Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 90 (26th Legislature, 5th Session)

26-5-90

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Vol. VII No. 90 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 1, 1962. 5th. Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. S. Evans. Quee n's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7:30 o'clock, Tuesday, May 1, 1962 MR . SPEAKER: The question before the House is the motion as amended by the Hon ourable Member for Fisher. MR . E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege, I would like to ask you whether we have Orders of the Day today? Before Orders of the Day • • MR . SPEAKER: No, we don't. MR . PREFONTAINE: May I make a correction on the matter of privilege then, Mr. Speaker? MR . EVANS: I think it would be in order, yes_._ MR . PREFONTAINE: On a question of privilege, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the _House a matter that ii! of very great importance to myself. I believe that the newspapers have wrongly interpreted something that I said in the budget debate the other day. I am reported in the Manitoba Free Press of today as having stated, quote - "Ed mond PrefontainE: said there are five issues that an election could be fought on. (1) the Metro question, (2) public grants to private schools, (3) the :Uoodway policy," and so on. Mr. Speak er, I did challenge the government to an election. I mentioned four matters.

I don't think I said the word "five" and I don't think that I included the question of private schools as a matter that I was challenging the government to an election on. If I, by chance, used.the language that might have led someone to believe that I was challenging the government to an election on the private school issue, it was my mistake. I had no chance to consult Hansard. Hansard is not out yet.

That's why I would like to make this request of the newspapers, to look at Hansard, and if they report me right I'll take the consequences but if they are in error in reporting me to this effect, I would like to ask them to rectify it if possible. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fisher. MR . PETER WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, if there isn't anybody wants to speak I'll close the debate on agriculture. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I'll throw a challenge to the House. If I get a unanimous support -- if nobody speaks I'll sit down. Agreed? I'm serious.

If the House doesn't want to prolong this I'm willing to sit down. - l14r. Speaker, I didn't intend to speak at all in adjourning this debate, only to make a few words, but when I listened to some of the politicians and particu:larly federal election here in this House before we adjourned for dinner hour I was really surprised, so I have to make a few comments now. I heard the Member from La Verendrye speaking about parity prices, which I appreciate very much.

It's about time that the Liberal party started speaking on parity prices, and the Member for Emerson he really spoke for parity prices, but I would suggest to them that while they are out on the hustings that they speak the same way as they were speak ing today in the House, because I've met some staunch Liberal supporters and they don't wish to speak about parity prices amongst the farmers in Canada or in Manitoba in particular -- those that I've heard. - Another item that I would like to bring to the attention of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, when he mentioned one of the New Democratic Party members in Ottawa, Arnold Peters, that he made the remark that if the New Party would be elected they would appoint a minister from the east, and he took it exceptionally bad it wou:ld be for the western farmers.

Well now, Mr. Speaker, I don't say that Arnold Peters is going to appoint any minister, or his wish may come true, but however, I hope his wish will come true because as far as I'm concerned, we always had --through the decades, we had western agricultural ministers and we never got fair share for the farmer, so possibly if we had an eastern minister of agricul ture maybe we would get something. And at this point, Mr. Speaker, when the farm ers' dele gation, 1, 100 strong, went to Ottawa that particular time, they had a lot better hearing from the eastern MP's than they had from the western MP's.

And I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I left an impression to the Member for Arthur. I did not mean at all to degrade or lower down his constituency when I was passing through Manitoba to Peace Gardens. I didn't know which constituency I was going through or anything like that._ I didn't mean to say anything bad _about the constituency • • • . MR . WATT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I wasn't referring to the constitu ency that I represent. May lst, 1962 Page 3219

MR . WAGNER: No. No, naturally but • • MR . WATT: I was referring to Manitoba. MR. WAGNER: Oh. I am assuming that the Member for Arthur -- maybe I was passing through his constituency -- and furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I was not inferring that the farmers in Manitoba where I passed through are farmers that are not efficient farmers, but I just said that the highway I passed through there and back I saw many dilapidated btiildings and combines with the wheels four feet high, and I even pointed it out to my wife, I never saw such an old. combine before in my life. And it holds true. However, Mr.

Speaker, Lonce again want to re peat that I did not refer it in a bad manner. I believe that the farmers out there, they are well to-do farmers except the agricultural economy puts them down so bad that they cannot afford to have better buildings or b�tter combines� And also just for a little illustration for the Member of Arthur, he stated that I quoted five.dollars combine or something per acre and he doesn't feel that I was quoting it right. I was quoting from the Experimental Farmers' Service, Cana dian Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and I have it here.

I quoted from this. So, Mr. Speaker I did not use it out of my head, and as far as the farmers are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have a paper clipping here, "Adrift from the Land" and it exactly says what we were discussing about the farmers, and the farmers are leaving the farms. Let's face it. Just to quote a little bit: "The farm problem being spread over a huge area, it's magnitude is not clear to the casual observer without statistics.

It is particularly in danger of being down-graded in provinces like Manitoba and Alberta, and half of the population ••••• in the three urban centres, so they are on the move." But I'm rush ing through, Mr. Speaker, because I want to facilitate everybody in this House and myself in cluded, and I just want to quote from the agricultural statistics, Dominion Bureau: - "From 1951 to August '61, the latest figures available, the costs of commodities and services used by farmers have gone up 24%; over exactly the same period the prices received by farmers for goods sold, by 20%. The price paid by consumers rises.

Although the price the farmer receives for his goods has fallen, the price paid for those same goods by the consumer has risen. Over the same period the prices paid by the consumer for food rose by 7 percent. There you have that there is, in my own language, discrepancy in farming, and I don't want to quote -- I have statistics here, net farm income for farms _...: only I will quote, 1953 was $2 , 723. 00, in 1961, $1,898.00. That's the net income per farm in Canada. And I conclude on this, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion as amended carried. MR.

EVANS: .••• page 14. The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. · MR . SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable Leade.r is closing the debate. MR . MOLGAT: If nobody else wishes to speak, Mr. Speaker, I'll close the debate. I want to thank the House for allowing this t<> stand as well this morning when I had to be away due to no choice of my own.

I'm sorry that my being away prevented me from hearing the Minister of Welfare, who I understand had a contribution to make on this matter, but judging from the position that the government has taken on it I no doubt wil,l have the opportunity to comment on this at the next session again. --(Interjection)--Well, possibly even tomorrow. I regret, ·as well, Mr.

Speaker, that I was unable to hear the comments of the Comp trolle.r-General at the time of the Public Accounts Committee but coming as it did I was un fortunately tied up with some other urgent matters at the time and could not be at the Public Accounts meeting that morning, so missed his comments as well. Those, of course, will not be reported in Hansard. . As I listened to the First Minister, Mr. Speaker, when he replied to this, the more I listened to him the more I concluded that we needed an Auditor-General in Manitoba.

Far from dissuading me from this point of view the very heat of his reply led me to think that we should have a thorough accounting and a thorough auditing of the government's accounting practices and procedures. I could not understand, in fact, why he reacted with such violence to my com ments. They were not aimed at anyone in particular. They were of a very general nature. Page 3220 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd.) . . The fact is that in England, in Ottawa, both those govern ments have a Comptroller-General as we have here, and they have, in addition, an Auditor General. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in the reply of my honourable friend the First Min ister, here in Manitoba what we conduct is a pre-audit. We do not conduct a post-audit. We do not. It's a post-audit of a very minor nature if so, because the Comptroller-General is so busy with the other duties that he has that he cannot conduct a post-audit.

The fact is that we do not get a report here -- that my friends cannot even shake their heads at -- we do not get a report in the same way as is given in Ottawa and in England. We have never been handed a report in this House by the Auditor-General in the way that there is an annual report given in Ottawa, and I submit that it would be useful to have the House have that information. That's the basis on which we are suggesting this resolution. At the moment the government conducts a pre-audit.

I submit that in most corporations today -- certainly all the large corporations- they have an internal audit but they also have an external audit, and this resolution is a recom mendation for an external audit. It's not by any means a criticism of the work that's done by the Comptroller-General. His responsibilities are not those of the Auditor-General. I'd like to quote here, Mr. Speaker, from statements made regarding the Auditor-Gen eral in England and this is by Professor Beer in his book on treasury control.

He says, "The Auditor-General, however, looks not only for any legal irregularity but also for evidence of inefficiency and extravagance so long as a question Of government policy is not raised, and in a normal course it is with this kind that his reports are mainly concerned." Mr. Speaker, the reports of the Auditor-General in Ottawa are of the same nature. What happens here, is that the Comptroller-General goes over accounts as they come in and he sees whether or not they have been authorized by t)J.e Legislature in bulk insofar as the total appropriation is con cerned.

He is not charged with seeing to it whether the money has been properly spent or not. If you take the situation, for example, that occurs in Ottawa with the RCAF Officer's house which is either in this year's report or last year's report. There, the Comptroller of the Treasury made sure that the appropriations as they came in did not surpass the total appro priations for that type of work in the department, but it was not his concern to see to it that each particular job was within the original estimate of cost. That is up to the department, not up to the Comptroller-General. The department does that work.

Without an Auditor-Gen eral, if there is an irregularity down at the lower levels, it never comes to light, and I submit that an Auditor-General in this province is desirable. The experience in the other jurisdic tions have proved so and that we should have one. My honourable friends claim that they want suggestions from the Opposition; they want ideas. Every time we submit some, they sit there and shake their hea.ds. They are not prepared to consider that anything that's going on over there is subject to question. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it very much is.

I repeat again that none of my comments are in any way a criticism of the individual who is now doing the job of the Comptroller-General. In fact, any of us who know Mr. George Iliffe, the present Comp troller-General here, believe that he is doing an excellent job within his jurisdiction. I would go so far as to suggest that he would be an ideal Auditor-General and that he should have those duties expanded to cover the same type of work as is done in Ottawa by the Auditor-General and that here someone else then should be proceeding to do the Comptroller- General's work which is of a different nature.

So I strongly recommend this resolution to the House, Mr. Speaker. I assume from what the government said that they are going to vote against it. This is the -- I suppose after the first speech we heard, what one had to expect from the far side. They ask for suggestions; are not prepared to take them when they get them. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. MOLGAT: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

The question before the House is the proposed resolution proposed by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition which reads as follows: "Whereas it is impossible with the present resources of time, knowledge --(Interjection)-- those in favour please rise. A standing vote was taken, with the following result: YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Dow, Gray, Harris, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine, Reid, Roberts, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner and Wright. May lst, 1962 Page 3221

NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, cOwifu,. E'vans, Hamilton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Kiyifi, Lissaman , Lyon, M()Kellar, McLean, Martin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Stanes, Strickland, Watt, Witney, and Mrs. Forbes and,Mrs. Mprrison. MR�_CLERK: · Yeas:18; ?'{ays: 28. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. Proposed resolution by the Honourable the 116ader· of the Opposition. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. ROBERTS_: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in support of this re s0llu'tion.

My basic reason for wishing to $peak on this resolution is the simple and undeniable fa:C"t= tiliat everyone has the right to be heard and I feel that this public protector -- proposed plibllfc· protector -- provides this right for everyone to be heard.

