| 423 | 424 | 425 | 426 | 427 | 428 | 429 | 430 | ||
| 431 | 432 | 433 | 434 | 435 | 436 | 437 | 438 | 439 | 440 |
| 441 | 442 | 443 | 444 | 445 | 446 | 447 | 448 | 449 | 450 |
| 451 | 452 | 453 |
| Page | ||
| Petitions for Bills: Christian Education (Mr. Reid), Greyhound Racing, Manitoba Health Service ..... | 423 | |
| Proposed Resolution, Bill No. 6, re Social Allowances (Mr. Johnson) ........................................... | 423 | |
| Dominion Day: Mr. Roblin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Gray, Mr. Molgat ............................. | 424 | |
| Hansard: Mr. Miller ...................................................................................................................... | 427 | |
| Questions ..................................................................................................................................... | 427 | |
| Mr. Guttormson (Mr. Roblin), Mr. Reid (Mr. Willis), Mr. Molgat (Mr. Willis) | ||
Committee of Supply
| Education, Administration .............................................................................................................. | 428 | |
| Education Grants ..................................................................................................................... | 437 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker.]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions.
MR. A. J. REID (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Folkert-Plantinga and others praying for the passing of an Act to incorporate the Greater Winnipeg Society for Christian Education.
MR. SPEAKER: Reading and Receiving Petitions.
MR. CLERK: The petition of Mark H. Danzker and others praying for the passing of an Act to Incorporate the Red River Exhibition Greyhound Racing Association.
The petition of Manitoba Health Service praying for the passing of an Act to amend an Act to Incorporate Manitoba Health Service.
MR. SPEAKER: Notice of Motion.
Introduction of Bills.
Committee of the Whole House.
HON. GEO. JOHNSON, M.D. (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Provincial Secretary, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution standing in my name.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. JOHNSON (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 ensure that residents of the province do not lack the basic necessities of life, and to pay for the cost of the provisions thereof from the Consolidated Fund.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Yes, Mr. Chairman, the resolution standing here is necessary to provide from the Consolidated Revenue monies to help those in need, and is supplementary to The Social Allowances Act which will be before the House very soon. Now by this Act it is proposed to relieve municipalities of much of their welfare burden and to provide food, clothing and shelter from this revenue; also cash allowances and essential medical, surgical, dental and other remedial cares for our aged citizens and others in need. Members will see that when the Bill is presented that, with few exceptions, 50% of the cost of this program will be shared by the Federal Government. This resolution is therefore necessary in order to provide the funds to meet this program. That's the purpose of the resolution.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted?
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, might I ask the Minister whether or not we can have a sneak preview of the legislation by referring in detail to the legislation that he proposed at the last session of the old Legislature. Is it the same Bill as you had before the last Legislature?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Yes, this is largely the same Bill that was proposed at the last session of the House -- that Social Allowances Act.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted? Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker.
MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has adopted a certain resolution and directed me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
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. Johnson (Gimli) introduced Bill No. 6, An Act respecting social security for residents of Manitoba.]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day
are called, I'm sure the Assembly would wish me to make reference to the fact that today, July 1st, is the 92nd anniversary of Confederation, and in our meeting today, under these circumstances, we do something which I think is unique in the history of this Legislature insofar as I've been able to trace it, in that this is the first time that we have been in session on the anniversary of the Confederation.
It is, of course, entirely appropriate that a provincial chamber should acknowledge and recognize this occasion for reasons perhaps which are historic in their nature, because it is in the Provincial Legislative Assemblies of what is now the Dominion of Canada that the great debates took place upon which Confederation was founded. There is more than that. I had the privilege last summer of representing you, Sir, and the members of this House in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Nova Scotia where they celebrated the 200th anniversary of the founding of representative government in the Dominion of Canada, or what is now the Dominion of Canada, and it was in 1849 that in that same chamber Joseph Howe, one of the great patriots of Nova Scotia, introduced the first resolution affecting Confederation in any of the chambers of the then provinces of British North America, and we know the great debates that are associated with the names of MacDonald and Brown and Tupper and Tilley, McGee and those other great men of former days that is associated with the debates that took place in the Legislative Assemblies of the various provinces of that day. And of course it is quite proper, Sir, that we should remember these gifted men as we celebrate this occasion; remember the discerning eye of their statesmanship; remember that they felt it worthwhile and abundantly worthwhile that there should be created on the northern half of this continent a separate nation, a nation which was to be a kingdom; a nation which was to be a constitutional monarchy and which was to enshrine all those rights of the subjects which had been developed over the ages in other lands across the sea. And I think it is well to recall that the kind of patriotism that they stood for and what patriotism ought to mean in Canada today was not any jingoism, but rather a profound conviction that this country and this nation has something worthwhile to present to the comity of nations, and to contribute to the peace of the world something that is unique and distinct and individually our own, and it is our task, as it is theirs, to create and foster such a contribution to mankind.
And here in our own province, in was on May 11th, 1870, that the new Dominion of Canada paid the Hudson's Bay Company some $300,000.00 to repurchase this territory which now comprises our province and it was only a few days after that, on July 15th of the same year, that the Manitoba Act was introduced into the Canadian Parliament and we became the first province created by the new Confederation.
La place qu'occupe la province du Manitoba dans la Confédération canadienne nous rappelle un fait historique. C'est en effect Sir Georges Étienne Cartier qui fut le parrain du project de loi qui donna naissance à notre province, la première a entrer au sein de la nouvelle confédération. C'est avec grand plaisir que nous saluons nos concitoyens franco-manitobains à l'occasion de notre fête nationale.
[Perhaps it is symbolic of Manitoba's position within Confederation that it was Sir George-Étienne Cartier who presented the bill in the House of Commons to establish this province, the first child of the new Confederation. It is a particular pleasure, therefore, to greet our Franco-Manitobans on the occasion of our national festival. ]
But there is another unique fact about this celebration, Mr. Speaker, and that is for the first time the Reigning Sovereign celebrates it with us in Her own Kingdom of Canada and I think we are all deeply touched that our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth II, is with us to join in the celebrations of our great occasion, because she symbolizes in herself as she personifies for us the constitution. She personifies perhaps all the great principles that come down through Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and the common law and the rights of the subjects and even the institution of Parliament itself which is so much a part of the very woof and warp of our life here in this country today. And she symbolizes, too, something even greater than that, I think, in that she personifies what we call the Commonwealth of Nations which I think could be described as the greatest experiment in free human association that this world has yet seen. Whether it has arisen by an accident of history or whether it is through the force of ideals or whether it merely reflects the shape of things to come as affect the relations of nations, it is something which I think is unique and distinct which is of very, very important value in the
world that is shaping today because in it men and women of every creed and colour and of every tongue and of every culture find some basis, some basis of common understanding and some basis of common contact and association. So when we think of these things, Sir, I think we can do well to remind ourselves that those things which divide and those things that separate one man from another and one nation from another are things that we must overcome in the course of our human activities, but I think we can have confidence that the things that unite and the things that bind are the things which will ultimately prevail in the associations of men. So I think, Sir, that this Legislature would be unanimous in saying that we acknowledge our 92nd birthday with pride and we look forward with confidence to an even greater future in the time to come. And this is a day when we can, each one here, pledge ourselves to do our best to see that these great things which are ours now are kept and preserved and expanded in the times to come.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I think it is very appropriate that inasmuch as we are meeting today on Canada's birthday, that we should pause in our deliberations to look both backward and forward and to pay tribute to the vision of those who took the first steps in the provinces to form the Confederacy that we are privileged to enjoy as our country today. Usually we think of a person that has achieved the age of 92 as being rather old and perhaps past their best. I have even heard it suggested that people are past their best a little before they reach that age, but in the case of Canada, I'm sure that here we have at 92 a lusty young giant that is really going to go on to still greater and greater achievements. And I think, as the First Minister has mentioned, it is very fitting too that it happens that this year, when so many important events are taking place, that we have the great pleasure and honour of entertaining in our province Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. And I think all of us must have thrilled to the message that she gave from her residence in Canada this morning; how she pointed out some of those incidents in the history of this country that are so very important to us to know and to remember; how she emphasized the fact that Canada is a sovereign nation; and that she ended her remarks with the suggestion that, if a visit of Her Majesty could contribute to the Canadians' own understanding of the great heritage that they possess in being citizens of this country, that she would feel that her visit had been very worthwhile.
I think, as we ponder on those sentiments, we should recognize that Her Majesty and Prince Philip too are undertaking a journey here that is certainly no holiday for them, because the very facts of the situation require that they have to work desperately hard in order to keep up to the engagements that are laid on for them; and so I think of it as a particularly nice sentiment and perhaps a reminder to all of us, that they -- Her Majesty and Prince Philip are making a great contribution to this country by their visit at this time. And so I think, Mr. Speaker, that all of us would join most heartily in the expressions of opinion that the Honourable the First Minister has placed before us.
We would agree too with him, I'm sure, that as we consider the progress that has been made in this country and this province during those 92 years, that we can believe that with all their foresight that the Fathers of Confederation could never in their most optimistic moments have believed that this country and this province would have made the advances that they have. And so I think it is well for us to pause now and remember that the difficulties that our predecessors faced, both in the country and in the province, were perhaps a little more difficult to contend with than are our differences of opinion about the way the educational policy has been introduced or some of those matters that we give great concern to here -- great attention to. But just the same it is our job, I think, as the First Minister has reminded us, to see to it that the high level of public and private achievement that has characterized this 92 years is projected forward into the future and we, as good citizens of the province and for the time being honoured by being chosen as its legislators, have a great responsibility to see that that standard is maintained. It is a pleasure indeed for our group to join with the expressions of opinion of the Honourable the First Minister on this, the 92nd Dominion Day.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very fitting that on this July 1st, the year 1959, that we in this Legislature should pause and reflect back over the 92 years of Confederation. As has been said, in the life of man 92 years is a long period of time, however, in the life of a nation it is a relatively short period of time. But I think, Sir, that we as Canadians
can point to all corners of the world with pride, the achievements that have been made in this part of the northern hemisphere. As we read Canadian History, we reflect the difficulties that the Fathers of Confederation had in the birth of our great Dominion; the trials and tribulations; and the pitfalls that had to be overcome. We point with pride that even though at times there were slip-backs in some degree, that after having slipped back a step, we went forward a full pace. I think, Sir, that it is a matter of pride to us as Canadians, that being a bilingual country is one of the bases of Confederation; that we have welcomed to our country peoples of various nations, different ethnic groups, different religions and tongues, and unitedly we have formed them together into what I think we can say without any qualms of conscience, to one of the foremost nations gracing the earth today. We, too, in our group, are pleased to see that the Queen of Canada and Prince Philip are here with us during the celebration of our birth, and we join with the First Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming them to our shores. We look forward to the future of this Dominion with confidence that its future will even be greater than its past and may I assure you, Sir, and the people of this province of ours, that our group and those that hold the ideologies and philosophies which our group hold, express those in anticipation and in expectation of making greater contributions to the destiny of both our Dominion and our province in order that Canada and Manitoba may ever continue its advance in the history of the world.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, with my humble apology to the House, I wish to say a word on this occasion. The anniversary has a special significance for all Canadians. It means something different to every one, and it reminds me particularly of the day I first came to this country, 52 years ago. I came to Canada because it was a young country. And I, as a young man, saw here an opportunity to grow with a nation. I wanted to "get in on the ground floor". At times it was not easy, but the people here were always willing to give a man a chance. There was always room for the newcomer if he was willing to try and make a place for himself. Today I can't help but think, with pride, that my years in Canada amount to more than half the life span of the nation. In a sense, I am now an "old" Canadian. I would like to say, on behalf of myself and all the newer citizens of this country, that we appreciate the opportunity given to us, and we pledge ourselves again, on this Dominion Day, to do our utmost to see Canada grows not only in age, but in wisdom and strength in the years to come.
