| 725 | 726 | 727 | 728 | 729 | 730 | ||||
| 731 | 732 | 733 | 734 | 735 | 736 | 737 | 738 | 739 | 740 |
| 741 | 742 | 743 | 744 | 745 | 746 | 747 | 748 | 749 | 750 |
| 751 | 752 |
| Page | ||
| Statement on Ottawa Conference, Mr. Roblin ........................................................ | 725 | |
| Statement on News Report, Mr. Paulley ................................................................ | 725 | |
| Corrections re Hansard, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Hutton .................................................. | 729 | |
| Questions: Mr. Guttormson (Mr. Roblin), Mr. Desjardins (Mr. Roblin) ................... | 730 | |
| Bill No. 35, re Treasury Act, Second Reading: Mr. Hillhouse ................................. | 730 | |
| Mr. Roblin ....................................................................................................... | 732 | |
| Division on Second Reading ............................................................................. | 735 | |
| Second Readings | ||
| Bill No. 8, re Conservation Districts (Mr. Willis): Mr. Hryhorczuk, Mr. Shoemaker, | ||
| Mr. Willis ......................................................................................................... | 736 | |
| Mr. Campbell, Mr. Willis .................................................................................. | 737 | |
| Bill No. 20, re Labour Relations (Mr. Thompson) .................................................. | 738 | |
| Bill No. 37, re Agricultural Societies (Mr. Willis: Mr. Gray, Mr. Shoemaker, | ||
| Mr. Willis ......................................................................................................... | 738 | |
| Bill No. 38, re Horticultural Societies (Mr. Willis) ................................................... | 739 | |
| Bill No. 39, re Education Act (Mr. McLean) .......................................................... | 739 | |
| Bill No. 40, re S.D. Debentures (Mr. McLean) ...................................................... | 739 | |
| Bill No. 42, re Municipal Act (Mr. Thompson) ....................................................... | 739 | |
| Bill No. 57, re Teachers Retirement (Mr. McLean) ................................................ | 740 | |
| Committee of Whole House, Supply | ||
| Attorney-General, Administration ........................................................................... | 740 | |
[Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker.]
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions
Reading and Receiving Petitions
Presenting Reports of Standing and Select Committees
Notice of Motion
Introduction of Bills
Orders of the Day
HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): It seems likely, Mr. Speaker, that members of the House would wish me to give a brief report on the proceedings of the Conference of Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers that was held in Ottawa during these past few days. I know that there will be other members who will wish to debate the policy of the administration in connection with this conference, and I am sure that there will be a number of opportunities in connection with the budget, which we expect shortly, in which those contributions to our discussions of this matter could be made. But I thought that it would be only fair that I should make a statement now, as to the matters in connection with the conference so that those who might wish to debate the subject later on, would at least have the background information; and if it meets with the wishes of the House, I will do that at the present time.
I should like to point out, Sir, that the proceedings of the Conference were 'in camera'. Nevertheless, I secured permission -- made it quite clear that I would feel myself free to inform this Legislature of the stand taken by this government in connection with it, and in connection with the statement that we made outlining our position at the opening of the conference.
Perhaps I should sketch the background of this conference, Mr. Chairman, so that members will know what we were summoned to do because this meeting was somewhat different from those held in recent years in connection with Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations. Perhaps I can best do that by quoting the terms of reference so to speak, that were given to us when we were considering this conference some few weeks ago, and I do so in these words - quoting from the Government of Canada's statement to us: "The Government of Canada has proposed that the financial relations of the various provinces and the Dominion should receive continuing active co-operative study through the medium of the existing Federal-Provincial Continuing Committee on fiscal and economic matters, working directly under a committee of Ministers composed of the Treasurers or Ministers of Finance of the provinces and the Minister of Finance of Canada. This was proposed in the Speech From the Throne at the opening of Parliament and concurrently in a letter to the provincial Premiers from the Primer Minister dated January 15th, 1959. It is not intended that the Committee of Ministers should provide a substitute for those Dominion-Provincial Conferences which have in the past been the means of negotiation of financial arrangements. The main purpose of the Committee of Ministers will be to prepare for such future negotiations through the study of the many complex financial and economic problems of government in Canada today."
That statement of our terms of reference, Sir, I think clearly outlines the difference between the proceedings that I attended and those that took place on other occasions in connection with Dominion fiscal relations. I think it may be said that the step taken was a good one, because this is the first time that the provinces and Ottawa have met together to study actively and co-operatively almost the whole range of Dominion-Provincial fiscal problems in advance of a conference and in preparation for a plenary session of the full Federal-Provincial meeting. Some members will recall that in 1945, '6 and '7, that a series of papers were prepared on the subject matter of Dominion-Provincial fiscal relations, but they were prepared by the Government of Canada for presentation at the meeting. The effort that is being made at this time will be a co-operative one, whereby the provinces are being asked to make their suggestions to the agenda, develop their ideas on the various points that are brought forward, and work with the Dominion in preparing the basic material on which the fundamental decisions respecting our relations with Canada are arrived at.
Well, Sir, Manitoba made certain proposals for matters that should be studied at this
meeting and on which we required decisions. We asked that there should be a reconsideration of the 9-9-50 formula now being the basis of our tax rental arrangements; that is a rental return to the province of 9%, raised temporarily to 13% in respect of personal income tax, 9% in respect of corporation tax and 50% in respect of succession duties. We have asked for that to be raised. We have also suggested that the floor which provides an element of stability in these arrangements should be a moving one, and that if any changes upward are made in the percentages allotted to the provinces that that should also apply to the floor in a fully retroactive way, so that the floor would in all cases keep pace with the increase in the general structure. We also brought to their attention the fact that the unilateral Dominion legislation on estates tax made a difference in the succession duty return to the Province of Manitoba. Without going into the technicalities of the matter, we pointed out that the new estate tax legislation brought in by the present administration at Ottawa has the effect of reducing by 5% and perhaps 10%, the yield to the provinces of the old succession duty formula and we wanted our position protected and reinstated in that matter.
We also spoke of the necessity of including in the Hospital Service Plan, mental and ... hospital costs; matters of capital cost; matters of depreciation of interest; the ... to share full administration costs in this plan; we expressed our wish that nursing homes and similar types of care should be placed under the plan and made fully part of the hospital services arrangement. I think the House is familiar with the general line of argument on these matters and I don't intend to develop them but merely to state the categories which we brought to the attention of the conference. We emphasized the need for further Federal assistance in the field of education in respect of universities and technical education; matters of flood control and conservation, and highways. We asked for a thorough examination of the problems of land use in Canada, particularly in Western Canada, and we also expressed our wish to discuss with the Federal Government, policies that could be mutually beneficial in respect of credit - farm credit and crop insurance and other measures that might be of assistance in meeting the needs of agriculture.
The matter of northern resource development was placed on the agenda by Manitoba, as well as matters in connection with freight rates and associated problems. We drew to the attention of the conference the fact that the municipalities were an integral part of the problem; that while it was true that they were the responsibility and the sole responsibility of the provinces according to our constitutional arrangements, that their problems bore very heavily on the situation that the provinces faced and that the provinces have had to make very large transfers of money received from Ottawa in connection with these fiscal arrangements to the municipalities in order that they could meet the problems that they had to deal with. And we made it clear that we were very interested in having their problems considered as part of the provincial picture.
We made a proposal in respect of securing capital for what might be termed -- I think latest expression for it is 'social investment.' That is the problem facing provinces and municipalities in finding the capital required for the building of roads, the building of schools, matters in connection with sewerage and water, and hospitals, and similar public investment of this sort, which was bearing particularly heavily on municipalities and provinces due to the explosion of population in certain areas and the general fact that we have yet to invest a proper share of the natural resources, in our view, in the provision of this kind of public service which our people badly need.
Now, these are the main items which Manitoba put forward, though it is by no means an exhaustive list of the items discussed, because each province was asked to contribute to the agenda, and judging from the length of it I think everybody's suggestions must have been included and it covered the whole vast range of Dominion-Provincial fiscal matters as well as the items which I have specifically enumerated here today. I think it is obvious that there is one comment that can be made about a committee of this sort, namely, that it lacks the power to decide. When this proposal was first made to us, we responded to it in a favourable way because we felt that studies of this sort were valuable; we felt that it was a step forward, that the Dominion Government had decided to consult with us first before final positions were taken by them on these matters and allow us to work on these problems co-operatively with the other provinces of Canada and with the Dominion itself in examining the basic data on which policy decisions had to be made. That is a decided advance! But we made it clear when we were invited to these meetings that
we were very conscious of the fact that it lacked the power to decide, that it was not in a full sense a policy-making body, and to our mind that was a drawback.
We pointed out that in our opinion, many of the subjects under discussion had been under discussion for some time. We admit that not all the facts probably are on the table or all the arguments presented, but it was our view that if we were to undertake a study of this sort, that it would be highly desirable if in the meanwhile, there was some interim adjustment made - some immediate interim adjustment made - on the present tax-sharing formula to provide more revenue for the provinces so that we would have a little financial elbow room and gain time for these studies to proceed. And I can assure you, Sir, that we made an emphatic recommendation on that point. I must say that Manitoba stood alone in that position. It was the only province to make a request for an immediate interim upward adjustment in the tax rental payment pending the completion of the various studies that are before us. However, I would like to say that we made that position as clearly and emphatically as we could in order that our position should be very clearly placed both before the conference and before the Ministers of Finance and Treasurers of the provinces and of the Dominion. However, being alone in that position, our initiative did not succeed. We then made it clear that we would be hopeful that this committee of Treasurers would meet again and meet soon, and as you have probably noticed in the papers, Sir, it will meet within about 90 days, on October 15th next, and that certain of the problems which are susceptible of quick handling have been given out to the technical experts for report at that time.
But having settled that point, the province went on to make it abundantly clear that we would wish consideration to be given, not only to the reconvening of this meeting in 90 days, but also to the summoning of the full plenary session of the provinces and of the Dominion, to deal with tax rental matters, and to have power to decide and come to conclusions on this matter. Our position was that this conference of - with full powers - should meet not later than the end of this calendar year, because of our desire to ensure that any decisions arrived at be incorporated in the fiscal year of the various bodies immediately following the calendar year. I must admit that no firm commitment was given to us by the Dominion - that this conference would be held within that period. In fact, strange as it may seem there was no unanimous feeling among the provinces that it should be held, although a majority were strongly of the view that the plenary session should be called this year. I must, in accuracy, report that that was not the unanimous opinion of the provinces of Canada. Nevertheless, Sir, the Dominion Minister of Finance did make it abundantly clear that he regarded the work that was being done now, and that would be done on October 15th, as being an essential step to the convening of a full conference, and that it would make it possible to convene the full conference rather quickly, if it was agreed on a policy basis, because so much of the preliminary work that is required would have been sifted and settled between the provinces and the Dominion in the 90 days that lies ahead of us before this committee meets again. I was pleased to see that he made quite a point of the fact, that this committee's activities and its meeting in October would make it much easier than would otherwise be the case for an early convening of a full plenary Dominion-Provincial settlement before the end of the fiscal year.
So the position of our province has been made clear; that we are very pleased indeed to attend the conference that has just been held; we regard it as a step forward in arriving at mutually satisfactory arrangements between the provinces and Canada; we think that it is something new in our relations with Ottawa; but that we will not be satisfied unless it leads to an early meeting of the full plenary session, preferably before the end of this year, so that policy decisions can be decided upon which will affect our tax rental agreements.
