| 633 | 634 | 635 | 636 | 637 | 638 | 639 | 640 | ||
| 641 | 642 | 643 | 644 | 645 | 646 | 647 | 648 | 649 | 650 |
| 651 | 652 | 653 | 654 | 655 | 656 | 657 | 658 |
| Page | ||
| Petitions for Bills ...................................................................................... | 633 | |
| Introduction of Bills, Nos. 85, 20, 42 ....................................................... | 633 | |
| Committee of Whole House | ||
| Proposed Resolutions | ||
| Re Tuberculosis Control Act, Mr. Johnson (Gimli) .............................. | 633 | |
| Re Hospital Services Insurance Act, Mr. Johnson (Gimli) .................... | 634 | |
| Re Horticultural Societies Act, Mr. Willis ............................................ | 636 | |
| Re S. D. Debenture Interest Guarantee Act, Mr. McLean ................... | 637 | |
| Re Text Book Bureau exapnsion, Mr. McLean ................................... | 637 | |
| Additions to Select Standing Committee, Mr. Ridley ................................ | 638 | |
| Change in Committee, Mr. Paulley ........................................................... | 638 | |
| Tabling of Returns, Mr. Willis .................................................................. | 638 | |
| Questions: Mr. Paulley (Mr. Thompson), Mr. Guttormson (Mr. Willis) ..... | 638 | |
| Statement re Press Report, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Lyon ............ | 639 | |
| Question: Mr. Desjardins (Mr. Lyon) ...................................................... | 640 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Pensions (Mr. Gray): Mr. Wagner ........................ | 640 | |
| Mr. Paulley, Mr. Johnson (Gimli), Mr. Hillhouse ................................ | 642 | |
| Mr. Gray .......................................................................................... | 643 | |
| Division on Proposed Motion ............................................................ | 645 | |
| Proposed Resolution, re School Construction Grant (Mr. Miller): | ||
| Mr. Cobb ......................................................................................... | 645 | |
| Mr. Hryhorczuk ................................................................................ | 646 | |
| Mr. Alexander, Mr. Hryhorczuk ........................................................ | 647 | |
| Bill No. 78, re Winnipeg Sanitary District, Mr. Scarth ............................. | 647 | |
| Committee of Whole House, Supply | ||
| Agriculture, Soils and Crops ................................................................... | 647 | |
| Publications and Statistics .................................................................. | 658 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker.]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
MR. CLERK: The petition of Colonel Malcolm Campbell and others praying for the passage of an Act to incorporate the Wildewood Club. The petition of Guaranteee Trust Company of Canada praying for the passing of an Act respecting Guarantee Trust Company of Canada and the Western Trust Company.
The petition of E. G. R. Mills and others, praying for the passing of an Act to incorporate the Grand Chapter of the Manitoba Order of the Eastern Star.
MR. SPEAKER: Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
[Mr. D. M. Stanes introduced Bill No. 85, an Act respecting the Town of Gimli.]
[Mr. J. Thompson introduced Bill No. 20, an Act to amend The Labour Relations Act.]
[Mr. J. Thompson introduced Bill No. 42, an Act to amend The Municipal Act (1).]
HON. GEO. JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable 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 resolutions; two standing in my name, and one under the name of the Minister of Agriculture, and two under the Minister of Education.
[Mr. Speaker put the question, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the Chair?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the subject matter of the proposed resolutions, recommends them to the House.
[Mr. Chairman read the resolution.]
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, this resolution refers to the inclusion of, in certain sanatoria, as facilities under the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan. The Federal authorities have approved the arrangements that have been made with the sanatoria to include these facilities under the plan, and this has been acted upon and the services are therefore insured services under the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan. That's really -- this is the resolution to bring in that -- one of the amendments that will be coming forward under the amendment to The Tuberculosis Control Act.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F.) (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, might I ask apropo of this, what negotiations, if any, are being conducted between the Department of Health in the Province of Manitoba, and the Federal authorities at the present time, if any, in order to bring all tubercular patients under the provisions of the hospital scheme?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Well, we have had -- I have had discussions with the Minister. I don't think we have anything officially in writing, but I understand, as you say, tuberculosis sanatoria and mental institutions, at this time, we are not able to include as services under the plan. But we were able last fall when we realized that -- in discussions with the Sanatorium Board -- they had empty beds, and in view of the fact, especially at that time we felt in the western part of the province and at The Pas, there were sanatoria with beds empty. And in approaching Ottawa, they said as long as these are physcially and in every way separated from the tuberculosis patients, they would allow us to use these facilities; and we thought this was a very sensible arrangement and proceeded with the agreement with them. As far as inclusion of the tubercular and mental patients, however, so far are no success.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE (Selkirk): Has the Minister had any success regarding Indians - the inclusion of Indians under the services plan?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Well, the Indians - Treaty Indians - are considered under the plan. Do you mean in the sanatoria - as patients in the Sans?
MR. HILLHOUSE: No, ... the Federal Government paying a part of the cost. I
understand they were excluded from the original arrangements.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): I'm not quite sure. They're not excluded under the Hospital Plan.
MR. HILLHOUSE: They were excluded, weren't they?
MR. JOHNSON: Ottawa pays the premium of Indians on Reserves under the plan; but that doesn't entitle them to insured services in the sanatoria -- that's a provincial ...
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): And while we're at it, Mr. Chairman, what about nursing homes - patients in nursing homes?
MR. JOHNSON: I'd be prepared to make a further statement on that, Sir, when my estimates come up, as far as the inclusion of these under these facilities go.
MR. CAMPBELL: Might we ask however -- and I don't think the Minister covered this in his opening statement -- just what services are provided in this resolution?
MR. JOHNSON: All in-service insured benefits that are rendered in an acute hospital - the whole works.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted? ... Resolution No. 2. Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Hospital Services Insurance Act by providing, among other matters,
(a) for certain changes in the class of persons who are insured persons;
(b) for changes respecting the reimbursement of insured persons for hospital expenses incurred outside of Manitoba;
(c) for changes in the provisions respecting continuation of benefits to persons who become insured persons during a benefit period; and
(d) for changes in the method of determining the amounts payable to hospitals.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, this resolution concerns those amendments to the hospital insurance plan, dealing with the expenditures of money, and there are four broad categories where monies are involved, and these are: First, certain changes in the class of persons, this refers to the widening of the term or the definition of the - of a dependent, to provide for certain cases that have come to our attention. In this regard it does not involve very much money, but under this section comes the widowed mother, with a dependent child who is being supported by a self-supporting son or daughter. Public reaction to this has made us feel that we should allow that self-supporting son or daughter to include a widowed mother and dependent as insured persons on a one-family premium payment. Secondly, is the other widening of the term "dependent" is where a double orphan exists where an uncle or brother is looking after a child. If he satisfies the commissioner that that child would be a dependent -- if he is maintaining that child as a dependent, we allow him to put that child under the family premium.
The second clause here, "to extend benefits", refers to the changes respecting the reimbursement of insured persons for hospital expenses incurred outside of Manitoba. It has been felt since the plan came in in the first few months, that it was necessary to extend the benefits to insured people temporarily absent from Manitoba. Under the present wording of the Act, you are only allowed emergency treatment outside of the province. We do have reciprocity with the three western provinces and Ontario, but down in the United States besides emergency, we do allow now the -- we have extended this one step further. This does not involve a great change in financial matters.
Thirdly, the changes in the provisions respecting continuation of benefits to people who become insured during a benefit period. The purpose of this resolution is to extend the benefits of persons who are insured at the beginning of the benefit period, through to the end of that period. For instance, people in our sanatoria, in our -- in gaol or in penitentiary and so on, who come out of prison in the middle -- or a recipient of public assistance who comes off assistance in the middle of a period -- it has been found that this creates a hardship to ask them to pay their premiums for the balance of that period and then to catch up with the next benefit period all in one motion; so this allows them -- they are considered insured to the end of that particular benefit period in which this ceases to be. It also concerns an employee who is a dependent and comes to work in the middle of a benefit period -- we consider him a dependent to the end of that particular benefit period. It has been found that this would administratively help us a great deal, in administration, and again is not too big an item.
To deal -- the last resolution for changes in the method of determining the amounts payable to hospitals. At the present time, there is provision in the Act to deal with under-payments
to hospitals. We can make up a hospital deficit at the end of the year, but there is nothing to enable the plan to possibly recover an overpayment. The best example I can give you of that is where a hospital, at the beginning of the year, budgets for a facility, or people which they do not employ, or a program which they do not proceed with; in that case we have paid the hospital public funds, which they have not been able to use, and we therefore feel we should recover them. That is the intent of the resolution.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, in the item of certain changes in class of persons who are insured persons, particularly I'm interested at the present moment. Has there been any other changes than those listed by the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare? I have in mind a number of cases where individuals at the present time are just over the ceiling - barely over the ceiling, I believe it is $1,670, and thereby under our legislation are not on social assistance or wouldn't qualify for that. But by the time that they have paid their hospitalization premiums and also certain other incidentals, such as doctors' bills and drugs and the likes of that, would bring them under the ceiling, for which purpose then they would qualify for the free payment of premiums under our hospitalization scheme. I wonder whether or not - I think I've drawn this to the attention of the Honourable Minister on previous occasions - whether or not this item may take those people under consideration? Because I think it can be appreciated, Mr. Chairman, by the committee, that where we have a dead-set cut-off of the ceiling, as we have at the present time, that there's no flexibility at all insofar as payments for health purposes are concerned. I think that in the matter of health that there should be some consideration given to those people who through illness, particularly prolonged illness, where they're incurring considerable amount of expenditures, that where those expenditures bring them down below the ceiling at the present time to make them eligible for free hospitalization premiums, that some provision under the Hospital Service Insurance Act should be made in respect to those people. And also - did I understand the Minister correctly to say that insofar as clause B is concerned that this will now be applicable to in-patients in hospitals in the United States? At the present time, I have in mind -- and I think the Minister is aware of this -- that quite a considerable number of people in Manitoba are making use of the facilities at Rochester and go down there for treatment. Is the purpose of this to allow them to be able to either recover or be covered by the Services Act while they are in such hospitals as Rochester?
MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Chairman, to pursue the same subject a little bit further on the matter of premium exemptions. Is it not a fact that a single person that is in receipt of old age assistance or old age pensions that has no income other than his pension and has less than a $1,000 in the bank, that he automatically qualifies for premium exemption if he makes application for same; and in the case of a married couple, if they have less than $2,000 in the bank, they could qualify. Now I have filled out several applications for people who have asked me to do that, and in cases, perhaps, where they have had, we'll say $1,050 if they are single, well, all you have to do is tell them to go and spend $51.00 and then they'll qualify for premium exemption. And so with the married couple if they have $2,050 in the bank, if they went out and spent $51.00, then they would automatically qualify. Now I want to know whether I am correct in my assumption of that.
Now in regard to Item B, I had a case just last week where a chap spent 30 days in the Ball Clinic at Excelsior, Missouri, and his hospital bill was $637.00; and he was informed that his bill would not be paid, or no part of it would be paid because of the fact that the Ball Clinic did not qualify as a hospital under the Act, that is, under the Missouri Act. So, then it would be necessary, I take it, for people that are holidaying in United States or down there for treatment, they would have to be registered in an authorized hospital under the Act of the State that they happen to be in at the time.
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Chairman, with reference to Item B, as I understood the Minister, this is not a very broad extension of coverage to people outside of the province. Yes, what you are proposing is not a very wide or a very particularly liberal extension.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that under the present Act a person living in the province who pays his premium is entitled to full coverage in a hospital in the province if he or she is referred to the hospital by a qualified doctor. Now, it seems to me - the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. has already mentioned the cases of people who are referred by physicians in Manitoba for treatment or investigation in a place like Rochester - it would seem to me that there is
no reason why they ought not to be - why their bill ought not to be paid at the same rate as it would be paid if they were referred to a Manitoba hospital. I know of a case where one of my constituents was sent to a hospital in Montreal - this was before the plan came into effect, but the person was a member of Blue Cross and stayed there for four months at a cost of something over $100 a week so the bill was over $2,000. It would be much simpler if we had reciprocal arrangements, but I could see no reason why a person who pays into the plan here if referred to a hospital outside the province by a doctor because they have a specialized service which is not available here, ought not to have their bill paid; and I'm not suggesting unlimited payment because they're specialty hospitals, for example, Mennigers where the fees are tremendous, but I can't see why their bills ought not to be paid at the same rate as they would have been paid -- as they would have been covered had they been in a hospital in Manitoba which is set up to provide the regular service.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, I'll try and answer some of these questions. ""B" the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. mentions the old age pensioner who just comes over the limits of 960, 1620, $1,000 single and $2,000 married. We studied this very carefully but we feel under the new Social Allowances' Act where the need of that person would be assessed in this instance, should there be need -- we have many pensioners who have saved their money during the hard lean years and own a little home and just have their pension, and they pay taxes and they pay heat and so on, and then when they pay a hospital premium they feel they are being discriminated against in some instances. We feel, however, with the application of a needs test to these people that possibly if it was found that they did qualify for a social allowance, they would automatically be given a waiver of premium under the hospital plan. However, we did not lower those requirements at all.
The member from Neepawa mentions the person who is single and just has his old age assistance and $1,000. The terms are he has to have - if he's earning under $960 and has $1,000 as we mentioned, he has to pay his premium. As you say, if he has $1,051, and goes and blows the $51 or $61 and comes below the ceiling, he qualifies for a waiver of premium. I think you have to have a beginning and an end to everything and although these tests do create a little difficulty, on the whole, once we have had our fieldmen out talking to these people in these particular instances, we have had very little trouble. I might add that there are over 16,000 now on old age assistance and security who have qualified for a waiver.
Concerning out-of-province benefits, as you know, in the brochure of the plan, it points out where a hospital up to 500 beds we pay a maximum of $18 per day out-of-province benefits. The reason for this amendment is in conferring with both other provinces who are now in the plan such as Saskatchewan and Ontario, they both found that they could not enforce the regulation that you must have prior permission of the Commissioner before you can be treated for a non-emergency condition outside of the province. It is a very difficult thing to enforce. Our total expenditures have not been great in the American side hospitals; however, we don't feel that we can pay those hospitals any more than we pay our own, and this is the average for the size; for instance, up to 100 beds I believe it is $11 a day we pay, and $18 a day to 500 beds. Beyond that we pay nothing. I might add that we have had two or three cases where patients who, one patient had a bill of $2,700 in an American hospital where we paid $18 a day. We cannot begin to subsidize American hospitals by paying them $50 a day, and also, at the same time we want to bring the benefits of the plan to the people as much as we can. Administratively, you simply cannot draw that line in emergency only. It's one of those things of human nature and, as I say, the total benefits paid in this regard in the past first year's experience of the plan are $140,000.
Concerning the -- I think that pretty well -- as far as this credit goes, we only pay hosptials that are accredited hospitals in the United States. In Canada, we don't pay hospitals who are not accredited by the Hospital Associations in those countries.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution be adopted? Resolution No. 3. Resolved that it is expedient to bring in an amendment to amend The Horticultural Society Act by providing for an increase in the amounts of grants that may be made to horticultural societies in respect of the number of members and in respect of prize monies paid by the societies. -- Mr. Willis.
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration) (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Chairman, the principle of this bill is simply that we're increasing the grants to horticultural societies. What used to be 50% will now become 65%. There's still a ceiling in regard
to the membership grants of $200 which used to be $100. We're increasing them in those two respects.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution be adopted? ... Passed. Resolution No. 4, resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The School Districts Debenture Interest Guarantee Act by providing for a removal of the limitation of the amount of the interest on monies borrowed, the payment of which may be guaranteed under that Act.
HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Chairman, under the Act at the present there is a limitation placed on the amount of money that may -- the amount of school district debenture money that may be guaranteed. The principle of this bill is to remove that limitation.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, it's limited by the amount of the annual interest earnings of the fund. What are the interest earnings in the last fiscal year?
MR. McLEAN: I'm not in a position to give that information. We'll be glad to do so on second reading.
MR. MILLER: Another question. Is there a great demand for interest guarantees? I would imagine that the investors might prefer the trustee agreement arrangement, rather than just have their interest guarantee.
MR. McLEAN: Well, I'm not certain whether one would say there is a great demand. There is a demand and certainly a demand which exceeds the ability to give the guarantee with the present limiation in the Act. It is our opinion much more guarantees could be given if this limiation is removed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution be adopted? ... Passed. Resolution No. 5, resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Education Department Act by providing, among other matters, authority for the Minister to purchase new and used textbooks for free distribution to pupils; and for an increase in the reserve for working capital advanced to The Manitoba Textbook Bureau to a maximum of $600,000, and for the expenditure from the reserve for working capital aforesaid of not more than $200,000 in payment in whole or in part of the purchase price or cost of renovation, or both, or the cost of erection of a building for carrying on the operations of the bureau.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, these amendments are required in order to carry out the policy of the Government of providing textbooks for the students. And the second part of the Bill is simply to increase the amount of the reserve and to provide for its use in the purchase or renovation of a building for the purpose of the Textbook Bureau.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this doubles the amount of the working capital.
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Of $300,000. What is the amount in reserve? My recollection is that the treasury is authorized to advance to the book bureau an amount up to $300,000 less the accumulated reserve. And this would bring it up to $600,000 less the accumulated reserve. And I take it that the Minister intends to build a suitable building with the $200,000. Is that correct?
MR. McLEAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the first part of the question I'm unable to answer at the moment. As I understand it, the question is: what is the amount in the reserve? I'll have that information for second reading. The second part is the Minister has no intention of either building - or perhaps I should limit it - has no intention of building buildings, if that was the question. We simply wish to get this amount of money made available so that if after due study and consideration it is considered advisable to build a building or to purchase one, that we will have the funds with which to do so. At the moment, no specific consideration has been given to either course of action.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, in reading this resolution I have to smile to some degree. It seems to me as though this is giving the Minister authority for something which he has already done. For if I recall correctly, a week or so ago my daughter came home with a dollar or two for the sale of some used books which she had turned in. And I understand that the money came in from the Provincial ... [Interjection] - yes, it might ...Mr. Campbell...from the Provincial Treasurer. Now it did seem to me rather odd to see that this measure is to provide, among other things, authority for the Minister to purchase new and used textbooks. I think that's already an accomplished fact insofar as the used books are concerned, is it not?
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, that only illustrates the speed with which the Department of Education operates. Actually the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. has a point up to a point. The authority for the provision of textbooks and so on was actually contained in the legislation that was introduced and passed last fall. This is an amendment to the Education Department Act which, in a sense, is complementary to the provisions of the Public Schools' Act, and perhaps there is a legal point that we're not entirely covered until we have the amendment to the Education Department Act, although I think that one might make an argument that under the authority of the amendment to the Public Schools Act that what has been done has been properly done. But this is necessary in order to bring the Education Department Act into line with what is also authorized by the other Act. If the honourable member feels that his daughter has received the money too soon, we'll be glad to have it back.
MR. PAULLEY: Will we receive the 6 1/4 percentage increase in the meantime? If we do, I'll gladly give the Minister back his couple of bucks.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution be adopted? ... Passed. Will the Committee rise and report? Call in the Speaker.
MR. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House has adopted certain resolutions and directed me to report the same and asked leave to sit again. 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. Johnson introduced Bill No. 84, an Act to amend The Tuberculosis Control Act. ]
[Mr. Willis introduced Bill No. 38, an Act to amend The Horticultural Society Act.]
[Mr. Johnson introduced Bill No. 55, an Act to amend The Hospital Services Insurance Act.]
[Mr. McLean introduced Bill No. 40, an Act to amend The School Districts Debenture Interest Guarantee Act.]