MR. M. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Monsieur l'orateur, je n'aimerais pas voir cette occasion passe, cet anniversaire de notre grand pays, sans qu'il y ait mots ici en français a cette occasion. Malheureusement, notre député qui generalement s'acquis si bien de ce rôle la, l'honorable député de Carillon n'est pas avec nous cette après-midi alors je m'empresse de prendre sa place. Nous sommes fiers, tous les Canadiens, quelque soit notre race - français, anglais, ukrainiens, allemands quelque soit, a cette occasion de notre anniversaire du pays canadien. Le Manitoba en particulier a des attaches très proches au bilinguisme comme l'a signale l'honorable chef du parti C.C.F. Cette province a été formée très peu aprés la confédération - seulement trois ans - 1870. À ses débuts notre Chambre ici, qui ne siégait pas encore dans cette bâtisse, était formée d'un groupe de 24 députés dont 12 de langue française et 12 de langue anglaise. Depuis ce temps il y a eu de grande changements mais nous avons tout de même préservé ici cet aspect bilingue de notre province et de notre pays et je tiens en cette occasion à souligner encore une fois que le bilinguisme du Canada est une de ses forces, et que loin d'être une force qui nous divise, c'est une force qui nous attache l'un a l'autre et dont tous les groupes Canadiens quelque soit leur origine se plaisent en cette occasion de notre grand anniversaire.
[Mr. Speaker, I would not like to see this occasion go by - the anniversary of our great country without there being a few words spoken in French in this House. Unfortunately, our member who generally does this task so well, the Honourable Member for Carillon, is not with us this afternoon and I hasten to speak in his place. We are proud all the Canadians regardless of our race - French, English, Ukrainian, German and so on, on the anniversary of our great country, Canada. Manitoba particularly has close ties with the bilingualism of this country as mentioned by the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party. This province was formed soon after Confederation - only three years - 1870. In its beginnings, this House which was not as yet sitting in this building was made up of 24 members - 12 French-speaking members and 12 English-speaking members. Since
that time there have been many changes but we have nevertheless preserved the bilingual aspect of this province and of this country. I want to point out again that the bilingualism of this country is a strength, a power which, far from dividing us, binds us together and of which all Canadians regardless of their origin pride themselves on the occasion of our anniversary.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, we should rise and sing O Canada.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I desire to make a correction. Hansard, June 26th, page 362. A statement was attributed to me, where my name first appears, but on examination I find while in Hansard the name is "Miller", on the tape the name is "Orlikow", the sound of the voice is "Orlikow". And while I must say that I'm not afraid of taking responsibility for my own statements, yet I hesitate very much to take responsibility for the statements made in this House by the Honourable Member from St. John's.
A MEMBER: Hear! Hear!
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the First Minister. I understand from news reports that the City of Winnipeg has agreed to pay $600,000.00 towards the cost of the Pan-American games if Canada is the sight chosen in 1963. I also understand that the Provincial Government and the Federal Government are going to be asked to contribute $600,000.00 each. Has the Provincial Government been asked to pay this $600,000.00? If so, what is the decision of the government?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I had conversations with representatives of the City of Winnipeg and invited them to come and discuss the matter with the Provincial Administration when they had decided what their views were and when they were ready to talk to us. I, too, read the article in the paper, but I am still expecting a delegation or a committee to visit me from the City of Winnipeg to discuss the matter. When the policy of the government has been formulated, I'll be glad to announce it.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to commend our Minister of Public Works on the fine elaborate signs he has on Broadway indicating Highway Route No. 1, but at the same time his department should be reprimanded for the lack of sufficient detour signs when they had the road under destruction -- or construction. I had occasion last weekend to go out on Highway 59, and after a couple of detours I ended up on a road and I didn't know where I was going. Looking for a detour sign to get back on the route, I ended up practically at the American boundary. I see a car turning around, so I figured well, I'd ask this gentleman where he was going, but unfortunately he was lost also. They are well indicated where you turn off but -- [Interruption] -- they are well indicated where you turn off, Mr. Speaker, but for strangers or tourists to get back on the route, I think there should be bigger signs up. Coming back I did notice after, a small arrow, but I was looking so high for the arrow at the time going out that I got lost myself.
A MEMBER: Did you get where you were going?
MR. REID: I eventually did by enquiring.
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Public Works) (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, if I might answer the question, I got slightly lost there too trying to listen to it. I should like to inform the honourable member that, in general, we have tripled the size of our signs; in general we have tripled the number of our signs. We have also given special warnings to contractors and told them, too, that they must triple the size of their signs, and I've seen some of them which are up now which I thought were quite admirable, but I think I'll have a private conversation with the member and find out actually where he was trying to go.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to address a question to the Honourable the Minister of Public Works. He may take this as a notice as it is a fairly exacting question. No. 1 - Is an overpass on the Trans-Canada Highway at the Symington Yards contemplated? No. 2 - Is the C.N.R. going to build this overpass? No. 3 - Is the C.N.R. supplying all the material involved in this undertaking? And No. 4 - Does this include the earth fill for the grades on the Trans-Canada Highway approaching the overpass?
MR. WILLIS: I will accept this as a notice and say to the member that I feel sure at the moment we don't have that information, but we may have it soon.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Adjourned debate on the Proposed Motion of the Honourable the First Minister for second reading of Bill No. 35. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a request that this order be allowed to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand.
MR. ROBLIN: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House do now resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member from St. Matthews take the Chair?
MR. J. P. TANCHAK (Emerson): Mr. Chairman, I rise again -- last night it was getting late and I didn't want to bore the honourable members with any more of a debate. I'll be brief just now but there was a few things that I wanted to call to the attention of the honourable members, also the Minister, before I sat down.
The Honourable Member from Burrows, yesterday I think, directed an unwarranted attack against our Leader of the Opposition. I don't think it was warranted. He was being justified in that because at the present time we are not even discussing the one-room schools - the elementary schools out in the country, and I agree with our leader that they do function quite well and there's a place for them at the present time. I'm not attacking the Honourable Member from Burrows at the present time. We know that the Royal Commission in itself did not recommend to centralize these rural schools - the one-room rural schools, the elementary schools; therefore, I don't think that was the question in debate. The honourable member probably is not too familiar with the conditions out in the country and probably that's why he was so carried away with his speech yesterday.
I noticed that there was an announcement made - was it yesterday, I think - that there has been a Director of Curriculum appointed. I think that was the announcement made. I don't think that's anything new. It seems to me that we have had a Director of Curriculum in the past - Mr. Brown, I think, was one - if I'm right, I may be wrong and may be corrected on that.
Now I had a few recommendations to make yesterday which I did not complete. I started out by saying that the people, especially in my area, have been promised a 50% increase - that's during the election campaign - an increase in government grants and there was no conditions, no strings attached to it during that election campaign. They were not told that in order to get this 50% increase they must vote for the Division. I would like that ...
HON. S. E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Chairman, when did he say that promise was made?
MR. TANCHAK: That was during the campaign - the first one. The first campaign that ...
MR. McLEAN: In 1958?
MR. TANCHAK: That's right - in 1958, and the people believed that that promise will be carried out in 1959, which I say was not. Now in Emerson constituency we have three educational systems at the present time. At the extreme west they have a separate division, the Red River division, and I'll admit that most of the people are happy with it because as far as their tax - there wasn't any tax increase; that's one of those divisions that were lucky and I agree that it is a very good thing for the Red River boundary. Now there's another system and it's the central part which did not accept this new plan - that's another education system. Now in the extreme east we still have another one and that is the remote area, so in Emerson consituency we have three educational systems. Now this - I'm going to talk about the remote area - they seem to be confused there. Probably the plan has not been explained too well. All the town hears is that they expect to get the same treatment as if they were in a division, and I think that was the statement made, that they would get the same privileges and so on as if they were in a division. They're declared a "remote". I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Education for the purpose of clarification, and that is, what steps have been taken to organize for transportation? Because they expect it in there.
MR. McLEAN: Steps taken to organize transportation where?
MR. TANCHAK: In the remote areas - in that last area. Now in the past we know that
in unorganized or disorganized districts the government bore the burden of the cost of education. I would like to know what proportion the government is prepared to pay of this cost of the education at the present time. What proportion of the cost of education in an unorganized area, especially in remote areas where they have no division. And the three suggestions that I had to make yesterday was: One, increased provincial educational grants to all schools in the Province of Manitoba and especially in some of these areas, at least to meet the promise that was made - 50%; an increase in the construction grants in Manitoba, 75% of the construction to be paid by the province; and another suggestion I have here and that is that the government investigate the cause of the failure of the plan in these four areas with a view to giving them another vote on this. I thank you.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, just to answer the questions raised by the honourable member - what steps have been taken to organize for transportation in remote areas? Those steps will have to be taken by the school districts themselves. They are entitled as a remote school district to the grants which are payable in respect of transportation the same as in a school division, but they, of course, must organize and arrange their own transportation. If they are eligible for transportation and they provide the transportation, they will be paid the grants on the regular basis.
Now the second question - What proportion of costs will be paid to remote areas from the Provincial Treasury? If I understand the question correctly, the grants are based on the grant system that is applicable to school divisions and depending upon their own taxpaying ability. The Province of Manitoba makes up to the standards, and limits provided in the legislation in the regulations in the same fashion as in a school division. Whether that is 40% or 50% or 60%, I'm not in a position to say. If one wanted to have the exact figures for an individual school district, that could be easily ascertained, but it depends upon the assessment of the district concerned with the province making up the difference to the grant system - grant scale - in exactly the same manner as to school divisions.
MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Chairman, I rise not to level any criticism at the Minister of Education but rather to express some concern as to what has happened since the plan went into effect and what could happen. Now I attended 12 meetings in my constituency during the campaign prior to the school vote and at each and every one of the meetings I did support the plan. So much so did I support it that at two or three of the meetings I was accused by some of my supporters of being paid by the government for my efforts. But I haven't been paid and, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I haven't received that leather medal that I talked about at the last session when the Honourable the Minister of Education was placing the members on this side of the House into two categories: No. 1 - into a category where they did go out and support the plan; and the other category where they went out and opposed it. Well, I want to assure you that I did support it.
Now at all of the meetings that I attended there seemed to be three questions that were uppermost in the minds of those present. No. 1 was: Will the plan do everything that it is proposed to do? No. 2 - What will it do to our real estate taxes? And 3 - What about the location of the new high schools in the division, or what will happen to the existing high schools? Now most of them, I think, went away quite satisfied with the proposed plan. Now as regards the real estate taxes I for one, and I think this is true of most of the honourable members opposite and the school inspectors, we attempted to assure them that there shouldn't be a rise in real estate taxes in view of the large contribution the Provincial Government intended to make towards the cost. And at each and every one of the meetings the first thing that was done was that someone present distributed a map of the proposed division and I used it to make - the back of it - to make notes on, and it was a fairly simple matter, using the figures that the inspectors used, to arrive at, roughly I'll admit, to arrive at the estimated cost of education and the estimated mill rate.
In the Beautiful Plains Division, for instance, the total estimated cost of education was given at $725,000.00 and the total provincial grant, including the general levy, was given at roughly $553,000.00, so it left to be raised by two special levies the sum of $172,192.00, so it was quite easy, knowing the balanced assessment, to figure out the mill rate. They already had told us what our general levy would be - 8.82 mills and the balance to be raised would be 12.1, so in total you had 20.92. Now we in the Town of Neepawa for the last couple of years
have been assessed 23.9 mills for school purposes, so it did appear that we were in for a slight reduction of some two mills, and I used those figures throughout the division to more or less indicate that that would likely be what would happen. Now I'm sorry to say that it hasn't happened. Down at the St. Regis Hotel, where a good number of the members stay, there is a rack that contains most of the weekly papers in this province and I get the opportunity to look the papers over, and most of the weekly papers, this last month, have carried the headline something along these lines: "Tax Increase Inevitable" or something of that nature. Now I know it's true that there are exceptions as the Honourable Minister pointed out last night, but when you read on through the Council minutes that are reported in those papers, you find that the school budget has been increased and it's true that in certain towns they have been able to hold the line on their mill rate, but only because of the fact that they have reduced their administrative budget end of it and thereby been able to hold the line, and I do say that I'm very sorry to see that happen. Now as regards the location of the schools, and that was a very important one to all of the people in the province, particularly in the rural areas, they were led to believe that if they voted "Yes" on March 31st, was that the date?
A MEMBER: February ...
