Manitoba Hansard — 10 March 1964 (Sitting 37, 27th Legislature, 2nd Session)

27-2-37

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ELECTORAL DIVISION ARTHUR ASSINIBOIA BIRTLE-RUSSELL BRANDON BROKENHEAD BURROWS CARILLON CHURCHILL CYPRESS DAUPHIN DUFFERIN ELMWOOD EMERSON ETHELBERT-PLAINS. FISHER FLIN FLON FORT GARRY FORT ROUGE GIMLI GLADSTONE HAMIOTA INKSTER KILDONAN LAC DU BONNET LAKE SIDE LA VERENDRYE LOGAN MINNEDOSA MORRIS OS BORNE PEMBINA PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE RADISSON RHINE LAND RIVER HEIGH'l'S ROBLIN ROCK LAKE ROCKWOOD- IBERVILLE RUPERTSLAND ST. BONIFACE ST. GEORGE ST. JAMES ST. JOHN'S ST. MA TTHEWS ST.

VITAL STE, ROSE SELKIRK SEVEN OAKS SOURIS-LANSDOWNE SPRING FIELD SWAN RIVER THE PAS TURTLE MOUNTAIN VIRDEN WELLINGTON WINNIPEG CENTRE WOLSELEY NAME J. D. Watt Steve Patrick Hon,Robert G. Smellie, Q. C. R. 0, Lissaman E. R. Schreyer Mark G. Smerchanski Leonard A. Barkman Gordon W. Beard Hon. Thelma Forbes Hon. Stewart E. McLean,Q. C. William Homer Hamilton S. Peters John P. Tanchak M. N. Hryhorczuk, Q. C. Emil Moeller Hon. Charles H. Witney Hon. Sterling R. Lyon, Q. C. Hon. Gurney Evans Hon. George Johnson Nelson Shoemaker B. P. Strickland Morris A. Gray James T. Mills Oscar F. Bjornson D. L.

Campbell Albert Vielfaure Lemuel Harris Hon. Waiter Weir Harry P. Shewman Hon. Obie Baizley Mrs. Carolyne Morrison Gordon E. Johnston Russell Paulley J. M. Froese Hon. Maitland B. Steinkopf,Q. C. Keith Alexander Hon. Abram W. Harrison Hon. George Hutton J. E. Jeannotte Laurent Desjardins Elman Guttormson D. M. Stanes Saul Cherniac k, Q. C. W. G. Martin Fred Groves Gildas Molgat T. P. Hillhous e, Q.C. Arthur E. Wright M. E. McKellar Fred T. Klym James H. Bilton Hon. J. B. Carroll P. J. McDonald Donald Morris McGregor Richard Seaborn James Cowan, Q. C. Hon.

Duff Roblin ADDRESS Reston, Manitoba 189 Harris Blvd. , Winnipeg 12 Legislative Bldg,, Winnipeg 1 832 Eleventh St., Brandon, Man, 2 - 1177 Henderson Hwy,, Winnipeg 16 102 Handsart Blvd., Winnipeg 29 .steinbach, Man. Thompson, Man. Rathwell, Man, Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Sperling, Man. 225 Kimberly St. , Winnipeg 15 Ridgeville, Man. Ethelbert, Man. Teulon, Man. Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg,, Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg, , Winnipeg 1 Neepawa, Man.

Hamiota, Man. 406 - 365 Hargrave St., Winnipeg 2 142 Larchdale Crescent, Winnipeg 15 Lac du Bonnet, Man. 326 Kelvin Blvd., Winnipeg 29 La Broquerie, Man. 1109 Alexander Ave., Winnipeg 3 Legislative Bldg,, Winnipeg 1 Morris, Man. Legislative Bldg, , Winnipeg 1 Manitou, Man, 7 Massey Drive , Portage la Prairie 435 Yale Ave. W., Transcona 25, Man. Winkler, Man. Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Roblin, Man. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg, , Winnipeg 1 Meadow Portage, Man. 138 Dollard Blvd., St. Boniface 6, Man. Lundar, Man. 381 Guildford St., St. James, Winnipeg 12 333 St.

