| 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | ||
| 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 |
| 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 |
| Page | ||
| Introduction of Bills, No. 60, Mr. Scarth ....................................... | 83 | |
| Questions ..................................................................................... | 83 | |
| Mr. Orlikow (Mr. McLean), Mr. Harris (Mr. Roblin) | ||
| Mr. Paulley (Mr. Roblin), Mr. Gray (Mr. Johnson) | ||
| Mr. Roberts (Mr. Lyon) | ||
| Mr. Paulley (Mr. Thompson) | ||
| Mr. Hryhorczuk (Mr. Lyon) | ||
| Bill No. 30, Second Reading, re Anatomy Act (Mr. Johnson) ......... | 84 | |
| Questions | ||
| Mr. Gray, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Molgat. | ||
| Bill No. 31, Second Reading, re Practical Nurses Act .................... | 85 | |
| (Mr. Johnson) | ||
| Speech From the Throne, debate. Mr. Orlikow ............................. | 86 | |
| Mr. Lyon ................................................................................. | 92 | |
| Mr. Gray, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Schreyer .......................................... | 96 | |
| Division, Amendment to the Amendment, Throne Speech .............. | 98 | |
| Adjourned Debate, Mr. Gray’s Motion re Pensioners. | ||
| Mr. Guttormson, amendment ................................................... | 99 | |
| Proposed Resolution, Mr. Paulley, re Compulsory Insurance ......... | 100 | |
| Mr. Evans, Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Paulley ..................................... | 103 | |
| Mr. McLean, Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Paulley ................................. | 104 | |
| Proposed Resolution, Mr. Ridley, re Farm Implement Tax ............ | 105 | |
[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
[Mr. W. B. SCARTH, Q.C. (River Heights) introduced Bill No. 60, an Act to amend The Greater Winnipeg Water District Act. ]
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): In the absence of the Minister of Public Works I wonder if the House would agree to allow this item to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Orders of the Day.
MR. DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John’s): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Education. Under the regulations whereby school textbooks will now be provided free, and as I understand it the School Districts are to purchase the used textbooks and they will be recompensed by the Province. Is that correct? The question is that the municipality, the urban municipalities at least apparently are going to have to hire extra staff to do this job. Who will pay for this extra staff and also they feel that the money should be paid to families by cheque rather than given to the children in cash. This will cost them money, who will pay for that, Mr.—it’s this question which they are wondering about.
HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the purchase of the textbooks is being looked after by individual school boards. I was not aware that it would involve any expense or any staff. This is the first suggestion that has been made to me concerning that and my off hand opinion would be that that is an expense of the school district. Now if they can establish that it cost them something we’ll have to look at that. As far as paying, who they pay, whether they pay the parents or the children, we’ll leave that up to the school district as long as they carry out their job of purchasing the texts.
MR. LEMUEL HARRIS (Logan): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I would like to ask the First Minister a question. Whether a chairman has been selected for the Minimum Wage Board, and if so, who?
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Minister of Labour dealt with that, when a similar question was asked the other day.
MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Radisson): No, Mr. Speaker, he mentioned the fact that, if I may, that we’re in the process of naming a chairman, and the question now directed to the Ministry, Mr. Speaker, is: Has that been done?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, the answer is the same as the Honourable Minister gave when it was first raised.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Health and Public Welfare? 1) The changes, if any that have been made since July the 1st, 1958 with respect to the regulations governing the administration of Mothers’ Allowances. 2) The payment now being made to mothers. 3) The deductions from payment that are made on account of income received by the family other than Mothers’ Allowances. 4) The additional assistance if any, that may be given a family in need.
HON. GEO. JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the honourable member from Inkster, he was good enough to give me notice of this question, and there have been no changes as yet and the answers to the second, third and fourth questions, Sir, are contained in the regulations, under the Child Welfare Act and I’d be pleased to pass this information along to the honourable member.
MR. S. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I’d like
to ask a question of the Honourable Attorney-General. According to press reports about a week ago involving a certain Provincial Police Court gambling case there was—the court was allegedly told by the Crown Prosecutor that a number of the individuals involved had no previous record and were treated accordingly. Now press reports the following day gave a long record, particularly a case of a $10,000 fine against one of the individuals said to have had no previous record. Has the Attorney-General investigated this, and if so—if not, does he intend to?
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): The answer is, Mr. Speaker, that I have investigated it.
MR. R. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Honourable the Minister of Labour has now entered the Chamber. I’m wondering if it would be now permissable to direct a question directly to him in view of the answer of the Honourable First Minister on the question as to whether or not a chairman has been selected to head the Minimum Wage Board and if so, who?
HON. JOHN THOMPSON (Minister of Labour and Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Virden): Yes, we have selected the chairman of the Minimum Wage Board, Mr. Speaker. The chairman will be Mr. Cam McLean of St. Boniface, practising law in Winnipeg.
MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Just a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has Labour and Management been informed? I understand that their representatives from—both of them on the board or techinically so, have they agreed to the appointment of the chairman, or is that necessary?
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, the agreement of the other memebers is—or the other groups is not actually necessary although I have spoken to some of the members of the groups before the appointment was made.
MR. SPEAKER: Before the Orders of the Day, I’d like to ask the Attorney-General a supplementary question to the one asked by the member from La Verendrye. Is the Attorney-General anticipating taking any action after his investigation?
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no. I should perhaps say it for the sake of clarification of the remark made by the honourable member from La Verendrye to the effect that the statement was made in court “this man had no record.” My investigation has revealed that no such statement was made in court at all. I would also add that there was an apparent mix-up in the information that was supplied to the Crown Attorney with respect to the record of the individual involved and that contributed in large measure to the comment that appeared in the daily press.
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 30. The Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare.
[Mr. Johnson (Gimli) presented Bill No. 30, an Act to amend the Anatomy Act for a second reading. ]
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, this Act, the explanation or the principle of the Act is that it can be divided really into three main categories. Sections 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 are just merely amendments to permit dental students to obtain anatomical specimens for study in scientific examinations from the Professor of Anatomy in the same manner as medical students do now. This is in connection with the opening of the Dental School last fall.
The Section 4 is, at present the Act provides that a body come under the control of an inspector if unclaimed for forty-eight hours after death by a preferred claimant or any relative of the deceased. This amendment deletes the term “or any relative of the deceased” as the legal department feels that the—such a possibility is pretty well covered in the definition of ’preferred claimant’, which is very broad.
The other main body of this amendment, Section 5 and 6 of the present Act makes provision for a living person to give consent to the use of his body after death for anatomical and scientific study. Now most people who want to do this think of doing it in their wills, but in Manitoba as in other jurisdictions a person’s body is not part of his estate, and therefore is not disposable by will; and as more and more people are wishing to donate their bodies to dissection after death, it was considered desirable to enact covering Legislation, and it was determined that the simplest method is for the preferred claimant to file a waiver of claim according to Section 6, Subsection 4, which spells that out, which says at present, ’any person entitled to claim a body may present to the inspector or sub-inspector a duly signed and witnessed waiver or renunciation of
his claim and the body shall thereafter be deemed to be unclaimed.’ Now under this new Subsection 4A, 4B and 4C, it merely enables a person before his death to consent in a manner satisfactory to the inspector to the use of his body after death for the purposes mentioned in Subsection 7, which is for dissection purposes.
Section 8, which is the next amendment, is just an amendment which places certain restrictions on the embalming of unclaimed bodies, because the embalming process in these cases renders the body useless for dissection purposes. This then is the main—the principle behind the requested amendment to this Act.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question, please? Is there a shortage of bodies for scientific purposes?
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Would the honourable member repeat that, I missed it.
MR. GRAY: Is there a shortage of bodies for scientific purposes?
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering, is there provisions anywhere whereby the person who wills their body for these purposes, protected as to—be assured that they’re in sound and reasonable mind at the time of making the commitment or agreement of the disposal of their body. I can imagine in some cases through emotional stress or that, particularly in hospital that a person might say oh, it’s O.K., you can have my body, and on reflection might think otherwise than that. I was wondering if there’s any provisions that such cases would not arise?
MR. G. MOLGAT (St. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the observation here that no doubt when this comes up for committee stage there will be a lot of questions asked. I don’t know whether this is the case or not but it seemed to me possible that certain religious groups may have certain stands on this question, and while I realize the province’s dental school basis and so on—could I suggest that when this does come up to committee stage that it be advertised and that those groups who may have objections be advised so that they can come forward and make their views felt on the subject.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the questions. The first question, is there a shortage? The answer is no. In discussing this with the Professor of Anatomy this was not the case at the present time. Number 2, the honourable Leader of the C.C.F. Party concerning his question. This Act merely allows a person who wishes to make sure that this disposal of his body will occur in this way, makes it possible for him to spell it out. He has to fill in a certificate which he obtains from the Department of Anatomy and he has to give one of these to his lawyer, or to whoever’s going to look after him, to the preferred claimant and to the inspector, and leave one with the Department of Anatomy. And if there is any controversy at all, or any objections by the preferred claimant at any time of course this would be waived, but this is just to enable people who have requested this to be spelled out, and apparently it cannot be done very easily by opening up the will. And in regards to the last question, I don’t believe there will be any objections in that regard but it certainly will be advertised—I take notice of the member’s question.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
[Mr. Johnson (Gimli) presented Bill No. 31, an Act to amend the Licensed Practical Nurses Act, for a second reading. ]
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, this Act to amend the Licensed Practical Nurses Act—the principle of these amendments is to allow the provisional accreditation to people in three categories for one year. At present the advisory council set up under the Public Health Act which consists of the Deputy Minister of Health and Public Welfare, representatives from the Nursing Association, Medical Profession, Hospitals—this advisory council for Licensed Practical Nurses permits practical nurses to practise their profession with a license pending but there is no authority for such action in the Act, and it is felt that there should be an amendment to Section 9, giving the Advisory Council general direction or discretion to permit certain practical nurses to practise their profession while a license is pending. Now we’re thinking mainly of three types of individuals. The Practical Nurses duly qualified in another country who may be required to serve a probationary period in this province to get over language difficulties and receive instruction in hospital and nursing techniques in this province. The second group are those Practical Nurses who have been inactive for a number of years and may be required to take a refresher course before being granted a license; and a student practical nurse
who has completed the prescribed course but is waiting to sit her licensing examinations may, in the interim, be permitted to practice with a ’license pending.’ These examinations for licensed practical nurses are held twice a year and a girl may graduate, for instance, under a little bit of a speed-up course—we’re going into this now—and the exam may not be just set when she graduates but we will give her a ’license pending’ or permit to practice until we can examine her. This is the principle of this bill.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on proposed motion of the Minister of Mines and Resources for second reading of Bill No. 2. The honourable member for St. Rose.