Before I sit down, Sir, I would just like to correct a figure that I gave the House earlier on, respecting the tax-sharing formula -- it's 10% on the personal income side, raised to 13% under the agreeement of last December, '57, and not 9 as I stated, so I would just like to make that correction. I also would like to say that in asking for its interim increase, the province made the suggeston that a 15% of the corporation tax, 15% of the personal income tax, and 50% or rather 55% of the succession duties as presently calculated, would make a satisfactory interim payment to the provinces pending a final adjustment. But I merely repeat again, that although the Province of Manitoba did make that request on those percentages for an immediate interim increase, the fact is that we were the only ones who did so and the rest of the conference seemed to be reconciled - perhaps that's the word to use - to the further step that will be necessary
before a full plenary session is called.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that represents the position taken by this province at the conference. It records, I think, the decisions which were agreed upon by those that were there - I think it represents a step forward, but I assure you, Sir, that we will do our very best, even if we have to act alone again to see that the full session is convened before the end of this year.
MR. D. L. CAMPBELL (Leader of the Opposition) (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, I realize that according to our practice that the statement that the Honourable the First Minister has made is not debatable nor is he subject to questioning upon it. I have no complaint in that regard at all. I simply rise to -- in fact, I rise to express appreciation for the statement that he has given and recognize that it will be useful to ones of us who want to later on, have the opportunity of debating the financial arrangements in this Chamber. But I rise now, to say in addition to that, that it would be greatly appreciated if copies of the actual brief that was presented by the Government of Manitoba at the conference could be made available to the members.
MR. ROBLIN: I think that can be arranged, Mr. Speaker. There was some difficulty at the conference respecting the publication of material from it, and before I give a positive answer, I want to make sure that I'm not already committed on that point. I did reserve the right to make a statement to the House, but I'm not quite sure about that material and I'll check it. I believe, however, that it will be available.
MR. CAMPBELL: If I'm not out of order in saying this, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that when I was at those conferences, I always made the same reservation. We had a perfect right to not only report to our Legislature, but to the people of the province directly, and we made that include the material that was submitted there by us, in the same category.
Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to address a question to the Honourable the First Minister. The daily press carries the report that while in Ottawa, the Honourable the First Minister conferred with the Prime Minister of Canada and some of his colleagues on the matter of financial assistance for the proposed works in connection with the -- guarding against the floods in the future. Is the First Minister in a position to report on the reception that he got in that regard?
MR. ROBLIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to do so. We had a very, I think, useful discussion between the Prime Minister of Canada, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself in connection with the overall situation of all the flood control measures that were involved in my statement of policy given to this House last March.
Now as members will appreciate there are several different categories of flood control measures referred to therein, and although we lump them under one grand head as being the total plan, that we wish to put forward under this matter, it is understandable tha tthose on the other end of the receiving line may wish to break them down into their various categories to better fit the types of legislation they already have on the statute books in respect to this matter. For example, certain of those matter perhaps could be regarded as PFRA matters which are already provided for, while it is certain that others are not, and for which there is, in my opinion, no proper statutory provision at the present time. So we spent quite a lot of time, some 2 1/2 hours in the morning and I was back again with the Prime Minister in the afternoon, analyzing these various matters, and in my opinion some substantial progress was made toward arriving at some solution to the matters in question. The negotiations are not concluded; I imagine they will continue for some little time but, in my opinion, we have made a good start. I think that I may say that our case is receiving careful and sympathic consideration and I'm looking forward to reasonably satisfactory results when all the discussions are completed.
MR. R. PAULLEY (Leader of the C.C.F.) (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a word or two, if I may, on the statement of the Honourable the First Minister in respect of his recent conferences at Ottawa and the Dominion-Provincial relations. I appreciate very much the statement that the Honourable Minister has given and I agree with him that it's not debatable at this particular time, and would appreciate along with my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in receiving as much details as it's possible to receive from the Honourable the First Minister as to what our presentation on behalf of Manitoba was, and also what went on behind the green door. And I can assure my honourable friend that when the question of the budget - our own budget is debated, we will have a few remarks to make in connection with Dominion-Provincial
relations. And any information pertaining to the recent conference I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, will be invaluable to us for that discussion.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day on a point of privilege, I'd like to refer to a news article appearing in this morning's Winnipeg Tribune in connection with an articule headed: Eighty-five Million Flood Projects Start Soon. The particular part of the article I wish to draw to the attention of the House is this, Mr. Speaker. The article says "that during recent debate in the Legislature some opposition members have hinted that actual construction of the floodway may not begin for sometime." The second sentence is to me very important, Mr. Speaeker, for the article goes on to say, they - I presume meaning opposition members - "have pointed out that work on the flooday would weaken the province's bargaining position in Ottawa." The reason I raise this point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is because during the debates in the House on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, we pointed out to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture that the First Minister had made a statement in this House to the effect that in respect of the floodway that we in Manitoba would go alone if necessary, and the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture in the debate could not recall the fact that the First Minister had made that statement. I think, Sir, if we review the matter, the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture in answer to myself had said, "I think we would greatly prejudice our position if we followed the advice of the Honourable Leader of the CCF." My point is simply this, Mr. Speaker, that the Hansard of July 7th, page 689, volume 21A, which just came on our desks this afternoon - I think the newspaper article has got the wrong slant on it, Mr. Speaker; in my opinion it was not the Opposition which said that going ahead with the floodway would weaken the province's bargaining position at Ottawa but the Honourable the Minister of Education -- and I may suggest to the press -- Agriculture, excuse me -- I would suggest to the press that correction be made because we in Opposition remember what the Honourable the First Minister had said in this connection. And if there's any conflict in the opinions of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture and the First Minister in this regard, it should be attributed to them and not to us in Opposition.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. P. WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I would like to correct from Hansard and the Free Press also about some "bums" that I have said, and before those "bums" explode, I would like to put the records straight. When I was speaking on timberwolves I meant "bombs" -- b-o-m-b-s not b-u-m-s. Just to set the records straight I'll just read you one line. "I understand from the Game and Fishery Branch that there is a man that is supposed to go and snare the timberwolves, but for some reason or the other that's snaring and those bombs" - the actual wording is 'cyanide guns' but in our area nobody says cyanide guns, they say it bombs - b-o-m-b-s. And furthermore, the Free Press written by Ted Byfield, he says it this way - "those 'bums' as i call them are not active, possibly they would be active if they were sent out." Well I said 'set out.' So that's the correction, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention to the Hansard people and to the Press.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
HON. GURNEY EVANS (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, though I very much welcome this statement from the honourable member, I can assure you that some of these "bums" or "bombs" are about to explode in his face and I'm sure this will save him from that.
MR. G. HUTTON (Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to call attention to Hansard as well - page 616, No. 19, July 6th. I am not a veterinarian. It says "as a veterinarian;" I think I must have said, "at a veterinarian." Also I would like to call attention to the fact that there in misinformation here. If not misinformation - information that would lead to a misunderstanding. The argument that took place at that time was as to whether the cost of serum had gone from $6.00 to approximately $20.00; and I took the trouble to check and the serum which I think the Honourable Member for Brokenhead was referring to was not serum but the modified swine erysipelas vaccine, and it never at anytime was $6.00; it was approximately $20.00 and it is coming down in price. At the present time at a veterinarian's you may purchase it for approximately $15.50 for a fifty dose vial. This would cost approximately 31¢ per treatment per annum. Now when the Department of Agriculture Livestock Branch was dispensing serum to the hog producers of this province as a service to them, they
could buy it for $4.50 for a vial which would treat 12 1/2 animals at a cost of 36¢ per annum. So actually even if you go to the highest treatment today, it's still cheaper than the serum was a year or two ago.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the First Minister. There has been a great deal of speculation recently that there is going to be an appointment of a new Lieutenant-Governor for Manitoba. Could the First Minister tell us if this is a fact and if so, did he hold any discussions with Federal authorities on his trip to Ottawa?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is true that speculation with respect to the Lieutenant-Governor is a fact. I think my honourable friend's a pretty good speculator on that point but I would say that that appointment does not lie within the province or the provincial authorities.
MR. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Before the Orders of the Day, I would like to ask the Honourable the First Minister if he had a chance to discuss the proposed French language television for Manitoba, and if so, could he give us a brief report?
MR. ROBLIN: I can do that, Mr. Speaker. I did have an opportunity to speak with those in charge of those matters in Ottawa, and I did not have an opportunity to follow it to final conclusion but the understanding that I received was that there is no fundamental matter standing in the way of this; that it's in the machinery so to speak, and it's making its gradual way from one part of it to the other, and that fairly soon, I think, a satisfactory answer should be forthcoming. But I foresee no difficulties in getting this matter cleaned up from the information that was available to me at Ottawa.
MR. DESJARDINS: There's no difficulty as far as the channel either - the channel that has been recommended -- Channel 6.
MR. ROBLIN: As far as I'm aware there will be no difficulty on that point. Now the question of channel may be under some review there, I'm not aware, but as far as I'm concerned the information I know is that the technical people have made a recommendation on it and I imagine that recommendation will be accepted. Now I'm speaking from the best of my knowledge and if my honourable friend is disappointed, please don't stand up again tomorrow and say that I misinformed him. I'm merely giving him the best information I have -- that it looks all right to me.
MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable the First Minister for second reading of Bill No. 35. The Honourable Member for Selkirk.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this is a very important bill. I believe that it is a bill which contains very wide implications. And I believe, too, that it is a bill which should be studied very carefully by all members of this House in the light of the implications that it may contain. My Leader on speaking on this bill dwelt with the relevant provisions of the Treasury Act as it now stands; and from the statement made by my Leader of these provisions, I think, that it must be apparent to all that the government last March in submitting to this Legislature a statement of estimated revenues and expenditures had no legal authority at that time to include as a revenue the $3,600,000 included from the surplus revenue remaining at the end of the last fiscal year. Now by including that revenue - that surplus revenue - from the previous fiscal year, the government was able to show a better financial picture than it otherwise would have been able to do so. But at the same time, as I stated previously, in my opinion the government had no right to do so without first obtaining from this Legislature the necessary authority under Section 39 (1) of The Treasury Act. Now before reading Section 39 (1) of The Treasury Act, I believe that I am correct in stating that if at the end of any fiscal year there is a surplus in revenue, that surplus in revenue goes to the Consolidated Fund of this province and can only be used for capital purposes. Now if a government wishes to use that for revenue purposes, I submit that under Section 39 (1) it should seek the authority of this Legislature and that is what it is doing now.
Now I have every respect for the ability and the intelligence of the First Minister, and I'm quite satisfied that last March the First Minister must have been aware as he is today, that Legislative authority was necessary before that revenue surplus could be included as revenue for the current year. And I think that one is entitled to speculate on the reasons why that legislative authority was not obtained. Now, Mr. Speaker, in war and in politics strategy and tactics
play an important part. And last March we had in Manitoba a minority government; everyone knew that an election was imminent; everyone knew that an election was inevitable. And I submit to this House that I am justified in speculating when I say that the government did not want to bring in legislation under Section 39 (1) because that would have created an issue if defeated, upon which they could not have obtained the support of the people of Manitoba as they did on the issue which they subsequently chose. Now by tabling the estimates as the government did last March, which estimates were not debated, a fairly rosy financial picture was painted for the people of Manitoba. But I submit that in painting that rosy picture of the finances of this province, and the not advising the people of Manitoba that that revenue surplus could not be used, I submit that the government was guilty of a lack of frankness to the people of Manitoba; and that the people of Manitoba had become accustomed to that frankness and were entitled to that frankness.
Now I believe and I am only speculating in this, that the strategy of the government last March was all part of a build-up to create a myth in the minds of the people of Manitoba. The myth was that we can extend our services without increasing our taxes; and the myth was to show to the people of Manitoba that Campbell had been asleep at the switch -- join the Conservative band wagon and you get a free trip to the "promised land." Now as evidence of that being the strategy of the government for the last provincial election, I would refer to a speech made by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources at Portage la Prairie on April 6th, 1959, when by his remarks he intimated to the people of Manitoba that his government had been able to get additional monies simply by going and asking for them; and that these monies had never been sought by the Campbell administration when it was in office.