[Mr. McLean introduced Bill No. 39, an Act to amend The Education Department Act.]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. M. E. RIDLEY (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I beg leave of the House to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Brandon, that the name of the Honourable Member for Rupertsland, Mr. Jeannotte, be added to the names of those composing the select standing committee on law amendments; and also the select standing committee on agriculture and immigration. And that the name of the Honourable Member for Churchill, Mr. Ingebrigtson, be added to the names of those composing the select standing committee of privileges and elections. And the select standing committee on law amendments.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave of the House?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried.]
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I beg leave of the House to introduce the following resolution, seconded by the Honourable Member for Inkster; that the name of the Honourable Member for Elmwood, Mr. Peters, be stricken from the standing committee on private bills, standing orders, printing and library, and the name of the Honourable Member for St. John's, Mr. Orlikow, be substituted therefor.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave of the House?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried.]
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, before the Orders of the Day, I beg leave to lay on the table of the House: Return to an Order of the House No. 4 on the motion of the Honourable Member for Inkster; Return for Order No. 3 on the motion of the Member for Brokenhead.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a list of questions to the Honourable the Minister of Labour, in connection with the accident of Roger Van Couwenbergh, age 17, of St. Boniface, Manitoba in an elevator at 448 Hargrave Avenue. First, when was this elevator last inspected? Secondly, what safety devices were used in connection with the elevator? Thirdly, had any of these devices been removed or tampered with? And fourthly, what action is being taken to prevent a recurrence of accidents of this nature?
HON. J. THOMPSON (Minister of Labour) (Virden): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. for giving me notice of this question. I wish to inform him and the House that an inquest will be held in connection with this tragic occurrence which he has
mentioned; and I feel that it would be improper to give the position of our department as a result of the inspection of the premises by one of our officials at this time prior to the inquest. It is a certainty that the official of the Labour Department who inspected the scene of the accident will be called to give evidence at the inquest. And the information which I would now give to the honourable member and the House would be the same evidence which he would be giving at that time. An inquest has been set - I am informed for Monday, July 13th, and at that time it is anticipated that our Labour Department official will be giving the results of his inspection, and I must advise the honourable member that I can not properly now give him the findings of his inspection at the site. I do wish to say, however, that I will be very happy after the inquest to give the member the answers to the questions which he has asked.
MR. PAULLEY: I wish to thank the Honourable Minister, Mr. Speaker. And I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to direct a further question to the Honourable Minister of Labour in connection with another matter.
It was reported last night, Mr. Speaker, in the Winnipeg Tribune that two men claimed to have been dismissed from a firm over their union activities. The firm involved was The Shore Glass and Building Supplies Ltd., of Jarvis Avenue. It appears, according to the news report, Mr. Speaker, that an application for union certification had been made to the Department of Labour by the Local No. 1901 of the Millmens' Union of Carpenters, for certification; that a notice of application had been placed in the building, and in accord with the article appearing in the paper, subsequent to that, these two men were dismissed from the company. My questions to the Minister are these: Is the Department aware of the fact of the dismissal of these two employees? And if so, what action do they contemplate taking, if any, in this regard?
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to thank the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. for advising me today that he was intending to ask these questions. I have read the newspaper story in connection with the alleged dismissal of the employees from this firm, and have checked with the Department of Labour. I am told that the department has been advised by the business agent of the Union of the dismissal, and the department has in turn asked the business agent to provide the detailed evidence of the affair. Of course, I think we all realize that it is illegal under the established law of the province to dismiss an employee because he engages in union activities. That has been the established law of the province for some time. And our procedure now will be to obtain from those who state that they have been wrongfully dismissed - we shall obtain from them the evidence and no doubt the employer will be heard and the matter will be dealt with according to the Labour Relations Act.
HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities) (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, on a question of privilege, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the newspaper report which appeared in one of this morning's papers with respect to the debate on Bill No. 3 respecting amendments to The Highway Traffic Act. I'd like to quote the newspaper report. "T. P. Hillhouse, Liberal, Selkirk, maintained that the right to set trends of license suspensions should be returned to Magistrates instead of being delegated as at present to Provincial Motor Vehicle Officials." I feel that this impression should not be left in the minds of the public. My impression of the debate yesterday was that because of Section 115 the Courts chose not to suspend driving privileges as is their right under Section 225. Now this Section 115 imposes a penalty in addition to fines and imprisonment on most people who are convicted of driving while impaired or driving while intoxicated, and we feel that this is a means of protecting the public against those people who drive while intoxicated or impaired. Now the Court still has the right to impose the additional penalty of suspending driving privileges anywhere in Canada under Section 225, and where that suspension does take place, then our Court of Appeal -- our Appeals -- our Highway Safety Board will have no jurisdiction to supend that penalty which is imposed by the Courts, and I'd just like to draw that to the attention of the House.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Public Works. Yesterday he assured the House that he would dispatch an engineer to the northern part of Lake Manitoba to look at the flood damage caused by the stop logs in the Fairford River. Could he advise us at this time whether the engineer has gone up and, if so, when does he expect to have a report?
MR. WILLIS: The engineer in question was up there previously but he's going back on Thursday morning, and if you'd like to have him contact you at that time, I'll make arrangements for you.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege arising out of the statement made by the Honourable Minister of Utilities, I haven't seen the newspaper item to which he refers but I think in clarification of what he said, I think I should clarify what I said. What I did say was, that the Courts by reason of the province having enacted Section 115 of the Highway Traffic Act, were not exercising the discretion which was vested in them and were leaving it up to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. That was the point which I made. And my further point was that I felt that the Courts seised of all the facts and all the circumstances in the case were in a better position to do so than the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): On a further question of privilege, with the hope of not further muddying the water, I think perhaps my honourable friend would agree that what he is meaning to say is that the Courts are not imposing any suspension at all because the suspension is imposed not by the Registrar but by statute. The Registrar has nothing to do with any suspension under 115; it's a statutory suspension, under 115. The Registrar is not involved and I believe that my honourable friend would want that correction to appear.
MR. HILLHOUSE: I think that as soon as the certificate of conviction if filed with the Registrar, the cancellation goes to ...
MR. LYON: It's a statutory suspension; not by the Registrar.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Adjourned debate ...
MR. L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to ask a question of the Honourable the Minister of Health. I believe he would be the one to answer this. At times when there's a death occurs following an accident, a coroner orders an inquest and oftentimes he has recommendations to give after these inquests. I would like to know what happened and what is the procedure -- what happens with these recommendations? Are they filed with any department? It might be the Attorney-General -- I'm not sure.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, yes. The recommendations that are sometimes made by a coroner's jury are passed on to my department. In cases where they affect other government departments, they are immediately transferred to those departments for action. In cases where they affect other public bodies, or other semi-private or private bodies, they're passed on to those bodies for whatever action is being advised.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Inkster. The Honourable Member for Fisher.
MR. PETER WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, it isn't often that the C.C.F. is the recipient of free favourable publicity in the newspapers, so it was with great satisfaction that we joined with all citizens of Manitoba in expressing our congratulations to the Honourable Member for Inkster for the great honour that was bestowed upon him - his choice of the "Man of the Year" in '58 for Manitoba. Year after year the member has risen in the House to speak of the plight of our senior citizens, to attempt to arouse the compassion of the various governments to whom he directed his pleas. It is to the great credit of the Winnipeg Tribune that it recognized the deep sincerity of his stand.
The C.C.F. takes pride in being the earliest spokesman for that large inarticulate group of people, the old and the sick, the helpless. And when we speak, we do not do so in generalities. It takes no great wit to recognize what we owe to those that laid the foundation for our own good fortune, nor does it touch our mental resources to realize that our material recognition of this Act is presently grossly inadequate and becoming increasingly more so. The battle which the C.C.F. has waged these many years have not been over the above facts which are recognized by both the authority parties. It has been over the actual increases which have been proposed in old age pensions. In other words, when they proposed for the old age pensions, when the chips are down, all the kindly and no doubt sincere sentiments evaporate and we are left alone. We here in this House passing judgment on whether to give a better life to those that won't be able to enjoy it for long anyway -- if they get a pension of $75.00.
And yet the country as a whole will spend and has spent public funds of taxpayers money, as we seem to call it in this House -- I recall the Avro Arrow. How many millions will it cost the Canadian public? And the conversion bonds? And who will benefit the most? The deal of Trans-Canada Pipelines -- I recall reading in Hansard when our Prime Minister of Canada, when he was the Leader of the Opposition at that time, called some of the people who made heavy profits on the Trans-Canada Pipeline, he called them "Texas Buccaneers". And yet, Mr. Speaker,
when our parents' livelihood is at stake, we hesitate whether or not they qualify; or we say that they are too highly financed; or they are millionaires; and that the group of the C.C.F. wants to spend taxpayers' money to give them more. I wonder what percent of such people -- of such millionaires, we have. And then on the other hand, how much would it cost for the Provincial Government to hire social workers to chase around country screaming, who qualifies for assistance and who does not. And if the judgment would be made accurately, you would find that most of the elders would qualify for assistance. And yet we would have the overhead cost of administering the program. I can tell you here now, if this resolution is not approved, or the Federal Government does not accept, the Provincial Government will find itself in greater financial difficulty due to the fact that the cost of living is going up.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes I feel unqualified to pass judgment on our forebearers, or to put it naively, on our elderly people. One has to bear in mind that they were the pioneers. They were the people who faced the frontier of our country. I must admit that few, perhaps none, are here with us who braved the west with the Red River cart. But we have another generation that follows the frontier line. They too face and brave the wilderness of this country. They gave their health stuggling for a better life for their family. And these were the people, some of them are still with us, people who gave us the opportunity to be here today in this Assembly room. What are we doing for those people who made it possible for us to enjoy a better life -- who gave us better edcuation? We here are arbitrating whether or not these venerable people are entitled to higher old age pension. This is a stand on which I for one feel most uncomfortable. I myself, and indeed most of us here in this Assembly, can surely imagine what struggles, what hardships these homesteaders had.
