| 317 | 318 | 319 | 320 | ||||||
| 321 | 322 | 323 | 324 | 325 | 326 | 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 |
| 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 |
| 341 |
| Page | ||
| Reports of Select Standing Committee, Municipal Affairs, (Mr. Ridley) ........................... | 317 | |
| Introduction of Bill No. 76, Urban Trustees, (Mr. Lissaman) ........................................... | 317 | |
| Questions: ..................................................................................................................... | 317 | |
| Mr. Desjardins (Mr. Carroll), Mr. Guttormson (Mr. Willis) | ||
| Orders for Returns, Mr. Peters ...................................................................................... | 318 | |
| Committee of Whole House, Third Reading of Bills Nos. 7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 28, | ||
| 29, 31, 33, 34, 36 .................................................................................................... | 318 | |
| Third Reading of Bills Nos. 46, 47, 48, 50, 60 .......................................................... | 319 | |
| Second Reading of Bills Nos. 58, 45 .............................................................................. | 321 | |
| No. 70 ..................................................................................................................... | 325 | |
| No. 71 ..................................................................................................................... | 326 | |
| Adjourned Debate, Motor Vehicle Insurance (Mr. Paulley) and Amendment | ||
| (Mr. McKellar), Mr. Schreyer .................................................................................. | 328 | |
| Mr. Alexander .......................................................................................................... | 331 | |
| Mr. Strickland .......................................................................................................... | 332 | |
| Adjourned Debate, Farm Implements Tax (Mr. Ridley) and Amendment (Mr. Roberts), | ||
| Mr. Shewman (Amendment to Amendment) ............................................................. | 334 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Ambulance Service (Mr. Wright), Mr. Weir ................................. | 335 | |
| Mr. Desjardins ......................................................................................................... | 338 | |
| Committee of Supply, Interim ........................................................................................ | 339 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker.]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports of Standing and Select Committees.
MR. M. E. RIDLEY (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs.
MR. CLERK: Your Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs beg leave to present the following as their first report. Your committee met for organization and appointed Mr. Ridley as Chairman. Your committee recommends that for the remainder of the session the quorum of this committee shall consist of seven members. Your committee has considered Bill No. 21, an Act to amend The Municipal Boundaries Act, and has agreed to report the same with that amendment. Your committee also -- has also considered Bill No. 22, an Act to amend The Local Government Districts Act, and has agreed to report the same with certain amendments, all of which is respectfully submitted.
MR. RIDLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Brandon, that the report be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills, The Honourable Member for Brandon.
MR. R. O. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Pembina, that leave be given to introduce the Bill No. 76, an Act to incorporate the Urban School Trustees Association of Manitoba, the same is now received for the first time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, yesterday it was obvious that the Honourable Minister of Public Utilities knew very little about the questions that I had to ask him.
MR. SPEAKER: ...order. You may not discuss what took place yesterday.
MR. DESJARDINS: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I meant that I had another day to find out. Anyway, I'd like to direct the same original questions to the Honourable the Minister of Public Utilities, please. We know that the Board of Directors of the C.B.C. has recommended this French-language T.V. station for Manitoba, and we also know that we have been told that this Government has it under consideration, as a matter of consideration. My question would be, did the Government send any recommendation to Ottawa, and if not, does it intend to make any immediate recommendation? (3) If so, what kind of recommendation would that be? And, a fourth question, is the Honourable Minister aware -- is it true that there has been presssure from the Mayor of Winnipeg to block this -- to stop this section of the French-language T.V. station?
HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities) (The Pas): Well, Mr. Speaker, to clear up the misunderstanding which arose yesterday, I attended a meeting with certain members of the executive committee of the C.B.C., not in Ottawa as suggested, but in Toronto. Now, the C.B.C., have already expressed their views to the government with respect to the French-speaking station for the City of Winnipeg - the City of St. Boniface, I should say - so that there would be no point of my having discussed this with them at that meeting in Toronto. Now, the First Minister himself did think that the meeting was taking place in Ottawa, and the arrangements were made at a late date - he wasn't advised that the actual place of meeting was Toronto in place of Ottawa. Now, we have made no formal submission to the Federal Government about the French T.V. station; however, we have indicated that we certainly would not be opposed to it and in fact would welcome such a station in the Province of Manitoba.
I wrote a letter yesterday afternoon expressing -- at least asking the Government's views on it and pointing out that many of the citizens of this province are in favour of this station and would benefit by it. We would certainly do nothing to oppose it, and with respect to Mr. Juba's views, I'm afraid that I can't speak for him - I certainly had no representations
from him with respect to this station.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Public Works. Could he indicate at this time when construction will begin on the control of Lake Manitoba?
MR. SPEAKER: Orders.
HON. E. F. WILLIS (Minister of Public Works) (Turtle Mountain): The -- I can't answer that because we haven't got to a position where we can decide that yet. If there's any information the Honourable Member wants, if he'll come to my office -- I'll give him all I've got, but we still require considerable information before we can decide the question which he's now asking.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Elmwood.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, in the necessary absence of the Member for Elmwood, I move, seconded by the Member for Kildonan, that a return of the House -- that an order of the House to issue for a Return showing (a) the bids received by the Department of Public Works Purchasing Department on quotation numbers 11-317; 11-319; 11-315; 11-320 (date of issue of purchase order - May 19th); (b) the reason, if any, why the public, (including unsuccessful bidders) the public is not able to acquire this information upon request.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Committee of the Whole House.
HON. S. R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): In the absence of the Minister of Health and Public Welfare, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House do now resolve itself into committee to consider the bills standing on the Order Paper.
[Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote declared the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 7, an Act to amend The Old Age Assistance Act. Section No. 1, 2, 3, 4, preamble, title. Shall the bill be reported?
Bill No. 10, an Act to validate Order-in-Council 1443-58 and the guaranteeing of a debenture bond issued by Co-Op Prairie Canners Limited. Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, preamble, title. Bill be reported. And Schedule A, Schedule B.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Just a matter of information, were these debentures - they were largely taken up locally, weren't they?
HON. G. EVANS (Minister of Industry & Commerce) (Fort Rouge): The funds - the $50,000.00 of funds was divided from that fund into the administration of my honourable colleague from the Department of Agriculture. I've forgotten the exact title of the fund, but it was the residue, wasn't it of those pool funds which came into existence. They accepted the debentures with the guarantee of the government.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill be reported.
[Bill No. 15, Sec. 1 to Sec. 3, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 16, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 18, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 19, Sec. 1 to Sec. 7, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 25, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 28, Sec. 1 to Sec. 4, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 29, Sec. 1 to Sec. 4, was read and passed.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon - 5 (1) yes - 2, 5 (1)
MR. MILLER: I think you just called Section 2, Sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: [Bill 31, Sections 1-7, was read section by section, and passed.]
[Bill No. 33, Sec. 1 to Sec. 4, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 34, Sec. 1 to Sec. 5, was read and passed.]
Bill No. 36 - An Act to amend The Reserve for War and Post-War Emergencies Act - Section 1 - 8; Section 2 ...
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman -- I'm sorry. I would like to get a little more information on this Bill. I take it that this is the fund which was accumulated after the
war where it put away from the estimates about $750,000.00 every year - and accumulated a certain amount of money -- which sum has been used by the present government -- and the first question I would like to ask is - How much is in the fund now; and whether this Bill gives you the right to take only the interest of the money or if it gives you also power to dispose of the reserve fund in any way that the government sees fit.
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, this Bill in no wise alters the general powers of the government in respect to this Bill. They are still covered by the Post-War Reserve and Emergencies Act itself or by any legislation that may have subsequently been passed by the House. Those powers remain unchanged. What the Bill does do is it permits the Treasurer to transfer the interest earned only out of this fund to the Consolidated Revenue if he should wish to do so. That's the purpose - the intent of the Bill. The total amount in the fund is in the neighbourhood of sixteen or seventeen million dollars at the present time - some of which is invested in --, all of which is invested in securities of various sorts -- advances to the Power Commission and matters of that sort; advances to the Development Fund, the Agricultural Fund as approved by the House in previous legislation.
MR. GRAY: May I ask what is the intention, at the present time we don't see any immediate emergencies, and if there is an emergency we could always find the money, why pay high interest on our loans and then have this money in reserve? It is true that this fund also bears interest but there might be a difference of selling bonds and buying bonds.
MR. ROBLIN: Selling and buying has really nothing to do with the Bill, Mr. Chairman. This is merely permissive.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the First Minister could give us the amounts invested in the various securities.
MR. ROBLIN: I can't give you that information at the moment, Sir - it's to be found in the Public Accounts as of the end of last year and generally speaking it's just about the same now. The only change that I believe members will find is there may be some amounts that have been allocated for support of the Industrial Development Fund or the Agricultural Credit Act. As money is required for the operation of those two Acts it's drawn from this fund, but relatively - some amounts have been drawn but they're not yet very great - perhaps they will be later on but they're not at the moment.
MR. MILLER: Are the advances to the Power Commission the same now as they were before?
MR. ROBLIN: Yes Sir, they are the same.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 1 (a); Section 2 - preamble, title. Bill be reported.
