| 463 | 464 | 465 | 466 | 467 | 468 | 469 | 470 | ||
| 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
| 481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
| 491 | 492 | 493 | 494 | 495 | 496 | 497 | 498 |
MR. CHAIRMAN: In listening to the discussion this afternoon with as much interest as anyone and was almost envious of the man who referees at a wrestling match. But I see the clock is moving along rapidly and while we wouldn't wish in any sense to curtail debate, I do speak tonight for the utmost co-operation that we might expedite matters.
Item 1. Item 3. Item ...
MR. P. WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Chairman, I tried to get up off my seat before but I couldn't get a chance. And I'm a little bit surprised and disappointed in the action the Agricultural Minister takes and some of the honourable members in deficiency payments. Does the Minister believe in deficiency payments and if so, how he would implement them to bring the grain farmer to the fair share of national income? When he said $1,500.00 per farmer was "up in the sky", -- which it did not bring the farmers to the fair share of national income for all those three years which deficiency payments were asked for. I get the impression from the Honourable Minister and some honourable members too, questioning the 300,000 name petition, also the 1,100 delegates who went to Ottawa to present the farmers' dilemma, knew what they were after. I'm surprised to hear such statements made. Also payments on acreage basis is not practical. I don't want to go into detail again as how you did when I brought in the resolution. Just turn to the page 169 in Hansard and there it is itemized. I'm sorry that the First the Honourable Minister is not here, but on October 23rd -- that was the opening day of the Session last fall, 10:30 -- when the Honourable the Minister appeared on T.V. He was questioned on the farm policy and he said this, "The farmer does not need to be subsidized and he's not at present time in favour for such." He went on to say that he approved the family size farm, and farm credit. Mr. Chairman, how can you preserve a family size farm on credit? Credit is very useful when it's used properly, but it can be disastrous too. A razor is a good thing as long as it is used for shaving, but it's a dangerous thing when used to cut come-one else up. It would be far better if farmers could make a living without have to load themselves up with debts and interest payments, just as a job is the best form of unemployment insurance.
Prices that will pay a farmer at a decent rate for his work are better by far than any plan of farm credit. Credit is a stop-gap but it can also be a mill stone. So we farmers would place our emphasis on such things as more agricultural research; fair prices for the food we produce; putting a halt on inflation; and preventing those from whom we must purchase our equipment and supplies from making too big a percentage of profit at our expense.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have here a clipping -- I'm not going to read it -- but the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa is changing his tune and I believe the farmers from the west will welcome the news. I also hope that the tune will be to the extent of deficiency payment which would cover the labour and cost price of raising hogs. He declares himself, with the hogs, that he might have to turn, himself, and pay deficiency payment, instead of the Stabilization Bill 237.
Again I must emphasize we not only need deficiency payment on one farm commodity, but on the other fields as well. It will bring the whole Canadian economy to stability as has been promised to us by the Prime Minster of Canada -- that all groups of people will get a fair share of the national income. Now, Mr. Chairman, it could be that the farm mass delegation had something to do to change the Minister's mind. I recall when Bill 237 was only in introducing stage in the House of Commons, our C.C.F. M.P.s fought bitterly against such legislation, particularly our former farmer member for Springfield, Mr. Schultz, but without no success. Even the farmers, some of them, do not see the daylight that the C.C.F. were trying to help them. So what happened? The majority of the farmers voted against themselves on March 31st last. The outcome of that election -- was farmer's march to Ottawa, pleading and begging for their rightful share. And some of our M.P.s have this to say, and I quote. I'll just read you the headlines to speed up, as the Chairman requested. "M.P. says farmers march that of hysterical mob". Well, I'm surprised, very much surprised and disappointed,
that our M.P.s, those that we elect, called the farmers a hysterical mob.
Mr. Chairman, I'm hoping for my fellow farmer that next announcement that comes from Ottawa, "Deficiency payments on western grain for the years '55 and '56 and seven". But judging from the government group of this Legislature, that they are not in favour of deficiency payments on bushel basis. Can we have an explanation to how or if anybody has word from our Prime Minister of Canada that he is prepared to pay on acreage basis?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 4 - Weeds Publication Statistics - $22,000.
Item 5 - Agricultural Development - $103,68...
MR. C. L. SHUTTLEWORTH (Minnedosa): Mr. Chairman, would the Minister indicate how many ag. reps., if any, or districts that they have established. How many ag. reps. appointed and how many assistants?
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration) (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Chairman, we have made arrangements for eight additional ag. reps. and have made arrangements for four additional home economists and I think we have four of the ag. reps. employed now. We're still seeking four more.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: For the current year, or the year just gone by, Mr. Chairman, have you set up any new ag. rep. districts or do you intend to work from the same district and have assistants? In my opinion the idea of having the districts as they are or maybe a few additions and then having assistants work out of those offices is the best approach to it.
MR. WILLIS: Our present plan, and in some cases we hope, that when we have them trained under another ag. rep. we may send them out to districts where they are required.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: I think that's important, Mr. Chairman, in the development of the whole programme, because it gives an opportunity for the students who are training in agriculture to actually get out in the field and do some work and it also give the officials of the Department an opportunity for to see their abilities develop and the particular aptitudes that they have and an opportunity for to pick out the top men for the work out in the field. So I'm glad to hear that the Minister does intend to carry on in that manner.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 6 - Horticultural Society - $21,700.
Item 7 - Co-operative Services - $11,295.
Item 8 - ...
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: Mr. Chairman, on Co-operative Services, I'd like to enquire from the Minister in connection with storage space, particularly for vegetables. The suggestion was made last spring that the Province of Manitoba should enter in under the Co-operative Assistance Act that they have at the Federal level for assisting in providing storage facilities for vegetable growers here in the Province of Manitoba.
You know that here in this province our acreage in vegetables is developing year by year and I think that there is a good opportunity to take advantage of the Federal legislation where, as I recall, the Federal Department of Agriculture will provide by far the largest part of the capital money in the way of a loan. And I think it would be great assistance to our vegetable growers here in the Greater Winnipeg area if the Province were to enter in to some type of an agreement such as that to provide for storage. That was under active discussion last spring and I wonder if the Minister could report to the House if progress, if any, has been made.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, we have such an application from the largest co-op in this area. We have been in touch with the Federal Government. We're trying to work it out. I'm in favour of it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Economic Research - $69,350.
MR. L. STINSON (Leader of the C.C.F. Party) (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, before we leave the item on co-operatives, could the Minister tell us if there are more co-operatives now than say a year ago? Would he say that both producer and consumer co-operatives, both types of co-operatives are growing?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the increase is mostly in the producer type.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, is he satisfied that the appropriation that has been voted this past year is sufficient to support the research of the work of the co-operative movement?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, the present appropriation is sufficient. If it is proved to be insufficient, it will be my policy to increase it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 9 - Purchase of Seed Grain and of ... fodder - $250.
Item 12 - Predator Control and Grasshopper Control - $9,750.
Item 14 - Farm Labour ...
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question on economic research. Have you passed it? Item 8. Economic research naturally is a very, very important thing. Research in general is very necessary. I would appreciate if the Minister could give us in a few words, what progress, what have they done in the field of research, period, and economic research if you wish.
MR. WILLIS: I think economic research is the life blood of agriculture. We are providing for the University, without going into details, much more money than they ever had in regard to research. We are also providing at the University a liaison officer who will spend all his time at the University, carrying that research to the ag. reps., who will carry it to the farmer on the farm. Efficiency in agriculture in many departments has been greatly increased by economic research. Where we are still trying to grow Red Fyfe Wheat, for instance, we would be out of the business of raising grain. Research has saved agriculture many times and I expect it will continue to save agriculture in the future. We are promoting it to the best of our ability; we're spending more money on it than has ever been spent before; we have the complete co-operation of the University of Manitoba. If some members would like to see research as far as wheat is concerned, they can go out to the University and see in one field, 500 different varieties of wheat being carried on their research on the crossing of the different types. So that as far as research is concerned, without going into detail, it covers every branch of agriculture. I believe it is the life blood and that we must enlarge it, continue it and promote it.
MR. WAGNER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Honourable Minister a question on Predator Control -- whether the ducks are in that category? Because the reason I bring this question up, I understand that there is a bill or something like that on foxes and coyotes and timber wolves and what not. But last summer I was approached by some farmers in Kilkenny district -- that's west of Fisher Branch -- and they tell me that the wild ducks, destroyed for farmers, as much as 1,500 bushels of grain and these farmers approached me whether anything could be done. So I came in to the Game and Fishery Department and I was informed that there is on provision in the Act to compensate such farmers -- 1,500 bushels -- and those farmers were really up against a loss and they wanted some action to be done. But I was just wondering whether under this Predator Control or under this Act that there is something done for compensation.
MR. WILLIS: ...under that, but I would suggest to the honourable member if at the proper time he got into difficulties he would come and see me -- I'd probably get permission so that he could shoot those ducks.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: Mr. Chairman, on economic research, I listened with a good deal of interest to what the Minister had to say about research and I'm happy that he's with us on this, because certainly economic research is very important to agriculture. No, he hasn't gone past us a long time ago. He's not even caught up to us yet. He doesn't know what's going on out there. And I want to suggest to the honourable members across the way, that there's not very many of them know what's going on out there at the University in the way of research. But I do want to say this, Mr. Chairman, that out at the University of Manitoba, in the Agricultural Research, we have the finest set-up that there is in Canada, and my friends across the way can't take any credit for it at all as far as that's concerned. It's just one of the very best. There's nothing better. And as I said before, I'm glad that the Minister goes along with it, because last fall I had the pleasure of sitting in at the farm union convention here in Manitoba, and the Minister had these words to say under University Leads in Research: "It is with pride and satisfaction that I can report to you on the very extensive and varied programme of research under way by the Faculty of Agriculture at our University under the direction of Dean J. R. Weir. The grants of this work at the University of my department now exceed $200,000 annually; one could spend all the time and more ... to me to describe the many research projects being carried out by the eight divisions of the Agricultural Faculty." And that's very true, Sir. And if the Minister possibly didn't get as large an ovation as he might have out of that part of his speech, possibly the reason was because I gave the same speech last year at
the farm union convention. Well, I gave it a good deal more in detail. My honourable friend had about two paragraphs on it. I spent about three-quarters of an hour on it. And we have a good programme.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, we had an interesting demonstration up at the farm union convention that day of the type of leadership we're getting in agriculture. We had the speech by the Provincial Minister of Agriculture and then one by the Federal Minister of Agriculture. And in the afternoon the Provincial Minister of Agriculture, he started out his speech by indicating to the farm union convention, that the real big problem facing the farmers today was over-production. And he said over-simplified, it can be stated as one of over-production of food stuffs. And then he went on to tell them why, of all the plans they had for to increase production. Oh yes, I know, you can argue efficiency and all that sort of thing, but Mr. Chairman, we've pretty well gone full circle on this old efficiency programme. So there the farmers had it put to them, "Look boys, you got to be careful because over-production is our problem, but we're going to fix it for you, we're going to put all the tools in your hands so that you can produce more." And that sort of made them shake their heads a little bit. And then in the evening we had the Minister of Agriculture for Canada come. And his job was to explain the Price Stabilization Act. And apparently the two Ministers had got together, because that was the theme that the Federal Minister started out on: "Boys, be careful. There's going to be an over-production in hogs, and we may have to cut the floor price; there is an over-production in fluid milk and we may have to cut the floor price in that." But he made a good speech, a good defence of a policy that is a difficult one to administer -- a long way from Federal Government promises -- but he made a good speech in total. And then the question period was just beginning to warm up when the Federal Minister of Agriculture had to go and catch the train for Eastern Canada. I suppose he recalled the experience that he had just about a year ago now up around in the Dauphin country. However, he had the train standing there on the track ready to go, and when the questions got going he left.
But let's get back to research. And here I have in my hand the 1957 Progress Report on Agricultural Research. I haven't noticed that the Minister has distributed the copies of the 1958 report yet in the House. But, Mr. Chairman, here in this volume is an outline of the amount of work that's going on in agricultural research in this province. Many of the projects have been going on for several years. Some of them are more recent. Some have been practically completed in certain aspects. And you could spend a good deal of time, Mr. Chairman, going through this. We had, for instance, Agricultural Economics and Farm Management. We had the Farm Accounting Clubs that are now being held throughout the province and the statistics going in to the University. I know there is a club out in the Minnedosa district; there's one at Souris; one at Bagot; one at Lowe Farm; Oakville; Domain; Carman; Altona; Arborg, and so on. Quite a number of them are now in actual operation, gathering statistics for the University. (Yes, I finally made it.) Then we have the sugar beet study that went on; I believe that one is completed. And I would like to have a report from the Minister on that study. The study of Market Margins of Beef in Winnipeg. That's been an important study indeed, Mr. Chairman, and one I think that would be of benefit to the farmers. Then in Agricultural Engineering, the big bulk of that has to do with tillage implements. And then the Animal Science -- dwarfism in beef cattle. And believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, you know the breed of cattle that they use in that particular study. I think the Honourable Minister of Agriculture knows that they're Herefords. They're the ones that seem to be a little more adapted to that particular real difficulty that we have in our livestock breeds. But for four or five years now a very interesting study has been going on as to the cause of dwarfism and what might be done to eradicate it. And then the loose housing project -- loose housing for dairy cattle and loose housing for beef cattle, both projects can be of very great help to the farmer. And then in the Plant Science, there is the legume investigation and grass investigations, as to the best variety for the different types of soil we have here in the Province of Manitoba. Then in general agronomy the Mantioba variety test. The Minister mentioned the other night that this was something that they were interested in. Well, certainly they should be interested in it; it's been going on for some years now. And then Horticultural Research -- potato breeding, which is developing into a large crop here in Manitoba; Plant Science -- we have a great deal of work going on in connection with rape seed -- rape seed is a big crop here in the Province of Manitoba now -- some
27,000 acres are planted each year. Last year wasn't too good a year for rape seed but it looks as though this year the -- price-wise, rape seed will be pretty good again. Then we have soy beans - up to date soy beans in the Province of Manitoba haven't been too promising but I'm quite sure that with the research work that's going on out at the University that in a matter of two or three years we will have a type of soy bean here in this province that will be of great benefit to us. Sun flower investigation -- going on year by year. And then the different types of vegetable research. And then I think possibly one of the most important ones to the farmer is Weed Research projects -- possibly particularly the one with regard to wild oats. Because the old wild oat is still the number one weed as far as cost is concerned here in the Province of Manitoba. Some very, very interesting research work going on in that connection. And then the Plant Science -- we have, of course, the outstanding work that's being done as far as wheat is concerned; and with the Federal Department and with grants that are made by some of our commercial firms. And in that respect, Mr. Chairman, I think we want to recognize the contribution that is being made by commercial firms of one kind and another to research here in this province. And the investigation and research that's going on in connection with fall rye and winter wheat are in my opinion one of the most interesting that we have out there. And I think there's a great future here in the Province of Manitoba for the rye and for the winter wheat, and certainly if we can develop those crops so they're more adaptable to this province, to a degree at least, it will help to solve our weed problem. And so, Mr. Chairman, you could go through this book in great detail, and out there at the University there's a wonderful job being done, and I know that the government, if they are the government, will continue that work. Mind you, we musn't talk about these estimates that were placed before us but the fact of the matter is, as far as current is concerned, they've only got $14,000.00 more in their estimates than they had a year ago, than what our increase was a year ago. So they haven't done anything amazing as far as that's concerned. Capital, yes. And there's need for capital as the research programme develops along with the capital programme as well. And so I say in total that it's a good programme and I know and I hope it will be continued. The thing that I want to emphasize is that the Minister thoroughly acquaint himself with it and continue to get the information out to the country.
