Manitoba Hansard — 58 and 1959 (Sitting 38A, 26th Legislature, 3rd Session)

26-3-38a

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, Tuesday, April 4th, 1961. MR . SHEWMAN: Mr . Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Brandon,

whereas the marketing of livestock in the last several years has been of great concern to the livestock producers of Manitoba, therefore

be it resolved that this government give consideration to the advisability of establishing a com mittee of this House to enquire into all phases of the livestock marketing system in the Province of Manitoba. Mr . Speaker pres ented the motion. MR . SHEWMAN: Mr . Speaker, this resolution speaks pretty well for itself. There has been a change in nature in agriculture and its eco nomic position on account of the new demands for policies and new programs on the part of governments.

This is in regard to the marketing of livestock; the economic position of the beef cattle industry, and the management matters which contribute to an·.efficient and economica l program in the production of livestock. There has been a great increase in the demand for beef which will result from the growing human population of Manitoba and Canada, in fact the world today. Some have said that livestock pays the bills and, I think as far as we are concerned here in Manitoba, that that is pos sibly partly right.

In the last two years of 1958 and 1959, Canadian farmers have cashed in on the sale of · meat animals to the tune of around a billion dollars, Mr . Speaker, and livestock has made up almost entirely one-third of the total farm income in this peri od. When you take into considera tion livestock, and other poultry pr oducts are added in to the picture of cash returns to the far mers , it means that there has been $1-3/4 billion that has been accounted for as far as the live stock and poultry are concerned.

Now there has been investigation into other phases of farming and I think that this resolu tion, as I've mentioned, speaks pretty well for itself, that there is a need to investigate the marketing of livestock today, especia lly to the producers of livestock of Manitoba . There are varying economic trends that can have their effects on food consumption and prices which people can pay, but between 1956 and the present, the number of people in the U. S. and Canada has increased by over seven percent .

In the same period, assuming that we now have about 112 million head of cattle in the two countries, that is Canada and the United States, the cattle population has increased by less than four percent . Now I think that possibly there is some bearing on the system of marketing livestock that we 've had in the past that would tend to pos sibly just carry on the levels that we have been as far as livestock is concerned.

There 's fac tors in the cattle industry that have rapdily been rising, you might say, as far as cost to the consumer is concerned; but there has been a great demand for a better quality of beef as far as the consumer is concerned. The increase in demand in the last few years, in the same period 1958 and '59, has risen three to four per cent. Now if this average continues, and what I mean by that is the average consumer demand continues, it means that there will be, in a very short time , a shortage of beef as far as Canada is concerned. Now the quality of beef, in my opinion, Sir, could be improved on.

I think that inves tigating the marketing of livestock is one way that we would be able to improve the quality of beef that the producer would have to sell to the consumer. Possibly the cost of pr oducing this beef might be the reason that we are short of beef, or will be short of beef in Manitoba and Canada. Now we have the breeder, the feeder, we have the packer and the retailer, who have made a significant contribution to providing more acceptable beef to consumers , and have con tributed to building consumer dem and which the industry now enjoys.

It is true that over a period of years that the beef that has been put on the market has improve d, but there is lots of room to produce a better beef animal than we have been producing in the past. There are some animals of the breeds that are popular today, the Herefords , the Shorthorns, the Angus and other breeds as far as beef cattle are concerned that have been popular beef animals , but it's hard to tell just what animal is the best animal for market when he's alive and on the hoof. It will take a considerable amount of research to distinguish which animal is the most accep table to consumer's dem·and.

Now we've noticed in the last few years that there 's been a great demand for hamburgers , that is hamburgers that are sold at the eating place on the corner and in the home . It has been said, in years gone by, that hamburger was a kind of a catch-all item as far as a butcher shop April 4th, 1961 Page 1619 ..

(Mr. Shewman, cont'd .) ..... is concerned; but the consumer today is demanding a lot be_tter and is getting a better grade of hamburger than in years gone by. That is what you might term as the rough meat of the animal, possi bly the belly beef, that is ground into hamburgers and made into sausage , that there is a great deal mo re demand for today. I am told that today there is a good many thousand pounds of this frozen hamburger imported into Manitoba, and that is another reason why we should have an investigation into all phases of the marketing liv estock.

I believe we have in Manitoba a great possi bility of using up a lot of this rough meat that I've mentioned into frankfurters, sausage and hamburger and such things as that. Now we have a tendency today for a sm aller roast, a sm aller steak, and possi bly the solution to that would be a smaller type of beef cattle .

The average weight today of a steer that's sold is around 1, 199 and possi bly better, and there is a certain amount of waste as far as the_ consu,ming publ ic is concerned to an animal of that type. lf we are going to lo ok ten years ahead, which is not a very long time to look ahead as far as the live stock producers of Manitoba is concerned, I think, giving due respect to the livestock producers in. the past, that we have a great room for improvement in the live stock industry on account of the demand of what the consumer is asking the live stock producer to produc_e today.

Now the consu mers , as we see the picture, like convenie nce; and by their reactions at shopping co unte rs and such pla ces , the con_sumers have shown that they are willing to pay a premium for the right type of beef that they think they should have. We have, for example , tlie consuming public are demand ing and have been demanding sliced bread. · They like sliced bacon; they like the rindl ess type .of bacon; they like the fro zen fo ods ;. frozen meats and the pre-packed meat. It is b!:ltter ;for the farmer and better for the consumer by having this style of marketing for them .

In years gone by there was a lot of beef and pork sold to the consumer by the pound from door to door and that day is long gone by. The producer can specialize .in lines of production on an efficient scale, and the housewife can secure standardized grades and brands of products when and where she wants them, with some more research into the marketing of live stock. · It's quite true that norm ally we export a considerable numb er of feeder cattle to the United States, and this varies from year to year depending on what the U.S. position is .

We realize that the start of beef production comes from a cow and a calf. We are told that our range for cattle in the west is diminishing. Then I think, Mr. Speaker, it's time that we in Manitoba were giving some consideration to what could be done as far as getting that calf into a position where it's marketal5le beef. There has been, in years gone by, a demand for rough meat, as I' ve mentioned before , and it has meant that our cow population has dwindled to an extent of where it's serious as far as the meat-consuming public is concerned of Manitoba and Canada.

The beef cattle industry lim itations of grazing lands l!lld ever-growing demands for beef, and an analysis of these two factors indicate a basically favourable situation . That is true I believe , but we can't just rest on our laurels today . Now the me at-processi ng shows expansion in Canada. On January 26th, 1961, the report from the Meat Packers Council of Canada indicates that some 54 new firms-entered the meat packing processing or sausage manufacturing busine ss in Canada. ·Included in this· total were 22 new abattoirs . Acco rding to reports from the.

Council and the DBS, 20 of these new firms were located in Ontario, 18 in Quebe c, 6 in British Colu mbia, 4 in Alber ta, 3 in Nova Scotia, one each in New Brunsw ick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I ask myself -- why just one in Manitoba? I think a study of the cattle situation, the market of live stock in Manitoba, couldo answer that qu estion just why one in Manitoba. We have a tot of pasture land that's quite suit able for the raising and the growing of cattle in Manitoba.

The othe r thoughts that come into my mind, I think that are worthy of consideration, when we stop and think that in 1958 the cattle live stock market in our Union Stockyards in Winnipeg, the cattle that sold at the stockyards amounted to 170, 000 some odd cattle ; and direct to the packers was 82, 000 some odd . In 1959, there was 140 ,0 00 head so ld at the stockyards and 70, 000 sold at the packers .

Now I ask myself this que stion, and it's a qu estion that I would like to see answered as far as the meat producers of Manitoba are concerned, why are so many head of cattle sold direct to the packers wren there 's no competitive bidding at the packing plants? I think, Mr. Speaker, that these are things, as I mentioned before, that this resolution pretty well speaks for itself. In the calf marketings there was 59, 000 some odd sold in 1958 at the stockyards; and direct to the packers, 40 , 000 head. The hog marketing of cattle , I've mentioned these Page 1620 April 4th, 1961

(Mr . Shewman, cont'd .) ..... figures before in the House, Mr .· Speaker, and it amazes me and it's hard for me to understand why 700 and some odd thousand hogs would be sold to the packing plants and only 100 and some odd thousand sold on the public market . I've never heard of any packing plant in Can:;tda es tablishing a market for cattle or for hogs, but there is public markets throughout Canada and we have a very good public market in St . Boniface that does establish a market price as far as cattle and hogs are concern ed. These stockyards in St. Boniface have been operating since 1917 and they're operated through

an Act of the Dominion Government of Canada. The Government of Canada Marketing Services in the Union Stockyards compiles market information and issues methodic market reports twice daily . Now these are questions that I would like to have answered as far as the meat producers of Manitoba are concerned, and I think we owe this duty to the meat producers of Manitoba who have strived to give the consumer a better quality of beef without too much help from the govern ment in producing livestock. It's true that we do have help to produce livestock, but not too much help in the marketing end. MR . GRAY: Mr .

Speaker, you know pers onally that I'm not a farmer . My farm exper ience was only threshing at a dollar a day for a couple of years . I'm speaking now in reply to the honourable member who just sat down and my first word is that I am supporting him in every way pos sible except when he dealt with the hogs . I reserve my rights to support that particular item . They say the more we encourage birth control the more children are born, and that applies also to the anima ls .

I feel that I have to support the last speaker when every thing is said because he was dealing with an industry necessa ry for the convenience of the people of the Province of Manitoba, and not only of Manitoba, but probably if they have a surpl us, to the rest of the world . The last speaker, the Honourable Member from Brandon ...... . MR. PAULLEY: The Honourable Member from Morris . MR . GRAY: Oh, I'm sorry . I humbly apologize .. ..... encouraged the pro duction of industry in the interests of the farmers .

I say also that it's in the interest of the people not only of the Province of Manitoba but to the rest of the world. I agree with him , with every word he said, about the demand of food the world over; about the demand of help the world over . I fully agree with him in every word he said that it is no justice that half of the world should go to bed hungry. In everything I agree with him and I want to support him ; and I want to tell him while the hog or the cattle markets are now low, we are trying to produce as much as poss ible , not only for our own requirem ents but also for the rest of the world .

I want to congratulate the Honourable Member from Morris on his statement that he's not only concerned about what we get for ourselves, but he's also concerned what we get for the rest of the world . The paper mentioned today about a certain amount of money which the First Minister intends to contribute outside of Manitoba . The very same·. principle applies here .

We are ready and willing to sup port everything in every land that would help the salvation of the people of the world; that will help the salvation of the people of the world in order that we could perhaps in our generation- ! don't think in ours but in generations to come -- to create a world of peace and freedom and equality; and not see half of the population of the world go to bed hungry . I'm supporting his principles fully -- pers onally . MR . G. W. JOHN SON (As siniboia) : Mr . Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Hon ourable Member from Osborne, that the debate be adjourned. Mr .

