| 371 | 372 | 373 | 374 | 375 | 376 | 377 | 378 | 379 | 380 |
| 381 | 382 | 383 | 384 | 385 | 386 | 387 | 388 | 389 | 390 |
| 391 | 392 | 393 |
| Page | ||
| Presenting Petitions: Mr. Scarth, Mr. Hillhouse .................................................................. | 371 | |
| Committee of the Whole House, Bill 26, (Mr. Johnson) ..................................................... | 371 | |
| Introduction of New Members, Mr. Roblin ....................................................................... | 372 | |
| Statement, Birtle Celebration, Mr. Smellie ......................................................................... | 372 | |
| Questions ......................................................................................................................... | 372 | |
| Mr. Schreyer (Mr. Willis), Mr. Orlikow (Mr. Roblin), Mr. Hillhouse
(Mr. Willis), Mr. Prefontaine (Mr. Carroll). | ||
| Order for Returns, Mr. Molgat ......................................................................................... | 373 | |
| Committee of Whole House, Third Reading of Bills Nos. 21, 22 ....................................... | 373 | |
| Point of Order, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roblin, Mr. Speaker .................................................. | 374 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Farm Implements Tax (Mr. Ridley) and Amendment | ||
| (Mr. Roberts), and amendment to amendment (Mr. Shewman): Mr. Roberts ............... | 374 | |
| Division, on amendment to amendment ........................................................................ | 375 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Minimum Wage (Mr. Harris) and amendment (Mr. Groves): | ||
| Mr. Paulley ................................................................................................................. | 375 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Ambulance Service, Mr. Wright ..................................................... | 377 | |
| Division ...................................................................................................................... | 378 | |
| Proposed Resolution, re School Construction Costs, Mr. Miller ........................................ | 378 | |
| Second Reading Bill No. 66, Chiropodists Act (Mr. Groves) ............................................ | 379 | |
| Mr. Corbett, Mr. Hawryluk, Mr. Grey, Mr. Johnson (Gimli) ........................................ | 380 | |
| Mr. Corbett ................................................................................................................ | 381 | |
| Mr. Gray, Mr. Campbell ............................................................................................. | 382 | |
| Mr. Alexander, Mr. Desjardins, Mr. Roblin ................................................................. | 383 | |
| Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roblin, Mr. Johnson (Gimli), Mr. Evans, Mr. Orlikow,
Mr. Paulley ................................................................................................................. | 385 | |
| Mr. Lissaman, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Groves ................................................................... | 386 | |
| Second Reading, Bills 27, 35 and 73 ................................................................................ | 388 | |
| Royal Assent to Bills, Nos. 7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, | ||
| 36, 46, 47, 48, 50, 60, 73 .......................................................................................... | 389 | |
Committee of Supply
| Statement, Mr. Boulic ......................................................................................................... | 390 | |
| Education, Administration ................................................................................................... | 390 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker.]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions.
MR. W. B. SCARTH, Q.C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Manitoba Health Service praying for the passing of an Act to amend an Act to Incorporate Manitoba Health Service.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Mark H. Danzker and others praying for the passing of an Act to Incorporate the Red River Exhibition Greyhound Racing Association.
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions.
Reading and Receiving Petitions.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Notice of Motion.
Introduction of Bills.
The Honourable Member for River Heights.
[Mr. Scarth introduced Bill No. 78, an Act to amend The Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District Act.]
HON. GEO. JOHNSON, M.D. (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor having been informed of the subject matter of the proposed resolution recommends same to the House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Health and Public Welfare Act by providing, among other matters, for the re-organization of The Public Welfare Advisory Committee and the payment from the Consolidated Fund of remuneration and out-of-pocket expenses to members of the Committee.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the background of this resolution to inform members that The Health and Public Welfare Act is the Act under which the Department of Health was first organized and it authorizes a setting up of a separate department; the appointment of the Minister and his deputy and other officers of the department; and it stipulates the administrative responsibilities of the department and lists the various other Acts, of which there are about twenty in number, which are administered by this department. Now this Act also provides for the establishment of a Public Welfare Advisory Committee and the Old Age Assistance and Blind Persons' Allowance Board. Now this is really supplementary to our Social Allowances Act where we now refer to this Public Welfare Advisory Committee as the appeal board, and the duties of this appeal board would be to serve as an appeal board for provincial social allowances and to be at the call of the Municipal Commissioner re municipal relief, that is, in an advisory capacity to the Municipal Commissioner; and its second duty, to set the average rates of maintenance with Children's Aid Societies, that is, what they may charge the province for neglected children committed by the Courts. Now this appeal board, as I will refer to it, replaces the Public Welfare Advisory Committee to the Minister as is in the present Act. The old appeal board consisted of the Deputy Minister of Health and five other persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and they were civil servants, and also it replaces the Rate Establishment Committee appointed under Section 34 of The Child Welfare Act.
This resolution makes provision to set up this new advisory committee with a permanent chairman, secretary, and 15 other members appointed by Order-in-Council, and it will take at least the chairman plus three of this committee to form a quorum to hear any particular appeal. The main purpose in this policy -- and this resolution makes provision for remuneration of that chairman and also out-of-pocket expenses or a small stipend to the members of the board for the time they spend on this committee. The idea of it is to give a review by lay people in individual cases and over all to provide a body of information on whether the government's
policy of meeting need is being carried forward. We feel that this committee will serve a very useful function and a very necessary function in the administration of our new social allowances act when it is presented.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, will this bill delay the other health bill?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): I didn't hear that question, Sir.
MR. GRAY: Will this bill delay the other health bill that you have? In other words, you have a health bill already before the House. The introduction of the new bill, will it delay the other one?
A MEMBER: ... Social Allowances Act.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): No, no, it's coming up any time now.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, can the Minister give us any further information as to the selection of the 15 members of this advisory committee? Will they be within the civil service or will they all be outside of the civil service, and will they be more or less representative of the various spheres in our life?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, in answer to the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party's question, it is hoped to appoint these 15 members by Order-in-Council and the policy would be to appoint them on a regional basis and we could visualize possibly the chairman visiting a northern area of the province and being able to sit down with a quorum instead of travelling all over. And we haven't actually -- this will have to be left to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as to who these should be.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted? The Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has adopted a certain resolution and directed me to report the same, and ask leave to sit again.
MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Winnipeg Centre, that the report of the Committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
[Mr. Johnson (Gimli) introduced Bill No. 26, An Act to amend The Health and Public Welfare Act.]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, there are two new members in the House that I would wish to have the opportunity of introducing.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Joseph E. Jeannotte, Esq., Member for the Electoral Division of Rupertsland, who has taken the Oath, signed the Roll and now claims the right to take his seat.
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member may now take his seat.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you John E. Ingebrigtson, Esq., Member for the Electoral Division of Churchill, who has taken the Oath, signed the Roll, and claims the right to take his seat.
MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable member take his seat. Orders of the Day.
MR. R. G. SMELLIE (Birtle-Russell): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to call the attention of this House to the fact that Birtle is celebrating its 75th anniversary of incorporation this week. The celebration will take place over the period of the next five days, commencing tomorrow. They have many plans for this celebration and I am assured by the good people of Birtle that if any of the honourable members of this House can attend those celebrations they would be welcomed with open arms. The celebrations are taking many different forms, there being a different program for each day -- tomorrow is sports day, having a baseball tournament and a fastball tournament; they have pioneer's day on Thursday; a junior sports day on Friday; a monster parade and farmer's day on Saturday; and there will be a Canadian Legion sponsored Church service on Sunday, and a Band Concert in the afternoon. I'm requested by the people of the Town of Birtle and that district to invite all of the honourable members of this House to attend. Thank you.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture if he has any statement to make to us with regards to the Federal Government announcement of this morning respecting crop insurance.
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration) (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, in regard to the announcement this morning, we welcome it here. As far as the announcement is concerned, I've not yet had an opportunity of seeing the actual details in regard to it, but with what I've read in the paper I am very pleased and it will probably enable us to proceed with crop insurance in this province during this session.
MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the First Minister. In view of what appear to be major disagreements between representatives of the City of Winnipeg and the suburban municipalities as to how the whole area is to be reorganized to better serve the needs of Greater Winnipeg, and since it is obvious that the municipalities amongst themselves may not resolve these problems, is the government giving consideration to convening, at an early date, hearings under Provincial Government auspices of all Greater Winnipeg municipal governments in order to determine the best type of government for the entire area, with a view to eliminating the section on parochial disagreements which seem to exist? It is a long question I know, Mr. Speaker.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for allowing me to have a look at his question before he asked it, otherwise I am sure I wouldn't have been able to grasp such a complex question. But I think I can say to him perhaps this reply would better be given by my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but seeing it is addressed to me I will undertake to answer it to this effect, that the problem posed by the report of the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Winnipeg is still under study by the government - very intensive study, I might say -- but I feel certain that we will, in due course, be consulting with the municipalities in respect of it. I think that is as much as I can say at the moment.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture? Has the Honourable Minister received a copy of the new Federal Farm Credit Act, or Bill?
