| 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | ||||
| 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 |
| 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 |
| 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 |
Evening Sitting
| Page | ||
| Speech From the Throne Debate: Mr. Baizley ........... | 205 | |
| Mr. Shoemaker ................................................... | 208 | |
| Mr. Reid ............................................................. | 214 | |
| Mr. Roberts ........................................................ | 217 | |
| Mr. Tanchak ....................................................... | 219 | |
| Mr. Alexander .................................................... | 223 | |
| Mr. Molgat, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Hillhouse .......... | 226 | |
| Mr. McLean ....................................................... | 227 | |
| Mr. Roberts, Mr. Schreyer ................................. | 228 | |
| Mr. Miller ........................................................... | 230 | |
| Division .............................................................. | 232 | |
| Speeches in French (June 22) ................................... | 233 | |
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on proposed motion of 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.
Are you ready for the question?
MR. O. B. BAIZLEY (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, it would appear to be the custom of this Assembly to congratulate you on your elevation to the esteemed position conferred upon you. However, as a newcomer, I wish to express -- not only hearty congratulations -- but sincere thanks for the fair and very capable manner in the way you rule this Legislature. May you continue to enjoy good health so that we may selfishly enjoy the benefit of your years of experience and wisdom.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, if I could, to explain to the House that this afternoon that my knees were a little weak. However, it was not fright, but I felt that there was not sufficient time for me to do justice to this speech. I might say, as I think of the honourable member's remarks this afternoon, I did develop a fear, and I believe that fear, as I listened to my friends in the C.C.F., is this, that they would like us to have an ordered existence from womb to tomb.
I would also like to congratulate my colleagues, the Honourable Member from Birtle-Russell, the Honourable Member from Springfield, for the very able manner in which they carried out their chores in the opening days of this House. I'm sure that our friends in opposition realize that there will be interesting times and moments when they will tangle with these honourable members.
Now it is my privilege and pleasure to represent the constituency of Osborne. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I will be able to represent in the same prudent manner as did my predecessor, and yet at the same time have these constituents share with me these efforts from the government side of the House in helping to build a better Manitoba.
Now, our program of flood control is of vital importance to my constituents and it appears now, Sir, that such conditions are of prior importance, even to the official opposition. You know, Sir, that if this same concern had been shown nine years ago, it is quite possible that there would be greater numbers in the official opposition today.
Now the Honourable Minister of Public Works will be asked to provide access to the pleasant community of Osborne by means of a bridge across the Red River at the foot of Osborne St. I believe that such a bridge would make coming and going an easy matter for people in the City of Winnipeg reaching major highways and would help alleviate traffic problems that have been occurring in that area for a long time. Now, Osborne is the home of the Fort Rouge Curling Club, and the twice Dominion Championship Billy Walsh Curling rink; the home of Lord Roberts School and Lord Roberts Community Club; Riverview and Ashland Schools and the Riverview Community Club; the giant of high school education and track athletes -- Churchill High; there's Gladstone School. There are numerous successful business people. There are prosperous workers, professional people, plus retired persons enjoying their twilight years. Now this composite group form the backbone of this outstanding constituency which is being represented by a Conservative for the first time, and I may say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time that a member of my profession has had the privilege of sitting on the government side of this House. Now my government's attitude towards chiropractic will permit us to develop the most progressive health plans in Canada. These plans will make chiropractic care available to those who need and are desirous of having such care.
Mr. Speaker, if you will, I believe that this is the place where I should explain to the members -- I understand from some comments I've heard around this House that there are people who believe that a chiropractor is a "joint" specialist, and I have lived long enough to know that you don't necessarily have to be a chiropractor to be a "joint" specialist. Chiropractic is the third largest healing profession in the world. It is exceeded in numbers of members of practitioners only by medicine and dentistry. Its record of service to the public is outstanding and merits consideration. It is therefore submitted that the profession of chiropractic should be recognized on the same basis as any of the other established healing professions, and its services should
be provided to the citizens of this country on the same basis as those of other professions.
Chiropractic is: "The philosophy, science and art of locating and correcting and adjusting interference with nerve transmission and expression in the spinal column and other articulations of the human frame without the use of drugs or surgery." Chiropractic is a separate and distinct science. The premises upon which it is based is stated in Gray's Anatomy, 26th Edition, Page 867, in the introductory paragraph on Neurology: "The nervous system is a mechanism by which all, save the lowest forms of animal life, are enabled to react to their environment. In addition, the nervous system controls and regulates the activities of all these other systems of the body and determines their harmonious co-operation for the benefit of the organism as a whole."
The practice of chiropractic consists of the use of accepted scientific procedures for the purpose of locating, analysing, correcting and adjusting the interference with nerve transmission and expression, without prescribing drugs or performing operative surgery. The doctor of chiropractic is a professional man, trained to professional standards. He is trained in the use of standard diagnostic procedures, and also in the use of specialized chiropractic diagnostic procedures. These are used to discover harmful conditions present in the human body, and to make accurate diagnosis of conditions which he is qualified to treat. Chiropractic diagnostic procedures include structural analysis and the use of X-rays to take shadow photographs of the human spinal column for diagnostic purposes, but not for treatment.
Although chiropractors deal with structural adjustments, they do not set bones, treat cuts or wounds, perform operative surgery, practice obstetrics, or prescribe or administer drugs. When a condition is found to be outside the field of chiropractic, the chiropractor refers the patient to a qualified specialist of a healing art qualified to treat that condition. Chiropractors work in co-operation with all branches of healing in order to make the best provision for public health. In a survey taken in Canada in the month of December, in 1956, it was ascertained that 83.6% of chiropractors contacted in the survey had received patients referred to them by medical practitioners. And 97% of the same chiropractors reported that they had frequently referred patients to medical practitioners when they felt the condition of the patient was not within the chiropractic field of practice.
The Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College is located in Toronto. It is wholly owned by the chiropractic profession. Standards set in this college are equal to the best chiropractic colleges either in the United States or elsewhere, and enables students to meet and surpass the standards set for practice of this profession in this country or in the United States. To enter the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, a student must have entrance requirements of Senior Matriculation or First Year University. The course is four years of nine months each, representing over 4,000 class hours of professional education plus practical chiropractic and clinical work. The hours spent in this college, both on theory and on practical work, compare favourably with that required of persons entering any other profession, and it has been stated by an entirely independent research organization in Washington, D.C., a Dr. Dewey Anderson, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Public Affairs Institute, that: "The graduate of an accredited chiropractic college is as well qualified to practice his healing art as a graduate of an accredited medical college is qualified to practice medicine as his form of a healing art."
The subjects taught in the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College are as follows: Anatonomy, including all branches - Gross Anatonomy, Human Dissection, etc.; Physiology; Chemistry; Ethics and Jurisprudence; Pathology; Psychology; Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat; Histology; Dietetics; Diagnosis; Psychiatry; Gynecology; Bacteriology; Hygiene and Public Health; Symptomatology; Obstetrics; Principles of Practice; Technique and Treatment in Chiropractic; and after graduation he must pass Board Examinations in the particular province in which he intends to practice. The examinations in the provinces are well conducted and are of particularly high standards. The Canadian Chiropractic Association is now establishing a Canadian Examining Board so that Chiropractors may write a Canadian examination before entering practice in any particular province and also to co-ordinate the standards between provinces. It is apparent from the foregoing that chiropractors are thoroughly trained and educated in the profession.
The profession of chiropractic is only just over sixty years old, but there are, at this
time, more than 20,000 licensed and qualified practitioners on this continent. This number increases by hundred each year, and on the 10th of December, 1953, the Canadian Chiropractic Association was incorporated by Letters Patent under the Seal of the Secretary of State of Canada.
This Association is charged with the responsibility of governing the profession in Canada and is assisted in this respect by boards established under provincial legislation in certain provinces. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that such a board exists in the Province of Manitoba. The membership of the profession in each province in Canada is represented on the National Board of the Canadian Chiropractic Association. The number of representatives varies proportionately with the number of practitioners in each province. The Association is charged with maintaining a responsibility for high standards of education and ethics for practising members of the profession, and of promoting the advancement of scientific research in relation to matters within the field of chiropractic. Committee members practising in each province discharge this responsibility and are extending an efficient service to the profession and to the Canadian public in this respect.
Chiropractic is today regarded as one of the great healing professions in this country, and in the same manner as other professions, it controls and disciplines its own members. Formation of the Chiropractic Association, under Dominion Letters Patent, has resulted in the establishment of a central body unifying and co-ordinating the standards of practice of practitioners in Canada and insuring that satisfactory standards of practice are maintained throughout the country. In many provinces the standards are maintained by provincial licensing boards and these are co-ordinated by their association with the Canadian Chiropractic Association.
On June the 4th, 1943, a submission was made by the Dominion Council of Canadian Chiropractors to the Special Committee on Social Security, at which time the total number of chiropractic practitioners in Canada was 668. Today there are more than 1,100. In that submission it was submitted that some 13,000 chiropractic treatments were given daily by doctors of chiropractic in Canada. Today, there are more than 27,500 chiropractic treatments given daily in this Dominion, and of this number, it may be estimated conservatively that 10% are administered to new patients.
In a survey conducted by an independent business and economic research company, at the request of the Canadian Chiropractic Association in 1956, it was reliably estimated that some 2,567,000 patients were treated in 1955 by the chiropractic profession in Canada. The survey revealed from its study that the average chiropractic practitioner in Canada accepts at the present time approximately 26 new patients every month, or 312 new patients per year. The annual increase in the number of new patients is currently, therefore, about 250,000 and, on the basis of these figures, represents an annual increase of about 9.7%. Judging from the past ten years, it is reasonable to assume that ten years hence, the number of Canadians availing themselves of chiropractic care will be approximately twice the present figure. The survey draws the conclusion that "actually the gain in the next ten-year period, that is by 1966-67, should be even more pronounced because of public relations efforts by the profession, and a larger number of licensed practitioners and a wider acceptance of chiropractic by an ever-increasing population."
The value of chiropractic and the status of the profession have been recognized in many ways. As stated above, the Government of Canada has incorporated the governing body of the profession by its Letters Patent. The same government, after the last world war through its Department of Veterans' Affairs, recognized the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in Toronto and paid the tuition, living allowances and text books of over 250 veterans returning to civilian life. The Dominion Government also assisted in the maintenance of these veterans in their course of study for a period of four years.
Workmen's Compensation Boards in many provinces of Canada provide chiropractic benefits for injured workmen, such as the Manitoba Workmen's Compensation Boards does. Such boards allow an injured workman to select for his treatment a physician, a chiropractor, or a member of such other recognized healing profession as he may choose to tend. The boards have no difficulty in co-operating with the profession and they are paying the usual and proper charges of the chiropractors engaged on behalf of the injured workman. Many insurance companies in Canada and the United States arrange for claimants to have chiropractic treatment as
necessary treatment for their conditions, and pay claims presented by the injured. We have a record of over 250 instances of this nature, and no doubt there are a great many more. Some insurance companies include chiropractors specifically in their policies, other approve the services and pay chiropractic claims. Many industrial corporations throughout the country have endorsed chiropractic in the same way, and in some instances chiropractors are retained as health consultants.
Both the Dominion and Provincial Command of the Canadian Legion have repeatedly passed resolutions urging the Federal Government to include chiropractic in the health services for war veterans. These are but a few instances, and a more detailed presentation could be given, but it is not my intention to do so at this time. The recognition of the profession is best shown by its continued growth and by the position which it occupies in the eyes of the public. Expert testimony of chiropractors as to the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of conditions is accepted in courts of law, and chiropractors' fees are deductible for income tax the same as medical and dental bills.
In this age of specialization it is not true to say that medical practitioners provide the same service as chiropractors. Having pioneered and developed a new therapy, chiropractors now find that their ideas are being accepted by their former critics. Note, for example, the high percentage of chiropractors receiving referrals from medical practitioners. Also of current interest are articles appearing in official medical publications. The British Journal of Physical Medicine for June, 1957, in an article by J. Bradley Hoskisson, B.Sc., M.C.S.P., discusses spinal sublaxations and gives a description of the methods used to correct such mechanical faults in the spine. Further evidence to this effect is contained in the July the 1st, 1957, issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, in an article prepared by W. B. Parson, B.A., M.D., and J. D. A. Cumming, B.A., M.D., advocating a method of treatment identical to that developed by chiropractors.
