| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ||||
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| Page | ||
| Introduction of Bills ................................................................................................................... | 15 | |
| Nos. 7, 15, 16, 25, 33, 47. (Hon. Messrs. Johnson, Lyon, Boulic, Roblin and Mr. Scarth) | ||
| Proposed Resolutions, Committee of the Whole House .............................................................. | 15 | |
| Nos. 2, 4, 9, 32. (Hon. Messrs. Evans, Thompson) | ||
| Condolences ............................................................................................................................. | 18 | |
| Hon. Mr. Roblin, Messrs. Alexander, Campbell, Paulley, Prefontaine. | ||
| Questions ................................................................................................................................. | 19 | |
| Messrs. Gray, Hillhouse, Paulley, Guttormson, Shoemaker. | ||
| Rule 93, Suspension .................................................................................................................. | 22 | |
| Hon. Mr. Roblin, Messrs. Campbell, Paulley. | ||
| Speech from the Throne | ||
| Mr. Campbell ...................................................................................................................... | 24 | |
[Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker.]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions.
MR. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of ... and others praying for the passing of an act to incorporate Council 1107.
MR. SPEAKER: Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports of Standing and Select Committees
Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
HON. GEORGE JOHNSON, M.D. (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Provincial Secretary, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 7, an Act to amend The Old Age Assistance Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 15, an Act to amend The Interpretation Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. LYON (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 16, an Act to amend The Summary Convictions Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
HON. MARCEL BOULIC (Provincial Secretary) (Cypress): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Health and Public Welfare, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 18, an Act to amend The Companies Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
DR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Education, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 25, an Act to amend The Hospitals Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 33, an Act to amend The Insurance Corporations Tax Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. W. B. SCARTH, Q.C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Matthews, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 47, an Act to validate By-law No. 608 of the School District of Winnipeg No. 1, and the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Committee of the Whole House.
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider resolutions standing on the Order Paper in my name, two in the name of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, and one in the name of the Honourable the Minister of Labour.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House.]
MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member for St. Matthews take the Chair?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution No. 1, resolved that it is expedient—pardon me—
MR. EVANS (Fort Rouge): 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: Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish an authority to provide for the development of the natural resources of the province and the encouragement of industrial enterprises, and to provide, among other matters, for the employment of staff and payment of their remuneration.
MR. EVANS (Fort Rouge): Mr. Chairman, this is the resolution which introduces again to the House the legislation to provide for the Manitoba Development Authority. As honourable members will recall, many of them, the legislation was given first reading at the last session and introduced for second reading. It provides for an authority to safeguard the public interest in the development of natural resources and to interest capital and attract capital to Manitoba for the purpose of developing the natural resources.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, I think that there are no extended remarks required as far as our group is concerned on this resolution because as the Honourable the Minister has pointed out it was considered in the Committee stage last session—it was received there and advanced to first reading. I believe that I could not pose as an enthusiastic supporter of the proposal that is recommended here but in the meantime I have been chastened in the great fire of public opinion and if the public thinks that this is a good idea—apparently they have—then I have no objection whatever to impede its passage. I must say for the Honourable the Minister that he has been perfectly frank in telling all and sundry exactly what is inherent in this resolution. It always seemed to me that the department itself is set up to protect the public interest with all the boards and commissions and all the rest that we—the public servants that we have, that there isn’t any crying need for superimposing another body upon them, but I have stated my position on it before and I must say that apparently this has been endorsed by the public. The Minister has presented it now for the second time. As far as I am concerned we are quite prepared to see it pass.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat in the same position. We raised a question or two on its introduction at the last session. It would be superfluous for me to carry on any argument or debate at this particular stage, which may not be our privilege at that, Mr. Chairman. However, we await with interest the details of the Bill. As is well known in the Province of Manitoba and throughout all of the democratic nations, we of our party are principally interested in the development of our natural resources, to insure to the people who own those that it is developed in their interests and we wait with interest the propositions of the Honourable Minister.
[The resolution is declared passed by Mr. Chairman.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution No. 2.
MR. EVANS (Fort Rouge): Mr. Chairman, I move that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Department of Agriculture and Immigration Act by providing that moneys may be paid from the Consolidated Fund to assist students in beginning, continuing, or completing courses leading to a diploma in agriculture. The purpose behind this is to extend the kind of bursaries that have been available to students in the four-year degree course in agriculture to those who may be taking the diploma course of two years. I think it is generally recognized that farming is becoming complex now and that assistance and training of this kind is valuable to students in agriculture. The first course was a success; I think that some 112 students benefited from it. It is expected that larger numbers still will be able to benefit from this provision.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, this is another resolution which was introduced last year and it has to do with the advancement of agricultural education at the diploma level. We supported it then and we propose to support it now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the Resolution be adopted?
ASSEMBLED MEMBERS: “Aye.”
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution passed—Resolution No. 3.
MR. EVANS (Fort Rouge): Mr. Chairman, I move, Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Community Seed Cleaning Plant Loans Act, by providing for an increase in the amount that may be loaned from the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of assisting in the establishment of community seed cleaning plants. It has been found in the administration that exists now that the limit of $20,000.00 is low by reason of the fact that mainly the equipment,
the cost of machinery and equipment required in these plants has risen and for that reason it is expedient to raise the limit of the loan that may be made. Honourable members will recognize, those members of the Committee will recognize, that there is a limit placed on the loan which is not to exceed 50% of the cost, in any event, 50% or under the new proposal, $30,000.00, whichever is lower. Those are the provisions which will be found in this legislation.
MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Chairman, when this bill reached this same stage last year, you will all remember that this group supported the principle behind this bill and intends to support it again this time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All in favour.
ASSEMBLED MEMBERS: “Aye.”
