| 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 |
| 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 |
| 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 |
| Page | ||
| Introduction of Bills ........................................................................................................ | 141 | |
| Bill No. 35 (Mr. Roblin), Bill No. 70 (Mr. Alexander), | ||
| Bill No. 71 (Mr. Alexander). | ||
| Welcome to Visitors ...................................................................................................... | 141 | |
| Mr. Roblin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Prefontaine. | ||
| Questions ...................................................................................................................... | 144 | |
| Mr. Gray, (Mr. Carroll) Mr. Orlikow (Mr. Lyon) Mr. Guttormson (Mr. Roblin) | ||
| Bill No. 2, re Economic Development, Mr. Campbell ..................................................... | 145 | |
| Mr. Paulley .............................................................................................................. | 148 | |
| Speech From the Throne, debate: Mr. Gray ................................................................... | 150 | |
| Mr. Johnson (Assiniboia) ......................................................................................... | 151 | |
| Mr. Desjardins ........................................................................................................ | 153 | |
| Mr. Wagner ............................................................................................................ | 156 | |
| Mr. Guttormson ...................................................................................................... | 161 | |
| Mr. Evans ............................................................................................................... | 162 | |
| Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Evans, Mr. Guttormson .............................................................. | 163 | |
| Bill No. 34, re Public Schools Act (Mr. Scarth) Second Reading ................................... | 163 | |
| Bill No. 47, re Winnipeg School District (Mr. Scarth) Second Reading .......................... | 164 | |
| Bill No. 48, re Winnipeg Charter (Mr. Cowan) Second Reading ................................... | 164 | |
| Mr. Hillhouse .......................................................................................................... | 164 | |
| Mr. Lyon, Mr. Hillhouse .......................................................................................... | 165 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker.]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions
MR. JAMES COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Richard Spink Bowles and others praying for the passing of an Act to incorporate Builders Trust Company.
MR. SPEAKER: Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
[Hon. Duff Roblin (Premier) (Wolseley) introduced Bill No. 35, an Act to amend the Treasury Act.]
[Mr. Keith Alexander (Roblin) introduced Bill No. 70, an Act to authorize the Town of Dauphin to make a grant to the Dauphin General Hospital.]
[Mr. Keith Alexander introduced Bill No. 71, an Act to authorize the Rural Municipality of Dauphin to make a grant to the Dauphin General Hospital.]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity, if I may, to draw to your attention and to the notice of the members of the House that we have the priviledge today of entertaining in our visitor’s gallery two very distinguished Canadians in the persons of Mr. and Mrs. John Bracken who are accompanied by Dr. Bracken and his wife. I am asking the indulgence of the House on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, to inform them that the purpose that brings Mr. and Mrs. Bracken to Manitoba at this particular moment is the celebration of their 50th wedding anniversary and it seemed to me that members of the House would wish to join with the people of Manitoba in offering our very hearty good wishes and congratulations on this memorable event. It is entirely superfluous for me to say anything about Mr. and Mrs. Bracken because they are all too well and too affectionately known throughout the length and breadth of this province to require any extensive introduction in this House. We are delighted to record the fact, however, that for a longer period than any other person, Mr. Bracken headed the government of this province and in his conduct of public affairs established a record of achievement and accomplishment which, I am sure, will be for all time a record to the integrity and the industry and the initiative of his administration. We are very happy to pay our tribute to that record on this occasion and we know how much Mrs. Bracken contributed to it, because when Mr. Bracken relinquished the premiership of this province he left behind him scores of friends, of true friends in every part of this province of ours and I am sure that when I speak on this occasion, I speak not merely for the members of this House but for all the people of the province of Manitoba when we express our congratulations. By coincidence, or perhaps it was design, this also happens to be the anniversary of Mr. Bracken’s birthday, so we couple our congratulations on these two points. I am asking for the consent of the House, Sir, to introduce a short resolution to felicitate our guests on this occasion, this resolution I’m happy to say is seconded by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope that after members on the floor have expressed their thoughts on this subject that perhaps it might be possible for Mr. Bracken to say a word or two to us from the gallery. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move, seconded by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, that this House felicitates Mr. John Bracken, former premier of Manitoba, and Mrs. Bracken, upon their 50th wedding anniversary.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable the First Minister, seconded by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, that this House felicitate Mr. John Bracken, former premier of the province of Manitoba, and Mrs. Bracken on their 50th wedding anniversary. Are you ready for the question?
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I esteem it a very great honour as well as a pleasure to be granted the courtesy by the Leader of the House of seconding this motion, because it is one that I am sure all of us endorse most heartily. I don’t so regularly agree with everything that the Honourable the First Minister has said as I can on this occasion. Certainly we are, today, entertaining two of Canada’s most
distinguished citizens and citizens whom, though they now call another province their home, we still regard as our very own in the province of Manitoba. As the premier has mentioned, this is the 50th wedding anniversary, the golden wedding anniversary of Mr. and Mrs. Bracken. No one would believe to look at Mrs. Bracken that she had been married that long. As far as Mr. Bracken is concerned, why, it would be easy to believe it, but of course he went through the rigors of political life and all Mrs. Bracken had to do was just keep him on the straight and narrow path all the time. She had a much easier time. No one would believe that Mr. Bracken has achieved the number of years that he has, this being his birthday as well, but I can assure all the people here that the accomplishments that he has crowded into that three-quarters of a century plus one, have been very great and Manitoba in particular, Western Canada as a whole and Canada as a country, owe him a great debt of gratitude. And certainly Mrs. Bracken has been a great source of help to him at all times. Never the time that the various First Ministers that we have had in this province—never did the First Minister have a better helpmate to assist him in carrying on the arduous duties of that responsible position, as Mr. Bracken had, and the wonderfully fine family of boys that they raised, although I remember them when they were young rapscallions, too. They have been a credit to the family that brought them up. Two of them are with us in Manitoba, still; we are delighted to have one of them and his wife here today.
As the First Minister said, Mr. Bracken served the longest time up-to-date of any premier of the province. It can be recorded as well that he was the youngest man to ever occupy that position, and if modesty didn’t forbid that I should dwell upon his exploits and good fortune I suppose I should remark that he was helped in the exercise of these many duties by having some splendid cabinet ministers with him to help out during his term of office. So you can see he’s had great support all through the years. The First Minister has said it is not necessary for us to dilate on the multiplicity of his services to the country and to this province. His political record and achievements are well known. I think the one other matter in addition to that record though that should be mentioned at this time is the contribution that Mr. Bracken made to agriculture, mainly before he became Premier of this province, but certainly during the time that he was Premier of the province as well. It hasn’t perhaps been noticed enough in recent years that Mr. Bracken was one of the real agricultural experts of Western Canada in the days when it was just becoming, in very fact the bread basket of the Empire, and he perhaps had more to do with the success of the dry farming areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta and Manitoba than any other single man and I have sometimes wondered myself if those of us, Bill Clubb and Edmond Prefontaine’s father and others of us who gathered in July 1922, in a basement room of the Oddfellows Temple over here on Kennedy St., I believe it is, I’ve often wondered if maybe we really did Manitoba as great a service as we were trying to do when we took Mr. Bracken or persuaded him, and it took a lot of persuasion, to leave the position of President of the Agricultural College of Manitoba, to leave the work for which he had spent many years fitting himself and in which he was very happy and where he was doing a wonderful job for Manitoba and the west, and to translate him into the field of political activity. Well, Mr. Bracken never tried to be a politician; he wasn’t a politician in the ordinary sense but he was pretty successful at it. As a matter of fact, if he had not chosen to get into some doubtful company in the federal sphere and had stayed here in Manitoba where in addition to the excellent advice that he would have received from his continuing partner through the years where I could have had him as well to advise and guide, I’m sure that he still would have been Premier of this province and then I would have been sitting over on that side of the House too. Well, Mr. Bracken’s contribution in agriculture was one that I think should be recorded at at time like this—think he was never quite happy that he had to cut that career short in order to take on the other one but having taken that other one he made a magnificent job of it, and I am proud to have been associated with him for some of that time. So Mr. Speaker, I think we can say unanimously in this House and as the First Minister has mentioned with the backing of all the people of Manitoba and the people of Canada as well, that we wish Mr. and Mrs. Bracken the very greatest of good fortune today as they celebrate their Golden Wedding Anniversary. We wish them health and happiness in the future and many similar occasions to celebrate happily and together in the years to come.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F.) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I’m happy on this
occasion to join with my group in extending to our distinguished guests, particulary Mr. and Mrs. Bracken, our felicitations at this time. It is indeed an achievement, Mr. Speaker, when after 50 years of married life two persons look as well as they do this afternoon. Throughout Mr. Bracken’s career as the Premier of Manitoba, and I’m sure he would agree with me, that those of our party and those who preceded us on some occasions at least had slightly differences of opinion. But I’m sure, Sir, that I can say without hesitation that those differences may have been and were only those of ideas and ideologies, that Mr. Bracken always held the respect and esteem of those who were privileged to sit representing our group here in this Legislature. Now the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition has stated some of Mr. Bracken’s contributions to the Province of Manitoba and to Canada. I would like to again draw to the attention of the House another major contribution that the honourable gentleman made to the Province of Manitoba is by the capable and very intense manner with which he tackled the liquor problems here in the Province of Manitoba. I think we will agree that his problems were great and many of the solutions that he gave in his report, along with his commission, has again inscribed in the Province of Manitoba much legislation which is to the benefit, not only of us here in Manitoba, but has given a lead in many other jurisdictions in this great Dominion of ours. And I am happy, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion, to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in wishing to Mr. and Mrs. Bracken and their family every best wish for the future.
MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, I would not like to remain silent on such an occasion and that is for two reasons—one especially because of the fact that my late father and Mr. Bracken were very, very close friends. My late father prided himself at home and everywhere after 1922 that he was the person who moved the resolution which resulted in the selection of Mr. Bracken as Leader of the Progressive group in 1922. The motion apparently was seconded by Mr. Clubb. For nine years my late father sat as a Cabinet Minister—Minister of Agriculture under Mr. Bracken, and for three years as a Minister without portfolio. I still have the words that were spoken by Premier Bracken when my father passed away in 1935 during the Session of the Legislature. A few months after that Session of 1935, I remember very well that Mr. Bracken came to St. Pierre—I shouldn’t tell any secrets, I suppose, but political leaders do that at times—came to my home and suggested to me that he would like to see me follow in my father’s footsteps. I still remember the place where he sat in my home at that time and I’m quite sure that my respect for him at that time was responsible to quite an extent for the fact that I did enter politics at that time and became the M.L.A. for Carillon.