Now Mr. Speaker, the election is over -- we lost -- the people of Manitoba decided. And it is now incumbent upon us to study this legislation in an objective manner and in the light of what is in the best interests of the Province of Manitoba and its people. My Leader has dealt quite thoroughly and quite exhaustively with that aspect of this bill. He has stated to this House that in his opinion it would not be good public finance to enact this legislation, and it would not be in the best interests of the people of Manitoba to do so. And with him I concur. I have not had an opportunity of checking other provincial statutes to find out how they deal with surpolus revenues at the end of a fiscal year, but I do believe that at the federal level that they deal with surplus revenue at the end of any fiscal year in the same manner as we do it at present under our Treasury Act. In other words, it goes into Consolidated Fund and is used for capital debt reduction.
Now as a province we are embarked on a program of large borrowing. I think that it is true that the municipalities of Manitoba and the school districts of Manitoba if not already so embarked will shortly be embarked on a similar program. It has been suggested by the Honourable Leader of the CCF that rather than use this revenue surplus as current revenue for this year, that that surplus be set aside and used as a revolving fund with which to finance municipal and school district capital undertakings. I agree with the Honourable Leader of the CCF when he makes that suggestion, but I would go a little further. I would suggest that that fund be not only used for that purpose, but that it also be used as a means of providing cheap capital to our utilities. The Manitoba Hydro Electric Board, The Manitoba Power Commission and The Manitoba Telephone System. And by using that fund for that combination of purposes, I think that you would be creating in Manitoba a very fertile soil for industries to be established here. It would bring about a lessening in municipal taxes; it would bring about a lessening of the interest rates that would have to be charged to and paid by our utilities in their borrowings; and it would give to those industries that wish to settle in Manitoba some incentive. At the present moment one of the greates handicaps which any industry faces in coming into Manitoba is the question of freight rates. And if we can by reducing our municipal taxes and by reducing certain of the costs to these industries offset the freight rate handicap, I think that it would be in the interest of this province generally.
Now Mr. Speaker, before closing, I don't hold myself out as an authority on procedural matters in this House -- in fact, I consider that I'm very ignorant on such matters, but my reading of this bill brings me to the conclusion that what we were actually attempting to do here is this: We are attempting to appropriate from Consolidated Fund money which is there vested for capital purposes; and I would suggest to the government that before they proceed with this
bill, they should check as to whether or no this bill is properly before this House. My reason for making that suggestion is largely based on a reading of Section 18 of the Treasury Act and reading those portions of that section which deals with bills for appropriation and leaving the rest out, that section reads as follows: "The Legislative Assembly shall not adopt or pass any bill for the appropriation of any part of the Consolidated Fund which has not been first recommended to the Legislative Assembly by message of the Lieutenant-Governor." Now I do not think that this bill came into this House by way of message from the Lieutenant-Governor and although I do not hold myself out as an authority on such matters, I would suggest to the government that they investigate that matter from that aspect to see whether or no this bill is properly before this House, and whether or no this House can properly pass this bill.
MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker ... to take part in this debate, I would be glad to say something in reply to the observations of the three gentlemen who have said something about it.
One thing that I can agree with insofar as the remarks of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition are concerned, is the fact that the question of the disposition of the surplus of the last fiscal year was a matter very much at issue in the last provincial election. As a matter of fact, Sir, I will go further and say that it is one of the many subjects on which in my view a good deal of inacurrate and misleading information was placed before the electorate of Manitoba, particularly by members who were running in support of the Liberal Party. I'm rather surprised that the same line of argument should have been employed in this House by some of them, because in my opinion the facts of the case do not fit the picture that has been described and painted to us by those who have seen fit to avoid this bill. And I want to say that I regard the analysis that has been made of this matter as being incomplete insofar as the comments of gentlemen on the other side are concerned, and I'm going to do my best -- while claiming no guarantee of completeness myself, because we are all subject to error -- to do my best to bring to the attention of the House some of those other factors in connection with this matter which seem to have been overlooked when this was considered by those who oppose it.
I think that I would not be doing an injustice to the Leader of the Opposition if I were to say that he left me with the impression that the principle that he objects to in this matter -- and there may be others -- but one important point certainly in his mind that he did not wish to take last year's money to help pay next year's bills. That states it rather baldly but it seems to me that was the point that was very much in the foremost in his argument when he spoke in the House. Well, Sir, that is certainly a tenable position, and it is an argument which he is entitled to make -- any of us are entitled to make. But I find it rather odd that he made it, because he must be as well aware as I am that he has done just that in the not very distant past and I'll be able to refer to that as I continue with my argument.
I was interested in the contribution made by the Leader of the CCF. May I say, and I mean this sincerely, that I think he's been doing a very commendable job in leading his Party in the House. I'm familiar with the kind of difficulties that a Leader may experience in opposition. Let me tell him though, that he will be wise if he refrains from following his neighbor, the Leader of the Opposition, down the same path of argument as he did the other day when he was discussing this bill. I'm sure he can do much better on his own. He did make one comment though that I would like to deal with and that is in connection with a comparison he drew between municipalities and the province. Before dealing with that I would like to advance the general proposition that it is not in my opinion a sound argument to say that because a municipality can or cannot do something that a province should not or should do something. After all, constitutionally they're on an entirely different level - one is the creature of the other. So that I would reject any argument of that sort from the beginning as being something that needs to be proved in detail rather than accepted as a general principle.
But insofar as the view he gave us went in connection with the treatment of surpluses that might be in reserve and the powers of municipalities, I think that it is a fact that under the present legislation municipalities have been given permission to use last year's surplus to pay this year's bills. And furthermore, that in the Charters of some municipalities it is not a matter of requiring permission -- it is optional. And to go yet one further step, in the Charter of the
City of Winnipeg which is the largest municipality in the province, it is not merely optional, it is compulsory. If you will read Section 637 of the Charter of the City of Winnipeg, you will see that "the Council shall in each year make estimates of all sums which may be required for the year for the lawful purposes of the city, making due allowance for the cost of collection" -- I'm leaving out a few words, but it doesn't alter the sense, -- "and for any surplus or deficit - surplus or deficit - carried forward, and also as to estimating the taking into revenue of the amounts to be received from other sources of revenue." So that, if one wished to rest on that argument, one could certainly say that some municipalities not only may do it, one is compelled to.
I want to deal briefly with the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition and also perhaps from a slightly different angle by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, that the Government is introducing this piece of legislation because it has to. I'd like to deal with the argument that the House is awaiting -- is being asked to rubber-stamp something that is already done, or something that is necessary to do in order to balance the budget. I would say that nothing has been done in respect of the reserves of this province that is not legal, because no action is being taken in this matter until the House deals with it. I would say that it is a dangerous speculation and an unnecessary speculation for members opposite to say that it is necessary for the balancing of the Budget of this province -- because they're soon going to know whether it is or not, when the Budget is presented to the Legislature. I think it perhaps might even be described as harmful to the credit of this province to give too much credence to such a notion. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition deplored the retroactive nature of the legislation, but when he read his own statute passed by his own Government, he found that we had merely followed the procedure in respect of these matters that was deemed advisable then.
Now when the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, he told us what he thought was the only proper disposition of a current surplus. And if I may use his language to be found in Hansard, speaking of this matter he said "I submit to you that the things to do with it in private practice or in company practice or in government practice, are the things that are mentioned here," namely in the Act as it stands. I interpolate those last few words. And he goes on to refer to them, "to add to capital or to a reserve, to be a bank account or individual or other or to pay off debt. These are the things that are authorized here and I think that's the thing for a private individual or for a company to do." That's an interesting doctrine. "Duff Roblin winds up the end of the year in 1959 with $200.00 in his pocket surplus over and above his expenditures; he has no money in January but he doesn't spend his $200.00 because that's in the bank. So he doesn't eat." That's a literal interpretation of that doctrine.
In the case of companies, what do they do with their earned surplus? They put it into an earned surplus reserve that is available for any purpose of that company either current or capital. So obviously they haven't heard of the doctrine of my honourable friend, or if they have, they've put it aside. And what about it's value for governments? If, and I say 'if' because I do not wish to deal with budgetary matters in any conclusive way -- but if the government did need that surplus revenue for its current affairs, would it be better to use it or to raise taxes? My honourable friend himself gave the answer to that question a year or so ago and I'll remind him about it as I proceed. But when one examines his principle of public finance and the use of reserves in the light of those comments, it seems to me that it is not so invulnerable a position as he would have us believe when he was speaking here the other day. But I'll say this for the honourable gentleman, regardless of my argument, and regardless of technicalities -- he may regard what I said as technicalities -- he made it quite clear that what we are doing is something that he would never do. I think there can be no argument that that was his position on that point. But I want to say, Sir, that he did it. Oh, he didn't use this method, he used another method. A method that incidentally we could have used without any difficulty at all, but a method which does what we are attempting to do here in intent and in effect and in purpose. He found another method and he used it, and he used it perfectly legally, and I don't regard this as wrong. But I wish to tell him that we are merely doing openly and plainly what was done quite probably in another way. Because my honourable friend goes on, and the same mistake, the same error was repeated by the Honourable Member for Selkirk, he goes on to talk about The Treasury Act and the disposition of reserves in these words, "It is my understanding of this Act, it's one that is a tremendously important Act, the Treasury Act -- my understanding that
it is the only method by which a surplus can be used is by transferring it to the capital divsion." In other words, the only disposition presently legal in Manitoba and on the statute books, is to take surplus reserve of a current year and transfer it to capital account.
The Honourable Member for Selkirk made the same statement when he accused us of trying to hide or to disguise or failing to be candid with the public, that we couldn't do what we were attempting to do without amending the law. But that of course is not the case at all because there are other methods of getting at this which I will outline to the honourable gentleman before I sit down. But while I'm on that point, I was rather surprised to have people indicate in public and in the House that in attempting what we attempt now, we were being less than candid; we were not being open; we were trying to conceal something; that's been used often by gentlemen opposite. In my simplicity, Sir, I thought we would get good marks for trying to be above board. We were under no necessity, none whatever, to bring down our estimate of revenues. It wasn't the custom of this Chamber to bring them down at the time we did. I've never heard it done before in this House. We didn't have to do it. Why did we do it? Because, Sir, we wanted to make sure that we were going to place before this House and the public, the measures that we had in mind in respect of this. That's why we did it. We've nothing to hide. We've nothing to be ashamed of. We took a course we didn't have to take in order to make sure that that information was here. And the public certainly knew about it because my honourable friend saw that they did. I must say I don't share his view of the electorate. I think that they were pretty well informed about the financial complications, or financial aspects of the matter when they voted as to what they were going to do.
But let's get back to this statement that this is the only way in which you can handle it. What about the War and Post-War Reserve Fund? If you will turn to Section 4 of that Act, Mr. Chairman, you will find these words, "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may from time to time by Order-in-Council transfer to the reserve", meaning this post-war reserve, "all or a... part of excess revenues over expenditures." In other words, Sir, there is on the statute books at the present time a perfectly proper and legal arrangement by which the reserves that we are talking about in the Treasury Act may be transferred, not to Capital, but to the Post-War Reserve Fund. And having got the monies in that fund by Order-in-Council as legal as all get - you may use them in any way that you wish if the Lieutenant-Governor approves. Because the following section, section 5 makes that perfectly clear. "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in his absolute discretion may direct to be expended from the consolidated fund such sums as he may decide should be expended for the welfare and employment of the people of the province", etc., etc. So you have thereby, Sir, a means of getting money out of the revenue reserve and putting it into a place where it is available for revenue purposes. And yet we're told that that's impossible. I don't think it is, I think it's perfectly possible. And I think the present legislation, which was passed by the gentlemen sitting opposite, makes it possible. And had one wished to use that method there would have been no reason why it shouldn't be done because it is perfectly within the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do that. Now, if that's wrong, and some may say it is wrong, then my honourable friends opposite had plenty of time to change it. Because they put this Act on the statute books some time ago; they know what's in it; they know how it operates, and I'm sure that if they had felt that this was a mistake, they could have changed it. And when people say that we have to take the course we're taking now because there is no other legal recourse open to us, then I say that is not so. That we could have employed this method but that we preferred to come to this House in the way that it is before the Chamber at the present time. And I don't think that we should be given bad marks for that, Sir; I rather think we should be given some credit for being candid.
