Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 15A (26th Legislature, 3rd Session)

26-3-15a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Name ALEXANDER, Keith BAIZLEY, Obie BJORNSON, Oscar .F. CAMPBELL, D. L. CARROLL, Hon. J.B. CHRISTIANSON, John Aaron CORBETT, A. H. COWAN, James, Q. C. DESJARDINS, Laurent . DOW, E. I. EVANS, Hon. Gurney FORBES, Mrs. Thelma FROESE, J. M. GRAY, Morris A. GROVES, Fred GUTTORMSON, Elman HAMILTON, William Homer HARRIS, Lemuel HARRISON, Hon.Abram W. HAWRYLUK, J. M. HILLHOUSE, T.P.,Q .C. HRYHORCZUK, M.N., Q.C. HUTTON, Hon. George INGEBRIGTSON, J. E. JEANNOTTE, J. E. JOHNSON, Hon . George . JOHNSON, Geo. Wm . . KLYM, Fred T. LISSAMAN, :R. 0. LYON,H on. �rling R., Q.C. MARTIN, w·. G. ·McKELLAR, M. E. McLEAN,H on.

Stewart E.,Q .C. · MOLGAT, Gildas MORRISON, Mrs . Carolyne ORIJKOW, David PAULLEY, Russell PETERS, S; PREFONTAINE, Edmond REID, A. J. ROBERTS, Stan ROBLIN, Hon. Duff SCARTH, W .B. , Q.C . SCHREYER, E. R. · SEABORN, Richard SHEWMAN, Harry P. SHOEMAKER, Nelson SMELLIE, Robert Gordon STANES, D. M. STRICKLAND, B. P. TANCHAK, John P. THOMPSON, Hon. John, Q.C. WAGNER, Peter WATT, J. D. WEIR, Waiter WITNEY, Hon. Charles H. WRIGHT, Arthur E. Electoral Division Roblin Os borne Lac du Bonnet Lake side The Pas Portage la Prairie Swan River Winnipeg Centre St.

Boniface Turtle Mountain Fort Rouge Cypress Rhine l and Inkater St. Vital St. George Duff erin Logan Rock Lake Burrows Selkirk. Ethel bert Plains Rockwood-Iberville Churchill Rupertsland Gimll Assiniboia Springfield . Brandon Fort Garry St. Matthews Souris-Lans downe Dauphin Ste. Rose Pembina St. John's Radisson Elmwood Carillon Kildonan La Verendrye Wolseley River Heights Brokenhead Wellington Morris Gladstone Birtle -R ussell St.

James Ham iota Emerson Virden Fisher Arthur Minnedosa Flin Flon Seven Oaks Address Roblin, Man . 185 Maplewood Ave., Winnipeg 13 Lac du Bonnet, Man. 326 Kelvin Blvd ., Winnipeg 29 Legislative Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 86-9th St . , N. W. , Ptge. la Prairie, Man . Swan River, Man . 512 Avenue Bldg ., Winnipeg 2 138 Dollard Blvd ., St. Boniface 6, Man • Boissevain, Man . Legisla tive Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 Rathwell , Man . Winkler, Man . 141 Cathedral Ave ., Winnipeg 4 3 Kingston Row, St. Vital , Winnipeg 8 Lundar, Man.

Sperllng, Man . 1109 Alexande r Av e., Winnipeg 3 Holmfield, Man. 84 Furby St ., Winnipeg 1 Dominion Bank Bldg ., Selkirk, Man. Ethelbert, Man. Legislative Bld g., Winnipeg 1 Churchill, Man . Meadow Portage, Man . Legislative Bldg . , Winnipeg 212 Oakdean Blv d., St .James, Wpg. 12 ·Beausejour, Man • 832 Eleventh St., Brandon, Man . Legisl ative Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 . 924 Palmerston Ave., Winnipeg 10 Nesbitt, Man . Legisla tive Bldg . , Winnipeg 1 Ste. Rose du Lac, Man. Manitou, Man. 179 Montrose St., Winnipeg 9 435 Yale Ave.W., Transcona 25, Man . 225 Melrose Ave., Winnipeg 15 St.

Pierre, Man. 561 Trent Ave ., E.K il d., Winnipeg 15 Niverville , Man . Legisla tive Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 407 Queenston St., Winnipeg 9 Beausejour, M� . 594'-.Aj:iington St. , Wfunipeg l.i> ·Morris . Man. · Neepawa, Man. - R�s�ell �. Man�_ 381 Guildford St. , St. James, Wpg. 12 iiamiota , Man . Ridgeville, Man. Legislative Bldg ., Winnipeg 1 Fisher Branch, Man . Reston, Man . Minnedosa, Man . Legislative Bldg . , Winnipeg 1 4 Lord Glenn Apts .1 944 Main St ., Wpg.1 7 . /

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Thursday, March 2nd, 1961. MR. FRED GROVES (St. Vital): Mr. Chairman, with respect to the remarks that were made before our supper hour by the Honourable Member from St. John's, I'd like to say that I spoke to many meetings during the campaign to sell this school division plan and i don't recall at any time, as I said earlier, making any promises of reduced taxes. And I don't, desp!.te the quote that he gave from Hansard, I don't think that the Minister made any unqualified state ment to the effect that taxes would be reduced either.

And although the Minister did state this afternoon that if sehool boards were to continue to give the same standard of education that they were giving a.t that time that there was no reason to believe that the taxes would increase, and that in some cases there might be reason for them going down. In my area, at least, his remarks were not interpreted as indicating any decrease in taxes. People in my constituency anyway, the responsible persons that were in possessi on of the facts of life with regard to edu cation certainly didn't interpret them that way.

I would like to read one paragraph from a letter that was sent out to all electors in the St. Vital School Division by the then School Board of Glenlawn School District and signed by Dr. D. W. Penner, who was the Chairman at that time and is now the Chairman of the St. Vital School Division Board. This is what this letter says about grants and taxes: "With the munici pal school district" -- and you'll remember that the municipal school district was formed in St. Vital, the boundaries of which are eo-terminus with the now school division of St.

Vital - says, "with the formation of a municipal school district we will qualify for the greatly increased government grants towards education. These grants will make it poss ible to maintain a high standard of education without unduly burdening the taxpayer." And from another letter that was sent out during that same period by the Windsor Home ami School Assoc iation -- the Windsor Home and School Assoc iation, by the way, is the largest and the most active Home and School group in the Province of Manitoba.

This is what this group sent out to the residents of that area, and again I'm not going to read the whole letter but just two paragraphs that deal with this subject of grants and taxes. "If the referendum is defeated we wlll not qualify for the new educational grants." And then it goes on to list the various grants. And the last paragraph is: "If we fail to qualllfy for these grants our taxes wlll have to be raised considerably to pay for the necessary expansion in school facilities in the next few years." And then it ends up by say ing, "Please be sure to vote "Yes" on February 17th." Now the St.

Vital School Division is one of those divisions where the assessme nt is not rising at a rapid rate. Enrollment is going up very dramatically and the teacher count, there fore, is going up at a corresponding rate to the increase in the enrollment. This school division has gained immeasurably by the new grants that are set out in this system. Here I'm comparing the enrollment in the St. Vital School Division at April, 1959, when the division was formed or prior to the formation of the division, and at December 31st, 1960. The elementary enrollment in 1959 was 4, 045. It increased to 4, 408, an increase of 363.

Now the secondary school en rollment at the beginning was 528; at December 31, 1960 there was 1, 062; an increase of 534 or 101%. The total enrollment has increased from 4, 573 to 5, 470. The number of teachers employed in this division has increased from 174 to 222. During this time we have added 79 classrooms, or the ir equivalent -- 46 elementary and 33 secondary, at a total cost of $1, 170, 000. 00. We have planned an additional 41 classrooms, or their equivalent, at a total cost of $633, 000. 00.

And I might note that total costs are not expected to reach this figure be cause the bid that has been received on Hastings School, which is the latest addition, amounts to some $331, 000, or an average of $11, 033 per classroom. Perhaps we might have more to say on that when the resolution of the Honourable Member from Turtle Mountain comes up. Now what have these grants meant to our division in addition to these new classrooms that I have just described. The board now has a full-time psychologist and a part-time soc ial worker.

They can, with these additional monies, serve the mentally handicapped children, physically handicapped children and children that are emotionally disturbed; a service that they certainly could never have offered before. There are now five departments of industrial arts and home economics. Before, there was only one, but transportation is now being paid March 2ndl, 1961. Page 423

(Mr. Groves, cont•d. ) ••••• for all of the students in this division, · elementary and secondary. Before, the high school students, in addition to not being able to attend the larger high school without paying a fee, had to pay the ir own way to get the re. We have had an increase in the mill rate. In 1958, when there was a re-assessment in the ·Municipality of St. Vital, our mill rate was 24. 6 mills. It is now 29 .7 6 mills, an increase of 5. 10 mills.

This increase of 5, 10 mllls is very sm all when you compare it with the increased grant that the Department of Education, or that the government has pumped into the school sys tem. In 1958 the total grant, to what is now the School Divisi on of St. Vital, amounted to $36 0, 312. 00, In 1959, one year later, the se grants amounted to $61 6, 964, an increase of $256 ,6 52 or 71. 2% increase in the grant.

The grant for 1960 amounts to $781, 766, an increase over 1959 of $64, 801; an increase over 1958, which was prior to the new school plan, of $421, 453; so that from 1958 to the end of the 1960 fiscal year, the grant that the school divi sion of St. Vital received from the government more than doubled. -- (Inte rjection) -- That remains to be seen. I am not a prophet. Now if we look at the report that was tabled recently of the Municipal Board, we find the per capita taxes per school in the urban area of Winnipeg as follows -- the comparisons are made here between St. Boniface , St. James, St.

Vital, Transcona and West Kildonan -- St. Boniface 33. 41, St. James is 26. 25, West Kildonan is 43. 14, St. Vital is 30, 97 and Transcona is 27. 95. St. Vital, despite the fact that we have excellent schools in St. Vital, is second lowest as far as per capita school levies. Transcona, of course, is even lower than that and Transcona also has excellent elementary and secondary schools. MR. PAULLEY: It has an excellent representative too. MR. GROVES: Yes, I agree with that.

I have confidence that our School Board, it is much the same now, the people on it that is , as it was prior to the incorporation of the se divi sions, would not have gypped the kids of St. Vital out of a good education even if they had not received th ese increased grants, but it would have cost us a lot more and we should be thankful for the benefits that we are getting from this new plan. And we should ask ourselves, I think, what we would have been paying and what our mill rate increase would have been if the se extra grants had not been received, In closing, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to say th is to the Honourable Member from St. John's. He and I don't belong to the same religious faith but we have in our church a hymn that I would like to recommend to him, and I would sing it. Mr. Chairman, if I could sing and if the Honourable Member from Wellington had his violin here to accompany me. I would like to apologize to the author of th is hymn for changing three words. The chorus goes somet hing like th is: Count your blessings, name the m one by one; and you will be thankful for what McLea n has done. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr.

Chairman, this afte rnoon the Minister gave a very interesting answer to one of the questions I asked him, when he said he would turn down the proposals of the Lake shore School Div ision because he did not want the people of Lakeshore School Divisi on to be saddled with unrealistic plans. I wonder why he approved the plans when he did then if they are unrealistic because, Mr. Chairman, the last three proposals that were regularly turned down are practically the same as the proposal that the Ministe r approved just at the end of February. MR. McLEAN: The first three. MR. GUTTORMSON: That is what I said.

Those three proposals were practically the same as the one he approved. MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the proposals were c,omi.ng in about one a week over the last year. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I am rising to object most strenuously to some of the statements made here this afte rnoon by the Minister of Education on the matter of taxation and the cost of education in the Province of Manit oba.