Now I have another souvenir that is very dear to me. It is in 1943 after I had sat here for eight years under the leadership of Mr. Bracken that he decided to enter the federal political arena. He was chosen to lead federal Conservatives; he was getting ready to speak to the nation and a few days before that event he asked me if I would translate his speech in French so that I could deliver it in French to the French network so that he would be speaking to the whole nation, and I did work hard for two nights to try and translate his first address to the people of Canada and at the same minute that he was speaking in English on the English network I had the privilege to be Mr. Bracken speaking in French on the French network.
[Mr. Prefontaine then spoke in French. This will appear in a later edition of Hansard. ]
MR. SPEAKER: I’m sure that the House would wish me to invite Mr. Bracken to the microphone to speak if he wishes to. Would you care to come to the microphone?
[Mr. Bracken’s speech was unrecorded. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Bracken. I take it that the motion is unanimously carried. Orders of the Day.
HON. GEO. JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I should like to table the annual report of the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba.
MR. C. WITNEY (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, the honourable members of this House, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to draw their attention to the brochure that was placed in their mail boxes today about Josiah Flintabetty Flonatin, the adventurous gentleman who gave his name to Flin Flon. On the reverse of this brochure are details of the fabulous
Flin Flon Trout Festival and that Festival will take place on Friday of this week. The fishing has been done for the past two weeks for the marvelous big fish we have but the culmination comes on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and the Flin Flon Trout Festival Association has asked me to extend to the honourable members of this House a very warm invitation to attend. To use their own words, Mr. Speaker—“to extend a welcome to all members in the House to come north for a sleepless weekend of fishing and carousing among the Province’s most hospitable people." Maybe they could all hang up the “Gone Fishing” sign Friday and head for the Trout Festival. Now Mr. Speaker, we have a six day week train service, six day a week plane service, daily bus service, and if any others wish to go I will be driving up myself on Friday.
MR. M. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Utilities? I notice in the Press an announcement that Manitoba Power Commission will give up its appliance selling. Question number one—was it done with the approval of the government or the minister—and question number two—why?
HON. J. B. CARROLL (The Pas) (Minister of Public Utilities): Mr. Speaker, the decision to discontinue the appliance sales by the Manitoba Power Commission was made by the Commission itself. We, or at least I, did have knowledge that this decision had been made. The government was not asked for approval as this decision is well within the jurisdiction of the Commission itself.
MR. GRAY: I have a supplementary question. Doesn’t the government have any responsibility for the actions of the Commission? It’s a matter of principle, not a matter of putting in a wire somewhere.
MR. SPEAKER: He can answer if he chooses.
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I think in answer to that question I must say that we are responsible to this House for the actions of the Commission, that’s true.
MR. G. HUTTON (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to call the attention of the House to the balcony on your right where we have a group of Grade VIII students from West St. Paul accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Gaune.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my words of welcome to the Grade VIII class from West St. Paul School, feeling that in doing so I’m not doing something that I shouldn’t do. This school was in my constituency for eight years and Mrs. Gaune is a resident in my present constituency, so I therefore wish to join with the honourable member for Rockwood-Iberville in extending a very warm welcome to Mrs. Gaune and her class of Grade VIII pupils.
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Attorney-General. Saturday’s newspaper carried a story about some difficulties in the Brandon Gaol with regard to the beating of one of the guards, I think. I wonder if the Honourable Minister has a statement today or will be making one with regard to what took place.
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make a full statement with respect to this matter. I may say for the information of the House that I was in contact with the Governor of the Gaol on Saturday morning immediately after hearing of this event and I was advised by him orally that he was preparing a fuller report for study by the department. In any case, I would want to assure the members of the House that the guard in question who was attacked is, I understand, still in Brandon Hospital, but his condition is not serious or critical. He suffered some lacerations and other superficial injuries. The police report on the matter is now being prepared; I can’t advise the House yet as to any question of charges against those who were involved in this comparatively minor affair although, of course, it was not minor insofar as the injuries were concerned to the guard involved. There was no—a minimum of damage, I might add, was done to the gaol.
MR. ELMAN GUTTORMSON (St. George): During the weekend, I discovered that a misunderstanding has arisen following the First Minister’s report on Friday that the House would sit on July 1st instead of June 29th. Many people believe Dominion Day holiday will be celebrated on that day instead of July 1st. Any reports that I saw in the newspapers or heard on air were accurate but nevertheless this misunderstanding has developed and I would suggest
that the news media make this misunderstanding clear.
MR. ROBLIN: I thank my honourable friend for raising this point. I believe there is some misunderstanding on the point, and we would be very glad to have the co-operation of the press gallery in putting the matters to right.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Second reading of Bill No. 2. Leader of the Opposition. Adjourned debate.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate greatly to speak on this bill at this time because I am sorry that I’m in the position that I’m afraid that the brief remarks that I have to make will disturb the harmony that has existed in the Chamber up until this time. However, I shall keep my remarks to the minimum because the honourable member for Ste. Rose spoke on this same second reading a few days ago, and I do not need to repeat the major parts of the argument that he made at that time. I would like, however, for emphasis to say that like him, I believe this bill to be unnecessary. I know of nothing, and I can see nothing in this bill that the various ministers and heads of commissions, and deputy ministers cannot do at the present time. If there is anything, any one single thing that the Minister can point out to me as to why he needs this legislation, then I will withdraw that remark. But as I read it, and I have studied the bill carefully, I can see nothing that cannot be done without this bill being proceeded with. However, as the honourable member for Ste. Rose has said, we have no great objection to the bill being proceeded with. I don’t think that there’s anything of harm there that we need to register our opinions on but I simply ask a question of the government: “Why is it necessary to put in a bill to do something that not only can be done, but that with the exception of the appointment of staff, that the governments of this province have been doing for as long as I have been in any way acquainted with them?” I have no doubt whatever that the Honourable the First Minister’s grandfather, to whom reference was made this afternoon, did exactly the same thing that is contemplated in this bill to the extent that the ministries and other officers existed at that time. Because, Mr. Speaker, it’s exactly what any government will do, and exactly what governments have been doing, and my complaint, if I have one to register, my complaint is that I think it is completely unnecessary to place before this House, and before the public, legislation of this kind when it is not needed. And my submission is that it is not needed. On the other hand, the thing that it does that I do not agree with, but in spite of that I’m quite willing to see the bill go to committee, is that it makes provision for more staff, more public servants of this province. That could have been done, of course, even without the bill, but it may be an advantage that at least the public is told in this case, that it’s likely to have some more civil servants. Just one, it’s true, in a major capacity, but that one, again as I read the bill it appears to me, is going to be doing something that’s a straight duplication of what has been done for many, many years by the governments of this province. Now I’m told that the other day, as a matter of fact it’s Hansard that I can take as my authority, that the other day when I had to be absent from the House, that in his remarks on the Speech from the Throne debate the Honourable Attorney-General quoted me, and said that he was going to issue a correction on a statement that I had made, and he referred to—quoted me as saying that the only essential difference between our party and his party was with regard to the financial policy. Now, I want in turn to correct him because I didn’t say it was the only essential difference, and he used that word, according to Hansard. I admit that I said it was the essential difference. As far as I’m concerned, it is the essential difference between the financial policy of the present government and its predecessor. I have mentioned on many occasions, to me the financial policy is extremely important. It isn’t the only difference. My honourable friend is reported in Hansard to have gone on to say that the real difference, of course, was that the government of which he is a member, believed in meeting today’s problems today, and his government believed in capitalizing on today’s opportunities today. And by the same token, he was suggesting, as it has been the custom of his party and his fellow-members to suggest that the government’s predecessor did not follow that same policy. Well, I want to say to my honourable friend that I think the real difference--another real difference, another essential difference, between his government and its predecessor is this, that his government continues to do the kind of things that are exemplified by the introduction of this bill. A bill that in effect, Mr. Speaker, is completely unnecessary and that is, I am afraid, intended to mislead the people of the province into thinking that
something is being done about these important matters that are discussed in the preamble and the various clauses of the bill. I know that on second reading we are supposed to deal with the principle of the bill, and the Honourable the Minister who introduced it, said that—outlined some of the principles that were to co-ordinate the efforts of the different departments and co-ordinate the activities of the government with other governments, with municipalities and so on. But to the extent that I’m able to find any principle in this bill, I think that we can discuss the very wide terms of governmental activities generally. This bill mentions a lot of very important subjects, it uses a lot of high sounding phrases, and I know the capacity of the honourable gentleman who is sponsoring this bill, to use very colourful and expressive language. I do not, in any way, question his good intentions with regard to the bill. I do question, this comes to the point that was made in the House the other day, I do question the attitude of his government, his party and the federal party of the same political stripe on the ground that they continually attempt to talk about visionary things and propose high sounding boards, commissions, studies, surveys, etc., as though those things in themselves represented some type of accomplishment. Now certainly, no one can disagree with the purposes of the bill that are outlined here; to attempt to do so would be ridiculous. The purposes are fine. But to present a bill of this kind, as though by the mere presentation of it, by setting up a procedure, that the Honourable Minister makes to sound quite impressive, that by that action something is being accomplished, is, I think, a misrepresentation as far as the public is concerned, because it pre-supposes that something is being done thereby. Well now, the one thing that is being done, that is new, is provision for appointment of one senior official, which the government could have appointed anyway, that is correct, and make provision for some further staff as well, which the government could have done anyway, in any case, and without this bill. Now I think perhaps this is a good idea, that for once the public will be warned at the same time that these extra activities are going to mean some more staff, because I think too of them, the public is not aware of the growth of the civil service in this province, and in the Federal Government, and perhaps that’s good, that it should be told. But, as I read the bill, Mr. Speaker, it’s a duplication—all the way through—that this senior official and this staff will be set up to do. What are the purposes of the bill, according to the preamble, something about—that it is to develop—the development of the natural resources of the province and the encouragement of industrial enterprise. Well, that’s fundamental, of course. But haven’t we been doing that right along? Haven’t all the governments had those same objectives? And if the senior official that’s going to be set up by this particular bill is going to do something now that is new or different in the natural resources field, if he’s going to attempt something in agriculture, will he be over-riding the Department of Agriculture, because that’s been their field from time immemorial? Is he going to duplicate their activities? Is his staff going to be senior to the staff to the Department of Agriculture? Fishing is one of our natural resources. We have a Fisheries Branch that’s been operating, perhaps not perfectly, but surely someone that is going to be found to be placed in this position isn’t going to, all at once, blossom forth with more knowledge of the situation than the division that’s been working at it all these years. The same thing with Forestry, and with Mining. All extremely important, of course, but can—can someone in this position do something that the departments that are already working at that are unable to do? Then when it comes to the encouragement of industrial enterprise, I noted very carefully, and reread, what the Minister said, and it seems to me that this is exactly what his own department was set up to do—the Department of Industry and Commerce. Isn’t that their job, to do these things that he’s been talking about? So I consider it to be duplication to the extent that it is new, and while I’m not for a moment suggesting that the work that’s contemplated is not important—of course it’s important—but I am suggesting that there are organizations in the department already set up to do that very work, and to put someone else, some further staff over them, or in addition to them, is a duplication. If something further is needed, then I would suggest that the additional assistance should be added to the existing staffs. Apart from the fact that I think that it’s to a degree, misrepresenting the situation to the public to be presenting these substances of boards, and commissions, and surveys and studies and all this sort of thing as getting the job done. In addition to that I think that we should give some consideration to the ways instead of giving this encouragement that the bill speaks of. I know that the Honourable the First