Mr. Speaker, if you don't mind, I would like to talk about the country old folks because I'm more familiar with the country than the city. There are a few old folks in my area who still belong to the frontier times, the second generation of immigration as I call them. Once in a while we make a little birthday party for an old woman or elderly man, and there is the place where I sometimes feel unqualified or embarrassed as to whether or not we are passing judgment with justice. Listening to them describe their early days in this country makes one wonder how those people withstood it. How they walked from 30 to 70 miles to get their mail and groceries; how the used to travel with a yoke of oxen for two weeks to make one trip for their foodstuffs; how some of them carried a bag of flour for a distance of about three miles because he did not own a yoke of oxen. Perhaps his neighbor did but it was impossible to cross that particular swamp. Many other hardships they faced. I need not narrate. I believe most of you members are very well aware of them. Mr. Speaker, even now I know people in Fisher constituency who are suffering equally as much, if not more, due to their old age coupled with health. I know of a number of elders who can scarcely carry on under this old age plan of $55.00 per month. I'll just mention one or two. I know of a case where a man pays $40.00 a month for room and board and that's what you cannot get in the city. Also, he has to clothe himself. Clothes would not amount to much but he has been told by his landlady "I want you to have decent clothes on." I know of another instance of a woman where she must pay rent, buy her own fuel, electric and grocery bills, and who is also under doctor's observation. She has to pay the medical bills, but worst of all, she gets dizzy spells, loses balance and falls down on anything, a chair or a table. Once she fell on a hot stove. Luckily she rolled off, otherwise she would have burned to death. She would lay on the floor for half an hour, or even an hour, or until such time as some of the neighbors would come along to see how she was doing, and yet she cannot afford to have somebody to stay with her.
I don't need to belabour you and the honourable members, Mr. Speaker, with my speech, but I would like to say this in conclusion. If there is any group of people in this country that should be recognized, it is the aged and the sick. I firmly believe that this resolution will get unanimous support because even our First Honourable Minister had this to say on August 25th, 1958, and it was in the Free Press. "See Roblin Warm up on Old Age Aid. The request for $20.00 a month supplementary assistance for old age pensioners made Friday to Premier Duff Roblin were received sympathetically the Free Press learned Monday. Mr. Roblin was met by a number of officials of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, Canadian Labour Congress at the Legislative building. Eight other members of the Roblin cabinet were present. There was no announcement after the meeting but during the election campaign Mr. Roblin suggested on several
occasions that the Conservative Government would introduce supplementary assistance. Listing criticism of the Liberal Government, he said 'the Progressive Conservative Party believes supplementary assistance is required for old age pensioners in need.' He also urged that provision be made for supply of eye glasses, dentures, hearing aids for those without adequate means." So now, Mr. Speaker, in this case, if Manitoba Government was or is prepared to give supplementary assistance, I do not see any reason why this Assembly cannot support this resolution in which my colleague so seriously presents the dilemma of our elders. It may even save money for Manitoba by lessening the number of applications submitted for supplementary assistance.
Many of our country elders are entitled to live in town or city, but when they start calculating their finances, most of them stay where they are, suffering or even facing death without any help whatsoever. For example, it was brought to my attention this last winter the plight of an old couple living by themselves. Their road was heavily drifted so that neither one could get to their neighbour's for help. The closest neighbour living two miles away met me in town and mentioned that there had been no sign of life for a whole week. He urged me to 'phone for a snow plow which I did. I explained to the Public Works Department that there might be something seriously wrong with the aged couple. So what happened? The plow event through, opened the road, and I was billed to pay for it. Even for the sake of old folks' lives, the Public Works Department or the government would not plow unless someone is willing to pay 50% of the cost. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's not only the problem of roads. The roads is not only confined to the old people or winter roads, also in the summer as well. And it covers the Fisher constituency.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall call upon this government to weigh this resolution very carefully because a great amount of hardship to our forebearers lies on that side of the House. And surely, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to make one exception. Yesterday I was chided in this House that I liked to play politics, or whether I'm playing politics on this side of the House, which is not true. But I want to tell you one thing, that when our Conservative candidates were out in the field, when they got into a discussion during the election campaign, you should hear them - some of them I might say, hear them talking about the old age pension, how lenient they were to the old age. Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): I hadn't intended to join in in the debate at this time but I would like to say something in view of what the Honourable Member from Fisher has said concerning this resolution. I think other speakers on this side of the House have very ably pointed out that the more reasonable approach to this problem is the manner in which we hope to tackle this problem at the provincial level. I'd like to point out too, Mr. Speaker, that I do feel the Honourable Member from Fisher has been a little vocal and I'm sure that he is sincere. I know him and I'm sure that his concern for the pensioner is very genuine. However, we believe that we should at this time not vote in favour of this resolution on this side of the House because we are just at the point of bringing in a new Social Allowances Act which we have -- the contents of which the House is vaguely familiar with and which we hope they will be fully conversant with shortly. This Act, this Social Allowances Act is designed to meet need -- pensioners in need, as the quotation was given to us by the Honourable Member from Fisher, is exactly what we're going to do. Our concern is as great and every member of this House is concerned with this problem. I feel that we have tacked this in a manner which is most acceptable and will meet -- and most feasible, economically, in this province at this time. And with those few short remarks I'd just like to remind the honourable members opposite that as soon as we stop talking and get down and get some of these Acts through, we'll have this legislation on the Statute Books of this province. Thank you.
MR. PAULLEY: May I addresss a question to the Honourable the Minister of Health? Did not the government have ample time during the last session, when they were a minority government, to process the Bill for Social Allowances which they introduced this time?
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. knows the story probably better than I, being a veteran of this House. The Bill did receive first reading...
MR. PAULLEY: ...and laid on our desks for two weeks without being processed.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to say anything in connection with this debate but the thought has been going through my head that in listening to the speakers on the government side of the House, they're all referring to this Social Security Bill which they intend to
introduce. What I was going to suggest to the Honourable Member for Inkster, with the permission of the House of course, that he asks for his resolution to stand until the government does bring in the Social Security Bill and then the members will have a better opportunity of deciding in their own minds whether or not that Bill is going to adequately take care of the cases mentioned by the Honourable Member for Inkster and the Honourable Member for Fisher.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? If the honourable member speaks, he closes the debate.
MR. MORRIS A. GRAY (Inkster): I think perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that the results of this resolution after the Minister of Health and Public Welfare has made his few remarks, is already sealed. However, I'm not afraid of a defeat. Yesterday the Honourable Member for Selkirk -- I wish to say that this resolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Bill. We know the contents of the Bill more or less, we welcome it, will accept it, but this does not solve the resolution before us today.
I shall not take up very much time of the House as my colleague from Fisher, I think, covered the subject very well. Firstly, I want to thank all the members who have taken an interest in debating this resolution thus for or against. I'm very happy to see that this has not been totally ignored. Apparently there's some merits to it, but naturally a resolution coming from our group cannot be accepted or perhaps digested in a short time. Also apparently, the members -- some of the members in this House have already their instructions as half of them are not in the House now. The C.C.F. never claimed credit for suggesting improvement in social service, improvement in labour conditions, and improvement in the old age pension and others. We are doing it because in our opinion we feel that this item should be introduced. I want to assure everyone that in the last 18 years in this House I have never claimed credit for anything that I have, on behalf of the party, introduced and I've never in my life peddled with misery, hardship, sickness and tragedies. I'm doing it because I've done it all my life. I've seen enough of the tragedies of the world to be willing, if at all possible, to assist individually or collectively, and I do considerable assistance individually in connection with all social problems. I'm a member of the Jewish Old Folks Home. I visit old people. I am one of the organizers of the Golden Age Club for the Jewish old ages -- about 400 members now -- meeting twice a week and enjoying themselves, taking them out of their misery and bringing them among their own people where they can discuss things in between playing cards, concerts given, and so on. So it was intimated, I said by some honourable members here, that if it's political expediency, I can assure you, swear before God and man, it's not my intention and never has been. In Manitoba today are 58,000 pensioners and senior citizens under the Social Security Act, where they are the responsibility of the Federal Government, and 6,600 under the ... 18,000 under the ... were transferred from the Social Security in 1952, and now they're being transferred since then at the rate of 100 a month. So we could absolutely make a correct guess that more than half -- more than half of those who are now on the old age pension in the Province of Manitoba can have no other means except the pension that they are now receiving.
One more point is this. I do not claim that this is because they haven't got enough to eat or their lives are miserable. The outward effects are that 3,000 deaths a year is being recorded of the old age pensioners in this province - 3,000 a year. Perhaps they reach their age, perhaps they lost use in life, are not too comfortable, perhaps they are worrying about it and have given up all their life, hard work, hard labour, and they came to the advanced age they've got to go and beg for assistance. I don't know, but the percentage of 3,000 in my opinion is a little bit too many. But I do not, definitely, have no justification, I have no evidence to claim that it is because of the low standard of living which they are compelled to live. I say that is just my thinking.
Now, you mention about the old -- the history of the old age pensioners. Let me give you, although it may be known to you, the history. In 1926 the Conservatives and the Liberals in Ottawa were evenly divided, and both parties appealed to the two Independent Labour party members at that time, the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth and the late Mr. A. A. Heaps. To them, either party was an opposition. So they wrote a letter to Mr. Meighen, the Prime Minister at that time, and to Mr. Mackenzie King, that if they will introduce a bill of the old age pension, they'll support them. Meighen refused on general principle, and Mackenzie King accepted it. They
supported Mackenzie King and then he introduced the Old Age Pension Bill of $20.00 a month. And at that time they said that the main principle of introducing this Bill is to do away with so-called old charity ideas of helping them by a neighbour or helping them by someone else or imposing on the children who didn't have anything. Give them something -- some amount in a respectable way. Now, checking the cost of living -- and you could do it yourself, you don't have to take my word for it -- that $20.00 a month in 1927 purchased more food and more essentials than the $55.00 a month now. Let's think it over very seriously. The tragedy of the life of the single man, or the widow or widower is absolutely untolerable at the present time. The married couples probably could get along, but it is absolutely uncontrollable.