I understood the Minister to say in his com ments that one of the reasons that the costs of the municipal taxpaye rs had gone up is that the trustees of th is province had gone beyond the expenditures that th is government was recommend ing, and that was the reason for the increase; and thi s, Mr. Speaker, I absolutely refuse to ac cept. MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, I made no such state ment. Page 424 March 2nd, 19 61.

MR . MOLGAT: That is exactly what my honourable friend inf erred. He was trying to get his government and himself off the hook for exactly the situation education finds itself in the Province of Manitoba right now . And, Mr. Chairman, I say that the responsi blllty rests exclusively on my honourable frie nd's shoulders and that of his government. MR . LYON: Why did you vote for it then? MR. MOLG.AT: My dear friend, we'll come to you later -- you're not the Minister of Education. Don't worry, when your estimates come up we'll have plenty to say to you. You just relax a bit.

Flight now we're dealing with your other honourable friend. MR. LYON: I'm not worried about you. MR. MOLGAT: And he's trying to get off the hook and trying to get you off the hook; and that's all that's going on right now. The fact is that my honourable friends went up and down this province and they sold this plan in every constituency; and the statement that they were making at this time at all these meetings that were held, and I went to every single meet ing in my consti tuency to which a Cabinet Minister went, and I listed carefully what they had to say. And I must say, Mr.

Chairman, that the statements that were thet! made were a far cry fro m the mild meek statement made by my honourable friend this afte rnoon when he said, "Well now, really, you know we think this plan is a good plan . We think it will help education in Manito ba. We endorsed it. " Roughly that's what he told us this afte rnoon, but was that what he was saying when they were selling the division plan ? Oh, no! My friend then was the great knight in shining armour.

He was sounding like he did when he in troduced his estimates two or three days ago, whenever it was, out for battle; out as a salesman; and he did a good job. I don't deny that, but he cannot back down now on the statements he made at that time. And I say that if the costs have gone up, it' s a result of the sales campaign that my honourable friend conducted at that time ; and let us not now try and shift the blame onto the trustees of this provin ce, because the blame rests exclusively on the shoulders of this government.

What were the statements made in this House when my honourable friends were in opposi tion? Well I must conf ess there aren't too many of them here now who were in opposition in those days, but those few who were. I well remember my hono urable friend, now the Minister of Public Works. He used to sit over here and he stood up here before us in his very fine legal pose, stood before us and told us that we, then the government, were starving the municipali ties. True? Thank you, gentle men. I'm glad to see you say it. You'll pay fo r it some day.

That's exactly what my friends then said, that we were loading the municipalities with great extra costs; that we were putting an unfair burden on them. And I well remember that my honourable friend referred to some municipalities in his constituency , and we got the figures out on their old revenues that changed his views a little, but that was always the claim; that was consist ently the claim of the present government; that was their claim dur(ng the election campaign. My honourable friend fr om St. Vital got up a few moments ago and told us that this wasn't at all the case.

Well now, what did the government say during the election campaign? Here's a little folder that they produced for all the Conservative members at that tlme. They said then that this progressive program is endorsed by every Conservative candidate . Now I'l l admit that my honourable fr iend from St. Vital since that time has appeared to be a little on the verge of the Conservative Party, but I presume at that time he was running as a Conser vative. And what did this little pamphlet say then ?

It said, "T he Roblin Government for educa tion -- an effort to equalize education costs in the province to llghten the load of the municipal taxpayer. " And that, Mr. Chairman , was all the way through, consist ent ly, the claim of these people; that they would lighten the load of the municipal taxpayer. My honourable friend from St. Joh n's, this afte rnoon, read the Minist er's statements to him again that he made in this House; and those statements cannot be denied. And, Mr. Chair man, let us not try and fool the public of Manitoba. Let's have the facts as they are.

My honourable friends sold this program on the basis that it would lighten the load on the municipa l taxpayer; and now they are trying to pretend that the inc rease in the load on the municipal tax payer, which I think we all have to admit, is a result of the actions of the trustees of this pro vince. And that I categorically deny. -- (Int erjection) -- I'm glad you do, but that's not what you said this afte rnoon . That's exactly why I am objecting , because you pretended this after noon that this business of approved costs and actual costs was something entirel y diffe rent.

Well, let me tell you that the actual costs are the result of your sales campaign because when March 2nd, 1961 . Page 425

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd. ) ••••• you went out you put no brakes on the situation at that tlme. --(In terjection) --Many of them, and my honourable friend can remember them because he was at meetings with me in Rorketon and in McCreary, and I told hini at that time, but he denied them. He said no, no, the trustees wlll be entirely free to do as they please. --(Interjection) - You --you, my dear friend, my colleague, my neighbour from Dauphin constituency, the Minister of Education, because you were at those meetings as well. You were the main speaker. MR.

McLEAN: •••••.• ••••••••• as I recall , you weren't speaking on those occasions. MR . MOLGAT: Oh, yes. I spoke on both occasions, in Rorketon and in McCreary; and 1 have copies of what I said and notes of what you said. --(Interjection) --What did I say, Sir? I'll be delighted to tell you. Del ighted to tell you. MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I didn't ask for his speech, I just said what side was he on? MR. MOLGAT: Make up your mind. Do you want my speech or don't you? MR. LYON: What side were you on? MR . MOLGAT: Well, I won't give it all to youbut I'll tell you what I will give you. MR.

LYON: Your speech won't betray us probably. MR . MOLGAT: No, no. I'll tell you some of what I said. I said at that time that there were many political aspects to this whole matter of school divisions. And my honourable friend got up and said, "N o". He never realized there were any political aspects at all. This thing was a pure interest in education. It was an absolute coincidence that there should have been an interim report; an absolute coincidence that they should act upon it so quickly; and there we were selling the school divisons; and my friend put on a sales campaign, and he can't deny it.

He had every inspector in the Province of Manitoba up every night, at meetings up and down the country, and he sold it. In fact, I well recall one of the statements that was made then. After the school inspector, and my honourable friend was at the same meeting, made a speech, he explained all the grants and everything that would come with this fine system, and he said, "How do we get this, how can we assure ourselves", I am now quoting the inspector, and my honourable friend was there and didn't deny it. "How can we get all this?" , speaking of the grants, "How can we assure ourselves?

There is only one way --vote "Yes" on establishing the divisions. If we do not vote in favour, all this is lost and we are on the old plan. We may not even be as well off as that; we may only have permit teachers." And that is the sales cam paign that my friend put on. MR. McLEAN: That was the inspector that said thai;. MR. MOLGAT: But you were there. You were sitting right there at that meeting. You were the main speaker, and I was very interested in your comments. Now, Mr. Chairman, let's us not cohfuse this issue.

The cost in education, the cost --I'm saying this --the cost in education or the rise in the costs are due directly to my honourable friends, and let's not try and pass that cost on to anyone else and let's not try and deny that those costs are not up. He mentioned to me this afternoon that in my particular division he was paying --what? -- 75% or 80% of our costs? Well that may be; I haven't had the chance to check those yet; but all I know is that we're paying a lot more. I haven't got the latest figures.

I'll admit these are only the figures for the first year after his plan got into operation and, at that time, our general school tax, and this is Ste. Rose Municipality, went up by 14 mills. In the other municipalities in my constituency--in Glenella they went up 15 mills; in Kelwood they went up 3 mllls; in Glencairn 15 mills; Oak Leaf School District, 21 mills; Glenellen School Dis trict, 18 mills; McCreary Municipality, 2 mills. Now that, Mr. Chairman, is not a reduction on the load on the local taxpayer.

It is an increase in the load, and we still have not felt the impact of the construction program, because as my honourable friend knows , that one is just starting now. We won't feel it in that whole area until a year from now, until the program really starts. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to make this absolutely crystal clear, it is not the school trustees in this province who are to blame for any increase in costs, and there is no point in trying to shift that blame onto them. Let it rest where it belongs, directly on my honourable friend. MR. McLEAN: Mr.

Chairman, I really don't suppose there is too much point in pursuing this matter any further, but I object to the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose undertaking to pervert and twist what I said this afternoon. I was explaining the difference between actual and approved costs. I have always made it abundantly plain, at the meetings where you were Page 426 March 2nd, 1961.

(Mr. McLea n, cont•d. ) ••••• in attendance, that the plan contemplated the possiblllty that local trustees, in their own decision, could eJlCourage expenditures over and above what were known as the "a pproved" amounts ; and that under the law that was their authority and privilege to do so; and that if they did so, that the costs were costs on the local taxpayers. That situation hasn't changed and I am not undertaking to place any responsiblllty or blame, indeed I don't suppose there is any blame needs to be attached to anyone in connection with it. Now I think that the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose has done something that, in my experience, has not been done in this House before. He referred in this House to a statement which he alleges that a school inspector made, a civil servant who is not here to defend himself. It's quite in order to attack me, or any member of the government, but I think that it is poor taste .• •.•• MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I object to that statement. My honourable friend was at that meeting. If he didn't agree with the statement, he could have got up at that time and cor rected it. MR. McLEAN: It is in extremely poor taste for the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose to make what, in effect, amounts to a personal attack, because of course it is well known who the inspector is, was and is , on this matter; and I think that it is so mething that I trust would not occur in this House again. If all that's worrying my friend are the rise in costs ..... . MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I rise to object to the statement made by the Minister. If my honourable friend did not agree with the statements that were made at that time, he should have got up then and contradicted them; now now, to accuse me of using them or twist ing them, because I am quoting what was said then.

If he didn't like it then, he should have ob jected at that time, not now. · MR. McLEAN: Now if the honourable member is concerned about ris ing costs, at least it's good to know that he is concerned about something, because he certainly wasn't concerned about the quality of education that was available to the boys and girls in his constituency prior to June of 195 8. This plan, which he attacks with such cheerful abandon, is giving a quality of education to his own people that they never dreamed of during the previous administration.

Now I've never been one that wanted to particularly indulge in this business of what somebody else did when they were here, or any of this sort of thing; but it must be certainly recognized, and he ought to recognize it, that this plan is providing a quality of education for the people of the Ste. Rose pro'l"incial constituency that, in their wildest moments, they never thought was poss ible under the old system.

There are boys and girls being picked up at 8:0 0 and 8: 15 and 8:30 in your constituency, Sir, who, under the old system, didn't even have the right to go to a high school much less to be picked up in the school van or bus and taken to school. You'v e got seven new high schools going to be constructed in your constituency, or what is largely your constituency, to replace and put school accommo dation available for the boys and girls of that constituency that they didn't have before and had no chance of getting.

Now if you're concerned about the rising costs, it's a good thing to know that you are concerned now, because you certainly weren't concerned before this took place. MR. MOLGAT: It is interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. I did not attack the plan as such. In fact, if he listened to what I said at those meetings -- (Interjection) - my dear friend I spoke at every single meeting -- at every single meeting in my constituency. MR. McLEAN: That' s right. You spoke and you said nothing. MR.

MOLGAT: I did say something and I'm prepared to back up what I said, which ap parently you're not, and exactly what I said is that I did not agree with everything in the bill that was then passed; that I thought there were many political factors in it; and my honourable friend in the Town of McCre ary denies this, said the first he ever heard about this was in the newspap ers.

But that' s exactly what I said, and I said that under the circumstances, in my opinion, we had no alternative in our constituency except to vote for this; because if we didn't, then the penalties would be entirely too hard for us to endure. And I said that at a meeting - two meetings that he was at; one meeting that the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce was at; one meeting that the Minister of Public Utilities was at; and I can get plenty of people to back me up on that one.