Minister quoted me—I guess it was at the fall session and I rather appreciated the characterization too, because I think it was rather accurate in some regards—he said of me, “I know that my honourable friend regards—I know that my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition is allergic to anything so complicated as a study”. Well, that was a fair comment, I think. I am allergic after all my years in public life, I am allergic to duplication. I am allergic to pretending that things are going to be done, or that they are being done by the mere setting up of committees and commissions and studies and surveys of the same—of that type. I am allergic to the continued and continuous growth of the Civil Service. I am allergic to spending more of the taxpayers’ money than is necessary. I think that the way to encourage industry in this province, and to encourage the investment of capital is to keep taxes low—as low as possible, with a proper level of services, of course—and to keep off the taxpayer’s back as far as possible, instead of continuing to add to the bureaucracy of the province and continuing to investigate and survey in areas where that has either already been done, or can be done by existing staffs. I think one of the greatest needs of Canada and Manitoba today, Mr. Speaker, is for the people to realize what their governments are going to them in the way of increasing costs through a rapidly growing Civil Service and many, many services that are being planned and that develop into nothing of any great benefit to the people that they are intended to serve. I think one of the greatest needs is for both the federal and provincial governments to endeavour to be business-like governments, to stop being politicians. My greatest complaint against the present government, federal and provincial, provincial as far as Manitoba is concerned, is that they’re still running an election; they are still propagandizing the people; they’re still engaged in a publicity campaign; and I would like the government of this province to understand that the election is over. Get down to business. What’s the slogan? Get on with the work of Manitoba! Stop running the election campaign—it’s over for three, or four, or five years. In a couple of years you may have to start again but don’t keep it up in all the interval. And I think the people of Manitoba, if they realize what is being done by much of the legislation of this government—many of the statements of this government, is that that’s what is being done—it is for publicity purposes. Yes, Agricultural Credit, another case, I thank my honourable friend for mentioning, another case of actual duplication of what the Federal Government can do and can do better and with the Federal Government already bringing it in, it’s just nothing at all but political considerations that would impel a party to go ahead in a province on its own when the Federal Government has already announced that it’s going to liberalize and extend the Farm Credits Act of Canada. That’s an excellent example and I thank my honourable friend for mentioning it to me. Crop Insurance is another thing that he might have mentioned. Something that you simply should not be duplicating, the federal efforts in those regards. Co-operating with them? Of course, that’s right, co-ordinating the services together, yes, that’s good. But to duplicate them, that’s a very, very unfortunate thing so far as the taxpayers of both the province and Canada are concerned.
We heard a little while ago from Mr. Bracken about democracy—maybe Mr. Bracken having been here a long time ago, perhaps he’s a bit old fashioned like myself; maybe he’s old fashioned, but I think some of these—some of these old fashioned ideas are good for us to keep in mind, and I think we should remember them. And I think that one thing that we can do for industry here in addition to keeping taxes down is to run the government on a business-like basis—not a political one—and see to it that industry is given a chance here, that it has a good climate in which to operate, and see to it that the government of the province runs its affairs in a business-like basis—gets on with the business of Manitoba—and the government of the province and the Federal Government avoid deficits and live within their means, so that we don’t have the continuing inflation that we’ve been subjected to in recent months. Now those are the things that I think are important.
I’m sorry that I had to speak at this time, particularly as my honourable friend is sponsoring a bill, for whose good intentions I have the very highest regard, but for whose practicability on some of these matters I do not share the same enthusiasm. I think the greatest need these times, Mr. Speaker, is to tell the people the truth, and not the propagandizing and I see in the efforts of some of the political parties these times, both federally and provincially, a great tendency to continue to publicize themselves by pretending that these
things are to the taxpayers’ advantage.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot agree with 95% of what my honourable friend has just said. Of course, about 95% of it was not germane to the bill before us. I am rather surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the offset, at the terminology of this bill introduced by my honourable friend, the Minister of Industry and Commerce and his group, for I recall that it wasn’t very many years ago that when we of our party had introduced as a sub-amendment to the Throne Speech, an amendment that went something of this nature, that we regret the failure of the then-government to undertake a system of economic planning that my honourable friend who is now introducing this bill shook his head in horror and his whole group opposed it in its entirety. It may be, and I think Mr. Speaker, when I have made a few comments on this bill that that difference will be very, very pronounced indeed, because I sense in this bill and the terminology of it, many things that I think may be detrimental to the people of the Province of Manitoba as such. The phraseology and the objectives of the bill, in most respects, sound good. For they say that the purpose of the bill has as its purpose the development of the natural resources of the province and the encouragement of industrial enterprises. And the more that I read and study the bill, the more it appears to me that some of the objectives of the bill appear to be to use our public funds for surveys, valuations, to use our engineers and architects and to pay for their use, and then allowing the government, by its Executive Council, to use or give the fruits of those eneavours and expenditures away. Throughout the whole of the bill, Mr. Speaker, all of the provisions in, simply say, in respect to the board and the directorate that it can do certain things and it appears to me that it is possible for the Executive Council of the government to enter into concrete agreements with private industry and other corporations for the exploitations of our natural resources, and we as representatives of the people of Manitoba in this Legislature are not informed of it at all. For there is no provision, whatsoever, as I can read into the act, where it is necessary for the Executive Council or the President of the Council to make a report to the Legislature of any of the activities of the proposed organization. I think that is definitely stated that the agency through the directorate shall report annually to the President of the Executive Council respecting any plans, examinations, surveys, proposals undertaken, made, proposed or evolved by the authority. Now, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that even though we of the CCF agree with economic planning, we also agree with the basic principles that that having been done, the people of the province through its legislature should be informed of all that is going on. I think, Sir, that throughout the whole bill there is too much authority delegated to those who we, as representatives in the interests of the people, cannot get at. For there is no central authority in this other than the Cabinet.
Now, if we look at the composition of the directorate, we find that the directorate is comprised of the President of the Council, the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, of Industry and Commerce, of Public Utilities or the Minister of Public Works. Now, Sir, when we’re dealing with our annual estimates, both of expenditure and revenue, I would suggest that it would be an almost impossibility for us in the scrutiny of the estimates and expenditures to find out exactly what this particular authority has spent under the present act. And I would suggest—I would suggest to my friends opposite that if this bill is proceeded with—and it will be—that they make provision for an annual report insofar as the expenditures are concerned for this particular organization. Where are we in our estimates going to find who is responsible for the expenditure? Because if it remains, Mr. Speaker, broken up as it is within the act itself, such will almost be an impossibility.
And further, I would like to suggest to the Minister who is sponsoring this bill that when he closes the debate, he may indicate to us, because I’m sure if the remarks I have just made are correct—if he would indicate to us the overall expenditure which the government planned to make under the provisions of this bill. I had expected my honourable friend the Leader of the official Opposition to raise that particular question—he is so keen on finances. But I’m sure he would like to know too where we will find in our estimates, when we deal with them, provisions of any fund—or the amount of funds required under this bill.
Now, Sir, it seems to me under this bill that the government having surveyed the potential and other possibilities in the development of our natural resources in the province, that they could then vacate the field after having made the expenditures, to a private interest
or corporation, without—and I think it’s very, very vital—I reiterate—the legislature having an opportunity of scrutinizing any of the agreements entered into.
I think you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the former government did lay on the table before us an agreement entered into between the International Nickel Company and the Government of Manitoba for ratification. Many points were raised during the scrutiny of that agreement that I think were well worthwhile. I know that there were many points raised by some of the gentlemen who are now in the ranks of the government, to which they were opposed—and they regretted at that time that they had not had the full opportunity before the agreement became binding, to make their comments and constructive criticisms in the bill. And I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, and your colleagues—forget not the position that you found yourselves in when you sat here—in respect to those things.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, in this bill—I think it’s one of the first bills of this particular nature that the government has introduced wherein there’s not references to regulations. I compliment them on that. But it does seem, Sir, to me, that notwithstanding that fact as I see it, that there is too much power contained within this bill—for not only expenditures of money—which it appears to me at the present time we will have little or no control over—but again, and I reiterate—very, very emphatically—it appears to me that in the provisions of the bill too much power is concentrated on too few of the representatives of the Province of Manitoba. And while I recognize that the government has 36 of 57 seats in this legislature—to use a phrase of my honourable friend the Leader of the House of a few years back—to my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition—despite your supremacy in numbers, still a greater majority of the people rejected your proposals in that you did not receive 50% of a total popular vote. I’m only interjecting that to my honourable friend as a reminder that the people of Manitoba and we in opposition, are vitally interested in bills of this nature—and in my opinion and in the opinion of my group—too much power is given under this bill to too few in this legislature.
MR. CHARLES H. WITNEY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Swan River, that the debate be ajourned.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion—the honourable member for Birtle-Russell for an address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to his speech at the opening of the Session. The honourable member for Inkster.