Speaker pre sented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried . MR . SPEAKER: Proposed resol ution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Brokenhead . MR . SCHREY ER: Mr. Speaker, I move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Fisher, the following res olution:

whereas the expropriation action of this governmen t will affect adver sely the taxation of property oWners who may own less than four acres or forty acres of con tiguous land as a result of loss of land to the floodway public work, and

whereas this same pub lic work will result in the loss of many acres of taxable land with a resulting loss of tax revenue to the municipalities affected by the floodway, therefore be it reso lved that this governmen t give conside ration to the advis ability of making such statutory amendments as m ay be necessa ry for the following: (

a) to guarantee revenues on the affected acreage to the municipalities equal to the tax revenue which those municipalities received prior to expropriation and construction of the floodway, and (

b) to prese rve the tax exemption status of those property owners who will be losing acreage due to the public work. April 4th, 1961 Page 1621 I ..

Mr . Speaker presented the motion. MR . SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, one of the res olutions which I introduced not too long ago, I spoke for 60 minu tes . This time I can assur e honourable members that I shall be able to state the case in less than six minut es . I think that the reso lution is largely self-expla natory. The main reason that I want to raise this matter in this Assembly by way of resolution is so that it might be discussed and discussed properly .

I feel that up until now, while the subject matter of the construction of the floodway has been fairly thoroughly aired here , the matter as to how this will affect the municip alities tax-wi se and property owners, also tax-wi se, has been largely left surrounded by a rather cloudy haze . I mer ely want to be able to receive from the other side some indication as to their intentions in this regard . I know that up until now some attempt has been made to inform the people who will be affected by the floodway as to what the fate of their property will be.

Members will recall that not too long ago we held a meeting in the Narol district, at which meeting senior civil servants were invited there to explain these matters to the people in the district . I don't know if the people there were completely satis fied, but I'm sure that they were able to learn certain things that they hadn't known before. But one thing that was definitely left untouched was this matter of policy; namely, what is the government's intention" with regard to compensation to municipalities for the loss of taxation revenue .

Now, 1 would say to honourable members that they shouldnot think that this"i S a trivial matter, because in the Municipality of St. Clemen ts alone, this could mean as much as several thousand dollars , five or six thousand dollars very roughly in tax revenue loss if there is no compensatory payment by the Provincial Governm ent. Personally, Mr . Speaker, I don't see any reason why the munici pality should suffer this tax revenue loss.

I would assume that the Provincial Government will take the necess ary action and make the neces sary statutory amend ment, but I think that it should be formally discussed in this chamber . With that in mind, Mr .

Speaker, I present this resolution and I would conclude by saying that I'll be very disappointed and very disillusioned in the fairness of this government if they couldn't give indication during this ses sion that they will, in fact, be making provision for compensation to munici palities for tax revenue loss ; and also , that they will take nece"ssary action to protect those property owners who might lose a certain number of acres and thus lose their tax exemption on their buildings as a result . I think this is only asking for a fair and obvious thing. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I conclude . MR .

WALTER WEIR (Minnedosa) : Mr. Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Hon ourable Member for Hamiota, that the debate be adjourne d. Mr . Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No . 44 . The Honourable Member for River Heights . MR . W. B. SCARTH , Q.C. (River Heights) presented Bill No . 44,

An Act to amend

an Act to incorporate Hudson Bay Mining Employees' Health Association, for second reading. Mr . Speaker presented the motion . MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR , SCARTH: Mr . Speaker, the bill before the House is comparatively simple . In 1944

an Act passed through this Legislative -Asse mbly incorporating the employees of the Hudson Bay Mining Association into a Health Association. The object of the associa tion, the main object was to provide hospital cara and treatment and health service for members of the associa tion and their dependents , and to enter into contracts for this purpose .

Under the Act of 1944 " there were two bodies, that is there was a governing body called the Board of Trustees com posed of five elected members; and then there was a second board called the Management Com mittee consi sting of seven people, three of whom were medical practitioners , three of whom were members of the Board and the rem ainder, the other man, appointed.

It is now the desire of the employees to have their own board run the affairs of the assoc iation and by a vote of 1900 to 200 , a secret ballot, the employees decided upon the principles of this Bill, that being that hereafter the Board of Trustees composed of five elected members and two appointed by the Hudson Bay Mining and Sm elting Company shall be the governing body and be responsible for the management of the association . MR . GRAY: Mr . Speak er , may I direct a question to the mover of this Bill? I do it in Page 1622 April 4th, 1961

i (Mr. Gray, cont'd.) .• ; •. all sincerity because he could challenge me why I'm asking this ques tion. How does the honourable member come in in introducing this Bill, which is more or less a labour bill? Knowing the gentleman, who always-fights against labour legislation, I'm very curious to know how does he come into this picture? MR . SCARTH: I happened to live in this country 13 years, Mr. Speaker, and I think I know something about the affairs of the employees of that company. Mr . Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER : Second reading of Bill No . 20.

I understand this is to stand-tonight. MR . PAULLEY: I don't think that was the understanding, Mr . Speaker . I think the understanding was that we wouldn't take a vote tonight. MR . ROBLIN: I think, Sir, that we'll just proceed with this resolution in the ordinary way and if there's anyone who cares to adjourn it then it will be adjourned, otherwise I think the understanding is that we let the matter stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Wellington so that he may close the debate and have the vote next time . MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR . J. D. WATT (Arthur): Mr .

Speaker, it was my understanding this afternoon that the Bill would stand until next Friday. I did not bring my notes this evening. I would ask now that the matter stand until Friday. MR . SPEAKER: Is it agreed? MR . GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question which is very unpopular and I could get hell for it. I'm prepared to take the hell and all they have to do is say yes or no. Is it the intention of some of the members of the Administration benches to try and leave resolu tions on the Order Paper at the adjournment or at the prorogation of this House ? I'm speaking on my own behalf.

I'm speaking on behalf of the resolution I have here in connection with the deaf and blind children -- a school for them. I'm just wondering -- we know definitely we are going to adjourn soon more or less, not in the neXt six months, and I was just wondering, and I'm speaking quite seriously. and painfully,· whether there isn't a movement to leave those papers on the Order Paper before we prorogue? MR . ROBLIN: Mr . Speaker, I didn't interrupt the honourable member but I feel I should say now that I feel that I don't know on what reasoning he rose .

I don't know whether it was a point of priv' uege or a point of order. He stated no reasons and lately he's developed the habit of just standing up whenever it suits him to make comments on what happens to be going on here. Mr . Speak er, he has, however, said something about which I feel entitled to raise as a point of privilege, and that is my honourable friend has imputed or stated that, in his opinion, or he's asked the question that people on this side of the House are going to see to it that matters on the Order Paper are not de3.J.t with by the time we prorogue.

I ask my honourable friend can he remember a time when that was done, either by this government or any other, except with consent of all those concerned. I can't remember .a time and .it's never been done in this House. Surely it should be unnecessary for me to stand up and to say that we intend to see that the Order Paper is finished before we leave; and if there's anything standing on the Order Paper when we decide to prorogue, that it will only be dropped if it has the con sent of all those concerned. That has been our custom and I think it will be our custom.

Per haps I shouldn't say this because I think I can assume my honourable friend did not mean to give the impression that he did, but otherwise I would have said that I resented his implication. I feel perhaps he did not put it to us in that way so I won't adopt that attitude, but I want to assure him that we're going to deal with the business of the House before we go home. MR . GRAY: All my life I told my teacher to correct my grammar. MR . SPEAKER: I take it that Bill No . 20 stands for tonight. MR . ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I would now propose that having reached-government busi ness , that we call Bills No. 46 and 27 and then we'll revert to concurrence . MR . SPE AKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No . 46 . The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . J. M. FROESE (Rhine land): Mr . Speaker, I will be very brief tonight. When I adjourned debate the other day it was more or less done in order to peruse the Bill itself and see just what it did contain. I would like to tell the House here that I'm very much in agree ment with most of the items it contains .

There are probably some items which I feel that should April 4th, 1961 Page 1623 ·---- - ------------ --- • •

(Mr. Froese, con t1 d.) ..... be changed, probably by some addition!) or deletions; and in one or two cases I think we should probably have a few amendments made . However, since the Bill is of such a nature that it contains quite a number of amendments to different sections of the Act, I think it would be best to leave it to the time that we consider it in committee .

There was one point I thought I would like to make, and that is that I would have liked to see a provision in the Act whereby Credit Unions could use a portion of their reserve fund and apply it to a stabilization fund, which Credit Unions throughout the province would then be able to use in order to stabilize the assets of Credit Unions. We find today that Credit Unions get into trouble and we have no way of assisting them .

Through this fund we would propose that in case a Credit Union was liquidated that the _central organization would, through this stabilization fund, be able to pay the shareholders of that Credit Union 100 cents on the dollar and then take over all the liabilities and collect them ; and whatever could not be met could be taken out of the stabilization fund. I hope that since it was not in the Bill this time that something will be done, probably in the future , so that we can bring this to effect.

I know it has been done in some of the other provinces and also some of the other states in the United · States with good success, and it's something, I think, we should be working towards too . Then there are other minor amendments such as , and I'm referring to the credit com mittee and the supervisory committee, where this legislation would premit the secretaries to come from outside the committee .

Here I feel that we should keep the officials of these com mittees from within the committee in order to limit-the knowledge and business affairs of these Credit Unions to stay within its committees. ·This is a matter of confidence and I think it should be limited to the elected officials only. I have a number of other matters that I feel should be drawn to the attention, but I will do so when we get into committee . Thank you. Mr. Speaker put the question and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . ROBLIN presented Bill No. 27 ,

an Act to amend The Insurance Act, for second reading. MR . ROBLIN: Mr . Speaker a word or two of explanation about this small Bill. It con tains a number of relatively minor amendments to the Insurance Act, but about which I think the House should be informed. The first one has to deal with the fact that in the present sys- tem of inspection, particularly of the smaller insurance companies. domiciled in Manitoba, we have been charging a fee for that service .

It has been pointed out to us that they are already audited by reputable auditing companies and rather objected to paying two fees and, under the circumstances, it seemed that they made a case. This will eliminate the necessity of the govern ment charging an inspection fee for the inspection that will continue to take place on behalf of the Superintendent of Insurance . The other item has to do with the maximum amounts of money that need to be deposited by insurers operating in Manitoba. At present, that is stated in the Statutes.

It is felt that in some instances this is too smail considering the nature of the business, and the Act is modified to allow the Superintendent of Insurance to specify a further larger sum and change the sum if he feels it's warranted under the circumstances. Since the Act was drafted it has been brought to our attention that perha:ps it would be just as well if this power were subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council . Although it's not in the present Bill, it is intended that that amendment should be introduced in committee . The final

section in. the Bill is one which cuts down the paper work by enabling the Superintendent to issue a general license to a firm that may be dealing in three or four different kinds of insurance . I think those are the main points in the Bill, Mr . Speaker . MR . CAMPBE LL: Mr . Speaker, if I had taken the time or had the time to consider the report of the department or Insurance Branch, I suppose I could have found the answer to this question, but I simply haven't had the opportunity to do that.