I went out and I approved of the plan as it was then, with reservations, but I did approve and recom mend it to my people in their circumstances that they should vote for it. But my honourable friend is again trying to bring up other subjects. He's trying to say that we opposed the plan. Now that's not what the point is -- (Interjection) -- well, March 2nd, 1961 Page 427

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd. ) .•••• th at's what you suggested -- that I opposed the plan. MR. McLEAN: No, I didn't say .•••••• MH. MOLGAT: Well then, what on earth did he say, if he didn't just finish saying that ? The point is my friend, that I'm contradicting your statements of this af ternoon that the costs have gone up because of what the trustees have done, and I say that is not so. The costs have gone up because of what you have done. MR. K. ALE XANDER (Roblin): Mr. Chairman, I was one of the ones that helped the Minister of Education sell this school plan in Roblin -- sell is right.

I'm proud of it; I'm glad of it; and I'm quite prepared to run the next election in Roblin on that basis , because I still think th at nothing better was ever done. This is one of the best things , I think , that ever hap pened in the rural area of Manitob a. Now I'v e got facts here on my own area.

In Inte r-Mountain School Divisi on #36 the re is an increase of 246 students getting a high school education; 246 students getting the opportunity of getting better jobs because they will be better educated; 246 students in Inte r-Mountain School Division, which includes part of the Gilbert Plains area, who'll be better equipped to face this world and face this life, who'll be better equipped to take advantage of the opportunities that are prevalent and available in this country because of the actions taken by th is government. Now the re has been much to-do made about promises, taxt;!s and costs.

On the matter of promises, I'm speaking for what I said and from what I heard the Minister say in the meetings that we held in our district. There were two things made abundantly clear. The extra grants that the government was giving from the Department of Education to the school boards -- (In terjection) -- Just wait a minute. It's funny you're always in such a hurry to talk but never in a big hurry to act. The provision was definitely stated that with th is increase in money avail able for education i1;1 the Province of Manitoba, one of two things or a combination of both could happen.

The first thing was that if the standards. of education and the facilities of education stay as they were, that there must, and everybody will agree with th is , the re must be a lower ing of local taxe s, Secondly, that if this money was used with the local tax level staying the same, that there must be an increase in the standards of education, �- (Int erjection) -- That was said all through the Inte r-Mountain School Dis trict and at every meeti ng I spoke at, includ ing Swan River and some of the other areas. That was made quite plain. Now the Honourable Member from Ste .

Rose has mentioned somet hing about divis ions of responsibility between the Province of Manitoba and school districts, and I think he knows very well that in this province, in our education act there are certain costs where we bear a great share of the grants. Now I'm not going to go through each one individually because I haven't got the m at my finger-tips, but the honourable member knows what they are.

Now that is given to the school boards; then to make up any extras that they may wish, they can levy a local levy of the ir own; and that applies to elementary school boards as well as division boards, Now what is the honourable member suggesting when he's talking about increased costs ? Is he say ing that we are giving too much money or not enough money to the school boards ? Or are you saying that they are spending the money not efficiently ? Or are you saying that they the mselves are levying too much? Now what are you saying?

Do you think the money is being used ineffi ciently -- the money that we are giving th em ? Because I think not. There's been mention made of future salaries. Are you saying that we should not let the school boards set th ese salaries? Do you think we should set the m? There's only one answer, Mr. Chairman. There's only one answer to all the questions that have been raised by the opposition in the field of educa tion, and that is take away the local autonomy and give it to the government. That is the only solution to satisfy or to answer the critic isms that have come from that side of the House.

And I don't think , Mr. Chairman, that we are ready yet, in the Province of Manitoba, to take away the responsibilities of education from tho se people that are more directly concerned and directly interested in it. I mentioned my own district of Roblln, and this is fairly sharp in my mind because we just opened this past winter a new high school th ere costing $375, 000, 75% of which was put up by the Provincial Government; and that is a lot of money. But I want to tell this committe e, Mr.

Chairman, that before the school was officially opened there were 250 students in it and tho se stud ents, prior to that, were in the basement of the Masonic Hall; they were in the base ment of the Elk's Hall; they were around the furnace room of the school owned by the local Page 428 March 2nd, 1961

(Mr. Alexander, oont' d. ) ••••• school board. And since those 250 students have been put into sui table high school facilities, the local board tell me that they haven't got any extra room for sui table classroom space in their two schools that they now own. That is what the school space situation was like in that area, and I hate to think, Mr. Chairman, speaking of school taxes, what the taxes would have been if that district had been forced to build a new school un der the grants that were given them by the Liberal Party of this province when they were in power.

This they needed and this they needed badly; and this they have got. Mr. Chairman, just want to say in conclusion that the thing that I am proude st of, of this government, is the education system and the forward-looking education system that is available to the boys and girls of this province. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, would the honourable member answer a question ? Does he agree with the statements of the Minister of Education this afternoon that the increases costs to the local taxpayer are a result of the actions of the trust ees ? MR . AL EXANDER: I didn 't understand the Minister to make that statement, Mr.

Chair- man. MR. MOLGAT: Well, I don't know what else he said then if it wasn't that. MR. L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Chairman, there's an important point here that is being overlooked. We've heard of how many children are rece iving this high school educ ation and of all these new schools going up, and what was being done when the Liberals were in power, but I think that we should remember that there are an awful --(Interject ion) - Well, all right, what wasn't done. You ca n't do things for people that aren't there.

Now, I think that you realize that the war finished around 145 or so, and how many new babies did you have --those war babies became of age around this time. I think that's an important point. Now I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Honourable the Minister has an awful lot of nerve to come here and talk about the quality of education of certain children in certain districts when he's not worried about the quality of education for about 10, 000 of them. The bragging about the boys and girls that are being picked up at 8:30 --he doesn't mention the boys and girls that are being kicked out.

And then he has the nerve to say that somebody was over at a meeting, talked and said nothing, when he's refused to answer a question. Whenever anybody asks him a ques tion, he's there sitting like a bump on a log. Why can't we get those questions answered? Now talking about those grants, I'd like to ask this question. Does the Honourable Minis ter think that it is right -- well, first of all, maybe I should ask him is there any change --I haven't seen any ---is there any change in the policy of the department on the question of books?

Now if I wanted an answer to this I would have to ask him in a roundabout way, ask him if there is anything new, instead of getting a straight answer. So I will save him the embarrassment of not answering that question. But if there is nothing changed, I would like him to tell me if he thinks it is right that I should pay for a certain book, a certain colour by the same author, the book approved by his Department of Education, should I pay for this because my children attend a private school? Shouldn't it be free for him, the same book? Now I won't ask him this ques tion.

He won't answer me, but maybe we should arrange some kind of a signal. If you think this is fair, maybe you should stay in your seat; and if it isn't fair, maybe you can wipe your brow or something because that is the only way I will have an answer. It's all right to talk about this honourable friend from Roblin who's talking about how proud he was of selllng some thing. Is he proud of not being able to say anything about the second part of that report? Why does the government insist on the first part of that report? To plan an election? Do you think I'm blind?

Do you think it's enough to come and say -- send me a note --congratulation, you made a good speech. That is not what I want. I'm not talking here , I'm not asking what side you are. I'm not going to make that same speech again. You know what side I am , but at least I have never heard of such a thing asking some question that should be answered. I'm not asking are you for or against. I'm asking you to give us some intelllgent answers . That is what I am asking, not make a joke of this and laugh at us because we are asking you for some thing.

At least if you can't do that, quit your bragging about all those other things arrl telling us how wonderful you are. MR . A. H. CORBETT (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, I would almost ask, like the Irish man, is this a private fight or can anyone get in to it? I am not going to get into the fight at all, but I would like to ask a few questions of the Honourable Member from Ste. Rose. I am March 2nd, 1961 Page 429

(Mr. Corbett, cont'd. ) ••..• not too quick in my th inking, I'm a little thick in the head, and I had a little trouble from his remarks distinguishing the difference between an inference and a statement of fact. He said that the Minister of Education stated somet hing and the Minister of Education den,ied it, and then he said he inferred it. Well, I think there must be some differ ence between an inference and a statement of fact.

And then a little later on he said, I think I am getting this right, he said that the inspector spoke very heatedly and favourably, almost I inferred from that that the inspector was speaking in favour of the Roblln administration. Well, I don't know whether he was or not; but I wish you would, as soon as I finish, would clear up the definition or define for me the difference between an inference and a statement of fact. But I must say we had our school inspector up in our country. He went around at the request of the government and he sim ply and earnestly tried to explain the features of this Divis ional Plan.

He made no political allegations or made no polltical advances of any kind. He was a flne, straightforward gentleman and any inference or statement of fact, take your choice, that the se school inspectors were working politically in this matter is absolutely wrong, I think. I think our school inspectors, even though most of th em are appointed by the late administration, are a fine bunch of men, and I am quite sure that in my own particular case that any inference that th ese inspectors at the se meetings were employing political tactics is entirely unfounded. Once the Honourable Member from Ste .

Rose clears up the difference between an. inference and a statement of fact, I will be very pleased. Thank you. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I am dellghted at the question that the Honourable Mem ber from Swan River brought up. He has confused the issue between inference and statement of fact so th oroughly, that I think I will have to refer him to Hansard tomorrow so he can see then what it was the Minister said.

But I think if he will check my state ment, I did not accuse the school inspectors of going out and working politically for any government. -- (Int erjection) -- Well my honourable friend then has a different view on inferences than I have. That certainly was not my state ment and he can check it in Hansard. I only said that he went out and recom mended the plan. That was not a political statement, that was a state ment of fact. Simply, he recommended the plan because in his view, I presume, he wante d the plan to go into effect. There was no accusation on my part against the inspectors at all.

I think that they are non political. I would object to the m being used politically . I did make some objection at the time that my honourable friends were using the m so strenuously in the sales camp aign on this plan . However, as long as the inspectors are convinced it is a good plan, it is fine by me. But if he will check Hansard tomorrow, then he can find out if my honourable friend the Minister this afternoon made an inference or a state ment of fact, that the. school trust ees were responsible for the increase in costs on the municipal taxpayers. MR. J, COW AN, Q. C. (Winnipeg Centre): Mr.

Chairman, it is utter rot for the Member for Ste . Rose to say that the Provincial Government is solely to blame for the se increases in costs , and I think that the Member for Ethelbert Plains realizes that from his speech this after noon, for he was putting the blame on the fact th at the teachers were very, very well organized. He is putting the blame to some extent on the fact that the teachers were very, very well organ ized and the school trnstees were not very well organized. And, Mr.

Chairman, if we look at the figures we will see that the Provincial Government, in 1956 -57 spent $12. 8 million on edu cation; in 1958-59 spent $19. 6 million on education ; and in the coming flscal year will spend $33. 5 million on education; an increase in th ree years of almost $14 mlllion, or almost 75%. And so we have the Provincial Government giving very, very large assist ance to the municipali ties and to the school districts and school divisi ons th roughout Manitoba.

They have given, and · are going to give a great deal of money to help with the cost of education ; and when they give money like that, one cannot say that the Provincial Government is responsible for the increased costs that come up in the municipal tax bUls.

I would just like to refer you to somet hing I have here from the Winnipeg Free Press dated January 5th, 1959, in which it points out that the in crease to be offered to Greater Winnipeg teachers in 1959 agreements for a teacher with one year normal school training and four years' university standing would begin at $4, 200 instead of $3, 500; and end at $7, 300 instead of $5,700.

That $7, 300 is an increase of 28% in one year over the previous maximum of $5, 700, The school trust ees were not controlled at all by the Provincial Government with respect to the wages that they should pay or the salaries that they should pay. The Provincial Government gave the m large increases and it should have meant, Page 430 March 2nd, 1961

(Mr. Cowan, cont1d. ) •••.• I would have thought, some relief for local taxpayers; but it didn't because the teachers, instead of the loc.;tl taxpayers getting the beneflt of the increase, the teachers got the increase. The Provincial Government didn't give the teachers the increase, the local school trustees gave the increase. We should look at that and we flnd that $7, 300 is quite a good pay for 9 1/2 months work -- about $776 a month.

