| 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | ||
| 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 |
| Page | ||
| Report of Standing Committee, Mr. Ridley ..................................... | 123 | |
| Introduction of Bills | ||
| Bill No. 65, re Ste. Agathe Bridge (Mr. Roberts) ...................... | 123 | |
| Bill No. 66, re Chiropodists Act (Mr. Groves) .......................... | 123 | |
| Bill No. 27, re Vital Statistics Act (Mr. Johnson) ....................... | 123 | |
| Welcome to Visitors, Mr. Roblin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Paulley ......... | 123 | |
| Hansard, Mr. Campbell ................................................................. | 124 | |
| Questions ...................................................................................... | 125 | |
| Mr. Paulley (Mr. Roblin), Mr. Gray (Mr. Willis) | ||
| Adjourned Debate, re Pensioners (Mr. Gray) and Amendment. | ||
| Ruling by Mr. Speaker ............................................................ | 125 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Motor Vehicle Insurance (Mr. Paulley) | ||
| Mr. Hillhouse .......................................................................... | 126 | |
| Adjourned Debate, re Farm Implements Tax | ||
| (Mr. Ridley), Mr. Roberts, Mr. Tanchak .................................. | 130 | |
| Correction, Mr. Hillhouse .............................................................. | 131 | |
| Introduction of Resolution, re Minimum Wage, Mr. Harris .............. | 132 | |
| Speech From the Throne, amendment (Mr. Campbell) | ||
| Mr. Molgat ............................................................................. | 134 | |
| Mr. Roblin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roblin .................................... | 136 | |
| Mr. Campbell, Mr. Roblin, Mr. Desjardins .............................. | 138 | |
| Division, on Amendment (Mr. Campbell) ....................................... | 139 | |
| Business of the House, Mr. Roblin ................................................. | 139 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker.]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
MR. M. E. RIDLEY (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member from Flin Flon, that the Select Standing Committee of the House be received. Further, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the members of the Opposition and we have agreed on the names, and it will be not necessary for the Clerk of the House to read all the names.
MR. CLERK: The Select -- your special Select Committee appointed to prepare a list of members to propose a Select Standing Committees of the House, ordered by the House, beg leave to present the following as their report; all of which is respectfully submitted.
MR. RIDLEY: It has been moved and seconded by the honourable member from Flin Flon that the report be received.
MR. SPEAKER: It’s been moved by the honourable member from Pembina, seconded by the honourable member for Flin Flon, that the report of the committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
[MR. STAN ROBERTS (La Verendrye) introduced Bill No. 65, an Act to amend an Act respecting the Ste. Agathe Bridge over the Red River in Manitoba.]
[MR. FRED GROVES (St. Vital) introduced Bill No. 66, an Act to amend The Chiropodist Act.]
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, you will note that the member for Wellington isn’t in his seat and therefore can’t second the motion. Better substitute another member.
MR. SPEAKER: Another member. Substitute another member.
MR. GROVES: The honourable member from St. Matthews has agreed to second it, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I didn’t hear the ...
MR. GROVES: The honourable member from St. Matthews.
MR. SPEAKER: Seconded by the honourable member of St. Matthews.
[Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
[HON. GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli) introduced Bill No. 27, an Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act.]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. O. B. BAIZLEY (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to draw to your attention and to the attention of this Assembly, that the Red River Exhibition is opening today and that our First Minister will be at the official opening this evening at 9:00 o’clock.
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders are read, I would like to say to the House that we have a number of distinguished visitors in your gallery, Sir; in the person of His worship, the Mayor of the City of Minneapolis, Mr. and Mrs. Peterson; and I’m happy to say that if my eyesight is correct, His Worship, the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg is there as well. And I want to tell our visitors how glad we are to have them with us and how pleased we are that they have taken this occasion to come to visit Winnipeg in connection with the Red River Exhibition that has been mentioned by my honourable friend, the member for Osborne. We wish them - we wish to say to them and through them to all our American visitors in Manitoba these next few days, how very glad we are to have them and to say that we hope their visit with us will be a very pleasant one for all.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): I’m sure that our group would like to join most heartily in the welcome that the Honourable the First Minister has just extended to the distinguished visitors who are favoring us with their presence today; and to the
many others from the United States and Canada who will be with us in the next few months. It’s always a pleasure to welcome visitors. I think that on an occasion of this kind that His Worship, the Mayor of Winnipeg perhaps might have come in to occupy one of the distinguished visitor gallery seats on the floor of the House -- and I’m sure if he’d have done so -- that as a former member of the House he’s entitled to do -- we’d have been very glad to have had the Mayor of Minneapolis accompany him. However, the welcome is none the less sincere and to the many visitors from Minnesota, our neighboring state - immediately neighboring state - and to a great many others, we say a very cordial welcome and come and see us often.
MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our group, I would like to join in the welcome given to our distinguished guests, both from across the line and here in our own City of Winnipeg. I would like to say to His Worship, the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, that thus far we have missed his presence in the House, but we know that he is always working to extend the bonds of friendship that has existed for so many years between the United States and we in the surrounding area of Greater Winnipeg. And I think, Sir, that it is a blessing to know that it is possible in this world of ours that two great nations such as Canada and the United States can live side by side in harmony year after year; and I am sure, Sir, that we all trust and hope that that coridal relationship that has existed for over a hundred years between us will continue in time ad infinitum.
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I’d just like to remark that each and every member of the Legislature is invited to the Red River Exhibition as guests of the Red River Exhibition; and I think I’ve slipped up something -- somewhat on the invitations and most of the members have received invitations. I just want to remark that if you have not received your invitation today, or in your mailbox today, would you kindly send me a note.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are proceed with, I would like to make a correction in our Hansard of June 16th. Haven’t been keeping up with Hansard as well as I should -- I’m a little late in making this correction perhaps -- but if honourable members have their copies before them, they will see that this was a case too where we were attempting to welcome distinguished visitors who were in the gallery on that day - I’m always a little nervous of my own peculiar sense of humour - if that’s what it is, but I was trying to make the point that if the visitors would be able to stand the hospitality of Manitoba until the budget debate is begun in this Chamber, that they could then hear the Honourable the First Minister make his proposals. But as you will look at the third paragraph of that day’s Hansard, I begin by saying, “Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members of our group would like to join in the welcome that you and the Honourable the First Minister have extended to our distinguished visitors from Pakistan.” Then there is a ‘period’ and a ‘capital’ - “They would be able to stand the hospitality of Manitoba until the budget debate is begun in this Chamber.” Well, that makes even less sense than I’m accustomed to making in this House -- and I expect that perhaps the little attempt at humour that I was making there probably fell flat anyway -- but I was -- I was afraid that maybe I had not said what I thought I said -- and so for the first occasion in my career I took the opportunity though the kind offices of Mr. Sly, of listening to what was said - and while I sound as usual, a little bit Donald Duckish -- yet it’s quite, quite evident that I said “if they would be able to stand the hospitality of Manitoba until the budget debate is begun in this Chamber.” Then that carries on with a comma - and I think although I had hesitated in there too, I think it’s perfectly -- perfectly evident to the ones who - should be perfectly evident - to the ones who are transcribing our -- the Hansard debate, that that was intended to be one sentence.