MR. M. E. McKELLAR (Souris-Lansdowne): Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that I was a few minutes late and I guess I'm past the subject I was going to speak on, but I think that maybe, after listening to the Honourable Member for Minnedosa the scope is quite broad and I would like to say just a few words. I would like to say at this time that I have listened with great interest to the number of farmers across the way, the number of farmers who have expressed their views on farming and as a full-time farmer myself, I don't know whether I come away with any good points, or whether the bad points will outnumber the good points, but time alone will tell. But I think after listening to the insurance debate the other day, we find there were about five people spoke on insurance and there was only one insurance man who spoke, and I think that's the same way with maybe the farming debate today. We've heard about fifteen so-called farmers and I think there's only three farmers spoke out of the fifteen. So I think that it is with great interest to some of us who are in the business in a full-time capacity to sit and listen, for after all ...
MR. GRAY: Just a question, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us out of 57 members here, how many actual farmers, I mean farmers who get up at six o'clock and milk the cows and go out to the fields and so on?
MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Gray, I can assure you I think there's only about five or six full-time farmers. As you say, there are a couple in Tuxedo and another one out there in the west end of Winnipeg, or something. But thinking as a full-time farmer, (I think the Tuxedo men are in full view across here) -- but I will say that I did enjoy a very enjoyable dinner tonight at the hotel and I am sure the meat that was served tonight must have come from the Honourable Minister of Agriculture's wonderful Hereford Herd at Boissevain because it was really enjoyable. Getting back to farming, I'd also like to say that I think there's a great deal of wild oats being sowed the last couple of weeks around here. But I would like to say I don't think the Opposition are going to have the right ideal weather conditions for them to sprout because, you know, it has to be about 60 degrees and just everything has to be just so, for if we sow our crops too soon we'll find out what happens. And I think that most of us are going to find the
same results a little later on.
But getting back to the general topic of farming. Most of us realize, I think, that farming is a business in itself, one that's far more -- should I say greater talent is needed in our present day and age to operate a farm. We have to be business men and general all-round mechanics and so on, and as the Honourable Member for Inkster said, he would like to know how many men milking cows at six o'clock in the morning, I can assure you -- you won't find very many farmers up at six o'clock, let alone milking cows. We have a goodly number of our farmers in our area that enjoy the curling season in the winter, including myself, and we do have a bit of pleasure along with the hard work in the summer.
Well now, one thing that I would on research -- I would like to say, and I think the man who invented Selkirk wheat or brought it in should have a great deal of tribute to him. I think one of the main reasons there are surpluses is on his account, we are raising forty bushels per acre now where we only used to raise twenty. And, that is one of the reasons for our surpluses and also one of the reasons for a higher quality of wheat. In my area, I would say that there is about two million dollars worth of wheat being shipped to the United States this year, registered wheat, and that in itself, has helped our problems in finance in our area -- one which has taken up the slack, I should say, and we have in the neighbourhood of five seed cleaning plants operating all winter, exporting wheat to North Dakota and Minnesota.
And I would like to compliment this government on taking the action they did in January, in reducing the reciprocity agreement with North Dakota from one-half to one-fifth. That, in itself, created a better feeling not only between the exporters, but between the truckers themselves. It increased, I would say, the export to North Dakota in itself, by many millions of dollars.
Now Mr. Chairman, there's many things I would like to say on farming, but I don't want to hold this debate up -- I've listened with interest -- I know that my crops should yield at least ten bushels to the acre after listening to all this subject here today, and with all the amount of knowledge I have gained, so with those few words, Mr. Chairman, I will remain seated for the rest of the evening.
MR. F. L. JOBIN (Flin Flon): Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question, and I may be excused for not dealing with this particular item, but I'd like to ask, as a member of this committee, of the First Minister, and anybody that wants to speak on it, must we technically pass the interim supply tonight? Because, we're only a quarter of the way through it, and so I'd like an answer to that -- must we technically pass the interim supply tonight, and need we call in the Lieutenant-Governor tonight for approval of these particular expenditures, and for approval of the private members' bills? I think that it's pretty important that we know an answer to this. ... [Interjection] ... Yes, but on this matter of interim supply -- must we technically finish it and call him in tonight, or are we to be charged with hindering and impeding -- I'd like an answer to that before we enter into any further debate, if you would, Mr. First Minister?
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, had my honourable friend been here at the opening of the Session, he would probably have observed His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, giving assent to certain bills. I would, as regard to the rest of his questions, I would certainly expect that the committee would come to some conclusions on this by our usual time here tonight, because we haven't much more time to go. It's perfectly true that we're not very far through the estimates, but I must say that we certainly covered a very wide swatch of territory, we've spent a good few minutes listening to the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville tell us about the small printed Hansard, and eyesight difficulties; you heard from the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition as to why he gave some property to the City of Winnipeg; we heard from the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, a request as to why we called our parties by the various names that we did; and we've had a good deal of extraneous discussion; if we'd stuck to the point, we'd have got along a lot farther.
I don't know what the committee is willing to do, but I know what the government would request the Committee to do, that is, that we should adhere to what I took to be the undertakings of gentlemen present, that this matter of interim supply would be proceeded with and we would be granted it tonight.
Now, at the time, it was intimated that we would have some questions to reply to, and we're doing our best to answer them, but I still think that we ought to reach the point where the
committee should decide whether it's going to give us supply, or whether it isn't, before we close tonight.
MR. JOBIN: To pursue the question still further, and if I may make this observation first, the Honourable the First Minister has a happy knack of evading a direct answer to a direct question. Does the First Minister anticipate or consider that if we fail to complete the interim supply discussion tonight, would you consider it a refusal on our part to pass interim supply?
MR. ROBLIN: I might do so; I think that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the C.C.F. lead me to understand that we would pass the interim supply this evening. We've been debating it now better than eight hours I should think, and I would judge that the committee will be willing to grant supply before the evening is over -- I would certainly expect them to do so.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, it's only right that we should clear up this point at this time, because the question that the Honourable Member for Flin Flon has asked is a perfectly proper one -- proper seems to be a good word to use around here these times, and it is the fact that as far as we were concerned, this group, that we did give an undertaking and we intend to live up to it, that we'll be willing to see that supply is granted tonight, even to the extent of the suspension of the rules for introducing the bill and putting it through. On the other hand, I think having said that that I would want to say also that I don't think that the Honourable the First Minister is on such strong ground when he takes in hand to sort of criticize what he terms extraneous discussion that has gone on here, because I've been sitting on that side of the House for a long time, and I've heard a lot of members on this side in those days, bring in matters that we might have been inclined to think were extraneous too. The great benefit of a committee of this kind is that we have the opportunity here of giving our opinions, whatever they are, and what one man may think is extraneous, another one may think is extremely important.
My honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, and I might think that it was not of particular import to the general public that two such outstanding farmers as ourselves, are citizens of the Town of Tuxedo; so long as we manage to pay our taxes there, and the town doesn't object to our residence, I don't suppose that too many other people worry about it greatly, except perhaps our neighbours. But, that's something that if someone wants to take time in the House to point it out -- well, that's something that he has a perfect right to point out. The same with these other important matters that have been brought up. Now, it's true that as far as this group is concerned, we are prepared to live up to our undertaking; I don't think it's technically necessary -- I don't think it was technically necessary when we gave the undertaking; but with the unusual circumstances with which we are faced, I think we should be careful to live up completely to an undertaking like that, and I'm not the least bit worried about it for this reason, that we can go past eleven o'clock, and we can have, under suspension of rules, if my honourable friend in the second row over there doesn't object, all the stages could be done very, very quickly, and then the other thing is this, that honourable members have been in this House before will know that we traditionally spend more time on education and agriculture than all the other estimates put together -- that's been quite usual through the years, and I think we've been simply following our usual example, or practice. So, I don't anticipate that there will be as much discussion on some of the other departments as have been up to date; on the other hand, I'm not undertaking that there won't be any discussion -- I kind of attempted to do that this afternoon, and it didn't work out very well, but we're not backing down at all on our undertaking; we really mean to facilitate the passage of supply. This is our way of doing it, by making these long speeches.
MR. ROBLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a question that was asked of me some time ago, about the Comptroller-General's office. I wonder if I could answer that now, while I have the information. I was asked if there was any increase in staff in the Comptroller-General's office. There is one auditor added, whose responsibility it is to take care of the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan auditing; in addition to that there is one student auditor that has been added, making a total of two. ... If there's any further information on that point?
MR. W. C. MILLER (Rhineland): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
MR. R. W. BEND (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Chairman, I just want to have this record
set straight. When the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition spoke a few minutes ago, he, the Honourable the First Minister, I mean. ... [Interjections] ... Well, future events, Mr. Speaker, often cast their shadows before, and that's why I keep getting mixed up.
However, to set this record straight, and not to delay this committee, the Honourable the First Minister decided that I was guilty of speaking extraneously on this debate, and I was taken in by the bold sweep of his arms. Now, number one, I spoke on Hansard where? Where it came up in the proper estimates, Mr. Chairman; I spoke on it underneath the operation of recording equipment. The second speech I gave in this House, was on construction grants. I gave that in its proper place and spent no more than three minutes doing it, and that is the only time that I've taken part in this debate. His own colleague over there, Mr. Chairman, the Honourable the Attorney-General, had us down building the girls' home and gaols and I don't know what not. Before he starts cleaning up this side of the House, let him clean up his own side.
MR. CHAIRMAN: May I say just here that at eight o'clock tonight, we sought the co-operation of all members; I remember the Leader of the Opposition suggesting this afternoon that we try to get through this thing today, and the only opinion that I would offer now is that it would help to facilitate matters, if we will keep our discussion and contribution to debate to the item which is before us, and the other thing is that once an item has been passed, that we shouldn't have any discussion -- any debate by reverting to it -- once it's passed the committee.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that your ruling is a good one and I would also suggest that if the Honourable the First Minister could restrain from scolding us on this side, that he might get a little better co-operation. But, he likes to crack that whip ... [Interjection] ... Well, he still hasn't answered the question that was put by the Honourable Member for Flin Flon, which to me is a question that is of some interest. As a matter of fact, I was inquiring before we came tonight if we must by law pass these estimates tonight, must it be done, or can it go over until tomorrow? Now, that's the technical question that was asked and it hasn't been answered. And, so far as we are concerned, well, we're prepared to co-operate; mind you, if anybody starts a fight, we're almost bound to get into it, but we're prepared to co-operate.
MR. JOBIN: If I may pursue the same question -- I regret being technical, but do -- we all know the eleven o'clock rule.
A MEMBER: There's no eleven o'clock rule.
MR. JOBIN: So that we can keep on going. I'd like to have an assurance, and this isn't a want of confidence, I can assure you, Mr. First Minister, but I would like to know, should we go past 11 o'clock, say 11:30, before we finish the estimates, are you prepared to call the Lieutenant-Governor, or might he be in bed; and if he happened to be in bed, are you going to use that as an excuse because we're not voting interim supply?
MR. ROBLIN: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I hold a very optimistic view of the co-operative spirit of the House tonight, and I took it upon myself to suggest that the Lieutenant-Governor, that if he would be kind enough to stand by around 11 o'clock that it was likely that by then we would have cleaned up these estimates and we would ask him to come in and give Royal assent to them. That's the plan that I hope we can adhere to.
MR. JOBIN: Just one more word -- I won't pursue the question; I've tried to get an answer and I haven't been able to get it. The only reason, I'm trying to protect my rights to take a rap at the Minister of Public Utilities later on tonight.
MR. B. CORBETT (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, there are 62 items left on this to pass, and without any labour at all we should put them through at one a minute, and these fellows have wasted about 14 items here -- no, not wasted, but they've delayed 14 items from going through. But there was a jibe cast across the room here tonight that I feel that I have just as much right to delay things a little bit as anybody else has, from the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, that the backbenchers here were inarticulate and could not speak, and I kind of resented that, because we could unlock a wonderful flow of loquacity on this side if we cared to do so, but the verbosity on the other side has been so great that we can hardly get on our feet fast enough to meet it. So, but I'm speaking on the next item, on the item which is $250.00 for cow feed or something like that -- that in my opinion is a very important item because that would feed 14 cows for one month; but anyhow, I just wanted to explain paticularly to the Leader of the C.C.F. Party -- that it was not inability, it was not dumbness, it was not inarticulateness that prevented us
from getting up and speaking at all times, but as I say, you have to be awfully quick on your feet to beat the gentlemen opposite. They're on their feet all the time. And as I say there's 62 items left to pass in this, and while they're explaining how they're all going to pass this along, not hinder it at all, they held up at least 14 items that could have been passed in the meantime. So, I could get up here and ... [Interjection] ... Yes, it's probably 18, but as I say if you get up on your horse and get going, there'll be no trouble at all in passing all these items, by oh, I would say by 9:30, (you can do that by 9:30) ... I see no reason why I couldn't kind of respond to the honourable gentleman, the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, and show him at least it wasn't lack of ability to talk, it wasn't reticence on my part that I wasn't speaking, because I love to talk, but I've never had an opportunity as yet; and I'm quite prepared to hold up the items, three more items if necessary, just to explain that I'm very much in sympathy with what the Member from Roblin said regarding deficiency payments on acreage rather than on bushels, because my country up there is very similar to his -- we have a lot of small farmers that grow a lot of stock, and quite a number of them don't sell any grain at all. Now this is in connection with the point there for $250.00 for fodder and feed - I think it comes under that heading. I'm not offending any of the rules of the House by speaking, and the Chairman has looked at me with a very hard look; I could go on indefinitely, but I'm still not going to hold up the House, and I've stopped five items from going through now, but I think that will be enough, so I'll just sit down. Thank you.