Now $776, that is the maximum for the university graduate with one year normal training after 11 years teaching, and there are not too many people in this province that make that much money. If you look through other profess ional people, their Usts -- (Interjection) - Pardon? MR . ORLIKOW: Lawyers. MR. COW AN: Lawyers, that's quite rlght, there are some that make more than that but there are many, many more that make less. MR. PAULLEY: ••••• • you referring to untU they receive simllar amounts of money? MR. COWAN: Not as long.

The lawyers have to go through two years university and then five years articles - about seven years; or four years university and four years articles -- about eight years. And then we have clergymen. MR . PAULLEY: It was 11 years you mentioned. Is it not before she reaches that after university education? MR. COW AN: Then the lawyer after the eight years, or the seven years as the case may be, he is just. starting. When I started it was $75 per month we got. That was what we got when we graduated. And then later on, of course, we were able to work up a practice and earn some more.

Today I guess it is perhaps $300. And now clergymen -- do clergymen com pare to $776 a month? They have had a lot of training. Then there are nurses -- nurses are professi onal persons and they take training for some three years. Can they compare with $776 a month? Home economi sts, social workers, chemists, musicians, newspaper reporters, newspaper editore: and so on. And so we find that these large increases were given by the local school trustees. They were not ordered by the Provincial Government.

The Provincial Government gave them large grants and that surely should have helped out the municipality, but instead the teachers got the increase instead of the taxpayers, which made it a little bit harder on the rest of the taxpayers and the rest of the earners.

And one other thing I would just like to point out is this, that in Manitoba, according to this last report of the department, there are 426 teachers with collegiate standing, that is, four years Art and one year Normal, teaching in elementary schools; and in many of the school divisions they are paid exactly the same as the teachers who are teaching in the high schools. They may be teaching grade m, have their B. A. s and one year at Normal, going over the same thing year after year with grade III students.

Now it is important that Grade m students have a proper education, but I think everyone would agree that it wouldn't be as hard to teach them as it would be to teach a Grade XII student. And so we find that we are having higher educa tional costs, to some extent, because of these policies of school trustees. I think most people in the province would agree that $776 a month is quite a lot of money to pay for a school teacher, and there are a number that get more. You have more education, you get in a higher class; and you're a principal or assis tant principal, of course, you get in still a higher class.

And so I would just like to close by saying that it isn't all the fault of the Provincial Government. They do not control the wages. • • . . . • • • • • . • • Continued on next page March 2nd, 1961 Page 431

MR. PRE FONTAINE: I would like to just say a word about this famous vote that was taken and about which the Honourable Member for Roblin is so proud of having taken

part in. Apparently to him it's something very great that has happened in Manitoba, the taking of the vote on the school divisions . I for one, Mr. Chairman, believe that it is the greatest bribery attempt that was ever perpetrated on the people of rural Manitoba . Here was a government that had promised during the election just before that vote, that they would increase the school grants by 50 percent .

They promised that, but they had no program at all; they didn't tell any one, nowhere, at any place how they would do it, but they would just increase the grants by 50%, and then they came to power on the grounds that they had elected 26 to the Liberals 19, and they didn't know what to do. They wanted to follow Mr .

Diefenbaker's example by going as rapidly to the people as possible, but they needed something worthwhile to go to the people, so they got after the Royal Commission on Education for a quick report on reorganization, and the Royal Commission accommodated the government and came out with an interim report, and the government called a session. At that session it introduced a bill with respect to school reor ganization, these larger divisions, but the government told the City of Winnipeg, told the City of St. Boniface, the School District of Norwood, the School District of St. James, of St.

Vital, of East Kildona, of West Kildonan, of Brandon, of Flin Flon, "Yes you can have your share of $6 ,0 00, 000 for the taking; we don't ask of you anything; you'll get your share of $6 ,0 00, 000 which we want to spend for education, but we'll have a referendum for these poor people in the country; we'll go to them and we'll tell them, "if you want to get your share of $6,0 00, 000 you must vote yourself in, otherwise you won't get a cent. Vote 'yes' or you'll get nothing." That's bribery, bribery attempt. I don't think it was a free vote at all, Mr . Chairman, the way this was conducted. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I think we should be careful of our use of terms, and making charges of bribery, that's a very serious ......... I believe. MR. PRE FONTAINE: An attempt at bribery, to try and coax the people with money, with their own funds, to vote one way rather than the other way. I don't think I have derogated from the privileges of any members of this House, and I don't think it was a free vote, and I wouldn •t, I wouldn •t boast that I had a

part in this way to influence the people. If the grant had been good on its own without this money inducement, okay, I would have been for it. I was pre sent when the Minister spoke in St. Pierre and I said a few words. I am quite sure that I remembered exactly what I said. I said, "I do not want to be a party to conducting such kind of a vote --vote one way or else --" but I told the people, "We can •t vote ourselves out." My town voted seven to one in favour, because we couldn't financially afford to be out, because we would have been penalized.

There were four divisions that voted out of the scheme and one came back in, one in my own constituency. In Hanover there are three still that are out and they are being penalized yet. I have maintained in the House that we could not have two systems working side by side. We should have one or the other.

Now we still have mostly one, but there are still three divisions that are not getting their fair share of the .....• from this govern ment, who are still penalized because they cast a free vote like free men should have a right to cast without this money inducement that was offered to them, and I say that nobody should pride themselves too much for having taken such a

part in having that vote at that time. MR. J. M. FROESE (Rhineland) : Mr . Chairman it seems that when the education estimates are brought before this House, I have to be at odds with the Honourable the Minister of Education on some points, and I wish to express my disappointment very emphatically here . tonight, and I was disappointed when the Honourable Minister disclosed that no provisions had been made for the non-division areas for increased teacher grants.

These areas are losing thousands and thousands of dollars just because of the policy that this government is pursuing, and I just wonder sometimes what the honourable minister would do if the shoe was on the other foot, and his area was penalized the way our people are penalized up in the southern area. Earlier today, it was mentioned that the vote in Dau phin-Ochre didn't carry, yet it was seen- there was provision made through legislation that this area would get the increased grants. Now how long is this supposed to continue?

How long are we going to continue with this prac tice of denying certain people in the province the right to the grants that they deserve ? How long are they supposed to be second-class citizens of this province? Just because they had the courage to live up to their convictions and vote the way they did, and I think the situation is Page 432 March 2nd, 1961

(Mr. Froese, cont' d.) ••••. being further aggravated by continuing this policy. A change should be made to stop it . The government is antagonizing the people in our area by continuing a policy of this kind where they discrim inate . At the time of the vote it was stated that it was a free vote , and also that the grants would be increased by 50%, yet to date in our areas , we have received no increase in grants . The teache r grants are still the same that were in effect prior to the vote . The only thing that we have got is free text books.

Now, is the government going to go to the people on this record of discrim ination, that they are exercising at the pre sent time ? It seems all right for the government to legislate against individuals not to practice discrimi nation, but when the government itself does it, nothing seems to be wrong . Surely something should be done and some measure of reason should be taken into this matter, and something should be worked out so that the non-division areas receive a fair share of the grants that they are entitled to .

Earlier when we discussed the estimate s, I posed a question , whether any of the school divisions other than the one division did acquire existing buildings or school plan ts, and if so, how ma ny, and what was the rate of grant paid to these divisions on those schools so acq uired, whether they are t.he same as those paid on new schools . I still would like an answer to that if possible, and also the member for Ste . Rose raised the matter of costs , and I think this government is to blame for the increase in school costs that we have today .

It was the grant scheme that came in with the division plan that started the ball rolling, and it hasn't stopped. That is all I wish 'to say at the present time, and I hope the Minister will see fit that something is done at an early date to accomm odate the people in our area with incre ased school grants, especia lly teacher ' grants . MR . HRYHORC ZUK: Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised at the turn this debate is taking. Until the honourable the minister lost his temper, I thought that everything was going along very nicely. He �as to get used to the idea of being criticized.

After all is said and done I don't think there was a minister ever sat in that front row, no matter what government he was in, that wasn't criticized by the Opposition . That is the role of the Opposition and there is no use in losing your temper . (Interjection) Oh I never lost my temper . (Interjection) Mr. Chair man, I pretended to lose it, but I never lost it . That is the difference you know; considerable difference between pretence and the actual fact . MR . ALEXP>.NDER: Don't pretend ••....• • MR . HRYHORCZUK: ....•.• absolutely serious . Now Mr.

Chairm an, I didn't hear any unfavourable criti,cism of the plan as it is until the strategy of the government has been changed this evening . What the Opposition was critizing was not in the plan so far as it goes; they were critizing the methods of implementation, the short-comings which shouldn't have existed then, and that is legitimate and proper critic ism . I didn •t hear anybody say that the plan is no good, not until this evening . I didn't hear that from a single person on this side of the House .

In fact I heard a lot of complim entary remarks offered to the minister, and why he should all of a sudden bring the question of the Opposition saying that this plan is no good and come out with the facts showing the advan tages that the children of the province have , well that isn't argued . Certa inly the advantag es are there .

We expect them to be there and they are there, and what we did criticize, and will continue to criticize, and rightly and justly so, is that the government had made certain promises to the people of the province and haven't carried them out, and that's legitimate critic ism, and there isn't anyone there, including the Honourable the Minister of Education who can say that that isn't the facts and the proper statement . Certainly the govern ment doesn't intend to sit there and do as it likes and not be criticized by this House, this side of the House . Why lose your temper ? Why change your strat egy? MR .

ALEXANDER: May I ask a question Mr. Chairm an. MR . HRYHORCZUK: Certainly . MR . ALEXP>.NDER: Mr. Chairman, how does he know that the Honourable Minister of Educa tion wasn't pretending to lose his tempber? MR . HRYHORCZUK: Well because I have known the honourable minister for many years, and I have a fairly good idea when he loses his temper and when he is pretending that he has . The only explanation, Mr.

Chai rman, is this, and it was quite evid ent this afternoon, that the · honourable minister was finding it more and more difficult to answer the legitimate questions of criticism that were placed before him and against his method of impelem entation of the plan . March 2nd, 1961 Page 433

(Mr . Hryhorczuk, cont'd .) •..•• So what does he do, instead of hav:i.ng to be on the defensive all the time , he goes on the offence,. but he had no basis for that offensive , because the Honourable . Member for Ste . Rose gave him no reason to say what he did, none whatsoever . We must al ways remember that when the plan was being implemented, and I say it did take sales talk, and it was necessary, but I do not agree with the type of sales talk that was used and the methods that were used. That is the difference . Now insofar as the inspector is concerned and the re mark that my honourable friend for Ste .

Rose made, well, Mr. Chairman, the inspectors were out with the minister, not only at that one meeting, they were with him at all the meetings , and I think they carried out their duties well, but the minister must take the blame for what that inspector said. Nobody is criticizing the inspector for having said it. That is a big difference and I think we want to bear that in mind, and I would like to see the honourable minister carry on in that smiling way of his that has been before us for two days .

I wish he could carry on - we won •t be long now -- it won't be more than another two days, I assure him, and if he will just keep up his good nature and take the criticisiiB as they come and admit it like any of us would, that if there is room for criticism , we'll accept it. In fact, he invited us to do that this afternoon . He was in such high good humour that he said, "I invite this type of criticism; I like it; I adore it; I want it", and all of a sudden he turns around and he gets pretty sore about the criticism that has been levelled at him . MR . J. P. TANC HAK (Emerso n) : Mr.

Chairman, I too wish to take objection to the policy of the pres ent government , the policy -- I said discrimination yesterday -- I am going to add another word and I also say dictatorship. Discrimination and dictatorship. And in regards to the grants, the refusal to grant teacher grants to non-division areas . Yesterday I asked the ministe r why he did not apply the same policy to the area that he represented and I asked him is it because he represents the area, and I did not get an answer. I hope to get an answer yet. HON . GEO . HUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) (Rockwood-Iberville) : Mr .