MR. WILLIS: I have not.
MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Utilities and ask him whether he would be kind enough to let me have, or table a copy of his letter with respect to the French language T.V. Station in St. Boniface; the letter that he said he wrote and sent to the Government at Ottawa.
HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities) (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to show a copy of the letter to the Member from Carillon.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Orders for Return. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose.
MR. G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, that an order of the House do issue for a Return standing in my name. ((1) The total actual payment received from the Federal Government under the Tax Rentals Agreement for the fiscal years ending 31 March, 1959, and for each of the ten preceding years; (2) The breakdown of these figures between the basic tax rental payment and the equalization payment for each of these years; (3) The latest estimate of the payment to be received for the present fiscal year; (4) The guaranteed minimum payment to the Province of Manitoba under the Tax Rental Agreement for each of the fiscal years ending 31 March, 1960, 31 March, 1959, 31 March, 1958, 31 March, 1957.)
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
[Bill No. 21 - Sec. 1 to Sec. 20, preamble, title, was read and passed.]
[Bill No. 22 - Sec. 1 to Sec. 4, was read and passed.]
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister would give us a copy of the schedule and the other amendments that were made?
HON. J. THOMPSON (Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Virden): I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.
[Bill No. 22 - Sec. 5, preamble, title, was read and passed.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House has considered
certain bills with amendments, and others without amendments, and have 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 River Heights, that the report of the Committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
[Bills Nos. 21 and 22 were each read a third time and passed.]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Inkster.
HON. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to allow this matter to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party and the proposed motion and amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne. The Honourable Member for St. John's.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, may I raise the point of order before this debate is entered into that I raised a few days ago? I notice that nothing has been done to remove the imperfections of this resolution as it stands -- rather the amendment. I thought I had suggested to Your Honour that you should perhaps take it under consideration and, with the consent of the mover, make such alterations as are necessary to bring it into conformity with our practice and with good sense, because I think all anyone needs to do, Mr. Speaker, is to read the resolution as it would stand if amended to see how poor the construction is. If it were amended as suggested, I suggest that it would read "Whereas each year finds an increase in the number of motor vehicles on our highways, and whereas, whereas each year finds an increase in the number of motor vehicles on our highways, etc." Now, surely it is not intended that we deal with a resolution and an amendment in that form. I had thought, Mr. Speaker, when I raised this matter the other day and suggested that you would take it under advisement that you could make use of the powers that you have in your position to effect an amendment without it necessarily coming back to the House. As far as we are concerned, we would be prepared to agree to any change that is made to bring it into conformity with the evident intention of the amendment, but I think we should not continue the debate on it in the present form until it is agreed that something is going to be done to perfect its shape.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I agree with my honourable friend that it does appear to be redundant to have that second phrase in and if the House would be willing, I'm sure I can speak for this side and say that we would be willing to have you change that, Sir, so that that unnecessary verbiage in there is removed and it is brought into a little better form. I don't think it alters the meaning or the import in any way, but it certainly would read in a more literary style than it does at the moment.
MR. SPEAKER: I will take it down to advisement. I'm sorry, I intended to do this and it slipped my memory for the time being. But the order would stand?
MR. CAMPBELL: I don't raise it for the purpose of asking it to stand because I'm sure, as the Honourable the First Minister has said, that it's just an oversight and if the honourable member who has it adjourned prefers to continue we would be ...
MR. ORLIKOW: I prefer that this matter be permitted to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. Adjourned debate on the Proposed Resolution of the Honourable Member for Pembina and the Proposed Motion and amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, and the Proposed Motion that the Resolution as amended be further amended by striking out in the amendment the following words: "That the Proposed Amendment be amended by deleting the word "primarily" in the fourth line thereof; and by deleting all the words after the word "purposes" in the fifth line thereof." Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for La Verendrye.
MR. S. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak very briefly on this amendment. First of all I would like to draw the attention of the House to the wording of this resolution; firstly, the wording as proposed by the Honourable Member for Pembina where he asks in his resolution that we recommend to the Government of Canada that machinery and equipment accessories be exempt from excise and sales tax when used for clearing snow from roads within the municipality where the farmer resides. This is the original motion from the Honourable Member from Pembina. The amendment in my name simply increases the
coverage of the original motion. In other words, increases the exemptions, increases the worthwhileness of this resolution, and my intention there, as I said a couple of days ago, was simply to include any and all other equipment which might be attached to tractors which were purchased primarily for agricultural purposes but might occasionally and incidentally be used for secondary purposes; and this includes, of course, snowplowing.
And now we have the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Honourable Member for Morris which makes the whole thing ridiculous. Now surely he didn't give this matter a great deal of thought because -- then he takes this amendment and wishes to delete the words "primarily" and the last line starting with "notwithstanding", to make the resolution read as follows if this is passed: "That any farm implement or tractor including any and all equipment or accessories, hydraulic or otherwise, purchased and used for agricultural purposes". In other words, the original intent is lost entirely if the equipment is used for snowplowing then it must be taxed -- the excise and sales tax must be applied to these things as they have in the past. The hydraulics, even if they were allowed to be purchased tax free in the first place, would be taxed if they were used for moving dirt or for plowing or any other purpose other than directly connected with farming operations.
Now these are the few words I wish to say, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to point out the ridiculousness of the amendment as proposed because it destroys the whole purpose for which the Member for Pembina and myself intended this resolution.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
A MEMBER: "Yeas" and "Nays".
MR. SPEAKER: Those wishing "Yeas" and "Nays" please stand. Call in the members.
The question before the House is the amendment to the amendment moved by the Honourable Member for Morris that the Proposed Amendment be amended by deleting the word "primarily" in the fourth line thereof and deleting all of the words after the word "purposes" in the fifth line thereof.
[A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows:
YEAS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Boulic, Carroll, Christianson, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Groves, Hamilton, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Ridley, Roblin, Scarth, Seaborn, Smellie, Stanes, Thompson, Weir, Witney.
NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Miller, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Prefontaine, Roberts, Schreyer, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner, Wright.]
MR. CLERK: Yeas - 32. Nays - 19.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. The motion before the House now is the amendment to the main motion as amended. Are you ready for the question?
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, 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 Logan and the Proposed Motion of the Honourable Member for St. Vital in amendment thereto. The Honourable Member for Elmwood.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House that my colleague, the Honourable Member for Elmwood, is in hospital at the present time. He took ill on Friday and couldn't be with us Friday evening or for the Friday afternoon session. We don't know at the present time how long he will be there. He's undergoing tests at the present time. In his absence I would like, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to say a word or two in connection with this amendment and then the debate will carry on from there or be adjourned, if that's O.K.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave of the House?
MR. PAULLEY: My remarks in this connection, Mr. Speaker, will be very brief. We can see nothing wrong particularly with the amendment as proposed by the Honourable Member for St. Vital, and after having said that, Sir, neither can we find anything to get excited about at all. We are fully aware of the fact that the Chairman has been now appointed for the Minimum Wage Board. We certainly did not need that information by way of an amendment to a resolution. The respresentatives of labour have been for many months past urging this
government and indeed the previous government to get out of the doldrums and take under review the minimum wages of the Province of Manitoba. In this field, as in many others, the government has failed to do its duty for too long without review -- we have had this minimum wage -- without its doing its job of reviewing minimum wages in Manitoba. We have had this board -- for too long in Manitoba we have had one of the lowest minimum wage rates in the Dominion of Canada. I think it is a tragedy that our minimum wage rate of 60¢ for men and 58¢ for women has been allowed to be the base for so long. And, of course, we agree that the present Board, in fact we made the request of the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that action be taken immediately in respect of minimum wages.
The government opposite had ample time since its election as a minority government last June to take action. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that action could have been taken providing -- or had the government opposite been anxious, under the previous Chairman, Mr. Williams. We can see no reason why it was not done. It's unfortunate, of course, that that gentleman had to retire from his duties in connection with this Board by reasons of ill health, for we feel that it could have been done before that happened; and we certainly suggest and hope that there will be no undue delay under the present Chairmanship of Mr. Ken McLean. I don't know whether the government opposite really realize what they are doing in perpetuating this miserable low minimum wage rate which we have in the province. And, Sir, what does the amendment actually say? "Whereas the Minimum Wage Board has been convened and a Chairman appointed; Resolved that this House urge that the present minimum wage rates be reviewed without delay to meet present day conditions in the Province of Manitoba". I would suggest that there could have been or should have been in the amendment -- and while I'm not proposing at the present time an amendment to it -- but there should have been a general directive or at least a suggestion to the new Minimum Wage Board that not only should they review the situation but that there should be some proposition of increases in the rates themselves. And while we appreciate the fact that the Board is charged with the responsibility of recommendations and setting the rates themselves, I think that it would have been far better had the mover of this amendment suggested definitely that the wage rates should have been increased as well as simply reviewed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when we introduced the original motion we suggested that this House should, in co-operation with the Federal Government and the other provincial governments, take under consideration and advisement the setting of a national minimum wage rate; and we made the suggestion of $1.25. We did that for a purpose. We have heard arguments galore in this House over the past years of the various rates that are set in the different provinces throughout Canada; and many of the arguments that have been raised by the Government in the past have been that we here in Manitoba cannot have a minimum wage rate that is higher to any great degree than some of the rest of the provinces because, as the government in the past has suggested, it would adversely affect us in competition with other provinces. The argument has been in the past, so said the government, it would adversely affect industry coming to the province. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think that type of argument is ridiculous because the general group of employees who are affected by the minimum wage, I feel sure, is not the type of employee or the wage rates that are paid to them would either attract or detract industry from coming into our province.
