| 455 | 456 | 457 | 458 | 459 | 460 | ||||
| 461 | 462 | 463 | 464 | 465 | 466 | 467 | 468 | 469 | 470 |
| 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
| 481 | 482 | 483 |
| Page | ||
| Petition, re Society for Christian Education ................................................................................. | 455 | |
| Resolutions, re Highway Traffic Act (Mr. Carroll) ...................................................................... | 455 | |
| Re Water Control and Conservation Branch (Mr. Willis) ...................................................... | 456 | |
| Questions ................................................................................................................................. | 457 | |
| Mr. Prefontaine (Mr. Carroll), Mr. Orlikow (Mr. Carroll), Mr. Hillhouse (Mr. Carroll). | ||
| Bill No. 26, re Health and Public Welfare Act (Mr. Johnson), Second Reading .......................... | 458 | |
| Bill No. 35, re Treasury Act (Mr. Roblin), Adjourned Debate: Mr. Campbell ............................ | 459 | |
| Mr. Paulley ......................................................................................................................... | 462 | |
| Mr. Cowan ......................................................................................................................... | 463 | |
Committee of Whole House (Supply)
| Page | ||
| Education, Statements, Mr. McLean ...................................................................................... | 463 | |
| Education Grants .................................................................................................................. | 464 | |
| Teacher Training ................................................................................................................... | 481 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker.]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions.
Reading and Receiving Petitions.
MR. CLERK: The petition of Folkert Plantings and others praying for the passing of an Act to incorporate the Greater Winnipeg Society for Christian Education.
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Notice of Motion.
Introduction of Bills.
Committee of the Whole House.
HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities) (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Provincial Secretary, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolutions: The resolutions in my name and in the name of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture as listed.
Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Chairman, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the subject matter of the proposed resolutions, recommends them to the House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution No. 1 - Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Highway Traffic Act by providing, among other matters, (a) for the appointment of a Highway Safety Board and the remuneration of the members thereof, and the payment of a fee for appeals thereto; and (b) for the appointment of a Highway Traffic and Co-ordination Board and the payment of the out-of-pocket expenses of the members thereof; and to provide further for the fees to be paid in respect of certain P.S.V. and C.T. trucks and trailers.
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Chairman, this Bill enables appeals to be made for cancellations of licenses and driving privileges under Section 115 and Section 134 of The Highway Traffic Act. These appeals will be made before this committee and if the board feel that it is in the public interest, and if exceptional circumstances exist, they may reinstate the license or the driving privileges in whole or reduce the period of suspension. The second board which is being set up by this Bill, sets up a committee -- at least a board of technical people to consider such matters as speed zones, restricted speed zones, approving of municipal by-laws respecting speed zones, and for the approval of equipment on vehicles and things of that type; and the third section of the Bill sets up the fees to be charged on P.S.V. licenses and C.T. licenses for weights in excess of those which are presently spelled out in the legislation.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Chairman, on these appeals, will they apply to a first offender, second offenders or third offenders? And does it apply to people that drive for a living or anyone who drives?
MR. CARROLL: The appeals -- anyone who is suspended under either of these sections can appeal before this board. The appeals have to be made within six months of the passing of this Bill or within six months of the suspension of their driving privileges or the cancellation of their motor vehicle registration.
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, will the appeal board findings be final or is there a further appeal to any remission board or the Cabinet?
MR. CARROLL: Yes, there is a further appeal available. That's one of the details which we would prefer to consider at a later date.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, persons who are convicted three times under Section 222 or 223 of the Criminal Code have a life-time suspension. Would those people be entitled to appeal?
MR. CARROLL: No, it's only for suspensions under Section 115 and 134 of The Highway Traffic Act. It certainly can't deal with any suspensions that are made under the Criminal Code of Canada.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, my question may not be in place but I think I have no other place to ask for it. Is it the intention on the part of the Minister to have The Highway Traffic Act revised this year? The general Highway Traffic Act?
MR. CARROLL: No, this will be the only amendment that will be brought forward by the government to The Highway Traffic Act this year.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted?
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Chairman, before you pass the resolution, I would like to make it clear that I have certain reservations regarding this appeal board and I wouldn't want it to be understood that in voting for the resolution that I was not reserving unto myself the right to raise these reservations at the proper time.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could tell us if there is any provision in this legislation to provide appeals for those who have had their licenses suspended, say, two years ago - three years ago? How far back? And if there is, what about the matter of backlog, then? Will this appeal board not have a large backlog of appeals to hear?
MR. CARROLL: Yes, it could very well have a backlog during the initial stages. We are making it retroactive in the sense that anyone who is now under life suspension has a period of six months in which to appear before the board to have their case heard.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Did I understand the Minister to say a "life suspension"?
MR. CARROLL: Of course anyone who is now under suspension will also have a privilege of appearing as well. In other words, if somebody had a six months' suspension given a month ago, they would have the right to appear before this board once it's passed and set up.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Only if the suspension was under The Highway Traffic Act?
MR. CARROLL: Yes, under those two sections of The Highway Traffic Act.
MR. GUTTORMSON: It's not under the Criminal Code at all.
MR. CARROLL: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted? Resolution No. 2 - Resolved that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Department of Agriculture and Immigration Act and Certain other Acts to provide, among other matters, for the establishment of a Water Control and Conservation Branch of the department, the employment of staff, the transfer to the Minister of the department of the jurisdiction, authority, and control over water control matters, and where necessary for purposes of water control the acquirement of land and other property, the construction of works, and the making of examinations and surveys.
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration) (Turle Mountain): Mr. Chairman, this matter was previously before the Legislature and was brought down during the past session, but instead of putting the Bill through we went to the country.
It is for the concentration of water control in one department. Where formerly the control of water and drainage in Manitoba was under the Department of Public Works, Department of Mines and Natural Resources and under the Department of Agriculture, this will now be brought under the Department of Agriculture with a board of three men, one was from the Department of Public Works, Mr. Griffiths; one who is in charge of soils for the Province of Manitoba, and one representative from Mines and Natural Resources which handled rivers and streams previously. This will bring under one board, a board to which anyone can go in regard to water problems, drainage problems, river problems and any other problems concerned with water. Details will be more apparent when the Bill comes down but to the best of my knowledge it is the same Bill that was here before.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, does the supply of potable water come under your jurisdiction?
MR. WILLIS: No.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether -- and I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether this is quite proper -- I understand that the object of this is to bring water control under one department, which I think is a very good thing. What effect, if any, will this have on the assessing which is being done, or we presume is being done, in respect to the recent flooding of the Seine River? I might say, Mr. Chairman, to the Committee that I have had one or two enquiries of recent date as to when the assessors are going to go around to assess their various damages and I'm
wondering whether or not this will speed up or deter the action in respect to the assessing of the damage in the recent flooding of the Seine River.
MR. WILLIS: This will have no effect whatever but two of the men who are on this board are on the team which is going around now and doing the assessing. They are now in the field.
MR. PAULLEY: They haven't completed it as yet, Mr. Minister?
MR. WILLIS: Pardon?
MR. PAULLEY: They haven't completed it as yet?
MR. WILLIS: They haven't completed the survey, no.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, further to the question I raised, would the Minister be kind enough, or any Minister be kind enough, to indicate under whose jurisdiction the supply of potable water will be?
MR. WILLIS: I don't know whether I understood correctly the first question that you asked. I thought it was in regard to whether it would be under this Bill. It is not under this Bill.
MR. MILLER: No - would it be under your Department?
MR. WILLIS: It will be under my Department.
MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Chairman, in the resolution I note that the board will have the right to employ staff. Does that include engineers, qualified engineers for this work or will the board be depending on engineers from some other department for services?
MR. WILLIS: It will take over immediately all the drainage and the drainage boards and all their engineers -- about 15.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution be adopted? Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole House has adopted certain resolutions and directed me to report the same and ask leave to sit again.
MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Vital, that the report to the Committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
[Mr. Carroll introduced Bill No. 3, An Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act.]
[Mr. Willis introduced Bill No. 4, An Act to amend The Department of Agriculture and Immigration Act.]
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
HON. MARCEL BOULIC (Provincial Secretary) (Cypress): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I wish to lay upon the table the Civil Service Pay Schedules.
MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Public Utilities and ask him whether he has received an answer to his letter of June 25th - the letter addressed to Mr. George Hees, Minister of Transport, with respect to the French television station in St. Boniface and, if so, whether he would be kind enough to let me have a copy or table a copy of the answer.
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I have had a letter from his office. I understand that the Minister is out of Ottawa at the present time and I expect that we will be receiving an answer when he returns. I would be very pleased to make that information available to the member - subject to the approval of the Government of Canada, we would be very pleased to give the member that information.
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Public Utilities. How many cities are being served with natural gas at the present time? Of these, how many are situated along the route taken by the Trans-Canada Pipeline? What towns or cities are to receive natural gas service in the next three years?
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Member from St. John's for having given me notice of this question. The cities which are presently being served, we will consider the Greater Winnipeg area as one, Portage la Prairie, Brandon, Neepawa, Rivers, Hamiota, Steinbach, Camp Shilo and Rivers Military Camp. Now these cities and towns, of course, are all situated within fairly close proximity to the Trans-Canada Pipeline. I think
most of them are within 15 miles of the pipeline. Now there are two franchise agreements, one for the Town of Minnedosa which has just been approved by the Municipal and Public Utility Board; and there is one other franchise which is now being considered by the Board -- that's for the Town of Miniota; and I would rather suspect that both of these communities will be receiving natural gas before too long. I'm afraid I can't tell you what other towns may be served in the years that lie ahead. That will depend, of course, on the towns themselves and the companies who are interested in gas distribution.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask a supplementary question? I wonder if the Minister can tell me which companies are -- in Minnedosa, for example, which company is that? If you don't know, could you get me the information?
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take that as notice and get that information.
MR. W. WEIR (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, if I might answer that question - it's the Inter-City Gas.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Utilities. What is the practice - and you may take this as notice of motion of question if you are not in a position to answer - what is the practice of the Manitoba Power Commission in making a charge for connecting up industrial premises with a three phase service, and whether or no any change has been effected in the practice of the Manitoba Power Commission recently in respect of making charges for such connections?
MR. CARROLL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that as notice. I don't know of any recent change in policy but I would be very pleased to look into it for you.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Second reading of Bill No. 26. The Honourable the Minister of Health and Welfare.
HON. GEO. JOHNSON, M.D. (Minister of Health and Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Provincial Secretary, that Bill No. 26, An Act to amend The Health and Public Welfare Act, be now read a second time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments to this Act in this Bill. The Health and Public Welfare Act provides for the establishment of a Public Welfare Advisory Committee and also that the Director of Public Welfare and the Deputy Minister of Public Welfare should be one and the same person. The first amendment here says that they can be separate persons. This is in line with our new Social Allowances Act where we wish to free the Deputy Minister for more administrative duties, and would transfer the directorate to the Assistant Deputy Minister, and this amendment is required. Number two - the second amendment - as we know, we have at present under The Health and Public Welfare Act, a public welfare advisory committee consisting of the Deputy Minister and four other civil servants and their duty in the past has been to review Mothers' Allowance rates, etc. Under the new Act, we felt that we would like to have the function of this committee transferred to that of an appeal board under the new Social Allowances Act. The principle would be to have this committee serve as an appeal board for provincial social allowances and to be at the call of the municipal commissioner re: municipal relief. The principle there being that the municipalities would be able to come in voluntarily or not, as they wished, in their welfare program that they will be left with. And this then - this advisory committee would also set the rates of maintenance which the Children's Aid Societies may charge the province for neglected children committed by the courts. As the Bill clearly describes, it would consist of a permanent chairman and 15 members appointed by Order-in-Council on a regional basis. We -- that would be our policy. We were not able to spell that out in the Act as I had a discussion with the Legislative Counsel. He advised us to -- the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will have to appoint them regionally if they wished. This also provides payment to the chairman -- provides for payment and out-of-pocket expenses and a small honorarium for the other members of the committee.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the First Minister in connection with this Bill? The Department of Health and Public Welfare is a very, very heavy department -- two of them. Is there any intention of dividing the departments or take out welfare for one of the new Ministers?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is in order for me to answer that question at the moment under present circumstances, but I will be glad to discuss it when the item is reached in the estimates.
