| 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | ||||||
| 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 |
| 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 |
| 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 |
| Page | ||
| Introduction of Bills | ||
| Bill No. 72, re Margarine (Mr. Seaborn) ................................... | 177 | |
| Announcement, re University of Manitoba (Mr. McLean) ............... | 177 | |
| Questions ...................................................................................... | 177 | |
| Mr. Desjardins (Mr. Roblin). Mr. Gray (Mr. Willis). | ||
| Orders for Returns (Mr. Hawryluk) (Mr. Schreyer) ........................ | 178 | |
| Mr. Evans, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roblin, Mr. Paulley | ||
| Adjourned Debate, re Pensioners (Mr. Gray) and Amendment | ||
| (Mr. Guttormson): Mr. Orlikow ................................................ | 180 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Minimum Wage (Mr. Harris). Mr. Groves. ... | 183 | |
| Re Amendment (Mr. Groves): Mr. Paulley, Mr. Roblin, | ||
| Mr. Miller, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Lyon ......................................... | 186 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Ambulance Service, Mr. Wright ................... | 187 | |
| Bill No. 49, re Brandon Charter, Mr. Lissaman, Mr. Gray .............. | 191 | |
| Speech From the Throne Debate: Mr. Hutton ................................. | 192 | |
| Mr. Hutton, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Hutton ....................................... | 195 | |
| Mr. Hawryluk .......................................................................... | 197 | |
| Mr. Harris ............................................................................... | 203 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
MR. CLERK: The petition of Richard Spink Bowles and others praying for the passing of an act to incorporate Builders Trust Company.
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
[Mr. Richard Seaborn (Wellington) introduced Bill No. 72, an Act to amend The Margarine Act. ]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, a short time ago Dr. Victor Sifton, the Chancellor of the University of Manitoba, announced that he was relinquishing that post. At this time I wish to express to Dr. Sifton the appreciation of the people of Manitoba for the distinguished manner in which he has filled that position for the past six years. Dr. Sifton bears an honourable name in the history of the Province of Manitoba and in the history of the Dominion of Canada, and his term of office has given distinction and leadership to the University of Manitoba, and I know that all of the members of the House would join me on this occasion in expressing to him our appreciation for his work in that field. I have received from the nominating committee provided for under the university act the name of Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman in nomination for Chancellor of the University of Manitoba and I wish to inform the House that Mr. Justice Freedman has been appointed to be the Chancellor of the University of Manitoba. Mr. Justice Freedman brings to this post a distinguished career as a lawyer and a member of the Court of Queen's Bench of this province. Mr. Justice Freedman was, until very recently, a lecturer in the law school of the University of Manitoba and has been a friend and counsellor to many of the men who now practice law in this province. While he practiced law he was the president of the Manitoba Bar Association for a term and brought distinction to that office. I know that it is a matter of appreciation by everyone that he has been prepared to have his name come before us for this important post and I am pleased to announce his appointment and to express to him our best wishes for a successful term of office as Chancellor of the University of Manitoba.
At the same time I should also like to announce the appointment to the board of governors of the University and to announce the appointment for a term of three years of Mrs. Whiteford of Harmsworth, Manitoba; Magistrate Henri Lacerte of the City of St. Boniface, and Mr. D. E. Kilgour, President of the Great West Life Assurance Company. And for a term of one year Mr. E. W. Brown, the manager of the Hudson's Bay Company's store in the City of Winnipeg. Again we are appreciative of the fact that Mrs. Whiteford and these others have been prepared to serve in this important capacity as members of the board of governors of the University of Manitoba.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member for St. Johns wish to speak?
MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of ...
MR. MORRIS A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, may I say just one word on behalf of myself and my group, and thank very much the government for the honour they have bestowed upon Mr. Justice Freedman in this very high position as Chancellor of the Manitoba University. I had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Freedman all his Canadian life and as I stated in my few remarks yesterday he's one of the immigrant products who brought honour to the people of Manitoba, to the people of Canada, and particularly to his own people. I feel very proud of his appointment and I think that there wouldn't be one single individual in Canada that all know Mr. Freedman of my faith that would not give their blessings for this appointment, and I am sure that he will bring honour to his position and to everyone here. I wish to congratulate Mr. Justice Freedman on his appointment and wish to thank the government for the excellent choice that they have made.
MR. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Before the Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Honourable the First Minister, rising from a newspaper
article which informs us that the new children's zoo in Assiniboine Park must remain closed on Sundays because the Winnipeg Parks Board does not have the authority under the charter to charge a fee on Sunday. Is the government, with the consent of the City of Winnipeg, considering passing the proper legislation to remedy the situation or would the government consider giving a grant to the Parks Board that would enable it to stay open on Sundays and therefore that everybody can take advantage of this nice park and zoo?
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the question that is addressed to me is essentially a legal one and I make no pretense of being qualified to answer on that score, but my impression is that this is a matter which the City can handle itself if it wishes to do so. There are, I think, certain arrangements possible under the Sunday closing legislation that perhaps could be invoked in this respect. For example, certain skating rinks, I think, are open even though fees are charged on Sunday and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter that as far as I'm aware can be settled by the municipal authorities should they wish to do so.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, on the 16th I had a motion for return in connection with ... situation. At that time the First Minister suggested that I withdraw the motion and the Minister of Agriculture will supply me with this information. I would like to have it before the estimates are being considered.
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration) (Turtle Mountain): I have requested the information. I have used my best efforts to get it. I'll present it to you the moment I'm able to get it.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders for Returns, the Honourable Member for Burrows.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable Member for Burrows, I would like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing the questions which are listed in the Order Paper.
(a) How many prosecutions under the sport angling regulations were made in 1956-57, 1957-58?
(b) How many convictions resulted therefrom?
(c) How many prosecutions under the Game Act were made in 1956-57, 1957-58?
(d) How many convictions resulted from them?
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for St. Johns, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that a return to the House do issue for a Return showing: How many prosecutions under the sport angling regulations were made in 1956-57? Are you ready for the question?
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, the first two of these questions standing in the Order Paper come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mines and Natural Resources. They duplicate questions which were asked during the last session of this House and I understand that answers are to be forthcoming through that channel; nevertheless I propose that we accept this Order now and I shall very gladly table the information in reply to the first two questions at this moment and perhaps the honourable member will understand if the replies are duplicated at a later date through the other channel.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of Returns.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, again in the absence of the Honourable Member for Burrows, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that a return to the House do issue for a Return showing: What amounts of revenue have been received by the government during 1957-58 for: (a) Big game licenses; (b) Upland bird and water fowl licenses; (c) Trapping licenses; (d) Sports fishing licenses; (e) Commercial fishing licenses.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for St. Johns, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that a Return to the House do issue for a Return showing: What amounts of revenue have been received by the government during the year 1957-58. Are you ready for the question?
MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I would make the same remark concerning this Order and when the vote has been taken, the Clerk will have in his possession the answer to the Question.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Again the Honourable Member for Burrows.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, again in the absence of the Honourable Member for
Burrows, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing:
(a) What was the number of children admitted into care of the Department of Social Welfare? (i) Children of unmarried mothers; (ii) Apprehended (neglect), in 1956, 1957, 1958?
(b) What was the average cost for full maintenance per child, per month, for children committed as wards of the government in the years 1955-56; 1956-57; 1957-58?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion. ]
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Before the question is put, may I raise what I think perhaps should be considered a point of order and it would be this: I have no wish in the world to delay the work of the House and I know that the usual reason for honourable members in suggesting that the reading be dispensed with is in order to speed up the work of the House, but I think that now that we have a Hansard it would be advisable for the convenience of the members if either the mover of the motion or Mr. Speaker did read it so that it would be in the printed Hansard. I realize, of course, that it will be shown, the questions will be shown in the Votes and Proceedings but so far as the members are concerned, if they were at any time looking for references it would be handier if it were in Hansard. I was going to make the suggestion; after all, Mr. Speaker, I think you should not be the one who would be put to the trouble of reading it; I think that the one who is moving the motion, if we could agree to a procedure of that kind, the one who is moving the motion has to read it and then if he asks a lot of questions and makes it unduly long he's the one who has to do it. Provided it's read by the mover of the motion, then I think there would be no need for Mr. Speaker to read it. I make that suggestion only on behalf of the keeping the job of reference to the minimum.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order that has been raised, I think there is a good deal of merit in it. It does simplify matters considerably if the question appears in Hansard. I think however that we can achieve that object if we just have an understanding with the recorders of Hansard that questions shall be printed as if they were read by the original mover and in many cases perhaps it won't be necessary to read them because we can read ourselves - they're quite long - and I would say that if any member moving a question does not happen to read it himself that Hansard should take note of the fact and reproduce it in the record so that we may meet the point that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I think it's a good point and that we should follow his advice and have these matters printed in Hansard.
MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F.) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, if I may make a comment on this, I agree with the two honourable gentlemen, but -
A MEMBER: Hurrah, I'm surprised.
MR. PAULLEY: No, it's not surprising at all when one applies intelligence to legislative affairs, which often isn't the case - but I would suggest this, Mr. Speaker, and the point raised by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is a very valid one insofar as the recording of the asking of the question being recorded in Hansard for the availability of all of the members in the House, and I would like to see us go a little step further than that. That when the Order for Return is presented back to the House, that it, too, be recorded in Hansard so that in our book of reference which, of course, is Hansard, that not only will we have the question posed by the individual, but a little later on when it is returned that we will have the answers which we don't get at the present time with the method of presenting returns to the House.
MR. ROBLIN: I speak again on the point of order, Mr. Speaker; I can give no undertaking that the answers will be printed. Sometimes they are rather lengthy and I think that in view of the fact that the information is in the hands of the various Whips and can be obtained from the Clerk of the House that there is some question as to whether it should be put in. I wouldn't like offhand to say that my mind is fixed on this point - there may be a substantial argument - but I wouldn't like to give an undertaking that it would be done at the moment. Perhaps it's something that we could discuss at some suitable time.
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing:
(1) What supplies were purchased from W. J. Gage & Co., Winnipeg and Toronto in 1957-58?
(2) What was the nature of the supplies?
(3) If it was printed material, did it carry the union label?
(4) Has any investigation been made as to the effectiveness of the Manitoba Reading Service sponsored by W. J. Gage Ltd.?
(5) When was such investigation made and by whom?
(6) What were the results of the investigation?
(7) Has there been any criticism of the Manitoba Reading Service? By whom?
(8) What was the nature of the criticism?
(9) With what evidence was it supported?
(10) Has any investigation been made of the evidence submitted?
(11) When was this investigation made, and by whom?
(12) What was the result of the investigation?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brokenhead.
MR. ARTHUR E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Johns, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing:
(a) The number of applications for farm credit under the provision of the Farm Credit Act; as of June 1st; to date.
(b) The number of applications approved; as of June 1st; to date.