MR. SHOEMAKER: Thank you -- that it would not mean that they would lose their present high school. In fact in this little booklet that went out to every elector in the province, a question and answer booklet that contained about 25 pages and 25 questions and the answers to it, this question was asked: "Who will decide the location of the high schools within the division?" And the answer given is: "The Division Board elected by the people in the division will have the power to determine the location, the size and the number of high schools". Now I went further than that and cited an example of what did happen in Secondary Area No. 3 down around McGregor where the trustees of that secondary area, after considering transportation costs and all other factors, decided in 1957 that it would be in the best interests of all to build a one-roomed high school down in the southwestern part of the area - I forget the name of the town. And I told them that that could easily happen within the division so they had nothing to worry about as regards losing their high school. But all the time I was saying that, there was in the back of my mind this construction grant feature that I didn't like because on the one hand we were telling them that, yes, you can build the schools wherever you like but if you build a four-roomed high school you're only going to get 40% of your cost and if you build a twelve-roomed high school you're going to get 75% of the cost, and it did seem to me as if the government was really holding a club over the heads of the newly elected board. And it did look to me, too, as if the government had completely abandoned that section of the recommendations of the Interim Report as is listed on page 57, and I think I might do worse than to read it, and it is Recommendation No. 8 on page 57 of the Interim Report: "That so far as possible there be in each division but one high school unless there be in the division a sufficient number of high school pupils to warrant two or more high schools each of not less than twelve classrooms". Now, as I say, it looks as if we have completely abandoned that and I think it's just as well that we did but I think now what we will have to do is change the grant structure in view of what we said.
Now a letter of instructions went out from the Department of Education to all the secretary-treasurers of the new divisions as regards budget, in which they recommended that the division board would be well advised when considering their budget for a fifteen month period. I know that the Honourable Minister of Education was surprised to learn that that letter went out because I had the privilege of sitting in on a meeting with him the other day and the Beautiful Plains School Division Board and the Town of Neepawa. Now I don't think there's too much wrong with that idea of budgetting for a fifteen month period because it would alleviate the huge borrowings that the division boards are having to make at the present time, and as one of the larger taxpayers in the Town of Neepawa, one mill rate means $35.00 to me. I had quite a lengthy discussion with the Mayor of Neepawa the other day and I said, "Well now, if it's going to mean putting the mill rate up five mills this year by accepting the budget or leaving it alone this year and putting it up 9 next year, to me as a taxpayer it doesn't make any difference." And I appreciate the fact that education is going to cost us more money - it's going to cost us more money - it's going to cost us more money if it's going to do everything that we hope it
will do.
The Honourable Member for St. John's yesterday gave us figures on the percentage of pupils that reached Grade XII that go through public school and it was quite small. Now we hope with this new plan that that percentage will be greatly increased and if it is and we hope it will be so, then we can't expect anything else. But it seemed to me in attending that meeting the other day that one of the confusions was this and it could be changed perhaps, that presently the fiscal year of the province, I understand, is March 31st to March 31st, the fiscal year of the school boards is the calendar year and the same applies to all towns and municipalities which makes it rather difficult to budget and to have the grants come in to work to the best advantage, and I was just wondering if there is any merit in having the fiscal year of the three, that is the province, the school boards and the municipalities, all being the same time.
Now the Honourable the Minister of Education yesterday indicated, or he left this thought with me, that in the forthcoming years that we can expect - we can expect grant increases as the plan develops; that the provincial share will be increased greatly. Now I hope that it will increase to the point that real estate taxes will not have to increase accordingly. I hope that the municipal men and indeed the taxpayer can take from those remarks that, while it's true he may have a slight increase in his real estate taxes this year, that it won't be an annual affair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, before we leave this item, there are a few words I want to add on the subject of the larger school plans. Now much has been said so far in the discussion and I agree with a good deal of what has been said. A great deal more could be said, no doubt, about the original promise of 50% increased assistance for education which has not come through; the over-selling of the plan; many visible aspects in the plan in the campaign that was held and so on, but it has been covered and I don't propose to go over it again.
There are, however, some very definite difficulties arising now in this larger school plan and I think we have to set our hands to it immediately and make what changes are required to get this plan working properly. I wouldn't say the plan will not work, I think it will, but at the moment I certainly don't share the optimism of the Minister of Education as he told us the other night that it was working in a most excellent manner. I suspect that after his trip up to Clear Lake on the week-end when he spoke to the trustees of the larger school division, he himself may have had some doubts as to how excellent a manner the plan is working.
A MEMBER: No doubt.
MR. MOLGAT: Because there are very definite difficulties facing the school trustees of larger school divisions right now. The first one that comes up is this question of equalization. Now the plan was sold to the province on the basis of: for every child an equal chance; and I certainly approve of the intention. A good deal in the plan certainly led to that, but there is a basic difficulty arising now in this matter of equal costs. The plan was put through too quickly without sufficient planning. Now when we say "too quickly" I know my honourable friend the Attorney-General shakes his head. After all, he was one who was very keen on saying, "We did it in nine months but it took you, how many years?" But it's not a question of nine months or six months or thirty days or whatever the situation is. It's not a question of how long it takes to do a job, it's a question of: has the job been properly planned? And in this case, I submit it wasn't, because we are finding now that the equalization which was anticipated is not actually coming through. Had the grants for teachers' salaries been sufficient to cover what the teachers expected in salary that no doubt would have been the case. But what has happened in fact is that the teachers are asking for a good deal more than the grant structure as it has been established. And after all, following our normal economic processes, the teachers are doing exactly what would be expected of them. They're getting as much out of it as they can. I don't think it is up to us to either blame or not blame, but I do say this, as the Member for Rhineland said the other day, that the trustees were not put in a position where they could bargain adequately, and that was one of the reasons that I say that this plan was rushed, because while the teachers were well organized and ready to bargain, the trustees were not in that position. I submit that the department did not give them the assistance in this matter that they should have, and the result is that today the teachers are getting and asking substantially more than the grants.
Now what does that mean, then, from an equalization standpoint? Well, I have here the figures for two divisions, one referred to by the Honourable Member for Gladstone - Beautiful
Plains - and the other one which covers most of my own constituency, Turtle River. The division of Beautiful Plains has an assessment of $13,300,000.00; it has 28 high school teachers and 96 teachers in total. The Division of Turtle River has an assessment of $5,421,000.00 with 24 high school teachers, only 4 less than has Beautiful Plains, and 95 teachers in total, only 1 less than Beautiful Plains, and yet its assessment is almost three times less than that of Beautiful Plains. Now as I said, had the grants for teachers been sufficient to cover all the demands of the teachers, it would have been fine; but what is happening in fact is that the teachers are asking substantially more. They're asking just as much in Beautiful Plains as in Turtle River, yet both divisions have to raise that very substantial amount over and above the grants in order to pay the teachers. And it will mean that the Division of Turtle River will have to assess itself almost three times what the Division of Beautiful Plains has to do in order to pay the teachers on the same basis. And if they don't do that, then it will mean that they will be paying the teachers less and they will be getting a lower quality of teachers. Now to me, this does not indicate the equalization which the plan was supposed to bring about, and it is something that requires immediate consideration because it will still be leaving divisions like Turtle River and all those others in the province where there are lower assessments in a position where they either have to tax themselves substantially more to provide equal opportunity or they will be providing lesser education.
Then there is the question of rental. The Honourable Member for St. George brought it up yesterday and it again brings up the difficulty which may prove to be a factor working against equalization of costs, at least in certain divisions. In the Division of Turtle River for example, the division is not prepared at this time to proceed and build - they're not in the position - I don't think any of them for that matter are building this year. So they are renting everything. As far as the board can see at the moment they will be forced to rent everything for some time yet. There happened to be in that division two new schools. The local boards in both cases are asking for a substantial rental based on their costs of amortization of the building and maintenance. In one particular case is the Village of Ste. Rose where a brand new school has been built, they're asking for $160.00 a month in rent, and yet the maximum that the division board will obtain in grants is either 75% or a maximum of approximately $560.00. So it means that they have to levy locally for everything over and above that figure because that is the limit of the grant. So what happens is this, that either the local school board will be subsidizing the division board by giving them rent at less than what the actual cost for a classroom is or the division board will be forced to levy substantially more in order to pay the excess. And this can again lead to difficulties between divisions and will cause difficulties there between Beautiful Plains and Turtle River insofar as equalized costs.
Going on to further problems, the question of roads. The problem there is particularly right now in the unorganized territory. I realize that this does not fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education. I regret that his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, is not here at the moment, but as far as I can find out there has been no policy yet established for the construction of roads in the unorganized territory. And where a school division wishes to put in or request certain roads whereby they can run intelligent van systems, there does not seem to be any government plan at the moment either for construction or assistance or anything of this sort. It's something that has to be done quickly because next winter we'll be faced with that problem of transportation throughout those areas. Another feature that has arisen during the short operation of the plan to date which isn't as serious as the others but still requires some consideration, is that of the pay of the Trustees. I think that they have been forced to do a tremendous amount of work under these additions and I know that any of those I have spoken to have not complained at all about the work they've had to do. But I think that the indemnity that has been set up for them simply is not in line with the responsibilities and the work they've had to do particularly in this first year of operation. After the plan is in operation quite possibly they can do it but in this first year, we're asking entirely too much of them for the indemnity that is set up in the regulations or in the Act. There's also their question of transportation allowance. As I recall the Act, it only gives them transportation to and from meetings. But what is happening in many divisions and certainly Turtle River, which I know best, which is very large in size, the Trustees had to do a lot of travelling for other purposes. They have to go to the neighbouring village to the school there to interview the
teachers, to have a look at buildings and all the rest of these things. And this is resulting in a cost to them directly because it is not covered at present under the Act. Now, those are the particular things, as I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, a great deal more could be said but I don't want to cover the same ground over again.
Coming back now to the estimates themselves, as I said in my first comments before we got into this debate, the question of the format of the estimates. I've been looking through here at the Department of Education for a number of items. Let's take, for example, the question of inspectors on which I want to ask some questions. I can find nowhere under the present estimates anything covering that item. I have no idea from that where I'm expected to ask the question and how I'm to get the information. There're a number of others that are in exactly the same position. I would like, therefore, Mr. Chairman, to definitely make this suggestion as I did at the outset, that in this particular case for this department, and I know my suggestion wasn't accepted before, but in this particular case because of the very substantial change, that the Minister's salary should be left standing for the time being. This would permit us if we miss any item that we want to refer to, because it is not included in the breakdown, through no fault of our own that we haven't had a chance to bring it up when we should have, that the Minister's salary be left open, that we proceed with the balance of the estimates. Then, if there're items that we've missed, we can go back to a discussion on them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 21 (a).
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, we are taking them individually, are we? (a), (b), (c), (d) ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, so far as those go, yes. (a), (b).
MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. Johns): Mr. Chairman, before we get on, I wonder if we can be told what -- I'm just as concerned as the Member for Ste. Rose about where various items come in, what categories are covered by that "Other Salaries (38)". What type of positions are those covered? If we have that maybe we can know when we get to the Inspectors of various other categories that we're interested in.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the item "(a) Other Salaries" includes the Executive Officers, the School Departmental Administration, supplies -- I'm sorry; clerical assistance in the Minister's Office, the Assistant Director of School Administration and other officers that can be connected with that Department. I can give you the officers: the Minister, the Deputy Minister, the others associated in the various offices, Administrative Offices, the Official Trustee and the School Attendance Officer.
MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Chairman, would the Honourable Minister tell us where we can find the Inspectors in the estimates?
MR. McLEAN: Yes, you'll find them under item 4 (c) on Page 7, "Directorate of Instruction".
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the "Other Salaries" item, I don't know that I have received an undertaking from the Government that they will in future show the Deputy Minister's salary separately. I commended it to their consideration. I don't want to keep raising it on every department, but I might ask the Minister in this connection, I'm sure that the deputy in this case is at the maximum. Is he in receipt of any other salary in addition to that?
MR. McLEAN: The Deputy Minister's salary is $12,000.00 and he receives no other income from any other source.
MR. MILLER: Under "Other Salaries" 38 are listed. By looking at last year's estimates and leaving out "School Inspection" I find that last year there were 45 listed under 19 "School and Departmental Administration" and "Other Salaries" 4 under "(a)"; 12 under "Registration"; Official Trustee 8; School Attendance 3. Will the Minister kindly explain the reduction in the numbers? It appears to me from what he said that we might expect some increase.
MR. McLEAN: The salaries included under the item "Other Salaries" are the following personnel: the Deputy Minister; the Assistant Deputy Minister, which is a position to replace the position formerly known as Executive Assistant; the staff in the offices of the Minister and the Deputy Minister totalling 4 persons and some casual assistance; the Director of Administrative Services; the Assistant Director; Departmental Accountant; other staff in the Administrative Offices; the Provincial Official Trustee; the Assistant Official Trustee; staff in that office; the School Attendance Officer or Supervisor and the clerical staff in that office. A total of 38 in that particular item under "Administration".
