| 49 | 50 | ||||||||
| 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
| 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 |
| Page | ||
| Introduction of Bills ........................................................................................ | 49 | |
| Nos. 31, 30, 49, 58 | ||
| Mr. Johnson (Gimli), Mr. Ridley, Mr. Prefontaine. | ||
| Statement, Flood Situation. Mr. Roblin ........................................................... | 50 | |
| Question, Mr. Orlikow (Mr. McLean) ............................................................ | 51 | |
| Statement, Polling at Thompson. Mr. Roblin ................................................... | 51 | |
| Questions, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Molgat. | ||
| Question, Mr. Reid (Mr. Roblin) .................................................................... | 52 | |
| Second Reading of Bills | ||
| Bill No. 4, re Department of Agriculture and Immigration Act. ........................ | 52 | |
| (Mr. McLean, in absence of Mr. Willis). | ||
| Bill No. 7, re Old Age Assistance Act (Mr. Johnson) ..................................... | 52 | |
| Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Gray, Mr. Guttormson, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Campbell ... | 53 | |
| Mr. Schreyer, Mr. Paulley ...................................................................... | 54 | |
| Mr. McLean, Mr. Campbell ................................................................... | 55 | |
| Mr. McLean, Mr. Campbell ................................................................... | 56 | |
| Bill No. 9, re Community Seed Cleaning Plant Loans Act ............................. | 56 | |
| Mr. McLean, in the absence of Mr. Willis. | ||
| Bill No. 15, re Interpretation Act. Mr. Lyon ................................................. | 57 | |
| Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Lyon ........................................................................ | 57 | |
| Bill No. 16, re Summary Convictions Act. Mr. Lyon .................................... | 57 | |
| Bill No. 17, re Bounties. Mr. McLean, in the absence of Mr. Willis .............. | 57 | |
| Mr. Campbell, Mr. McLean .................................................................. | 57 | |
| Bill No. 19, re Civil Servants’ Group Insurance. Mr. Boulic .......................... | 57 | |
Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Roblin, Mr. Campbell ...............................................| 58 | | |
| Bill No. 21, re Municipal Boundaries. Mr. Thompson ................................... | 59 | |
| Bill No. 22, re Local Government Districts, Mr. Thompson .......................... | 59 | |
| Mr. Molgat ............................................................................................ | 59 | |
| Bill No. 25, re Hospitals Act. Mr. Johnson (Gimli) ....................................... | 59 | |
| Bill No. 28, re Blind Persons’ Allowance. Mr. Johnson ................................ | 60 | |
| Bill No. 29, re Disabled Persons’ Allowances. Mr. Johnson ......................... | 60 | |
| Bill No. 33, re Insurance Corporations Tax. Mr. Roblin ............................... | 60 | |
| Bill No. 36, re Post War Emergencies. Mr. Roblin ....................................... | 60 | |
| Mr. Paulley, Mr. Roblin ......................................................................... | 61 | |
| Speech From the Throne, debate. Mr. Peters .............................................. | 62 | |
| Bill No. 46, re Winnipeg S.D. No. 1. Mr. Scarth ......................................... | 65 | |
| Mr. Campbell, Mr. Gray ....................................................................... | 65 | |
| Proposed Motion, re Old Age and Blind Pensioners. Mr. Gray ................... | 65 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
[Hon. George Johnson (Gimli) introduced a Bill, an Act to amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act. ]
[Hon. George Johnson (Gimli) introduced a Bill, No. 30, an Act to amend the Anatomy Act. ]
[Mr. M. E. Ridley (Pembina) introduced Bill No. 49, an Act to amend The Brandon Charter. ]
[Mr. E. Prefontaine (Carillon) introduced Bill No. 58, an Act respecting the Town of Steinbach. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I’d like to make reference to a certain little pink card that I find on my desk today, announcing a very important event. Under the present circumstances I feel something like the Patriarch Noah. When he was sailing on the unknown waters he sent forward a dove to report on conditions abroad. That dove reported all was well by bringing back an olive branch in its beak, and under the present circumstances I feel that the Attorney-General is my dove, whom I sent out to explore certain waters that are unexplored by myself but I understood - stand very familiar to the Honourable Leader of the Opposition and to some others here -- but I am sure that we would all like to join in congratulating him on this very happy event and to say that we wish Mrs. Lyon and the new daughter of our Attorney-General every good wish from this House.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join very cordially and sincerely in the expressions of congratulation that the Honourable, the Leader of the House has moved in the direction of the Honourable, the Attorney-General. We -- it’s true that we do acquire through the years here certain privileges as well as immunities, and one of them seems to be that on occasions of great rejoicing that some form of celebration is indulged in, and I trust that on behalf of my Honourable friend, the Attorney-General, and others in the House, that we will have many more occasions under which we will be presented with a little memento of a very happy event. However, for the sake of the non-smokers maybe we should establish a committee to decide what form of recognition should be tendered to those who are non-smokers, because I understand that we’re going to be having this kind of an occasion pretty regularly from now on, and I don’t like -- with the name I have -- I don’t like to -- to - not to be able to share in some of the fun, some of the time. However, the congratulations we extend to the Honourable, the Attorney-General and to Mrs. Lyon and to the new arrival are very cordial and sincere.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in congratulations, not to my Honourable friend the Attorney-General but rather to Mrs. Lyon in the birth of Nancy Jane. Now, I don’t know how it is that such an active man will find the situation at home -- it might be that as a result of the coming of Nancy Jane, that his homework will be increased to such a degree that the First Minister may lose some of his efficiency here in the House. However, we join in wishing the new arrival, and both Mamma and Pappa the very best. Now, speaking of the cigars, I’m very glad to know that it is a "House of Lords" cigar rather than an inbetween, and we thank the Attorney-General very, very much.
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed on this rather signal occasion for myself to answer some of the very kind remarks that have been made, I think it’s a -- this is one of those occasions when we can digress from flinging abuse as we sometimes do across the way and we can share in an occasion, I’m quite happy
to have the House share in this occasion with me. It’s rather the signal occasion for us, of course, being our first. I want to assure the Honourable, the Leader of the Opposition that I will do my best to live up to the advice that he has given with respect to future celebrations of this kind. Having taken a wife from the constituency of the honourable member from Gladstone I can assure him that he represents a constituency which has very attractive and lovely girls, and I’m sure wonderful mothers, and we will do our best certainly to live up to everything that has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. I can’t make any response to the Premier’s -- the First Minister’s remarks about a dove carrying an olive branch back, I think perhaps in September we will see whether or not another olive branch -- or October, another olive branch is carried back into this House and speaking for -- speaking for him I hope that he is also graced with a daughter. I want to say this of course, that I believe in adding to the Conservative population of the Municipality of Fort Garry, which needs it, and I will certainly do my best to see that that is done in the future. If -- I will have to ask forbearance of course too, with respect to late hours and I know that I will receive the usual customary consideration from members opposite when I appear rather drowsy in the House as weeks go by. There’s nothing much else I can say, Mr. Speaker, except perhaps to plagiarize the words of, I believe it was George M. Cohen when he said, "My daughter thanks you, my wife thanks you, and I thank you".