But there's another surplus reserve besides the two that we've mentioned so far. There's the deferred revenue reserve. Since 1952 it has been quite legal, as I'm sure my honourable friend, ex-provincial treasurer, ex-premier of Manitoba, is well aware -- perfectly legal way in which you can take current reserves in this fund and apply it to the revenue requirements of a current year. Not only is it legal, Sir, but my honourable friend did it. He didn't come to us and ask us to pass a bill about it. No, he didn't. He did it without so much of a scratch of a pen as far as legislation is concerned. But in March, 1958, they authorized the transfer of $3,000,000 by Order-in-Council from this reserve. What for? For current revenue. And
why? Because if they didn't do it they'd have had a deficit. That's why. And it was a perfectly proper thing to do. And we could have done the same if we had wished to do. And there's nothing wrong with his doing it, and the actual fact of the 3 million appropriated a sum of one million six was used. And in last year's budget, budget submitted by the previous Government, an additional appropriation of $2,000,000 was taken out of the same Act for the same purpose, namely to balance the budget.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that it is difficult when listening to someone speak to clearly grasp the nature of these three different funds or accounts that I have been talking about. Their names are much similar in some respects, and I want to make sure that the House knows that the three funds that I'm talking about are, the Deferred and Post-War Account; the Deferred Revenue Reserve Account; and the Revenue Surplus. The revenue surplus is the one that is covered by this Act. And we are attempting to place those three funds on the same footing insofar as their disposition and use by the Treasury. Funds 1 and 2 are already fully available for the purpose that my honourable friend used them for, and that we might wish to use them for. We wish to place the third fund in the same position. And we do so because we're anxious to be open and plain and to disclose fully our financial intentions in this matter. Because the thing that I want you to bear in mind, Sir, is that in the case of all three accounts the money comes from the same place at one time or another from the surplus revenues of the Province of Manitoba. And there seemed to us to be no logical reason why the three funds coming from the same source, namely current revenue surplus, should not be available to the administration to use in the same way. And this legislation enables that to be done. But to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are doing this because of financial necessity; to suggest that we are doing it because we have to balance the budget; to suggest that we're doing it because we can't find the money any other way, is wrong. Because even if it were true that we needed it to balance the budget, which I do not admit -- but even if it were so, there are already other ways in which revenue surpluses could be made available to us.
Perhaps it was wrong of us to bring it in this way. Perhaps it was wrong of us to be frank about it. We could have done it by Order-in-Council, and that's a nice, easy, quiet way and it would have spared me the trouble of making two speeches. But nevertheless, Sir, we thought that it would be better to be completely open about this and to take the House and the province into our confidence in what we have to do. I want to suggest to some of my honourable friends opposite that just because somebody is doing something in a new way, doesn't by that fact itself mean that it's sharp practice. Just because we are doing something in a new way does not by that fact mean that we are cheating, or that we are trying to undermine public morality, or that we are doing something that saps the credit of the Province of Manitoba. Because in my view, Sir, that is not the case. You may disagree and say that we needn't bother doing it this way. Perhaps you're right. You may disagree and say this is unnecessary, you've got other sources at your disposal. Perhaps it's right. But I would not say that we should be charged of doing something that is improper in the sense that I have mentioned, because we have endeavoured to bring this method which in our opinion is a better way of doing it than would otherwise be available, is above board, is honest, is fair and square. The figures are not only in the Public Accounts but in our budget when we bring it down and not afterwards as was done by my honourable friend.
I think, Sir, that on those grounds this is a defensible measure, and while I claim no perfection for our judgment in bringing it in -- obviously it would have been a lot easier to follow the system used by my honourable friend -- yet I do not think that we can be accused of double-dealing or expressions of similar nature, when we propose this kind of legislation. I think, Sir, that the Bill should pass and I think that if it does so, the credit or the probity or the finances of Manitoba will in no way be harmed.
MR. SPEAKER: Are your ready for the question?
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. CAMPBELL: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. Question before the House, second reading of the proposed motion, Bill No. 35.
[A standing vote was recorded and the results were as follows:
YEAS: Messrs. Roblin, Thompson, Lyon, Evans, Willis, McLean, Johnson, Boulic,
Lissaman, Carroll, Shewman, Scarth, Alexander, Martin, Cowan, Corbett, Cobb, Witney, Ingebrigtson, Jeannotte, Stanes, Smellie, Strickland, McKellar, Weir, Seaborn, Johnson (Assiniboia), Baizley, Bjornson, Klym, Christianson, Hutton.
NAYS: Messrs. Campbell, Prefontaine, Gray, Paulley, Molgat, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Guttormson, Orlikow, Wright, Wagner, Tanchak, Shoemaker, Desjardins, Harris, Reid, Schreyer.
MR. CLERK: Yeas - 32. Nays - 17.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried. Second reading of Bill No. 8. The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.
[Mr. Willis moved that Bill No. 8, An Act to provide for the Establishment of Watershed Conservation Districts to conserve the Water Resources of the Province, be now read a second time.]
[Mr. Speaker read the motion.]
HON. ERRICK F. WILLIS, Q.C. (Minister of Agriculture and Immigration) (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, this is one of the matters that's been under discussion here for the last two days. It sets up Watershed Conservation Districts. Where a district desires to make application to set up a water conservation authority, it may do so by the necessary application and thereby get the benefits of the Act and conserve and control the water within their own watershed. This is the one that refers only to the watershed and is different to the general reorganization of the department or general conservation. There's only one such watershed yet and that is the Whitemud, Gladstone-Neepawa.
MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Speaker, in reading this Act I notice that the watershed districts have to include or should include the streams right up to their headwaters, and this brings out a very important point insofar as some of the sections of the province are concerned. What I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, is this: that we have a range of mountains in the Province of Manitoba, namely, the Riding, the Ducks and the Porcupine, which supply water for streams running through quite a number of municipalities adjacent to these mountains. Now, literally speaking there are hundreds of little streams that find their source in these mountains and cut across municipal road allowances, and of course, other road allowances, necessitating hundreds of culverts, very expensive in some areas. These waters can be, I believe, termed as foreign waters. What I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, is this. That it would appear to me that insofar as provincial contributions to these particular watershed areas should be on a different basis than that which will prevail in other areas of the Province of Manitoba.
I only draw this to the attention of the Minister so that in the event there is any formula set up, that the formulas pertaining to the areas which are adjacent to the range of mountains which I have mentioned, are made somewhat differently from those in other parts of the province. These municipalities suffer yearly damage from flash floods, heavy rainfall and spring run-off.
There is one other thing I'd like to draw to the Minister's attention and I'm not altogether certain that I'm correct in the interpretation of this particular section, but it is important and I just draw it to the attention of the Minister. If he has already checked it, I would not say any more about it. But it would appear to me that the rights of the boards given under section 14 of the Bill, are made subject to certain sections of the Water Rights Act. And if that is correct there is the possibility that the powers given to the boards could be overridden by the provisions of the Water Rights Act, and would nullify the rights and powers of those boards. Now, whether it is the intention to bring the legislation in in that fashion, nullifying those powers to the extent of the provisions of the Water Rights Act or not, I do not know. But if it is not, then I would suggest that the Minister take a look at that provision and see if that can be amended.
MR. N. SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Honourable the Minister would be prepared to tell us now, to which committee the bills will be referred to, and since Bills 5 and 8 are so co-related, will they both be referred to the same committee, and when? Because I anticipate that there will be a delegation in probably from the Whitemud River Committee.
MR. WILLIS: They will be referred to the Agricultural Committee. If the member keeps in touch with the clerk, they'll indicate the time of the meeting. While I'm still up, I would
thank the Member for Ethelbert for his suggestions which will be looked into with care.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Speaker, is there any possibility that they will be referred to committee tomorrow if they're passed here today?
MR. WILLIS: We can make arrangements with the member in that regard if necessary.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I realize that there will be a better opportunity in the Committee stage and the Committee of the Whole stage to discuss the individual clauses of this Bill, but the same point that has been mentioned by the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains had occurred to me, that there appears on a quick reading of the Bill as though there might be some conflicts of jurisdiction arise between either this Board and the jurisdiction under the Water Rights Act and perhaps the Water Conservation and Control section of the Agriculture and Conservation Act. So when he closes of the debate I would suggest that the Honourable the Minister explain to the House exactly what clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of section 14, that you find on page 10 of the Act, mean. And on the same page I notice that in the aims and objects of the board of a district are set out, and they begin by saying that they are to promote the conservation of the water resources within the district. My suggestion is that "control" should be added there because surely the control of water is one of the things that this board is set up to do. I notice, of course, that later on in the same section that the word "controlling" does appear and I would think that in the operative clause it might be well, or in the introduction of the clause it might be well to feature the word "control" as well as conservation because these times, with all the moisture we've been having, there is a great deal of interest in the control feature.
And then - I haven't the section before me but I would ask the Honourable the Minister if this is the Bill, and I think it is, which stipulates that the Board will not have to pay taxes on lands or buildings that are used for its purpose. If this is the Bill, and if I am correct in that, then I want to say that I think that's not a good policy because we've been a long time in this House, and in the Manitoba Government, establishing the principle that even a government should pay taxes to the municipalities for land, at least, and if this one makes an exception, I think that section should be reconsidered.
MR. WILLIS: I think this is the Bill. You will know, of course, that there are some three Bills which are all co-related. This particular Act is here at the request of the municipalities. It's for the benefit of the municipalities. It wouldn't be here except on the request of the municipalities and, consequently, it is one in which those clauses there don't counteract the wishes of the municipalities nor override them without their consent, indeed, without their ideas being in the Bill itself. So that I don't think there is any conflict whatever as far as municipalities are concerned. The other details in regard to it can be looked at in Committee. May I say, though, that the question of the three Acts were brought to the attention of the Legislative Council so that one wouldn't cancel out the other; they were drawn with that point in mind. In each case the man in charge of each one of the Bills is the same man, and consequently, the rights under it, I think, will be safely guarded and that he will safely guard too as well the different clauses in the Act; and he, with the Legislative Council that's been largely responsible for the actual drafting of the Act, so that each one of them will work alongside with the other without conflict.
[Mr. Speaker put the question.]
MR. SPEAKER: You may not speak on the Bill after the debate is closed.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after the voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No. 5. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture.
MR. WILLIS: For the disposition of government business, I think it would be wise to let this stand and then take them separate.
MR. SPEAKER: Stand. Second Reading of Bill No. 20. The Honourable the Minister of Labour.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Sir, if I may, I think that the No. 5 and No. 8 are so closely inter-related that I'd like an explanation as to why the Minister wishes them to stand, because I don't see how you could read one without reading the other.
MR. WILLIS: It is the very fact that they are so closely related in that regard that I think the members of the House, when they left the House, they wouldn't know which Act was which,
and that therefore I think it is much better that it should be done separately and that they will all understand much more about the Acts when they are through. Otherwise there will be, I think, confusion confounded in regard to the two of them dealing with somewhat the same matters; one in the watershed phase, and the others in the phase which covers the whole province.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Speaker, if we give the Minister the assurance that we won't be confused, will that make any difference?
MR. WILLIS: I don't quite understand how you could give the assurance for 57 members.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Well, if 56 of us are not confused, that should be sufficient.
MR. ROBLIN: I'm not too sure of that.
MR. WILLIS: Well, I wouldn't blame you for being that last one.
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No....
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word on this matter. I would think if the Honourable the Minister is in charge of the two Bills, I think it is advantageous to leave one for the moment. I'd imagine that the purposes of the members who want to discuss them together could be served properly if it would be agreed that both would go to the Committee at the same time.
MR. WILLIS: Right.
MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No. 20, the Honourable the Minister of Labour.