MR. T. HILLHOUSE (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the honourable member for St. Rose, I crave the indulgence of the House, and on his behalf I ask that this matter be allowed to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Adjourned debate, the honourable member for Birtle-Russell for an address to His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, in the amendment to the amendment thereto. The honourable member for St. John’s.
MR. D. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating you upon your election again as Speaker. Our experience since last year was such that we were satisfied that the decisions have been fair, have been non-partisan and that you will fill the role of Speaker to the satisfaction of all members of this House regardless of what party they represent.
I would also like to compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne on the excellent job which they did. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not spend a few moments in replying to the remarkable speech made by the honourable member for Wellington yesterday. It is a long time, Mr. Speaker, since I heard a speech which, in my opinion, contained so many half-truths, so many misconceptions and misstatements of fact. Outside of the House, Mr. Speaker, my characterization of this speech would be much stronger than it will be here. I’m afraid that the rules of the House would not permit me to speak in the language I would ordinarily use to answer this speech. The honourable member, Mr. Speaker, equated socialism with communism. He said, on page 74 of Hansard, and I quote, “I believe that there is no fundamental difference between socialism and communism.” Well, Mr. Speaker, one only needs to look at the record. Communists take power to violent revolutions and in those countries in which communism has taken power, they immediately proceed to suppress all other parties, and for the information of the honourable member they usually begin with the socialist parties of those countries. Now, socialist parties, Mr. Speaker, believe in a democratic system and in every country where socialists have achieved power opposition parties exist and are encouraged to continue their work and, in fact, they often replace socialist governments. One only needs to look at the examples which we have already had. I could name a few of them—Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Holland, Belgium, New Zealand, Australia, for proof of this fact.
Now the honourable member for Wellington asks the question and I quote again: “Can trade unions exist in a socialist state?” Well here, again, Mr. Speaker, the record is clear. The strongest, the largest, the freest trade unions in the world exist in precisely these countries which I have mentioned, which have strong socialist parties and have on occasion had socialist government, and I suggest to the honourable member, will again have socialist government. The honourable member suggested that under communism there should be no ownership and all property being vested in the community. Now this is probably true, Mr. Speaker, of the communist state, but no socialist government, and no socialist party to my knowledge, in any country, has taken, has ever suggested taking over more than a few selected industries. All of them believe in a mixed economy. I want to quote, Mr. Speaker, because after all the honourable member was attacking the party which I have the honour to belong to and represent. I want to quote from the Winnipeg declaration of the C.C.F. August 1956. And here is exactly what the C.C.F. says about pubic ownership. “The C.C.F. has always recognized public ownership as the most effective means of breaking the strangehold of private monopolies on the life of the nation. The C.C.F. will therefore extend public ownership wherever it is necessary for the achievement of these objectives. At the same time the C.C.F. also recognizes in many fields there will be need for private enterprise which can make a useful contribution to the development of our economy. The Co-operative Commonwealth will therefore provide
appropriate opportunities for private business as well as publicly owned industry.”
So much, Mr. Speaker, for the suggestion of the honourable member that all industry would be owned by the state in a socialist economy. I want to suggest to the honourable member, Mr. Speaker, that public ownership is not a monopoly of the socialists. In the year 1908 the Manitoba Telephone System was established as a publicly owned utility by the government of that day—and who was premier at that time, Mr. Speaker—the Honourable Sir Rodman Roblin. The Ontario hydro-electric system, the greatest publicly-owned utility in Canada, was established by a Conservative government in Ontario under the direction of Sir Adam Beck. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the honourable member that C.B.C. is a good example of a publicly-owned corporation, and that the honourable member should give some thought to how much support private radio stations would give to the musicians of the Dominion of Canada as compared to what C.B.C. has done.
The honourable member said on page 72 of Hansard, and I quote: “We know from observation that the welfare state cannot function in freedom.” Further on on the same page he said and I quote again, “A welfare state always has been and probably always will be an embarrassing liability.” Well, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to admit that I believe in the welfare state. I am satisfied that in the next decade many more welfare measures will be adopted in Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member really believes what he said yesterday about the welfare state, I would suggest to him that he is in the wrong party and he is sitting on the wrong side of the House. He should be over here, Mr. Speaker, behind the leadership of the honourable, the leader of the official opposition because his government, the Conservative government of this province has introduced more welfare legislation in the year that they have been in than the former government did in the 10 years that they were in. The honourable member, Mr. Speaker, is concerned about communism—and we are all concerned about communism. We are today in a state of cold war between the communist east and the rest of the world.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member really believes that the fight is between communism and free enterprise then I would suggest to him that in fact the battle has already been lost, for with the exception of Canada and the United States half the people of the western world no longer believe in free enterprise. In all the countries which I have already mentioned in western Europe you have strong socialist parties, and if you accept the suggestion made by the honourable member that these people are in fact communists, then I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the free world has in fact already lost this cold war. I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in the uncommitted world that people like Premier Nehru of India, like the Premier of Ghana, the leaders of the newly-formed democratic countries of South America are, to say the least, skeptical about the values of free enterprise, and if we are to write them off as the honourable member suggested, then I suggest to him that we are really in a bad way. According to the definitions used yesterday by the honourable member regarding socialism which we in the C.C.F. reject completely, the free world is doomed. Now it is because we in the C.C.F. believe in democracy and social progress that we believe that the growth of communism can and will be stopped. So much, Mr. Speaker, for what the honourable member said yesterday.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. will support the amendment proposed by the leader of the official opposition, because in for calling for increased assistance financially from the federal government, we are continuing the traditional and I think the unanimous policy of all political parties in Manitoba; indeed of all the parties in all the provinces in Canada except Quebec and Ontario. I wasn’t here but I am quite certain that had resolutions of this nature been introduced in years gone by the members of the present government who was then in the opposition would have supported that resolution—if they didn’t in fact move them—particularly would this have been true before the Liberal administration in Ottawa was defeated. Now Mr. Diefenbaker himself before he became the Prime Minister always took the view that the provinces and the municipalities were being unfairly treated. In 1957 Mr. Diefenbaker said, and I quote from the Ottawa Journal of April 26, 1957: “We believe the provinces and municipalities must have the financial resources to carry out those responsibilities. We intend to form a government to immediately convene a dominion-provincial conference to bring about a settlement of these problems but in the spirit of unity and amity and with mutual toleration and respect.”
Well, Mr. Speaker, what’s happened to that conference? It’s still something for the dim,
dark future. Indeed, just this month on June 3rd, Mr. Diefenbaker speaking in North Bay told the conference of mayors and municipalities that they could not expect increased assistance from the federal government at this time. We think Mr. Diefenbaker was right before he was Prime Minister; we think that what he said then is still necessary, and therefore we intend to support the amendment proposed by the honourable leader of the opposition. But while we support the amendment, Mr. Speaker, we must register the strongest dissent with his approach to the problems of this province, for it seems to me that his basic approach is one of opposition to improvements in government service which have been proposed and are likely to be proposed. It seems to me that the honourable leader of the official opposition believes that that government is dead which does the least for the people of this province—and with that opinion I certainly cannot agree.