[Bill No. 46, Sec. 1 & Sec. 2, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 47, Sec. 1 to Sec. 6, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 48, Sec. 1 to Sec. 4, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 50, Sec. 1 to Sec. 3, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 60, Sec. 1 to Sec. 3, was read and passed.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the committee rise and report? Call in the Speaker.
MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House has considered certain bills without amendments and certain bills with amendments and directed me to report the same and asked me to sit again.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Roblin, that the report to the committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 7.
MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that Bill No. 7 - An Act to amend The Old Age Assistance Act - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading No. 10...
MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that Bill No. 10 - An Act to validate Order-in-Council 1443/58 and the Guaranteeing of a Debenture Bond issued by Co-op Prairie Canners Ltd. - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading Bill No. 15.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that Bill No. 15 - an Act to amend The Interpretation Act - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 16.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that Bill No. 16 - an Act to amend The Summary Convictions Act, be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 18.
HON. MARCEL BOULIC (Provincial Secretary) (Cypress): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that Bill No. 18 - an Act to amend The Companies Act, be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 19.
MR. BOULIC: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that Bill No. 19 - an Act respecting the provision of group life insurance for public servants of the province, be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 25.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that Bill No. 25 - an Act to amend The Hospitals Act - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 28.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that Bill No. 28 - an Act to amend The Blind Persons' Allowances Act - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 29.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that Bill No. 29 - an Act to amend The Disabled Persons' Allowances Act - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 31.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that Bill No. 31 - an Act to amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 33.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that Bill No. 33 - an Act to amend The Insurance Corporations Tax Act - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 34.
MR. W. B. SCARTH (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre, that Bill No. 34 - an Act to amend The Public Schools Act (2) - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 36.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, that Bill No. 36 - an Act to amend The Reserve for War and Post-War Emergencies Act - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 46.
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Member for Winnipeg Centre, that Bill No. 46 - an Act to validate By-law No. 608 of The School District of Winnipeg No. 1 - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 47.
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Member for Winnipeg Centre, that Bill No. 47 - an Act to amend An Act to Incorporate the Sinking Fund Trustees of the School District of Winnipeg No. 1 - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 48.
MR. JAMES COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews, that Bill No. 48 - an Act to amend The Winnipeg Charter 1956 - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 50.
HON. E. F. WILLIS (Minister of Agriculture & Immigration) (Turtle Mountain): I beg to move, seconded by the Provincial Secretary, that Bill No. 50 - an Act to amend The Public Works Act - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Third reading of Bill No. 60.
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Member for St. James, that Bill No. 60 - an Act to amend The Greater Winnipeg Water District Act - be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 58 - The Honourable Member for Carillon.
MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rhineland, that Bill No. 58 - an Act respecting the Town of Steinbach - be now read a second time.
[Mr. Speaker put the question.]
MR. PREFONTAINE: This bill enlarges the area of the Town of Steinbach. Since this town was incorporated some twelve years ago it has already been enlarged once, and this is the second enlargement. The Town of Steinbach is growing rapidly. I wish to commend both the Town of Steinbach and the Municipality of Hanover for having worked this change in boundaries in a very friendly and amicable manner. It will extend the Town of Steinbach both to the west and to the north, and will provide services to the people who are living in Hanover in an urban part of the municipality adjoining the Town of Steinbach. I think that you will see that when this bill goes to committee that there will be unanimity of the two councils interested.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 45 - The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre.
MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Member for St. Matthews, that Bill No. 45 - an Act to amend The Winnipeg Charter, 1956, and to validate By-laws Nos. 17959 and 18073 - be now read a second time.
[Mr. Speaker put the question.]
MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, this proposed bill contains quite a number of amendments to The Winnipeg Charter; firstly it provides that the city may pay death benefits in the case of temporary employees, and also confirms the city's authority to participate in a system of group insurance, and there are amendments which remove the exemption upon taxation of certain schools and there are no schools of that type now in this category. And then there are amendments to the provisions with regard to the business tax - a number of amendments in that regard. And there's an amendment that will permit the Board of Revision to place an assessment on new buildings and additions where construction is started during the fall or during the winter months. And then there's a correction of a printer's error, and there are provisions taken from The Municipal Act, giving the City the same right as other municipalities in the case of expropriation -- expropriation for streets. There is a provision that
the cost of re-surfacing streets and laying new curb pavements -- re-surfacing can be done as a local improvement and new curb pavements can be charged to the City at large - as well as curbs. There is provision that the second - the Sinking Fund Trustees may invest funds in United States Government Securities to the extent that the Sinking Fund Trustees hold securities payable in United States funds.
There is another section, which permits the City by resolution to make regulations regarding the stopping of vehicles. And there is a provision which provides that instead of the police commission consisting of the Mayor, two Aldermen and a Police Magistrate and a senior County Court Judge, that it will in future consist of the Mayor and four Aldermen. This is being asked for, because originally the City asked for the Commission to be set up in its present form, and now they are requesting that the form be changed to what it was originally, and it will then conform with the practice in the rest of the municipalities and cities in Manitoba, where the police come directly under the control of the elected representatives. There is one exception to this -- in St. Boniface, they also have a police commission. But in the other cities of Manitoba, they don't have the police commission and the police commission comes under the control of the elected representatives. The reason for this change is that it is felt that when the Magistrate and Senior County Court Judge have evidence being given before them by police officers who are under their jurisdiction, since they are on the Board of Police Commissioners, that there is a conflict of interest and that this conflict of interest should be removed.
Then there are amendments ratifying certain changes in the pension by-laws to validate these changes. One has to do with the fact that the Old Age Pension was increased from $46.00 to $55.00 and the by-law is being changed to make allowance for that. And the other one has to deal largely with allowing a large number of employees who were not previously eligible to join the pension scheme, to join upon paying up certain back monies as set out in the schedule. Then Section 4 is made retroactive to January 1st as regards the proposed changes in 1959 business assessments.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I understand that separate sections cannot be discussed under second reading, so actually there are many principles, or you could say no principles at all. The City is asking us for certain - for the passage of certain amendments to their legislation, and want us to deal with it. In this particular case, I believe that the only place to discuss it more fully and intelligently is at the Committee where a representative of the City and other interested parties may come and argue the different points. What I want to say is this: for 12 years I served on the City Council and I've always tried to advocate a Home Rule Charter. I believe that the City of Winnipeg is big enough to attend their own business. The members are elected every two years, nine members elected -- eighteen -- by a majority of the people -- and they are being defeated by a majority of the people -- should have enough courage and rights to deal with their own business, and not to come here. Sometimes they come here -- it's almost ridiculous. When our grandchildren will read the requests made by the City in the last eighteen years since I'm here, and the 12 years I was on the City Council, I think they'll just make a comedy of it. Asking permission to appoint a Deputy Chairman of the Waterworks - it's ridiculous! That's a natural thing, they should do the same thing and everything else that comes up every year, in my opinion, that they could easily, by a right - moral right and legal right - to handle it.
The only reason, in my opinion, that they don't ask for a Home Rule Charter is because sometime they may be afraid that a few of the Progressive Aldermen will be elected, and they may try to introduce certain legislation, which some honourable members here consider Socialists and perhaps they wanted the Legislature to stop it. Well, if this is their reason, by that time the Legislature may be of the same mind as the City Council - the progressive City Council. So I feel that I again reiterate what I've said through almost 30 years, that it's time for this - if the City doesn't want it but they are afraid to ask for it, it is time for the Provincial Government to tell the City, "Don't bother us every year with small little things that a clerk can settle it, and because it's not on your Statute Books, ask for a blank permit and go ahead and do it. You are just as responsible a party as we are." We are 57; they are 18 or 19. Let them increase it if they don't trust the number they have now.
As to the different sections, I have my opinion. I don't think I'll raise it here - we'll
see what happens in the Committee. But I again urge, either the Provincial Government or the City, to give serious consideration to give the City of Winnipeg a Home Rule Charter.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't let the remarks of the Honourable Member go unanswered because, of course, what he is asking for is illegal fiction. The City of Winnipeg, just as every municipality in the Province of Manitoba, is a creature of this Legislature. The City of Winnipeg exists by virtue of a Charter, passed by this Legislature. How the Legislature can give to the City or to any other municipality a blank cheque, so to speak, on powers, is beyond me as a lawyer. Now, perhaps, there may be other minds in this House which could perhaps work out some ideas for the Honourable Member opposite. But what I'm suggesting is this: that a charter must be passed; the only restrictions in the charter are those restrictions on powers which are given to the City. If we were to follow through the Honourable Member's suggestion, we would find perhaps the City arrogating unto itself, powers which it does not constitutionally have. The Federal Government has certain powers. The province in turn is a creation of the British North America Act. The province exists because of the British North America Act. Once the province came into existence then in its wisdom it saw fit to create municipalities and cities and towns and villages. And all I'm suggesting is that what he is asking for is, of course, a legal impossibility and that I can see nothing particularly wrong with the City coming back each year asking for amendments to its charter. I fail to see how we could operate in any other proper or legal way.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I did intend to adjourn this debate, but on second thought perhaps it might be as well to let it go to the Law Amendments Committee, where we may have a fuller discussion in there regarding the thorny question of whether or no the City of Winnipeg should have a Police Commission or whether that Police Commission should just be an appendage of the City Council, as it will be if this section is passed. I had some pretty strong views on this matter when it came before the Legislature a few sessions ago. I've never agreed with the principle of a County Court Judge being on that Police Commission, nor have I ever agreed with the principle of a Police Magistrate being on it. But I'm not satisfied that the City of Winnipeg now in asking for amendments to its Charter, which amendment if it goes through, will simply make their Police Commission a committee of council, I'm not satisfied that that's the answer. If it is going to be a straight Committee of Council, why have a Police Commission at all? For that reason though, I have reservations on this, but I would not oppose the Bill on second reading. Rather I would like to see it go to Law Amendments, where representatives of the City will appear and we might hear some reasons why they are suggesting this particular type of amendment.