[Mr. Thompson moved that Bill No. 20, an Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, be now read a second time.]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
HON. J. THOMPSON (Minister of Labour) (Virden): Mr. Speaker, this Bill makes certain administrative changes in the Labour Relations Act. Most of these changes have been requested, or rather recommended by the Labour Board unanimously. The one provision which is a change which resulted from a Court decision in the past several months is that which gives the right to unions to prosecute for a breach of the Labour Relations Act. This Bill, I might say, was introduced at the last session of the Legislature and is being re-introduced at this time without any change.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No. 37. The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.
[Mr. Willis moved that Bill No. 37, an Act to amend The Agricultural Societies Act, be now read a second time.]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, this has been under discussion here I think three or four times. It merely increases the grants to Fairs "A", "B", and "C" class.
MR. M. A. GRAY (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to direct to the Minister of Agriculuture is this, that two or three sections here where it gives the Minister the power to act instead of Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. Don't the Minitser think that eight heads is more than one?
MR. WILLIS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
MR. GRAY: My question he didn't hear?
MR. WILLIS: I didn't hear it.
MR. GRAY: The question is, there are two or three sections in this Bill that takes away the power from the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council and gives it to the Minister. My question is - aren't eight heads more than one?
MR. WILLIS: Always... [Interjection] ... because this is not considered to be a very important function. It is merely adding up to find out how many members they've got. All you have to do is to look at the amount which they spent last year and there is only one course that you can take. I mean a child in grade six could come to a decision in regard to it because it is just a matter of the actual figures. If they spent last year so many dollars, then you must give them so many dollars; if they've got so many memberships, then you must give them so many memberships. And with all due respect, a child in grade six could make the calculation.
MR. GRAY: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Where were the powers that be at the time that the original Bill was drafted? Were the eight children under six?
MR. WILLIS: The original Bill may have had a great many other provisions in regard to it that are not now in the Bill. I feel sure that at the time that they were drafted, they probably had a good reason, but that reason doesn't now apply. Now it is merely a matter of arithmetic.
MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have one question here - whereas a number of Agriculture Societies have already held their fairs, and if we pass this Bill I suppose that the grants provided in the Bill will be retroactive to the fairs that have already been held? That's number one. And question number two - I asked this question the other day and I am still not quite certain of the answer - that where an Agricultural Society sponsors in additon to its regular class "C" fair, where it sponsors over the year a seed fair, a poultry show and various other little fairs where in total they pay out more than a thousand dollars, would they not be entitled to the construction grant? It seems to me that if that were not so, that it would be more or less discouraging holding out some of the smaller fairs; the seed fairs, poultry shows and horticultural fairs and so on.
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member will look at Hansard, I'm sure he will find that I said "No" in a loud voice previously. The answer is definitely "no" that they can't have a whole series of fairs and thereby get themselves within the ambit of the Act. May I say to the honourable member I think that you made a very serious mistake when you upset the government at the time that you did, but we won't hold that against you. We intend to make this retroactive to April 1st.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 38. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture.
[Mr. Willis moved that Bill No. 38, an Act to amend the Horticultural Society Act, be now read a second time.]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. WILLIS: Mr. Speaker, this merely increased the grants from 50 to 65 percent.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No. 39. The Honourable Minister of Education.
[Mr. McLean moved that Bill No. 39, an Act to amend the Education Department Act, be now read a second time.]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
HON. S. McLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, just a matter of information - I was asked the other day when this Bill was before Committee what amount of money was now in the reserve. The amount is $323,000.00 as of March 31st, 1958, I'm sorry - that's correct, as of the close of the last fiscal year.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No. 40. The Honourable the Minister of Education.
[Mr. McLean moved that Bill No. 40, an Act to amend the School Districts Debenture Interest Guarantee Act, be now read a second time.]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the other day when this Bill was before Committee, I was asked what was the amount of the interest earnings in the last fiscal year on the School Lands Fund. The amount was $295,917.63.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No. 42. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.
[Mr. Thompson moved that Bill No. 42, an Act to amend the Municipal Act 1, be now read a second time.]
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, this Bill covers a variety of subjects and makes amendments to various parts of the Municipal Act. Perhaps I should not deal with any particular issue. There are no radical changes in municipal legislation contained in this Bill. It deals, for example, with the responsibility of determining residence which, under the Bill is now transferred from the Minister to the new municipal board to be created; it permits the establishment of community centre boards and authorizes the levying of taxation for their support;
and it calls upon the cities of the province to provide to the Minister of Municipal Affairs a financial statement containing such particulars as may be required; it authorizes municipalities to control and regulate the operation and abandonment of gravel pits, and it repeals the Transient Traitors Act. It does these and some other things which I'm sure we'll have the opportunity of discussing in Committee.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 57. The Honourable the Minister of Education.
[Mr. McLean moved that Bill No. 57, an Act to amend the Teachers' Retirement Allowance Act, be now read a second time.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion.]
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Act has at the present time provision in it that, upon the written authority, a person receiving payments from the fund may direct that certain payments be made to the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan or what was commonly known as the Blue Cross, and also to the Manitoba, what is now called the Manitoba Health Service but was the Manitoba Medical Service. The purpose of this Act is simply to change the name and provide the authority for similar deductions and payments to be made to the Manitoba Hospital Services Insurance Act and the Manitoba Health Service.
[Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.]
MR. SPEAKER: Committee of Supply.
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Attorney-General, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
[Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and asked the Honourable Member for St. Matthews to take the Chair.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Attorney-General's department. Item 1 - Administration (a) Salaries.
MR. D. ORLIKOW (St. John's): If we are going to look at the administration of justice, particularly with reference to people who get into difficulty with the law, it seems to me that these can be divided into three main divisions: first of all, the problem of probation; secondly, the problem of institutions into which we put people when they can't be left on probation, and thirdly, the problem of "after care" after they get out of the institution.
Now I think that we have, from what the Honourable the Attorney-General said yesterday, we are beginning a proper system of probation. I want to suggest to the members of this Committee that we are a long way from having it established and I think the Honourable the Attorney-General would agree. Not only are we behind what other countries have done, but we in this province are behind what is being done in such provinces as Ontario and British Columbia. I was told yesterday that the Province of Ontario now has well over a hundred probation officers and if this is so and if you pro-rate it population-wise, then assuming that they have a proper system, and certainly it's not extravagant by comparison with other jurisdictions in other countries, then we ought to have twenty, but I'm not going to suggest to the Honourable Attorney-General or the members of this Committee that that can be established in one year. If he succeeds in hiring seven this coming year I think he well do a good job. I do hope, however, that when he is talking about seven new probation officers that it is his intention that he will be successful in getting seven qualified people. I'm sure it is his intention and I for one hope that he will succeed in getting seven qualified social workers, and not everybody is a probation officer - not everybody who wants to be a probation officer is a probation officer.
I want to speak for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, about the institutions because I am one who believes that we have to give a good deal more attention to the people who have to be put into institutions than we have. I was glad to hear the Honourable the Attorney-General talk about the additions which will be made - the work camps, the Manitoba Home for the Girls, and so on. Now despite what some honourable members may think, we in this group have never felt - never believed that buildings alone make an institution. We don't believe that - while we believe in good modern schools, we don't believe that school buildings make an educational system; and we don't believe that buildings alone make a correctional system.
Now we heard a good deal in this House in the last couple of sessions about better trained teachers, and the province has embarked on a program of rewarding better trained teachers and school systems who hire better trained teachers by making higher grants to those districts
and we support that. And we heard a good deal from the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture about the trained people whom the Department of Agriculture will be hiring to help the farmers of this province do a better job. We think this is fine. And I want to suggest that we need to have in the new institutions which will be built in the field of correction and in the old institutions, that we need to have more trained people, not only in the position of guards but at the top in the leading positions. And this is not, I want to make it clear, not a criticism of the people we now have, but the experience in other jurisdictions in Great Britain, in the United States, and in Saskatchewan is that where you get trained people that you do a better job with the people who are in the institutions. I think, and when I refer to Saskatchewan I'm not suggesting that they have done a better job than we have in every respect. As a matter of fact, unless they have this year decided to hire probation officers in the number which the Honourable the Attorney-General is proposing in the field of probation, we will, if we go through with the program proposed by the Attorney-General, be ahead of Saskatchewan. But I want to just read from some notes I have, the situation in their gaol in Regina. The Superintendent at Regina Gaol is a Master of Education; the Treatment Supervisor has his Master of Social Work; the Phychologist has his Master's Degree in phychology; the Education Officer has a Bachelor of Education Degree; the Classification Officer has his Bachelor of Social Work; and the Group Work Supervisor has his Bachelor of Social Work. Now I'm not suggesting for a moment, Mr. Chairman, that people who haven't got training cannot be good people on the staff of the institution, but I am suggesting that people who have their training can do a better job if they are interested and have the desire to do so. So I think this is something which needs to be looked at, not only at Headingley but at Brandon and The Pas. And I would like, Mr. Chairman, when the Honourable the Attorney-General has a chance to reply to all the questions, and possibly he will do it under the items concerned, I would like to know the qualifications of the people who are the heads of Brandon Gaol, the gaol at The Pas, The Manitoba Home for Girls and the Portage Home for Boys. And I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that what we need are qualified people, and if we haven't got them yet, that certainly it ought to be the objective of the department to see that as soon as possible we get those qualified people.
Now the third aspect I want to speak about very briefly, Mr. Chairman, is the situation with regard to the "after care" agencies. Now I happen to be a member of the Board of the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Society and know something of the work which is being done, and certainly the work which is being done is far superior to what has been done in the past. If people who are sent to our correctional institutions are to be helped to stay out of them a second and a third time, then the work of these organizations is extremely important. Now I had occasion to visit the Honourable the Attorney-General with other members of the Board. We had a very good visit and he expressed an opinion then that the was a believer in that type of organization, in voluntary organizations doing this work rather than a government agency. If I am not quoting him exactly, I think I have the gist of what he said. I'm not nearly so sold on voluntary agencies as is the Honourable the Attorney-General, but if we are going to have voluntary agencies do the work, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that they cannot possibly do the work unless they have adequate financial support. Now I notice in the estimates that the grant to this organization is increased from $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 and this is a start in the right direction. But, Mr. Chairman, the work load - the case load of this agency is growing at such a rate that we had a situation a couple of months ago, and I'm sure the Attorney-General knows this probably better than I do, where the staff members - the professional staff were working almost every night of the week and on week-ends, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this isn't good enough. All I want to suggest at this point to the Honourable Attorney-General is that while the $10,000.00 is doubling of the grant which the organization got last year, that he keep an eye on this because if the work load increases I'm satisfied that the funds which this organization has made available to it from the Provincial Government, the Federal Government and private sources will not be sufficient for them to do a job.
Now one more thing I would like to speak about, Mr. Chairman, before I sit down. If the work in this field is going to succeed, as we all hope it will, it seems to me that the work in the various fields - the work in the field of probation, in the field of institutions and in "after care," must be co-ordinated in one general and forward-looking overall program. Now to my
mind this can only be done through the office and through the person of the Director of Corrections. I would like to feel, and I hope the Honourable Attorney-General will tell this House that the Director of Corrections has, in fact, the authority to supervise not only the work of the probation officers, which he has been doing, but to supervise the work of the "after care" agencies, and just as important, that he has the authority to supervise the work in the correctional institutions. Possibly because I got my start as an elected representative on the School Board in Winnipeg, but it would seem to me that the Director of Corrections should be in the same position as the superintendent of a school system. The various institutions - the people in charge - the superintendent of the gaol, for example, are in the position, I think, of principals of a school, but the direction in which they are working should be set out, in my opinion at least, by the Director of Corrections in consultation with them. It seems to me that if they're going to do a job, that this is the job which the Director of Corrections can and must do.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this year this government is proposing important steps in the right direction. I can only say that they are only the first steps; that in this province and in this country we have a tremendous job to do before we can say with honesty that we have brought our institutions and our work up to the standards which other countries have got. We in this group certainly will support the government as it moves in that direction and will feel free to make suggestions if we feel that they are not moving fast enough in that direction.