MR. R. S. CLEMENT (Birtle-Russell): Mr. Chairman, like the Honourable Member who has just taken his seat, it is not often I get to my feet, but I might suggest to him that it isn't the Minister, the Leader of the C.C.F. Party, that has bothered him not being able to get to his feet; but if he was half as quick as the Leader of his party was to get to his feet, he'd have been able to talk plenty of times.
For two solid hours yesterday we discussed problems, and every speech made by the government side was made by the Premier, and every answer was made by the Premier; and it's not the Leader of the C.C.F. Party he has to make -- and if he and the honourable member sitting not far from him who says he's a farmer, I'm just as qualified a farmer as he is -- I'm a business man, he says he is, to be a farmer. If he'd quit sowing his wild oats at the St. Regis Hotel and settle down here he'd get along all right.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister, during the past few years, the land around Lake Manitoba has been severely flooded, and since the water has receded, the land is still sour. Is the government still going to assist these farmers with seed so they can reclaim the land faster than they otherwise might?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Labour Services - $1,500.
MR. WILLIS: The question of that land is now under investigation by the P.F.R.A., and we thought it advisable first to get their report before any action will be taken.
MR. G. MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Chairman, if I may, I noticed there is no item 15, now, I understand that this may have been transferred to some other department. Is that the case; will we be discussing that later, or is not intended there should be any expenditure on this item this year?
MR. WILLIS: If the honourable member will look at the sheet, he will see that there is no Item 2, there's no Item 10, there's no Item 11, there's no Item 13, there's no Item 15 or 16; they've all been washed out.
MR. MOLGAT: That's why I asked in the ordinary course of events by consolidation. Now I appreciate that these items are not there, Mr. Minister; I can read that as well as you. My concern is that I realize that you have made some changes or contemplating changes within departments. Now, this matter of soil erosion, water control, will it be discussed in this committee or will it not be discussed in this committee? That is my question.
MR. WILLIS: Certainly it's under the Department of Agriculture, and if you care to discuss it you could do it now.
MR. MOLGAT: All right, my interest in the matter is what is being done with regards to the Riding Mountain; what was done during the past season; and what is contemplated on being done with regards to the flooding situation on the eastern slopes of the Riding Mountain escarpment, where work was undertaken previously in co-operation with the P.F.R.A.?
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, the P.F.R.A. studies are continuing. We have a bill
before this House, which looks as if it wouldn't pass in regard to conservation which would take care of it. We also have another one with regard to watersheds which will die I think a similar fate; and as a consequence, as much work will not be done as we had normally hoped, but, in the meantime, the work of the P.F.R.A. will continue with our co-operation.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: Mr. Chairman, this work can go on up in the Riding Mountain in the escarpment there, regardless of whether legislation is passed or not. That was a deal that was entered into with P.F.R.A., there was money voted last year, and there's no reason why the money can't be voted this year. And, that project can go along just the same -- you don't need legislation -- I'll agree that there's benefits as far as legislation is concerned -- as far as these projects are concerned, but the fundamentals of conservation and that sort of thing do not depend on legislation -- the great conservation programme that we have before us here in the Province of Manitoba, the most of it is good cultural practices on our farms. That's where it is -- and no amount of legislation is going to change that. We don't want to put all the emphasis on legislation and engineers and that sort of thing as far as conservation is concerned, and there isn't one project here in the Province of Manitoba that needs to be held up because of legislation.
MR. WILLIS: What the Member for Minnedosa just said is certainly correct, and I didn't say otherwise; all the work under the P.F.R.A. will continue as it did before -- in fact, it will be increased. But what we had hoped was in many cases that we might be able to have additional conservation under our conservation board, under which we would have at least 15 engineers working on conservation. We would have a number of men from the agricultural department in regard to land use would be there, we would have a number of men too, who were formerly with the Department of Mines and Natural Resources, and Water Control who would be there -- and those are the matters that I spoke of. The ordinary programme will continue as it was before augmented, but in addition to that we had hoped that we would be setting up ourselves a separate programme to do those things which I've just outlined. And of that I was speaking.
MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the Minister said, that they will continue the programme that has been instituted in the past. Now, my understanding was that the Provincial Government shared part of the cost of the work that was being undertaken on the eastern slopes of the Riding Mountain.
Now, if there is no item and there is no money voted, how does the Minister propose to continue the activity and the share that the province was undertaking under this project?
MR. CHAIRMAN: General ...
MR. W. C. McDONALD (Dufferin): Before we leave the Department of Agriculture, there is an item that is of interest I am sure to all members of the House, and which I do not see under any of these particular items that are listed before us.
It concerns a matter of all farmers in Manitoba, but particularly within the last winter it has centered around the farmers in the Stanley municipality. And I give a great deal of the credit for what has been done to the Honourable Member from Pembina. It seems that all farm tractors when they are purchased through implement dealers dealing in farm implements, buy this machinery free of import tax. Manitoba largely is now farming by machines. There are no horses -- very few -- in the southern part of the province. This past year we have had a season of deep snows and these farmers are acquiring gradually snow plows of their own which they attach to these farm tractors that they own and they clear the fields so that they can get feed in to their cattle; they clean the roads within short distances from their place so that they can get to town, so that the school vans can get through, and now we run into a problem. The special investigator for the Federal Government of the Customs Branch, I believe, has made it a ruling that no snow plow, even though the farmer uses these snow plows on his own land, can be attached to these tractors that he has bought tax free. And so there has been a practice developed, and I don't think it is just this year, (and I am not criticizing the special investigator too much) where spotters are paid some 25% of the fine, if a farmer is fined, for reporting him using these snow plows. When this was brought to the attention and the investigation of this special investigator centred around the Stanley municipality this last winter, the Honourable Member from Pembina took a very strong action and made his representations to Ottawa, and I must say that I believe that he had some effect, because the actions that were proposed against
these farmers that were then within the toils of the law, was quietened down. However, the point I want to make is this, Mr. Chairman, that as this Legislature represents a farming community of good citizens, and these citizens are not smuggling something into the country without paying a tax; they are buying these farm implements free of tax, which is the law, and this benefit is given to farmers alone; and when they attach implements of this kind, not with the thought of making money, but of helping themselves, I don't see why we should sit idly by and let this branch of our honourable citizens suffer for something that they should not, in my opinion, have to put up with.
I was wondering if the Minister of the Department of Agriculture -- and I thought that possibly he was remiss in this, and this was just my opinion at the time -- I felt that he should have put in the papers the reason for this action against these men, and why and what was involved in it. I believe that he should, and I would like the government to see if they could, make representations to Ottawa to get this matter cleaned up. Last winter, this happened in the Stanley Municipality. Next winter, it could happen in any area in Manitoba, in agricultural Manitoba, where the snows are deep. School vans are going to have to get through. This applies to municipalities as well, if they do not pay the tax, or if they buy snow-blowing equipment and have a farmer put it on his tractor to blow the roads for them. I think something should be done about it, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to bring it to the attention of the Committee, with the thought that the Minister of Agriculture would take some action to help the farmers in the months that lie ahead, and possibly next winter.
MR. WILLIS: May I say to the honourable member that we have taken it up with Ottawa. I have myself, the Premier has as well, and I think the Member for Pembina has been most active in regard to it and I think he can give you further details now.
MR. M. E. RIDLEY (Pembina): Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the Honourable Member for Dufferin has brought this before the House. As you have seen on the Order Paper I had a resolution prepared to bring before the House, which I am sure that we got -- would have got unanimous assent on it. This was a very important matter in our Municipality of Stanley and Pembina both. It was an old act -- "Don't blame John for it, it was there long before John went there" -- and it just had never been acted on. There was the complaint put in, and of course the investigators had to investigate. When it was brought to my attention I immediately phoned to Winnipeg and I sent an airmail to our Federal Member and I might say that we got very quick action on it, insofar as they assured us there would be no fines levied for the time being. Well, of course, that wasn't near good enough. I also came in and spoke to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture which they drafted a very strong letter of protest to the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa asking his co-operation because this was strictly an agriculture purpose.
And with this resolution that I have, I intended to send every member of Manitoba a copy of it. And I have been informed by our Federal Member that the situation is well in hand and they are going to push to get this legislation changed. I don't think that we have to worry no more about it. In am sure the Minister of Agriculture has taken a very active part. We know the situation and I am glad that the Honourable Member for Dufferin has brought it before the Members of the House because I think it's one that we could all be well sharing. And I think everybody agrees what was going on by the farmer was absolutely the only way that he had of travel, so I am sure everybody is satisfied.
MR. A. A. TRAPP (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a little to the statements that have been made by the honourable gentleman in regard to bulldozers and snow-blowing equipment. I refer specifically to the bulldozers though because it is my information that a farmer cannot purchase a bulldozer on the heavier type tractor for clearing land and I feel that that is not entirely in the interests of agriculture.
There are so many farmers who find themselves in a position where they have purchased bush land and require a bulldozer in order to clear that land. They have to pay an industrial tax on that bulldozer. They can buy the tractor in itself, they can buy the crawler in itself, tax free, but the dozer attachment to it is taxable. And I feel that while the representation is made to the Federal authorities on this other matter, this should be included in it because it is also in the interests of agriculture.
And while I am on my feet, Sir, I would like to ask a question of the Honourable the
Minister of Agriculture, a question that I got up about five times to ask but didn't have the opportunity, and that is on the question of Item 17. It deals with fodder. Last year when we were in the midst of a drought here in Manitoba, I think the Department of Agriculture purchased fodder. I would like to know if that is so? I would also like to know how much fodder is on hand, of what value it is now and where it is located?
MR. WILLIS: The fodder on hand is 504.52 tons. The value is $10,576.65. The fodder is located at Selkirk and at Swan River.
MR. BEND: Mr. Chairman, I have one question growing out of the remarks that were made by the Honourable Member for Pembina and I think he is to be commended on the stand he took at that time. Am I right when I heard in this House that the "stool-pigeon" who squealed got 25% of the fine levied? Is that correct? Is that what he would have got?
MR. RIDLEY: Mr. Chairman, I believe the question is, is informers paid? Is that the question, the Honourable Member for Rockwood-Iberville?
MR. BEND: I started out by commending you because I saw this article in the paper but I didn't understand it all. And the question I asked was that the "stool-pigeon" who squealed, he could get 25% of the fine levied. Is that right?
MR. RIDLEY: I think, Mr. Chairman, you will find in the Customs and Excise Act, on certain places there is such a thing. Now I asked the same question and probably you read it in the Free Press. Oh -- in the Free Press I -- that statement was in. I was asked who gave the Free Press that statement and I said "I did". Because as I was told by the chap that told me that the man that came down to check on him said the informer would get a percentage of the fine. I checked with two customs men and they informed me that there is such a thing has always been in the Custom Act, where informers get a certain rake-off on certain things they pick up. When this came back from Ottawa they informed me that this was not so. So in regard to this excise on tractors, now that's all the information I could find out on it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Attorney-General - Item 1 - Administration - $41,706.00.
Item 2 - Land Titles Offices - $96,003.00.
Law Courts - $65,801.00.
Legislative Council - $5,082.00.
Administration of Justice - $429,627.00.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, there have been occasions in this House when this item has kept us for a very long time and I am afraid to open the subject for fear that it might take too long. I can recall one occasion when it took about three days, back in the old days when the late Jim McLenaghen was Attorney-General. And so although I could as the honourable gentleman who is in charge of this department now, a hundred questions with respect to our penal institutions, I think I'll begin by asking him only one. And it has to do with the study that was initiated by his predecessor on juvenile delinquency. I understand that Mr. Montague Israels was the Chairman of that committee. Incidentally he is a very good friend of mine, as perhaps the honourable gentleman knows, and I have a very high regard for him. And I am wondering what has happened in connection with that particular study. Is it something that is going to be presented to this House or is it something that is for the Minister himself? Is it to be studied by the Department or are the members to have access to this report so that we may all know what the result of this study has shown?
HON. STERLING R. LYON (Attorney-General) (Fort Garry): Mr. Chairman, I, too, share the high regard which the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. has for the Chairman of this Committee which was established by my predecessors.
I can report that an interim report consisting of approximately two and a half pages was received by me, I would say in late September of 1958, since that time the interim report, I may say, and by this I do no disservice to the Chairman, but in presenting it to me he stated that the interim report contains a number of items on which our thinking is not final but since that time I have had the interim report under close study by the Director of Corrections, and he has been fortunate enough to have the service again of Mr. Montague Israels to discuss with him, and I may say, representatives of the Greater Winnipeg Welfare Council, some of the ideas which are quoted in that interim report. We have now reached the stage where I do have a supplementary report containing three recommendations upon which Government action can be based. I can only inform the Leader of the C.C.F. Party tonight, Mr. Chairman, that these
recommendations came to me a matter of a few weeks ago and I have not quite frankly, because of the Session, had the opportunity to go into them as fully as we wish. But certainly the matter is not being shelved. We are quite happy to have the continuing co-operation of Mr. Israels and his committee and as a matter of fact I understand that there is every likelihood there will be a further report from them amplifying upon what they have already given to us.
MR. STINSON: Will the honourable gentleman have the interim report tabled or is the information of a confidential nature or are the rest of us to be given something about it?
MR. LYON: Well, I think a good portion of the interim report appeared in the press when it was delivered to me. There is nothing of a confidential nature at all, in the report. It is a very, as a matter of fact, there is one main recommendation suggested, if my memory serves me correctly, suggests the idea that there should be a service of some sort or other, a commission of some sort or other, within the government or under government auspicies or in the alternative, receiving government support, which would take this whole problem under its wing and see what development, what progress can be made to attack this very vital problem.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken part in the discussion on agriculture confessing I don't know anything about it. Particularly I don't know anything about the hog problem. But I read in the annual report of the leading hotel in Manitoba, the Headingly Gaol, certain figures which worries me very, very much, and perhaps for the benefit of those who have not yet read the report I want to point out of the 3,000 guests in the Headingly Gaol, there were 2,200 under 40 years of age. I mention in particular this, that first of all you've got to consider the tragedy of the families of those young people who are taken away from their homes, disgraced by the neighbourhood that they live in, losing all their friends. They go to gaol for about seven days or 30 days or 40 days; I am not speaking about the other hard-core criminals, but he comes out of gaol, he's without a job, nobody wants him, he makes an application for a position there is always a question asked - "Have you ever been convicted" and he cannot lie because he couldn't get away with it and their lives are ruined at the age of 40. There are 455 teen-agers there from the ages of 16 to 19, 1,021 at the ages of 20 to 29. There are 740 between 30 and 39. Over 65% of young people who still have an opportunity to become useful citizens. Their crimes are not serious, the average sentence is 40 days of those people and then it ruins their life for ever. They may have to move out from the city or from the neighbourhood, start life over again and their situation and their position in society is very, very tragic. And among those are people who are being sentenced from seven days to about 40 days which I don't think that the crime was so serious that they had to go to gaol on such short term.