(c) The amount loaned by the Farm Credit Board; as of June 1st; to date.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion. ]
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I have on this question is - does the questioner really mean just from June 1st on, because perhaps there were some before June 1st.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I find it somewhat difficult to begin speaking on this matter following the eloquent contribution made last night by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews. He is one of the old style orators of whom we have too few today. I certainly cannot hope to match the eloquence with which he presented his case last night. A good deal of what he had to say, Mr. Speaker, I found myself in agreement, particularly when he spoke of the past inaction of the former government and when he spoke of the completely impossible position which was proposed in the amendment by the Honourable Member for St. George. I must admit that I'd heard a good deal of what he said in previous discussions but I must say that he contributed one suggestion which I found completely new. We in the C.C.F. are used to being criticized by members of both the old line parties. I've heard it said frequently that we are soft-hearted and sometimes by members and outside the House by people that we're soft-headed. I've heard it said that we are a class party and that there is no room in Canada for a class party. I've heard it said that we divide the poof from the rich and I could go on and on with the kind of thing which has been said about our party and I don't really mind it, Mr. Speaker, I'm used to it, but last night I heard a suggestion about our party which I must admit I found completely new. The Honourable Member for St. Matthews said last night, and I quote from Page 170 of Hansard, he says that our resolution "would mean that every citizen of Manitoba who has reached the age of 70 years would be given a $20.00 a month increase," and that's true, Mr. Speaker, and he said further "and that means that the millionaire would receive just as much of an increase as the hard-working and hard-pressed needy citizen." Well, Mr. Speaker, that we are a defender of the millionaire I must admit I heard for the first time last night.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member went on to say further that "the policy of this government is in favour of increased aid for the needy citizens". We on this side of the House have not had yet the opportunity to get in detail what the policy of the government shall be. The Honourable Member said last night that we delayed the government when we defeated them - I'm not going to thrash old straw; that was settled during the election. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is this, that in as far as the proposals in detail which this government will bring
forward for improving the lot of the old age pensioner is concerned, whether it be through the provision of housing for the old age pensioner, or through the provision of medical service for the old age pensioners, or whether it be through supplementary allowances, whatever those will be, I can assure the Honourable Member for St. Matthews and other members of the House, that we in this group will certainly not be amongst those who will be suggesting that the government is doing too much. The Honourable Member said last night - I can't find the reference at the moment - or intimated that we took it upon ourselves to say that we were the only ones who supported the old age pensioners. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case; we have never said that; we have never suggested that. We do say, we have said ...
MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): That isn't what I said. I said that the social conscience and the social consciousness is not the monopoly of any one party. I didn't say that you took it upon yourselves to say that you were the only friends - not at all. It wasn't monopoly of any one party.
MR. ORLIKOW: Well Mr. Speaker, I was going to agree with the Honourable Member that we have not now, nor have we ever had that attitude and we will support, we will support any legislation or any proposals from any groups which will improve the lot of the old age pensioners, and when we think that a government, a party, which ever it may be, is not doing enough, we will reserve for ourselves, as we have in the past, the right to make whatever proposals we think are of value to the old age pensioners.
Now Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre speaking the other day said, and I quote from Page 118 of Hansard, "The C.C.F. ask that the Old Age Pension and the other, and the Blind Persons' Pensions be increased from $55.00 to $75.00 a month for everyone. This is contrary to the opinion of the leaders in welfare work in Canada." He goes on to refer to the report of the Ontario Welfare Council which, Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to find, but he does refer, and I quote, to the report of the Canadian Welfare Council last June in a report recommended - and here's what he said, that "the present pensions stay as they are and that additional assistance be given to those who need additional assistance." Well Mr. Speaker, I have here that report which the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre spoke about. It's called Social Security for Canada - Policy Statement Adopted at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Welfare Council, June 2, 1958. Mr. Speaker, I have read this, not once since the Honourable Member spoke, I've read it six times, and I must admit that I have yet not been able to find any reference in this document which would substantiate the suggestion that they are in favour of any particular amount. They do not mention $55.00 a month, they do not mention $75.00 a month. They do say a number of interesting things and because, Mr. Speaker, they are I think, the most respected and certainly the most knowledgeable group in the field of welfare, I want to read some of the things which they do say in their report. Here's what they say about old age income security and I quote, "it has been suggested that the universal pension of $55.00 per month together with the assistance programmes and private pension and annuity plans are insufficient to provide a standard of living for every Canadian on retirement which is reasonably related to his or her standard of living during working years." Then they go on to make, recommendation one, and again I quote, "the present universal flat rate pension commencing at age 70 should be retained". They don't say at what rate, they say the present pension should be retained and they give reasons as following, Mr. Speaker: "(a) The payment is made as a right without a means or needs test. (b) Personal responsibility is not discouraged; annuities or other savings programmes can be undertaken by individuals or by groups to provide additional protection."
Now Mr. Speaker, when the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre was speaking he said and I quote - he was giving an example of the need for some kind of means test, I presume, and he said and I quote, "we have one person who held himself as a sort of example of one who is in receipt of old age security pension, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Louis St. Laurent, a wealthy corporation lawyer." Well Mr. Speaker, here's what the welfare council statement did say about this question of a means test and I refer to item (c) under Recommendation One, and I commend it to the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre for study. Here's exactly what they said - "(c) Since most old people require the governemnt pension it is preferable to provide it for all rather than to establish a complicated and costly administration for the
purpose of excluding a small minority who could do without it." And then to take care of those people who have more money than they need, they say in item (d) "Income tax regulations can be used to recover a large part of the payment for those who have substantial income".
The Honourable Member for St. Matthews made reference to the fact that he was not enamoured of the idea - he was speaking to the amendment and the suggestion that it should be tied to the cost of living - he made reference to the fact that he was not enamoured of the idea that if there was a reduction in the cost of living that the old age pension might come down and here's what the Welfare Council says in item (f) of this report: "the rate of benefit," - they are talking about the present system - "can be adjusted easily as required." And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is justification; I'm not suggesting that the tying it exactly as suggested in the amendment has merit, but there is a good deal of merit in the idea of a periodic revision of the old age pension on the basis of one thing - cost of living. Now Mr. Speaker, our amendment suggests that the present Old Age Pension of $55.00 a month be increased to $75.00 per month. Now this is not a figure, Mr. Speaker, which was pulled out of a hat, it's a figure which we proposed for two very definite reasons. Now the honourable members made mention a number of times, and I think with a good deal of justification, of the fact that the amendment, proposed by the Honourable Member for St. George, would only give the old age pensioner an increase of 93 cents a month because the cost of living has gone up very little since the $55.00 rate was suggested. Well Mr. Speaker, I think if we are to look at the position of the old age pensioner realistically we should relate it not to the time when the $55.00 a month figure was put in but we should go back to the time when the last really basic revision of the Old Age Pension was made, I refer to 1949 when the Old Age Pension was increased to $40.00 a month, and if you accept that as a reasonable amount - $40.00 a month in 1949, and if you turn to the cost of living at that time and compare it with the cost of living now, Mr. Speaker, and I quote from the Prices and Price Indexes March 1959 issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics - here is what you find. "The total consumer price index in 1949 is taken at 100. In 1958 it had risen to 125.1 - an increase of 25% or if you take certain important items, the cost of food is listed as 100 in 1949, it rises to 122.1 in 1958; shelter is listed as 100 in 1949, it has risen to 138.4 in 1958; household operation was 100 in 1949, it has risen to 121 in 1958." Well, Mr. Speaker, there is another important reason why we feel that the $40.00 of 1949 should now be not $55.00 but $75.00 in 1959. In 1949 when this rate was established the gross national product, that is, the total value of goods and services produced in the Dominion of Canada, was about sixteen billion dollars a year and that's an increase of 80% from 1949 to 1957, and of course it's gone up since that time and we suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you take these two items together that the 1949 figure of $40.00 should now be raised to $75.00 instead of the $55.00 which it is. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that $55.00 a month is not something which is written in the Bible, it is something which man devised, and $75.00 is not something which would be final. We in the C.C.F. do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that a pension, be it $55.00 a month or $75.00 a month, given to everybody answers the needs of the old people of this country. We believe that the needs of the old people will not be met until we devise in this country a system which will give to every person at the age of 65 or 70 an income, something, somewhere in relationship to what they were accustomed to earning when they were working in a factory, or in an office, or operating their own farm, or whatever else they did in order to make a living. The C.C.F. has proposed nationally that we ought to have, and I quote from the C.C.F. program in the last federal election, that "contributary old age insurance plan to provide pensions over and above the basic pension which we now have of approximately one half of the income on retirement, available to all including farmers and other self-employed persons desiring coverage.".
Now Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that here we do not suggest for one moment that this is exclusive to the C.C.F. One of the best statements on this question which I have yet seen, was a statement which was made in the Federal House of Commons by the Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, on January 13th of 1958 in announcing the appointment of a study commission, a one man commission, and he said as follows: "We have made a preliminary examination of the United States contributory old age and survivors insurance program and have found,
(a) that is has grown steadily over the years both in coverage and in generosity of benefit
(b) that it is now possible for single retired workers to draw benefits as high as $108.50 a month with corresponding benefits to married couples and to other persons and categories
(c) that it provides in addition generous survivor benefits up to $200.00 a month for dependent wives and children of insured bread winners who die before the age of retirement is reached."
He goes on further to say this: "Because of this, the government has decided to establish by the most careful and objective inquiry into the available facts and experiences how best we can expand the present old age pension system by the addition of an insurance system similar to that of the United States."
Well Mr. Speaker, we think that the Prime Minister was on the right track. We hope that the report which was made by Professor Clark of the University of British Columbia will be studied by the present federal government and will be acted on by the present federal government. We believe in this kind of system, we will support it, but, Mr. Speaker, this does not get away from the fact that we have been very successful in this country of ours with the idea, the principle of a universal pension paid to everybody at age 70. We support that; all we are proposing in our resolution, Mr. Speaker, is that the minimum paid to everybody shall be at a level which will permit people to live in decency at the present time. I'm not going to do as other members, the Honourable Member for Inkster, the Honourable Member for St. Vital, the Honourable Member for St. Matthews, who have talked about particular cases - I'm sure that every member of this House knows cases of real hardship and I know that merely increasing the amount from $55.00 to $75.00 a month will not solve the problem of the old age pensioners, that unless you have housing which they can afford to live in - decent housing that is - at the present time a simple increase in the amount would be eaten up to a large extent by the people from whom they rent their present accommodations, and certainly we will support measures such as housing for the old age pensioner, but Mr. Speaker, I want to close by saying that in proposing this resolution we are simply saying that the basic rate ought to be one under which the people receiving old age pension, who have in most cases contributed a great deal to the building up of this country, would be able to live in decency and in dignity.
MR. MARTIN: ...Honourable Member permit a question if in order. I would like to ask the Honourable Member for St. Johns, do we understand then that his favouring the increase from $55.00 to $75.00 will be determined solely on the basis of need?
MR. ORLIKOW: No, no, Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear but if I didn't I will make it again. I said in our opinion the base rate paid to everybody should be sufficient so that they can live properly. We don't think that people, that the average person can live on $55.00 a month or a couple on $110.00 a month. We think that the $75.00 would be the minimum required.
MR. SPEAKER: Does that answer the question? Question before the House. Proposed motion and amendment to the motion proposed by the Honourable Member for Inkster. Are you ready for the question?
MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party and the amendment, proposed motion and amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne. The Honourable Member for Brokenhead.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution. The Honourable Member for Pembina and the proposed motion and amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye. The Honourable Member for Morris.
MR. K. ALEXANDER (Roblin): In the absence of the Honourable Member for Morris, I beg the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand.
MR. F. GROVES (St. Vital): Mr. Speaker, it is necessary at the outset on speaking to
this resolution, I think, to differentiate between a fair wage and a minimum wage. A fair wage is arrive at by bargaining. It is one of the jobs of our Trade Unions to get a fair wage for its members. A minimum wage on the other hand is established by legislation to protect those against, and I quote from the speech of the Honourable Member from Logan, "against greedy, powerful and unscrupulous employers". A minimum wage then is needed to protect those who have no other protection. And I'd like to emphasize that our party is not against high wages. High wages are the life blood of our nation and contribute immensely to the health of our economy. We are in favour of high wages and the increased purchasing power that high wages bring.