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John): Mr. Speaker, I suppose one has to agree with the Honourable the Attorney-General that since any city or municipality is a creation of the -- is set up through an Act of the Legislature that simply to say that we want Home Rule is not enough. At the same time, I cannot see any reason why the Legislature, for example, having granted the City the right to -- I'll just take one example, having granted the City the right to have a business tax, that the changes in the detail of the business tax which the City feels it necessary or advisable to introduce, need to come to this Legislature whenever they want these changes -- and we have a whole list of them here. And certainly I agree with the Honourable Member for Inkster that within broad categories, the City of Winnipeg or the City of St. Boniface or indeed any municipality, urban or rural, should have a good deal more authority than they have under the present organization. I agree with the Honourable Member of Inkster that they too are elected by the people. In fact they are elected in elections which take place much more regularly than elections to this Legislature, and the people have the power at the time of these elections to change the composition of the Municipal Council, urban or rural, if they think the Council has made a mistake.
With reference to the question of the Board of Police Commissioners, Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not satisfied with the organization which the present Police Commission in Winnipeg has. Without going into details the Magistrate for one, in his capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissions, has to deal with the work of the police, and then in his capacity as Magistrate he often has to judge on that. I think that's all wrong. I'm not certain that I agree with the idea that the Police Commission consists entirely of the Mayor and elected
members, but neither have I heard an alternative which carries weight with me. It has been suggested, for example, that the Bar Association make a recommendation. Well, that has some merit, but on the other hand the Bar Association has pretty close contact with the police and with the court. And I would certainly be agreeable, Mr. Speaker, that this pass as is for now. I know that there will be representations because not only will the City Solicitor be here, or the Mayor, but I know that with regard to the Police Commission, for example, I noticed some time ago that the Manufacturer's Association expressed an opinion on the advisability of this. I have reason to believe that we might very well get representations from the Labour Council with respect to this, and I think that we can pass this and discuss the merits or proposed changes in Law Amendments Committee.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the suggestion that we should send the Bill to Law Amendments Committee. I don't think anyone is suggesting anything different to that. We should all agree on having the Bill considered in Committee. But I'm in the unusual position on this occasion of finding myself much more closely in agreement with the Honourable Member for Inkster and the Honourable Member for St. Johns than I am with the Honourable the Attorney-General, because it isn't often that I agree quite ... even with what those two honourable gentlemen have said. on this occasion though, I find myself of the same view, that at least an extension of the Home Rule provisions to the City of Winnipeg would be advisable. And while I can't, of course, speak with the legal background that my honourable friend the Attorney-General has, I certainly think it is not beyond the capacity of some lawyers at least, or other people, to work out ways and means by which an extension could be given that would take care of the most, if not all, of these matters that come before us from time to time. I don't think that the reason that that hasn't been done up-to-date is the one suggested by the Honourable Member for Inkster. If the people of Winnipeg in their judgment decide that they shall elect aldermen who belong to the so-called Progressive Stripe regardless - whatever that means, and a lot of people use that term now either by itself or with a hyphen -- [Interjection] -- and my honourable friend from Wellington would perhaps add for the benefit of the group to my left, Labour Progressive, although I believe they've reverted to the old name now so they may have dropped that.
A MEMBER: They're not "Progressives".
MR. CAMPBELL: But whatever my honourable friend means by "Progressives" and if the people of the City of Winnipeg decide that they should have them on their city council, I'm all in favour of them being there and give them a trial. And while they are there, I'd say, let's leave the most of this business to them, and then if the people don't like what they have done, they have got that remedy that happens both in city councils and in provincial governments, that they can jolly well turn them out. And I honestly don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that we're going to get the public of Manitoba, including the City of Winnipeg, to take the interest that it should take in its own business -- its own public affairs, until we bring home to them the fact that the great promises that are made to them by politicians generally, whether they belong to the "Progressives" or to the Progressive Conservatives or by Liberal Progressives or C.C.F.'ers or anybody else, until they find out that promises that those people make usually end up in higher taxes to them. And the one way to get them to accept the responsibility that is theirs, to run their own business, is to let them have some experience of those other governments. Now we are going to get that provincially, so why not have it in the city field as well. And I want only to say that I do not think it's beyond the Legislature's ingenuity to find a way to greatly extend the Home Rule provisions for the City of Winnipeg.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I had not, when I spoke, intended to get into the question of politics on this at all. I was merely attempting to -- [Interruption] -- No - I've spoken. With the permission of the House I just wanted to correct one misinterpretation perhaps.
MR. SPEAKER: ... honourable member has leave of the House.
MR. LYON: It was merely this - no speech - no political speech in any case. It was merely this, that I drew from the remarks of the Honourable Member from Inkster the suggestion that a number of these amendments which are brought before the House from time to time are of a petty nature. With that I agree. I also drew from his remarks this suggestion, that there should be unfettered power given to the city. Now, apparently I was misconstruing his remarks because apparently the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition drew another
impression. I have no objection to Home Rule. My point is this, that you can't give a blank cheque - there must be a statute and as long as you have a statute and as long as you have humans who are drafting statutes, it will be necessary from time to time to amend statutes. I think what my honourable friend is complaining about rather than Home Rule is the question of drafting, and I suggest that what he seeks by way of Home Rule, as he chooses to call it, could be cured -- perhaps by drafting. I don't want it to appear as the Honourable Leader of the Opposition would perhaps have it appear that I am opposed to Home Rule. I am not! I'm merely suggesting that what the Honourable Member for Inkster seeks is perhaps larger powers being given to the city so that they can permit, or they can within the ambit of those powers do relatively small or administrative acts which they must now come to us for to seek amendments upon. I don't want there to be any misunderstanding on that point. I would also state, too, in connection with the question raised by the Honourable Member for Selkirk that I think that the Bill should go into Committee, at which time we can hear the different representations from the city and from other interested groups regarding the Police Commission. Honourable members will appreciate that holding the office that I do, I'm not entirely without opinion on this question, but certainly I do agree that the Bill should go into second reading -- or into Committee, to hear those representations.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I'm very glad that we didn't agree to allow the Honourable the Attorney-General to make a speech because I'm sure we would have been listening to him until this afternoon's adjournment, but as he was just explaining a point, it is quite all right.
Just so that the record is straight, Mr. Speaker, and in reply somewhat to the Honourable the Attorney-General of the thoughts behind my colleague's remarks, certainly I'm sure that my colleague hasn't got the idea that we should isolate the City of Winnipeg from the rest of Manitoba insofar as giving them powers are concerned. But I think we'll all agree that in this Legislature too often it is necessary for us, due to the peculiarities in the legislation, to sometimes even make an amendment to a letter that hasn't been dotted or a "t" that hasn't been been crossed. Now already this session we've had two, at least, amendments pertaining to the City Charter. We have also had two, if I'm correct, dealing with the School District of Winnipeg. One of them merely was to change the wording from the Winnipeg School District No. 1, to Winnipeg School Division No. 1. I think that's a waste of time and ridiculous that those things should come here and that there are ways and means by which greater power along those lines could be given to the City of Winnipeg, and I am sure that that's what my honourable colleague meant in that.
Insofar as the question of the proposed amendment to the City Charter dealing with the Police Commission, I think that my colleague from St. Johns has stated our position in that, that we are not convinced that the proposal from the City of Winnipeg is the proposal which should be adopted. However, we do wish the matter to go to second reading in order to hear the pros and cons from all sides on it - to the Committee on Law Amendments to hear all the sides on it and there'll be no opposition in that way.
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, there still seems to be a little misapprehension among cetain members of this House as to the constitutional question here. Every government in Canada, be it federal, provincial or municipal, gets its powers from constitutional authority, and from constitutional authority only. For example, Ottawa has not wide-open powers. It has quite restrictive powers by virtue of The British North America Act and it dare not go into provincial fields. Likewise the Province of Manitoba and all the other provinces have restrictive constitutional powers and do not and can not infringe upon federal powers. Municipalities get their powers from the respective provincial governments and from them only, and it is absolutely an impossibility, as the Honourable the Attorney-General has pointed out, for this House to ever attempt to let any municipality in Manitoba, be it big or small, to let them have wide-open powers whereby they could do what they liked; because the first thing you would know they'd be walking into provincial fields and into federal fields and into a whole lot of other things.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 70.