As the government is still in power, and will still be in charge of the affairs of this province for another three months at least, I think perhaps some consideration be given, firstly is whether some of the offences could not be disposed of by a suspended sentence or fine. Secondly, whether we could not increase our grants to those societies who's aim is rehabilitate those prisoners, so-called prisoners, and see whether we could still make them useful citizens so they won't have to ruin their lives and the lives of the families, the lives of the children who are being pointed to at school and in the neighbourhood, so that those small offenders could be probably be saved considerably from going to gaol. I think that the situation of those youngsters is very, very serious.
Another point is that we find that there is about 65% repeaters. Now those repeaters indicate that they are not repeaters because they are criminals. They are repeaters because they have no other alternative. Nobody wants them, everybody disgraces them. No one wants to have anything to do with them and the result is they have got to go to gaol again. On the second appearance before the court they may be given a heavier sentence. We are losing the prime of our youth. Instead of being a contribution to society, a contribution to the welfare of the province, they become criminals. They become a burden on the community. They couldn't get a job, they had to be fed. They had to be supported by relief, by handouts. My question is, is there anything more can be done to prevent younger offenders to go to gaol for seven days, or ten days or 20 days? I realize there is a law where, if a man is wrong he's got to serve seven days. But is there a way of rehabilitating them? Is there a way when they come out of gaol to tell the society that they are just as good as anyone else in society? Is there a way that they could get those societies who look after the prisoners, to get them jobs, to appeal to the
employers telling them he made a mistake, he committed a very minor offence, otherwise he wouldn't be sent to gaol for 40 days or 30 days, and have them taken in, give them a job inside of a year or two they probably acclimitize? And the same friends that they have had, the same friends that they have had, they could be associated with. It happens that the young boy probably wants to take a girl out, he hasn't got the price of a movie, he hasn't got the price to take her out for dinner. Then he commits an offence, he is not a criminal, he is absolutely not a criminal, he just made a mistake. Let's avoid the mistakes. As I said in the interests of the families, in the interests of the children, in the interests of the future of the children, and also in the interest of the taxpayer, because if anyone is unemployed, anyone who goes to gaol, becomes a burden on the community.
Now as this government still has, is still the caretaker government for the next three or four or five months, I wonder if the Attorney-General can tell us waht can be done and what is being done to alleviate this serious situation, serious tragic situation.
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the Honourable Member for Inkster are quite interesting and in them, of course, he anticipates a fair amount, but not all by any means, but a fair amount of the programme which we intended to lay before the Legislature in this connection. Now, I am not going to take the time of the committee tonight, I don't think it would be properly in order for me to go in to all of the ideas and plans which might have been discussed under the future estimates. But I can say this, that the point which he makes in connection with young offenders, it applies as well to older persons who get into trouble for the first or for the second time, the point he makes is a good one. The best means we have seen thus far of attacking that very problem is through the very able probation service which we are offering. And I can tell the honourable gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, without, I hope, breaching the rules that we have plans to expand that service considerably. I can tell the honourable gentleman that the figures of repeaters or recidivism at institutions such as Headingly are, as he indicated, somewhere around 65 percent. I can tell him that one reason we wish to expand probation, and we wish to do it just as soon as we can, is this; that the rate of recidivism or repeaters among the 329 probationers presently under control of probation officers, the rate of probation among that group is less than 9%. I can tell the honourable gentleman also that we are quite aware of the fact that it costs $3.73 per day on the average to maintain a prisoner in Headingly Gaol, or a total of approximately $1,361.00 per year. I can tell him also, Mr. Chairman, that we realize just as well as he that to maintain that same prisoner or that same accused person while on probation, costs an average of $61.96. And so these are the reasons that we are quite aware of the problems which he raises, these are the reasons why I can give him every assurance that not only in the next three months, but in the next three, and perhaps the next 30 years, Sir, we will be doing everything we can to overcome this problem just as quickly as we can.
MR. J. M. HAWRYLUK (Burrows): Mr. Chairman, I'm very glad to hear the report as given by the Attorney-General. Several years ago we had the pleasure of visiting Headingley Gaol for the purpose of seeing the set-up there and the most unfortunate thing that we met at that particular time was the fact that we had young teen-age offenders mingling with the hardened repeater criminals there. I wondered if that situation has been alleviated at all, because I think that was something that we felt should not continue, if it has up to the present time, and I would appreciate if anything you can say on this matter at the present time.
MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Chairman, I had intended to get up as soon as the estimates of this department were arrived at, but as you noticed I was beat to the gun. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, that I'll try and facilitate the passing of these particular items. I don't intend to hold up the House.
There are several things I am going to raise because I think I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't. I am very glad to hear that the Honourable the Attorney-General hasn't cast aside the studies of the Manitoba Committee on Youth. To all of those who were here during the past year or two they will know that that was one thing that I had my heart set on was prevention of delinquency, rather than looking for cures. And I do feel very strongly and it has been proven in some of the states across the line, especially in the State of Minnesota and California, that you can prevent, with the proper kind of a programme, a great deal of the delinquency that we have across the country, not only in the Province of Manitoba. I do hope that he
gives every assistance to the committee in formulating their plans, making their recommendations, and I do hope that the Government will see its way to carry on the work as it will be recommended.
The Honourable Member for Inkster asked whether the Government had done anything in regard to rehabilitating the prisoners or the offenders after they leave our institutions. The Honourable the Attorney-General, I did not hear him answer that particular question, but I would like to say to the Honourable Member from Inkster, that last year we did establish, or help establish two societies, one the John Howard Society, which looks after male offenders, and the Elizabeth Fry Society, that looks after female offenders, to do exactly that type of work and I think that they are doing the work and from what I have heard and my information is that this Government is supporting those two organizations and that we can expect the extention of that particular type of work.
Now, I said I wasn't going to take up too much time, but there are one or two things that I must raise. And in the first place I'd like to draw the Attorney-General's attention, or remind him of the situation that exists between Newfoundland and the Federal Government relative to the contract under which the provinces have their R.C.M.P. forces.
Now, Manitoba, like Newfoundland, has a contract with the Federal Government under which all our Royal Canadian Mounted Police are supplied to the province. Recently, as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government refused to send reinforcements to Newfoundland when asked to do so. And I think that is a very serious situation and in cases of emergency I think that the people of this province, as well as the people of Canada who are dependent upon this force, which we so highly regard, are assured that if an emergency arises, that the reinforcements will be forthcoming under the contract. Now, I would like to refer the Honourable the Attorney-General to what was said on this subject in the House of Commons. The Honourable the Minister of Justice made this statement, which you will find on page 1959 of Volume 103 number 43 of the second session of the 24th parliament. And he sets out the facts as follows: "The facts leading up to this resignation" -- he's talking about the resignation of Commissioner Nicholson -- "can be summarized as follows: on Sunday, March 8th, I received a wire from the Attorney-General in Newfoundland asking for 50 additional Royal Canadian Mounted Police reinforcements and citing the terms of the contract. I immediately consulted with Commissioner Nicholson and found that he in turn had been advised by Superintendent Parsons, the Officer Commanding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Newfoundland, that he had made a request to the Attorney-General of Newfoundland". Under the contract, Mr. Chairman, there is a clause that covers reinforcements and I would like to read the particular clause which has started all this controversy. It is clause 13 in the contract, and here is how the clause reads, "Where in the opinion of the Attorney-General of a province an emergency exists within the province requiring additional members of the force to assist in dealing with such an emergency, Canada shall", and I stress the word shall, "at the request of the Attorney-General of the province, addressed to the Commissioner, increase of division as requested if in the opinion of the Attorney-General of Canada, having regard to other responsibilities and duties of the force, such increase is possible."
From my first quote it will be noted, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General in Newfoundland, the O.C. in charge of the R.C.M.P. forces in that province, and Commissioner Nicholson all agreed that an emergency existed and that reinforcements were necessary to meet the emergency.
Now I am not going to go into the arguments for and against here, because I promised I was going to make it short. All I want to point out to the Minister is this. Does our agreement with Ottawa mean anything? Can we depend on Ottawa to send us reinforcements if our Officer Commanding the forces in Manitoba thinks they are necessary? And I would suggest to the Minister that he considers this clause very carefully and if in his opinion it does not give us the assurance that we should have, that he immediately get in touch with Ottawa and endeavour to change the contract so that that assurance will be there.
I notice by today's Free Press that the Province of Newfoundland has taken action for breach of contract against the Federal Government. Probably that'll be thrashed out at the hearing, but in the meantime, I would very strongly recommend to the Minister, that the matter be given very serious consideration and if there is a weakness in that particular clause, that it be remedied.
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains, and I would like to assure him of a number of points in connection with the main item which he has raised. I would point out to him first of all and I think he is as well aware of this as I because he has mentioned the fact. The matter is sub-judica right at the present time by reason of the action in the Exchequer Court by the Province of Newfoundland against the Crown in the Right of Canada. So it's not proper. I don't think he would want me to express an opinion at this stage as to the rights or wrongs of the particular contest which is being fought in that Court. I can say this to him, that there is a conference being convened extremely shortly. It was to have been held in the early part of April by the Minister of Justice and all of the Attorneys-General of Canada to discuss all the contractual items which exist between the government of Canada and various provinces with respect to provincial policing agreements. That conference has had to be postponed because of the unusual situation which has arisen in the resignation of Commissioner Nicholson. But I can assure the honourable member, Mr. Chairman, that it is our intention of course, to have not only this particular clause or section of the contract reviewed and discussed, but it is our intention to go to the conference with the idea of having all sections of the contract discussed openly and fully, with the hope that there can be a better relationship between the two governments in this very important field; and I am not by that suggesting that there is anything wrong with our relationship at the present time. I think the honourable member would concur that in his time, and certainly I can say in my short time in office, the co-operation between myself and the minister and between the R.C.M.P. and the province -- and the R.C.M.P. federally has been extremely high -- and I merely want to assure him that these items have not escaped our attention. Certainly they will be reviewed at this conference which we expect will take place probably now in late spring or early summer.
He mentioned the question of rehabilitation which was mentioned by the honourable member of the C.C.F. party, the Honourable Member for Inkster. I might have mentioned in that connection that we do whole-heartedly support the work of the John Howard - Elizabeth Fry Society in this very important field of rehabilitation. I've had the privilege of working closely with the directors of that society and with the executive director of the society, and again at the risk of perhaps causing a slight breach of the rules, I can say that the government did anticipate doubling the grant to that society this year by reason of the excellent work which they are doing. Their job placement work is of an extremely high character. They report to me regularly on that and I am advised that the response which they are receiving from employers in Greater Winnipeg and other parts of the province is extremely gratifying. They find that there is a feeling of sympathy, a feeling of understanding among employers generally to help to rehabilitate these people, to help to get them back into the swim of life, so to speak. And certainly we are leaving no stone unturned in our efforts to assist this society to the fullest extent that we deem it possible, because we realize that the work that they are doing is of an extremely high character.
On the question of segregation which was raised by the honourable member of the C.C.F. party, talking about youthful offenders in Headingley Gaol and other places, I would make mention only of this fact -- that the completion and now the occupation of the new minimum detention wing, the second minimum detention wing at Headingley, does permit us to undertake a bit of segregation which otherwise was not possible because of the very crowded conditions in which the superintendent found himself administering large numbers of prisoners in that gaol. We have embarked, and I want to stress this point, we have embarked already on a programme of segregation at that institution. I am not trying to blow it up and say that it is a marvelous thing and to say that it's something that no one thought of before. Certainly segregation is not a new item for discussion in this House or in other places discussing the question of penal reform. But the important thing is that we are now able by reason of this extra room to make a beginning, and I think a much needed beginning, to get some of these youthful offenders into minimum security wings and to try, as much as possible, to keep them from associating with the older and more hardened types of criminals, because very often, in a good number of cases, something is bound to rub off, and that is the whole purpose of segregation as we see it. We are trying to make a start on this important field -- in fact, we have. I might mention one other fact in that connection. We purposely delayed the occupation of the new minimum detention wing at
Headingley for one month. We could have gone in early in February. On the advice I received from the director of correction, the superintendent at Headingley Gaol, we allowed them to use that one month period to start an in-training programme for the new guards who were to be assigned to that particular building. And it's reported to me that that in-training programme will reap great benefit, not only to the jail but, indirectly, to the province as a result of what these men were able to learn during that period. And at the same time, other guards at Headingley Gaol were put through this short, albeit short course, but very necessary course, to familiarize them with the conditions under which they must work, to familiarize them with the type of person with which they would be dealing, and to help, as much as possible, to give them a better understanding of what their particular work is with regard to prisons.
I want to stress again that I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps, we have only started with a molehill but we have at least started. I am hopeful that with implications of the new Fauteux Report which I hope will come to fruition in this province within a matter of 18 months to two and a half years, we will be able to take considerably greater strides in this field by reason of the fact that we will have more accommodation room. We hope to have better trained staff with which to deal with these persons. In fact, I think it can honestly be said, as I have said from other platforms in the province, that a new era is dawning in the field of penal reform, not only in Manitoba but in Canada. We are not trying to take unto ourselves any great credit for this but at least we are willing colleagues and willing accomplices, if you will, of this procedure which is going to move right across Canada. And I personally have high hopes that we will see in Manitoba, before too many more months or years elapse, a great change in the whole system of penal rehabilitation -- a change which will augur well, as I have said before, not only for the prisoners but for the benefit of the province at large.
MR. STINSON: I am grateful for what the minister has said because of the interest I have had in this subject for many years. I was rather surprised to hear him announce that it would be 18 months or a matter of about two years before the Fauteux Report will be implemented. Is that because of lack of accommodation in federal penitentiaries?