And before I go into any fur fliel"' r"6ference. to that, I would like to briefly refer to some of the things said by the Honourable th& Attorney-General on April 3rd, which is the last time this has been discussed in the House. :Fb?st of all, the Attorney-General speaks of legal rights and administrative rights, and of the one being basic and the other being of more recent origin. Now he doesn't say -- what I think he's trying to say is that we have certain rights which are enforced by the courts, and others which are enforced in other ways.

As you all know, there is no shortage of amateur lawyers in this House, but I don't think it takes a lawyer to realize that this Legislature passes the laws; it is the one which makes them, and it is the one which un-makes them, as so ably ex plained by tlie Honourable Member for Lakeside in Law Amendments Committee the other day re the Shnoor. case.

But many of these laws are interpreted and applied by the courts, and many others are interpreted and applied by more or less independent tribunals, and still others of these laws are interpreted and applied here in Manitoba by government officials at various levels. Now the first case -- in the case of the courts and the laws that are interpreted and applied by the courts, one can feel reasonably certain that one's rights will be considered. In nearly all cases there is the right of appeal on both.fact and on la:w.

But, once again, the right of the court, the work of the court, is only a man's right if he can afford to get legal aid in or der to get into court. And the right of appeal is, once again, only his if he can afford to appeal, and in many cases -- and I'm speaking particularly of new Canadians in·nhis regard -- he has the initiative or the aggressiveness or whatever it takes to press things to that point. But as far as the tribunal is concerned, there is a great variation between the appeal procedures to the tribunal's decisions. In many cases there is no appeal whatsoever.

In some cases the appeal procedures are quite inadequate. And in the case of government officials making deci sions there is, generally speaking, no formal method of complaining - no formal procedure to appeal. There is no formal procedure to complain against decisions made or arbitr:_a_rines,s, or against wrongdoing, except those that were mentioned by the Honourable the Attorney-Gen eral himself, and that is the rights of the Members of this Legislature to introduce it in here. And I suppose in many cases it must be so.

For instance, a decision of a Minister on a ques tion of policy can and should only be discussed in this House; but at the other extreme there is the minor official at all levels of government, who may, inadvertently or otherwise, wrongly refuse a licence or a permit, or may do ma ny of the decisions that are made, and may do them wrongly, and there's no way of questioning his decisfons except in this House; and I don't think it should be so.

The Honourable the Attorney-General. makes quite a strong case, or at least attempts to, saying it is wrong for an ombudsman or a public protector to have any jurisdiction over senior civil servants -- (Interjection) -- You were reading the report --Well, discre tionary decisions by senior civil servants -- are fully within the contemplation of the ombuds man and should be so, and this resolution does not restrict the ombudsman to cases of malad ministration only. It gives wider favours than that and doesn't exclude any of these discretion ary decisions.

Now there are many other cases of the ombudsman's or public protector's work in other countries.

I think that I would like at this time, rather than go through all this long list of cases of where the ombudsman or the public protector of other countries has actually pro vided a great service to the nation in which he operates -- I prepared this because I intended to deliver it some weeks ago -- but rather than present all these cases to the Honourable the Attorney-General. to prove to him that the ombudsman, the public protector, does not only op erate in cases of poor coffee in the jails or whatever it was he's referring to, but makes many Page 322_2 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Roberts, cont'd.) . important and serious decisions. I have read many cases out of two books and I refer this one to the Honourable the Attorney-General, "Occasion for Ombudsmen" by T. E. Utley and, of course, the justice of which he has referred to as well. But I would like to just briefly refer right now to a case which I feel must be mentioned in this House again, and is the case of a gentleman in my own constituency which, I think, points up the right of an individual to be heard.

My first remarks in the House in this session in the Speech from !he· Throne, I referred to a case concerning the Workmen's Compensation Board, gave the number -- 655691 is the claim number; I'll give the man's name -- it is Samuel Nolette from Ste. Agathe, Manitoba. Now I explained all this to the House two months ago as the Hon ourable the Attorney-General said I should and it was my duty to do.

Not one evidence, not one little bit of action has been taken, not even the slightest amount of intetest has been taken by this government, the Honourable Minister of Labour, despite the fact that I pointed this out to him in the House. ' · MR. CARROLL: On a point of privilege, I'm just saying this is the first I've heard of this particular case. I'm sorry you didn't direct it to my attention. I must have been out of the House at the time but would be pleased to look into it if you'd care tO give me the facts on it. MR. ROBERTS: I'll give you all the facts right now.

I have phoned the Workmen's· Compensation Board every week for the past two months. They finally have told me, "For goodness sake, quit wearing your finger out." The gentleman in question, Mr. Nolette, has · been trying to get some assistance from the Workmen's Compensation Board for some time. He has doctors'• certific�tes of which I h a�e several copies here that he's incapable of work, and they just telj. biln, "Look Buster, thep�'s 11-othing we will do for youi tfiere is no appeal against our decision. Our decision is that you are not to receive any more compensation." Now I'll tell you the case.

Thls man w�rked for the Government of Manitoba, the Department of Public Works. On the 28th of September, 1960, driving a tractor, the tractor upset on him while he was working for the governIDent along the highway, crushed his arm and hi� leg and his hip. He is crippled. He has been in hospital much of the period between that time and now. lle has pins in hjs leg; he is very lame, incapable of doing heavy work and. uses a cane most of the' time. He received workmen's comp€lnsation assistance for some tm:i.e.

Each month this dwindled off until the point on the lst of April, a month ago, since that time he has received.nothing. There is no appeal. I have seen �y solicitor -- this is, apparently, what you're supposed to do;see YOU£ lawyerif you're in 'troublEl'. He says there is nothing we �an do. I have seen the man's doctor. He says', "I have submitted medical reports that this man is incapable of heavy work. " I have seen the Department of Public Works. They say they will not rehire him because he is too cripplEld to work for them.

And you say we have no need for a public protector in Manitoba; we h:l.ve no �eed for an Ombudsman; all this can be done in so many ways. There's access to the government offices. Ah, I see the Minister of Education - how does an Opposition member get into a government office, to the Minister's office? Your own words. The only way to get into a Minister's office is to elect a member of the Co!lserva tive Party, you see. · And for that matter, you say, "bring it up in the House." Well how many months of the ye.ar do we spend in this Le,gislature?

It does seem like a long time but by com parison it is only three months of the year and for the other nine months of the year we haven't this opportunity of bringing this forward in front of the members themselves, the Cabinet and the press. And so we have nine months of the year when justice may be denied because justice delayed is justice denied. So we have many other cases of need for a public protector in Manitoba. Now I'm going to try and cut this just as short as I possibly can but there's one thing I just cannot avoid making reference to.

On Page 1366 of Hansard, the Honourable the Attorney General makes one most amazing statement, because coming from anyone else, I suppose, it would be an acceptable statement but coming from the great protector of the divine rights of the Province of Manitoba, this is quite an amazing statement.

He says, "We have in Canada three levels of government and we are the meat in the sandwich between local and federal." And then he says, 11We do have in this province a rather circumscribed area of jurisdiction and that we cannot too lightly be compared with the area of jurisdiction that is vested in a national govern ment." Well now really -- first of all being called the meat in a sandwich isn't too flattering. But to say that our jurisdiction is circumscribed is rather ridiculous, because, once again, we May lst, 1962 Page 3223

(Mr. Roberts, cont'd.) • • have lots of amateur lawyers in the House but one doesn't need to be a lawyer to know that the provinces. are as absolutely supreme in their sphere as the Dominion is in its sphere; HON •. STERLING R. LYON, Q�C.(Attorney-General)(FortGarry): Yes, the sphere is limited. MR. ROBERTS: That wasn't what you said. You said we have no need for a public pro tector in Manitoba because we really didn't have control over too many things and we were just the meat in the sandwich.

I could read to the Honourable the Attorney-General, perhaps the very interesting --and I'll try and cut it short too--l'm told that this is one of the very first cases that is studied in the law school in Manitoba. It is the case of Girardin-Lajoie --a study of the Constitutional Amendment in Canada, and it's Hodgers case. Actually Hodge wasquoting - from Mr. Louis St. Laurent, a rather well-known Canadian. And it's fairly long but l'll cut it into- it says here, ''When the British North America Act,

an act that there should be a legislature for Ontari6 and that its Legislative Assembly should have exclusive authority to make laws for the province, and for provincial purposes in relation to the matters enumerated in

Section 92, it con ferred powers not in any sense to be exercised by delegations from or as agents of the Imperial Parliament, but authority as plenary and as ample within the limits prescribed by

Section 92 as the Imperial Parliament in the limits of subjects in area of the local legislature is supreme. "--''as the Imperial Parliament in the plenitude of its powers possessed and could bestow, and within these limits of subjects in area, the local Legislature is supreme." And so there are many, many cases where the ombudsman,as he is called in Scandinavian countries, or the public protector as we refer to him in this resolutionc ould be extremelyvaluable to Manitoba.

Ihave a very strong belief personally that a public protector would be desirable to us because when anyone single legit imate grievance has been remedied as a result of this public protector's activities, the case for his existence is then, in my opinion, established. And I feel thathis very presence is a powerful incent ive to good administration. There are many cases, as all members know, and I think everyone of us have run into this every week of this session, there are many cases against government and against government civil servant�,. many complaints which are simply misunderstandings.

Once again, a few words of independent, authoritative and courteous explanation could dispel these and they could come from the public protector himself. I think that the main reason why this resolution was introduced into the House is the very basic principle th at everyone has the right to be heard. This is absolute justice; this is democracy and I think we all espouse this philosophy. I have, naturally, quite close association with the nation of Denmark because I was married in Den mark; my wife comes from Denmark; she goes back there from time to time to visit. We re ceive each week newspapers from Denmark.

Each week these newspapers carry a front page story, carrying the work of the ombudsman of that period. This publicity given in this impar tial manner through the ombudsman office has done a great deal to help in every respect the good government of that country. It not only provides a source of releasing information to the people but it provides one continuous source of chrics-- source of a course in civics, to the people of the country. And the people of Denmark have a much greater understanding of the workings of government than they previously had.

I think that one of the most interesting sidelights of the operation of the ombudsman in Denmark -- he's only been there now, I believe it's something like eight years -- is the fact that he has been the source of a great deal of humour. Those of you who were in the services will recall the expression whenever somebody started bothering you with his problems; "Take it to your padre." Well now people in Denmark say, "Take it to the ombudsman." I think he would open up a whole new field if he was introduced in Manitoba to Peter Kuch and Kamienski, as sources of innumerable possibilities for cartoons.

But quite seriously, in Denmark the om budsman has created a whole new interest in government affairs and in civics in that nation. MR . CARROLL: On a question of privilege just before the vote is put, I would like to point out that there are two appeals available to people through the Workmen's Compensation Board. Firstly, we have an assistance officer who is a lawyer, to help people who feel their case hasn't been properly presented.