The general basis of a minimum wage rate is to assure to employees who are not covered by wage agreements of a general nature that they will receive a bare minimum. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when we read our Minimum Wage Act, when we read the directives to our Wage Board, the general directive is simply, give them nothing more than a miserly bare existence, and we had hoped in our original proposal to this House to attempt to establish a reasonable minimum wage uniform throughout Manitoba. And while, as I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing too wrong with the amendment, it doesn't really mean anything because the Committee has been set up; the Board has been set up; the Chairman has been named and they will be doing, if they do their duty, just exactly what the resolution has suggested. So in essence, the amendment to the main motion means absolutely nothing as far as this House is concerned.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. A. E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, 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 Seven Oaks. The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks.
MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, when I submitted this resolution it was with the intention of throwing some light on a matter of interest to me, and I was not surprised that the Honourable Member from Minnedosa and the Honourable Member for St. Boniface rose to speak against this or to give their reasons for thinking that we shouldn't ask the government to consider the advisability of a government-owned ambulance service. This is a familiar pattern to us because for many years we have become interested or accustomed in seeing the "Old Line" parties oppose these new ideas. What does surprise me, Mr. Speaker, that these are young men and they are engaged in an occupation which makes it necessary for them to see much human misery. I used the expression in a former speech that "familiarity breeds contempt" and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is not true of the two honourable members.
Is there anyone here who would say that we should not have looked into such things as old age pensions, unemployment insurance, hospital insurance, things like that? Is there anyone here who would say that we have reached perfection? We should be thankful for what we have and not worry about the future? I believe we should be far more appreciative for the things that we have inherited, for then we would be able to see more clearly some of the struggles that have made today's blessings possible. The Honourable Member for Minnedosa doesn't agree that we are centralizing our hospital or our medical facilities today. I only have to show you the clippings in the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, June 25th which has a large article on "a rapid action on a medical centre". What interested me mostly was at the bottom when it's talking about all the projects that are being planned, and these are over the next 25 years, but it's talking about research centres, air ambulance facilities and the like, so that certainly our men of science and our medical men are considering the future and such things as air ambulance, helicopter service and such like.
The Honourable Member for Minnedosa was quick and rightly so in defending the local hospitals, and at no time in my speech did I say that these hospitals were not doing a fine job, in fact I paid my respects to the R.C.M.P. and all these people who so unselfishly give of themselves in this mercy rescue work. I did not criticize and therefore I do not see that it was necessary to defend. There is a saying that when anyone attacks one of our prejudices, it makes us angry; when we are tackled on the things that we have a knowledge, we welcome an opportunity to explain. The statement was made that most Manitoba towns have good ambulance service. Well, if the honourable member was referring to the type of people who are engaged in this work, I would agree with him. I think that these people so engaged would be the last to agree that they have reached the ultimate and that the service could not be improved. I was speaking to a young fellow who tells me that before he was 17 years of age, he had the job of driving an ambulance -- before he could get a chauffeur's license, and that he had to attend on one occasion a rush call to hospital with himself the only attendant. Now I'm not suggesting that we haven't made progress in the last three or four years, Mr. Speaker, but these things have happened.
I'm checking now to find out just what nursing units scattered throughout the province have adequate ambulance service, and I'm startled to find that the Whitemouth nursing unit has no ambulance although there are two at Beausejour; the Town of Selkirk only has one ambulance; the City of Winnipeg with its large population only ten; so I say again that this service, this private ambulance service, is certainly giving the best that it can but I say again that it's not adequate and I think that should the government see fit to investigate this, that this will be easily proven.
But the Honourable Member for Minnedosa also said that he takes issue with the statements of Major-General Worthington, and I say that I don't know of any better authority because this is not the statement of a new convert to a cause; this is the considered judgment of a man who I think, we must admit, has had considerable experience in this business of human suffering. And when he says that quite obviously an effective ambulance rescue service must be controlled and co-ordinated by the provincial governments and that this will cost money, but it will be just as beneficial to the nation as the money spent on disease prevention and medical research. He goes on to suggest, too, that it's logical to assume that the Department of Health and Welfare
would be quite willing to give considerably to the establishment of such service.
Now there's something that both the Honourable Member for Minnedosa and the Honourable Member for St. Boniface agree on, and speaking against this resolution they both agree that the government should pay the cost of ambulance service when it's requested by responsible people; that the private ambulance companies, in other words, should be paid on attending a scene of accidents. Now I think that we would readily agree with that, but the question of making sure that private ambulance companies are paid is not facing up to the fact that, as Major-General Worthington put it, "Surely the time has come to do something constructive about the death and destruction on our highways for our ambulance service in Canada is appallingly inadequate". Now the Government of Saskatchewan, as I mentioned the other night, appropriates $206,000 per year for air ambulance service, and last year they made a total of 893 flights. Taking off the amount that the patient is obliged to pay which is around $25.00, I figure that it costs per flight $200.00 roughly, and that is less than it takes to educate one child for one year in the City of Winnipeg. Surely that is money well spent. Now what is the solution? I think that we should have a Commission. We've had a commission investigating everything from education to natural gas. Surely this is a serious enough matter to justify the government appointing competent people to look into this matter. Is not the saving of a life as important as the price of gas? As deserving of study? Quite obviously an effective ambulance service, a rescue service must be controlled and co-ordinated by the provincial government.
Now in looking at the clipping from the Tribune, as I haven't had time to read Hansard, the Honourable Member for Minnedosa refers to the numerous trips made in the polio epidemic in '53 and as I said before, we all realize what wonderful work was done, but I submit that an investigation into ambulance service in the Province of Manitoba will reveal that many of our vehicles are not equipped as adequately as they should be. Sedans, station-wagons can be converted into emergency amublances and Major-General Worthington mentions that -- he says that roughly for a cost of $205.00 these can be coverted -- but someone will have to co-ordinate and organize this auxiliary ambulance service. After all, when someone is bleeding to death, Mr. Speaker, you can't wait to find out who has a station-wagon and what you can do on the spur of the moment.
There is a saying, Mr. Speaker, that "there is no argument so violent as that which takes place between people who will accept something today and those who will accept it tomorrow". Mr. Speaker, I know it's inevitable that improvements will be made in regard to ambulance service in our province and I sincerely ask this government to give serious and early consideration to this resolution before us today.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost.]
MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks - "Whereas modern mechanical blessings such as the automobile, the tractor and the outboard ...." Are you ready for the question?
[YEAS: Gray, Harris, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Orlikow, Paulley, Roberts, Schreyer, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner, Wright.
NAYS: Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Boulic, Campbell, Carroll, Christianson, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Desjardins, Evans, Groves, Hamilton, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Miller, Molgat, Prefontaine, Ridley, Roblin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Thompson, Weir, Willis, Witney.]
MR. CLERK: Yeas - 13, Nays - 39.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. Proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Rhineland.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Carillon, "Resolved that this House request the Government of the Province of Manitoba to consider the advisability of rescinding the present secondary school construction grant formula, and replacing it by one that will provide from the consolidated revenues of the Province of Manitoba 75% of construction costs of all secondary schools".
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is similar to one which was proposed by our group at the last Session of the Legislature and which died on the Order Paper. There is one significant difference though and that is that included in this resolution is the provision for the same construction grants of all secondary schools which include those schools which are operating or about to operate in those proposed divisions that voted no. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this change is one which should merit wholehearted support of this House because the avowed purpose of the change in all grants is to provide equal opportunity for all our children and as much as possible equality of burden. Now the sliding scale formula which as I recall, ranges from 40% to 80% benefits firstly the automatic divisions which by reason of their density of population and their high assessment will be able to construct schools of a size meriting the maximum grants. It will also benefit those other divisions, the non-automatic, who have density of population but it mitigates against those divisions and areas who by reason of the boundaries of the division cannot centralize or do not want to centralize and so I suggest that in order to be fair and just that we make this an over all percentage grant of 75% and thus relieve those areas who by the very nature of their constitutions cannot benefit through centralization and thus relieve the local people to some extent at least of the increased burden of taxation. I might mention too that I'm hopeful that the Minister will support this resolution, as indeed all members of the House should, in view of the fact that the other grants on a sliding scale have provided some trouble if one can believe the papers, and so I urge this House to support this resolution and provide real equality of opportunity and real equality of burden.
MR. J. G. COBB (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Swan River, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead. Order Stand.
MR. ROBLIN: ...we could let the order stand, the Honourable Member isn't here, presumably he was unable to...