In conclusion, it is reiterated that chiropractic is a separate and distinct science of healing; the chiropractic profession is accepted by the public, by business and by government and enjoys a status in the opinion of the public comparable to any other healing profession.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will readily agree from the foregoing that with a positive attitude towards chiropractic our government is going to have little difficulty in providing our citizens with a progressive health plan second to none in our Dominion.
MR. SHOEMAKER: ... with the previous speakers in congratulating you, Sir, on your resumption to the highest office within the gift of this Assembly, and indeed upon your usual fine appearance here this evening. I would like also to extend my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply, but I did think that the Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell made an excellent showing here, and there is another reason that I want to be nice to him too, because he has offered to bring me back and forth from the Town of Neepawa, if need be.
I suppose that it would also be in order too, Mr. Speaker, to extend congratulations to all of the new members of this House. It is true that I cannot be considered a veteran insofar as years of service are concerned, having first been elected to this Assembly just a year ago, but considering all the new faces that are here present, and the fact that I, like many more, have experienced two provincial elections; one school division campaign in which I took a very active part, having attended some twelve meetings; and the fact that this is our third session in less than twelve months-period, I do feel that I have a certain amount of seniority.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to spend a lot of time playing up the merits of the Gladstone constituency. I did that at the fall session and again at the spring session, and everyone here present, I think, and in particular those members from the north-western part of the province that must travel through the constituency of Gladstone, will agree with me that the Gladstone constituency takes second place to none in the province.
Last week we heard two honourable members opposite making searing attacks on the C.C.F. Party and their program. To me it appeared that here was a typical case of "the stove calling the kettle black". Both the Honourable Member for Wellington and the Honourable the Attorney-General suggested that the C.C.F. Party were experts at playing up the advantages of the welfare state but never mentioning the cost to the taxpayer. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that throughout the last provincial campaign, and you can include the one a year ago if you wish,
that our friends opposite made a pretty good job of doing almost the same thing, that is, leading the people of this province to believe that it was quite possible to extend the services in every field, build better roads, carry out huge flood protection programs, without increasing the taxes.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the First Minister was quite careful to warn the electors that there would be no tax increase this year. He neglected to say, however, that because of this fact that there would be huge borrowings. The Honourable the Attorney-General in his speech attempted to explain the real difference between the three parties, and it was a very interesting speech. But it must be extremely confusing to the public when we find our friends opposite, with a name Conservative attached to it, being ridiculed by the Liberal Party for their liberal spending program, in fact, trying to outdo the C.C.F. Party in spending the people's money. I surely believe that the electors would appreciate the government not only telling them the advantages of any proposed or existing legislation, but also telling them what the cost will be. In other words, let us attach a price tag onto our goods and services.
It is the duty of the opposition, I do believe, to oppose -- Mr. Bracken yesterday gave us a little lecture about that and on the value of the opposition, yesterday, when he was here present, and in addition to oppose, to offer constructive criticism, and I would like to comment very briefly on some of the proposed legislation appearing in the Throne Speech.
Now perhaps I should be the last one in this House to level any criticism at the government for their highway program since it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that we in the Gladstone constituency are sharing in that program to the tune of about one million dollars. I do believe -- [Interruption] -- more than that, is it? I do believe that it is the intention of this government, however, to spend some fifty million dollars on our provincial trunk highway system this year. I appreciate how important it is to have a good provincial trunk highway system so that we in the towns of Neepawa and in Gladstone can, if we wish, come into the city here in two hours or less, but far more important to the rural people is a good network of municipal roads, market roads and secondary highways. What is the use, so they say - the farmers, in being able to go to Winnipeg in two hours or less -- from the town that I have mentioned -- if it takes all day to get to the highways?
Now earlier this afternoon we heard a very fine speech from the Honourable Member representing Rockwood-Iberville, and he did suggest that our cars were getting into a pretty poor state because of the condition of our highways, and I would like to suggest to him, Mr. Speaker, that it is the condition of the municipal roads that can wreck a car much faster than a highway can. During the last election campaign I stopped a farmer out in the Kenby area and I asked him this question. "How many miles have you got on that truck of yours?" And he said, "Roughly, 47,000 miles." I asked him how many of those 47,000 miles did he think that he travelled on the highways, and he said, "Certainly not more than 7,000." So, therefore, 40,000 of the 47,000 was spent on municipal roads, and of course to him the condition of the municipal roads meant a lot more than did the condition of our provincial trunk highways. There is now a greater need than ever to consider a good municipal road system as a vital one since we have just voted ourselves into larger school divisions, and the roads must be built to transport the children to the larger units. I would suggest, therefore, that we reduce our highway spending program and increase our road grants to the municipalities accordingly.
During the construction of the -- this new highway that I talked about only a little while ago, that section of P.T.H. No. 4 between Neepawa and Gladstone, a great deal of the traffic is being re-routed via Carberry, and there's nothing wrong with that, but the resulting heavy traffic on the Carberry road is already showing deteriorating effects, and it is to be hoped that the Department of Public Works will not only maintain this secondary highway while it is being used as a detour road, but will put it back in first-class condition when it ceases to be a detour.
Last week in the House we had a very healthy discussion on municipal roads, market roads, and secondary highways, and explored methods whereby municipalities could make application to the department to have market roads become secondary highways and secondary highways to become provincial trunk highways, and there was a question that I intended to ask at that time. I will ask it now. Naturally I don't expect an answer to it at the moment, but since traffic does -- is a factor in determining the amount of assistance that a municipality should receive or determining whether a market road should become a secondary highway, I
would like to know if the Department of Public Works is prepared to go out at the request of the municipalities and set up a traffic counter to supply the department with the traffic statistics or the actual amount of traffic that goes over that road. I think that consideration might be given to the advisability of amending the road grant formula presently paid to municipalities, that is, I understand this government now and the government for the past number of years has paid a road grant to all municipalities of $10,500.00. Now, it's true, I know there are grants in addition to that, but there is a basic grant of $10,500.00 paid to all municipalities regardless of their size, and since municipalities vary in size from six townships to something like 23 or 24 -- I know in my constituency I have two townships with six -- or two municipalities with six townships and one with 14, and I think that Portage la Prairie - the municipality of Portage la Prairie has some 23 townships in it - now in view of the variance in size of the municipalities, I suggest that surely a new formula can be established using population and equalized assessment as factors in arriving at a new formula.
In the field of agriculture, here is an interesting point. About two months ago both the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Tribune published a special section of 20 or 30 pages entitled "Ten Years of Progress in Manitoba". I think they were both entitled that -- I may be wrong, but the purpose of both of the editions was to inform the public on the growth of this province, and some very interesting statistics appeared in both the papers. The figures indicated that in almost every industry -- almost every industry has doubled its volume in the last ten years. Bank clearings, I noticed, were doubled what they were in 1948, and in all -- as I say, almost all industry had doubled since 1948 except agriculture, and it dropped $20,000,000. Now here is concrete evidence of the much talked about cost-price squeeze. Since it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that all industry except agriculture is protected by tariffs to ensure profits for the various industries and to assure the fact that they will continue to operate, I for one do not mind going on record as favouring deficiency payments for agriculture to assure this industry the same kind of protection as is afforded the other industries. Now in order to find the money with which to pay the deficiency payments, I cannot see too much wrong with establishing a two-price system for grain. Two or three months ago, in Neepawa, I asked a baker there how much cheaper he could sell a loaf of bread if the wheat, not the flour, but if the wheat was dumped off at his back door at absolutely no cost to him whatever, and after some deliberation he told me that he certainly couldn't cut the price of bread by more than one cent a loaf. Now that's what he told me. Well then, if we double the price of wheat to the Canadian miller, it shouldn't increase the price of bread by more than one cent. Now by doubling the price of wheat to the Canadian miller, and I understand that about one-third of our annual wheat crop is consumed in Canada, this should produce something like $150,000,000.00 with which to pay the farmer a deficiency payment.
Now all members of the House, regardless of their political affiliation, supported the bill establishing The Manitoba Agricultural Credit Act which was introduced at the fall session of the Legislature. The members opposite have been playing up the advantage of the Act since that time, and certainly it played a large part in the last provincial campaign. It does appear to me, however, that implementation of the Act has been lagging. I personally distributed some three dozen applications to interested farmers this spring and to date I personally do not know of one loan having been made in my constituency, but I do know of a couple that were turned down. And when I was home last weekend I had two telephone calls from farmers who had made application for a loan some two months ago and they were enquiring as to when they could expect some action on their applications. They had not so much as received a letter of acknowledgment from the corporation and I think that that courtesy is due them anyway. I think that every applicant should receive a letter acknowledging the application, and if they are so busy over there that they can't get around to appraising the land at the moment, at least acknowledge the application -- tell them that it will receive attention in due course. Now I have been asked, I guess two or three dozen times, as to what the interest rate for young farmers will be because we have heard quite a little bit on that point, that there would be two interest rates, one for the young farmer and one for all others, and I'm still waiting to find out what the interest rate will be for the young farmers. And ...
MR. WILLIS: 4%.
MR. SHOEMAKER: And what will constitute a young farmer?
MR. WILLIS: 21 to 30 inclusive, as announced.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Thank you! At the last session of the Legislature I suggested a means whereby the processing of the applications could be speeded up and I had this to say, but for the benefit of some of the new members perhaps I should repeat it and I promise that I won't be too lengthy, Mr. Speaker, but since it is a fact that most of the farm land in Manitoba has now been assessed by the Provincial Government assessors and since it is a fact that there is a definite relationship between the assessed value and the real value, and we found that in the Town of Neepawa the relationship was about 50%, in fact, it is so true that we in the real estate business have become a bit lazy when a man comes in to list his property our first question is, "What is it assessed at?". And then we double that figure and that pretty well gives you the real value of the property. Now the Rural Municipality of Lansdowne and the Rural Municipality of Langford has just recently been assessed by the Provincial Government Assessment Branch - I guess that it was done last year but they have just now received their new assessment notices - and I have made it a point and made it my business to ask a number of these farmers: (1) Were they satisfied with their new assessment and of course most of them would tell you that they weren't because of the fact that it was up, but I hastened to assure them that the fact that it was up wouldn't necessarily mean that their taxes would be up. However, the point in asking them was this, did it bear the same relationship as the Town of Neepawa? That is, did the farm assessments bear the same relationship as town assessments, and I find that it is pretty true - it is pretty true -- that is, you can ask the farmer what his assessment is, and then ask him if he would sell the farm for double the assessment and in most cases he wouldn't. Some of them say yes, they would, but in most cases that's just about the figure they had in mind.
Now I understand that the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation presently has at least 2,000 application forms on hand and have dealt with four or five hundred of them. But if you were to examine the 2,000 application forms that are on hand, and if a great percentage of the applicants were only asking for a loan not in excess of the assessed value, then surely the appraisal end of it could be minimized. In fact, no appraisal should have to be made. They're not asking for more money than the assessed value. Now there are a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker, and as I said before I don't expect an answer tonight, but I would like to know why the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation have refused to supply application forms to the members. Now I just told you a few moments ago that I did distribute two or three dozen applications to interested farmers in my constituency, and I wrote in for two or three dozen more because I did think I was doing a service to my constituents, and they refused to send me any, and I have had two enquiries from two lawyers in my constituency and they say, why will the government not supply us with the applications for the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation?
MR. WILLIS: We had 1,500 printed and they went out overnight.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Thank you very much.
MR. WILLIS: You can have them at any time.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Good. I just have a letter here from the Manager but it is three weeks old, but he suggests that it isn't or it's against their policy to mail them out to members, lawyers, bankers and so on, but -- [Interruption] -- Thank you very kindly. This one lawyer suggested to me that it would appear to him that what the government was trying to do was to make lawyers out of the agricultural representatives, but he may have had a selfish motive. He probably wanted to get ten bucks out of them to fill out the application for them.
Now on the matter of crop insurance, I asked a question the other day before the Orders of the Day. I realize that I was out of order and you called me out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I think in all fairness to our farmer friends, and we all profess to be friends of the farmers, I think that this government should make a public statement to the effect that crop insurance will or will not be available for protection on the 1959 crop. Now I'm in the insurance business and I know that a number of farmers have delayed or postponed the purchase of their hail insurance anticipating this proposed legislation. Now if we're going to have it this year -- [Interruption] -- Well, I'm not complaining about losing commission on the business. I just want to put them straight. Are we going to have crop insurance for this year's crop or is it going to be next year, or 1961, or when is it going to be? And I think in all fairness to the farmers that a statement should be made public. And it will be interesting, Mr. Speaker, to know what this
government's conception is of crop insurance and what the cost will be to the farmer. Now if it's a comprehensive plan as certain members have suggested, and if it is intended that the farmers should pay the cost of same, then I suggest that it will be pretty costly and be one more factor in the cost-price squeeze if the farmer buys it. Now the ...
