Therefore it was my purpose today, speaking to you, to point out that while the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. party has said in a loud voice 'what have the Tories done for Agriculture', I have been able today I think to point out that maybe in 25 different cases, even though we have been in power for eight and one-half months, much has been done. I want to make it very clear that in many of these policies they were already in force, but they were augmented and increased, such as research and many others. We did, however, inaugurate several entirely new policies. We have but been in power for eight and one-half months, and this to my way of thinking is the proof that things can be done for agriculture in the provincial field, and we propose to do it. In addition to that I have tried today to show you as far as highways are concerned, they have been planned in other places five years in advance, and that we will plan them here five years in advance, and we have the people here to tell us how. And while there were those who sat in this House too, and said that in this business of letting contracts in the fall - it was all foolishness, that it couldn't be done, -- the
facts are that we have let more than 60 contracts. The facts are, too, that we have furnished much employment. It was available now, and which would not be in the spring. The results will be that because of these things being done, we in Manitoba will be able to build more and better highways than have been built at any time in the past.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, will the Honourable Minister permit a question? He stated he received six hundred applications for credits. Can he tell the House how many of the six hundred applications have been realized or completed and how many loans granted?
MR. WILLIS: The applications came, of course, when there was two feet of snow on the ground. You can't examine land and any farmer knows that. You can't determine the quality at all until that happens, but there is much work to be done as far as the applications are concerned and they are now being processed; individual applicants are being interviewed in regard to those applications, so that as soons as the snow goes, as soon as it is physically possible we will be in business.
MR. GRAY: ... by that time probably make other arrangements and not utilize the pleasure of the profits.
MR. WILLIS: The reason why we have six hundred applications is that they have not been able to make arrangements any place else in the past. That's why they are with us.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister before he concludes. I supported his right to cover a broad field but I am rather interested in what his attitude is to Health Insurance.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my speech in regard to Health Insurance would take at least three hours. Consequently I will spare the House today.
MR. STINSON: ... on a point of order, the honourable gentleman is not limited in time when he is replying to a want of confidence motion.
MR. CLEMENT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question with respect to the Farm Loan. Has the rate of interest been set yet? And if it has been, what is that rate?
MR. WILLIS: The announcement will be made by the Provincial Treasurer very soon.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Honourable Minister a question. How large a staff is there that is processing these applications for loans? And a further question -- How large a field staff does the Honourable Minister intend to have to evaluate the lands?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, it depends entirely on the number of applications which are accepted. If a large number is accepted that will entail a larger field staff. If we find that these applications are not such as we can accept, we will require only a small field staff. It will be measured entirely by that factor.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: The Honourable Minister overlooked my first question. How large a staff have you processing these applications now?
MR. WILLIS: They have been coming in so fast I better not make a statement in regard to it. May I say this? For the applications which are here, we now have sufficient staff to handle them.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Minister, just one more question. I have information that the only staff you have there is the manager. Is that information correct?
MR. WILLIS: That information is not correct.
MR. ROBERTS: ... that a number of applicants were being interviewed at the present time. Could you tell me how many applicants, if any, have been interviewed?
MR. WILLIS: I wouldn't know! Nor have I enquired except to say to you that four different men are interviewing them at the present time.
HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I join with the other speakers who have extended good wishes to you in your position, and to wish you continued health and success in your present work. During the last provincial election, in my constituency, we fought a couple of Federal election campaigns, and one civic election, because I has been engaged in civic affairs at that time, and I find now that I should have paid more attention to what the chaps were saying, because there seems to be so much said here, concerning Federal affairs. I was thinking yesterday, that there's a certain air of unreality about the whole business because so many of these matters are matters upon which we do not
have any direct legislative authority. However, perhaps you'll permit me to discuss some matters of purely provincial concern this afternoon.
The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition said the other day, in his able address, that the government was going too far too fast. Well, the comment I have about that is that when you have a long distance to overcome you have to travel as fast as you can, as quickly as you can.
A MEMBER: Here! Here! A good point.
MR. McLEAN: The Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. party said that our chief characteristic was our eagerness to hold onto office, or to hold onto our jobs. My comment about that is that I see that it is only equalled by the eagerness of others to replace us as quickly as possible.