MR. SPEAKER: Let the order stand. Second reading of Bill No. 66 - an Act to amend the Chiropodists Act. The Honourable Member for St. Vital.
MR. F. GROVES (St. Vital): I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from St. Matthews, that Bill No. 66 - an Act to amend the Chiropodists Act - be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for St. Vital, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews, that Bill No. 66 - an Act to amend the Chiropodists Act - be now read a second time. Are you ready for the question?
MR. GROVES: This Act, Mr. Speaker, deals mostly with the change in the name throughout the Act; they are intending to change the word "chiropody" to "podiatric" and the words as they appear "chiropodist" to "podiatrist". Now I looked up the meaning in the dictionary of the word "chiropody" and it means - originally the art of treating diseases of the hands and feet, as now restricted, the treatment of ailments of the feet, especially minor ailments. The definition of the word "podiatry" in the dictionary in the library is "the study and treatment of disorders of the foot", so it appears that this change in name is meant to bring the name more into line with the actual work that these people are doing.
You'll note in the Act that the definition of podiatry is enlarged somewhat from the dictionary meaning that I just gave. You find that in Section 3 (c) podiatry means that specialty of the healing art which treats ailments or diseased conditions or deformities or injuries of the human foot, includes examining or diagnosing or prescribing for or treating such foot disabilities and massage or adjusting in connection therewith. That definition is quite a bit wider than the definition in the dictionary, and that might be gone into in committee when representatives of this Association would be there to explain what they mean.
Another point that was raised by the Association when I discussed this with them - they feel that the use of the word "podiatry" will eliminate the confusion which sometimes exists between the words "chiropody" and the word "chiropractic" as used in Chapter 37 of the revised statutes.
MR. A. E. CORBETT (Swan River): Would the member permit a question? When was this word "podiatry" - when did it get into the English, British Literature, Webster's
dictionary? Is it a new word or is it another of these fads?
MR. GROVES: In answer to the Honourable Member's question, Mr. Speaker. I'm not too familiar with the history of the word but I think it has been in the dictionary for a long time and that is the word that is used in various statutes throughout Canada and the United States that this particular Association has. Saskatchewan, I believe, has recently amended their Act to use the word "podiatry" instead of "chiropody". Does that answer your question?
Section 33 of the present Act says that the Association shall not pass any rule or regulation or bylaw restricting, or advertising or fixing prices. It is proposed in this new Act to delete this section. Insofar as restricting the advertising is concerned it is felt that most professional associations have this power and that any misuse of this power would be covered under federal legislation, that is, as far as the fixing of prices is concerned. This section, I might point out, was put in by the Legislature when the bill was originally passed and I am informed that no other similar act of ours contains such a section. The Association has had a number of complaints from the public about some of their members in connection with over-charging and with misleading advertising, and they don't feel that they can deal with these members properly, to discipline them properly, with this section of the Act as it is. They assure me that they have no intention of trying to fix the prices charged by their members but they wish this section deleted in order that they may discipline their own members that should get out of line in respect of unethical advertising practices.
The wording of Section 34 of the present Act is quite ambiguous and briefly interpreted means that this Act does not prohibit any person from selling or recommending shoes or foot or hand appliances or foot remedies provided that the person selling, recommending or advertising such appliances shall not be permitted to give treatments of the foot. The new section proposed to replace this section says the same thing but in much more readable language. It puts into laymen's language rather than in legalistic terms what in the present Act is quite complicated terminology.
I might point out that the restriction of the old Act remains in that podiatric still would not be allowed to amputate or use anaesthetic other than local anaesthetic. They would not be allowed to treat systematic diseases of the bone, muscles or ligaments or to use x-ray equipment for purposes other than diagnosis.
Section 15 of the Act presently provides that examination fees be paid to the Registrar of the University of Manitoba. The University of Manitoba has indicated that it does not wish to handle the examination fees which is the practice at the present time. Such fees are paid to the Registrar of the Association. Accordingly it is proposed that the change in the Act give recognition to the practice which is now in effect.
I think that pretty well outlines, Mr. Speaker, the main changes that are proposed in this Bill.
MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (Burrows): I'm a little curious about this change in the letter "e" to the letter "o". I believe that a man that goes to medical college becomes a practioneer in any aspect and I believe they are practioneers who are in the pediatrics. Now I'm just wondering whether by changing the "e" to the "o" - I haven't heard a valid reason given - I say it's going to create quite a bit of confusion to the general public because I treat the chiropodist for it is in the same category as I would in the case of the chiropractor, in the sense that their particular profession is a special profession in itself, but I think the fact is that a doctor who is qualified to teach or heal in the pediatric class certainly is in a different category entirely, and I'm just wondering whether the public will get confused by the fact they change it from a chiropodist to that of podiatrics and I'd like a further clarification, probably from the Minister of Health and Education or Minister of Health.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the "o" and the "e" means anything to the public who wants to remove a corn. The question is this, now first the change of the name I understand is the correct dictionary so I'll not say anything about that. I would like to know what additional professional rights are given to these people who have no medical training and by the way, I have no intention of proposing second reading.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and speak as a private member representing the good constituency of Gimli. I stand directly opposed to the principle of this Bill. The principle of this Bill is by the definition of the word podiatry, means that specialty
of the healing arts which treats ailments or diseased conditions or deformities or injuries of the human foot including examination or diagnosing or prescribing for, or treating such disabilities and massage or adjustment in connection therewith, but does not include amputation, anaesthetic other than local. Up until now the definition of the word chiropody said "Every person who practices or advertises or holds himself out in any way is practicing chiropody and massage in connection therewith but the practice of chiropody shall not include amputation or treatment of injuries to or infection of the foot, or toes or hand or fingers or manicuring the nails or use of anaesthetic except as a spray, or the use of drugs or medication other than local antiseptics."
The principle of this bill is wrong in my opinion. The principle is wrong - the principle says that the word podiatry means the treatment of infection. It means nothing else that the chiropodists now wish to treat infection. I submit that this is going back many years. When Dr. John Kerr formed the Manitoba Medical College and he called his colleagues together to form the first course in 1882, one of the first things he said was that the Senate of this University shall give the degree - we will teach but the University shall examine. Section 18 of this Chiropody Act is not repealed and I would draw your attention to the fact that Section 18 of the former Act points out where the chiropodist in their words, "be so limited in their scope as to cover only the minimum requirements for chiropody education and shall not be construed to require of the applicant a medical or surgical education but shall include at least the matriculation qualification of the University of Manitoba." This body say for their own registration purposes they must have matriculation, beyond that their training, although they spell out so many words, I would submit to the House that this means nothing. They do not -- it's up to the examining body of our University to underline this - this is policed by themselves.
Now when we talk of infection. This is going back before Ignace Semmelweiss, who discovered the causes of childbed fever. By observation before Lister. John Kerr, our first dean here, brought Lister's teachings to Manitoba and started this college off on the right foot. In 1897 Gordon Bell became our provincial Bacteriologist. Gordon Bell lost a leg with typhoid fever. How can you lose a leg with typhoid fever, an intestinal disease? Because typhoid fever is characterized by a systemic bacterimia - bacteria in the blood stream which come and settle in the walls of vessels and arteries and there set up the equivalent of clots and occlude the blood supply thereof and therefore cause gangrene of the extremity. I would point out to the honourable members as they peruse that bill, it points out that they do in no way intend to treat systemic diseases of bones, muscles or ligaments but I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that in order for our bones, muscles and ligaments to tingle we must have a blood supply thereto and the blood supply comes through the arteries and veins through that part, and I would submit therefore that they are getting into the realm of systemic infection and disease. Later Gordon Bell died from streptococcal sore throat ...