MR. KEITH ALEXANDER (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Swan River, that Bill No. 70, An Act to authorize the Town of Dauphin to make
a grant to the Dauphin General Hospital be now read a second time.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion.]
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, the Dauphin General Hospital was built in, I believe, in 1899, by a volunteer organization and has been operated since that time by them. The time has now come when they need a considerable amount of renovation and also a large program of expansion, and I think, as we all know, before they are entitled to grants a fifth of that amount necessary has to be raised within the locality, and this Act enables the Town of Dauphin to give a grant to the hospital or to the organization for the purpose or raising that local money. It is complementary with Act No. 71, which we'll come to in a minute, which authorizes the rural municipality to do the same thing. The amounts mentioned here is the Town of Dauphin's share based on an assessment basis in proportion to the assessment of the rural municipality.
MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Speaker, this is all very well. It gives authority to the town but the speaker did not mention that the idea is to by-pass the ratepayers and this is doing away with one of the fundamental principles under The Municipal Act. Now in this Legislature we have passed at different times similar bills, but not before we were definitely assured that there was unanimity on Council, at least most of the times, and that it was urgent that the bill should be passed here to by-pass the ratepayers. Now we've had no statement of the fact that there is unanimity on Council and if there's an urgency, why cannot the ratepayers be consulted? I think that we definitely need more information before we can accept this bill.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The honourable member is closing the debate.
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Honourable Member from Carillon, I would say that this bill was completely drawn up with the unanimous approval of the Town Council of Dauphin. The urgency in the matter is that the hospital is in urgent need of expansion and renewed facilities and they are very anxious to proceed with that program this summer. In view of that urgency and in view of the unanimous decision of both councils that this be put in the Act, and in view of the amounts involved - now I would like to say now that I agree with the Honourable Member for Carillon as far as by-passing ratepayers in a normal manner is concerned, I do not like it, but in view of the circumstances I think I would be quite pleased to promote the bill in the way that it is at the present time. I would say that as far as the Town of Dauphin is concerned, if the amount is repaid over a period of 20 years at a rate of 6%, that the amount necessary would be 1.74 mills on the equalized assessment. I would say in view of that amount, in the view of the urgency or requirement of the hospital, and in view of the fact that it is a unanimous decision by Council, and also in view of the fact that at Committee there will be representatives from both the hospital and the Dauphin Councils when this goes to the Municipal Affairs Committee to speak to the Bill and to answer any questions.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit a question?
MR. ALEXANDER: Yes, Sir.
MR. MILLER: Has he secured the full co-operation of his colleague, the Member for Brandon?
MR. ALEXANDER: I would just like to say that I didn't know that this concerned the City of Brandon.
MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the honourable member? Has a lot of publicity been given throughout the town and the rural municipality of these facts, that the town and the rural municipality would contribute so much money, one hundred and thirty-one thousand in one case and ninety-eight in the other case?
MR. SPEAKER: I understand the member has closed the debate. Second reading of Bill No. 71 - the Honourable Member for Roblin.
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell, that Bill No. 71, An Act to authorize the rural municipality of Dauphin to make a grant to the Dauphin General Hospital, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this bill is entirely complementary to Bill No. 70. The only difference is in the amount asked for and this amount, as I said, is proportionate to the assessment of the Rural Municipality itself. And I would also point out again
that this bill has also received unanimous approval and support and, as a matter of fact, is drawn up according to the wishes of the Council of the Rural Municipality of Dauphin.
MR. PREFONTAINE: May I now ask the question that I asked before?
MR. SPEAKER: You are now in order.
MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Speaker, has publicity been given to the fact that the rural ratepayers of the Municipality of Dauphin would consider $98,000.00 towards the grant to the hospital? And if so, what kind of publicity was made?
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows --
MR. SPEAKER: If the honourable member speaks now, he closes the debate.
MR. ALEXANDER: Oh, I'm sorry!
MR. MILLER: I think the Honourable Member from Brandon would like to speak.
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, if nobody else wishes to speak before I close the debate, I'd like to assure the Honourable Member from Carillon that although I personally wasn't in charge of the publicity program involved to promote this idea, to the best of my knowledge, this idea and this bill has received very wide publicity throughout the whole Rural Municipality of Dauphin.
[Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Inkster. The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre.
MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of the House to allow this matter to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution, the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party and the proposed motion and amendment thereto, The Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne. The Honourable Member for Brokenhead.
MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this resolution and the amendment thereto, I would like to say that I thank the House for allowing this matter to stand over on my behalf on two occasions.
When the Honourable Member for Selkirk opened his remarks regarding this resolution which was brought in by my Leader, he said that my Leader was to be congratulated for his, and I quote, "pertinacity in again bringing it up." And it would seem that the Honourable Member for Selkirk deserves equal commendation and praise for again opposing it so ably. It should not be surprising, however, if I were to say that there are some very worthy arguments which can be advanced from over here against the points raised by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne and I believe it was the Honourable Member for Edward - Arthur, rather.
Let us examine some of the objections raised to a scheme of compulsory automobile insurance with the government as the insurer. I know that some in this Chamber, perhaps a good many, are opposed to the feature as regards compulsion. And, of course, compulsion is something that we should try to avoid wherever feasible; however, in some walks of life and in some spheres of our daily doing, some amount of compulsion, if you wish to use that word, is necessary for the greater interests of the greater number. Some few days ago there appeared an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune - I believe it was the June 18th issue of the Winnipeg Tribune - and that great bastion of liberty and freedom, which it is in some respects, they come out, at least the editorial staff or the editor comes out fully in favour of a scheme which would require of necessity that a driver show proof of financial responsibility before he is allowed to acquire a license and to drive a vehicle. The compulsion angle of this scheme is something that we should all admit is necessary, as I said before, for the better interests of the many. I'm not so sure that many members opposite would like to take some exception to the editorial that did appear in the 'Tribune' on that day, because I think it's a rather logical argument.
Now just let's examine some of the points that were raised by honourable members in speaking to this resolution. We have on page 126 of June 19th Hansard, a statement made by the Honourable Member for Selkirk to the effect that, and I quote: "The mere fact that accident-prone drivers have difficulty getting insurance has a healthy effect on their driving habits." Well, that's a statement which is rather vague in meaning because it is true in Saskatchewan that if they cannot get insurance, they cannot drive; but it is equally true in this province that if they are not able to get insurance, in effect it means the same thing. And if they are really accident-prone, it amounts to this that, after several convictions for reckless driving or what have you, their license is suspended. This is the case wherever it may be - be it Saskatchewan, Manitoba or any other province. An accident-prone driver has a very, very difficult time of being allowed the privilege to continue in operation of his vehicle. And then further on, on the next page, we notice another point in which the member goes on to say that the worst records for accidents are in those two jurisdictions namely, Saskatchewan and Massachusetts, where they have a scheme of compulsory insurance. I can only say, with regard to that statement, that perhaps that is one of the factors, but I ask you if that is the only factor. I'm sure that if you will examine all the facts, there must be many, many more things that enter into it. The fact that in Saskatchewan there are a good many more miles of road, a greater distance between towns and cities, a great deal more long distance driving to do, the monotonous landscape which has a psychological effect and so on and so on; I think you could say, and quite rightly, that there is a psychological basis to the fact that perhaps there is a comparatively high ratio of accidents per thousand drivers in Saskatchewan. In the case of Massachusetts, I'm not in a position to speak about that area, but it would seem that there could be many factors entering into the fact that there they do have a fairly high ratio of accidents per thousand drivers as well. There's some other points that I wanted to pursue - Oh! Yes, the Member for Selkirk states that, and I quote: "Saskatchewan Government Insurance has been exhaustively studied by the representatives of many legislative bodies over the past years, and yet no such body after learning all the facts has deemed it advisable to introduce the Saskatchewan plan." This could, or could not mean that they've found the plan to be unsatisfactory. It may be that some of the inspecting groups did find it to be satisfactory but for reasons which we are not aware, they chose not to adopt it. It could be as a result of lobbying or pressure by the insurance companies, the board companies and the like. And I'm sure that all will admit -- all members in this Chamber
will admit - that they are quite a group to reckon with. I'm sure that all members in our group here -- all members will agree - that the government auto insurance is no cure-all for highway accidents; it's no panacea to our traffic problem - but it is certainly worthy of consideration. The fact that no state other than Massachusetts - I'm speaking of the U.S. now - has accepted a scheme of compulsory auto insurance does not, I contend again, indicate that government auto insurance is undesirable.
Near the bottom of the page, page 127, a rather interesting statement regarding insurance rates in those jurisdictions where government auto insurance is the order of the day, where it is actually on the Statute books. A member states that "rates have increased in Massachusetts over the general average although not as much as in a few other states." So, if you will analyze that carefully and give it due consideration, you will notice that there is no - and I'm quite convinced of this - there is no real tangible relationship between government insurance being the case and rates going up. Because there are some States without government insurance which have had a larger increase in rates than the one with compulsory government auto insurance.