We also passed an amendment to the Act two years ago to set up a Medical Appeal Board for those who feel they haven't been treated properly medi cally -- whose case hasn't been considered properly by the medical officers of the Board. MR . CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to have to announce tO my honourable friend, Page 3224 May lst, 1962

L(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) • the Minister of Labour, that the vote isn't going to be taken just yet. I could wish that it were because, like my honourable friend from La Vereu. drye, the few remarks that I am going to make on this subject have been ready and waiting for six weeks. Like him , I've been interested in this subject for some time. One of the reasons I decided to take some small

part in this debate was because there seemed to be a bit of an argument developing as to who was the first one among us to do some research on this subject and to have some ideas regarding its introduction into this province. Being one who is very modest, I thought that I so seldom speak up for myself truit on this occasion, perhaps, I had better do so. I would like to mention to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have here a small sheaf of correspondence that I do not intend to read.

If anyone who is interested in this subject -- and I believe that the members of the House should be interested in it --will be welcome to peruse at her or ·his convenience, because on January 24, 1956, which is the date of the letter that I hold here, I wrote to the Minister for Denmark, 451 Daly Avenue, Ottawa,. Ontario, saying: "Your Excellency, last month a local newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press, carried an

article written by special correspondent, Fred M. Hechenger, in Copenhagen, for the New York Her ald Tribune. Mr. Hechenger wrote of a new position created by the Danish government that will enable its Ministers to give better service to their people. It also stated that Professor Stephen Hurwitz has been appointed as the new Ombudsman and that he and his staff are deeply immersed in their work. Naturally I am interested; would greatly appreciate any information you could obtain for me on this subject. 11 I had, in due course, a reply from His Excellency 0.

Shahefsted, Minister for Denmark, who gave me some information about the Ombudsman. He.said that he would send me more later on and I received on May 22, 1956, quite volumin ous material from him including this sheaf that I show you now and a very interesting document which is an English translation of the Danish Act of June 11, 1954, and those who have occa sion to do some translating I know will realize that sometimes the word that is used may be a little different from just what it would be in their own language.

It's interesting to note that the title of this act as translated into English is "an Act respecting the procurator of the parl iament. 11 The date of the act is June 11, 1954. I'm not going to read the act --which is a rather famous expression in this House - but it is a brief act and I think I should mention a couple of sections. Incidentally it is totally contained in 14 sections including the coming into force section. There are some that I can not refrain from reading because, translated into English, they are quite "cute" if I may use that term.

"Section 2 --The procurator, who cannot be a Member of Parliament, must be a graduate of law.

Section 3 -- The Parliament lays down general regulations for the office of the procurator. Apart therefrom he is independent of the parliament and the execution of his duties." Skipping a couple --"The procurator supervises if the persons mentioned in sect.ion 4 be guilty of errors or omissions during the discharge of their offices." And here I want to interject into the reading of the act, Mr. Speaker, that this is of great interest to me, that it mentions the procurator supervises if the persons mentioned in

section 4 be guilty of errors or omissions, and I underline that word "omissions", because, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Attorney-General dealt mainly with the question of how well our liberties were safeguarded by the courts --with which I agree. He went on to discuss what we might call the bureaucracy, and mentioned that this, again, was divided into the discretionary field as well as one other that he mentioned. He mentioned the --not malpractices --maladministration, and my hon ourable friend, the leader of this group, also dwelt somewhat on maladministration.

I want to say, as one who has been in public life for a long time, has seen a lot of both government and bureaucracy in action, and some democracy, that I think that invariably, no matter what government is in office or in what sphere of government we are operating, invariably, in my opinion, the sins of omission are greater than those of commission. And it's not usually mal administration from which the difficulties arise --although there are some cases of that - it's lack of doing anything about the subject.

And as the Honourable Member for La Verendrye mentioned a moment ago --justice delayed. is justice denied. And justice that is ignored is certainly justice denied. And my experience is that the great area of difficulty is not so much that we are not well-safeguarded by the courts or by administrative organizations, but. that the sins of omission are the ones that we have to be careful about. And I was glad to see, in sec tion 5, that the procurator supervises if the persons mentioned in

section 4 -. and that's the May lst, 1962 Page 3225

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) • permanent civil service and all others employed in the service of the state -- be guilty of errors or omissions during the discharge of their offices. And I shall say something about omissions later on. I have only one other

section that I wish to read because I think it's rather quaintly put, and very definitely put.

Section 8. "The procurator shall observe silence with regard to the matters of which he gains knowledge ex-officio, if the conce!i.lment is necessary in view of the nature of the case. The duty of silence does not cease when he relinquishes his office." Rather well stated, I think. Oh no, there's one other here that is so nicely phrased that I must read it too.

Section 11. "Does the procurator become aware of flaws in acts or administrative re gulations in force, he shall inform the parliament and the Minister concerned thereof." Now as I say, Mr. Speaker, I'd be very glad indeed to furnish this whole file to anyone who wants to peruse it, because there is contained here an outline of his duties and some of the cases to which others have referred from the Ombudsman himself. Now Mr.

Speaker, I want to mention only a couple of other matters, one of which has already been referred to by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, because while we have had both the Honourable the Leader of this party and the Honourable the Attorney-General deal ing primarily with.what is called the Wyatt Report or Justice Report, the other publication that my honourable colleague has mentioned, "Occasion for Ombudsman" published just shortly before the other one, is also very interesting.

And I would like to read from -- a very, very brief quotation -- from it, because I think it's something that we should reflect upon. This is a quotation from that book, ''Occasion for Ombudsman" by Mr. T. E.-Utley. And this is in quotes: "Down to the 19th century the idea of the House of Commons as an mstitution existing mainly for the defence of and adjustment of private rights was dominant." That's interesting to reflect on that, that right up to the 18th century parliament existed EJ.ainly _�or the de-. fence of and adjustment of private rights rather than public rights. And Mr.

Utley goes on to say: "The great part of the business of the 18th century of Commons concerned private and indeed intimate affairs. If a man wanted to enclose a piece of common land he could do so only _ by virtue of a private act of Parliament. If a man wanted a divorce he could get it only by means of such

an act. It was, according to Mr. Utley -- and this is from an

article that ap pears in the journal of the parliaments of the Commonwealth, volume 43, of January, 1962. This

article is by one of the U.K. members of parliament, Donald Johnson. This is Mr. Johnson, MP, quoting Mr. Utley: "It was, according to Mr. Utley with the Reform Act of 1932 with the revival of popular democracy, that a deterioration of this happy state of affairs commenced, for of course, it had only been the prerogative of the comparatively few • The entry of the organized party machines into the political scene changed the conception of parlia ment beyond recognition." And then this direct quote from Mr.

Utley again: -"The legislator's task is conceived as being that of formulating general laws for the good of society rather than adjusting private interest." Mr. Utley. The thing that I think we need to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that in the looking after of the general laws, we still make sure that the machinery for protecting the private interest is not in any way sacrificed.

Well now, like my honourable friend for La Verendrye, I'm not going to attempt to go into this matter as fully as I would have done a month or thereabouts ago, but I think that after all has been said by the Honourable the Attorney-General and others, the fact is that the Wyatt Commission did recommend that such an office should be established in the United Kingdom parliament, and Mr. Utley, after an equally searching investigation so far as he personally was concerned, recommended the same thing. And then, of course, we have, as my leader mentioned a short time ago, the case of New Zealand.

And I want to quote what Mr. Donald Johnson, MP says about New Zealand. This is quoting from the Individual and the British Commonwealth, British constitution, that I mentioned a moment ago. "Moreover it is clear that in New Zealand parliament means business with this bill. There is no nonsense about a Ministerial veto and the powers given to the Commissioner" -- because he is there called a Parliamentary Commissioner which is the term suggested for the United Kingdom too -- "and the powers given to the Commissioner are unequivocal. Clause 2,

section 3 reads as follows: 'The powers conferred on the Commissioner by this Act may be exercised notwithstanding any provision in any enactment to the effect that any such decision, recommendation, act or omission shall be final, or that no appeal shall lie in respect thereof, or that no proceeding Page 3226 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd.) . or decision of the person or organization whose decision, recommendation, act or omission it is, shall be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question.• New Zealand evidently intends to dispense for all time with arbitrary bureaucracy. Equally encouraging is the comprehens_!ve , list of departments and organizations to which the act applies. These not only cover the full range of governmental departments, including, one notes, the New Zealand Broadcasting Service, but also the police, the armed forces, national ized boards and appointed commissions and authorities.

One notes the state fire insurance board, the national parks authority and the earthquake and war damage commissions from among many others. The New Zealand bill is a simple one of 28 clauses TI -- I have mentioned that the Danish one is only 14 clauses -- "The New Zealand bill is a simple one of 28 clauses which demonstrates that a parliamentary commissioner can be grafted onto a constitution on the Westminster model with a minimum of disturbance of existing institutions.

TI I have here some press clippings, one of recent date, April 16th, 1962, pointing out that the Danish ombudsman has recently overruled a minister in that country. But I come back to the point that I mentioned a minute ago, Mr. Speaker, and that is that if my own experience can be taken as any guide at all, that the omissions of people -- people being human, not intending to be bad, but being human -- far outweigh_ the sins of commission, and I think that that is the greatest area in which a public protector could operate in this province.

The Honourable the Attorney-General mentioned that one of the things that's pointed out about the Danish official is that there's a psychological advantage. I think that's important -- the psychological advan tage.

I think it's very important that people should be able to feel that they have some place to come to lay their complaints against what they feel to be unfair, and certainly it is the fact, as has been pointed out, in Denmark and certainly the same in Sweden as well -- it is the case that by no means all of them are found to have any very good foundation, but the very fact that people can come is, I think, a good thing for democracy. As the Honourable Member for La Verendrye mentioned, we private members aren't in this area where the seat of government exists very much of the year, and you would be amazed, Mr.

Speaker -- though I don't think you would be amazed because I believe that you know -- how few people really realize the access that they have to members.

Those wbo represent city seats may think that very frequently folks do come to them, ministers may feel' that they get quite a number of letters and this sort of thing, but yet I think it's quite remarkable how many people, and well informed people, do not realize or know the avenues of approach that are open to them, and when you add to that the fact that there is a tendency in any large service for a certain amount of bureaucracy to develop -- when you recognize that ministers are busy, deputy ministers are busy, heads of branches are busy, even the people of lower official positions than those are quite busy, it's quite easy to fail to take the interest in the ordinary person that comes along that should be shown to that person, recognizing that after all he or she are the ones who really make the wheels of democracy go 'round.

And I think there is a great psychological advantage as well as a practical advantage in having someone to whome the public knows that they can come. I could give dozens -- and I won't relate them -- but I could give dozens of cases where an ombudsman would have been useful. I could give many, and if I give a couple at all they'll be ones while we were in office. I could give some sinc"e the present government has come in to office too.

But when I was occupying the office of the Minister of Agriculture here I was walking out one evening at dinner time, walking along this hall on the ground floor, and I was down about even with the stairs, when a big gentleman said to me -- I had actually passed him -- and he said, kind of hesitatingly, "Mr. Campbell?" And I said, "Yes? TI and went back to speak to him, and he was there -- the offices were closed -- and he had been trying to get some advice from some place about the difficulty that he was in with his farm.