We believe that in a buoyant economy, and we have a buoyant economy in Manitoba today, that labour should get its fair share. Yes, we are in favour of high wages and let me point out that our free enterprise system has provided the highest scale of wages for men and women engaged in production. Let me quote from Industry - the June 1959 issue of a publication sent out by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. On Page 1 it says this: "Canadians have the allied notion that wage increases are possible without price increases. It may also be a factor in the seeming reluctance of some businessmen, politicians, educators and other informed citizens to uphold, defend and interpret the role of profits in a competitive society, vigorously and unashamedly. Instead there is a tendency to soft-peddle and even apologize for them. Such an approach has nothing to commend it. Industries' profits after all, are the very life-blood of our economic system and the reasons our standard of living is what it is. Without profits there can be no prosperity, no expansion. In short from the standpoint of its employees and of the community at large, the worst thing any company can do is fail to make both a continuing profit and a good one." We are anxious, Mr. Speaker, to see labour share in this prosperity. The minimum wage is the floor below which nobody must sink or be allowed to sink. We realize that the minimum wage, this floor, must be revised from time to time and our government has taken the necessary steps to see that this is done. The resolution before us calls for the establishment of a national minimum wage and I reserve my opinion on that. Our job here in this House is to see that the minimum wage in Manitoba goes up and surely it must go up. If the honourable member had dealt with the Manitoba minimum wage he would have had a great deal more support than he will get for a resolution asking for the establishment of a national minimum wage. But his doom of a national minimum wage is another pious hope, another socialist pipe-dream, more pie in the sky. There isn't a hope in the world of getting a national minimum wage in Canada. This would involve a change in our constitution and would require the consent of all provinces. Can the honourable member see Quebec agreeing to the establishment of a national minimum wage? There are too many unrealistic stab-in-the-dark C.C.F. resolutions like this one and I would suggest or ask why they don't concentrate their efforts and their resolutions on problems that can be solved in Manitoba. The honourable member has given us an excellent reason why a minimum wage is necessary, and I compliment him, and I agree with him. He has forgotten one thing, however, in his answer to the question, "How can we arrive at a proper minimum wage?" His speech makes very interesting reading but again he asks for a national minimum wage, not a Manitoba minimum wage. An impossibility rather than a constructive suggestion. I would like to read one paragraph from the honourable member's speech on Page 133 of Hansard where he says: "When we compare the first three months of operation in 1959 with the first three months of 1958, we get some striking increases in rates of profit. General profit levels, according to general research associates, are 31% higher for the first quarter of 1959 than for the first quarter of 1958." The Financial Post, May 2nd, 1959, states: "Evidence of a strong first quarter comeback in profits sharpen today's optimistic siding of the business future." Here are a few individual company profit increases. This will really amaze you, gentlemen -- General Motors up 78%, General Electric, 24%; Hudson Bay Mining 70%; International Nickel 39%; McMillan-Bloedel 173%; Atlas Steel 229%. When we come to look at the profit picture of these corporations we find it pretty difficult to justify paying women workers 58¢ an hour or less, and men 60¢ an hour or less. Surely he isn't seriously suggesting that the companies that he mentions in his speech are paying women workers 58¢ an hour and men workers 60¢ an hour. [Interjection] ... Not too likely with the unions that they have in these particular shops. If that goes on then I think the labour unions and not the Government of Manitoba should take a brow-beating. I will admit that there are employers in Manitoba,
particularly in the garment industry, the restaurant industry and in some retail establishments that adhere pretty closely to the minimum wage; and I agree that steps must be taken to increase the wages of these employees up to a standard more in line with the productivity of our nation. I am sure, however, that our Minimum Wage Board, on which labour is well represented, and which I am sure will hear fully labour's case for these employees, can be depended upon to come up with a realistic solution to -- a realistic revision, rather, in minimum wages to be paid to workers of Manitoba. I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable Member from Winnipeg Centre, that the resolution be amended as follows: Strike out the word "steadily" in line one thereof; strike out all of the words after the word "living" where it appears in the second line of paragraph two thereof, and substitute the following: "And whereas the Minimum Wage Board has been convened and a Chairman appointed, resolved that this House urge that present minimum wage rates be reviewed without delay to meet present day conditions in the province." [Interjection] The seconder was the Honourable Member from Winnipeg Centre.
[Mr. Speaker put the question. ]
MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Logan, that the debate be adjourned.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, before you put that motion, I'm not very conversant with Beauchesne or May's, or any of the experts on rules of order, but if I recall correctly, the Honourable Member for Rhineland raised a point the other day in connection with removing the sphere of jurisdiction in a resolution, and I was just wondering, Mr. Speaker, and asking of you as the Governor of this Assembly, whether the same may be applicable in this particular case. I must confess again that my knowledge is rather limited insofar as the rules of this nature are concerned.
MR. ROBLIN: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the point that my honourable friend raises doesn't apply to this amendment. I think the point raised by the Honourable Member for Rhineland was that the sub-amendment on that occasion attempted to amend the main motion, as well as the amendment, and it was ruled out of order by you, Sir, on those grounds, which I think were correct. Here of course, we are -- the amendment deals with the same general principle or idea, as contained in the main motion, namely, ways and means of dealing with the problem of minimum wages. I see nothing out of order in this resolution. I would if the Honourable Member for Rhineland would like to express a view?
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Well, Mr. Speaker, the other day I raised that very point, among others, and I really think that you cannot substitute one jurisdiction for another. And I think upon examination, Mr. Speaker, you will find that I'm correct. This is a directive to the Federal Government, and this amendment substitutes the Manitoba Government and it changes the whole tenure of the original resolution.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, there's nothing wrong with that. It's been done many, many times here in my experience in this House. I think that if it were a direct negative of the motion, then of course, there would be some grounds to that argument, but it is not. It substitutes an alternative method of dealing with the same problem. Yet, the problem is minimum wages.
MR. MILLER: Further to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member asked for a national -- for a national minimum wage rate.
MR. ROBLIN: That's right, insofar ...
MR. MILLER: The member for St. Vital substitutes something that the original mover didn't want, and therefore I'd say that such an amendment cannot properly be moved.
MR. ROBLIN: But many amendments substitute things that the original mover doesn't want ...
MR. MILLER: Not when it changes the jurisdiction.
MR. ROBLIN: Jurisdiction has nothing to do with it. It's a question of the substance of the resolution.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit this that -- and I appreciate the support of the Honourable Member for Rhineland in this - that the original intention and purpose of the motion was of a national character because we realize quite fully that in order to achieve the purpose that the minimum wage at the rate that we're suggesting should be national in character, in order that it does not prejudice against any other provincial jurisdiction, and that was the reason for it being brought in on a national rather than on a provincial basis. Insofar as the amendment is concerned, I submit, Sir, that we realize and appreciate the fact that the commission - or the board - is sitting and will deal with this problem. But the problem is not only of our own province that is being done at the present time, and we have -- there is a purpose in it being national in character, which I suggest to you, Sir, is defeated if the amendment is ruled in order.
MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that the House allow the Order to stand so I can have a look at it - a further look at it.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd be entirely in favour of that procedure. I think it's the right one, but while standing, might I suggest another point of order with regard to the same resolution. I don't think this one is as serious as the other one that was raised, but I do think that the wording could be improved and I'm sure that if you, Mr. Speaker, would advise, with the mover of the amendment, that it could be brought more into conformity with our usual practice. For instance, I notice that it reads "that the resolution be amended as follows; strike out the word 'steadily'". I would suggest that you make that "by striking out the word 'steadily'". Now I know that the sense is exactly the same, but quite frankly the English is not quite as good in this way, and I think we should keep to our regular practice rather than -- and then the next,
after the semi-colon, again strike out the word after the word 'living.' That's not important but I think we should try and have the amendments that are moved here as far as possible in conformity with the usual practice. And if I might, while I'm on my feet in this regard, direct Your Honour's attention to one of the other amendments that has been moved here. I wasn't going to raise this because I'm afraid that some people might say that I was just trying to be technical, or hold up the work or something of this kind -- but I think if you will examine the amendment moved by the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne, that you will find that while it's not technically out of order, in my opinion, yet the wording is entirely incorrect, in that it repeats the "whereas" and after striking out the first line, it repeats it again. So I think that one, too, should be corrected, because quite frankly I think there's no point in us carrying them forward on the Orders of the Day or the Votes and Proceedings in an imperfect form.
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, may I, on this point of order, refer you to Item No. 203, under Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules, page 171, of the fourth edition, you will see there the statement that "it is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed." Relevancy is the question at issue, in other words. "Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the House, the question or the amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself." And I would suggest that that is the case with the proposed amendment by the Honourable Member for St. Vital. The citation continues, "The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, there are admissible but not when foreign thereto." In other words, you couldn't introduce an amendment dealing with health insurance on a question dealing with minimum wage. The exceptions to this rule are amendments on the question of going into Supply, or Ways and Means. Now that is all that I've been able to detect from a quick run through Beauchesne at the present time, but I suggest on the basis of that authority alone, Your Honour would be in order in finding this amendment in order.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Honourable the Attorney-General by quoting the law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissable. One is dealing with national, with a national thing, the other with a provincial thing and -- absolutely -- I think that you will find that that is exactly what they mean by it, but not "when foreign thereto." Absolutely! No, it's something -- this is a national matter and the amendment proposes to substitute something that the original mover doesn't want at all, and it's foreign to it. It is not relevant -- certainly it isn't! No, it doesn't change it.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the House has already agreed to let the matter stand while you look into it, and I perhaps should apologize for bringing up the other two points, but I just wanted to call them to your attention, and I think since we've agreed that we'd let the matter stand for your decision that we should let it stand so far as our representations are concerned too, and then you'll have an opportunity to look into it.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, the following resolution. Whereas modern mechanical blessings such as the automobile, the tractor and the outboard motor are responsible for an ever increasing number of tragic accidents; and whereas adequate medical attention to care for serverely injured and critically ill persons is available mainly in Winnipeg; and whereas present policy favours centralizing hospital facilities in the larger cities; and whereas it is often desirable and necessary to move severely injured and critically ill persons as expertly and speedily as possible to these larger centres, Resolved that in the opinion of this House the Government of Manitoba should give serious consideration to the advisability of the establishment of a Government owned ambulance service both on land and in the air.
[Mr. Speaker put the question. ]
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago emergencies were a little different; a team of horses would run away down the main street; the town hall could burn down or some unfortunate person would become involved with a threshing machine. But these emergencies of the day
were of great concern and much conversation ensued as a result. Today one can hardly pick up a newspaper without seeing accounts of serious accidents and very often pictures of very, very gruesome scenes. Now perhaps it's because we're becoming so familiar with accidents and we very seldom think that it could ever happen to us, I'm reminded of the old saying that "familiarity breeds contempt." When you have a contempt for machinery, you're more or less liable to get mixed up with it. Now the emergencies of today; what are the emergencies of today, and why do we need an ambulance service? I'd like to quote from the Tribune here just recently, of June 17th, "Mercy Truck Rushes Injured Man to City." I'm not going to read it all, but the essence of it is that a Forestry Department truck was used to bring a severely injured man to hospital. This man by the way, was doing a very human thing, trying to close a door that had come open and the machine upset. An R.C.M.P. crusiser car escorted the truck to hospital. Police stopped the passing truck because of the difficulty in obtaining immediate ambulance service in the area. This town is 55 miles east of Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker. It seems a shame that within 55 miles of Winnipeg, and a hospital stationed at Whitemouth that because of inability to get ambulance service there in time that a truck had to be brought into play.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not an alarmist. I've had considerable experience in the first aid training and ambulance work, and I know that there are times when it is not advisable to move an injured person. I realize too, that many people are probably killed on the account of being moved while having severe hemorrhage. So being aware of this, I have given this quite a bit of thought. Now shock and hemorrhage is the first consideration in an accident; and because the vehicles are moving down the highway today at 60 miles an hour, should they become involved in a head-on collision, it's like striking a stone wall at 120 miles per hour. Now very rarely can you leave people to overcome the shock when they have become involved in an accident of that nature.