John's Ave., Winnipeg 4 924 Palmerston Ave., Winnipeg 10 3 Kingston Row, St. Vital, Winnipeg 8 · Room 250, Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Dominion Bank Bldg., Selkirk, Man. 168 Burrin Ave. , Winnipeg 17 Nesbitt, Man. Beausejour, ·Man. Swan River, Man. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Killarney, Man. Kenton, Man. 594 Arlington St., Winnipeg 10 412 Paris Bldg. , Winnipeg 2 Legislat.ive Bldg., Winnipeg 1 I I �

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Tuesday, March 10, 1964. MR. CHAIRMAN: Department VII. 5 (

a) MR. GUTTORMSON: When we got into estimates of the Attorney-General's Department last Friday, the Member for Lakeside dealt with a matter which concerned him considerably and that was the matter of a magistrate which he did not name at that time. This matter has not only concerned the Member for Lakeside,_ as it concerned me and many others, and I would like to deal with that matter at the present time. The Minister spoke about this problem yesterday in the debate and I concurred with most of what the Minister said.

He said when a magistrate imposed sentences which were not approved by a lot of people or the Attorney-General himself, it was difficult for him to perhaps have the man replaced and I can certainly agree with his statement in saying that. Howe�er, the fact remains there is a problem and, in my opinion, a serious one. The Member for Lakeside cited cases where he felt that inadequate sentences have been imposed by this magistrate.

The matter is becoming alarming to, I know, some of the authorities and I know the Attorney-General's department has become concerned with the matter because more appeals are filed by the Attorney-General's department in connection with sentences imposed by this magistrate than all the other magistrates ·put together. So I realize that they have a problem and, as I say, when the Minister says, "It's not easy for us to replace a man:• I concur with his remarks.

I know it's a difficult chore and particularly the Attorney-General does not, I am sure, want to start to interfere with the sentences that are imposed by a magistrate but wheu the sentences become so ridiculous in the eyes of 1->igher courts, and the magistrate doesn't even impose sentences that he is entitled to pass, when I refer to suspended sentences; it is quite clear in the Criminal Code that you can't impose suspended sentences upon certain individuals ·if they've got ·a previous record within a certain period of time.

I have some examples of sentences which I want to bring to the attention of the committee at this time. I don't prop0se to name names in this instance because I don't think any useful purpose would be served by naming names, but I will cite charges and sentences that have been imposed by this particular magistrate. Here's one case where a man was charged with assault. I don't know just how severe it was. And the man in question was sentenced to two months in jail. The Crown obviously felt his sentence was inadequate and they increased the sentence to 12 months.

In another case, this same magistrate imposed a 2-year sentence, suspended sentence, for the thefts. The Crown appealed again and the Court of Appeal imposed a 30- month sentence. Another case, this magistrate imposed a 6-month term. The Court of Appeal changed it to 18 months. Another case, a man robbed a taxi driver at knife point and he was given a suspended sentence. The Court of Appeal changed the sentence and increased it to 2 1/2 years. Mr. Chairman, had this taxi driver perhaps struggled it's quite possible he might have been killed. Here's another case of another robbery at knife point.

The man got a sus pended sentence and the Court of Appeal changed it to 30 months. I have another case, where a man was charged with robbery. He was given a two-year suspended sentence. The case was appealed by the Crown and the man was given 2 years less a day. I have another case where a man charged with breaking and entering was given 6 months. It was changed by the Court of .Appeal to 18 months. I have another case where a man was charged with breaking and entering, given two-years suspended sentence plus a three-year suspended sentence for breach of recognizance. The Crown appealed.

Incidentally, this man was already on suspended sentence for robbery. The Crown appealed and an 18-month sentence was imposed. Here's another case of two young men charged with robbery. They were given 1-year terms. The sentence was increased by the Court of Appeal to 2 years less a day. There's another case of a man with a series of breaking and entering charges, given a suspended sentence; it was appealed and he was given 6 months. Here's another case where a man was charged with indecent assault. He was fined $200.00. The Crown appealed and the man was sentenced to 6 months.

There are other cases where the sentences appear very inadequate and I know the Crown has now got these sentences scheduled for an appeal and they have not been dealt with. As I said before, I appreciate the position of the Attorney-General. He has a difficult March lOth., 1964. Page 945

(Mr. Guttormson, cont'd). .. situation to deal with here but nevertheless, I brought this matter up at the last session, pointed out the inadequacies and the unfortunate situation that was prevailing and I've seen no evidence of any action. As I have said, I know it is a difficult one but I must impress upon the Minister that he must find some way to adjust this situation. I can tell the Minister that the situation is so ridiculous now that defense counsel and accused persons are jockeying for time so that their cases Will appear before this particular magistrate. Now this is not good.