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution carried. Resolution No. 4—Mr. Thompson.
HON. JOHN THOMPSON (Minister of Labour) (Virden): Mr. Chairman, the objectives of the resolution before us are to amend the qualification for a two-weeks’ annual vacation. We are giving a somewhat more generous treatment to the employees in that respect and we’re changing the system of stamps for vacation pay in the construction industry to a system of cheques issued by the department annually. The third item in the proposed bill simply gives the employee the benefit of any period on which he is on Workmens’ Compensation. Heretofor that period was removed from his qualification. We’re including that and he has the benefit of that period; it will be included in his entitlement to vacation pay.
MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Honourable Minister of Labour if this is the only resolutional change they propose to deal with on The Vacations with Pay Act at this session?
MR. THOMPSON (Virden): Mr. Chairman, yes, this is the only proposed resolution at this session.
MR. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, I was glad to hear the statement of the Minister which appears to me to be a lot broader than the actual resolution itself because, as I read the resolution, it simply dealt with bringing in a measure to amend The Vacations with Pay Act by abolishing the provisions of the vacation pay stamps. Now the Minister has gone beyond that to indicate that in the Bill there will be an extension or a reduction of the length of service which an employee must have in order to qualify for two weeks with pay and one or two other items. And I am sure that my honourable colleague raised the question on the basis of the resolution itself. We welcome the full explanation of the resolution as something which we of the C.C.F. have fought for for a good many years and will be giving very close scrutiny to your bill, Mr. Minister, to make sure that the provisions in there are those that have been sought by labour.
MR. CAMPBELL (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, if my recollection is correct, this resolution is in a different category from the other three, and I believe that it was not introduced at the earlier session. Is that correct?
MR. THOMPSON (Virden): Mr. Chairman, no, we hadn’t arrived at this resolution in the earlier session—in the former session.
MR. CAMPBELL (Lakeside): However, inasmuch as this is the resolution stage only, I think we would be content to pass it at this stage and await the legislation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour?
ASSEMBLED MEMBERS: “Aye.”
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution passed. Will the Committee rise and report? Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House has considered certain resolutions and requested me to report the same ...
MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member for Roblin, to report that the Committee of the Whole House be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. EVANS (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 2, an Act to facilitate the Economic Development of the Province.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. EVANS (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-
General, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 4, an Act to amend The Department of Agriculture and Immigration Act, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. EVANS (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 9, an Act to amend The Community Seed Cleaning Plant Loans Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. THOMPSON (Virden): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that leave be given to introduce a Bill, No. 32, an Act to amend The Vacations with Pay Act and that the same be now received and read a first time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, ...
MR. ROBLIN (Wolseley): ... would permit me to have the floor on the question of the Orders of the Day. There is one custom of the House that we are very careful to adhere to when a new Legislature meets and that is to bring into an affectionate remembrance the name of those members of the House or former members of the House who have died since we last met. And on this occasion I would like to refer to one gentleman, Mr. Frederick Young Newton, who was a member of this House in days gone by. I was not sitting in this Legislature when Mr. Newton attended here. I think perhaps the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, will be one however, and there may be others, who remember him very well.
He was first elected to the 13th Legislature of Manitoba and he sat on various occasions up until the 18th Legislature of this province, and certainly made his mark in the discussions and the deliberations of this Assembly. He also made his mark in the great contest of life. Mr. Newton can certainly be described with accuracy as one of the real pioneers of the Province of Manitoba. His life in this province extended over a period of 60 years although he was 89 years of age when he passed away. He made a reputation for himself, both as a man sincerely interested in public affairs on at least two levels of government in his home community which was in the Town of Roblin, and he certainly was a man whose name and reputation and works were widely favourably known by the residents of his constituency. Although I did not sit with him in this House I did have the pleasure of knowing him, and I can recall only too well some few years ago visiting the Town of Roblin and visiting Mr. Newton in his office and making his acquaintance. He was a very elderly gentleman at that time but I remember coming away with the impression of having met a vigorous, alert personality who, in spite of his advanced years, was sincerely and deeply interested in everything that was going on around him. He took a delight in politics and in political affairs and in all the activities of his community, and I couldn’t help thinking that I hoped that if I should reach his stage in life that I would be able to bring to it that same zest and that same appreciation which he displayed. I’ve had the pleasure too of knowing members of his family who are continuing in his line in public affairs and in taking their part in the life of their community.
Mr. Newton was a real pioneer in the Province of Manitoba, his record goes back to the real beginnings of the growth and development of this province. He served this House and the people well and on this occasion I would like to take advantage of the opportunity of moving a resolution of condolence.
I would like to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the honourable member for Roblin, the following resolution: That this House convey to the family of the late Frederick Young Newton who served as a member of the Legislative Assembly in Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereavement, and its appreciation of his devotion to duty in a useful life of active community and public service and that Mr. Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. K. ALEXANDER (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Honourable the First Minister for giving me the opportunity of seconding this motion as Mr. F. Y. Newton, as he was commonly known in the Roblin district, was one of the original pioneers of that district. He
came to the small settlement in 1904 and entered the district over the railway road bed from Grandview before the rails were laid into the small settlement of Roblin. He was the first member to represent the Roblin constituency when it was formed in 1914 and he served that constituency and his constituents well and faithfully for his long tenure of office. He continued to take an active interest in politics and his party during his entire life. Mr. Newton slept away the last few days of his life; he was awake however for a few minutes the day following this past provincial election when his son, Mayor Fred Newton of Roblin, told him that his party had won 34 seats the day before in this election. Mr. Newton smiled and said ‘that’s enough’ and went back to sleep. He passed away the following day. With his passing the Roblin district lost one of its old pioneers who by his initiative, his belief in hard work and private enterprise did so much to build and develop his district.