MR. MORRIS A. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I most sincerely endorse all the good things said about you personally and of the position you hold. I also wish to congratulate the mover and seconder in their presentation of the historical backgrounds of their constituencies which were new to me, at least.
Unfortunately the members of Greater Winnipeg cannot justifiably claim that they represent the interest of their particular constituencies. What is good for Inkster is good for the whole of the province; so, while I was elected by the electorate in Inkster, I openly state that I represent everyone in this province. I will support all legislation which, in my opinion, is in the best interests of the people of Manitoba. I also wish to congratulate the honourable member from Radisson on his appointment as the Leader of our group. And while we regret very much the defeat of Mr. Lloyd Stinson, we feel, at the same time, that the new leader will definitely not mislead us, and we promise him—at least our group promises him—all the help, assistance and good wishes.
Now I want to express my congratulations to our Premier on his resounding victory at the polls. I wish him well—that he will enjoy great success in his leadership. With this—need I add?—goes the additional assurance that we shall, with equal determination, continue to actively serve as one of the parties of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. But of this I am certain: the fine spirit which ever prevails in this House will continue unabated.
This, too, is part of my Canadian mosaic. It is the way to do things. For us there can be no other approach. We are members of a great democracy—part of that democratic chain of nations we delight to acknowledge as the British Commonwealth of Nations. We are one of a group of people happy to acclaim our British political inheritance; and rejoice in the privilege to express our loyalty and devotion to Her Gracious Majesty.
The variety of nations which go to make up the Commonwealth is analogous to the many groupings which constitute the distinctive character of the Canadian scene. Although there are differences among us—distinctions in national origin, religious affiliations and in cultural backgrounds—we discern an underlying unity in a genuine community of interest.
Take in this House, for instance, we have the ’League of Nations’ perpetuating democracy. For example—we have here the Literary Englishman, the Romantic Frenchman, the Generous Scotsman, the Peaceful Irishman, the Cold but Aggressive Scandinavian, the Singing Ukrainian and last but not least, the Pious Jew. (Hear! Hear!)
It is precisely in this distinctive understanding that our democratic heritage stands out in the clearest perspective when compared with the non-democratic form of social life and government. Differing profoundly with them because they accept as axiomatic the concept of the monolithic state where any divergence in thought and action is looked upon as heresy. We believe in the fundamental democratic privilege to be different. We place emphasis to our individual outlook, but at the same time to hold in highest respect the loyalty and devotion we owe to our country and to everything it holds dear and precious.
As for myself, this self-evident truth of our democratic faith is part of the very fabric of my existence. I came to know it immediately on my arrival to Canada. It could not have been otherwise when, at the very outset of my life, I at once perceived the meaning of democracy in action. I have enjoyed the privilege of living by this principle during my half-century of public life.
Mr. Speaker, I have been blessed during the passing decades to see Canada in action. The continuing progress and growth of our country—for by now we are the world’s leading middle power—has continued with due regard to the basic principles of our land. We have never departed from them. We are happy, in a day when democratic institutions are once more being challenged, to proclaim by deed as well as by word, our continuing allegiance to the ideals of freedom.
Are not these facts imprinted indelibly in our national character? For proof we need not
go too far afield. We see evidences all around us. Let me refer by way of example to the faith to which I belong. The Jewish community of Canada this year marks the 200th anniversary of Jewish settlement in Canada. Viewing our progress and contributions to our country’s welfare, I see mirrored the life’s experience of every other national and religious group which has made Canada its homeland. Each in turn true to its ancestral heritage has given of its best to the land of its adoption. Canada has grown from strength to strength for this very reason. It is an inner strength, a deep and abiding loyalty which comes from the hearts and souls of a great variety of peoples who behold in our land the fulfillment of their dreams, their hopes and their aspirations, and we all look forward to the progressive unfolding of our province’s growth and development.
On the basis of some forward-looking social comment in the Speech from the Throne, we, of the C.C.F., will support many of the suggestions offered which we have advocated for many years. There are times when we have been condemned for our ideas and suggestions to improve conditions in this province—such as health, welfare and improved labour conditions—which now are coming through at a very slow pace. We will accept what is given to us but will continue to demand from the ’powers that be’ some consideration for those who are entitled to equal privileges with the rest of the people in this province from the gifts given to us by providence.
During the many years I have been a member of this House, there have been occasions when some honourable members tried to build a fence around Manitoba. They claimed that this is not our business; it’s not the business of the province. It cannot be done now—especially when you can have breakfast in Winnipeg—afternoon tea in England—evening caviar in Moscow, and so on. The suffering, hardship, hunger and starvation of any part of the world should be our consideration in view of the challenge to freedom and liberty that we have every day.
Mr. Speaker, it is definitely my last election in this House, but I do promise with all my heart and soul to do everything possible to serve the people of Canada, in order to repay my debt of the privilege that I have had for a half century to live in a land of justice and freedom.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Assiniboia.
MR. GEO. WM. JOHNSON (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, as I arise for the first time in this Chamber, I do so with some timidity and nervousness—especially in the company of so many honourable members who, over the years, have come to know off by heart parliamentary procedure and just the way to handle themselves here. However, while I realize that I will, in this Assembly at this time—during this session, and subsequent sessions—make mistakes, I do, however, realize that it is through mistakes that I hope to gain wisdom and knowledge of the proper way to conduct myself and do the work of the constituents that sent me here.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would first like to record my full concurrence in all the complimentary remarks that have been made regarding your appointment as Speaker of this Assembly. May I add that I am sure you will continue in the future, as you have done in the past, to rule and uphold with dignity the high position you now occupy. I would also concur with the complimentary remarks made this session by honourable members regarding my colleagues the honourable members from Birtle-Russell and from Springfield, on the commendable manner in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the Throne Speech. I would also now like to congratulate my friend, the honourable member for Radisson, on his elevation to the leader of his party in this House. I have known Mr. Paulley for quite a number of years—having first met him in suburban-municipal meetings some years ago—and, I have this to say, that I have always found him to be a man of very high integrity and of great ability.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a few brief comments on the program of our government as outlined in the Speech from the Throne. In my humble opinion, the program is one that carries with it a note of foresight, courage and faith. Containing as it does, urgently needed and acknowledged necessary legislation. And the people of this province have overwhelmingly endorsed that program.
Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this Assembly, I feel highly honoured to represent the constituency of Assiniboia—a name that is both ancient and traditional—and I will to the best of my ability endeavour to justify the confidence placed in me. It is not my intention to dwell at great length or to take up the time of this House on a long dissertation of my constituency. However, I would like, Sir, to draw to the attention of this Assembly a few characteristics of the area.
First, in my constituency (peculiar as it is) of Assiniboia, comprises four distinct and different areas—each of which at municipal level has its own authority, namely, as you know the Weston area which is in the City of Winnipeg; all of the Village of Brooklands; an area in the City of St. James comprising all the district west of a street known as Conway, to the western boundary of the city; as well as all of the Municipality of Assiniboia.
The Village of Brooklands incorporated in 1921 was formerly known as the ’improved area of Rosser’, and comprises an area of only one square mile with a present approximate population of 4,000 souls. It is factual that the Village of Brooklands, even though it is only between two and three miles from the heart of the City of Winnipeg, has not enjoyed modern facilities—water and sanitary sewers—until quite recently, although some areas did receive water services in 1937. I would repeat that this village was incorporated in 1921—a period of 16 years. The laying of sanitary sewers was not commenced until 1957. And public transportation services are still not available, due to lack of roads, but, I understand, that Notre Dame Avenue will be paved this year, and we are hoping that this village will be served then by the transit system, or, at least, the system be given a chance to prove to the village whether it is profitable or not—and I’m quite sure it will be profitable. With water and sanitary service now becoming available a few small industries have established themselves, and I understand a large manufacturer of trailers has recently purchased property for construction purposes. Consequently, the good people of this area of Brooklands Village can look forward with some enthusiasm to the future.
The Weston area of the constituency has enjoyed all modern convenience for some time, and as stated previously is, of course, a part of the City of Winnipeg. I do not necessarily need to dwell on the area of Weston too long; it has been known as a C.P.R. town, for within that area is confined the C.P.R. shops, and I believe the majority of the residents still are employed there—many having been taught their trades in the past years.
The St. James area of the constituency contains that well-known area of Silver Heights, (formerly the Lord Strathcona estate), and is now totally developed with beautiful homes and apartment buildings. Indeed, the entire area through to the western boundary of St. James is fast becoming and being developed into an area of residential importance. Now of the Lord Strathcona estate as we all have heard on many occasions, the importance of Lord Strathcona himself who was a politician, and back in those days I understand that during elections sometimes liquids flowed rather freely. In any event, Mr. Donald A. Smith—later Lord Strathcona—was not a man of that nature. And I would like to read, Sir, with your permission, just a little anecdote on his, on happening during one election. When Donald A. Smith—Lord Strathcona—contested the division of Selkirk for the Federal House in 1879, and was beaten, it was said that he never forgave Winnipeg. At any rate he left his palatial Winnipeg home, Silver Heights, and moved to Montreal, and it was Montreal that later benefited from his large bequests. Smith’s old friends and neighbors in Silver Heights had their own explanation of his defeat in this election. Liquor was being widely, though illegally, used in the election area; but Smith took no chances. Confident of success, he was determined than no one could say that he had given out drinks to influence votes. A farmer in the district, an old friend, well acquainted with Smith’s normally generous hospitality was called upon one day to go campaigning with him. To his surprise during their morning calls, no liquid appeared; no drinks were served at lunch either. The dry afternoon dragged on—not a drop. The thirsty farmer patiently looked forward to a dinner at Silver Heights—still not a drop. This was carrying the matter too far. Bedtime came and Smith showed his guest to his room wished him goodnight and shut the door. The farmer stood rooted to the spot unable to believe his senses; then came a soft knock at the door. The outraged guest sprang to open it—he had misjudged his friend after all. A smiling Donald stood in the dim light of the hall. “Would you like a night cap?” Smith asked in a low voice. With an eager “Thank you” the guest reached out his hand for the glass. Donald gave him the nightcap and again shut the door—It was a cotton nightcap.