He was out from under the Debt Adjustment Act; although it was still operative at that time he was out from under it because his contract had arisen before 1940, and he had got into difficulty. He was a big husky fellow from down in the Carman area -- not right at Carman but near there. He was in difficulties that had all started -- of course he was hard up; he'd been lµving tough times on the farm -- but it started because he was in financial difficulties. He'd got into an argument with his banker.

He had roughed the banker up a bit in his own office, which isn't a very diplomatic thing to do, I am sure, if you're owing the banker money. Well one thing had led to another and the poor report that he had got from every direction meant that he was May lst, 1962 Page 3227

(Mr. Campbell, cont'd) ••••• being very badly pressed by his mortgage company. And be had been around this building, first to find out that be was out from under tbe Debt Adjustment Commission; second, to find tbe Attorney-General--and this is our time; I'm not talking about now--to find that the Attorney-General's department couldn't do anything for him. He was out, that's all. He had gone to the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture was just as good in those days as it is now.

There were just as good people in there--people just as interested in helping farmers, but they didn't give him any help and it was only by accident that be saw me as I was leaving tbe building. He wasn't even waiting for me, and he was almost ·desperate. I was able to get his story and get in touch with tbe mortgage company and get things straightened away, and it had a very happy ending because he did well on his farm. It was right at tbe time that tbe war years were starting and it was a real success story from then on.

I went out tbe front door from tbe Premier's office one day and out there beside one of the big pillars there was a lady literally in tears--not a young lady--and I asked her what was the trouble--! was on my way to a luncheon that I had to be on time at, and sbe told me that she had a judgment against her. They lived only on the outskirts of Winnipeg be re --' a dairy farm. Sbe had a judgment against ber herd of cattle. Sbe had received notice that they were going to be sold •. Sbe didn't know what to do. I told ber that I had to go to this luncheon but I would see ber when I came back.

I saw ber and it was a terrible case. Sbe had been to the courts, and do you know what had happened? It had all grown out of the time of the flood. It was two years after tbe flood but it had grown out of the time of tbe flood because when tbe flood was on these cattle were marooned; one of our representatives of the Department of Agric ulture had authorized them to go and get hay from a mile away. The hay belonged to somebody else. When things cleared up this neighbor--tbere was bad feeling between them--he sued her.

Both lawyers--! think Orville Kay called it tbe pocket; I got the records of the case -- both lawyers had made an absolutely atrocious job, both tbe one defending her and the one prosecut ing her or acting for the other neighbour. Both had made a terrible job. I still remember who they were, and they weren't unique among lawyers I imagine. Tbe judge had been even worse. He's off the bench now so I suppose I can speak ill of him - - our rules don't apply to that. It was atrocious, but they had given the judgment. The time to appeal was gone. What was she to do?

There was no question -- none in tbe world -- that ber husband and herself had been authorized by somebody to get this hay, and yet sbe was facing tbe sale of her cattle because of this. And what happened was that we couldn't do anything. Tbe time to appeal had gone by, but what we did do was that we paid the judgment -- and it was an exorbitant one too -- we paid tbe judgment out of the flood claims. I'm not going to tell you about any more.

I could tell you about a good many that hap pened in our time and they've happened since this government's been in office too, and you can't get to tbe people a lot of tbe time. I don't know how many hundreds of people I missed in tbe hall as I walked out. I don't know how many dozens of them I missed on tbe front steps as I walked out. I certainly didn't catch them all. Both of those were by accident.

But if there was somebody to whom those people could come when they miss .everybody else, if there was some body that people knew that that was their job to put them in touch with people, they'd do a much better job than we private members of the Legislature do, because we're not around much of the time, and we're not known, and some of us are not as good at it as others are. My honour able friend for Fisher -- tbe Ministers admit that when he goes in there that he either gets what he wants or they know the reason why. Some of us aren't as successful when we go even to the Ministers.

If people knew that they could come to a person who has the standing to do this job, it would be to the advantage of Manitoba. I suggest -- of course you can't take away the power of this Legislative Assembly. We've got to remain in control, and of course you can't take away tbe responsibility and the ultimate responsibility of the Ministers. They have it, and it's right that they should have it. And of course you can't, in any way at all, weaken the foundations of either the democratic system or the judicial system that we've got. That's not suggested.

All that's suggested is tci do what Sweden and Denmark have already done, what New Zealand is in the process of doing, what has been recommended to the United King dom; and that is, establish a man of absolutely unchallengable integrity who will have the public confidence --that he will be there and will be known as someone to whom the public can come when they find that they haven't got .a square deal, and that will be good for democracy. Page 3228 May lst, 1962

lVIR. W. C. SCARTH, Q.C. (River Heights) : Will the honourable gentleman permit one question, Mr. Speaker? Would the Honourable Member from Lakeside tell me , in his opinion, whether or not the government of his day would have operated more efficiently if an ombudsman had been then appointed? lVIR. CAMPBELL: Certainly we would . There's no question about that at all . I pur posely mentioned a couple of cases that came during our time. We didn't catch them all either, and I could mention a couple if my honourable friend wants me to from within the last four years . lVIR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? lVIR. MOLGAT : lf there are no other speakers, I will cloeie the ciebate very briefly. I judge , Mr. Speaker, from the reply that the Attorney-General gave to this resolution, that the .government intends to vote against it. I am very disappointed that they should take that course of action in this resolution. Mr. Speaker, there is only one purpose for the existence of this House . There is only one purpose for the existence of the members of this House , and of our whole government institution, and that is the service and the protection of the public .

And this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is only one that would lead to better service and better protection of the public. This is exactly what this resolution would do . The Attorney-General said in his reply, "Let the members of the House do it. Let them accept their responsibilities ." Mr. Speaker, we accept our responsibilities but we are not equipped to do this work as well as a non-political appointee would be . We, in many cases, have not the time or the ability or the access to the information that a non-political appointee would have.

And I think that this par ticular function is desirable in our social structure now . I indicated, and I moved the resol ution, that yearly we get more. and bigger government. We get more activities taken over by government; we get more employees. Year by year , the public are getting further away from government itself, and this is bad in our society. This is an attempt to correct this , and I'm surprised and disappointed that the Attorney-General is not prepared to accept this very reas onable proposition. Once aga in, Mr. Speaker, he asks for suggestions, constructive ideas .

We present them and they are rejected by the government . Well Mr. Speaker , I want to say this to the government. We will accept our duty in this regard, and my office at Room 250 will be open to everyone in Manitoba who wants to come and has a complaint. And I can tell the honourable ministers that I'll be in their offices and I'll be looking for confidential in formation and· for confidential files .

I can tell them this much, that since I proposed this res olution I've had many phone calls and many visitors who have legitimate complaints against this government. r·have already spoken to at least two of the Ministers with some specific matters that have come up since that time. I will not mention them now but I'm telling this government that when this House next sits , if there are matters that need to have public hear ing they will get public hearing. And I will see to it that any of these complaints that come to me will get the best service possible .

I repeat, it would be better if this were done by a non political body. I repeat, it would be much more desirable from a public standpoint if this were a pe rmanent office where anyone could arrive at any time. My own office has no staff. I cannot be there all the time, but during the time that l'i:n there I will see to it that this is done and so will the members of my group. I repeat, Mr. Speaker--the Honourable Attorney-Gen eral can shake his head in reproval all he wants--this office is desirable; it's necessary; it would be a good thing for Manitoba.

This government is making a serious mistake in refusing it. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. MOLGAT : The Yeas and Na ys , Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members . The question before the House is the proposed resolution proposed by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows : YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Desjardins, Dow , Froese , Gray , Harr is, Hawryluk, Hill house, Molgat, Orlikow, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Roberts, Shoemaker , Tanchak, Wagner, Wright. NAYS: Messrs.

Alexander, Baizley, Bjornson, Ca rroll , Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Hamilton, Ingebrigtson, Je annotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Ginlli) , Klym, Lissaman, Lyon , McKellar, McLean, Martin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Stanes , Strickland, Watt, Witney and Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. May lst, 1962. Page 3229

MR •. CLERK: Yeas - 18; Nays - 28. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. The question before the House is the pro posed resolution proposed by _The Honourable Member for Brokenhead and the proposed amend ment of The Honourable the Minister of Education. The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR •. ORLIKOW: Mr . Speaker, my remarks on this matter will be very brief. Sur veys have shown that 70% of the unemployed in Canada are people who have had less than a Grade 8 education.

The most seriously affected by the lack of education are, of course , the young people who are educated in the rural areas of this country; and it is the rural areas of this province which have lagged in raising the school-leaving age.

It is because of our con cern about this unemployment, because of our realization that without this unemployment young people educated in the rural areas who are in increasing numbers coming to the urban centres to look for employment as the farms on which they grew up become more mechanized and have less place for the young people, that we felt it important that something be done about in creasing the school-leaving age. I want to say that we are disappointed with the amendment proposed by the Minister of Education. We think it's much too cautious.

We don't think there would be any real.problems in increasing the school-leaving age to 16 because we don't think it's likely there would be many students in any one school division who would be affected by this change in the regulations. However, Mr. Speaker, half a loaf is better than none; and next year, I presume that a member of the House from this group can introduce this resolut ion again and, who knows , by that time the Minister may have decided that it's time to take the whole bite.

So since half a loaf is better than none and since this is a step in thf:l right direction, we, in this group, are prepared to vote for this amendment. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question before the House is the proposed motion and amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker , after a voice vote, declared.the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: The question before the House is the proposed resolution proposed by the Honourable Member for Brokenhead as amended. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR .

SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resolution, proposed by the Hon ourable the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The Honourable Member for Brandon. MR . R.C. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure all members of the House will be pleased at the Honourable Leader of the NDP who has brought the matter of unemploy ment to the attention of the House, because certainly it is a matter that all members of this House should be concerned with. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it's natural to realize that people who even think along the same lines will have differences of opinion, but certainly there is more likely to be a greater divergence of opinion as to how we look at this problem of unemployment. Natur3.l.ly you would expect the greatest difference to arise among one who thinks along social istic lines and one of us who thinks along the line of conservative thought. And if we read this resolution carefully, you will note there's a clear directive to the state to create productive employment.

Now I don't know whether the Honourable Leader of the NDP Party intended to direct some of the attention toward private industry or not but, nevertheless, the clear direct ive - is to either this government or the federal government or both governments to create this employment. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe I would be correct in say]ng that the only real suggestion embodied in the speech by the Leader of the NDP was the suggestion that the government should be responsible for 100% employment--the government should guarantee 100% employ ment.

Well, Sir, I think you and I would agree that this is over- simplification of the problem and if ever there was evidence given of lack of definite examination then certainly this guaran tee of full employment to everyone must be it. This group to my immediate right, Mr. Speaker, is always demanding planning.

They would like to plan everything, and if they are to plan all the way through certainly then such a government might offer full employment, but to offer full employment without controlling everything--controlling the whole economy, controlling the methods of production, controlling the individual, the system of taxation--then certainly no such promise could be very meaningful. In many countries of this world--several I should say, at least--they believe that the state exists to serve the man, but the pride in our system is that we believe that the state exists to serve man.