Chairman, probably if I was very clever I'd just sit back at the pres ent time because I know there are a good many people over there that are lying in wait in the weeds for me, but some of the remarks that have been made here this afternoon have prompted me to speak. I think that the Honour able Member for St. John's could take the credit for giving the last controversy of a number of them .....• and what he said disturbed me just a little bit.

He seemed to infer, in fact I think he went a lot farther than that, that he indicated from his argument that he felt that Winnipeg and other urban centre s were getting a raw deal out of the new education program and the for mula which is used to arrive at the grants to be given to the various school districts . In other words, I took out of what he said that he felt that the city of Winnipeg and some of those dis tricts whose costs , or where the grants were small -- and he used the city of Winnipeg, 18% - he seemed to indicate that they were subsidizing education in rural Manitoba .

Now I think the very reverse is true. I'm a farmer. I represent in a large part farmers, and I try to make it my business to know a little bit of the factors in our social life that affect them , and I know about 12-1/2% of the university students, for instance, come from rural Manitoba - come from the farms of Manitoba - 12-1/2%. Now where do they go? Where do they go when they leave university? They don't go back to the farm . They go to the urban areas; they go to the Winnipegs, and so these urban areas get the fruits of the labours of the mothers and the fathers in rural Manitoba.

And wey shouldn't the urban areas take less of a share of the monies that are available for education in the Province of Manitoba? Another 12-1/2% of our students at the university and affiliated colleges come from rural towns, rural centres . Eighty percent of the young people in rural Manitoba leave us. This is a direct subsidy to the urban areas in this · {lrovince . The farm people of Manitoba have entered into a. partnership with the government of Manitoba and have endeavoured to make facilities available on a higher standard of high school education than has ever been available before .

To a large extent, who's going to benefit by it? The urban areas of Mapitoba, and I would say that the very reverse of what he intim ated today is true. Rural Manitoba is subsidizing urban Manitoba in the field of education. (Interjection) Oh yes . (Interjection) Well you get the fruits of the educational system - 80% of our young people find their way to urban centres. It seems to me that here is as good an example as any to show the lack of understanding on the part of a party who tries to hold themselves up as champions of the farmers .

The other day I noticed the Leader of the CCF Party with a lapel button and it had a very interesting emblem , the emblem of the New Party, and it is a fork and Page 434 March 2nd, 1961

(Mr . Hutton, con t' d.) .• .•• a wrench crossed with a maple leaf. (Interjection) .•• well maybe a pin I sure wouldn't buy it. I expect th_e wrench must stand for labour. I don't know what the fork stands for, but I sure hope it doesn't emblemize the farmer ••..•... because my concep tion of a farmer of 1960 or an adequate emblem or an appropriate emblem is something other than a fork. What is it? Farming today is a highly industrialized occupation, highly mechan ized, technical, and the fork is twenty years out of date.

They don't use them very often on the farm today. (Interjection) ... well we could use one here . Well, that particular party is always advocating that farmer and labour should get together to solve their problems . I think that there's an awful lot of educ ation to be done .between the farmer and labour, or else they will make strange bed-fellows , and they'd better do their educating before they get together, so they'll know what they have to sleep with. I've also sat here this afternoon and listened to the dreary, dismal dronings of the dam ned - the official Opposition. Damned? Why?

Well, they can't make up their minds what they want to do in the field of education. I'm not sure they know what to do on any other major point, but they certainly don't know what to do with education . They'd like to take responsibility for this . They'd like to take responsibility for all the good things about it, but they don't want to take any responsibility for any of the less attractive aspects in the new program . I've sat in this session -- this is the third session that I have sat in this Hous e.

Ever since I came in here , I have -- t:btis doesn't apply to the CCF Party; this doesn't apply to you honourable gent lemen in that section, but it most certainly does across there . I've been here -t his is the third session and this is the third time I've had to listen to them try and justify the stand they took during the campaign to promote the secondary divisions in Manitoba. (Interjection) •. they certainly haven't and they won't . They won't .

And they're going to find themselves in a most embarrassing situation come the next election, because in commun ity after community in Manitoba they're going to find themselves by force of circumstances standing on Duff Roblin's platform in the auditoriums of all these schools. In all the auditorium s of these schools you'll be holding meetings , in many, many cases, and you'll find yourselves on Duff Roblin's plat form , and what an unconvincing talk you will give on educa tion ! What an unconvincing talk you will give on education.

When the Progressive-Conservative Party ran in 1958, and when it ran again in 1959, we didn't use bribery; we didn't use bribery at all. We went to the people of Manitoba and we said (Interjection .. . Yes, the school division -- and you said we used it for political purpose . When we went to the people they had to vote for us on the basis of faith, and you know what faith is? Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

And the next time we run in this province they don't need to have faith, because they can look around and see concrete evidence in every community of the policies of this govern ment. Taxes? You'd like to talk about taxes; you love to talk about taxes . Well let me talk about the CampbE'll taxes . There are two kinds of taxes, you know. I'm not denying that taxes have gone up . I don't like paying taxes on real property any more than anyone else, but I know that there is a penalty-- there's a penalty we have to pay when we don't face up to our responsibility, aud the people of Manitoba realize that too.

They don •t like taxes . I'm not going to tell you that the farmers in my constituency enjoy paying the increased taxes . Sure their taxes are up my taxes are up, but they do, in spite of the grumbling I hear -- I'm not going to deny that there isn't grumbling -- in spite of the grumbling that I hear, there are not many of those people who underneath aren't proud and happy that the children in their district have an opportunity for an education in the future that was never there in the past.

And the cost of not having taxes in the previous administration was lost opportunity and blighted hopes, not only in the field of educa tion but in almost any field that you want to think of. Well -- and then it's most interesting. At the same time that the official Opposition chastises and casti gates us for the increased costs, they promote ideas that are bound to increase local taxes even more . The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain wants us to raise the grants for school construction from $15 , 000 to $20, 000.

Well even if we give the .maximum grant of 75% - 25% of $15, 000 is a lot less than 25% of $20, 000. Quite a lot less. And when you mul tiply the difference times the number of schoolrooms, classrooms that are required, say, in Interlake Division -- I think it's 61 that they're going to build next year -- it runs into a pile of money, and I'm not in favour of it, and I know my people aren't in favour of it. March 2nd, 1961 Page 435

MR . HRYHORCZUK: Will the Honourable Minister permit a question? MR . HUTTON: Yes . MR . HRYHORCZUK: You're using the figures 25% of $15 ,0 00, 25% of $18, 000, or 75% . Doesn't the honourable minister know that the difference between 15 and 18 today is paid local ly by the division ? MR . HUTTON: He advocates putting it up to $20, 000 . This has got nothing to do with the difference between. In every division the ........ . MR. HRYHORCZUK: That is not my question, Mr. Chairman . MR . HUTTON: In every division the cost of the classrooms are not $18, 000 . They may be in some .

But the basis of the grants today if $15, 000 and we'll pay 75% of it . MR. HRYHORCZUK: And the difference is paid by the community. MR. HUTTON: All right, if there is a difference . MR . HRYHORC ZUK: Well, there is . (Interjections) You can't argue your way out of this one that easily. MR. HUTTON : (Interjection) I can . 75% or 25% that the taxpayers have to pay. MR. HRYHORCZUK: What's the difference ? MR. HUTTON: Just a minute; 25% that the local taxpayer has to raise of $15, 000 is a lot less than 25% of $20, 000 . MR.

HRYHORCZUK: Yes if you don't take in the difference that is paid today, you're right, but let's keep the facts straight . MR. HUTTON : Well, we know what will happen. If you increase that grant to $20 ,0 00 the basis of those grants of $20 , 000, those classrooms will be costing $20, 000 . MR. HRYHORCZUK: They are now. MR. HUTTON: Oh no they're not. Oh no they're not. They aren't costing $20, 000 in the Interlake Division . Well, there was another suggestion here that we should enforce stan dards in vans .

Well it would be very nice if we could enforce standards in vans but I suspect here again if you laid down standards in vans that would make sure that the type of vehicle that your child rode to school in was up to snuff, if you try and keep up with the Joneses it would be very nice, but I'll bet you my hat against yours that it would cost money; and it would cost the local taxpayer money. (Interjection) Oh. It would cost money, and yet this same party in this House tells us that what we have done is costing the people of Manitoba money out of all reason . Well in the Interlake Division it's costing us money.

I didn't look at my tax receipt but I think I'm fairly accurate when I say my taxes have gone up about $50. 00 a quarter. Yes it's a lot of money. $50 .0 0 a quarter . But, you know, you can't blame it on the divi sion. A year and a half, a little over a year and a half ago, there were 434 high school students in the Interlake Division, and last fall, a year and a half later, there were 650, an increase of almost 50%, or an increase of 50% .

In 1965 they expect there will be 900, or double the number, and it isn't a question -- we can and you can if you like, spend the m xt two sessions, the next three sessions, the next 10 years talking about the costs, but the burn ing question is: what would it have cost our people if it hadn't been for the div ision? What would it have cost the people of Manitoba if the government hadn't put $10 million more into education? We wouldn't have any divi sion; we would have two alternatives.

Either these chil dren wouldn't have the opportunity for a high school education, or the aternative to that would have been, that you could add another slug of money on top of what they are now paying if this government hadn't increased the grants across the province . You can't come to any other .l ogical conclusion and the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains pointed this up himself, the fact that -- no, it was the Honourable Member for st. Boniface who said that this is essen tial because of the increased number of high school pupils due to the increased birth rate at the end of the war .

Well, these are points that I think we need to take a good honest look at . I don't mind these very fine men on the other side criticizing us for programs, but I'd like to know whether they really want to take credit for having a

part in bringing this new educational opportunity to the children of Manitoba or whether they don't want to . They've got to be either for it or they've got to be "agin" it . Now they are getting closer and closer to an election . They've got to for !11ulate some policy, Mr. Chairman. Now the indications are here this evening that they are against it; that they reserved their position; they reserved their position . They didn't go Page 436 March 2nd, 1961

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd .) ...•. whole-hearted ly. While I'm inclined to agree with them -- and that's why they're sitting over there was because they reserved their posi tion . They just sat on the fence until they fell off on the wrong side , and now they don't know what side they want to be on . They think it might look pretty good over here because the people are grumbling a little bit about the taxes . "We might be more popular if we went along with that. But then on the other side of the question, we'v e got all these be autiful new schools in the province and you know the people of Manitoba are builders .

It's in their blood; they love to build, and that's what makes this province great, and we don't want to be against that instinct in them because maybe it's stronger than the one about the taxes ," and they're right in the fire, and that's why I say, "They are among the damned. " It is pretty hot whe re they are sitting . MR . E. I.

DOW (Turtle Mountain): To correct the Honourable Mini ster, if he is not convers ant with this Interlake School District vote , that from the Gazette of September 30, 19 60, they voted on a bylaw that gives them 61 rooms for $1 ,1 32, 000 and if my arithmetic is right, the cost per room in that district will be $18, 500, which, in effect, will charge directly to the taxpaye rs of the Inter lake District $210, 000 over and above any grants . MR . BUTTON : Mr.

Chairma n I would like to inform the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain that I attended a lot of those meetings and I spoke in favour of it because along with the Honourable Member for Roblii:t I am ready to stake my political career on the educational program in Manitoba. I know which side of the fence I'm on. I know what the figures are .

I know that they represen t in the case of Interlake the maximum that they feel this is going to cost, and they are hoping that they get it for less, but -- I rea lize that too -- but this doesn't take away from the argument at all, that if you raise the grant to the $20 ,0 00 level it's going to cost the people of Manitoba more money no matte r how you slice it, and they're in favour of it. -- (Interjections) -- MR. CHAIHMAN: Order ! MR. STAN ROBERTS (La Verendrye ): Mr.