I would like to discuss, Mr. Speaker, the subject of education, with which -- for which I have some responsibility at the present time. We can discuss education with some very considerable hope and promise because of the very profound changes that have taken place in this province since we last met. A change in our educational system which is certainly the most far-reaching that has taken place, -- the most far-reaching advance in our educational system, that has taken place since the original establishment of our province, and of our educational system. And I am certain that it must be a matter of pride to all of us that the people of Manitoba have displayed such vigour and receptive attitude toward the new plans and the advance that has been made. And I think, Sir, that we may take on this side some credit for the leadership which has been given in this important -- in these important changes. The changes began, -- just to review very briefly some history concerning it, -- the changes began with the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Education, which was received at the beginning of September last year. That report recommended certain fundamental changes in the administration of our schools, leaving the operation and control of elementary schools to local school boards, within local school districts, and recommending the formation of school divisions for the purpose of providing secondary school education. And along with that, the recommendation for a substantial increase in the grants available for the support of both the elementary schools and the high schools. I think that it should be, perhaps I should just mention, and remind the House of course, that the Royal Commission had been appointed by the previous government of this province, and I am certain that they must have had confidence in the Commission, indeed I do recall the then-Minister, at that time said, that he had every confidence that the Commission would report that there was nothing wrong with education in Manitoba. He said that at the time of their appointment.
MR. MILLER (Rhineland): I never made that statement. I never made that statement. I said that the Commission would probably find that all was not wrong -- all was not wrong! And I think in view of the fact that the Commission extended a policy that was initiated by this government is ample proof that all was not wrong.
MR. ROBLIN: ... couldn't make it worse!
MR. MILLER: ... I didn't have your support, I didn't have your support. You did nothing. All the time you were in opposition you did nothing.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the legislation following from the report of the Royal Commission was introduced at the Special Session of this House when we met in October last, and after due consideration received the unanimous vote of the Legislature. That plan, that legislation provided for the establishment of school divisions, the boundaries of which were to be drawn up for us by a Boundaries Commission. A Boundaries Commission was appointed the day following the adjournment or the close of the Session of the Legislature and it began its work immediately. In the course of their work they held 92 public hearings at which they received and heard public representations as to the divisions of the proposed boundaries and early in January of this year made their recommendations to the government with their proposed plan. The Boundaries Commission was, as provided for by the legislation, composed of six persons under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Monnin of the Court of Queens Bench and having in its membership men and a woman, all of whom had had considerable experience both in the field of education and in municipal affairs. And I am happy at this time, Sir, to note that for the purpose of the record, our appreciation, -- I am certain the appreciation of this House and indeed of the Province of Manitoba -- for the splendid manner in which they
discharged their duties. The small remuneration that they have received will not nearly express to them the debt which every citizen of this province owes to them for the conscientious manner in which they carried out their responsibilities. Now the Boundaries Commission recommended the formation of 46 school divisions and it was necessary in accordance with the legislation to hold a vote in those divisions which comprise more than one existing school district, and that vote was held as we all know, on the 27th of February in 36 of the divisions.
Now I think, Mr. Speaker, that, it's not unfair to say, that never before in the Province of Manitoba has any government taken the steps to see that the electors were informed of an issue such as was done in the present instance. The statistics are of some interest and I would like to inform the House that from the 19th of January of this year until the 27th of February, 714 meetings were held, with an estimated total attendance of some 50,000 people; and that out of the total number of meetings 162 of them were addressed by members of the government. Others, of course, many others took part in the meetings and 1,200 polling places were provided for the purpose of recording the wishes of the people of the province. In addition to these meetings we received wide newspaper coverage and radio and television coverage as well. And I think, Sir, that we may rightly claim to have provided a vigorous leadership in this important matter. We said that we were in favour of the plan; we said that we intended to ask the people of the province to adopt it and to support it; and we said that we would do everything in our power to see that the plan itself was made known and to press for a favourable reception of it. And I think that we may rightly claim to have carried out that undertaking in a good, forthright manner. In all of this, we of course, are indebted to the departmental staff who performed their tasks in a most magnificent manner, to the press and the radio, to the farm organizations, school boards, municipal councils and town councils, home and school associations, chambers of commerce, and to the citizens generally. It was a most revealing demonstration of public responsibility -- the response that was made to the discussion and the question that was before the people for consideration.
Now, I think, Sir, that I would like to say something about another aspect of this matter which perhaps doesn't reflect too great a credit upon some of the members of this House. You will remember, and I have just referred to it in my statement to the House that we intended to promote the acceptance of this plan, and an invitation that was extended by myself to every member of the House to join us in having the plan approved by the people of Manitoba. And the members of the House were invited, were notified of meetings being held in their respective constituencies and were invited to attend and support us in that endeavour. Now, Sir, the members of the official opposition may be roughly classified into three groups when it came to the meetings and their attitudes toward the question that the people were called upon to decide. There were, of course, those who were distinctly and unequivocably in favour of the plan and who stated so in no uncertain terms. I had the privilege at one of my first meetings of having the Honourable, the Member for Selkirk with me, and he said to the people there 'this is a good plan. I voted for it in the House. It's good for the people of Manitoba and I ask you to accept it'. I had the same experience with the Honourable, the Member for Springfield. That was one group.