And to return to this matter of guaranteed Page 3230 May- lst, 1962

Mr. Lissaman (cont'

d) jobs for all, we must remember that if we guarantee complete employment then we must also guarantee the need of the product or the need of the service that that labour is going to provide, and to guarantee labour means that we must control the individual because there comes some point where we must say a particular individual must work some place in some given line at some particular price.

Now, to look further into the matter of guaranteed wages it suggests at least that the public treasury is limitless, and this couldn't be further from the truth, especially when you come to the level of the provincial government. Now these of course--the Honourable Leader will say, well, these are my opinions , but let's look at what others say. Leading Canadian economists , including Dr .

Eugene Forsey, the well known ad visor to the Canadian Labour Movement, had no inclination to accept the proposition of government-guaranteed employment as either realistic or one they could support with any degree of intellectual integrity. In fact, I would like to refer to some interesting comments by the press in this connection. I won't bore the House, Mr . Speaker, at this late hour and at this late date in the session of reading the whole article, but from the Free Press of October 19, 1961, I would like to read a few paragraphs from the

article that was therein printed: "The defection of Dr. Eugene Forsey from the ranks of the New Democratic Party is more than a blow to party prestige; more than just harmful to the image that party is seeking to create in the public mind. It is a serious loss in terms of the contribution that Dr.

Forsey might have been expected to make within the party as one of its ablest and best-informed minds." It goes on to say that of course no one single reason might have caused him to leave the party but it points out that--and again I quote: "His third clash was over the resolution calling for Guaranteed Employment Act, a resolution of irresponsibility as he saw it, in the absence of a sound and specific policy to back it up ." And then we have, near the same date the Tribune of June 13 , 1961, a comment--and I shall only read the last paragraph of this editorial by the writer, Mr.

Don McGillivray: "The only thing that has not been done by a democratic country, even the friends of the New Party must wonder whether a promise can be redeemed within the framework of freedom , whether it is possible to see that everyone has a job without also telling everyone where he will work , at what job and at what wag es." Mr . Speak er, I believe that this suggestion is over-simplification of a problem on shallow examination, and let me be guilty of a little over-simplification in order to illustrate to the members what I have in mind.

Now if I were a backwoodsy type and owned a wood lot, I could certainly keep myself productively employed by cutting firewood for myself, and if I had one of those old-fashioned pot-bellied stoves I certainly wouldn't freeze to death; but the probable chances are that unless I could trade some of that wood and exchange it for something else, the stove would probably be the only thing around there that was very rotund. Now I know that our modern way of life is more complicated than this, Mr .

Speaker, but the fact remains that no matter what we spend our labour on, we have to find some market for the product produced or the use of those services somewhere, and here I'd just like in passing, to make some comment on world conditions.

In a recent issue of Time magazine, February 23rd issue, there is a very exhaustive study of the Japanese economy at the present time, and very graphically; we have a graph exhibiting the relative wages in both Japan common market and the United States of America, and we could place ourselves , no doubt , in the hourly rate structure somewhere very close to the American hourly wage rate.

In Japan, it would look as though the hourly-wage rate was something around 35 to 40 cents an hour--the common market just about the 50 cents an hour rate and the wages in the States would appear to be almost touching the $2 . 50 mark--probably averaging $2 . 40 an hour. Now, I would like to point out , after commenting on those wage rates, that naturally this puts nations with a low hourly wage rate in a relatively ideal position for trading as the cost of production of the labour element is low.

Now this was a tremendous advantage when these nations weren't mechanized but now they've become mechanized almost comparable to this nation and the United States. Then this certainly becomes a far greater advantage to them .

And we must admit that world conditions don't look too rosy--that we shall certainly at least have a period of adjustment to these two new competing markets that the world is being faced with--the European Common and the Japanese productive market--and I think this is just exactly the reason for President Kennedy having appealed to both industry and labour in the United States to hold the line . Particularly May lst, 1962 Page 3231

Mr. Lissaman (cont'd) •••• he asked labour not to ask for unreasonable wage increases unless there was a compensatory increase in production. I might say just in passing, as a personal comment, Mr.

Speaker, that I've always felt that--and certainly labour and management must get together to beat the employment si t uation--but I've always felt that it 's unfortunate--and this is the thing that makes it so difficult for labour and management to come to a real understanding--! think generally, management, because it has come up through the ranks in a very large degree, understands the problems of labour and actually sympathizes with many of the problems of labour, but labour, on the other hand, has never experienced the problems of management; and I feel this is one of the real impediments in preventing the real common ground coming together of labour and management.

But to return to unemployment, Mr. Speaker, I would like to sugge st that aside from the actual process of producing products and services, the largest factor controlling our economy is the monetary control and our system of taxation.

Now I do not propose to get lost in the labyrinth of monetary policy and taxation systems because I'll confess I could get lost very easily in that, although I do read many of the articles that are appearing in financial papers and industrial papers and this gives me confidence that many of the best minds trained along these lines are looking and seeking for solutions to problems which will help cure unem ployment; and we have plenty of examples of governments, both here and in the United States, doing their utmost to promote conditions which will be productive of increased employment.

Ever si.nce the days of Roosevelt's pump priming to the recent devaluation of the dollar is an example of governmental manipulation of the monetary and taxation: policies to put the nation in a better productive position. But now, Mr. Speaker , we realize that these controls are out of the hands of provincial governments and naturally, then, we could say well what is the provincial government, or what has the provincial government done up to this stage to stim ulate employment in this province. Well personally, I thin:k the record is excellent. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if we are not approaching a point where we _could say that there isn't a great deal more that we can do within our current economic situation. Let me enumerate· some of the things that this government has done since taking office . First, in new power and communication developments, we have invested more than $245 million. In respect of roads and related facilities for transportation, commitments totalling $170 million have been made. Guarantees and similar support for municipal school, hospital, university development, a total of $33 million since 1958 .

The Manitoba Development Fund has made investment loans approximating $10 million over this period. And new enterprises, new opportunities have been directly created in this manner. The Agricultural Credit Cor poration has , since 1959, provided financial support for continuing farm opportunities to the extent of over $14-1/2 million. The value of these varied and extensive investment activities by a province , by the public bodies acting with provincial support, must not be measured from the short term view but rather must acknowledge that good results will continue and be enjoyed for years to come.

But it is worthwhile noting that there has already been an increase in the number of jobs in the province since 1960 by some 4, 000 extra jobs. A record average of some 318, 000 persons were estimated to have been employed in M�ba during 1962; better than 95% of the labour force. Now under our free capitalistic system , as I suggested a minute ago, there can be a real question as to how far a government should go to provide financial support in isolation from the capacity of the total economy. But what the government certainly should accept, and does accept, as th ese past records show, Mr.

Speaker, as a reasonable and prime responsib ility, is the maintenance of support for the functions susceptible to stimulation by public authority which can provide or lead to the provision of opportunities for employment. And this the Government of Manitoba has tried to do, and quite successfully, I would suggest. Since '58-59, capital expenditure and commitments by the Province of Manitoba, its agents and related bodies have totalled over $500 million.

These investments in the potential of the communities to support employment, creating activities , have touched every important sector of the provincial economy. And surely they have provided a base upon which private enter prise can and must develop. And, Mr . Speaker, while on the subject of provincial capital investment, I would like in passi ng to make a comment. We can realize that investments in hydro-electric production capacity is as much an investment in industry as could be possible, Page 3232 May lst, 1962

Mr. Lissaman (cont'd) •••.. because those of us who are a little older than some of the younger members will recall that every factory had its little steam power plant. And what we are doing in this field with public monies now is producing one large central power plant available to all future industrial development in thi s province . But there are many other kinds of ex penditure capital that do not directly regenerate or build capital and, therefore , there are certainly limits in any era as to how much of this luxury type of investment that a province can afford. Because it was most interesting, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to refer to a speech by Mr . Trevor Moore , Vice President and Director of Imperial Oil, who made a speech before the Bond Dealers Assoc iation of Vancouver, June Sth, 1961 . Due to the lateness of the hour I will not read as much as I originally intended to, but I think his thoughts on the divi sion that he separates· capital into as to more or less what he calls soc ial capital and industrial capital, is worth commenting on or, at least, worth our attention. He says , "I don't wish to leave the impressi on that I am opposed to socia l capital as such.

We recognize that many public expend itures are for the things that will make life worth living for all of us . Many too, are productive in a very real sense over the long pull . We recognize , for example, that socia l capital in the form of improved communications soundly based may well be followed by productive capital if either the supply of raw material or markets or both are close at hand.

But I think in a capital consuming nation like ours we should realize that a large part of capital from this country is not capital whi ch produces additional wealth for us . 11 And then this is worth noting particularly, "Diversion of too much capital to relatively unproductive ends is one reason for our capital in vestment problem . 11 But I think Mr. Speaker, if we examine the capital investment of this province , we would see that even in the li ght of Mr. Moore's comments that there is an example of well planned investment over the years ahead.

And by these methods we have given, I would hope, encouragement to pay enterprise wherever possible and actual assistance through the Manitoba Development Fund, extension and expansion of our power communication utilities to take care of expanding industry in the province , more and better highways and roads , and certainly we mustn't forget the potential of the study on Manitoba's economic future, a study which has been set up. This is thinking to the future.

All this would suggest that this province has examined the future with great thought and has done many things that without which unemployment would be very much worse than it is at present and would be very much worse than would otherwise be in the future . · · Now I could go on and quote the employment figures of the winter works program, but we have had these during the budget debate and I certainly do not wish to hold the House unnec essarily so I will come to a conclusion. Before so doing, Mr .

Speaker, I would like to suggest that it would be good to look outside the country and see what other people think of Canada's position . And from the Commercial and Financial Chronicle , I'd just like to quote one page- one paragraph, "Steady progress along sound lines instead of a boom is the forecast for Canada in 1962. Touching upon significant sectors of the economy from the improvement of foreign trade to the 18% in petroleum production and upon principal companies helping the economy to reach a new high in gross national product in 1961 ended, Dr .

Koblay praises Canadian measures, making it likely that Canada will do well this year. The study includes a list of Canadian companies that have paid cash dividends uninterruptedly through period s ranging from five to 133 years. Because Mr. Sp eaker, I believe that the resolution is too narrow in scope , I am going to move an amendment, seconded by the Honourable Member for St.

Matthews , that all the words after "unemployment" in the fourth line thereof be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "Whereas the Government of Manitoba has invested over $500 million during the last four years in employment-creating capital development such as schools, hospitals, roads, water conservation and control, hydro installations , telephone service and the like; and,

whereas it is estimated that at the present time about one-third of the total capital employment creating investment now being made within the province is made by the provincial _government and its municipali ties; and

whereas there are economic and practical limits to what the pro vince can do in this connection; and

whereas the management of the national economy is largely in the control of the federal government; Therefore

be it resolved that this House urge the May lst, 1962 Page 3233

Mr. Lissaman (con t'd) •••• Government of Can ada to give consideration to the advisability of additional members of publicly induced employment incentive programs for private enterprise as will reduce unemployment in Canada to acceptable proportions . Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think that I should say a few words in !eply to my honourable friend. Of course , Mr.