And then the arguments get more interesting as we go along. All of the arguments are rather - I should say were quite interesting. Oh! Yes, the Honourable Member for Selkirk states that he feels very strongly on this subject - this particular aspect of government auto insurance. "I think it would be a shame on this Legislature or any other Legislature to deprive a person of the right to drive a motor vehicle without producing proof of financial responsibility for insurance. I feel it is a case of placing an onus upon a person before any onus should be placed on that person." Well, at first glance these arguments seem to have a very strong moral ring to them, and they do seem to bring out a weakness in my Leader's argument; namely, that there should be a need -- that there is a need which should be recognized to bring in legislation requiring people to provide financial responsibility. It is, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, unrealistic to permit people, no matter how careful they may be, to be without insurance in this day and age because - and even considering the argument advanced by the Member for Selkirk, they might not be able to afford it - that was one of his arguments. I say that they would have to be very, very poor, almost ... poverty before they could not afford to pay the premium. Because in effect, we are encouraging a situation whereby these people with very little in the way of materialistic property -- we are encouraging them to go out on the road as big gamblers, and that in essence is what they would be. And if they have very little, surely we wouldn't want them to run the risk of losing even that. And that's what we are doing when they are going out on the highway and operating a motor vehicle without insurance. Even the 'Tribune' recognizes that shortcoming in our present legislation and I'll quote you part of the article in the 'Tribune' - June 18th. This is an editorial, and I quote: "To give the public, both motorists and pedestrians, adequate protection the present Manitoba legislation should be amended in three ways: 1) The Motor Vehicle Branch should be directed to require those who apply fo car licenses to show proof of financial responsibility before plates are issued. What's more, the amount of protection should be sufficient to cover any damages resulting from an accident. Secondly, the law should also be amended to make it an offence to drive a car which did not carry this type of protection." Which is in effect, making it a compulsory scheme. And then the third step is as regards the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund. Well, without going into that let us pursue the case with regard to automobile insurance with the government as the insurer. There is just one observation I have to make, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last point, namely, that we in this House are doing people a dis-service, actually a dis-service if we allow them to operate a motor vehicle on the highways without first having the comfort of knowing that they are insured for any damage that they might incur.
Well, then we get into more technical information - the Member for Selkirk raised the point about winter rebates not being allowed in Saskatchewan, and the inference there, is that they are allowed in Manitoba. Well, the situation as regards winter rebates, and this is a smaller point, but one that I feel I must rebut. The situation as regards winter rebates is practically the same in both provinces, practically the same, because in Saskatchewan you can cancel your insurance providing it's for a period longer than two months, you can cancel it and renew it again - the adjustment is made, which in effect is a rebate. In Manitoba you must put your car in winter storage for at least more than two months - two months or more - in order to qualify for that rebate. Well, if it's such an important point, then it should be raised in this
Legislature. I was certainly surprised when I checked with the insurance agent friend back home because out of 600 automobile insurance policies which he writes in that area, only 18 applied or took advantage of the winter rebate. The others I assume simply kept driving their cars the year round. That isn`t a very large point.
And then going on near the end of his remarks we notice the member states that the automobile insurance rates in Saskatchewan are not based - that is to say the horsepower of the vehicle is not taken into consideration. All that it takes into consideration is the wheel base. Well there again, that is true - it does not but neither does it in this province. The rates are based on model, age and wheel base. This was verified - the situation is much the same then in both provinces. No particular disadvantage - therefore no disadvantage was pointed out in this argument. No disadvantage as regards government auto insurance in Saskatchewan. There is one other point -- oh! Yes, here we are; at the very end of his remarks the member goes on to say that, "now I think these are some of the reasons plus the fact that I do believe that our objective as a province is to make our highways safe, and I think we are pursuing the best possible method to achieve that objective. All that we have to do is drive carefully because we, the motoring public, are people who fix our own insurance rates. It's not the insurance companies." With the first half of those sentiments, I'm sure that we can all agree most heartily but insofar as the closing sentiment is concerned there is room for disagreement, because it's not necessarily true that the public drivers set their own rates. I think the insurance companies have a little bit to do with it too. They must have - it's obvious they do because all those companies that belong to the Western Underwriters Board Companies, they charge premiums that are very close to each other; and those companies that do not belong to the Board area able to operate and still charge a lower premium. So there must be some setting of rates by the companies without too much consideration of the driving public. Well, I'm sure that the Honourable Member for Selkirk is quite convinced of his arguments, however, they certainly did bear examination and some were not able to stand up to analysis too well.
Well then, if you recall, honourable members, the next day the debate was continued by the Member for Souris-Lansdowne and he being an insurance agent, I feel rather afraid standing here and trying to make argument with him on something that he is probably very well versed on. But he did also, Mr. Speaker, make some statements, some observations, which I feel I must, at least, bring up here once more so that members can reconsider them. He goes on to say that "the compulsory insurance scheme in our sister province does not cover victims of hit-and-run drivers; does not cover victims of stolen cars; it does not cover cars operated without provision insurance." I would like to say this, that if you are an innocent party, an innocent third party to an accident in which the above-mentioned possibilities occur, then you are certainly taken care of - certainly taken care of. Then following shortly after that, the honourable member goes on to say "and I feel that this is one of the strong arguments against the Saskatchewan plan - which all it does is to make the good risk subsidize the poor risk." Well, that is a matter of interpretation. Just what is meant by the good risk subsidizing the poor risk, because the poor risk carries a substantial load - or portion of the load which he himself caused, in that he pays a higher premium if at fault in any previous accident, and if he is convicted of reckless driving, if he has any kind of a driving record, then his premium is subject to increase. So that observation is certainly a matter of opinion at the very most.
The honourable member goes on to say that "the private insurance companies in that province are providing very keen competition" and so on. Now I think that is a very accurate observation - private companies are providing very keen competition in the field of insurance not covered by the S.G.I.O. plan. It's a very laudable fact - I think it's good - that there be this competition if for no other reason that to show that even in those spheres where competition is allowed to exist, that the government plan is quite capable of holding its own. As a matter of fact, 49% of all insurers under the Saskatchewan Government Automobile Insurance scheme take out their package policies with the government. They could take them out with any other company but they choose to take them out with the government which is positive proof that the policies must be quite adequate; just as good as what the great private companies have to offer. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the fact that the insurance, private companies, put on high pressure advertising, it would probably be the case that perhaps 75% of the insurers would take out the government package policy. But you know how high pressure advertising works. Only
"Dole" pineapple juice is good juice and so everybody buys "Dole." The same thing applies in the field of any other commodity for that example - even insurance. And they have been doing their very utmost to try and push sales of the government packaged plan down into the ground, so to speak, but they haven't succeeded. Which is, and I repeat, positive proof that the package policy, as well as the other policy, is quite acceptable to the people there. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, I have used the name 'Saskatchewan' very often, almost too often during the course of my remarks, that is only because members who spoke to the resolution chose to keep attacking it all the time.
The essence of the resolution as brought in by my Honourable Leader is that we in this province should look into the possibilities of setting up an insurance scheme with the government as the insurer. There need not be too much reference to Saskatchewan, perhaps some, but I think it should be kept to a minimum.
Oh! Yes, I cannot sit down, Mr. Speaker, without making some comment on the remarks made by the Honourable Member for St. James, in which he said, "Certainly, anything can be sold cheaper if it is sold by a concern which pays no taxes." I suppose the inference or implication there being that the Saskatchewan Government auto insurance office pays no taxes. Well, the fact of the matter is that they do pay taxes. They pay a federal excise tax; they pay the hospitalization tax to the province; their real property is assessed by municipal or provincial assessors, and they have to make annually a grant in lieu of taxes, comparatively close to what the actual taxes would be. Now, I suppose in point of fact there isn't much difference between what their grants in lieu of taxes are and what their acutal taxes would be if they were to pay them. The only reason they are paying the grants is that it is just a method which was worked out for administrative purposes. They do pay taxes.
And then we were treated to a rather spirited rebuttal by the Honourable Member for Arthur in which he stated that - well, he stated a lot of things -- none of them are very good, I'm afraid. Oh! Yes, he makes a case here of a doctor who, a one-time resident of Saskatchewan moved to Manitoba, took up residence here and some few months afterwards became involved in an accident - after which he found out that he was liable personally for the damages incurred. That in no way can be construed as an argument against the plan in our sister province, because - I'm only saying this in rebuttal - because when you move out of the province and take up residence in this province or any other province, if you actually become a resident here, you have to register your vehicle here. You're supposed to cancel your registration in the province which you left and upon cancellation of your registration there, which actually you should do, your insurance becomes cancelled as well, because the Saskatchewan Government insurance has a Charter for that province only -- cannot compete in this province. Well, it's no more than expected that when you move here that you register your vehicle here. Consequently, if you want insurance, you're supposed to take it out here. There is consquently no argument to be made about this human error of forgetting on the part of the doctor concerned.