MR. LYON: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not. It is because the federal government across Canada will have to build new institutions, not of the penitentiary type, but new institutions to handle those prisoners sentenced to terms in excess of 12 months, the responsibility for whom they are taking over completely. The provinces, after the implementation of the new plan, will be responsible for those prisoners serving six months or less. No sentence will be given between six and 12 months; the area of our responsibility will be decreased. Therefore, we will be able, I hope, to give much more and closer attention to those prisoners whom we have under our jurisdiction. The delay in the matter is a necessary delay by reason of the fact that there is a planning committee going across Canada at the present time. I believe it is now in the Maritimes and is due in Manitoba sometime later this spring to determine (a) whether or not the main jail facilities in Manitoba at Headingley are suitable for conversion to this new plan, in which case the federal government would then negotiate with us to take over control of that institution and leave us in the position of having to build a new institution, or (b) whether we would retain control of Headingley Gaol, in which case the federal government would then have to undertake a building programme -- again I stress not of the penitentiary type -- but a building programme to accommodate the new responsibilities which they are undertaking in this field.
MR. STINSON: Has any estimate been made of the reduction in prison population that would result provincially?
MR. LYON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of figures as of September 1st. And at that time we were averaging a total adult jail population in Manitoba of approximately 645. On the basis of those figures the jail population for which we would be responsible would be in the area of approximately 55% of those people. We would lost almost one half. Now I don't want, -- I insert a word of caution here because in those figures we must remember there are those prisoners presently sentenced to between six and 12 months. What the courts will do when they are no longer permitted to give sentences within that area, I don't know. I would imagine that if they err at all, they will err on the side of leniency, which will mean that there will be perhaps prisoners who ordinarily would have gotten nine months, will now get six months less a
day. But I do anticipate, if not a reduction of 45%, I do anticipate a considerable reduction in the number of adult prisoners over whom we will have responsibility when the new plan is implemented.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, we have always had an unhappy staff in these institutions largely because of their low pay and there has been a very large turnover. I notice in the latest report that there has been a turnover of 23 out of 62. Now I don't want to anticipate the new budget -- that might bring the Honourable the First Minister to his feet again to make some resounding declaration for the electors -- but I am wondering just what the situation is with repect to staff at the present.
MR. LYON: I am happy to report, Mr. Chairman, that the staff situation is good at the present time. Again I risk the danger of infringing upon the rules which govern this discussion, but I can say that had the budget been introduced, the honourable member would have been pleased to note considerable pay increases for the staff at Headingley Gaol. I can also report, Mr. Chairman, that the introduction of the 40 hour week to Headingley Gaol, and to all jails, and to all institutions under government control as of the first of December, 1958, was a great factor in making those people understand that the government finally had some concern for their welfare because we realize the extremely difficult conditions under which they work. It is a very specialized type of work. They deserve, in most cases, specialized care and consideration, and it is reported to me now by the superintendents, particularly of Headingley Gaol, that the staff morale is extremely high. They feel that some recognition is being given to them. They feel that under the proposed plan, which we must not talk about, their wages will be much more comparable to those given to guards going to work at the penitentiary. As you know, in the past, we lost a good number of guards going from -- receiving some training in our institutions, then going to the penitentiary where they received higher pay. I am not going to say that parody has been reached, but I do say that near parody has been reached to the point where the staff, I understand, are much more satisfied than they were before.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the minister raised the question of the Fauteux Report, but I, like the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F. party, are somewhat disappointed in the delay in this matter. I would like to draw the attention of the House, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that in 1956 the various departments of the Attorneys-General throughout the dominion and other departments who are interested in this particular subject were called into Ottawa for the purpose of presenting data and all the other information that was necessary to make it possible for the federal authorities to go ahead with the implementations of the recommendations in that report. We know what happened shortly after and now a matter of another two years has just about gone by without, as far as I know, anything having been done. I would, along with the Honourable Leader of the C.C.F. party, urge the minister to do his utmost in bringing about an implementation of these recommendations. Now I know that the minister has a very difficult department and I have reason to know that, and I for one am not going to make his work any more difficult. If I can assist him in any way to ease his responsibilities I will only be too glad to do so. We are, as he has mentioned, in a new era in the idea of the treatment of offenders, and so forth. It's a stage of transition and it will be a long, long time before we will reach the level that we have reached elsewhere, so I want to say again that he can expect every support from me and if I do point out anything, it is not for the purpose of criticism but merely to state the facts as I see them.
Now not so very long in one of the newspapers, in fact both of them, I notice that the ladies in Winnipeg or an organization of some of the ladies of Winnipeg had asked assistance to build what they termed the Roslyn Home for Girls. I would like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the former government went to the financial assitance of a group of men here in the City of Winnipeg for the purpose of constructing a Dawson Home for the Boys. I think that at that time we gave the men that were interested a grant of $30,000 to purchase a home and to renovate it and put it in shape, which is now being used. And picking up the Winnipeg Free Press here not very long ago, in fact, Saturday, March 7th, I noticed a headline, "The Greatest Thing in the World", and that was the Dawson Home and here is what that article had to say about it. And I'm only going to read very briefly. "How much does it mean to be normal? Fifteen boys at Dawson House know that. If you are somewhere between 16 and 18 years old, it means more than anything in the world. They also know that the most important component of being normal
is having a home -- a home that is warm and full of fun -- a place where a boy can go with this problems. A home is what the boys at Dawson House now have and that is what has turned most of them from belligerent trouble makers into good students and hard workers; from unhappy boys into happy boys". And I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that our girls find it much more difficult to stay out of our institutions than what the boys do and I do feel very strongly that the minister would do a wonderful thing for his department and for the young girls of the Province of Manitoba if he went along with the request of the ladies here in the city -- in the Greater Winnipeg area -- for financial assistance to build the Roslyn Home. I'm sure that it will more than pay for itself. It will give the girls a chance, an opportunity to get into the normal stream of life and that investment is worth a lot more than any penal institution or an institution of commitment we could build.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item No. 7 -- Item No. 8.
MR. A. E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Chairman, under No. 8, I was waiting for No. 8 but I was governed by a conversation. I want to tell a little story here tonight, Mr. Chairman, and I know that your patience is being exhausted by these lengthy speeches. Ever since I was elected last June, I've been wanting to tell this story and I think that this is an appropriate time to tell it. It won't take long. I will start out by -- this has to do, by the way, in case you just don't get the line of my reasoning here -- this has to do with institutions or dentention homes. We will start off at the monument of Seven Oaks on Main Street, and if you read back in history you will find out that while we have a monument there to the massacre of Governor Semple and 20 of his men, history does record that quite a blunder was made there too, because Governor Semple walked out on the prairie into the hands of Cuthbert Grant and some people would even say it was foolish.
But across the street from the monument of Seven Oaks another blunder has been made. I refer to a piece of property about ten acres in size that came into the hands of the provincial government some 20 years ago. This piece of property was developed by a religious institution and it became in arrears in taxes and through circumstances which we are not able to find out -- at least the municipal council of West Kildonan has never been able to find out properly -- the provincial government acquired the title to that property. Then for many years, of course, it received the services of the municipality for which it paid nothing in return. Rinks were flooded in the winter time and similar things, and it was only later on that the provincial government gave a grant in lieu of taxes for the services given to this piece of property. This piece of property was developed. In other words, a portion of it was sold but then it was reduced in size to about four acres. But it still was a priceless piece of property. It had beautiful trees that took hundreds of years to grow and it was a wonderful site for any institution. There were some who said, at the time, that certain political manoeuvering was going on in regard to this piece of property. That I'm not in a position to say. But it so concerned the council of West Kildonan, at the time, that they saw fit to put zoning regulations against the property, in the belief that if the provincial government couldn't see the possibilities of this piece of property, surely the municipality had the right to zone it in the best interests of the community. The zoning board placed regulations against this property. The right to do that was challenged by the government of that day. Mr. Schultz, I believe, was then the Attorney-General. But the municipality of West Kildonan said, "well, surely a board such as a zoning board, acting in the best interests of the community, would have the right". And when it was being questioned and legal action was threatened, we said, "well, go ahead. We'll see whether the zoning board has the right to make sure that the future is protected in regard to this piece of property". Now the heat was on. Then, of course, there was an election in the offing, and I was the mayor of the community at the time, and not wanting to cause any unnecessary fight over this piece of property, the government of that day was inclined to forget about this political aspect of the thing.
About this time the municipality of West Kildonan was in dire need of a school site and they asked the provincial government at that time to consider selling it to them at a reduced price. Now a precedent for that sort of thing has been set because the Swift Canadian Company, I am told, while they were in Elmwood for many years and caused a certain amount of distress to the residents there, saw fit to give to the City of Winnipeg that piece of property to be used for whatever purposes they might see fit in the future ...
MR. STINSON: For park purposes.
MR. WRIGHT: In other words, it was given with no strings attached other than for park purposes. About this time West Kildonan saw fit to allow two churches to be built on this property, still keeping the regulations of a special zone against the property. About a year later, an application came in -- and it is still on file in the offices of the municipality -- an application came in to build a $5,000,000 hospital on this priceless piece of property, showing, Mr. Chairman, that this piece of property, by virtue of its size, could not be matched for any type of institutional use. There was more heat placed on the situation but this time the government said, of course, they needed the money so badly that they should put it up for bid, ignoring the requests of the West Kildonan School Board for a school site. I suppose that the support that they gave to hospitals of that day made it impossible for the order that wanted to build the hospital -- made it impossible for them to build that too. But they put it on the auction block and they sold it. They sold it for $140,000 and of course, at that time, they were pleading poverty. But then, now we find out that they were in pretty good financial straits. They weren't suffering at all, but they needed this $140,000. They must sell this priceless piece of property.
They had a responsibility to this province because they were operating the Manitoba Home for Girls. They had a dedicated staff there, operating under trying conditions. Did they see where they could develop this piece of property to make it something worthwhile? No, they wanted to sell it. I also know and I am not making any statements tonight, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot prove, that they approached the United Church and tried to pawn off these protestant girls on the United Church. They also approached the Salvation Army, and by the way, the Catholic girls were placed in the care of the Marymound School in West Kildonan. Here was a pitiful spectacle! Here was a government absolutely shirking its responsibilities with an insitution and a valuable piece of property. There were trying to get out from under, despite the fact that they had a dedicated staff, highly trained personnel. So they sold this beautiful site. And then it wasn't long after -- they started to cry when the heat was turned on again -- they started to cry for a site. They thought about the Academy Road site. Out there the residents complained. The residents didn't complain in West Kildonan. They thought that was a worthwhile thing -- the Manitoba Home for Girls -- and they also thought it was pretty near time the government did something about those dilapidated buildings. So they sold this beautiful site and then they went crying around looking for a place to put this home. I say, Mr. Chairman, this is an utter lack of responsibility. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition this afternoon talked about being openhanded with the people's money. When I look at this -- I started off by saying, Mr. Chairman, that it is not my desire to prolong this because I know that your patience is being exhausted -- I started off by talking about a monument, the monument of Seven Oaks. Today, across the street, we have a beautiful shopping centre -- one of the best in Greater Winnipeg. We're proud of that, but when I look at this shopping centre today, I can visualize another monument -- a monument to the lack of responsibility of our government. And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the name Liberal-Progressive be changed. It should be Liberal-Retrogressive, because it's liberal as far as private enterprise is concerned, but it is certainly retrogressive as far as the people of this province is concerned.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, during the past year, I was invited on two occasions by the warden of Stony Mountain Penitentiary to attend graduation exercises of the inmates taking a Dale Carnegie course, "How to Win Friends and Influence People". This course had an astounding effect on the men who took it. These men who are in prison are emotionally disturbed, have an inferiority complex and in most of them in general are afraid to meet life. And those that have taken this course, the effects on them are just remarkable. And anyone who is privileged to see the results will agree with me to the fullest extent. The men who have taken this course become confident and are no longer afraid to face the challenge of going into the world and making a living in a proper manner. The point I would like to make is that in Canada and in Manitoba, millions of dollars are spent on these institutions and I think it might be advisable for the government to consider possibly an experiment of instituting these types of courses in the Headingley Gaol to see if similar programmes can't be started, and if the effects are as good on those inmates as they were on the inmates at Stony Mountain Penitentiary, it would certainly be money well spent. The officials of the penitentiary advised me that no inmate who has been released after taking this course has ever gone back to prison. The
Attorney-General might consider making it compulsory for every inmate, for every man who is placed on suspended sentence by our courts to take such a course as a pilot plan and if it proves satisfactory he might be able to expand the programme in the institution.
MR. GRAY: I would like to ask a direct question now. What is being done by the home for girls? Is it being planned, built, and when and where?
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, starting with the last question first, the question asked by the Honourable Member for Inkster, tenders were called for the Home for Girls on the 11th day of March. The tenders received will be opened sometime in April and we confidently expect the construction to be undertaken immediately in April, immediately after the contract is awarded. The site is the Drewry Lane site which was purchased by our predecessors. We found after considerable review of different sites which were available that this was perhaps the most suitable because of its proximity to Greater Winnipeg, and I confidently expect, although I can't predict the terms of the contract, I confidently expect that I have so advised the Minister of Public Works, that we can occupy this new institution in the late fall of this year. So plans are definitely on the way. I may say to the honourable gentleman that they went through considerable revisions and we feel, that is the staff and myself feel, that we have in this building and the new ideas that have arisen from these different revisions that were made, a home which will be truly a home for girls and one in which we can undertake that type of rehabilitation programme which these girls require and need in the particular trouble in which they find themselves.
MR. GRAY: Is it a cottage type?
MR. LYON: It's a combination of the cottage type and the institutional type. It's all one floor with cottage units attached to the main administration building. We would be more than pleased to show the honourable member the plans that we have at any time. They have been on display and they have been in the press for some weeks past.
The comments of the honourable member from West Kildonan are certainly interesting historically. I don't necessarily subscribe to everything that he says but I can assure him that everything of which he complains took place prior to the 30th of June. I, naturally, am only responsible for what has taken place since the 30th of June and in that time we have made plans for a new Home for Girls and we have the Home for Girls under way. We did that within a period of six months so I hope that that will at least meet with some approbation from the honourable member.