The leader of our party has already mentioned some of the important matters which are missing completely or glossed over in the Speech from the Throne. Flood control, crop insurance, deficiency payments for farmers. I would like to mention several other important matters that are not mentioned. It seems to me time that the government and the Minister of Labour took a good hard look at the Fair Wage Act. I don’t know, I’m not going to deal with it in detail today, Mr. Speaker, but the provisions of the act whereby this province is divided into zones, whereby the City of Winnipeg or Greater Winnipeg is Zone A, and where certain other cities and towns are classified as Zone B, and therefore workers are paid substantially less in those areas, and where the rest of the province is not classified at all, so that on some of the largest projects in the province of Manitoba for example, at Thompson or at Kelsey, there are no provisions with regard to fair wages. It seems to me this is a situation which ought to be examined by the government and examined now. Another think which I think the government ought to have a look at is the Labour Relations Act. We still have cases, and I’m sure the Minister has heard about them, where people who take the lead in helping to organize unions on the jobs where they work are fired. Usually another reason is given, excuses are made, but in fact they are dismissed because of their union activities. It seems to me that the Labour Relations Act need to be tightened in this respect. One thing which I certainly hoped in the light of what the Honourable Minister of Health said at past sessions would be in the Speech from the Throne, was some reference to the Housing Act. I hoped that there would be a statement by the government that the provisions of the Housing Act whereby a municipality interested in public housing would have to put a money by-law to the ratepayers that that would be removed from the act. It may be that that will come. I hope it will come, but it certainly was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
And one of the things, Mr. Speaker, which I am most interested in is the state of education in this province. Now on March 18th, 1959, the Minister of Education said, and I quote, “this plan (he is talking about the government’s plan for education) will provide equal educational opportunities for children throughout the Province of Manitoba particularly with respect to high school education, (and this is the important point as far as I’m concerned) it will relieve in large measure the real property from the burden of school finance transferring a larger share to the tax ... which we have in the province of Manitoba.” Well undoubtedly the province is paying more money for education than it did before and this we are happy to support. But what is happening to the local taxpayer? What has actually happened? The Minister was not in the House the last day of the last session—he had had an accident. When I spoke on this I pointed out that in the City of Winnipeg the increased grant for education for the year 1959 came to in round figures $600,000.00. But that is as a result of the negotiations between the school district of Winnipeg and the teachers of Winnipeg that the increased salary cost to the City of Winnipeg was $1,600,000.00. I pointed out that far from being generous, the school district of Winnipeg had been so cautious in comparison to the school districts around Winnipeg that Winnipeg would lose somewhere between 25 and 50 teachers who were moving to the suburban municipalities. And I suggested that this would happen in other municipalities. Now when I did this the honourable member for St. Vital got up and said, as I remember it—I haven’t got the Hansard here—that while this might be true of Winnipeg it wasn’t true of the other municipalities, and it certainly wasn’t true of St. Vital. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are several months along and the budgets are either in or are on the way in. And what actually has happened? In fact taxes for school purposes have been increased in, not only in Winnipeg, but in East Kildonan,
in St. James, in St. Boniface, in Norwood—and I took the trouble today, Mr. Speaker, because of what the honourable member for St. Vital had said—to phone the school district of St. Vital, and I spoke to both the secretary-treasurer and the superintendent—and while they told me that they hadn’t quite finalized the school budget, that as far as that part of St. Vital which was formerly in the school district of Glenlawn I think it is called, which is the, I think, 80% of the new school district—that in fact there would probably be a mill increase because of schools of 1 1/2 mills. So I pass this along to the member for St. Vital for his consideration.
Now this is the situation this year, Mr. Speaker. What happens next year? Under the grant system worked out as a result of the Royal Commission the grants will increase to the school districts. That’s true. They will increase approximately by $50.00 per teacher. But what happens to school districts? They have negotiated contracts with their teachers whereby the increments are not $50.00 a year but they are either $200.00 a year or $300.00 a year. With the result, Mr. Speaker, that in fact next year, and the year after, and the year after, the cost to the local taxpayer through his real estate tax will be not what the Minister said on March 18th last, but will in fact be more. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government will have to take a good hard look at this whole problem. I want to suggest also that while we can all be happy with the improvement which will take place in education as a result of the new grant system, and the new organization system, that all of us in Canada, in every Province in Canada, should be concerned about the fact that we are falling behind in the battle to give a better educational system to the people of Canada. Last night because we weren’t meeting I was home and I was watching T.V. and I saw the Principal of McGill University, Dr. Cyril James, on a T.V. program—I’m sure nobody would accuse him of being a C.C.F.’er or being a Socialist—but his comparison of what we are doing in the field of education in Canada as compared to what they are doing in the Soviet Union is one which ought to make all of us who are interested in education look at the problem of education with a good deal more attention than we have.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a little time on the amendment which was introduced by our leader. What about a comprehensive system of health insurance which we are proposing? Is it feasible, will it work, or is it as the Honourable Minister of Health said in this House on March 19th of this year about a similar sub-amendment which we proposed then, and I quote. He said “I find this sub-amendment so unreal and divorced from the problems of Manitoba.” Well, Mr. Speaker, is it? I said then and I point out again that the largest organizations in Canada have expressed themselves in favour of health insurance. To quote just a few and I won’t read the resolutions, I did it in the last House—the Manitoba Farmer’s Union, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Labour Congress. The gallup poll has repeatedly questioned people about their opinion with regard to health insurance and in every case an overwhelming percentage of the Canadian people have expressed themselves as supporting the idea of health insurance operated by the government.
Now what about the political parties? Our position is very clear. I came across a very interesting summary of what political parties thought about health insurance—and I can give the minister, if he’s interested, the source of this. Here’s what the Conservative party said in 1948, and I quote again: “A steady expansion of insurance on a contributory basis to protect all citizens; health insurance covering medical, dental, surgical and hospital health services on a contributory basis.” That’s what the Liberal party said in 1948.
Now Mr. Speaker, why are we, and why have so many people expressed themselves in support of health insurance? Let me quote from a report made by the Citizen’s Research Institute, the Director of whom is a Mr. Eric Hardy of Toronto, one of the top experts in the field of municipal government amongst other things in this country. He says and I quote “the provision of medical care presents a recognized economic problem because the individual or family has no means of foreseeing either the incidence or extent of illness. No one can tell when he will be sick or how often or what amount of medical and hospital services he will need. All that can be safely predicted is that the cost of illness will be most unevenly distributed.” It goes on to say “in recent years increasing attention has been given to the device of insurance as a solution to the economic problems created by illness. The insurance method frees the individual of the uncertain prospect of medical and hospital bills that on the one hand may never amount to much and on the other hand may reach staggering sums. Health insurance of any kind involves payment
for medical and hospital expenses from a central fund.” Now, Mr. Speaker, it goes on to point out that amongst the groups most frequently left uncovered by voluntary scheme such as M.M.S., and I think that they are fine as far as they go, but amongst the groups most frequently left uncovered, and therefore, the most hard hit by sudden medical expenses are the rural groups whose income is either too low to permit them to pay the cost of what M.M.S., for example, charges—I’m paying now $8.25. It may vary up or down a little but that’s the average rate per family—or else they may not be in a position to form a group which can function as a collection agency, and if you have to join as an individual it of course becomes even more difficult to belong. And the fact is that in Canada less than a third, I think, less than fifth of the people are actually participating in either private, government or—I don’t know what you would call M.M.S. a co-operative or not—it certainly is a non-profit organization. But less than a fifth of the people of Canada now belong to this kind of thing. And this is the difficulty—Labour Research, a magazine put out by the Canadian Congress of Labour at that time, summarize the difficulties with private plans in giving the reasons why it supported a comprehensive government scheme as follows—and I quote from their December 1954 issue: “The private plans, whether commercial or otherwise, fall down in these respects—1. They fail to reach or make themselves available to substantial portions of the population. 2. They fail to include preventative services without which no health program can be truly effective. 3. They fail to meet the full health needs of the Canadian people by their exclusions and limitations.” And the honourable member for Inkster in asking question the other day put his finger right on that, a 1,100 people according to the Minister, who had belonged have been now cut off. The Minister said it’s true, they are still given protection in the hospital but that doesn’t give them the day to day home protection which they have had and which they now need more than ever because they are older and more likely to become ill than they were before, and yet this is precisely the people who are cut off by schemes such as M.M.S., because from an insurance point of view they are a bad risk—let’s face it. “4. They are in many cases not subject to adequate, if any, consumer control.”
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the difficulties with our present unplanned project. Now the question arises, can a comprehensive health insurance scheme operated by the government work? Well, Mr. Speaker, it is working in many countries, in fact Canada and the United States are amongst the few countries which are not now operating such schemes. These schemes began almost, well less than 100 years ago, but at least 75 years ago, these schemes began in Germany and they spread gradually over most of Europe and they are now in operation in those countries. I want to talk just for a few moments about the scheme as it works in Great Britain. I want to quote as some of our members already have from an article which appeared in Harper’s Magazine, May of this year. The article is written by the London correspondent of the New York Herald Tribune, a very respected Republican newspaper. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, so that members will realize that this is not in my opinion, at least, a partisan issue. He begins by saying, Mr. Cook begins by saying, “Ten years after the establishment of the British National Health Service it is difficult, in fact almost impossible to find an opponent of socialized medicine left on this island.” Further on he says “a national health service has in fact become a source of genuine national pride, like the Royal Navy or the Monarchy”—this is Mr. Cook speaking, not I, Mr. Speaker. Further he says “perhaps the key to its soundness is its administrative simplicity as far as the patient is concerned.” He says further “the most impressive achievement of the national health service after 10 years is in provision of care, for example in 1948, with private practice pulling doctors into more prosperous areas, 50% of the people of Britain were living in what the Minister of Health regarded as under-doctored areas. Today a doctor gets the same fee whether he treats a coal miner or a bank manager, and only 18% of the people now live in under-doctored areas.” It would seem to me living in the city, Mr. Speaker, that this would be of great interest to those members who come from rural areas which are traditionally understaffed in terms of having enough doctors. He says further “there is the conviction—Conservative Minister of Labour Ian McLeod is one of the most convinced that the country is simply healthier; that far less time is being lost from work; that energy and vitality are much improved; and that in terms of man hours of production the health service has a value to the nation which can never be measured or defined.” A medical tragedy can no longer become a financial disaster, and I gave the Minister an illustration, one of hundreds I’m sure, of what
illness can do to individual citizens when they least expect it. In Britain he says “the shadow of medical bills has been removed from family life forever.” And here’s the interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, he says, and I quote “where the middle classes here with narrow budgets and little opportunity for increased incomes, this is perhaps the most significant result of the quiet social revolution which the Labour Government carried out in Britain from 1945 to 1951. The rich could afford any kind of medicine and the poor were always taken care of. The middle class which could not plead poverty and could not stand great medical expenses faced the worst problem when serious illness developed. National Health Service as it is working in Britain today affords the maximum of individual freedom to both doctors and patients. The middle class needed the health services the most and the middle class has profited the most.”