The honourable member also makes some mention of the assessing service by the insurance adjusters. He says that it's inefficient, in some cases cars have been held up over a month and so on. Now, that, perhaps, and seeing as how the honourable member said it, I believe it is true. It is perhaps true, or rather that is true if the honourable member said so. But, you can get that anywhere. That was perhaps one case out of a thousand. Right in my home area of Beausejour I've known a friend to have a car, shall we say, held up because of some red tape for almost as long a period. He says over a month. I believe in this case it was about a month. The adjusting service wasn't always top notch. Mistakes are made here. No doubt they could be made under such a scheme. That is not the point. The point is that if this resolution were adopted, it would provide some measure of safety -- financial safety, if you will, to the people that, the honourable member for Selkirk said, although, in spite of the fact that he said it, really need it most and that is those that are quite poor. Or, no need to say that, those that are only of moderate means. We would be doing them a service, I do believe. And finally, I would say that one of the main factors of a scheme such as this, of this resolution, is that it would provide for financial -- it would provide for the prevention of financial ruin from automobile accidents -- and this alone cannot be measured in monetary terms.
MR. KEITH ALEXANDER (Roblin): I have no intention of taking any extensive part in this debate. I feel a lot of the pros and cons have been pretty well covered so far, but I live
within about 7 or 8 miles of the Saskatchewan border and I would like to comment on one point that the Honourable Member from Brokenhead mentioned. And that was he took particular pride, I think, in saying that roughly 49% of the package policies now sold were sold by the government although they could be bought from private companies and in view of what he called the large advertising campaign of private companies he thought that was a notable accomplishment. Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, the shoe is entirely on the other foot, because we listen to Saskatchewan radio extensively in our neighborhood. We read quite a few of Saskatchewan papers and if anybody puts on a more extensive advertising program to try and promote government advertising, then it's the Province of Saskatchewan. And I think that the remarkable achievement is the achievement of the private companies to sell 50% of the package policies in the face of this very large and very expensive publicity program which is sponsored by the Saskatchewan Government and paid for by the Saskatchewan taxpayers.
MR. SCHREYER: Am I in order if I just say a word or two?
MR. SPEAKER: Not unless it's a question.
MR. SCHREYER: No, it's not ...
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. B. P. STRICKLAND (Hamiota): Mr. Speaker, it wasn't my intention to originally speak on this resolution. I think it's pretty well known by every member in the House that I operate an insurance office. You would quite rightly say that I would naturally be prejudiced towards the insurance business because that is my livelihood. The members opposite have gone to great pains, particularly I think the Honourable Member for Brokenhead this afternoon, to defend the Saskatchewan Government Insurance. For that reason I think it would be just as well if we examined the history of the S.G.I.O. in Saskatchewan. The Honourable Member, the Leader of the Opposition, was deriding me the other day for -- in regard to prepared speeches. I've heard considerable discussion also in this House in regard to reading of speeches. I don't think that that is necessarily a good thing, but I do believe that in matters such as this that it must be prepared or it hasn't too much value. And inasmuch as I will be using a number of figures, I trust the House will allow me to follow my notes pretty closely.
When the Automobile Accident Insurance Act of Saskatchewan was first brought in, it was accepted as a sound socialist principle that where the government creates a market by compulsory legislation, the government itself should supply that market. The basic provisions of the original plan in Saskatchewan were in effect a form of compensation insurance only, and this was to the victims of automobile accidents who were to be paid irrespective of whether they were at fault or not. In this first year of operations a considerable surplus developed so the S.G.I.O. raised the compensation limits and they provided also collision insurance subject to a $100.00 deductible. Now, this addition of the compulsory collision insurance in my opinion is a very good example of the peculiar contortion of the socialist principles. Because what does it imply? It implies that the state owes a duty to the individual to protect him against loss or damage to his own vehicle due to his own fault, entirely at his own expense, and regardless of whether he wants it or not. In 1948 -- [Interjection]. I wonder if, Mr. Speaker, if they would leave the questions 'till the end?
MR. SCHREYER: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. STRICKLAND: In 1948, as the plan still showed a surplus, third party liability, which is -- known as public liability and property damage, was added, but the property damage claims were subject to a $100.00 deductible. In 1949 the losses to the S.G.I.O. were sufficiently great to warrant a substantial increase in the rates. The owners of the cars, not more than 2 or 3 years old, were selected as those who should pay the increases, and these increases amounted to approximately two-thirds more than the previous year. It wasn't where they were located, whether the city had a higher accident rate than the country, it was right across the board. If your car was within -- 2 or 3 years of being brand new, then you paid the increased rates. And even then, in 1949 the financial report would have shown a deficiency and here is one of the reasons why we must ignore the figure mentioned by the original mover of this resolution when he said that the total surplus of the Saskatchewan Government in this field was over $4,000,000. The reason for this is that in 1948 the Saskatchewan Government proposed a resolution that the Saskatchewan Insurance Act would not apply to insurance under the compulsory auto insurance plan and that the private insurance, if any was carried, must meet all claims prior to any obligations of the plan.
There is one other extremely interesting factor at this point. I think possibly it's recognized by all, that there is an unearned premium that must be set up by private companies as a reserve in each year to cover any losses that might occur later on. Now, this is set by law and as far as I am aware it is the same figure right across the country. But in Saskatchewan where they have a surplus, they decide that they would raise the amount that they must show in their reserve to cover any future losses. But in 1949 when they had their extensive losses, they decided that they would lower that factor. So they lowered it from 25% down to 12%. Over succeeding years losses experienced by the plan have been overcome by radical rate increases or by changing the basis of a plan without permitting any competition. In 1953 the individual rates were doubled for late model cars. In 1954 graduate surcharges were imposed in cases of poor driving experience. And their excuses for these surcharges were such cases as, failure to stop at a stop sign, coming to a complete stop. If they happened to be caught then - bang - an increase would go on to their insurance. And some of these surcharges went as high as $25.00 per driver. In 1954 third party liability limits were increased to $10/$20 and $5, that's $5,000 for property damage; $10,000 for any one person in an accident; $20,000 for two or more in the same accident. But at the same time the property damage deductible and the collision deductible were increased to $200.00. Now the effect of this increase in deductible is clearly indicated in the plan's report for 1953 and 1954. The losses to the S.G.I.O. declined by over 1 1/2 million in those years, while the premiums increased to an even greater amount. For 1955 the underwriting profit was approximately 36%. Now, this could only be possible under monopolistic conditions created by socialist planners. Under no free enterprise system could any such profit be permitted by competing insurers.
The Member for Brokenhead is quite happy over the fact that 40% of the drivers or the auto owners in Saskatchewan buy the package policy. I would venture to say that 40% of my policy holders, outside of taking the card out of the package and putting it in a wallet, never once look at their policies. So, if they once started buying this insurance in Saskatchewan through the S.G.I.O., if none of their immediate relatives or friends had had any occasion to complain about it, they would have no reason to change. I would say it's a very poor example of what the S.G.I.O. can do in Saskatchewan. In 1956 Saskatchewan would again have shown a substantial profit except that the government was becoming embarrassed by these profits and it made the unearned premium reserves on a 30% basis instead of the 23% which had been in effect since -- the last figure I quoted was 12% in 1949. I think it is interesting to note that from 1946 to 1956, that's ten years, the unearned premium reserve calculation varied from 25% down to 12%, increased it to 23% and 30% which is the figure used in the 1958 annual report. In 1959 the Saskatchewan plan was amended by deleting the $200.00 deductible on the third party liability damage claim, and I think that has already been mentioned. The Provincial Treasurer of Saskatchewan estimated, when this plan was changed, an increase in claims paid would be approximately $1,000,000.00. Now, had the deductible not been in existence over the years the Saskatchewan plan has been in effect, there would today be a substantial deficit instead of a surplus.
The last speaker mentioned the fact that Saskatchewan paid taxes. They do not pay income tax, although they are divorced from the Saskatchewan Insurance Act. The 1958 reported surplus, that's for the one year 1958, was in the neighborhood of $427,000.00. $602 -- $603,000 of the S.G.I.O. premium income in Saskatchewan is from schools, universities, hospitals and sanatoriums. Now, according to the law of Saskatchewan - and it's peculiar to Saskatchewan because it's a socialist government, I guess - there is no rate competition and not only is there no rate competition on this insurance, but the institutions are compelled by law to buy their insurance from the S.G.I.O. This is quite a juicy morsel of business. It's a plum that does not fall to a lot of the private companies. Now this plum amounts to 9.26% of the S.G.I.O. total premium income in 1958; whereas the premium income in 1957 from these institutions was only $261,000.00; in 1958 these institutions paid $341,000.00. No competition in rate, they are compelled to buy it, and yet the increased premiums charged these institutions amounted to $80,000.00. And this accounts alone for about one-half of the $600,000.00 in increased premiums in 1958. Before the Saskatchewan Government Insurance came into being the Government of Saskatchewan didn't carry insurance on its own properties. But now the Government of Saskatchewan is the largest or the biggest single customer of the S.G.I.O. And they ...
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't like to contradict my honourable friend, but is he
not mixing up fire and other insurances under the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office with those dealing purely with automobile insurance?