[Recording failure, approximately 1 min. 40 seconds]
...causes the whole field of pharmacopoeia, the whole field of therapeutics materia medica is opened up. This is dangerous ground. Let's not take a step back into the darkness of Semmelweiss when we've had men like Bell and -- in our own province -- and Cadham and the rest of them light the way in this province, to make this medical school one of the finest on the continent. I say this not because I'm a doctor. Lord knows, there're many more medical men who could speak more authoritatively and better on this subject than I, but I say that we might as well call every young boy in Manitoba "doctor" and let's quit this business. I think the Legislature should look seriously at this whole problem and let's have the University and senate of this University, the highest academic body in this province, underline this treatment of disease and infection. I have no objections. People can go where they want to go. This is a democracy, but let's not us in this Legislature be saying who can do this type of treatment. That's all I want to say, gentlemen, but that's the way I see this bill until proven otherwise.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Speaker, I am much indebted to the Honourable Member for Gimli, not the Minister of Health and Public Welfare, for explaining the differences in this matter between podiatry and chiropodry - I haven't got them right, but it's somewhere near there - the whole thing in my mind is we're getting to be a nation of fadists, and all these fancy names do not mean a thing. I have no objection to a man calling himself a chiropodist and dealing with diseases of the foot which I always understood, but why is it necessary to change the name and why
is it necessary to have all the licensing that is necessary? It's getting to be like a religion. Now, we've got a 101 different religions and there's new fads come up day by day and they give them a different name. Well, there's no reason why the podiatrists can't come along next year and change the name to something else. I'm speaking entirely as an ignorant layman. The doctor explained the scientific end of the deal very well and I'm quite in sympathy with him but I've no sympathy with this trying to set up a new technical or medical organization by giving it a fancy name and I don't think there's any great need, in my opinion, for this Act ever having been passed in the first place. Thank you.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I usually as a democrat, I like to see, not second reading, to go things to committee. In committee I would naturally oppose it but I now, in view of the explanation of the Honourable Minister of Education -- or the Honourable Member from Gimli, I changed my opinion. I'll vote against it going through committee.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I think this is quite a serious question that we have here to decide this afternoon. It's not just a case of our personal opinions with regard to this particular bill, but it brings up the whole question on which the Honourable Member for Gimli, as he prefers to be known by that designation during the time of this debate, has spoken. And that's a serious and important question. Now, perhaps it's almost impossible to agree with the positions taken by both the sponsor of the bill and the Honourable Member for Gimli, and yet I rather find myself in that position. Because I agree with a good bit of what the Honourable the Member for Gimli has said and I recognize the responsibility under which he labours under these circumstances. On the other hand, I have never liked to take the position in this chamber that we should prevent one of these healing arts, so-called healing arts, whether we think it to be such or not, from being considered in the committee stage. And I think that in spite of the very excellent remarks that the Honourable the Member for Gimli has just given now, and I compliment him on them because I think it's only right that those considerations should be placed before us, I think it's his duty in his other capacity to place them before us, but in spite of that I'm of the opinion that the bill still should go to Committee. Because, after all, we have an Act on the Statute books now and if there's something wrong with that Act, if there are any dangers in it, the one that presently exists, we should take a look at it as well. And I think that we should allow the bill to go to Committee and then at Committee we should ask the, not only the Honourable Member for Gimli to be there, but other members of that profession, and to let us hear a well-informed argument on this particular question. Because I'm certainly in thorough agreement with the Honourable Member for Gimli that we should not encourage any of these healing arts to go beyond the things that they can do. I agree with him completely on that. And we laymen will, I think, perforce have to accept the informed judgment of people such as my Honourable Friend the Member for Gimli and colleagues of his profession, in deciding how far we should allow these so-called healing arts and professions to go. Now, I agree with him completely on that. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I think that even though agreeing with that premise completely, that we have to still take the other position that we should not prevent the various organizations and associations and professions of healing arts, we should not prevent them from doing those jobs that they have shown they can do well. And I believe that in most of these - I have no experience with chiropodists; I have none of my family or friends reported on them, so I speak not of them, but of some of the others - some of my family and friends have had experience and have spoken rather well of them and I think that we should not prevent them from doing those things that they can do. But at the same time I'm a hundred perecent in favour of the argument of the Honourable Member for Gimli that we should try and carefully delineate the distance that they can go. Because I believe that while I would not apply the same terminology as my Honourable Friend, the Member for Swan River has just done by calling them sadists, I believe there is the tendency in all of them, and it's a human tendency, it's a tendency that's in most of us, to become rather enthusiastic about our own accomplishments and I think one of the great dangers is that the most of these organizations have been inclined in the past to press their endeavours into fields for which they are not qualified, based usually I think, on having made some contribution in their own particular field. So I would say that in spite of the excellent lecture that the Honourable Member for Gimli has just given us, and with the most of it I agree whole-heartedly and I certainly recognize him as being an authority
on these matters in a way that I could not attempt to give information, but in spite of that I would think we should allow the bill to go to Committee and then count upon people of that profession to see that we are given information as to the distance we should allow this particular organization to go and as to changes that should be made in this Act. Seems to me that the changing of the name is not important unless, as some honourable members have mentioned, there might be confusion developed because of it. It seems to me, however, that one instance of the associations of this kind being inclined to go a little further than their accomplishments up-to-date would recommend, is given them the section 12 dealing with nothing prohibiting the fitting or sale of corrective shoes, etc., because it seems to me that "no representative of any such dealer, jobber or manufacturer shall diagnose, etc., unless registered under this Act and licensed to practice a profession of podiatry in Manitoba". I would think that that would exclude a medical doctor, if a representative of one of the shoe companies, etc., I would think that would be going too far. I would doubt that the Association themselves have that in mind, but I do agree that we need to exercise our best judgment as to just how far we should go, so that my principle is simply this, let's give all of these folks an opportunity to do the things that they can do well, if we can agree that they do them well, but let's not encourage them to push out into fields for which they are unqualified.
MR. K. ALEXANDER (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I have to disagree pretty near completely with the Honourable Member for Lakeside, because from what I feel or what I know of the procedure of this House that by ... this here that we are agreeing in principle with this bill, and I am like the Honourable Member from Gimli, I disagree quite violently with the principle here. Because we are now opening up by this bill a field to these people who I know have done a good job, I've gone to them myself and my family has gone to them, but we're opening up a new field now, as the member pointed out, of infection, opening up the field of anaesthetics to them with no increase and with no change in the requirements or in their qualifications or in their training, and I think that is wrong. I myself as a layman would hate to say what could be classified as an infection of the foot. It could have a far-reaching influence. And yet according to this bill we could have men diagnosing that and treating it and giving anaesthetic for the treatment of it who have only a matriculation and still calling themselves doctors, podiatrics or whatever name they want to use. And I feel that is quite wrong because it opens up a whole new field and I think if they want to open that field up, that we should have changes in their qualifications. We should have them pass at least a degree course in University, possibly have them take two years of medical training at the University. Take a two-year course in bacteriology; extra training before they can open up this new field. I disagree very violently with this idea of people setting themselves up as being able to treat things when they haven't had the training and because of the fact that they can use the word "Doctor" they are misleading the public to that extent. I am very much opposed to the principle of this bill.
MR. L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): I think that the words of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition have been misunderstood. I don't think that he meant for one minute to agree with them even in principle. In fact, he went a little further by saying that even the existing Act might give them too much power and it might be a good occasion to listen to medical men in committee and maybe rectify what might be wrong at the moment. Maybe going a little further just by the enlightening words that we heard today from the Honourable the Member from Gimli. So, I think that by letting it go in Committee definitely does not mean that it's approved in principle or means that it's a high time that we study this. It may rectify things that have been done in the past.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to follow the example of my colleague and speak as the Member for Wolseley constituency on this matter and not as the Leader or this Government, and wish my views to be given weight only insofar as they are the views of the Member for Wolseley constituency. The question of second reading on a matter of this sort poses a bit of a dilemma and perhaps this might be of particular interest to the many new members of this House that maybe have not come across a problem of this sort before. On normal occasions when we have second reading of the bill in legislature, that is the time when men stand up and be counted. That is the time when people say whether they are opposed to the principle of the measure or whether they favour it and in most cases it's quite simple to make up one's mind on matters of that sort. That rule, I think, is a rule that should not be broken or in any
way ignored insofar as Government measures are concerned, or perhaps insofar as views may be put forward by opposition parties as representing their political -- their particular views on the various matters that come before the House. When matters of that nature come up I think it's quite easy for members to decide whether they're for or against and they stand up or they speak their piece as the case may be. I suppose one of the reasons for that is that people who should be, not always are, I'll admit, but who should be qualified to present all the aspects of the case for and against are in the Chamber. In other words, we expect members of the Legislature, particularly those who carry portfolios, to be able to stand up in the House and justify their measures in an authoritative way and in that way all the information that should be taken into consideration is usually placed before the House. I'm sure the same could be said of members on the opposite side of the chamber as well. But when we come to private bills such as this is, we are on a little different ground. And that is that all the facts or all the advocates, let us say, of various policies are not in the chamber. Very often members who introduce private bills do so not because they themselves are particularly concerned or have any detailed knowledge of the matter in question, but because they wish to offer a courtesy to people who are entitled to have a bill of that sort presented to the chamber. And it has been the custom in this House, I know, on some previous occasions, perhaps not in all, for members to take a different view of second readings as they normally do. And that is when a private bill of this sort comes up, one isn't under the same pressure to stand up and be counted in respect of one's views on the measure that a person necessarily is in the case of government business or matters of that sort. For the reason that it is usually considered that there's some merit in having a private bill go to a Committee where it can be discussed by experts who are particularly knowledgeable on the point in question. I think one of the reasons that makes people take that view is the desirability of giving a person his day in court. It's not only necessary that justice be done, it's necessary that justice appear to be done. I know that in our various legislative problems one of the things we try to do is to get people that don't like what's being done to them before the court so that they have their day in court, and if there's any merit in what they have to say, why, then it can be dealt with. I think probably the same line of argument might hold true in connection with second reading on private bills. And that there is a point to be considered here as to whether we should not let the bill go to Committee for the purpose that I've mentioned. Now, I for one, am completely in sympathy with my colleague on the points that he has raised in connection with the expansion of this particular form of service into fields where it's not competent to operate. That's the main point of the bill, I think, and I can very well understand the feelings of members who are sufficiently exorcised by that to wish to have nothing more to do with the matter, and, of course, if that is the majority of opinion in the chamber, that's what will happen. There are one or two matters in the bill that are not of such a serious nature that perhaps might secure the approval of the majority here if they were dealt with in isolation. But I put it before the Chamber whether it is not possible to consider the point of view that people should have their say before a Committee of the House, that it be understood that in this vote at any rate, that all the people who might vote for it to go to second reading don't necessarily approve of the subject matter of the bill, which is contrary, I know, to the usual rule of the parliament. But in that way, those of us who are not familiar with the problem, will have an opportunity to hear it dealt with in Committee and also we'll have an opportunity of declining to report the bill should it not meet with the approval of the Committee or dealing with it at some other stage in its passage through the Legislature should it in fact proceed. So, I'm just coming to the view as a private member that perhaps I might vote for second reading of this bill to enable it to go to the Committee and to have the kind of discussion that has been referred to by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and others, but only on the condition that it be clearly understood that I for one would not the first time at any rate, feel disposed to approve of the main request that is made in this piece of legislation, but I am prepared to allow those who are interested in it for and against to appear before a Committee of members of the House and to say what the facts are in their view and then we can judge again. Now, this is a delicate point of parliamentary procedure. It bothered me very much in the past as to whether a vote on second reading on a private bill should be carried on the point of principle or whether it should be allowed to go as a matter of courtesy in order to allow all facts to be heard. I don't know whether I'm right on
this. Certainly one could work up a very good debate on the other side of the question. But I think I would vote for second reading. Not because I'm in any way attracted by the principle of the measure, but rather that I would, in the interests of perhaps leaning over backwards, one might say, allow those concerned both for and against to have their say in the proper Committee of the Chamber.