MR. WILLIS: Which company do you represent?
MR. SHOEMAKER: Oh, I've got dozens of them. I'm not running down the crop insurance scheme, Mr. Speaker, at all. I'll be very interested -- [Interruption] -- Now I didn't ...
MR. WILLIS: What could be added?
MR. MILLER: ... in effect. That's what we want to know -- when?
MR. WILLIS: He will get answers.
MR. ROBLIN: You help him. You help him.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, isn't it correct that someone should intervene in this case because the honourabe member is asking a perfectly sensible question and the Minister, who should be concerned in it, is simply making fun of it?
MR. WILLIS: No, I'm just replying.
MR. CAMPBELL: You're not replying. That's the trouble.
MR. MILLER: When?
MR. SHOEMAKER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did indicate that I didn't expect an answer tonight, but I will be interested in seeing the proposed legislation. Now still on agriculture, Mr. Speaker, we in the Gladstone constituency are quite concerned as to how the new Department of Agriculture and Conservation is progressing because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the people of my constituency were the first people in this province to form what we called the Riding Mountain-Whitemud River Watershed Authority and legislation was brought in nearly two years ago now, I do believe, and has been since amended, but it doesn't seem to satisfy the people or the executive of that committee because they are still not able to get underway apparently, so they claim.
Another matter of concern to the people of Gladstone constituency is the fact that, particularly in the eastern end of my constituency, they feel that they are being neglected by the Agricultural Representative. Now I want to make it quite plain here that there is no one in the Gladstone constituency that has anything at all against our present Ag. Rep., but we all know it to be a fact that he is overworked. He has been most active in the soil and water conservation aspect of the department, so much so that he has more or less had to neglect some of the other duties.
Now I was up at Langruth the other day and it is so bad up there that they don't know who is their Ag. Rep., and I wasn't certain either until I saw a map the other day. But the people in the Langruth area -- some will tell you that it is the Ag. Rep. from Dauphin and other ones will say, "Oh no, it is the chap from Portage", and some of the farmers still think that it is Wallace Lee from Neepawa. I did find out the other day that the Ag. Rep. from Portage la Prairie is expected to look after the Langruth area, but when it gets so bad that the farmers don't know who their Ag. Rep. is, well then I suggest that perhaps we need a new Ag. Rep. in that area.
Now I am going to leave agriculture, Mr. Speaker, and speak for a few moments about health. The Honourable Minister of Health isn't present here tonight so I don't suppose I will be heckled too much on this one.
Now the people of the Province of Manitoba are, as a whole, I believe, quite satisfied with the operation of the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan. However, I do believe there is room for revision in this department. I believe that consideration should be given to the advisability of notifying all persons upon reaching the age of nineteen years. The other day at Neepawa this happened once and I guess it happens every day all over the province - a young lad who is now 19 1/2 years old learned from a fellow on the street or elsewhere that he was no longer covered under his family plan, so he was advised to go in and register, which he did. And as soon as he went in to register he was asked to pay two premiums, that is, the premium for benefit period number one and the premium for benefit period number two. Now there is nothing wrong with that, but under Blue Cross they always used to notify a member, that is a family member,
when he was no longer covered -- when he or she were no longer covered under the plan and given the chance to register if they wished to do that, and I suggest that that should be done in the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan.
I believe, too, that consideration should be given to the advisability of establishing a premium differential under the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan. Now I know that that is not going to be popular, Mr. Speaker, with the people of the city, and it might necessitate zoning the province, but I think the underwriting principle adopted by the insurance industry should be applied in establishing premiums under the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan. Now each and everyone here, and each and everyone in the Province of Manitoba has received one of these -- I don't know whether they have ever read it or not but they have received it -- and under the heading, "Benefits outside of Manitoba", it tells you what the plan will pay and where, if you land up in a hospital out of the province where the hospital has 100 beds or less they will pay $11.00 per day; in a hospital of over 100 beds and less than 500 they will pay $15.00 per day; and over 500 bed hospitals they will pay $18.00 per day. Now it is interesting to note that those same figures pretty well apply to the per diem cost of care in Manitoba -- that is in rural hospitals. In our small rural hospitals the per diem cost of care is something like $11.00 to $12.00 a day as they suggest here. In Neepawa where we have a 35 bed hospital the per diem cost is between $11.00 and $12.00 a day, whereas in the Winnipeg General and the larger hospitals in the city the per diem cost is about double that, around $20.00 to $24.00, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we in the rural areas are subsidizing our city cousins when we pay exactly the same premium.
Now in the automobile industry, and this is true not only in the automobile field but in other underwriting practices of the insurance industry, the loss cost -- that's the term that the insurance companies use -- the loss cost or the cost of losses in any specific area determines the premium in that area, and that is the way it should be, that is, for underwriting purposes in the automobile industry the province is zoned into four districts -- there's Winnipeg, Brandon, Flin Flon and the remainder of the Province of Manitoba, and I suggest that perhaps that principle might be used in establishing a fair premium under the Hospital Services Plan. Now I know that someone is going to say "Well, what are you going to do with the chap from the country that is forced to come into a hospital bed in Winnipeg?" That happens in the automobile insurance industry every day, that where a farmer in the Gladstone constituency insures his car, probably insures it for half the premium that you would in the city, but if he has an accident in the city we pay. So the same could apply in the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan.
Now it will be very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see what this government has to offer in establishing nursing homes and homes for the aged throughout the province and what help the municipalities, churches, and other organizations will receive in the way of construction grants if they are anticipating the erection of nursing homes, and I know that we are about to have legislation presented to us on that very score. We in the Town of Neepawa have demonstrated in a very concrete way that we do care for our senior citizens since the United Church of Canada presently has three housing units right in the Town of Neepawa and they do serve a very definite purpose. But one thing that we do need in the Town of Neepawa very badly is a nursing home, and two or three months ago an organization was formed really to look into the erection of a nursing home in that area. Now I think it is most important that if we are considering the building of nursing homes throughout the province that they should be built in the rural areas, that is, far better to have two or three dozen throughout the province than one big one in the City of Winnipeg or in the City of Brandon. We have had experiences in the Town of Neepawa and very recently this had occurred where a friend of mine was a patient in the Neepawa Hospital; had spent the allotted time there under the plan, that is she was termed a long-stay patient and had to removed to a nursing home. They removed her to Brandon; she became dissatisfied and eventually landed back home again; and eventually, probably sooner than we think, she will be back in the hospital again. And that has happened to a dozen cases I guess in the Town of Neepawa where we have taken patients to Brandon; we have taken them to Carberry; and we have taken them to Minnedosa; and they just feel absolutely out of place when you remove them from their local environment and they want to remain and spend their last days in their immediate vicinity. And I suggest that when we are considering the erection of nursing homes that we should consider that factor.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have perhaps gone almost beyond my time and I realize that we will have another two or three weeks to talk, so with that I would like to thank you again.
MR. A. J. REID (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I too offer you my congratulations on your nomination to Speaker of this Assembly. In the short period of time that I have known you, since last year, I know that you conduct yourself with the members and their rulings very just and impartially. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the mover and the seconder in their able manner on their reply to the Throne Speech; and congratulate the new members of this Legsilature and also the government on its election. I believe that the new members, what I have heard of them, will contribute greatly toward the debate of this Legislature.
Now, the Leader of the Opposition, I congratulate him, but it's unfortunate that we lost two members and I believe that if we'd have worked a little harder, that we'd have been the official opposition. Now our leader - the leader of our party, I need not elaborate on him because his name is quite familiar in this Legislature and many of you know him as our former Whip, now all he does is just crack the whip. I was quite pleased with the speech this afternoon, of the very eloquent and humourous speech of my colleague the Honourable Member for Burrows constituency, and the tongue lashing he unleashed on the government members. It's just a reprisal of what we've been getting and I hope that don't continue because in my estimation a government, once the Throne Speech is all over, is to enact legislation, not severely criticize the opposition. I think the purpose of the opposition is to find loop-holes in any legislation the government is trying to propose and assist them with constructive criticism in passing it.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to look in a dictionary for a certain word and I couldn't find it. I guess it's not in the dictionary. Have you got it, Tommy? Thanks. That's the meaning of "political football" and I don't think I could find it at all and I have my own interpretation of it now. It seems when a member presents a bill or resolution in this House, another member jumps up and he proposes an amendment, another member proposes a sub-amendment and then in the process of their debate and discussion they kick it around until it's finally kicked right out of the House and that's the last you hear of it. Because -- just as an example, Mr. Speaker, my resolution on old age pension -- not that the Conservatives aren't willing to help old age -- oh no, they want to help them, definitely, but with their amendment and assistance that they figure on giving the old age pensioner, they want to bring their standard of living up to the present day level. Very fine, very fine and good, but what does it conisist of? A little over 90¢. So, Mr. Speaker, what can the average couple or a person, especially these days, do with an increase of 90¢?
MR. MEMBER: ... Liberal.
MR. REID: Well, was it the Liberal or Conservative? Well, either one, Mr. Speaker, it don't make any difference. Now, no, it don't make any difference whether it's Liberal or Conservative because both their amendments are of a similar nature. It's always been that way. The amendments I know for the last 13 years like that old age legislation that the Honourable Member from Inkster has been trying to pass here. Well, the Liberals at that time, they were the government and what happened? They passed amendments and it was always won for 18 years and the same thing is liable to happen this time. It'll be kicked around and kicked around and where will it end up? It's the same as our resolution on minimum wage. We heard a discussion today -- first it is a provincial issue, then it's a national issue, and otherwise another issue, and by the time they produce amendments and sub-amendments and this and that, it'll be the same thing. It'll get in a trash basket and that's where it'll stay likely.
Now in the Throne Speech I see there was a reference to natural gas. Of course I can't say too much about it -- but I can't say too much about it until we hear what our government is going to say on it. But I hope when our government does bring it in, they'll have some legislation that will consider holding the price of natural gas for a period of time and eventually make natural gas a public utility just like the other utilities are. Absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I'm not familiar on farm legislation, but I'd like to thank my Honourable Member from Rockwood-Iberville on the information he informed us this afternoon, because if that's the type of legislation the government proposes to enact, which I hope they will, it will be quite favourable toward the farmers. And also on -- [Interjection] -- Pardon? Yes, for the farmers,
because lately the only legislation that I have seen that assisted farmers or has any assistance, as some of you members can recall that have been here for quite a while, it was quite a number of years ago when a sugarbeet industry was instigated in Manitoba. Since that time I don't think the farmers have had any assistance or any type of legislation, and now they tell me they got research for them and all that. Well, I hope they come up with something and the flood areas possibly can grow wild rice or grow rice or something it's -- because after all, it's all right to talk about having these advisers and specialists and all that, but we want some action on it -- I believe the farmers will. The same, speaking on -- and there was drainage mentioned -- and speaking on flood control, Mr. Chairman, I see by tonight's paper the government's considering sending out experts of flood areas to appraise the cost and then, once they've done that, come up with a solution. Well, I hope when they get out there, they get out there soon and appraise the cost and come up with a solution. Because we had similar problems in the '48 -- I think it was the '50 flood. We had commissions and we had funds set up and out of it all, what happens now, we're starting all over again. So, I hope they get out there and we get something concrete. In fact, they could put the concrete right down in the river and maybe it won't flood, but nevertheless.
Now, on the Industry and the Development Board, Mr. Speaker. I understand that Industrial Board and Development Board are doing all they can to encourage industry in Manitoba. But I've had the experience -- personal experience of big corporations coming in from the States -- I don't know why -- who they contacted -- they look around this part of our territory in Manitoba and why they don't establish themselves here, I don't know; and to what extent we encouraged them or what, how or this and that, I can't answer that. But it's quite essential, Mr. Speaker, that more industries should establish themselves in Manitoba. You get right now with the railroads, both C.P.R. and C.N.R., with the dieselization scheme that's coming in there's quite a reduction in staff of men and men are available -- manpower is available. So I'd like the Minister of Industry and of Development Board to take that under consideration and see where we're slipping, because when these men come into this country of ours and something is not satisfactory that they don't establish themselves here and go to other provinces, I don't know whether it's taxation or what it is, I'm not familiar with that aspect of it, but I'd like the Minister to consider that and find out what seems to be our problem.