MR. ROBLIN: Perhaps the House would be interested in receiving some information about the situation in respect of the flooded areas in Eastern Manitoba and I wonder if I could take advantage of this opportunity of placing some of the facts that are at the disposal of the Government before the House. I imagine that a good many members took advantage of the week-end as I did to take - to obtain some first hand knowledge of this information of this situation, and it was certainly gratifying to see how well local people were coping with the problems that they faced. I visited Municipal Offices and actual areas in the water and it seems that people were handling the matter very well indeed. The Department of Public Works had given a resume of the situation and perhaps I could just read a portion or two from what has been said. "The peak of the flooding moved downstream through Dufresne where considerable flooding to farmland occurred on the South-West on Saturday, June the 13th, and reached the Village of Lorette about noon on Sunday. The Village of Lorette was not flooded, but fine farmlands and particularly buildings both east and west of Lorette between the River and the Dawson Road were flooded; also property to the South in the same general location. By 6:00 PM on the 14th, the peak of the flood had reached Prairie Grove and has remained at a constant level to the last reading at 80, today June the 15th. Considerable flooding of land, to the extent of probably five sections has occurred between Prairie Grove and the south boundary of St. Vital and Grande Pointe."
As far as St. Vital is concerned, it is expected that there will be general surface flooding about equal to that of the spring of 1955 from Grande Pointe northerly to the Trans-Canada Highway crossing. From this point northerly and continuing through St. Boniface, we expect the river to be generally contained within its channel with no serious surface flooding. Due to the apparently large volume of water coming out of the upper end of the watershed, it appears the peak in the Prairie Grove to Trans-Canada Highway crossing reach will be maintained over a two to three day period, thus giving considerable time to spead. In summary, it appears that the flood passing through Ste. Anne was considerably greater than any previously recorded flow. However, westerly from Ste. Anne and down to and including St. Vital, the flood appears to have followed very much the usual pattern of past Seine River floods. Except for the village of Ste. Anne and upstream areas, flooding of lands and building damage would seem to be about normal for previous floods. Public Works damage and all Municipalities will consist of washed out bridge approaches and road grades, but the actual structural damage is probably not as great as orignially expected. There is little accurate knowledge of agricultural losses, but from personal inspections on June 14th the opinion is expressed that the flood water is returning reasonably well to the river in the Ste. Anne area, and that while crop loss will be substantial in lowlands and to some individuals, that due directly to the Seine River flood -- Seine River, flooding may not be as great as originally expected. And of course field men and gauges are continually at work checking the progress of the flood and establishing the boundaries of the flooded area which may be important.
Yesterday, or rather on Friday, I believe some question was raised with respect to health measures and my colleague gave certain information at that time. I can give you a little more
than he has been able to provide me now. From the health point of view, the chief hazard comes from the contamination of water supplies and the flooding of cellars. It was discovered that at least two flowing wells in the Town of Ste. Anne have not been affected and immediate arrangements were made to supply water to the residents from these walls. Discussions have been held with the town officials to set up a committee for clean-up and every assistance will be given by the Department. The situation has been under continuous supervision by our Health Officer and Sanitary Inspectors over the week-end and printed information on flood control and clean-up has been widely distributed together with the necessary tablets for chlorination of water supplies. The Health Officer found it necessary to close temporarily the school because the basement was completely flooded, but we are now informed that the water has subsided today to the point where the school can be reopened.
Instructions are being given to householders about cleaning up their basements and sanitary precautions, etc. All wells are being placarded to indicate whether they are safe for human consumption or not. And here is an interesting point. Due to the fact that the safe water supply was available even during the height of the flood and that it was possible to issue complete instructions to all residents in regard to safety of water supplies it was not considered necessary to instigate a typhoid immunization program. The Health Officer does have typhoid vaccine available if requested. The Health Officer and four Sanitary Inspectors will remain in the area as long as it is necessary to supervise clean-up procedures, sterilization of water supplies, etc. We have also received similar reports on other flooded areas such as the town of St. Pierre, St. Malo, Labroquerie, Marchand and all those other points that are affected, none of which are as badly affected as Ste. Anne, and to the best of our knowledge the situation is under control in these areas.
It’s interesting also to know, I think, that the Civil Defence authorities were on the job. A representative of our civil service defence office went to Ste. Anne on Thursday the 11th and has been helping with the local civil defence organization, which seems to be very much alive by the way, and on the job. Similarly in St. Pierre, so that is a matter of some interest. The Metropolitan Civil Defence have been alerted in case we should be faced with any emergencies in St. Vital in the future, although according to the best information we can obtain that does not appear to be a difficulty at the present time. I think the House would also like to know that it is the intention of the Government to invite the Reeves of the affected Municipalities and Villages and Towns to meet with us very soon -- I think probably next Friday will be the day -- in an endeavour to obtain from them their views as to the extent of the damage and the nature of those steps that are required in order to put matters on a satisfactory footing. That is, I think, the highlights of the information that I am now in a position to give the House, and while there is certainly no room for complacency in this matter, and certainly there has been individual hardship as anyone who has visited the area will testify, we can be very, very thankful that it does not seem to be a disaster of overall proportion. It will, however, mean a great deal to the people locally concerned and it is our hope that in consultation with the municipal officials we can arrive at satisfactory measures to deal justly with their problem.
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I wonder if I could direct a question to the Minister of Education. Saturday’s Free Press carried a story headed "Teacher’s Pay Boost Seen Hogging Grant". Now, it is not my intent to discuss this in detail but there is one sentence here which gives me some concern. I’ll just quote -- I’ll just read it. "In many instances the Government has been told School Trustees simply gave the Teacher Society what the Teacher Society asked, failing to negotiate with customary tenacity, and is in effect turning the whole increase in grants over to the teachers." Does that represent, Mr. Minister, the feeling of the Government or is that just a reporter’s opinion?
HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Reporter’s opinion.
MR. ROBLIN: Perhaps I could also answer a point that was raised the other day on the orders in connection with the polling at Thompson. The matter was raised by the honourable leader of the CCF Party and wondered as we did -- about why the -- the facts that had been reported to me are as follows: That it was the original intention of the returning officer to have the poll situated on the property of the International Nickel Company, where, it appears, most of the men actually live. However, the company protested this arrangement and it was necessary to withdraw from private property it appears, and the nearest location that could be made available,
I think the nearest location in the company property was one mile away and that is where the polling booth was put in. I am not going to make any comment on the desirability of the situation that exists up there -- perhaps there will be a more convenient time in which we can discuss that matter, but I did promise to give my honourable friend the information which I do.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the honourable the First Minister for this statement, as he says I think that the matter will be discussed in the course of the session to a greater degree. We’ll have some observations on it.
MR. G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Is it possible to ask, Mr. Speaker, a question further to the statement of the First Minister? When was the change made of the polling booths? How long before the election?