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the experience as seen by a Republican correspondent of an American newspaper as it exists in Great Britain. We in this group believe that it will work in Canada. We in this group believe, Mr. Speaker, that health insurance will be a part of Canadian life in the next generation whether this government is for it now or not, just as Old Age Pensions, Family Allowances, Unemployment Insurance and Hospital Insurance, which were first opposed by both parties in this House when proposed, are now a part of the fabric of Canadian society. We are proud to propose this amendment and, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to propose this amendment until it becomes the law of this land just as have the other measures which have already been enacted. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, if I may, my first words to you today should be probably words of congratulation on your return to the Chair which you occupy and grace as well as you do, having already demonstrated to the House, Mr. Speaker, a degree of integrity, a judicial sense and a degree of equity which is not unparalleled, I would say, but certainly which is refreshing to see in the high post which you fill. I’m sure, when I say, that your career in this office will be long and will be distinguished as well. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that your appointment unfortunately did not meet with that degree of unanimity which might be hoped for an occasion such as that, but I think we can all take hope from the fact that the voices of dissent were few and that they were directed at the manner of your appointment, which I would suggest was a time-honoured manner followed in this Chamber for many, many years but, nonetheless, the voices were directed at the manner of your appointment rather than at you as an individual or you personally. I take this opportunity, Sir, to wish, to wish you continued good health and success in your very onerous office.
I would also be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not at this time say a few words with respect to the speech given by the mover of the Address, the honourable member from Birtle-Russell. I find it rather difficult to speak too glowingly of him because, of course, we were practically schoolmates together in the Manitoba Law School. We have known each other for a good time and I only hope that I bear in his mind the degree of respect which he bears in mine. He has brought to this task, to which he directed his mind, a degree of maturity, ability and knowledge which I am sure augurs well for his future in this House. The seconder, the honourable member from Springfield, also a personal friend, I’m sure we all listened with care to his words about his constituency. I think they were well justified words when he said that more had been done since the advent of this government in his constituency than had been done for a number of years previous, and I think that he can look forward optimistically to much more being done, not only in his constituency but in the rest of Manitoba, in many cases things being done which are long overdue and which should have been done many years ago. I’m sure also, Mr. Speaker, that this House and indeed the Province of Manitoba will benefit from his presence in this House.
It is not my intention to take the time of the House for too long this afternoon. I intend to be brief for two very good reasons. First of all, I think there is a very well recognized fear of long speeches which is apparent not only in this Chamber but in other places which I have had the privilege of speaking, but more important perhaps is the fact that there has been little said thus far by honourable members from the opposition side—little said thus far which justifies any great or long reply by anyone on the front bench of this government. The scope of the debate, I realize at this stage, is quite wide and would permit any speaker to range over any number of subjects which might be raised or considered. I have taken the opportunity of re-reading the words of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition after he moved into this debate. I saw in his remarks only one matter upon which I should make some comment and then I would suggest to you that it’s only a correction, nothing with which we would take very great issue—a correction—he said on Page 27 of Hansard on June 11th that “the financial policy of his party was the only essential difference between his party and the present government.” Well, I would suggest and I only suggest this—and honourable members opposite will appreciate I only suggest this as a correction—that the financial policy of the honourable members opposite, I would suggest, is only symptomatic of the actual and the real difference between the Liberal party and the present government of this province. The real difference of course, Mr. Speaker, is that the government of today believes in meeting today’s problems today. The real difference between the two parties, Mr. Speaker, is, of course, that the government of today believes that this province and its people want to capitalize on today’s opportunities today. And I suggest that that is only a slight correction which I would make in the remarks which were delivered by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.
I’m not suggesting for a moment or implying that the honourable gentleman opposite and the Liberal party are motivated by anything except what they conceive to be the best interest of the public of Manitoba. But I do suggest that their conception and ours is today vastly different and I would suggest also that on the 14th of May the public of Manitoba indicated that, for the time being at least, they accept our view of things; they accept our concepts of government; they accept our concepts of progress in Manitoba; and I’m certain, just as certain that they
will continue to accept this government for many, many more terms of office.
Now if I may for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a few remarks that have been made over the past few days by members of the C.C.F. Party opposite. We are faced with a C.C.F. Party which unfortunately is without a head in the House, and I don’t mean that literally, without a head in the House—in fact I should say parenthetically and sincerely that I congratulate the honourable member from Radisson for his assumption of the House leadership of the C.C.F. Party. But not only do they not have a head in this House, I understand, if we can believe newspaper reports, that the party is soon to be without a name. Now I have never in my short political career suffered from these twin disabilities; one, not having my leader in the House; and secondly, of belonging to a party which was soon to be divested of its name. But I congratulate them nonetheless on the spirit which they display in spite of these disabilities and the goodwill which they manifest at all times, except perhaps when the honourable member from Wellington is addressing remarks to the House. Unless I be misunderstood, before I carry on let me again qualify in the legal sense by saying sincerely that individually and collectively, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the members of the C.C.F. Party along with all members of this House are motivated by the same desire, that is, to be of service to their constituents and to the province as all of us hope we can be. But I am hopeful that today I can be of some help to the C.C.F. Party in the predicament in which they find themselves, not with respect to the leadership question but perhaps with respect to their name. I have racked my brain to see if I could help them with this problem and have come up with two suggestions which I would commend to their consideration. They are a party which has always been known by the initials of its name and I would suggest that perhaps a new name for them could be the Society of Theoretical Socialists, or if they don’t like that name perhaps they would like the name of the Federation of Practical Socialists. Now when one looks at the initials of those names one might feel that they are not too practical for use in this House or in this province, but I would suggest that by reference to the Province of Saskatchewan we would find that the latter name, the Federation of Practical socialists, is perhaps not a suitable one for them since a Practical Socialist, of course, is a conflict of terms, the two being irreconcilable, of course, as the experience in Saskatchewan has shown. However, whether it be the “SOTS” or the “FOPS” or the C.C.F., I’m sure that they will continue to exist in some form or another with or without a head and we wish them the best of luck in the future.
I am rather pleased by the nature of the C.C.F. sub-amendment which was moved by the honourable the Leader of that party. It points out to us on the government side, and I’m sure to the public of Manitoba, that the sights of this party are still trained on the socialist Valhalla of a Federal-Provincial Health Insurance plan. It indicates, of course, Mr. Speaker, that there is so little wanting in the present government program that they must go beyond it and, in effect, ignore what is being done by the present government. We haven’t heard too much talk in this House from members of the C.C.F. Party about Workmen’s Compensation because they know that legislation is pending on that subject—good legislation. We haven’t heard too much talk about the need for a rehabilitation program for the prisoners at Headingley Gaol or other institutions because they know that that is being started. We haven’t heard them talking about the need for a Home for Girls because they know that that is underway. In fact, all the traditional darts that they used to throw across the House have been blunted and they find that they must direct their sights on this old, old hackneyed topic of a national health plan. That subject has been talked back and forward, up and down, sideways and every way for direction in which you could want to approach it and still we find from our friends in the C.C.F. Party the desire to keep talking about something which, of course, on the 14th of May this year the people of Manitoba indicated they did not want; on the 31st of March last year that the people of Canada indicated that they did not want; and I don’t like to rub salt in fresh wounds but I would suggest that perhaps on the 18th of June in the Province of Ontario there was at least a small indication that the people of that province were not interested either in a national health scheme or in the C.C.F. Party which puts forward such a scheme. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is encouraging for the government to find a sub-amendment of this type being moved because we know that while they move it perhaps, and I think sincerely—I think they do move it with sincere motivation that they feel within their hearts that this should come about, nonetheless,
they realize just as well as we that they are talking about something which at the present stage of development of politics, in Canada at any rate, is nothing more or less than a socialist pipe dream. And I suggest as well, Mr. Speaker, that it is a convenient way for the C.C.F. Party to perhaps overlook what is being done by the present government. I think perhaps it is a polite way for them to overlook the basic premise of this government’s approach—the basic philosophy of this government’s approach to social welfare problems, and that approach of course is this, that need where need is found and wherever need is found, must be met.
Now we are not swayed by the inveterate habit of the C.C.F. prodding out their Victorian-era doctrines. We have heard speeches from the honourable member from Inkster in this session and the past session, and I’m told by those who preceded me in this House for some 18 sessions prior. I would remind the honourable member for Inkster, sincere as he is, and I would remind his colleagues in this House, sincere as they are, that the year is the year of Our Lord 1959, that is the year in which we find ourselves; that this is the Province of Manitoba in the Dominion of Canada; that the day of the sweat-shops, the debtors’ prison, child labour, scurvy and widespread malnutrition are no longer with us. All of this stuff, which was great stuff in the days of Charles Dickens, great stuffs—great stuff in the early days of British Socialism, great stuff for the hustings, all of this is behind us now because in our free democratic society governed as we have been in this country always by a party which believes, or parties which believe in free enterprise, we have overcome the social problems. We are still overcoming these social problems and I suggest that free enterprise parties will continue to overcome these problems for many generations to come without necessarily the advent of a socialist party at the Federal level or perhaps at any further provincial level than Saskatchewan.