Now, it’s not a very serious matter, but I think we should ask that the staff themselves do some proof-reading on occasions of that kind, because there are occasions in Hansard where because of an interruption, that young man who is handling the switches for these microphones, simply cannot catch at all times the interruptions that occur -- and then something is said by the speaker who is on the floor that -- in answer perhaps to the interruption -- that just doesn’t fit into the context at all. That happens to a good many members here. I was wondering if it wouldn’t be possible for the staff who are doing this work, to at least check the record to the extent of where something that is evidently out of context, or is not -- not -- doesn’t fit in, in the proper way, should be corrected at the time. I have the pleasure of having met only one of
the young ladies who is on that work. She seemed to me to be a very intelligent and capable young lady and I am sure that the others are the same. I think that they would be able to sort out corrections of that kind - needing to be made. Now I know that we’ve taken the position here and I still make -- that we don’t want editing in the way that they have it in the House of Commons in Ottawa. I’ve mentioned that before and I think it’s generally agreed in this House that it should go down on the record as is -- but still I do think that there should be occasions where the staff themselves could make corrections where they’re obviously out of context or something of that kind. Or at least put in the words -- as I see they sometimes do -- of “interruption” or something of that kind. But in my own case there simply was the word if mentioned there, and then two sentences were made out of what -- what was intended to be one sentence -- and I would ask that that correction be made.
MR. MORRIS A. GRAY (Inkster): ... I heartily support, the Leader of the Opposition in asking certain corrections in the Hansard and particularly in my case, which needs a lot of corrections -- but I am not asking for all; but those items mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, I think at least should be made, and when my grandchildren will read the Hansard, they will not consider me as illiterate as probably I am.
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration) (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I am entirely sure that my grandchildren will never read anything that I have said, but lest it be thought that I was also trying to be humourous, I should like to get a correction of yesterday’s Hansard of June 18th on page 108, where it has me saying “a market road ‘west’ must now be a 24 foot top;” the direction is not important.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, if we’re finished with Hansard, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister and, if I may, preface it with a remark. The First Minister was kind enough the other day to send me copies of Orders of Return that were asked for at our last session, and I believe, one or two other members of our group have received some of them from other members of the Ministry; but I believe that there are still a number which haven’t been answered that we had proposed submitting new Orders of Return in order to get the information. My question would be, are the respective Ministers still working on those Orders of Return of last session, or would it be considered advisable in case they’ve been lost as the result of an election to submit new ones now?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, we’re expecting to answer them all, and I think by now all the answers should have gone out. If they have not, and my honourable friend will just give me a note of the ones that he thinks are missing, I’ll see what became of them. If for any reason they have been lost, well, then it would be naturally quite in order to put them forward as an Order for Return again; but if any member has a Return outstanding that he thinks he should have had by now, if he will give me a note of what it was, I’ll be very happy to check into it and see what became of that.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, on the 16th I had a question of the Ministry. At that time the First Minister was kind enough to advise me - I always take advice from the wise - and to withdraw this Order, but he will ask the Minister of Agriculture to give me an answer. This is in connection with the Pasquia reclamation of land district. I am still waiting for it and I do not want to have this after the agricultural estimates are being considered.
MR. WILLIS: I have asked the Deputy Minister to get that information for me; I hope to get it very soon and you will have it immediately.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster that this House requests the government to petition the federal government for an increase for all Old Age and Blind Pensioners in the Province from $55.00 to $75.00 per month; and the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. George and amendment thereto 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, 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.”
And the proposed motion in further amendment thereto, submitted by the honourable member for Winnipeg Centre; that the motion as amended be further amended by striking out all the words after the word “House” in the first line and by substituting the following: “Commends the
government for its proposed legislation to assist elderly people in need.”
I promised at yesterday’s session to take the amendment to the amendment under consideration and bring into the House a ruling whether this amendment to the amendment was in order or not. I have had under consideration the sub-amendment proposed by the honourable member for Winnipeg Centre, and I find that the sub-amendment is out of order on the grounds that it deletes the amendment and that it seeks to amend the main motion. May I refer the honourable member to Sir T. Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practices, 16th Edition, page 426, which reads as follows: “An amendment to a proposed amendment cannot be moved if it proposes to leave out all of the words of such proposed amendment; in such a case the first amendment must be negative before the second can be offered.”
I might say that there is no doubt that the amendment to the amendment is out of order and cannot be accepted.
MR. GROVES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the honourable member from St. Matthews, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party. The honourable member for Selkirk.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I congratulate the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. in his pertinacity in again introducing this resolution, and I hope that the honourable member after I have spoken will attribute to me the same sincerity of purpose as I attribute to him in his presentation of the resolution.
Now I have two basic objections to any system which forces any driver to buy insurance before he is allowed to use our highways. These objections apply whether the driver is forced to buy insurance with the government or whether he is forced to buy insurance with a private company. The first objection is that compulsion destroys the very basis of insurance; the ability to decide the amount of risk involved, and to determine the amount of payment for the protection of it. This in turn destroys the power of selectivity which is inherent in all forms of insurance. Compulsion of a driver to buy insurance presupposes compulsion on insurance companies to sell it to him; and there are some people insurance companies do not want to sell insurance to.
Let me illustrate by using a form of insurance with which everyone is familiar - life insurance. Life insurance exercises the power of selectivity by means of a medical examination before the insurance is given, and by means of exclusion or higher premium for insurance to those engaging in highly hazardous occupations. The life insurance companies use this power of selectivity to keep their premium rates down. If they’re willing to insure everybody regardless of whether or not they’re at death’s door, obviously their claims would jump. If it is compulsory for a person to carry insurance before he can drive a motor vehicle, then it is equally compulsory that he be sold insurance as long as the government concerned is willing to give him a driving license. The power of selectivity on which insurance is based is taken away completely and the insurance company, whether it be government or private, is merely a mechanical exchange house where money is taken in and then passed out again in the form of claims. The mere fact that accident-prone drivers have difficulty getting insurance has a healthy effect on their driving habits. From the standpoint of the general public the net results of ... this power of selectivity is bad because of its implications of higher rates. When you consider that automobile insurance rates have gone up more in Massachusetts than in any other state in the union or in any other province in Canada, you can see the implications.
I know the question that is forming in your minds right now. Does this same increase in rates apply to Saskatchewan? I am coming to that in a moment but first let us consider the second reason why I prefer safety responsibility to the other alternatives of compulsory insurance. That reason can be summed up briefly indeed. Safety responsibility laws when well administered decrease traffic accidents or at least keep them at a lower rate in terms of the number of vehicles on the road. We have a vivid example right here in Manitoba with a safety responsibility law which has probably the best record of any province in Canada insofar as the increase in its ratio of accidents per thousand vehicles is concerned. Saskatchewan’s figures usually show its increase in accidents per thousand vehicles and is among the worst in Canada.
Saskatchewan has government operated compulsory insurance. At the same time the best records in the States were all established by those states with safety responsibility legislation. The worst record was that of Massachusetts where they have compulsory insurance. Massachusetts has had its form of compulsory insurance for many years. It has been frequently studied and carefully studied by states and provinces all over the North American continent; and yet no other state or province has ever seen fit to introduce a Massachusetts plan. Saskatchewan Government Insurance has been exhaustively studied by the representatives of many legislative bodies over the past years, and yet no such body, after learning all the facts, has deemed it advisable to introduce a Saskatchewan plan. Manitoba’s safety responsibility law, on the other hand, has been most carefully studied in Canada and the United States, and today most Canadian provinces and 40 states in the United States of America have a safety responsibility law modelled on our Manitoba plan. We cannot go into all the ramifications of our plan today, but surely there must be some good reason why state after state, and province after province, has introduced our plan.