MR. STRICKLAND: I think the member, if he recalls, was quite proud of the fact that the Government of Saskatchewan had a total surplus of over $4,000,000 and I'm endeavouring to show him where it came from. [Interjection] The compulsory plan under the Saskatchewan Government does not come under the S.G.I.O. It is a different department, these figures that have been quoted before are a combination of the two. This, as I was saying, in regard to the Saskatchewan Government, their properties, which they hadn't insured before, now pay approximately 7.61% of the total premiums for the year. You can see from this that over $1,000,000 of the S.G.I.O.'s business, or one-seventh of the total was non-competitive and free from acquisition costs. There's just one other point I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker, and as I said before, the S.G.I.O.'s premium income does not include the premiums from the compulsory auto insurance. And I might say here that it's just a matter of bookkeeping. The compulsory part of it comes in - a dollar comes in with the license fee and instead of being in Book A, it's in Book B -- it's quite easy to just switch them around whichever suits the best. It is quite interesting to note that the S.G.I.O. handles the compulsory insurance for the Government of Saskatchewan. Now the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office - the salary bill for that office which is, and they employ something like 365 employees, was just over $1,000,000. And strange as it may seem, their bill for handling this compulsory scheme was also just over $1,000,000.
In Manitoba - come home at last - the insurance industry pays to this province something in the neighborhood of $1,117,000. Life insurance amounts to $350,000 so that the fire and auto industry pay Manitoba something like $767,000. There are about 2,000 agents which would pay this province in license fees and so on, $35,000. The companies in their - for their license to act in the province amounts to roughly another $100,000. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that only a socialist government would take the steps which Saskatchewan has and I trust that no other political party would interfere unduly with the transaction of a business operation which is not essential to the security of the province.
MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, the member made a great deal of ado about the competition of rates - rate competition and so on. Now I would like to ask him if he is aware that in this province some 85% of the insurance is written up - automobile insurance is written up by board companies, whose rates - the difference between rates is practically nil. Is he aware of that?
MR. STRICKLAND: I'm not aware of the percentages, that it's 85% by board companies. I know that the Mutuals - one of the Mutuals, one of the largest Canadian Mutuals writes more business than any other company in Canada and I know that Mutuals are not members of the board, so that there's definitely not any competition or any getting together as regarding rates.
MR. PAULLEY: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member would give us the source of his information?
MR. STRICKLAND: I have part of my source from the Royal Commission in Nova Scotia - not the Royal Commission but the Commission that has studied the Saskatchewan plan in Nova Scotia and it's taken from that report.
MR. PAULLEY: Entirely?
MR. STRICKLAND: Entirely, yes.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member for Seven Oaks, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Pembina and proposed motion in amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye. The Honourable Member for Morris.
MR. H. P. SHEWMAN (Morris): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would say that I'm going to amend the amendment. This resolution is a resolution that I believe will penalize the small business man. The remarks that have been made in this House by previous speakers leads me to believe that there's no other course only to penalize the small business man, and that is the machine dealer. We have a good many of the small machine dealers in Manitoba and if we are going to allow all types of machinery to be brought into Manitoba regardless of what its use would be or could be, I state again that we are penalizing the small business man. They're
penalizing the small road contractor and again the small machine dealer. And as some of these previous speakers have mentioned, that it's a very nice thing to have protection for one class of people in Manitoba, but they seem to think that it isn't necessary to have protection for all classes of small business men as well as the farmers in Manitoba. The resolution in itself, Mr. Speaker, does cover quite a territory. So, therefore, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Hamiota, that the resolution be amended by deleting the word "preliminary" in the fourth line thereof and by deleting all the words after the word "purpose" in the fifth line thereof.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for Morris, seconded by the Honourable Member for Hamiota, that the resolution be amended by deleting the words "preliminary" in the fourth line thereof and by ... [Interjection] I beg your pardon?
MR. SHEWMAN: It's a typographical error. It's "primary" is the word I want.
MR. SPEAKER: "Primary" in the fourth line thereof and by deleting all the words after 'purpose' in the fourth line thereof. Are you ready for the question?
MR. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Emerson, that the debate be adjourned.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, seconded by the Honourable Member for Emerson, that the debate be adjourned. Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Logan and the proposed motion and amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for St. Vital. The Honourable Member for Elmwood.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Elmwood is ill. I wonder if this could be stood over?
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. The Honourable Member for Minnedosa.
MR. W. WEIR (Minnedosa): Yes, Mr. Speaker, this isn't the wild goose chase today. Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate today because of a few remarks that were made by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks when speaking in favour of this resolution. I must say at the start that I realize that he has presented this resolution in good faith and that I admire his wanting to have something done about what he considers to be a very deplorable situation. As one of those people that takes a resonably active part in this situation which the honourable member feels is so deplorable, I must make a few comments.
I feel very humble when I attempt to point out that I disagree with some of the comments that were being quoted from remarks of such a well informed personage as Major-General Worthington. The situation as it appears to me as a resident of a rural Manitoba town is not as glowing as it is pictured. I will take you back, if I may, to the fall of 1953 when the Province of Manitoba was faced with a polio epidemic of gigantic proportions. I myself made some two dozen trips between western Manitoba and King George Hospital in Winnipeg with patients that were confined mostly to portable respirators, many of the patients required oxygen and the use of electric suction in an effort to save their lives. On two occasions with two different medical men we made that trip with all the necessary staff and instruments to perform a tracheotomy operation in the car if the necessity arose. I am pleased that I was in a position to be of assistance to these people in a time of need. The trips that I made can be multiplied many times over for the trips that were made from nearly all points in Manitoba.
For a more recent example, I would mention the trip from Estevan to Winnipeg on June 9th, the day that this House opened and I would like to read a little bit of the story as it appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune on June 10th. "Siren wailing and red light flashing an ambulance streaked from Estevan, Saskatchewan to St. Boniface at speeds up to 100 miles an hour Tuesday to bring a critically injured girl to hospital. The ambulance covered the 365 mile distance from Estevan after a doctor ruled out the possibility of a helicopter mercy flight because it would further endanger the girl's life. The ambulance left Estevan at about 11:25 a.m. central daylight time; the driver drove through the three hours of rain on gravel and mud roads before stopping at MacGregor for another supply of oxygen for the injured child. A call was put in to the R.C.A.F. from MacGregor to have a helicopter fly the girl to hospital in Winnipeg. The 'copter
landed at MacGregor on an emergency strip especially prepared alongside the hospital but when Dr. S. Ford of MacGregor saw the patient he said that her condition was too serious to fly. Dr. Ford left with the ambulance at 6:40 p.m. on the trip to Winnipeg. An escort from Headingley to St. Boniface Hospital was provided by the R.C.M.P. Plasma and oxygen were administered to the injured girl throughout the trip. The journey took a total of nine hours including the four hours stop-over at MacGregor." This, Mr. Speaker, is the type of humane work that I rise to defend.
In the 1958 figures that he quoted the honourable member wondered how many of the 3,134 deaths would have been saved if suitable ambulance service had been available. By the same token, Sir, I suggest to you, what, might we well wonder, if it had not been for the ambulance service that was available, how many of the 8,372 injured that he mentioned might have been D.O.A. The honourable member mentioned occasions when victims of highway accidents remained on our highways for hours awaiting ambulance service. I suggest, Sir, that when that does occur, which I feel is seldom, it will probably be for one of three reasons - either the person calling the ambulance was excited and gave incorrect directions, or everyone thought that someone had called the ambulance and no one had, or the ambulance was on another call at the moment and could not come immediately. I feel that in the case of the first two reasons, no ambulance can be expected to be some place if it isn't called and as long as we are human beings there will be human error. The third reason also is unavoidable but you will find, I think, in this day and age that with the stationwagons, etc., that are on the road today, they make a very good ambulance in the odd case where two calls happen to arrive at or near the same time.
With regard to centralization of hospitals I cannot agree with the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. In the last number of years our federal and provincial governments have given and are giving grants to dozens of small centres for the establishment and extension of hospitals. Here most cases can be treated adequately and as for those that cannot be treated in that area the patient is usually in that local hospital for a matter of a few hours or a few days while he is being readied for his continued journey. Most towns in Manitoba have equal facilities with those that we enjoy in that beautiful valley community that I'm quite pleased to call "home".
Thanks to the town of Minnedosa, the surrounding municipalities and the muncipal hosptial district our hospital is equipped with a resuscitator, portable oxygen tank, etc., which are so necessary in rescue work. Thanks to the co-operation of the doctors, nurses, R.C.M.P. and many other citizens of Minnedosa, we have at all times personnel to man a fairly well equipped ambulance in a very few minutes. From my contact with other communities I feel that most main market centres are reasonably well equipped to handle most cases as they arise. As for the communities that do not have these facilities I suggest to you, Sir, that they are the persons responsible. In almost all of these places there are suitable vehicles such as a sedan delivery car or stationwagon that can be effectively converted to a suitable ambulance in a matter of a few minutes by purchasing a modern stretcher. The other life-saving equipment is usually available in the hospital and can nearly always be spared in an emergency. There is, however, one point which is well taken and one that I would suggest to my honourable colleagues in the front row, that this government might consider paying for ambulance trips to highway accidents provided that the account was either ordered or approved by a police officer. This then would remove the chief reason that commercial ambulance firms have for not wanting to accept calls to the scene of an accident. I do feel that it is only right that we should protect these firms that do such a good job of trying to save lives that are at stake as a result of accidents that occur on our highways.