I’m not suggesting for a moment today, Mr. Speaker, that the conditions that we find with respect to social welfare in Manitoba are perfect. I would be foolish to make that suggestion but I think that since the beginning of time conditions in social welfare have never been perfect. I think what is important is this, that this government and the people who support this government believe in the doctrine of striving for perfection, striving for perfection at all times. We are not going to set up a scheme and say that this scheme if adopted will put an end to all social problems, say in the health field and the hospitalization field. We are not going to say that at all, but we are going to say that it represents an honest and sincere effort to strive towards perfection, knowing full well, as we all do, that perhaps none of us in our lifetime, none of our children or grandchildren will ever see what we would call true perfection in these fields.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that instead of talking about an illusive and a fallacious—I would suggest a fallacious socialist pipe dream such as a national health plan, that this government is acting rather—acting to bring relief and alleviate the situation where real need is found in this province. Of course there is another basic difference when we talk about essential differences between parties. I would suggest that the essential difference between the C.C.F. Party and the Conservative Party today is that the Conservative Party knows and knows full well that it has the responsibility of government; and it knows what the responsibility of government means. Our friends in the C.C.F. have never has that responsibility as yet, and to be fair, I don’t honestly think that they will have that responsibility for a good number of years ahead. I would suggest that it would be much easier for me if I were a member of the C.C.F. Party, and Heaven forbid that that situation would ever come about, but it would be much easier for me to stand up in my place in this House, and I can just picture myself doing it and carrying on for an hour or two at a time about what I would like to see done in the field of social welfare, what I would like to see done in the field of health insurance, if I knew in my heart full well that I would never have the chance or the opportunity to implement such a plan, and I mean this as no criticism of the honourable members opposite because I am just as human as they and I would perhaps fall into the same pitfall that they have fallen into because it is so easy in their place to cast aside what we like to call the responsibility of government and to say, well now, these pipe-dreams would be lovely—I think Manitoba should have them. But I think if the cold realization ever came that they had to face the full realization of responsibility they would soon amend and abridge and temper some of their attitudes towards a national health plan and towards some of the other subjects which they are wont to speak upon at such length in the House on occasion.
I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that this Government believes in action rather than in words, and action is actually what we are giving. Later on in this session you will see a Social Allowances Act introduced and there will be ample opportunity at the committee stage to discuss this bill in great detail. You will find in that bill, Mr. Speaker, that this government is providing health care for those in need. You will see introduced in this House an Elderly Persons Housing Bill which is designed to provide better living accommodation for our older persons who, through means beyond their control, find themselves unable to enjoy that quality—that quality of protection, that quality of home which they deserve in the latter years of their life. Some might say, well, what has this got to do with the health plan? Well, of course, by merely providing better accommodation for our old people, we are thereby directly or indirectly in some cases, assisting the health problems of those people themselves. What about the field of preventative medicine? We have expansion plans for those health units going into northern Manitoba. We have additional plans for health units already established. I would mention as only one suggestion or one example of what we are doing in their field—the program of polio immunization which we extended to all persons up to age 40 within a matter of weeks after assuming office. And yet we hear from the other side of the House that this government is not talking proper action to safeguard the health of the people of Manitoba. Now I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are taking the proper action because we are moving in those fields in which government should move, and we are leaving undisturbed those fields in which government should not meddle, and we find as a result of it all that we can bring and concentrate on the problem of those in need much greater government service with much greater effect than if we were to embark upon a shotgun attack or a bird-shot attack such as I am afraid the honourable members opposite would wish us to do.
Now the socialist remedy to medicine has been compared to applying ointment to the whole leg to cure an ingrown toenail and I think that there is a great deal of merit in that analysis. What is required in Manitoba, and what we are attempting to do in Manitoba is to direct our attack, to bring assistance to those truly in need. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the public of Manitoba are now aware that the C.C.F. Party—no party, as a matter of fact—has any monopoly on social welfare. Social welfare is the property of all thinking citizens of Manitoba. We are all interested in social welfare. I regret the tendency, however, of the C.C.F. Party to attempt to use social welfare improvements as a carrot—a carrot—to lead sometimes unsuspecting and sincere people to support them, and behind that carrot and behind the little trapdoor which the carrot ..., we find such things as nationalization of the means of production and other socialist “twaddle” which they would attempt to shove down the throats of those who are primarily interested only in social welfare. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that true socialism as the honourable member said this afternoon—the honourable member who preceded me—true socialism in its native form, as we heard yesterday afternoon from the honourable member from Wellington, true socialism does believe in the nationalization of the means of production in a country. But we don’t hear anything about true socialism in this Legislature anymore. We heard a quote today from The Winnipeg Delcaration which was an amendment to the Regina Manifesto, and the Regina Manifesto—I don’t know what it was except perhaps the unwanted child of the depression—but we heard today how these socialists—the socialists are watering down their own principles because they find that the true meaning of socialism does not have that degree of public support which they would want it to have. And perhaps even more important, and I think they should be given credit here, they find from their own experiments, and that’s what they were—experiments—in such provinces as Saskatchewan—they find from the experiments of their Mother Party in Britain that a lot of this theoretical socialism just does not work in fact. And that is why we find this watering down of principles. That is why we find nationalization pushed behind the door, swept under the carpet for the time being. But out in front leading the whole parade is the whole question of social welfare—higher fair wage, higher minimum wage, higher this, higher that, free this, free that, but no responsibility—no responsibility.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that from time to time we as responsible members of this House must look to the birth springs of our political parties and the birth springs of our political movements, those which we represent. I have no hesitation in saying today that I have always been a true believer in free enterprise and that’s why I sit on this side of the House, just as I
am sure honourable members in the Liberal Party opposite sit where they do for the same reason. And I would commend to the members of the C.C.F. Party perhaps some inner reflection—some inner reflection upon why they do sit where they sit in this House—let this inner reflection bring to their minds some of the birth springs of their own party, some of the birth springs of their party in Britain. Let them reread the history of the rise of socialism in Britain. Let them see whether or not the true socialist, and I am speaking of the true socialist in the British parliamentary system as we know it, because that is the only valid comparison that we can make. Let them read and see whether the true socialists are watering their principles. Let them see whether or not true socialism as they espouse it perhaps among themselves but not to the public, let them see if they really believe if that would work, or do they want to push this under the carpet as they have done publicly and just disregard it for the time being. I would suggest that some inner reflections like that might prove illuminating to honourable members opposite and I am not presuming for a moment to suggest to them that perhaps they have not already done this, but I think that for those who haven’t done this, it would be certainly an instructive exercise.
I’m sure, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment which has been raised by the members of the C.C.F. Party will meet defeat in this House. I am just as sure that this government will be sustained in office, and I am just as sure that we will be commended in years ahead for the forward-looking legislation which we are attempting to bring into the House at this session. And I can assure honourable members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that for so long as we occupy the government benches of this House, we will continue to direct our attack on the question of need. It will not be a buckshot attack. It will be a sharp stilleto attack to bring—alleviate the pain, alleviate suffering where true suffering is found and so that all members or all citizens of this province can truly enjoy the standard of living which the bounty of this province should ensure. Thank you!
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker, if you don’t mind? Or is it too late now? If it’s too late, I’ll sit down.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ...
MR. GRAY: While you have declared yourself as a private enterprise man, why does your government or the present government have so many public ownership enterprises?
MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, these of course are one of the traditional pitfalls into which members of the socialist party fall. They seem—their reading of history, of course, perhaps haven’t instructed in them in the fact that public utilities—public utilities of the type that we have in Manitoba and the type that we have in practically every free democratic society of the western world were known to the western world and the eastern world long before perhaps even the word socialism was known. Public utilities in electricity, public utilities in water and all of these essential or what have been deemed to be essential services were known, I would suggest, in countries long before Marx or Engels were known. And so there’s nothing inconsistent with having a public utility in a free enterprise country at all because the public utility with respect to certain—with respect to certain forms of public service has been found to be the most efficient and certainly there is nothing—there is no conflict whatsoever in that term at all. And I would suggest again with respect that it is perhaps another example of the remarkable tendency of the C.C.F. Party to describe a monopoly on their part, a monopoly of such ideas as public utility which are practically as old as the sun.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to offer congratulations to you on your re-election to your high and esteemed office. May you serve as a shining example to those who follow.
I would also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne. They did, I am sure, display ability in so doing. I also welcome this opportunity to render congratulations to the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, although I notice he isn’t here, on setting what I believe to be a parliamentary record, that is to say, serving 37 continous years in office. I cannot pass without mentioning that we of this group are sorry and sad with the loss of two of our veteran members. However, I am quite sure, as indeed are my colleagues, that our present leader will certainly do a very good job in
his position and I think that we can say beforehand that we can be proud of his leadership.
The speech made yesterday by the honourable member for Wellington may have amused some people in this Assembly; it may have angered some; and as for myself I was merely surprised, because of all his philosophical statements, of all his statements delving into political science and into religion, there was some misconceptions and some amount of miscomprehension and misunderstanding, which I hope to be—which I hope was certainly pretended and not real. Let us analyze some of his statements which he did make yesterday. If I may, Mr. Speaker, at the top of page 73 he refers to socialists in his opinion being lazy, grasping, envious, preferring to take the fruits of someone else’s labour rather than to cultivate their own. What a generalization, Mr. Speaker. What a generalization! And if one wishes to generalize, and generalizations are fallacious, however, if one wishes to generalize along with him then it could be said equally well, that all those who are opposed to socialism, all those who actually have something to gain by keeping socialism out of the administration of the nation, are equally lazy, grasping, etc., etc.