MR. ROBLIN: I can’t give you that information. Apparently the election was -- the polling booth was on the company property in the 1958 election. Now I’m not sure of that either - no, I cannot give you that information, Mr. Speaker. The Poll was first set up on the company property for this latest election, and at the request of the authorities of the company it was moved later - the exact time element involved I’m afraid I can’t give.
MR. A. J. REID (Kildonan): Before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the First Minister on the flood situation. After the 1950 flood there was a fund set up - I wonder if there is any monies available in the fund yet?
MR. ROBLIN: That is one of the matters that will be investigated, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day - Second Reading of Bills. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources.
MR. McLEAN: In the absence of the Minister of Mines - the Minister of Industry and Commerce, I would ask that this stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Seconding reading of Bill No. 4. The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.
[Mr. McLean, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, moved that Bill No. 4 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, under the Act at present, monies by way of bursaries may be provided to students in the degree courses in agriculture. The amendment in this, that is proposed by this Bill, would enable similar assistance to be given to students in the diploma courses in agriculture.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 7. The Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare.
[Hon. George Johnson moved that Bill No. 7 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
HONOURABLE GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, this Old Age Assistance Act, the explanatory note says "At the present time applications for allowances are made in the first instance to the local authority which is most cases is the municipality; or in the case of the City of Winnipeg, a designated department or person; and in unorganized territory and on Reserves, persons appointed for the purpose by Order-in-Council." By virtue of these amendments applications will be made to the board. The purpose of this amendment is to speed up the taking of old age assistance applications by having them come directly to the Board without waiting for the local authority to pass judgment on this. It would be a matter of policy in the department, of course, to keep forms in the offices of secretary-treasurers and in these localities, but we feel it will often speed up old age assistance applications to have these come directly in to the pension board. The only further explanation I can give is that the Federal Act states that this has to be decided upon by the Pensions Board. We feel this, as I say, will speed up applications and prevent the application waiting until the local council meets, and again our policy would be to keep in touch with officials and notify them of any awards.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, how often does your board
meet for the approval of applications?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, the Pension Board, it meets, at least that I know of, once a month. In the past, about approximately once a month they would have in the local - the people taking applications in different areas and distribute some to Ag. Reps. and some to other health officials, such as sanitary inspectors, to go out and make these investigations. The Act does say that we must do -- take an application in the person’s home that is applying and that again is another reason for the amendment. We feel that once we receive an application directly from the person we could, in many instances, send out an arrangement right away.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, the principle of this Bill we have tried to get for years and not for the purpose altogether to split up the application but another principle involved, and this is the application of any one, particularly from the rural districts, should never have been submitted first to the municipality because the applicant knows the clerk of the municipality and the mayor and the reeve too well -- for years. The reeve may be a school boy where the applicant had been already a grown up person and many of them, which I know personally, many of them did not want to go to the municipalities to apply for Old Age Pension because they did not want the authorities down there to know about it and spread it around the district. This gentleman, who has been a very respectable farmer or respectable merchant in the town, now has to apply for Old Age Pension and I think the principle of it is a very, very good one, not from the point entirely of what the Minister has said, but from the point of view of having one board in the province who are trained, who have a good staff, who could do the work directly and not -- and not having the applicant to lower his dignity to go down to the municipality and have them approve first before it goes to the Board. I think it is a wonderful Bill and I wish to congratulate those responsible for it.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, when the Board receives an application, do they consult with a local authority to see whether this is a bona fide request?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): The officials of the department tell me that they are bound by the Federal-Provincial Act as to each individual case. They cannot go by what the local authority says. They have to still go out and make their investigation.
MR. GUTTORMSON: No, that isn’t what I meant. Do they consult with a person in the locality that knows this individual?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Oh yes, it will be the policy of the department always to contact the local official when he goes out to make his investigation and in many instances go to the municipality. Well, to get certain information and he might often have to - they’re bound by the Act. They can’t go by what the local authority says on the issuing of the pension. They have to go by their findings.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Are the findings based on some of the information provided to them by that local authority?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): No, they have to go by their own findings. They have to make an investigation.
MR. P. WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, just for clarification as far as the Reserve people are concerned. A further explanation -- does this means that Indians don’t have to go to their council or their agent to apply for the Old Age Pension, they apply direct to the Board. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: ...the Minister answers the questions at the end of the debate, and would point out also that this is a second reading of the act and it’s customary to make speeches at this time rather than to ask questions. Are you ready for the question?
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s only right that you should make the suggestion that you have so that we give the Minister an opportunity to answer all the questions at one time rather than having the same type of questioning here as we do at the committee stage. But once again I’m in the position that I wouldn’t have spoken perhaps but for something that someone else had said, that in the case of my honourable friend, the very revered member for Inkster, I believe it is -- well, nothing could better exemplify the difference of approach between my honourable friend and myself, I guess, than for me to say, quite frankly, that I do not favour the Bill for the very same reasons that my honourable friend favours it. I think that the attitude, the information that the municipal council can give, and I don’t suppose it’s the same with regard to some of the other organizations, but the municipal council I think can give very, very useful
information in a lot of these cases. Now I don’t see as much, and I won’t be speaking on the other bills, so perhaps I could cover them at the same time. I don’t see as much reason for it in connection with the age, that is the bill, as with the disability for instance or well considerable words based on need as with this one too perhaps, because I think that it’s a mistake to get away from the local participation in matters of this kind. I think that the government will find out, that the department will find out, that they lose a good bit of control, and I don’t mean control in order to just hold down the amount of money, I mean control of the right kind whereby they can get information from the municipal authorities that will be very useful to them, on the question of need, because the Department in my opinion, simply cannot have the same, or any investigators they send out, can not have the same access to information that the local people have. Mr. Speaker, I still maintain that the greatest friends of these various welfare programs are the people who are willing to see that they’re administred properly, and not just because of soft-heartedness be prepared to say that the conditions should be made so easy that everyone can qualify; because as long as you have a means test there should be somebody who is in a position to give information with regard to that person’s position and I still think -- I still disagree completely with my honourable friend who says that this should never have been - the arrangement in this province. I think it was the right arrangement but once again I have to admit that my honourable friend the Minister has given a full notice to the public that this was a change that was going to be made. We were told about it at the other session of the legislature and back here again. There was no doubt much said of it during the election campaign. I assume that the public has approved of it and so we’re not going to object to its passage or attempt to delay it except that personally I remain unconvinced. I still think that the municipalities can render a very great service and I commend my honourable friend the Minister for saying that he will continue to get advice from them.