This covers my feelings on ambulance service as it applies to our auto insurance, I think. I would like to mention a few of my feelings with regard to Air Ambulance Service. I'm not as well acquainted with it but I have looked into it a little and I do think that it means a great deal to our more sparsely populated areas and areas that haven't the same medical attention that we in the more settled areas of the province do seem to take for granted. I find that we have at our disposal quite a number of aeroplanes, although at the moment we may not be using them to the greatest advantage. There are, I find, four or five government aircraft available at all times for use north of the 53rd parallel. I understand that there are also six or seven other planes that are available if necessary. There are several flying clubs and many private planes that may be obtained in cases of emergency. These facilities co-ordinated with the use of the
auto ambulances are in a position to make available a speedy service when it is required -- to say nothing of the facilities of the R.C.A.F. which are available and appear to be easy to obtain, as was this helicopter just a few days ago, when an emergency arises.
I do not intend to create the impression that we believe we have the answer to every case that might arise. I do not believe, however, that that situation can ever be achieved by private or government-owned services. I do, however, feel that there is no reason to believe that our present services are deplorable. Following these remarks, Sir, I presume that it is not necessary to mention that I cannot support the resolution.
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks had the interest of all would-be accident victims at heart when he introduced this motion, but I feel that he is unfamiliar with the existing conditions and has been misinformed. I would like the House to know that although I've had some experience with the operation of an ambulance service, I have not been in this field for the past twelve years, therefore, the very few words that I have to say on this motion are certainly not prompted by any personal interest.
I would like to ask the supporters of this motion the following questions -- Where would this, or these ambulances be stationed? Who would man them? What would happen when there are numerous patients involved in an accident? How much would this service cost? I agree with what was said by the Honourable Member for Minnedosa and I feel that it would be impracticable to have a government-owned ambulance for the province. At the present there are ten ambulances in Greater Winnipeg plus the City of Winnipeg Police ambulance and almost all funeral homes in rural Manitoba have ambulance service. They all do an excellent job and most of them will do an awful lot of work for the municipality without charging a single penny. The contract between the R.C.M.P., federal and the province state that whenever a patient is not capable of paying, the province will be responsible. I feel that this could be -- I also feel like the Honourable Member for Minnedosa, that this could be modified to include a guarantee that the province will pay whenever the ambulance is called by a person of authority -- I wouldn't go so far as saying that by a police officer, but I think that my honourable friend means a provincial police officer, because the province should not be responsible for municipal matters, such as in the cities here in Greater Winnipeg or any municipalities. I mean by somebody representing the province, usually it's the R.C.M.P. that call the ambulance. And when I say if it is not used, I mean that an ambulance might be called, but when it reaches the scene of the accident it might be that the patient has already been moved by a private car or in some other manner. I think that they should, nevertheless, if they've been ordered and they reach the scene of the accident, I definitely think that their pay should be guaranteed. I also think that when the fees are considered the time element as well as the mileage should be considered. There is often a long period of waiting for a doctor, for some other reasons.
Now as far as an air ambulance is concerned, that also is not needed because the Search Rescue Department of the R.C.A.F. has a plane available for emergencies. In fact, since one of its planes crashed last year while on an errand of mercy, the R.C.A.F. now insists that another plane always accompany the helicopter on missions of this kind. As far as speed is concerned I can't see where it should make any difference if the ambulance is operated, owned and controlled by the government or private enterprise -- they still would have to get the call and to leave and to get there. Last week we had a very unfortunate accident on the Trans-Canada and I might say that I was called to pick up the people that were unfortunate enough that did not survive, and I can say that when I arrived at the scene those that were still living had been transported to the hospital long before - I didn't see any ambulance or anybody on the way. This was done and probably was done within half an hour after the accident.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. A. E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Johns, that the debate be adjourned.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Johns, that the debate be adourned. Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Rhineland.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the honourable member's resolution be allowed to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead.
MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I've spoken at some length this afternoon, I beg the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, the next order is in connection with Committee of Supply,
and before you call it I would like to suggest to the House that I should now move this motion in relation to Interim Supply only, and that we will take two or three steps in Interim Supply now, by leave of the House, and postpone the balance until next week. Then having done that and having finished that procedure, then perhaps we can come back into the main supply motion that we were discussing the other night. I just would like to suggest that that order of business would be suitable.
MR. CAMPBELL: That is quite suitable as far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker.
MR. ROBLIN: I would move, Mr. Speaker, that, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Education, that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Interim Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable the First Minister, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Education, that the House do now resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Interim Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the Chair.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, the resolution that is before the House now asks for the approval in committee of supply of the sum of $27,160,925.60, being the amount of the several items voted for the departments as set forth in the main supply estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1960, that have already been laid before the House. That means that the government is asking for the House to now make an interim appropriation of one-third of the regular estimates that we are now in the process of considering. The language of the Interim Supply Bill of last March, coupled with the language of the present bill, will be such: That this will supersede that Interim Supply Bill which was based on the estimates of the previous fiscal year. I explained that in the House the other day but I would like to repeat it now. As well as asking for one-third of the current estimates for Interim Supply you will also be asked to support a second resolution that the sum of twenty-seven thousand, let me see -- I'm a little bit ahead of myself here. When we get the bill we will see that it is broken down into two amounts which I'll explain at that time.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the explanation that the Honourable the First Minister gave yesterday and I'm sure that that procedure is quite satisfactory to us. I haven't had time yet to read this resolution over carefully enough to determine it and I didn't notice whether he covered this in his remarks. Did he say that this resolution of today itself absorbs the previous sixteen million odd that was voted?
MR. ROBLIN: Yes, Sir, that is the intention. We don't wish to vote the matter twice but we are voting the large sum to supersede the other in order that the accountants might have the right vote numbers to work on for the current fiscal year, otherwise they're tied to the old ones and we want to wipe those out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass. Committee rise. Committee rise and report.
Mr. Speaker, the committee of interim supply have adopted certain resolutions and directed me to report same.
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Winnipeg Centre, that the report of the committee be received.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews, seconded by the Honourable Member from Winnipeg Centre, that the report of the committee be received. Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce, that the Rules of the House be suspended and that the resolution reported from the Committee of Supply be now read a second time and concurred in.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable the First Minister, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce, that the Rules of the House be suspended and that the resolutions reported from Committee of Supply be now read a second time and concurred in.
MR. CLERK: Resolved that a sum not exceeding $27,160,925.60, being the amount of Interim Supply estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960, laid before the House at the present session of the Legislature, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal
year ending the 31st day of March, 1960.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
[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 Education, that the Rules of the House be suspended and that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable the First Minister, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Education, that the Rules of the House be suspended and that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into committee to consider of ways and means for raising of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the Chair.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I hope I didn't hear any nays on that last motion because ...
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, no you didn't. It was just one of my colleagues coughing.
MR. ROBLIN: These are motions that do require unanimous consent and we would not wish to proceed if we did not have it.
MR. PAULLEY: I assure you that's all it was.
MR. ROBLIN: I propose, Mr. Chairman, just by way of information to the honourable members that we should take concurrence if we agree on this committee's report and move for first reading only, and stop there and have second reading on Tuesday next when the bill will be before the House and we can read the details and make sure we are all agreed as to what we do. So the motion that is before the committee now, Sir, is that "Resolved that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st of March, 1960, the sum of $27,160,925.60, being the amount of the several items voted for the departments as set forth in the Interim Supply estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960, laid before the House at its present session of the Legislature be granted out of the Consolidated Fund".
MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has adopted certain resolutions and directed me to report the same and ask leave to sit again.
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Vital, that the report to the committee be received.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Vital, that the report of the committee be received. Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that the Rules of the House be suspended and that the resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means be now read a second time and concurred in.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable First Minister, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that the Rules of the House be suspended and that the resolution reported from the Committee of Ways and Means be now read a second time and concurred in.
MR. CLERK: Resolved that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960, the sum of $27,160,925.60, being the amount of the several items voted by the departments as set forth in the Interim Supply estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1960, laid before the House at its present session of the Legislature be granted out of the Consolidated Fund.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
[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 Minister of
Labour, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 73, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the province for fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960, and the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker put the question, and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
MR. SPEAKER: Who was the seconder?
MR. ROBLIN: This is the regular supply motion, Mr. Speaker, as it appears on the Order Paper -- Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't give a seconder -- the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the Chair.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I dare suggest that as it is now close to twenty past five that the Chairman call it 5:30 in order that we don't just get into a start and then have our trend of thoughts changed, and come back at 8:00 o'clock.
MR. ROBLIN: I have no objections to that, Mr. Chairman. No -- just declare it 5:30.
[Mr. Chairman left the Chair and the House was adjourned until 8:00 o'clock this evening.]
Page revised: 4 August 2011