Looking around for material to bloster my resolution here, I came upon one by our old friend, Major General Worthington, and I would like to quote from it, Mr. Speaker. Major General Worthington says, and I quote, "that in the six years of World War II there were 55,340 casualities in the Canadian Army; but in 1958, 83,506 people were killed or injured in motor accidents on the Canadian Highways." It almost staggers the imagination. He goes on to say that "the Army looked after its casualities for if it made as little provision for them, as we civilians do for ours, there would be a hue and cry raised in Canada that could defeat a government." Remember this is our friend Major General Worthington speaking. "In early wars, more men died of wounds than were killed in battle. They died or were permanently crippled because there was no proper system of removing the wounded from the battlefield to shelter, care and medical attention." He goes on to say, "it's a very different story now. Modern Armies have first class doctors and surgeons working in field hospitals close behind the lines, and trained ambulance men see that the wounded are taken there as soon as possible, even during the heat of battle." He goes on to give some of the Canadian Army war records and I won't burden the House with all the detail. But he says that "the safe and speedy evacuation to the doctor's workshop is the main factor bringing about this decline in the death rate of the wounded. Medical science is of little help unless it can be applied in time, and wounded men can die of shock and exposure as readily on the highway as on the battlefield. Recognizing this, the Army has trained personnel to operate an efficient ambulance service at the front and many Canadian veterans owe their lives to this fact. But take a look at the civilian record; 1958 - Highway accidents in Canada accounted for 3,134 deaths and 80,372 injured. And of these injured it is estimated that at least one out of 24 are totally disabled for life. It's impossible to say how many of those 3,134 would be alive today if adequate ambulance and medical care had been promptly available, but it is reasonable to assume that of the approximately 3,537 who were totally disabled, many could have fully recovered. It is in this field of casualty clearance that we are failing dismally, for our ambulance service in Canada is appallingly inadequate." And I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Major General Worthington is in a position -- and I think that we all respect his opinion. He goes on to say "in the cities, there are commercial ambulance companies which are kept busy meeting their normal demands, and for the most part they are not anxious to go out on accident calls for too often they don't get paid. They cannot afford to give free service. Their contribution wouldn't solve the problem anyway, for many highway accidents occur on provincial and country highways beyond the reasonable range of city firms." He's talking about the Canadian
Highway Safety Conference in 1956, to set up a medical traffic research foundation in Montreal under a Federal Charter but lack of funds curtailed its activities. Canadian Medical Association also formed a committee to study the medical aspects of traffic accidents and advocated that each provincial association study their own problem and report back. So far as is known, not a great deal has been done, although the Ontario Medical Association has been quite active in the past year and has adopted a positive policy in this regard. Definite information on the ambulance situation across the country is obscure but there is every indication that it is deplorably wanting. A survey was made recently in Ontario and it disclosed that there were fewer than 150 responsible ambulance services in the province. This includes vehicles privately owned, hospital operated, and those manned by fire or police departments. A number of them carry no drugs, dressings or splints and have no oxygen or breathing apparatus; and to operate adequate amublance services that will ensure prompt arrival on the scene and safe transport to hospital, the following requirements are essential! One is that they must have a good communication system; 2) to be at fixed stations serving defined areas; 3) to be available 24 hours a day; 4) they must have trained and disciplined personnel; 5) be spaced at reasonable intervals, and 6) be under central control and co-ordinated with police and hospital, and 7) be organized within a recognized group or department and he has underlined 'not private clubs'.
Now what recognized groups do we have that can meet these rather formidable requirements? In the first place we have the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, and they already have about 70 First Aid Posts across the province, and this is Ontario - I don't know how many there are in Manitoba - but they have few vehicles and don't usually operate 24 hours a day, and if sufficient money were provided for equipment and communications and legislation passed for authorization, they could do it; 2) The police. They meet all requirements except that they have a primary role, that of investigation and traffic control and restoring the area to normal; 3) Civil Defence. (And remember that this is by Major General Worthington). That this body seems to be a natural but they are reluctant to take on the job and aren't well enough organized throughout the province. Their new role as recently outlined by the Federal Government appears to rule them out anyway. 4) The Volunteer Fire Service. This seems the most logical body as they, like the police, have most of the requirements and many of them are already giving this service independently in their own communities. The fire service cover the more populated areas where most of the accidents occur; the remoter districts where no fire services exist could be handled by the police. Quite obviously an effective ambulance rescue service must be controlled and co-ordinated by the Provincial Governments. This will cost money, but it will be just as beneficial to the nation as the money spent on disease prevention and medical research. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the Department of National Health and Welfare would be quite willing to give considerable financial assistance. A system would not be difficult to establish that would be a vast improvement over the haphazard methods now employed. It could be a modification of the military principle that has been successful on the battlefield. He is suggesting that the provinces, Mr. Speaker, could be divided into sectors or zones, and in each sector at least one hospital would be located to handle emergency cases. Victims of accidents occurring in that sector would be taken to that hospital; and in most cases it would be necessary to divide the sector into sub-sectors in order to have ambulance service available with the least possible delay. He's suggesting too that working on the premise that at the moment volunteer fire departments -- and I might say that we have many good ones here in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, there are many volunteer fire departments and they could be the groups. They have the necessary equipment, every sub-sector would have a fire station with a rescue-ambulance unit. There are enough fire departments in the counties and districts to give excellent coverage. I can think of my own community, Mr. Speaker, where there is no ambulance as yet, and yet it's supposed to be called an emergency station and I don't know - we are able now, through the telephone or the signal box system, to get a fire department truck to any given spot within two or three minutes, and yet we see our accident victims lying in the street sometimes for 20 to 30 minutes waiting for an ambulance. It seems to me that we could very well turn these fire stations into emergency stations, where they have resuscitators, oxygen and the like. He ends up by saying "that surely the time has come to do something constructive about the death destruction on our highways. Along the thousands of miles of Canadian highways the critically injured victims of
highway accidents often lie by the roadside for hours. They are exposed to any kind of weather in an agonizing wait for a proper conveyance. In desperation an improper one is sometimes used, such as a passenger car or the floor of a truck. This can result in death or permanent crippling and suffering. Accidents, like war, seem to be a hazard of mankind, but until we've learned to prevent them, we must cope with the casualties to the best of our means."
I submit that article, Mr. Speaker, because of the respect we have for that authority. Now, in these pictures we see in the newspapers, these pictures of gruesome accidents -- I read the other day where a crowbar was necessary to pry the victims loose from the vehicles - and yet we have no - we have gone into fog nozzles for our fire department, we still have no emergency vehicles supplied with such simple things as crowbars and cutting torches that we could dispatch to the scene of these tragedies. Now I want to say something about Saskatchewan, and I know when I rise to do that that I'm in trouble. Last fall, Mr. Speaker, I rose to speak on this same resolution and two honourable gentlemen jumped to their feet immediately - they're not in this House for this session. [Interjection.] One gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, suggested that he had a plane, he had a private pilot's license and that he had escorted many people to hospital. Now I want to stop right here and pay my respects to everyone involved in this business of mercy flights. We saw recently the heroism -- I think that's the proper word to use, Mr. Speaker -- of those people who were involved in bringing a seriously injured person into hospital with a very long run of I think 200 miles or more -- and certainly we respect that sort of loyalty. But I also have a loyalty too, Mr. Speaker. (Yes?)
MR. ALEXANDER: ...Did you read the newspaper report about a week or two weeks ago where an ambulance had to come from Saskatchewan to take a patient into hospital in Winnipeg?
MR. WRIGHT: That could be possible, Mr. Speaker, I'm not -- I don't know who ordered the ambulance. Is there some point in this?
MR. ALEXANDER: The point is the Saskatchewan service wasn't up to getting the patient to get medical treatment.
MR. WRIGHT: Well, Mr. Speaker, without the facts I can't answer the question. I'm sorry but I will continue. I have a loyalty too, Mr. Speaker, I was born in the City of Winnipeg, and I would very much like to, on my trip to Saskatchewan, tell them what we have here -- and I don't think they have any monopoly there on being pioneers - I think that we can go one better. In Saskatchewan they have an air ambulance, but in my letter from Mr. Fines, he tells me that they haven't, as yet, any land ambulance service. And I think that we could very well look into that here too because we have more populated areas and certainly larger cities here in Manitoba. Now this air ambulance service in Saskatchewan is one - I suppose it started on account of the great difficulties. I would just like to tell the House what it consists of. The objectives and I must say the total budget for this purpose of air ambulance in Saskatchewan is $206,100. One is for the transportation of medical emergencies to the hospital at a nominal cost. Now this nominal cost is around $25.00, I'm told. That is they will fly into a farm with the co-operation of the Mounted Police who are doing a very good job there, because it is quite understandable you can't fly a plane into a farmer's field unless you know that the terrain is safe -- but many people have been evacuated at night by the burning of piles of straw under the supervision of the Mounted Police. I might say that there have been a total, last year alone, of 893 flights, and they have flown a total of around 2 1/2 million miles without any serious accidents at all. They've had a few minor ones but no major accidents at all. 2) It's for the transportation and medical emergencies to hospitals at nominal cost; for the transportation and medical emergencies between hospitals at a nominal cost; 3) for transportation of the very ill to medical centres outside the province at cost. You see there in Saksatchewan they are broadminded enough to know that there are medical centres, probably greater than they have in Saskatchewan and they are quite willing to fly them out. 4) For the transportation of the very ill to their home with minimum interference of emergency flights at a cost based on the operation of the aircraft. 5) For the transportation of patients from their homes to a nursing home or transfer from one nursing home to another at no charge or for a nominal fee depending on the category. 6) For the transportation of cancer patients between Regina and Saskatoon and from Regina or Saskatoon to a local community hospital at a nominal cost. 7) For the transportation of consultants or
specialists to a patient's location in cases of emergency -- the patient involved being charged a nominal fee. 8) For other transportation when duly authorized, when there is no possibility of interfering with emergency flights at a cost based on the operation of the service. I mentioned before about the number of flights. I believe they have flown over 5,000 flights since its inception.
I would ask the Government, Mr. Speaker, to take a look at it. I think that we could very well find out, for instance, this business of aircraft. These mercy flights - I think it's unfair to ask a lot of our people to become involved in some of these mercy flights because they are extremely hazardous. The type of aircraft, for one thing, isn't always suitable; whereas in Saskatchewan the aircraft is especially designed to land at low speeds because speed is not of the essence -- safety comes first. Now I think we have the need - the need is here - I don't think we have to be convinced of that. We're not solving it in Manitoba. We talked to private ambulance men - I talked to the R.C.M.P. - I talked to the Deputy Chief in Winnipeg and I don't want to quote them here for various reasons, but I am convinced that they realize that there is a need. I'd like just to take a look at it in the spirit of those people who are willing to risk their lives in mercy flights. Let's at least investigate it. And in any case if we have to take a look at it selfishly we would be well advised, because although we think it can't happen to us, it certainly can, and there are far too many people going into hospital today, the following day their charts are closed out with D.O.A. - dead on arrival. And this is a pretty final statement but it could happen to any of us.