MR. GRAY: Thank you.
[Mr. Speaker put the motion, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable the First Minister for second reading of Bill No. 35. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I don't know how much attention the other honourable members of the Legislative Assembly have given to this Bill, but I trust that it has been reasonably well studied, because I consider it to be an extemely important one. I don't think anyone would grasp the importance that some of us attach to it from the remarks that were made on second reading by the sponsor of the Bill. For what purpose I don't know, but certainly the Honourable the First Minister, in moving second reading, didn't indicate anything of the seriousness that I see in this Bill. I just chuckle to think, Mr. Speaker, of what would have happened if, when I had the pleasure of occupying his position, I had introduced a Bill exactly similar to this one and had moved second reading paying no more attention to it than the honourable gentleman did. I am sure that from this side of the House and from his place would have emanated a real storm of protest. I am sure the air would have been flailed and the English language would have been considerably extended while he described such an attempt to foist a Bill of this kind upon the people of Manitoba. There is no danger that he would ever have needed to indulge in those practices because I certainly would never have introduced a Bill of this kind, and if I had introduced it, then I would certainly have taken the Legislative Assembly into my confidence as to some of the implications, at least, that were inherent in this Bill. And that all the more so, Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that this Bill - the principles of this Bill was one that was widely discussed during the recent election campaign. It was not only widely discussed during the recent election campaign, but it was discussed to some extent when the House last met, because when my honourable friend the First Minister, in his capacity as Provincial Treasurer, tried to indicate to this House that he was prepared to bring in a budget showing a surplus, and did in fact lay before us the estimates of revenue, he had included in those estimates of revenue the anticipated or estimated surplus of the year just closing. Well, we said at that time, from this part of the House, that that was a fictitious surplus. That was not a fictitious surplus so far as the year just closing was concerned, but a fictitious amount to place in the revenues of the year that we were just about to enter into. We said that it was a false budget; that it simply was bad accounting; that it shouldn't be done, and during the course of the election campaign we certainly had a lot to say about that.
Now my honourable friend can say once again, as he said before and with justification, that this matter was placed before the public and that the public have given their answer. I doubt just how well the public understands these rather intricate matters. I doubt just how much attention they paid to this particular point, though I certainly was at some pains to try and see that it was brought before them. But whether the public has spoken with regard to this one or not, I want to protest again against this kind of a manoeuvre, and that's all the more reason I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, why the Honourable the First Minister, in presenting this Bill to the House for second reading, should certainly have at least indicated the scope of it. I think I should read what he said because I would like it to appear on the record along with my remarks. And this is all he said in moving second reading of this Bill -- "MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, under the present wording of The Treasury Act, it's amended by the Bill before us, that at the close of the fiscal year, if there are any excess of revenues over expenditures, that excess may be carried into the revenue division of the Consolidated Fund as a revenue of surplus or as a revenue surplus, or it may later on be transferred to, as an excess from the revenue division, to the capital division of the Fund. This amendment makes it possible, not only to transfer that money into the capital division of the fund, but also into the revenue division, as a revenue item rather than a revenue surplus." And that's all that the Honourable the First Minister said on that Bill, and if no one had raised a point, the Bill would have gone through second reading without anything more put on the record so far as the House here is concerned at this stage than just that statement. I maintain that that is certainly not a sufficient explanation,
particularly in view of the history of the discussion on this particular matter. It was discussed during the election time; it was discussed during the House sitting back in March; but even so, Mr. Speaker, it certainly needs much more discussion and the honourable members, I think, need to be apprised of the fact of just exactly what they are doing. If no one of us had spoken, then I'm sure that the Honourable the First Minister would not have said anything more on that Bill. It would have gone to the Committee and that would have been all so far as that stage was concerned.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we need to give a great deal of consideration to this Bill. I thought it was an important principle when we were discussing it in the House, back in March, that the government was attempting to show an estimate -- or a surplus in one year as a revenue in the next year. I think that is indefensible! The principle of this Bill and of the attempt that the Honourable the First Minister made in the estimates presented to us last March was to use the surplus of a year that was just closing -- the estimated surplus of that year as a revenue for the coming fiscal year -- for the next fiscal year and I think that is indefensible. I think it was against -- certainly the practice -- I think it was against the Act as it stood at that time and I am inclined to think that that is likely borne out by the fact that clause 2 of this Bill, is that this Act comes into force on the day it receives the Royal Assent, but it is retroactive and shall be deemed to have been in force on, from, and after the 31st day of March, 1959. My guess is that something of that nature has already been accomplished and that we are asked to validate it now. And while I say that I think that's completely indefensible -- I can lay no claim to being an expert in accountancy; I am not good at explaining or even understanding intricate financial statements. I've admitted that before, but I certainly try to know enough about the conduct of public business to realize that it is even more important in my opinion to have accurate and clear accounting in public business than it is in private affairs, because we should attempt to have our public business transacted in a way that is just as simple as possible under the circumstances. And to be changing such things as the format of the estimates even, to be changing the way that the public accounts are presented or the estimates are presented themselves and those things -- yes, my honourable friend the Attorney-General shakes his head as he has been doing a great deal lately and he can speak later on if he wants to on this subject, and I suggest to him that if he wants to defend this, let him get up and do so. To be doing those things is evidence in my opinion of somebody wanting to cover something up, and it's time we knew what was being covered up. Now my honourable friend the First Minister will say that he is in a position to reply on this debate, but he wouldn't have replied. He wouldn't have made these statements if someone hadn't spoken, and we'll certainly give him an opportunity in Committee, as well as the reply here, to defend this particular process.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the way the present Act requires a surplus to be handled is the right way and I want to take a little time to indicate just what that is. Section 7, which would be repealed by this Act - by this Bill - reads as follows: "Where at the close of a fiscal year there is an excess or revenues over expenditures for that fiscal year, the excess may be carried in the revenue division of the Consolidated Fund as revenue surplus; or the Treasurer may, at that time or later, transfer the whole or any part of that excess from the revenue division to the capital division of the Consolidated Fund; and shall be deemed always to have had the power so to do". If I was complaining a moment ago about the fact that this appears to me to be retroactive, I confess that likely at the time that that was put in, that that perhaps had retroactive effect as well and I call to my honourable friend's attention that this Bill carries forward that particular provision as well as the section that I read.
In my understanding of this Act, it's one that is a tremendously important Act -- The Treasury Act -- my understanding is that the only method by which a surplus can be used is by transferring it to the capital division. And then the next section goes on to tell us what can be done after it's so transferred, because after all, the only way, as I understand it, of getting this money out of the revenue surplus account is to transfer it to the capital division of the Consolidated Fund. And then the next subsection says: "Where an excess of revenues is transferred to the capital division of the Consolidated Fund as provided in subsection 7, the monies so transferred may thereafter be applied, (a) to meet capital expenditures theretofore or thereafter authorized by an act of the Legislature to be charged to capital, or (b) to meet capital expenditures, the money for which has been theretofore or is thereafter authorized by an act of the
Legislature to be raised by way of loan and expended but that has not been so raised, or in payment or part payment of any liability of the Government for which it has issued security." In other words, Mr. Speaker, the only way to get that money out of the revenue surplus account is to transfer it over to capital and then use it in one of those three ways that's indicated under that subsection. And I submit that that's the right wasy to use a surplus. And I submit that the Act should not be changed. I submit that this method of making it legally possible to use a revenue surplus of one year as a revenue of the next year is improper accounting in that it does not give a true picture of the financial statement of that particular year.
Now everybody is acquainted with budgeting to some degree. We all have to do it voluntarily or involuntarily in our own private affairs, and if any individual or company or government is fortunate enough to have a surplus of revenue over expenditures at the end of the year, then that's a fortunate individual or company or government. And I submit to you that the thing to do with it in private practice or in company practice or in government practice are the things that are mentioned here: to add to capital or to a reserve, to a bank account for an individual or to pay off a debt. Those are the things that are authorized here and I think that's the thing for a private individual or a company to do. They can do lots of other things. They can spend it as they want to on something that may not be regarded as capital; take a trip to Honolulu, anything they want to do, but for goodness sake, the one thing that I think they can't do is consider it as a revenue for their next year because surely it's not a revenue in that year. I think it's a grave error for us to consider making that kind of a change in our Act at the present time.
Now I think I know why my honourable friend has to do it. I think he's paying a debt in doing it. He's paying one to himself because he saw this estimated surplus coming up; he thought last spring that he could make it appear that the government was going to operate on a balanced budget, in fact according to him, with a substantial surplus. We maintained and still do, that he had need of it in the accounts that were presented at that time, and I've been eternally grateful that they were presented at that time so that we have them on the record and we know what we are talking about. I think my honourable friend having decided to use that surplus in that way, now finds that because of the operation of this Act that he can't lay his hands on it for accounting purposes as he had thought he could, and that he requires this Act in order -- this change in the present Act in order to carry through with his program. And I say, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion it's a wrong program and that he should not proceed with it.
Now if he's determined to do so, of course, and if those who support him vote with him, then it can be done, but to the extent that I have any experience in these matters at all, I would warn my honourable friend that he is trespassing on ground that, I think, is financially very dangerous. After all, he's going to be borrowing a lot of money in the near future, if not now. The programs that have been discussed will certainly require the borrowing of money. If it's got to be borrowed anyway, why not use the revenue for the borrowings that will have to be undertaken? It's as broad as it is long. If my honourable friend wants to argue that this is all the taxpayers' money and he might just as well use it in the current revenue division as in the capital, it's true, it's all the taxpayers' money, but in my opinion it makes a very great difference which way it is shown in our public accounts and our public accounting, and I think that's extremely important. I suggest to my honourable friend that the proper use for the surplus at all times is something along the line that is outlined now in the Act and that to change it is a retrograde step and I suggest to him that these are the kinds of things that the people who invest money are watching. And seeing that Manitoba will be engaged in a big borrowing program, I think it's very much to the government's own advantage that they should continue to follow sound practices in their treasury policy.
As far as the other honourable members of the House are concerned, I commend to them a close study of this particular Treasury Act which attempts to see that so far as possible the financial affairs of this province are kept in a very sound and very stable position, and I further suggest that this is a threat to that position. I say quite definitely that in my opinion the Bill should not be proceeded with. If my honourable friend is determined to proceed with it, then certainly, as far as I'm concerned, I shall vote against it.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a comment or two on this Bill, and I think in this it will come as no surprise to my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition that in this matter the points that he has raised have to a considerable degree our support. And I want to assure my honourable friend that had he of not raised the point on second reading of this Bill, most assuredly we would have. -- [Interruption] -- I only say, Mr. Speaker, in answer to my honourable friend, that I have recognized throughout my life a consideration for age and beauty and allowed him the first adjournment.
MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you for your courtesy ...