Now proceeding for a few moments, the constituency known as the St. James area also contains within its boundary one of the most important and worthy projects of its kind yet undertaken by a service club. And I would like, Sir, just to give you, the members here, an outline of the accomplishments of the St. James Kiwanis Club, of which I happen to be a member of—privileged—along with my honourable friend from St. James, who is also a member—a brief history of the founding and bringing into existence of that project known as the St. James Kiwanis
Courts. After a great sacrifice in time and energy by its members, the St. James Kiwanis Club has brought to fruition a dream worthy of the praise and plaudits of all classes of people who share in the belief that our senior citizens deserve to live out their lives in dwellings and surroundings which are in keeping with our beliefs of today.
Mr. Speaker, briefly, this is how the project was made possible: First, the land approximately 7 acres valued at roughly $30,000 was donated by the good citizens of St. James through its mayor and council. Second, a mortgage by the C.M.H.A. based on a 40-year basis. Third, a fund-raising drive by the Club. And fourthly, a very generous provincial grant. Here may I say that the City of St. James has set aside a further 4 acres of land for future development. The Kiwanis Courts comprise 18 units which in turn make up 88 suites, accommodating approximately 46 couples and 42 single persons. There is also a central building composed of a recreation room, kitchen, laundry and washroom. Rentals are $40.00 per month which includes stove, refrigerator, window drapes, heat and power. A full time manager and a maintenance man are employed. Now the overall cost of this project was $570,000. Now, Sir, I feel that this House will agree with me that here indeed is a most worthy and commendable effort on the part of our own local Kiwanis Club. I would like to just briefly outline the qualifications of applicants. First, they must be over 65 years of age, and income must be at least $58.50 per month and not more than $175.00 per month. Persons presently living in St. James for more than three years naturally receive preference. Persons who are not living in St. James, now but formerly lived in St. James would come second on the list. Further, preference to married couples precede that of single people.
Turning now to the Municipality of Assiniboia which comprises districts of Kirkfield Park, St. Charles and Headingley, development here continues at a now rapid pace, especially since the installation of water and sanitary sewer facilities throughout the residential area which, I understand, will be fully completed by this fall. I am further informed—and this is definite proof of the activity within that area—that 95% of the total acreage—this includes the residential area—is now either privately-owned or on option. The Headingley district, of course, is rural, but here again it is surprising to find that there are practically no residential lots available either singly or on an acreage basis within that area, and here again presents a wonderful future throughout that whole area for residential development.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may just very briefly, give you a comment or two on my impressions at the opening of this legislature on the 9th of this month. As I viewed from my position the procedures and formalities, the full impact of my responsibilities and obligations came to me at that time, and in humility I humbly ask for divine guidance and assistance in the discharge of my duties, not only to my constituents but to all the people of this wonderful province of ours that can be so rightly called ’the key’ or what I like to call ’the geographical buckle province’ of our great dominion. (Hear! Hear!)
MR. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): [Mr. Desjardins spoke in French, which will be translated in a later edition of Hansard. ] Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to give the impression that juvenile delinquency is a major problem in St. Boniface, but I feel that St. Boniface must be interested in anything and everything that is of vital importance to the country and to the province. All of us are interested in the welfare of the citizens and the progress of their province and country or we would not be here. The world is in a hurry. These modern times are frightening; we are building skyscrapers, super roads, bridges, etc. We are busy with research that will enable us to build rockets and bombs. This seems to be the order of the day—but what about the people themselves? Sure we work hard to discover a new serum or a new cure for such and such a disease—but what about the formation, yes, the building of our youth? If we wish to build a strong country we must start by building strong future citizens and leaders. It is true that the growing generation has always been of some concern to their elders, and twenty-five hundred years ago Socrates said, “Children now love luxury, they have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect for elders, love to chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not servants of their household. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table and tyrannize their teachers.”
Lately something else, something frightening has been added. Some juveniles are being convicted of rape and murder; some have even tried to kill their parents. A gang will torture
a crippled boy just to hear him whimper. The daily papers are filled with stories of juveniles’ violence and crime. You don’t have to look very hard to find them. I have a few clippings from last week’s papers. Most of these incidents happen in the States, but nevertheless it will give us an idea of our problem. We might examine these, Mr. Speaker—’Girl Twelve, Raped, Strangled by Juveniles in Ontario,’ and here in Manitoba—’Took Pipe to Dance in case of a Fight.’ A teenager in Provincial Police Court Thursday testified that he and three companions had drunk a large portion of three bottles of wine before going to a dance in a Community Club; he added that he took a length of 3" pipe with him “in case we got into a fight.” There is a picture here in New York—Carmen Martinex, 15, screams and curses as she struggles with New York Policeman—she and two boys were held without bail on homicide charges in the slaying of a 17 year old member of a rival East Harlem gang on Sunday. Then last week I’m sure everyone of us read this—“Smoking, dates banned so teeners burnt parents.” A little girl, 15 year old and her 13 year old brother, fed up with their parents telling them what not to do decided to light the torch to them. “Four Whites Guilty of Raping Negro,” “Six Negro Youths from 14 to 17 Years Old were arrested Friday in a mass school yard rape of a 14 Year Old White Girl.”—she was attacked three times. And this was only during the last week, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I would like to read, if I may, an editorial explaining the pattern of delinquency. “In France juvenile deliquency is not a problem.” Various reasons are given for this—one is a strong sense of family unity and parental authority. At school the courses are hard and long. French youngers, it is noted too, play hard in participation sports such as football, bicycling, hiking. Although the war years set the pattern for delinquency in many areas where children were left to themselves while mother worked and father was in the services, in France the war had a generally opposite effect. Most of France was out of the war under German occupation from 1940 to ’44. The sense of family unity was increased. In Italy the situation is much the same. After a period of chaos and resettlement, Italian youth has now resumed its position under strong parental discipline and a sense of family is paramount. In Britain, juvenile delinquency is a serious problem. One of the reasons given there is conscription. Instead of leaving school and going seriously to work, the young men fill the period between school and national service without aim or purpose, taking temporary work and spending the new high wages on entertainment. It is hoped that the coming end of conscription will make a considerable change. In the Soviet Union where it is common for both parents to work, delinquency is considered by the authorities to have reached a scandalous stage. The pattern around the world is pretty much the same—a strong sense of family seems to be the key. The organized family unit in which authority rests in its normal places, and affection and interest are available to the child, seem the best guarantee of normal development. This is considerably different from other periods when it was accepted that street gangs and youthful violence were the products of slum areas only—broken homes, ineffective parents, may occur at all levels of society.
Here in Canada, the province of Quebec, except for the cosmopolitan city of Montreal, is not bothered too much with this problem. This province, again excluding Montreal, has a low percentage of delinquency. The main reasons seems to be because of its family life and simple forms of pleasure. It is a known fact that the chief cause of delinquency is in the home or rather in the lack of a home; in broken homes or neglected homes. A growing boy or girl needs love and understanding. A child wants to love and to be loved. He needs someone with whom he can discuss his problems; he wants to be understood; he wants someone to look up to; he wants to be praised when he does something that he is proud of; he would like to be brave, obedient, honest and polite, to help others, but he needs encouragement. More than anything else he must feel that he truly belongs to someone, that someone belongs to him; that is why family life is so important. A broken home or a neglected home does not fill these needs in children. Time Magazine referring to the case where ’Four White Boys Raped a Colored Girl’ had this to say about the boys’ background: “The defendants William Collingsworth, 23; Patrick Scarboro, 20; David Irwin Beagles, 18 and Olie Stoutemeyer, 16, made up a sorry lot of delinquents, victims as well as products of their squalid environments. Collingsworth, an illiterate telephone lineman, is a chronic drunk; son of a sadist who beat him habitually throughout his childhood. Scarboro, an Air Force enlisted man, is an orphan whose mother was shot to death in a bar-room brawl when he was seven and whose father committed suicide the same year. Stoutemeyer quit school after the
8th grade, has had a brush with juvenile authorities. Beagles, a high school senior, the son of a truck driver and a waitress. It is clear that these boys’ problems originated in their homes. I’m not talking about the slum areas alone. Many well-to-do couples are always away from their children but they feel no guilt because they have a maid or someone to look after the children. In every human being there exists some emotions, some feelings which could lead to disaster, to acts of violence, to emotional disturbances, if these feelings are not guided and directed in the right way. It takes courage and discipline to belong to a gang—one has to be brave to drive a car at top speed aiming at a building or an oncoming car. A boy who won’t squeal on his pals is considered a delinquent by the police, but let the same boy join the army and if captured by the enemy he refuses to divulge any information, he is then considered a hero. More than that, it might put him on the right track because then he is accepted by society.
A well known educator one day asked his class of 62 students to write an essay on what they thought were the main reasons for the increase in juvenile delinquency—he promised that he would not divulge their name. All but two blamed the leniency of their parents, some of the reasons given were: They were given too much money; they could have the car too often; they were allowed to stay out too late; their parents did not know where they went or with whom; they left the liquor cabinet door unlocked; they were not careful with the kinds of books they had around the house—just because these books were left in the bedroom it did not mean that the children would not see them. There was very little supervision of reading material, television and radio programs. The parents were too gullible and believed everything they were told but they never bothered to check. It is easy to understand why a boy who hasn’t a happy home will look elsewhere to satisfy his needs; why he might join a gang—there at least he belongs, somebody is interested in him and he is united with others to fight society that has rejected him. Here we have a boy who has everything to become a good and useful citizen and will instead become a delinquent and possible a gangster later on because there is no place for him in his home; because society rejected him; because no one was there to guide him and satisfy his purely natural needs.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Honourable the Attorney-General, we do not claim perfection but we should always strive to improve our lot and I was very disappointed that there was nothing said in the Throne Speech to indicate that the government is ready to do something to remedy the vital problem, I am speaking of the C.C.F. Party—to hear their members talk, is the champion of the ordinary people. This Party advocates more money, less work, more security, less responsibility. But, Sir, I feel that we have a duty, a responsibility toward mankind, toward the future of this country; we must do our best in trying to find a solution for these people. It is well to build armies but better to build characters; it is well to worry about human suffering but more important to worry about moral sufferings; we must help with family allowance, orphans, widows and old age pensions. But for true security, for a strong country, what is more important than building strong mental health? It is important to bring about needed reforms in our penal institutions but it would be less costly and healthier for everyone should we worry more about crime prevention.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government should take into consideration the establishing of a new department with the appointment of a Minister. Some of the points that would be dealt with by this department are: Crime prevention, moral education for children, parents and future parents, rehabilitation, recreation direction, physical education. One might argue that at the moment there exist organizations, agencies, etc., to look after these things and I must agree that this is so, but I feel that for the most part these groups are composed of well intentioned people, but people who lack experience or who are disorganized and sadly lack leadership. If I may be permitted to give an example, I’m sure that I will make my point clear. Community centres can be harmful as well as helpful. They could give a home to those who have no home and they could take others away from their homes. If well organized and supervised, this new home will help fill the required needs of the children, but if poorly supervised the environment could be disastrous. Some parents might be inclined to feel that everything is fine because their children are going to community clubs—how wrong they could be. It would be much better if parents would encourage their children to have parties in their own homes. Kids might mess up a home but they won’t break it. Somebody should also look after the interest of our youth when it comes time to supervise and guide television programs, shows, radio and reading. Some
authority should see that the pictures used to advertise shows, etc., are better censored; that the magazines on view in the book stores and drug stores are proper for youths and will not exercise a disturbing influence on them. Somebody should see that poolrooms, parks, etc., are better supervised. Someone should encourage and organize sports which are so important to our youth, especially our boys. I feel sure that I’m right in thinking that organized sports, properly supervised, and I must repeat, properly supervised, are very important to the juvenile and that the government should take a more active part in supervising, organizing and financing sporting activities of their young citizens. It should also promote the building of more rinks, swimming pools, playgrounds, gyms, etc.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly that the government should take into serious consideration the establishment of this new department which is so vital to the mental, moral and physical welfare of the future generation of this province.