MR. CAMPBELL (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, as the Honourable the First Minister has said, I had the pleasure of sitting for one Legislature with the late F. Y. Newton. I came to know him very well and certainly he was the stalwart pioneer that the two honourable gentlemen who have preceded me have mentioned. He was a pioneer in more ways than one, and as the last speaker has said he was a strong defender of private enterprise and he showed that in his own case and his community it would work and he did very well by it. He was active, as the Honourable the First Minister has said, much beyond the allotted span of man’s ordinary years, and he continued to take a great interest in public affairs. I can understand that the communication that he received just prior to his passing away would certainly not hurt his feeling at all because he was a man who took both his likes and dislikes very much to heart and he was a forthright, aggressive individual. I’m sure that what my honourable friends have said is correct that he contributed a great deal to the community in which he lived. He’ll be remembered in this House I’m sure for a long time. My guess is that being the first member for Roblin constituency, he likely had something to do with choosing the name of the constituency, and because he was that kind of a man and I’m sure that he put his stamp of his personality on a great many activities in his own community and far beyond. Our group join sympathetically in the expression of condolences that are extended to his family.
MR. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I think of all the formal resolutions that are presented to this Legislature, there is none that strikes the hearts of all of us than these resolutions of condolences which is the custom to present near the opening day of the Legislature. I think, Sir, that irrespective of what political party we may be adherent of, we all recognize the value of citizenship and the contributions that one gives in his own way to his community and to his province. I did not have the honour of knowing the gentleman of whom we speak, but I’m sure from the words of the representative of Roblin and also from those of the Leader of the Opposition, that he must have been a very fine individual and I would like to associate the condolences of our party in the expressions of the two other parties.
MR. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure to sit with the late Mr. Newton, but I would like to recall the fact that his name was mentioned very often in our home in the years that my late father was associated very closely with F. Y. Newton. I possibly should not recall now, but maybe I should also, the fact that after the debacle of 1915 there were five Conservatives elected in Manitoba, four of them were Canadians of French descent, Mr. Parent, Mr. Bernard, Mr. Hamelin and my late father, and the other member was F. Y. Newton; and I remember very well that my late father mentioned in the home quite often that he thought very much of Mr. Newton and he was very pleased that he had been elected. My father was Leader of the Conservative group in the House for the period 1915 to 1920, I believe. I know he had some differences of opinion at times with Mr. Newton, but he considered him a very close friend and I am happy to recall this at this time.
MR. SPEAKER: Will the members please rise.
MR. GRAY (Winnipeg): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Health and Public Welfare? 1) Is the Honourable Miniser aware of the number of persons under the medical scheme for years who are now no longer acceptable? 2) Is the action of the medical health scheme in accordance with the Act? 3) What medical protection, if any, can those expect now from the Government or any other agency?
DR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member from Inkster was good enough to give me—to notify me that he would be asking these questions today. First of all, we
understand that these questions refer to the Manitoba Health Service or the old Manitoba Medical Service. Although I have—this department has no authority, or I’m not responsible for the actions of Manitoba Health Service, I have made inquiries to the Manitoba Health Service and any details which the honourable member from Inkster may require in addition to what I say in answer to his questions I am assured that these answers are available to all members.
Now, in answer to question one: there—they inform me there are 1,185 people which represents about one-half of one percent of the enrolment in M.H.S. who have reduced benefits under the Manitoba Health Services. However, they are still acceptable to M.H.S. for in-hospital care. They are just deprived of office and house calls under that arrangement. There is no limitation of services to them as I understand, in-hospital. The rate applied to this group for their in-hospital benefits is $1.75 per person per month, or $4.90 per family.
In the second question “is the action of the Manitoba Health scheme in accordance with the Act”. I understand that this is—I can’t answer that as it would be an expression of a legal opinion, and the—of course the M.H.S. have a contract with each subscriber.
And in question three: what medical protection can they expect now, I believe I have answered that in the reply to question one, that they still are covered for all in-hospital benefits.
MR. GRAY (Winnipeg): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? The Minister no doubt realizes that those affected now are those most needy ones. Where and how can they now obtain medical assistance when the people affected are not those in good financial conditions? That is the question.
DR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, my impression of my inquiries to M.H.S. do not bear out what the honourable gentleman has said, in that they tell me that in the person—the reason for this group—or these 1,185 persons being deprived of the—of the house and office call benefits was because in many instances the—this study has apparently been going on for many years and many of these people were not bonafide employees. Employer groups, as I understand it, have added certain people to their rolls in order to qualify for group benefits who were not qualified in that as employees. Number two, the percentage of total eligible people in certain groups is well below the percentage which the underwriting department had established, such as in a large firm in Eaton’s where—or some place where they may have 5,000 employees, they must have an enrolment of 75% to get a certain group rate; and thirdly, in many instances of dual coverage, where there—the M.H.S. does not—will withdraw when another company covers the same conditions for medical care.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the First Minister a question. Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity of advising him in advance of the nature of the question that I wish to ask, and if he finds that it’s inopportune to answer it now or that I’m unfair in asking this question of him in the House, I would suggest that he treat this as a Notice of Motion. The question that I have to ask is this, Mr. Speaker—What financial commitment, if any, did the Honourable First Minister, or any of his Minister, or any other person in the employ of the government with the First Minister’s knowledge, privity or consent, give or make to the Town of Selkirk prior to May 14th, 1959, regarding its water supply, either in respect of the installation of a softening plant; or in respect of the piping of Shoal Lake water to Selkirk; or in respect of any other matter or thing which would have as its objective the improvement of the domestic water supply in the Town of Selkirk?