MR. PAULLEY: No, Sir, I was not. Now then, it appears to me that the government in presenting this Bill is departing from a practice which has prevailed in the province, not only in legislative dealings and the finances of the province itself, but also in respect of the rules and conditions they lay down for the municipalities to conduct their financial affairs, for as I read The Municipal Act, I think it's section 639, municipalities are forbidden to do what the government is attempting to do here. And before I go further, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just make this observation as to the amount of the surplus that we are dealing with at the present time, and I'm taking my figures from the detailed estimates of revenue which were presented to us in this Legislature before the dissolution of the last House. The total amount at that time of the estimated revenue accounts' surplus for the fiscal year 1958-1959 was some $3,646,900.00 and I'll agree with the contention of my honourable friend that when one analyses the revenue statement that was presented by the Provincial Treasurer last session, that when we come to the estimated surplus on current account, we find that there was a shortage between what we started off at and what we finished off with the surplus of some $215,702.00. I was somewhat surprised that my honourable friend forgot one or two pieces of verbiage he used during the election of a phony budget because certainly with the figures that we have before us, it showed to us that rather than finishing up with a surplus we actually finished up with a deficit under the terms of the former Act. And with that contention, I certainly agree with the Honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Now then, Sir, I would like to also make this comment in respect of the surplus that was created as a result of government policy in the fiscal year 1957-58. It appears to me that somewhere along the line in its conduct -- in the financial picture of the affairs of the Province of Manitoba, my honourable friends to the right, who had the reins of government in hand, had overcharged the citizens of this province through one way or another, this three million six, or had not provided the services with which the people of Manitoba were entitled.
MR. CAMPBELL: That's what Dief says.
MR. PAULLEY: Now I don't care what Dief says, it's Paulley that's talking now. And I think that that is a reflection on the former administration. However, I simply want to say this, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure that when I say this to those who have had municipal experience, that in formulating our estimates for the year we attempt to very, very closely analyse our expenditures and our revenues so that when we come to the year's end there's no substantial surpluses. Or in other words, Sir, that we levy on our taxpayers the amounts of money which we require for current operations. And I suggest to you, Sir, that if we adopt the suggestion of the Provincial Treasurer in this, we're simply not going to do that; and I say that it is not right. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out the present provisions of The Treasury Act, which I have read, and I agree with his contention. And I suggest this to the honourable members opposite, Mr. Speaker. The other day the Provincial Treasurer rose in this House and he told us that from now on the guaranteed amount of interest was going to be at 6 1/4% to our municipalities. I would suggest this, Sir, that if we have a revenue surplus to the magnitude that we have, or had last year, rather than use it as revenue for this current year in order to make my honourable friends look good opposite, that they take heed of the pleas of the municipalities, of the province and our school board which are the offspring of this Legislature and use this revenue surplus to provide low cost loans to our municipalities.
I think it will be agreed that insofar as the assessing of interest rates are concerned, it's far beyond the bounds of our municipal councils. I think it will be agreed that one of the reasons that we're having ever-increasing interest rates in the Dominion of Canada have been because of the political considerations of our government at Ottawa. I think, Sir, that one of the most important factors on the financial life -- an adverse of factors on the financial life of
the Dominion of Canada and in particular our municipalities, when the Treasurer of the Dominion Government saw fit to introduce his proposal for the bond conversion issue a year or so ago. That has reflected adversely all down the line in every sphere of our economic and financial life in the Dominion of Canada. So I say, Sir, that rather than take this surplus and use it in order to forestall increases for the services that are going to be provided in the fiscal year that we are now in, the government should use that in accordance with the provisions of The Treasury Act as they formerly were or extend these surpluses to assist further our municipalities in the provision of low-cost capital for needed projects in our municipalities.
We met this morning informally with a municipal committee in respect to the hospital at Dauphin. They have a Bill before the House asking for a debenture guarantee to the Town of Dauphin and to the rural municipality at 6% interest. The question was raised as to whether or not they are going to be able to obtain loans at 6%. The answer was they think they will be able to. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that rather than take this in as revenue the government should withdraw this Bill and take unto consideration what I think is a very vital point that I'm raising at this particular time. For after all, what are we doing? The municipal councils, as I mentioned, have to present a balanced budget with revenue which is receivable within the year and its expenditures within that year.
MR. CAMPBELL: Hear! Hear!
MR. PAULLEY: Why not the Provincial Government? We of the C.C.F., as is well known, have continuously cried for improvements in our social welfare legislation which we realize -- and in deference to my honourable friends here, it does cost more money. But I don't think that at any time, Mr. Speaker, have we suggested in this House that in order to pay for those things we should have our reserves used up or change The Treasury Act. We fully believe that if the people of Manitoba are entitled to these things, which we do think, we feel that they are prepared to pay for them within the current year and as the years go on. And I think, Sir, that this suggestion of the Honourable the Provincial Treasurer is a retrogressive step. The year will come and may come, and I'm no sage, when the reverse of the picture may be true, and what then? The burden on the taxpayers of Manitoba will be greatly increased. But I say, Mr. Speaker, to my honourable friend once again on my right, that we are vitally concerned with this very, very important matter and we do suggest to the Provincial Treasurer that he give it reconsideration and withdraw this Bill.
MR. J. COWAN (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Opposition and that the Leader of the C.C.F. are a little bit over-concerned with this Bill. I do not think that it is financially very dangerous or that it is a retrogressive step. There have been from time to time criticisms of the way the City of Winnipeg carries on its business but it has always had the very highest standing in financial circles in the municipal field in Canada. The City of Winnipeg can borrow money at a rate that compares very, very favourably with any other city in Canada, and this practice which is proposed in this Bill is a practice which has been followed by the City of Winnipeg for years and years and it has not affected their financial standing and no one has suggested that they should do otherwise. If they have a surplus in the year, they carry it forward and that is considered as revenue for the following year and the taxpayers of that day benefit accordingly. I see nothing wrong with the proposal that is before this House. The City of Winnipeg haven't suffered by following that policy and I'm sure the Province of Manitoba will not.
MR. HILLHOUSE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Ethelbert, that the debate be adjourned.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the Chair?
HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Chairman, if I may before you begin, there were three questions asked of me yesterday and I would like to give the answer to two of them. One question was to give the members of the Committee the
names of the school districts which have been declared remote school districts. I have this list here and would like to read it to the Committee -- there are 39 school districts in all. The names I will read omitting the numbers of the school districts: B..., Barrows Junction, Berens River, Beresford Lake, Burns, Byng, Churchill, Cold Lake, Cormorant Lake, Cranberry Portage, Dallas, Davis Point, D. R. Hamilton, Fairford, Gillam, Golden Branch, Grand Rapids, Green Valley, Gypsumville, Hardy, Herb Lake, ..., Lenwood - I presume that probably should be Lenswood, Lynn Lake, Middleboro, Northland, Norway House, Pikwitonei, Rice Creek, San Antonio, Snow Lake, South Junction, Sprague, Sunny Valley, Thicket Portage, Van Dusen, Vassar, Wabowden, Whitemouth Lake. 39 districts declared remote school districts under the legislation introduced last fall.
The other question was whether or not it would be possible to advise the Committee -- give the Committee a breakdown so far as the school grants are concerned as between basic and secondary as those terms were set out in the estimates which were introduced in this House a year ago. We have examined into this and the situation is, as I had expected, that this information cannot be given. There's no comparable basis upon which we can compare the two since they are entirely different systems of school grants and more so in view of the fact that we do not know under this system what portion of the general levy, which is part and parcel of the grant system, is applicable to either one. If it were possible for anyone to say what portion of the general levy is used for elementary purposes or the basic, shall we say the basic grant purposes, and what portion for secondary, one might possibly arrive at that figure. But that is not possible and it is not possible to gvie that information to the Committee.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, on that point I asked the question, and I suggest to the Minister that he must have made an estimate of amounts required to be paid to the divisions at the secondary level on the basis of the salary scale which he has adopted. And by the same token, he has to estimate in an amount available according to the elementary scale to those districts within the division. Now I can't for the life of me see why that information cannot be gotten.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, that is correct, that one does have to make that calculation, but it must be remembered that in making that calculation we are computing grants which are a combination of the general levy and Provincial Government support. And one can arrive at the total grants as I indicated to the House and gave the figures yesterday, but it is not possible to say what portion of the general levy, in other words, what portion of the total grants, which are a combination of the two sums, what portion is applicable to either elementary or secondary. And for that reason we cannot give the figures -- the breakdown as between the two with respect to the net amount of the money that is paid by the Province of Manitoba which is after all the figure in which the House is interested. The House wants to know what monies are being paid from provincial revenues toward the support of education. We can give the total but we cannot give a breakdown as between those two items for the reason that I have indicated.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I might remind the House that in former years too any provincial share is an estimate, and I remember very well in previous sessions that sometimes we were a considerable amount out in the calculation of basic grants due to the increase in the number of teachers, the information for which was not available at the time. And all I want is an estimate. Surely there must be an estimate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 2.
MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister can tell me now in what way he arrived at this $15,000,000.00 as the municipal contribution to the fund today.
MR. McLEAN: That is the third question that was asked yesterday and I haven't the answer to that question yet. I have not forgotten about it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item (2), (3), (4) - Education Revolving Loan Fund.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we haven't passed Item (4) -- Item (3).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we passed item (3) ... I called it and a voice vote said passed and we moved on to number (4).
MR. MILLER: There has been no discussion on the Revolving Fund to my knowledge. -- [Interjection] -- Well, I would like some information on "Miscellaneous Grants". I think the Minister gave a breakdown of these grants and mentioned as well that the grant to the
Home and School Association was cancelled. Now, I think that this Association has done very good work in the past and in other jurisdictions they receive a great deal of provincial support. I wonder what motivated the Minister to cancel this amount because they were very helpful to us on the Committee of Teacher Recruitment and everything else of that kind. Now, in principle, I believe, that these associations should be self-supporting and previously we had assisted them to the amount of the stationery required and then we decided to help them along a little bit more and gave them a grant for $1,000.00. I'd be very interested to find out why this grant was cancelled.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, as the honourable member will recall, I'm certain very distinctly that when the grant was originally made it was made on only for one year, by that I mean to say that it has only been made once. It was made as a one-year proposition and I believe that my understanding, my instructions and information is that that was made quite clear to the Home and School Association at that time. I do not know what motivated him to recommend the grant as a once only grant, but the reasoning behind the action taken this year was that the grant had been made on that basis and that we were not satisfied that the need for making it again had been established. There was no suggestion in the beginning that it was to be continuous year after year and, as I say, the only basis upon which we would not make it again would be that we didn't feel that the grounds for making it had been established again.
MR. L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): ... question the Minitser? Apparently the different school boards are not responsible for cases where children -- blind, deaf or dumb children and apparently the parent -- the family have to make their own arrangements and I think most of the time they're sending them to different provinces. Is there anything in there, is the government responsible for this?
MR. McLEAN: Yes, on another estimate we have the monies that are spent both for the children who are dumb children and the blind who are looked after and we will come under one of these items which covers transportation to and from the schools in question and the payment of tuition and board and room.
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, are there schools of this kind in Manitoba?
MR. McLEAN: Yes, there is one school, as the estimates will indicate, the School for the Blind.
MR. G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Chairman, would the Minister indicate where we'll find the grant to the School Trustees Association? I presume it's not under this item. Which item does it appear under?
MR. McLEAN: It's not under this item, that is correct. Now, you ask me where it is and I can't just tell you off-hand. I know we'll come to it and I know it's in the estimates.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister will forgive me if I point out that we've passed it.
MR. McLEAN: All right.
MR. MILLER: This grant is a statutory one with a limit of $5,000.00 and is paid out of basic school grants.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (b) (3) Miscellaneous Grants - passed. (4) Education Revolving Loan Fund - $140,000.00.
MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (Burrows): Regarding this particular item, I wish to commend the government for the fact that they have increased the loans available for students. I just wish to remind the House that the Revolving Fund of Loan has been in operation in some of the provinces for quite some time. I think the Province of Saskatchewan had instituted a fund of $1,000,000.00 approximately 10 years ago which many, many students took advantage of. That after year by year these governments -- our government sees fit that this particular item should be increased, because there's no question in the minds of the young people that they need assistance -- financial assistance in order to continue their education. There are just a few questions I'd like to ask the Minister and that is, what is the maximum loan that they're entitled to, and how many students took advantage of this opportunity last year, and I presume there's no interest charge, and what is the time limit for the loan?
MR. McLEAN: There's no interest charged if the loan is repaid according to the arrangements made with the borrower and the arrangements themselves are quite flexible to take into account the circumstances of the person who has borrowed the money. Just to give an
illustration, if for example a student in first year university borrowed money obviously there would be no object in requiring repayment for a term of at least four years until the student had complied with the -- or at least had finished his or her course. The term is made -- the repayments are made to begin when the borrower is able to take employment and then over such period of time as will not impose any undue hardship on the borrower. Interest is charged if the borrower is in default of reasonable repayment or if the borrower contravenes any of the arrangements regarding the loan. For example, if he borrowed money and only spent a half a year in the course, then they're expected to repay it forthwith and with interest if they don't pay it.
Now, the number of loans, I regret that I'm unable to give the House that information at the moment. If you think it's important we could get that for you.
MR. HAWRYLUK: I think it is, Sir, just to get an idea how many are taking advantage of the loans.
MR. MILLER: Under this item I take it that teachers' college students are included?
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. MILLER: And the amount, I think the Minister stated, is flexible, conditioned to the needs of the various students?
MR. McLEAN: Yes.
MR. MILLER: I wonder if he could give us a record of the previous fund. My understanding is that the record of repayment is excellent, that there were only very few outstanding accounts.
MR. McLEAN: That's correct. There's only a matter of a very few dollars that has not been collected back. Practically all repaid, that is the monies that have become repayable, have been repaid.
MR. HAWRYLUK: Just one question. I don't know if you answered or not, Sir. What is the possible maximum loan that a student can get?
MR. McLEAN: Well, I'll have to give you that information when I give you the answer to the other. I haven't got it here now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (b) (4)
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate the total amount outstanding under this loan plan, say, at the 31st of March, 1959, or the latest date he has available?
MR. McLEAN: I presume I could get that. I haven't it here now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (b) (4) - passed. Total $618,050.00. (c) University of Manitoba: (1) General Grant - $2,880,000.00.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, under this item ...
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister has any details on this or is this just the lump sum given to the University, and secondly, does this include money for the future building plans of the University or is that a separate item under Capital Expenditures?
MR. McLEAN: The building amount is included in the Capital Expenditures, which is down at the bottom of page 7. This is current operating only. I understand that it has been established policy not to divulge or give the detailed items of the University Budget. It is an autonomous institution, established by statute. They present their request to the government who place the amount that they're prepared to provide in the estimates, but that it has not been customary to go beyond this item insofar as the consideration here is concerned. I presume, of course, that anyone interested might be able to examine the budget and statements of the University itself by making enquiries in that ...
MR. ORLIKOW: On this question, Mr. Chairman, I wonder is there any money here -- I see Brandon College. What about the other affiliated colleges of the University?
MR. McLEAN: The only monies paid to the affiliated colleges are payments in respect of building, all of which is included in the Capital Expenditures item at the bottom of page 7. Brandon -- other than the University of Manitoba, Brandon College is the only institution that receives a grant for operating expenses and that is under a later item, the next two down.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, it's quite true what the Minister of Education has just said, that it hasn't been customary and I don't think it would be desirable to investigate the Budget of the University in detail. I think that we should remember that this is an autonomous body and it's highly desirable that it be kept so. But I do suggest to the Minister, that on this
item previous Ministers have given a broad outline of the activities of the University, not going into any particular field, not touching on salaries and so forth, but members did get information as to the activities in particular fields. I wonder, too, whether the Minister, when he replies, whether we would be permitted to discuss capital expansion under this? I think that that would be greatly desirable because we would probably be rehashing a great deal if we were confined to discussion of these items under the Capital Bill. I would suggest that at the same time we were permitted to do so. I think the people of Manitoba are very fortunate in having an excellent University of high standing. We have an excellent management board. We've been fortunate in having good presidents in the last few years whose aim and objectives are, and I'm talking now about the internal administration as well as the policy making body, in that they have been men of great public consciousness and a great sense of public duty, and I want to pay tribute to their efforts.
Now the sources of revenue of the University fall, broadly speaking, into four categories. No. 1 - the contribution made by the provincial authorities and that has been increased from time to time. I notice that there is an increase of around $700,000.00 in operational and I might remind the Committee that that is around $100,000.00 more than the increase which the previous administration gave in the last year it was in office. So, I want to say, that even the previous administration was wide-awake to the needs of the University and certainly could not be classified as niggardly. That, then, the provincial contribution, is one source of revenue. Another substantial source of revenue are the fees paid by the students. And in this respect it has been the desire, both of the Board of Governors and the government, I take it, to keep these fees at as reasonable a level as possible. And I think I'm correct in stating that these fees compare very favourably with fees in the larger eastern Universities and are comparable to the fees charged by the western conference.
Then there is another very important source and that is the federal contribution, both operational and for capital purposes. Now, I've never been too pleased with the formula because it mitigates against Manitoba. It is based on the population of the entire province, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, it should be based on the enrollment at the University. I might say that we complained about this formula very, very often but did not seem to get very far. And I would suggest to the Minister that maybe he, with his persuasive powers, can convince the Government, his friends at Ottawa, to amend the formula on the operatinal side at least.
A MEMBER: Hear! Hear!
MR. MILLER: I might also mention that that brings us to the field of federal aid, federal aid for education. And here too, I think I'm correct in stating that quite a few years ago Manitoba's Premier at the Provincial Conference -- Dominion-Provincial Conference, put us on record that we would not be adverse to accepting federal aid. And this was followed up by the Minister of Education for the day, when at the C.E.A. convention at the Ministers' conferences -- and I might say that the first time this matter was brought up there was extreme reluctance on the part of some provinces, and not only the Province of Quebec but other provinces in the east, to accept federal aid because they were afraid of the infringement on provincial economy. As the years went by they came around and I think I can say this, that nearly all provinces now are quite willing to accept federal aid, particularly at the University level. Now, as I define "provincial responsibility" in terms of priority, I would suggest to this Committee that the first consideration, the first claim on the public purse of the province is at the elementary level. And secondly then, the second best claim, as I put it, should be at the secondary level. And the third claim should be at the University level. And I think this is the field that lends itself very well to federal support, because by and large the product, the graduates of our University are national products because they go far afield, and are of service to the whole countryside. And I think that members will agree that we should do all in our power to augment federal contributions, particularly at this level. And if the record is looked up you will find that at successive Dominion-Provincial conferences the then Premier made the suggestion that federal aid at the University level, perhaps at the capital school support level and other levels which do not interfere with provincial economy, might well be considered by the Federal Government.
Now, the contribution at the operational level, based, as I said before, on the population figure of the various provinces, has been increased from 50¢ to $1.00. I suggest that this
amount might well be increased and I would ask my honourable friends opposite to use their best offices to firstly get this amount increased and then get the formula changed so that it will not mitigate against our province.
I've now talked about three sources of revenue. There is yet another one and that is endowment. Now, unfortunately, while this is a great factor in the revenues of many universities, I might mention McGill, and many universities in the United States of America, this is a relatively small factor in the revenues of the University of Manitoba. And I think that every avenue should be explored to see that this is increased. I think particularly industry should make a contribution, because industry is one of the great beneficiaries of the training that we give at our university. This field, too, has been thoroughly explored particularly in the United States and I hope that through the efforts or through the selling campaign -- and I certainly don't want the government to put on a selling campaign in this field -- but I think through the efforts of the University itself, that the University -- it should be suggested to the University that they put on a campaign to augment their revenue from this source. It's well established in other jurisdictions, and very fruitful, and I think that if industry is properly approached that they too, will prove receptive. I think too that the bursary system should be increased. That might be done at the federal level as well. They have quite a number of bursaries available at the University but too many are geared to one particular field and a great number of them weren't taken up in the last few years for various reasons. The individual amounts in the face of rising costs were too small or the standard set was so high that in some years, no particular student could qualify. Now, I could say much more, Mr. Chairman, I do want to reiterate we have a good University. I want to point out that I'm sure that all members of the Committee, all members of this House are interested in the welfare of the University and we will bend our best efforts to continue to support it strongly.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, while I agree with what has been said, particularly what's been said just now by my honourable colleague the Honourable Member for Rhineland, I think I could not go along with this suggestion that the Minister has made, that it's been the practice to not have any detailed discussion of the University grant. Certainly we have not had discussion of such things as salaries. We haven't had discussion on things that might be called the University Board of Governors policy. But we certainly have had discussion on the different projects with which the Government of Manitoba assists them. Research among other things. And I would like to hear -- in broad outline -- the reasons for the increase of something like $650,000.00. Because I guess that it's not all accounted for by increased enrollment and I know that the Government made some plans and promises with regard to additional support which they were going to give to research programs, etc. I'd like to know what matters have been put in hand out there in general, what considerations have been taken into account by the government in making this very great increase. Then with regard to the University in general. I agree with what my honourable colleague has said with regard to the different groups that are entitled to our -- to the taxpayers' support. First of all basic. I think we all agree with that. Second is the high school level. I think that we are not required to -- we should not be expected to give quite the same level of support to the University that we do to those other two. And that's been growing very, very greatly in recent years. I want to emphasize and re-emphasize what the former Minister of Education said a night or two ago here, about the fact that in recent years, and I don't mean always, I do mean in recent years, in recent years the University of Manitoba got every dollar that it asked of the former government. Every dollar. Both for capital and operational expenditure. And I think that's something that a lot of people have not been inclined to recognize. I want to re-state it again. They got every dollar that they asked for. And as an indication of how this particular account is growing, I would just like to mention that when I first moved into the chair that the Honourable the First Minister now occupies that the grant to the University of Manitoba, as I remembered, was just one-half a million dollars. And in that ten-year period it has more than quadrupled and as my honourable friends know, and a good many of the new members as well will know, there are other items, other items in addition to this one, and in addition to the capital support that it gets, that are very substantial as well. Those for research and other co-operative endeavours with the Department of Agriculture and other departments. So that's one of the expenditures that has been growing very, very rapidly and I don't want my honourable friend
in any part of the House to carry away the thought that the former government was not dealing very, very generously with the University. There were times back in the difficult years when this province just couldn't afford to give very much support to many of these institutions but when times were good for us, and the recent years particularly, we gave every dollar that they asked.