MR. CAMPBELL: On a point of order and only for clarification. The Honourable the First Minister referred to this bill as a private bill. I imagine he meant to say private member's bill.
MR. ROBLIN: Yes.
MR. CAMPBELL: I'm not sure, it isn't in fact a private bill, is it?
MR. ROBLIN: Well, I would broaden my scope of the comment on this occasion to take in whatever kind of bill this is. It might be -- I believe it's probably described a private member's bill rather than a private bill.
MR. CAMPBELL: The only point I was wondering, I'm not on private bills committee and I don't imagine they've met. Did this one originate by petition? I think not.
MR. ROBLIN: We'll ask perhaps -- on a point of information perhaps the mover might tell us.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): I think it's a private member's bill. It didn't originate by petition...
MR. GROVES: Mr. Speaker...law amendments I think we could straighten out the present Act. Thank you.
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): I'd like to say this, that I feel as the Honourable Member for Wolseley does. I shall be voting for the bill to go to second reading. I know, as contradictory as it may seem, I'm so far at the moment opposed to the principle of the bill, but I would like whoever is concerned in this matter to have an opportunity to give me technical information that I don't possess.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I will vote for second reading of the bill. I want it clearly understood in doing this I not only want to have a look at the amendments which are being proposed but I intend to have a look at the original bill as it now stands. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, one of these days I think that this House will have to have a look at all the bills which various professional groups have had passed giving them very wide authority. And I say this not in any critical sense but the medical profession has tremendous power under bills passed; the Bar Association has. I haven't looked at it since I left the pharmaceutical profession, but they have wide authority and I think one of these days this House would be well advised to look at all the authority given to all the various professional groups. Certainly if we're going to look at it we have to look not only at the amendments proposed to this bill but in fact, at the original bill and the authority given to this group as to any other group. [Interjection] They have no particular right, Mr. Chairman, labour unions are not incorporated.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, this has been very, very interesting, the discussion, and everybody who has taken part in it has taken part as individuals. And I think some of the points raised are very, very interesting, particularly in view of the fact that we're going to have second reading on many other bills. And if the members opposite who have taken part in this debate, as to whether or not this bill should be given second reading and sent to Committee, are going to take the same line of reasoning on other bills that are going to be before us, it will all be well and good as far as I am personally concerned. It is the first time that I've heard this argument from the Member for Wolseley, who happens also to be the First Minister of this House, because I've heard him argue in the past - on other bills - that we were dealing with the principle of the bill, at the time of debate on second reading. And being opposed to the principle of the bill, opposed the second reading. I'm going to watch with great interest, what is going to happen, when say, for instance, a bill that is being proposed by my Socialist friend from Wellington in respect of margarine, because as you can well recall, Mr. Speaker, that bill, I think it even was proposed upon one occasion by my Honourable Friend who leads the Government, on numerous occasions was debated for weeks as to whether or not it should be given second reading. And it appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that if the policy principles that have been enunciated this afternoon by my honourable friends as to whether or not we are dealing with the principle of the bill, and on the basis of principle, we should make
our decision. We've come a little way from that in this House, this afternoon.
MR. R. O. LISSAMAN (Brandon): All this discussion has raised a question in my mind, especially in view of what the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has said, and the question that arises is this: Does an amendment to a bill, specifically as we have presented here, then open up for examination in Committee the entire original bill, or does that have to be treated by specific amendment in turn, if such an amendment is desirable? Now I rather hesitate to ask that question because I know there are several lawyers in the House and we will probably have six or seven viewpoints on it. But it is a little puzzling to me, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. CAMPBELL: Is the Honourable Member for Brandon asking a question of me, because I would be glad to take the place of the six or seven lawyers and answer it correctly if he wants me to. Well, it opens the whole bill up for discussion and that might be very beneficial but as far as specific amendments were concerned, another bill would have to be introduced.
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is closing the debate.
MR. GROVES: Some time ago after the Honourable Member from Wellington made a speech in this House, he closed his speech by saying that I had introduced a very controversial bill. Dealing with some of the points that were raised in the discussion, first of all the Honourable Member from Burrows raised the point of the confusion between podiatrics and pediatrics. I would suggest that that's something that people more expert than us could advise us on in Committee. With respect to the additional rights which this Association asks for as raised by the Honourable Member for Inkster - I'll read from a copy of a letter which I requested from the Association's solicitor, explaining what the Association wanted from this bill. He says the definition in Section 2 (b) has been altered to conform with the definition in the Saskatchewan Act R.F.F. 1953, See 291. As the services rendered by the Association may include treatment of conditions involving infection it is considered that the Saskatchewan definition is preferable and more accurate. The words appearing in the proposed definition "but shall not include amputations or anaesthetics other than locals" do not appear in the Saskatchewan definition but contain prohibitions which now appear substantially in the present definition. It is felt desirable in this respect that members of the Association be permitted to use local anaesthetics. That is from the Association's lawyer.
The Honourable Member from Gimli has given us a very interesting address on the principle of this bill. And in his capacity as the Honourable Member from Gimli and in his capacity as a medical doctor, I think he has given us a very careful and a very thorough analysis of this situation as it appears to him. I would suggest though that it would be unfair to the members of this Association since the Legislature has in its wisdom in the past seen fit to allow to give them their right to practice. I would suggest then that they should have the right to come back to this Legislature and ask for amendments to their bill, and this we can only do in Committee.
I would like to also say that I am introducing this bill not because I'm a chiropodist or a particular fan of the chiropodist but because I was asked by a constituent of mine who is a very reputable chiropodist. And I might also point out that the Honourable Member from St. Matthews seconded this bill because I asked him to in order to get it on to the floor of the House for the purpose of discussion. I might also point out another matter that could be gone into very thoroughly in committee, that is that Saskatchewan had seen fit to give these people some wider powers than they have in Manitoba and for those of you who take the Winnipeg Tribune, in last Saturday's edition, you will note that there is an article about a chiropodist in Regina who is permitted by the health authorities of the Province of Saskatchewan to practice in the Regina Geriatric Centre. And I say that not unfairly but to point out that this matter has been given pretty thorough discussion in other jurisdictions and I feel that the members of this Legislature and the members of the Association concerned can only have their proper say in Committee.
As far as approval of second reading, I would state this, insofar as my own position is concerned, that if I was asked and had to vote approval of the principle of this bill, if that's what I would be doing in voting for it to receive second reading - I would not be prepared to do so because I feel that I am not competent to judge some of the factors involved which we can
only receive expert opinion on in committee. But I do intend to vote for second reading of this bill on the understanding that -- on my understanding that it is merely voting in favour of having this bill sent to committee where all of the sections in aspect of it can then receive a thorough going-over by our Committee and at which time we can receive expert advice from not only the medical profession but the Association that is involved here, and perhaps other associations who have other legislation of a similar type.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Sir, we have now reached Government Orders on the paper and I would like to suggest, Sir, that we proceed with the second reading of the three bills that are listed here and when we have completed that perhaps we might go into Committee of Supply. That would enable us to put these bills through one set at least today.
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading Bill No. 27. The Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare.
[Mr. Johnson (Gimli) moved that Bill No. 27, an Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act, be read a second time.]
[Mr. Speaker put the question.]
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, the Act to amend The Vital Statistics Act is -- embodies a new definition of the terms "birth" and "stillbirth". These changes have been recommended by - 1. The Vital Statistics Council for Canada, the Canadian Public Health Association, The Medical Advisory Committee of the Dominion Statistician and the Council for the Commission on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada, and similar legislation is being proposed throughout Canada at this time.