Now there have been a number of Royal Commissions both in Canada and Legislative Commissions in United States set up to study this question of compulsory insurance versus safety responsibility law. And I would like to quote from a report of the special committee appointed at the 1948 session of the Alberta legislature to study all phases of automobile insurance. On page 37 of this report -- and here they are quoting from the Honourable Mr. Justice Hodgson in Ontario who was a Royal Commissioner apointed in Ontario to study this particular problem in 1930, and His Lordship said on page 13 of the Ontario report - “the best opinion on compulsory insurance legislation as for example that of the State of Massachusetts is that the psychological effect of compelling everyone to take out insurance is the reverse of making them careful; for everybody knows that everybody else is insured and that in case of an accident the insurance company and not the person causing the accident will have to pay.” Then His Lordship goes on further and he says: “The more this view is considered the more reasonable it becomes. Drivers of heavy cars, trucks, buses, etcetera, car owners, are very apt to fall into this habit of mine, that being insured against personal responsibility their pocket will not be touched in consequence of any acts of theirs, and as criminal negligence can seldom be proved, they feel that they are safe from the reach of criminal law. I found no one either in Massachusetts or elsewhere who would venture to assert that their compulsory insurance law had any effect on reducing the number of accidents.”
Now, in Manitoba we had a Royal Commission set up here in 1944, as a result of which we introduced our present safety responsibility law. And we find on page 20 of the Manitoba report the following: “The Massachusetts example has not been followed. In the 17 years that compulsory insurance has been in effect in Massachusetts no other state of the United States and no province of Canada has been sufficiently impressed with the experience of Massachusetts to enact similiar or comparable legislation.” Now, in the Manitoba report Mr. Robinette who acted as council for the Commission made the following points: 1. Claim frequency is much greater in Massachusetts than elsewhere; this obviously increases the claim investigation, etceterea expense, in that state over others. 2. Rates have increased in Massachusetts over the general average, although not as much as in a few other states. 3. Larger awards are granted by juries in some case because of knowledge of the existence of insurance. 4. Very minor injury -- injury claims are exaggerated. There are some fraudulent claims, and property damage claims are converted into personal claims so that recovery may be had. 5. There is much more litigation over accidents in Massachusetts than elsewhere.
Now, the honourable leader of the opposition in introducing this legislation -- leader of the C.C.F. -- (I was just out by one, that was all) -- the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. (correction) - in introducing this resolution said on page 100 of the June 17th, 1959 issue of Hansard in giving his reasons for the House supporting this resolution, “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.” Further down he said “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 upon the party who was injured to prove conclusively to the satisfaction of our Court that the injury was sustained as a 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 an unfortunate victim.
Now, what I’d like to say regarding that quotation -- that I quoted from my -- the honourable leader of the opposition, is this. That he -- CCF -- is this. Even if we had compulsory automobile insurance in this province; and even if every person who drove a motor vehicle in this province had to carry insurance, it would still be incumbent on a person who is going to make a claim against that province -- person -- to prove his claim. He would still have to prove that that person either was the owner or operator or both of the motor vehicle, and that the accident happened to him by reason of that motor vehicle. So, as far as I can see there is no point there in the argument raised by my -- the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F.
Now, again on page 101 of the same issue of Hansard, the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. quotes with approval an article which appeared in an issue of a Winnipeg newspaper. Beg your pardon? -- No, but you did read it and you suggested that these were three good points. Now, the first point that this article read -- approved was this -- referring to motorists in Manitoba. It said “Motorists should be required to show proof of financial responsibility before license plates are issued. The proof required should either be 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.” Now, in quoting from the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Hodgson to which I adhere, I think there is sufficient argument in that opinion to answer that first submission made by the newspaper. But there is another point that I would like to raise in connection with that and that is this. There are certain people in this province who are careful drivers; who drive in the hinterland of the province or drive in areas where there is not much traffic. Some of those people could not qualify for insurance, perhaps on account of age. Some of them could not on account of means -- be enabled to produce proof of financial responsibility. And I think that it would be a shame on this legislature, or any other legislature to deprive that person of the right to drive a motor vehicle without proof of financial responsibility or insurance. I -- I feel strongly on this subject. I feel that it is a case of placing an onus upon a person before any onus should be placed on that person. In other words, you are asking those people before they drive a car, to prove that in the event of them becoming involved in an accident, they’re going to be able to meet the cost of that accident. And I don’t think that would be fair. Now, furthermore, even in those cases -- supposing those people are involved in an accident, and supposing they have no insurance, supposing they have no means to meet the judgment -- we have an Unsatisfied Judgment Fund to which resort could be made in the event of a judgment being recovered against them.
Now, the second point that my -- the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. mentioned was this. “It should be made an offence to drive a car if the registered owner is not financially responsible.” Now, I think there again that we are placing an onus on a person before we should place any onus on a person. Then the third point that he made was, that the limits of the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund should be revised upwards.
Now, after that point I would suggest to the government that an investigation be made either into the awards made by our courts or to the information which you have with your -- with Mr. Baillie at the Safety Responsibility office, as to the average of judgments that are awarded in this province for personal injuries. And if you find that our limits of $10,000.00 and $20,000.00 are not adequate under present-day circumstances and conditions, well, I think the proper thing to do would be to revise them upwards. But these three arguments in my opinion are not arguments that can be properly used to support the resolution of the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F.
Now, the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. also -- also refers and he is -- reported on page 14 - 104 of the June 17th, 1959 issue of Hansard. He also refers to that aspect of the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Plan which covers personal injuries or damages for personal injuries, regardless of fault. Now, that involves a principle which I wonder if this House is willing to accept. I think if this House accepts that principle that people should be compensated by the state for injuries which they sustain due to their own fault. I think that we are embarking on a very dangerous ground and I cannot see any reason why, if this province did embark
on that conception, where you could draw the line. I further feel, too, that the motoring public should not be taxed to pay damages suffered or sustained by another motorist where that damage is entirely due to that motorist’s own fault. If that motorist wishes to get personal injury insurance there are all forms of personal injury insurance available to him with private companies at a very small premium, but I do not think that that should be part and parcel of any automobile insurance policy, and more particularly, where that is a compulsory form of policy run by a state. In my opinion, that type of insurance exists solely for the defaulting party. As far as the innocent party is concerned, the innocent party has his recourse or redress against the defaulting party, and particularly in the Province of Saskatchewan where everyone is insured, that innocent party if he is injured in an accident, can recover greater amounts against the defaulting party than he could under the Accident Insurance Policy to which my honourable friend has referred.
Now I’d like to give some facts regarding this Saskatchewan Government compulsory insurance. The Saskatchewan Government compulsory insurance policy carries a $200.00 deductible on property damage, collision or upset, fire, theft and miscellaneous perils consisting of lightning, wind-storm, hail, flood, riot, falling aircraft, earthquake, explosion and insurance on radios. The standard automobile policy issued by private companies carries no deductible on any item other than collision. It is against the law in this province for any insurance company to deduct any amount in respect of these items that I have mentioned. The only item on which they can issue a deductible policy is in respect of collision and now in respect of comprehensive where their experience in plate-glass replacement has not been very profitable, and now they are making it a deductible of $25.00.