I was wanting to �sk the First Minister, are there still a considerable number of insurance companies incorporating under the province rather than under the Federal Government? MR . GRAY: Mr . Speaker, before the Minister answers, he may answer my questions at the same time . All those three sections which he emphasized, is that in the protection of the public or the insurance companies? You jumped at me last time and I want to prevent you jumping at me now. I may have been wrong last time but my intentions were right and my intentions are right today.

So when I'm asking these three qu�stions, I'm not trying to tell the Page 1624 April 4th, 1961

(Mr. Gray, cont'd .) ..... House that you are not protecting the public -- we know that --but I do want to know where you have protected them? · MR . PAULLEY: Mr . Speaker, there 's just one question I would like to ask of the First Minister, the Provincial Treasurer in connection with this Bill . If I recall his remar ks cor rectly he mentioned somet hing in connection with inspection fees which are paid, I presume, by the insurance companies for the services of the Superintendent of Insurance and his departmen t .

The question that rises in my mind is whether or not , with the reduction of the inspection fees, whether out of general revenues a greater contribution in respect of insurance inspectio,1S and the likes of that will have to be made . It is my impression at the present time that as a result of these fees that are paid by our insuring companies in the Province of Manitoba, whether their headquarters are here or elsewhere, that they are in effect paying for the inspection service s. My question is in respect of the inspection fees that this would continue ? MR .

ROBLIN: If that's all the questions Sir, I'll close the debate . First of all I say to the Honourable Member for Inkster that I'll always give him credit for good intentions but one knows where good intentions sometimes lead one . However, I will say that in this cir cumst ance that we believe that the me asures in this Bill are for the protection of the public , certainly as far as inspections go and as far as matters dealing with the maximum deposits for insurers operating in Manitoba, that indeed is for the protection of the public .

I can say to the ·Honourable Leader of the Opposition that there are very few companies incorporating under the Pr ovincial Statute s. I can say to the Honourable Leader of the CC F Party that the type of inspection and companies referred to is a very small group indeed. There may be $300 or $400 involved; probably nothing much more than. that. In the comm ittee we can get the exact amounts and I think there are three or four companies only effected -- they're small little mutuals here and there ; nothing of any great cons equence . Mr.

Speaker pre sented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. . ...... Continued next page . April 4th, 1961 Page 1625 -

MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, sec onded by the Honourable Minister of Education that the resol utions reported from the Committee of Supply be now read a se cond time and concurred in . · Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR .

CLERK: No. (1) res olved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $59, 850 for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1962; (2) reso lved to be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding. $330, 71 0 for Comptroller-General's office for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1962; (3) res olved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $45, 100, Legis lative Printing and Binding for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1962; (4) resolved th,at there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $52, 155, Administration for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1962; (5) resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,0 00, Federal-Provincial Confere nce, for the fiscal year, ending the 31st day of March, 1962; (6) r.esolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $90, 000, Grants and Miscel laneous, Executive Council for the fisca l year ending the 31st day of March, 1962 ; (7) resol ved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $161 ,3 55, Library and Historical Research, Executive Council for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1962; (8) resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $207 ,6 55, Administrati on, Treasury, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1962 .

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment seco nded by the Honourable Mem ber for Carillon that while concurring in Resolution No. 8, this House expresses its concern over the large increase in provincial and municipal debt. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, just before the motion is put, I want to indicate to the House where we of our CCF Party stands in resp ect of the Resoluti o.n that has been proposed by the Honourable the Leader of the Offic ial Oppos ition. As I understand the wording of the Resolution, Mr.

Speaker, it deals with both the question of provincial debt and also munic ipal debt and regretting the fact of the increases in the debts. In order that the pos ition of my party is clearly understood, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I regret very, very much that due, in my opinion, to the pollcies of the Conser vative Government of Manitoba that the provincial debt of Manitoba has increased far too much and far too rapidly.

However, as I indicated in the introduction of my amendment to the address from His Honour at the opening of this Asse mbly, I did state that ins ofar as we of this party are concerned that we recognize the fact that due to the economic si tuation which prevails in Canada and in Manit oba, that we could see no alterna tive whatsoever for the provincial administ ration from having to go into some further debt. At that time, Mr.

Speaker, if you wlll recall, I mentioned the fact that in my opi nion due to the fin ancial policies of the former administ ration there were many things left undone in the Province of Manitoba. I sai d at that time that we had to catch up as a res ult of the so- called penny-pinching administ ration of the for mer regime here in the Province of Manitoba and that that was adding to the debt burden of the Provincial Treasury. Now, then Sir, having sa id that, where do. we stand insofar as this motion of non-confidenc e -- which of course technically it is -- proposed by the Leader of the Opposition?

I started my remarks by saying first of all I regret very much the increase in the municipal debt, and then I went on to say that I felt there was some jus tification due to the pollcies of the former admini stration in respect of the increase in the provincial debt. Therefore , Mr. Speaker, I'm caught .and I frankly admit that l'm caughtin ap osi tion wherewe haveto weighandbalance because as mem bers ofthis Legis lature and members ofp olitical pa rties we have to weigh out the good and the bad in any res olution that is. presen ted to this House .

We , of my group, have come to the conclusion that we cannot supp ort the res olution as pr es ented by the Offi cal Opposi tion at this time for two reas ons . Firstly, because of the actions of their administ ration when they were charged with the res pons ibillty of · conducting the affa irs of the Province of Manitoba, in our opinion, led to the necess ity of further increases in our provincial debt.

And sec ondly, the reason that we have to come to the con clusion that I am now stating to the House is because we fe el that had they accepted their res ponsibility that it may have been poss ible that the municipal debt may not have increased as rap idly as it has. So I say, Mr. Speaker, as far as our group is concerned -- again I say that we are caught as sometimes all of us in an Asse mbly such as this are caught weighing the good Page 1626 April 4th, 1961

(Mr. Paulley, cont1d. ) .•••• points and the bad poin ts. And I mlght say, Mr. Speaker, ln all deference to my honourable friends opposite, I feel that I am going to have to, and so is my group, support them in rejecting the resolution as proposed by the Official Opposition, The Liberal Party of Manitoba. MR . ROB LIN: Mr. Speaker, it isn't often that we have a very extended debate on these resolutions in concurrence because most of the issues that arise have been pretty thoroughly ventilated in previous sittings of the House so I'll try not to be too long.

But I always flnd it interesting that my honourable friend after having voted sol idly for the past two years or three years, the past five sessi ons or is it four sessi ons of this Legislature, for the ca pital program of the Government of Manitoba ..•• MR . PAULLEY: You're talking of them, are you? MR . ROBLIN: Well I'm talking of them, yes. I would be glad to include my honourable -friend if he wants me to but ..•• MR . PAULLEY: No, I don't think you can. MR. ROBLIN: Well perhaps not.

But having voted pretty sol tdly for what the government has proposed in the way of capital expenditures, they always come along piously and say; "Oh, yes, but it adds to the debt, therefore we're against it.

" Well I would suggest that with the honourable exception of the Member for Carlllon who made it quite clear that he didn't intend to support our proposal for the floodway, and whatever members on the other side are in his particular sub-party, the anti-floodway sub-party -- there's at least one of them , perhaps there are more -- I can't recall any of these measures which did not secure the approbation of my honourable friends. I didn't hear any protest that we should stop the Grand Rapids pro ject; I didn't hear any protest that we should cease to support the Hydro-Electric Board in its activities.

I didn't hear any protest that we should stop the development of the Manitoba Tele phone System; nobody protested to me that we should stop spending money on the highways in the way in which we were doing; nobody has made any suggestions about that. When it comes to the Water Supply Board or those other matters of interest in the capital supply vote, everybody on the opposite side seemed to find that they were pretty good things. I find it a Httle blt diffi cult to understand how you can run with the hare and hunt with the hounds and hope to have any one take you seriously.

I think my honourable frllends opposite should start voting against some of the supply measures. I think that when the Loan Bill comes up this year instead of voting for it as they've done in previous years, they should get themselves on the record and vote against it, because they're in the ridiculous position of saying, "We approve of everything you do but we don't like the fact that this affects the debt structure of the province.

" Well, Sir, I suppose there's no point in labouring the point because it's so obvious and so clear that it re quires no emphasis froi:n me, but I would be very happy to have a recorded vote on this partic ular matter. MR . GRAY: If you're seeking opposition we'll give it to you. \ MR . E. PREFONTAINE (Cartllon): Mr. Speaker, I have not very much to say.

We have just Hstened to a speech that the First Minister has been making in this House repeatedly sessi on after sessi on since he has taken office trying to remind us all the time of the fact that we have approved of certain of his project s -- and we did approve certain of the projects because jnst after an election, after the people of the province had voted, well we said, "Let the govern ment have its way. " We in the Opposition have no responsibility in this House to announce policy, to declare policy. Our responsiblllty is to oppose poltcy if we think it should be opposed.

Now the debt has increased very substantially. Every time that we approve of certain expendi ture, we are not fully aware of the amount of debt that this will cause. Certainly not, we are not. We see that in the first two years the debt has increased by $100 million and in the last year we don't know yet. And I say that it is a terrific increase and the amount of interest that this province will have to pay from year to year is increasing by leaps and bounds.

The muni cipalities debt has increased last year by $9 million, that 's straight municipal debt, and we have no record yet of the debt that is involved witli respect to school construction, and that would be a great increase in the debt of the municipalities. We view this with alarm and we think it's a serious situation.

We have brought this resolution before the House; I think it's a proper resolution and even though the First Minister tried to ridicule our stand, all those who are fully aware of our parliamentary system wlll not agree with hlm -- will disagree totally with him, and recognize that we have a right to take this position at this time. April 4th, 1961 Page 1627

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? HON. GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Glmll): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words on this matter. I don't rise to speak often in these debates and I' m a relative newcomer to the House but it always just gets me a llttle bit to see a former Minister on this si de such as the Honourable Member for Carillon get up and speak in this way.

I was more disturbed this evening when I viewed the local television screen and then hear him rise and talk about the huge debt being created by this administration on this si de of the House, and mentions this in respect to municipalities. Now is my honourable friend suggesting that we do less in the field of welfare; that we do less to support the senior citizens and alternative care facilities; that we give less by way of cash allowances to these people?

Is he suggesting we do less in the area of mental health after introducing the heaith estima tes this year where I tried to point out the need for ever-increasing expenditures by this and succe eding governments in this area, and in the area of preventive health, and doing everything we can to support the hospitals scheme in the preventative and long.:.term nursing area. Is he suggesting we do less about constructing hospitals and meeting our obligations with the Willard Report before us and other matters of this kind?

Now I think we are trying, and have consist ently said that our policy as soon and as rapidly as we can implement it, is designed to relleve municipalities as much as possible of the long-term high cost welfare cases. And to me in these few remarks I just want to go on the record as endorsing 100 percent my Leader's view that Manitoba needs these services for the future. This is good commo nsense; it's why we're on this side of the House, and we're going to keep going forward. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I think I should put myself on the record too since we are discuss ing the matter of public debt.