Reverting back to the remarks of the honourable member from Ethelbert Plains, I want to assure him that I appreciate most sincerely his kind offer of assistance. I might suggest to him that he might be in a better position to assist me were he to change seats and move over on to this side of the House, but knowing him as I do, and certainly appreciating him as I do as an honourable member that he is, I would like to call him a friend as well. I don't think he will be making that move. But nonetheless, I certainly do appreciate his comments. I can only say in regard to the implementation of the Fauteux Report that the report was received in the early part, I believe, of 1956. There was a conference of deputies called later that year by the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Garson. Since that time, since 1956, no firm action was taken either by the former Liberal government before they were turned out of office in 1957. However, Mr. Fulton did call the latest Fauteux Conference in October of 1958. That conference settled on all of the plans that were made at the conference of deputies in 1956. If the honourable member wishes to read the depositions from that dominion-provincial conference, he will see that I, as the Attorney-General of Manitoba, registered a strong cavaet with the federal government to the effect that our accommodation problems in Manitoba were extremely pressing and that under the terms we agreed upon, -- and I may say agreed upon almost unanimously at that conference, -- special action could be taken in those provinces which were facing a pressing accommodation need. That same statement was made by my colleague the Attorney-General of Nova Scotia and also by my colleague and friend the Attorney-General of Ontario, the Honourable Kelso Roberts and we were assured in the open conference by the Minister of Justice that our problems would receive close attention from them and certainly as soon as they could bring the planning commission to us and get the work under way that would be done. So I am confident that the federal government will move with all reasonable despatch in meeting the problem in Manitoba.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman ... this pleasant discussion. I want to also thank the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains for coming to my support. This is a most unusual situation in view of some of the battles that we have had in past years. I'm accustomed to having support from that corner, Sir, on this particular subject because the Honourable the Minister of Labour used to sit right back there and rise in his place and say "I , too agree with the Honourable the Leader of the C.C.F."
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid that the very pleasant discussion that my honourable friend the Leader of the C.C.F. party has just referred to will maybe have to be broken for a short time because I must say that I was quite astonished at the bitterness of the attack that the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks made upon the former government. I have always had such a high respect for my honourable and his administration in the municipality in which he was mayor that I must say that even in this Chamber where we expect to disagree quite emphatically at times, that I was not prepared for the bitterness that he injected into his statements and I simply will not let them pass uchallenged because the insinuations that he made with regard to political pressure and because there was an election and other suggestions of this kind. I challenge him -- he says that he is not saying anything that he is not prepared to prove -- well, I challenge him to prove it, because they cannot be proved. And he'd better not start making suggestions like that without any proof because there is no proof. Now I ask him -- give the proof!
MR. WRIGHT: ... I said that there were those who said.
MR. CAMPBELL: That's a fine kind of a statement to make in here for suggestions and inferences such as my honourable friend made there. He made the most definite implication that there was some political pressure in connection with the arrangements up there. Now I don't know all the deal -- all the details of what happened with regard to that establishment. I just don't recall them. There were others, not I, in charge of the administration, but always these matters came to Cabinet Council so I know at least something of what went on. And before ever the first undertaking was made to dispose of the extra property -- what might be called the extra property to the west -- which I think went for a housing development -- before that was made at all, there had been a firm decision made by the Attorney-General's department and their advisors on these matters that that location was not suitable for the Home for Girls. Now my honourable friend doesn't need to agree with that, and qutie frankly, I don't know that I agree with all these recommendations that are made myself. But there has been a tendency among such institutions for a long time to get them out into the country, -- to get them out at least off Main Street and things of this kind. And whether that decision was right or whether it was wrong, our advice was that that location was not suitable for the Home for the Girls. And so before that west part of the property was ever disposed of, it was because of the decision being arrived at, without any political pressure or without any election or anything of that kind; with no ulterior motives whatever that that was not a good location and that it could, therefore, be cut down. Had we been going to stay there then, of course, the property would have had to be larger than it was.
Then we come to the later stages and I don't intend to take the time of the committee to go through the various ones. He has mentioned, I think it was two churches, that first got the west side of the smaller property. Well then, when it came to the disposition of the site itself, the honourable member says that we tried to pawn off -- and I'm sure that that was the word he used -- to pawn off the protestant girls to the United Church. We tried, Mr. Speaker, -- and there is no question about this at all, -- we did try to make an arrangement with regard to those girls whereby those of the Catholic faith would be taken over by the Catholic institution and whereby, not the United Church, but a combination of the churches, particularly the United Church and the Church of England, would take the rest of the girls. And I say today, I still say, that that would have been the best arrangement that could have been made. I still say -- and I say it in the face of the plans that are made for building the new one, and I say it regardless of what my honourable friends think or any of the welfare agencies or anybody else, -- I still say that I think the best place to have these girls looked after is in an institution where there is some religious guidance to them and where there are people that are not only as dedicated but more dedicated even than the people he speaks of that were in the institution in West Kildonan. And we have no apology whatever for having tried -- we were not trying to pawn them off on to
the United Church, -- we were trying to make a sane and sensible arrangement in which we believe and which I still believe. I still say that it would be better to have these girls in an atmosphere whereby they would be getting some of the church and religious background. And if the United Church and the Church of England had gone along with the plans that they first discussed with us quite fully, then that's what would have been done. And I think it would have been the best disposition of the matter.
And even after the Church of England decided to drop out of the arrangements, we continued negotiations with the United Church. That's true because they do operate such homes and we tried to get them -- we were not trying to pawn them off. We were ready to make a fair and reasonable arrangement with the United Church; first with the group of churches and secondly with the United Church; and then with the Salvation Army. That's true. But there was no element of pawning anything off on anybody. We were doing it because we believed that was the right way and I absolutely refute any statement -- every statement -- that the honourable member has made with regard to the kind of motives that we had in dealing with this. And when we couldn't make these arrangements, -- and we continued to try to make them, -- we really wanted to make them, -- when we continued to try to make them, and they finally didn't materialize, we didn't go crying to anybody about a site. We were up against moving. And these other places that we talked about were temporary quarters. It is surely true that if they wouldn't want to have them staying on Main Street as a permanent home, they wouldn't likely want them on Academy Road either as a permanent home. We were looking for sites. We weren't crying to anybody about sites. We were doing that because it was the only plan that was left after these other folks found that they couldn't take on the proposition. I must say, that as far as the United Church and the Salvation Army, at least they gave serious consideration to this proposal. I still say it would have been the best one if we could have arranged it. And I certainly refute the suggestions that my honourable friend has made about the background of these discussions.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to delay the committee with this but I think that my honourable friend rising in his righteous indignation as he has, has overlooked one or two points. I would like to ask him, was the property sold for $140,000? And if so, why was this valuable property sold for such a low figure? And does he not think he is a bit unfair to my honourable friend from Seven Oaks who admittedly did speak in rather strong terms when he leaves the implication that my honourable friend was arguing just for the Girls Home to be on that site. My understanding of what was said, was that perhaps it might have been a good place for a hospital or some other institution. I think it is rather unfair of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition to single out the one particular type of institution, the one that happened to be there. So I think if he is going to reply in this manner that he should be fair and particularly with respect to the sum of money that the property was sold for.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, ... willing to do that and I didn't want to -- in challenging my honourable friend for ascribing improper motives to me -- I certainly didn't want to ascribe any improper ones to him, and I wanted to reply to the two main things. No. 1 -- any suggestion that there was some kind of political pressure or an election appeal entered into the arrangements that were made -- they did not. The second one was that we had not tried to pawn the inmates off on to anybody. We had tried to make an honest, sensible arrangement.
Now as to the use of the property, I certainly don't intend to infer that my honourable friend was suggesting that it should be used for that institution only, although he did certainly indicate that he thought it was a blunder for us to move away from it. But perhaps, give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he meant the blunder was that we didn't allow it to be used for the School Board or something of that kind. I don't remember the details, and my honourable friend likely does because he's be pretty close to them. But I'm sure of this -- that we had some negotiation with West Kildonan on the matter and we certainly treated every suggestion that they made to us with, shall I say, with a most sympathetic consideration. We certainly had, -- I think there was a suggestion about their municipal offices being built there, -- and we certainly gave that consideration. If my honourable friend says the amount we sold it for was $140,000, then likely that was the amount we sold it for, but I'll bet you that we got competitive bids on it, and we were never pretending at that time that we were hard up and that's why we had to sell the building. Now I don't want to be unfair to my honourable friend but I don't intend to let him get away with being unfair to us either.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, ... can we pass on to the next item?
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Chairman, one moment, please, for a matter of clarification as to the price obtained for that property. The property was sold to the highest tender in the usual manner and if my memory is right, there were, I believe, in the neighbourhood of ten tenders for that property, ranging all the way from about $40,000 to what it was sold for. There was no question about it being sold at a low price.
MR. STINSON: Why sell it at all?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 9 -- passed. Department of Health and Welfare. Item 1 -- Executive Division.
MR. BEND: Mr. Chairman, I know the time is getting on and I will relieve your fears and the rest of the committee by saying that I will be brief as I have been all the way through these discussions. Well, if you encourage me, I could make it 40 minutes or I could make it an hour and a half without any trouble, without any trouble at all. The only question I have at the present time deals with an item that I ran into in the Daily Graphic concerning -- that's the Portage Daily Graphic -- concerning a request that they have made to the minister for the building of an extension to their present hospital running in the neighbourhood of $190,000. Now, the policy was, and I think there must be a change in policy if the minister here is quoted correctly or if his answer is correct here. When such a request came before the department previously the Advisory Commission took up the matter and sought certain information from the hospital requesting the addition, or if it was a new building, from the committee concerned. This information was then carefully checked and then a committee would be struck off that Advisory Commission, who would investigate the request being made and then would report back to the commission as a whole and state their views whether or not the addition was justified, and they in turn reported to the minister. Now usually that was done as promptly as possible, probably a couple of meetings ensuing, the one in which the request was considered, the striking of the committee, the report back at the next meeting and so on. I understand that with respect to this request, the minister has said that it cannot be given consideration for a year and I wonder if that is true or would he bring me up to date on it?
HON. GEORGE JOHNSON, M.D. (Minister of Health & Public Welfare) (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, yes, the Honourable Member from Rockwood-Iberville -- that request came to the Advisory Commission. I believe it was before the Commission before I came in or shortly afterwards. It was brought up by the Advisory Commission and just last week the Advisory Commission as I recall the letter I signed last week was to the effect that the present study indicated that at this moment they didn't feel that the extension was justified and that they did feel, however, with the rapid expansion of that area, that they would re-study the matter in 12 months' time. That was the recommendation of the Advisory Commission to the minister. I might add that in their study they discovered 72% occupancy of the hospital and most of the staff felt that they were short of pediatric beds and there was some question that the Commission felt that that could be relieved somewhat by shifting and so on, and the recommendation to me was to leave it for a year and then to reconsider.
MR. BEND: Mr. Chairman, that answers my question. Then I've got the wrong impression, and probably from this article, and the policy is remaining as was -- that no change in policy at all.
MR. STINSON: I think I have only one question for the Minister of Health and it has to do with a reply that he sent to me in answer to a request of mine. I wrote to the honourable gentleman asking him about the attitude of the government towards chiropractic treatments. Someone was requiring chiropractic treatments from the welfare department and the minister has written to me as follows: "First of all, the government's attitude toward chiropractic treatments is simply this: That we are not prepared to spend public funds for individuals to take these treatments". So that is a very definite statement of government policy, but I would remind him that the Workmen's Compensation Board does recognize the chiropractic profession. Perhaps my honourable friend doesn't choose to do so. And it does seem somewhat ironical that I should be here at the moment as the champion of the chiropractors because I understand that my Conservative opponent in my own riding is a chiropractor. [Interjection] This is only one of those unusual situations that arises in politics.
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): Mr. Chairman, the minister in the debate earlier in the Session made mention of the fact that there was to be extensions as I remember it to both the Brandon and the Selkirk mental hospitals, -- I think he said 500 beds each. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could tell us how many trained and qualified psychiatrists there are in these institutions and whether there are any plans to increase the staff? I think it might be a better expenditure of money in the long run than simply building extra beds in hospitals, although they are necessary.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, I think if the honourable member reads the Speech from the Throne, in there I indicated that it certainly is the hope of the government that we would only build enough beds in our mental institutions to cope with our immediate problems and project them a few years ahead. It's in there, but that of course is getting outside the shere of this debate. My poor department just has four items here, which is 25% of last year's budget of the estimates passed for the next three months. We are planning in the future to make extensions to the mental institutions, which I think any government in office would be compelled to do at this time.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Radisson): Mr. Chairman, it isn't very often that I single out any minister of the government for praise but I would like to say at this stage how much I have appreciated the kind co-operation of the Minister of Health & Welfare on numerous occasions when I've had dealings with him. In coupling that bouquet to him I would suggest that he is carrying on to a similar manner as the former minister and it has been very much appreciated.
But I would like to ask him this question and I don't think that it has any bearing at all on any plan or new budget. On numerous occasions I have raised in the House here, I have raised the point of the question of the hospitalization tax on those who are not on social welfare, or old age assistance, or social security, whose incomes are not at the level of $1,620 in respect of a married person or $960 on others. And I would like to know whether or not if the minister irrespective of any anticipated expansion has given any consideration even within the confines of the present amount or if the same amount had've been carried through to this year, to an extension of the policy of free premiums, for the want of a better word, to those people who are not in receipt of social aid who are finding it very, very difficult to pay their hospital premiums.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the question that has been asked. I think probably the most pressing situation that has arisen in regards to the honourable gentleman's question has been in the classification, for instance, of a widow with dependent children, who was under a certain income, where the older boy may be working and supporting the family. It did seem very unjust that that boy working say for $150 starting work -- would have to pay a whole premium for himself, a premium for his mother, or his mother would then have to pay a premium for herself or a family premium for hers and the younger children. This was the particular type of case that came to our attention on quite a few occasions and we have provided that amendment in the Hospital Act.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1 -- Passed. Item 2 -- Health Division -- Passed. Item 3 -- Welfare Division.
MR. WAGNER: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder whether the Honourable the Minister of Health & Welfare took steps to urge a request from the federal government to take action immediately to alleviate the situation on our reserve people. It is almost unnecessary to mention even briefly the neglected conditions of our native Canadians, the Indians on the reservation. A conference was held in Winnipeg the last week of last month. I believe anyone who listened to the different speakers and representatives from different parts of the country must have been impressed by the evidence of neglect and ill-treatment and must have realized that we were faced with our own problems and as well as those of the Indian and Métis. From time to time I visit the Peguis and Fisher Reserve and I see how they live, and discuss things with them. I've been in houses where you could see the sky through the ceiling and roof. Bushwork and trapping is being done at a very slow pace. Good fishing is practically non-existent. And I think that the honourable minister will agree with me that the fishing situation on Lake Winnipeg needs a very thorough study if it is to provide anything like a decent livelihood for our people. I discussed with the chiefs and council men and clergymen the types of action that must be taken, and taken immediately if the conditions which have been imposed on our native Canadians are to be alleviated. I greatly regret that the bridges which were proposed for building this
winter at Peguis and Fisher River Reserve were not proceeded with. Such constructive work would have created much needed winter employment in these areas. During my discussion with the Department of Indian Affairs & Public Works last summer, I was led to believe that the importance of those public works were appreciated. Consequently, I was greatly surprised and very disappointed when I found that nothing had been done. Perhaps I should not have been surprised. Perhaps I was too optimistic in expecting that anything would be done. I have passed over to the Honourable the Minister of Public Works information which I have received as a result of attending a council meeting ...