MR. LYON: ... with you in a second, Mr. Chairman. There's a big financial deal going on here ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: Leader of the CCF...
MR. LYON: I'm sorry.
MR. PAULLEY: ... did have a very heavy financial transaction, Mr. Chairman, I was ... [Interruption] I believe there is, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, I was negotiating for the purchase of a couple of copies of Hansard wherein my honourable friend was speaking on flood control, and I'm sure that there is profit to the government at least in the deal or the transcation of the sale of Hansard. [Interjection] Yes, private enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, in respect to the -- getting back to the question before the Committee, the question of the estimates of the Attorney-General, I just want to make one or two brief remarks to the Minister. I thought in his presentation, when we started his department, that he acquitted himself very admirably. He seems to have, in the short period of time that he's held the office, given it a considerable amount of study, or else that he's had a very efficient staff that supplied him with the information. It does appear to me that many of the proposals that the Honourable the Minister has suggested to the House which are in contemplation are steps forward. I was particularly interested in the plans for the future that he has insofar as the camps and the likes of that are concerned. I think it is definitely a step in the right direction.
But while listening to the Honourable the Attorney-General, the present Attorney-General, my mind drifted back to -- oh, four or five years ago when a new member took over the portfolio of the Attorney-General, and at that time he made a very, very fine speech in the Legislature of the aims and endeavours and the future destiny of the -- particularly the penal institutions of the Province of Manitoba and at that time, Sir, it sounded as though at long last we were going to make progress. But somehow something happened. What, I do not know. Whether or not he came into conflict with his colleagues on the Treasury benches or not, but many of the plans and aspirations that the Member for Ethelbert Plains now, had at that time did not seem to materialize. My point in speaking at the present time is to suggest to the Attorney-General that we have had speeches of the fine nature that he gave us in the past, and I sincerely trust and hope that he and his plans will meet with more success than the plans which the former Attorney-General announced to the House.
Now that's all I have to say on the Minister's salary at the present time, Mr. Chairman. There may be other points in the debate when we get down to the various items and I'll try and make a contribution when the questions arise. But I do seriously suggest to the Honourable the Attorney-General that having made the start that he has, and there are many things that we have been proposing that are embodied in his suggestions, because I think it's true, Mr. Chairman, that the man who was formerly our House Leader and the leader of our party, Lloyd Stinson, for years had battled the question of penal reform in Manitoba and I think he did a good
job and sowed the seeds. I think he sowed a lot of seeds in the mind of the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains. I think some of it has rubbed off now on the present Attorney-General, and I wish him every success for the future, but I hope that the example of what happened to his predecessor in office does not happen in respect to the plans that he announced to the House.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Chairman, it was quite interesting listening to the Leader of the CCF Party. I can see that he was in here when I took over that office, but he seems to have been absent for the three and a half years that I held it.
MR. PAULLEY: I thought you were.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Evidently he hasn't followed the progress that was made in that department. I'd like to remind him and point out to him that, under the suggestions of experts in penal reform, there was hardly a scheme or a program that was not inaugurated and properly started during the time that I held that portfolio. All I have to do is remind him that when I made that first maiden speech of mine there were no such things as probation and parole services in the Province of Manitoba: there were no psychiatrists; there were no plans for a new Home for the Girls; there were -- but you're getting it. You're in too much of a hurry like the rest of your clan. You sometimes -- you fellows sometimes make me think that every time an expert opens his mouth you're quite prepared to close your eyes and jump, not looking where you're jumping; while in my short life I've found out that the experts can be just as wrong as they can be right, and I like to look at these things and apply my own limited capacity of thinking to see whether they look right to me before I make any moves. You don't seem to agree in make and take progressive measures. You want it all done at one time and in an awful hurry.
I think that the criticism which the Honourable the Leader of the CCF offered is absolutely misplaced. I considered him a friend, not a political friend, and probably that's where the answer comes, but if he goes through the record, what he finds in these appropriations today, with very, very few exceptions, if any, all that work was started when I held that portfolio. Now this is something I would have never brought up, but I've been forced into the position where I've got to put this on record because we now have a Hansard which we didn't have before. If we didn't have the Hansard I'd have just let that comment go by. I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, though, that I agree entirely with the Leader of the CCF in one respect, that I agree with him that the Minister, the Attorney-General has an excellent grasp of his department and I agree with him also that he's headed in the right direction. If all those plans, plus a few more that were inaugurated during the preceding four years are carried out with considerable thought, not hurriedly, watch the results of the various plans that you inaugurate and see whether you're getting what you expected to get, and don't be afraid not to agree with the experts because they carry quite a bit of weight in certain sections of our community. I know they do, and I also know they're not too sure of themselves in some respects, and before we are through with this particular department I think I'll be able to point out to my honourable friend that there is even a difference of opinion among the experts as to this particular so-called new penal ideologies and so forth.
MR. T. P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk): Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't like to let this opportunity go by without first complimenting the Honourable the Attorney-General on the excellence of his presentation. I've known the young gentleman for quite a number of years and I have the greatest faith in his ability and his sincerity, and I'm quite satisfied that he's going to do an excellent job in the portfolio which he has undertaken.
Now my remarks at this juncture of the proceedings will be very general, but there are one or two things that I have had in my mind for a long time. One deals with convictions for indictable offences. As every member of this House knows, in civil matters we have what is called statutes of limitation. To give you an example, on a simple debt, an action on a single debt must be brought within six years of the date from which that debt arose; but with convictions, an individual can be convicted of an indictable offence in this country and that is a blemish on his record for the rest of his life. Now I know that the Provincial Legislature has no jurisdiction in this matter, but I merely mention it in the belief that the Honourable the Attorney-General is sufficiently interested in the advancements of our criminal jurisprudence to realize the importance of this matter. What I would suggest to the Honourable Attorney-General, is that when the Attorneys-General of Canada next meet, that this question of having a period of limitations fixed against convictions be taken under consideration so that a man, or a woman for that matter, after they have been convicted and they have led a decent life for say a period of five or ten years, that conviction will be eradicated from their record and will not follow them for the rest of their lives. Convictions today can be great deterrents in obtaining employment, particularly where a person has to be bonded. If a person wants to leave Canada and go to the United States, the fact that that person has been convicted of an indictable offence, even though it was thirty years ago, would preclude that person from entering.
Now there is another matter which I have been thinking a great deal of for a number of years, and I think the time is opportune to bring it up since we have recently had a commission established in this province to determine whether or no the municipalities in the City of Winnipeg shall comprise eight different cities or whether they'll comprise one city, in other words the Metropolitan Commission. Now I have often thought that Winnipeg and the Greater Winnipeg area is large enough now to have a Central Magistrate's Court where all offences committed in the area could be dealt with. Now I don't want to be understood as casting any reflection on the police or those engaged in that type of work, but I do feel that if we had a Central Magistrate's Court in a centrally located district in the City of Winnipeg which dealt with all criminal cases arising in the Greater Winnipeg area, that that court would be completely divorced from the influence of the police. It would become a real Magistrate's Court and I doubt if the influence of the police would be so great in that court as it is under our present establishments. Now I'm not suggesting for a moment that the influence of the police is an improper influence, but magistrates are only human beings, and take in the example as the City of Winnipeg Court, the magistrates in the City of Winnipeg Court are coming in daily contact with the police; these police are giving evidence before them; they know these policeman; they from an opinion as to their character, their honesty and so on and so forth; and a citizen who is charged with an offence and who gives evidence at variance with a police officer may be placed in a position where his evidence might not be given the same weight as the police officer's evidence. Now I think that that's only a natural consequence from the fact that there is such a close relationship between our magistrates and the police in our present setup. I feel, too, that such accord with proper probation officers and more magistrates would enable the magistrates to spend more time on their cases than they're permitted to spend at present. It's quite true that the number of magistrates in the City of Winnipeg Police Court has been increased, but in my opinion, I don't think that there has been sufficient increase in the magistrates at the City of Winnipeg Police Court to give the time that's necessary on these cases. With a Central Court you could have your probation officers there; magistrates could take more time in dealing with these cases, they could get a more complete and full report on the various individuals that come before them; and I think it would go a long way towards making the administration of justice at the police court level in this province more abstract.
Now I heartily concur with the steps that the Honourable the Attorney-General has taken in increasing the number of probation officers in this province, and I hope that he continues to increase their number so that no probation officer in this province will have a greater case
load than that individual can carry. I believe that the ideal case load for any probation officer should not exceed forty, maybe a little less, and at the present moment I believe that our probation officers are saddled with a greater number of cases than forty each. As to the other matters in the estimates, it is my hope to be able to deal with them as they arise, but I wish to take this opportunity primarily for the purpose of complimenting the Honourable Attorney-General on the excellence of his presentation.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a few words to the debate on the Minister's salary. I'll have something to say in connection with the Headingley Gaol under the estimates. Firstly, I subscribe to everything said about the Attorney-General's desire to improve conditions of those unfortunates who find themsleves in a position of going to a penitentiary or gaol. I may say that the previous Attorney-General was the first one here, since I'm in the House, that instead of arguing with us against our suggestions of improved conditions in the gaols, they said everything is fine. I remember one time when there was a complaint about the food in Headingley Gaol and one of the honourable members said; "What do they want, caviar for breakfast?" In other words, they looked upon a prisoner in gaol as an outcast, unwanted, not respected. But at the same time I want to tell the Minister, the Attorney-General, that a golden wedding anniversary is being celebrated after a couple leave Headingley for fifty years. In other words, we'll take you by your word now. You're still a young man, and if you make a good job about prison reform you'll remain in the political history of this province anyway because it is a serious problem, a problem which creates too many tragedies and too many hardships, not only to those who have to go to gaol, but to the families. As you must realize there are many of them are moving out from the neighborhood if a member of their family is taken to gaol. They all point a finger at them; they all accuse them that the family is no good; nobody wants to deal with them; they are not invited socially; the children suffer in school, everybody points at the child saying, "Your father is in gaol". It's a serious tragedy not only to the man who's in gaol but to the others, and anything that anybody or any government can do, anything -- no matter how much it is, I think that they will get a name for themselves, the blessing of the community, and lessen the tragedies or the hardship of the man who unfortunately had to go to gaol.
I admit that I'm not an expert on gaol reform but I do know the misery of it, so I think first of all should be, not first of all, but one of the main important undertakings is to study how to prevent crime. Now every child is born alike. Why should one become a criminal and the other a senator? And you must also consider this. The economic condition of many hundreds of families, or thousands, where both the father and the mother have to go to work, and they have their child during the day in care of the teacher. Now what's about a teacher? She cannot give -- or he or she cannot give individual attention to a child, even if she noticed that the child is not entirely right, because she has 50 or 60 pupils in her room. The question is too big to commence with the teacher. Get less children in a class; better teachers; pay them more so they would give their attention to the child not only from an academic point of view, not only to learn them to read and write, arithmetic and geography, which is important; but also try to find out everything about the child and the conditions of the child at her home. Then when the parents come home they have very little time to give to the child, so in other words the child grows up entirely by their own and they are bound to sidetrack the right path sometime. So this is a very, very important situation which we have to consider when dealing with prison reform. It's to avoid the prisoners to go to gaol. Now I'm not -- I say I'm not a scientific commentator on crime reform, but I'm just speaking the voice of so many people in the factories, in their homes and everywhere. We must realize one thing, that the public in general are paying very, very sincere attention to what's going on here or any other public place, because we are the ones that's moulding the life economically, physically and other ways. So I say that it is our duty first of all to see how to avoid crime, and then when the crime is committed, to see that the person that goes to gaol should come out reformed to this extent, that he would not become a repeater.