It•s tying up the courts and causing a bottleneck. I can recite one case where three men committed a burglary. The police caught them red�handed in the building. Two of them pleaded guilty and received stiff sentences for their offence. The third-member of the group pleaded 'not guilty' and he stalled in every which-way until the other magistrate came on the bench and he immediately pleaded guilty to the offence and got a sentence of only half of what his accomplices got. When I raise this matter, I don't suggest for a moment that the magistrate is doing any thing improper.

I think that this magistrate just hasn't got the stomach to do the job and I think that, in the interests of justice, that he should make the situation easy for the Attorne y-Ge neral and offer his own resignation, because it's obvious that this man finds it difficult to do the job that is required of him. Now I'm not going to suggest to the committee that he's not doing an adequate job because I say so. I suggest he's not doing an adequate job because the Attorney -G eneral's department doesn't think he's doing a job themselves if you look at the number of appeals that they are lodg ing every year without fail.

And the Manitoba Court of Appeal, I don't recall one instance, although there may have been, where they haven •t seen fit to after the sentence and increase it; and my experience from the practice of the Attorney-General's department, they don't usually- they're reluctant to appeal a case against an accused unless they feel that the sentence has been inadequate and severely inadequate. This particular magistrate, as was pointed out before by the Member for Lakeside, is allowed to practice as welL - Now, the Member for Lakeside said he didn't feel that a magistrate should be allowed to practice.

I will only agree with him to a point. I realize that in outlying jurisdictions where a magistrate perhaps is only required one day a week, that it's difficult for the Attorney-General's der;artment to say that you can't practice because he's only needed one day a week; but I think that in the case of magistrates dealing in courts such as Winnipeg magistrates court, where the abundance of work is increasing every year, a �agistrate should devote his full time to the job, and I believe that this man is being paid on that basis.

Contrary to what many people feel, I think that the magistrate in a police court is every bit as important,and more important, than even the judges sitting in the Supreme Court of Canada. They are dealing with the little man, the man who is charged with petty theft, assault, drun ke nness, traffic offences, and these people deserve the best attention, and only if the magistrate gives this proper attention to these cases will the little man get the attention that I think thathe deserv es.

The Leader of the N'DP suggested last night, after the Att orney -G eneral spoke, that he didn't see why that a magisL -rate couldn't be removed by the Attorney General if he didn't think his work was satisfactory. I find it difficult to agree th.a�he should do it yet I can understand hi ID thinking that something should be done. So I would urge the Minister at this time to explore some way as to rectify a situation. I know that the police officials are very disturbed by it. Many of the criminals are just laughing at the situation.

As I said they're jockeying for position so that they can appear before this man and I think it's high time that he help the Attorney-General out of a difficult situation by offering his own resignation and that the Attorney-General can make an appointment of a man who is prepared to do the job in a satisfactory manner. As the Member for Lakeside pointed out, this man is imposing suspended sentences when the Criminal Code forbids such a sentence from being imposed.

The Member for Lakeside cited the judgment of Chief Justice Miller who was severely critical of this mag istrate for imposing suspended sentences upon a man who had a bad record, and the Criminal Code made it abundantly clear that a suspended sentence wasn •t a proper one and he was not even entitled to use his discretion to that extent. MR. MORRIS A.

GRA Y (Inkster): It is very hard for me to speak after accusations have been made by men who were in public life for years, served honestly for the years 'that I have known them here but all of a sudden making accusations which I think perhaps is not justified. _ At the outset, what is the crime that has been committed here? Nobody knows. No one explains. Everyone is being charged seriously, and if the charges are substantiated -- if the charges are Page 946 March lOth, 1964. I

(Mr. Gray, cont'd) ... true, I think the government should resign. But when they ask me why, I would tell them not to, because the accusations in my opinion are not supporte d. I would like to use a more severe language, but neither do I know the proper words to use it or the actual charges to be made. I think that we are wasting our time here, and I'm surprised at the govern ment benches to allow it, to rehash everything that has been said in the last day or two or three. People may accuse me of misunderstanding.

It's true that I haven't got the same brains and understanding of many of those who made the charges, and perhaps some of them would defend the charges. Maybe. But I'm speaking as a layman; I'm not even speaking as an NDP man. I'm speaking as one who feels that we are creating a disturbance unnecessary in this House, absolutely unnecessary. The questions raised by the last speaker may be justified, but it was not raised in my humble opinion, and if he thinks that I'm wrong, I'm prepared to apologize.