MR. WALTER WEIR (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Souris-Lansdowne, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
[Mr. R. O. Lissaman presented Bill No. 49 for second reading, seconded by the Honourable Member from Flin Flon. An Act to amend The Brandon Charter. ]
[Mr. Speaker put the question. ]
MR. R. O. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr. Speaker, I'd be very pleased to give a brief explanation of the Bill, of course, there will be more forthcoming in Committee. Sub-section 6(a) concerns the raising of the remuneration paid to the Mayor and Aldermen to $4,800 for the Mayor per annum and $1,200 for each Alderman. (2) Clause D concerns the grants payable to the Brandon Public Library. There was rather an oversight made at the time when one mill was voted for the maintenance of the library. They also put the sum of dollars that was raised at that time which was somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000, and it is intended to delete the actual amount referred to, keeping the same mill because of the increased cost and so on. Clause 3 - concerns the recreation commission. The intention here is to bring in more members of the general public and reduce the membership of the City Council in the hopes that the general public will become more interested in the work of this commission. Section 4 deals with the transit system -- Brandon - $100,000 was the sum mentioned as being available in the original enactment to the transit system. The transit system has been very successful - unusual for most transit systems - it's still in the black, in fact it's bursting at the seams; expansion is necessary and probable changes of building proper barns for the buses and hence the need for increasing the capital requirements for this system. Section 5 - I realize that the honourable members present, Mr. Speaker, are well acquainted with my views on money by-laws. I believe that certainly it should be retained in the ratepayers' interests that the ratepayers' vote and a 60% majority be the required passing vote. However, this money -- debenture guarantee asks for a simple majority to guarantee a $250,000 debenture or guarantee issue for the Brandon General Hospital. Now, in this instance, I'm not going to quibble over 10% they are asking for a simple majority passing. A similar precedent, you might say, has already been made in the case of educational bills in that all voters vote in that, and I think it quite in line and quite reasonable that in this particular instance a simple majority would be sufficient. I think that generally explains briefly the Bill, Mr. Speaker.
MR. GRAY: I wish to congratulate the Council of Brandon for asking for a simple majority in case of money-spending. I think the idea of two-thirds should be eliminated all over - everywhere. There is not such a thing now as taxpayers - everyone pays taxes - not only those who pay the taxes but even those for whom the owners pay taxes. So I think that this is a good thing - I'm going to support it, and I want to congratulate the City of Brandon.
I also want to ask the question whether the $4,800 increased salary for the Mayor comes under the Minimum Wage Act?
[Mr. Speaker presented 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 Rockwood-Iberville.
MR. GEORGE HUTTON (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, may I add my congratulations to those of the other honourable members of the House on your election to the high office as Speaker of this Legislature. I trust your term of service will be long and as distinguished as your past. I also wish to congratulate my worthy colleagues - the Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell and the Honourable Member for Springfield - in the able manner in which they moved and seconded the reply to the Speech from the Throne.
As a member for Rockwood-Iberville, it is my responsibility and honour to represent an area steep in the traditions and history of the province. The river lots along the Red River in Old Kildonan and West St. Paul, and along the Assiniboine in the Municipality of St. Francis bear witness to the historic patterns of settlement in the early days of Manitoba. Names such as St. François Xavier, Baie St. Paul, Kildonan, Middlechurch and St. Andrews are synonymous with the beginnings of this province. It was inevitable that a settlement spread from the original location along the rivers, that the land north and west of the confluence should be taken up at an early date. In fact the Selkirk Settlers had early found sanctuary on the elevated grounds of Stony Mountain when driven from their homes by the flood swollen rivers. In the intervening time it has been found expedient to establish a different type of sanctuary there for those unfortunates who have found themselves unable or unwilling to live within the legal bounds of our society. But once you have passed by the bleak walls of the Federal Penetentiary, you will find nestled on the crown of this outcropping of limestone, a pretty village with shady streets.
The Rockwood Agricultural Society last week held its 79th Annual Fair. The area I represent, Sir, has had a part in contributing to the economic and social welfare of this province from the beginning. The first commercial shipment of wheat to the east was produced in Kildonan, Rockwood and Springfield, and eight hundred and fifty-seven and a sixth bushels were shipped to Toronto from Winnipeg in 1876. And according to the historian, it was some of the best publicity this province ever had. The first classes of the Manitoba College were held in Old Kildonan in the home of Donald Murray, one of the Selkirk Settlers who came to Red River in 1813. Later the classes were moved to Nesbitt Hall which still stands.
Lying within the constituency of Rockwood-Iberville are the municipalities of St. Francis, Woodlands, Rosser, four wards of Rockwood, St. Andrews west of the No. 8 highway, West St. Paul and that portion of Old Kildonan lying north of the old Bergen cut-off. For the most part it is an agricultural constituency but there is also a considerable portion along north Main through Old Kildonan and West St. Paul that is suburban in character. I think it is obvious that this area is facing a tremendous expansion in the near future. We have also a growing number of commuters to the city from the towns and villages. People who either willingly of for reasons beyond their control have turned to locations other than farming to make their living. However, they have continued to make their homes with us and for this we are thankful. There is also ample evidence that people are being attracted to the small centres surrounding the city to establish their homes.
Rockwood-Iberville is an excellent mixed farming and grain growing area. I would think it a fairly accurate to say that the larger grain farms are to be found in the southern part of the constituency. Dairying is a very important factor in our economy. The breeding and feeding of beef, hogs and poultry are all expanding enterprises. Vegetable gardening is carried on to some extent along the rest of the Red River. The farmers of Rockwood-Iberville, like those in the rest of the province, have their problems; some of them are beyond the jurisdiction of this House, others are not. Of late years the farming community has faced a situation where in many cases it was impossible for the younger generation to take over the family farm because adequate credit facilities were not available. I'm not one of those, Sir, who believes that everyone can farm or should farm, but I am certain that the agricultural communities cannot afford to lose the young men who because of their aptitude, their love of the soil and their sense of stewardship are particularly suited to carry on the business of feeding a nation. And so, Sir, I welcome
along with my fellow farmers the steps taken at the special session in an attempt to insure the opportunity for a career in farming to those young men who so desire and are deserving. In spite of the problems that farmers face during periods of surplus production, the spector that haunts the individual producer and causes them the greatest disappointment and loss of income is the loss of production. It is true that considering the overall picture of production in this province, the record is good. But speaking of the individual operator, he has been and always will be vulnerable to the fickle fancy of mother nature. Insects, plant and animal diseases, adverse weather conditions, hail and flood can play havoc with the best laid plans. And so the farmers welcome the increased program of research, extension work and the increased opportunity for instruction in their vocation. Crop insurance, soil conservation, water control and drainage are of concern to anyone engaged in agriculture. The farmers of my constituency with energy, initiative and a strong community spirit have established a sound agricultural community. I've already mentioned the Rockwood Agricultural Society.
The St. Andrews Agricultural Society serves their community well. The Greenwood Fat Stock Show is an annual event and growing each year. There is an extremely active agricultural council in my constituency and a very strong 4-H Club movement. Recently I attended an Interlake rally at Teulon. There were 33 clubs taking part, 500 youngsters, 102 leaders. They came from the districts of four agricultural representatives, and I'm glad to say that the young people from my constituency did themselves proud. The Balmoral Flying Club won the grand champion award for the display; Woodlands took the reserve grand championship; and a young 14 year old lad from the Rockwood Dairy Club carried off the gold watch in agriculture; and the queen of the rally hailed from Warren.
The social community that has grown up as a result of the energy and imagination of these people is a credit to them. At Warren they can boast with good reason of a beautiful new school and an arena - a creditable achievement for this district. Their interest in the young people and their success in winning several provincial hockey championships is a credit to the community.
Stonewall is the only incorporated town in my constituency. A lovely town with an active and enthusiastic citizenry. For many years the quarries were the chief industry here. At the present time, the people are engaged in establishing a hosiery mill. The Manitoba Development Fund is lending valuable financial assistance in this project. There is a flourishing trade in the centre and Stonewall is anticipating a period of expansion. I believe that the Kinsmen Lake at Stonewall is deserving of mention because of the tremendous job they're doing with the young people. They are sponsoring an annual water safety clinic - the largest in Manitoba. The lake was fashioned from an abandoned quarry and became so popular it caused traffic problems in the town. Hundreds of young people of all age groups are given instruction in swimming and lifesaving. I attended an achievement night last winter at which literally hundreds of young people from the surrounding towns and countrysides were presented with progress awards. This sort of thing is of great service to the community.
I have in my constituency two homes for the aged - Sunset Lodge, a home for elderly ladies in Old Kildonan and the Middlechurch Old Folks' Home. I need scarcely mention that the directors, the management and the senior citizens who make their homes there are watching with interest any legislation respecting senior citizens in this province. The establishment of school divisions receive strong support in my constituency. I know the people of Rockwood-Iberville are looking to the Government for continued leadership in this field and I am confident that the problems that are inherent in any new bold step will be resolved with mutual co-operation and effort.
There is one more matter I wish to mention -- that is the overall program of development for the province - highway construction, development of our resources, business and industry. In the rural areas of Manitoba we know that at least two-thirds of our young people will have to leave us to take their place in society. It is of vital interest to every citizen in this province that there should be opportunity in whatever field of endeavour our children may choose to follow. Thomas Carlyle said, "It is the one unhappiness of a man that he cannot work, that he cannot get his destiny as a man fulfilled." Surely there should not be in Manitoba any grounds for this kind of complaint.
Last week the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose was kind enough to recommend to the
Honourable Member for Portage the reading of the Rowell-Sirois report. I can't speak for my worthy colleague but, as a new boy, I am grateful for his advice. But at the same time I would have liked to have pointed out to him - I see he's not here - I would have liked to have drawn his attention to an excerpt from Hansard of the last session - March 30th. Volume II, No. 12 a, page 405, which I think indicates that at least in the matter of tax rental agreements the Conservatives have no corner on ignorance. In this quotation a former Cabinet Minister asked, "How does the finding of 10,000 people, if it is so, mean $40.00 a head and in what way?" To which the Premier replied, "It fits into the tax rental arrangement." Now if a former Cabinet Minister of the Liberal administration could be blissfully unaware of this important feature of the tax rental agreements, I suggest it would have been equally appropriate for the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose to recommend this literature for the edification of his own supporters as well as ours.
During the few days that it has been my privilege to sit in this Legislature, I have been struck by the number of anomalies and contradictions that I have heard from the Opposition. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition stated emphatically yesterday that he was allergic to long drawn out studies. Yet he left the question of education dangling for more than a decade and then was prepared to talk about it a little longer. His record in the field of flood control was no better. Then he states, just as emphatically, that he is allergic to any extension of the civil service. An hour later the Honourable Member for St. Boniface suggests we need to establish an entirely new department to deal with juvenile delinquency. I was surprised, to say the least, that the Honourable Member for St. Boniface never even mentioned the traditional role of the church in influencing the behaviour of our young people. For centuries the Christian Church has pointed out to man the highest and noble standards of human behaviour; and beyond this has extended to man the faith, the hope and a source of spiritual strength in order that he might respond to the divine challenge. I recognize that there is a field in which the government must face up to its responsibilities -- but I view with some alarm the suggestion that the home, the church and the school - the traditional custodians of the character of our young people -- can ever be adequately replaced by a new department in the Government. Further to this, if the Opposition is so sure that this is the answer to the problem, why didn't they act when they had the opportunity?