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, during the course of the last year I have had occasion to help some people in the age group over 65 and those who were disabled physically. I have had the occasion to help them make their application for assistance or disability allowance and, even though it could not be said that I have had any great amount of experience in this field, I certainly did notice that if there was any particular improvement that could be made with respect to the processing of applications that here was one, because I do know that a good many people, older people who were deserving of assistance or disability allowance were very, very unwilling, very unsure of themselves as to whether or not they should apply because -- and it’s the case in many municipalities, I dare say -- it could be that in their municipal council you might have four councillors and the reeve or three councillors and the reeve quite, shall we say, quite willing to accommodate these people. There’s quite often the case where you have one councillor who is very intimate, very close acquaintance or something similar to that to the applicant and, consequently as I said, there are people who should have made applications who didn’t because the application had to be processed - had to be sent first to the municipal council. Now I do disagree slightly with the honourable the member for Inkster when he said that there should be no - that the board should not make any investigations or make any enquiries of the local government people. I do think that certainly that wouldn’t hurt. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition -- the honourable the Leader of the Opposition has failed to realize or failed to recognize one important point, and that is, that no matter how old people may be, no matter how poor they might be, they still have very serious misgivings about making an application when it involves the municipal council knowing about it; when it involves the fact that there might be someone on that council who is for some reason or other not in favour of that application being approved, and I would like to state briefly that the Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare and others who occupy the treasury benches should be commended for this change in legislation.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one comment to the remarks of the honourable Leader of the Opposition. Whether it was through choice of words or not - I am not aware, not knowing exactly what was in his mind, but he did make reference to "soft-heartedness". Now in reference to my honourable colleague representing Inkster, I am sure that the honourable leader didn’t mean it quite the way it sounded, because those of us that have had experience in the processing of applications in respect of old age assistance I think are aware that the role of the municipal council wasn’t a role of actually investigating as to whether
or not the pension should be paid. In the final analysis, of course, that is done by the pensions board itself. They carry on that investigation. The main point of the applications being processed through the municipalities, as I understood them when I was in that field of endeavour, was to ascertain the fact that they were in effect residents of that municipality and any other pertinent information. The point raised by my honourable colleague from Inkster was simply this, and the member for Brokenhead has reiterated that, that the main objection that we had had and had raised in this legislature on many occasions was the reticence of many individuals of making applications to the municipal council who knew them intimately. Now then, even after that was done in the past, the actual processing of the applications was still done at the provincial level and it would still be done, and I am sure, as the Minister has pointed out, that there will be the contact between the municipal councils and I take some objection to my honourable friend talking of this as being "soft-heartedness". It’s not at all, I’m sure that no matter who the Government of Manitoba is that there will be a realistic approach and a granting of these pensions. I would like to know if the Minister, and I don’t know, Mr. Speaker, whether he has exhausted his right to answer or not, but I would like to know what method - possibly this could be answered later - will be used as to the applications. Will they still be obtainable in their municipal offices or whether or not there’ll have to be added forms.
A MEMBER: He said they would.
MR. PAULLEY: Oh, that’s fine, then that answers that question. And also one further comment, I sincerely trust, Mr. Speaker, that the department will make sure that they have adequate staff in order to handle the additional work because as we well know, the applications after the inauguration of the hospitalization scheme, for which in some part the Minister was not responsible for, took some considerable time to really get rolling and I trust that this will not be proceeded until the staff is quite prepared and in sufficient members to do it.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, there is one good reason for moving this bill and that is that the procedure that has been followed has been a sheer, utter waster of time by a lot of people. The history of this perhaps should be understood. In the beginning, pensions were paid in part by the municipalities, and obviously had to be consulted in any particular application and that procedure was carried over when the pensions were in fact paid by the Government of Canada and the Province of Manitoba. But the procedure carried on and what happened, the application came before the municipal council. It had to say whether or not they approved it, but in any event, it went on to the pension board and was considered all over again by them and I would doubt very much whether very many applications were ever rejected by a municipal council. There was obviously not any particular point because everyone knew that the pension board was going to investigate the application. I remember very well on one occasion in the town of Dauphin when the council refused to approve an application, and I can still in my mind see the pained letter that came back from the department asking ’why?’ Of course we didn’t know -- couldn’t answer their question in the sense that they had in mind. The reason "why" so far as the council was concerned was that they thought the person concerned was not a deserving applicant, but as to having made any investigation we were obviously not in a position to do so. So that the whole performance was a complete waste ot time. Now the applications should go direct to the department. They should be investigated and of course the department must avail itself of all avenues of investigation, and if that involves getting information from the secretary of the municipality or individual members of the council, I presume they’ll have to do so, that’s part of their job. But the other procedure was simply having the municipal council act as a post office. What they said or didn’t say really had no bearing on whether or not the applicant in the end received an application. I’m inclined to doubt very much whether any applicant ever refused to make an application because it had to go to the council. Many of them never knew that it went to the council. It went to the council because the applications were completed for the applicant by the secretary of the municipality or by a solicitor or member of the legislature, as the case might be, who knew of course that it had to go to the council and who sent it there; but the applicant himself, I doubt, ever knew that actual procedure that was followed.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Education a question? I’m interested to know why the council of the town of Dauphin could not give the answer to the board who wrote them asking them for their reasons.
MR. McLEAN: The answer to the question -- at least the answer to the board’s question, as I say, was that in the opinion of the members of the council, the applicant was not a person who was entitled to a pension, but the answer that the board wanted was "why do you say that?", which, of course, involved a consideration of how much money that person had in the bank; whether or not they owned land; whether they owned bonds or other securities; all of which the council was in no position to be able to answer and had no person who could go and investigate directly as I presume is done by the persons who are in the employ of the pension board. That was the reason the council couldn’t do it, because they don’t have the machinery to do what the board itself is obligated to do and does.
MR. CAMPBELL: I have great respect for my honourable friend’s opinion in these matters, Mr. Speaker, and I was just going to ask him the further question, that isn’t that just the point that some of us try to make -- that the council can really do the welfare program as a whole a service, by giving that kind of information because obviously the council knew, perhaps not the exact amount, but obviously I think they knew that this person didn’t qualify.
MR. McLEAN: With regard to this case, Mr. Speaker, after investigation by the pension board the pension was granted in full. In two instances where applications were approved by the council they were later rejected after investigation by the board.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 9. The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.
[Mr. McLean, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, moved that Bill No. 9 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply to increase the amount that may be loaned in respect of a Seed Cleaning plant from $20,000 to $30,000.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 10. The Honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources.
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Mines and, and Resources, I would ask that this stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Second reading of Bill No. 15. The Honourable the Attorney-General.
[Mr. Lyon moved that Bill No. 15 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I believe the explanatory notes on the inside page cover the explanation of this bill. Honourable members who were in the House during the last session will recall that it was introduced at that time - covers the No. 3 or 2 rather, ordinary amendments to The Interpretation Act.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the explanatory notes, I doubt very much if they do explain this bill. If you take a look - it says the wording of the sub-section is not changed yet your whole act is a deletion of the sub-section with new wording put in. Is it meant by that that the meaning of the words is not changed?
MR. SPEAKER: ...question?
MR. LYON: I presume, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is referring to Section 1.
MR. HILLHOUSE: That’s right.
MR. LYON: The amendment to section 19. That is just a re-phrasing of the old section and, as it says, the wording of the sub-section is not changed - the meaning of the sub-section is not changed, but there is a re-grouping of the clauses in that sub-section to make clear what was ambiguous before.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 16. The Honourable the Attorney-General.