Now, land erosion - I was very pleased to hear the other day, Mr. Speaker - I had the opportunity to go into the Deputy Public Minister's office on that question, and a big smile on his face he says, "No", he says "You're in the wrong department, boy". He says "We've taken it out and we put it in the Department of Agriculture". So, possibly now, being in that department we'll expect many farmers and many residents in Manitoba -- and they tell me Public Works was too busy to handle that -- possibly now the Department of Agriculture will take action or bring up some plan or scheme of that nature, Mr. Speaker.
Now, here's one for the Minister of Public Works. I had the opportunity, as many of you gentlemen have at odd times, of escorting a friend of mine, a tourist from Vancouver, through the City of Winnipeg. He stayed in a hotel downtown, so I took him over the bridge -- Louise Bridge over to Kildonan and back over the Redwood Bridge. And as many of you gentlemen know who have been in Vancouver, it's covered with a network of bridges. Well, the first thing he says to me, he says "What quaint little bridges you have here in Winnipeg". I said to him "Well, brother, if you see the line-ups here in the morning and at 5 o'clock, I don't think the people in the long line-ups would call them 'quaint'". So I'd suggest to the Minister of Public Works that he devise a plan or scheme because regardless whether Greater Winnipeg will be under Metro Plan or anything, it'll still have to come from the Department of Public Works - a scheme of bridges, because they are working on the Disraeli Bridge right now and by the time it's complete, it'll be outmoded. I don't know what plans the Minister has - I asked him last time if he has any plans drawn up or not. I know they're going ahead with perimeter highways and bridges way out there but the greatest necessity in Greater Winnipeg is a bridge building program, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the Minister of Public Works takes that down and maybe during his speech here in the House sometime he might give us a resume of his department.
Now the revision of the Election Act, Mr. Speaker. I think it'll be spoken on later here but nevertheless, I'd like the Committee on Elections to consider the advisability that in a provincial enumeration, that they send out two enumerators, not one, because one enumerator -
well, a lot of times they don't get around; other times they miss their job; and I'm not going to elaborate on all the shortcomings of it, but I wish the Committee on Elections would take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker.
Now our Honourable Member for St. Boniface - I agree that we should have more recreational facilities here in Manitoba. I had the opportunity about two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, to drive out towards Kenora, and I've always driven along that highway and never driven into Falcon Lake, so this time I thought I would take the opportunity and drive into Falcon Lake. Well, a very fine resort area but I don't know, the taxes in that area must be exorbitant, and I don't think an area like that, Mr. Speaker, is for working men. I know I couldn't afford to have a camp there -- a fancy elaborate camp with people with people all dressed up. Now when I go to camp I like to rough it and wear old clothes, but in there if you come up the street with an old pair of pants and an old shirt you'd be likely picked up by the police. I am quite sure that the government spent a lot of money there - it is very well, but I think what the government should, in the future, is develop more small areas where the average working man would be able to have a relaxing weekend.
Now this week, Mr. Speaker, they are calling a meeting on this Metro - I am not going to elaborate on it - but in Fort Garry to talk on this Metro plan of Winnipeg. Now we spent, or the Legislature spent quite a bit of money on a Metropolitan Commission and I believe that they were men that were well suited for the job, and right now it seems to be the pressure of one man more so than anybody - the Mayor of Winnipeg, for one large city in Greater Winnipeg. Well, I don't know if that's good, bad, or otherwise. I know that about two years ago when I visited Philadelphia I took the opportunity to sit in there with the city council. It is, I believe, a city of about 2,000,000 people and they have ten aldermen and each alderman represents 200,000 people. I asked them all, "How do you ever get anything done?" and "Oh, well," he said, "I never get anything done. If you want to get to see me", he says, "that's worse than trying to see the President of the United States. You have to have an appointment for about six months." Well then, I thought that's very good but in a plan like here in Winnipeg, where of course we haven't got the population to that extent but, nevertheless, I don't think we are quite ready for one city. I am sure, and I hope that this question will appear later when the full report comes on, will be debated in this House, because I would like to take part in that debate, when that debate on Metro Commission comes in because, nevertheless, regardless of what meetings the mayors of Greater Winnipeg hold, I still think the question will have to come back to this House and there will be a debate on, and at that time, Mr. Speaker, I hope to engage in that debate.
Now the school divisions, which we must remember we all approved last session unanimously, but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Education is listening so he can jot it down - that especially for the next year, there will have to be a revision of the school grants to come up to the expenses that the districts are having. I know in our own - in Kildonan constituency, the school rate - the school mill went up two mills, but we're fortunate in cutting down the municipal rate by two and a quarter so actually we lowered our taxes by a quarter of a mill. But the way it is shaping up now I can see we won't be able to hold it next year. So the plan - true, it is just a new plan and it will work out - it will work out once the kinks are ironed out - and that seems to be one of the kinks, that we will have to get a revision of the school grant probably for next fall.
Now, Sir, I have mentioned quite a few of these things and the general routine of business that we have before the House has to be done anyhow. But any of these subjects or topics that I have mentioned, if they were taken under consideration and studied, and even if we just passed or completed one or two a year and really did a good job in them, Mr. Speaker, it would be a great contribution to the people of Manitoba. It would make it a better and healthier place to live in. Thank you.
MR. S. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): [Mr. Roberts began by giving a few words in French.]
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief tonight, but I would like first of all to refer to an incident which happened in my home, which I would like to pass on to the Honourable the First Minister because he has not the advantage of being able to accept tips from his children, not yet at least, and a little incident occurred in our home the day before yesterday that I think is worth mentioning at this time.
It was a - the thing all came about because I had promised my children one time when I wanted their - wanted a little good behaviour out of them, I had promised to take them to the Red River Exhibition, and presumed that they had forgotten about it. And when they came to me very forcibly and reminded me on Sunday that I had promised to take them to the Red River Exhibition, it reminded me somewhat of the situation, because I am the senior government in my home, it reminded me somewhat of the situation where the Government of Canada has promised the people - the electors of Canada, including the electors of Manitoba - that they will be treated to a new federal and provincial tax conference with possible better results. And the First Minister spent twenty minutes or so explaining to us the other day that it is not the provinces who call these Dominion - Provincial Tax Conferences. Well, I think all of you who are parents know that it isn't your children who take you to the Exhibition, but if you promise to take them to the exhibition, it's your children who see to it that you take them there. There are many ways that children can encourage their parents to keep their promises and there are many ways the provincial governments can encourage federal governments to keep their promises.
Now I would just like to refer to my own family again and tell you of the four ways, because I have four children, that I was encouraged to keep my promise to them. First of all, of course, the oldest - he has a personality of his own - his method was persuasion; the second one, a little different personality, his method was one of pouting and sulking; the third one is a little girl and her method was tears; the fourth one is the temper of the family. And so the ... methods I would like to classify them - first of all, I think the persuasion method is very good - effective; the second one, the pouting and sulking, not so hot; the tears worked fine; but the temper didn't work very well at all. And just for what it's worth, I would like to pass that bit of a tip - information I picked up from my children on to the First Minister in this case, because I do think that there that here lies a case where a little bit of persuasion, perhaps a few tears, might do a lot of good in getting the Federal Government to keep their promises at this time, and I don't think that the First Minister was too effective in trying to convince us that it isn't the provinces who call these Federal - Provincial Tax conferences. The provinces can make the Federal Government keep their promises if they want to.
Well, on other subjects in the Throne Speech I note that it is remarked that 40 or 39 and one more is 40 out of 46 school divisions are operating. There is no mention in the Throne Speech on the four school divisions that have not voted themselves into school divisions, therefore I guess they are not school divisions, but the four areas who have not voted themselves into school divisions - Hanover, Stanley, Boundary and Rhineland. And we can't help but think of the many, many speeches that were delivered during the campaign, some of them on television. I can remember very clearly the First Minister very eloquently, as a matter of fact, on television telling the people of Manitoba that now for the first time, there was an equal opportunity for all children in Manitoba to go to school. Is there an equal opportunity for the children of Hanover, Stanley, Boundary and Rhineland? Is there any mention in the Throne Speech of what is going to be done for these divisions? Are they going to be given the equal opportunity that is so often mentioned? And where is this equalization of costs? Where is this ease to the burden of the taxpayer that we heard so much about last February about the school divisions? Now if you check around the areas, check around through the municipalities, check into the school divisions, you find a good deal of them - taxes have gone up a lot - so where is all this equalization? - Beautiful expressions. Are these citizens, the citizens of the four school divisions that failed to vote themselves into a school division, are they going to receive the equal treatment that we have been told already exists? I think that it is time the government was called upon to express an opinion. I think it should have been in the throne Speech. Are these areas going to get another vote? If they decide not to have another vote or if they vote "No", are they going to receive this equal treatment that it is said that they have
now and, as you and I all know, they have not got?
Well, on another subject, I would like to refer briefly to a couple of agricultural topics. The remarks of the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville I thought were very good today. I agreed with him in principle, unfortunately, I don't think that he had the case exactly right. He was building up our agricultural credit plan far beyond its abilities. I think that this was something that was done of course - all through the month of May and the latter part of April. I think that there are hundreds of farmers already in Manitoba who have had their applications turned down under the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Plan or whatever it is called, who will also agree with me at this time that the Agricultural Credit Act isn't quite what it's cracked up to be, or quite what it was built up to be during the campaign. All of these applications have apparently been turned down because of lack of security and, as you know, no consideration is given to the ability of the person who applies; none is given for his intelligence, his obvious ability to run a farm. The prime concern - has he got the security to put up. And as you know, there is only a handful of the hundreds of applicants have been accepted and the rest have been turned down and more, of course, will as time goes on.
There is, of course, a very great lack right through the Throne Speech of any projects to help the farmer. There is nothing, of course, to help him with his income, which is the important thing. It seems that it wasn't too long ago in the campaign a year ago, we were hearing great things about what the new Conservative Government, if elected, would do towards making sure that the farmer did get a fair share of the price support program that did exist federally. Has there been any marketing board set up? Any economic survey? Is the farmer getting any portion, any greater portion of the share that was coming to him? Is he receiving the full share that is available to him under the Federal Price Supports Act? I think you know that he is not.
And then there is the case that was brought up in the last fall session by the Honourable Member for Pembina, which is part of it, and there are more cases of the same in which I feel there is an injustice being done to the farmers of Manitoba - and I think it is one that should be given consideration at this time, because it is pretty important. Take, for instance, all the bona fide farmers in Manitoba who live on forty acres or less, because that's the way they prefer to live, live on a small holding and their land - they own their land - own further land a little distance away from their homesteads - all these people are being discriminated against because they do not have their farm all in one block, and if they live on a piece of property 40 acres or less in size, they are having to pay building taxes on those buildings, which is a mighty heavy burden. It involves hundreds of dollars, in many cases, a year. And how about all the bona fide farmers who operate a quarter-section or half-section, fairly close, most of them, to the City of Winnipeg, who because of their ambition or their desire to become farmers, are spending a good portion of their time away working off the farm in the city at jobs of one sort or another, but they are working off the farm to help to support the farm? Their wives, in many cases, are doing the chores while they are away. These people are also being overloaded by having to pay building taxes on their buildings, something no other farmer has to do, because they are earning a portion of their income off the farm. I think that these things should be given serious consideration by the government at this time.
And there is another problem that is facing a lot of farmers in Manitoba and it's a very minor thing compared to the money problem, but it is an inconvenience - and I think it is something that hasn't been mentioned too often in this House in the last year or so - and I wonder why. It is the problem of uniform time in Manitoba. Why can't we have a uniform time throughout Manitoba? I can remember when it wasn't too long ago when the party now occupying the seats of the government were accusing the government in power of dragging their feet on this uniform time thing. Now who's dragging their feet? I think as a farmer, I have no hesitation in saying that we are ready and willing to accept the results of a rural and urban plebiscite, and regardless of whether the results give daylight saving time or standard time as being favoured, we are ready to accept it because the most important thing at this time I think to most of us, I think to the vast majority of the farmers, is a uniformity of time because the inconvenience of living on one standard time whereas your towns are on daylight saving time, or your town is on standard time and the closest city is on daylight savings time, the many, many complications, the expense, the bother are really worth considering. And I think that this is something that can be very easily remedied and I think it is very foolish that we don't move on it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I promised I wouldn't be long, so I have mentioned those few things. I would be remiss if, before I sat down, that I didn't encourage the government to carry on this survey that they are carrying into the southeast at the present time. The most important thing that is happening in my constituency, the constituency of La Verendrye, is the serious and disastrous flood, excess rain that have struck there during the past month. The Ste. Anne flood, the flash flood in Ste. Anne that lasted for a few days, got tremendous publicity but throughout the whole of the constituency, through Marchand, La Broquerie, through the dairy farms in that area, through Giroux, Ste. Anne, in Grande Point and Ile des Chenes areas and in the New Bothwell and Gorlitz areas that are serviced - drained by the Manning canal, serious, serious flooding did occur. Even before the flooding occurred there was less than 50% of the crop in any part of the area, and after the flooding occurred, of course, much of the 50% that was seeded was flooded out. There has been a tremendous crop loss. It's more than one would realize because of the limited publicity that has been given to it but it is a serious thing, I hope that this survey will be conducted in a manner that will take into consideration, not only building loss, not only losses of property, but loss of crop as well because this is where the greatest loss has occurred.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. J. P. TANCHAK (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you in obtaining your office again and I am sure that you will do your responsibility to the best of your ability; we have faith in you and hope that you continue in good health.