Now the question that I've put up to the House is this: are we -- never mind the Bill that is coming up -- I'll speak about it in a minute -- are we satisfied that the basis of the Old Age Pensioner, the actual basis should be $55.00 a month or $75.00 a month? Even those who will receive $75.00, even if they get the $75.00, it's not sufficient, and they may have to be supplemented by the system which may come under the Bill of the Honourable Minister of Health and Public Welfare. Now what does the resolution say? You've read it and reread it a dozen times, but it says that "this House requests the government to petition the Federal Government" -- in other words, we are just adopting a principle, nothing else, -- "for an increase for the Old Age and Blind persons in the province, from $55.00 to $75.00 a month." Just petition them and the government has to perhaps get the sanction of the other nine provinces. It maybe take some time before they do it. But let's adopt the principle. The principle is that an old aged cannot live, in the age of 70 and over, particularly being alone with the high rent and the high cost of living, can not exist on $55.00 a month. That's all we ask for -- that's all we ask for! Let's go on record of it.
Now, the expense -- somebody mentioned -- and we have honourable members here who are very good in arithmetic, and they figure out that this ... will cost thousands and thousands and thousands and billions of dollars. I don't know arithmetic and I cannot add so much, but I do know that in the first place, those in need must get more. In the second place, those who are not in need -- I was informed by good authority that not all that reach the age of 70, who could support themselves, apply for it -- on good authority. I'm also informed that many of them who apply for it give it to charity. Several I know personally. I'm also informed that those who do receive and don't need it, pay over 55% of this $55.00 back in income tax. Now, this is my arithmetic, untrained and unrehearsed. But the fact is, that -- the main principle -- are we to neglect, speaking by the province, our senior citizens, or are we not? I would appeal to the members -- I don't think my appeal would help very much -- I think it will be a voice in the wilderness -- but I would like to appeal to them to await their grandchildren asking: "What have you done for the old?" And gentlemen, remember one thing, age -- mean time -- does not stop for anyone. I hope and pray to God it should not happen to any member of this House, but you can never tell. I go into the Old Folks Home -- visit it quite often -- I see people who were wealthy in their young days; people that had homes, good homes, had a car and everything, and today they are in the Old Folks Home. The same thing during the Unemployment Relief, I knew people who had big homes; they sold everything in the house, they sold their radio, they sold their carpet, they sold all the furniture, rather than go down and apply for unemployment relief.
So, I feel this, and you've got to consider also the institutions. All the institutions now receive is the $55.00 a month. It costs $120.00 or more to maintain an old age pensioner in an institution. Figure the hospital, figure all the service and food and everything else. And they've got to go somewhere else to apply for -- they've got to go to the public to apply for funds to subsidize in addition to the amount that the old age pensioners get and hand it over to the institutions. And then I understand the institution gives them five or six or seven or ten dollars for out of pocket expenses.
I don't think I could add any more. The other day, on Friday -- on Friday, I always glance at the Bible quotations and Bible messages in the newspaper and I read one there: "Heed, oh Lord, when I cry with my voice. Have mercy also upon me and answer me". My answer is to soften the hearts of the servants of the people in this Legislature.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote, declared the motion lost.]
MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.
The question before the House is the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Inkster, that this House request the Government to petition the Federal Government for an increase for all Old Age and Blind Pensioners in the province from $55.00 to $75.00 per month.
[A standing vote was recorded and the results were as follows:
YEAS: Messrs. Gray, Harris, Orlikow, Paulley, Reid, Schreyer, Wagner, Wright.
NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Boulic, Campbell, Carroll, Christianson, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Desjardins, Evans, Groves, Guttormson, Hamilton, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Miller, Molgat, Prefontaine, Ridley, Scarth, Seaborn, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Tanchak, Thompson, Weir, Willis, Witney.]
MR. CLERK: YEAS - 8, NAYS - 43.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.
Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party, and the proposed amendment of the Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne, and a further motion of the Honourable Member for Selkirk, in further amendment to the amendment as follows: That the amendment be amended: (a) by striking out the first paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the following: And whereas the number of insured persons have been continuously increasing with a relative decrease in the number of claims made against and paid out of the, the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund. (b) By deleting the last paragraph of the amendment and substituting therefor the following: Further be it resolved that the Government, after due study, give consideration to the advisability of increasing the maximum amount payable out of the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund and of increasing the minimum requirements under Section 140, subsection (4) of the Highway Traffic Act, provided, in the opinion of the Government such increases are deemed advisable in the interests of justice and humanity.
I might say that this amendment to the amendment is changed somewhat a little from that submitted by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, and I consulted with the Honourable Member for Selkirk, and the Honourable Minister of Utilities and the amendment meets both of their wishes and it appears to be in order. The Honourable Member for Selkirk.
MR. HILLHOUSE: No, Mr. Speaker, I've already spoken on this.
HON. B. P. STRICKLAND (Hamiota): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Souris-Lansdowne, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Pembina and the proposed motion in amendment thereto -- the Honourable Member for La Verendrye. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose.
MR. G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I would beg the indulgence of the House that this be allowed to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Logan, and the proposed motion in amendment thereto by the Honourable Member for St. Vital; and a proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. The Honourable Member for St. James.
MR. D. M. STANES (St. James): Mr. Speaker, quite independently, may I have the indulgence of the House to allow this matter stand?
MR. J. G. COBB (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this resolution moved by the Honourable Member for Rhineland, I would suggest three reasons why this matter should not be approved by this House at this time. Now, firstly, when the school legislation was brought in at the 1958 fall session, it was stated at that time, that it would not be perfect. And I would suggest that we have so far, not had an opporunity or enough experience to determine whether that matter of capital grants as outlined in the Act are doing a satisfactory job or not. I would therefore consider that we should see this legislation in action before we condemn it entirely.
Secondly, the Royal Commission's recommendations of not less than 12 classrooms for secondary schools before the capital grant would be increased from 40 to 75 percent, was not accepted by the government. But it was recognized that for improved secondary education, we
would have to get away from the one and two-room highschools that are so prevalent in the province, if we were to improve the uniformity and opportunity for each student in our province. As a result, the present scale of capital grants encourages the building of larger secondary schools in those points in each division that a secondary school will be beneficial to the area in which it might be situated in. I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in a majority of divisions where new classroom space will be built, that the majority of necessity, will come under the 66.3% grant for eight classrooms. I do not believe that any division will consider building less than a four-room school, and with the addition of an auditorium, laboratory and library rooms of the required size, they would then automatically qualify for the eight-room grant of 66.3%.
Thirdly, that from precedents set by the previous administration, the government would be unwise in extending grants applying to the new division plan to those areas not voting favourably. In the past, any area voting favourable to either the large school district or the secondary school district plans were entitled to special grants; which did not apply to any other school district in the province. And if those divisions voting unfavourably to the new plan had this properly explained to them so that they knew the full implications of what they voted for, they would then not expect to receive additional captial grants after a negative vote.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Speaker, for the last two sessions we've discussed this particular type of resolution quite fully; in fact, when the new amendments were offered to the Act at the special session. I for one took strenuous objection to this particular phase of the proposed bill. Now, I do believe that there is every sincerity on the part of the government to give equal opportunity to our children in the province, no matter where they are. But I do think that they are underestimating the value of this particular grant in bringing about that equality of opportunity. As an example, I can quote my own division, where at the present we have six secondary schools. From a point of view of geography itself, I don't think we will ever reach the stage where there'll be more than three secondary schools in that division. And it will be many, many years from now before we'll see 12 classrooms in at least two of those secondary schools. I've pointed out previously, and I wish to do so again, Mr. Speaker, that it is the poor, sparsely settled that is least able to pay for schools, and one of the important things in drawing good qualified teachers, are good physical facilities, whether they be a one-room, two-room, three-room or a twelve-room. A qualified teacher -- a good teacher -- likes to work under good circumstances and the classroom after all, means to him a place worthwhile working in. And if, in addition to all the other inadequacies of a sparsely settled area, you have poor classrooms because the district is not able, financially, to build good ones, then of course your equality of opportunity is just a farce.
Insofar as the present grant is concerned for anything up to five rooms, I say it is inadequate; and I say in fairness to the children of rural Manitoba, whom we are trying to help with this new plan, one of the ways in which we can do it is to assist the taxpayers to build good modern classrooms, and unless the grants are equivalent to those that are offered in large urban areas, equivalent to the twelve-room school, then we'll never see those same accommodations. I cannot see how you can argue that the large urban centres, who find it much easier to build twelve-room schools than some rural areas can build four-room schools in, how anyone can argue that that is equity, because it certainly is not. I feel that the government has made its decision, prefers to be obstinate; I'm quite sure they see the arguments in favour of this particular resolution but just feel that they are going to have their own way in the matter, immaterial if the argument goes against them or not. I want to repeat again that there are many divisions that will be a long time obtaining anything like a twelve-room school. The honourable member who has just finished speaking mentioned the fact that they are following the recommendations of the Commission. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of very important recommendations of the Commission -- just as important as this one -- were overlooked by the government, or they did not feel that they were justified in implementing them. If they could overlook some of those other important recommendations, certainly when the argument is so heavily weighed in favour of this particular resolution, they can also overlook the recommendation of the Commission in this respect.
MR. K. ALEXANDER (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, will the honourable member permit a question?
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Yes.
MR. ALEXANDER: You spoke a minute ago -- you said you were violently opposed. Why didn't you express that opposition just eight months ago at either the Select Committee or the Committee of the Whole House, when this Bill was being considered, just eight months ago?
MR. HRYHORCZUK: The opposition -- the opposition was expressed during the special session, when this Act was passed. It was also ...
MR. ALEXANDER: It was not.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: It was so. I spoke on this very particular point and on every occasion that we had this particular point was covered.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like, with the permission of the House, to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Health and Welfare, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead. The Honourable Member for Roblin.
MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to proceed with this resolution, but I would prefer that the Honourable the First Minister were in the House at the time that I move it, because it is directed in considerable part, toward him and his actions, so I am forced to as the House to allow it to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. Second reading of Bill No. 54. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. Order Stand. Possibly we could come back to that Order. Second reading of Bill No. 78. The Honourable Member for River Heights.