[Mr. Lyon moved that Bill No. 16 be now read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I believe the explanatory note again covers this minor amendment to The Summary Convictions Act. It merely makes the issuance and the execution of warrants on Sunday for provincial offences possible under The Summary Convictions Act.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 17. The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.
[Mr. McLean, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, moved that Bill No. 17 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, this authorizes the payment to four municipalities of bounties in respect to predatory animals. They were late in filing their claims and this bill is necessary in order that payments may be made.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would appreciate it if the honourable the Minister who is piloting this bill would explain to us how it is that wolves are so prevalent in the rural municipality of Siglunes, which is represented by one of my colleagues, and yet they are so scarce down in the one that is represented by the honourable member for Arthur.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn’t indicate the prevalence or otherwise of wolves - this only indicates the lateness of filing an application for payment.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish to go ahead with Bill No. 18?
MR. ROBLIN: No, Mr. Speaker, No. 19.
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 19. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.
[Mr. Boulic (Provincial Secretary) (Cypress) moved that Bill No. 19 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. BOULIC: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides group insurance benefits for Civil
Servants. In negotiations for many years the civil servants have asked for such a bill and a consultant has now been appointed and a plan agreed upon. This bill is going to provide this insurance.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, I want it to be definitely understood that I’m not opposing the objectives of this bill, in fact I heartily concur and agree with them, but it seems to me this is a very unusual bill. Now we have heard objections raised in this House by the First Minister and by others, in which objections I concur, about having legislation by regulations. Now here we have a bill which is unique inasmuch as the Government of Manitoba is going to do something on the order of the Lieutenant-Govenor-in-Council, and what it is going to do is enter into an agreement which is made and approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Now as I say, there may be a logical and reasonable explanation for this being done this way but I feel as a matter of principle that the type of agreement which the Government of Manitoba can enter into in respect of life group insurance should be set out in this act as a schedule. I feel that the Manitoba Government employees should have a right in law amendments, or in whatever other committee this bill comes before, to examine the type of policy or the type of protection that they are going to be given, but by the method employed in this bill that right may perhaps be denied them. Now it may be that the Honourable Provincial Secretary will tell us if that is so, but the form of contract which the Lieutenant-Governor is going to order the government to sign is one which has in the first instance been approved by the Manitoba Government Employees Association on behalf of the civil servants of this province. But I do feel, and I feel rather strongly that the type of agreement should be set out in the act so that this Legislature approves it rather than having it approved by order of the Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. ROBLIN: ...say a word on this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because there is a good deal of force in what the honourable member has said, but I would like to reassure him on several counts. First of all, he is quite right in assuming that the Manitoba Government Employees Association has been in consultation with the administration as to the nature of this insurance contract. In fact, I think it is fair to say that they have been advised and actually have taken part in all stages of negotiations in respect of this contract and it is true that the general terms that we would like to feature are established. Now, if in Law Amendments Committee it would be deemed advisable to add a schedule to this bill in that respect I am sure that could be given consideration. But the reason why we are not inclined to do so at the present moment is because that this contract will be let to tender and it may be that in the course of receiving those tenders variations on our original plan will be suggested. In fact we have some reason to think from the advice our consultant has given to us that we may be faced with variations on this and, as a result, it would be necessary to come back to the House to get those variations accepted which might not be practical under the circumstances. I am quite sure that the provincial secretary will be very happy in committee to give the honourable member and other members of the House all the information at our disposal in resepect of this contract. We are not anxious to assume a power that should be the right of the Legislature. We do assure him that it has received the general concurrence of the employee of the province but if the bill passes now we can certainly have those details produced at second reading and if deemed advisable to put a schedule on, we will do it, but I do wish to stress that our present advice is that it would not be advisable because of the necessity of being flexible in negotiations.
MR. HILLHOUSE: ...the First Minister’s explanation and I certainly will not oppose the vote for second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in addition to what the honourable member has already raised, it would be only right though that at this stage of the proceedings that the members of the House should be taken into the confidence of the government as to what donation the public purse is going to make toward this group life plan. For instance, under one of the clauses, I know we’re not expected to discuss this bill clause by clause on second reading, but authority is given here for the government of the province to make up the balance after the employees have made their contribution. I think it would be only fair for us to ask what are the proportions as between the civil servants in general and the government itself. And then there is
another principle I think involved here - that is that another part gives the government, or the agency of the government under whom a public servant is employed, the authority to deduct from the salary or other remuneration of the employee the amount that is decided upon as the contribution by that employee. Now is that going to be upon request or is that without request?
MR. BOULIC: When the plan starts operation it will not be compulsory for all employees employed at the time, but it will be compulsory for any new employees. Now your other question was about the share. The share the government is assumed that part of the total annual premium which is the lesser of, either 1/3 of the annual premium or $150,000 per year. Beg your pardon? Whichever is the lesser of - 1/3 of the total premium or $150,000 per year - whichever is the lesser.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 21. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
[Mr. John Thompson (Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Virden) moved that Bill No. 21 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill merely proposes to correct the description of certain rural municipalities in the province. At the present time they have been described in the act as including all the territory within their external limits whereas in fact there are in many cases certain towns and villages inside the rural municipalities, so this act accepts the description of the territory covered by the towns and villages and it also makes a change in the boundaries of the rural municipalities of Old Kildonan and West St. Paul - a change which has been requested by both the municipal governments concerned.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 22. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
[Mr. Thompson moved that Bill No. 22 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill introduces certain new procedures in the affairs of the local government districts. It provides for the election of an advisory committee in local government districts. At the present time all advisory committees to the local administrator are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and under this amendment provision is made for the election by the local people of the area of the advisory committee. The second major change in the affairs of local government districts is that this bill also provides for an elected council administration. The council administration, the council which would be elected in the local government district by the ratepayers, by the people of the area, would replace the present local government administrator. He would, in turn, become the secretary-treasurer of the district. The bill provides that he will become the secretary-treasurer, but his authority and responsibility will be replaced by an elected council. Both these provisions, of course, are designed to give a greater measure of local participation in the affairs of the community concerned.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I don’t propose to go into the details of the bill at this time, but I would like to say that I have a number of questions to ask of the Minister when the hill comes up for discussion on details. The basic thing here, in my opinion, is whether this will imposed on the people of the local government districts or whether it will be at their request. Now the bill does not make that quite clear now - I think it can be either way. Also, exactly what the procedure would be; how this will differ once it is established from a municipality; whether government assistance will vary once it’s established under a council set-up or not. For the time being I’m not opposing the bill but in committee I think we should have a full discussion on those details.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 25. The Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare.