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to re-hash what has happened in the past and what I'm going to say is not particularly a criticism of the former Government, or of this Government, but I must disagree with the Honourable Leader of the Opposition when he suggests that we don't have the same responsibility for university education as we do have with respect to the elementary and secondary school. I would not disagree too much with the Honourable Member for Rhineland when he sets up a priority system. It does seem to me that in this age, in the year 1959, that if Canada is going to develop as it can, if we are going to use the physical resources which we have, those which we have found and the potential resources, that obviously we are going to need many more people who are trained in the various fields which our University and other Universities can train them in - whether it be in the field of geology, or engineering, or medicine, or any of these dozen of fields which are provided by the modern university. Now Mr. Chairman, this country, and I'm not blaming the former government or this government, but this country - I've said it before and I say it again today - is way behind nearly every other country in the rest of the world. In many countries, they say in Great Britain there is no student who wants to go on to University, who has the ability to take a course and who then can make a contribution to the country, who cannot go because of lack of funds. There are scholarships in Great Britain which will permit any student who can attend university and who can pass the courses, to attend. Now this is not true in Canada and it's certainly not true in Manitoba. Now I agree completely, I'm not going to repeat what the Honourable Member for Rhineland said when he said that this is a matter which requires Dominion and Provincial co-operation. Obviously the Federal Government which has much greater resources can and should be helping in the financing of this field but I for one want to reiterate, and I said it yesterday and I say it again today, I'm not suggesting that the Minister is wrong, the principle that the university is an autonomous one and we ought not to go over the budget item by item and that the members can get their budget from their statement, is correct. But I think, Mr. Chairman, that this government is going to have to, in co-operation with the University and in co-operation with the Federal Government, very greatly expand the amount of money which is allocated for scholarships because I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman -- I come from a constituency which has a large percentage of people who might be classified in the lower income group -- I'm satisfied that in my constituency and in many other constituencies in Greater Winnipeg and indeed -- I suppose it's safe to say that the percentage of students who go on to university is smaller from rural Manitoba than it is from the Greater Winnipeg area so this is true of them, too. I'm satisfied that there are hundred or thousands of students who could and should be going to university, who could take the courses and who could make a contribution to this province and to this country, and who are not attending simply because their families cannot afford the very large amount of money both in tuition fees and in maintenance which is required if somebody is to take a four or five or six year course. I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that while this is a very substantial increase that we are going to see -- and I for one would support it and I'm sure every member in this party and other parties too -- we are going to see very large increases in the amount spent in the universities and particularly, Mr. Chairman, in the field of scholarships or bursaries or whatever you want to call them because I'm satisfied that we are not doing enough in this province and in this country and we're going to have to pull up our socks if we're going to carry our load.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, all I want to add to the argument advanced by the last speaker is this -- that an investment in education is an investment that brings in high revenue. The money comes back, every cent of it. If you check all those who are a burden on the community, an expensive burden on the community, the majority, a great majority of those who have not been able to receive a proper education. You'll find them almost everywhere where the taxpayers pay very high, much less, very much less -- I mean very much more than they would pay out now for education. I know it from personal experience and I know it from young men who have given up education because their parents cannot afford it, and now they are struggling or
leaving, some of them I know even now, in a time of so-called prsperity in labour, they are still out of work; they receive unemployment insurance. Sometimes through lack of education, they cannot get a proper job, then they get positions which does not pay them well and they become delinquent, which is very expensive to the taxpayer. It is penny-wise and a pound foolish to try and save on education. If it doesn't come back this year to us while we are here, it will come back ten or fifteen years later and after all, we've got to protect the future generation and maintain everything that is dear to us now for the future. So I say that any money that we spend now for education is just like putting it in insurance and a savings account that will bring very, very high interest to the taxpayer. And let me say something else; I don't think (this will be a statement for which I'll have my head chopped off perhaps, but I will make it anyway) -- I don't the taxpayer is worrying so much about the expense it has to pay to maintain education and to maintain our institutions as some of the representatives in this House think they do. I don't think so! I don't think so! All they want is service and they are not worrying ... something else, in my humble opinion. It's probably my orthodox thinking, it may not be popular that a taxpayer is not paying enough for all the benefits he gets out of the state for all the services he gets, he is not paying enough. So why worry about this, worry about the present generation and let's worry about the future. My question would be now, to the Minister of Education, whether this amount is enough?
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I suppose that my honourable friend who just took his seat knew that he would likely bring me to my feet when he started talking abuot the taxpayer not paying enough. I think that if the taxpayer is paying attention to public affairs today municipally, starting with the school boards ...
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, may I correct? I did not say "not paying enough" -- I said "not paying enough for the services they get."
MR. CAMPBELL: Well, that's right -- that's the same thing as I see it. Well, he's not paying enough for the services that he gets. I still say that if he will start right in at the closest sphere of government to him with the school board, and follow that through to the municipality and the province and the federal government, I think if he realized how much he is paying, there would be a rebellion in this country. A lot of people would -- they don't realize the amount that they are paying to these various governments. However, my honourable friend, I know, didn't, I know, expect me to agree with him, but I do agree with him and his colleagues with regard to the necessity in these times, of university education. I do agree with that. I'm not trying in any way to decry it. I agree with their sentiments in this regard, but I don't agree with them when they try to argue from there that there are many people, according to them, that can't go to the university because they can't afford it. I agree with them completely about scholarships and bursaries where they can be shown to be really needed, but I also believe that in these times when young fellows can go out and make the money that they can in so many different places, I believe that we do not need the taxpayer carrying an increasingly heavy share of that load because I honestly believe that they young fellow who has gumption enough and intiative enough and ability enough to go out and earn some money for himself makes a better student there, and that we benefit in the long-run by having him do that. And my honourable friends keep on saying that we must have more and more and more money all the time spent on education, just because of world events and because according to them we are falling behind every other country, I don't believe we are falling behind every other country. There are a lot of these self-confessed experts that make a two week tour or something of some other country and then come back and know exactly all that attains. And I don't believe that we are falling so far behind and I maintain that we'll fall further behind, if we are now behind them -- we'll fall further behind some of those other countries, if we take away from the young people and the other people as well, the intiative to get out and do something for themselves. And what we need here is to follow the example of some of the other countries where they are working for a living, where the people are doing things and where they are looking to the future and I tell you that's what will be the salvation of this country, not in spending more and more and more of the taxpayers' money in an effort to mollycoddle all these people that they can get everything that they want.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition spoke with his usual ability, you might say. He spoke with his usual wisdom, rather. However, I don't think, and I'm sure that he will agree with me, I don't think that his remarks bear the stamp of
infallibility. It is true, it is true that it is certainly not in the best interests of students to coddle them, it is not even in their best interests to make it too easy for them financially to go to school. However, up until now in a good many cases students have been put in a position where they were not able to attend institutions of higher learning. I can give you a specific example. When I attended Beausejour Collegiate and I graduated from Beausejour Collegiate in 1953, there were 26 of us in grade eleven the year before. Fourteen went on to grade twelve of which I was one. And of the class of 26 in grade eleven, only two went on to university. And in a majority of the cases the reason for not going was in large part a financial one. Surely it is not wise to make it almost -- certainly we should not make it easy for them in a sense that they don't have to worry where the money comes from. If they fail a year, well, they are not worried because there is more money available for their education. That is not good, of course, but somewhere in between lies a happy medium and I think that we are actually, we are on the right track. It is easier today for students to attend university than it was five years ago -- certainly ten years ago. I think perhaps the major element of truth that one could glean from the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition's remarks was that we are approaching the point where we might be making it too easy but certainly we haven't reached that point yet, and I think that possibly another decade can go by before we can actually worry about that with justification.
MR. CHAIRMAN: (1)...Passed.
MR. MILLER: Could the Minister not follow the usual practice and give us the general picture of - statement about the University. We've always done that in the past. The efforts of the University ... College and so forth ...
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, it is with some regret that I confess quite frankly that I'm not in a position to give a general statement about the University. May I remind the members of the House that at our last sitting, that is when we met here before, that the annual report of the University was tabled and I presume that every member has read it carefully and will know from there -- from that document, what has been carried on at the University. The question of the increase in the amount is largely accounted for by the increased costs of operating the University since the major capital items find themselves in the capital expenditures, which will be under a capital bill to be brought in later. I hold to the position, as I indicated earlier, that it is not, it would not be proper for me on this occasion to discuss individual items of work or things being done by the University because, of course, if one went that far, you couldn't refuse then to examine matters of salary and individual salaries, if you like, and other items. We either accept the principle that the University is an autonomous body conducting its own affairs or we don't. And as of now my understanding is that we accept that principle and that I should not go beyond that statement.
One comment since we have been discussing in general the need of university education, the need of having more young men and women attend university, I think there is no substantial disagreement on that point and we are very much interested in encouraging the University to the very best of our ability. May I point out, of course, that university ecucation in itself is no guarantee of worthwhile expenditures so far as the Province of Manitoba is concerned or the Dominion of Canada, because with the university training must go the proper attitude which is a responsibility of all of us and particularly, of course, the responsibility of the homes of the Province because as one increases the education that one has, the knowledge becomes even more important that the attitude of the person who possesses that, becomes even more important, because that knowledge may be turned to good or evil depending on the attitude with which one used the knowledge that he has. And so it isn't just simply a matter of getting more students into the University, it is a matter of getting more there who have an attitude of dedication and desire to use their knowledge for the benefit of the communities in which they live and the provinces of Canada and for humanity itself.
MR. MILLER: I don't want to get up again but I do want to point out to the Minister that in previous years there was a general discussion. I myself when I sat across there refused to divulge salary questions and so forth but I did report on the activity. Now we've heard a lot in this House and out in the country that the University has expansion programs. The Minister used that term himself, the need of additional support. Well, quite frankly, this House is entitled to know and I am sure that the Board of Governors wouldn't object for the Minister to point out in
what direction are they expanding? What is the condition, for instance, we've heard a great deal about the Dental College? Surely, we can ask these questions. I don't want to know what the salary of the directors of the various departments are, but I do like to know what is the condition at the University? How do the enrolment figures compare? In what direction would they like to expand? And I might point out to this Committee that the previous Government instituted the policy of voting an operational amount and not requiring the University to account for the amount spent in each department. And I thoroughly agreed that that's the right thing to do. But heaven's above, I can't conceive that there can be any breach or any suggestion or loss of autonomy if the responsible Minister who speaks for the University gives a broad outline of their activities.
MR. McLEAN: Are you speaking of activities or expansion?
MR. MILLER: Both.
MR. McLEAN: Because expansion is a matter which will be debated on the capital Bill providing for the extension and expansion of the University facilities, and it is not a matter that is in the current estimates and would, as I understand the rules, not be proper for the matter to come before this House at this time.
MR. MILLER: But, Mr. Chairman, this House knows perfectly well that on previous occasions we discussed capital requirements and indeed they were part and parcel of the estimates of this department. And when university estimates were under consideration, there certainly was permitted discussion of expansion programs, the hopes that the University hoped to accomplish and everything else. Now I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that it's good enough for the Minister to tell the House - oh, they have expansion programs, the former Government didn't do this and didn't do that ...
MR. McLEAN: Correction -- I never said that.
MR. MILLER: Pardon?
MR. McLEAN: I didn't say anything about what you didn't do ...
MR. MILLER: Well, just a minute, just a minute now, let him hold his horses. He said the other day, he said the other day that the question of university support, or words to that effect, were a matter of disagreement between him and myself because he held different views than I did. He mentioned two things in which he differed. One was the so-called lack of leadership and the other the attitude of the previous Administration towards the University. And it's right in Hansard. Now I think he owes it to this Committee to explain in what respect his attitude is better than the previous one. He can't hide what the University are going in expanding. I thoroughly agree, I wouldn't take part in a general discussion on comparative salaries between this University and others but surely we can have a general statement as to the activities and the plans at the University.
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Why don't my honourable friends take the advice of the Minister? I am quite sure that we can have a debate on these matters, they are very interesting matters, indeed. The Minister is saying, and I support him, that he doesn't wish to discuss it on this item. He intends to discuss it on capital, because it isn't included in this item. This item includes the operating expenses of the University. Operation does not include their capital expansion plans or their plans for the future. We'll be glad to have a general debate on that matter. All we are saying is that we don't wish to discuss it at this moment.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, with all due deference to the First Minister, I submit that if there is a capital expansion program, there is an operational expansion program as well and it might best be dealt with at this time.