Let me illustrate one thing. A friend of mine who went to the penitentiary, whether he was guilty or not -- the court found him guilty, and I'm entitled to have friends in the penitentiary as well, but when he came out he came to the office and he says, "What am I do do? I can't face anyone. Everybody knows me. Nobody wants to talk to me. Nobody wants to give
me a job. My family's starving." He's on relief. A very simple thing and perhaps those educators may take note of it. I said, "Let's go", and I took a walk with him -- Main Street and Portage Avenue. For three or four days I went with him to some meetings, to banquets and you will see within a week or two he lost his inferiority complex, and the people almost forgot that he was in penitentiary. He became a useful citizen; raised a family and is doing well. Because the public is very critical -- very critical about those that go to gaol whether they are guilty or not, and whether they go for a week or two years in penitentiary.
Now on the question of -- the Minister's suggestion about -- or plans about Ottawa taking over some of the business from the provinces. I'm a little bit afraid of it -- I hope it will work out good. My feeling is that a man that goes to penitentiary is looked upon as a worse criminal than the one that goes to gaol. It may not be a fact, but that's the way they take it. Now when you send a person over six months to the penitentiary, although you have suggested separate gaols, but in the meantime they have no other buildings and they had to take him to the penitentiary, and even if he serves just seven months he comes out and they say this man served in penitentiary. Now, I'm afraid of this here, although it will save a lot of money, but I don't think it will avoid the misery and the hardship of those who are unfortunate, that had to go to gaol. The camps are a very good thing. I'm a little bit afraid that they may be too costly the other way; that probably many of them, while seeking employment, will not be able to get those jobs that you intend to send to the camps, although I am in favour of the prisoners working and particularly of being paid, perhaps not the maximum wage -- at least the minimum.
I'm very happy over all the suggestions and I think that we must realize from a taxpayer point of view that it's much cheaper to save a human life from going to gaol than, as the Minister explained, the high cost of keeping him there; and also the tragedy and the misery of his children, his family, broken-up homes and everything that goes with it, which becomes a very heavy burden on the community. I shall, as I stated, say something about Headingley Gaol under the estimates.
MR. HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make the remarks which I'm going to make at the moment a little later in the estimates, but what prompted me to get up now was the statement made by my colleague, the Honourable Member for Selkirk, relative to our magistrates. Just a short while before we left office we did some preliminary work relative to the establishment of permanent magistrates in the Province of Manitoba. In my humble opinion, Mr. Chairman, the Magistrate's Court, if you can value the courts on -- in a measure of importance, I would put the Magistrate's Court right in the foremost of the courts that we have in the province. They deal with a great many things that are very close to our people and it would seem that under the present setup, with part-time magistrates, that the public is not receiving the services and attention that they would otherwise and I feel that we should put them on a permanent basis in the same manner as our County Courts, on the judicial district basis if it's found feasible, and make them not partially dependent for revenue on the magistrate's salary, but that they would be entirely concerned with work as a magistrate and with nothing outside of that. Now I think that that would lead to more uniform sentences and so forth and so on, probably tie in better with our probationary services, and I only rose to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Honourable the Attorney-General take that under consideration.
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the Honourable Minister on his speech of yesterday. It was complete and most enlightening. I also would like to give briefly my impression on this, my first month in the House. I must admit that I am rather disappointed as things are not as I had expected. It seems to me that we are caught in an endless circle. First we have a very arrogant government. The members spend most of their time telling us how wonderful they are, and how badly things were done in the past. They start most of their speeches by assuring us they do not want to blame anyone, and then proceed to tell us how awful the previous government was. They feel so strong that they do not worry about the opposition and everything is cut and dried. If any member in the official opposition comes up with a sound idea it is not accepted, but met with their favourite cry -- "Why didn't you do it when", regardless of whether the member making the suggestion is in his twentieth, fourth or first year in the Legislature. They seem to completely ignore the members of the CCF Party.
Now the members of the official opposition, and here I must admit that some of us seem to be living in the past. We are too anxious to defend our past record. We are standing on our heels and letting ourselves be intimidated by the dictatorial ways of the Honourable the First Minister and his colleagues. We should not worry about the past as we know we gave sound government, but we should be worrying more about the present and future of our province.
The CCF are also afraid of the government and they are constantly electioneering. It is obvious that they are mainly interested in displacing the Liberals as official opposition. They keep telling the House what the Liberals would do if they were in power and how bad it would be. They claim that they are the champions of the ordinary people as well as the poor, the aged and the suffering. Here they are on safe grounds as it is always popular to work for the underdog, but most of the time their methods of accomplishing their suggestions are complete and impractical. I would like to interject here that not only members of the CCF are friends of the people, but also other members of this House. Just a few days ago it was suggested to the Honourable Member for Inkster that he allow his resolution to stand until the proposed government plan on old age be studied. This he refused to do as he was afraid somebody would "steal his thunder". Many members who quite possibly would have supported him, had no alternative but to vote against his resolution when he chose to close the debate. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is this helping the poor, suffering people, or is it an empty gesture?
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, perhaps at the risk of appearing dictatorial to my honourable friend, I was wondering if he was rehashing part of the Throne Speech debate or if perhaps he was going to get down to the question of the Attorney-General's estimates? I don't want to disturb his speech, but I, to date, haven't heard anything too much about the Attorney-General's estimates and that, I think, is what is under discussion at this stage.
MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. To the Honourable Minister, I think that it definitely has something in relation to what I will say, if you'll bear with me for another minute or so. Mr. Speaker, I feel that we are the elected representatives of the people and I feel that we should work together at least some times. We should be big enough to see the value of a sound suggestion, even though brought in by a member of another party.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I must say to the speaker that the point of order of the Attorney-General is well taken. We are discussing the Attorney-General's department and we are on Item I on Administration (a) Salaries. Now, that is the point that we ...
MR. E. PREFONTAINE (Carillon): Mr. Chairman, I submit that our precedents in this House have allowed a lot of latitude in the discussion and I don't think that in view of the precedents in this Chamber that the gentleman should be called to order at the present time ...
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we should take too much time without coming to the point.
MR. DESJARDINS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was just making a plea of this House to work a little closer together but if you wish I'll get down to business immediately and speak directly on the estimates of the Attorney-General. Last time I spoke on preventive methods for delinquency, alcohol education, physical fitness, etc., I was accused of all sort of things from wanting a Minister of Juvenile Delinquency to advocating religious education in schools. Well here, unfortunately, I cannot blame anyone but myself as my choice of words was not always the best, and what I meant to say might not have been too clear. This time I am going to try to be more specific. To start, I must admit that many of the things I advocate are being done at the present, but there is a lack of co-ordination, supervision, guidance and leadership. There is also too much duplication. At the present, preventive work on juvenile delinquency, alcohol education, mental health, that is in the preventive way, physical fitness, recreational programs, pre-marriage course, etc., all these things come under the Department of Health, Education or the Attorney-General. More are left to the different volunteer organizations. Most of these subjects are dealt with in churches, schools and homes and some are just neglected. I'm not accusing the government and the Honourable Ministers of the aforementioned departments of not being interested. I know very well that they all know that what I am speaking of is important and that we have a real problem. But they themselves have so much work piled onto them that they do not know where their responsibilities in these things begin or end. The whole program is so divided and split up that the part each department must play is minimized and this tends
to divide instead of uniting, and it is the source of most of our troubles.
Here I would wish to stop a few moments and clarify a few points. The Volunteer organizations -- I would not want these many well-intentioned people to think that I do not appreciate their work. No one does more than I. They will always be needed regardless of the scheme adopted and if things are not perfect, they certainly should not shoulder any blame as they need someone to lead them and co-ordinate their efforts. The school -- teachers have an important job to do and we will always strive to get the best qualified teachers and those with the best approach. The churches -- it is understood that much of the moral education and spiritual guidance, that is most of it, will come from the church and the government should encourage and help the different churches as they cannot do it alone. The home -- the home is without a doubt the most important single factor in the future moral and mental welfare of a growing generation, but here again all are not blessed with a happy home. In fact, many have no home at all.
MR. W. B. SCARTH, Q.C. (River Heights): May I ask the honourable gentleman a question? I note that the Honourable Member for St. Boniface has read word for word his speech from a book. May I ask the honourable gentleman if he prepared that speech or if somebody else prepared it for him?
MR. PREFONTAINE: ... question being asked in this House.
MR. DESJARDINS: No, that's all right. I don't mind answering that at all. First of all, the honourable member might be blind, because this is not a book. Secondly, I did prepare it myself and as I said -- I was trying to say earlier, I was just making a plea of working together. Now I thought, and it has been stated enough times that we are taking a little too long, and I just finished writing this a little while ago and that is why I've been reading. I've noticed that a lot of them have read -- maybe I should have asked permission first?
MR. PREFONTAINE: Absolutely. Some others ... It's a shame the question should have been asked.
MR. DESJARDINS: I thought it was more important in saying the right things than being fancy. I must make it clear that I do not intend the government should replace the church, home and school and do away with the volunteer organizations, but that the government should be in a position to assist and co-operate; to lead and to guide; to co-ordinate and to plan; to supervise and to direct. In other words, to place this very important matter of preventive work in this field under one head, one department, one Minister, whose chief duties would be those just mentioned. I would also like to make it clear that this program does not concern children only, but all citizens except in the case of preventive juvenile delinquency, of course. I also wish to say that in the past I have talked about moral and mental education, but at the time I was not referring to religious education but only the basic principles adopted by everyone -- that is in the Golden Rule; the importance of the home. It was never my intention to talk about religion in general, or any religion in particular. This should be left to the care of the Roayl Commission on Education -- I mean the religious education. Therefore, to sum it up, I would like to see the government study the possibility and advisability of forming and creating a new department with a new Minister; for lack of a better name, let us call him the Minister of Leisure. He would be responsible for organizing the different programs already mentioned such as liquor, education and preventive methods to curb juvenile delinquency.
Yesterday, the Honourable the Attorney-General gave us a description of the buildings going up at present to house these delinquent girls. The building will cost $445,000.00 and no doubt is greatly needed. There will be provision for three or four bed dormitories but most of the girls will have their own room. The "gym" will be the best available and each floor will have its own rumpus room. This is very well, but if it is so important to have everything just so-so for the delinquent girl, I would believe that it is more important to try and do more for the girls and boys before they become delinquent. As the Honourable the Attorney-General has said so many times, a dollar spent sometimes is a dollar saved. Now, at the present it would be better for many girls to become delinquents, to leave their poor homes and live in these new modern buildings. In fact, the Sister Superior at the Home of the Good Shepherd tells me that some do not wish to leave. This Minister would be responsible to help the church, schools and homes in their work to educate children and adults in the knowledge of the Golden
Rule; to encourage the different voluntary organizations and assist them in obtaining financial help; also, to co-ordinate the effort of these people so that they will not have been given in vain; to supervise the existing recreational facilities; to promote the erection of skating and curling rinks, golf courses and swimming pools, etc., when and where needed; to promote physical fitness programs for all citizens; and he would be in charge of mental health, that is, keep the good mental health, not the treatment of the mentally ill, and also an education program in this respect. I am sure that much more work would easily be found for him. It is understood that this new department would have to work closely with the other departments such as the Attorney-General, Health and Education.
Now the government might feel that I am going too far in asking for the creation of a new department, but I would ask them to at least name a board or commission to study these things. Thank you.
MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention at this stage in the consideration of the estimates to make any further prolonged statement to the House, but I feel that one or two points which have been raised in the debate thus far might well be considered for a moment and then, perhaps, some of the other points that have been mentioned will arise and I will attempt to give the answers to the questions that have been asked under the proper headings in the estimates.
I certainly, Mr. Chairman, wish to thank the honourable members opposite for their kindness toward the present holder of this office. I wasn't aware when I was introducing my estimates yesterday that I was going to meet with such a generous response from across the way. But I do thank them most sincerely; first of all, for the assistance that has been offered; and secondly, for a number of the constructive suggsestions which already have been made and which I can assure honourable members in this Committee will receive serious consideration by myself and my colleagues.
The Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains in the course of his remarks made some mention about "treading lightly" in the field of probation service. I know exactly what he means in this field. He means that no government should go overboard, so to speak, in expanding a program perhaps beyond the economic or the physical requirements of the province at this time, and certainly I agree with him that we do not intend to do that at all. But I would point out to him that there has been available to us as there was to him for a considerable amount of time, the recommendations of the Fauteux Report. And less there be any misunderstanding as to the true function of probation -- reading in some of the newspapers this morning, I perhaps drew the suggestion from one or two of the articles, one in particular which suggested that the gaols were going to be emptied overnight because a new probation scheme was being -- or an enlarged probation scheme was being introduced.
I think it might be well, Mr. Chairman, to have on the record what is contained in the Fauteux Report -- a rather distinct definition of the meaning of probation. "Probation", according to the commissioners who reported to the Minister of Justice, "is an alternative to imprisonment" -- an alternative to imprisonment. "It is a system that is designed to be used in conjunction with the power of the court to suspend sentence. It is, however, different from mere suspension of sentence. It involves compliance by the offender with specific conditions, and his acceptance of correctional treatment under supervision. Suspension of sentence by itself involves compliance only with general conditions, if any are imposed at all. Probation is not leniency or mercy. It is a form of correctional treatment deliberately chosen by the court because there is reason to believe that this method will protect the interests of society while meeting at the same time the needs of the offender. Probation permits the offender to lead a normal life in the community and enables him to avoid the inevitably disturbing effects of imprisonment. It makes it possible for him to continue his normal associations and activities while he receives the constructive assistance of supervision and guidance by a trained probation officer." I think it is well to have that statement on the record because I think it sums up in rather neat form just what is meant by the system which we are attempting to expand here in Manitoba.
Now as to the question as to whether or not we should tread lightly, I am afraid I would have to disagree somewhat with the Honourable Member from Ethelbert Plains because I take the view, the view that is substantiated by the Fauteux Commission, the view that is substantiated
pretty well by all authorities in this field across Canada, that the probation system as a system, the probation system per se has proved itself in other jurisdictions, and we are merely trying to foster and to implement in this province a beneficial system which has so proved itself in other jurisdictions. I think again, if I may refer to this report on page 14, one or two small paragraphs which perhaps again would indicate what the thinking on probation is, not only by this government but by the Fauteux Commission. The Commission went on to state in making its report to the Minister of Justice, "There are no statistics available to show as between provinces how successful a suspended sentence is operating in Canada. We are satisfied, however, that in those provinces where probation facilities have been established, a suspended setence with probation is working very successfully. The great need as we see it is for a continued expansion of probation facilities in all provinces." They continue on to say, "We do not feel that there is any necessity for us to attempt to justify adult probation as a valuable correctional aid. Its value has been fully established in all jurisdictions where it has been employed. Rehabilitation of an offender should, wherever possible, be affected without placing upon him the stigma of imprisonment. That is what probation is designed to do. In addition, it goes without saying that from a financial point of view" -- and then it goes on to state the various savings which can accrue to the public by implementing such a system. I would point out that this report was made to the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Stuart Garson, as he then was on the 30th of April, 1956. We don't disagree with any of the recommendations with respect to probation that were made by this very excellent commission which was appointed by the former Liberal govenrment at Ottawa, and I would merely read those sections to the Committee to indicate that we feel that the status of a probation system has been well documented; the status of a probation system is well established; and we do not feel that we have to tread too lightly, but we will watch -- we will watch that we don't start building an empire, so to speak, out of this type of service.
There was some suggestion by the Honourable Member from Ethelbert Plains that we might take a look at the question of correctional camps. He suggested, I believe, a farm research program. I am of the opinion, Mr. Chairman, that it doesn't matter too much to the inmate who is classified to go into one of these camps whether he is working on farm research; whether he is working on a farm which is in existence merely for production; or whether he is doing sanitation work in a forest. I think the main thing is that you take the prisoner out of this environment of the gaol; you get him out into the open air; you give him a feeling that he is doing something constructive with his hands; you give him a feeling that he is an integral part of, of society; and that he can do something while he is out of those gaol walls. I think that is the main thing that we are seeking, and while certainly consideration might be given to research work, I think the plans that we have, that is, for forestry camps for reclamation of land and so on, will meet the same end which I think is the primary concern of all of the experts in this field, that is, the end of abolishing useless leisure time -- leisure time which is very often given over to a reconsideration of why they were caught by the police and how they will improve their tactics as soon as they get on the "outside", as they say. And part of the -- the big part of course, is to keep their minds occupied; to keep their minds and their hands occupied so that they will, on release, find that through ordinary everyday hard work, you can lead a very satisfactory and enjoyable life.
The question raised also by the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains as to the assumption we made that perhaps 50% of those on probation would not have been on probation had there been no such system. He pointed out that a good number of these people would have been put on suspended sentence and I agree with him, that a good number of people would have been put on suspended sentences. I remember from my own experience in court that very often the Crown Attorney in days gone by acted, in effect, as a sort of probation officer. He would, if he had the time, make enquiries about the accused and sometimes I have seen it happen, a Crown Attorney stand up in court and say to the Magistrate or to the County Court Judge or the Superior Court Judge, "This man deserves another chance. Put him on suspended sentence." And very often that recommendation was agreed to. But there was the failing of the system. The man was put on suspended sentence and he walked out of court a free man. There were no conditions attached to his freedom. He didn't have to report to anybody. He went out completely a free man -- nobody to supervise him at all and the result was that in a
good number of cases those put on suspended sentences, especially for what I would call a true criminal offence, that is, break and enter, theft, forgery, uttering and that type of thing, those persons would very often be back on your docket within about a year because they hadn't been taught that this was a privilege or a license that they had been given by the court, and a license under which they had to operate and show to the satisfaction of the court that they were capable of handling. And I would say that the difference between the two systems of course is that, on the one hand, probation gives suspended sentence with service. When I say "service" I mean care paid to the prisoner when he is released, while on the other hand, the old system, the straight suspended sentence merely left him to the wiles of the world and he had no one to counsel or advise him, to keep him out of trouble in the future.
There were one or two remarks by the Honourable Member from St. John's. He made the statement, or perhaps drew from my remarks the thought, that no major changes in institutions would be made until the implementation of the Fauteux scheme in Manitoba within, we hope, the next two years to 30 months. I wouldn't want those remarks to be -- that connotation to be drawn from my remarks. What I did stress was this, that we were extremely hopeful, and I think we can see our way clear to do it, that it would not be necessary to make any major plant rennovations to our institutions across Manitoba, because as we know and as we anticipate, our gaol population will be decreased and we wouldn't want to be spending too much money on major plants in Manitoba which we might find half empty in two years time. But that doesn't mean that we won't and aren't considering making some changes in the type of work that is carried on in these institutions. That doesn't mean that we aren't always trying to devise ways and means whereby leisure time can be better occupied and other things like that. I agree with the honourable member who just spoke when he said that it is not good enough just to build buildings and it is not good enough just to have buildings, we must have proper programs going on in those buildings. And that is what we are attempting to do and we don't claim perfection at all. Nobody in this field can claim perfection for any type of penal institution. But you can do your best. I think I've got an excellent staff working under me who are doing their best. They're not all hard-hearted guards who "blackjack" prisoners from time to time just to keep up with the movie impression which is given of gaol guards. These are men with human nature the same as us; men with hearts the same as us; men who are trying to do work in a very difficult field; and men who, when they see the opportunity to make advances in that field, very often come forward to me and give me the benefit of their advice; and where possible we try to implement new systems which will result in a better system of rehabilitation for the prisoners in our gaols.
There were some other points that were raised by the Honourable Member for St. John's. He mentioned the question of the vocational training at Headingley Gaol. We will be coming to that item. In the meantime I would refer him to Page 12 of the Annual Report of Headingley Gaol which was filed at the last session of the House. There is certain information in that regard which you will find there with respect to vocational training at that institution. I might just mention for his information that there are instructors in carpentry, painting, tailoring, cobbling, and blacksmithing at Headingley Gaol. Further information is in the report and I would be pleased to give it to him when we come to that item in the estimates.
The Honourable Member for St. John's continued today by stating that we need qualified social workers as probation officers. Of course we acknowledge that. We have advertised, I would say, right across Canada for probation officers in anticipation of this scheme, and to date I can report to the House that we have been successful in obtaining at least two with long experience in the field and with professional background which will be a credit to them in Manitoba. As I pointed out yesterday, one of the great problems in the field of probation is recruiting proper personnel and these people don't grow on trees. We are trying, within our own department, to work out some system of bursaries whereby we can carry on the education of our untrained, so to speak, untrained probation workers when they come into the department; give them some incentive to stay with us; give them some incentive to know that if they wish to improve themselves by way of post-graduate education either at Manitoba or at other institutions across - or other universities across Canada, that there will be at least some help forthcoming for them from the government with the understanding, of course, that they will then come back into government service to give the government and the people of Manitoba the benefit of
the extra education that they have obtained. There was some mention made of the John Howard Society. There is an item in the estimates dealing with that, and I think perhaps we could have a more profitable discussion when we come to that item.
The words of the Honourable Member from Selkirk with respect to a Metropolitan Police Court, I can assure him that we will give close consideration to that. I would venture the suggestion that perhaps it might be premature to move into a field of a Metropolitan Police Court before we have, in actual fact, a metropolitan area, that is, an area of metro of some sort which may arise in the next few years. At the present time I would disagree with him to this extent, at the present time I don't feel that the work load of the City Magistrate's Court is perhaps as heavy as he would anticipate. I can assure him that the day-to-day docket has been pared down considerably, that is, by being split between the two magistrates. The magistrates themselves advise me that they feel that they now have more time to give consideration to the goodly number of cases that come before them, especially those serious indictable offenses on which, I think the honourable member and myself would agree, very serious consideration must be given at all times. I am not losing sight of his recommendation, however, and I think perhaps in the Metro report which is presently in the hands of the government, there are some recommendations with respect to the establishment of just such a court if and when Metro becomes a fact in Manitoba. I might say, for his benefit, I am glad to hear that he approves of the probation scheme and tentative plans are that one of these additional probation officers will be stationed at the beautiful Town of Selkirk, just north of here, to service the Sekirk area and courts in the Interlake area north of there. I am sure that we will attempt to get the best type of person that we can to service the court not only there, but in other areas throughout the province where these workers are needed.
The Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains just recently mentioned the question of permanent magistrates in Manitoba. He said that he had had under consideration some time for implementing a permanent magistracy across the province. I can tell him that we have had the same ideas ourselves. As a matter of fact, the question was raised recently at the Magistrates Conference last December by some of the magistrates themselves. There is some doubt by the odd one, that they are receiving enough remuneration and they say that perhaps the best thing would be to put in a full-time magistrate who would go on circuit and deal with perhaps the whole judicial district or a series of Country Court districts. We do have that matter under consideration at the present time. We are continuing, however, the age old practice in Manitoba of having a local barrister appointed a magistrate in a local area. Rightly or wrongly, there is still a considerable amount of feeling among the public that if they are going to be penalized in a court, they would like to be penalized by a local man rather than by some city slicker out of Winnipeg. I think there is something to be said for that, that is, for the dispensation of justice in the local area by the local magistrate. But that doesn't mean that we are precluded from looking at the other system which I know, as does he, has considerable merit to it. He mentioned the importance of these courts. I concur with him because it's proved by statistics that better than 90% of all criminal matters in Canada are handled through magistrate's courts, either disposed of completely in magistrate's courts or handled by way of preliminary enquiry going on to higher court. And so we can't ever underestimate the importance of these officers -- these judicial officers to the overall administration of justice in the province. And I would reiterate today what I said yesterday, that I think both he and myself are fortunate in having, and the province is fortunate in having, the calibre of men that we do have, even though they may be only on a part-time basis, dispensing justice through these very important courts throughout the province.
MR. SPEAKER: It is 5:30 and I leave the Chair until 8:00 o'clock.
Page revised: 15 November 2012