The second group was those who sat on the fence; who would speak and outline what they called the disadvantages of the plan, and I must say, Sir, that some of the disadvantages were the most weird contrivances that I have ever heard in my life. And then sometimes, of course, they would outline the advantages as they called them. The advantages never quite seemed to add up to the disadvantages. And then there were others who took a very mysterious attitude and said now 'look at this very carefully', and in a manner of speaking would sort of suggest that there was something here that perhaps was hidden from view, and suggest that it was certainly doubtful whether it should have the support of the members of the audience, or those of the public. That was the second group, those who were sort of in the middle. And then of course there were those who were distinctly and definitely opposed to the plan. Now, no one can have any objection to any person in public having their views for or against any particular public measure. What I think however must be stated is that the reservations that were stated in many instances during the time of the public campaign were not stated in this House even though all of the points about which they found fault during the time of the campaign were fully
discussed and presented here.
MR. BEND: Would the Honourable Minister permit a question?
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. BEND: Did I hear you say that all the features that were being discussed in the campaign were discussed here in the House?
MR. McLEAN: No, I said that the reservation -- the subject matter of the reservation were discussed here in the House. I am speaking, of course, now of those that I've heard myself -- I -- at the meetings at which I attended.
MR. BEND: I see. I thought I heard you say all.
MR. McLEAN: For example, the matter of the rushing of the vote, and it was stated here when we discussed the plan that the vote would be held not later than the 1st of March of this year; the matter of the grants that would be payable to school districts in proposed divisions which did not vote in favour of the divisions stated here that the grant would be the grants applicable to the school district under the old grant formula, and so on down the list.
Now, what I want to suggest, however, is that the public platform was not the proper place for members of this House to debate this particular matter. The place that it should have been debated, and these matters discussed, was here in the House, and that our invitation to the members was an invitation to support the acceptance of the plan if it had received the acceptance of this House itself. And it seems to me that this only served -- this method of approach -- only served to confuse the issue before the public who were called upon to make a decision. It indicated in my opinion, of course, an attempt to perhaps in certain instances, to try to gauge public feeling and to fall in behind. This was a matter which required leadership, and which many members were not prepared to give. This, I think, is a matter of regret, and I am bound to say, Sir, that in the case of the proposed division of Hanover, I think that if the members concerned there -- the Honourable Member for Carillon, the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, -- that if they had given this plan the same support in their consituencies as they gave in this House, that indeed the plan would have been approved by the voters in that division. I think the same is true, Sir, of the proposed division of boundary, where if the member for that constituency had given it the same support in his constituency as he gave it when he voted for it in this House that it would have been carried there as well.
The matter was of course, further confused by the events which took place during the convention of the Liberal party of this province toward the end of January where they supported two inconsistent resolutions -- one in favour of the Royal Commission Report and the Legislation passed in support of it and the other resolution with respect to the complaining about the failure to pay grants to school districts which did not become part of school divisions.
MR. MILLER: ... we were referring to the campaign promises of your leader. 50% to everybody. It's on the record.
MR. McLEAN: In any event, Sir, even if the matter was not fully approved by all the members of this House, or all the members of the Liberal party in this province, I think it is not incorrect to say that it was approved by the people of the Province of Manitoba, because out of the 36 divisions there was a resounding vote in favour in 32 of the divisions and 69.01% of those who voted, voted in favour of school divisions, and 29% against. It was carried in 33 of the 36 divisions. The people of the Province of Manitoba judged the plan to be a good one by a rather decisive margin and I think that in that approved the principles that lie behind it and approved a very worthwhile advance in the education of this province.
Now this plan will provide equal educational opportunities for children throughout the Province of Manitoba, particularly with respect to high school education. It will relieve in large measure the real property from the burden of school finance, transferring a larger share to the tax base which we have as the Province of Manitoba. It has long been necessary to have some measure of that sort to ensure that the broadest possible tax basis would be available for providing the educational requirements of the Province of Manitoba. And it is our view that the changes which have taken place, and will take place, will be worthwhile for many generations to come. Along with the additional school facilities, the plan will guarantee, I am certain, a good supply of well trained and inspired teachers; will provide necessary schools; and will give the necessary resources that are required for this important public task.
One of the things that is being done, as we pointed out at the Special Session, as was
enacted in law as a matter of fact, was that of the provision of text books to make it possible for all children to have the necessary texts for their schooling.