Now when two cars are in collision, each driver under the Saskatchewan compulsory plan pays the first $200.00 damage to his own... [Interjection by Mr. Paulley] Have they changed it? When was it changed? The Leader of the C.C.F. says that it has not been changed but the change is in contemplation. Usually Saskatchewan changes its Insurance Act just before an election and then reverts back to the original act after the election. Now, under the present Saskatchewan compulsory insurance policy, if two cars are involved in an accident each driver or owner has to pay the first $200.00 of the damage. Now, under our private policies in Manitoba or the private policies that are issued in Saskatchewan there’s no deduction made by the insurance company at all except in the case of collision where they have twenty-five, fifty, or $100.00 deductible, but that is up to the policyholder to chosse that coverage himself. Now, likewise in Saskatchewan, if your car is damaged by fire, or it’s stolen, under the Saskatchewan plan you have to pay the first $200.00 of loss yourself. Now, when we consider that property damage claims make up 92% of the volume of automobile liability in Canada, you can see what that $200.00 aspect in that insurance policy means. Now take for instance in Manitoba last year the average auto accident claim settlement was $237.00. Now, if we had in the Province of Manitoba the same coverage as they have in the Province of Saskatchewan under their compulsory insurance, you can see what it would mean to a Manitoba driver.
Now the Saskatchewan Government, in order to offset the disadvantages of the compulsory policy, they issue what is known as a package policy which brings the coverage up to the standard policy in Manitoba, and even with this package policy insurance rates in Saskatchewan are not cheaper than they are in Manitoba, whereas insurance rates in Saskatchewan should be much lower than they are in the Province of Manitoba, because in the Province of Manitoba the majority of the cars in this province are congested in highly populated districts whereas in the Province of Saskatchewan they have no towns or cities comparable to the City of Winnipeg, and most of their cars are in rural areas where the danger of accident is not as great as it is in built-up congested areas.
Now, another respect of the Saskatchewan Government scheme is this - that under the Saskatchewan insurance compulsory policy there’s no rebate given the owner for winter storage, and when one considers in Manitoba the number of winter storage endorsements that are issued, one can appreciate what that means in terms of dollars and cents when applied to the Province of Saskatchewan. Furthermore, in Saskatchewan no consideration is given to the person who buys a car in the summer or fall, because all Saskatchewan insurance rates are from April 1st to March 31st. A new purchaser buying insurance in December pays for a year’s protection but gets only four month’s protection. Now, another thing the Saskatchewan Government
insurance scheme does not take into consideration is the horsepower or makes of cars. All that it takes into consideration is the wheel base. Now, I think one of the most vicious aspects of the Saskatchewan compulsory insurance act is this - that if a private insurer is on a risk and there is a claim made, that private insurer must pay up to 100% of the amount of his coverage before the Saskatchewan Government is called upon to pay one cent under its coverage. And I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is a form which is foreign to any other jurisdiction in Canada and amounts to a direct subsidy by private companies of a government scheme, and as far as I’m concerned I wouldn’t tolerate that for a moment in this province.
Now I think these are some of the reasons, plus the fact that I do believe that our objective as a province is to make our highways safe, and I think that we are pursuing the best possible method to achieve that objective. If our insurance rates are high in this province the solution lies with us as drivers of motor vehicles. All that we have to do is drive carefully because we, the motoring public, are the people who fix our own insurance rates - it’s not the insurance companies.
MR. M. E. McKELLAR (Souris-Landsdowne): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Minnedosa, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the honourable member for Pembina - the honourable member for La Verendrye.
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the mover of this resolution because I think it’s a good resolution. I think it’s one that is on the right track and something that we all feel fairly strongly about. The principle of course involved is the principle of farmers receiving their machinery from outside the country, from the United States, if it’s farm machinery, to receive it if possible tax-free and duty-free. And so I think this is a good resolution. I think it’s a step in the right direction. I think that we are all aware of the situations which arose in the south this winter and probably in many other parts of Manitoba because of the heavy snowfall where farm machinery was used for snow plowing and at times the customs people took exception to it. But I think that this resolution is a little too narrow in its scope. I think that there are many, many similar situations not involving snow plowing, but involving other types of road work, municipal work, private roads or trunk highways where farm machines, farm tractors or other machinery are used incidentally and occasionally on these jobs. They are a convenience to the people who are building the roads whether it’s municipal or other type of contractors and it’s convenient to the farmers themselves to be able to put their machinery occasionally on this type of work, and in many such cases find themselves eligible for back taxes, sales or excise taxes on the machinery, particularly hydraulics which are most readily, perhaps at least appear to be the type of machinery that is most commonly taxed on occasions such as these. I think that we should broaden this resolution to include all bona fide farmers who use farm machinery, which is purchased primarily for farm purposes, on other type of work other than that on the farm - occasionally. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would beg to move, seconded by the honourable member for Emerson, that the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the words “Government of Canada” where it appears in the second line of the second paragraph thereof and substitute the following “to make such changes in the law as are necessary and essential to entirely exempt from any duty or tax any farm implement or tractor, including any and all equipment or accessories, hydraulic or otherwise, primarily purchased and used for agricultural purposes, notwithstanding its and their use for other secondary purposes.”
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. H. P. SHEWMAN (Morris): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Hamiota, that the debate be adjourned.
MR. J. P. TANCHAK (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to say a few words at this time - I see there is plenty of time - if you’ll excuse me - the honourable members. I would just like to, Mr. Speaker, to endorse what the honourable member from La Verendrye has said and I also wish to commend the honourable member from Pembina for bringing this up. My constituency lies for a hundred miles along the border of the United States and yet we have had numerous complaints from the farmers about similar cases. I know of one case
right at Dominion City and one at Ridgeville. A gentleman or a farmer had used his snow blower that was purchased across the line - he had used it for, and a tractor attached to it, because the municipality had asked him to do it - the Ridgeville School District is consolidated. When the request was made for a snow plow to come through the municipal officials could not send a snow plow immediately so they had asked him - they knew he had a blower and a tractor to do it. Now, he didn’t do it for profit, he just did it as a favour, but the municipality reimbursed him for gasoline. After a week or two he was found liable and he was asked to pay the tax on it or the duty, the sales tax on that, and I do not think that is fair. I think these farmers should be commended in helping out their neighbours. We, all the political parties here claim to be friends of the farmer, even our friends the Conservatives opposite say so too - I believe they are, so I think it would be our duty to do something to help the farmers. There’s another case that I would like the present government to look into. Of course it’s more federal - it concerns the Federal Government more - and it’s this dumping duty that is being applied on used machinery that comes from across the line. Maybe some of the members are not aware of what is happening. It hasn’t happened previously but it certainly has happened this spring. The Government of Ottawa has seen to enforce the dumping duty on used machinery along the boundary. And I have one specific case - a gentleman from Dominion City, a farmer, went across the line. He had purchased a seed drill for $100.00. When he brought it to the customs officials, they looked at it and they valued it at $253.00 - this is an actual case and I have the name if any of the members would like to know - $253.00. So, they turn around and say “how much did you pay for it?” He says “$100.00”. He thought it was a good buy. He says “well, you owe us $153.00”, and that’s waht he was asked to pay. Well, this particular farmer says, “Oh, I’m sorry, I’m going to leave this machine right here at the customs in the United States and when the Liberal Government comes back in power it will come across free”.