It was raised, in my humble opinion, not for the purpose of improvements, but I'm afraid to say for political expediency which is being done here by myself, by my party and by others. The question however is, this poli tical expe diency is necessary. Why bring it up in this particular case? The Attorney-General, the first one and the second one, have made full explana tions on any mistakes they have made, and justified their mistakes, justified their errors, admitted that in some cases they were wrong. Why bring it up again? Why raise this question again? I cannot understand. I cannot understand.

I feel that we are sitting here in the Legislature, which I have all my life considered a Holy Shrine, where all matters of Manitoba, and matters of Canada and matters of the whole world could be discussed and helped as much as possible, but instead of this everyone is trying to dig on the case of the others, to ignore them, to belittle them while they've been serving for years in the interests of the people of the Province of Manitoba. I can't understand it.

The trouble is I'm too old; but at the same time I feel that now one of us, and particularly I say that the Liberal opposition make any definitely constructive ·suggestions for the improvement of the people of the Province of Manitoba, but their very interest is to hang by the market square Mr. Lyon, tomorrow morning. That's who they're interested int .

Now, whether he'll be hanged or not I do not know, but there is no constructive suggestions of anyone how we could get along, how we could improve the conditions of the Pro vince of Manitoba, how we could improve the conditions of the world, how we could feed people of the world when they are going hungry to bed day after day. Mr. Chairman, I think I've said more than I should, and they'll agree with me, but it hurts me- it's in my heart-- it's in my soul. I'm not an academic individual. I've never been at university, but I feel as a layman, as a common individual.

I feel that we're wasting our time in this general discussion. We are not doing anything for ourselves and we are not doing anything for the people of the province. MR. PETERS: Mr. Chairman, there's only one question that I want cleared up from the Att orney-General, and that is, in these cases that the Honourable Member from St. George has stated, was there a report made by the probation officer to the magist-rate? And if there were no reports made to the magistrate by a probation officer I want to know why they weren't made to him. MR. McLEAN: Mr.

Chai rman, I would think that what I could say without having examined the particular cases, that there would be a probation report made. In all proper cases, a probation officer is attached to the Winnipeg magistrates court. MR. SHOEMAKER: I would like to ask my honourable friend if he has anything to do with the 'using the mail for fraud' . I don't know whether this comes under the federal government or the provL.1cid government or both, but I have before me here .... MR. McLEAN: It's federal. MR. SHOEMAKER: Well, fine, Mr. Chairman.

They're using the mails within the Province of Manitoba, and perhaps my honourable friend could take note of what I have to say and see that it ceases, because I have just written a letter to the firm who mailed out this parcel. Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many similar parcels went out in th·e Province of Manitoba, but this chap from Eden -- a Mike Nestor, Box 103, Eden, Manitoba- - brought this into my office one day and he said that he had been notifie d by the Eden Post Office that there was a COD parcel there for him .

He let it rest there for two or three days and then curiosity got the best of him and he went in, redeemed the parcel, paid $11. 83 and found what appeared to be a very good wristwatch. He kept the wristwatch for about a week and it' stopped, as you might expect -- interjection -- That's right, it didn't run half as long, though. And he Page 947 March lOth, 1964.

(Mr. Shoemaker, cont'd). . . took it into a jeweller. The jeweller said, "It is absolutely worthless. There's no point of spending a nickel on it." Now, he swears up and down that he never ordered it, he never filled in a coupon or anything, and my point is, how many thousands of these went out all over this province and the other nin8 provinces in the Dominion? I have, as I say Mr. Chairman, I wrote a letter to the distributors, and I'll ask my honourable friend from St. Boniface to read this out because it's in French, and I am not bilingual. The letter was read by Mr. Desjardins.

Translation will appear in the next issue of Hansard. MR. SHOEMAKER: Now, I have written to this company, and I won't try to -- inter jection -- It's not in there -- I won't try and pronounce it agab. I have written a long letter to th.ese people and suggested that if I did not hear from them within ten days, that I would refer it to the Attorney- Generalofthis province. I have not heard from them. I am now referrin[!: it to my honourable friend, and I can send that over to him and perhaps he can investigate that matter. That's No.l, Mr.

Chairman, and-- interjection -- Well, someone should look after it -- interjection -- Yes. Mr. Chairman, I note that there is a resolution on the Order Paper relative to unethical practices or something of that nature, and I don't think that it has been spoken on up to now. Has it? Well, that's good. I'll speak on that. I'll say the same story over again as I'll give you now I suppose when we get to that. Wnere is it? Well anyway, it doesn't matter where iti s,Mr.Chairman, you have no doubt noted it, along with anoth.r two or three dozen there.