Speaker, I haven 't had a full opportunity of studying the amendment as proposed by the Honourable Member for Brandon, but it does seem to me as I take a glance at the operative part of his resolution it is in my opinion tantamount to a sub stantiation in large measure to the resolution that was introduced by myself some couple of months ago to this Assembly. Because actually, Mr .

Speaker, my resolution was introduced to the House to indicate that our general government-and of course I included the provinc ial government as well--that neither one of these two legislative bodies were giving sufficient attention to the question of the provision of employment in Canada and in Manitoba , and that despite the high flowery phrases that were being used by responsible ministers of the Crown both at Ottawa and here in the Province of Manit oba, we were still faced with about seven percent even in the so-called boom period--or period of recovery as some referred to it here in the Province of Manitoba in January, and also in Canada as a whole.

We'r e still faced at the present time with over seven percent of the total working population tha t is idle and unable to find employment. !li stened, Mr. Speaker, with great interest to the Honourable Member for Brandon when he was attempting to establish a case and trying to refute to some measure the, propos ition which I had the honour to place before this Assembly as to the desirability of an attempt to have far greater employment in the Dominion of Canada and Manitoba than we have at the present time. I agree with him and I stated so .

At the time that I introduced the resolution I realized that in order to have absolute full employment--and if I didn't do it then , I do it now- I realize that in order to achieve absolute full employment then the state must of necessity control every segment and every operation within the orbit of its jurisdiction. We are not suggesting th at , and we have not suggested that , and I am not suggesting it now; but I do suggest, Mr.

Speaker and Members·of this Assembly, that if we here in Canada were to adopt a similar program to that which is prevailing at the present time in Norway, Denmark and Sweden, wherein that there is a considerable amount of planning by the state in the economic manipulations within the country, that it would be possible for us here in Canada to reduce un employment at least down to a level of no more than one and a half percent, which is the levels of these countries that I mention. Now I'm not going to go into a full debate at the present time with my honourable friend , Mr . Speaker.

I do want to challenge, however, his reference to Japan ab.d to the European Common Market wherein he was comparing the wage rates, particularly in Japan, with those here in the Dominion of Canada. I haven 't it with me here this evening, but the other day there was a very enlightening

article , in the Winnipeg Free Press I believe it was, which refuted the contention of my honourable friend, that if one takes into consideration the other benefits of the worker in Japan, such as the provision. of his house , such as provision for full medical care·, hospital care and other provisions as well, and if one would take into consideration the difference in the amount of production that is achieved by a Japanese worker by comparison with that of the worker here in Canada , I think when so in balance, it is a different picture entirely than that painted by my honourable friend.

I do agree with him that at the present time , if you only take the dollar per hour or cents per hour comparison of the worker in the European Common Market countries that there will be a difference, but then again Mr. Speaker, we must take into consideration also the productivity of the employees there , because as compared to ours, because of the fact that they have not yet become as automated or mechanized as we are here in the North American Continent , and in particu lar of course, the United States and Canada . But I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, to my honourable friend that one of the reasons the European Common Market countries are advancing today is because productivity is increasing and so are the methods ; but accompanying this is annual increases of a larger proportion insofar as the wage rates are concerned that we have here in the North American Continent at the present time . So I say Mr. Speaker we have to take all of these various segments and conditions into account when we attempt to make comparisons. Page 3234 May lst, 1962

Mr. Paulley {Cont'd) •••• It reminds me of the time when this Assembly was attempting to es tablish comparative beer prices. We got into an awful lot of hassles at that time and I suggest that if we pursue this question of a comparative wage rate without taking the other fact ors into consideration then we get into exactly the same position . Now I appreciate very much as my honourable friend has said that the provincial gov ernment has invested, over the last few years, a half a billion dollars--in four years I believe it is , my honourable friend says in his resolution--in schools and hospitals.

I think this is to the credit of Manitoba and I'm proud to be able to say that I think on every occasion I've had the opportunity to stand up and vote for these investments in Manitoba. But I say, Mr . Speaker, these still are not sufficient ; that we have not as yet, even as a result of these investments, attracted suff icient private capital to work along with us in order that there may be created greater employment here in the Province of Manitoba. Mr .

Speaker I said that I was not going to be long and I'm sure that the Members of the Assembly will appreciate the fact that even I as the Leader of the New Democratic Party could go on for a considerable length of time on this particular subject. It's not my intention to do so tonight. I'm only happy to say that contrary to the amendment that was proposed last year by the government, this one seems a little bit more reasonable. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Proposed resolution of the Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party as amended.

Mr .· Speaker presented the motion and aft er a voice vote declared the motion carried • . . . • • . {continued on next page) May 1st, 1962 Page 3235

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed resol ution of the Honourable Member for Inkster. The Honourable Member for Cypress. MRS. THELMA FORBES (Cypress): Mr. Speaker, in replying to the Honourable Member from Inkster and in speaking on the proposed resolution, I would like to say that I pay my res pects to the honourable gentleman and also my congratulations for what he had to say and for his sincerity in trying to see that some thing more will be done for exceptional children in Mani toba.

Every year since I have been in this House , and I am sure before that time too, the hon ourable gent leman has presented his sincere remarks on this subject. I note that this resolu tion asks that consideration be given to the advisability of expanding educational facilities for the deaf, blind, crippled and retarded children of this province, but that in his speech he was dealing with one phase only, a school for the deaf, and I will tr:y to confine my remarks to the problem of the deaf too.

During the past month the government, . along with others concerned, have been evaluating the existing services and facilities for children with impaired hearing and for deaf children at three levels. First of all, the pre-school age; second, the school age; and third, the post school age. The pre-school age is when it becomes es tablished that a child has impaired hear ing -- to the age of six years.

We recognize, however, that very little can be done for a child directly until the child reaches two and a half or three years of age, but during this period much can be done to assist the parents in understanding and in training the child until a formal pre-school program is desirable. Now we know that in Manitoba at the present time we have some such 53 children; 37 of these come from Winnipeg and 16 from rural Manitoba. At present they have been cared for by the Children's Hospital.

We comme nd and admire what has been done and is being done for these children , but at the same time we recognize the inadequacy of their limited services ; the fact that there is no opportunity for auditory training, for lip-reading instruction or for speech training. The size of this problem is really great and we as laymen are not capable of assess ing it, but I know the House is well aware that the assess ment is in the hands of capable pro fessional workers, working in co-oper ation with private doctors, with public health units, with the Children's Hospital and many others concerned.

The Society for Crippled Children and Adults has presen ted the Manitoba Government with a proposal for the establishment of a pre-school centre for handicapped children. The Kinsmen Club of Winnipeg has com mitted their support towards the construction of this centre. As a result of study and planning and negotiations between all concerned, a pre-school centre for handicapped children will be constructed by the Society for Crippled Children and Adults.

The Health Department will assist with the capital cost of construction -- the capital cost of construction rather, will be met by the Kinsmen Club and the Health Department will support the centre with a grant to purchase the land and they Will give a grant of 40% towards the annual operational cost. The balance will be raised by the Society through its voluntary contributions. This new facility will serve particularly the pre-school deaf and the cerebral palsy children. The es tablishment of this centre has been a long required facility.

The functioning of a pre-school program will make the existing and the future school age programs much more ef fective and much more worthwhile. As such centres as this com es into being, we will learn of other children in this province not on our records at present. We must face the fact that the in clusion of rural children from rural Manitoba in this pre-sch ool centre will raise the problem of accom modation. The age of the child will certainly mean that the mother must be accom modated as well.

A realistic recommen dation in regard to accom modation will no doubt be made after the centre has been in operation for a while and the number of rural children and the resulting problems and responsibilities assessed. Now this is a point to which the Honour able Member from Inkster referred to, the necessi ty of having the child with the mother, so I think that you will agree that the task is great, and when one phase seems to be met, another looms up.

Now most of the children who receive some training at the Children's Hospital Speech Hearing Clinic go on to the Manitoba Day School for the Deaf in Winnipeg or to the Saskatche wan School for the Deaf, or to the Hard of Hearing Classes or to the hearing conversation pro gram operated by the Winnipeg School Division for Winnipeg children. It is es timated that about three percent of all the children in Manitoba have impaired hearing in varying degrees , and the Page 3236 May lst , 1962 ·

(Mrs. Forbes, cont 'd. ) .... number of children who are deaf and require to receive their training and education in schools for the deaf, is estimated to be at about 146 in this province . Actually, on record we have some 104 such children. About one half of these go to the Manito ba Day School for The Deaf; some 50 go to Saska toon ; with four going to Montreal and Minnea polis . No doubt some are not recorded. Probably some are too retarded mentally to partici pate in any program and it could be that some parents do not wish their child to participate.

But it's interesting to note, Sir, that the number of 50 attending the Manitoba Day Schoo l, 42 of these come from Winnipeg and eight from rural Manitoba. The Saskatchewan Resi dential School has seven from Winnipeg and 43 from rural Manitoba; and the four attending in Montreal and Minneapolis are from rural Manitoba. The government, as you know, pays their trans portation and the cost of tuition and ma intenance. For post-sc hool training -- The Society for Crippled Children have looked after this -- the department contributes about 35% of the annual operating budget.

This program provides quite a co mprehensive rehabilitation service to a wide variety of children with orthopaedic disabilities and to deaf children and to children with visual defects , other than blind, and to the cerebral palsy. Now I have tri ed, as I said, to confine my re marks to deaf children, but I must point out that to get the best practical program for all our exceptional children, we must include all of them as indeed the Honourable Member did in his resolution.

I would like to remi nd the House, as did the First Minister a few days ago , that in the 1962-63 program the department will in crease its grant to the Associ ation for Re tarded Children from $57, OOO to $1 06 , OOO, to permit them to expand their special classes for trainable retarded children so that it will include a broader age distribution and to expand their day class program to serve a total of 100 children. Also, funds have been increased to expand the St. Amant Ward of St. Boniface Sanatorium to serve 11 0 children as compared to the 84 children who were there last year.

Besides, the de partment provides financial assistance for the support of children in their own homes and in fos ter homes . Expenditures for these last two items have been increased from $175, OOO to $343 , OOO , and I would like you to note and remember the additional 160 beds that have been opened at the Manitoba School for Mental Defectives. The rehabilitation program for mental defectives provided through the Broadway Home has been expanded to include boys as well as girls, so that there are now some 50 girls and boys participating in this supervised program.

The department provides financial support to the Child Guidance Clinic of Greater Winni peg, amo unting this year to some $127, OOO. This cl inic is designed to provide certain ser vices to school- aged emotionally disturbed, mentally retarded and physically handicapped children. I merely· point these items out, Mr. Speaker, to show the participation of the Health Department in the education and the treatment of physically and mentally handicapped childr en in this province.