MR. MILLER: The Registrar's Office is then taken out?
MR. McLEAN: That is correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (b) ...
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Chairman, under ... (b) of the last year's estimates, that's the estimates ending March 31st, 1959, there's the item "School and Departmental Administration, Salaries 19." Where do we find this item in the new estimates?
MR. McLEAN: I'm sorry. You're referring to 1. (b) in last year's estimates?
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Yes, and the heading is "School and Departmental Administration, Salaries 19".
MR. McLEAN: You'll find that item is now in 1. (a) in the present estimates.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: The one we're discussing.
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister, I don't want to, unlesss he has the information, to press for it at this time, but I wonder if he could tell us approximately how many additions to staff are already on strength?
MR. McLEAN: Pardon?
MR. CAMPBELL: How many additions to the staff in the Department of Education are already on strength?
MR. McLEAN: I'd be very glad to give that information, Mr. ...
MR. ROBLIN: May I just interrupt my colleague to say that as previously undertaken, I have undertaken to get those figures -- comparative figures for the latest date available on the lines of our previous discussions and I had a look at the preliminary papers yesterday and I believe they should be ready for consideration tomorrow. I propose to bring them in then and if there's any discussion we can discuss it then and perhaps that might be preferable to doing it twice.
MR. CAMPBELL: Are they given by department?
MR. ROBLIN: Yes, they are, Sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (b) Office Supplies, Expenses, Equipment and Renewals. (c) Teachers' ...
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, on that, I take it that these are all the office supplies, expenses in the sub-departments that he listed, lumped together. Is that correct?
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, I take it that item (c) is the total provincial contribution towards Teachers' Retirement Fund?
MR. McLEAN: Provincial contribution and the Province of Manitoba payments in respect of those teachers that are employed as teachers by the Province.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, I wonder, not a criticism and I know that the Minister couldn't do anything about it at this time, but I wonder if the Government is giving consideration to this whole question of the pensions which teachers receive in the Province of Manitoba when they retire? I had a discussion recently with a young teacher who isn't too concerned about his pension at the moment because he's about 38 years from the time when he will retire. He was discussing the comparable -- what his salary is at the present time, what it would be if, say, he was teaching in the City of Toronto and what the pension would be. And he told me that while the salary is relatively good, he's making about the same amount as he would be making in the City of Toronto and the maximum is just about the same, that the pension which he will receive under present arrangements is just half of what he would get if he were teaching in the Province of Ontario and the contribution, and I'm speaking from memory only, the contribution which he makes as compared to the teacher in the Province of Ontario, is substantially higher. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm one of those who believes that a contributory -- I said it the other night applicable to another matter -- a contributory pension plan for anybody which is worth anything ought to give a person who works on a wage or salary approximately half of what they are earning when they retire through their salary or wage. I understand that the pension funds which are now in effect in the Province of Manitoba apropos teachers are way, way below that. I asked my colleague from the constituency of Burrows what his pension would work out to and he tells me that it is so complicated that he has never been able to calculate it yet. And I'm wondering if the Government has or will be taking a look at this in the near future, because I think it's something which should be brought into line with 1959 standards instead of the 1930 standards which seem to prevail at the present time.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the pensions that are paid now are paid in two parts. A service pension which is fixed at the rate of $30.00 per year for women and -- that is per year of service for women and $34.65 per year of service for men, plus an annuity portion which is related to the earnings of the teacher while employed. Insofar as the service pension is concerned, that is provided for by the contributions that are made by the Province of Manitoba which is $60.00 per teacher per year with an equal sum paid by the school district employing the teacher. The annuity portion of the pension is made up or arises from the contributions which are made by the school teacher and that can vary between 5 -- may not be less than 5% or more than 10%. The Teachers' Society are interested in this matter of pensions and have from time to time had a number of resolutions with respect to it and we have arrangements that we are to meet at a reasonably early date with the Committee of the Teachers' Society to consider the whole subject of Teacher Pensions. The House will remember that the chapter 4 of the Interim Report of the Royal Commission Report dealt with the subject of what are generally called "fringe benefits", which included teachers' pensions and other related matters, and I
do understand that it is their intention to make some further recommendations in that field and for that reason I have not pressed for any early meeting or consideration of this matter until we have their further views, that is the further views of the Commission, at which time we'll be most happy to consider the whole problem with the Teachers' Society.
MR. MILLER: As I recall in the Commission Report, they weren't too pleased with the Service Pension side. Is that correct?
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. MILLER: And I would like to get the Minister's views on that, because as Members know, the service side, when it was introduced, meant that no matter where the teacher taught or no matter what his salary was, that each teacher would get the same consideration from the employer and the province. And I'm very interested in this subject and I'd be very pleased if the Minister would give me his views on it.
MR. McLEAN: Well, my views on what?
MR. MILLER: On the Service Pension.
MR. McLEAN: Well, I have no particular views. I think the subject of pensions is a matter to be considered with the Teachers' Society and of course would have to take into account the views of school trustees who have to pay a portion of the cost of it, but I must say, I have no particular view as to whether the amount is too high or too low or just about right.
MR. MILLER: No, I'm not talking about the amount, Mr. Chairman, but the idea that teacher service should be recognized by the general -- by the Government and the employer on the basis of service and not on the basis of salary. I think usually the pensions are based on the salary.
MR. McLEAN: Well, I think that this system is quite sound and if particularly -- at the present time in view of the fact that a large number of the teachers are teachers who taught when their salary was a very low figure and it's a very fair arrangement to have part of the pension based on service. I think that the principle is correct.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the Minister, but if the 30 or 34.50 you said per month is a very -- a year, pardon me? ... a year ...
MR. McLEAN: No, no, no, per year of service -- that is, if a teacher taught -- a woman teacher teaching 30 years would receive in one year 30 times 30 dollars, that would be $900 for the year or whatever the case would be, and in the case of men it's $34.56 per year of service.
MR. ORLIKOW: Yes, well, that's just the point, Mr. Chairman, I think that the amount - the Minister said a few minutes ago that they were going to have a look at the whole matter and that pleases me but if they're not, then the amount is much too low because it means that even if you add the annuity which the teachers contributed to, they're retiring on, because of the low salaries which they make for so many years, they're retiring on pensions of anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000 and $2,500 which is, of course, completely impossible to live on at the present time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (c) ... Passed. (d) ... Passed.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, on item (d), are these two figures comparable to the Statutory Boards and Commissions or is there something new introduced there?
MR. McLEAN: The item that's included in 1 (d) covers the Advisory Board, the Collective Agreement Board and the School Divisions Boundaries Commission, which is something, of course, that was not provided for last year and is in this year -- that includes their remuneration and their anticipated expenses.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (e) ... Passed. Resolution 21. Administration - $733,965.
MR. CAMPBELL: ... that the Commission -- that the Royal Commission that's continuing, I presume.
MR. McLEAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the ...
MR. MILLER: The only Commission?
MR. McLEAN: That is the only one.
MR. MILLER: ... is the proposed, I understood the Minister to say, that he was going to introduce legislation setting up a board of reference in connection with changes in boundaries of divisions. I think he introduced a Bill last session.
MR. McLEAN: That legislation will provide for the naming of a board of references to
carry out certain functions and while the Boundaries Commission is actually in existence it would be my expectation that it will be named as the Board of Reference. That won't add anything to the cost because that provision is made here and the Boundaries Commission will only be paid once while it actually exists as a Boundaries Commission. Following the completion of the work of the Boundaries Commission it would be my further expectation that the Board of Reference would be the Municipal and Public Utility Board or the Municipal Board and would not involve any extra expense insofar as the Government is concerned.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 2, Education grants (a).
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we've passed item 1 yet, have we? I would like to bring it up again for the Minister's consideration whether we could leave this item stand until we finish all the Education estimates because, frankly, there's so many items that are not broken down in the present format that it's impossible for us to follow through.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, and I don't like to not oblige my friend and neighbor, I think it might make only for repetition in the consideration of the estimates. If there is anything as we go through or as we complete that is not clear, that is any item that any member if unable to detect, I certainly don't have any intention of taking advantage of the fact that we may have passed over the general item to refuse to disclose where the information may be. Perhaps the handiest way as we go over each, would be for me to indicate what is included in it if it does not appear readily available or readily discernable.
MR. MILLER: I think that's an excellent suggestion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, under the condition that at the end, if there's something we've missed, that we can go back over it.
MR. PAULLEY: I think that is very agreeable as far as we're concerned too, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would undertake to do that or as an alternative to suggest to us, where appropriations that were in last year's estimates have been changed to somewhere else in addition to that, then we would have the complete picture in each particular section. Like, for instance, on the Item 1. in Administration there's a few items there that are now in that were in separate items before and to save us having to look back over and check them, if we could do both of them, I think it would be satisfactory.
MR. ROBLIN: Just one comment on that, Mr. Chairman. So long as we clearly understand that we're only expecting to deal with items that have been omitted or which are new items that have not previously been discussed, I think the Committee would not wish to have a repetition of debate which would might well happen if this condition were interpreted too broadly, but on the understanding that it only affects new items which previously have been over-looked or omitted, then I'm sure we will have no objection at all in discussing it. But we would be unwilling to have the debate repeated, because after all, we've had a pretty full debate on the Minister's salary so far. Now that that's passed, and I hope we can continue to deal with item by item, and I would solicit the co-operation of members in avoiding any repetition of points that have previously been pretty accurately discussed on the Minister's salary. I think that if we co-operate in that way, we can have a general statement when the Minister speaks. Everyone can make and place their view before the Committee, but we would solicit co-operation in not adverting to the same matters which have been pretty thoroughly dealt with when they come, seriatim them one at a time in this book. And I know that that has been the plea of Governments in the past and I make it again and I trust that we'll be able to get along on that basis. [Interjection] Pretty regularly because if we didn't observe it we were pretty soon placed in order by my honourable friend.
MR. CAMPBELL: He was one of the greatest offenders.
MR. ROBLIN: Well, my honourable friend was pretty good on that matter and I must say that he did make us deal with it item by item.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we'll have to deal with it that way, just ask the questions as they come up under the various items instead of -- we've had a long discussion on general ideas and so forth -- if we proceed now, we save a lot of time.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, just on that point. My understanding was that the Minister would undertake, when we come to an appropriation, to break it down.
MR. McLEAN: That's true. That's right.