Now, having arrived at the point where we are, the election of the first trustees of the school divisions will take place on the 31st of March, and several plans have been made to assist the division trustees and their boards to undertake their tasks as quickly as possible and with the greatest possible efficiency. It has been arranged to meet with the divisional boards within a matter of a few days after their election. It is my intention to meet with them and to discuss their problems and to have senior officers of the department with me so that we may give them whatever advice and counsel we can for that purpose. The departmental officials will of course be available on call for division boards to help them in planning and budgeting, and taking over their duties. The School Inspectors have already been in conference and given a thorough briefing on the duties of school division boards and are ready to attend the first meetings of the divisions and to give whatever necessary assistance they can. New methods of budgeting have been outlined; budget forms have been forwarded to the local school districts; and the budget forms ready for the school divisions. All in all, plans made to assist in every possible way with the first important work to be undertaken by the division boards.
Now all of this will lead, of course, to the greatly increased number of students in our high schools and a consequent increase in the students who will be coming to our university and our colleges, and arrangements and plans have been made to assist these institutions in preparation for the increased load that they will be required to handle. I might just refer to the plans with respect to the University of Manitoba -- their requirements for current operating expenses have been agreed to. It will mean a substantial increase to the order of some 30%, and we propose to ask the necessary funds, to give to the University the money they have requested for current operating account. The same is true with respect to capital construction for a science building; completion of an architecture building; an annex to the arts building; completion of the dental college and certain requirements for the library. We propose to ask for the necessary funds to meet all of the requests of the University for capital and new construction. With respect to Brandon College there will be an increased grant for administration or their current operating account, and in addition a substantial amount of money will be asked to provide Brandon College with funds to build further buildings for their requirements. A new formula has been prepared for construction grants for the affiliated colleges based on the formula of 25% of the cost of construction. We are dispensing with the idea of tying our provincial grants for construction to the Canada Council grants and are rather proceeding independently by providing them with a grant of 25% on capital construction. That will apply to the St. John's College, St. Boniface College, St. Paul's College and United College. All of these things, Sir, are being done because we recognize, as I say, the important part that the University will play as a result of the increased number of students, and because we are anxious to encourage the colleges, the affiliated colleges, to play an ever increasing role, an important part in the field of advanced education.
Now, I would like to just make a comment or two regarding grants and financial assistance for our public schools. There will be, as we discussed at the Special Session of the Legislature, the increase in the grants due to the new plan of grants -- that we have already discussed and we did discuss during the Special Session of the Legislature in October. There will be an increase of some 40% in the technical or vocational grant because it is our desire to encourage as much as possible the provision of technical and vocational courses in our high schools and in the high schools that will be functioning under the division school plan. I think that it is important to provide that type of education for the boys and girls who do not and perhaps are not able to benefit fully from the ordinary academic training. We propose to establish a revolving fund for loans to university students, nurses in training, and teachers in training. This is a new departure, and will provide a substantial sum of money for that important work.
In addition to that, of course, we will have our bursary and scholarship fund which will be available for all the various avenues of learning, and training as has been done in the past. Provision is made for additional teacher training facilities because we anticipate, indeed we are almost certain, that we shall have a much larger number of students in our teacher training institutions at the beginning of the next year, and we propose to increase those facilities to take care of the increased number of students and to provide the teachers that will be required
in this province. The monies that will be paid to Brandon College for the purpose of teacher training will be increased some 37%, due chiefly to an increase in the enrollments, and of course certain increase in costs that they will have.
We propose also to develop this year a plan for an Institute of Technology. This is a plan which is being undertaken, will be undertaken, in conjunction with the Government of Canada who are interested in this particular field, and there are substantial sums of money available to the Province of Manitoba if we prepare a plan for providing this type of training. And so I hope, Sir, that before too long we will be able to report to the House specific plans for the establishment of an Institute of Technology.
One of the things that was referred to in the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Education was that of merit rating and it is a subject which has received some attention over the past few months. I believe that when we met I indicated my intention to look into merit rating although it was not part of the plan of grants at that time. I wish to report to the House that a committee has been established representing the Trustee Association, the Teachers' Society and the Department of Education, and a committee has been formed. They have had one meeting and will be shortly having a further meeting to study this subject of merit rating and to recommend to the government steps that may be taken towards the institution of an acceptable plan of merit rating.
There are many other aspects, of course, of education which have still to be dealt with by the Royal Commission and we anticipate that in due course we shall receive their final report and that it will deal with matters such as curriculum, teaching standards, and the standards that should be applicable to student teachers and text books and many other matters which come under their purview.
I think I said before, and I would like to say again that in my opinion the provision of education is the most important responsibility that we have to discharge in any aspect of our public life. There are many other important things that we do, but certainly the provision of the education of our boys and girls is the most important that we have to discharge and I trust that so long as we have the confidence of the people of the Province of Manitoba it will be possible for us to press forward on all fronts to advance the educational standards of this province and to make for a better and full education of all the boys and girls of our province.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that we were discussing a short time ago, I would like to say now that I think that the Honourable the Minister of Education didn't violate the rules as badly as the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, because at least the Honourable Minister of Education did get around to mentioning your health.