MR. ROBLIN (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is never unfair. In fact I regard him as one of the most considerable members of the House, and I certainly will have no hesitation in answering his question. I think the answer is no guarantees or assurances or undertakings were given in respect to this matter. However, I would like to elaborate and say that what did happen was that we received a delegation from the Town of Selkirk, as we do from many other places in Manitoba, who presented this problem to us and suggested that in view of certain activities in the Provincial Government in their locality that it might be fitting for us to examine with them their problem to see whether there was a legitimate ground for assistance from the province. We readily undertook to make this examination and I believe that it is now underway.
MR. HILLHOUSE (Selkirk): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It would be incorrect then for the Conservative candidate in the last election to have put a sign above his committee room saying, “Duff says soft water for Selkirk”?
MR. ROBLIN (Wolseley): That’s an excellent sign. I think that’s first class. No, I don’t hink there’s anything incorrect with him putting that sign up. I certainly would lend my voice to getting a good supply of water for Selkirk—but what interpretation one places upon that sign is a matter for individual discretion.
MR. HILLHOUSE (Selkirk): Would the Honourable First Minister induce the Conservative committee in Selkirk to take that sign down, because it has rained every day since it went up.
MR. ROBLIN (Wolseley): Now that’s a question of which I will have to have notice.
MR. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I’d like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Labour. Has the Minimum Wage Board reached any conclusions insofar as the minimum wage rates for the Province of Manitoba? And if not, when will we expect a report from them?
MR. THOMPSON (Virden): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Minimum Wage Board lost its Chairman in the last few weeks. Mr. Williams had to retire because of ill health from that position and we’re in the process of naming another Chairman. I expect that the Board will be convening again with the next few days and that it should not be very long before we have the recommendations for a new minimum wage schedule.
MR. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, has a Chairman been named for the Board? And a further one, if I may, in view of the circumstances—have they to make another tour through the country to hear representations on the question?
MR. THOMPSON (Virden): The Chairman has not been officially named as yet. We are in the process of naming a new Chairman. It’s expected that we will be naming a Chairman outside the Civil Service on this occasion. Up until the present time, the Chairman of that Board has been a member of the Labour Department. We are making a departure in that sense in naming an independent Chairman from outside the department. Now the second question was—“Will they be making a tour?” ...
MR. PAULLEY (Radisson): To hear representations, Mr. Speaker, as throughout the whole of the province.
MR. THOMPSON (Virden): Yes, yes, they will be travelling and hear respresentations from various parts of Manitoba.
MR. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, if I may, then there is a little likelihood of any quick action insofar as the raising of The Minimum Wage Act in the Province of Manitoba due to those circumstances?
MR. THOMPSON (Virden): I don’t see any reason why there should not be quick action. I think before we leave this Chamber this summer that we should have done some definite positive recommendation.
MR. ELMAN GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I notice in today’s copy of Hansard that an index has been placed on the second page. I think this is an excellent idea and will prove of considerable assistance to all members of the House, and I hope that the Government finds it feasible to continue this practice with all future editions of the Hansard. And I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister responsible for the new idea.
MR. NELSON SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I wonder if I could direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister in the absence of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. The Speech from the Throne indicates that this Government intends to provide for a system of crop insurance. And anticipating that the legislation will receive the support of this House. Is the Minister prepared to say that the proposed crop insurance will be made available to the farmers to insure their 1959 crop? Now I’ve been prompted to ask this question, Mr. Speaker, by reason of the fact that just as recent as Monday of this week, I had one of the largest farmers in the Neepawa area phone me on this very subject because he, like many others in my area, are reluctant to buy hail insurance until they first hear about this plan.
MR. SPEAKER: The member’s question is not a proper one. The legislation has not been passed yet.
Orders of the Day. The Honourable the First Minister.
MR. ROBLIN (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, that during the present session of the House, Rule of the House No. 93 be suspended and that the tabling of reports or periodical statements, which it is the duty of any officers or departments of the government or any corporate body to make the House as ordered by any rules, orders and forms of proceedings of the House, or by the Journals or Statutes of the Province of Manitoba, be dispensed with.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. ROBLIN (Wolseley): In speaking to the resolution, perhaps I should in the first place read Rule 93 so that all members of the House will be aware of what it says, and it reads as follows: It shall be the duty of the Clerk to make and cause to be printed and delivered to each member at the commencement of every session of the Legislature, a list of reports or other periodical statements which it is the duty of any officers or departments of the government or any corporate body to make to the House referring to the act or resolution and the page of the volumes of the laws or journals wherein the same may be ordered; and placing under the name of each officer or corporation a list of reports or returns required of him or it, to be made and the time when the report or periodical statement may be expected. That is the language of the Rule.
And most members of the House will recall that we usually receive on our desks at the opening of the session this document here which contains a list of the returns that are referred to. Now the thought behind this resolution is very simple and, that is, that just a short while ago this Rule was complied with at the last session of the Legislature and all these returns and reports, etcetera, were laid on the table and members of each caucus did receive certain copies. Some of the documents, of course, are printed by the departments concerned for wide distribution and are still available. But it seemed to us that perhaps it would not seem amiss if we should regard the tabling that was done the last time we met as being adequate for this occasion as well, because there are no new documents that we would be presenting—it would simply be the old ones presented once again with all the procedure that is involved in preparing these documents and placing them before the House.