I have few observations of my own to make on this subject. In this country the breach of a trust if it is related to money is considered a serious crime. To me there is no greater trust given to a man than the life, the personality and the character of his children. I feel that society is far too lenient with those who through callous indifference and selfishness refuse to accept the responsibilities of parenthood. They violate a trust not only social but divine. And I suggest you will never solve the problem of delinquent children unless you solve the problem of delinquent parents. The malady is in the root, not in the fruit. I think also it is high time in this Christian nation that governments as well as all bodies of responsible citizens emphasize the great need that the church and only the church can fill. In this regard I take particular exception to the amount of time devoted by Canadian television to the interviewing of doubters, agnostics and atheists. I'm quite aware that as Milton said: "Our knowledge of good comes from our knowledge of evil", and I have no desire to silence these harbingers of spiritual paralysis. But I deem it manifestly stupid to subject the impressionable minds of our youth to this folly at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada who are, by and large, a God fearing people. Few people will argue against these statements. They may be hackneyed but still they're true. Godlessness leads to lawlessness and a child brought up in Sunday school is seldom brought up in Court. If there was half as much emphasis and publicity given to the need for religious training and spiritual guidance for our children, as there is for personal cleanliness, our problem of juvenile delinquency would be materially reduced.
I'd like to make a few observations on some remarks made from my good friend the Honourable Member for Fisher. It seems to me some more contradictions. He stated yesterday that the cure for the farmers -- he stated "the cure for this condition, the real cure, is the co-operative production of things the farmer must buy, and the co-operative control over the sale of our products." And I think if he went on to explain this plan in detail that compulsion would be an integral part of it. And I submit there are no two words in the English language so diverse in meaning as "compulsion" and "co-operation." Co-operation denotes the enabling act of a
free man and compulsion the degrading acquiescence of a slave. And then he goes on and states "the farmers need security if they are to enjoy opportunity." And I think he got the cart before the horse. I think it's truer by far that the farmers need opportunity if they're going to have any measure of security. And I'd just like to make an observation on his suggestions in the field of credit. He pointed out the legislation in Saskatchewan -- which is typical of the members of his Party -- he stated that a provision "in the event of foreclosure no farmer could be forced off his home quarter and out of his home. The Saskatchewan legislation provides an order for possession insofar as it affects a homestead is therefore stayed so long as the homestead continues to be a homestead." While I was out in Saskatchewan last fall, it just happened that I ran into somebody from ... who was having trouble on the other side of the fence. They had lent money to a farmer -- and it seemed it was practically impossible to get any satisfaction. Now, I submit that the farmers in Manitoba don't want this sort of thing. They want credit, they need credit, but they need the right kind of credit, and I submit that the worst thing that ever happened in Manitoba -- to agriculture in this province -- was the need to declare the moratorium on farm debt. The farmer has been hard pressed ever since for adequate credit facilities in this province. And this is why the Provincial Government, I'd imagine, has had to move to meet this need. I submit that the farmers of this province don't want more security from the responsibilities of meeting their just debts; I submit that the farmers of Manitoba want to protect their credit position; that a sound credit rating is the best asset a farmer in this province can have. And we don't want the idea to be associated with farmers that they like to get out of meeting their responsibilities. And this is what can happen if we press for too secure a position for the farmer in business.
Our Liberal friends think we're going too fast. There seems to be also a tendency on the part of the Official Opposition to lean on Ottawa. If Ottawa won't help, we can't do it - we can't afford it. It's cheaper, they say, to let the individual carry the ball. It's better business, sounder administration. I'm no financier but I know that someone -- in the case of essential services -- someone must pay. Let the individual continue to rattle his car to pieces rather than the Government spend millions on roads. I wonder what percentage of the total repair bills to automobiles in this province can be attributed to the condition of the roads? How many extra tires? How many front end jobs? What's the difference in the life of a car driven on good roads and one driven on some of the roads that we have to put up with in this province? Now, you'll say that this is a trivial matter, but there are close to a quarter of a million cars and trucks on the roads on the roads of Manitoba. And just supposing that we made an allowance of $10.00 per vehicle, for repairs that could be attributed to the lack of roads in this province -- it would just amount to 2 1/2 million dollars. And I suggest, rather a waster -- and a yearly occurrence.
Doubtless we can't afford an expanded agricultural program either. Better the individual farmer take the loss, it's cheaper that way. Better business; sounder administration. Agriculture in Manitoba represents an investment of one billion dollars and last year showed a total net income of 264 million. When the loss is spread amongst 49,000 farmers, it's a little difficult to detect. Nobody notices it, except the farmer. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition referred to the great increased costs of Education and Health and Welfare. Although he didn't say it, I would gather he is dubious as to whether we can afford these increased expenditures. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition stated publicly during the last campaign that if his Party had been in office they would have talked about education for another couple of years. They have let the individual go it alone -- but in this case, those who paid the piper would have been the boys and girls. But it's cheaper that way. Better business - sounder administration. It is possible, I suggest, to go bankrupt in more ways than one. And may I remind our crepe-hanging friends "that he that observeth the wind shall not sow and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap." Certainly I have no illusions that my presence here is due to any particular virtue or merit of my own -- but due to circumstances and providence I was the candidate of a Party which had a philosophy and a program which the people of Rockwood-Iberville were prepared to endorse. It is therefore my responsibility, my privilege and honour to support this philosophy and program to the best of my ability, so that with God's help we may transform it into concrete and tangible achievements for all the people of Manitoba.
MR. P. WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would the honourable member permit a question? Does the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville believe that he'd
rather see a private large corporation farming than co-operative farming?
MR. HUTTON: I don't think his question is too clear. What do you mean by co-operative farming?
MR. WAGNER: Rather than having large private corporations.
MR. HUTTON: Well, I haven't run across too many large private corporations and I haven't run across too many large co-operative farms as yet in Manitoba.
A MEMBER: You'll soon find out.
MR. WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question if the honourable member wishes to answer.
A MEMBER: ...certainly it is. If the member is prepared to answer.
MR. HUTTON: Sure, I'll answer it.
MR. WAGNER: Is it O.K., Mr. Speaker? Does the honourable member believe that he is going to get better prices for farmers by giving them agricultural credit?
MR. HUTTON: Am I trying to get better prices for the farmers by giving them agricultural credit? Is that the question? Well, I'd like to put it this way: For generations, for centuries the farmers have survived and flourished by adjusting themselves to the conditions and the circumstances that they found themselves in. And I consider it is the duty of this Provincial Government here to help the farmers of Manitoba adjust themselves to the financial markets and the prices that we have today. And I suggest that we're going through an agricultural revolution, and that more than ever the Provincial Government has a responsibility in this field and that you can help the farmer maybe just as much, or more, by aiding him in carrying out his production in the circumstances that are with us today than in trying to create an artificial atmosphere in which agriculture can carry on.
MEMBERS: Hear! Hear!
MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I'd like to apologize for the fact that I've had a very bad sore throat for the past two weeks, but I'll make an attempt to make some comment about the Throne Speech. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of congratulating you again on your reappointment as Speaker of this House. It has been my pleasure to have been associated with you since I was first elected in 1939 -- 49 -- and ever since you became the Speaker and particularly last year when you went through a very difficult time, I found in you, Sir, that you had the necessary prerequisites that are so vitally necessary and that is: patience, tolerance and most important, impartiality. Now, I would be remiss not to congratulate the newcomers who did so very ably in their maiden speeches, the members from Birtle-Russell and from Springfield.
However, Mr. Speaker, I was rather amazed and surprised at the somewhat antagonistic and opiniated opinions in the speech given by the Honourable Member for Wellington. We've always been aware since he was a member last year that he is not a lover of Socialism. And that is his privilege. By that, Mr. Speaker, I think he went to the very, very extreme. He gave us a garbled, distorted opinion. He quoted the philosophies of Marx, Engels, Priestly, Karl Marx, and then he evolved his own half baked ideas and definitions of what he thinks a Socialist is or what Socialism means. And then to to that off he evolves and includes the ideologies of the C.C.F. Party in that concoction. What a travesty of fiction and truth, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that for the thousands of C.C.F. supporters in this province, -- and incidentally over 70 -- around 70,000 supported the C.C.F. in the last election, -- and the many hundred of thousands of people in the Province of Saskatchewan where the C.C.F. Government has been in power for the past 15 years, -- and many other supporters across this wonderful country of ours; and lest us not forget the most important of people, the fair-minded, intelligent and tolerant individuals, who, although are not supporters of the C.C.F., -- would certainly not agree with the opinions of the Member for Wellington - particularly this long condemning phrase of what a Socialist is. That he is a lazy, grasping, preferring to take the fruits of someone else's labour, rather than cultivate his own. In other words, Mr. Speaker, anyone who does not support the great Conservative and Liberal Party, or someone believes in the C.C.F. movement or in some form of Socialism, such as public enterprise, health and welfare, unemployment insurance, old age pensions, and many other necessary government welfare necessary acts, is a parasite, a liability to society. May I suggest to the Honourable Member for Wellington that the monopoly of being lazy, grasping, preferring to take the fruits of someone else's endeavours, belongs to other people in other Parties as well. Why do I say that? Why do I say that, honourable members? [Interruption] What about the Federal Pipeline scandal under the regime of the Honourable St. Laurent? What about the Ontario gas line - pipe - scandal where -- which involved two Ministers who incidentally were not re-elected last election. What about the present embarrassing position of the Conservative Whip in Ottawa at the present time, who's involved in a rather land-gaining scheme? And what about the former Minister in the Province of British Columbia who's involved in a land forestry deal? Well, you just give us one ... are we going to wait for that, Sir?
A MEMBER: You haven't been there long enough.
MR. HAWRYLUK: Oh, you're committing yourself.
MR. PAULLEY: Could be 'till it happens.
MR. HAWRYLUK: Mr. Speaker, my -- may I reiterate again that one can give many, many examples of individuals who can be dishonest, not only in politics but in private life; and therefore the members should not just label anyone that believes in Socialism in that particular category. Is not the member aware of the fact that some form of Socialism has existed for hundreds of years in what we call democratic civilized countries? And has been very successful in Great Britain, in Germany, in the Swedish countries -- before, long before, long, long before Communism raised its ugly head behind the iron curtain. Long before, long, long before -- if you know anything about your past history. I wonder in what category, Mr. Speaker, is an individual placed if he earns a living working for a public enterprise such as the Manitoba Power Commission, Manitoba Telephone System, for these are public utilities and the profits are turned back where it belongs, to the public treasury. Is he a Socialist? What about the thousands of people working for the C.B.C.? What about the people working here in this city
here for the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra, and for the Winnipeg Royal Ballet? They are being subsidized by the taxpayers of Canada and by volunteer contributions of the good people of the City Winnipeg - volunteer. I know this, Mr. Speaker, that if the hundreds of fine musicians, and we have I think the top symphony orchestra in Winnipeg and who are working, are dependent entirely on the C.B.C. for a living -- were to depend on private radio stations for a living -- I'm afraid that they would have to go elsewhere so that the people would enjoy their talent. And the loss of the Honourable Member for Wellington, who's a very fine musician, would have been sorely missed in this House particularly by us.