I personally feel that if we want to spend these large amounts of monies, we should be able and willing to pay for them at the time that we are spend ing them, not pile up a large debt and not be able to pay them in years to come, because we know that as we pile up this debt either when the time comes to repay that debt when the bonds and securities become mature that we will have to reborrow again at that time. (Interjection) We're talking of the provincial debt in Manitoba. I'd just like to put that on the record. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR.

CAMPBELL: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the Members. The question before the House is the motion by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, seconded by the Honourable Member for Carillon that while concurring in Resolution No. 8, this House expresses its concern over the large increase in Provincial and Municipal debt. A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Campbell, Des jardins, Dow, Froese, Guttormson, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Molgat, Prefontaine, Shoemaker and Tanchak. NAYS: Messrs.

Alexander, Balzley, Carron, Christianson, Corbett, Co:wan, Evanf!, Gray, Groves, Hamilton, Harris, Hawryluk, Hutton, lngebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Asstni bo ia), Johnson (Gimli) , Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Paulley, Peters, Reid, Roblln, Scarth, Shewman, Smellie, Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Wagner, Watt, Weir, Witney, Wright and Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. MR. CLERK: Yeas 11: Nays 40. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. MR.

CLERK: Resolution (9): Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $95, 955, Taxation Branch, Treasury, for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1962.

(10) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $83, 980, Insur ance Branch, Treasury.

(11) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceed- int $11, 950, Fidelity, Hold-Up, Burglary and Safe Insurance Premiums, Treasury.

(12) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $108, 000, · Mis cellaneous, Treasury.

(13) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2, 506, 833 , Treasury.

(14) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $110, 000, Grant for 1960 Organizational Costs.

(15) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $68, 495, Administration, Provincial Secretary.

(16) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $9 ,3 00, Queen's Printer's Office, Provincial Secretary.

(17) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $31, 157, Page 1628 April 4th, 1961 (

(Mr. Clerk, cont'd. ) .•••• Manitoba Gazette, Provinc ial Secretary.

(18) Resolved that there be iranted to Her Majesty a sum not exceedlng $91, 900, Civil Service Comm iss ion, Provincial Secretary.

(19) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $286, 000, Civil Service Superannuation Act, Provincial Secretary. (20). Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $50 ,0 00, Ci vil Service Group Life Insurance, Provincial Secretary.

(21) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $59, 235, Purchasing Bureau, Provincial Secretary.

(22) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $35 ,0 00, Workmen's Com pensation Board, Provinical Secretary.

(23) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $783, 980, Admi nis tration, Education. MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Inks ter that while concurring in Resolution 23 , this House regrets that the government has failed to assume a fair share of the cost of education and has left too large a portion to be borne by the munici pal taxpayer. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. HAWRYLUK: Mr.

Speaker, I would llke to make a few com ments about this because I wish to protest on behalf of our group that this year it appears that most munic ipalitie s, and particularly the City of Win nipeg, will be penalized to the extent of quite a bit of money in regard to the formula that was set up last year. We know that for many years the Winnipeg School Board has made presentations to the past government and the present government indicating that they have always felt that the resp onsibility of paying and giving a fair share of the provin cial money to costs of-education was their obligation.

Now we know that the government has accepted a measure of financ ial responsibility and there was a change made a couple of years ago in the grant structure. But what's happened? We find that on the basis of the grant structure from last year that the City of Winn ipeg in its second full year of operation wlll get a reduction of approximately $1 mill ion or nearly one-third of its budget of $3 ,1 18 ,0 00 in spi te of the fact that there will be an increase , a definite increase, of pupils registered in the fall of 1961.

Now I wi sh to give some very interesti ng figures which I think is something we should take into con si deration, and these figures are based on the operational expenses and the grants for the entlre school divis ions of the Province of Manitoba. Now for 1960-61 the general operation grants were $20,5 78, 000 and this year on the basis of formula, due to the change ln the assessed valuatlon of property, it wlll only be $1 8, 800, 900, a decrease of a million. and three-quarters.

In regard to your capi tal grants , we should not con fuse the two at all because capital grants naturally are needed because of the fact that a lot of school building. is going on in the Province of Manitoba. There is a definite increase of a mi llion seven hundred, over seven hundred thousand dollars; the text books have gone up and wlll go up for the comi ng year by $541, 700 while the speci al grants wlll remain the same.

But, . the point is that the operational grants that this government is going to give to the school divi si ons of this province is going to be down by approximately 12 percent, a sum of $1, 800, 00 0, while that of the capi tal grants is going up approximately the same thing. But we should not obscure the fact that the reduction wlll affect a great many municipalities in this province.

On the basis of enrollment so far as the City of Winnipeg is concerned, they consider that they will get approximately 3. 4 percent more pupils in the fall of 196 1, and in order to keep pace with the figures that they used last year in order to operate the schools, they figured that they, that the provinc e, the various school districts should have rece ived $722 ,0 00 more, but instead they are going to receive approxim ately -- in round figures it comes to $2-1/2 mi llion short. I feel, Mr.

Speaker, that som ething will have to be done because the taxpayers, particu larly in the City of Winn ipeg, are up in arms, and I presume it wlll be the same in the various other municipalities in Greater Winnipe g. There's some very interesti ng figures here based on per pupil cost. For example now in Winnipeg last year on the basis of the grants, it averaged $71. 29 per pupil. What's happening for 19 61? All they're going to get is $47. 58, a reduction of 33 -1/3 percent. In the City of St.

James, this particular one is really going to be hurt and they're really going to be hurt badly because according to this figure here, they recei ved last year $93. 83 per pupil, while this year they're going to only get $53. 53, a reduction of 42. 9 percent. And regarding Seven Oaks there's a reduction of 8. 9 percent and St. Vltal l. 5 percent, so lt means that Winnipeg stands to receive 17-1/2 percent less per pupU ln 1961 than lt dld ln April 4th, 1961 Page 1629 •

(Mr. Hawcyluk, cont1d. ) ••••• 1960. On the basis of these figures, Mr.

Speaker; I thlnk our Provincial Government wl ll either have to consider this year or the next year to adjust or re vlse the formula, because there's no question in my mind, that we know this is obvious that the capital grants the government is giving -- which was long comi ng - again I wi �h to reiterate what my Leader has said in support of the remarks he made before -- the fact that we need schools, the fact that many of these schools are obsolete, the capital grants are a necessity and they must be available -- but we are fully aware that the capital grants wlll taper off, but the operational grants wl ll continue increasing from year to year.

There's no question about it; the more teachers you hire, the more pupils enrol, the operational grants will continue to rise as the years go by, so it's obvious according to what's happening this year on the basis of what the government is doing, it's obvious that lt's going to go back again to the old formula where the real estate owner, the property owners are going to foot the bills of education and I think this government will have to make some changes ln the formula.

I predict whether it's now, five years from now, ten years from now, the government will have no choice but to con tribute at least one-third towards the cost of education. This is a vecy serious matter. The Chairman of the City of Winnipeg Finance Com mittee made a report that where last year the taxpayers in Wlnnipeg paid 43 mills on their property will this year pay 50 mills , which means that any assessed property that's worth about $5 ,0 00 will be increased by approximately $50. 00, and I thlnk it affects every other municipality in Manitoba as well.

So I feel in mov ing this con currence that I have every justification to say that this government wi ll have to give a fair share and a better share to tp.e cost of education because too much of a portion wlll be borne by the taxpayer as the years go by. MR. Mc LEAN: Mr. Speaker, I thlnk perhaps there are one or two thing that I might say ln reference to the motion which has been made and the com ments that have been made by the Honourable Member for Burrows.

I think it should not be overlooked that the school grant formula now in effect was a formula recommended by a Royal Commissi on appointed by the previous government of this province and adopted, that is the formula adopted, by the present administration as being one - of course obviously this came not with any partisan sense because the Commissi on was not appointed by the present administration -- and one designed to provide a system of grants which would be at once fair and equitable as among all the citizens of Mani toba.

Now this system was hailed by school trustees and teachers and people generally and, in particular by the trustees of the school dlstrict of Winnipeg. They said, in effect, this is a wonderful system and you have been very wise indeed to adopt it and we appreciate it. Now, of course , I suppose the honeymoon is over because apparently what was of course obvious right from the beginning, that it was a formula that operated in keeping wi th economi c factors, ,< certain factors, that they're of course not happy that it is producing less money. What is over looked however are certain facts.

For example, I appreciate that it is easy to say approximately $1 million and that leaves the impressi on that it is $1 million. The fact of the matter is it's some $625, 000. That's the difference by which the grant is reduced by reason of the increase in the balanced assess ment in Winnipeg.

The second fact is that the actual lncrease in assess ment in the City of Winnipeg from last year until this year, if one applies the same mill rate, wi ll produce some $443, OOOmore, so that without any lncrease ln the mill rate Winnipeg can bring themselves within some $200 -odd thousand of the reduction in the actual number of dollars. But that's the actual increase for one year. The balanced assess ment hasn't increased for two years because we go by two-year terms. What has not been told to us is what the increase in the actual assessment has been in the term of two years.

If one wanted to make a comparison, one would have to com pare the increase in the actual assess ment as between two years ago and · now, as indeed that is the basis on which the co mparison is. made between the balanced assess- · ment because it goes by two-year terms. So I say, Mr.

Speaker, that one must view this , I think as obje ctively as poss ible, and to appreciate that while lt is true that the' monies paid by the Province of Manitoba corres pondingly decrease with the increased stability of the munic ipal corporation to provide taxes as expressed in terms of the balanced assessment, that there has been an actual increase in assess ment, more assess ment on which taxation can be based to produce the neces sary funds wi thout any increase to the individual taxpayer. It is only the difference that we're talking about; it's not a million dollars that we're discussi ng.

Now the actual fact of the matter ls , of course, that there are not many municipaliti es. Page 1630 April 4th, 1961

(Mr. McLean, cont'd. ) •• •.• The Honourable the Member for Burrows said there are many municipalities that are in this situation. That is not the case. There are many municipalities in Manitoba that will not increase their local tax requirements and, indeed, there are some municipalities that wi ll require less from their local taxpayers this year than the case of last year. I mention this to indicate that this is the operation of the formula that is designed to be reasonably fair and equal to all the Province of Manitoba.

Now, perhaps just a comme nt about the suggestion of contributing a fixed fraction, one third or a fixed percentage of the costs of the school district of Winnipeg. I think that would be impractical, and indeed, orie would have to apply that formula to the Province of Manitoba; and if you did, we would probably be paying about 133 percent of some school divis ions because of .the difference in their actual operational costs. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that we must base our view of this matter on the fact that this is a formula which is designed to be fair to all; to pro vide, as indeed it is doing, the monies in every part of the province necessary to support the same standard of program. If one were to look at the comparison, for example, of teachers' salaries throughout the province you will find that they compare most favourably throughout the province; and that has been made possible by the formula of grants, a very large proportion of which ls directed to the grant toward teachers' salaries.