Now, I just want to be certain in discussing this matter that it does seem reasonable to members of the House, particularly those members who sit in Opposition. We have given those documents to the Opposition parties and I trust that they are still available to them in that way. And of course, if any of them are not, we would be glad to duplicate them if that was requested by a member sitting opposite. But if it was considered to be not unreasonable to dispense with this Rule at the present time, we would be glad to have the consent of the House to such a regulation. It’s not in any effort to avoid presenting any of this material, it’s our constitutional duty to do so. It has been done. We just advance the opinion that the once having done it, should be sufficient for this session as well. However, I do want to say that if there is any feeling on any part of the House of a substantial nature that this is not a proper resolution to proceed with, then the government would be happy to withdraw it, but we do place it before the House to find out if it does meet with reasonably general agreement.
MR. CAMPBELL (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I would say that as it appears to me, the request seems to be a perfectly sensible and proper one and I would think that likely the House would be quite willing to agree to the suggestion. I presume that what the Honourable the First Minister means is that all of the new members will, of course—efforts shall be made to give copies to them. I don’t suppose that I have so much to urge in that case as my honourable friends on that side of the House have because both my honourable friend and I are in the position—up until today—we expect two more tomorrow. But up until today, we have only the one each, but I think that of course the Honourable the First Minister will intend to see that all the new members get these documents.
Then there is one other suggestion that I would make. As the older members of the House are well aware, the majority of these reports are already more than a year old. They cover a period that is already more than a year past. A few of them cover the calendar year so they are not quite so out-of-date. It just occurred to me that even though we are quite prepared to pass the motion that the Honourable the First Minister has presented, it occurred to me that if any of the either annual reports or this current year’s report, the one that would be ordinarily due at a winter session, the one for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1959, if any of them should be ready—I know that it’s not usual for the departments to get them ready very much in
advance of ordinary session time. This isn’t ordinary session time, I understand. But if any of them should be ready by the time estimates are reached, I’d like to suggest to the Honourable the First Minister that they might present those to us if they’re available. That’s the only comment that I would have to make.
MR. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, as far as our group is concerned, we see no objections to this. I was very glad, however, to hear the First Minister say in respect of any of these reports which were tabled at the last session if they’ve become astray in the melee of the past conflict, that we would be able to receive copies of them.
And I would suggest to my honourable friend on my right that we in this group expect to achieve at least equality with them as the result of the vote which is being taken today and we’ll discuss that matter in the future.
MR. ROBLIN (Wolseley): Well, I’m not going to get into this competition of great expectations, Mr. Speaker. My expectations have been amply rewarded in the last little while so I’m just going to sit back and take it as it comes, as I’m afraid we’ll all must do with respect to the vote that will be tabulated tonight. However, regardless of the outcome of that, I appreciate the concurrence of the Leaders of groups opposite in connection with this resolution. I agree with the honourable the Leader of the Opposition that I don’t really expect any additional reports to be ready for this session but I’m sure the Ministers will do their best to bring the House up-to-date on important matters that have transpired since the reports were made.
With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think this does represent a reasonable approach to the problem.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion, the honourable member for Birtle-Russell for an address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to his Speech at the opening of the Session.
The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. CAMPBELL (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I would like my first words to be ones of congratulation to you on again being chosen by the House to the very highest position that is within the gift of the House. I’m not going to on this occasion talk at all about the scheme of my own that I am very interested in, that of a permanent speaker, non-partisan approach, independent action, and all that sort of thing, I simply say that inasmuch as the House has chosen you as our speaker I congratulate you on the very great honour that has been done you and I wish you the very best of health and success during the time that you occupy that position.
And I would want to say with equal sincerity to the honourable member for Birtle-Russell, that I’m sure that all the members of the House join in congratulating him on the very excellent address that he gave in moving the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. It’s always a pleasure to see young men of capacity and character come into this Legislative Assembly. I will confess that sometimes the pleasure of it is dimmed a little by the position in which they sit, but it’s good for public life as a whole to see young men of that capacity taking part in public life; and I was quite impressed—I say this sincerely—quite impressed with the excellent way in which this young member, and new member, performed the responsibility assigned to him. He followed the—what has become practically a tradition in this House, talking about his constituency and it’s a—it has got some very, very fine people in it. He did the thing that is sometimes a little dangerous, of picking out some for special mention and I know that—those that he spoke of deserved the tribute that he paid to them, and that he was speaking of them only as representatives of the constituency as a whole. I’d like to say that if it hadn’t been for the young man’s modesty, which is apparently one of his many good qualities, that he might very well have added the name of Smellie to the list of distinguished families in that community who have made a great contribution to it and to the constituency and to the Province, and judging by the start that the representative of that constituency and that name has made here, I think that he’s going to be very worthy of both traditions.
In the case of the honourable member for Springfield, I have had the opportunity of knowing him for a good many years and I am delighted to see him in the Legislative Assembly too, for I am sure he can make a worthwhile contribution. I’m glad that he’s sitting on this side of the House. I wish he were sitting a little further along this way, but regardless of where he sits, I know that he has both the ability and the experience to make a worthwhile contribution here. And certainly yesterday he gave us a demonstration of why I’m not very popular in this Chamber—I’m going to, I’m afraid, give a demonstration of why I’m not very popular in this Chamber—because he was so unusually brief. However, he packed a lot of material into the brief address that he gave. I can’t quite share with him the pessimism that he expressed about conditions in his constituency previous to the present Government taking over, nor can I endorse the optimism that he displayed about how things are going to pick up from now on, but even with those very slight qualifications I can compliment my friend on a very excellent first appearance here.