Those who are in the position where they make salaries of $50,000.00 a year or more must in some way or another, if not directly then certainly indirectly, must be living off the fruits of labour of others. And certainly we in the C.C.F. who are socialists, and I make no apologies, we have fought that ever since our inception and will continue to do so. So if there is laziness and greed and avariciousness we have no monopoly on it. It lies over there as well as over here. And I think that that can be said without malice. Another statement—oh yes, the honourable member goes on to speak about phoney alleged social benefits and spurious social security. A welfare state always has been and probably will be an embarrassing liability. Now I admit, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal of controversy over the so-called welfare state. We of the C.C.F., and the Liberal Party to a degree, have been advocates up to a degree of the welfare state. Now if the Conservative Party follows the example of the member who spoke yesterday, then obviously they should be opposed to the welfare state and to social security that accompanies it. And if they are, why don’t they say so? Why don’t they put it in their election platforms that they want a minimum of social security? Why don’t they if that is their firm belief? No, in the last eight years, as a matter of fact, the Conservative Party of this province and of this country have gone ahead more and more into the fields of social security, and if they don’t believe in it, why are they forsaking their beliefs? I could use a better word but it wouldn’t be appropriate in this Chamber.
We see a further statement on that same page dealing with trade unions. Can trade unions exist in a socialist state? Here is an interesting comment. Is it not a matter of history that most trade unions—that the state denied recognition to trade unions until it was wrung from them? Well, it is a matter of history that trade unions were denied recognition by the state, but who was in power? Who was administering the affairs of the state when trade unions had so much difficulty in becoming recognized? During the course of the nineteenth century when thousands of working people lost their lives and shed their blood for the right to organize, the party in power was not the Liberal Party in Britain but the Conservative Party. I would hesitate to go back that far but I couldn’t help but hear the Honourable the Attorney-General mention just a few minutes ago that we should take a look back to our birth-strings of our parties. Let us look back at the birth-strings of the Conservative Party, and that is a good part of the picture that we see, of working people shedding their blood, people living in the poorest and most miserable of conditions, children working under labour laws that were practically non-existent and which in point of fact encouraged child labour. And all this was condoned; and not only for five years, or ten, but for thirty or thirty-five—condoned by the party that is the birth-string of the party that exists in this country today. So I say, yes, do let us have a look at the birth-strings of our party and let us see what we shall see. I can only hope—and if we have to get into debates on theory, then certainly we of this group welcome the opportunity, because theoretically the Conservative Party has been and theoretically should continue to be the party of the slumbering giants of power and privilege, and that is actually not surprising because come election time their funds are paid by these very sources.
The honourable member tried repeatedly to equate socialism with communism. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to do so, and to be fair and accurate at the same time. To equate
democratic socialism with Marxism socialism is like trying to equate conservatism with fascism or liberalism with ...—simply not accurate. Certainly there is Marxism socialism. Certainly it’s communistic. During the course of the last 75 to 100 years there has evolved a socialistic philosophy that is completely at odds with that of communism and completely capable of being in existence in a state in harmony with religion despite what the honourable member for Wellington said yesterday. He made some mention of the Roman Catholic Church, and I am a Roman Catholic, a fact for which no apology is necessary, and certainly the principles and philosophy of C.C.F. or democratic socialism is something that is almost synonymous with true Christianity. I did not wish to get that far-fetched or delve that deeply into abstract theory but that—the precedent was set yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
The Honourable the Attorney-General spoke today of the fact that our comments that we had to offer from this side of the House were in some way or another impractical, approaching that of being a pipe-dream and so on. We offered an amendment to the Speech from the Throne dealing with comprehensive health insurance—nothing impractical—nothing approaching a pipe-dream in that. It has been tried in other countries. No need for details—it has been spoken of. Certainly here is something that is worth considering. Surely we weren’t wrong, we weren’t being silly or impractical in proposing it. Members opposite may not believe it but health insurance will come because 20 years ago the predecessors of the gentlemen here on the opposite said that the ideas proposed by the C.C.F. were downright impractical, dangerous, and what have you. Today these same matters are embodied in whole or in part in a good many pieces of legislation. Health insurance will come too. This is socialism, and this is progress. The Liberal Party—the great Liberal Party of the nineteenth century was a party of progress. They fought for liberty, not the Conservatives—and that’s historically backed up. And in this century the fight is now not only for liberty but for economic liberty and that fight is waged by democratic socialist movements. The Honourable the Attorney-General chided us for our name or our lack of it, and it is true that we are somewhat in the process of reorganizing and perhaps choosing a new name, but if it comes to chiding about names, certainly the members of the party opposite have nothing much to say because they have a name which is a contradiction in terms and an existing mockery of English word usage, so they can be equally chided. And I suggest in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment proposed by my honourable Leader is something which is definitely of prime importance to the welfare and better interests of the people of this province, and of this country for that matter. All we ask is that the initiative be taken to promote this and I hope the honourable members give it serious consideration. Thank you!
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote, declared the motion defeated. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Question before the House is the amendment to the amendment to the Speech from the Throne, which reads as follows: “This House regrets that Your Honour’s government has failed to effectively advance Manitoba’s just claims for substantial increase in our rentals”—no, I’m on the wrong part, excuse me. “We regret the failure of the government to take the initiative in promoting a comprehensive Federal-Provincial Health Insurance Plan.” Those in favour of the motion, please rise.
[YEAS: Messrs. Gray, Harris, Hawryluk, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Schreyer, Wagner, Wright. ]
[NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Boulic, Carroll, Christianson, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Desjardins, Evans, Groves, Guttormson, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Hutton, Johnson (Assa.), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Miller, Molgat, Prefontaine, Ridley, Roblin, Roberts, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Shoemaker, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Tanchak, Thompson, Weir, Witney. ]
MR. CLERK: Yeas 10, Nays 41. I declare the motion lost. The amendment, Speech from the Throne which reads “This House regrets that Your Honour’s government has failed to effectively advance Manitoba’s just claim for substantial increase in our rentals under the Dominion-Provincial Taxation Agreement”. Are you ready for the question?
MR. J. A. CHRISTIANSON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, if no one wishes to speak now, I would move, seconded by the honourable member for Rockwood-Iberville, that the debate on this be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate, the honourable member for Inkster. The honourable member for St. George.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the House for allowing this matter to stand yesterday.
For the past 19 years the honourable member for Inkster has introduced a similar motion. He is dedicated to a cause of assisting old people and I think he should be congratulated on a very sincere crusade. However, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for Inkster is not the only member of this House who is interested in the welfare of the old age pensioner. All members of this House are concerned and I believe I’m safe in saying that everyone in this House would like to see the pensioner receive $75.00 a month or probably more. However, since the Federal Government felt that a $55.00 pension was absolutely necessary in 1957 for the pensioner to meet the minimum requirements, then it naturally follows that a larger amount is needed today because of the inflation which has reduced the purchasing power of the dollar. However, I believe we must be realistic in this discussion in view of the serious financial difficulties being experienced by the Federal Government. On the other hand, there is no question that $55.00 a month today will not purchase what it did in 1957. And there is no doubt that many pensioners today are feeling the pinch caused by the current inflationary trend which shows no indication of levelling off. During the past several months the cost of bare essentials required by the pensioner such as food and clothing has risen noticeably. Therefore, I believe this House should pass a resolution which has the greater chance of being accepted and acted upon by the Federal Government.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Ste. Rose, that the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word “Government” where it appears in the second line thereof and substitute the following: “To increase the existing old age security, old age assistance, disability and blind persons pensions by an amount at least sufficient to compensate for the loss of purchasing power of the dollar due to inflation since the $55.00 pension was implemented.”
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the honourable member for St. George, seconded by the honourable member for St. John’s, that the motion be amended by striking out all words after the word “Government” which appears in the second line thereof and substituting the following: “To increase the existing old age security, old age assistance, disability and blind pensions...
MR. PAULLEY: I don’t think the honourable member for St. John’s seconded that, I think this is a slight error.
MR. SPEAKER: St. George, yes, I’m sorry—Ste. Rose.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Seconded by the honourable member for Ste. Rose.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I understand that.
MR. MOLGAT: However, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member for St. John’s wishes to take precedence I would have no major objection.
MR. SPEAKER: Order! It has been moved by the honourable member for St. George, seconded by the honourable member for Ste. Rose that the motion be amended by striking out all words after the “Government” which appears in the second line thereof—I just want to have a look at this for a second—that the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word “Government” which appears in the second line thereof and substituting the following: “To increase the existing old age security, the old age assistance, disability and blind pensions by an amount at least sufficient to compensate for the loss of purchasing power of the dollar due to inflation since the $55.00 pensions were implemented.” Are you ready for the question?