The objection that is made by way of the motion before the House cannot be sustained on any rational understanding of the formula and what it is designed to do. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I feel obligated to say a word or two in support of the amendment as proposed by my colleague the Honourable Member for Burrows. When I say that I feel obligated, Mr. Speaker, I want it clearly understood that I don't feel obligated to support his resolution simp ly because of the fact that he happens to be and is -- and I'm very proud of him -- to be a colleague of mine and that each of us have the same political faith.

I'm happy to support him in this resolution because I think that he is pin-pointing before this Assembly some thing that is an actual fact. He has told us by his resolution that the government has faUed to assume a fair share of the costs of education and left too large a portion to be borne by the municipal taxpayer. Now, Mr. Speaker, for the last three or four weeks or more we of this As1:1emb ly have been scrutinizing the estimates of the departments of government and, of course, among those departments has been the Department of Education.

What do we find when we analyze the estima tes of the Department of Education? I think an analysis of this substantiates in full the contention of my honourable colleague the Member for Burrows. If we look at Page 5 of the estima tes of the Department of Education, we find that the governmental contribution to school grants in the Province of Manitoba this year have been reduced by the sum or $407, 000 over what they were last year. We recall, Mr.

Speaker, that when the Honourable the Minister of Education stood in this Assembly, while we were meeting in comm ittee, that he pointed wi th pride to the rapid ex pansion of our educational system in the Province of Manitoba; that he had categorized in his rema rks , the additional number of schools that had been bunt; the additional number of school rooms that were being provided; the additional number of students which were now being pro vided wi th education in the Province of Manitoba as a result of the policy, as he satd at that time if I recall correctly, the educational policy of the Conservative Admi nistration of the Province of Manitoba.

I say with some justifiable pride that he was able to stand up and say these things. But notwithstanding all that my honourable fri end said at that time, the fact still remains -- I'm sorry, I possibly caused that to my honourable friend from Robltn -- but by the same token, as the estima tes for the Departm ent of Education shows, as I have indicated, that there is a reduction tu the school grants from the Provincial Treasury of some $400, 000.

Now then, of necessity it must follow that if the additional facilities that my honourable friend enumerated for us in the Legislature are being provided to the school children of the Province of Manitoba, that it must cost money. If the Government of Manitoba have reduced their school grants by $407, 000 then, of necessity, the increase must have been borne at the municipal level. My honourable friend the Minister of Education shook his head when I made that last state ment. I refer him to the estima tes of the department in respect of the school grants. I appre ci ate, Mr.

Speaker, that insofar as the overall contribution to education ln the Province of Mani toba and the Department of Education, we have before us an increase of about 1. 4 mi llion overall. But the contention of my honourable friend the Member for Burrows is that there has been a April 4th, 1961 Page 163 1

(Mr. Paulley, con t�d. ) ••• corresponding increase at the municipal level in school taxes. He has , I think, substantiated the fact that these have been too much. I'm only using the figures of the department and the estima tes before us to support the contention of my honourable friend that again in this particular instance, that whUe the provincial contribution to education insofar as those aspects of education for which there is a municipal co-operation and municip al support is concerned, that their costs have gone up at the time that the provincial contribution has gone down.

I apprec iate , and I must say this in fairness to the government, Mr. Speaker, that there has been an increase of almost $700, 000 in the contribution of the government in respect of the University of Manitoba. Isn't this som ething, however, that the administration which now governs the Province of Manitoba promised to the people of Manitoba during two election cam paigns , that. they would make avaUable more educational facUlties at the higher echelons in education ? I apprecia te that. I appreciate also, Mr.

Speaker, that in respect of student instruction and the likes of that that there has been some increase in the apportionment of federal taxes or federal finances into the realm of education. But the resolution that we're dealing with at the present time deals with the question of the amounts of munic ipal contribution to the field of education. I think it has been established in debates fu the past that my honourable friends oppos ite did say to the electors of the .Province of Manitoba that they would bear an ever-:increas ing sum in proportion to that of the taxpayers in respect of education.

The very figures, Mr •. Chairman, that we have before us today dis proves that entirely. And when, Mr. Speaker, one analyses the few reports that we have al ready received from the municipalities of the Greater Winnip eg.area and some outside, it only bears to prove the contention of my honourable colleague the Member for Burrows. My honourable friend the Minister of Education when he was spe aking just a few moment ago, if I recall correctly, did say that many municip alities are not increas ing the tax burden on their taxpayers . I do not dispute , Mr.

Speaker, this statement of the Honourable Minister of Education. My colleague from Burrows has pointed out the situation in respect of the City of Winnipeg, of which he is one of the representatives. Others who are representatives of other areas , partic ularly urban areas, can also to some degree, to a greater or lesser extent than the si tuation in Winnipeg, support that contention. My honourable friend the Minister of Education can, I believe , support the contention that some municipalities in the Province of Manitoba are not being faced with increased school costs.

I would suggest to him that he analyze the reasons for them not being increased.

I think, consideri ng my friend the Minister of Education to be a reasonable individual , that he would take a second look at the estimates of his department which I say, on the basis of his figures, are $407, 000 less than they were last year, despi te the added number of school teachers, despite the added number of classrooms, that. the govern mental contribution is causing the si tuation referred to by my colleague the Member for Burrows and is adding ever-increas ingly to a burden of school costs on the taxpayers of the Province of Manitoba. MR. PETERS: Mr.

Speaker, there is one imp ortant matter that we seem to be overlooking here as far a:s the City of Winnipeg is concerned. We in this Legislature last year created a new level of government -- Metro Government. Under the formula basis, the City of Winnipeg collected their business tax. When we created Metro, Metro came along and took away 50 per cent of their business tax. The City of Winnipeg is being charged with collecting that tax under the formula basis and they are los ing that much more money and it's a fact that we shouldn't forget.

That, too, is helping to lift the cost as far as the City of Winnipeg is concerned. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. COW AN: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to point out.to the last speaker that, in return for Metro taking over that half of business tax, Metro provides services for th� City of Winnipeg. They've taken over the assessme nt; they've taken over the buUding inspections ; they've taken over the parks; they've taken over many of the streets and so on; so Winnipeg gets value for giving up that tax. They just don't give that money away for nothing. MR.

PETERS: Is that why they increased their mUl rate another seven mil ls ? MR. COW AN: That has perhaps something to do with it, but it doesn't account for the full seven mUls by any means . MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Page 1632 AprU 4th, 19 61 .

Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR . PAULLEY: Yeas and nays please, Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the motion moved by the Honourable Member for Burrows, seconded by the Honourable Member for Inkster, that while concurring in Resolution No. 23, this House regrets the government has faile d to assume a fair share of the cost of education and has left too large a portion to be borne by the municipal taxpayers. A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs.

Campbell, Desja rdins , Dow, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hawryluk, HUlhouse, Hryhorczuk, Molgat, Paulley, Peter s, Prefontaine, Reid, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner, Wright. NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Froese , Groves, Hamilton, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Ass inibo ia) , Johnson (Gimli) , Klym, Ltssaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Roblln, Scarth, Shewman, Smellie , Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Watt, Weir, Witney, Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. MR . CLERK: Yeas 18. Nays 33 . MR . SPEAKER: . I declare the motion lost. MR . CLE RK: Resolution 24.

Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not _ exceeding $30,_2 23 , 925, Educational Grants , Education. · MR . HILLHOUSE: ·M r. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the I:l:onourable Member � < for Ste. Rose, that while concurring in Resol ution No. 24, this Hou:;;e regrets that the.govern,-- ment has not made the necessa ry provisions to provide equality of educational opportunity-for-_ all children in Manitoba to the full extent of their capabilities and potentiali ti es.· Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR . HILLHOUSE: Mr.

Speaker, when the Minist er's estima tes were before the House I spoke on this very matter, and I dealt with the case of the retarded children; with the case of the hard of hearing children; and with the case of other children who required speci al educational facilitie s; and that is the matter concerni ng which this non-concurring vote deals . Since then I have had the opportunity of reading the declaration on the rights of a child, as adopted by the Commiss ion on Human Rights of United Nations in 1959. Canada, as you are all aware, is the signatory to the original charter of the United Nation s.

Canada is bound by all the covenants of that Charter and is bound by all the declarations of the United Nations . Manitoba being part·o f Canada, is also morally and legally bound by these covenants and declaratio ns .

Now it is not my intention to read all of the principles embodied in the declaration on the-rights of the child as adopted by the United Nations in 195 9, but I do wish to read to this House Princip le No. 5, which reads as follows: "T he child who Ls physica lly, mentally or socia lly handicapped shall be given the specia l treatment, education and care requred by his particular condition ." I ---" submit, Mr. Speaker, that that type of child in Manitoba is not being given that treatment. -; : · . MR . ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I'm always interested in llst ening to the Honourable Member ·· for Selkirk because he usually makes a thoughtful contribution to our debates. - I would just lLke to observe, however, that for a good many years he sat on this side of the House and supported the proposals that were put forward at that time for the ass istance that was made available to children of the sort he describes. He found it equitable to his consci ence to vote for the monies that were provided during those periods with no comp laints whatsoever that I can ever recall hearing him say.

I can tell him, and I'm sure this will make him feel a good deal better, that since this government came into office the grants for retarded chlldren of the type that he des cribes and for other sorts of retarded children have increased by approximately 50 percent. I hope that that will enable him to look perhaps a little mo_re favourably on the efforts of the present administration in respect of the problem that he mentions . MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that the Honourable the First Minister will recall and so will others in the House , that even though a lot of people have crttlclzed the former administration for not being over generous ln a lot of ways the fact ls it was our administ ration that started making spec ial provision for these children that have been mentioned. MR . GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I don't care who gets the credit, whether it's the former Liberal Government or the present government. The fact is an increase does not mean that there's a April 4th, 1962 Page 1633

(Mr. Gray, cont' d. ) ..••• comp lete amount all ocated for the comp lete education of retarded chlld ren. So the fact that the First Minister said there was a 50 percen t increase, doesn't mean anything. Sometime!> I go out collect ing for the Community Chest or the Red Cross and then a man comes up to me and says, "I'm going to increase my contribution 100 percent. Last year I gave a dollar and I'm giving now $2. 00. " Well that doesn't mean a thing, an increase of 50 percent.

The question is whether this government or the last government -- and believe me if I had to choose between the two governments I would have to cl ose my eyes and take a chance , definitely. So the question is, 50 percent, it doesn't mean anything. I'm going to support this amendment because I feel that the government, either this or the last, have not done the full need, have not done enough for those who are unfortunate in the position of be ing a retarded child. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. JOHNSON (Glmli): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to say a few remarks in connection with the resolution brought down by the Honourable Member from Selkirk. Now he's a neighbour of mine and I know his intentions are of the very highest, and I don't question that for one moment.

I, like the First Minister possibly feel that having sat in this House as long as the Honourable Member from Selkirk has, why this issue hasn't come up before, espec ially in view of the fact that -- and I wanted the commi ttee to be fully aware of this -- that in the past couple of years the Honourable Member from Selkirk I'm sure can take heart in that we have 75 beds at St. Amant Ward today. The SisterS of the St.