Then I do want to say quite sincerely, if not enthusiastically, that I congratulate the Government as well. It’s a great thing—an experience of recently that I did once or twice—it’s a great thing to have the confidence of the public shown in you the way this Government has on this occasion. I congratulate them and I think they deserve congratulation for the fact that they have a great opportunity to serve a very fine province. There’s just nothing that I have to say with regard to the election. The Honourable the First Minister said just a few minutes ago he hasn’t any complaints about the situation. I haven’t either, because the public has spoken and that was one of the things that I was advocating at the time we met here three months ago, that the public should be asked to decide this question and that was done, and they have, and that seems to be the answer to that particular situation. I cheerfully accept their verdict, although I might issue my usual complaint and warning that it seemed to me, as an unprejudiced observer, that the members of the government itself, and the supporters, indulged in promises that were a bit enthusiastic, a little exaggerated, yet that seems to be not uncommon in election these times. I hold no ill-will either personally or collectively, and so far as our group is concerned, our party in this House, we will try and perform to the very
best of our ability the traditional roll of the Opposition, which I esteem to be, to speak our minds upon the questions and to present our point of view with force and with vigour, and with fearlessness, but not to obstruct the implementation of legislation, particularly that legislation which seems to have been endorsed by the public themselves. I think I must say as far as the program of the Government is concerned, that because of the special short session that we went through, that the program has been quite well put before the public of the Province of Manitoba and their answer so far as I am concerned is decisive. Not only will we not attempt to obstruct, but as far as I am concerned I’ll attempt to do what I have done in the past, and where it appears the public have rendered their verdict upon particular matters and upon particular pieces of legislation, we will even try to improve them when they’re presented to us.
I mustn’t finish with the congratulations without saying another very cordial word of congratulation to my honourable friend the Leader of the C.C.F. party. Our juxtaposition geographically here, I’m sure, does not mean that the two groups have come any closer together in spirit, and though I can’t claim to be a supporter of my honourable friend’s policies and programs, and I disagree very definitely with him and with his party and the approach to a lot of the public issues, yet I have a very high regard for the individual himself. I think he has done a very sincere, a very capable job of representing his own point of view and his party’s point of view in this Legislative Assembly, and I am sure he will do a good job as leader of the party. And having dealt with some congratulations, I am going to indulge in no condolences. I know that the C.C.F. have lost a couple of members that they will be sorry to have missing—all of us will be sorry, I’m sure—and certainly the same applies to some of my colleagues of former years too, but I think there is no point in us dealing with those subject matters at the present time, and instead that we need to copy a phrase that seemed to be quite popular a short time ago—‘we need to get on with the job’. Well we’re quite prepared to do that and so let’s go ahead from that point of view.
Now as far as getting along with the job, I’m not going to take the time today to go through the Speech from the Throne clause by clause, or even policy by policy, because I think there’s no great need of that—I am sure the government will agree that to an extent, which is proper too, quite proper, that it is largely a repetition of the Speech from the Throne which was put before us a bare three months ago and that was correct that it should be, I think. So that it has been already to quite an extent considered by members of the House, there’s no need of me reviewing it now because it can be—with the exception of a few highlights that I would like to mention almost in passing, because all of the measures that are foreshadowed there can be discussed when they appear before us in more substantial form.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take the time now to develop my views with regard to the permanent speakership, but I think that is a matter of such importance, particularly perhaps to the new members who have not been here to hear the debate up-to-date upon it, that we should have some discussion on it later on, and I hope to see that that discussion is initiated at a more appropriate time. I am even prepared as far as I am personally concerned to leave a discussion of Manitoba’s primary industry of agriculture to a later date—to when it comes up on the estimates or the budget or both and to develop our views with respect to the agricultural situation at that time. And so I can deal with—I shall deal with—only a very few matters and those quite briefly, because I think that when they come before us in the form of legislation that they can be more fully developed at that time.
In the Speech from the Throne there are one or two matters that I would like to call attention to very briefly, the first, with regard to the highways program. I am sorry that the Honourable the Acting Minister of Public Works is not in his seat, but I am sure that one of his colleagues will make a note of this for him. Near the bottom of page 5 in the Votes and Proceedings No. 1, the speech points out that up to the end of May contracts had been let, representing work on 1,200 odd miles of roads and their ancillary structures at a cost of 19 million dollars odd. That’s up to the end of May but I would like to ask so that the arrangements can be made to get the information to us at an early date—to the end of May, but FROM WHEN? Is that from when the present government took over, or is it from our fall session or from what date is that amount of money arrived at?
I think perhaps it is a fact, and I would appreciate it if the Ministers concerned would
check on this matter at their convenience, that some questions that were asked, some orders for return that were made, had not been delivered at the time that the House rose at the last session. If any of those are outstanding I think it would be advisable to get them in as soon as possible so it might cut down the number of questions that we would have to ask more recent.
On Page No. 6 we have the statement of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, authorized under the Agricultural Credit Act, is now in operation and action is being taken on loan applications. I would appreciate knowing, and I am sure all the members of the House would, how many loans have actually been made, and what is the amount of money that has actually been disbursed to the borrowers? And if it’s not too much trouble we would appreciate knowing how this is divided as between young farmers—I won’t say old farmers—but young farmers and other farmers.
Then a few paragraphs down, the very potent statement that the Honourable Member for Gladstone has mentioned—‘my government intends to introduce legislation to provide for a system of crop insurance to co-ordinate and supplement the crop insurance proposals of the Government of Canada’. I am sure that all the members of the House would like to know just exactly what has been done in that connection because, as the honourable member intimated a few minutes ago, that’s an extremely important question, and we would like to know where arrangements are between the Federal and the Provincial governments, and quite frankly I must admit that I have not recently been keeping up with the situation at Ottawa. I believe the legislation has been introduced but I am not yet familiar with it. We would like to know what’s been done so far as the Province of Manitoba is concerned.