MR. S. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think that we would like some words of wisdom from you though. There are a lot of new members in this House, like myself -- this is our first full Session and we would like to do this right. Now, like the Minister of Education, I would like to speak on education too. Is this the time -- the amendment on Health Insurance the time to speak on education? Please.
MR. SPEAKER: The debate is wide open and the thinking behind that is this. This is a Want of Confidence motion and there are reasons given in the amendment to the amendment. The result of the debate will be a vote of the members of this House and they will have to decide whether they wish to throw the Government out or not, and if other arguments can be placed before them that will change their mind that the reasons given by the amendment to the amendment are of not as great force as other arguments, they have a right to hear them. Are you ready for the question?
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in the debate. First of all, Sir, may I offer my congratulations to you, Sir, on once again occupying the most important position of this House, because, despite leaders of government and oppositions, that in the assemblies of our Commonwealth of Nations it is the Speaker who, subject to the dictates of the House, is the supreme ruler and I wish you every good health and good wish.
I would like to say a word or two to the mover and seconder of the Speech in reply to His Honour. I think that they acquitted themselves very well and are an indication that if this House was to last much longer that they would be able to take full part in the debate and make good contributions to it. I think it is very obvious that the hour of doom is not too far distant and they may not have the opportunity. I say that in all.... -- I say that, Mr.
Speaker, because listening to the debates this afternoon we cannot come but to one conclusion, that the front bench is window dressing of the most polishing nature.
I recall in past debates on the Throne Speech that on many occasions we failed in the opposition ranks to even get a peep out of the then front bench. And it was only after a lot of cajoling and conniving that the former Ministers of the Crown took part in the debate. But what we have seen this afternoon is an indication to me of what transpired in Ottawa a year or so ago. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Manitoba should know that the chances are great that if in the Province of Manitoba, unfortunately for it, they follow the results of March 1958, that they will find the utterances of the front bench today was just as much window dressing without foundation as the people of Canada are now finding with Diefenbaker at Ottawa. Some may criticize us because of the offset of the debates this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. We suggested that it would be proper for any one to cover the waterfront. I think that is typical of our party because of the fact, in this House and outside of this House, the C.C.F. party has at all times been the champion of the freedom of speech. And since my friends opposite have formed the government of Manitoba, on two occasions at least, they have stood up in this House in opposition to that right of the members of this Legislature -- once last year if you will recall, Mr. Speaker, when it was only on your casting vote that the debate continued and again here the other day on a point of your ruling. So I say to the people of Manitoba in all seriousness, and after due consideration, that if episodes of that nature foretell what will happen if that party receives an overall majority at the forthcoming election that they will regret it for years end. And despite the window dressing that we have had here this afternoon, I say to the electorates of Manitoba, be very, very wary.
I would like to say a word or two on the question of education. I think the Honourable Minister who has just taken his seat gave a reasonable rehash of the speech, and I don't mean a rehash in the normal low sense, but rather a new concoction of an Irish stew of the speech that he gave to us in this House on the introduction of the Education Bill last year. I don't think that anything has been added; it is perfectly true that the electorates of Manitoba, by the 69 to 29 vote, voted in favour of the divisions. It's also equally true that in the debates on the Education Bill last year we did come to unanimous decision here in this House, and it may be true that some individuals on the hustings had reservations to make. But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you, and to the Minister that they are entitled to those reservations and while they may have voted, or we may have voted in this House a 100% behind the Bill, they could still be entitled to those reservations. The Minister in his remarks deplored the fact that some of my honourable friends to my right did not come out 100%, but my honourable friend the Minister did not say, and I think he should have given credit where credit was due. He made no mention of the fact that the leader of my party in a very important T.V. show in connection with the School Division Act recommended to the listeners of that T.V. show that they should support the School Division vote, as we had done in this Legislature. So I say to the Minister, that if he is going to look with disfavour on some after the result of the vote last year, that he should give credit where credit is due to others. Further, in connection with the School Division vote, if I recall correctly on the debate here in the House last fall the Minister gave an invitation to all members of the House to speak in their respective communities on this matter. I don't know how many are aware of the fact that in some instances, rather than what I presumed would be the leadership given by the Ministers of the front bench, that in some cases in the itinerary of the meetings in connection with the School Divisions Act there were rank and file members of the government who were invited to speak on a planned itinerary in constituencies of members on this side of the House. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that in the spirit in which this legislation was adopted last year that if it was a planned itinerary as it was, then the representative in those constituencies should have been named to speak at the respective meetings.