Boniface Sanatorium were good enough to offer us facUlties in that institution and the parents of children who are in that fac Ulty at this time will proudly tell you it is the finest of its kind in Canada. And this l:Las been told to me by many in the psychiatric field. At Portage la Prairie we have continued with those plans to provide more facilities wi th more and more emphasis on training facilities for those who are trainable and institutional cases at this time.

The Child Guidance Clinic has been created in this �ity with substantial capi tal grants of $100 ,0 00 from this department and with approximately an operating budget per year of $10 0, 000 in supporting the psychiatric

section along with the City of Winnipeg and the surrounding municipalities to provide the very type of assessment facUlties and certain classroom facUlties which are so much required by these children who are emotionally disturbed and slow learners, etc. This is a fac lllty which was not there before. Also we have met with the Associ ation for Retarded Children, whom I consider the finest voluntary organization of its kind. This gr:oup of concerned, dedicated people have taken the bull by the horns in the last five or six years and developed through the service clubs, fine institutions throughout this prov ince.

It was our pleasure in meeting with them a little over a year ago to grant their request that we increase the grant per student from $15 . 00 to $20. 00 a month; that we record a half day's attendance as a full day for grant purposes; that 85 percent attendance by any child would consti tute a full grant and so on. These were requests that they wanted made. We discussed with them at great length the possibility of provision of resident facilities for childre n in outlying areas. This has many connotations and com plications which may creep in.

This is something which our psychiatric people are not in agreement upon and now the associa tion have asked us to look at it with them. With this in mind, we have set off a sub-comm ittee of Deputy Ministers and the Director of spec ial classes and the Director of Rehabllltation to bring a report to the Mini sters on the future role of the Departments of Education and Health in this area. I feel a great deal has been done.

I can tell you from personal experience in rural Manitoba, in the Town of Glmll, nine, ten years ago when children were brought to me who were retarded and could n't be handled in school and it took me months to get an assessment made as to the future of that child and the type of facUlty and training which would best benefit him. Our assessment facU lties consisted of the small child guidance centre at the old Childrens' Hospital. They've come a long way in the last few years. And the Honourable Member from Selkirk can certainly take heart from that, I feel [n the last two and a half years.

Now I believe that this. is evolution; this is com ing and it's co ming very rap idly and it certa inly is in the forefront of the hearts and mi nds of the people on this side of the House. I just felt that this should be recorded in this comm ittee ln view of this resolution. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. IDLLHOUSE: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The �uestlon before the House ls the motion moved Page 1634 April 4th, 196 1

(Mr. Speaker, cont•d. ) ••••• by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, seco nded by the Honourable Me mber for Ste. Rose, that while concurring in Resolution No. 24, this House regrets that the government has not made the neces sary provisions to provide equality of educational opportunities for all children in Manitoba to the full extent of their capabilities and potentialities. A standing vote was taken the result be ing as follows: YEAS: Messrs.

Camp bell, Desja rdins, Dow, Froese, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hawryluk, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Molgat, Paulley, Peters, Prefontaine, Reid, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner and Wright. NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Carroll, Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans, Groves , Hamilton, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Ass iniboia) , Johnson (Gimll) .• Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Roblin, Scarth, Shewman, Smellle, Stanes , Strickland, Thom pson, Watt, Weir, Witney, and Mrs. Forbes and Mrs. Morrison. MR. CLERK: Yeas: 19; Nays: 32. MR. SPEAK ER: I declare the motion lost. MR. J. P.

TANCHAK (E merson) : Mr. Sp eaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Ste . Rose, that while concurring in Resolution No. 24, this House regrets that the government has failed to provide equality of educational op portunity for all children of Manitoba by failing to provide equality of grants among all school districts in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker put the question. MR. TANCHAK: Mr.

Chairman, I'll be very brief on this because I'm sure the Honour able the Minister of Education knows what 's in my mind, but I'm hoping that this time I'll be able to soften his heart a little more than I have been able to succeed in the past. In two election camp aigns and as well as in this House, the Conservative candidates and also the Cabinet Mini sters in this House promised the people of Manitoba equality of educational opportunity for all children in Manitoba. The word "all" children of Manitoba.

The government has failed to pro vide this equality of educational opportunities in many areas of MaD.itoba and espec ially so in non-division areas. The government, I say, still persists in be ing punitive and still persists in be ing dictatorial. The government is discrim inating against areas which failed to bend to the will of the government and I say that the government is deliberately denying teacher grants to school districts concerned - school districts which did not see it flt to accept the school divisions. Grants which rightfully should be the irs.

I'm oppos ing this resolution on the grounds that this government is not providing equal educational opportunity for all children of Manitoba. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I heartily concur with what the previous spea ker said in that not the same grants are geing made available to all school districts in the provinc e, espec ially in the area I represent which is rece iving much less in school grants.

That is one thing I have brought to the Minister repe atedly during the last two years and I hope that somet hing will be done on this matter to correct the wrong that is be ing done in not providing the same school grants for all school districts in the provinc e. MR. McLEAN: I don't suppose that there is anything that I can add to what I have said on previous occas ions on this particular subject. The fact of the matter is Mr.

Speaker, that these grants and these educational opportunities are available to all parts of the Province of Manitoba and the particular sec tions of the province represe nted by the Honourable Member for Emerson and the Honourable Member for Rhineland have chosen not to accept them. Now they did that, and that was their right, and I have no quarrel with their decis ions, but they knew beforehand. You can't poss ibly say that it was punitive becaue it was not anything .that was des igned for their particular purpos e.

It was stated in the clearest terms before the vote on February 27th, 1959, that the new grant system would be applica ble only to school divis ions. They chose not to have school divis ions and knew before , when doing so, that that was the grant system that would be applicable. I don't know what more can be said, it was a choice they made. The rules were clearly laid down; eve ryone understood-it in the beginning, But, Mr.

Speaker, I think that the resolution, if I may say so, comes with ill grace from the Honourable the Member for Emerson, because he sat in this House and he su pported a govern ment and a political party who were for years res ponsible for the greatest inequalities in educa tional opp ortunities that ever did exist in the Province of Manitoba. We're compll mented that he now feels that the new system that applies provides equallty and that he wants equality, but the question I would like to ask him: what did he do about it before this system became applicable ? Ap ril 4th, 1961 Page 1635 .. ..

(Mr. McLean, cont1d.) ••••• In 1946 there was a report by a comm ittee of the House recommend ing a system which would provide equal educational opportunities for the students of Manitoba with respect to which practically nothing was done. Later a system of what were known as secondary school areas were developed and practically nothing was done in order to implement it. Now these inequalities existed all over the Province of Manitoba and the Honourable the Member fo� Emerson and those with whom he was associated took no action to correct it.

I si mply say that we do now have a system which provides equal opportunity, a system which is available, and has been avail able to all parts of the Province of Manitoba, and that at least he _and those with whom he is asso ci ated are the last ones to be bringing this resolution before this House. MR. TANCHAK: Does the Honourable Minister remem ber when I came into this House? MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Minister sticks to his declared opi nions of last year ·and of two years and three years ago, that he wlll do nothing for those divis ions that voted no at the time of the vote. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I've said before, and I repeat, that this is ouly because of the fact" that there are ouly three-di vis ions who voted that way, an.d I dare the Minister to tell this House Lf there had been 25· that he would adopt the same policy. MR. McL.EAN: •..••.••.•• before the vote. MR. PREFONTAINE: Before the vote, yes, but if there were 25 titm-divi si ons,.half the province not getting thecsame grant the government would not stand up to the pr!'lssure. It can stand up to the pressure of three divisions, but it would not stand up to _the pressure suppose 25 or 30 had voted the other way.

The.Honourable Ministe r says that the pr�vious government did do nothing, that there was a report that was tabled liere -- well it was tabled not in 1946 but lt ·was tabled in 1945 by a Coalltlon Government, and the Conservatives -- I don't know if there is any survivor of that epic except yourself, Mr. Speaker, poss ibly -- were all in agreement. In fact the members of the_ special comm ittee had on the commi ttee, Mr.

Mlllar who was Conservative and the honourable member I believe was himsel f a mem ber of that commi ttee, �nd what was done about it was a matter of the Coalition Government, and I think the Minister is lll advised now, at least he's not on solid ground, when he attackes ouly the Liberal Party for the policy which the Coalition adopted at that time. There was equality of opportunity at that time just as much, every school district was treated the same all over the Province of Manitoba, and some school :districts were not penalized because they failed to go along with the policy of the government.

We didn't have this policy of penalizing school districts who voted contrary to government hopes or govern- . ment policy.

So I say the Minister Is lll advised to chastise a memb er who was not in the House at that time -- who came in I believe in 1957 for the first t"ime -a nd I think he is lll advised. (Inter- · ject ion) Well I know that you'll turn to riqicule· when we have no argument -- that's the.way of kids to attack and turn to ridicule or shout loudly -- but I say that the honourable. member is on solid ground when he claims that all schOol children are not treated equitably in this province-, when some districts, because they voted one way are penalized, and 1 submi t that they are penalized. MR.

ALEXANDER: Would the member per-mu; a question? · MR. PREFONTA INE: Yes. . . · MR. ALEXAN DER: How many levels and different types of school grants-were there in effect in the Province of Manitoba in 1956-5 i? · · MR. PREFONTAINE: I didn't get your question. There was too much sound around. MR. ALEXANDER: ·I said how many levels or different types of school-grants were there applicable in the Province of Manitoba in 1956? MR. PREFONTAINE: Well the honourable member knmvs very well that the schDol support, the basis of support was $2, 500 per authorized teacher and this applied all ovel'.

We had a speci al deal with respect to the Dauphin-Ochre school area and we had offered the peoplE:\" who wanted to go into the secondary school system area, we-had a special deal for them. It was available to them if they wanted them and there was no special inducement except for the area of-Dauphin. MR. M. N. HRYHOR CZUK, Q. C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Speaker, the Minister has made quite a bi t about the fact that there were three divis ions that voted no and had they voted yes they'd have received the same treatment as the other divisions in the Province of Manitoba.

Now I would like an explanation from the Minister why one certain area, a division under the name of Dauphin Ochre, voted � to the division and yet have received the same privileges as those that voted yes. �age 1636 April 4th, 1961

MR . PA ULLEY: Mr . Speaker, I know the Honourable the Minister of Education can't answer that because he's already made hi s speech . I want to just put on the record, Mr . Speaker , the position qf our group in respect of the resolution that's before the Assembly at the pres ent time . We are going to support the resolution as proposed by the Honourable Mem ber for Emerson . --(Interjection) -- No , not ashamed at all Mr .

Attorney-General because we do not feel in our group that the teachers who are teaching the school children of Manitoba should be prejudiced as they are being in these three school divisions because of the actions of the voters in the particular areas . We know well that insofar as the grant structure is set up in the Province of Manitoba that the grant structure in respect of teachers is more favorable in the school division area, of course only at the secondary level.