Chairman, now that the farmers have got in the act, I think per haps I would like to make a few references to the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture . He and I are living proof that farmers do go to universi ty and go back to the farm . The odd one does . We have had three very intere sting revelations tonight from the Mini ster of Agri culture. They say while the eat's away the mice will play.

The three most interesting obse rvations ma de by the Minister of Agriculture were, No . 1, Taxes have gone up -- this is the first time I have heard it admitted from the so-ca lled front benche s; No . 2, that the extra pupils in the high schools are caused by the increase following the war which is an interesting obser vation once again from the front benches, the first time we have heard it; and No . 3, that we are getting close to an ele ction .

These are three very inte resting obser vations in a quite inte rest ing talk. (Interje ction) From the philosopher of the government mi nisters I expected a philos ophy of educa tion. Instead, we got an oration on the cost of educa tion and the buildings that are being constructed for educa tion .

Th is, too, was a little bit disa ppointing to me, for as I say, from the Minister of Agriculture we expect considerable philosophy , and I am sure he has a philos ophy of education, a philo sophy of what kind of stu• dents we are turning out, and why we are turning them out this way, not what kind of buildings we are teaching them in. I think I for one am quite enthusia stic about the number of schools that have been built throughout the provi nce, and particularly in the' constituency which I repre sen t.

I am very enthusiastic about the number of students that are going to S.Jhool in the Seine River Division . I think this is a wonderful thing. I would be a great deal more enthusiastic if I felt that the students that were being taught in the high schools of the Seine River Divi sion were coming out of it with a better education. The fact that they are being taught in new build ings is a wonderful thing but it is not making better students of them . The impor tant thing is the curriculum; it is the teach ers, and it is the ......... me thods of examiner s.

These very impo rtant basic factors in education have not been discussed tonight, and I think that we can talk about money, and about this wonderful government and the amount of money that they are investing in educa tion , and we can say what for? For the students of the Seine River Division are being taught the same subject by the same teachers , exami ned in the same manner, as they were three years ago . MR . BUTTON : I would like to ask the Honourable Member if Ste . Anne is in the Seine Rive r Division. March 2nd, 1961 Page 437

MR. ROBER TS: It certainly is. MR. HUTTON: Well I saw-25 typewriters in one room and when I asked about them they told me with a great deal of pride that this was only a drop in the bucket, they had 125 of them. Did they teach typing before in Seine River Division? - MR. ROBER TS: I expected, as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, a philosophy of education from the Honourable Minister of Agriculture . If his philo sopny of education and how to turn out better students is 125typewriters, it is a very interesting observation.

I think the turning out of students -- and I feel very seriously about this -- out of high school, is a very very serious undertaking, and one that should be accepted by the government of the province in a very very serious manner . And the providing of better schools is a wonderful step in this direction, and the providing of more salaries for teachers is a good step, and the providing of pensions to teachers is an interesting side light .

But to think that this is the answer and now because we have done these things means that we have better turned-out students than we have previously, is highly debatabl e, and I think that we should take a great deal of time sur veying a philosophy of education, and I think that we should study; we should know what our goal isi we should know if our goal is turning out thinking people with an abundance of informa tion. Not the kind of information the state wants them to know, not the kind of information the state wants them to know, but the kind of information which is required for a thinking mind.

The very survival of the democracy in which we live in my opinion, depends on the ability of the maj ority of the people to make fair and realistic decisions. They can only acquire this ability to make these fair and realistic decisions with adequate training and information in their schools .

I think it is pretty important as I said, for us to examine at this time, the curriculum of the province, to see if we are improving on it, beca use this is basic, whether we are in prov ing our methods of examination, and the minister has spoken on this but really hasn't given any satisfactory answer, or hasn't attempted to, to indicate that our method of examining is improv ing. Are we studying methods of examination being used in other countries? The oral examin ation method that is being used in the Danish country, for example , in conjunction with the written examination?

The Minister of Educa tion spent some considerable time this afternoon telling us how he had gotten into trouble with the farmers' union ladie s, and yet ended up still leaving me, at least, with the opinion that our students writing examinations are still having an arbitrary percentage figure put on them, of the number which can pass and the number which cannot.

Surely if our education system is improving, surely if it is doing the job that we intend it to do, surely if our method of teaching, of imparting information is improving the way it should be improving, then our examination method will be in line with this and our examination method will not require this completely, in my opinion, unfair method of determinin� the per centage of people, of students, who can pass their curriculum examinations. Our Minister of Educa tion made some references, of course, to the university students and where they come from.

He said 12 1/2% of the students of Manitoba come from farm centres, from farming communities, and 12 1/2% come from rural towns. This is a total of 25% . If his figures are right, this just means that 50% of the population of Manitoba provides 25% of the students at the university. I woul dn't have been bragging about it, I don't think, if I was on the government benches . I think this is •..... MR. HUTTON: ..... wasn't bragging about the fact, I was just pointing out that rural Manitoba, was proving the fact that rural Manitoba was subsidizing urban Manitoba in respect of trained young people . - MR.

ROBER TS: I wish I could follow your logic . MR: HUTTON: It doesn't surprise me at iu1 that you can't. MR. ROBERTS: If rural Manitoba is providing 25% of the students graduating from uni versity, how the Minister of Agriculture can state that the rural Manitoba is subsidizing urban Manitoba by only providing one quarter of the university students, appears a little bit pecular to me. MR. HUTTON: •...• of the university dropped into the lap of the urban community. Do I have to paint a picture? MR.

ROBERTS: You certainly would have to paint that picture because there is no ligic attached to it, but the important thing is we have thousands upon thousands of boys and girls in rural Manitoba, who have the qualifications and the intelligence and the ability and the enthusiasm Page 438 March 2nd, 1961 •

(Mr . Roberts, cont' d.) •.... to go to university, but who are not getting there , and surely if we were doing a job as a government we should be providing means for these people to get to university. ' MR. HUTTON: May I point out that the more children that attend the university and find their way to urban centres with higher qualifications , the greater the subsidization is to urban areas by the rural community. That 's all I'm pointing out, and I pointed out that it is not true that the urban people are suffering as a result of these grants . MR.

ROBERTS: If we had the number of university students coming out of rural Mani toba that we should have , then we could say that rural Manitoba was subsidizing urban Mani toba with trained people and actually we would be doing the country a great service , the prov ince a great service , by providing trained per sonnel to come into the city, if necessa ry, to stay in the country if they so desired, and to do the things that make the province great and that is to bring new ideas, new industries, new industries, new management, new thinking into every part of the province .

This is the sort of thing that makes a province great, that makes it stand out above the others . This is the training that is required; this is the opportun ity that is required for these students . MR. CHAIRMAN: ..... passed. MR. GEO. WM. JOHNSON (Assiniboia): Mr. Chairman , just to relieve the minds of those Doubting Thomases who feel that rural schbolrooms cannot be built for $15, 000 per room , I mentioned last night that the fast-growing area of Assiniboia, where they have com pleted two school's of 37 rooms at a cost per room of $13, 378 approximately . Now Mr . (in ter je ction) Pardon?

What happened to taxes? Pardon ? (Interjection) . Well what would you thiitk would happen? Let me tell you one thing, that there has been a lot of talk tonight about increases .- Well, Mr . Chairman, let me tell you that any area where there has been increa ses, there will be increase s, let me tell you that those people in those areas will receive lOO% value for them, and every one of them, with very few exceptions, would thoroughly approve today of the ma gnificence and the job that the present administra tion is doing on education.

Let me just say this , and I can understand those in the Opposition of doing all they can to tear down and to criticize Mr. McLean, Honourable McLean in the present government on their Education De partment, but that is rather human after all, because they do look with envious eyes upon a government who has lifted the shade and let some sunlight come into the educational system of the province whkh remained in darkness, or semi- darkness, for a number of years . MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr.

Chairman, we have spent, now, this evening, about an hour and three-quarters discussing the propaganda that was alleged to have been dished out two years ago at the school division campaign . Now earlier this afternoon I referred to propaganda that is presently being dished out, and if the Honourable Member for Swan River will bend an ear, he'll probably learn the difference between inference and matter of fact. Now I refer once again, Mr.

Chairman, to this Information Service Bulletin of Sept . 30th, 1960, and there 's a note oii the top of it, and incidentally this goes to every weekly and every daily paper in the province, and the note says, and I quote: "This is the second of two articles assessing the school division plan following its first full year of operation," and it's headed as I stated before, "Province assumes 60% of the 1960 School Cost." Now I know, Mr .

Chairman, and I want to thank the minister for explaining the difference, because he did make a very comprehensive statement on the difference between "approved cost" and the "actual cost" . Now Mr. Chairman, the inference from this report is that the province assumed 60% of the 1960 school cost . There is certainly that inference there; it's titled that . But the matter of fact is that they don't pay 60% of the cost as explained by the minister, so there is the difference between inference and matter of fact, and then again, Mr.

Chairm an, the Information Bulletin of February 24th, 1961, I didn't get an answer to that one. I will read the paragraph again, the first paragraph and I quote, "The comprehensive and careful program of Driver Education and Testing was launched Tuesday, February 21st for the province's 2, 500 regular and spare bus drivers who transport 2, 500 pupils back and forth to school". Now the inference there , Mr. Chairman, is that we have one bus driver for every pupil that is being transported. The matter of fact is that that isn't a fact . MR. M. E. McKELLAR (Souris-Lansdowne): Mr.

Chairman, I would like to say a few words on this matter . I listened for some days now to the very intelligent speeches on the March 2nd, 1961 Page 439

(Mr . McKellar, cont 'd .) ..... other side of the room, and being interested in education, not from the standpoint that I have any children going to school, but I am inclined to think after listening to the number of speeches on the other side , that I would be a litt!e afraid to even get married at this stage of the game, because if the taxes are going to increase at the rate that they say they are and the farmers are going to be pushed off their farms, as they say they are, it must be very disappointing to people who are thinking of going into farm ing.

I for one, have no problems in our area, because we of the school district who operate a one-room elementary school and a one-room high school never were better off than we are today, tax wise or otherwise . In fact if I told you the very truth of what happened in our local school dis trict, you people wouldn't even get up and talk for the rest of this education .

Well, I'll just tell you, and if I get kicked by my own ratepayers -- We have accumulated so much money in our school district since this school plan came in that we gave back all school taxes this year to the tal'>:payers, and I want to tell you another thing, I'm the secretary of our school district. Now I'm not saying that I'm the best secretary in Manitoba, but I say the best secretary that can hand out cheques anyway. I'm greatly interested in education, but I want to tell you the difference between what we have had in the past and what we have now .

In our school district we operate, we have eleven sections of land allowed us ... . our town. We have an assess ment of $230, 000. We were providing high school education for all the surrounding school districts. Now what happened in grade nine? The grade nine pupils were not the responsibility of the school district in which they lived in the surrounding district. They were not the responsibility of the parents as most of them said they weren't . They were not our respons ibility either.

What happened was, the former government told the school districts that all they were respon sible for was $16 , the price of a corre spondence course. Well what happened to those children? They had two choices . They could stay in their own school and take the corresp ondence course with the teacher who wasn't supposed to even teach them, with the teacher who was supposed to teach elementary education, or they could come to us and beg us to take them in for nothing, or they could come to us and say we'll give you $50 .0 0 and they were supposed to pay us $75 .0 0.

Some of them came to us, some of them didn't pay, and we took them in -- if we felt that they couldn't afford it we took them in . If we felt they could afford it we took as much as they could give . Well that was fine, but still nobody was responsible for grade nine students . Now what happened when they came to grade ten and grade 11 and grade 12 . That was the respons ibility of the taxpayer of the municipality. That's fine. They paid $125 for each pupil . Well who paid that? We paid a share of it. We were keeping the high school and also had to pay a share for those outside school districts.