In my own particular case, unfortunately, I was not able to attend the meeting in Transcona when the Minister was there. The circumstances being that after about two weeks after a letter had been addressed to me, I received that letter inviting me to attend this meeting. In the meantime I'd made other arrangements which made it impossible for me to attend. I think the Minister will agree that he did receive a letter from me expressing my regrets, and also that an announcement was made at the meeting held in Transcona expressing those regrets and also expressing my support of the vote. Yes, I was just going to come to that, Mr. Minister,
and the Minister was kind enough and fair enough to announce it to the people here. And I'm happy to say that in my area I think possibly was one of the largest majorities in any area in the Province. We gave support to the establishment of this new school division and incidental to that also, Mr. Speaker, because of the interest being so keen in the Town of Transcona unlike many other areas, there are 12 aspiring for the five seats on the division board. So I say that while in many cases the Minister may be justified in some minor criticisms or even major criticisms, that there is another aspect to this situation that he did not give credit to.
I gathered from his remarks and I think to some degree that a mis-impression has been cast on the question of grants and educational costs in all of this legislation. It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that emphasis has been given, properly so, to the additional grants forthcoming from the Provincial Treasurer, but I don't think the whole story is being told quite frankly, because coupled with the increased grants for education from the provincial authorities I think we will find that when the school budgets are brought down, despite that increased grant, that in many, if not most cases, the net cost of education to our taxpayers is going to be increased. I think a very good example of that is already evident, Mr. Speaker, in the City of Winnipeg and I think that that also will reflect on the rest of the municipalities. I say all to the good, if in the process we are going to uplift the standard of our teaching profession and if, as a result, we are gong to do what we hope to do for every boy and girl in the Province of Manitoba -- to give to him or to her full opportunities for a greater education. But I say this, and I say it in all sincerity and earnestness, that the gentlemen opposite are attempting to take too much credit onto themselves for it, because if we on this side had not been prepared as we were to support them in it, in this Legislature and in the majority of cases outside, and are still supporting them, the legislation would not have passed in the first place and the commission division would not have been set up. So I say to you gentlemen opposite, the old saying there about not hiding your light under a bushel may be all right, but the lights of education in the Province of Manitoba is not yours and yours alone.
Similarly, in the speech of the Minister of Agriculture today, another very, very fine example of window dressing -- I don't blame him, but I suggest he hasn't told us anything new this afternoon in the realm of agriculture. He hasn't told us anything new insofar as public works is concerned, except possibly his reference to another dozen semaphore signals on crossings at railroads. Did the Minister in his remarks say anything in support of deficiency payments? I think he simply reiterated what Harkness has said insofar as deficiency payments are concerned. No support. And I think that when we read in Hansard the so-called window dressing or defence of the Department of Agriculture at present, when we analyze what has been said, we'll find a void. We take our proper place in this Legislature, we do not object to the window dressing that has been done.
Coming for a brief moment or two to the amendment that is before us on the question of a National Health Scheme, neither speaker of the Opposition or the Government has mentioned this very important question to the people not only of Manitoba, but the citizens of Canada. Rather than make mention of it, we had speeches that were normally expected on the introduction of departmental estimates. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that while we do, or did this afternoon, agree on the wide freedom of debate that it was only fitting and proper that the front benchers opposite should have made some reference at least to this very important sub-amendment proposed by my leader.
Mr. Speaker, my friends to my right say "Hear, Hear". I welcome, and I am sure that the people of Manitoba would welcome a full statement of policy from the gentlemen on my right, and while they are saying "Hear, Hear" this afternoon, let them be "Here, Here" when the votes are being counted on our sub-amendment. And let them not only be "Here" but let them be "with" the people who are crying for a better deal in the question of health. We've had piecemeal legislation in this House for a year. It appears very appropriate for the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, to say "Hear, Hear", because from all evidence given thus far it's just going to be the same thing, "Hear, Hear", without anything of a real tangible nature being done, but rather a patchwork of the inadequacies of the legislation which for so many years was introduced by the friends on my right. "Hear, Hear". ... [Interjection] ... Pardon! ... Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, must be
jesting when he said that we almost had him with us. I don't know exactly how.