We feel that the school teachers are being prejudiced in the areas where they did not vote for the larger school divi sions . --(Interjection)-- I think the teachers would agree with me on this . Now then, Mr . Speaker I would say that if the people in these areas which have not decided to come into school divisions do not want the transportation grant that is available to them in respect of school divisions; if they do not want other grants that are available to them in respect of the school divisions and are paying for them and not taking advantage of it that is their business .

As far as we are concerned we want all of the pupils of the Province of Manitoba to have at their -- I almost said command but nobody commands a school teacher -- available for them the best teaching staff that it is possible . So I say, Mr . s-Peaker, the reason that we are going to support this resolution as pro posed by the Honourable Member for Emerson is because we feel that with the set-up the way it is , the teachers are the ones who are being prejudiced in that they are not receiving com parable salaries with those within the division .

If the ratepayers within the divisions them selves as I say do not want to take the advantage of the school divisions plan -- and I would sug gest to them, Mr . Speaker, and I have no hesitation in saying here this evening -- I would make an appeal to them in these areas which have not come into the school divisions plan, I would make an appeal to them at their very earliest permissi ble under the law, to reconsider the decision that they have made and come into it, and I hope that they do. Again, Mr .

Speaker, I feel that we should support the resolution because of the prejudice that is being shown, not particularly by the governmen t -- I must be fair to the government in this -- not particularly by the governmen t itself but by the ratepayers in the areas concern ed. Therefore, Mr . Speaker, we are going to support the resolution as proposed by the Honourable Member for Emerson . Mr . Speaker presen ted the motion and following. a voice vote declared the motion defeated. MR . GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste . Rose): ...• .. .. as far as our group is concern ed. MR . ROBLIN: .

Are all the members here that voted the last time? If they're not, we'll have to have a division . MR . PAUL LEY: Well, if they are not in the Assembly Mr. Speaker , we can call them in . I believe last year however if I may say to the First Minister that there was this arrange ment made . I've no objection to calling in the members, but I think we can each speak for our own groups . MR . ROBLIN: On the point of order, Mr . Chairman, my recollection is that peopie stayed in their seats and attended to the business while the·se votes are going on.

I think it is only right that we should insist on that otherwise we get ourselves into quite a mess . MR . PAULLEY: All right. You may be right on that. I have no objections . The yeas and nays , Mr . Speaker . MR . SPEAKER: Call in the mem bers . The question before the House is the motion proposed by the Honourable Member for Emerson, seconded by the Honourable :::\iember for Ste .

Rose that while concurring in resolution No . 24, this House regrets that the government has failed to provide equality of educational opportunity for all children of Manitoba by failing to .pr ovide equality of grants among all school districts in Manitoba. A standing vote was taken the results being as follows: YEAS: Messrs . Campbell, Dow, Froese, Gray, Guttormson, Harris, Hawryluk, Hill house, Hryhorczuk, Molgat, Paully, Peters, Prefontaine , Reid, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner and Wright. NAYS: Mesdames Forbes and Morrison and Messrs . Alexander, Baizley, Carroll, April 4th, 1961 Page 1637 ..

Christianson, Corbett, Cowan, Evans , Groves, Hamilton, Hutton, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Johnson (Assiniboia), Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Roblin, Scarth, Shewman, Smellie , Stanes, Strickland, Thompson, Watt, Weir, and Witney. MR . CLERK: Yeas 18, Nays 32. MR . SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost . MR.

CLERK: Resolution 25, resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $585, 790, Teachers ' Training Education , Educat ion . (26) , resolved there be granted to Her Maje sty a sum not exceeding $1, 935, 917, Student Instruction, Education. (27), resolved there be granted to Her Majesty ..... MR . MOLGAT: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable the Member for Selkirk that while concurring in Reso lution No . 27, this House regrets that the government has failed to take care of the interests of the basic export industries of this province by failing to make adequate protests against the increasingly restrictive trade policies of the Federal Government which invite retaliatory action by other countries and seriously threaten our whole. export trade and in particular our export of farm products . MR . SPEAKER: Would the Clerk inform me what Resolution No . 27 is for? Mr. Speaker put the question. MR .

MOLG AT : Mr. Speaker, this resolution could lend itself to a very long speech on the matter of trade policy, but I don't intend at this stage to make such a speech. The resolu tion is clear and states exactly the problem as I see it. There are two basic farm problems� I think the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me on that. One is price and the other is market. This one treats the subject of markets . This is of basic importance to the whole of the Province of Manitoba.

It's extremely important to every industry in Manitoba that our export trade for farm products be protected, that is be encouraged to the maximum extent. It is quite obvious that any action taken by the Federal Government to restrict trade with other countries as we have seen in the case of Japan in particular, and other countries as well, can only result in a drop in our own export of farm products . I suggest that our govern ment should be taking a much stronger case with Ottawa on this subject.

There have been re peated cases of pressu re on other governments, quotas and all the rest of this, and this can only work against the interests of the Province of Manitoba. It is most important that our government make our posi tion felt in Ottawa and exert every possi ble pressu re on them to cease this practice and to encourage international trade which is to our general benefit. MR . HUTTON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to get into an argumeni"<withthe Honourable Member for Ste . Rose about tariffs, trade and so forth. But you know I can't help wondering Mr .. Speaker, where the Honourable Member for Ste .

Rose has been living in the past three or four years . He apparently has set himself against letting any of the information· of the day, current events, current trends and so forth, he has set himself up in the position where they make no impression upon him whatsoev er . I'm not here to speak on behalf of the Federal Government, far-·from it and I doubt if there has been ,a Minister of Agriculture in the Province of Manitoba in a good many years who has taken issue with the _government ·at Ottawa as the present Minister of Agriculture has .

And when the issue is sufficient, I'm not afraid of a fight with anyone whether it be the members of the Opposition or whether it be members of other levels of government. If it's a matter of principle and the welfare of Manitoba are concerned, I'm not afraid of a fight with anyone. It happens to be a weakness of mine . I suppose it's in herited because my grandfather came from Ireland, and I guess he brought his shillelagh with him and he must have handed part of it down to me . Mr.

Speaker, since the Federal Government at Ottawa took office they have decreased the surplus of wheat that the country carried under the former administration; decreased it by some 200 millions of bushels . It was , if my memo ry serves me correctly, over 700 million that Canada was carrying in the way of surplus wheat or wheat reserve s, if you want to call them that, and at the present time there's something over 500 million bushels . I'm not patting the Federal Government on the back and saying that this is good enough.

A resolution was in troduced to the House today, or an amendment to the resolution, asking this House and the Government of Manitoba to request the Federal Government to increase and extend their efforts in the field of markets . I think it's unfair not to acknowledge the fine job of salesm anship which has. been done and the efforts which have been made on behalf of the western farmer in the field Page 1638 April 4th, 196 1

(Mr . Hutt on, cont 'd .) ....• of disposing of their agricultural products . If my memo ry serves me correctly, on the average during the past three years there has been 300 million bushels of wheat sold in the comm ercial markets . If you want to compare that with the record of the previous ad ministra tion at Ottaw a, it is something like 30 million bushels a year better than the record of that administr ati on. I can't recall in the last decade that the former administra tion in this pro vince went to bat very strenuously on behalf of the farmers of this province .

Now in addition to thi s, I think it is unfair to chastise the present administration for a lack of inte rest in the field of marketing . The Province of Manitoba , and I don't take the credit for this because it could only be done through the support of my colleagues in the Conservative Party here in Manito ba, a conference has been called to be held in Manitoba within a few weeks, at the end of April, and it is called specifically to see what can be done to solve our marketing problems, and also to look at the broad field of agricul tur al policy as it affects the marketing of our farm produc ts .

I don't want to brag --(Interjection) -- No, I don't . But I thi nk it's fair to state that the Province of Manitoba has given some leadership in this which I admit and ack nowledge is a long time area that has not received the atte ntion that it should have. But I want to point something else out , Mr.

Speaker, that this problem of marketing and of agricultural pol icy is not a problem that is peculiar to Manit oba, and Manitoba cannot solve the problem of Mani toba farmers without the co-operation of other provinces and of the Federal Government and all other bodies that are interested in the agra business of thi s country . It 's just foolish to thi nk that Manitoba can stand up and make demands by herself and hope to have any great effect upon the decisi ons that are so relative to the welfare of the farmers in this province .

We must relate our conditions and our needs to tho se of the farmers --and there are half a million across Canada--we must relate our needs and our problems to the farmers in other areas of the coun try . It is only through a co-ordinated attack, if you like to put it that way, a co-ordinated effort by all the farmers of Canada and the promotion of understa nding between the farmers in the dif ferent sections of Canada that the re is any hope that we will find a solution or even a partial solu tion to the problems that we face .

But I cannot accept the crit icism that has been brought against this government that we have failed to give the support to the farmers of Manitoba in the field of marketing and agricultural policy as it affects us as an exporting area. There's all kinds of evi dence to the contrary; that never before have the se particular problems received the att ention that they are receiving today . MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the que sti on . Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. MOLGAT: The ayes and Nays, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members .

The qu estion before the House is the motion moved by the Honourable Member for Ste . Rose, seconded by the Honourable Member for Sel kirk that while concurring in Resolution No . 27, thi s House regrets that the government have failed to take care of the inte rests of the basic export industrie s in thi s province by failing to make adequate protest against the increasing restrictive trade policies of the Federal Government which invite retaliatory action by other count ries and seriously threaten our whole export trade and in particular our export of farm products .

A standing vote was taken the results being: YEAS: Messrs . Campbell, Desjardins , Dow, Froese, Gray, Gutt ormson, Harris, Hawry luk, Hillhouse , Hryhorczuk, Molgat , Paulley, Pet ers , Prefontaine, Reid, Shoemaker, Tanchak, Wagner and· Wright . NAYS: Messrs . Alexander, Baizley, Carroll, Christia nson, Corbett , Cowan, Evans, Groves, Hamilton, Hutt on, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte , Johnson (As siniboia) , Johnson (Gimli) , Kl ym, Lissaman, Lyon, McKellar, McLean, Mart in, Roblin, Scarth, Shewman, Sme llie, Stanes, Strick land, Thompson, Watt , Weir, Witney and Mrs . Forbes and Mrs . Morris on. MR.

CLERK: Yeas 19, Nays 32 . MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. MR . CLERK: Resolution No. 28, resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1, 234, 060, Agriculture . (29) resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $86, 140, Publication and Stati stics Agriculture and Conservati on. (30) resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $551 ,8 20, Agricultural Development, Agri culture and Conservation.

(31) Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $193 ,3 00, Agricultural and Horticultural Societ ies, Agriculture and Conservation . (32) resolved that the re be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $57 ,470, Co-operative Services , Agri culture and Conservation . (33) resolved that there be grante d to Her Majest y a sum not exceeding April 4th, 1961 Page 1639 -

(Mr .