I would like the present government to look into this. It makes - [Interjection] ...I believe it will come inside of about four years. I would like the present Minister of Agriculture, or whoever has authority, to look into this and see what could be done. I really and truly believe that the farmer should be entitled to buy used machinery from the United States without duty. I thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: ...make your motion.
MR. SHEWMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the member from Hamiota, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. CAMPBELL: ...on a point of order that was raised a little earlier, Mr. Speaker. Is he here?
MR. SHEWMAN: Seconded by the honourable member from Virden.
MR. SPEAKER: I’m afraid I’ll have to get my glasses changed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, while I was speaking on the resolution of the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. I referred to the fact that there was a $200.00 deductible in Saskatchewan in respect to property damage and other miscellaneous items. The Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. has shown me a letter which he received from the Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Saskatchewan in which the Provincial Treasurer advised him that commencing May 1st, 1959, the $200.00 deductible feature would be eliminated in respect of property damage, so I wish to correct the statement that I made to the House and to assure the House that I had investigated all the aspects of what I said before I made them and that I had been unable to find from anybody in Saskatchewan any information regarding this change. The unfortunate part is that in the Province of Saskatchewan they do not issue you an insurance policy, all they issue is a certificate and the average individual in Saskatchewan doesn’t know what his coverage is. But I would like to correct the erroneous statement that I made and to assure the House that I did not make it deliberately.
MR. SPEAKER: Will the House accept the correction? I might point out to the honourable member that the proper place for correction is on the Order of the Day, of course.
MR. HILLHOUSE: I thought I’d better make it, Mr. Speaker, in case my honourable friend had no opportunity of correcting it before the damage was done.
MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution standing in the name of the honourable member for Logan.
[Mr. Speaker read the resolution. ]
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Logan.
MR. L. HARRIS (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member for Elmwood, that as the cost of living has been rising steadily since the end of World War II, and whereas average wages have been increased in order to keep in line with the cost of living, and whereas in many parts of Canada, including Manitoba, minimum wage rates have not kept pace with the increased cost of living and the general increase in wage rates. Resolved that in the opinion of this House, the Government of Manitoba should take the initiative in proposing to the Federal Government that in conjunction with all the provinces, steps should be taken without delay to institute a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour for all workers in Canada.
MR. SPEAKER: I didn’t hear your seconder.
MR. HARRIS: The honourable member from Elmwood.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Do you wish to speak?
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by asking you members of the legislature two questions. Why is a legal minimum wage necessary and how can we arrive at a proper legal minimum wage? Minimum wage rates determined by law were made necessary by the same facts that made all factory acts necessary. They were made necessary by the ruthless power of economic power, by unscrupulous employers. These employers knew that when workers are out of employment, when they have only their labour power to sell to save themselves from starvation, these workers are in a very weak bargaining position. They have used that economic power to force workers to accept low wages and to work under most degrading conditions. Consequently, minimum wage legislation was introduced to protect such helpless workers and to curtail to a small degree the powers of greedy and unscrupulous employers. This had to be done, not only in Manitoba, but in practically every part of the industrial world. The almost prehistoric wording of our own Minimum Wage Act gives good illustration of the need. It says that “a minimum wage board in arriving at a decision as to what the minimum wage should be, shall be guided by the cost of maintaining life and health.” This could very well be interpreted to mean that an employer could be allowed to pay any low wage regardless of the services rendered as long as the worker could maintain life and health. That idea belongs to the days when men, for having the audacity to join trade unions, were transported to Australia.
The second question is - how can we arrive at a proper legal minimum wage? To say that it should be sufficient to maintain life and health is no answer at all. The minimum wage should be geared closely to the general economic position of the people of Canada and, in turn, is governed by two main factors - the productivity of our people and the size of the population. High productivity with a small population makes possible high income for all. In Canada, relatively high degree of production with a relatively small population, consequently, our per capita income is relatively high. We contend that the minimum wage should be maintained in line with per capita income. As per capita income goes up, the minimum wage rates should go up too. One of the reasons for establishing a national minimum wage is to prevent unfair competition from employers in those parts of Canada where wages are low. For instance, Sasktachewan Federation of Labour has recommended a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour for Saskatchewan. This has been opposed by the Canadian Manufacturer’s Association, Sasktachewan Branch, because it would enable employers in low wage areas, and the C.M.A. mentioned Manitoba as a low wage area, to compete unfairly with the manufacturers in Saskatchewan. In our opinion the answer to such an argument should not be to keep minimum wages down in Saskatchewan, but to increase them in Manitoba. The latest figures published by the Department of Labour showed that Winnipeg, the fourth largest city in Canada, is 24th down the list in wages. There are 32 cities on the list - Winnipeg is 9th from the bottom. Last year Regina and Saskatoon wages were lower than Winnipeg but this year they are both higher. Wage rates, and particularly minimum wage rates, need to be increased in order to bring Winnipeg and Manitoba out of the position of being a depressed area as far as wage rates are concerned into line with the rest of Canada.
We are often told that wage rates are increasing faster than productivity. This is not true. The relation between wage rates and production varies with each industry, and it varies
from year to year. In manufacturing for instance, production per man hour has gone up more than wages per man hour. From 1946 to 1955 productivity increased by 32.12 where real wage rates rose only 30.50. In the rubber industry, productivity rose by 86.40 while real wage rates rose by only 21.92; in the agricultural implement industry, productivity per man increased by 35.66 while the real wage rates went up by 31.79; in the electrical apparatus and supplies, production rose by 33.18 while the real wage rates went up by 32.79; in the production of petroleum and coal, productivity went up by 43.11 while real wage rates went up by 27.4. In mining, too, productivity has increased much faster than the real wage rates. In a nine year period productivity went up by 82% while wage rates went up by only 23%. When productivity increases faster than the wage rates, another cost of production, higher rates of profits are to be expected. This is exactly what has happened. In 1958, which was supposed to be a year of recession, profits after taxes went up by 6.6 for food and beverage industries. Printing, publishing, etc., up 10.7; non-metallic mineral profits went up by 6.1; chemical products went up 7.0; transportation, storage and communications went up by 4.8; profits from public utility operations went up by 8.8; retail trade profits went up by 10.2; finance, insurance and real estate went up by 38.6; while service industries profits went up by 8.6. These are pretty healthy profit increases for a year of operation which was supposed to be a depression year.
When we compare the first three months of operation in 1959 with the first three months of 1958, we get some striking increases in rates of profit. General profit levels, according to general research associates, are 31% higher for the first quarter of 1959 than for the first quarter of 1958. The Financial Post, May 2nd, 1959, states: “Evidence of a strong first quarter comeback in profits sharpen today’s optimistic siding of the business future.” Here are a few individual company profit increases. This will really amaze you, gentlemen - General Motors up 78%; General Electric, 24%; Hudson Bay Mining, 70%; International Nickel, 39%; McMillan-Bloedel, 173%; Atlas Steels, 229%. When we come to look at the profit picture of these corporations we find it pretty difficult to justify paying women workers 58¢ an hour or less, and men 60¢ an hour or less.