I also wish to congratulate the First Minister, the Premier, on obtaining his life's ambition -- being the Premier. This time really he has something to be proud of because he has an overall majority. I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder. I once had the privilege of seconding the Throne Speech and I know that for the first time coming up in the House, it is quite a job.
I think it is also in order that I congratulate the Attorney-General on the newcomer to his family. I'm sure that it makes both of them very happy. I had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Lyon once - a very charming and beautiful young lady - and as we see our handsome Attorney-General, I'm sure that the young girl is going to be beautiful, and that she will be a heartbreaker. I hope that when she attains the age of 21 that she'll be a good Liberal.
I wish to congratulate the Leader of the C.C.F. - the new Leader of the C.C.F., although I regret that the former leader was not able to make it, because I had high respect for him. I am sure that the new Leader of the C.C.F. will prove his worth. I wish to thank, at this time, the different ministers of the different departments for the co-operation that I have received from them in the past - the Honourable the First Minister - I haven't had occasion to bother him much, but in the future I may have some problems. The Honourable the Acting Minister of Public Works, I wish to thank him for his co-operation - the No. 59 is almost completed, the Morden-Sprague is progessing quite favourably; the No. 12 will be completed this year as far as Sprague or as far as Middlebro - it will be almost complete, and I really appreciate that, - that the program was initiated by the former government, - that this program was not stopped during the election campaign. We've heard this quite often, I myself can admit now that I really thought that what happened will happen because I could see the trend, and some of my supporters used to say "Well, what's the use if we elect you? You will not be able to do anything for us". I told them that wasn't the democratic way in Canada, or in Manitoba, that I was sure that the government - whoever the government is - who forms the next government, they take an oath to serve every part of Manitoba to the best of their knowledge, and I hope that that is being done. At the present time I'm getting complaints, although I'm not going to go into them, that there is a certain amount of this pork-barrel patronage. Well, we usually get those complaints, so I'm not going to pass them on as complaints, because sometimes these are only developed, say, in the mind, maybe certain little things happen. In case -- I'll investigate some of them, and I'll bring it up later if I find it to be true.
I wish to draw the attention of the Honourable the Acting Minister of Public Works to all the different - all the accidents in the past that have happened on the 75. 75 - part of 75 runs through my constituency. Now, we realize that the traffic is very heavy on this 75, and it will not be long before we'll have to have a four-lane highway through there. There is another
alternative, however, and it is the 59, and I believe that 59 in the very near future will be carrying as heavy a traffic, if not heavier, than the 75. There is quite a lot of -- quite a number of heavy transport trucks coming from the east, through Minneapolis - they could come through Lancaster, coming from the east, through Lancaster they'd be able to save about twenty-five miles going into Winnipeg. And, I do believe, that the 59 is going to be a very important highway; and I think it would be in order, even at the present time to consider the advisability of not only black surfacing the 59, but do as has been done at this end, pouring concrete, because it will not be long before it will prove to be a necessity - either a four-lane highway on the 75 or make No. 59 a highway which would carry any kind of traffic.
There are several access roads in our constituency that should be taken care of -- if not this year then probably next year, -- and the Honourable, the Acting Minister of Public Works assured me that some of them are under consideration at the present time. One of them is the one to Gardenton -- of course the highway hasn't reached the corner yet -- there's another one to Senkiw and I think there will be a delegation here from Senkiw pretty soon, because the 59 is completed past their corner, and they think that they should have some consideration of an access road. The people from Gardenton, I think there was a petition from the Chamber of Commerce, also from Vita, there was a petition from -- maybe it's not in yet, -- but if it isn't, it will be pretty soon. The people of Ridgeville are expecting an access road to Ridgeville, the highway has been completed to the corner of Ridgeville, and now it is under construction farther from the corner east. And, the people of St. Joe, they expect an access road. I asked the Honourable Minister the question earlier in this spring during the session on that. I also wish to thank the other Ministers, the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. Last fall, I gave several suggestions in regard to winter works program, and I don't know whether it was a coincidence whether it was my suggestion or his good judgement, but it seems to me that the project that I asked for, those projects were undertaken, and I wish to thank the Honourable Minister, for helping the people in the east out. I hope he continues that.
The Honourable, the Minister of Education, I don't know if I have very much to thank him for -- we, somehow we do not seem to see eye-to-eye, and the Minister last fall had stated that only the members that are with the Government on the Conservative side, would probably get a better entry to the different offices. So I don't know, I haven't come to see him in his office - maybe I am scared, but, I don't think he will throw me out. But the difference that we had was on the school divisions. I was being accused during the election campaign, also by the Minister - the Honourable Minister himself, and by the candidate that I was strongly opposed to the school divisions. I, at that time, said I was not opposed to the school divisions, and it wasn't true that I was opposed to them. Now, who should know better? Should I know better? Or, should somebody else know better whether I was opposed? But, there was one thing that I was opposed to, and that was that all the different officials going out in the country, kept telling the people that it will be a better plan. I agreed with them, I said, "It definitely will be a better plan." But, at the same time, most of them, if not all, stood before the people and told them this, -- and this is where I definitely disagreed, -- "this plan is a better one, and it is not going to raise your taxes, -- if anything your taxes will do down." And that's something that I could not swallow. I knew that the services will be better, and I told the people that our services will be better, therefore if you want better service, - that's all I told the people, - we should be willing to pay for them -- it is worthwhile, and why not explain to the people -- the people out in the country and tell them "We're coming here and we're presenting to you -- to you, a better school plan - it's a system that is going to be better, but it is going to cost the Province of Manitoba around six million dollars more." Now, who is going to pay the extra six million dollars? Our friends the C.C.F. from Saskatchewan, will they be so kindly towards us that they'll come here and pay the six million dollars? Or, our friends to the east from Ontario? No, it would be the people of Manitoba that are paying, and that's where I disagreed with the Minister, and I still disagree! I did not disagree as far as the plan was, and I really and truly hoped that the plan would go through in the boundary.
And, the Honourable Minister did hear me speak - only once - on the same platform, - and I did show some disadvantages, - but still, at the end of my speech, I ended up stating that the way I see it, the advantages out-weighs the disadvantages. I told the people that, and in many instances, when they asked me if, there was one small village that told me -- asked me, "What
are we to do?" I told them, "It's up to you, it's not up to me to come here and tell you what you have to do. Listen, - go to the meetings and listen to the plan - the plan is a good one; but don't believe that it's not going to cost you any more." And, it has been proved in practically every municipality, that it does cost more, -- but, I still say it is worthwhile. But the people should have known that. Now, in this particular town when they asked me, they said, "Now, we want you to tell us." I told them, "If I were you, I would vote 100% in favour." That little village voted 100% in favour. So, that's the only disagreement that we have with the Honourable Minister of Education. The only difference, as I say, was that I believed the plan was good, and I agreed with him with everything, except the fact that it isn't going to cost the people any more. I believe that I was right.
Now, as far as the Throne Speech, I'm not going to criticize it too much, because it seems to be the Order of the Day here, that if anybody criticizes this very good Government that we have in now - it's a forbidden area. Do not criticize it. In other words, if there's a certain amount of criticism - somebody gets up and says "you do not dare." Most of the members across like to get up, and I've heard it quite often -- get up and say how good they are. And, I don't think it is so proper for oneself to pat oneself on the back and say, "Oh, I'm so good." And we hear the honourable members saying that. And, by the way, there was a gentleman here yesterday from Pontiac, Michigan -- I didn't even know he was sitting up there. After the session last night, I happened to come - he wanted to meet me, I haven't seen him for about fifteen years. He met me there, out in the corridor - I spoke to him for awhile, and I asked him, "How do you like our procedure?" And, these are the words that the gentleman did say, "It's disgusting -- it's disgusting", he said, "all you fellows do is pat yourselves on the back!" Evidently, he didn't understand the procedure here. I said, "What do you mean, we pat ourselves on the back?" "Well, that's all I heard today, you're just telling everybody how good you are." Well, probably he thought -- I asked him why, he said, "Well, you're all telling how good your Leader is and so on." I says, "Well listen, the Leader of the House, is the Premier, but we all -- all the different parties have their own Leader." Well, he probably doesn't understand the procedure but he did say it was disgusting. I think that rather than go ahead and pat ourselves on the back, or the honourable members across there, expound how good they are, and brag, and blow about themselves, let the people be the judges after three or four years. [Interruption] They were the judges, but not the majority of the people. Not the majority of the people - a little under fifty per cent. If you think that we are so good, if the honourable members across think they're so good, go ahead with the business of Manitoba, and prove that you are good. But, I don't think it is -- [Interjections] -- I don't think that it is so in order to go ahead and pat yourselves - pat ourselves - on the back beforehand. If you are good, the people will realize that. But that's something that I didn't think should be so good - don't blow your own horn so very much. Maybe it's quite in order, the Conservative Party has been in the wilderness for the past 30 years or so and now so very happy that -- exuberant, like the little children -- they just can't help that. But, I would like -- of course, you don't have to take my suggestion - you are all-powerful now -- you don't have to take any suggestions from here - from this side.
The Throne Speech - I liked the Throne Speech fairly well, but I must confess that the one earlier, the one before this one - I liked it better. Somehow, this one, if you talk to the people, it does not matter who it is - in the city, in the country - it fell flat. It didn't seem to be so full of this, not so Christmassy - not so much like a Christmas treat, probably the reason for that was that there was no election forthcoming within the next four or five years. The honeymoon was over, I should say! Santa Claus went back to the North Pole - for four years!
There is one omission, I don't know - maybe I shouldn't mention it, -- but it struck me as quite odd, and that was that there was no mention whatsoever made of the Royal Visit. True, there was mention made in the Speech, early in the spring, but I think that the occcasion was worthwhile - big enough to mention it once more - I don't think it would have hurt anybody to do it. I truly expected that there would at least be a reference to that Royal Visit. The rest of the Throne Speech I could say was just about 90% repetition -- 90% continuation of what the former government had started, The present government was just lucky to fall in, so many different projects had been started. Of course, there's a few changes in them, but they came at a time when the, some of the Royal Commissions -- [Interjection] -- like the Royal Commission --
no, I'm not patting myself on the back - the Royal Commission have just come out with different reports on the flood control, the school question, -- and it wasn't our doing -- it was the doing of the different Commissions. And I say that our friends opposite were just lucky and they followed them out. They are trying to follow them out. 90% of it was just a continuation of the former program; the other 10% probably is new. But there is one thing I can say, that the friends across do a lot more blowing and talking about it than the former government do. Maybe that pays off - I guess the election proved that it did.
I think I should mention something about the famous "ditch". I think the Honourable, the First Minister, used that in one of his campaigns - he referred to Emerson constituency, where I had mentioned the ditch, -- and I'm referring to the flood control measure -- the canal that is to be dug around the City of Winnipeg, or whatever it is. I wish that the Minister would have quoted everything that I had said. I did say the ditch.
MR. ROBLIN: Honourable gentleman's mind, I wasn't quoting him on that particular occasion, it was another official of the Liberal Party, so he's in the clear.