MR. ROBLIN: Certainly, but it doesn't arise until the capital expansion program has been started and put into effect.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Chairman, I don't see the logic of that argument at all. In the first place, what assurance have we that there is anything for the University in the capital item under this ...
MR. ROBLIN: Only the word of the Minister.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: No, we haven't even that.
MR. ROBLIN: Yes, you have.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: No, we haven't. He said we'd discuss it when we came to that but that is no assurance that there is anything under that particular item for the University. I think
that the Honourable Member for Rhineland is correct when he said 'let us discuss under the item we are under.' How do we know in advance as to what there is under the capital for any of these items? We do not know. In the past, our estimates showed them and we could discuss them logically in the right place. Today we have to anticipate that there is an item in Capital. We don't know whether there is or not, and I say it is very illogical to take the stand we wait until we come to Capital and if it is there, you can discuss it and if it isn't, you are out of luck.
MR. ROBLIN: Not at all, I'm sure there is something in Capital.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, this is very interesting and I would like to have a report from the Minister and I don't think this comes under capital expansion because I think it is something that we dealt with in the previous Legislature, and that is, I would like to know where have we gone or where are we going in respect of the Faculty of Dentistry? We had debates here for many long years before a start was made. I would like to know whether or not we are still having students taking dentistry in Alberta, I believe we had them before -- or whether or not we are producing the dentists now in the Province of Manitoba and what numbers they are being produced and the likes of that? And I think that that is proper right under this item because if my memory serves me rightly, all of the expansion appropriations have already been passed and I would like to -- if the Minister is able to give us an outline of what the situation is in repsect of the Faculty of Dentistry and are we making advances in that?
MR. ROBLIN: I would suggest that the proper Minister to deal with that matter would be the Minister of Health.
MR. PAULLEY: It's under Education, though.
MR. ROBLIN: Well, it's also under Health. It is perfectly true that the universities do provide the facilities, but if you are asking for a technical report on what's going on in the facilities of the Department of Health -- of the Dentists' College -- it would seem to me that the Minister of Health would be well qualified to answer that, just as I feel that there must be many questions in the minds of members respecting the Faculty of Agriculture at the University and the expansion plans that may be envisaged there. Now, I think it would be more conducive to getting a debate and getting the maximum information if we let the Minister of Agriculture deal with that particular point. But I don't think that the dentistry one should necessarily be discussed here. I agree that it is a subject that should be discussed, but I suggest that it should be discussed at another place.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection whatsoever, as to which of the honourable gentlemen occupying the first bench answers the questions or give us the outline but I do suggest, in the past, that it's been under the Department of Education that we have discussed this because of the fact it pertains specifically to the University. And I'm sure my honourable friend, the Minister of Health and I am sure the Committee will have no objections if he answers the question for the Minister of Education and I think the time is opportune right now for a review of that.
MR. JOHNSON (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, I am quite willing to give you what information I have right off the top of my head, as it were, but, if there are any further questions the gentleman would like, I would be glad to obtain this because I probably have been in a position to hear more of what is going on at the Dental School than the Honourable the Minister of Education. As you know, they got going last fall with the class of 30 and the boys that were at -- one or two students were down in the United States, and I think one or two were in Alberta -- and these boys were assisted through bursaries to continue their courses outside the Province because the senior years of the Dental Faculty had not got going this year and they started off with their first year in the Dental School with the first class last fall. And I understand that they hope to have everything in readiness to -- it will take a couple of years to build up these senior classes as you can understand, there will be some in second year next year. And I might add they have excellent instruction, as my young brother was their demonstrator in anatomy this year and he said that everything went very well. But other than that, as for capital expenditures and so on, I can't say but the aim is to graduate 30 a year ...Beg your pardon? [Interjection] Well, it would take four years, three more years.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item c. (1).
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, following that line, I would like to have
some information about the Faculty of Education with which the Minister of Education is very familiar, number of graduates, students, what are the possibilities for an expansion there, and so forth?
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, I am not able to advise the House of the number of graduates. I know there were some 52 students enrolled last fall. I cannot say what the possibility of expansion is because obviously the applications for enrolment are not in yet. I would hope, of course, that it would be three or four times as many as last year. The Dean of the Faculty of Education who has been Dr. Lacerte came to this Province from the Province of Alberta, had undertaken as a temporary measure to be the Dean of that Faculty, he has now undertaken another task in the field of education and Dr. J. M. Brown, who has been on the staff and who was formerly a member of the staff of the Department of Education has become the new Dean. I think there is nothing further, that they are still conducting their classes in the old buildings that they were before and hope to have a new building for the Faculty of Education.
MR. HAWRYLUK: I believe a few years ago back, the members thought that it was about time that the Government saw fit to build a new building for the Faculty of Education. The buildings that they are using at the present time are very inadequate. They are temporary army huts put up during the war years for students, and any visitor coming on the campus would sometimes wonder whether it is a mirage that he sees when he comes to that end of the campus and sees those huts up there. He just wonders what's the purpose of those huts there when you have such beautiful buildings on the campus. And last year the Government saw fit to spend money on a new Science Building and an Agricultural Research Building, an Architectural Building, a School of Dentistry and so on, and I just wondered whether if this Government will do something about building something worthwhile for the students of the Faculty. I think it's about the worst building we have in Canada for students that are to be the future teachers of this Province.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to press the Minister to discuss the Capital estimates under these estimates if he prefers not to, and I think he's quite right in taking that position if he wishes to. I wonder if he could give us though, just in line with the suggestion that's been made, any indication of how much of the building project here is allocated to the University? Is it all, half, or ...? If my honourable friend hasn't that at the moment, I don't press the question, because we can find it out when the time comes, but I think it would be an indication of the expansion program that they are carrying on to know just how much of that or approximately how much is for the University.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the capital expenditure item, which is at the bottom of page 7 in the estimates, covers capital expenditures at the University of Manitoba, Brandon College and the affiliated colleges. The amount for Brandon College and the affiliated colleges is relatively small, that is in relation to the $5,085,000. I'm not in a position to give the exact figures but would be able to do so on the Capital Bill, or hope to be able to do so on the Capital Bill. But the most of that money is certainly for the University of Manitoba because the other two items are of the smaller amounts.
MR. CAMPBELL: The construction grants for schools throughout the Province are contained in those other items that we have already passed? There are none of those in this?
MR. McLEAN: No, there's none at all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The University of Manitoba (1) General Grants - Passed; (2).
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, on (2) I notice that it indicates that last year the expenditure was $55,300. My copy of estimates for last year indicates an essentially higher figure. I presume there has been some transfer. Could the Minister indicate what it is?
MR. McLEAN: I'm sorry, I didn't follow your question.
MR. MOLGAT: Item (2), Grant for Non-Recurring Expenditures. The expenditure last year indicated in the left hand column is given as $55,300. My copy of estimates for last year giving the same figure shows $115,000. Now I presume there has been a change due to the change of format.
MR. McLEAN: Yes. ... If the Committee will give me a moment here, I can give you that. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that question off-hand, but I can tell you exactly what is included in these items and perhaps we'll -- the First Minister is correct, the balance is in the Capital Supply Bill, in what is called non-recurring expenditures are certain items as follows: Back service deposit for Employees' Pensions - $30,000; Agricultural Engineering
Equipment - $5,000; Geology Department Equipment - $5,000; Micro-biology Moving Equipment - $500; Pharmacy Equipment - $21,000; Bio-chemistry Equipment - $10,000; Civil Engineering Equipment - $10,000; Surgery Equipment - $1,100; Library Equipment - $4,300; Arts School Equipment - $2,000, - a total of $88,900; and the balance of the items which were formerly shown in the non-recurring expenditures are now in the Capital Supply Bill with the other items, that is, in that portion which applies to the University of Manitoba.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item (2) Passed. Item (3) Brandon College, $120,000. ...Passed.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister would be kind enough to give us the report on the activities of Brandon College. How they are doing in the field of education; whether they still operate two classes - at two levels for students entering the educational field and, in general, how they feel about everything in Brandon. And I think we should ask the member for Brandon to make a speech as well, as he did on every other occasion.
MR. ROBLIN: ...will be satisfied this time.
MR. MILLER: They were satisfied before...Don't laugh - don't laugh, we did all right at Brandon.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the items of expenditure for the teacher training that is conducted at Brandon College is found under Item (3) (c) 2, and perhaps there I could give the House the information as to enrollment and so on. However, Brandon College has continued this year to provide teacher training for the Province of Manitoba and are paid under the terms of the arrangements, which I will be glad to indicate when we come to that item. They have the largest class of what one might term elementary students -- that is, elementary teachers that they have have ever had, and graduated 99 on the 18th of June, 1959. In addition, they conducted classes for the graduate students, those with their Arts or Science Degree, for the training in the Faculty of Education training. We are eminently satisfied with the way in which they have conducted those programs for the Province of Manitoba, although quite disappointed in the small numbers that have taken the Faculty of Education course.
As to the College generally, again they have had a satisfactory year; a full enrollment, and they are rapidly becoming the, shall we say, the educational centre for the western part of the Province of Manitoba, and it is our hope that with the encouragement that we are prepared to give them and the financial assistance that we are prepared to give them, that they will expand and become an even greater influence in the educational field, particularly in that part of the Province. Brandon College has the obvious advantage which goes with any small college or small training institution, in that it has -- there is a very close and worthwhile relationship between the students and the instructors and perhaps a better training on that account, because that is certainly an advantage in any educational institution.
We have had very harmonious relations with the president and the directors of Brandon College. They, some time ago, informed us that in order to bring the salaries of their staff within some reasonable range of the salaries being paid to comparable positions in the University of Manitoba, and also to bring them into some relationship with the salaries that would be paid to the teachers of the Province of Manitoba under the very fine scheme which we have instituted in the way of grants under our new plans, that it would be necessary for them to increase those salaries, and that in order to do so they would require additional assistance from the Province of Manitoba. They presented us with the figures of their budget and indicated that what they hoped to do in that respect would require approximately $50,000 more than they did -- I'm sorry, not $50,000 but $30,000 more than they had received from the Province of Manitoba last year, and we agreed to increase the assistance in that amount, that is, from $90,000 as an operating grant to $120,000, which is the amount requested in these estimates. They anticipate a larger enrollment and for that purpose, and this will appear in the Capital Expenditure Bill, they have a building program planned and all ready to start which will increase their student capacity and also eventually add to the accommodation -- living accommodation -- which they have there. Under the agreements with respect to the elementary teachers and secondary teacher training courses at Brandon College, there is an item later of $70,000, which is the estimated amount which will be asked -- for which the House will be asked to approve, and in the Capital Supply Bill, an amount of $500,000 as a basic grant for additional buildings, plus some added amounts according to the formula which is part of the plan under which we are assisting affiliated
colleges. Brandon College remains as an affiliated college through the University of Manitoba, but in a slightly different position from the other affiliated colleges in that it is the only college which receives an operating grant from the Province of Manitoba.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask how the seed industry at Brandon is doing.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a question which can more carefully be or more properly be asked of the Provincial Treasurer. This arrangement between the Seed Cleaning Plant and the Province of Manitoba is rather beyond my limited power of comprehension. It is one of the most complicated things that I think I've encountered, but I can say this, that they have received from the Trust, the monies - that is Brandon College has received from the Trust the monies that they are entitled to receive under the terms of the agreement and that is part of their budget in the regular way. I am not in a position to say whether that arrangement has proved as profitable for Brandon College as might have been hoped by those who fathered it some time ago.