MR. P. WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate with all of the other speakers who have complimented you on your appointment to the high office of Chairman of this debating Assembly. As Chairman, it is your duty to see that the rules of debate established by practice over the years, are observed. And it is our duty, as members here for the proposed purpose of engaging in debate on the legislative proposals of the government, to be guided by your rulings.
I can assure you, Sir, that I for one, will try to observe the rules of debate, and will give you every assistance in promoting the highest level of discussion in this Chamber.
I would also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. They performed their duties well—in so doing opened up the work of this session in a very commendable way.
The First Minister and the Party he heads are also to be congratulated upon winning an overall majority in the recent election. It is without doubt that he can bring any legislation to his satisfaction.
I want to emphasize what I mean by legislation in the interests of the ordinary people of Manitoba. You have just voted down, and you together with our friends here on my right, have consistently voted down proposals submitted through the years by members of our group, for comprehensive health insurance. This is just one instance of the anti-social attitude of both your groups.
Here is a proposal which has been proven by years of successful operation in other parts of the world to be wholly beneficial to all the people concerned. It is conducive to better health generally, leading not only to keener enjoyment of life, but also a smaller social cost and more efficient overall administration. Your opposition to this kind of legislation and your support of private exploitation of our resources is your trade-mark. It is the trade-mark which will eventually bring about your downfall. The trade-mark is apparent in the Speech from the Throne. It deals almost wholly with private enterprise development; development for lining the pockets of a relatively few people. There is not a single word in the whole speech about co-operative development; about development which will be a benefit to both producers and consumers.
There is no reason why, with proper encouragement, the whole of future expansion of Manitoba’s resources, primary wealth production, manufacturing, distribution and servicing should not be done on a co-operative basis, rather than on a basis of private profit. If this was done, the new wealth which will be produced each year by the efforts of our people will come to our people in Manitoba. It will not go, as it does at the present time to a very large degree, into the pockets of people who do not live in this province; who are not interested in this province or in the people of this province but who are interested only in lining their pockets at our expense. In the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, the index of prices received by farmers continues to fall, while the index of prices paid by farmers continues to rise. But you don’t say anything about the reason for this and you make not a single suggestion as to the steps that should be taken to reverse that process and to create a rise in the index of prices received and a drop in the index of prices farmers have to pay. You know well enough that it is because private enterprise—the private enterprise you are supporting—has control over the things the farmers have to buy; and also has control over the institutions like the packing houses, through which farm produce is sold, that the condition of rising prices for purchases and falling prices for sales continues in existence.
The cure for this condition, the real cure is co-operative production of the things the
farmer must buy and co-operative control over the sale of our products. In the Speech from the Throne, you talk about credit, which means going further into debt; you talk about conservation, instead of talking about development, but you do not say a single word about the most important development of all for both farmers and workers—a co-operative development.
Mr. Speaker, I want to touch briefly upon disabled persons. The original ideas was to help persons who were handicapped through disability of one form or another. But the definition of disability has been so stringent, that a person has to be bed-ridden, or chair-fast before being able to receive any assistance. We would like to see this government take up the case of disabled persons most vigorously with the federal government, so that people who are handicapped through disability, can get sufficient assistance to enable them to live on the same scale as ourselves. I know of one case in particular, where a man who had lost both hands through amputation was not considered to be a disabled person and was given no assistance whatever. This is outrageous in a country such as Canada, in a province like Manitoba in 1959. It is also the opinion of people in my part of the province that timber permits for farmers should be raised from 15,000 B.F.M. to at least 30,000 B.F.M.
It is claimed by the Forestry Department that farmers waste too much brush. Personally, I don’t agree with this contention. When the farmer goes into the bush, he usually has a small tractor with rubber tires or a small caterpiller. Sometimes, even today, with a team of horses. On the other hand, the big contractor gets rights for a large area and he takes in very heavy equipment such as a T.D. 14-18, caterpiller with a bulldozer in front. He breaks a trail and knocks everything down for a road 20 feet wide. He knocks down young tress that could make good lumber in a few years time. He knocks everything down in the area of his mill site, which sometimes covers a very large piece of ground, and when he starts cutting his trees for lumber, he does not cut them in logs 12 or 16 feet lengths but he pulls in the tree lengths. He does not trim branches either but he’s pulling the tree lengths with the big caterpiller. He’s smashing everything in his way.
I put it to you, gentlemen, who is doing most damage to the brush. Is it the farmer with his small equipment, who incidentally is interested in maintaining both lumber, trees and brush; or is it the big operator with his heavy equipment who is interested only how quickly he can get the lumber out in order to make a profit on it, and overrides everything, smashing trees and brush all over the place, in order to get his profitable lumber onto the market with least delay?
Mr. Speaker, just briefly on Veterans’ Affairs. At this time I would like to urge upon our Provincial Government to use its influence with the Federal Government to secure a review of veterans’ allowance and pension qualifications. Some of the returned men find it very hard to get the pensions or payments to which they think they are entitled. In some cases pensions are refused. Very often it is due to lack of evidence, of material which has been overlooked by army personnel with respect to physical condition whilst in service with the armed forces. In my own constituency I know of cases where the men are almost total wrecks, yet they have not been able to qualify for pensions. I hope, for the sake of such men—such men who were heroes when they fought for the freedom of this country—I do hope that this government will urge the federal government to review the Veterans’ Allowance legislation, so that men such as those I have in mind, may give—may be given full consideration.
Veterinary service. In the northern part of the Interlake area we have no veterinary service at all. The vet nearest to us is at Stonewall which is some 80 miles away. This means that the farmer has to pay as much as $50.00 for service for one animal; sometimes the animal is not worth the cost of the veterinary service. This means that the vet is not called unless a valuable animal is very sick, and many a time the animal dies because the vet was unable to get to it in time to save its life. Many farmers have suggested to me that veterinarians should be established in various areas and that the cost of such arrangements should be borne in the same way as in the case of Ag. Reps. The vet may be of great value to the farmer in the Interlake area.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I’m going to dwell again on the very common policy or program, as roads and drainage. That is very important in that area. Again I want to say a few words about those roads and the drainage conditions in the Interlake area. I would like to urge the Public Works Department in particular to give close consideration to the need for roads and drainage
in that part of the province. I have driven through most of the area where it has been possible to drive and I can say without any reservation and without any exaggeration that the road situation there is deplorable. One road in particular comes to my mind. I drove toward Erinview on a market road. Its water levels were level with the grade and in places with the top of the grade. It was a dry summer last year. What the road condition would be like in a wet spring after a heavy snowfall, or a heavy rain as like we had before, I just shudder to imagine. I asked the Council member that is from Rockwood Municipality, why nothing had been done, and he told me that the municipality was extended to the full limit financially. This is one of the examples where the municipalities need much more in the way of revenue. In the unorganized territory, which in my case—my territory is disorganized. The position with respect to roads and drainage is absolutely intolerable. The farmers in this part of the province have worked and toiled for 40 years or more, hoping against hope that something would be done to improve these physical conditions and remove the handicaps and disadvantage of bad roads; they are without drainage. The change of government did arouse some hope in their breasts—but that hope is rapidly dying now. We are very disappointed and very sorry that no action whatever has been taken to improve the roads and provide proper drainage. I have received many letters and delegations demanding action in fact. There is a possibility of a march on the Department of Public Works similar to the farmer march on Ottawa. The Honourable Minister will perhaps recall that in the special session I asked for information as to the action the government would take with respect to draining on such areas as Wheatland, Fish Lake, Dennis Lake, Fisher Branch, Fraserwood, Silver, Rembrandt, Meleb, etc. I regret that the Honourable Minister has not been able to give me a definite answer. I received a letter, which I thank the Honourable Minister for but as so far the report he claims did not come through. Again I would like to ask the fullest consideration be given to construction of good roads and provision of adequate drainage for this part of the Interlake area. Particularly I want to stress one point, Mr. Speaker: On side roads the farmers are asked to pay 50-50 basis, that’s half. Well, everything is—I am going to use the words ’sky-high’ and the road building is sky-high also to my expression. And some of the farmers have been asked to pay as high as $2,000 to get their piece of a road—$1,300, $1,600. Now, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Department of Public Works to reconsider the 50-50 basis because my phrase to the farmer or to the Public Works Department is: “the farmer has to sell the farm to build the road, he doesn’t need that road if he has to sell the farm.” And possibly I may add, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Liberal regime—they have dropped that 50-50 basis and I am hoping and the people out there, since the change of the Government they feel that that 50-50 basis will be discarded or remedied somehow in a better form that everybody would be entitled to a better road.