MR. TANCHAK: Well, that's fine, I'm glad to know - I'll accept that, that it was there, because that is actually where it originated - it was originated at Emerson - constituency. And when I referred to the ditch, I stated that after the project is completed it would be nothing but an ugly, unsightly ditch, bypassing Winnipeg; maybe serving the purpose once every twenty-five or thirty years whenever a flood occurs. But I didn't end there - I said wouldn't it be better instead of just digging a ditch around the City of Winnipeg to have a project similar to what Minneapolis has. And we know what the project is - probably some of the honourable members know. They did dig a canal around the city, and we could do the same thing in - I have nothing against it - the people deserve protection, I did state that in my campaign. Why not form a series of summer resorts along this canal - whatever is proposed, -- summer resorts - something that will pay for itself as it grows. Some of the honourable members may have had occasion to go to Minneapolis and may have seen this wonderful series of summer resorts on the side. And, it's just a beautiful sight, and that's what I referred to, and I thought it was a good suggestion. It wasn't that I simply said it was a ditch, and it wasn't necessary; but I think it would be a good idea - something that would bring revenue to the Province of Manitoba, and something that would form - give a place of recreation for all the residents of Winnipeg, instead of going and drowning in some of these dug-outs - Bird's Hill Gravel Pit. They'd be able - they'd have a summer resort - a place of recreation only a few miles outside of Winnipeg.
I see the Honourable, the Minister of Agriculture is smiling - probably he had that in mind - anyway, maybe it's nothing new to him, because I must admit that he is smarter than myself, being more - longer in politics. But, I had to make a reference to this as a ditch.
Now, we come next to the amendment - amendment to the Throne Speech. I think although this amendment did not pass, I think that it accomplished its purpose -- at least it smoked out the Opposition to come out and say something -- so that was a great accomplishment, because the Honourable the First Minister himself admitted that he did not intend to speak on that -- so I think it accomplished it purpose, on that. And, we have clippings here - I have a clipping from the Free Press, "Angry Duff Hits Back At Liberals" - that wouldn't have happened if he didn't have an amendment. And, there is something else that's more important -- another clipping from the Tribune, "Roblin Will Press Ottawa For Results of Tax Talks". Goaded by Liberals, Premier Duff Roblin promised Friday to press for concrete results during the tax talks in Ottawa next month. Probably if he didn't have this amendment, maybe the Premier wouldn't have come up with that statement - "Promised to press for concrete talks." So, there's the result - pat ourselves on the back. Still I'm not saying how good we are - I'm talking about the amendment. I'm not praising any one individual - it's the amendment that did the trick. And, I think it was worthwhile - I think we have a right to say what we think.
Now, let's come to another amendment - and we've had several people talk and some of them have good arithmetic, some of them have poor mathematical minds, when our amendment to the resolution of the C.C.F. - 75 - increased the pensions by $20.00, what did we state? Of course, we said increase the pension by the amount by which the dollar decreased. Well, we learn through the papers and through statistics that since the new Prime Minister has taken over our dollar has been inflated, to about 9% - at least between about 9 and 12%. So, it's not
going to be 93¢ like one of the members had mentioned here before -- it would be closer to five dollars. But what struck me as funny is the Honourable Member from St. Matthews - yesterday he comes out with his own figures and he states that the cost of living index shows that it had gone up by 2.1 point -- 2.1 points.
MR. SPEAKER: Order! I should remind the member that he's talking on the Throne Speech now - not on the resolutions. The amendments have already been disposed of.
MR. TANCHAK: Well, if the Speaker thinks that I am out of order - on this -- I thought from the Throne Speech we could discuss anything we wanted -- this is considered the Throne Speech.
MR. CAMPBELL: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Member is not talking about an amendment that has been disposed of on the Throne Speech, he is talking about an amendment that's presently before the House on another debate.
MR. ROBLIN: ... to that particular debate, otherwise we'll be debating the matter twice.
MR. TANCHAK: Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking on the amendment, I'm just referring to what the honourable member had said. Pardon?
MR. SPEAKER: Didn't he say it on another debate?
MR. TANCHAK: Well, as you say, Mr. Speaker, if you forbid me to go further, I'll be glad to oblige - if you think I'm out of order. [Interjections]
MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest to the honourable member that while the subject matter of the Speech From the Throne is very, very wide indeed, that we have ...
MR. TANCHAK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: ... they have this other amendment before the House too ... two debates at the one time ... [Interjection by Mr. Tanchak]
MR. TANCHAK: I was under the impression that when you come to the Throne Speech, you could speak almost on anything -- even chiropractice. I think I can be chiropractor now.
MR. MILLER: Good boy!
MR. TANCHAK: Well, whenever -- I'll be glad to oblige -- I still -- leaving the Throne Speech -- let's go into figures, and say that 2.1 makes $1.21.
I don't -- there are some other things that I wish to say here, I don't know if I could refer to them again - just not so long ago, the Honourable member from St. Boniface had asked a question when the Honourable, the First Minister, replied to him -- what was the question? I think -- wasn't it that Mr. Premier himself had brought it onto him -- on himself that we discuss federal and provincial matters together, and the Premier had answered that the honourable member is two elections behind time.
Well, it seems to me he had a perfect right during the election campaign to ... [Interjection] ... during the election campaign to bring in some federal matters, because the Honourable the First Minister wished to associate himself a year ago with the -- with Ottawa -- in fact had said, "what Dief did Duff will do," or the press report said that. So, at that time it seems to me that they were birds of a feather. Therefore we figured that since the Convervatives in Ottawa, the Conservatives here -- they're birds of a feather, ...
A MEMBER: Not any more.
MR. TANCHAK: ... and we didn't know that this -- we didn't realize this spring it was the moulting season. They are not birds of a feather - they tried to shed the feathers, so we're not allowed to speak - to mix the two together. I suggest that there was really no harm done - I for one, myself, have never used that - tax-sharing - not once in my constituency - it wasn't right to make a statement here and say that every member across here used that. Probably the reference was not to that specific item of tax sharing, because I myself never used it once -- the tax sharing agreements. Probably I would have if I had thought of him, but at the time, I didn't think of him.
I think that at this point I've just about used up my time - I was going to say a little more on some of the other amendments that have gone by, but since I don't think I'm permitted to do it, I think -- I hope, I'll say that I hope the present Government do what they think is right and if it's in the interest of the people, I'll be the first one to congratulate all the different Ministers. I hope they do not get into the same financial troubles as their colleagues in Ottawa did, but to me it seems that it is inevitable.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? It has been moved by ...
MR. K. ALEXANDER (Roblin): I'm very pleased, Sir, to be able to congratulate you on once again being elected to the high office of Speaker of this Assembly. I am sure you will
continue to serve this Assembly well and faithfully in the future as you have in the past. I also sincerely hope that your task in the future will be a lot easier than it has been in the past. I would also like to compliment the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne. There appears to be some hex or jinx on Conservative members that are chosen or given that honour, because not once in three attempts has that Speech been given on schedule. However, I think the Honourable Member from Birtle-Russell, and the Honourable Member for Springfield did a very good job. I want, Mr. Speaker, to speak as a farmer in this province and of the assistance and help that this government is prepared to give to the farmers of Manitoba.
First of all, however, I would like to say how pleased I am to see the increased numbers of farmers that we have in the House, -- particularly the increased numbers that we have on this side of the House. The figures I have puts the farmer representation in the Liberal party at 2, at 4 rather, two of whom are maybe classified as semi-retired; the C.C.F. had one and the Conservative party had six. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite significant that the only sitting member, farmer member, who lost his seat in the last legislature was the Minister of Agriculture in the previous Liberal Government. I also feel, Mr. Speaker, that I can possibly speak for all the farmers on this side of the House when I say that we, unlike the Honourable Member for La Verendrye who said last session that he got into politics so he could wear a white shirt and a suit, entered public life because we feel that there was a great deal that could be accomplished by farmers working in the political sphere. I feel that the Conservative party of Manitoba, believing as it does in free private enterprise, realizing it's responsibilities to the rural population of this province and willing to take action on those responsibilities is the one party in this province which deserves the support of the farmers of the province of Manitoba.
I would like to mention, first of all, the Provincial Farm Credit Act. Now I know there are some members opposite are going to say, -- some of them - two of them have already said that there is too long a waiting period before loans can be processed - not enough appraisors, and so on, and so on, and so on. There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker, which goes something like this: "Show me a man who has never made a mistake and I will show you a man who has done nothing". Applying that philosophy to politics, I would say that the Liberal party of Manitoba has made very few mistakes for a long time. Their two biggest mistakes, however, I feel was first of all to take the attitude that they had rural Manitoba sewed up tight and therefore felt that they could get away with doing nothing for the last ten years. And their second mistake was when they voted this government out of office at the last session because they thought that they could win a provincial election on federal issues. Any difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in administering the Farm Credit Act is directly due to the very large number of applications that have been received. This proves to me that there was a very great need for this legislation in the province of Manitoba. It proves that that need was there when the honourable members opposite sat on this side of the House and they either did not recognize the need or were not willing to take action on it. I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Liberal Progressive party was still sitting on this side of the House, and I as a farmer thank heaven they are not, but if they were, there would be no application forms even available because they would still be sitting on their hands waiting for the federal government at Ottawa to print them. There would still be no provincial Farm Credit Act and no place that the farmers of this province could apply for the service that they have shown is so greatly needed.
I am also very pleased that this government is giving extra emphasis to agricultural research and the extension service. This, Mr. Speaker, is what I feel is possibly the backbone of a provincial government's contribution to it's farming community to not only keep abreast of the latest development but also to discover them and then make that information available to an efficient and well organized farm extension service. I would like to compare this to the attitude of the previous government. In one year, Mr. Speaker, 1952, we lost I believe it was ten of the province's most experienced ag. reps, and the reason for most of these men leaving the provincial service was that the government of the day refused to pay them what they were worth and, in an effort to save a few dollars, they did the farming community a great disservice by losing the services of these men. I was very interested in hearing what the Honourable Member from Gladstone said about ag. reps. It is this government, Mr. Speaker, that is putting emphasis on ag. reps. It is this government that is prepared and has served notice that
it is going to hire new ag. reps, and if the honourable members over there can pat themselves on the back, I'm just as good at it as they are. And I don't think it is disgusting because we feel and we have said publicly that we are going to hire more ag. reps.
The Honourable Member from Gladstone also mentioned crop insurance. He is in an awful crop insurance in Manitoba. If he is in such a hurry, I would suggest to him, and I am sorry that he is not in his seat, that he is owing his allegiance and his loyalty to the wrong political party in this province. I would like to have him go and check the Votes and Proceedings for the last few years in this province and the Debates - and it's too bad there isn't a Hansard readily available to see what the attitude of his government was on crop insurance when they had the opportunity to do something about it. Their record on crop insurance is simply this, that they let Jimmy Gardiner talk them into the P.F.R.A. plan over twenty years ago, and that plan certainly hasn't worked out for Manitoba.
I would also like to make one brief comment on the highway building program of this government, a program that was vitally needed by this province. To get to Roblin I have to drive through a great deal of the province, and the amount of highway construction going on is very noticeable. I think that anyone driving through this province now cannot help but feel that here, indeed, is a province that is definitely on the move.
Now the Leader of the Opposition, yesterday, I believe, started using our slogan of "Let's Get On With The Business of Manitoba." I guess we have to find a new one now and I would like to put in a plug for what I think is a very good motto for this party, and that is, "Let's Keep Manitoba on the Move" because I feel that that is what this government is doing. We are definitely getting out of the rut which we inherited and are getting on the move.
I would also like to comment now on the speech the Honourable Leader of the Opposition gave when he was speaking on the Throne Debate. He said that he would not "oppose or obstruct the implementation of legislation, particularly that legislation which seems to have been endorsed by themselves. I must say, as far as the program of the government is concerned, that because of the special short Session which we went through, that the program has been quite well put before the public of the province of Manitoba and their answer, as far as I'm concerned, is decisive." Now, Mr. Speaker, that seems to me to be a very strange and almost unique position for the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to take. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, where this leaves the Honourable Member from Carillon who last Session in a very stirring and emphatic speech spoke of the duties of the Opposition. I can still hear him standing up and saying in ringing tones "It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose". Why isn't the Honourable Leader of the Opposition facing up to that duty? I think it is because the honourable member from Lakeside does not dare put his party on the record as voting against our legislative program because he knows that it is good - and he also knows that it is in the best interests of the people of this province. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to say the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, vote "for" or "against" our legislation, taking into consideration only his own principles and his opinions of the value of the legislation. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, to the opposition as a whole, to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be counted on our legislative program; to stand up and say "We would not do this if we had been in power" to stand up and say "We are opposed to this piece of legislation because it will cost too much." The excuse, Mr. Speaker, that they are supporting our legislation because the majority of the people in Manitoba, or rather as one of the honourable members over there pointed out, 47% of those registered electors who turned out to vote is not a valid or a reasonable one. The idea that the legislation can be approved and the finances necessary to finance that legislation opposed is utterly wrong because, Mr. Speaker, the two go hand in hand.
The Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party seemed to be highly encouraged because his party picked up 4,000 votes in the rural part of Manitoba. Well, Mr. Speaker, that works out to about 110 votes per constituency and a great deal of this small increase was due to the confusion created by the C.C.F. party mixing up federal and provincial issues. It certainly does not indicate any increased support for the philosophy of Socialism because such is certainly not the case. If the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. party can take so much comfort from this very slight increase, then I must say that he is in very great need of comforting. The vote on this motion, Mr. Speaker, is a vote of non-confidence in the government. When we examine
the philosophy of the C.C.F. party, and when we examine the record of the previous government for the past ten years with the record and the proposed legislation of this government, then I feel that this government will have and will deserve the confidence of the people of Manitoba for a very long time to come.
MR. G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): ... Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit a question?
MR. ALEXANDER: Certainly.
MR. MOLGAT: Referring to the new highway construction which he sees driving home to his constituency, it so happens that he and I travel over a great deal of the same amount of road. What portions in there are new and were not planned before this present government came in?
MR. ALEXANDER: Were not planned?
MR. MOLGAT: Or partly under construction.
MR. ALEXANDER: Or partly under construction? I can say, first of all, I see the Honourable Member for Gladstone is in his constituency, there is a great portion between Gladstone and Neepawa. It wasn't under construction last year.
MR. MOLGAT: It was planned and it is twenty miles.
MR. ALEXANDER: Planning and construction are two different things.
MR. MOLGAT: You can't build them all at once.
MR. ALEXANDER: And also that nice highway which we hope will be one of the main north-south arterial highways in this province, #83 from Mexico to the northern province, is now getting a vital gap filled in the Roblin constituency as well.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the honourable members will not consider what I have to say as a contribution to the Throne Speech debate. What I have to say is entirely due to a statement made this afternoon by the Honourable member for Burrows when he referred to the misfeasance or nonfeasance of the government of the day in 1952 in enacting legislation which handed over to a national fund the Manitoba Flood Relief Funds then in existence. Now, I know there are a lot of new members in this House and I don't think perhaps that they are familiar with all the facts and circumstances surrounding that fund and I am quite satisfied too that there are a great number of people in Manitoba who have forgotten those facts and circumstances. And purely for the purpose of keeping the record straight, I wish to make these statements: When the flood of 1950 hit us, an appeal was made for funds. Funds came in from all over Canada, all over the United States, in fact, from all over all parts of the civilized world. I believe that even the emperor Haile Selassie of Etheopia was a contributor towards the fund which was being raised in Manitoba. Now the government of Manitoba was faced at that time with the problem of having a body which would administer that fund and in collaboration with the city of Winnipeg a group of public spirited citizens volunteered to gratuitously offer their services for the purpose of handling that fund. That fund was donated to that group for a specific purpose and that group felt that they were trustees of that fund. Now when the purposes for which these funds were given to that group were exhausted, that group found that it still had undispersed about $1,495,000. Now I think the Honourable the Attorney-General will back me up in what I have to say now, that those individuals were trustees of that money and at law from the purposes for which that trust was created disappear, there is a resulting trust back to the original donors of that fund. Now that group had two courses to follow: (1) they could have applied to a Manitoba Court to have a receiver appointed to administer that fund and to ascertain the people to whom that money should be returned. Now that would have been an impossible task for the simple reason that a great number of the contributions that were made to that fund were made anonymously, some of them were in small amounts of 25¢ and 50¢ and some were very substantial amounts. But the donors were not all known.
Now these individuals being trustees, realized that as long as that money was in their possession there was a trust imposed upon them and this legislature in 1952 felt that in fairness to these individuals and in gratitude for what they had done for the people of the flooded area, this legislature felt that something should be done to relieve those people from the terms of trust that were imposed upon them so that their estates, if anything should happen to them, would not at a subsequent date be encumbered by the terms of that trust. Now they applied to this Legislature for a Bill enabling them to dispose of these funds. Now some members may
say "Well, why weren't these funds given to a fund set up in Manitoba for emergency relief purposes?" The reason for that, gentlemen, was briefly this: these funds were contributed from all over Canada; they were contributed from all over the United States and all over the civilized world. And I think if the people of Manitoba had taken it upon themselves to set up a fund and pay in the balance that was in that fund to the Fund they had set up, they would have been guilty of bad faith. The only way that that matter could be properly handled was to have it handled by a national fund; and a body was incorporated under federal law - The Canadian National Emergency Fund - and the bill that we enacted in this Legislature did two things: it authorized the trustees of the Manitoba Fund to pay that money over to the federal fund and it discharged them from their obligations and duties respecting the monies which had been paid to them.
Now the only reason why I have mentioned that here tonight is simply on account of the fact that I think the record should be kept straight and I don't think that the people who had suffered flood damage in the Seine Valley should be led to believe that any government of Manitoba put out of their reach, deliberately, money which could be used for their relief today.
HON. S. E. McLEAN (Min. of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because of what was said by the member for Emerson and the member for La Verendrye in reference to education and the school division, and the votes that were taken on that earlier this year.
I want to say just this with respect to the comments of the member for Emerson that I did not say in his constituency that he was strongly opposed to the school divisions. What I did say was that it was not surprising to me that the people of his constituency had voted against the formation of school division after I had listened to his long list of disadvantages of the new plan as he recited them at the meeting that both he and I attended at Ridgeville during the campaign earlier in the year. And may I just say this to him: that not one of the disadvantages which he recited on that mournful occasion has occurred and that the plan is working excellently in every part of the province of Manitoba where it came into effect.
The subject of taxes, of course, there is no difference of opinion between he and I as I made it quite clear on that occasion that the new plan does cost money and was going to cost more money and that whether the money came from us as tax-payers of the province of Manitoba or taxpayers in our local municipalities, that it was going to cost the people of Manitoba more money and that must be definitely understood and that it would have to be paid for from either source of taxation.
Now with respect to the comments of the member for the constituency of La Verendrye, he still doesn't understand this plan because he speaks of equality of opportunity overlooking completely the fact that when the people of the proposed school division of Hanover voted against the formation of a division, they decided not to undertake the obligations that were associated with the formation of a division and therefore, do not have the obligations that go with that type of school administration. And it follows, I think, with reasonable logic that they are not entitled and do not need the additional financial assistance which is part and parcel of this plan. They chose not to have a school division. They do not have the obligations that form a part of that plan and as I say, as a matter of logic, do not receive the grants that are part of the plan.
But he asked two questions: He said, are the citizens of the four proposed divisions, where they voted against the formation of a division, going to receive another vote? Our position on that matter has been clearly stated on several occasions by myself and on one occasion at least by the First Minister. I have always said and it has always been part of the plan that the formation of a school division could be reconsidered by the people of any proposed division and we would allow a second vote if we had a reasonable indication of a desire by the people of the proposed division to reconsider their decision.
MR. ROBERTS: Could I ask a question?
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Did you not refuse the people of Hanover at one time a second vote?
MR. McLEAN: No, we did not.
MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon, Sir, would you repeat that please?
You never refused the people of Hanover in a delegation to you an opportunity for a second vote? Would you say that clearly please?
MR. McLEAN: I'll cover that just in a moment. And the Honourable, the First Minister on occasion not too long ago stated our policy that was upon the receipt of a petition by not less than 25% of the resident electors of the proposed division, we would be prepared to allow, to conduct a second vote, and that information was communicated to the people of the proposed division of Hanover who were interested in that matter. I do not know whether they have considered such a petition or whether they have such a petition. They haven't brought it in in any event. But that has been the policy and will continue to be the policy until some further change is made.
The second question he asked was if they vote "no", I presume referring to a second "no" vote, are they going to receive the new grants? And the answer has been clearly stated that they will not receive the new grants if they do not form a school division. That is carrying out a policy which was developed long before this government was in office with respect to the formation of any larger unit of school administration and on numerous occasions as this House well knows, there were votes in the proposed larger units areas as they were called under the previous legislation which involved the payment of increased grants - and when the vote was defeated, of course, the grant system continued as it has been previously, so that in that respect we are continuing a policy which was honoured by some years of acceptance.
Now, one final comment with respect to both of the honourable members who have spoken, that I would hope that if in their respective proposed divisions that there is a second vote, and I hope there will be because the plan is an excellent one and has advantages for their people as well as others in Manitoba - that they themselves, and I would be glad to have them declare themselves before this legislature is finished - that they themselves would unqualifiedly support the plan and give some measure of leadership to the people of their respective constituencies in having them accept the plan because if it is their intention to adopt the same methods as they adopted in the previous campaign, then their people may just as well forget about it and leave it until they have someone who will give them some leadership in the matter.
MR. ROBERTS: I would like to ask two questions of the Minister, if I may, first, do you still maintain that there is an equal opportunity for all children to go to school in Manitoba, I mean, even the people who through reasons of their own voted "no" - first question. Secondly, did you not retell the people from the division of Hanover, the responsible people who came to see you in delegation that even if they had a petition signed by 25% of the people, they could not at that time get a second vote, the time they came to you?
MR. McLEAN: Just the answer to the second question first is that the delegation were informed that at that time we were not prepared to hold a second vote but bearing in mind what I have just said a moment ago, that's to the people of Hanover, yes, that the policy of the government was placed before them by the First Minister at a later date.
The first question about equality of opportunity is begging the question or is not strictly speaking a question that bears on this issue because the people had the opportunity of having this particular system of school administration and they chose not to accept it and I assume they did so by reasons with which they were satisfied at the time. And the equality of opportunity was of necessity associated with the acceptance of the plan that we had proposed. They chose not to accept the plan.
MR. ROBERTS: In other words, there was equality for only those who voted "yes". A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why it was decided only just before election time to tell the people of Hanover that they could not have a second vote? And you as an educator, don't you think that was cheap politics?
MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to participate in this debate just by way of saying a few words. I may not be very discreet in that I am in a sense involving a third party here in a debate that is waxing bitterly and I suppose it shouldn't concern us. However, I think there is an important matter involved, namely one of giving leadership when the occasion arises, and I said last year when speaking here in this chamber that there were, at least that I knew of, two liberal members who when given the opportunity to provide leadership as regards the secondary school division plan, had failed to do so. I am afraid that the Honourable the Minister of Education is correct when he asks or I say he is acting correctly when he asked the two members from Carillon, I beg your pardon, from La Verendrye and Emerson to commit themselves one way or another because that is to be expected. One should. Now I do know that
the member is not with us this session, I do know that during the campaign to sell the idea of the larger secondary school division to the people that one member was speaking in favour of it from the platform, and speaking against it when in private coversation with some of his constituents. I do not wish to be personal, but surely, it is not too much to expect from members to provide leadership either one way or the other, and if that were done, there would be no resulting confusion.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, I'm somewhat in the position of the Honourable, the First Minister, the other day in that I firmly made up my mind not to speak on this occasion, but some of the remarks that have been uttered in this Chamber impel me to say a few words, and I assure you that they will be brief.
I want to congratulate you on your accession to office once again, and wish you the best of luck. I want to congratulate the mover and seconder on the splendid job that they've done, and I hope to hear more of them in the near future.
Congratulations are in order as well to my good friend, the member for Radisson, who succeeds an outstanding man as leader of his party in the House.
And, I want to congratulate too, the First Minister, because he achieved an outstanding victory, and he--as he always informs us on every occasion, the people have spoken, and I agree with him--the people have spoken, and therefore, we on this side do not care to obstruct, because we realize that evidently, the people of Manitoba have agreed to the program which was envisaged by honourable members opposite. And all that we questioned, what we want to find out and which we shall question--go into very, very carefully, is we want to know about the yardstick--the price tag that is attached to it. And, that is our duty. And as my Leader said, if the Honourable, the First Minister could convince this House as he evidently has been able to convince the people of Manitoba that he can do all these things without an increase in taxation, well, as my Leader said, we are proven wrong. But, if he can't do that, then the shoe is on the other foot. We've had occasion to talk about this matter not so many weeks ago and all that we have said, we said we think he can get by this year, due to careful previous administration. But we also said that the days of woe are coming. And that will--and they will come next year, or the year following. And even if he says that sales tax is as dead as a do-do, I think he said that, as dead as a do-do, well, I'm waiting with baited breath to see how he proposes to finance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it's quite true, the people have spoken, and I suggest to you in four or five years time they will speak again (Hear! Hear!) and if history repeats itself, my honourable friends opposite will be out in the cold once more. My honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture laughs.