Well up to there, that's fine. But that didn't solve the problem , because those people were eight or nine miles from school, had to get there themselves, and who paid for that? It was up to the parents to see that they got to school, and if they couldn't get to school they had to find a boarding place in our town, and who paid for that? The parents , at the rate of $50.0 0 a month. Well that's all right, but you add that up, and what does that cost in dollars and cents?

That costs the very sum of $50.0 0 a month, for ten months is $500 .00, and it cost a lot more than that too, because they have to come in for them on the weekend and take them back on Monday morning. Well figure that up . If you can tell me on a half

section of land where it costs $50 . 00 more a quarter, as the Minister of Agriculture was telling us tonight, which is $100 .00 on a half section, if you can tell me where that's clearer than $500 .0 0 for board in the town, I'd like to know why you're telling us that the people are paying more taxes today. That's one good argumen t . Now what's happened today in our part of the country -- is not in the member for Rhine land -- no, because they didn't want this, and now he's telling us that we were depriving him of something.

We're not depriving his people of anything any more than what our people had the opportunity. The only difference was that those people didn't want to change. They were happy to stay $2,5 00 grant to elementary schools and $3,7 50 to high schools . Well if they want the same old thing, that's fine -- let them have it. We're not asking them to take it. But what have we got now?

The cllfference between your setup and ours is we got a high school in Wawanesa -- next year -- we still have our own high school yet, a one-room high school - but next year we get a brand new high school in Wawanesa where our children are going . They get up in the morning, they get in the van, they go down to Wawanesa and they have their school ing and they come back at night. What does that cost the taxpayer? It costs them not a dollar Page 440 March 2nd, 1961

(Mr. McKellar, cont' d.) .... more than it was costing them before, but they're getting a good education. And why are they getting a good education? Because this plan is providing it for them . Now that's the difference in the plan, and nobody can tell me that this plan is not a thou sand times better than the other plan. Now when anybody tells me, as you told us tonight, that we're depriving you and making second class citizens out of your citizens -- that's entirely wrong. That's not so.

Everybody when they cast a ballot to elect us , and the. defeated man just because he's defeated it's not saying that he's a second class citizen -- you're telling us that we 're just knocking the skids out from under your people . If you had the leadership !n your commun ity and if more of them had the leadership down in the other southe:Ist as we gave our people, you'd have the very same thing, and you wouldn't be .•... us today. Now I might sound a little rough but I' m speaking as a bachelor's point of view . I'm in terested in everybody's education, and I'm paying $19 1. 00 a year on education costs .

That's what our school taxes were this year. (Interjection) . That's the one I got back. Now I'm in terested in everybody's education . My grandfather came into this country -- they didn't ask for handouts. My father and other citizens of our district had the initiative to build a high school in 1930 to educate myself and all the rest of my family, and I give him courage for do ing so, and I give the people a lot of credit for doing the same thing as they did two years ago when they brought in this school plan, because they had a forward look. Let's go forward, not backward !

People, I think, prove here as the Minister of Agriculture mentioned -- the former government three years ago had exactly the same number of seats that we've got here now. Now where are they after two elections? Right down to the same number that the Conservatives had three years ago, and that's the reason why we, here, are proud of this plan. And I don't think the plan is perfect for one minute, but I do think its got something that we citizens of this province are going to be proud of in the years to come . MR. CAMP BELL: Mr.

Chairman, I think the honourable the member who just spoke made a good point there that they are proud of this program because of the fact that they are now sitting over on that side , and I would admit that I think the way they presented it to the people that it had something to do with their election . That's one of the points that we have been debating here, and that's where the argument started this afternoon with my honourable friend the member for St.

John's, and I've been waiting an this time to get back to the point that he raised, there have been a lot of other points raised in the interval but I wanted to get back to the one that he raised, because with all due respect to my honourable friends who have spoken from that side, I do respect their opinions ; they have claimed that the great issue here is whether we are or are not for this type of education. Do we admit that it 's an improvement? Do we think that it should have been put in? Did some of us oppose it and some of us support it, and all this sort of thing.

My honourable friend the Mini ster of Agriculture and Conserva tion is sure that some of us sat on the fence on this and he thinks we 're still trying to do so . There may be differences of opinion on this matter but the question that has been raised by the Honourable Member for St. John, the one that I wanted to speak on for a moment, is the question -- what was promised to the people of Manitoba? What was promised to them, and has it worked out? Now we'll talk about the educational

part later on -- I'll be willing to, and I'm quite prepared -- if this is a general confessional that's going to be taken here, then I'm quite willing to state where I stood in this matter. I attended several meetings, not all of them in my constituency, because in a couple of cases they came on the same day and I wasn't able to attend both, but I attended one where the Honourable the Mini ster of Education spoke. I at tended one where the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce spoke.

And I think that -- I'm afraid that they might apply to me the same terms that they did to the Honourable Member for Ste . Rose, because I'm afraid that they would say that I didn't contribute a great deal to the discussion . I'm afraid that the Minister of Industry and Commerce might say that my contribution was almost negative, because I think the Honourable Minister of Industry and Comme rce will do me this justice to say that I told the people this plan would cost more money. The Honourable 11/Iinister neither shakes nor nods his head, so I can't get either confirm ation or denial from him .

It seems to be an oc cupational hazard of sitting on the front bench here these times to not be very good at answering questions . I' d ask the Honourable Minister of Educ ation if that isn't the correct statement of the position that I took. I said, and I say to this House now, that of course we favor the two main principles of this program; the two main March 2nd, 1961 Page Mol

(Mr . Campbell, con t' d.) .•.. principles as we saw them was that every boy and girl in Manitoba as they came to the age and to the standing of being prepared for high school should have a high school that they could go to as a matter of right (interjec tion) •. I stated it in front of your two colleague s. MR. ALEXANDER: When did you start favoring it? MR . CAMPBELL: I beg your pardon? MR . ALEXANDER: I'd like to ask the honourable member when he started favoring that princi ple . MR . CAMPBELL: We put the legisla tion in . We put the legislation in when we were here . (Interjec tion) . .

Well it wasn't very effective because up to that time the people hadn 't voted for it, but we didn't go out with the kind of a ca mpaign that my honourable friends did, that's true , but we had the kind of a program that would meet exactly the conditions that the honourable member who just spoke relate d to us . That was what our program was designed for; No. (1), to have a program that would provide high sch ools in the logical loca tion; (2) in an area of a logical size to which, as taxpayers, every boy and girl could go when they had arrived at that age and standing in school .

And we had that kind of a program , and there were four divisions operate under it. It's nonsense to say that this is something new that's been put in. It's different, of course , but it's not new, and we had the o.ther main principle, too, of equalization, and I said at every meeting that I attended, I said that we were in favor of those two things and they were the ma in principles, but I thought the divisions as laid out were too large ; I thought that they would lead to difficulty because of the fact that there would be conflict of opinion between the different centres as to who would get the areas·.

I always admitted that I did not agree with the amount of centra lization that was proposed in the Royal Commiss ion report . I make no. apologies for that . My honourable friend who just spoke mentioned that they have a one-roomed high . The Royal Commission wouldn't approve of that ; your experts in educa tion don't approve of that . I do not object to it. I' ve ma de that plain all the time. I thin.. !{ there 's been too much emphasis laid upon the question of centraliza tion, and Mr..

Chair man, let me sa y this in the presence of the two Ministers that I heard speaking on this subject, that both of them when they were asked by the local people , both of them back-pedalled very very quickly on the question of centralization, because where I happened to hear them was in both cases -- the Honourable Minister of Educa tion, the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce -- in both cases it was in a small town, just a village , and both cases the question of whether their high school would be maintained or not ma intained, was of very vital interest, and both of them said, and corre ctly -- I don't blame them for this -- but both of them said that would be left to the Board of Division Trust ees .

So it is , under the Act, but the idea of the experts in education is centralization and a lot more centraliza tion . We had provision to meet exactly the case -- wha t's the constituency of my honourable friend, I have forgotten -- we had the legislation to exactly meet the case of the Honoura ble Member for Souris-Lansd owne that he mentioned. These were the two ma in principles of this legisla tion. We are not arguing . There are some points of difference, of course I admit I'm not in favour of centralization. There are other things in the Educa tion Departm ent, but it's not education that we are arguing .

My honourable friend from St . John's and I would not agree on the question of centra lization, but we do agree on the question of what was told to the people of Manitoba. That's what we are talking about, and we agree because we can both read. We went to sch ool enough to be able to read and we can read what the Minister of Educa tion said.

It's been read into the record more times than is. necessa ry, and I won't go through it all, but once again -- this is not taking it out of context -- "this plan will provide equal educational opportunities for children throughout the Province of Manitoba, parti cularly with respect to high school educa tion. It will reli eve, in large mea sure , the real property from the burde n of sch ool finance, transferring a larger share to the taxpa yer which we have in the Province of Manitoba ." What could be plainer in the English language than that ? My honourable friend from St .

John's emphasized the word "share" -- transferring a larger share to the taxpayer which you have in the Province of Manitoba; and it hasn't done that . But I emphasi ze, as well, the word "relieve" -- it will relieve in a large measure the real property from the burden of sch ool finance; and it hasn't relieved it. That 's where the argument started this afternoon. We can debate the question of the meri ts of educa tion, of the different system . We can debate all the rest of it. What we started to talk about Pa ge 442 March 2nd, 1961

(Mr. Campbell, oont1d. ) .... was whether or not they had implemen ted the promise that was made . That's the simp le fact. I don't expect the honourable the Minister to get up and apolo gize for what was said at that time. I don't expect him to try to recall the campaign that they put on. I'm not knocking the system of education that they have , but I am poi nting out that this has cost more money. I am admitting Jhat the province is paying more more money, much more money, but I also say that it has not relieved the local munic ipality.

In general, it has increas ed their taxe s and it has not given a larger share than it was doing before . Now, the Honourable the Minister of Education when he spoke in this house, and though he is a very articulate man and a very capable one, he was speaking on the occas ion that he made that pronouncem ent from very care fully prepared notes. He will remember that. He doesn't have to read his speech. My honourable friend is very capable of delivering his sp eech. He doesn't have to read one , but he recognized the impo rtance of this announcement that he was making then.

He was putting it on the record purposely, and he had very carefully prepared notes. He had a script before him which he was following closel y. This wasn't a slip, but if it had been a slip i.t was repeated, as so meone else has pointed out here, when the literature came out for the 11)9 cam paign. I have one of these documents, too, and this one happens to be the cons tituency in which I live. I like to give my member a boost once in awhile . "Re -elect Sterling Ly on". This came to me. One of my honourable frien d's constituents , and what did he tell me ?

He ·semt me a nice picture of the Pre mier of this province, sm iling, looking happy. He had reason to -·-big smi le -- and he says, "Given a major ity, you have our pledge that these further measures shall be put into effe ct. We stand ready and willing to get on with the busin ess of Manitoba". And here are some of the pledge s, and as has already been mentione d this afternoon, "this progre ssiv e program" -- and by the way there is a picture of my member on here too ---"re -elect the Roblin Government in Fort Garry. Vote Ste rling Ly on -- Thursday, May 14th -- Progre ssive Conservative .

Let us get on with the busi ness of Manitoba" . A ser ious looking youn€� man. I w�s delighted to have this literature come to my house. I have pre served it most carefully and I say, to show how much I think of my member, and you can depend upon it, that I wouldn't take quite a bit of money for this document. Why? A MEMBER: Did you vote for him ? MR . CAMPBELL: Well you know, the ballot is supposed to be secret, but you have heard that I have said some very nice things about him and I want to read what he told me when he sent me this document.