MR. JAMES COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Vital, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: The proposed resolution standing in the name of the Leader of the C.C.F. Party.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member for Seven Oaks, that whereas each year finds an increase in the number of motor vehicles on our highways, and whereas each year also finds increases in accidents caused by motor vehicles
involving injury and loss of life to persons and damage to property, and further, whereas many owners of motor vehicles do not carry insurance against injury and loss of life to persons, and damage to property, therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this House the government should give consideration to the advisability of the establishment of compulsory motor vehicle insurance in Manitoba with the government as the insurer.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is a similar resolution to the one which I introduced at the last session of the last legislature, and similar to many of the propositions and proposals which we of the C.C.F. have been advancing for years, this is another one of those which we do not hesitate to advance because we feel that there is a real need here in Manitoba for complete coverage in respect to motor vehicles in the province. I know that there are friends opposite who will say at the offset that they object to the compulsory aspects of this resolution. But I think, Sir, the time has arrived when it is necessary for us as a legislative body to take this necessary step to make sure that the victims of accidents on highways are amply protected.
In a short time we will be dealing with the estimates of the government and we will be making provisions in those estimates for expanded road programs. We will be, in the words of the Minister of Public Works, making better highways and highways on which travel will be allowable or on which travel at greater speeds than ever will be possible. Our motor vehicle manufacturers are, each year, increasing the horsepower of the vehicles that are being produced, and in this “hustle-bustle” world of ours we, as individuals, constantly are in a hurry to get places. And while we do make regulations in the laws of our highways to reduce speeds or to control speeds, and while we have laws in the Province of Manitoba to place responsibility on drivers on these vehicles, we have not as yet as individuals collectively come to the full realization of how potent the weapon we have under our control, when we are behind the wheel of a car. I know that the various departments of government, a department of The Motor Vehicle Branch and the Highways Branch have conducted over the years many, many fine programs dealing with highway safety. I know that periodically in some jurisdictions our school children are constantly reminded of the danger of not observing the rules of safety on the highway but I think, Sir, that it is also unfortunately true that, despite all of this education, there are still too many operating vehicles in Manitoba who have not financial responsibility.
Indeed, Sir, the laws of the Province of Manitoba are so made up and so inactive that it gives to each and everyone of us an opportunity to cause an accident—either an injury to a person or even, Sir, the death of a person before the law steps in and says, “you must prove financial responsibility”. I think, Sir, that we should be realistic in this, and in proposing this resolution, basically what we are saying is simply this, Sir, that we are not going to give you that first chance to cause injury—that before—we’re going to say that before you are permitted to operate a motor vehicle on any of our highways, that you have to show financial responsibility if, unfortunately, you are involved in an accident. I know quite frequently, Sir, we are criticized, of the C.C.F. group, because we make reference to our sister province to the west. Be it socialism or otherwise, I think that we should recognize in this instance that on assuming office in 1944 they considered this problem and came to the realization that something had to be done with this particular problem. I know, Sir, that we here in the Province of Manitoba have what we name an Unsatisfied Judgment Fund for the reimbursement of some people who are injured or killed. But I say, Sir, that it is not enough because the onus is on the party who is injured to prove conclusively to the satisfaction of our court that the injury was sustained as the result of a motor vehicle. I think, Sir, that if we here compulsorily require owners of motor vehicles to take out license plates and also under compulsion require drivers of motor vehicles to take out licenses, surely to goodness it should be compulsory for them all to have insurance for the protection of any unfortunate victims. There is opposition, I know, by many of our leading free enterprisers to this system and to the scheme we propose, and I suggest, particularly after listening to the fine speech of my honourable friend the Attorney-General this afternoon, that there is reason for this opposition, but the basic reason of the opposition to the type of compulsory insurance that I am proposing is because of the fact that the insurer would be the government.
When I spoke on this resolution last year—or this spring, Mr. Speaker, I made
reference to an editorial which was carried in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 6th, 1959, in which it states that the plight of innocent victims of financially irresponsible motorists is causing increasing concern. In British Columbia there are demands for compulsory insurance. Here in Manitoba there is a considerable body of opinion that the Motor Vehicle Branch should not issue license plates until the registered owner gives proof of being able to make good financial damages for which he may be liable as a result of mishaps. And while I do not claim that we of this particular group are the only ones that are of that opinion, I do say this, Mr. Speaker, that at least insofar as this legislature is concerned that we are the only ones who have proposed compulsory automobile insurance. Even my free enterprise friends across the way and to my right have not gone so far as to suggest it even on a privately conducted basis. And, of course, naturally it’s only expected that we of the C.C.F., believing as we do of state participation in matters of this, to suggest that it should be state owned. But after the introduction of the resolution last year that while the editorial of The Tribune that I have just quoted did not go along with our proposition, following the introduction of the resolution on March 25th, the same paper—The Tribune—had this to say in respect of accident insurance, “The C.C.F. group in the legislature would like to see the government go into the car insurance business. Premier Roblin wisely showed little inclination” and incidentally to this, I don’t think any of the representative of the Premier’s party spoke on this although I do believe the honourable member for Hamiota was going to say a word or two when he didn’t. The article goes on to say, “Premier Roblin wisely showed little inclination to plunge his administration into the hazards and headaches involved in this particular field of human endeavour. But, a great deal more could be done to protect the public from financially irresponsible motorists without embarking on state insurance. The present Manitoba legislation should be amended in three ways: Motorists”—here’s one of the points of our contention—“motorists should be required to show proof of financial responsibility before license plates are issued. The proof required should either the usual pink insurance card or a bond of some kind. The amount of protection should be sufficient to make good any financial damages resulting from an accident. Second—It should be made an offense to drive a car if the registered owner is not financially responsible. This provision is to prevent abuses such as cancellation of insurance policies after license plates have been issued. Third—the limits of the unsatisfied judgment fund should be revised upwards. The law at present sets a maximum of $10,000.00 on the amount that may be paid from the fund to the survivors or dependents of victims of traffic accidents. In the light of damage awards being made by the court in accident cases this limit is unrealistic.”
“The former administration”—my friends to my right—the article goes on to say—and how true the article is—“the former administration was slow to change with the times in social conditions in this important field. It is to be hoped that when an opportunity presents itself, the new government will show a more enlightened attitude in protecting innocent victims from financial consequences of accidents. The underlying assumption of the present law is that the motorist is entitled to an accident before the government requires proof of financial responsibility. It should be the opposite. There should be proof of financial responsibility before a license is issued to drive on the roads of the province.” And with that we agree, Mr. Speaker, and that is the purpose of the introduction of this resolution. But where there may be conflict with gentlemen opposite and us, is in the field as to who should be the insurer.
Now, those who of us who were in the last legislature will well recall the very, very fine speech made by my friend, the honourable member for Selkirk. At that time he referred to compulsory automobile insurance in Massachusetts and since that time we have had an opportunity of studying some of their plans. And we have come to the firm conclusion, after more consideration and study of this, that the proper thing for Manitoba would be to adopt a similar system of insurance that they have in the Province of Saskatchewan.
Well, might my honourable friends say “Huh”, because if I recall the speech of my honourable friend from Selkirk, he deplored the fact or mentioned the fact that the insurance companies were losing money in other jurisdictions. And in my talk of last year, I made mention of the fact, erroneously, that the reserve accumulated surpluses of the Saskatchewan Accident Insurance Corporation—at that time I said it was $1,000,000.00 odd. The actual fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the accumulated surplus of the Saskatchewan Accident Fund, up
to December 31st of last year, was $4,000,000.00—approximately $4,414,000.00. And I know my honourable friend chided me at that time because of the fact that he thought that that was rather amazing that here in an automobile insurance...venture where private enterprise was losing money as a result of payments of claims that the accumlative surplus in Saskatchewan had at the end of 1958 reached the very, very high figure of four million four. And I think, Sir, there is an answer for it. And I think, Sir, that the answer is simply this, that we have found in many other enterprises that the co-operative effort is most economical for the participants in it. And I would suggest this, that if we do adopt compulsory automobile insurance in the Province of Manitoba, it can only be done in all fairness to those who have to use it by government participation. I don’t believe at all in the system that they have in Massachusetts where it is operated by a private enterprise because I think it’s readily understandable that, normally speaking, where systems of this nature requiring as it does the handling of large sums of money that we should allow it to be handled by private enterprise. That it can be done more economically by government. We have embarked here in Manitoba and in most of the Provinces in Canada recently on a National Health Scheme. I don’t think that at any time was there any consideration given anywhere by any of the leaders of government, be they Liberal or otherwise who had the administration at Ottawa—and the assurance of the peoples of Canada for health should have been done any other way than on a basis of governmental operation. While we had the Manitoba Hospital Service Association here in Manitoba, it did a good job prior to the compulsory hospitalization which we have now. But when we analyze the administrative costs—even of that voluntary organization—we found that their administrative costs were almost double those of the government-operated scheme in Saskatchewan.
MR. EVANS: I would like to bring my honourable friend’s attention to the fact that a good many of the comparable expenses are paid direct by the government of Saskatchewan.
MR. PAULLEY: It doesn’t alter the fact though, Mr. Speaker, as far as financial statements are concerned of the cost of operation, that the comparative administrative costs of the government-operated plan were less than they were here in Manitoba. And insofar as insurance is concerned there are many aspects of costs that are necessary in a privately operated insurance business that wouldn’t be necessary with the compulsory governmental. Now then, in this--
MR. HILLHOUSE (Selkirk): If I may, would the Honourable Member permit a question before he develops the subject further? Could you give me the figures of the profits made by the Saskatchewan Government under its compulsory insurance since the date that it introduced the $200.00 deductible clause in its insurance policies?
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I’d be glad to meet, if it’s agreeable with the honourable member, and give him all of that information, I believe I have it before me, but it would entail quite a lot of going through the documents that I have here, which I’d rather not do at the present time.