Let us recognize that we can't deal with these different groups of exceptional children individually, but that the program, especially at the habilitatio n level, the accom moda tion level, must be a comb ined effort if it's going to be practical. Comi ng back to this school for the deaf, let us be fair. Personally, I admit and I feel sure that all of us here will agree that we are not satisfied with the existing practice. We know that it's unsatisfactory as far as the child is concerned.

We recognize that follow-up programs are not sa tisfactory and so impairs the type of approach that we would like to take towards the habilitation problem for all deaf children. In addition, we are quite conscious of the fact that we are not sus taining a full program which will attract the bes t-trained personnel to Manitoba.

I hope that in the not too distant future that a Manitoba School for the Deaf will be erected to serve all Manitoba deaf children which will incorporate all the best features of our existing programs, so that deaf children will have the best advantages of health and education al programs and still have, as far as possible, the opportunity of normal contact with their own parents . Workshops or Junior Trade Schools, or whatever we might like to call them, for the post-school age must also be a part of this program.

Now I feel quite as deeply as the Honourable Member from Inkster does on this subject and I believe all members of the House support the views re a school for the deaf. I hope the honourable member will take some com fort in what is being done . I know he's quite a practi cal man and he will agree, I think, that a com bination of a little time, careful planning, pro- r fess ional workers, money, and the help of our voluntary groups , will bring that deaf school in Manito ba. So I agree with his resolution in principle, however, I would like to change the March lst, 1962 Page 3237

(Mrs. Forbes, cont'd .) •... wording just slightly to bring it into line with the facts that I have outlined. And so , Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Pembina, that the resol ution be amended by striking out the words "the deaf and blind" from the first line thereof and subs tituting the following: "Approximately one-half the deaf and the majority of the blind"; and that the resolution be further amended by striking out the words "by re-opening a school in Winnipeg" in the second last line thereof. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, .... ..

Do you want to speak? --Okay , go ahead. MR. WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, I didn't get the amendment, but I wanted to make a few re marks on behalf of these deaf children. The Member for Cypress was speaking --or at least she said that she's curtailing her speech to deaf children. Well then, it seems to me every body's co-operating tonight and I shall curtail my speech to the children --to deaf and mute. However, listening to her while she was speaking, one would think that our deaf and mute child ren, retarded children, are very well taken care of. Mr.

Speaker, it's not the case and I am sure that the Minister of Education knows what I am talking about, because I contacted the Honourable Minister of Education on November 9th, 1961, in one particular occasion --I don't want to mention any names , but if I have to I will - in a deaf and mute boy, which the boy was two years in Saskatoon and then afterwards the Sask atoon principal felt that the boy is not achieving or is not getting enough benefit out of that school and he felt that he shouldn't be entered. The parents felt that the boy was very normal; they took the boy to the Doctor.

As a matter of fact they took him twice, and the doctor claims he is normal and has a sound mind. I saw the child myself, who is eight years of age. I was on two occasions in that house and when he saw me the second time, when I drove into the yard he came running to me, trying to tell me something and showing that the father is away, how ever, you come in. So I come into the house a nd I questioned --and it seems to me the child is normal. I approached the Minister on November the 9th, as I said before.

The Minister told me that he was going to investigate and he followed a letter of November lOth , 1961 - I don't want to read it, it's quite lengthy --that there was no such provision in Manitoba for the indigent parents. There is a day school in Winnipeg; they were willing to take the boy, but the parents could not afford for board and lodgings. Now maybe The Social Allowances Act should come in in here. I went back and I told the parents that the boy can be taken into the city providing you can pay for room and board.

The parents said that they could pay just the family allowance cheque, as he was getting in Saskat chewan. I wrote a letter back to the Minister stating what the source is and what the cause is, and I asked the Minister to reconsider the decision. Possibly there is some way to accommo date this boy. And it's not only this boy. There are-other fellows, and in my own area, but I'm speaking about only one case at the moment. However, I received a letter from the Minis ter of November 28th, 1961.

I must admit that he was answering the letters at his earliest con venience as possible and I have no qualms to quarrel here, and the letter stated: "in reference of" --I don't want to mention the name --but the letter reads: "Dear Mr. Wagner: Your let ter of Novemper 22nd, 1961, is acknowledged. " And in this letter -- I have the letter but I still don't want to read it, not to prolong the speech - in that letter I stated that there should be some reconsideration that these children should be accom modated in Winnipeg and the pro vision provided by the Province of Manitoba.

My argument was this, that if we send our child ren to Saskatoon we pay for them. The Honourable Member for Cypress --I was writing down even we have four in Minneapolis and Montreal, maybe two and two or something like that; and we have 15 in Saskatoon --something like that. Anyhow, we assist these children if they are away from home, which causes the hardship for the _children and the parents when the children are away from home. However, Mr. Speaker, I was going to read this letter of November 28th.

"l have noted what you have to say and wish to advise you that I will be glad to take your views into consideration. Yours truly, Stewart McLean. " Now since. that letter, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to contac t the Department of Welfare. November 16th, there was no provision - there was no provision for assis ting such children. On November 2lst, the co-ordinator of rehabilitation was exploring the matter. On November 22nd, again I approached the department and no result. On March 28th I 'phoned the Department Page 3238 May lst, 1962

(Mr. Wagner, cont' d. ) .... of Education. The people were working there but a certain par ty was away -- no information. On April 27th, just a few days ago, again I got in touch with the Department of Education. Naturally I was told that the activities in the Chamber, the Teachers' Convention, and no doubt the pension, the department was very busy and still it's under consideration. Now, Mr. Speaker, the time if flying by.

This boy is home, and for the love of me I can not see no reason, no excuse -- we pride ourselves what benefits we give under The Social Allowances Act; what we are doing in the health; what we are doing in Welfare; and here we are not doing for these children. We are going to send them to Saskatoon; we're going to send them to Montreal; we're going to send them to the States and we'll pay for them; but in Manitoba when these people, the parents are indigent, we cannot afford to have them here in Winnipeg. It's just beyond me. Mr.

Speaker, if I may say so again, as I said before, we send teachers to Colombo, and I have no quarrel there. We are going to send people on trade missions ; we expand parks, summer resorts ; we upkeep historic sites -- we are going to rebuild them; that's all to the good. And here is 900, OOO people in Manitoba -- one penny, one penny and that would provide $9, OOO; and how much would that provide for room and board for a child, and it could be voted to the parents here in Manitoba.

I've had people from outside of the province visiting me and we started discussing -- naturally when they find out that I am some kind of a two-bit politic ian they want to know how Manitoba is carrying on in politics -- so they start questioning me and then they come to the deaf and mute children, and when I say that we haven 't got the policy, the people think it's somet hing unusual. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is unusual. I'm pretty sure, if I know the Minister of Education, he will bring in somet hing in the very near future. I would appreciate it very much and God bless him. HON. STEWART E. McLEAN, Q.

C. (Minister of Education)(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to take

part in this debate, but I think that for the records it would not be right to allow what the Honourable the Member for Fisher has said to go without a further com ment from myself. I'm really reluctant to say this, but I must point out for the record that the per son to whom he has made reference was given every opportunity at the school in Saskatoon and was , in the opinion of the officials there, receiving no benefit whatsoever from the time or money being spent on his education. Now the honourable the member gives his opinion that the boy was satisfactory and I'm not quarrelling with him.

I haven't seen the boy, but I must say that, in the opinion of those qualified to know, it was not worthwhile in their opinion to have the child in school. Now as a special concession to the parents and the child in question, we said that we would be prepared to give him a further opportunity at the day school in Winnipeg, but that was, and I must emphasize this , a special concess ion in the fact of the expert opinion which we had that probably the boy could not benefit from any training in the school.

It was at that point of course that we said, as is the case, that we had no provision under those circumstances for providing the extra financial assistance that the parents wanted, as well as the right to have a further opportunity of sending the child to the Day School for the Deaf in Winnipeg. Now I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, to mention this, but I do feel that what the honourable member has said, without some further explanation from myself, might on the record give a rather wrong im pression. MR. WAGNER: Mr. Speaker, would the Honourable Minister permit a question?

You know and I know that this is a special case. Now my question is: If there is another case in Manitoba that the child is normal and would benefit, is there a provision here in Manitoba that the Department of Education would assist indigent parents that cannot afford to put the child here in Winnipeg? Is there a provision here in Manitoba, or would you rather have him sent to Saskatoon ? MR. McLEAN: Mr.

Chairman, in the circumstances of which the honourable member speaks , namely, a person residing -- I've just forgotten the location, it's som ewhere in Fish er cons tituency -- that that child would be provided free-of-charge, including transportation to and fro m, with the full educational benefits of the school in Saskatoon. The day school in Win nipeg was never intended for those who, in effect, were not res iding at home. Now you may disagree with that policy, but that is the policy. In other words, our residential school for the May lst , 1962 Page 3239

(Mr. McLean, cont' d. ) .... deaf children is the School for the Deaf at Saskatoon. As I say, you may disagree with that policy but that is the policy, so that anyone not res iding within the Metropolitan area of Winnipeg is provided entirely free of charge -- the question of whether the parents are millionaires or otherwise makes no differ ence -- they are provided free of charge with transportation to and from Saskatoon and all of the costs of board, room, every thing, education at that residential school, and so it isn't any use of asking me whether I bel ieve in sending him to Saskatoon.

The fact is that that's the Residential School for the Deaf for the children of Manitoba, other than those residing in the Metropolitan area of Winnipeg, who, if they wish to do so, have the privilege of attending a day school for the deaf in Saskatoon - in Winnipeg rather. May I say that even one residing in the metropolitan area of Winnipeg is entitled, if they wish to do so, to go to the residential school in Saskatoon and be provided with transportation, room, board and all the other things that go with it. It's a voluntary choice - those who wish to go to the day school.

There is a difference of opinion among the experts as to which is best for the child. There are many who feel that the residential school atmosphere type of training is much better for the deaf child than the day school; and there are those who do not wish their children to attend a day school for the deaf; but then again there are others who have contrary views, and for those who do have those contrary views, they are entitled to have their children attend the day school here in Winnipeg. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. GRAY: Mr.

Speaker, although the House owes me many, many hours of time com pared to the time taken up by other honourable members, I shall not be long. Although this is a subject which I feel that we should have more time to discuss it, I will not take the opportun ity to do it. Secondly, it is one of those days when I am not too well. You know I told this sto ry in this House once that a human mind starts functioning at birth and quits functioning when it has to make a speech at this late.hour.

In brief, the history in Winnipeg is that before the fi rst World War, at the wisdom of the government of that day a school was built specially for the deaf children. They may have had ·room for others who are in a similar category. When the war broke out, the army required that building -- they needed it for the army. When the war wa_s over, instead of giving the building back for the purpose of housing the deaf and other handicapped children, it was taken over by the Normal School, and since then nothing was done for them in Winnipeg. We are sending to Saskatoon about 60 children.

There may be a few less now, but the records indicat ed there were 60 children away from home. Now the Honourable Minister claims that the professional people , or the experts , have another idea and they do not believe that a child who is handicapped should be close to home and close to mother. Well, I will not argue with him as to the proper treatment of a child. In the last six or seven years, when on behalf of our group I have submitted a similar resolution, I usually obtain many opinions from specialists of child psychology, and particularly handi capped children.