[Mr. Johnson moved that Bill No. 25 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note which accompanies this bill - it’s a very short bill - says that at present the act requires the operator of a hospital to send the notices of admission, and this refers to non-insured services, or non-insured persons and services not insured under the Act, directly to the Clerk of the municipality in which it is believed that the patient resides. Since it is desirable that a check should be made first to see whether the person is an insured person under the Manitoba Hospital Insurance Plan or the Hospital Services Insurance Act, by the amendment the notices will be sent to the commissioner who, if he finds that the person is not an insured person, will send them on to the clerk of the municipality. This saves the municipality a lot of unnecessary work as where the patient is insured there is no need for the municipality to be involved at all. We have found shortly after the plan came into effect that this would be very advisable. We think it was probably an oversight in this change of system of hospitalization and in many instances the municipal clerk may not have all the information. We had many cases where the chap in a town may have been employed for part-time and have paid his premium and as far as the municipality goes he would be delinquent, and we find that this would be an administrative necessity.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 28. The Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare.
[Mr. Johnson moved that Bill No. 28 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note in the front of this bill which reads similar to the Old Age Assistance Bill, "at the present time applications for allowance are made in the first instance to the local authority which in most cases is the municipality, or in the case of the City of Winnipeg it designates a department or person, and in unorganized territory and on Indian Reserves persons appointed for the purpose by Order-in-Council." By virtue of the amendment, applications will be made directly to the board. The same philosophy is behind this as is behind the previous bill - Old Age Assistance.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 29.
[Mr. Johnson (Gimli) moved that Bill No. 29 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, in the explanatory note here there is just one slight variation from the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Allowances Act wherein except in cases of persons resident in unorganized territory, but not on Indian Reserves, who applied directly to the Board in the past, and this just has the same explanation as the Old Age Assistance and the Blind Persons Allowances Act.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 33.
[Mr. Roblin moved that Bill No. 33 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, the explanation in the front of the bill covers the case. This is purely an administrative detail in order to bring the bill in line with current practice. We do not actually require underwriters to pay the Insurance Corporations Tax - that is done by the Insurance Companies themselves - and, therefore, we desire to delete any reference to the underwriters’ agents from the statutes and that’s what this bill proposes to do.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 36.
[Mr. Roblin moved that Bill No. 36 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, under the present legislation any interest earnings by this fund, and there are interest earnings in this fund, accumulate in the fund itself. The purpose of this act is to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council authority, should they desire from time to time to take the interest alone and transfer it from this fund to the consolidated revenue. That’s the purpose of this act.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one or two comments on this bill, raising as it does the question of the War and Post-War Emergencies Act. It seems to me that when the act was originally set up there was a purpose behind the interest of the fund being retained in the fund and, as I recall the act, it was to provide for periods of unemployment and expansion, either during or following the war or, if I recall also correctly, there was a provision that where revenues were not up to anticipated revenue that portions of the fund could be used in order to balance off, ...Pardon? I think it was in this one too. ...It’s not? Well, that’s fine. But the point is in connection with this whole bill, I suggest that possibly the Provincial Treasurer, I don’t know if there are provisions in the Act itself, to from time to time give us a full statement other than what’s in the public accounts as to the status of the fund. Now the First Minister indicated by his brief introduction of this bill that this doesn’t apparently amount to very much. I think that it does, it could be a considerable fund, a considerable amount of money. Now we have had during the past election quite a controversy going on as to where the money is going to come from for the payment of expanded services, and I’m quite in favour of these expanded services, but I wonder whether this is the proper place for some of that money to come from because - and I may be wrong, but there was certain specific purposes behind this fund and there was a reason at that time why the interest that those funds raised went back into the fund. Now, it’s my understanding that there’s a considerable amount of money from the fund on loan at the present time. We passed legislation at the special session last fall to loan monies for such things as farm credit and the industrial development fund, and I would like a little further explanation of all of this and the total amounts of money likely - it does say, the Act, that the Provincial Treasurer, if authorized by order of the Lieutenant-Governor, may appropriate part of this or whatever they like or deem in their wisdom, and I think we should have a more full explanation of the amounts of monies likely to be used, say at this current - may have that in the estimates - but I think we should have more of an explanation because I think this is very important and that the purposes for which that fund was originally set up was very important, and it was outlined at that time that the interest on those funds should go in to participate a revolving fund which was growing for which more monies could be used. I’ve no objections to the use of the money in loan purposes but I think there should be a further explanation than the Minister has given.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, if there are no more questions I will just deal with what has been said. Unfortunately, I don’t think that I should get into an extended discussion about the details of this fund insofar as it might affect our present budget because my honourable friend will appreciate that that is more properly done during the budget debate and I should not give that information at the present time.
What we are looking for here is a little more flexibility than what we’ve had so far. Now, for example, take the Winter Employment Act that went through last fall. Under that legislation we had the power to draw down on this fund to pay for any expenditures under that act. We didn’t do so as it happens - you will see that it has been taken from the Consolidated Fund and for various reasons in the internal economy of the government it sometimes is desirable to use the Consolidated Fund even though you have authority to use this Post-War Reserve. We certainly do not believe that this reserve should be thoughtlessly dissipated. We have ear-marked substantial portions of it, as my honourable friend mentioned, for various of our capital investments and there is a substantial amount of money in the reserve right now. The facts given in the Public Accounts are very complete and I say to my old friend that I can hardly think of anything I could add to what appears in the Public Accounts on that, but if you have any specific questions at the proper time I’ll do my very best to answer them. The
amount of interest money that might be transferred is substantial. It comes into the neighbourhood of half a million dollars and it is a substantial amount of money. Our thought is that we have no wish to impair the principle of this fund, and we may not even use the interest, but we feel that it’s desirable to have the power to do so should the finances of the province at any time indicate that that is necessary. As I have said, instead of drawing on this fund for the Winter Employment Act we took it out of the Consolidated Revenue because we had the money to do so, therefore, we wanted this fund to remain as complete as possible and I’m sure that in the future, if we find that we have other funds available, we’re certainly not going to draw on this particular one. I think that when the budget debate comes and we examine the government’s policy with respect to its various reserves of which this is an important one, that you will find that we have been careful custodians of those funds and we are willing to give you a full accounting of whatever actions have been taken in respect of them.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may just ask a question arising out of the First Minister’s statement insofar as the completeness of the Public Account statement. He’s generally correct, but I think he will appreciate the fact that insofar as Public Accounts are concerned of the Province of Manitoba, in an analysis of them we’re about a year and a half behind now in that, so we haven’t got, even with our last Public Accounts, a reasonably up-to-date situation of the fund, have we?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, if he would like to put in a return we will give him the facts.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion for an Address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to His Speech at the opening of the Session and the amendment to the amendment thereto. The Honourable Member for Elmwood.
MR. S. PETERS (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to offer my congratulations to you, Sir, on your election to the office of Speaker of this Assembly. I’ve been a member of this Assembly for but a short time - it will be a year ago tomorrow that I was first elected and this is the third Session that we are into. You’ve been Speaker during that year and in that time, Sir, you’ve, in my humble opinion, you’ve handed down your decisions in a fair and unbiased manner and I’m quite sure had we had the legislation and machinery to elect or appoint a permanent speaker that you, Sir, would have had that position.