Mr. Speaker, the C.C.F. believe that the farmers of Manitoba require and deserve a great degree of security if they are to enjoy the opportunity to maintain a decent standard of livelihood. It is true that some of the basic needs of the farmer, such as income security, can only be provided at the federal level, through a program of parity prices for which the C.C.F. has fought for years. But it is also true something could be done at the provincial level to provide the farmer with some basic security. The Campbell government has consistently denied the necessity for any such legislation, but the C.C.F. says that something could and should be done. The Farm Security Act, which the C.C.F. envisages, would have three principal provisions, similar to those provided in Saskatchewan under C.C.F. legislation passed in 1954. Mr. Speaker, we sometimes get confused when we mention C.C.F. in Saskatchewan. That we in the C.C.F.—I’m going to speak from my own opinion—that we are after the same policy in Manitoba that is in Saskatchewan. We can adopt ourselves into the Manitoba, not only to C.C.F.: A provision that, in the case of crop failure, payments or principal on mortgaged loans or on land sold under agreement of sale can be postponed—thus the mortgage company as well as the farmer would share the risk of crop failure. The original Saskatchewan legislation provided for reduction as well as postponement of payments, but the federal government joined the mortgage companies in having this part of the Act declared “ultra vires”—that is, beyond the powers of the provincial legislature. A provision that in the event of foreclosure no farmer could be forced off his home quarter and out of his home. The Saskatchewan legislation provides that an order for possession, insofar as it affects a homestead, is thereby stayed so long as the homestead continues to be a homestead. A provision establishing a Meditation Board which would
assure that both parties to a dispute would be granted a fair hearing and provided assistance in settlement of the dispute. Many disputes could undoubtedly be settled in this way, thus avoiding the costly and drawn out process of litigation through the courts.
Vigorous support of parity prices: The C.C.F. has been the only party which has consistently throughout the years fought for a program of full parity prices at the federal level. At the provincial level the C.C.F. has pressed the government to urge such a policy upon the federal government. Despite the claims made by the Conservatives, the C.C.F. believes that the federal legislation is still deficient in two major respects: It provides no guarantee that prices will be related to costs of production. The guaranteed prices are based upon a percentage of average market prices during the previous ten years. But market prices are low and costs are high, and as has been the case in recent years, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the prices set will provide the farmer with sufficient income to meet his costs, let alone to earn a decent living. Now, the point is going to be argued that the Honourable Agricultural Minister in Ottawa is willing to ... on some commodities paying deficiency payments. That’s quite all right, I’m happy to hear that—to what amount? It provides an adequate forward pricing mechanism. Though prices are to be announced in advance, they are not to be announced sufficiently ahead to permit the farmer to plan throughout the production cycle. Effective forward prices require sufficient advance notice that the farmer can look ahead to the day when his present production plan will be fulfilled and estimate his income from sales at that time. The C.C.F. will continue to fight for inclusion of these two basic principles in parity price legislation.
Leadership in securing national crop insurance. Various studies, which have been made in the prairie provinces, have agreed that the crop insurance is not feasible on a provincial basis. Either the Federal Government must enter the field or the matter must be handled on a regional basis. In the report of the select standing committee on agriculture in 1957, the views of the Manitoba Farmers’ Union and Manitoba Federation of Agriculture Co-operation—the “C” is no more existing—are recorded in favour of a regional plan among the prairie provinces. When the C.C.F. presented a motion for the government to take action along these lines, a government amendment was moved, and passed, which insisted that another committee be set up to study the possibilities of straight Manitoba-Federal co-operation. This move was typical of the government’s attitude in so many cases—never take action, even when the methods are broadly agreed upon, but set up another committee.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to revert myself back to the true Canadians—and that is the Reserve people. With regard to the true Canadians, what steps are being taken to prove to these people that we make no discrimination? To begin with, we deprive them of a federal vote. It may be argued that this, it is not so. Then why make a Reserve man sign a waiver or stipulate that he has to be a returned man in order to vote federally? There is no reason given. May I state, as Senator Gladstone stated last February: “The Indian will be in second place until he will accomplish equality, particularly the free vote on both counts.” And I have a paper clipping, but I don’t need to quote. Also there was Mr. Kennedy from Assiniboine Reserve from Saskatchewan. But what happens with our Indian fishermen—restriction on fishing. When I was approached by the Reserve Chiefs and their people and also read in the papers that no warning or consultation was made with the fishermen from the Reserve, I was personally dismayed. They approached me questioning how they will be able to make a living, since the restriction came on the southern portion of the lake. I call upon the government to give serious consideration in compensating these people, since so many of them depend on fishing income to tide them through the winter months as the bush work and trapping is practically nil in these areas. To alleviate some of the hardship, I should like to suggest an extension of timber berths and trapping area that could be used only by Reserve people, which could tide them over until something more permanent could be established such as local industry—possibly a fish plant—perhaps a study could be made of rough fish and the fish could be processed.
The other day a question arose to the effect of employment to these fishermen. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources stated that some road building will provide employment. The other day I discussed road and bridge building on the Reserve and to my regret I was informed that the road and bridge at Fisher River will not be built this year. That alone would provide some employment right at home on the Reserve. I discussed this bridge with the Indian Affairs Department and I was told that because of lack of Indian funds the project
can’t go ahead. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that that portion of road and bridge is equally as important to the settlers outside of the Reserve as those on the Reserve. The old bridge is shaky and hazardous to cross. I urgently request the Honourable Minister of Public Works to contact the Department in Ottawa and make the necessary arrangements to have the bridge and road built. That is of much importance to the people in that area.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention the fact that Fisher constituency also was hurt by the heavy rainfalls, flash floods as we call them. Many farmers had their crops in already and will carry heavy losses, directly and indirectly, as a result of the menace these waters made to their fields. Erosions and gullies are so large in places, that the farmers will have to hire some road building equipment to level their fields. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the top soil is washed away and it will be quite some time before these fields will be productive. I should like to point out though that many farmers could not seed this spring due to excess moisture. One must bear in mind that these farmers have to meet their expenses. Most of them have no hopes for crops. It is a most disastrous situation in some parts of Fisher constituency. Assistance is urgently required for those farmers. The Prairie Farmer Assistance Act will not nearly cover the extent of the financial loss the farmers have suffered. Thank you.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, regulations were issued this spring over the names of the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources banning the winter white fishing operations in the Grand Rapids area between Reindeer Island and Long Point in an effort to establish a conservation program for Lake Winnipeg. No one disputes the need for conservation or rehabilitation program on this lake. But I want to add, why must this rehabilitation program be carried out at the expense of the small fisherman. This is a callous and thoughtless act of the present government and it will seriously hurt the economy of the people living in the Gypsumville and St. Martin areas, leaving a large group of the citizens with tens of thousands of dollars worth of valuable fishing equipment which they no longer can use because of the order of the government. It is interesting to note that a government which has been boasting about its concern for the little man should be the government which in this instance destroys his livelihood. The regulation permits summer fishing operations in the north end of the lake to take two million pounds of white fish, on 85 licenses; but they discontinue winter white fishing operations in the same area, where during a normal year only 250,000 pounds of fish are taken by the small fisherman. These new regulations will certainly benefit the large fish companies which own all the large boats operating on Lake Winnipeg. I think that the government should seriously consider changing these regulations so that the large companies would share the cost of conservation with the little man, because two million pounds are allowed to be taken in the summer months and yet the fisherman taking 250,000 pounds are told they can’t fish any longer. In this case the small man is knocked completely out of business while the large companies will continue to operate and flourish. To add insult to injury, these men were never notified about the changes in the regulations by the government. When I protested these regulations, the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources said he couldn’t understand my interest in this particular problem because the people of St. George were not affected. Mr. Speaker, St. Martin and Gypsumville are very much a part of St. George. The Provincial Secretary, in a meeting in St. Laurent, said that I was spreading vicious nonsense, that there was no such problem in St. George, and he suggested that I pay more attention to my constituency so I’d know what was going on. The Honourable the Attorney-General spoke up in the by-election and said he knew nothing about the problem either, and he said he would look into the matter. I suggested he knew about it because, Mr. Speaker, these regulations are passed by Order-in-Council and the Honourable the Attorney-General is a member of that council.
MR. LYON: I must correct the honourable member. I made no such statement at any time in his constituency or elsewhere. In fact I did know something about it and I told his constituents, but they didn’t know.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, the people of my constituency informed me of the statements he made. Apparently he made it on several occasions, if he says he did not make it, I’ll withdraw it. Subsequently the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources discovered that my protests were not just vicious nonsense as described by the Provincial Secretary. Four days before the day of the election he called a meeting with the fishermen affected in the Gypsumville and St. Martin areas. These men, about 40 of them, came to Ashern where they were asked to attend, and they discussed the matter with the Minister. I want to commend the Minister for being frank at the meeting and admitting to the men that he didn’t know what was their problems and was surprised that this problem existed in this particular area. When the Minister told the fishermen that the government was conducting an experiment he was informed, I’m told, that the fishermen didn’t want the government experimenting with their livelihood. I hope the government will soon change the regulation to allow the men in the St. Martin—Gypsumville areas to continue their winter whitefishing operations, because if they don’t we’re going to have hundreds of men without work.
When the announcement of the new regulations regarding hay permits was announced, I and other members of this group protested it. We were told that the new increases were completely in line and that we had no reason to protest it. I was very pleased by the recent announcement by the government that the old rates had been changed—the new rates had been changed to the old rates—so this would indicate that members of this group weren’t just talking through their hats. At the last session I urged this House to consider, or the government to consider the establishment of a canning factory in the Interlake area because during the past winters the fishermen have experienced seasons of getting nothing but rough fish and were unable to make
their living doing this. Following my suggestion in the House I received considerable amount of mail from fishermen in the area endorsing my suggestion and asking that I suggest to the government again to consider such a proposal. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources to try and implement such a suggestion in the area because unless something is done, men fishing Lake Manitoba just cannot make a living with the prices of rough fish.
Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, as is the custom, I would like to congratulate you on your position and wish you success during the tenure of office. I would like to also congratulate the mover and seconder in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I thought they did an excellent job and I am sure they will make valuable contributions to this House.
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments in connection with remarks of the honourable member for St. George, in regard to the fishing industry. In the first place the honourable member is not completely informed on the situation.