MR. MILLER: So he does it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (a) [Interjection]
MR. ORLIKOW: On School Grants I must -- I listened to what the First Minister said, and I think what he said has a good deal of merit. At the same time I think that the school grants are much too important to the school districts to pass by with just what was said yesterday. Now, I made the point yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that school grants were the concern of every school district because not only are the mill rates up this year but it seems to the Administration and the School Trustees whom I have spoken to in almost every district that I could contact that the situation would get worse each year for the next eight or ten years. Now, the Honourable Member for St. Vital told me that I was taking too dark a view and the Minister agreed with him and the Minister said, and looking at yeasterday's Hansard, page 4 or 9 he says "no system can be divised to always take the larger share of the cost of education in any district or division because it's perfectly obvious that boards that always keep ahead of the Provincial Government, no matter how much money the Provincial Government might put up. We have to establish certain standards and if the board of its own initiative decides to go beyond that, then it is obviously their responsibility and a matter which they have to square with their rate payers." Well, I agree with that, Mr. Chairman, and if this were one School Board which had done this, I would have no complaint. This is the argument which is always advanced by the former Government to the Winnipeg -- to the School District of Winnipeg when I was on it quite a number of years ago. But this is not the case with one school district, Mr. Chairman, it's the case of every school district I know of. Now, the grants -- I mentioned this yesterday, the grants provide for an increase each year by the province of $50.00 a year per teacher until we reach the maximum in 44 years. But every school district I have been able to find is now giving an increment of two or three hundred dollars with the result that next year the situation will be that much worse in every school district which I can find. Now, I got some figures, as it happens, this morning about the the School Division of Beautiful Plains and here's the kind of thing I was talking about yesterday and I refer to it again today. Here's a teacher teaching in the secondary -- in the school division, he has his collegiate certificate, he has taught 13 years. Now the district is paying him $7,200 and if they didn't pay him $7,200 and I agree with the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, if they didn't pay him $7,200 he would go somewhere else. Now, the grants from the province, the grant from the province is $5,000, so it's costing the school district $2,200. In the same district there's another teacher, who also has a collegiate certificate, he only has 8 years experience. He's getting from the school district $6,600. The grant from the province is only $4,600. So, there again they're having to subsidize his salary to the extent of $2,000. Now, what happens next year? Next year the man who this year is getting $6,600 will, I presume, get $6,800. What will the province pay for him in the way of a grant? They'll pay $4,650. So, the school district for that one teacher will be $150.00 ... [Recording failure lasting a few seconds] ... district has arrived at with the Teachers' Society in that district and that point which I presume will be some ten or twelve years from now - at that point and for the period between then and the time it takes to go 44 steps in the grant structure it will get better but for the next ten or twelve years, Mr. Chairman, the position of the school division is going to be an extremely difficult one and instead of getting better is going to get worse and is going to get substantially worse. And this is something which -- I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, I've talked to school superintendents, I don't know what their politics are, I've talked to school trustees who I know are not supporters of the political party which I represent, they're all concerned whether they be Liberal, Conservative or C.C.F. because they know that the situation under the present setup means that the school taxes, because of the teachers' salaries and I'm not one who thinks the teachers' salaries are too high - far from it - but because the teachers have negotiated reasonable salaries which provide for this increment of two or three hundred per year, they know that their situation as far as the school districts are concerned, means substantial increases and therefore substantial tax increases for the next ten or twelve years and I'm sorry that I must disagree completely with the Minister that this situation will get better or it will right itself. It may but certainly not in the years that I'm likely to be in this House.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE (Selkirk): Mr. Chairman, the matter concerning which I wish to speak does not properly come under school grants because there's no school grant made for it at the present time. I'm referring to the schools that have been established on a community and voluntary basis for retarded children with an I.Q. below 50. Children with an I.Q. from 50 up
do come under the Public Schools Act and there is a special instruction given to them. Now a number of these associations have been established in Manitoba. We have one in Selkirk, there's one at Steinbach, I believe there's one at Gimli, there's one at Brandon, there's one at Flin Flon and these people on a purely voluntary and community basis are paying the major portion of the cost of running these schools. It's true that they do receive from the Department of Health and Public Welfare a grant of $150 per year per child but they must have a minimum of at least 10 children in attendance in that school. Now speaking specifically of the Association at Selkirk, the Canadian Legion there has been kind enough to allow the Association to use the Ladies Auxilliary Room for the purpose of holding classes of instruction. But I understand from the offices of the Association there that the number of children that will be given instruction in that school will be increasing within the next year or so and that they have in contemplation the building of a special one or two room school for instruction purposes. Now at the present moment there is no government grant available to them for building nor is there any grant available to them for teaching and I feel that they are doing a worthwhile service and I feel that they should be given the same type of building grant as is available to school districts under the Public Schools Act and I also feel too that they should be entitled to a teacher's grant.
Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that the question of retarded children be removed from the Department of Health to the Department of Education - I think that this group of children more logically belongs in the Department of Health because I think it is a health matter but I do suggest though, to the government that some working agreement or arrangement be made between the two departments, that is the Department of Education and the Department of Health, so that some financial help can be given to those people who are performing a worthwhile service. I'm not suggesting for one moment that the voluntary aspect or the community aspect of this project should be discontinued, I believe that this is the type of project which must be motivated on a community basis. I don't think it's the type of project that should be wholly supported by the government or by the state - I think it's success is largely dependent upon the attitude of the various people who belong to that organization and who bring into that organization the sympathy, the understanding and the worthwhile effort which is necessary to make a success of these projects. So I would respectfully suggest to the Minister of Education and to the Minister of Health, that they get their heads together and try to work out some program which will in some degree at least alleviate some of the financial stress which is being placed upon these people.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, I should like to just say a few remarks concerning this problem, as the Honourable Member for Selkirk has said, we, through the Department of Health, do give a grant of $15.00 per teaching month per student to the Association for Retarded Children. I would also like to inform him that they have submitted a very detailed brief and I received the delegation at the time that the last Educational Bill was at its peak and the Minister of Education was going ten different directions. However, we did have a lengthy discussion with the Association and we did inform the President and officers of that Association that as soon as possible this summer we would get together with them again. They have specifically a few things in mind and I too agree that this is really a combined effort of Education and Health. When we come to my estimates we are continuing the same policy as previously but we do feel and we have been in close touch with this Association and we both feel that we should get together with Education and Health right after the session to discuss this.
MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, the school grant to be paid a division, will it be based on the old formula and if so, how is the Honourable Minister going to revise it for increases? I wish he could elaborate on that.
MR. McLEAN: Sorry I didn't ... you said are the school grants going to be paid to ...
MR. REID: On the old formula. Will they be based on the old formula?
MR. McLEAN: To school divisions?
MR. REID: Yes.
MR. McLEAN: No, the grants to school division are on the new formula as passed by the Legislature.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister would care to make any comment on the point raised by my honourable colleague from St. John's as to the ... of these grants. And increments into the future.
MR. McLEAN: No, Mr. Chairman, I have no comment to make. He's suggesting that we should consider increasing the grants and that, of course, is a matter of government policy on which I'm not in position to speak at the present moment. I'm only eneavouring to get through the present grants and will worry about the different grants at some future time - I presume not too distant future but at some future time. May I just say this because I undertook to guide the committee through this, that if you look at Item 2 - Education Grants - that includes all of the items that were in 2 (a) - Education Grants in the Estimates of last year plus two small items that have been transferred into it - the loans to teachers in training which last year appeared under Item 3 (e) and the item in last year's estimates of 4 (b-5) Youth Training Agriculture and Home Making Schools. Those two small items have been transferred and are now part of Item No. 2, otherwise it is exactly the same as 2 (a) of last year, last year's estimates.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the wish of my honourable friend the Minister of Education to get these estimates passed because he says quite properly that these are the ones he had dealt with for the year that we are discussing now. But on the other hand, I don't think that any of us should apologize for taking some time in the consideration of this particular item because (a) alone under 2, amounts to $18,785,000 and there's a note in parenthesis that 'On a Full Year Basis New Grant System Will Require $21,310,000 next year.' As far as I'm aware or can remember that is the largest individual item that we have ever been asked to pass in current estimates. [Comment by member] ... That's right. I'm sure that my honourable friends over on the other side take pleasure in the fact that that is such a large item because they have made much of the point that they're spending a lot of money on education. Certainly my honourable friends in the C.C.F. won't object to the fact that it's a large item. [Interjection] But the fallacy in this regard that my honourable friend just reminds me of is that so many people seem to think that just spending a lot of money is in itself a great help to the children going to school and that is a fallacy in my opinion. I think that the question that has been raised once again by the Honourable Member for St. John's, the Honourable Member for Gladstone, Honourable Member for Ste. Rose and others is the basic one we have to consider here: what is going to be the effect on the local taxpayer? And Her Majesty's Government in the Province of Manitoba simply cannot escape the fact that they told the people of this Province that their local taxes would be reduced. Yes, they did, oh yes, they did! The Honourable the Minister is right down on record in Hansard here as saying it and when he says it in this House, he's telling the people of Manitoba that.
MR. McLEAN: That statement was made after the vote was taken - the vote was on the 27th of February this year, the statement to which the honourable member is referring was in March of this year in this House.
MR. CAMPBELL: Oh yea - but that's quite all right. It's still telling the people of Manitoba that - I didn't say just during the time of the school election campaign. No - whether it's made in this House it's made just as definitely to the people of Manitoba as if it was made any place else. That is a statement and that's what the people are expecting and have a right to expect and as long as the conditions that have been pointed out obtain of these greatly increased salaries -- now I'm sure the government didn't expect the salaries to increase so quickly but I submit to the Honourable the Minister and to the Government that they simply must do to keep faith with the people of the province, they simply must either put a ceiling on salaries which I understand the Honourable the Minister at least intimated would be under consideration when he attended the meeting up at Wasagaming or if that's not done, that they simply must adjust their scale to correspond with the increases in salary that have become a fact because perhaps when they set their salary schedule, and I must confess that they looked high enough to me, you'd expect that, that when they set it I'm sure they didn't realize what was going to happen. But seeing that that has happened in practically every district I know of, I don't think there is anything that can be done except one of those two alternatives. Either put a ceiling on teachers' salaries, give the trustees, through them, the taxpayer some protection in that way or else the government accept its share as the pubic thought they promised them of the increases that have in fact occurred because that's what the school districts are facing and I think that's something that will have to be dealt with immediately.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps there are just two things that one might say in reference to this matter, that we must not overlook the increased number of students that
are going to be attending our schools and which results in an increase in school costs and the number of classrooms that are being added in the whole school system throughout the Province of Manitoba. Both of these account for a substantial portion of the increased costs of education and it isn't perhaps entirely accurate to fix the whole responsibility for the increase in the total cost of education on teachers' salaries, although that has certainly accounted for a great deal, but also to remember that those salaries have been fixed in the traditional mannber by arrangements made between school divisions and their teachers exactly in accordance with the procedure that has been established and approved over the years and we -- that has been a policy that has been accepted and followed and I think all of us realize there's nothing that any of the legislation that we have now, the Legislature is unable to do anything about that particular feature. These have been freely negotiated between the parties directly concerned. Mr. ... Mr. Chairman, I understood the Minister a moment ago to say in this item is also the item for loans to teachers who are taking further studies in ...
MR. McLEAN: No, no. Students in teacher training. Teachers in training. That item is included which I was merely saying that because there was some concern about inter-connecting these two sets of estimates that that item last year appeared under Number 3 (e) now appears in 2 and the other item also appears.
MR. ORLIKOW: What does the Minister mean by teachers in training? Is that at the Teachers' College?
MR. McLEAN: Students at Teachers' College and in the Faculty of Education at the University.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I thought the Minister was going to give us a breakdown. I'd like to know what estimated amount is for, say, capital support? What estimated amount is for transportation? What estimated amount is for secondary education? What estimated amount is to the school districts at the elementary level within the division and what estimated amount is there under the old formula, which I take it apllies to those no division areas and also to - well, let's say Dauphin-Ochre.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm unable to give the information on the basis asked for by the Honourable Member for Rhineland. The estimated grants for the various items of instruction, maintenance, administration, supplies and transportation which are the five as it were, basic grants, amount to $31,198,831 from which we deduct the amount of the general levy and then of course take 7/10 of that because for this fiscal year the grants are for the year in which the schools are operating is 7/10 because the new system became effective on the first of April. The amount on the old basis was 3/10 of $14,200,000 which was included in the estimates of last year. In addition to that there are included the establishment grants 42 at $10,000 each, the text books which are being provided, technical grants or technical and vocational grants, capital grants which we have estimated at $1,900,000 and grants to special revenue districts - that is districts under which we have agreements such as Flin Flon and Lynn Lake, Thompson and such like. Now that is the breakdown of what is included in the Item of 2 (a) School Grants.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, the big ones will still be -- the biggest of all will still be the basic grant, won't it?
MR. McLEAN: Yes, that is correct.
MR. CAMPBELL: Does the Minister have that figure by itself ...
MR. McLEAN: ... for a full year's operation $22,590,735 that would be on the basis of a full year under the new system -- it's not that amount in this -- from that one must reduce the produce of the general levy.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to say where we can find the cost of the school division campaign. Is the amount disclosed in the estimates here or where can we find them? I believe the question was asked by other members but I may have missed it.
MR. McLEAN: The cost of the school referendum is not included in these estimates because it was completed before the close of the last fiscal year. It will be found in the Public Accounts when they are published.
MR. PAULLEY: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister hasn't the figure before him as to what the actual contribution of the Province is for basic grants. The only figure you have there includes the amount realized from the basic mill rate.
MR. McLEAN: Now you say the basic grants.
MR. PAULLEY: Well, if I may explain without interrupting my friend, Mr. Chairman, last year in our estimates the basic grants amounted to $11,000,000 which I presume was the contribution for basic grants from the provincial treasury and this year there is a different method of ...
MR. McLEAN: This year, taking into account the two different sytsems, three months on the old system of grants and the balance on the new system, the province's contribution to the basic grants would be $15,000,000 - a few odd dollars over $15,000,000.