In every statement that has been made by financial authorities in Canada, the highest level of consumer spending has been given credit for saving the country from slipping further into depression and for assisting us to climb out of the recession. A high and steady rate of consumer purchasing power is the surest safeguard we can have. Increase the minimum wage rate as recommended in the resolution is one of the surest ways of assuring consistent level of consumer purchasing power. Remember the two questions I have asked. Why is a legal minimum wage necessary, and how can we arrive at a proper legal minimum wage? I think we can now give the answers - (1) To protect the unfortunate individuals from greedy, powerful and unscrupulous employers, and (2) by taking our general level of production and wages and averaging them and bringing the minimum wage up so that those who are obliged to work for minimum wage will enjoy the standard of living comparable with that of the average family in Canada. I thank you.
MR. K. ALEXANDER (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit a question?
Does the rate mentioned in this resolution and the way it’s worded mean that it is to apply all across the province, and also, is it meant to apply to farm labour?
MR. HARRIS: Yes! All across the province.
MR. ALEXANDER: Thank you!
MR. GROVES: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the honourable member from Winnipeg Centre, that this debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker read the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the motion of the honourable member for Birtle-Russell and the amendments thereto. The honourable member for Ste. Rose.
MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, my first words are congratulations to you on your re-election as Speaker, and a repetition of what my colleagues have said, that our objections were by no means personal. They were not intended to your person, Sir, but strictly to the manner in which the election went about. I would also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the speech. I may not agree completely with the material -- the contents of their speeches, but I commend them highly on their presentation. I know full well how difficult it is for a new member to get up here the very first time in the House and make that speech, and I commend them on the way they did it. I also would like to congratulate all the new members who have appeared in this House at this session. I regret deeply that there are not more new members in our group to congratulate at the same time, but I wish you all the very best. Congratulations as well to my friend and ex-fellow whip, the present House Leader of the C.C.F. Party on his rise to positions of power. I wish him well and particularly a long tenure as head of the minority group in the House.
It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that insofar as this sub-amendment is concerned that my honourable friends across the way are trying to pretend that it isn’t important and that possibly if they just forget about it and don’t say anything about it, it will just go away. So far we haven’t had a word from a single member of the front bench across the way regarding the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition proposed to in this debate. Not one single word! Normally, as I recall the practice in the House, after the Leader of the Opposition has made his amendment and the Leader of the C.C.F. Party has made his sub-amendment, we have usually had the Leader of the Government make his presentation. But this year, no -- things have changed. We heard nothing at all from the First Minister and we’re still waiting with bated breath for the moment when he will give us his views. Now, there may be a number of reasons for his not speaking at this stage. Possibly he feels that the subject is not of sufficient importance. Possibly again he is just lying in the weeds and waiting till a little later, or maybe he finds the grounds a little shaky in this particular argument and would prefer not to get into it.
We did have one of the front-benchers across the way speak to us the other day in the sub-amendment debate, but he said not one word about Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations. Not one single word! So we’re still waiting. We did have however, yesterday, the member for Portage la Prairie, and he did arrange in his speech to put in one sentence with regard to Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations and, as I recall it, he was belittling our attitudes in suggesting that we should not be crying for more. Well, I excuse completely the member for Portage la Prairie, Mr. Speaker, and I say this most sincerely. He is a new member in this House; provincial politics are a new experience for him; and he’s not to be expected to have the full background on Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations. I would however commend highly to his reading the Royal Commission Report, that is the Rowell - Sirois Commission, which is extremely good. I might add the presentations that have been made over the past few years by the Prime Ministers or Premiers of this province and other provinces to various Dominion-Provincial conferences. I think a survey of the budgets of the Province of Manitoba in the past would also be helpful to him, and probably what is much more interesting reading for him and much more popular reading, the speeches of Mr. John Diefenbaker prior to his becoming Prime Minister. I think those will all help him considerably in establishing the background and the importance of Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations.
I cannot, however, Mr. Speaker, excuse the members of the front bench across the way for their apparent desire to forget completely this debate and say nothing in defence of their stand on Dominion-Provincial relations. It’s inconceivable to me that they should ignore such an important subject to the Province of Manitoba. It’s a surprising and I think alarming attitude for a provincial government to be taking. Without going over the background of Dominion-Provincial relations, I think it’s fair to say that the Province of Manitoba was amongst the architects of our present Dominion-Provincial fiscal structure. The previous Premiers, Mr. Garson, and later Mr. Campbell, were amongst those who worked hardest to obtain the present structure that we have. That structure is of two types. There are the basic tax-rentals, which is one principle, then there is the equalization grant, which is the other principle. At the moment I think it is fair to say that the tax-rental is a reasonably accepted principle. There are
some objections, but basically it’s accepted. There is, however, across this country a great deal of objection in other provinces, and in particular in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, both of which are of a similar stripe to the present government here--a great deal of objection in both of those to the equalization payment, and it is in danger. Now the equalization payment is not a gift when we consider the economic circumstances of Canada and the economic structure of our country. We find that the equalization payment is a question of right insofar as a province such as Manitoba is concerned. Due to the structure of the country we find that industry is concentrated in eastern Canada, and partly on the west coast. We find that the head offices of most Canadian corporations are in eastern Canada. As the result, provincial revenues for a province like Manitoba suffer when we consider the tax basis of corporation tax and income tax, as well as succession duties, and if we operate on a straight basis of tax-rentals this province is discriminated against. The equalization payment is purely one that is deserving and a right to the Province of Manitoba. It is not a gift. There are secondary features as well in this concentration of industry in eastern Canada. Provincial governments in the east, because of the concentration of industry there, have a larger population. They have personal income tax that they draw from the employees in those areas. They have the various other provincial taxes; motor vehicle, licenses, liquor profits, and so on. The municipalities find the same situation, so this question of equalization is of basic importance to the Province of Manitoba and to other western provinces who happen to be in the same circumstances as ourselves. One need only look at the budget of the Province of Manitoba in the past to realize the full importance of this question of Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations. When we consider that 1958-59, or for that matter ’57-58, approximately 44% of the estimated revenue of the Province of Manitoba came from this source, one fully realizes the importance that this is to any government in Manitoba regardless of its political considerations.
Now, why do we say, Mr. Speaker, that this government has failed to live up to the true interests of Manitoba in this matter? The situation is simple. Prior to the two federal elections, a year ago - a little over a year ago - and the year before that, the party, Mr. Diefenbaker at that time, made solemn promises with regards to Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations. The statement was made then and the promise was made then that if they were elected they would immediately call a conference of provincial Premiers. You will recall the words, “not in the spirit of arrogance as in the past, but in the spirit of co-operation and mutual understanding”. Mr. Speaker, what has happened since then? Well, there was a conference of sorts. That’s true -- there was a conference. The provincial Premiers were called to Ottawa. They were asked for their views; they gave their views; and at the end of two days they were thanked and sent back home again, and since then there has been no conference and there has been no spirit of mutual understanding and co-operation. What did we get? A telegram sent to us, approximately in the month of January after that first meeting, telling us what we were going to get. As I recall it, a number of provinces didn’t receive the telegram. And what has happened since then? The same thing -- still no conference. Oh, it’s true, there’s one called for, I think July, but Mr. Speaker, is it the type of conference that has been promised in the pre-election period? Is it the type of conference that we are to agree and to expect from the promises that were made then? Not in the least. It isn’t even a conference of Premiers, it’s a conference of Provincial Treasurers. Now we in Manitoba are possibly a little more fortunate than other provinces in this regard because at the moment that happens to be the same man, but that is incidental at this stage. The fact is that this is not a conference of Premiers; it is not a conference of people who are in a position to make the final decision on behalf of the provinces; and that, Mr. Speaker, is not the promise that was made and it is not what we were led to expect.