The info rmation that I have obtained, not from laymen, indicates that a handi capped child must be close to home and close to the mother. I will not read at this time the qpinions except one, which give the idea there is at least one specialist in this world that be lieves that a child should be close to home. This is from Helmer R. Michaelbuss, a Prof essor of Ideology at the Northwestern University, and he says, "there are certain essentials of good training for all children.

All children need affe ction, security and consistent handling; they need to feel that they are wanted a!rl they are a part of the family; they need success and en couragement and wise discipline; they need to be reassured and relieved from fear after they have been frig htened; they need freedom to play alone with other children; they need praise, sympathy and understanding." In my opinion, only a mother can do it. And then we have the mothers -- I have not submitted this for our own glorific ation -- it is the mothers that request ed us to take it up.

Of course not all the handicapped, but those who are deaf or semi-blind, they don't want to be alone. They feel that they should be close to home. And then again the mother or the father , or any other member of the family cannot travel to Saskatoon every week, or not even every month. We are paying for the Saskatoon school, and paying a good price. It's not a question of saving money for the province, it's a question of having some one of their own with them. So now the amendment, in my humble opinion -- although I want to congratulate her, the Page 3240 May lst, 1962 ·

(Mr. Gray, cont' d. ) .... charming lady on her speech -- but the amendment does not say anything. What it says here is that the resol ution be amended by striking out the words the "deaf and the bl ind" . In other words , have other children -- well ·no one can object to this if you have the facilities and the building. Why it was necessary for her to strike out the words "by re-opening a school in Winnipeg", I canno t understand . If it's impossible this year , we could probably postpone for another year, although it's been postponed for seven years.

But I cannot see any particular reason, and I'm sure that the amendment moved by the Honourable Member from Cypress was -- I wouldn 't say by instructions, but definitely by suggestion of the powers-that-be -- so which means this is a government amendment and, as such, I feel that they are making a big mistake. Neither the Minister of Education or the Minister of Health, who spoke last year, convinced me that it isn't better for the child, and that's what I'm worry ing about. · I'm not worrying so much for the mother . The mother is grown up; the mother is not handicapped. I' m worrying about the child.

Am I late or -- (Interjection) -- Mr. Minister of Health, how long can I wait ? -- (Interjection) -- I'm sorry -- I listened to you when you speak, very attentatively too. I feel that we 're definitely not satisfied and we are compelled to oppose the amendment. I' m sure that she will oppose the resol ution, so it will be a 50/50 proposition. I don't want to warn you, but I'm telling you that we, our group, will come up with this every year until such time we get it, the same as we've gotten other legislation by fighting for it for years. So why wait? Why take up the time next session?

Give it to us now and satisfy the mothers. Let's add a little bit more concrete help to rehabilitate those who need our sympathy; need our treat ment; need our rehabilitation. After all, they're human beings and it's not their fault that they are deaf or han dicapped. We must do everything possible, especially for the sake of the child, for the sake of the parents and for the sake of the taxpayers, which some of the other members worry about it. I'm sure it will cost less to build a home or a school for them right here in Winnipeg than sending them -- pay trans portation and pay maintenance at Saskatoon. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question before the House is the amen dment proposed by the Honourable Member for Cypress, seconded by the Honourable Member for Pembina. Are you ready for the amendment? Mr. Speaker pres ented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion ca rried. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think it would satisfy my honourable friend if it was recorded that this was passed on division. MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is the proposed resolution proposed by the Honourable Member for Inkster, as amended. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote decla red the motion carried. MR. PAULLEY: On division. MR. SPEAKER: On division. Adjourned debate on the proposed resol ution of the Honourable Member for Emerson. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. E. I. DOW (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker , at this stage of the session, I am quite happy to withhold my remarks and give the opportunity of the Honourable Member for Emerson to close this debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if before the Honourable Member for Emerson closes this debate , may I just very briefly state our position as far as this group is concerned. We supported a resol ution of the same nature last year because we feel that, insofar as our teachers are concerned, that notwithstanding the votes of the people wit hin the areas that they are entitled to equal treatment no matter where they are in the Province of Manitoba and, like last year, it is our intention to support this resolution again this year. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? MR. TANCHAK: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say a few final words and I promise not to be very long this time. I wish to thank my good friends to the left, as the Leader of the NDP just indicated it will support this resolut ion. I'm sorry I cannot say the same about the govern ment members across -- maybe I'm presu ming something. I hope I' m wrong; I hope that every one supports this resol ution; but I think it is just wishful thinking. The four points I raised when I introduced this resolution still hold. I say that to get the May lst, 1962 Page 3241

(Mr. Tanchak , cont'd. ) ..•. best out of our larger school divisions it is necessa ry to have realistic boundaries, which the proposed larger school division, which is called Boundary - that sometimes is confusing -- is not realistic, and also try and come as close as possible to give an equal opportunity to every child in Manitoba. I hear that some are still "parroting" that, but I cannot accuse the Honourable Minister of that. He did say that he did not coin that phra se and I accept that, so I presume that he does not wholly agree with it.

I agree with him in this case, that this system does not provide an equal opportunity for every child in Manitoba. It is ridiculous to make that statement, that it does provide an equal opportunity for every child ill Manitoba. I still say that it is absolutely necessa ry to centralize our schools to the ·· maximum possible. I do not say that they all should be huge schools, but to the maximum possible, and it is still necessary. I say that there is no justice because there is still discrim ination agains t the people who did not wish to enter the larger school divisions.

Neither the Minister or the :members across were able to prove that the propos_ed School Division of Boundary was realistic. I'm sure that if it was realistic the people of this area certainly would have accepted. Equal opportunity for every child in Manitoba -- I've just discussed it. I'm convinced as ever I was before that the government policy has scuttled a good larger school division plan. I say it was a good plan, but the present government scuttled that by not following the recommendations of the Royal Com mission on Education.

The government did not think it was expedient in many ways to centralize to a greater extent. Now I wonder why did they hesitate? Why did the government hesitate to follow this recomm endation? There was no reason to hesitate. The government didn' t hesitate to implement Metro -- I .could say to ram Metro down the throats of Winnipegers -- but in this case they were hesitant. I cannot see why. Now as far as discrimination, I still say that I'm thoroughly convinced that there is dis crimination; that as far as the basic teacher grants are concerned, there's rank discrimination re teacher grants.

I heard the Minister; I read his speech very carefully; and I noticed that in Hansard when he refers to grants , he always says that these school grants go together with the larger school divisions. I agree with him that there are school grants that go along with the larger school divisfons, but this resolution does not ask for all the school grants to be applied to non-divisions. It simply makes a request that the basi c teacher grants should apply to non division areas . It requests uniformity of basic teacher grants in all school districts .

We are not asking for maintenanc e grants ; we're not asking for transportation grants ; we're not asking for administration grants ; organization grants . No, simply for the basic teacher grants . I agree that the other grants go along with the larger school divisions, but I cann<'>t agree that the Minister or the government has the right to withhold the basic teacher grants . The teachers are required in every classroom and the teachers' salaries are pretty high now.

The government has helped or encouraged by incentive grants and so on, by the teacher's schedule, to have the teachers improve their standing, and the teachers' salaries are consid erably higher. I say that you have no right to rob the people of that area what is rightfully theirs, because these people in my area contribute towards these basic teacher grants even though they are not in school divisions. I'm sure that these people contribute to these increas ed taxes imposed by this government -- increased taxes in fees ; increased taxes in gasoline tax; increased taxes in liquor.

I'm sure that som e of these people contribute towards this. These taxes have increased quite a bit and our people contribute towards it through the Treas ury, from whence come the teacher grants . Therefore, I say that the present government has no right to rob the people what is rightfully theirs, because these basic teacher grants belong to them. And I say that it is not true -- it is not true that the former government discrimin ated in like manner. It isn't true; it is false. In 1936 the combined municipal and government grant towards the basic teacher salary was $1. 00 per day for $200. 00 in the year .

That's very measly -- it's very low, I say, but it was a good start. In the forties this basic grant -- tea chers grant -- was raised to $1, 200 ; then it was raised to $1, 400 per year. In the fifties it was raised to 16; then 24; and finally $2 , 500 per year per teacher; progressively going up as our economy could stand it. Now it is 100 percent acco rding to the salary schedule. wlien the former government organized the four larger school areas -- secondary school areas -- they did not tamper with the basic teacher grants .

They had other incentive grants, but the basic teacher grants were there. -- (Interjection) -- No, I say that the basic teacher Page 3242 May lst, 1S62

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd. ) . . . . grants presently are according to the salary schedule, because the government pays ioo percent of those. I assume, and the people of Manitoba think those are the basic teacher grants at the present time, acco rding to the qualifications of certain tea chers andthe term of teaching years in succession and so· on. I suggest that the present admin istration has no right to rob these people of what is rightfully theirs. It has no right to treat these people -- continue treating them as second-class citizens. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR . TANCHAK: Yeas and Nays please, Mr. Speaker, MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the proposed resolution proposed by the Honourable Member for Emerson: "Resolved that the government consider the advisability of raising the basic teacher grants in all school districts to a level comparable to the assistance given with iµ. a division. A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs.

Campbell, Desjardins, Dow, Froese, Gray, Harris, Hawryiuk, Hill house, Molgat, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Roberts, Schreyer, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner and Wright .. NAYS: .Messrs. Alexander, Baiziey, Bjornson, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Hamilton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli) , Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar , McLean, Martin, Scarth, Seaborn, Shewman, Stanes, Strick land, Watt, Witney, Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 18; Nays, 28. MR . SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

Adjourned debate on the 'proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead. The Honourable Member for St. James. MR. D. M. STANES (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few brief comments on this resolution. I would agree first of ali with the previous speakers in that this matter of slippage and erosion of river bauks on our rivers and streams is a seridus problem, and es pecially to those, of course, who own land or are resident in this area. It is a problem that exists in most of the streams and rivers.

I would also agree that the area south of Winnipeg to Lockport is an area where this problem is particularly difficult. However, I disagree with the resolution in its solution. I feel that this problem is wherever there are rivers and streams and becomes, therefore, a federal matter. I would also point out that the federal gov ernment, as we heard earlier this evening, have the means at their disposal of engineering, of engineering studies and so on which are required to lick this problem, through PFRA . The ·federal government also have the resources -- engineering and financial.

I do not feel that this is a problem that can be easily solved through a committee. I feel that committees should handle things when it's absolutely essential that a more direct method is not more appropriate. Therefore, I do feel, Mr. Speaker, in brief, I do feel that the federal government is the place where this should be referred to. If time would permit, I would like to move an amend ment to this resolution in which the operative clause would read: Therefore

be it resolved that the House consider the advisability of requesting the Government of Canada to undertake an in vestigation to determine what practicat, technical and financial solutions can be made. How ever, Mr. Speaker, in view of the time, I'll have to content myself in voting against this reso lution. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I can

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-5-90
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 5th hansardpdf 90.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	266d0ce81c6e30b91d82a53186b7feb0cd642d36

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).