MR. CAMPBELL: ... Mr. Chairman, would you have the figures ...
MR. McLEAN: Oh, I'm sorry, we haven't them broken down. You see under this system of grants we don't break them down into elementary and secondary. The figures that I have are for instruction which includes elementary and secondary instruction, maintenance, administration, supplies and transportation for both elementary and high schools.
MR. MILLER: Could you get the figure differentiating between the two, because you have the division board responsible for secondary education and you make certain grants to them. You have in the divisions a great number of small districts and you make grants to them even though the division board has something to do - acts as agents of the municipalities or something like that. I don't think it would be very difficult to get that information, Mr. Minister.
MR. EDMOND PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Chairman, does that amount of money include the money that might be paid to school divisions who might vote "yes" in the vote that might be taken in the future? A few days before the election, Mr. Chairman, the First Minister of this Province came to the Town of Steinbach and made a speech there and announced to the people that if 25% of the rate payers signed a petition asking for a new vote or a re-vote, he would see to it that - of course, if he were elected - I don't know if he said so or not, it was certainly implied that if he were elected he would give them a second vote ...
MR. ROBLIN: I was never in doubt on that one.
MR. PREFONTAINE: Maybe not but it was implied that it was a political trick anyway that they would have a change to have another vote and if they voted "yes", they would get all these grants retroactive to the first of April. That's why I'm asking the question and I'm wondering whether there is authority to give retroactive grants without amending the Act. I certainly was surprised when the statement was made just in the thick of the election that grants would be paid retroactively. Now these four divisions that voted "no" would be entitled to some -- possibly half a million dollars - it's quite a sum of money, to be paid retroactively. If they take a vote and if they vote "yes" sometime in the near future, so I would like to know whether this money that might be paid is included.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the money that might be paid in the circumstances indicated by the honourable member is not included in these estimates. It is true that the legislation provides that any division that becomes a division at any time before the 31st of December, 1959, will be paid grants in respect of the year as though it were a division from the first of April, that is part of the legislation that was passed last October.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister whether or not he took heed of my suggestion about the 25% required for a petition and take into consideration the resolution by the various school boards because I really think the 25% is an impossibility.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the committee will remember that in the legislation we provided that on a petition of 25% of the resident electors after a period of five years, a vote could be submitted to consider the dissolution of a school division and in considering this matter of what procedure should be established for a new vote it was felt that if it required a petition of 25% to have a vote to dissolve a division it would seem reasonable to say that there should be a petition of 25% to ask for a new vote. The basis of any petition or any percentage is, of course, to determine this -- shall we say -- the extent to which the people of the division do actually want to have a second opportunity. It would be easy for a group of people to say we want another vote representing perhaps people of a view that felt that that would be a good idea but could lead to a vote which would only have the same result as before and while there'd be nothing particularly wrong about that, except that it would would be the expenditure of public funds for no particularly good purpose. And so I think in that -- and we must remember that these folks voted and decided before and I think there would have to be some substantial indication of a desire to reconsider it. The suggestion of having school meetings certainly could be considered and of course if you had school meetings, you went to that trouble, it would be very easy to have those present at the meetings who might be expressing their opinions, sign a petition and very quickly find out what number of people were really interested in desiring to have a second vote. There has been indications of interest from the proposed school district of Hanover and yesterday, or day before yesterday, a group representing the regional trustees association of the proposed school division of Boundary were in my office and indicated their interest. They felt just to give an indication that there would be no problem at all in getting a petition signed by twenty-five percent of their resident electors and my understanding is that they propose to investigate that possibility. They didn't seem to feel that the twenty-five percent was an unreasonable figure.
MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Chairman, I seem to agree with the Minister and disagree with my colleague and friend the Member for Rhineland. I believe that in the Hanover division it will be quite easy to get twenty-five percent to sign a petition at the present time, especially so because the ... is so much bigger now with the retroactive grant they would get if they vote yes. It's more of an incentive to vote yes now than they had at the time that they voted originally. Now they know that the rest of the province is on the school division set-up; they know that two systems cannot work. Grants from the government cannot go only to those who adopt the new system and be refused to the others and I think it will be rather easy to get twenty-five percent and to get a 'yes' vote.
But I would like to tell the First Minister the statement he made during the election that they were false prophets and he named the Member for La Verendrye and myself and held us responsible for the 'no' vote in Carillon -- in the Hanover division. I would like to tell him that this is not the truth. We were not responsible at all. The Town of St. Pierre voted 5 - 1, voted 'yes' and I made one short speech in the Town of St. Pierre in the presence of the Minister, and I told them to vote as they pleased but vote, and I spoke for two minutes. I spoke in this House for nearly forty minutes last fall and I suppose that most of you at least listened to what I said at that time. I said that there were good things in the vote but there were bad things and I stressed possibly more in this House the bad things than I did locally. In the election on the school divisions I stayed home. To those who asked my opinion, I told them to vote as they pleased but vote as free men - if they thought it was okay to vote 'yes', but not to vote just to get the money that was available to those who voted yes, to vote as free men. And the Town of Steinbach, the large poll in my constituency and the fact is that by 2 - 1 in Carillon constituency the vote was 'yes'. I did not take an active part in it except to urge the people to go and vote. So when the First Minister goes out and says that there are false prophets, I think he goes a little too far by hearing some people say that I was opposed to it. When I do oppose something I certainly go to bat and if I had opposed it, I would have spoken in my constituency and I would have held meetings and possibly then I could have been held responsible for the fact that there was in the whole division a 'no' vote - but I would like to say that again I feel that now since the rest of the province is on the division set-up that Hanover division will vote, 25% will ask for a new vote, and will vote 'yes' when the time comes.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, just one word and I am certainly not going to say anything about the election which has been fought about twelve times already in this session and fourteen
in the last - but I would appreciate it if the Honourable the Minister of Education would be able, - I am sure that he is able to - would be able to secure for us a breakdown of the total amount of the $18,000,000.00 odd in the grants that are before us to a basis similar in which the grants were broken down last year, in order that we may compare the same. Now as I understand the ... [Interjection] ... Well, we've got a darned good coalition right now ... [Interjection] ... No, not for very long. As I understood the Minister a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, he gave us some figure of approximately $15,000,000 and I suggested across the floor that what is what we are getting at. And then following that if I recall his words correctly, he said "but that's not just the basic grant, that includes something else", I think he mentioned part of the secondary grant and the likes of that. Now last year, Mr. Chairman, the school district grants were broken down to basic, secondary, transportation and capital levy of support, and they then became the major item of education grants. And I would appreciate it and I'm sure my friend the Leader of the Opposition would appreciate it if the Minister would undertake to break down this $18,000,000.00 odd into the similar categories as they were in last year, and I am sure that the Members of the Committee would have something of a better nature to make comparisons.
MR. H. P. SHEWMAN (Morris): Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment of the time here to speak on possibly a question of "hot air" or should I say "wind". I would like to ask the Minister a question - in looking over these grants I see no place where there is any requisition or any estimate for the possibility of creating junior high school bands in the Province of Manitoba. At our secondary level, Mr. Chairman, we will have a great opportunity to introduce and produce junior high school bands. Just to the south of us they have untold numbers of high school bands which is sponsored by the Department of Education. And I think if there is no estimate appropriated here in this year's, that we should give consideration and very serious consideration, to establishing the fact of having junior high school bands throughout the Province of Manitoba.
MR. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for St. Johns left us with the picture that the cost to the municipality will continue to increase because of the way that the teachers' grants are set up, and he gave us, as an example, the teacher who had eight years' experience and it showed that next year that teacher will get a greater raise in pay than the raise in the provincial grant. But he also mentioned the teacher with thirteen years of experience and that teacher next year, that teacher evidently is at his maximum, in many of the school boards, I understand they reach their maximum after eleven years of experience, and that teacher being at his maximum will not get further raise but the provincial grant in respect of that teacher will increase. It increases over quite a large number of years and as has been pointed out, it increases I think, up to 44 years in some cases, so the provincial grant will increase for those teachers that are at the maximum and we will say have only had eleven years experience, twelve years and so on, but their pay will not increase. So to that extent the gap will be narrowed and the municipality will be helped out in respect of those teachers. Now it has been inferred in this House that the government should be blamed for the increase in real property taxes that has taken place in some municipalities - and I don't think that that is a proper inference. The government has helped out the municipalities in Manitoba to the extent of some $6,000,000 and if the school boards want to give further increases above that $6,000,000.00 well, that is up to them. The government doesn't control the increases given by the school boards so you can hardly blame the Provincial Government for many of these increases in many of these municipalities. I don't think that anyone anticipated that teachers would be given such a large increase as were given in some circumstances. In the City of Winnipeg, some teachers got a raise, as much as $2,950.00 in one year. They got a raise in one year's pay of much more than many people earn as total pay. And in West Kildonan they got raises this year of $1,500.00 some of them and also next year it is provided in their agreement that some of them will get raises of as much as $2,200.00, an increase of about $3,700.00 over two years. But I don't think we can blame the Provincial Government if the school boards see fit to give such increases in pay.
MR. M. E. RIDLEY (Pembina): Mr. Chairman, this afternoon it has been brought to the attention of some tax notices of people that are in divisions. I would like those that represent constituencies that are ... divisions to bring in the tax notices to see what difference it
is in their taxes because I know in the Town of Morden, I just picked up the paper yesterday and I believe it said that their increase was 4-1/2 mills. They are not in a division. Now this afternoon all we have heard of the ones that are in the division, what their tax increases are. I would like to see the comparison of those honourable gentlemen that represent constituencies that do not belong to a division and see what the changes are there.
MR. MOLGAT: ...the honourable member is pointing out exactly what we have been saying all along, that the people had no choice in this matter. That's exactly what we said.
MR. S. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): ... I would just ... to the Honourable Member for Pembina, I would be most delighted to bring them in, I have been trying to round up a supply of these and I will bring them in as soon as I have got them is so that they are coherent. While I am up, I would like to ask a question of the Honourable Minister of Education. It says quite matter-of-factly in this question and answer pamphlet turned out before the February 27th vote under the question, "How will this new educational system be financed?" The answer: "The Province will bear close to 60% and -- 59.2% to be exact of the operating costs of the new educational system." Would you say that this would be true this year, that the Province would bear 59.2% of the operating costs of the school plan?
MR. McLEAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am quite certain we will, of the approved costs, yes. ...As I said yesterday, I don't think any government would undertake to pay any particular percentage of all of the costs that might be incurred by individual school districts because it could obviously run into a very high figure.
Dealing with the question that the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. party asked - I can give you two figures referring back to last year's estimates. There were two items there, transportation and school district captial levy support. They were shown as individual items. If you would like to have those items for this year's estimates, transportation is $2,306,850.00, and the capital levy support or capital grants as I indicated earlier $1,900,000.00. Now as to breaking down the grants between basic and secondary as they were in last year's estimates, I cannot give any undertaking that that can be done, indeed it is my opinion that it can't be done because last year the grant system was so many dollars for a teacher in elementary, so many dollars for a teacher in high school. But this is a completely different system where your grant for instruction so-called is the grant toward the salary of the teacher depending upon the qualifications of the teacher in the particular position that he or she occupies. And in addition four other grants, maintenance, administration and supplies - three other grants because we have transportation separated out - which are payable and because of the fact that it's an entirely different system, I cannot undertake to give a figure for the amount that will be spent in respect that the estimate will be spent in respect of elementary schools and of high schools. If it is possible, the people in the Department of Education have been able to do some very wonderful things in the last year and it may be that they can do it but I'm inclined to think that the very earliest that we could give such a figure would be after receipt of the budgets of all school divisions and school districts and the allotment of the grants to them individually.
MR. MILLER: I can't understand the argument of the Honourable the Minister. Surely, in estimating, he's estimating the provincial contribution based on two different salary scales, the elementary scale and the secondary scale, surely he must have in his possession figures to show how these were arrived at. And I don't think it will be an impossibility at all and I'm quite sure his officials in the department could help him out.
MR. McLEAN: Well, we'll check it and if it can be provided, I will be glad to do so but I just wanted to be clear that I can give no undertaking that the information can actually be obtained.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I must agree with my honourable friend from Rhineland. I appears to me that there is a cut-off on the grant structure between elementary and secondary and I agree with him that unless the Minister has another answer that surely in arriving at the estimates, those cut-offs must have been taken into consideration.
MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I will be of any help to the Minister, but he has arrived at the figure of $18,785,000.00, if he can tell us how he arrived at that figure, we might be able to get the information ourselves.
MR. McLEAN: The figure is arrived at by taking the estimated grants for instruction, maintenance, administration, supplies and transportation which total $31,198,000.00 deducting
the general levy, and taking 7/10 because the new scheme applies only to 7/10 of the year, and taking 3/10 of the $14,200,000.00 that was provided last year. Then we add to them the establishment grants, textbooks, technical grants, capital grants and grants to special revenue districts - and we arrive at the total of $18,785,000.00.
MR. CAMPBELL: ... I think there is some advantage, though and I'm not just trying to complain about the change in the format of the estimates of this department. Naturally, I have become more used to the other ones. But I think there is some advantage in having these spelled out so far as possible and could we ask the Minister this, that he would give consideration as well when he is trying to get these figures separated out as to whether it would be advisable next year to put them in under their respective headings. I don't expect an answer in the affirmative at the moment. There is no reason for the Honourable Minister committing himself now, but I would recommend that because I think it is considerable advantage to us in looking at and comparing the changes that have been made. Quite frankly, once again, I'm interested in comparing the figure of this year with the figure of last year and if it is all grouped togther, then it is much harder to do than if they are set out in these separate items, you will notice that even last year, and I know that some of my honourable friends who like to try and pretend that we were very ungenerous with regard to educational grants - they won't agree that these matters should be brought up at all but if you will look at the estimates of last year in the left-hand column which give the estimate of the year before, you will see that basic grants had risen that year practically 2-1/2 million dollars, secondary had risen by a considerable amount too. And I would like to be able to continue the progression in the comparative figures. Now if the Honourable Minister can get it, we would appreciate having it and I would like to recommend that next year they might be set up something more like the old form.
MR. PREFONTAINE: ...if the Minister could give us the amount of money that was contributed by the municipalities by way of the increase in the general levy over the 5 mills under the new plan.
MR. McLEAN: No, I couldn't give that figure, Mr. Chairman. That would only be a figure that would be available to us when we have the budgets of all the school districts and the school divisions.
MR. PREFONTAINE: How can he arrive at the money then contributed to the province by the municipalities if he hasn't got that figure?
MR. McLEAN: Do you want the total? We have estimated, just a moment now, the product of the general levy for the current fiscal year to be $15,170,171.00. Now that's based on the assessment figures for the Province of Manitoba, equalized assessments or the balanced assessments not equalized.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: When you were arriving at that figure, did you know what the salary increases were at that time, or was that made prior to ...
MR. McLEAN: This was made prior to any information concerning salaries.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, would this be the time to bring up the matter of indemnities to the school trustees? Is this the item?
MR. McLEAN: Well, I suppose this is as good a time as any. There is nothing in the estimates that bears on the matter of indemnities - well, yes, it would be, because the grants include administration and that is part of the cost of administration. I think I might settle one point right now that the honourable member is entirely correct regarding the transportation of division trustees, that was an oversight which with the assistance of the committee we will correct as quickly as we can.
MR. MOLGAT: You intend to make a change in here?
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. MOLGAT: What about the indemnities for - I am particularly interested in this year, which is the big year where they will really have a tremendous job to do.
MR. McLEAN: $300.00 for a trustee and $450.00 for the chairman of the board. Well, what the honourable member has said today is the first time that this matter has been drawn to my attention. None of the trustees have said anything, at least to myself, nor have I heard anything about it. We would be willing to consider an amendment providing for larger indemnities to the trustees but I must say that I haven't had any indication of any desire for it, in fact, when we began I know that some people who were acquainted with the school board
administration felt that what we were providing was too large. And it certainly was larger than was ever provided for trustees in school areas, so if the question is, would we consider an increase - the answer is yes, but we are not aware of any very large request for an increase.
MR. MILLER: That amount, Mr. Chairman, is provided for the school area board of Dauphin Ochre $304.50?
MR. McLEAN: No, the maximum for the school area is $200.00 and that is for all, including the chairman.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, there is some misunderstanding regarding the expenses allowed the school trustees. For sake of argument, at the meeting in an area like Clear Lake, if the trustees want to go by individual cars, do they get ten cents a mile or are they compelled to go by one car? Now there was some misunderstanding among the trustees regarding this matter. I wonder if the Minister would clear it up? For instance, if all the trustees in one particular division wished to go to a meeting, I understand the expense allowance is ten cents per mile. Is that correct?
MR. McLEAN: You mean ten cents a mile for each individual trustee?
MR. GUTTORMSON: Yes, that's the point. Is each individual allowed that ten cents or is it just the chairman of one car and they all go in one car? Now this may sound foolish but this question was raised and I wasn't able to answer it properly.
MR. McLEAN: The mileage is the mileage that would be applicable to the car or cars that went - if there was one car made the trip with four trustees in it, the mileage would be ten cents per mile to the owner and operator of the car. That would be all they would be entitled to receive. If each individual went in a car, I presume they could bill their district for ten cents a mile each one of them. Of course, they would remember that their district is paying part of it and I presume would act with some caution in that regard. But if there are only four people in one car, they don't each collect ten cents a mile.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Would the Honourable the Minister tell the Honourable Attorney-General to have the police magistrates of Manitoba observe the same rule as far as witness fees are concerned?
MR. A. E. CORBETT (Swan River): I would suggest to the Honourable Member from Ste. Rose and the Honourable Member from St. George that if they suggest to the trustees of the Association that they get the same bargaining agents as the teachers got to look after their salaries they would do all right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 2 (a). 2 (b).
MR. MOLGAT: Before we leave item 2 (a), Mr. Chairman, I brought up in my earlier comments this matter of equalization. I pointed out to the Minister then the situation of two school divisions directly adjoining; now, is there any plan, has he given any consideration to additional grants to divisions that have a low assessment and yet have a large teacher count, in other words a division such as Turtle River, which has a very definite problem as compared to others like Beautiful Plains?
MR. McLEAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, no, we haven't given any consideration to any change in the grant system. It was our thought that the system devised and included in this plan was a plan of equalizing the cost of education because the general levy in Turtle River is based upon the assessment and the number of teachers and if they have the same relative number of teachers with a much lower assessment, their general levy is correspondingly lower with the Province of Manitoba sending in the additional money. Now the disparity, I presume, has arisen in large measure because of the extra money that is paid to the teachers over and above the grants. And that, of course, is a local responsibility and the honourable member is quite right that if they both have to produce the same amount of money, Turtle River has a much lower assessment which means a higher rate of levy, in order to produce the money that they would require. It's probably part of the problem of teachers' salaries in relation to grants and that is a very complex problem. It's one that I wouldn't wish to give any offhand opinion about and the answer to the question which the honourable member has asked, is that we have not given any consideration to any change in the grant, the scheduled grant system as it presently under this plan.
MR. MOLGAT: Then in following up on that, then I would suggest to the Minister that this is an important item because it has as long as the teachers' salaries will follow, that is, as long as the teachers' salaries are based on the grants, everything was fine, but once it went beyond that the whole principle of equalization is being defeated in this case and is extremely important.
MR. McLEAN: Would the honourable member then make the very logical suggestion that would follow from that, that if we were going to do that - just supposing we were going to do that - would you then suggest that we should set the salaries?
MR. MOLGAT: ...no, what I was --
MR. McLEAN: Otherwise, there would be no limit to the extent to which we might be asked to equalize the costs in the divisions.
MR. MOLGAT: I appreciate the problem. I said, in my original comments, that if the plan had been given enough time in preparation and planning, this difficulty wouldn't have arisen, not as badly as it has, because the Trustees were not given sufficient break in their negotiations. They were not assisted sufficiently, but the problem right now is that there are certain divisions, and Turtle River is merely one of them - there are certainly many others in the province in the same category - who are being faced with a very substantial increase in taxes. Certain of the school districts there already have had increases of 15 mills, when they were expecting ...
A MEMBER: Where?
MR. MOLGAT: In Turtle River division - Glenella. I am advised that Glenella, as they estimate it now - I'll admit it is an estimate because they are still negotiating on teachers' salaries - that on the basis on the last offer of the school district, and presumably the Conciliation Board will not go below that, it would indicate an increase of 15 mills, and in others as high as 21 mills.
MR. PREFONTAINE: ...further ask the Minister if he will be kind enough to tell me how he arrived at the figure of 15 million dollars as a contribution from the municipalities to the general levy. If my memory serves me right, I believe that the total equalized assessment in the province is roughly 1 billion dollars. It seems to me that it would take 15 mills to bring in 15 million, and I would like to know -- I'm quite sure that the general levy is not 15 mills, it's 5 mills plus 3 or 4, I don't know, and varies in different municipalities. But I fail to understand, and I am sure that there is a point that I am missing, how he arrived at the figure of 15 million dollars by a general levy on 1 billion in the Province of Manitoba.
MR. McLEAN: I am sure the point that the honourable member missed is nothing
compared to the points that I missed. I couldn't tell you, Mr. Chairman, how that figure is arrived at except that I assume that it's based on the balanced assessment of the Province of Manitoba, which we -- the figures for which we would obtain from the Municipal Assessor's office. Now, I'll be glad to look into that - I can't answer that question right now.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, certain members of one of the divisions in my constituency have indicated to me that they wish to be transferred to another school division. What steps can they take to this?
MR. McLEAN: ...steps that can be taken, but we have legislation coming forward under which applications can be made to transfer lands or a school district from one division to another. I think the House will find that it's quite adequate for that purpose and we will discuss it in detail. I hope to have the bill here before too long.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it's quite in order or fair - because I don't want to do anything that isn't in order and fair - to ask the Honourable the Minister if he would tell the House something of the line of thought that he was giving to the School Trustees up at Wasagaming that lead to the press report that he was indicating a salary schedule with ceilings on them by the government?
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the -- some time ago when certain of the problems which the members of the House have brought to our attention during the past two or three days became apparent, we had a survey made to determine where the problem of rising costs came, and on a sample -- and it mustn't be thought that this was a scientific sample, but I think well based, broadly based -- we found that the costs of the -- with respect to the matter of salaries, the difference between the grant received by the district or division and the salary paid was greatest in the case of unqualified teachers, particularly the unqualified teachers in the high schools. And when I speak of unqualified teachers I'm referring, of course, to teachers who are normally qualified as teachers, but not qualified teachers insofar as high schools are concerned. We found that the -- and I'm just recalling figures to mind -- that the average percentage difference was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 22 or 23 percent, that that was the amount over and above the grant received by the school district or school division and the salary actually paid to the teacher. Now this is important because the House will remember, the grant -- what we call the grant -- is made up of the local taxpayers' money in the general levy, plus the money that comes from the Province of Manitoba. So that the local taxpayer is not only contributing to that grant, but he is taking up that extra that's on the top. That indicated the problem. I called in the President of the Teachers' Society because I have found the Teachers' Society to be a group with which I can work very closely, and I explained the problem to them -- to the President. He didn't realize what had happened and the extent to which it had happened, but they conducted their own survey into this same matter and reached the same conclusions, namely that the problem that the districts and divisions were finding was particularly in the group of unqualified high school teachers whose salaries were fixed at a fairly high point, but whose entitlement to grant was considerably below. I was -- in my little talk to the Trustees at Clear Lake, I was pointing out the results and the indications of what had happened, and I said to them that perhaps they should consider the advisability of placing a ceiling on the salaries paid to unqualified teachers in high schools. The news report, if one didn't watch it closely, suggested that I was -- carried the implication that I was suggesting a salary ceiling on all salaries, but I made no such suggestion. I was only speaking about putting a top limit on the salaries that could be paid to unqualified teachers, particularly in the high schools. Because that is where the problem seems to exist, in the main, and that was what I was -- and I only -- and I just said to the Trustees that I would like them to consider that and in due course, perhaps they might like to let us have their views on whether that would be a worthwhile idea. It has one disadvantage, because the whole grant system that we have now is definitely and deliberately designed to encourage teachers to improve their qualificiations. And we wouldn't want to make it sort of advantageous to school boards or school divisions to employ unqualified teachers in the high schools, because they knew that there was a ceiling placed on the salary that could be paid. Of course, that feature can always -- could always be controlled to a degree at least, because the unqualified teachers can only teach if they have a letter of authority or permits, so to speak, to do so, and if there
was actually a supply of qualified teachers, I presume that it would not be the policy to authorize unqualified teachers to teach in high schools. But that was the line of comment that I was making to the Trustees. I didn't suggest, however, any salary ceiling on salaries generally, but only with reference to that particular group.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (a) passed. (b).