Well, I have no objections at all to it, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll give another sermon on that later. I can do that and—at the time of the closing of the debate bearing in mind the debate, Mr. Speaker. Thanks.
MR. HILLHOUSE: I’d like to have the—
MR. PAULLEY: Well, I’ll loan you the book. Mr. Speaker, I don’t mind the interjections. I’ll loan my honourable friend the book if he’ll give it back to me in time to close the debate.
MR. HILLHOUSE: I’ll give you a receipt for it.
MR. PAULLEY: Yes, now then, we are convinced that, as I have mentioned, that only through a governmental conducted and operated plan, that we will be able to assure to the users of this insurance fair rates. There will be no incentives for profit. It will not be necessary for any propaganda on the part of the private insurance companies to obtain this business. And I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if we coldly analyzed the cost of most of the products that we have to buy even in our daily life today that in many cases fifty or seventy-five percent of the cost of the articles themselves are taken up by propaganda and ballyhoo in order to put the product across. We can’t even buy a cake of soap now or a box of Tide or Cheer or Quick or something like that unless we are going to get a salt and pepper shaker, a towel, or something like that, and I would suggest that that is one of the things that makes it necessary for us who want basic commodities to pay the high price that we do; and the same thing I am sure would be true of any automobile insurance scheme conducted by private enterprise. I’ve always said that we here in Manitoba allow one strike for everybody, first of all. The second strike is very, very costly because of the fact that knowing and realizing the individual is forced to this by virtue of being involved in an accident, additional premiums are required.
Now, I know my honourable friend to my right is going to talk about the question of the surcharges on the insurance and the license in Saskatchewan and it’s perfectly true. I read his last year’s speech. It’s perfectly true but the difference is that the surcharges there are made for the purpose of—it’s a penalty, it’s true, but it’s made for the further purpose of realization of the necessity for the observance of all safety rules in conjunction also with the question of the insurance itself, because, what I’m trying to explain is this, Mr. Speaker—they have the financial responsibility covered already in Saskatchewan under the basic scheme, but the penalty is there to show to them that notwithstanding the fact that they have compulsory automobile insurance, they still have to be more than wary. Now I know this, that here in Manitoba it’s handled a little bit differently. It’s handled differently by its surcharge on premiums but the point is this, that this is done to offset anyone in the Province of Saskatchewan under their compulsory insurance from feeling that because they have compulsory insurance they don’t have to bother or worry any more. And that is the basic reason for that. And I think, Sir, that if we had a system in Manitoba of compulsory automobile insurance, that a similar penalty would still be necessary.
Now then, another very, very important part of the scheme that they have in Saskatchewan is their coverage there for what they call “accident to persons and compensation without
regard to fault”. As I pointed out when I presented this resolution last year, I pointed out from a standard policy in effect here in Manitoba, that there are certain exclusions permitted insofar as personal injuries are concerned. Our normal insurance policy here in Manitoba does not cover loss or damage resulting from bodily injury to, or the death of the son, daughter, wife, husband, father, mother, brother or sister of any person insured by this policy while being carried in or upon, renting, or getting in or alighting to an automobile, or any person insured under this policy unless they are covered by additional premiums, and then, for any loss or damage resulting from bodily injury to or the death of any person being carried in or upon or entering or getting on to alighting—onto or alighting from the automobile uless the premium is specified by passenger hazard. In other words, Mr. Speaker, that unless certain other coverages are carried in our standard policy here in Manitoba, there is no protection for your wife or my wife in our respective automobiles. Under the Saskatchewan scheme with their accident injury coverage, they are...pardon?
MR. McLEAN: What is the coverage?
MR. PAULLEY: The coverage is this, the personal injury cover, Mr. Speaker, is this, and its compensation is payable with—regardless of fault. In other words, you don’t have to prove fault in order to come under the personal injury coverage of the Saskatchewan basic automobile insurance policy. And the basic covery—coverage, Sir, is this: the death benefits—where death caused by a motor vehicle accident occurs within 90 days following the accident, or within 120 weeks of the total continuous disability following the accident, benefits payable are—for the primary dependent, $5,000.00; for each secondary dependent, $1,000.00, or a total—further total aggregate for secondary dependents of $5,000.00—up to a total of $10,000.00 in respect of one death. If the victim is a married woman and has no benefits—are payable to the dependents—$2,000.00 is paid to her husband. When children aged 1 year or over are killed, the payments are made to the parent who has provided for them, as follows—and it graduates from one to six years of $100.00 then progressively goes up to 15, 16 and 17 years of $1,000.00. There is a payment of $200.00 for funeral benefits. There are dismemberment benefits up to a maximum of $4,000.00. There are various supplemental allowances up to $1,000.00. There is a weekly indemnity payment of—the rate of indemnity payable is $25.00 per week during the period of such incapacitation but not exceeding 104 consecutive weeks. The rate of compensation for partial disability is $12.50 per week but not exceeding 104 consecutive weeks. Married women or widows managing a household may receive $25.00 per week but not exceeding 12 consecutive weeks if totally and continuously disabled. If partially and continuously disabled, the weekly indemnity is $12.50 per week but not exceeding 12 weeks. So, you see by that, Sir, that this coverage is in addition to any other coverage which any standard policy give us here in Manitoba. That’s your answer --
MR. McLEAN: What is the cost of the premium—how much?
MR. PAULLEY: That is all included in the basic premium of your automobile insurance.
MR. HILLHOUSE: What about the driver’s license? Is there—
MR. PAULLEY: The driver’s license is $2.00. The drivers—the license fee is $2.00, Mr. Speaker. The basic cost,—can’t find it right now—the basic cost for the insurance that I have just mentioned runs somewhere around about $23.00 for about a 1955-56 car. I have the figures here but not right at my hand at the present moment. But it comes under the basic—the basic automobile insurance premiums that are in vogue at the present time. Another very important feature, I think, in this insurance in Saskatchewan is this, is their “regardless of fault” clause. Now, let us presume that a chap was impaired and driving the car—there is no coverage under the basic insurance for him; there is for those who are with him. But, Sir, in the event of him dying, then the widow receives the benefit under the insurance plan there. Now, there are many other aspects to this that will be covered later.
I do say this, that while there may be objections to it, for some reason that basically we here in Manitoba have got to be realistic, we have to—we have to realize more fully than we have ever done in the past that we do not have the coverage necessary here in Manitoba at the present time. I am sure that all members in this House have had cases that they have discussed with Mr. Baillie, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles—and I would like to compliment Mr. Baillie on the job that he is doing. I had one the other—the other day which is in the stage of being progressed, and it could happen, Mr. Speaker, to any of us. It was
a case of a chap who drove his brother’s car. Unfortunately, a youngster on a bicycle rode into him and was injured, and his leg was broken. Now then, the automobile did not have any insurance, so the driver has lost his driver’s license until he could—until either the person in—that was injured is out of hospital and the total bill is known, but until that time or until other aspects of the case are clear, he is in the unfortunate position of having before he can get his driver’s license back, to post bond for $10,000.00. Of course his brother who owned the vehicle, his plates are taken away from him and the car is impounded.
Now the point I think in the whole question is this, Mr. Speaker. Anybody could get into my car and innocently, under our present law, drive it, get involved in an accident and lose his right to drive until such time as full financial responsibility was shown. A similar accident happening in Saskatchewan, the financial responsibility is there and that’s the whole basis and the whole point of this, that if we are going to permit automobiles and drivers to use our highways, and of course we do, there is no question or doubt about it, I think, Sir, that it’s ever increasingly important that we should make sure that any person who comes in contact with those motor vehicles should be fully protected in the event of any injury or loss. And I think it is the responsibility of us as a legislative body to fully investigate this and enact in the statute books of Manitoba a system of compulsory automobile insurance to make those provisions, and our suggestion is to make it the most economical possible, that that system should be based on co-operative enterprise with the Government as the insurer.
MR. HILLHOUSE: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the honourable member of Ste. Rose that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution standing in the name of the honourable member for Pembina.
MR. M. E. RIDLEY (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member from Brandon, whereas farm implements coming in from the United States are exempt from excise and sales tax for farm operations in the Province of Manitoba, therefore be it resolved that this Government ask the Government of Canada to make necessary provision in order that farm implements coming in from United States to the Province of Manitoba be exempt from excise and sales tax when used for the clearing of snow from roads within the municipality where the farmer resides.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. RIDLEY: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be very brief on this. As you know, the trouble that we had last winter during the heavy snowfall all down in southern Manitoba, we had inspectors out there and did stop some of the—some of them from blowing snow. More especially this year with out new school vote in we’ll certainly have to make sure that the farmers are able to blow snow. I think it’s a very necessity—they have to open the roads for their mail routes. We have some people down in my area that are 14 and 15 miles from a hospital, and they have no other way to get to town but with their automobiles. The horse days are over and they simply will have to be able to keep these roads open. I am sure that people living in town that have a highway going by their place—those farmers that are living in these areas out of town are helping to pay for that highway—surely if they offer to keep the roads open for us free of charge to get to town, that we shouldn’t try to stop them. I think we are very fortunate that they are not asking us to help pay them in place of the Federal Government asking the tax on that machinery. I am sure that I will get support from all members of the House on this because if we do get a winter like we had last winter, we will be faced with the same problem as we were before. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. ROBERTS (La Verendrye): I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member for Emerson, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, as we’ve come to the end of the Order Paper, I would move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Mines & Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker put the motion and after a voice vote declared the House adjourned until 2:30 the following afternoon.]
Page revised: 7 July 2010