MR. WILLIS: Which history is that?
MR. MILLER: The history of thirty to thirty-five--which you should remember of all people.
MR. WILLIS: You were a good Tory about then.
MR. MILLER: Right, right, I suffered as well as you did. I suffered as well as you did! And another thing...
MR. WILLIS: Where are you going--where are you going next, eh?
MR. MILLER: Not in the wilderness where you are. Not across the road, Mr. Speaker.
MR. WILLIS: That's for sure.
MR. MILLER: That's right, that's right. And as for what I was about to say when I was so rudely interrupted by my honourable friend, I was going to say that history will repeat itself. That in 1930, the Federal Conservatives swept Manitoba, in 1935, there was but one left, and so I suggest to this government...Pardon?
MR. RIDLEY: You tried to be one in '35.
MR. MILLER: Yes Sir, and I was running number three, too, in Manitoba, and not a bad achievement. I think the Minister of Agriculture was running number two and the Member for Federal Brandon managed to be elected, and I suspect because of his personality and not for politics that we espoused at that time, my friends and I.
MR. WILLIS: Tell us more.
MR. MILLER: No, I think, if I may make a suggestion, I think that my long service in this house entitles me to make some constructive criticism and make some suggestion. I would suggest to the First Minister, and to his colleagues, that they display a little more modesty, particularly my honourable friend, the Attorney-General.
MR. ROBLIN: But we haven't any letters to read.
MR. MILLER: No, and I suggest you haven't many either, and I don't think he will get many either, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say a few words now in comment upon the remarks that the honourable, the Minister of Education, and I'm not going to be critical--after all he hasn't been in office too long.
He hasn't changed any of the previous policies initiated by the previous government. [Interjections] He did, however, make one significant change, Mr. Speaker, he raised the fees for admission to Teachers' College, and I suspect, as other fees have been raised, that the honourable--that he had acted on orders of the Honourable, the Provinicial Treasurer, who is desperately looking around for more revenue. May I suggest to him in all sincerity that I don't think that is a good move, to raise the fees at this time. I think that he would have been much better advised to have raised the entrance requirements, because he is now in a very fortunate position in that he has many applicants for Teachers' college and I was going to find out more about that at the time when he presents his estimates. But he says many changes have been made--he stood up in his place the other day and said, corrected a statement that appeared in the press, and he said that applications for Teachers' college admission are still being received with a full grade XI plus two XII subjects. Now, where's the improvement? Where's the improvement, Mr. Speaker? We, in the past, were not able to get the same number of applicants and we perforce had to get the standard at XI plus two although we decreased the number in every year. And I think it would be gracious at least on his part if he gave some credit to the previous administration in connection with education. And I suggest too, that the honourable member for Burrows should say a few good words--kind words about the previous administration, because we did something. We doubled pensions, we doubled pensions, we did everything we could in order to increase the standards of teaching. We had a good staff, an excellent staff; we had good people in the department; we had good inspectors; and after all these are the people that he's carrying on with. But not a word--not a word! Everything that the previous administration has done is no good.
MR. McLEAN: I didn't say that.
MR. MILLER: My honourable friend, the First Minister said "Your plan's no good," and not many years ago he damned this very plan, when he was standing here he said, "Half a loaf or nothing, sweeten the pot," aided and abetted by the then leader of the C.C.F. party, all or nothing. I'm talking about the larger school area plan that you know about.
MR. ROBLIN: You're misinformed.
MR. MILLER: No, I'm not misinformed, I've a very good memory, very good memory. [Interjections]
MR. ROBLIN: I'll deal with you later.
MR. MILLER: The fact of the matter is that I'm not in the mood tonight to criticize too much [Laughter], Mr. Speaker, I am a man of peace [Laughter], I only fight when I have to, and then only under provocation. And I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that I've been sitting here peacefully since the House opened and haven't said very much except to give some good advice to you. But a person can only take so much.
Now, I want to say something in connection with the proposed new vote, and this is a sincere suggestion, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I think that the demand for a 25% Petition is too great. May I suggest to the Honourable Minister that in areas which voted no, that local meetings be held in the local school district rather than have somebody run around at great expense and gather Petitions. Now, that is 25% of the voting population and in some areas that would mean about 50% of those who voted. It's nearly an impossibly task, and I would suggest in all sincerity that he take the advice of the local people in the individual school districts and if they pass resolutions to the effect that they would want another vote, that that vote be granted.
And secondly, I would like to suggest, too, that somebody receive authority to adjust the boundaries of the divisions. You know as well as I, that in certain areas because of the size, the proximity of certain towns to each other had an adverse effect on the vote. Now, I think that if he took, and I'm suggesting that to the Minister, and for heaven's sake let him not set up another Commission, as he suggested last year, let him take some responsibility himself, let him take some responsibility himself--let him not pass the buck to boundary commissions, to boards of references, to all this and that. I had to, couldn't get out of it, I couldn't get out of it, I was blamed for everything, and I think it wouldn't hurt the Minister if he accepted some responsibility in the matter. Now, I made these suggestions sincerely--I do think 25% of a petition is too great to receive, if it is our earnest desire to have another vote. I suggest that the feelings of the people in the rural sections be ascertained in the individual school districts and that the Minister accept the resolution of that or of the various school districts. I know we did
that under the secondary area legislation and it was found quite effective. And then again, I suggest don't set up another study group, don't set up another commission, don't set up another board of reference consisting as you suggest--as he suggested last year of membership of another commission, and then I would advise him too, to take into consideration the recommendation of the Royal Commission in the Interim Report and I still don't know who asked for it, by the way, somebody must have asked for it, of merit rating. I think it's highly important. I think the Teachers' Society have agreed that it is a desirable feature of - I understand that another committee is studying it, but I think the Minister is such an able one that he can establish that as government policy, tied to his educational program, and then I suggest that we will have a much better educational system in Manitoba. (Hear! Hear!)
MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the humble address to be presented to His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, as follows: "To his Honour, John S. McDiarmid, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Manitoba, we Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in Session assembled, humbly thank your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour is pleased to address to us at the opening of the present Session."
[A standing vote was taken, the result being:
YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Boulic, Christianson, Cobb, Cowan, Evans, Groves, Hutton, Johnson (Assa), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Ridley, Roblin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Weir, Willis, Witney.
NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Gray, Harris, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Miller, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Roberts, Schreyer, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner, Wright.]
MR. CLERK: The YEAS: 29. The NAYS: 19.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that the address to His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, be engrossed, and be presented to His Honour, by such members of this House as are of the Executive Council, and the mover and seconder of the address.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce, that William G. Martin, Esq., member for the electoral division of St. Matthews, be Chairman of Committees of the House.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: Honourable J. S. McDiarmid, Lieutenant-Governor. The Lieutenant-Governor transmits to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba estimates of sums required for services of the Province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960, and recommends these estimates to the Legislative Assembly.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Education, that the message of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor together with the estimates accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare, that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into Committee to consider of ways and means for raising of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable, the Provincial Secretary, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion.]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, I would just like to announce that estimates of supply are available on the Clerk's desk, and will be distributed to members of the House as soon as possible, and I urge members to pick them up this evening.
[Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House was adjourned until 2:30 the following afternoon.]
----------
M. PREFONTAINE: Monsieur l'orateur, il me fait un grand plaisir de féliciter Monsieur et Madame Bracken au nom des Canadien-français de cette province. Monsieur Bracken a assumé les rênes du gouvernement en 1922 peu après la fameuse session de 1916, session pendant laquelle les droits de langue française au Manitoba on été abrégés. Il assumait les rênes du pouvoir dans un temps où il ne faisait pas bon de discuter trop ouvertement de la question du français au Manitoba, mais je tiens à dire à Monsieur Bracken que le population française ont vu en lui un homme sincère, un homme qui a accordé à la population française, malgré la loi qui n'était pas favorable toutes les largesses possibles et nous avons vécu sous lui pendant tout le temps où il a été le premier ministre dans une atmosphère de tolérance et de bonne entente entre la minorité française et la majorité anglaise de cette province. Il me fait donc un grand plaisir de féliciter monsieur et madame Bracken à l'occasion du cinquantième anniversaire de leur marriage et de féliciter surtout madame Bracken de l'air de jeunesse qu'elle nous apporte aujourd'hui et d'offrir à tous les deux meilleurs voeux.
[English translation of above:
MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Bracken on behalf of the French-Canadians of this province. Mr. Bracken assumed the reins of government in 1922 soon after the famous session of 1916, session during which the rights of the French language were abridged. He assumed the reins of power at a time when it was unwise to openly discuss the French question in Manitoba, but I want to say to Mr. Bracken that the French population saw in him a man on sincere intentions, a man who granted to the French population, notwithstanding the unfavourable law, all possible leeway and we lived under his leadership during all the time he was Prime Minister in an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding between the French minority and the English majority in this province. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate Mr. & Mrs. Bracken on the 50th wedding anniversary and to especially congratulate Mrs. Bracken for the air of youth she brings us today and to offer them both my best wishes.]
----------
M. DESJARDINS: Monsieur l'orateur, je suis fier de pouvoir m'unir aux autres députés de cette Chambre pour vous féliciter du grand honneur et de la marque de confiance qu'on vous a fait en vous confiant la tâche si importante - celle d'orateur de cette Chambre. Nul doute que vous en serez toujours digne et que vous saurez rendre vos décisions impartiales. Je tiens aussi à féliciter l'honorable député de Birtle-Russell qui a présenté la motion avec autant d'aplomb et de sincérité et aussi l'honorable député pour Springfield son secondeur. Ces deux messieurs feront sans doute crédit à leur comte ainsi qu'au gouvernement. Plusieurs milliers de mot, plusieurs centaines de discours ont proclame les louanges de St. Boniface et ont aussi fait connaître les besoins de ses citoyens. Des poètes, des historiens, des éducateurs, des membres du clergé, des citoyens et des visiteurs distingués ont parlé de notre ville. L'an passé des célébrations grandioses ont fêté le 50ième jubilé de notre ville-cathédrale. Je me sens donc indigne de parler trop longtemps sur se sujet. Mais, tout fois comme humble représentant de ces fiers citoyens ce sera mon privilège de travailler à faire connaître la ville de St. Boniface et ses enfants. Ce sera mon devoir de voir à ce que les gens qui ont eu confiance en moi soient bien représentés et si il le faut défendus même. St. Boniface a raison d'être orgueilleux de son histoire, mais ce que j'aime le plus, ce dont je suis le plus fier, c'est que le comte de St. Boniface est celui est le plus manitobain, le plus canadien peut-être de la province. Ici on trouve des groupes de différentes origines. La plupart de ces groupes ont conservé leur langue maternelle. À St. Boniface on parle français, anglais,
belge, polonnais, ukrainien. Ces groupes sont fiers de leur propres croyances, cultures et coutumes. Ils ont tous leur propres organizations, leur propres chefs, mais unis ensembles ils travaillent tous au bien-être de St. Boniface. Il y'a probablement moins de fanatisme à St. Boniface que partout ailleurs au Canada.
English translation of above:
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be able to join with the other members of this House to congratulate you on the great honour and proof of confidence given you in entrusting you with so important a task - that of Speaker of this House. No doubt you will always be worthy of this and will always render your decisions impartially.
I also want to congratulate the honourable member for Birtle-Russell who presented the motion with such poise and sincerity and the honourable member for Springfield, his seconder. These two gentlemen will no doubt be a credit to their constituency as well as to the government. Many thousands of words, many hundreds of speeches have extolled the glories of St. Boniface and have also made known the needs of its citizens. Poets, historians, teachers, members of the clergy, citizens and distinguished visitors have spoken of our city. Last year great celebrations were held commemorating the 50th Jubilee of our Cathedral City. I therefore feel unworthy to speak at any length on this subject. But, however, as the humble representative of these proud citizens it will be my privilege to work at making known the city of St. Boniface and its children. It will be my duty to see that the people who showed confidence in me be well represented and, if necessary, defended. St. Boniface has reason to be proud of its history, but what I like most and what I am most proud of, is that the constituency of St. Boniface is probably the most Manitoban, the most Canadian of the province. There we find many groups of different origins. The majority of these groups preserved their mother-tongue. In St. Boniface we speak French, English, Belgian, Polish and Ukrainian. These groups are proud of their own beliefs, cultures and traditions. They have their own organizations and leaders but united together they all work for the well-being of St. Boniface. There is probably less fanaticism in St. Boniface than anywhere else in Canada.]
Page revised: 3 April 2011