MR. R. O. LISSAMAN (Brandon): Mr. Chairman, when I -- a few years ago -- sat on the other side of the House, I used to find it a bit tedious at times when back benchers got up and patted the Government on the back and I was going to spare the Honourable Member for Rhineland that, but since he has suggested that I make a brief speech on Brandon College, I'll proceed. I think I should tell honourable members a bit of the background of Brandon College and the relationship to the governments in the past. For years, when I first came in here, the grant had been $22,500 from the Government of Manitoba. And every year, excepting one, during that time that I sat in the opposition I rose and spoke for Brandon College. That one year being a time when the College itself was making direct negotiations with the Government and I didn't want to embarrass those feelings in any way, shape or form. I must say, however, that in listening to the Minister for Rhineland he has certainly developed a lot of new ideas since he ceased to be Minister of Education. I listened with a great deal of interest and extreme interest to his reasons as to why the Federal Government should support education in this Province, in fact all across Canada, and I though it an excellent parallel to the case of why the province within Manitoba should support the Brandon College. He mentioned that it was desirable, of course, to keep fees down. Well, certainly that is a very desirable thing in all colleges and universities and that was one of the problems that we were facing all during those years. I am glad that eventually public pressure pressured this gentleman into acceding to some of the demands of Brandon College because it's too bad, though, that they didn't see the light sooner because it is only within the last two years of office that they did increase the grant. Nevertheless, it was appreciated and I want to thank them, and certainly thank this Government for the support Brandon College is receiving now. Every citizen of my city is very grateful. Brandon College is a small liberal arts college and as the Minister of Education has pointed out, it is different than some of the other affiliated colleges in that it is a non-denominational college and it is owned by the citizens of western Manitoba and operated by a Board of Directors. And due to that one factor I believe warrants, and should rightly demand, support from the Provincial Government. Now I remember too well, over the years, how we pressured the Honourable then Minister of Education, the Member for Rhineland, to accede to our wishes to try teacher training at some centre outside of Winnipeg and it was only after a few years of pressure that he agreed to extend that privilege to Brandon College and as the Minister of Education has told us, it was an immense success, a growing success and I am sure will continue to be a success. Now Brandon College, as the Minister suggested, is launching an expansion program. We hope to have a completely modern, up-to-date campus arrangement within the next foreseeable years. We have acquired property, or in the process of acquiring property -- it is almost finalized -- and that is the Memorial Stadium which is adjacent to it, which will and can in the future become a site for future expansion to Brandon College. I can assure the honourable members that the people of Brandon are behind the Brandon College and are very proud of it. They support it through their municipal taxation and we do think that it is the college of Western Manitoba.
MR. MILLER: I'm indebted to the Honourable Member for Brandon for making these few comments and I am grateful to him that for some things at least that I have done in my sinful past, he is duly appreciative. Now he accuses me of changing my mind. Well, I can assure him that I have changed my mind very, very often and I suggest too, that when he mentions the fact that I was opposed to the establishment of another Teachers' College or as it was then called,
Provincial Normal School, at another point in the Province, he is also correct. But when it appeared that this work might be well taken on by Brandon College, I know he will agree that it didn't take us long to make up our minds and we had very amicable arrangements and I think generous arrangements with Brandon College, particularly in connection with teacher training.
MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Chairman, I recall quite well the time when Brandon College authorities came to the Government of Manitoba previous to 1940 -- I think it was 1937 -- to ask for a grant. And it was a denominational college at that time. It was granted $2,250 and I know that the caucus -- $22,500 -- and the caucus I attended was plainly told on behalf of the citizens of Brandon that this was the maximum grant that they were expecting to get at any time. And the sum was approved. Under protest by some of us, including myself I might say, to a certain extent, because at that time it was a denominational college. It has ceased to be, apparently, during those years -- it is non-denominational now, but I'm wondering at times whether other colleges, like St. Boniface College, who is doing a splendid job in Manitoba of training university students -- a splendid job! The same things can be said of St. Boniface College as have been stated about Brandon College right now. And why does the fact that it is a denominational college, like St. John's and Wesley, deprive St. Boniface of some assistance with respect to operating costs? I'm glad to see that this Government has carried on the policy of the previous Government to give construction grants, but I am wondering if it is fair to just give one college, a liberal arts college, grants, assistance, and not to the other colleges in Manitoba.
MR. LISSAMAN: I think the Member for Carillon forgets that it was previous to that time a denominational college. It was a Baptist College. But at the time of that re-organization when the A. Mackenzie Foundation was set up and the Government entered into the arrangement, I think then it became a non-denominational college at that time.
MR. PREFONTAINE: Quite a few years. Maybe ten years before the grant by the A. Mackenzie Foundation.
MR. LISSAMAN: Yes, but that time it became a non-denominational college.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sub-total - University of Manitoba... $3,038,900...Passed. Resolution 22.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I notice Item (d), now there is no figure for it. Could the Minister give us some ... I presume it is because of the change in the textbooks.
MR. McLEAN: Previously it was necessary - I shouldn't say necessary. Previous policy was to put in an item as a subsidy to the Manitoba Text Book Bureau, which had the effect of lowering the costs of textbooks to the students. Now that the Province of Manitoba is providing the textbooks there is no need for the subsidy.
MR. HAWRYLUK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up this particular item. I am very much interested in several problems that I think will come about. I think the public as a whole will accept the idea of free textbooks but I think in the administration setup it might create a bit of difficulty and I would appreciate some information here because it does apply particularly, in my case, in the school district that I teach, what the Department of Education intends to do about first, when is it intended that these books will be sent to the various districts, what time of the year - whether it is the latter part of August or so? And the most important thing that I think that we require: Is, is the intention of the Government to send out record sheets for each student in which the list of books will be stated and those record sheets will be kept on file as is customary for every book that is handed out to each student? And I was just wondering if it was the intention of the Department of Education to send out these particular sheets with the necessary information. And the second point that has been asked of me by quite a number of people outside of Winnipeg, which have been offering free textbooks for the past 15 - 20 years, whether it is the intention of the Department of Education to ask caution fee money from each student, which personally in my own opinion is an excellent idea - an excellent idea! I would certainly not like to see the Government merely give the books out to the students and say this is yours, because I'm afraid chaos - there will be a great deal of losses of books, mutilation of books involved and I think we have to take the precautionary measures in order to safeguard that. Now the important thing is that the books are various prices and various grades are allotted these books, the cost varies from Grades I to Grades XII and is it the intention of the Government to tell the school boards in all parts of Manitoba that they should charge a minimum fee
for the caution because I think it is a necessity and it's a must. And also the third point is: What is the estimated cost that you think will be in regard to these textbooks for the coming year?
MR. McLEAN: The estimated cost of the textbooks, and this is included in item 2 (a), is $900,000. The other questions relate to matters of detail in the regulations concerning textbooks. I regret that I cannot give specific answers to the honourable member at the present time and would have to check the regulations before being able to do so. I'll be glad to try and get that information for him.
MR. CHAIRMAN: ...Education grants.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, on this matter of textbooks, is it intended to cover all the textbooks from Grades I to XII completely?
MR. McLEAN: All of the authorized textbooks in Grades I to XII in the public schools.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I've had the matter brought up to me in that regard in Grades I and II in particular where it is said that there are a great number of work books which are as such textboods and are required by the students and I understand that those are not being covered.
MR. McLEAN: That is correct. They are not included.
MR. MOLGAT: But are those not part and parcel of the books that are required by the students in order to take those courses?
MR. McLEAN: Well, I am not perhaps in a position to say that -- they are not authorized textbooks in the sense in which that term is understood, and I believe that I am quite out of my field when I make this comment, that some teachers do not believe in the use of what are called work books. And they are not being supplied under this particular provision.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Chairman, when textbooks are given out, do they remain the property of the Province, do they become the property of the School District or where is the ownership lodged?
MR. McLEAN: The ownership remains with the Province of Manitoba. I hope that each book will have a stamp on it or something to indicate that fact, to be returned at the end of the term by the student and to remain the property of the Province of Manitoba.
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the questions of the Honourable Member from Ste. Rose. These work books might not be the wish of all the teachers but certain teachers definitely require them and I know - because I have four daughters about that age and at least one third of the cost is in work books in those grades that the member from Ste. Rose talks, and I can't see why they shouldn't be included like the others. They are definitely required by the Department of Education.
MR. HAWRYLUK: In my experiences ... oh ...
MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, now that that matter was raised, I would just like to express a humble opinion on this. Just for the sake of information for the two honourable members that asked about this particular item, work books as such are not authorized books -- text-books -- furthermore, I understand that these textbooks are to be used from one year to the other and work books, of course, cannot be used unless you would want the children to take an eraser and erase every line for the sake of writing over it again. That's all I wish to say on that.
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I well see that the honourable member is a bachelor. Of course he told us that previously. But I think that the important thing here is the cost to the parents and I'm speaking not as a teacher but as a father of four daughters and I know that these work books are definitely required - it's a must. The children must have them and I think they definitely have something to do with the cost of books to the parents.
MR. HAWRYLUK: Mr. Chairman ... it has been our experience in many years that we have had textbooks to be bought by the parents that we have from time to time had staff meetings in which the teachers concerned suggested certain type of work books. Not all work books are feasible and I think the fact that the cost of these work books are not very much -- I think that any parent that is getting a free set of textbooks will not mind paying a few cents for a work book, because once they are used, you cannot use them again. And then again, each teacher or each school has a preference for the type of work book they want their child, or that particular child to use, whether it is in mathematics, or literature or another subject. Now I think that particular -- I would certainly leave that to the discretion of the principal and the teachers
concerned, and the fact that the cost is slight, I think you can get a good work book for about a dollar -- a dollar down, and I would say that in this particular case, one of the reasons why the Government I don't think can go ahead and say that you are going to take this particular work book because it might not be feasible and agreeable to other teachers concerned.
MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, to clear the record, it was inferred that I was not concerned with the cost of textbooks. I merely advanced information and insofar as the cost to parents is concerned, certainly I'm as concerned as members to my right.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I think it's right to say that the City of Winnipeg has been giving school books for some time. What has their experience been in this regard? Did they give the work books?
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, the City of Winnipeg gives textbooks but doesn't give work books and one could argue that possibly they should but the point has already been raised by the member for Brokenhead that a work book once used is finished and so it's not a loan in the same sense as books are. The city has been supplying free textbooks and requiring students to return them and I assume that the province will do the same and will set up -- I'm not so certain as my honourable friend from Burrows that a caution fee or whatever he suggested, is necessary -- but certainly the province will be, as the city has, setting up procedures to get the books back in adequate condition, but you can't get back the work books and I don't see that they are in the same category. Of course they're an expense but they're certainly not in the same category as textbooks which can be used for a number of years.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I might add that it has been the practice in a great many school districts to supply, in the country as well, to supply free textbooks; and I might say that the use of work books varies very greatly in various schools and there has always been trouble with the amount of money that parents claim to have spent. Now the required textbooks are those that are authorized and there are student aids consisting of work books, teacher's aid, some teachers say, send the kid home and say "You must have these additional books", others use a different method.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister be kind enough to give us information regarding the government policy dealing with distribution of these free textbooks? Or was it done when I was called to the 'phone?
MR. McLEAN: How do you mean?
MR. GUTTORMSON: Well, I'm referring to say, for the sake of argument, a number of students starting school. Who will decide gets the new books and who gets the older books?
MR. McLEAN: The local school authorities. The required number of textbooks will be provided to the school and it will be the responsibility of the school to allot the textbooks among the students themselves. What rules they will use I am not in a position to say.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Will they decide which books can be used over again and which ones can't be?
MR. McLEAN: Well, we will operate on the basis that every textbook, unless of course changed, as a textbook that is, taken off the authorized list, that every textbook is good for four years use, and the school will be supplied with the necessary number of new textbooks to keep them up to the proper quota, and it will be their responsibility to see that the texts are kept in condition for use for that length of time.