I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the thousands of people who believe and who have worked for the C.C.F. movement in the past 26 years or since it's inception, and the various socialist parties existing in other countries of the world, would not condone or agree with the honourable member's analogy and comparison of socialism with Communism. And to infer -- and to infer, honourable gentlemen, that those practising or believing in some form of socialism are either Godless or atheistic in their views. It's fantastic to make a statement in a House, or in public, I resent it very much being a Greek Catholic to hear a term -- a phraseology expressed by an individual -- that just because I happen to be a member of the C.C.F. Party I condone Communism. Being a member -- being a Ukrainian we are the worst enemies of the Communists. We always have been -- thousands of my -- hundreds of thousands of my people escaped from the very plight of Communism. I'm speaking on their behalf and hundreds of thousands of people who have come from the iron curtain who are glad to be in this wonderful country of Canada. A man has the audacity, the audacity, Mr. Speaker, to say that just because I am not a member of the Conservative or Liberal Party I am condoning Communism. I'm afraid if the Honourable Member for Wellington and anybody else ever went amongst my people or any Slavic people and talked in that way, I'm afraid you'll never be elected. That I can assure you. Because my people escaped from terrorisms of that type. They're a law-abiding and Christian people in the City of Winnipeg and right across Canada.
And I would also like to remind the honourable member that the intelligent voters in his own area where he is a member -- and incidentally I think his own area is a part of Winnipeg Centre -- would not condone his remarks about the C.C.F., because the founder of the C.C.F. movement, Mr. Woodsworth, a revered and highly respected man, and Mr. Stanley Knowles, represented that area honourably for the past 16 odd years. And a former leader in the person of Mr. Lloyd Stinson, who represented his constituency for 16 years. And last, but not least, the well known Minister, or Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Tommy Douglas, who's known to everybody here. May I remind the Honourable Member from Wellington and the honourable members in this House that these men that I have mentioned, who were and are active in the C.C.F. movement, are still and were, ordained ministers of the Christian Church. Just remember that! Were and are still ordained ministers of the Christian Church! Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there is any person across Canada who has not heard Stanley Knowles, Lloyd Stinson, the Honourable Tommy Douglas, Alistair Stewart, Mr. Coldwell, the former federal leader, and the present Hazen Argue -- and I'm sure no one has ever questioned the honesty and the integrity and sincerity of their political views and beliefs just because they were C.C.F. members. I have seen it done. I'm through as far as my comments are concerned with the Honourable Member from Wellington.
Now I turn to, unfortunately I do not see the Attorney-General, but last week we had a homespun philosophy rendered by the Attorney-General about the merits and demerits of the C.C.F. Party. He attempted to lecture us, chiding us and then patting us on the back. Patting us on the back - may I quote: "Unless it may be misunderstood, let me again qualify it in the legal sense by saying sincerely that individually, collectively, I believe that the members of the C.C.F. Party along with all members of this House, are motivated by the same desire, that is to be of service to their constituents and to the province as all of us hope we can be". It's a fact, Mr. Speaker, we lost a very able leader in Mr. Stinson; a man of high repute and integrity, a man that will be a big loss to our group as well as to the province. But, we have an elected 'head', and I think that our present Leader of the C.C.F. Party is doing a good job, and will do a better job.
Now what was bothering the Attorney-General -- that our party had lost its head and will also lose its name. Well, just to recall something that happened in the past few years
regarding the Party across from us, I would like to give you an interesting story - history - of your party, how - what the situation of the Conservative Party was a few years ago back. Before I do, I would like to remind the honourable members and the Attorney-General, the words that he first spoke in the first week of the election on the hustings -- when he asked and pleaded with the listeners at that time that they were out to decimate the C.C.F. Party. My, my, what thunderous words. Out to decimate the C.C.F. Party and in fact -- and this is the thing that kind of amused me when I first heard of it and read about it, in regard to our former leader -- "that they were out to take him this time - they were out to take him this time, because he had a very effective voice in the House." Those were the words. Anyone reading the newspaper, honourable members, would be reminded of a gangster - Chicago gangster style of eliminating a dangerous rival. And Sir, that is taking someone for a ride. What arrogance? Does the Conservative Party want no Opposition whatsoever? Does the honourable member want a Legislature of stooges as it happened in Ontario for four years; and unfortunately has happened and will be for the next four or five years in the Province of Alberta, where you have 61 government members out of 65. What a farce that will be for the next four or five years. What a farce, and not only that but every one of the four members wants to be the Opposition Leader. Everybody wants to be the Opposition Leader in Alberta. One Liberal, one Conservative, one Independent and one outside Social Credit.
MR. WILLIS: No C.C.F.
MR. HAWRYLUK: No! But we just had 30 members -- I'm just trying to give you the ratio, gentlemen - honourable members. The Conservatives had 60 candidates and they got one Conservative. We had 31 candidates and we got zero, so we break even. [Interjection] I've just started, Sir. I'm talking as if I'm talking to a classroom -- a group of boys and girls -- trying to teach you a lesson. I wonder if the Honourable Attorney-General can recall approximately 12 years ago, -- not only was his Party almost headless but almost partyless, because the identity of the Conservative Party was almost lost when they joined with the Liberal Party and formed a Coalition Government.
MR. CAMPBELL: You were there too.
MR. HAWRYLUK: Oh, I wasn't in your Government. I was out here fighting the combined forces of the Liberals and Conservatives at that time. We, as a matter of fact, Sir, were the Official Opposition at that time. We were the C.C.F. Official Opposition at that time when you sat on that side of the House.
MR. WILLIS: You boys also joined the Coalition.
A MEMBER: Yes, but you soon got wise to it and left ...
MR. HAWRYLUK: And the C.C.F. at that time, I'll say it again, was the Official Opposition. And that Coalition lasted until a young man, elected at the same time as I was at the time in '49, rebelled and raised quite a fuss over there with the Coalitionists, and the Conservative Party decided to move out, and again the Honourable Mr. Willis became the leader of the Conservative Party and in a short time was replaced by the now present Premier of this province -- [Interruption] I'm glad -- I admit your approval in a half-way measure, Sir. So, Mr. Speaker, it is possible that in the course of politics that political parties not only change their leaders but also change even their names. I know that the C.C.F. group was offered Coalition - no one can deny that. - Now, we didn't take it. We refused! We refused to give up our identity and our ideals as a Party. [Interruption] I'm just trying to correct the honourable members on my right again - and at no time can no one accuse us - our party - as being partly submerged and losing its identity as it happened to the great Conservative Party who were somewhat leaderless and wholly partyless and almost...for two years -- [Interjection] That was long before my time, Sir, I'm sure that the Honourable Attorney-General didn't recall that either when he made the remark about the C.C.F. group at the present time. With what you had to say, I don't blame you, Sir. And instead of the people decimating us as was advocated by certain Conservative candidates, although we lost two very able men, we did get a new member and we almost became the Official Opposition. And Mr. Speaker, I can assure the members of this House, that we will attempt to be the Official Opposition in action, if not in name.
Mr. Speaker, the House has changed its complexion greatly since May 14th. We lost -- we did lose a number of very able men in the persons -- people that I admired off the floor of this House, persons of Mr. Bend, Mr. Shuttleworth, Mr. Jobin, Mr. Greenlay, Mr. Swailes
and Mr. Stinson. But we have in their places new members who have definitely shown signs that they will be able to take over the mantle of the work and efforts of these former members. (Hear! Hear!)
We also wish to congratulate the First Minister and his associates -- they have won the grand prize. The highest award that the general public can bestow on a political party; that is, to lead and guide the destiny of the province in the best interests of the people of Manitoba. However, Mr. Speaker, if and when the Conservative Party fails to enact their responsibilities to the people, and the fact that the Liberals have had their chance, being in power for over thirty years -- then we of the C.C.F. will be ready to take over the mantle of this Government -- at the next election. (Hear! Hear!) And it is very possible, honourable members, very possible because you on that side of the House had to wait approximately 40 years before you came back where you are -- 40 years -- we can wait a few more years. [Interjections]
Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest mysteries, I think to the general public, -- in particular some of the members who are still in this House from former years -- has been the Liberal Party's continual disregard for the intelligence of the voters of this province. For years, the Liberals told us, time and time again that "we can't do anything about flood control, the hospital insurance plan is not feasible, supplementary assitance to old age and blind pensioners is not feasible." And education, the most important bulwark - backbone of our province was dealt with very inadequately. But they did one thing all the time, they built roads in places where they thought they could get the most votes. But it appears, Mr. Speaker, that following the results of the last two elections the Liberals received their just reward.
Mr. Speaker, I think the function of the Opposition, and in the case the C.C.F. group as in the past, and in the future, will be to push the policy supported on the hustings. To suggest new ideas, and to offer constructive criticism, because that is what approximately 70,000 people who voted for us, expect us to do.
I was most interested in reading the remarks made by the two Opposition Leaders, which appeared in the Free Press of June the 8th - it was quite a contrast. That editorial said that the Liberals would be the group that would provide effective opposition -- yet let us compare the words and ideas of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition and the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Here are the news reports that appeared in the Free Press and Tribune and I quote: "Liberal Leader D. L. Campbell told the legislature Thursday that his party won't oppose the Roblin Government legislative program now that the people have endorsed it." That statement, Mr. Speaker, should give the honourable gentlemen of the Conservative party many, many sleepless nights. In contrast, our Leader said, I quote from the Tribune: "Our party will continue to fight until we have made further advances in the social services of this province and in Canada." Last week, both Conservatives and Liberals voted down the comprehensive health insurance plan. But we in our group will still fight for it, because I vividly recall when I first became a member of this House how many of the Conservatives who were voting for a lot of those wonderful social welfare securities, and I heard the Honourable Member for St. Matthews speak yesterday and the Honourable Member for St. Vital, newcomers into this field, think that -- that...same policies that you are advocating at the present time. Well, I'd like you people to read the records of your party's vote, ten, nine, eight, seven, six years ago...
A MEMBER: Fighting words!
MR. HAWRYLUK: ... and you'd find there that many of the members of the Conservatives voted for the very things that you are advocating and which we on this side will support -- because we wanted those things ten, nine, eight and seven years ago. The fact that you saw the light, the fact that you think that it's for the best interests of the people of Manitoba, then we'll support you 100%, and we in Opposition here will endeavour to introduce new ideas, and if you folks see fit they are good and want to endorse it then we will certainly go ahead with that idea.
A MEMBER: ...The Honourable Leader for good legislation ...
MR. HAWRYLUK: Well, coming back to the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, may I say this, I can't overlook this. He's left himself wide open. I can recall the fact that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition Party time and time again voted against legislation that they approved of last year in the special session. They approved of it and yet for eight, nine,
ten years, they voted solidly against it with the exception, as far as assistance to old age pensioners, there were two members that I can't recall, Mr. Chris Halldorsen, Mr. Jobin and Roxy Hamilton. But, time and time again, they solid block...voted against legislation that they so heartily agreed for -- upon last year. What a change! In other words, you can actually change the spots of the tiger. It's possible. It's evident in the last ten years that not only have the Conservatives, but also the Liberals have changed their viewpoints in the past ten years. [Interjection] The Honourable Leader of the Opposition said that he was going to let any other discussion ride until later in the session. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Leader has all but announced that his Party has been finished by the results of the election. Why do I say that? Said Mr. Campbell, "I for one am prepared to assume that the public knows what it is doing, the public believed what the present government told them, the public didn't believe what we told them, so we were wrong. If the government can fulfill its program, we will remain wrong." An admission that they appear at the present time not to act as an Official Opposition. Yet, 53% of the voters in this province voted against the Conservative Party -- 53% voted against the Conservative Party. In other words they doubted, they doubted the platform offered by the Conservatives. These people must be represented, and we in the C.C.F. say to those who voted against the government you can count on the C.C.F. to provide the responsible and yet clear opposition the Liberals say they cannot give at the present time.