He said, "this progress ive program is endorsed by every Conservative can didate" -- no exception -- "it will be enacted into law as soon as the Roblin Government is given a working maj ority in the Manitoba Legis lature". And there are a lot of good ones here. It will do, it'll do £or some other departments as well.

But this one is education: "A new program to provide equal educa tional opportunitie s for every child in Manitoba, free textbooks for every school child to Grade XII, $6 million more appropriated by the new Roblin Government for edu cation, an effort to equalize education costs in the province, to lighten the load of the munici pal taxpayer". And my honourable friend , addressi ng one of these poor farmers living in Tuxe do, thought that that would make an appeal to their hearts -- to lighten the municipa l load -- and, conse quently, he got great support in that area.

And my charge now is that my member has not done what he promised me he would do. He has not llghtened my taxe s. If I told you the harrow ing details of the pos ition of we poor taxpayers in Tuxedo , I know that your hearts would be softened much worse than heari ng about the ladies who write about margarine. It's an even more sad tale , but the thing that hurts me is that my member let me down. This is the po int that I'm making here today, my member, the Minister, this government, the Premier, did not do what they said they were going to do. Now that's the point. A MEMBER: Don't vote for him next time . MR .

CAMJ?BELL: I shall give the matte r very careful cons ideration. Now that's the question that was raised by the Honourable the Member for St. Joh n's, and until that one is decided here , Mr. Chairman, until that one is decided -- I should put it the othe r way -- when that one is decided, we can carry on with the othe r busi ness, and I have some rema rks to make on the general question of these grants. Now I don't intend to make them at the mo ment in case anybody else wants to deal with this particular subject, and no doubt the minister wishes to reply. But I do want to say somet hing on this question of 2(

a) and, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that you don't expect this to be passed for a little while yet, because 2 (

a) is an item, Lf you wlll notice, of $24, 725, 000; and I think when we are discussi ng an ite m of that size, we have a March 2nd, 1961 Page 443

(Mr. Campbell, con t'd. ) •••• right, and even a duty, to examine very very caref ully what the situation ls. Up to date we have been dealing with one point, mainly, the one brought up by the Honourable Member for St. Joh n's; but I would like to ask the minister, when this other matter has been decided, to give us a breakdown of the $24, 725 , 000. I protest that lt ls wrong for this government to put into the estimates items of that size, and I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that even though you are a very excellent chairman and try to get the business done , that here is one place where you should not try to hurry it, because here we need all the time that we need to ask all the questions and get inf ormation. It would be ridiculous if we tried to pass an item of $24, 725, 000 in block. I would like to know fro m the Minister, what is the breakdown? Thi� should be broken down , in my opinion, into elementary, high schools and transportation and the items that used to show in the old days. I think it Is a mistake to consolidate the estimates to this extent.

However, we can have more to say about that later on. MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q. C. (Selkirk): Mr. Chairman, I have kept out of this "donny brook" so far , but in view of the fact that certain statements have been made from the other side of the House, making a political issue out of the larger school division, I would like to keep the records straight. Long before the Royal Commission presented its report to this House, I was an advocate of larger school divisions. I am not like my honourable leader. I have no fe ar of cent ralization.

I would even go furthe r than has· been gone by the Royal Com miss ion, and I would even Include elementary schools in the larger division, because I think that it is an economic waste to have these different bodies of school trustees operating in a larger secondary division. Now when the Royal Commission did submit Its report to this government, you were a minority government at that time. The first meeting that the Honour able Minister of Education held, was held ln my constituency . It was held in the town of Selkirk. I was present at that meeting .

I was invite d there by the Minister and I told my people that they might think lt was strange for me, a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, to be appearing on the same platf orm as the Honourable Minister of Education, but the reason why I was doing that was because, in my opinion, education was too important a matter to become embroiled in politics. It transcended politics. I also told my people that night that the recommendations of the Royal Commission regarding the larger school division were una nimousl y adopted by this House. Now up until that time, Mr.

Chairman, the question of the recommen dations of the Royal Commission regarding larger divisions was not a political issue in this provin ce, but this gov ernment did, in the election of May 14th, 1959, make it a political issue and try to make as many kudos out of it as they possibly could; but the members of the opposition at that time, with one or two exceptions , supported the recommendations of the Royal Commission and did their utmost to see that these recommendations were accepted by the people and voted on by the people. I know I myself attended almost every meeting that was held in my constituency .

I even attended a meeting at which the Honourable Minister of Health was supposed to speak but, un fortunate ly, could not attend, and I took his place. Now that shows you how non-p olitical my activities were with respect to the larger school division, and it is a matter of regret to me that it should now be dragged into this House as a political issue, because it is not a political issue. It was adopted and accepted by the people of Manitoba on the recommendation of almost every member who was in the House in April of 1959. Now I regret that this debate has taken the course that it has taken.

I regret very much that the Honourable Minister of Agriculture should drag into this issue, an issue which has been fo reign to politics in Manitoba for many years, and an issue which my Leader was res-. pons ible for abrogating to the dust heap many years ago, and that is the Issue of city versus country. I also regret, too, that there have been so many recriminations during the course of this debate regarding who kllled cock robin. Who is responsible for the higher costs, the trustees or the Province of Manitoba or the Department of Education?

Now to me, represent Ing a rural constituency, lt ls not Important who is x:esponslble for the cost. The important thing ls that the costs are going up, and representing a rural constituency , I want to tell every member of this committee that my taxpayers feel it a burden, a burden which they are unable to carry much longe r; and what they are int erested in hearing fr om this Government is, what are you going to do about these rising costs ? That is the question that we are discussing here tonight, not the question as to who supported the larger divisions or who opposed them, but Page 444 March 2nd, 1961

(Mr. Hlllho use, cont1d. ) •••• what is the Government going to do about the risi ng cost of edu cation? Are they !�oing to do anything to re lieve the financial burden which is becom ing too burdensome alto gether for the average municipality. I have farmers in my constituency whose taxes per acre are in the neighborhood of $3.6 0 an acre. Now when a man's farming some 200 acres of land , you have some idea as to what his tax load is; and that man is not interested in whether the trustee s are res ponsible for his higher taxes or. whether the Government of Mani toba is responsible.

All he is interested in is getting these taxes reduced to an amount that he can take care of, and I think that that's what our energies should be directed towards tonight, to see what we can do to relieve the burden from the municipal taxpayer of the cost of educa tion. Let's forget all about the recrimi nations; let's forget what you promised in the last elec tion or what you didn't promise; but let's try to work together in the inte rest of education so that the taxpayers of Manitoba wlll get the best system of education in the world at the least possi ble cost. MR. HUTTON: Mr.

Chairman, I feel that I must speak again. I have the highest regard for the Honourable Member of Selkirk. There isn't a member ln the House that I have any greater respect for, regardless of party. I km disappoi nted that he attributed to me, because I spoke on this question of the rural contribution to education in this Province, that he attri buted to me the low -- and I don't know what the word is -- unworthy reasons for bringing Lt up. I never would have spo ken at all in this debate had it not been for the remarks of the Honourable Member for St. John' s, and I think I made that clear when I got to my feet.

It is a fact, Mr. Chairman, and a fact that the people of Manitoba should be aware of, a very im por tant fact, that the rural people of this province do make a real contribution to the urban areas in respect of the fi:b.ished products that they make availab le, to take their place in urban society. And that was the point that I was trying to get across in respect of rural-urban relations hips.

I was not endeavouring to open up any wounds, The Honourable Member for Selkirk attributes to the fact that this: issu e was relegated to the ash heap by the Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition, and I won't argue that point, But certainly, Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the Hon ourable for Selkirk associa ting the statements I made on this subject with the mean objective that he attributed to me in doing so. MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Chairman, that was the only logical inference that I could draw from the Honourable Minist er's rem arks and I am sorry if it is the wrong inte rpretation. MR.

ORLIKOW: •••••• reject any suggestion or inference which seems ¥> have been made that anything I sai d this afternoon, or any other time in this House or anywhere else, could be taken as suggesti ng that I feel that the people in the City of Winnipeg are paying too much so that the people in rural Manitoba should pay less, I never suggested that, I never even thought of it. We in this group, long before I was in this House, Mr.

Chairman, long before the Honourable Minister was in this House, were suggesting, were urging the former government to incre ase the assi stance to education in rural areas to bring up the standard of education in rural areas to so mewhere near the point which education had achieved in the cities and towns of Manitoba. We are happy that we helped to lay the groundwork for this. I am not sorry for it. I'm 10.0t saying that the people of the rural parts of Manitoba are paying too little . All I'm saying , Mr.

Chairman, is that the people in the cities are paying too much and they are paying much more than they were promised by the Minister and by the First Minister. I said no more than that, no less than that. And whlle I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that, as far as we ln this group are concerned, we have no reser vations with regard to the general purpose which the plan has accomplished - the purpose of raising the standard of education. We have always been for that. We always said it was required and we always said it would cost money. We have no objections about that.

We think it wlll cost more money and we wlll support that. The only objections which we have made, or wlll continue to make, are that the promises that were made, with regard to the way in which the cost would be boriJ:e, has not been kept. MR. JOHN A. CHRISTIANSON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Chairman, a fellow with my lim ited experience should perhaps know better than to get into a debate of this kind, but there are some things I think should be brought to the attention of the members of the comm itt ee .

The Minister has been quoted as saying, "it will relieve in large part the real property from the burden of school finance, transferring a larger share to the taxpayer which we have in the March 2nd, 1961 Page 445

(Mr. Christianson, cont1d. ) •••• Province of Manitoba. " Well the other day we got the book from the Department of Education, and looking on page 173 I find that in the year 1957 Provin cial Government grants totalled $10 million-odd. Total operating rece ipts in that year were $37. 484 million. That's roughly a 28% increase. In 1958, Provincial Government grants 13. 189, total operating receipts 41. 336. Slightly more than 25% again. In 1959, combined grants, capital grants and other grants totalled $30. 553 million. Total revenue for the year, $48.4 77 million, or 63% in Provincial Government grants.

Well my arithmetic isn't very good, but municipal taxes in 1958 yielded 24. 4; special taxes, which I can only presume to be the same thing -- I must conf ess I am not an expert, were 17 -odd; so even tf there is a con siderable amount of money com ing from other municipal taxes which are not included in this figure, but I submit, Sir, it probably is, the amount of money being paid by real property would appear to be less. In any event, out of the total revenue s of 48. 477%, 30. 553 coming from grants is 62%.

Now I ask you, Sir, is that in any violation of what the Minister said, that a larger share would be transferred to the Province of Manitoba? It is quite true that the cos.ts of education have gone up. Why have they gone up? We got more kids. All you have to do is look at the enrollment figures to figure that one out. And not only that, a larger per centage of the kids of school age are going to school. The sudden increases in school enroll ment in the rural areas didn't happen because all of a sudden a bunch of kids became of age.

It happened because there were kids who were not going to school who are now going to school. In any school division, or any larger school area that had a good system of education setup prior to the intro duction of the division plan, the cost of education has not gone up substantially at all. In fact, the cost per student is practically the same. In areas where they were not getting secondary education the costs have gone up, but I think the Member from Souris-Lans downe p:>inted out very graphically where those costs are going, and I think that the taxpayer is getting good value for his tax dollar. MR.

ALE XANDER: Mr. Chairman, I was almost going to say to begin with that I was surprised at a statement that the Honourable Leader of the Oppos ition made, and on second thought, possibly I should say and do think that I am not surprised at all, because the Honour able Leade r of the Oppos ition said that he was still in favour of the one-room high school (Interjection) --Oh yes. MR.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-3-15a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 3rd hansardpdf 15a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6ee45d361a935d521ea6a2dbb4924e9eff6ed500

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