I think I’ll comment on no other matters on the Speech from the Throne at the moment. I have always been intrigued by statements such as that one at the bottom of page 6 where we’re told that—“In the field of Natural Resources, my Government is placing strong emphasis on determining the extent and value of our resources, how production of those now being utilized may be safely increased and how others may be brought into production to the greatest advantage of the public interest. To this end, scientific and engineering studies are required, access must be provided, regional economic studies have to be made”. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I consider that to be pretty much verbiage, but my honourable friend the Minister of Mines and Resources likely doesn’t agree with me, and we’ll await with pleasure an explanation of just what that means.
Now I can’t conceive of just what is involved in the way of public expenditure in all of these matters that are propoesd here. I don’t know, and until we have more details, we can’t even make an estimate of what crop insurance may mean financially to this province. I hope that the Federal Government legislation is going to mean, that it is, that the Federal Government is prepared to enter into a partnership arrangment with any single province that wishes to join in crop insurance, and I hope that they also intend to make financial contribution because it is my view that it will not be successful otherwise. It’s my view that the province dare not go it alone in crop insurance; that it must have Federal participation, and that the Federal participation must include financial assistance, and I think that under those terms that the Province of Manitoba can, with propriety and with safety fiancially take part in a program that will be of benefit to the farmers. But if the Federal program does not include financial assistance, and I’ve seen rumours that I admit are no more than rumours, to that effect, then I think it will be very difficult for the province to act effectively in that regard. Even if the Federal Government does all that we hope, the financial commitment of the province might be considerable and there might be quite a financial commitment in some of these other measures as well. But what we do know, what we do know as we consider the Speech from the Throne, the very policies that are enunciated therein, what we do know is that there are definitely going to be major increases in those already high spending fields of education and welfare and health. No question about that. There is going to great increases there and potential increases in these other fields as well. And so that brings me to what might be called my central theme and I think it’s usually my central theme in any discussion of this kind.
That brings me to the discussion of the financial affairs of this province. And even there, even there I am going to be unusually brief because I recognize that that discussion
can most appropriately come at Budget time. But I do want to intimate once again my opinion that I think the essential point of difference between the present government and its predecessor was this one with regard to financial policy—and to me that’s very, very important. Now I know that it can be said by the present government that the public has spoken with regard to this, too—and that’s quite true. The public has spoken, the majority has supported the government, and I for one am prepared to assume that the public knows what it’s doing. Apparently the public believed what the spokesman of the present government told them,—the public didn’t believe what we told them, judging by the votes of the public,—and the public is certainly boss, the public has a right to choose,—and so we were wrong for the time being—and we’ll remain wrong, we’ll be wrong in the future as well if this government can fulfil its promises. I believe that the public had a feeling that this government could fulfil its promises—and if it can then I am prepared to say that we will remain wrong. We just didn’t call the turn properly, if it is able to fulfil those promises. And what were those promises? Well, it promised these greatly increased services. No doubt about the increases that were promised in education and in welfare and in health, they are already extremely costly. And it promised these other services with an unknown price tag attached to them. And it promised them so far as the public mind is concerned, it promised them without any increase in taxes,—and we’ve already had some increases in taxes. I know that my honourable friend, the First Minister, can say, and he can point to the record to bear himself out, he can say that he said “no increases in taxes at present, or no increases in taxes this year”. That’s what the public thought he said. I don’t think the honourable gentleman made any attempt to correct the public in this regard; what the public thought he said was “no tax increase”.
He didn’t go as far as his erstwhile teacher at Ottawa did. He didn’t promise the two things that Mr. Diefenbaker did. Mr. Diefenbaker had promised greatly increased services and a decrease in taxes. I’m not holding my honourable friend responsible for that. I don’t think he ever indicated that,—but he did indicate the increased services and no increase in taxes. Now if that can be done, then I am prepared to admit that we were wrong. But can it? That’s the question. Can it be done? I don’t very often quote the newspapers in this House—if I quote them I don’t very often quote the Tribune, but I got a Tribune yesterday because when the session is on we’re supplied with them free, and I want to get value for the public expenditure of course, so I looked through it. And here on the editorial page I came across this here editorial—so out of character for the Tribune, so apropos of the present times that I think it would be proper to read it, from yesterday’s Tribune, June 10th. The heading is “two years late”—no, I believe it is “two years later”, I think there is intended to be an ‘r’ there. Two years late or two years later. “Two years ago on June 10th, 1957, the Conservative Government came to power at Ottawa. One of the major features of Tory election campaign was an attack on the Dominion-Provincial financial arrangements which the Liberals had concluded with the provinces the year before. Conservative spokesmen branded the arrangement as dictatorial and charged that it placed the provincial governments in a financial straitjacket. They promised that if a Conservative regime were returned to power a completely new Federal-Provincial financial agreement would be worked out. But two years later by a vote of 168 to 0 in the Commons the old Liberal arrangement was approved for another year. The only difference that had been made by the Conservative administration was to increase from 10% to 13% the amount of income tax shared with the provinces. A conference is scheduled for July to begin a thorough revision of the responsibilities and financial resources of the different levels of government. Actually the delay in revising the Dominion-Provincial agreement is understandable. When the conservatives were campaigning for larger handouts for the provinces they did not expect to run into a period of recession and deficit financing. But what has happened again emphasizes the risks of making sweeping campaign promises.
I suggest to my honourable friends opposite that they face that risk now because they made sweeping campaign promises—two campaigns—and they now have a program that I’m sure that they intend to implement. They now have the majority to implement—there’s no doubt that they intend to see it through. As a matter of fact they do not need, in the way that they did when we last met here three months ago, the co-operation of the opposition in the way that they needed it then to implement their program, because at that time it could not be implemented without the support of one or the other of the groups on this side of the House.