Well now, what has been the action of this government of Manitoba since that time? The present government has been in power for almost a year. Have we seen any action taken to see to it that this promise was lived up to? Have we heard any speeches from the First Minister indicating that he was taking up Manitoba’s case actively? We’re not asking that a provincial government should be constantly fighting with Ottawa -- not suggesting for a moment that we will get more out of them by constantly being in a fight, but, Mr. Speaker, the prime responsibility of the First Minister of this province is to look after the interests of this province, not after the interests of Ottawa, and it’s probably quite true that at this moment the Prime Minister has extreme difficulties in the financial field. He would probably resent very much having
one of his own boys coming down there and criticizing him for his lack of action on his promises. He would undoubtedly be most annoyed at that action, but what is the responsibility of the First Minister of Manitoba if it is not that? In my opinion, for everything I have found and seen in the past year, that action has not been taken by this government and we are still waiting for that action, and from present indications the government is more interested in protecting the political situation in Ottawa rather than protecting the proper interests of the Province of Manitoba. In that regard, our amendment is perfectly timed, absolutely correct and of extreme importance to every resident of this province.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that my honourable friend who has just spoken said that perhaps I might agree with, and that is that it had not been my intention to speak on this particular resolution. And the reason why I thought that it might be advisable to take that course was because my honourable friend and his leader and those who sit with him walked up and down the length of this province, Sir, in at least one election campaign and probably two, and peddled the same line of malarkey that has been peddled in this House here today, and they got their answer from the people of the Province of Manitoba. These issues, as the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition had the grace to say when he was speaking, had been settled insofar as the immediate situation is concerned by the vote that the people of this province expressed. They were made a subject of considerable attack insofar as my honourable friends opposite were concerned on the record of the administration during the past campaign. I read the newspaper reports pretty carefully and I think that every leading member of the opposition group, particularly those who managed to secure re-election, did have something to say on this matter as they spoke, and I am one of those who believe that the people of the province accepted, on the contrary, the view that all that was possible to be done by a provincial government was being done.
Now, my honourable friend opposite said that we have never made a statement insofar as this matter is concerned or attempted to defend our position as custodians of the interests of this province. Well, never is a long, long time. I remember very well that in the session that took place last autumn and again, if my memory is not faulty, in the session that took place just before my honourable friends opposite received such a rebuke from the electorate, this matter was discussed by myself and others on the floor of this House and I stated then, as I state now, that we recognize and accept our responsibility for to speak for the people of this province. And I say to my honourable friend that when he implies that this administration in any way whatsoever neglects its duty to the people of Manitoba in order to protect a political party elsewhere, or politicians elsewhere in this country, he says something that is manifestly incorrect. I ask him to say, and it was all in the newspapers, “Oh, when the provincial election is on John Diefenbaker will come across with some big gift to the Province of Manitoba in order to help them along.” I ask my honourable friends opposite if that prophesy on their part materialized? Oh, we heard about so many different things -- that we were going to be “bailed out” by our friends at Ottawa because of the political connection between us, and we found out what happened.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that so far as our group is con-concerned, certainly as far as I’m concerned, that statement was never made. Never made on our behalf!
MR. ROBLIN: Well, I’m sure the honourable member can certainly speak for himself in that respect and I won’t dispute it with him, but it was certainly said.
MR. CAMPBELL: By the newspapers.
MR. ROBLIN: It was said by others than the newspapers. It was said by others than the newspapers, I am afraid. Well, we found that we were fighting this election campaign that was just over on the merits of the provincial situation. My honourable friends opposite did everything in their power on every conceivable occasion to drag in federal issues, and I ask any of them to stand up and deny that statement. They did their very best. Why, they fought the election against John Diefenbaker as hard as they could all over again. They did their best to distract the attention of the people of this province from the concerns of Manitoba by dragging in extraneous issues which they knew had nothing to do with the provincial election. They did their best to tilt against the federal windmill, just as my honourable friend who has just spoken tilted against that windmill now, and they got their answer from the electorate of Manitoba, and they’re going to get their answer from the members of this House before very long.
MR. MOLGAT: Would the honourable member permit a question? Is not Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations an extremely important provincial matter and not a federal matter?
MR. ROBLIN: Why certainly it is, and we’re going to come to that. But how many federal issues that were of a federal character did my honourable friend tilt his lance against? And how often did he leave the impression -- how often did he forget to talk about what the provincial Conservatives were doing and complain about the activities of the federal Conservatives? Well, Mr. Speaker, the federal Conservatives will have to look after themselves because they have their own responsibilities in their own sphere. We will take care of our own responsibilities in our sphere here. We are reproached, Sir, because no Federal-Provincial conference has been called. When friends -- when gentlemen opposite say that a provincial conference should be called; when friends opposite raise the call that it would be a good thing if we got to grips with this problem again, then I join them in what they say. And I have joined them in that request insofar as our contact with the federal administration has been concerned, perhaps on many different occasions -- not merely by written requests, Sir, but by personal consultations when I have had the opportunity, and I must say that we have found that, as events have turned out, the conference that will be called is one that will be called in this July. But when gentlemen opposite say that it is our fault that that conference has not been called before now, then I repudiate the suggestion entirely. I say to my honourable friends opposite -- they have been in power many years in this province -- how many federal conferences did they call? How many Dominion-Provincial tax-rental arrangements did they arrange for, Sir? I’m not saying that they didn’t try their best, I am sure they did. I merely ask them to give me the same credit that I am willing to give them in defending the interests of this province and in making sure that these conferences are called. I think that is the fair thing to do. I don’t think that there is a member in this House of any political stripe, Sir, who would sacrifice the interests of this province to protect a political party outside this House, and I don’t care where I look in this Chamber, I would make that statement of honourable gentlemen in this Legislature. And I don’t think, Sir, that it is correct, in fact I emphatically reject it as incorrect to say that that is the attitude of this administration. There are other provincial Premiers in Canada besides me, and I don’t know of one of them that would not be glad to have a Dominion-Provincial tax-rental conference, but in spite of that unanimity of opinion, provincial Premiers still do not call tax-rental conferences; that has to be done by the federal administration. And I want to say to this Chamber, Sir, that we have done our conscientious best to see that that particular conference should be called.