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the $100,000 scholarship in the name of Her Majesty is included in these items. Am I correct?
MR. McLEAN: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not included and with the agreement of the Committee, I would be prepared to make a statement to the House on that. It is something, the details of which we haven't in final form, but it is not included in this item.
MR. GRAY: Can you make a statement now?
MR. McLEAN: No, I am not in a position to make a statement now.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could get from the Minister, an indication of what this $173,000 represents? How many scholarships; what type; how much; in what range are they, and so on?
MR. McLEAN: The scholarships, and under the subject of scholarships we include money that is provided for what are called bursaries, a scholarship, strictly speaking, is a prize given to a student for scholastic excellence. A bursary is money that is paid to assist a student in continuing his or her education; it is based on a certain standard of academic standing and need -- that is need for assistance in order to continue one's training. So that under the item of scholarships, we include both. Now these are generally broadly broken down into bursaries for secondary students, that is high school students, University bursaries, teacher training in four categories, that is, teacher training at the Manitoba Teachers' College, the Brandon College teacher training course, teacher training in the Faculty of Education, and teacher training in the special classes which are conducted by the -- the summer classes which are conducted for secondary or the special summer classes conducted in the Faculty of Education. There are four groups there, all under teacher training. There is a small group called Special Opportunity Bursaries which are provided for special cases. Sometimes you'll get, for example, a student who is married with a family and perhaps has one year to finish his University, he needs a little extra assistance, special opportunity. Post Graduate bursaries. Grade XII scholarships -- these are distinctly scholarships paid to the top students in Grade XII, and scholarships that are paid to people in the Manitoba Teachers' College and a small item for Government Gold Medals, which are a new innovation -- a small item. The total estimated is $173,000. As I indicated yesterday or last evening, the secondary bursaries will not be nearly so necessary this year, in fact I would think they would almost -- the necessity for them would almost disappear, in view of the fact that students are provided with their text books, they have no tuition fees to pay, they are provided with transportation if they live out away from the school, or with allowances in lieu of transportation so that it would be may expectation that the need for secondary bursaries will, by and large, disappear. Now does that answer the honourable member's question?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, is the selection committee that was set up about a year ago still functioning?
MR. McLEAN: Yes, all of the same committees are still carrying on.
MR. MILLER: And there is still the co-operation of the various government departments who provide bursaries and scholarships? And flexibility?
MR. McLEAN: Yes. Yes, I would say that is true.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, supplementary to what I asked, if a person is now a social worker -- this isn't your department; I'm just using this as an illustration -- and wants to go away for further training, there are now, I understand, bursaries based, I think, on some commitment that they will come back and work for several years in the same department. A teacher who has a B.A., or let's say an M.A., who wants to take a year off to get another degree, and we want to encourage that, am I right that the only thing -- they not only lose their year's salary, which is pretty substantial, but the only help they can now get in the province is through the loan fund, which has to be repaid? Could there be any consideration given to the possibilities of a certain number of bursaries which teachers could draw on for taking a year off for further training?
MR. McLEAN: Well, yes, consideration could be given to that but such a person might very well qualify for a post-graduate scholarship under this arrangement, might even come under the special opportunity group and of course, would be entitled to apply for a loan under the provisions there. You speak of the social welfare person -- no, I'm sorry, you were asking if we had something similar to what they have. We don't have as much money as my colleague the Minister of Health and Welfare for this particular purpose. It's a suggestion, however, that's well worthy of consideration. He can get money easier than I can.
MR. MILLER: Has the Minister any estimate of the -- has there been any change in the number of bursaries and scholarships provided? I mean outside of the secondary field which I agree the necessity for which will largely disappear as time goes on.
MR. McLEAN: No, there's been no increase in the number provided.
MR. MILLER: No, I just meant how many are estimated? I mean, for how many bursaries does this money suffice?
MR. McLEAN: Oh! Well, it will provide for the same number of bursaries as last year. I have quite a detailed --
MR. MILLER: Just in the various categories.
MR. McLEAN: -- summary here. Secondary -- these were the bursaries awarded last year, or during the past school year. 155 secondary school bursaries, 362 University bursaries, 68 technical education, 55 in teacher training (a), (These are just the various four groups), 9 in teacher training (b), 48 in teacher training (c), 21 in teacher training (c) - there is 48 and 21 in that group, and another 85 in teacher training (c), teacher training (d) 10, post-graduate - 14, special opportunity - 9, Grade XII - 35, Teachers' College scholarships - 16, Government faculty scholarships - 10, Correspondence Course School - 8.
MR. MILLER: Would the Minister indicate the value of the individual bursaries, if they don't vary too much.
MR. McLEAN: Well, I can give you the minimum and maximum amounts. In the secondary schools they were from $50 to $200; University from $100 to $1,000; Technical education from $50 to $425; the teacher training bursaries varied all the way from $50 to $500 -- I'm wrong -- to $2,000; post-graduate from $150 to $2,000; Special Opportunity from $50 to $1,000; the Grade XII - $50 to $150. Well, then the scholarships were, of course, fixed amounts of money, $100 and $150 and --
MR. MILLER: The straight scholarships are limited in number.
MR. McLEAN: Yes, they are.
MR. CHAIRMAN: ...(2) Assistance to schools in undeveloped settlements.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the Minister under this item, how many remote school districts have been declared up till now?
MR. McLEAN: I would have to get that information for you. I can't say at the moment how many.
MR. MILLER: This item covers only those schools who are primarily under the direction of ..., is that right?
MR. McLEAN: That is correct.
MR. MILLER: There hasn't been a change in policy in connection with these schools, has there?
MR. McLEAN: None. No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (3) Miscellaneous Grants.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, under (3) does that include the Manitoba Temperance Alliance - any amount in there?
MR. McLEAN: I'm sorry, what ...
MR. GRAY: (3).
MR. McLEAN: Under (3). Yes it does, that includes the grant to the Manitoba Temperance Alliance.
MR. GRAY: What is the amount?
MR. McLEAN: $30,000.00.
MR. GRAY: The same as last year.
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. GRAY: When you consider that in view of the growing profits of the liquor --
growing liquor profits, I suppose they anticipate -- I don't know, I'm going on an anticipated budget, but I think they'll have 12 million dollars anyway, don't you think that the original purpose of the Manitoba Liqour Control Board is to control liquor, instead of making a large profit? And don't you think Manitoba Temperance - $30,000 which was -- they should have had it now for several years -- should not be entitled to a substantial increase for them to do their work? There is another item about it which I'll probably speak on longer but at the moment now I think that if they are not doing the work, then cut out the $30,000. If they are helping out to control and educate people who perhaps consume more liquor than they should and more than they could afford, they should be given an increase. The same item has been given to them for several years. There's one thing that should follow the old government is on this here item - everyone had an increase - the general budget - the estimated expenditure increased in the last few years, especially this year. I don't see why they should not be entitled to an increase for their education or for the work they are doing.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, it is true as the honourable member has indicated that there is no increase. I am troubled about this particular department and I'm not saying anything to this House that I haven't said to the Manitoba Temperance Alliance for whom I have the very highest respect and I know they are dedicated people, but the basis or the reason for a grant being made, and certainly a grant being made under the estimates of the Department of Education, is that they conduct classes in our schools on the subject of Alcohol Education, and I've not been able to make up my mind yet whether, if we consider that alcohol education in the schools is a good thing, whether it shouldn't be part and parcel of the school curriculum and conducted by the schools in the regular way. I say that only to indicate that I have some concern about the advisability of an outside group performing a function that may be a function that should be performed by the schools themselves. The $30,000 forms a very large part of the budget of the Manitoba Temperance Alliance. As a matter of fact, out of the total of, I believe, $42,000, $30,000 comes from the Province of Manitoba, which makes the Manitoba Temperance Alliance almost a branch of the Government of Manitoba and these are just some of the considerations, and this is a matter that is under consideration, and I'm certain that we will want to do the right thing. It is not that we are not conscious of the importance of the work of the Temperance Alliance and the work of temperance education, which is, I agree, most important.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, the Bracken Commission recommended continued support for the Manitoba Temperance Alliance and, as the Minister has indicated, this amount of $30,000 is a very substantial portion of their budget. The former arrangement was a sort of a shared arrangement whereby they undertook to raise a certain amount of money and the Government would match it. We discussed this matter very, very fully and came to the conclusion that a flat grant would be better. But we too have considered the advisability of either very, very close co-operation in the question of alcohol education in the schools, and I want to pay tribute at this time to a very excellent alcohol manual which was written by the present Dean of the Faculty of Education, the former Director of Curriculum of this province, and that is very extensively used.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, did Item 2, did that refer to the schools, in part at least, in amongst the Indians? Go back one item.
MR. McLEAN: These are schools in districts which have practically no assessment, have no resources to support a school and it is true to quite a degree they are districts in which the people are Metis, not entirely but to quite an extent, Indians, and so on. And this, in all of these cases, the Province of Manitoba assumes the entire cost of providing the schools and the teacher and all of the facilities. In some cases there's an official of the Department especially detailed off to look after that particular duty and in some instances we are able to get some small assistance in the way of, for example in the district, the residents may provide the wood to heat the school or some other small item of service of that sort.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, just before we do that, in the -- I know it's difficult to discuss a report in separate parts -- but in the report on Indians which was tabled and about which I asked the Minister of Agriculture some questions which he hasn't replied to, there were quite a number of suggestions as to the large increases needed in improving those schools for those people. I wonder if the Minister could tell me, has he got enough money in this particular item to do some of the things at least which are proposed in that report? I know
it's maybe unfair to ask about a report which we haven't really discussed yet; at the same time, I'd hate to see it wait over another year.
MR. McLEAN: The answer to that is "no" in this sense, that these estimates were prepared, of course, quite some months ago before the report came in. However, it does provide for certain improvements. I mean we anticipated providing improvements in that regard but any really substantial improvement arising as a result of the report as it affects education and other matters, I think we will have to discuss on another occasion because that report is being studied from that particular aspect. But in a sense the answer is "no" except that we do provide, I think, a pretty good standard of education as the schools are pretty good schools and we try to get the best possible teachers, and so on. But whether they go as far as -- I wouldn't say they go as far as the report suggests. But the report is being studied in another reference and would be debated then.
MR. L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Honourable Minister if there's any provision for grants to separate schools at this time?
MR. McLEAN: No, Mr. Chairman, there's no provision for grants to separate schools in these estimates.
MR. DESJARDINS: Can I ask then if there's any proposed grants, or at least is the Government keeping an open mind until they get the final reports from the Royal Commission on Education?
MR. McLEAN: An open mind until we see the final report.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister told us that there was $30,000.00 in that grant, I understood, for the Alcohol or Temperance Alliance. Is that correct?
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. MOLGAT: What is the balance, $5,050.00?
MR. McLEAN: The grants are to the Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba School of Narcotic Education - $1,000.00; Manitoba Schools Orchestra - $250.00; Canadian Education Association - $2,250.00; Manitoba Education Association - $1,000.00; High School Bonspiel - $350.00; High School Track and Field - $200.00; and the Manitoba Temperance Alliance - $30,000.00 - and all of them would like more.
MR. DESJARDINS: This item was reduced. Would the Minister tell us where it was reduced from last year?
MR. McLEAN: Pardon?
MR. DESJARDINS: It would appear on the left-hand side. There is $36,100.00. You have reduced that item. Would you tell us where?
MR. McLEAN: Because last year there was a grant of $1,500 to the Home and School Association which has been deleted this year. There's a reduction in the grant to the Track and Field from $250 to $200 - there's a reduction of $50.00.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Members, if we are going to make any progress at all when we have passed an item, we should move forward and not when we have called another item go back to the ones that have just been passed before. We are now on to No. 4. - Education ...
A MEMBER: Oh, no we're not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon? Well, we're passed that --
A MEMBER: No! You did but we didn't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We called it and it was declared passed.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, in that case I suppose the Committee had better rise.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the Speaker. The Committee rise. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions and ask me to report --
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Roblin, that the Report of the Committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 2:30 o'clock, Thursday afternoon.]
Page revised: 10 November 2011