Clerk, cont' d.) .. $517, 500 , Economic Research, Agriculture and Conse rvation. (34) resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10 0, 000 Crop Insurance Agency, Agriculture and Conse rvation . (35) res olved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $449, 000 Man itoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, Agriculture and Conservation . (36) , resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $25, 000 Predator Control and Grasshopper Control, Agriculture and Conserv ation. (37) resolved there be g!"anted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1, 588, 625 Water Control and Conservation, Agriculture and Conservation . (38) resolved there be granted to Her Maj esty a sum not exceeding $211 ,6 60, Administration, Attorney-Ge neral . (39) , resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $427 ,3 80, Land Titles Offices , Attorney-Gene ral . (40), resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $294, 13 0, Law Courts , Attorney-Gene ral . (41) resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $30,8 70, Legislative Counsel, Attorney-Ge neral. (42) resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2 , 223 ,3 00 Administration of Justice , Attorney-Gen eral . (4 3) , resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $21,0 65, Miscel laneous , Attorney-Genera l's Department. (44) , resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $251, 585, Juvenile and Family Courts , Probation and Parole , Attorney-Gene ral. (45) , reso lved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $572 ,7 50 Detention Homes, Attorney-Gene ral . (4 6) , resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $80 ,2 80, Administration of Es- tates of the Mentally Incompetent , Attorney-Ge neral. (47) , resolved there be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $21, 500 , Provincial Buildings and Other Projects - Chargeable to Capital Division. (48) , resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $641, 827, Executive Division , Health and Public Welfare . (4 9) , resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $11, 314, 038 , Health Division, Health and �blic Welfare.

MR . WRIGHT: Mr . Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable the Member for Fisher that while concurring in Res olution No.49, this House regrets the failure of the govern ment to make such changes in the Hospital Services Plan so that the increasing costs would not be borne by the premium payers especially those in the low income bracket s. Mr. Speaker put the Question. MR . WRIGHT: Mr . Speaker, last year just after the House prorogued the government announced an increase of 50 percent in the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan premiu ms .

Now I wish to say at the outset that we're proud of the Plan; it's here to stay and money must be found to keep it solvent. We k:rle.F that the first few years were going to be difficult ones and this morning we heard the Administrator who gave us very sound reasons for the need for more money. When I first read of the increase in premiums I wondered of what use I was in this House, Mr. Speaker, because last time although we had a very busy ses sion , we heard not a word about an increase in the Hospital Services Plan premiums . Now many of my constituents .•• MR . JOHNSON (Gimli) : Mr .

Speaker, I want to correct the honourable member , when he says "not one word. " If he will peruse Hansard and my introduction to the estimates last year he will see where I pointed out very clearly at the end of '59 a surplus of $17 4, 000 and pointing out that the whole matter was being studied at that time . MR . WRIGHT: I accept that explanation, Mr. Speaker. Now many of my constituents were incensed over this 50 percent increase and I think they had every reason to be about it .

It wasn't only because of the large increase of 50 percent but the lack of a statement , a policy, by this government as to future increases. Now in psychology there's a principle that if you want to get along with people you must let them know in advance of changes which are liable to affect them, and in this I must say that our government was negligent . This morning we were in Public Accounts and we listened to the administrator talking about the proje ction of costs for our plan and he explained there a series of schemes by which we would have to finance this · plan and which we would have to consider .

Now, after the increase was announce d last year , my Leader made certain public statements which brought a quick reply by the First Minister in regard to the future of the Hospital Plan. I think that this is a matte r of principle, Mr . Speaker. For instance this morning in Public Accounts Committe e when we were comparing the plan of Manitoba with that of Saskatchewan someone said, "where will you find the money ?" Well, I think that's the duty of tl:t_� · government to find the money.

Had we discussed this pi an at the last sessi on -- and as I said before we fully realize the need for money -- then I think that is the time when we could discuss the ways and means of raising this money . I think it was an unfair question to put to us this morning, because I think that if the government came to us and said that this is the sit)lation, we have to have more money and we have to consider plan "a ", "b" or "c" I think that we are capable of doing that. We were deprived this- opportunity at Page 1640 April 4th, 1961

(Mr . Wright, cont'd.) •.••• the last sitting of the House . Now, if the government had brought in a resolution calling for an increase in the premiums at the last session, stating the principle that, say on an ability to pay bas is , or on a registration fee bas is, making it necessa ry to finance the balance out of general revenue or through other means , then I would say that we as Legislators would have considered this ; that would have been our duty.

We supported the plan just as we sup ported the larger school divisions so I think that the government should have no hesi tation in entrusting some of the decisions on such a large scale with us . As I said before, Mr . Speal�:er, we're going to concur in this Reso lution but I sincerely think that the government should have given us some warning at the last sitting of the Legislature in regard to the principle of just how we are going to finance our Manitoba Hospital Services Plan insurance . MR . P AULLEY: Mr .

Speaker, I'd like to make one or two comments in connection with the amendment which has been proposed by the Honourable Member for Seven Oall:s. I want to assure the Hous e, particularly those members of the Public Accounts Com mittee that I do not intend to go into the detail that I did this morning at Pu blic Accounts. I want to join my honourable colleague from Seven Oaks when he says that so many people in his constituency were incensed over the increase in the hospital premium. Such was the case , Mr.

Speaker , of people who were in touch with me from practica lly every constituency here in the· Province of Manitoba. They could see no justifica tion established by the government for the increase . There was a justifiable protest, I think, because of the fact that the increase was instituted so shortly after a session of the House last year .

I know full well that my honourable friend, the Minister of Health and Welfare can properly say, or will say, that he did not have the infor mation before him at the time that the House was in session; that it was not until the Commis sioner had compiled the document which is under consideration by the Public Accounts Committee , which was produced to the Minister after the sess ion had ceased.

I raised the qu.estion or the point this morning in Public Accounts , and I want to repeat for the purpose of the record, beca use there is no record of the Public Accounts Committee, that in my opinion, the government could well have delayed the increase that they put in some time in June of last year , until such time as the Legislature had met, and until such time as a more thorough analysis had been made of the scheme and the financial aspects of the sc heme had been made .

I think I have established· from the records of the es timates of the province that while the federal contribution to the plan is increasing due to the increased costs in hospitalization, and that while the premium holders or premium payers to the plan have had their premiums increased by some 50 percent, the Government of Manitoba has decreased its contribution to the plan by some half a million ·of dollars .

My colleague, the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks made reference to the fact that as a result of a few points raised by our group af ter the increase was announced that in the by-election at Pembina the Honourable the First Minister came to the conclusion or announced that there would be changes forthcoming or suggestions of changes forthcoming in the matter of premium collections .

If the newspaper reports are correct, he said at the nominating meeting which chose as the standard Bearer of the Conservative Party for the constituency of Pembina, the Honourable Member who now is a member of this Asse mbly, he stated that the government would attempt to try and find ways and mea ns by which the burden on low income groups would be somewhat alleviated. And I apprecia te that very, very much. But at the same time, Mr .

Speaker, at the same time , the law of the Dominion of Canada and the agreement between the Province and the Dominion states emphatically in respect of premiums, that they must be unif orm, and until the Honour able the First Minister is able to convince his compatriots at Ottawa of the changes in their legislation that the suggestions that he made at Manitou are not poss ible. The only think that is possi ble is the government itself undertaking a reduction or rather an increase in the num ber of those who are entitled to free premiums under our so cial assis tance regulations or som ething of that nature.

Suggestions have been ma de in some quarters as to the possi bility of having the premiums based on somewhat, some sort of an income basis . Again I say, Mr . Speaker, this is not possi ble under the agreement between the federal and provincial authorities until such time as the over-all legislation is changed. At least that is my under standing.

So I say the only other alternative that I can see at the present time , until possi bly _!he new deal that the Prime Minister of Canada is offering to the provinces under the Dominion-Provincial arrangements or proposed arrangements in respect of the year 1962 and April 4th, 1961 Page 1641 •

(Mr. Paulley, cont•d.) •..•• onward, whereby the province will start collecting an income tax of its own, the only alternative is a greater contribution from pr�vincial sources in to the plan itself. The Farmers' Union of Manitoba, labour organizations and many others have protested the increase in the rates, The Minister attempted to justify in his press statements as to why the increase was necessary, by referring to the fact that we were going to have to have more hospital beds provided for in the Province of Manitoba; and yet at the same time that that announcement was made, Mr .

Speaker, the hospital construction actually was under a ban of any new construction other than that which had been authorized long before the rate increase was contemplated. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that we present this resolution as a further protest to the rate increase to the premium payers of the Province of Manitoba at this stage in order to establish our position on the record.

I pointed out this morning how this rate increase in creating a terrific burden on many people , particularly in the low income groups who have two or three children over the age of 18 attending high school. or university, because as we are well aware, Mr . Speaker, that as soon as a person becomes of the age_of 18 irrespective of whether or not they have any incone or not, those who are responsible for them must start paying the premium for them.

I have had illustrations drawn to my attention where in s:> me cases people of mod est means who are attempting to give their children a better break in .life by sendfug them t'o university, than they had indeed themselves, are having to pay not only the family-premium of $72 in respect of themselves, but because of their children being over the age of 18 have also -to pay an additional premium of $36 a year twice in re spect of their children. Now these are things that we're drawing to the attention of the House: this evening; Mr. Speaker,- so that they are established on Hansard.

The question as I say is under consideration before the Public Accounts Committee . I realized that this morning I roused the ire of my honoU;rable friend the Minister of Health and Welfare ; I may well 'be doing the same again this evening.

I appre ciate very much, and I say this to him in all sincerity, I appreciate very much his keen interest and his keen endeavour .in this scheme, but I am sure that he is the type of an individual , even though it may rattle him periodically, he is the type of an individual that would give us the right to criticize and I think we are critizing constructively in respect of this scheme. So, therefore Mr . Speaker, we of this group have no hesitation in presenting this resolution on the concurrence of the

section in the estimates dealing with this matter. MR . JOHNSON (Gimli) : •.•• I just learned that in Public Accounts we're not on the re- cord and I just want to put a couple of things on the record again. I have the same high opinion of my honourable friend, the Leader of the CCF Party, I've heard him so often say the same things now that he sounds like a broken record to me , and I hope I'm going to sound like a broken record to him. But the long and short of it is that certainly we increased the premiums.

My honourable friend has suggested this evening that we should have delayed this ·increase until the Legislature met again:. Well as a responsible Minister in charge of this department and recommending to my colleagues who share this responsibility with me in this party, this side . _ r of the House , I could not justify a deficit of this magnitude especially when � close to $5 - million before this Legislature sat again. We did what we thought was right and we took this step which we knew would riot be too popular.

We had, and continue to have , the greatest concern possible for those people in the lower income groups who do need or should have or we should aim to find a measure of relief for them in our deliberations. However my whole contention and the contention of this party was to maintain the standards of care that have been established and to meet the demands which would be placed upon this plan in the future. We were determined to carry this forward, and we are continuing to seek ways and means, as the First Minister has said on so many occasions, to find a measure of relief for certain categories.

Let me make one point very clear again. The so-called deep freeze of

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-3-38a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 3rd hansardpdf 38a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b16bc7b3cecd2e4409578f6307fd959440dba7d8

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