Now, we are to have a meeting on July 6th. It has been correctly stated by those who have spoken that it is not a full-fledged conference with the Premiers and the Prime Minister in attendance as other conferences have been. We on our side, Sir, are well aware of that fact and in our correspondence with the Federal Government in respect of this matter we have made it perfectly clear that we, for our part, want this conference to be clothed with the power to come to decisions. We have made it perfectly clear that we want this conference clothed with the authority to deal with matters and deal with them expeditiously. We do not wish this conference to become merely a means of extending the study of various important matters which must be extended for an indefinite period. That is not our policy. Our policy is to approach this conference, and we made this clear from the very moment that it was broached, to approach this conference with a view to getting concrete results from it at the time the conference is held. I cannot tell this House, Sir, whether we will be successful in that endeavour or not, but I can say to you, Sir, that that is our policy, and that it is our policy to have these matters brought to a conclusion just as soon as they can be.
We recognize that since the Federal Government came into office there have been increases in the tax-rental arrangements. We recognize that this year, as you will find when the budget is brought down, that we will be receiving many million dollars more than we have received in times gone by, and for that we certainly ought to express our appreciation. But we by no means believe, Sir, that that represents a satisfactory basis on which we are to carry on in the immediate future. In fact we recognize, as I am sure all members of this House recognize, that these agreements are agreements which must be flexible in their character to meet the changing circumstances of our nation, and we are convinced that there is sufficient reason to believe that circumstances have changed sufficiently in order to get a better agreement from the government at Ottawa. But, Mr. Speaker, I can remember sitting in this House,
but in another place, when another Provincial Treasurer brought down the agreement that my honourable friends are claiming as so unsatisfactory and recommended it wholeheartedly to the membership of this House. Recommended it -- not just for one year, but for a period of five years, and that five-year period has yet some time to run. All the men, particularly in the front bench, that complain now about the tax-rental agreement were the ones who a few short years ago, two I believe -- perhaps two and a half -- were telling this House that this was a good arrangement and it should be accepted. Now I accepted their word at that time. Perhaps under the circumstances at that time that was the best arrangement they could get. Certainly they had to take what was agreed on at the time because it takes two, or in this case ten, to make a bargain. Now as far as we are concerned in this government here, we realize that it does take the ten to make a bargain. We realize that no one province can call one of these conferences on its own hook. We realize that it is our duty to present the case for Manitoba as forcibly as we can. We say that anyone who suggests that we have not done so, and particularly suggests that we have not done so because we wish to protect anyone in any sphere of government in this province, is making a statement which is completely divorced from the policy of this administration and completely divorced from the fact.
Now, Sir, I don’t intend to speak at any length on this problem, but I do not think that I should have allowed an attack on the integrity of the administration, and that’s what it is, an attack on our good faith as the government of this province and of the representatives of the people of this province. That we should deny that responsibility; that we should be seduced from that responsibility; that we should endeavour to minimize that responsibility because of political considerations outside this province is something that is not worthy of members of the House, and in my opinion, Sir, it is something that perhaps we should think about twice before we say it. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is in a position to agree with me on this point, that regardless of the nature of the government in Ottawa, whether it was Liberal when he was in office or whether it is Conservative when I am in office, we both take the same stand. We do not allow our political connection to sway our judgment in this matter but that we present, as forcibly and as intelligently as we can, the case for the Province of Manitoba, and that, Sir, we will continue to do.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to speak but simply to ask the Honourable the First Minister a question. Would the Honourable the First Minister not agree that when he makes the point that we who now sit on this side of the House brought in legislation endorsing the agreement under which we are now working, that that was before the time when the present Prime Minister of Canada had pointed out that he intended to give great increases in those grants to the provinces?
MR. ROBLIN: Yes, Sir, that was before the time the honourable gentleman said that and it also was before the time that he actually did arrange for increases in the grants. Now, let me not be misunderstood -- that reply may be taken as a defence of the status quo on this matter. It’s no such thing. It’s merely a statement of the historical sequence of events.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask another question of the Honourable the First Minister. I understood him to say that we will find that when the budget is brought down a little later in this session, we will find that this province will be receiving from this source many millions of dollars more than we have received in times gone by. Does that mean many millions more than just a year ago?
MR. ROBLIN: My honourable friend will have to wait until the figures come down but I do not think that he will find that I have been inaccurate in what I have said.
MR. L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Honourable the First Minister. He has accused all the members of the Liberal Party here today of bringing in the question of Mr. Diefenbaker and his government in the last election. I ask -- wasn’t he asking for it himself when he allowed a paid advertisement to read: “As Dief did, Duff will do”?
MR. ROBLIN: I’m afraid my honourable friend is just two elections out-of-date.
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. The question before the House is the amendment, Speech from the Throne, which reads as follows: “That the following words be added to the
address in reply to the Speech from the Throne: ‘This House regrets that Your Honour’s Government has failed to effectively advance Manitoba’s just claims for a substantial increase in our rentals under the Dominion-Provincial Taxation Agreement’.” Those in favour of the motion please rise.
[YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Miller, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Roberts, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner, Wright.]
[NAYS: Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Boulic, Carroll, Christianson, Cobb, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Groves, Hamilton, Hutton, Johnson (Assa.), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Ridley, Roblin, Scarth, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Weir, Willis, Witney.]
MR. CLERK: Yeas 19, Nays 30.
MR. SPEAKER: I delcare the motion lost.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the ...
MR. SPEAKER: Just a moment, let the motion ...
MR. MILLER: Wait till he puts through the motion.
MR. GRAY: Pardon? Oh! I’m sorry.
MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House -- the proposed motion of the honourable member for Birtle-Russell for an address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to His Speech at the opening of the session. Are you ready for the question?
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the honourable member from Fisher, that the debate be adjourned.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the honourable member for Inkster ...
A MEMBER: Do you want to speak?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member wish to speak?
A MEMBER: ... to adjourn this debate.
MR. SPEAKER: You’re too late on the adjournment. It has been moved by the honourable member for Inkster, seconded by the honourable member for Fisher, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 2 -- the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I’d request that the House allow this Order to stand.
MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. ... this brings us to the end of the Order Paper.
MR. ROBLIN: On an order of business, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would allow me to raise a point which is usually raised on Orders of the Day, but the information did not reach me in time and I think the honourable members might like to have this matter decided over the week-end so they can make their plans. But, looking ahead a little bit, it will be obvious that July 1st is customarily a holiday and that falls on a Wednesday this year; and it is altogether likely that we shall still be here at that time. Some discussion took place, I think, between the Whips of the various parties as to whether or not it would not be more acceptable to the House to refrain from sitting on Monday, June 29th, and sit on July 1st. This would have the advantage -- an obvious advantage for those who do not live in Winnipeg -- it would enable them to perhaps spend a little more time in their homes. And also, it has another feature which is worth noting, and that is, it is the opening day of the Brandon Summer Fair and I have been asked by the President of the Fair Board as to whether we might not have the day off in this House on that occasion so that as many as possible could attend the Fair. Well, with that thought in mind, and also knowing of the incidence of the 1st of July following on a Wednesday, it seemed worthwhile to consider whether we should not suspend business on the Monday and work on the Wednesday, and I understand that after consultation among the Whips, that that seems to be the consensus of opinion. And I, therefore, would like to give notice, Sir, that we will propose not to sit on Monday, June 29th, but that we will sit on July 1st.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I think, as far as we’re concerned that that’s a very good arrangement.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, our Whip has told me that that’s what we are going to do.
MR. ROBLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make that announcement now
and I would move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 2:30 Monday afternoon.]
Page revised: 8 August 2010