MR. JOHNSON: ... prolonged programme and we discussed and passed the supplementary supply to welfare a few days ago.
MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Chairman, as you know, I proposed a resolution about a week ago that consideration be given to the advisability of broadening the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan to take care of patients in nursing homes, and in the debate that followed, the Honourable the Minister of Health, and indeed the First Minister, indicated that they were at least sympathetic to the resolution. Now I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, if it is the intention of the government to consider this resolution or what is the policy on this subject?
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, of course, we are getting off the subject but I can assure the Honourable Member from Neepawa that I -- this is under our very active consideration. I, I came not prepared at this time to say just what is going on but I think he would be very pleased with our efforts.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Department of Mines & Natural Resources.
MR. BEND: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to take a minute. The estimates have been passed and I don't believe that the minister and I will be entering into any further debate before certain events. I wanted to simply express my appreciation for the way he has treated me in several of the requests that I have had in front of him.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1 - Administration -- Passed; Item 2 - General Office -- Passed; Item 3 - Surveys Branch -- Passed; Item 4 - Mines Branch -- Passed; Item 5.
MR. TRAPP: On the question of Surveys Branch. There was an item appeared in the paper last summer, or last fall, where some certain individual from Saskatchewan was employed by our department to survey Eastern Manitoba for the possibility of putting a road through there. I wonder if the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources would tell us if he is still in the pay of the provincial government in surveying our timbered areas or not.
MR. EVANS: Do I take it the Honourable Member is inquiring concerning the roads to resources programme?
MR. TRAPP: Yes.
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines & Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): The survey is being conducted. A large part of the survey has been completed. Some results have been submitted and are now being studied, and a programme will be developed on the basis of that informatin.
MR. STINSON: Mr. Chairman, what he wants to know is if you've got some foreigner from Saskatchewan in there doing the job.
MR. ROBLIN: There's a lot of good men in Saskatchewan.
MR. EVANS: Yes, there is Canada-wide, if not a continent-wide, expert in Saskatchewan in the person of Dr. Mullard, who has made a specialty of aerial surveys and the studies of aerial photographs for the purpose of laying out roads, and for other purposes as well. He is a nation-wide authority and we took advantage of his services.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 6 -- Passed; Item 7 -- Passed; Item 8 -- Passed; Item 9 -- Passed.
MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether or not he has at any time been approached by the Union of Manitoba municipalities or individual municipal officials with regard to the possibility of the provincial government taking over the responsibility for the collection of real property tax on crown lands lying within municipal boundaries?
MR. EVANS: No, Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, no one has made an approach of that kind to me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 10 -- Passed; Item 11 -- Passed; Item 13 -- Passed; Item 14 -- Passed. Department of Public Utilities.
MR. JOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I was going to give quite an oration, or try to give an oration here tonight on this subject, but I will refrain because I think we all want to vote interim supply. I will merely ask two unrelated questions. First of all, has the government or the Hydro-Electric Board an agreement with International Nickel in regard to construction of the fifth unit at Kelsey? Question No. 1. Question No. 2. Has the sum of $15,000, called for in the letter of intent, been paid to Northwestern Elecronics for fulfilling their part of an agreement, and has the company been reimbursed for expenses incurred by them because of certain failures of the Minister of Public Utilities? I refer specifically to those failures in regard to furnishing electric power, the acquisition of land and fencing.
HON. J. B. CARROLL (Minister of Public Utilities) (The Pas): In answer to those questions, Mr. Chairman, the answer to both questions is no. The answer to the second question specifically -- I think the agreement that was entered into by our honourable friends opposite was done rather hurriedly and I'm afraid that there have been some errors in drafting of that particular agreement, with the result that we have not come to a definite understanding with respect to the final payment to Northwest Electronics. We outlined our position in a letter to Northwest Electronics last September, when they failed to comply with two conditions that we felt were important and vital to this agreement, and those conditions were that they would make arrangements with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for programming, and that they obtain a license from the Department of Transport, neither of which they did. They did get a temporary license because of the arrangement that we had with Northwest Electronics. The arrangement called for a test of their equipment only, and we felt that because they did not fulfill their part of this agreement -- and we pointed out to them at that time that we felt that we could not be bound by any land that they might accumulate for test purposes, -- and the arrangemment was spelled out very specifically to them; that particular intention on our part was drawn to the attention of the Honourable Member for Flin Flon, and we asked him at that time if he could offer any further advice as to how we might help to speed up this test that was being anticipated by Northwest Electronics, and to this date we have heard nothing further from the Honourable Member for Flin Flon. So I can only assume that he was quite in agreement with the steps that we had taken up to that particular time.
MR. JOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the letter that the honourable minister is referring to -- I can read -- is marked "Personal and Confidential". And I have respect for a letter that's signed personal and confidential, otherwise I would have quoted it and you should have the decency to do the same thing. Now in regard to another matter here. In the letter of intent, in section 16, it says this in part: "If, after the completion" (and I have the letter marked 'Personal and Confidential' and we all know that letters personal and confidential are personal and confidential)...
MR. CARROLL: Does that mean you don't have to answer them, Sir?
MR. JOBIN: I don't have to answer your charge now when I had the decency not to refer to it. The letter of intent, section 16 says: "If after the completion of the said five units, television signals -- signals, not programming -- signals, does not meet the requirements set out in paragraph number three, herein the $15,000 is to be paid to Northwest Electronics". No. 3 says: "The payment of the test sum of nine thousand, so many dollars, per unit is conditional upon the five units providing throughout the entire route a maintained television signal meeting the standards and requirements for Grade B service, as set out in Department of Transport Specification No. 11". This talks about signal, not about programming. The minister, in a press release, no, in a radio address, on March 11th said this, and I won't quote it all, but I will if he wants it -- just quote out of context but with the full meaning: "With the failure of recent tests conducted by Northwest Electronics". If he says they failed, according to that letter of intent he owes them $15,000, which this government should have paid. And the other aspect, the acquisition of lands, supplying of power and fencing, should have been met. Now, while I'm on my feet, and I'll be very brief, -- this was a $15,000 (and I won't argue the point -- I'll do it back north where we can have a real argument about it), but I say this, Mr. Chairman, that this was a $15,000 gamble on what we thought was reasonably good grounds. I think that it was a good gamble to provide T.V. to Northern Manitoba and to other parts of Manitoba. The Honourable Member for Churchill had been advocating it -- and this is a new piece of technique, members of this House, and I want you to pay attention to it because it's good -- Mr. Robert
Simpson from Churchill had a resolution in Ottawa advocating T.V. He spoke and a Mr. Halpenny, a Conservative, spoke also about it. And what does Mr. Halpenny do? This is a brand new technique and we should employ it. I realize this is after Simpson has brought in his resolutions. I realize that this subject is one that could occupy us for many hours and I know that many honourable members would like to speak on this question, particularly with a view to outlining the needs of some parts of their riding. Note, I therefore move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Davenport, Mr. Morden, that the debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Churchill, Mr. Simpson, standing on the Order Papers No. 4, under Notices of Motion, be now adjourned. What a way to squash a resolution!
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that my honourable friend has not quoted the full agreement. He neglected to say that two of the conditions that were placed upon Northwest Electronics were that they would (1) get this license from the Department of Transport, and they persistently refused to devulge the nature of the technique which they were using and which would not normally give them a license to operate. They did not comply with the other condition, which was that they would arrange for programming. Now, our Legal Department tells us, of course, that this is not a proper document which would normally bind the government, but we recognize a moral obligation on our part and will carry it out in the best interests of the people of Manitoba. Now, our honourable friend said that they were gambling, and I agree that it was a gamble, because there is absolutely no evidence here on record that this system could possibly work under the conditions that we have in Manitoba. There was no proper investigation and I submit that the Honourable Member for Flin Flon was gambling with taxpayers' money, which was not prudent, and not like the honourable gentlemen across.
MR. JOBIN: Mr. Chairman, before this letter of intent was signed, there were discussions and negotiations with the Attorney-General's department and with officials of the Manitoba Telephone System. Now, if that isn't fair enough co-operation or investigation, I don't know. I could read you letters that we've got subsequent from people across the line -- I won't debate the thing. When it comes time for election back north, I'll debate it with the honourable minister.
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I promise not to prolong the discussion, but I am interested in the remarks of the Honourable Member for Flin Flon that discussions were held with the Department of the Attorney-General when he was a minister in the former government. I am aware and have been made aware exactly of the nature of those discussions, and I find that the discussions went along this line. The Honourable Member for Flin Flon approached the Deputy Attorney-General with this draft letter which he had drawn and which he was to sign in the absence of the then-Premier. On receiving this draft letter the Deputy Attorney-General called in technical advisers from the Manitoba Telephone System, who then completely redrew the whole offer to treat, or letter, which the honourable member was purporting to sign on behalf of the government. The next morning when he saw that letter, the one that had been drafted by the legal staff, and by the technical experts, he proposed to tear -- he did tear it apart, and said he couldn't understand the terminology and that he wanted to go back to what he had drafted. So in effect, the letter which was sent to Northwest Electronics by a minister of the former government, was the letter in which the advice of the technical and legal experts was largely overlooked or disregarded. And I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that had that advice not been overlooked or disregarded, that there might have been much less ambiguity in the letter which was only an offer to treat, never a contract, which was sent to Northwest Electronics. There is not, from a legal standpoint, there never was, a binding agreement between the two parties. As the honourable, the minister has said, we have attempted to carry out the moral implications which were left to us by the purport of this letter, and certainly everything has been done to facilitate these people in attempting to prove their system. We are advised by the Department of Transport that the system will not work. It gives an inadequate signal. It is not satisfactory in any count at all. But I want to make the point clear that the legal and technical advice which he received, was disregarded, and had it not been disregarded this situation might not have arisen.
On the question as to whether or not the money has been paid, I'm pleased to advise that we are honouring that moral obligation, and it's only a moral obligation, we are honouring it
even though we feel that a minister of the Crown cannot bind the government as he purported to do in that letter. We are honouring that obligation. We met as recently as this morning with the solicitor for Northwest Electronics. We hope to have the matter cleared up very shortly to the satisfaction of both parties.
MR. JOBIN: Mr. Chairman, may I say three things? First of all, I thank the honourable minister for saying they are going to honour commitments. Secondly, in regard to the Attorney-General. I was at the meeting -- we can call them in sometime if you want. There were certain clauses deleted, I'll admit, but the essential part of the first agreement, as drafted in co-operation with the Attorney-General's department, and with the Manitoba Telephone System engineers, were adhered to. And thirdly, I have this observation to make that for a $15,000 investment, there is still the possibility that it will work. People scoffed at Coppersmith and others when they talked about telephones. For $15,000 I'm convinced it can work, and I think it behooves any government to do all that they can do to see that it's carried out and to see that it's promoted, -- not the way the Honourable Minister of Public Utilities has done -- scoffed at it, told people not to do this, not to do that, -- he was in a great hurry to say that the tests were a failure. I would say this, that if he were really concerned with Northern Manitoba, and all of Manitoba not covered by T.V., that he should ask the D.O.T., the C.B.C. to please, let's have another test on grounds that are satisfactory to Manitoba Telephone System, to Northwest Electronics. That's all I ask in this case is that he ask for another test.
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to Northwest having as many tests as they want, but we, as a government, are not part of the agreement. If they want to continue their tests with the Department of Transport then we submit that they should go about it in exactly the same way that any other company would apply for that kind of a license. And I will go one step further and say that I believe that this experiment, this gamble that our friend has referred to, has cost considerable time in this particular matter of transmitting television, because I have had at least six different companies who have come to me in the last nine months, inquiring about the possibility of extending television service to Northern Manitoba, and I submit that this particular agreement has been a hinderance rather than a help in providing that kind of service to your people at Flin Flon.
MR. JOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if I may just add this observation. This is what Mr. Halpenny of London, the Conservative, said again in the House. "In regard to the application" -- Do you know what the applications are? "We'll put T.V. into Flin Flon, The Pas and the north, if C.B.C. will supply the T.V. channels and the rest of it". -- So would anybody -- so would I -- and so would you, Mr. Speaker, -- but here's what they said in Ottawa: "Then we must take into consideration the fact there are 40 or 50 locations in Canada which are similar to those about which the Honourable Member for Churchill was speaking". What a hope you've got with your office when there's 40 or 50 others looking for it!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 2. Passed.
Item 3. Passed.
Item 4. Passed.
Department of Public Works.
Item 1.
MR. TRAPP: A question about item 4, Mr. Chairman. I have noticed that there are no P.G. plates on the motor vehicles of the government, I would like to ask the Honourable Minister to explain whether they have been done away with entirely or what the new system entails, or what benefits there are from it.
MR. CARROLL: Mr. Chairman, it's the policy of this government to discontinue the use of plates of that type. In future we'll be using the standard type plates for all different vehicles.
MR. STINSON: He wanted to know the reason why.
MR. ROBLIN: The reason why is very simple. Because people with those plates should be treated exactly the same as any other people driving cars. They shouldn't go into the parking spots and not be tagged, and things of that description.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: Well, those people are driving government cars.
MR. ROBLIN: That's right, and they're ordinary citizens too.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: The citizen is not involved in this at all, it's the vehicle that's involved. And I think that the reason that the First Minister has given isn't the reason at all.
MR. ROBLIN: What reason would you ...
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: His reason is that there are going to be so many more vehicles on the road that the government doesn't want them identified.
MR. ROBLIN: Oh no, there's not. I gave the House the story the other night about our changing of the motor vehicle programme. We're not going to be nearly as slipshod as my honourable friends were.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH: Oh, you'll have a lot more vehicles.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 5. Passed.
Item 6. Passed.
Item 7. Passed.
Item 8. Passed.
Item 9. Passed.
Item 10. Passed.
Item 11. Passed.
Item 16. Passed.
MR. CAMPBELL: Are we at Public Works now, Mr. Chairman? Well, we've been making good progress. But the Honourable, the Minister, I'm sure was going to answer the question that was asked about what amount of the $33,000,000.00 has been spent to date, and what amount of the appropriation of a year ago was finally spent.
MR. WILLIS: Of the $33,000,000.00, Mr. Chairman, we have now committed slightly more than $6,000,000.00. In addition to that, we have seventeen contracts now being advertised, which is not included in that total, which will build it up. We are, as you probably know, calling for tenders and we're letting the contracts each week during the present period, as you'll see in the papers.