MR. W. B. SCARTH, Q.C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews, that Bill No. 78, an Act to amend the Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District Act, be now read a second time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, the same problem has arisen in connection with the Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District in regard to chairman of the meetings as arose with the Greater Winnipeg Water District. At present the Mayor of Winnipeg is the chairman of the board but in his absence the Deputy Mayor takes his place. The Mayor is often necessarily absent from meetings due to other activities and it often happens the Deputy Mayor is not qualified to give the necessary leadership to the meeting. It is therefore the desire of the district that they be authorized by this Bill to appoint a permanent chairman, to act in the absence of the Mayor, who is well versed in the board's business. Now as to section (2) of this Bill, I would like to direct, Mr. Speaker, the House's attention to the fact that the second section reads as follows: "This Act comes into force on the day it receives the Royal Assent but is retroactive and shall be deemed to have been in force on, from and after the first day of January 1959." I would report to the House that no deputy chairman has been appointed and that the latter part, the retroactive part of the Bill, can be struck out if so desired. However, it does no harm there due to the fact that no appointment has been made.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Will the House resolve itself into Committee to consider supply.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and asked the Honourable Member for St. Matthews to take the Chair.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: ... No. 3, (f) (7) is where we left off.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, there was certain information asked for by the Leader of the Opposition and I should like to give him as much of that information as I have at this time. The Leader of the Opposition enquired as to the geographical location of those persons who had loans and the municipalities from which they came. I'd be glad at this time to put on record the
46 municipalities to which loans have been granted. They are these, and I assume the record will be sufficient as they will appear in Hansard tomorrow. These are the municipalities: Elton, Minto, Sifton, Edward, Montcalm, Franklin, St. Francois Xavier, Morton, Whitehead, Arthur, Woodlands, Gray, Argyle, Albert, Tache, Brokenhead, Wallace, Fort Garry, North Cypress, North Norfolk, Strathclair, Pembina, Westbourne, Birtle, St. Clements, Dauphin, Riverside, Whitewater, Hanover, St. Andrews, Saskatchewan, Oakland, Lorne, Rockwood, Siglunes, Rosser, De Salaberry, Turtle Mountain, Strathcona, Dufferin, Gilbert Plains, Blanchard, Cornwallis, Morris, MacDonald, Shellmouth.
Among the applicants there have been 27 loans approved who were under 31 years of age. The 44 applicants were over 31 years of age. The average age of applicants was 37 years. The average size of a farm was 457 acres. Of those accepted, there were only eight where they included as security, livestock.
I should like also to place on the record the question of new projects in research. We got in touch with the University of Manitoba and we received this information from the man who is in charge as far as research projects are concerned. The list is somewhat lengthy and I hope the House will bear with me because these are the new projects as given to us by the head of the department, Dr. Shebeski.
New Projects:
And in Poultry:
New Projects in Beef:
Swine:
Dairy Cattle:
Sheep:
Soils:
Entomology:
Greatly Expended Projects: The others were new and these are greatly expanded:
Swine:
Poultry:
Soils:
Entomology:
This was the list which officials of our department secured yesterday from the University of Manitoba. We asked them for those projects which were new, and they assured us that these were new.
Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Bell, the Deputy Minister, got in touch by telephone with Mr. L. W. Piersol, who is chairman of the Agricultural Stabilization Board on Monday, July 6th, 1959 at 6:40 and he said in regard to this matter on which I was questioned -- "No plan stabilized -- stabilization board has been directed to work out a method for deficiency payments to be brought into effect as early as possible." That additional information I desired to bring forward for the benefit of the Committee.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Honourable the Minister for the information that he has given to us. I would gather that the report that he gave with regard to these projects that are new and the ones that are greatly expanded really belong over on Vote 31, Economic Research. Is that correct?
MR. WILLIS: Yes, that is correct.
MR. CAMPBELL: I am not at all complaining about my honourable friend having brought them up at this time because certainly I did ask for what ones were new. But the ones that I -- when I used the term, I asked that as growing out of his general remarks at the opening, at the introduction of the agricultural estimates. And at that time, although I'm afraid that the Hansard would show that there were a few more because I didn't likely get all of them down, at that time he had mentioned barley breeding, corn breeding, alfalfa, sweet clover, brome and Russian wild rye, oil seed crops, rapeseed, sunflowers, weeds, chemical control of wild oats, sugarbeets, winter grains, potato breeding, and I think some others because those are just the ones that I took down. And as I noticed the list as he was making his report, I asked
him what ones were new in that list because they all appeared to me as being ones that had been already under investigation at the University Faculty in co-operation with the Department. Now I quite appreciate the fact that the list that he has given us today will be new and extended ones. What I was asking him was if any of those were new and I notice none of them in the list that he has given today.
I think that is excellent work that they are doing in connection with the University and I have nothing but good to say about it. I presume that when we get to that estimate there will be some more discussion on it. But on this item that we are on now, Mr. Chairman, and by the way, I want to thank my honourable friend for the report with regard to the geographic distribution of the loans that have already been made. I take it that that totals 71 loans -- that's the 71. I won't ask my honourable friend for more information in that regard because he seemed to think I'd already asked him for enough, but I would have thought that when they were digging out that part of it that maybe they would have put the municipality and the number of loans in it because -- did the Minister say 46 in total? 46 municipalities?
MR. WILLIS: That's right.
MR. CAMPBELL: 46 and if there are just 71 loans, then it is evident that there is less than two loans per municipality on the average and from the list that the Honourable Minister has given us, there could have been -- I'd have to make a quick mathematical calculation to say how many from -- one from each of many municipalities and then the rest concentrated in one municipality, in a single municipality. However, I shan't ask him for anything further unless he happens to have that information. Is there a concentration or are they generally distributed?
MR. WILLIS: The most loans in one municipality is five, and they go all the way from one to five. Five is tops and the municipality is Gray.
MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you very much. That does seem to be a very good distribution, and certainly it sounded like one as the Honourable the Minister was reading them over. And I appreciate getting that information, I think it is useful.
The item that we are on, however, Mr. Chairman, is the distribution of weed control chemicals, and I was asking the Minister as we were about to rise last evening as to what the new or expanded policies were in that regard and he said that he had a rather extensive brief to present to us; so I presume that he is prepared to present that brief today.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if just before we go into weeds, if I understand the Minister correctly. He made reference to a statement that was made or a telephone conversation between Dr. Bell and an official at Ottawa, was it in reference to deficiency payments?
MR. WILLIS: That's in connection with the Agricultural Stabilization Board.
MR. PAULLEY: I wonder whether the Minister would either repeat that or give us a copy of that statement that he made. The latter would be preferable than writing it down, but I would appreciate receiving it.
MR. WILLIS: I will be glad to do that.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I had not commented on that one for the reason that there is an item standing in the livestock, under the Livestock Branch, one or two, and when we return to that one, I intended to go into this question. But certainly I would be glad to have that statement repeated or a copy of it.
MR. WILLIS: I would inform the Committee that the words which I shall now read are in regard to the proposed "Weed Control Program" for the Province of Manitoba. This is a proposal, and I want to inform the Committee that in no way has it been approved, but that it is now under discussion. It merely illustrates the fact that we did get together officials of the department, and they made rather detailed recommendations in regard to weed control within the Province of Manitoba, again not in any way approved by the government as yet. But it indicates, I think, the need for a policy and it indicates that the civil service of the Department of Agriculture had certain ideas which they desired to put forward by way of changes so far as the present policy is concerned so that there would be wider coverage and greater activity as far as the elimination of weeds is concerned. This was done at my request to them to come forward with suggestions in regard to a policy and this is it:
Weed Control Unit Area: - The suggested area size should include a minimum of 15 townships unless otherwise determined by the Minister. This area would be known as a weed control unit area. Municipalities combining to form such a unit would be responsible to supply suitable office accommodation plus necessary equipment such as filing cabinets, desks, telephone, etc., and location should be considered as well. General recommendations for a unit operation include:
Weed Inspector:
Term of Yearly Employment:
Weed Control Assistance Policies:
Persistant Perennial Weed Control:
That concludes the recommendations of the department for a new policy in regard to weeds and I again emphasize that this is the recommendation of the officials of the department which has not yet been considered by the government but will be considered very soon.
MR. CAMPBELL: I appreciate the statement that the Honourable the Minister has made. I take it by the place that this item now appears, that the weeds work -- the direction of weeds work so far as the department is concerned is now centered in the Soils and Crops Branch rather than being combined with the Weeds and Publications as it was at one time. And who is, the term that the Honourable Minister mentioned a little while ago, Chief of the Weed Branch? Is that a designation of one of the officials of the department?
MR. WILLIS: The Director of this department, that is the Director of the Soils and Crops Branch, is Mr. J. M. Parker.
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, I know that.
MR. WILLIS: And the Assistant Director who was formerly in the other department is Mr. Percy H. Ford, and the Weed Specialists are Mr. J. O. Forbes and Mr. J. S. Howden. They are the men who especially are in charge of weeds, even although there are several other soil specialists who as you know do a great deal of this work.
MR. CAMPBELL: But in the brief that the Honourable the Minister read, Mr. Chairman, there were several times references made to the Chief of the Weeds Branch. It's certain that the qualifications of the inspectors appointed to these units would have to be acceptable to the Chief of the Weeds Branch, and I think in his reading of them that -- I gather that he was allowed to set examinations and conduct courses and this sort of thing. What I wondered is, is that a designation of someone in the department? Is there a Chief of the Weeds Branch, and which one is he?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. J. O. Forbes.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Forbes would be the one who would be Chief of the Weeds Branch. I didn't get the facts from the program that has been suggested and I recognize what the Minister has said, that it has not yet been approved, so I think that as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't need to spend a lot of time on it inasmuch as it's not approved, it's just in the recommendation stage yet, but in these recommendations what is the recommendation with regard to the sharing of cost of these weed killers if we may call them that? Was that given in the brief?
MR. WILLIS: No, and I think it -- as far as the recommendation is concerned, that it varies, depending upon the policy of the particular section of it.
MR. CAMPBELL: Might I ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, what is the present practice with regard to the sharing of costs of these chemicals that are used for the control of weeds in general and particularly those hardy perennials that he spoke of?