Now at the present time, the definition of "birth" is the foetus after which complete separation from the mother shows any signs of life. This new definition merely spells it out and -- it really spells out the actual signs of life, to remove any possibility of confusion as to what is a live birth and to what is a still birth. Now if there is any movement of voluntary muscle and so on, this has to be recorded as a live birth.
In the course of "stillbirth" the definition of stillbirth at the present time is birth after 28 weeks of pregnancy which after complete separation from the mother does not show any sign of life. Again this new definition is amended to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from it's mother after at least 20 weeks of pregnancy. The main reason for this is that they have decided that they will get better statistics on prenatal mortality; that is, under the present act, if the pregnancy is under 28 weeks gestation in period of time, you don't have to record it as a stillbirth. By making this rule they expect to get more statistics as to the causes of death in cases of stillbirth, and for the sake of uniformity across Canada they have agreed on this figure of 20 weeks.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 35. The Honourable the First Minister.
[Mr. Roblin moved that Bill No. 35, an Act to amend The Treasury Act, be read a second time.]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, under the present wording of The Treasury Act, it's amended by the bill before us, that at the close of the fiscal year if there are any excess of revenues over expenditure that excess may carried into the revenue division of the Consolidated Fund as a revenue of surplus or as a revenue surplus, or it may later on be transferred to -- as an excess from the revenue division to the capital division of the Fund. This amendment makes it possible not only to transfer that money into the capital division of the Fund, but also into the revenue division as a revenue item rather than a revenue surplus.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Carillon, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 73.
[Mr. Roblin moved that Bill No. 73, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960 be read a second time.]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill covering the interim appropriation that was dealt with in Committee of Supply and Committee of Ways and Means last Friday. It has two main provisions in it - (1) that there be allotted the sum of $247,640.00, being the whole of appropriation No. 5 dealing with the first session of the 26th Legislature that is to be found under the Legislative heading of the estimates. The first item in which we are voting the whole of the matter. The second item is the amount of $26,913,285.60, which is the one-third of each of the remaining items of the department for the reasons which were explained when
the matter was before the Committee.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, 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 the following Bill, No. 73, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, and the House resolved itself into Committee.]
[Bill No. 73 was presented for second reading and passed.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered a certain Bill and directed me to report the same.
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre, that the report of the Committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that the rules of the House be suspended and that Bill No. 73, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of the Province for the Fiscal Year ending the 31st day of March 1960, be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House might delay our proceeding on to the next order of business until such time as I am able to bring His Honour in because it would be desirable to obtain the royal assent to the bills that have been given third reading so far. So if the House will permit me, I will go and get His Honour.
[The First Minister leaves the House and returns with His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.]
THE CLERK: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: May it please your Honour the Legislative Assembly in its present session has passed Bills which in the name of the Assembly I present to your Honour, and to which Bills I respectfully request your Honour's assent.
MR. CLERK: No. 7, An Act to amend The Old Age Assistance Act.
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.
No. 15, An Act to amend The Interpretation Act.
No. 16, An Act to amend The Summary Convictions Act.
No. 18, An Act to amend The Companies Act.
No. 19, An Act respecting the Provision of Group Life Insurance for Public Servants of the Province.
No. 21, An Act to amend The Municipal Boundaries Act.
No. 22, An Act to amend The Local Government Districts Act.
No. 25, An Act to amend The Hospitals Act.
No. 28, An Act to amend The Blind Persons' Allowances Act.
No. 29, An Act to amend The Disabled Persons' Allowances Act.
No. 31, An Act to amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act.
No. 33, An Act to amend The Insurance Corporations Tax Act.
No. 34, An Act to amend The Public Schools Act (2).
No. 36, An Act to amend The Reserve for War and Post-War Emergencies Act.
No. 46, An Act to validate By-law No. 608 of The School District of Winnipeg, No. 1.
No. 47, An Act to amend An Act to Incorporate the Sinking Fund Trustees of the School District of Winnipeg No. 1.
No. 48, An Act to amend The Winnipeg Charter, 1956.
No. 50, An Act to amend The Public Works Act.
No. 60, An Act to amend The Greater Winnipeg Water District Act.
In Her Majesty's Name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these Bills.
MR. SPEAKER: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful subject of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in session assembled approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government and beg your Honour to accept this Bill No. 73, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1960.
MR. CLERK: His Honour The Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and consents to this Bill in Her Majesty's name.
MR. ROBLIN: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable the Provincial-Treasurer, I am sorry, the Provincial-Secretary, that the House do now leave the Chair -- that the Speaker do now leave the Chair -- the excitement of getting a Bill passed is a little bit too much for me; it hasn't always been as simple as this -- that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, and asked the Honourable Member for St. Matthews to take the Chair.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 21 - Education: Item (1) administration.
HON. MARCEL BOULIC (Provincial Secretary) (Cypress): If I may at this time, I would like to answer the question asked by the Honourable Member for Radisson concerning the compensation -- "Who if any were excluded from compensation?" All civil servants are protected under compensation, The Compensation Act. They are protected by an Order-in-Council made pursuant to Subsection (c) of Section 3 of The Workman's Compensation Act. This protection is similar to that provided by the Act for employees in industry. The Province is assessed for each accident presented to the Board and adjudged to them as falling within the terms of their Act for the payment of compensation - and Order-in-Council 1287/38 governs the application of this Act for the civil servants.
Now the Honourable Members for Rhineland and St. Rose referred to savings to be occasioned through the office of the Queen's Printer. There were the figures of $22,000 mentioned and $58,000. And I finally quote the Honourable Member from Rhineland said "We see an increase in the estimated revenues, receipts recoverable of $22,000 plus $58,000 is $70,000." I guess maybe it did confuse me a little bit because I always thought $22,000 and $58,000 made $80,000, but overlooking this little error in arithmetic, the estimation for the $22,000 is very simple. It takes into consideration in the known facts of increased costs, in stationery, paper, stock and salaries from $193,000 to $213,000. This increase in cost should certainly not be tied in as the Honourable Member of Rhineland attempted with the proposed savings on stationery and printing costs. And referring to this proposed saving which the First Minister stated Thursday night might be around $50,000 - I think the Honourable Member for Rhineland used the $58,000 - referring back to that $50,000. I think that's where he picked up the $58,000. That is the amount that is estimated can be saved by the Queen's Printer in standardizing stationery and different other things. And I can give you a couple of examples to that effect, for instance, the government used 2,000,000 envelopes last year and by standardizing the sizes and the use of printed return addresses by the departments, approximately $6,000 can be saved. There is also the purchase of carbon paper, by standardizing there also, we can save .31 per box of 100 and as you undoubtedly know we use many thousands of these carbon papers. And this - around $50,000 will be a saving divided in all departments. Is that satisfactory?
MR. MILLER: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, you called item -- resolution 21 (a) Minister's salary - on education, and I would prefer to refer back to the Provincial Secretary's department afterwards because that item stands anyway.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes and the Provincial Secretary ... Item 2.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I take it we are on Item 1 - Minister's Salaries.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes ... Resolution 21.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, in this connection I would like to make a few comments at this time. I want to be as brief as I can and trust that I will be through by the time that you call it 5:30. I want to first, commend the Minister for his statement in introducing his estimates and I want to express my satisfaction to him, that after twelve months in office, he found that things weren't as bad as they were when he first took office. Now I want to thank him too, for
being kind enough to refer to me - not in terms of opprobrium but rather in terms of commendation. It comes very strangely from the honourable members opposite to commend one who has been damned all over this Province by them during the time he held office. And so I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister's colleagues might well do the same when they examine the policies of the previous administration, and give credit where credit is due.
MR. CAMPBELL: Hear! Hear!
MR. MILLER: He says very definitely here, and I am quoting him: "I would agree with him (referring to me) when he says that all is not wrong with education." Now I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that was a phrase that I used very extensively and I'm very, very glad indeed that after the Minister became acquainted with his department, that he found that I was right. And he goes on to say and I must apologize, Mr. Chairman, I have a little throat trouble due to the vagaries of the weather, and I might say that the weather in Manitoba these last few days is nearly as variable as the moods of the honourable members opposite.
MR. ROBLIN: Oh, we're not that bad.