Now, our Leader mentioned that the Throne Speech omitted any reference to flood control, and yet what has happened regarding the flooding of thousands of acres and hundreds of homes by the Seine River? The idea of absolving responsibility or shelving the problem of flooding cannot go on indefinitely as it has in the past. Let us not procrastinate and delay this most important project any further. The unfortunate people who are affected by floods frequently every year along the Red River Valley want action and no delays. I believe the conference of the Reeves suggested by the First Minister will be step in the right direction -- but I think it's just a matter of finding how much financial assistance one can give. May I remind the honourable members and the honourable members to my right, I recall in 1950 we had the disastrous flood which inundated almost the whole Province of Manitoba, and the people ... [Interjections] ... well, let's say a large section -- a large section -- and at that time the kind of people of many parts of the world had turned in and had given to the fund of Manitoba millions of dollars that were to be used for the purpose of alleviating the conditions in this Province. And, after all the expenses were paid and people were paid off, there was a kitty of a million and a quarter in the bank -- a nice little kitty of a million and a quarter. Lo and behold, when the Liberal Party decided to get rid of that sum of money because it appeared to them as if it was a hot potato, -- and an honourable member of the -- the former member for Winnipeg North, Mr. Chester, decided to introduce a bill and they decided to send all the money, in spite of the protests of the Conservatives at that time, and the C.C.F. said, we felt that money should stay here because of the frequent floodings that took place here year in and year out, and any other disaster might occur during the course of the years -- that that money could have been used. No, they saw fit to send that money down to Ottawa, which I think if it had stayed in the bank--our banks, I think we've got more banks here in the City of Winnipeg than any other city per capita across Canada. It could have certainly given us 3-1/2% interest as well as in the City of Ottawa; and we could have used the money on more than one occasion, but the Liberals decided to be generous -- oh, let's give it to Ottawa -- and no one has ever heard the whereabouts of that money. And we on this side, the C.C.F. as well as the Conservatives felt that that money should have stayed in this province because of the need, and the fact that we had frequent difficulties with flood waters. How we could have used that money today! We certainly could have used it because, within the past seven or eight years, I think the interest would have accumulated to about a million and a half dollars or so.
Mr. Speaker, there was another important omission in that Throne Speech. It failed to mention housing. True, there is a move on the part of the Government to introduce an Elderly Persons' Housing Act -- I think there is -- but no mention is made of any other government plans. And the Honourable the First Minister's plan for Point Douglas went up in smoke last week when the Winnipeg Urban Renewal Board announced it will wait until it sees what is being done about the traffic situation.
Mr. Speaker, very recently the Executive Secretary of the Canadian Welfare Council reported that only five thousand low-rental units have been built in the last five years. The news reports did not give figures for Manitoba, but in 1958, only 143 suites were completed in this province; and also there were only 3,000 homes built during the past year despite the fact that the population is increased by 15,000. These homes were available to families - to the wage earner who could earn a minimum of $3,600.00 a year -- and it appears by the comments that we have read about the building industry in this province, that due to the tight-money policy that there isn't as much building going in the year -- or this particular summer.
And, Mr. Speaker, the problem is becoming more and more critical. It was reported on May the 12th this year to the City of Winnipeg, to the Health and Welfare Committee that there were -- there was a 100% increase in applications for emergency housing. The Committee's report read and I quote: "Families are faced with insolvable problems; there are simply no suitable accommodations available at rents that these people can afford to pay." I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, because we've seen indications of it, that bad housing, or lack of good housing, has been and will always be the root of all kinds of evils, such as delinquency, drunkenness and crime, always appear to breed within the decaying walls of the slum homes -- a most unfortunate thing that overcrowding destroys the right of thousands to privacy, and it places an unfair burden on parents trying their best to bring up their children.
Mr. Speaker, in closing may I say that we in the C.C.F. will continue our fight for reforms, improvements, for a comprehensive national or provincial health plan which will provide not only for hospitalization, but medical care, surgery, free cancer treatment for all the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think every member of this House believes in the kind of democracy that is being practiced in this wonderful country of Canada. We believe that the destiny of our people is eventually in their own hands; and we believe that the public welfare is our morally Christian duty, and we can bring about these social and economic reforms which is so necessary to the people of our province and to that of the Canadian nation.
MR. O. BAIZLEY (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, in view of the Honourable Member from Burrows remarks I am somewhat distraught and upset this afternoon, and would beg the indulgence of the House to have this debate stand until tomorrow.
MR. ROBLIN: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should proceed with the debate now, it's only ten minutes after five and there may be some who would like to speak before the usual adjournment hour; and perhaps my friend from Osborne may have recovered his nerve by the time evening rolls around, and we could continue the debate then. But I would hope that the House would be willing to follow the usual procedure and meet this evening so that we may conclude the debate that we are engaged on at the moment.
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan stood as though he wished to speak.
MR. ROBLIN: I would say this, Mr. Speaker, that if no one else cares to speak now - if we're short of speeches, - and we can have the assurance of the House that the debate can be concluded this evening - then I would see no objection, Sir, to you leaving the Chair until 8 o'clock if you should so wish. That might meet the convenience of some of the newer members who are not so accustomed to the give and take of this business as others may be. But if there is anyone who cares to speak now, then I suggest that they should be allowed to do so, and we proceed in the usual way.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in case it is your intention to leave the Chair as of 5:30 at this time, I would want to say that I wouldn't want to be prepared on behalf of our group to give an undertaking that the debate will conclude this evening. I realize that there's not a further adjournment, but on the other hand I would think that if honourable members of the House are still wanting to speak when we have sat a reasonable length of time -- I don't care particularly what time it is -- then I think that likely the Leader of the House would be prepared to let the debate stand, because surely on this occasion, when there's so many new members, that if they wish to speak, they should get the opportunity to speak. But, certainly, we're willing to sit this evening, and if it can be concluded by the usual adjournment time, or a little later than the usual adjournment time, then we're certainly glad to see that done.
MR. ROBLIN: Well, under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we proceed with the debate now, because there's -- I'm sure many a good twenty-minute speech sitting around in somebody's pocket at the moment which we could very well enjoy hearing.
MR. L. HARRIS (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my best wishes to you on your re-election as Speaker of this House. From what I have seen and heard you have been a very fair -- very fair in your chairmanship to all parties. Also, I wish to extend my warmest appreciation of the manner in which the mover and seconder presented themselves, for it was indeed well done.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all what a great honour it is for me to be here representing the good people of Logan constituency. For the most part the people of Logan constituency are working people, also there are a goodly number of small businessmen. All are faced by the same problem of obtaining a decent measure of security for themselves and their family. I feel very much a part of Logan constituency, not only because I live there, but because I also am a working man and have spent all my years seeking security for my family and myself. The working man has been slow in his quest for security and I guess the main reason for this slowness is that until the late 1930s he hadn't much to secure. It was in the 1930s that forces over which he had no control drowned him in economic disaster; forced near-starvation on the working man and his family and brought home to the working man as it never had before, his need for security. Mr. Speaker, it must be recognized that the working man's quest for economic security is of the highest motive. No one will deny that fact, at least in public, that the family is the most important and basic unit of society. A person needs no excess intelligence, therefore, to conclude that the highest order of society is a society in which a family is regarded in the highest importance and a society in which the highest value is based on family security.
In every religion and in all the pagan philosophies the family is upheld on the highest pedestal. No organization, no system, no group is worthy of attention if it does not recognize this basic fact. The family is a basic value of mankind; the family is seen as God's most important creation; the bulwark of Christianity. The Christian principles of brotherhood is based on family life; people living, playing and working together in the interest of each other. Where there is brotherhood and love the family is safe. Where there is brotherhood and love the family is secure, and when the family is secure, society is also secure and healthy and safe. Mr. Speaker, in this country and in this province we have obtained a small measure of security for the family. We have unemployed insurance, which is smaller than the average wage, nevertheless affords the family of the qualified unemployed the bare necessities. We have minimum security for our disabled who can qualify for that assistance. We have a minimum of security for widows and their families if they can qualify for that assistance. We have the baby-bonus which most families use to good effect; and we have the old age pensions for those who not only have made their contribution towards the growth and development of this country but who have also raised families, sons and daughters, who are playing their part in helping further build their country and trying to raise their families in happiness and security. As a man who has worked hard all his life in order to gain the basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter for my family I've often been somewhat amazed and many times angered at these people and organizations who, on one hand speak glowingly of the family and its importance and almost in the same breath, fight with all the power at their command against the measures which would assist the family quest for security. And, Mr. Speaker, one thing has struck me with tremendous impact. It has become most obvious - the people who attack the economic measures for the family are themselves as secure as the "Rock of Gibraltar". The good book tells us - "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
The meaning and interpretation of the Christian expression of "Charity" and "Brotherhood" apparently has never been made known to the influential forces who, at every turn of the road, do what they can to prevent establishment of economic security measures for those who need them. Even worse, it is not unreasonable to think that they know the meaning but choose to ignore it in practice. It has always been so. Some 2,000 years ago a great man preached brotherhood and love. He preached against exploitation and we all know what happened - he was nailed on a cross by influential people who would allow nothing or no one, not even the Son of God, to place material things second to love and brotherhood. The onus of the first factories of capitalism didn't heed his teachings either. They placed children and women at
the side of monstrous machines and dark factories from dawn to dusk, Creatures of God offered on the altars of production and profit. We all know of the children in the coal mines and women too; and it is significant that the same cries that assailed the ears of Christians 2,000 years ago were also heard in Britain in the eighteen hundreds and are still heard today in North America. The children were taken out of the factories and coal mines, and the hours of work were lessened, wages were increased; and for those who sought and obtained these and many more changes, changes which more and more pay tribute to the dignity of man at every turn of the road, just as was heard 2,000 years ago -- came the cries of "dreamer, something for nothing, impractical", and since the scourge of Communism descended on our world, there are those of ... vision who ... the word Communist whenever an attempt is made to follow Christian teachings and live in brotherhood. But despite these protectors of the God of Pagan materialism, there are those who continue to fight for the dignity of man and the right of his family to security. The degree of their progress will spell the difference between freedom remaining a cherished treasure of our people or the scourge of Communism invading the shores of North America. Capitalism, exploitation has already lost democracy the loyalty of millions of people in Asia and Africa. Communism offered security to the insecure and the price is the loss of political freedom. We in the C.C.F. want security for our people without loss of political freedom. The plastic champions who place profits before humanity and the family, should take heed as the saying goes - "It's later than you think." I thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: I call it 5:30 and I leave the Chair 'till 8 o'clock.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair. Unfortunately, and I regret very much that when my honourable colleague was speaking that there were about three or four private debates going on across the way. And may I respectfully suggest that if it is necessary, that they quietly leave the Chamber and carry on their debates there -- because I'm sure, particularly with new members, it is most distracting; and I'm sure, and I feel that that might have been one of the reasons of the apprehensiveness of my Honourable Friend from Osborne in not rising to speak at that particular time.
MR. SPEAKER: I leave the Chair until 8 o'clock this evening.
Page revised: 31 December 2010