MR. WILLIS: The soil sterilant chemcials like ... and ... for the eradication of a group of persistent perennial weeds and it's paid for and goes out to the municipalities at one pound to ten thousand pounds, seven cents; ten to twenty, six cents; twenty to thirty, five cents; thirty to forty, four cents; forty and over, three cents. Chemicals cost the government from twelve to thirteen cents a pound, so that they send it out at less than half of the cost of them, and that in general is the scale, depending upon how much of it that they buy.
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, I notice that the cost is estimated at $65,000.00 and the recoveries at $27,000.00. I had forgotten just the scale that was used. Could the Minister, and I think it's given in some of these publications, give us a report on how the Weeds Branch has been getting along, or the University or both, with the control of wild oats by spraying.
MR. WILLIS: I haven't got a report on it, but I was out there just a very short time ago and was discussing it with their officer and they are of the opinion that they can take wild oats out of everything but tame oats now and make a good job without damaging seriously the other grains, but it is still quite expensive. Their main object now is to try and see how cheap they can get it in mass production, and if they can cheapen it by mass production, they think it will do the job except where it is actually in oats itself. If they can do the job and -- but it's still the question of cost and they're working on that now as a special research program.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, I see that some of the brush along the highways are being sprayed. Is that done by the Department of Agriculture or through the Department of Highways?
MR. WILLIS: It is done by both.
MR. CAMPBELL: I think the -- excuse me -- I think more often -- I think the one that's done by almost most of all -- isn't it the Power Commission who -- or perhaps the telephones to keep the brush from interfering with their lines? I guess they all do some of it.
Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask the Minister about the pre-emergence tests for wild oats. Have those been developing satisfactorily and do they offer some promise too?
MR. WILLIS: I discussed it with the officials at the University and they assured me that all phases of the wild oat eradication were developing and showing definite progress, and all they were going to do now was to step them up a little bit, but at the moment, going back to the other question, their biggest concern now is to be able to produce them in large quantities.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Chairman, returning to the question of spraying the sides of roadways and highways to kill trees and shrubs. It just occurred to me, Mr. Chairman, that down on No. 10 the Manitoba Telephone System did some spraying this spring and they sure made a mess of the looks of the highway, because on one side of the highway the growth is absolutely dead as if a fire had gone through it, and when we think of the money we're spending to attract tourists because of the scenic beauties of our province, I think that this particular type of a program should be looked into very carefully because this stretch of road was a very beautiful stretch of road and it has absolutely been marred by having all the trees and shrubs along the roadway killed.
MR. WILLIS: I will speak to the Minister in charge.
MR. WAGNER: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable the Minister was speaking about 15 township weed control unit. What action has he intention of taking in disorganized territories? How will you expect to control the disorganized territories since you haven't got a township?
MR. WILLIS: We've not considered that nor have we a recommendation in regard to it. In the Department of Public Works we handle it reasonably well because there we take over the whole function and in that way it makes administration easier, but I don't know how we would do in connection with unorganized territory. We might form local committees there the same as we do in regard to municipal council. May I assure you in any event that we want to kill the weeds wherever they are because otherwise you spoil the whole picture, and certainly that would be taken into consideration.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, one can appreciate the investigations that the Minister and his Department is making as to new plans for weed control in the province. I must say that I was somewhat amazed when I first scrutinized the estimates to find that the Item No. 7, dealing with the distribution of weed control chemcials, still remained at the same figure that it was, according to my records that I have before me, at least a couple of years ago. According to last year's estimates, which shows the amount set aside for this particular purpose for the year ending March 31st, 1958, there was exactly the same amount of money, namely $65,000.00 and $25,000.00 that's in the estimates for this year. Now we all know in this House that the honourable friends to my right have been criticized because of the fact that they did not progress very rapidly ...
MR. CAMPBELL: Unjust. Unjust.
MR. PAULLEY: And we also do know ...
MR. WILLIS: You're doing all right.
MR. PAULLEY: I'm doing fine, eh? That's good. I'm glad the Honourable Minister thinks I'm doing all right, thus far, because after listening to the Minister the other day when he was talking of the progress in agriculture, and drew to the attention of the Committee where we were losing, I believe the figure was $5,000.00 an acre or it may have been $1,000.00 per farm, as a result of weed control. And because of the statement that has been made by the Minister of Agriculture of the loss with which agriculture is faced as the result of weed control and the presence of weeds, I was amazed to find that this item was not increased. Now again, as I said at the offset, I can appreciate the fact of the investigations and the suggestions that are being made, presumably by the Weeds Control Branch, and the outlining of the program under contemplation, but I cannot help but think of the statements that have been made by honourable members opposite, of how quick the Conservatives are to make progress, and it seems in this particular item that the rapidity with which they move is just exactly the same as that of my honourable friends who occupied the Treasury benches back in 1958.
Apart from that, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister, if he would be kind enough, to give us an outline of how the various chemicals used in weed control are purchased. Now I'm a great believer in co-operative buying and co-operative distribution. The Minister has told us that these chemicals are purchased at certain rates, and then in accordance with the volume, and I presume with which the municipalities purchase them, the price goes down. I would like the Minister, if he would be kind enough, to outline the policy of the department in the original purchase of these chemicals for distribution, and whether or not, and again this might smack a little bit of Saskatchewan, but again whether or not there may be some point in the government, if this is on a tremendously large scale, or a reasonably large scale, of the government itself investigating the possibilities of setting up a fertilizer or weed control processing plant of its own. I think the Committee would be interested in those aspects and as the Minister again -- as the Minister pointed out, as the volume of the weed control chemicals are used by the respective municipalities, so the net price goes down, and I'm wondering what the policy is on the original purchase and whether or not the government, even in its short period of time in office, and I can appreciate the difficulties that the Minister does have in this, has given any consideration to changing the original purchase policy of the former government.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, we believe that competition is the life of trade. We believe that by good competition we get reduced prices. We've always adopted a policy of open bidding as far as the government purchases are concerned. We've always had in regard to most products a very excellent price. I think that our philosophy is slightly different to that of the honourable member, and that we do believe in private enterprise, and we think that when you have private enterprise and good competition competing against each other, it's good for the people who'll produce it; it's good for the consumers and it's good for the government.
MR. PAULLEY: I would agree -- I would agree, Mr. Chairman, with the statements of the Honourable the Minister, but if memory serves me correctly, insofar as the chemicals which are produced for weed control, that competition isn't exactly as suggested by the Honourable the Minister, because if memory serves me correctly, that there is a great degree of control exercised by cartels or monopolies in the question of the production of these chemicals, and while I agree that as far as my honourable friend's philosophy is concerned it's sad to private enterprise, and he's perfectly entitled to hold that view, but I would suggest this, that in
view of the statement that is made of the tremendous cost as a result of a lack of weed control shall I say to the individual farmers in the Province of Manitoba, that it's sometimes advisable even for so-called free enterprise governments to overcome the control of other free enterprises, shall we say in matters of this kind. I think then it becomes a duty, if this is the case, and investigations that I have seen and read seems to indicate that, Mr. Chairman, but it's all well and good for my honourable friends to be the proponents of private enterprise and free enterprise, but when as a net result of that the cost to the individual farmers and producers who want to use this product is increased, then I think it's time for government to step in. Now then the Honourable the Minister mentioned about these chemicals being bought or purchased on a bid basis, I think it would be interesting to the Committee to hear from the Honourable the Minister the range in the prices of the bids that the government receives when it's in the buying market.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, of course the government during the year buys many millions of dollars worth of goods through the purchasing department at prices which would greatly surprise you in regard to the various products, and always the government buys -- the lowest bidder gets it -- direct competition. In my time here I've never seen it fail, that the lowest bidder got the purchase and we think that is a fair basis in regard to it. I know of many chemical companies and, therefore, I think there is reasonable competition as between the chemical companies. You in your philosophy have pointed out, that there's a lot of people use this, use these insecticides in the country and therefore we should go into that business. I suggest to you with equal logic that we all wear clothes too, but yet the government is not going into the business of manufacturing clothes, and I don't think it's likely to do that. I understand that your government in Saskatchewan, I have the authority now ...
MR. PAULLEY: It's not my government. This is my government ...
MR. WILLIS: ... Member for Rhineland, that they went into the shoe business too for a while, but I understand they got out of that hot-foot.
MR. CAMPBELL: And they almost went barefoot.
MR. WILLIS: ... and so there are differences in regard to that but it will suffice to say that we prefer the business of competition and bids from various people which get you a reduced price, and you keep a lot of people happy and they're able to live and have something to work for. They have goals to which they achieve, they're not just in one mould; and we could talk about this a long time and we wouldn't agree but I'd hope we'd still be on good terms in regard to it. We understand each other and at the moment we don't intend to go for socialism.
MR. PAULLEY: I appreciate the remarks very much, Mr. Chairman, of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. I agree with him that it isn't necessary or desirable that the Province of Manitoba should, for instance, go into the clothing business. I would say in respect of the shoe business in Saskatchewan that it was an ill-advised venture in Saskatchewan to go into that business and some of the other ones that they went into, and I think it's readily admitted by the Government of Saskatchewan. But I must hasten to add that on some of the industries that they did go into, Mr. Chairman, in Saskatchewan, it was to some degree picking up the loose ends of private industry in order to give service to the people of Saskatchewan, just the same as the Government of the Dominion of Canada had to come to the rescue of many private enterprises in the railway industry and form into one unit what we now call the Canadian National Railways.
But apart from that and getting back to weed control -- (Hear, Hear) -- I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, the honourable members don't object to the Minister of Agriculture and myself having a little tiff-taff insofar as this is concerned. It's been rather a dull sort of a session, my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition being on his toes three-quarters of the time with the Minister. However, getting back to the question of weed control, I think that in this, Mr. Chairman, there's a vast difference in the illustrations used by my honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture respecting clothing and shoes, because I think this is a service that is vital to all agriculturalists, and while I appreciate the fact, as the Minister has said, that the department takes the lowest bid when they're purchasing these chemicals, I still haven't had an answer from the honourable gentleman as to the bid range, and I would suggest a close scrutiny of it would be that the lowest bid was a, generally speaking, a uniform bid of all of them that are so-called competing in the weed chemical control business.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, briefly before you pass the item, I would -- I'll be very happy to show the honourable member bids in that regard just to give him the facts.