I would be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, about this sudden interest of the honourable member for St. George in changing the fishing regulations and in the fishing industry, after the long history of neglect under which at least Lake Winnipeg had degenerated to a point where there is little hope for the future in regenerating that lake unless some strong measures are taken. This government has taken action on that lake and proposes to take action in any part of the fishing industry requiring it, and there are other parts of the industry requiring it at the present time. With respect to Reindeer Island, he points out quite correctly that when this situation was brought to my notice, I did call a meeting at Ashern at the request of the fishermen, and I interviewed them. I told them at that time that their request would receive careful consideration, particularly in view of the fact that they were not notified of the conference of fishermen which I think was called on the 31st of March, in Winnipeg. It was perhaps natural that that fishing community should escape our attention, its very location being practically on Lake Winnipeg, or is it Lake Winnipegosis—Lake Manitoba or Lake Winnipegosis, I meant to say—did not indicate to us clearly that they were interested in Lake Winnipeg. Nevertheless when I heard they had not been notified of this meeting, I made good that deficit by going up there and having a meeting with them. At that time I promised them that their position would receive careful and honest consideration. I might say that we had a very friendly and constructive meeting with those fishermen. When they realized that their problems were going to be given consideration on their merits, they in turn made many suggestions which have been turned over to the biologists of the department for study and are in fact being studied now. Suggestions which run all the way from improving the spawning grounds and other natural features of the lake, not only with regard to whitefish, but with regard to pickerel as well. I’m sure the meeting lasted an hour and a half—perhaps longer—during which time there was at no time any note of controversy. There was no note of protest. There was no note of complaint on their part. They brought to me a situation which they thought deserved attention—I gave it attention—told them they would not have an answer until after the election, Mr. Speaker, but that that situation would be studied on its merits and the answer would be given. The honourable member does not know that the fishing regulations have been altered to permit this fishing in the winter season from Long Point to Reindeer Island, under similar conditions as applied last year. And so the matter that he brings to the attention of the House has already been dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, the matter of the fishing industry is one of very considerable concern to the government. It’s a complex one, and we are beginning the attack in what I regard as the only sound way, and that is to begin the scientific investigation upon which any permanent cure must be based. I found that, on assuming office, that we neither had the proper research underway to determine the cause of decline in the fish-catch in Lake Winnipeg, but they had not even accumulated the data upon which the research could be based. And so one of our first actions was to look about for additional biologists for the staff to begin this study. The study itself must be a very complex one. Matters that require study include the following: What is the condition of the spawning beds of all the different varieties? Is it or is it not a fact that certain spawning beds are being silted over and no longer have their normal productive capacity? What is the supply of natural food for the various varieties of fish in the lake? Is it adequate or it it not?
Do pickerel in fact, migrate from the north end of the lake to the south at certain seasons of the year? That fact has not been established and a tagging program is underway this summer to determine the habits of the pickerel so as to know when and where they can be trapped safely.
I had not prepared at this time to give a full statement to the House with regard to the fishing industry. I do want to indicate, however, that there was a very sad lack of any practical attack upon the fishing program, particularly with respect to Lake Winnipeg, under the last administration, and I think the honourable member was ill-advised to call attention to that lack. That is now being tackled and tackled in a very energetic and far-reaching way. In agreement with the fishermen, and I repeat—in agreement with the fishermen, we have outlined a preliminary program which seems the first logical step to take to restore fishing as a permanent and satisfactory livelihood on Lake Winnipeg. Those measures will be studied, the results of those measures will be studied this summer, and conclusions drawn from them and any further changes that may be necessary will be made in due course.
I just rise in protest at this point, Mr. Speaker, and to set the honourable member right to the effect that with regard to the winter white fishing season between Long Point and Reindeer Island and in—is it the Grand Rapids area to the north—the winter white fishing season has been restored under the same conditions as existed last year.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Honourable Minister a question? Did I understand you correctly to say that you would be making a full statement on the fishing industry on Lake Winnipeg at a later date?
MR. EVANS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest in the first place that the estimates—the committee on supply—will be an excellent time for, first, me to make a statement, and second, to answer questions and discuss matter in detail. I am quite prepared to do that and if that were thought to be advisable perhaps we could save questions until then.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Well, that’s .... I just wanted to know if I understood you correctly, because I have one or two questions that I would like to ask.
MR. EVANS: That is correct.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the honourable member a question? When was this regulation changed—to allow winter white fishing operations in the area that I was talking about?
MR. EVANS: I can’t recall the exact date, Mr. Speaker, but it was some short time after the election.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Have the members been notified?
MR. EVANS: It has been announced, now if you’re asking me whether we wrote the individual members—I’m not able to tell you by what means it has been done, but they have been notified.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Rockwood-Iberville. I should also like to inform him that at 5:30 we will break for the supper hour, and you may continue your speech after that if you have not finished by that time.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker ... if the First Minister hasn’t thought of it, that if his talk is going to be longer than ten minutes, it may be proper to call it 5:30, and it would give the honourable member an opportunity to deliver his full speech.
MR. ROBLIN: ... honourable member is doing his best to adjourn the debate if we give him a chance.
MR. HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member for Portage, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
[Mr. W. B. Scarth, Q.C. (River Heights) presented Bill No. 34, an Act to amend The Public Schools Act. ]
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, the bill as presented amend three different bills within the statute books. I would refer to Section 1, of Bill 34, and all members of the House will realize that the former School District No. 1 of Winnipeg is now School Division No. 1; so therefore Section 1 of this bill which provides for the paying for trustees is amended to take care of it so that within the School Division No. 1, trustees may be paid according to the 1956 Act. Clause 2, or rather Section 2 of the bill is an amendment of Section 65 of The Public
Schools Act which—I’m sorry, it’s 69 of The Public Schools Act—which provided that accumulated relief for sick leave could start after five years service of the staff member. This section now provides for the accumulation to commence after three years’ service. The next amendment in Section 3 of the present bill is an amendment to Section 72 of The Public Schools Act. Section 72, heretofore provided that the Board of Trustees may spend school monies not in excess of the aggregate sum of $1,500.00—and now it will be $2,000.00 under this present bill, if the bill receives the passage—for floral gifts and tributes to deceased persons; to donations for Christmas tree funds; extending courtesies to and tokens to distinguished persons, and matters of that nature, Mr. Speaker; so that, in other words, the School Board can spend $2,000.00 in one year, instead of the former $1,500.00.
The next sub-section (b) of 3 in dealing with the same section of which I have had reference, that is in spending monies for courtesies and so forth, provides that members of the inter-high school and other student bodies may be included within those gifts. Yes. And finally Section 4 of the bill as amended provides under the 1955 Act, I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the School Board could give grants up to $7,000.00 for Men’s Musical Club of Winnipeg, and Manitoba School Orchestra, the Art Gallery, the Manitoba Museum, St. John’s Ambulance Corp and so forth. That amount has been increased to $10,000.00.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that’s all I need to say now in explanation—if it goes to committee, the Council for the board will be there.
[Mr. Speaker put the motion, and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
[Mr. Scarth presented Bill No. 47, an Act to amend An Act to Incorporate the Sinking Fund Trustees of the School District of Winnipeg, Number One. ]
[Mr. Speaker put the question. ]
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is briefly one to substitute School Division No. 1, where it was School District No. 1. That’s all there is to it. It’s just to get over the language.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
[Mr. Cowan presented Bill No. 48, An Act to amend The Winnipeg Charter, 1956.]
[Mr. Speaker put the question.]
MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, this simply provides for a deputy tax collector who can sign distress warrants and tax certificates in the absence of the tax collector.
MR. SPEAKER: Do you wish to speak?
MR. HILLHOUSE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I’m not opposing this bill, but I think the time has come when we should do something in this Legislature regarding the charters issued to the various cities in Manitoba. At the present time we have seven cities in Manitoba; two of these, Winnipeg and St. Boniface, have fairly complete charters. Others that I know of, St. James, East Kildonan, and Flin Flon have very inadequate charters. As a matter of fact, about all their charters amount to is they are incorporated as cities under these charters, but their powers and jurisdictions are almost 100% derived from The Municipal Act. Now, I feel that all cities in Manitoba should have the same powers and the same jurisdictions. I think the procedures set out should be the same in relation to all cities, and I believe that the only way that that can be accomplished is by having a complete revision made of our Municipal Act—either by having a separate Act dealing with cities in which the powers and jurisdictions of all cities in Manitoba can be set out, and all the procedures set out. I also feel too, that the time has come when we must tackle this problem of surbuban municipalities. Suburban municipalities today are operating under the provisions of an archaic Act; an Act which in a great number of instances has very little practical relationship to the jurisdiction and the work that these suburban municipalities have been doing. Now I feel that by having an Act applicable to all cities in Manitoba; an Act applicalbe to all suburban municipalities in Manitoba, that we would be treating all of these cities and all of these suburban municipalities in the same way, particularly the cities. Because my experience in this Legislature has been this, that we have an application made by the City of Winnipeg for a certain amendment to its charter, it’s asking for powers which this Legislature confers upon it, powers that are not enjoyed by other cities in this province. We have the same thing in respect to the City of St. Boniface; and we have the same thing in respect of any other city that comes before this Legislature. Now I hope that this Legislature does not want to do anything to impede the proper and efficient working of a municipal corporation, whether it be a city, village, town or rural municipality, and I think the most practical
way that we can achieve that end is by tackling this problem now. We have a number of men in this province who are quite capable of drafting the proper legislation, and I would recommend to this House—and I do not do so out of any political considerations at all—but two men who have won the esteem and affection of all people in Manitoba for their knowledge of municipal matters. There’s Fred Bond, the ex-City Solicitor, who’s part-time on the Municipal and Public Utility Board, and there’s Dr. Murray Fisher. And I think that these two gentlemen together with what other additional help they require should be empowered by this Legislature to look into this matter, and settle it once and for all.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the honourable member for Selkirk, I should like to say that we always, of course, pay a great deal of heed to words coming from his direction—and I can assure him, speaking on behalf of my colleague, the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that we are quite prepared to look at the situation which he has described and to give it very thoughtful consideration. I regret, of course, that he couldn’t impress this point upon his own caucus when they were in government, but I can assure him that we are interested in the line of thought which he advances and will give it serious consideration.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, would the committee, when set up, consider giving municipalities a greater degree of home rule?
[Mr. Speaker put the question, and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
[The House was adjourned till 8:00 the same evening. ]
Page revised: 29 October 2010