Now they can implement it even if neither of the groups on this side were prepared to support it. But that’s no reason, in my opinion, why either of the groups on this side of the House should try to hold up the program that the government intends to implement. Because I think that even though it would be possible for us to delay it considerably that there’s no point in doing so, because I believe that that program in general terms has been endorsed and the right thing to do is to have it put in. If we’re going to put it in then we’ve got to give heed to how it’s going to be paid for. That is the point that I think my honourable friends are going to remember. The considerations that are brought out in the editorial that I just mentioned.
Now I’m not here to talk about Mr. Diefenbaker’s failures because I know he has had great difficulties to contend with. But I certainly remember how we went down to Ottawa when I was heading the delegation from Manitoba, expecting that we were going to get something substantial so far as the Federal-Provincial tax arrangements were concerned. And we got absolutely nothing at that time and that’s twenty-one months or so ago now. Since that time there has been no resumption of that conference at all. And one of my complaints against the government has been that while they’ve been very active—and I give them credit for being very active—while they’ve been very active and while they haven’t had too long, I admit, they have not been active so far as the public is aware. They have not been active in pressing for a resumption of that conference. Oh yes, it’s true, it’s true that the Honourable the First Minister told us that he was pressing for it. He was urging it. He told us last fall that he expected that it would be convened by the time that the present agreement ran out. And that was in March that is now past. He told us in March that he was still pressing for this conference. And I realize the fact that my honourable friends have been very busy, but I think they have been busy at things that are not anything like as important as the resumption of that conference and we should have had some definite action on it now. And it’s all very well for my friends to say that that’s up to the Federal Government, it’s all very well for them to point out as Mr. Diefenbaker himself has pointed out, that the purse of the Government of Canada’s not unlimited either. And I understand that is what Mr. Diefenbaker did to the Union of Mayors and Federation of Mayors and Municipalities when they met there a short time ago. And I can quite understand the position that Mr. Diefenbaker’s government has been placed in. I can see the difficulties that he faces.
But I’m sure that this government is going to face similar difficulties as it should have been on the job before this to see that the financial arrangements to put into effect this program that it must put into effect in order to keep faith with the public of Manitoba, are there to meet the commitments. And how can those commitments be met? It seems to me there are only a couple of possible ways. Certainly the services are going to be expensive—that part of the promises will be implemented, I’m sure. But without any further taxation—that’s the one we want to be sure of. We’ll of course have much more discussion on that point when the Budget comes along. But as I see it there are only a couple of ways in which this can be done. They can subsist for a short time—perhaps they’ve been doing that already—on the reserves that were built up by their predecessors. That’s not a sound solution for very long. If we should be so fortunate that the economy of the province is so buoyant that the increased economic activity keeps pace, or more than keeps pace, with the increased expenditure, then that promise could be implemented. I would think that it would take quite an optimist to believe that that is likely to happen. If it does, we’ll all be very happy. The only other way that I can see is for the government to get an increase in the returns from the Federal-Provincial taxation agreements. That I think is the one that they should have been working on. Borrowing won’t do it. There’s been quite a bit of discussion I notice in the Press, with regard to borrowing. But borrowing won’t implement that promise, because even if you do what the Federal Government has been forced to do, and borrow to meet current expenditures—that in itself, particularly at the high rates of interest that have to be paid now,—that in itself immediately raises taxes. So I think that’s no solution, and I believe the only one that offers any immediate help to my honourable friends is to get assistance from where they can properly turn to, and that is from the Federal-Provincial tax rentals.
And that’s why, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues and I attach such great importance to this question. The conference that is proposed, in my opinion, is simply not good enough.
If every province had, as this one has, the First Minister of the Province as its Provincial Treasurer, then it would be a worthwhile conference. But certainly when they are not in that position—I don’t know whether there are any others that now have—unless it may be B.C., when they don’t have their First Ministers at the conference, I’m sure that it will not be productive as we would want that conference to be. I can’t, of course, tell you why it hasn’t been held sooner, but I have the same opinion that I expressed in this House earlier, that I believe that the First Minister of this Province, as well as the First Ministers of some other provinces, who were facing elections at that time, felt that it would be better for them to have a decision with regard to that conference withheld until the elections were over. I don’t think there’s much doubt about that, but again I say, “let’s get on with the business of Manitoba”, and let’s have the conference because I believe that other election will be over today. And I’m sure that the First Minister will likely say to us that he has urged the conference, he has pressed for the conference. He’ll probably even tell us or show to us the correspondence dealing with the matter, but if there’s been some correspondence, the public should have been told about it, so that they would know what’s been done. In the meantime the conference hasn’t materialized—I think that the fact is that in the fiscal year just ended, that the amount paid to Manitoba under those tax rental agreements was very, very close to the estimate that our government had made at the time that we prepared the estimates of a year ago, and that was in the neighborhood of two million dollars less than the Federal Government had themselves told us they expected it to be. So that it has not lived up to expectations, and I think the situation is quite unsatisfactory.
So, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I feel that this most important matter should be put in record here even in advance of the discussion of the Budget, where it will, of course, receive much greater attention. It is therefore my purpose to move, seconded by the honourable the member for Carillon, that the following words be added to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, “This House regrets that Your Honour’s Government has failed to effectively advance Manitoba’s just claim for a substantial increase in our rentals under the Dominion-Provincial taxation agreements.”
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition, seconded by the honourable the member for Carillon, that the following words be added to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne: “That this House regrets Your Honour’s Government has failed to effectively advance Manitoba’s just claim for a substantial increase in our rentals under the Dominion-Provincial Taxation Agreement.” Are you ready for the question?
MR. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member for Seven Oaks, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until Friday afternoon at 2:30 o’clock.]
Page revised: 19 December 2009