But nonetheless, I would suggest to the Minister of Health that he look over thoroughly all of the legislation that we have. I'm sure that if he does he will come to no other conclusion but the facts that I just stated, that here we have nothing but a patchwork of inadequate legislation in the Province of Manitoba. I realize quite fully that a full health plan as we visualize it, one which will include hospitalization and medical care, in its broadest sense, will require the participation of the authorities at Ottawa. Speaking on this matter the other day somebody said to me "Well, now, I don't believe in socializing medicine or doctors". The same individual had said to me some years ago that he didn't believe in the socializing of hospitalization. He was a member of the Blue Cross then. And Government has found it desirable, reluctantly, to supplant the Manitoba Hospital Service Association with the scheme that we now have in respect to hospitals. I think, Mr. Speaker, just as sure as night follows day, the same situation will eventually prevail in that a truly national or provincial scheme on medical care will follow the Manitoba Medical Society. It will not necessarily mean that in every case that the doctors would become civil servants. It has been proven in other jurisdictions that have the broad scheme of health insurance that such was not necessary. And I'm sure also that many members of the medical profession today, possibly with the exception of the Honourable the Minister of Health, realize that this is something this is going to come into being, here in Canada. And I suggest that, let's for goodness sake for once, Manitoba not lag and drag in its tail after everybody else has done it, as we did to a considerable degree, insofar as hospitalization was concerned.
I well recall the debates that we had here on the question of our national hospital scheme. I well recall my ex-neighbour, the now Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, saying that it can't work unless it's done by private enterprise and private endeavour. Were would all the guilds be that are assisting in the various hospitals? They would fold their tents like the Arabs and silently steal away. I suggest that, despite his sayings of those days, that we still have our voluntary organizations assisting in our hospitals. We would have them in other fields as well. And I also suggest this for the consideration of the Minister of Health on the question of hospitals. The headlines last night said that at least one of our major hospitals had closed its waiting list because it had 300 applicants for admission. Some might say that this is as a result of our new Health scheme, and I say, if that is so, Mr. Speaker, doesn't it cry out the shame that we were working under before. What did these people do before we had a National Health scheme? And I think that it just points out the necessity of us collectively in the Dominion of Canada, in making our fair contribution here in the Province of Manitoba, to rather than having the curtailment of lists of people desiring and needing hospital beds, that we should bend our efforts to a greater degree to see that the provision is made in respect of hospital accommodation.
It is not my intention to speak much longer, Mr. Speaker, but I did think that after listening to the gentleman opposite, without having it formerly quoted after listening to their campaign literature--but as inadequate as I may have covered the field, that somebody in this House should have stood up and say to you, we know your objectives in this, they are understandable in the game of politics. We know from past experience of Conservative administration in the jurisdictions of Canada, what it means. We have seen the promises of Diefenbaker as we had them of Bennett in the '30s. And we have seen the utter turmoil, that on the expiration of their terms of office, that the country has been left in. The same thing could possibly happen here in Manitoba. I hope not! And, I say this again to the electorates of Manitoba, you're going to hear and see a lot of window dressing. Every time we pick up a publication, we see another little paragraph of the great.... I suggest to the electorate of Manitoba to take it with a proverbial grain of salt and do not give my window dressing friends an opportunity to follow the leads of the empty, hollow promises of Bennett and Diefenbaker.
HON. G. JOHNSON, M.D. (Minister of Health and Public Works) (Gimli): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into
Committee to consider of the supplies to be granted to Her Majesty.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable the First Minister, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair and the House resolve itself into Committee to consider the supplies to be granted to Her Majesty.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we received two messages from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in connection with supply which were referred to that Committee. And today, as I move that we should go into Committee of Supply to consider those estimate, I think the House would wish me to say some words of explanation about them and to hear what other opinions there may be on the matter.
The first of these messages that we are to consider is for supplementary supply. At the risk of repeating what a good many members know, perhaps I should say that this is the request that is brought in to make up the deficiencies in last year's estimates. No estimating of course is perfect and it is only natural that there should be some short-falls, and that has been the case this year, and the supplementary supply is to make up the necessary funds required to pay for the expenditures incurred under appropriations of last year, for which not sufficient money was appropriated at the time. This is of a routine nature. This is a customary consideration at each Session of the House and if we should go into Committee, the Ministers in charge of the various departments or myself will do our best to give the Committee any explanations they require.
There are, however, some other considerations in connection with the second message from His Honour which I would like to deal with. And that is the message that requests interim supplies. As the House knows, Sir, our financial year ends on March 31st, and at that date all the current appropriations lapse, and the Administration has no money to pay the general operating accounts of the province. The usual hope is, that before that 31st day of March rolls around, that the House will have considered the budget and the estimates for the coming year and will have given approval to those estimates and budget for the coming year, so that the money will be available. This year, however, it seems unlikely that we shall reach that stage before the end of this month. There are, of course, two reasons for it. First that the Session is later than usual this year, which was due in the main to the necessities of the school referendum that was held; and secondly, and perhaps more important at this particular moment is the inherently unstable political situation in the House and the fact that within a very short time, we will be asked to express our opinion of confidence, or of no confidence, in the Administration. And without attempting to forecast in any way what will happen, there is the possibility that must be faced that the Administration may be defeated. If the Administration is defeated, we will then proceed, I suppose, to a general election before too long, but it is obvious that under those circumstances unless some special measures are taken, the Province during that inter-regnum will be without money to carry on its business.