MR. PAULLEY: I'd be happy to see them, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WILLIS: ... because I haven't seen bids as you will know. We have a separate department but it is under the Department of Public Works. I'll be very glad to inform him.
MR. PAULLEY: We'll both go in blindly and take a look at them.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I would be unhappy because I rise once again to say that I don't approve of these arrangements that some of the Ministers, particularly the one whose estimates are before us now, are continually making with the members who ask questions -- if anything is going to be divulged, I believe, in it being put on the record here so that we all get it and not the honourable member himself go in to confer with the Honourable the Minister, and no doubt succumb to his wiles while he's there and never raise a question again. I think when these questions are brought up in here that they should be put on the record so that we all have the same information and the same answer. But arising out of the little dialectical discussion that the Honourable the Minister and the Leader of the C.C.F. Party had, I was listening quite carefully and I would like to ask the Minister if we're to take from the reply that he gave to the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, that it is his opinion that co-operatives are not private enterprise?
MR. WILLIS: That, of course, is a -- I don't want to get into that for the next three or four hours. I think some of them are and some of them are not, and it depends upon the individual and the individual co-operatives. Some of them I approve of entirely because it's like a partnership. -- [Interjection] -- Yes, yes, and very good. But let me, in all fairness, say that those of us who are not called socialists nevertheless deal in socialism. The Manitoba Telephone System is socialism. Hydro is socialism. The greatest example in this country is the Post Office -- now that's strictly socialism. But you have to draw a line some place as the Irish girl said when she refused to marry the Scotsman. And I draw the line just there and no socialism for insecticides.
MR. PAULLEY: It will come.
MR. CAMPBELL: I'm afraid from what we have just seen, Mr. Chairman, that the succumbing to the wiles is working the other way -- the Minister encompassing my honourable friend.
Mr. Chairman, rising out of the remarks that have been made by the Leader of the C.C.F. Party and I think not too sufficiently answered by the Minister, I think what we have to recognize in connection with this expenditure for weeds work in the department is that any sensible department and any group of experts who are working on weeds recognize the fact that the real control has got to come on the individual farms themselves. That's where control has to start and be effective because nothing that the department can do can take the place, or even to any small extent take the place, of the farmer himself. So that all the departments can do it best, and it certainly looks to me as though the proposals that have been made by the officials of this department to the Minister would constitute a pretty elaborate setup; one so elaborate, in my opinion, with the number of extra employees that it would mean and office space and office supplies and all this sort of thing superimposed upon the number of people that are already working in this field would probably be such that the municipal officials would be pretty doubtful about going into it. However, that can be discussed when the government itself settles on a program and decides what they are going to do. But even if such an elaborate program as that were undertaken, it is really mainly for the looking after vacant lands and road allowances and the very few cases where the farmer himself does not do a reasonably adequate job, because weed control, when the chips are down, really is the responsibility of the individual farmer. And the farmers in Manitoba, in my experience, are performing their responsibility in that regard better all the time. Certainly two or three things have helped them greatly. The development of these herbicides -- these various chemicals that are effective in controlling them. And then another thing working right with it, the mechanical improvements, because it's now quite possible for even the average farmer in Manitoba to spray 200 acres of crop per day and when they can cover an area of that kind and very largely in the one operation control some of the weeds that we used to consider the very worst weeds and completely control them with that one
operation, it's a very different job to what it used to be a few, even a comparatively few, years ago.
And then so far as the cultural practices are concerned, in the summer fallowing operation again the advances in mechanical equipment simply have made all the difference in the world. So just as I affirm completely that the greatly expanding expenditure that my honourable friend thinks should be put into effect by a government that is so anxious to pretend that it's doing something for the benefit of the farmers is not as necessary as he would imagine because of the fact that the farmers are doing the job so well now and are able to do it so much more efficiently because of both the development of the herbicides and the mechanical equipment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 7 -- Passed. Total, Soils and Crops Branch - $349,550.00.
MR. CAMPBELL: There's one item standing there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I'm coming back to that now.
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Into Agriculture 3 - (a) 3 - Livestock Promotion and Club Grants is the next item.
MR. CAMPBELL: No, there was an item standing in (f) -- [Interjection] -- Pardon? Salaries were standing, I think, in (f).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh! I thought we were finished with that.
MR. CAMPBELL: Pardon?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought we'd finished that.
MR. CAMPBELL: Well, we agreed to let one of them stand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that was No. 7 - we'd adjourned without it because you desired to speak and the Leader of the C.C.F. and we ...
MR. CAMPBELL: No, but previously to that, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: One was held for crop insurance, wasn't it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have every one marked passed, but the only one to stand as far as I'm concerned is the one up here at Livestock Promotion and Club Grants.
MR. CAMPBELL: Well, Mr. Chairman, I distinctly remember that I was raising the question once again on wondering it we could get some further information re crop insurance because the Honourable the Minister has been endeavouring to get in touch with the Federal Minister and I asked that some item, and I thought it was agreed to that it would be the salaries, would stand there. However, if the Minister is prepared to answer the question, the total of this item, it's quite all right with me.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): On page 623 of Hansard ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment please, the Minister is replying.
MR. WILLIS: I was just going to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wanted to keep one item standing for whatever purpose -- it would be all right, and let's agree on it and go on with the rest. I don't know what the purpose of the standing is, but that's usual and I don't object to it. As a matter of fact, we held temporarily according to my marking -- we held temporarily 3 in (3).
MR. CAMPBELL: That's correct.
MR. WILLIS: Livestock. And if you want to clear the page and hold that, that's fine with me and you can talk about anything you like.
MR. CAMPBELL: Personally I would prefer to leave that item standing and therefore the total of vote 26 because that will leave us open to discuss crop insurance as well, if some further information comes in.
MR. WILLIS: Is it agreeable then that we will clear the page but will leave 3 and (3)? Is that agreeable to you?
MR. CHAIRMAN: 3 and (3) -- Livestock Promotion and Club Grants and Salaries.
MR. CAMPBELL: That would be agreeable to me if it's understood that on the total we can revert to the crop insurance discussion.
MR. WILLIS: I so agree.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do I understand this right, that the crop insurance will be discussed under the total?
MR. WILLIS: If the Leader of the Opposition would agree, and I don't see why he wouldn't, if you'll agree on the final total to discuss your crop insurance, that would be fine.
MR. CAMPBELL: The total of Vote 26.
MR. WILLIS: Well, whatever total. Well, we've cleared it except for the total of 26. I would agree as long as you don't have half a dozen items around here. If that's agreeable then, Mr. Chairman, I think we have cleared all the items except that we hold the total -- meaning No. 26. Is that agreeable? We understand. Turn the page.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. VI - 4. Publications and Statistics. (a) Salaries - Passed.
MR. CAMPBELL: On the Publications and Statistics, the Minister mentioned in his general report that he was having a -- their work would be greatly expanded and that they were going to, as I understood him, issue more pamphlets and get a higher degree of efficiency in the statistics. Could he report on just what the program is in that effect in that regard?
MR. WILLIS: Yes. There has been a considerable enlargement and I'm just in doubts as to whether I haven't said it once before, but at your request and command, I will go ahead.
The first thing that has happened as far as our re-organization is concerned is that Weeds Branch was transferred to Soils and Crops, involving the transfer in that way. Then we have - No. (1), we have a statistician, R. B. Proud. He's reporting for work on October 1st and will be in charge of gathering, collating and interpreting agricultural statistics, conducting economic surveys and, in general, provide statistical information to the public. (2), we have employed now Mr. Vern McNair as radio and T.V. commentator and writer, who was with the C.B.C. and was formerly an Ag. Rep. with this department. He will provide a service to farmers and farm women of up-to-date information via radio, T.V. and press releases. We have also employed - (3), an agricultural information writer, Mr. Jack Giles. He'll provide a service to the press, radio, agricultural representatives, etc., by way of press releases, articles and up to the minute agricultural information. We have a position established which is not yet filled which is an agricultural editor writer who will gather material, write, edit publications, pamphlets, posters for the department for distribution by this branch to the farm and to the home.
Lest the Leader of the Opposition point out that some of the things I'm about to say now are merely expansions, I would say in advance that they are, although that which I've spoken of before now is largely new. Publications, bulletins, reports printed in 1958-59 - 50 publications, totalling 177,500 copies of which there were 23 revisions; 22 new publications; reports numbered 5 - West Lake Reconnaissance Soil Report, Agronomists Report, Whitemud Watershed Report and a special Farm Account Book. For 1959-60 these are the estimates as far as the work is concerned. Estimated revisions, 25; new publications, 30, including the following which quite a few were published before. Then there are special reconnaissance reports - Reconnaissance Survey of the Grandview Area; Soil Survey of a Cross Section of the Upper Nelson River Basin along the Hudson Bay Railway; Agronomists Report; Report of Crops and Livestock in Manitoba.
In regard to radio and the rest of it, much of which is new, I wish to report: tape recording equipment, both portable and stationary, for the recording of interviews for the purpose of supplying radio and T.V. stations with up-to-date agricultural information of a provincial basis. This service will be designed to supplement the existing farm broadcasts and not compete with them. Ultimately, a daily Manitoba Farm Broadcast on most radio stations will be undertaken.
Special cameras will be purchased. In the meantime, there is an increasing demand for short movies from 3 to 20 minutes in length which will be expanded. We will have special information service. This service was initiated in May of last year with weekly releases to staff, press, radio and television. Although short-staffed, 273 releases were made. One man now fully employed on this work. The average number of releases per week as of now - 12 releases per week. Consumer information - (1) press releases - approximately three are written each week for the daily and weekly press. (2) One weekly radio talk is prepared and delivered over the radio in co-operation with the C.B.C. (3) With the inauguration of a radio section, it is anticipated that daily tape recordings will be made available to those radio stations who will accept the information.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is 5:30 and I would leave the Chair until 8:00 o'clock this evening.
Page revised: 16 April 2012