MR. CAMPBELL: This year's appropriation is just about over, as far as that appropriation, has it been completely spent, or committed?
MR. WILLIS: I answered that question, I said practically so.
MR. CAMPBELL: Both current and capital?
MR. WILLIS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 23. Item 25. Passed.
Item 26. Passed.
Item 28. Passed.
Item 30. Passed.
Item 32. Passed.
Item 34. Passed.
Item 41. Passed.
Item 50. Passed.
Item 51. Passed.
Item 52.
MR. STINSON: On Item 51, it has been drawn to my attention that working conditions on the perimeter road in the St. Norbert area are not very desirable. I wonder if the Minister is aware of this. I have been told that the men there are working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that the rate of pay is $1.25 an hour. And that their working conditions are very bad. Now, this is the information that has been conveyed to me. I wonder if the Minister can comment on that.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, I've heard no complaints in regard to it. If the Leader of the C.C.F. Party will give me the complaints I'll be glad to investigate them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Municipal Affairs.
Item 1. Passed.
Item 2. Passed.
Item 3. Passed.
Item 4. Passed.
Department of Labour - Administration.
Item 2. Passed.
Item 3.
MR. S. JUBA (Logan): I'd like to ask the Minister a question. This afternoon we received a copy of the Greater Winnipeg Investigating Report and I just would like to ask the Minister the cost of this report, as far as the Commission was concerned. They tell me they did some extensive research work which took them into Europe, Miami and various parts of the world, and I just wondered what the cost would be to the taxpayer.
HON. JOHN THOMPSON (Minister of Labor) (Virden): Mr. Chairman, as the honourable members know, this Greater Winnipeg Investigating Commission was appointed in 1955, and they brought in their report in the early part of this year, 1959. The cost to the Province of this Commission was $90,000.00, and I could give a detailed account. Do you wish any further details? $90,000 and the bill for printing as I stated earlier in the House a few days ago, is close to $10,000 for printing the report.
MR. JUBA: Mr. Chairman, there's one other point I'd like to mention regarding this particular report, and that was the constitution of this commission. I noticed with great interest that all the members happened to be elected representatives with political ambitions, should we say, and I think that a commission of this type should be constituted with possibly civil servants and possibly men with municipal experience, plus some politicians, but to have five politicians sit in and bring in a report of that nature, I find it very difficult to accept. And I think that in the future, if the government do contemplate setting up other Royal Commissions, that serious consideration should be given, not to make a mistake of that nature again. There's one other thing I'd like to mention and that is, what will be the policy of the government regarding the payments to these commissioners? I served on one Royal Commission and the government, so to speak, gave us a blank cheque. Now, I'd like to know, does the government have any sort of a set fee for the commissioners, and if not, why not? I sincerely believe that some sort of a fee could be established; as I understand it, no set fee is established for the commissioners. In other words, a Royal Commission is appointed, they sit down, they have a discussion, well, we'll have to appoint a legal adviser, what shall we pay him. Well, do you think $150.00 a day would be too much? Maybe $125.00. And this goes on as far as your technical men are concerned, and such. And then the commissioners decide themselves what salary they should pay themselves. Should it be $100.00 a day, $75.00 a day, or $50.00 a day. Furthermore, what constitutes a day? Two hours, six hours, ten hours, 24 hours? I'm getting carried away with myself. Of course, that's not unusual after listening to what went on in this House for the past couple of weeks anyway. But I think, Mr. Chairman, that the government should set down some sort of a policy regarding Royal Commissions, some sort of a fee to be paid to the commissioners and to the technical staff. One commission may pay $150.00 a day for legal advice and another commission may pay $75.00 a day for the legal advisor.
Now, I think it's about time that they set some sort of a policy governing royal commissions. I sat on this commission and I say, in all sincerity, a careful study should be made and the matter looked into quite thoroughly. I think that the onus is on you to do that, and it should
be done, primarily that this is public funds and I think that the public should be protected. What we get here is the total sum, whether or not we get the breakdown -- I don't know if it's possible to even get a breakdown -- they tell me to one instance that meals charged to a commission -- now I can't substantiate this - this was just given to me -- that meals charged, as far as the commission is concerned investigating a certain area, was $8.00 per meal, and this took place in the Province of Manitoba. Now, if such is the case, I think that the government should carefully scrutinize these expenses and set some sort of a policy in order to protect the citizens of the Province of Manitoba.
Now, I don't know if the Minister could answer any of the questions as to whether or not they have any sort of a policy, or do they intend to set up a policy governing Royal Commissions, or possibly the new government won't even bother establishing Royal Commissions, I don't know, but we've had plenty of Royal Commissions in the past and there may be some in the near future.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the Honourable Member for Logan, I think I should quote one or two figures because he has introduced a topic here of the amount which might or should be paid to members of commissions. In this case the indemnity of the five members of the commission, which apparently must have been entered into three and a half years ago, amounts to $35,000.00. The professional and clerical fees total $23,000.00. Travel expense totals $14,700. Now, those are the major items in this total of $90,000. I do want to say that I certainly agree with the Honourable Member for Logan that in establishing Royal Commissions there should be some rates of pay, amounts of indemnity, definitely established and I believe I can say that we will take his remarks into full consideration if we ever have the need or the opportunity to name a Royal Commission.
MR. JUBA: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Minister could appreciate what I'm trying to say. You have the bulk figure there as $35,000.00 paid to the commissioners. Now, how many hours did they work? How many days did they work? At what rate? Now that's very important. Just like me telling you I'll get you some merchandise at a discount. It doesn't mean anything. It all depends what is the discount, it all depends what is the discount, what is the price of the merchandise. And that is very important, just because you have the lump sum of $35,000.00, but the breakdown you may find that they were paying themselves $100.00 a day. We on the Royal Commission, I think we set our pay, if my memory serves me right, at $65.00 a day. What constituted a day? That was up to the individual. Well, you know what a day's work is. Now we may all differ in opinion, and I think that is the type of policy that should be set down. But to give a Royal Commission a blank cheque, and it's nothing else but a blank cheque, I find it very difficult to conceive any government to spend public funds in that fashion. And I sincerely say that you should consider this matter in establishing some sort of policy to guide the future Royal Commissions.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very interesting item that my honourable friend has raised here and evidently he is quite well acquainted with it, because he mentions that he has been on one of the Royal Commissions and so he should be a very good informant on it.
Now, I understood the Minister to say that the total remuneration was $35,000.00. And did he say that they had operated for three and a half years? That would be an even $10,000.00 per year. And there were five commissioners, were there, was it five commissioners? That would be --
MR. JUBA: It took five years but how much work did they put in.
MR. CAMPBELL: My honourable friend has made his point and how would it be if somebody else made a point now. If my honourable firend would just wait 'till some other points are made.
The point is as I was point out that -- if this is -- I give my honourable friend credit for being in the position also to know how short a day some people may work. Because if there's anybody should be an authority on that he's in a fine position to speak with authority. But if we have $10,000.00 a year and five members, then that's $2,000.00 per member. Now I gather that my honourable friend also wants a check on the meal tabs that they signed and he thinks that there were some that went up to $8.00, so if that was $8.00 for the five of them I would say it wasn't bad. If he has information that it's $8.00 per person, then I think that is pretty high. And Mr. Chairman, the point I'd like to make is that knowing the members of this
Commission as well as I do, I don't think you'd find anyone of them trying to reimburse themselves by padding the meal ticket. And I think that is pretty general with the people that we get on these commissions. Now as to -- if they did and my honourable friend can produce evidence of it, that would be very interesting.
And as far as these Commissions taking a notion to travel around to see how things are done in other parts of the world, it seems to be pretty usual with Commissions and it's something we have to keep in mind when we set them up. And my guess would be that the cost of this particular commission, having consideration to the length of time that they worked, was not out of line with the other commissions that we have had in recent years. And I am prepared to go on record as saying that regardless of the reports themselves, and I haven't studied this one at all, but I have studied some of the others, the so-called Manning Report and the so-called Bracken Report, I am prepared to say this, that when we set up commissions we picked the members of the commission, and this was no exception, we picked them in order to get people of such character and substance and standing in the community, that you could leave a good bit of the decision to them as to where they would go and what they would do. As far as the remuneration is concerned that was always discussed with the people in advance of their appointment. I think I should say this. I think it is only fair to say it, that in the one regard, one case, that was the case of Mr. Bracken who headed the Liquor Commission, he absolutely wished to do that as a public service and not to be paid. And we felt that it was unfair to the other commissioners who had to have some remuneration that he should take that position and we also felt that it could be open to question if he were serving without any remuneration at all when they were taking remuneration. And that was all discussed most fully and we insisted in that case that he should take remuneration and it was set, if my memory serves me correctly, at $8,000.00 a year. And if my memory serves me correctly, the same figure exactly was carried forward to the Manning Commission. However, I am speaking from memory, and I am not certain of that.
But all of these -- I am -- we have left the people to secure their own technical help, and we trusted them to do that.
MR. JUBA: If I gave the impression that I was attacking this one particular commission, I am very sorry, because it was not my intention. I was speaking in general terms regarding Royal Commissions. It was not my intention and if the members of this House feel that it was my intention to attack this one particular Royal Commission, such is not the case. I said I did not like the constitution of that committee. It is true and I'll still say that and I'll prove my point later on.
I was very glad that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition spoke so highly of the members of the Commission. And I feel highly complimented because it was the Honourable Leader of the Opposition who was Premier at that time, that appointed me to the Royal Commission. So you've got to watch what you say about me from here on in. You'll be talking about yourself -- But anyway, I might like to make one observation that even the Chairman of the Liquor Enquiry Commission, who also did some extensive travelling, made it a point, and furthermore he was investigating the liquor outlets in the various provinces, made it a point, this is the important part, not to go into these establishments.
MR. CAMPBELL: To keep the records straight, when I was speaking about these commissions the Members of the House will have noticed that I confined my remarks in that regard to the members of the Bracken Commission and the Manning Commission.
MR. JUBA: Then you exclude me then, is that the idea?
MR. CAMPBELL: I have excluded you. Just for the records.
MR. JUBA: Just for the records.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, just before we leave this investigating committee report, we received the first volume, I understand that there are three more volumes of this report. Events will possibly take place in a few minutes where we may not any longer be members of the Legislature. Is it the intention of the Minister to forward on receipt of the balance of the full report, copies to the present members of the Legislature?
MR. THOMPSON: I think I made it clear, Mr. Chairman, in the announcement when the report was tabled this afternoon that we are not publishing the other parts. They're available, of course, for scrutiny at any time.
MR. D. SWAILES (Assiniboia): Mr. Chairman, before passing on to the next department, I want to put one thing on record for the advisement of the Honourable the Minister of Labour, and that is in connection with the Malloy Commission Report on Jurisdictional Matters. That the labour organizations concerned are absolutely opposed to the findings of that particular commission, and that the labour organizations in general are opposed to any agency of government being given additional powers, powers which they do not already possess over the jurisdiction of any local or provincial or national organization. And I want to pass that information on to the Honourable Minister that he may be guided by it if he has in mind changes to the legislation later on.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Honourable Member for Assiniboia, my understanding is that this commission, the Molloy Commission, brought in a unanimous report and part of the commission was comprised of labour representatives. Now, I am rather surprised that he says that labour is against the report and has no confidence in it. Labour were on the commission and they agreed to the report.
MR. SWAILES: The labour organizations concerned, I think you will find, Mr. Minister, are going to be opposed to the findings of that report and labour in general is opposed to any agency of government being given additional powers of jurisdiction other than those that they now possess over the labour organizations.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1. Passed.
Item 2. Passed.
Item 3. Passed.
Item 5. Passed.
Item 7. Passed.
MR. JOBIN: Just one minute. I didn't realize we were in Industry and Commerce, and I won't take up any time. But I would like to know if this includes enough money to pay for the many and the large advertisements for the $100,000.00 worth of employees that we were going to hire, and the other observation I have to make is that I won't question it because this was my former department, and I don't think it's gone too far wrong and I'm sure that within the next two months too much can't happen to upset and we'll be back to look after things in the future.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolved that a sum not exceeding $16,723,405.00, the amount of the interim supply estimates for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1960, laid before the House at the present Session of the Legislature, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960.
Agreed.
[Mr. Speaker resumes the Chair. ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have adopted certain resolutions and have directed me to report the same.
DR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre, that the report of the Committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that the rules of the House be suspended and the resolutions reported from Committee of Supply be now read a second time and concurred in.
[Mr. Clerk read the Resolution the second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and following a voice vote declared the motion carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of ways and means for raising of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and following a voice vote, declared the motion carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: And would the Honourable Member for St. Matthews take the Chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1960, the sum of $16,723,405.00, being the amount of the several items voted for the departments as set forth in interim supply estimates for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960, made before the House at the present Session of the Legislature, be granted out of Consolidated Funds.
[Mr. Speaker resumes the Chair. ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has adopted certain resolutions and desire me to report the same.
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Roblin, that the report of the committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General, that the rules of the House be suspended, and the resolutions reported in the Committee of Ways and Means be now read a second time and concurred in.
[Mr. Clerk read the resolution the second time. ]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared it carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, that the rules of the House be suspended, and that leave be given to introduce a Bill No. 47, An Act for granting to Her Majesty, certain sums for the public service of the Province, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Health and Public Welfare, that the rules of the House be suspended, and that Bill No. 47, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums for the public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960, be now read a second time, and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
The Committee of the Whole House
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Provincial Secretary, that the rules of the House be suspended, and that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider the following Bill, No. 47, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Honourable Member for St. Matthews to take the Chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5. The Schedule. The Preamble. The Title. Committee rise and report.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered this certain Bill and beg to make their report.
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for River Heights, that the report of the committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion, and after a voice vote, declared it carried. ]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Public Utilities, that the rules of the House be suspended and that Bill No. 47, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1960, be now read a third time and passed.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared it carried. ]
[His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor entered the Chamber. ]
MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly at its present Session passed a Bill, which in the name of the Assembly I present to Your Honour, and to which Bill I respectfully request Your Honour's Assent.
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in Session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and Government, and beg for Your Honour the acceptance of these Bills:
No. 47 - An Act for granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service of the Province for the Fiscal Year ending the 31st day of March, 1960.
MR. CLERK: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to these bills in Her Majesty's name.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I have two messages that I would like to give the House now. The first of them is that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been pleased to dissolve this Assembly; and the second of them is that Writs of Election have been issued for May 14th.
Page revised: 22 September 2009