MR. MILLER: I'm certain however, -- oh, you say that we have obvious differences of opinion about some matters of policy. Well, if we have he hasn't told us of them in his speech the other day. And then he goes on and says that he conducted the affairs of his office, according to his beliefs and did so in a most diligent manner. I wonder if he might say to his leader, 'go thou and say thou likewise'. Now, he again said what I've said for a great many years - 'that he has a good staff.' He inherited that staff and the other day he gave some credit to the man who had the co-operation of that staff for some considerable length of time. And I want to assure him that any Minister is just as good as his staff, and any department is just as good as the Minister. Because if the Minister is derelict in his duties, he will find that the staff soon copies the Minister's example. And so, I want to thank him for, after twelve months in office, realizing that everything isn't as easy as when you are on the hustings or when you are in opposition and I am going to try at this time, to emulate his example and be as kind as I can to honourable members opposite. Now the speech was remarkable in not for what it said, but for what it left unsaid. It wasn't a speech describing the progress, the hopes and aspirations of the Minister in the field of Education. He mentioned briefly the vote on the School Divisions and gave the Government great credit for that and again I say that I'm not one to find fault with the steps taken. But I pointed out that the provisions for a vote, for re-organization and the voting of considerable sums of money alone won't do the job, and I think if the newspapers quote the Minister correctly, he will ... when they say in last night's paper - 'Government Curb on Teachers' Salaries. Want one Scale for Province. M.T.S. Backs Salary Limit for Some,' I think he will agree that all is not rosy even after we have had the vote, and that many problems remain. Many problems remain! And if to some extent, at least, the purpose for which this money was provided namely, not only to provide for greater assistance to one branch of education, namely the teaching profession, but to a large extent to provide for reduction of the Municipal load - the Municipal tax load - and I suggest to him, that his hopes in the latter connection have not been realized. And I suggest to him further, that the Government was in quite a hurry, that they did not study the question of the scale of teachers' salary - to where the scale of teacher's salary would lead them, because they did not take into account the other recommendation of the Royal Commission on Education, namely that merit rating should be tied to that scale. And I can't emphasize too much that if the Government had seen fit to accept that recommendation contained in the interim report, they would not have had the same amount of grief that they are experiencing now.
A MEMBER: Hear! Hear!
MR. MILLER: And there is yet another matter that I want to touch on, and that is the question of this interim report. On many occasions, I've asked the Minister this question: "Who asked for the report? Why an interim report? Why not the full report?" and I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that there again they were perhaps a bit hasty because I sincerely believe that the whole aspect of improvements in education should have been dealt with as a package deal; teacher training, curriculum, examinations, the question of the private schools - all these things should have been considered as one package. And I suggest again, Mr. Chairman, that the Government would have experienced less grief. The grants - and I say this, they were very
generous grants - but as one reporter put it, they had been largely dissipated by the teachers' grab, and I think as I've said on so many occasions that while of course we realized that the teaching profession and those most highly qualified could stand a substantial boost and I think we are all in favour of that - for the best qualifications - but under this wholesale scheme and the undertaking by the Government to make itself responsible as a province for a salary scale up to the amounts indicated, included remuneration for a great many of those who are not fully qualified. And while I am on the subject of Teachers' Salary Scales, there are a great number of very well experienced teachers in the elementary section who because of advanced age and everything else, cannot make themselves qualified for the higher amounts set. And I think something should be done about that, because as one person put it (well qualified to speak) 'they are the backbone of our elementary system.' And I offer these suggestions, not in a spirit of criticism, but as suggestions that the Minister might well look into and see if something can't be done about it.
HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Would you include merit rating with that recommendation?
MR. MILLER: Absolutely! I think I stated just a few minutes ago that the Government would have been well advised to accept the recommendation of merit rating in connection with the establishment of the salary scale. And I think that it wouldn't be too difficult to implement that. Now I don't know whether the Minister has been correctly quoted, "McLean hints at Ceiling if Pay Continues to Skyrocket. The Honourable Stewart McLean, Saturday dropped a hit" - hint I guess it means, or threat -- "that the Government may set teaching salaries if they continue to rise at the rate they did this year." The Trustees appear to be up in arms, "Trustees Aim Blast at Teachers for Salary Appetite - Want One Scale for Province." Now on that question, I think that I agree with the Minister when he said on that same occasion that he would prefer to leave the question of salaries with the employers, and I think in practice, we should do everything to encourage local autonomy. Now, what can we do about it? I think the Minister should use his best efforts to strengthen the Trustees Association. Get them united. Give them the same bargaining powers that the Teachers Society has. And if legislative action is necessary, I think it is his duty to introduce that. And the other alternative - and if he wants to control salaries provincially and absolutely, I think that he should look at the Australian system, where teachers are in effect civil servants - and I'm speaking particularly of West Australia - and where the central authority determines salaries and has the right of allocation. And if the Minister has in mind an investigation or the setting up of one of these famous 'study groups' that we hear so much about, to investigate that system, above all things, let him insist on the right of allocation if he adopts any such measure. Because without that right, we will still have a scarcity of high school teachers and I might say in passing, in West Australia, the great number - the central authority under the Minister - Deputy Minister, had the right of allocation. And they can determine where each teacher shall teach, and the practice has been - according to the information given to me by the Deputy Minister of that country - that the practice is that they spend some time in the country and then come back to the other centres. And while in theory the Minister has complete control of allocation, yet the wishes of the individual teachers are taken into account.
Now there is another matter that the Minister didn't touch on and it ties in with the general situation, with regard to education. I think we're all agreed that we want the best possible teachers for our children. We want to give these teachers the best possible training and I want to refer to the standards of admission at Teachers' College. I had thought, that after a year that the standards might have been raised. But according to a statement made by the Minister of this Chamber, that the minimum requirements are still Grade XI, plus two Grade XII subjects. And I think on another occasion I suggested to him, that with much larger numbers applying for admission to Teachers' College, instead of raising the fees and making it more difficult for beginners to obtain assistance and get that training, he might have been well-advised to raise the standards and leave subsidization at the same level as it was under the previous administration.
I want to say a word and repeat what I have said on other occasions and I think during the period of time that the Minister has been in charge of the department, he has also found this statement of mine to be true; namely that the size of the unit does not determine the quality of the product. That the product of our schools compares well and favourably with the product of
the schools of other jurisdiction. And the mere fact of changing the organizational set-up won't improve that product immediately. It will take time. Re-organization was a good thing. I didn't agree with the way it was brought about. I stated my objections and reservations when the Bill was brought in and I've said nothing outside that I didn't state here. But I want to emphasize at every level my information has been and my experience has been that the Manitoba children, moving to other parts, to other jurisdictions, stand on their own feet and their efforts compare favourably with the efforts of the children of other jurisdictions who have re-organized setups long before we started. I was disappointed too, that he said nothing about his plans for the future. He never mentioned a word about the accreditation for instance. I wonder if he received a report of the High School Examination Board? I asked for that report some months before I left and I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that the First Minister will remember all about the High School Examination Board and the setup, because we used to debate who was responsible for what. And there again is a statutory limitation of the powers of the Minister of Education and unless you change the Statute the Minister is powerless, and I'm sure my successor will agree with me on that. But those are things that should be studied. Now I realize that he has been busy with re-organization, but I think when he make a broad statement that we have obvious differences of opinion, then I think he should elaborate on that. What does he think of accreditation? What does he think about the setup of the High School Examination Board? What does he think of the Committee setup of setting papers - where there is again divided authority between teachers, University people and members of the permanent staff? Am I right, Mr. Chairman, in recalling that on another occasion he talked an Institute of Technology? My understanding is that monies are available for capital purposes of that kind. Is he going to go ahead with that - nothing contained in his statement of the other day. What does he think about the position of the private schools in this province? Is he going to await the Commission's Report and when are we going to get that Commission Report? And I want to say, Mr. Chairman, somebody was in a great hurry to get an interim report, but it appears to me that the same "hurry" is not evidenced at this time to get the full report. I realize, very well, that the private schools of this province are making a very valuable contribution to the educational setup in this Province, and I think some consideration - provincial consideration, and I emphasize the word "provincial" - should be given them so that their efforts might be recognized. Now I realize full well that the Minister might say in his reply "why didn't you do it when?" Well, I said we have moved along in recognition of the affiliated colleges, for instance. The Government hasn't extended that policy, except to change it from one tied to the Canada Council formula to a percentage. I'm talking of course, about the construction grants.
And I want to at this time too, pay tribute to the Board of Governors of the University and I want to thank them for the co-operation I received from them and the careful management they gave to affairs of the University. The Chancellor, Dr. Sifton, was most co-operative. The President - and I knew two and had dealings with two - our relations were very cordial and indeed why shouldn't they be, because in the last few years they got everything they asked for. Everything they asked for! My honourable friend and neighbor, the Member for Fort Rouge, if we want to use that term, smiles -- but he knows members of the Board, and I can give him that assurance. Naturally costs are going up - more money is required in that field, and I want to commend the Government for carrying on the generous policy initiated, of University support, initiated by the previous administration.
The other day, the Minister too - and I'll be through in another minute -- suggested that contributions from the Provincial Treasury have gone up from three million, I think he said in '46 to thirty million now. Well, we went up steadily during my tenure of office to the tune of an average better than two million a year - from five million six, to twenty-four million, and that is no mean contribution.
Mr. Chairman, I see it is 5:30 and I want to terminate my remarks at this time. In closing I want to say that I am very, very worried about the format of these estimates. Even I, who am supposed to have some knowledge of the various sub-appropriation, find it very difficult to break down these various items. I trust that the Minister will not be too disturbed if he is being asked many question. Because it is practically impossible, even for the older members, to get the information they desire without asking these questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is 5:30 and I shall now leave the Chair until 8:00 o'clock.
Page revised: 9 September 2011