MR. HAWRYLUK: Mr. Chairman...clarify that question. It is a question that possibly some parents are going to feel that they are being discriminated against, but I think that most school districts have been given instructions because we were asked to buy some of the books from the students, and we had assessed these books and I think the prices were stated as to the amount given. There was only one set price given for a book provided it was in good condition, but I think the policy will be in most cases that, for example, in the distribution of books for next year, I'm speaking about, say for instance, in my school would be to be fair with the children and the parents that you'd have to give some new ones and some old ones together, because I don't think you could turn around and give a brand new set of books to one student and give another student a second hand set. But I think that will be the procedure that most school boards will have to operate in order to make it feasible and fair for all children and parents concerned.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, what has happened to the old books? Are the students that own them today going to be paid for them?
MR. McLEAN: Yes, they have already been paid.
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, in view of what has been said, wouldn't it be a good idea to maybe start these free books in Grade III or IV because there's no doubt that, going back to these work books, that especially in Grades I and II - Grade I that these work books are at least half of the required books, and I doubt very much if a child starting in Grade I will take care of the books and that these same books will be used for four years. I think if that's the case, it would be advisable and it would be a big saving in starting in maybe Grade III or IV. The cost of it, it is true, is not as great in these grades but I doubt very much, as I said, if these books will be used for four years and the work books make at least half of the total books in Grade I and II.
MR. McLEAN: Well, that's an interesting suggestion. I'm afraid we're embarked on the policy of providing all of the authorized texts from Grade I up. We'll have to examine it as our experience shows. I would be inclined to think that perhaps the Grade I students will probably take care of the texts just about as well as the others. I might tell the House that I still have my Reader from Grade I and that's quite a few years ago that I had it.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to carry this matter of the work books too far but it was brought up to me by people in my own constituency and by teachers in fact who regard it as quite a problem. They tell me that 3/4 of the texts in Grades I and II are these work books. Now if they're not approved by the Department of Education, then I would suggest that the department should issue a directive to teachers saying that these are not approved and that the department suggests that they should not be used. If they should be used and if the department approves of them, then I think the department should pay for them.
MR. McLEAN: The teachers already know or should know that they're not approved by the Department of Education.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item No. 22 - Education Grants - $22,441,950.00. Passed. Item 3 - Teacher Training (a) Administration (1) Salaries.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister...that's quite a change in format again. What items are contained under (a)?
MR. McLEAN: Well, has the honourable member last year's estimates before him? There is included in this item under No. 3 what was formerly listed under 1 (c) of the estimates last year - Registrar's Office. The teachers advisory service which was listed under 3 (b-1) last year. Supplies and expenses - teacher's advisory service 3 (b-2) 3 (h-2) Office Supplies, a portion under 1 (b) and printing, a portion of the printing which was listed under 5 (c) in last year's estimates. The Teachers' College was listed last year under that same item - Teachers' College, and the supplies and those items that follow were all under item 3 of last year. Construction, alterations and renovations item that is shown in this year's--under 3(b) - 3 were found last year under 6 (a), the item of 6 (a). Printing, a portion of the printing item which was last year found in 5 (c) is now found in this section - the printing relating to summer schools and Brandon College secondary which last year was found under 2 (a) that is 2 capital A (b-5) is now found in this item. The Manitoba School Journal last year shown under item 5 (b) is now under this item, under this section.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I'm still a little bewildered. My question was under 3 (a)...I suggest to those members who laugh that they're just as bewildered as I am, only they won't admit it. 3 (a) - 1 -- we're dealing with 3 (a) - 1 and that was the question I asked.
MR. McLEAN: The salaries are the salary of the Director of Teacher Training which is a new position proposed to be established; a Clerk-Stenographer which is a new position, Advisory Teacher which is a position which is already in existence, Clerk-Stenographer II, Clerk-Typist I; and a transfer of certain employees from the Registrar's Office, making a total of $26,440.00 - seven persons there. Now this appropriation provides for the salaries and expenses for a new branch. The Director of Teacher Training. The Director and his secretary will be new staff. Other staff transferred to the branch have been in the department in previous years. The function of this branch will be the co-ordination of teacher training activities which now involve Manitoba Teachers' College, the elementary teachers there,
the Brandon College, the Brandon College Faculty course and secondary teachers; the University of Manitoba Faculty of Education, the Chief Inspector of Schools and all summer school activities and in-service training. I might just point out that the number of teachers employed in the province has increased from 4,500 in 1947 to 7,000 as of today.
MR. MILLER: What is the increase over last year, Mr. Chairman?
MR. McLEAN: The number of teachers? The increase is from 1957 to 1958, was an increase from 722 to 812.
MR. MILLER: The Director of Teacher Training as I understood the Minister will be the Director in charge of all teacher training activities and that poses somewhat of a problem again, doesn't it? Because he will have to deal with two faculty courses over which we as a department or as a government have no jurisdiction. And I was just wondering how--has he ascertained the wishes of the University in this case, or of Brandon College--or how is this individual going to function without transgression on their particular local autonomy?
MR. McLEAN: The appointment hasn't been made, these estimates haven't been passed yet. The function of the Director of Teacher Training insofar as it relates to the University, and there is no intention that he will in any way interfere with the University or with the course, but he will be the officer in the department responsible for reporting to the department and to the government, with respect to that particular faculty at the University. His position of course with respect to the faculty course at the Brandon College is a little different because that is directly paid for by the Province of Manitoba and perhaps would have a closer relationship to that function at Brandon College, but again in co-operation with Brandon College, because it all has to be in co-operation with these other groups, and he would also be responsible for the over-all supervision to the Manitoba Teachers' College and for the teachers' advisory service and also under that department will come the Manitoba School Journal. One of the most important functions however, that such a person will have and will promote is the recruitment - if one might use that term - of students for all of the various training centres for teachers, and the selection of those people, that is, working on the proper methods of selecting students who are likely to make good teachers, and the certification of teachers, summer schools, in-service training, placement of teachers and the evaluation of the various procedures and examinations that are given, along with the records that pertain to the teachers throughout the province. Functions that are now -- I'm sorry, I was looking at the wrong sheet here -- he won't have that responsibility, that will come under the Registrar which comes under the Director of Curricula. But the general overall supervision of the teachers, the courses they're given and their training.
MR. MILLER: I noticed with interest, Mr. Chairman, that the main function or one of the main functions of this position is to stimulate recruitment of teachers. Does that mean that the position of -- I forget just what it was called. We had an individual who was responsible for stimulating the interest of high school students, university students and so forth, as a matter of fact that was his whole job, and teacher recruitment and retention. Does that mean that that position will be abolished?
MR. McLEAN: Well, that position in a sense as such, doesn't exist because what ...
MR. MILLER: That was his assignment, he was a former school inspector and that was his whole assignment.
MR. McLEAN: Well, one of the inspectors as a part time matter only, is performing that work now and the proposal is to continue that except that he will be doing it under the supervision of the director.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, in the old estimates $4,000.00 was voted for an item 5 (f) Incidentals and Unforeseen. How much is the Minister voting for Unforeseen items in these estimates and where do they appear?
MR. McLEAN: I'm sorry, you say 5 ...
MR. GUTTORMSON: 5 (f) in the old estimates. [Interruption]
MR. McLEAN: Of course, I don't believe in incidentals and unforeseen. It's now in ...
MR. MILLER: I want to tell the Minister you'll find quite a few.
MR. McLEAN: That item was included in Item 1 (b) in the present estimates - Office Supplies, Expenses, Equipment and Renewals, and amounted to $5,000.00 as far as these
estimates are concerned.
MR. MOLGAT: ... duplicate ...
MR. McLEAN: Pardon, pardon.
No, they are definitely Office Supplies, Expenses, Equipment and Renewals, -- not unforeseen at all.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, at the present time as I understand it, we are operating two teachers colleges, the one here and then the association we have with the Brandon College. Some years ago, I believe the Honourable Minister himself took the course at the Dauphin School, if I remember correctly. Is he contemplating at all the addition of such a school in Dauphin now or in other points of the province?
MR. McLEAN: I wish to thank the honourable member for a very fruitful suggestion.
MR. MILLER: ... Well, I might believe it was more than a suggestion. The honourable gentleman referred to several planks in the Conservative Party platform. Referred to Dauphin, referred to Brandon, and that has been mentioned. I think they have changed their attitude towards expansion of, expansion of teacher training facilities and I'm very glad that they've arrived at the solution that was arrived at by the previous administration.
MR. MOLGAT: ... Swan River ...
MR. MILLER: That's a good question.
MR. MOLGAT: ... apart from being a very fruitful suggestion. Is the Minister giving it consideration at this time?
MR. McLEAN: The matter of the expansion of teacher training facilities is always under consideration and ...
MR. MILLER: ... serious or sympathetic?
MR. McLEAN: There is an item which is provided...we will come to it in -- I don't know how long from now, but we'll come to it, for additional teacher training facilities. Now whether that will be in any particular location, I'm not in a position to say. I, as a general matter, I believe that it is a good idea to diversify throughout the province facilities of this nature but there are no specific plans under consideration at the moment with regard to the location of teacher training facilities in any particular point in the Province of Manitoba.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Passed. (a) (2) Supplies, Expenses, Equipment and Renewals - passed. Sub-Total $33,240.00 (b) Manitoba Teachers' College. (1) Salaries - passed.
MR. D. ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, an item I want to raise is not specifically to do with salaries, at the same time I don't quite know where else I might raise it. I refer again to the question which I and several other members raised, question of raising the standard of the people attending the Teachers' College. Now the Minister pointed out that this year the use of permit teachers has been abolished. He also pointed out that the syllabus, I think, of the Teachers' College says that Grade XII is required, and of course if there was 600 applicants who had Grade XII who applied that they would be given preference -- I'm just speaking from memory as to what he said -- and that those who only have two clear subjects in Grade XII or three or four or anything less than a full Grade XII standing, wouldn't be accepted.
I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this isn't in my opinion quite good enough because this is precisely the argument we used to hear advanced for the use of permit teachers. We wouldn't have permit teachers if and when there are enough qualified teachers to fill the classrooms of Manitoba. Well, I think that this year the Minister took the step of saying we're simply not going to accept any more. What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that what we need to do -- I don't say this year particularly -- what we need to do is to say that we won't accept anybody in the Teachers' College who hasn't got a full Grade XII. Now those provinces and states in United States which have adopted this policy are getting enough teachers, as a matter of fact -- I'm speaking from memory now, -- but there's one state at least in the United States which adopted a policy of saying in four years, that is beginning one year they would only take people who had a complete first year; the next year they would only take people into their teachers' college who had a complete second year; the third year only these people who had a complete third year and at the end of four years they would only take people who had a complete B.A. and it worked, they got the teachers. Now Saskatchewan, Ontario are getting enough teachers who have a complete Grade XII and ... [Comment] ... Well, I understand you can't take ...
MR. ROBLIN: I would like to raise a point of order here. The honourable gentleman's
speech sounds very much like the one he previously delivered, and when we had a general debate on the Minister's salary, which I think we all enjoyed very much, I thought we had at least a gentleman's understanding that we wouldn't repeat the same points again when we came to the items in the estimates. I don't want to interfere with the opinion the honourable gentleman wishes to express, but on the other hand, most of the things he said I am under the impression he said before, and it would seem to me that it would be well if we used a little restrain here and refrain from threshing the same old straw again. His points certainly registered with me on the previous occasion and I'm sure it registered with the Minister.
MR. SPEAKER: It's 5:30 and I now leave the Chair.
Page revised: 6 December 2011