Now the Constitution does provide a measure to take care of such a situation which could in the emergency, be resorted to. And that is, if the Legislature is not sitting, there may be special ones authorized by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to pay such bills. I think, however, it would be more desirable from a constitutional point of view if that were not to happen except where absolutely necessary, and that if the House is willing to pass an interim supply measure, we can be provided with money that amounts to about $17 million dollars to carry us over that period of uncertainty.
Now if I have made myself clear so far, there are one or two other matters bearing on what I said which I feel I should explain. In the first place, we have had measures for interim supply before but they have been somewhat different than the one that we have today. Usually interim supply, as far as my experience goes, has been for one-tenth of the annual requirements. We are requesting today, Sir, a vote of one-quarter, sufficient to take us over 90 days from the end of the fiscal year. And you may ask how that particular time was arrived at, because some may say, "is that not unnecessarily long?" I think I should explain why we asked for that period of time in order that I might meet a possible objection from that point of view. And the reason is that if one works out a timetable of what might happen in the exigency that I refer to, mainly that we should be in the throes of a general election after the 31st, you will find that about 80 days is the least possible constitutional time in which an election can be held, and the members and the writs of election returned. I have here a schedule in front of me
which sets out all the references to the legislation and makes up the various amounts of time that go into this calculation. I won't read it to the House unless someone asks for it but simply say, and I am sure the experience of others will confirm that this 80-day period is about the minimum, and when one would consider that the new Government, whoever it might be, would have the responsibility of collecting its thoughts and coming to the House and asking for a vote on the budget, etcetera, one can easily understand why that time really does seem to be the minimum that's available to us.
That is why we are asking for $17 million dollars in this, and why we are asking for a 90-day period.
Now, there is another peculiarity, in past occasions when supplement, when interim supply has been requested, it has been asked for on the basis of the coming year's estimates. That is not the case in this measure. In this case we are asking for this amount of money based on last year's estimate. And the reason for that is that it does not seem proper to introduce the estimates, while the Throne Speech debate is on, in accordance with my interpretation of our rules; and secondly because I think it would be wrong to do so because implicit in next year's estimates, is approval of the various policies which we are proposing. And we are well aware that until -- that the House has not as yet approved those proposals in any way whatsoever, and we feel that it is only right that we should restrict our requests to last year's expenditure so that the House would not feel that by this vote it was committing itself in any way in respect to the policies that are going to be rejected or accepted when the Throne Speech debate is over, and whatever other events that might take place after that time.
I would point out that there is a clause n the bill that you'll eventually be asked to approve which, if the regular budget goes through, and who knows but what it may, that these provisions lapse and are merged into the new regular budget when they come, so that there is no question of our having the money voted twice by the House.
However, there is another objection which I can forsee being raised by some honourable members. Some Members may say, yes, your argument is right up to a point, they may say, you may be defeated in this House and it is possible that you may be, the public generally in the Province may be in the throes of an election, and this sort of thing may be required. But, supposing it doesn't happen? There are always two possibilities. One that the Government may be defeated in the House, and secondly that the Government may ask His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor for a dissolution. What about that contingent? And if we make a vote of this sort, would it not be possible then on the basis of having the money in hand to run the Government for the First Minister and his colleagues to go to the Lieutenant-Governor and say, "Please give us a dissolution, we don't have to bring in a budget now, we don't have to place our economic and our financial proposals before the House, we can avoid the necessity of explaining our situation in a full debate and discussion in this House in terms of budget debate, and just go to the country without having made that form of statement to the House."
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I give a categorical undertaking, with no restrictions or reservations whatsoever that insofar as it lies within the power of this Government, we will bring down the budget, we will have a budget speech, and we will place our measures before this House and before the country. We will do these things, if it is within our power to do it. And I give my honourable friends positive assurance, that I for one, if it is within my power, will bring in that budget speech, and that I shall not, together with my colleagues, recommend a dissolution to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor until that speech has been delivered.
I think it is necessary for me to make that statement because of the peculiar situation in which we find ourselves now but I want to make it clear that that is the policy of the Government and that undertaking we willingly and freely give to the Members of the Legislature. So on that basis, Mr. Speaker, I would support this motion that the House should go into Committee of Supply and that we should discuss the measure that was contained in the message from His Honour.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I think it would perhaps facilitate matters if, at this time, rather than calling it 5:30 I might just as well move the adjournment of the debate. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the debate adjourned. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Are we going to call it at 5:30 or do you wish me to move adjournment, Mr. Speaker. If it is convenient, I will move adjournment of the House, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.
[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: 22 September 2009