I should like also to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. They both acquitted themselves very ably and I’m sure, Sir, that they will make a very worthy contribution to this Legislature and will serve their constituencies well.
I should like at this time, Sir, to deal with the hospital situation in this province. Since the coming into force of the Hospital Services Insurance Act, there has been a general shortage of hospital beds in the province since this Act came into force. There is only one way in which we can alleviate this situation. We either have to build new hospitals or add to the hospitals we already have. In the area of Winnipeg North, which takes in six provincial constituencies, there is only one hospital. It is a 100 bed hospital and is situated in the constituency of Elmwood. Now I’m not speaking just to have hospitals built in the constituency of Elmwood. It just so happens that in the constituency of Elmwood there are available at the present time, three very good sites for a hospital - one right beside the present Concordia Hospital; the other site is where Swift’s old plant was located. My understanding is that Swift & Co. donated that property to the City of Winnipeg to be used as a park or some other worthwhile project that would benefit the community, and I’m sure that the donors of that property would not object to a hospital being built on that site as, in my opinion, a hospital would benefit the community very greatly. If and when we do build these hospitals we have to face up to the situation of a shortage of nurses, and we have to get younger girls interested into making nursing a career. At the present time a girl going into training to become a nurse receives practically no remuneration at all - $5.00 per month I believe it is, for the first two years. That in my opinion is not going to entice any younger girls to come into the nursing profession.
There are many other problems that have been created since the inception of the Hospital Insurance Act. I will not deal with them all now. Some of my colleagues will probably touch on those when they speak.
I should like to say a few words on the amendment brought in by our party on national - a comprehensive National Health Plan. It is our belief that if a national health plan is instituted we will have a healthy race of people; a happier race of people; and I too would like to quote from Harper’s Magazine of May of this year, and I would recommend that all the members, if they get a hold of it, read this article on Socialized Medicine-10 years old, and this is a statement made by Ian McLeod, Minister of Health under the Churchill Government and at present the Minister of Labour in the British Government. And this is what he had to say, "I believe in the national health service with all my heart, indeed I believe some sort of national health service, whatever it may be called, will come in every country in the world, not necessarily our model, it might not survive export. If we were starting again we might have based it on more insurance than we did, but other countries, including United States, can and will benefit from our experiences, our successes and our mistakes. The National Health Service has in fact become a source of genuine national pride, like the Royal Navy and the Monarchy. Britons know that there may be more spectacular examples of medical skills, or research, or treatment in the United States or elsewhere, but in their country more of the population get better medical care than in any other major country on earth. Their proud is far from uncritical - their pride", pardon me - "but as the second decade of the National Health Service begins the emphasis is entirely on how we can make it better. Strikingly the system itself, the structure is almost universally judged to be sound."
Now I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that we would have a happier and healthier nation. I would also like to read from the same article - "Nobody would claim that the National Health Service alone is responsible for improved health and mortality statistics - new drugs and medical discoveries would have produced improvement no matter what the system; nevertheless, deaths from tuberculosis in Britain have dropped from 23,076 in 1947 to 4,784 in 1957. Notification of T.B. cases has fallen from 47,000 to 33,000 and in the same period infant mortality per thousand live births is down from 41 to 23.1, while infant mortality after 4 weeks of life has fallen from 22.7 to 16.5 per thousand. Life expectancy has risen to 69 years for men and 74 years for women." It goes on further to say, "Still another intrinsic social gain has been made by the British people. A medical tragedy can no longer become a financial disaster. In Britain the shadow of medical bills has been removed from the family life forever." And I will end with this quotation, "An American cannot live in Britain today and see the health service at work without coming to a simple realization, what has been done here by democratic process in a free society is a great step forward and an object lesson for democracy throughout the world."
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the people in Britain have done that we should follow their example and urge this government to go to Ottawa and at the very least, if nothing else, set up a commission to go over to Britain to all the other European countries, and investigate the health schemes that they have, and I’m sure that everyone will agree that it might be some time in coming but, as sure as night follows day, we are going to get it and we will continue to fight until we do get it.
I will leave that part of my speech now and go on to the Vacations with Pay Act. I was very happy to hear the Minister mention something when he introduced the bill about two weeks; we’re hoping that it’s two weeks after one year of service; but I was very disappointed not to hear him mention that somewhere they had in mind that they would bring in legislation for three weeks’ vacation after some length of service. We had hoped that it would follow the Saskatchewan pattern of three weeks after five years but there’s no mention of it at all and we’re very, very disappointed in that. We had hoped that there would be something in it because as your know, Sir, in industry the trend is now past the three week vacation, it’s going for four weeks after 20 years and most of them are getting it.
On the compensation, I just hope that the government will follow through on the recommendations of the Turgeon Commission and implement the changes that were recommended there.
That’s all I should like to say at this time.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. A. E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No. 46. The Honourable Member for River Heights.
[Mr. Scarth moved that Bill No. 46 be read a second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. W. B. SCARTH (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, this By-Law 608 as a schedule to the bill as printed is an amendment to a by-law passed by the School Board of Winnipeg in 1928. The main amending parts are as follows: Firstly, that the sum of $119,000.00 be placed to the fund. The second amendment, that is section 2 of the by-law as referred to in schedule "A" of the Bill, provides that pensions shall be payable monthly and shall be apportioned to date of death. Section 2 of the by-law which the school district seeks to be brought in goes into a much more elaborate payment of pensions that provides for many more contingencies, all of which are enumerated in the draft bill. Section 9. We then return - we then go to section 3 of the present by-law, schedule "A", and that amendment is more or less inconsequential in that it deletes the expression "when the pensioner dies before receiving some", and substitutes the following words, "as set out in the by-law". Section 4 of the by-law is self-explanatory; and then section 5 of the by-law sets out the method of contribution which again I submit that the draft of by-law, the amending by-law, the amending by-law is clear. I know of no further explanation, Mr. Speaker, apart from this that if anyone should desire any detail of the by-law, which is being amended by By-Law No. 608, then I shall be glad to do what I can to explain it.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Honourable Member for River Heights, who is sponsoring this Bill, a couple of questions, but I realize that if he answers them that he will be closing the debate, so I am quite willing to make my comments on them before he answers. I notice at one point here, section 7 of the schedule says that the by-law shall be effective from the first day of January, 1959. In other words, this is retroactive legislation. Then the next part, "that it shall have no force or effect until the same has been ratified, validated and confirmed by an act of the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba." Well now, I’m sure that I shall likely be met by the observation by some of my honourable friends that "you did it when" because likely we have passed similar legislation during the time that we had the privilege of sitting in the seats of the government. But that doesn’t necessarily make it right, though it’s always a good argument in its favour, I’m sure. But why do we need, why should the Legislature of Manitoba have to validate the by-laws of the School Board of the City of Winnipeg? If they want to go to the City Council, then I not only have nothing to say against that--in fact I’m quite in favour of it, because I think the City Council should be very closely informed as to matters pertaining to the School Board - should be close liaison between them. But why the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba? Likely we’ve done the same thing. If they have the authority to pass it, then they shouldn’t be passing it - in my opinion. And those are the two questions that I would like to address to my honourable friend - the observations that I would like to make with regard to them at the same time.
MR. GRAY: I have no objection to passing the Bill. I also have a number of questions. One is the one mentioned by the last speaker. I think if he could get the assurance of the sponsor of the Bill to have his - have those gentlemen for whom he sponsors the Bill come up before the Committee on second reading, we will be glad to let it go.
MR. SCARTH: Mr. Speaker, at the Committee there will be, of course, representatives of the School Board, who can give much more detail and all the detail as asked for by the Honourable Member for the Opposition, and the Honourable Member for Carillon.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed motion adjourned. The proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Inkster.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I am just rising to ask if there’s any reason why we didn’t call Bill No. 45. There may be some reason. [Interjection] Not printed? Thank you!
SOME MEMBER: ... talk to the clerk, eh?
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Inkster.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Fisher, that this House request the government to petition the Federal Government for
an increase in all Old Age and Blind Pensioners in the province, from $55.00 to $75.00 a month.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I don’t think that - I do not anticipate any opposition to this resolution.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Where have I heard those words before?
MR. GRAY: I’m quite serious, because I said in the Province of Manitoba - actually, I meant all of Canada. And this will not affect directly the Treasury of the province - that’s why I’m so optimistic that this resolution which is a request to the Federal Government, telling them as far as we are concerned, we have no objection of support if the Federal Government would increase the pension from $55.00 to $75.00 a month. At the present there is approximately 800,000 pensioners on relief under the Security Act. In other words, those who have already gone through the Means Test and those perhaps who are not required from 70 and over. And there is about 900,000 of those in Canada who come under the Means Test, based on some figures of this province. As an example, I find at least half of those receiving pension in Canada, close to half a million senior citizens, do need the pension, and they could come on relief under the Means Test. It’s absolutely necessary. In other words, we know that a half a million definitely, definitely need the pension. And the others - many that probably get pension, and they do not need it badly - I can only say that in the first place, there are many who do not apply for the pension. Those who apply and don’t need it, pay it back - over 50% - in income tax. In other words, if half a million senior citizens of ours who do receive pension are in need, and those - the number which I exactly do not know, and I don’t think anybody knows - who are getting pension now, and don’t need it, well, the majority should not suffer. The point that we have to consider is only one, - and this is, can a person - a human being - at the age of 70, thrown out of his employment probably at the age of 60, exist on $55.00 a month. Whether it’s a hundred thousand, whether it’s five hundred thousand, could they keep body and soul together on $55.00 a month under the present high cost of living? I say no!
Now the second thing that we should consider is, are we justified in allowing a large number of senior citizens to have too much to starve and too little to live? And the third question we have to consider is this - that we are not paying out directly from our Treasury here. It’s true it affects the tax-payers indirectly, but there are others and greater sums than this are being spent for which the people.... I’m not too close to the scene to know whether it’s justifiable or not, but the money is spent, and the money is always there when we need it. The question is when are we going to get the money. I think it’s very easily answered. I think the Leader of the Opposition answered it the other day when he was speaking in reply to the Speech from the Throne. There was a time when I came into this House, I think the Budget was only 25 million, or 28 million dollars. Today it’s over a hundred million dollars. Where did we get the money? There was a time when the liquor profits were only 3 million dollars -- 2 million dollars, now it’s 11 million dollars. Where are we getting the money? In this province alone, under a million population, over 50 million dollars is being spent on liquor. Where is the money coming from? I mean, this question I think is not a proper one, considering the welfare of so many senior citizens. I have checked again, and perhaps I’m going to repeat some of the figures here, which I have given this House for many years, and this is the cost of living, and I don’t need apologize for repeating some. I mentioned it in this House before. For thousands of years people repeat, at least some of us - I don’t know about the rest - the Bible. And everytime they read the Bible again, everytime they find a little bit more truth, a little more conviction, and they’re satisfied that by repeating it, it doesn’t kill the argument. I checked the other day several Old Age Pensioners, single, next door to my office and I noticed their daily food they consume. In the morning, and this may apply not in Winnipeg, it may not apply--this applies all over Canada, I’m not taking an example as Winnipeg - it’s probably worse in other places. In the morning they have a bowl of porridge and a cup of coffee - 25¢, at lunch soup and a piece of bread, which is 23¢, evening they have either cheese or cheapest priced meat, a cup of coffee and a dish of some desert, which is 60¢. A total of $1.08
just to keep their body and soul together. Figuring on 30 days a months, it amounts to $32.40. The cheapest room in an unsanitary, stuffy, fire-hazard room is $22.00 a month. The moment his pension is raised they raise the rent. It is making a total of $54.40 out of the $55.00 which they are receiving from the pension. I don’t know how many have a little income which they do not report, because once they report they only have a certain amount of exemption. Now this, Mr. Speaker, does not include clothing, necessary essentials, like tobacco, toothbrush, toothpaste, shoe-laces, medical - unless they are very seriously ill -- so far they are not getting it. In other words, how can we expect them in the last year, and I want to inform this House that whether a lack of food or not, in Manitoba alone, there are over 200 average deaths of the old age pensioner a month. I don’t attribute this to the lack of food - I don’t know. Nevertheless, the facts are facts! In the few years after they get their pension at 70 years, shall we let them live in such a misery? And I still say that I don’t know. I still claim there’s half a million people in Canada live under these conditions, -- and let them deny it.
Now, this resolution, as I have already stated does not require any funds from the Provincial Treasury. It’s the people of Canada who are going to pay for it. It’s the people of Canada who are willing to pay for it because there isn’t a single home in Canada who is not affected, is not affected by having some senior member in their home, and they could not take care of them. Children nowadays haven’t got enough for their own. If a child starts supporting their parents, there is always family trouble. The wife says to the husband, "I did not marry your father, I married you", and the husband says to his wife, "I did not marry your mother, I married you, and I cannot support them", and the average wage does not allow for the children to support their parents. So what are they to do? Not taking into consideration the suffering they’ve had from the age of 60 until they reach the age of 70, or the age of 65 when they have to go on their knees to the Municipalities, which now is being eliminated, and beg, beg that the application be approved for a miserable $55.00 a month. So I cannot see for the life of me, why a resolution of this kind which only request the Federal Government going on record that we do not want to see a situation - a condition where old people should not have enough even for their food - never mind anything else. In order to buy something else, they’ve got to forego a meal. That’s all we ask. That’s all I ask is, let’s go on record that we do not want to see such a situation. We cannot afford additional - well, perhaps we cannot afford the additional sum of money required for it, -- ask the Federal Government, who have all the taxing power in world, that we are not opposed to a Federal increase of another $20.00 a month for the Old Age Pensioners.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, as we appear to have come to the end of our Order Paper, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, and the House adjourned until 2:30 p.m. the following afternoon. ]
Page revised: 18 April 2010