Now, the material that I have before me indicates that there is some excuse, some excuse for having this resolution on the Order Paper. I have before me here the Western Producer, Thursday, January 9th, 1964, headed "The Fast Buck Boys are At Work Again in Manitoba". The Western Producer I believe, is a Saskatoon paper, and this

article goes on to say -- it's referring to discount salesmen that have been calling on the farmers throughout the province and selling their goods or services to the farmers -- interjection -- Pre-arranged funeral, my honourable friend says. Could be doing that as well. In the annual submission to the Government of Manitoba by the Manitoba Farmers' Union for release January 21st, 1964, page 16. Nearly the whole page has to do with business ethics- interjection -- You have read it, no doubt. My honourable friends here, they -- the Farmers' Union met with them. If they haven't read it, they should have read it.

I've read it all. But I will read this paragraph to point up how serious they consider it to be. "Duri ng the last two years," I'm quoting now, Mr. Chairman. "D.1ring th•3 last two years we can conservatively estimate that the farmers in Manitoba have paid out over tbree-quarters of a million dollars to business operations which class themselves as so-called discount clubs or wholesales' assoc- iations, an:i whos.e b.Isiness opera�ions :have no relationship whatsoever to that which their I respective salesmen present to the individual farmers." That's what they say here.

That's what they say in the Western Producer, and I believe it is said in the resolution that is before us. Now if it is as serious as these articles suggest, then Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Attorney-General look into this matter. Now Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that certain other provinces have what is known as a Consumers' Guide or sorno�thing of this nature, to warn the public of outfits and renegades like I have suggested.

Now it is true that we have the Better Business Bureau in Manitoba, and last year when we were in Law Amendments Committee, two or three officers of the Better Business Bureau appeared at that committee, and I spent some time with them afte:J:" the committee meeting was over. The purpose of my meeting with them then was to discuss with them a cer tain outfit whose head office is in Winnipeg here, that went out through the country selling aluminum siding and roofing of some kind. I forget their name. They had an office down on Fort Garry there somewhere.

The Better Business Bureau told me in no uncertain terms that they knew of the outfit, they knew of their goods and services, and they certainly could not recommend either of them . Now this outfit has been out around through my area and it seems to me that they are only able to sell their goods to people who have little or no money, and they tie them up with about a five-year contract, a sizeable one that they are unable to pay for. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you of one specific case where the chap come to me before they had put the siding on the h:JUse, and it was a blessing that he did come to meat that time.

They had signed a contract with him for something like $5,000. 00. I think it was over $5,000. 00. Page 948 March 10, 1964

(Mr. Shoemaker, cont'd) ... It was spread over a 60-month period. His house with the siding on it w.:>uldn't be worth more than $2,000 in the Village of Franklin. You couldn't get $2,000 for the house and $5, 000 worth of siding on it. New these are the kind of people that this firm is taking advantage of. They have made several sales in the town of Neepawa, principally to people who should know better but don't seem to, and I think that this kind of unethical business practices should be looked into, Mr. Chairman. I have one other matter that concerns myself and a lot of other people.

Myself to the tune of $25.00, and a lot of other people to a greater or lesser degree, but just nearly every week somewhere in the Province of Manitoba, there's somebody around forging and cashing worthless cheques, and lo and behold, I got stuck once, and I'm not going to get stuck again if I can help it -- interjection -- For $25. 00 about three years ago, and probably it was a cheap lesson, but the funny part of this one was that this chap came along, prodtlced his calling card that he was working for the Paymaster Corporation. Now, Mr ..

Chairman, you would think that when a fellow come along trying to sell you a Paymaster cheque- writing machine -- in fact we had bought one two or three years before. He had come around to see if he couldn't ink it up for us, and he tinkered around with it for a little while, and then he said now could you cash my cheque for me; and I thought, well by golly, if he's working for a Paymaster cheque-w riter, his cheque ought to be sgme good. It was no good. It was no good. Now I phoned the RCMP. I traced him down to Calgary. He's not working for Paymaster, I can assure you that.

I had a nice conversation with the RCMP and I said, "Well I suppose in keeping with your motto that you will no doubt get your man, but will I get my money?" He said, "Well, that's a horse of a different colour," and it is, and we didn't, and I'm still waiting for this money. How, is there no way that these fellows can be made to -- interjection -- pay back, yes to pay back, Mr. Chairman -- interjection -- Personally I would think. -- interjection -- Well now, Mr. Chair man, the Honourable Member for Elniw·ood asked who paid for the phone call. Now I must say . this, it was not the ta.,.payers of this province.

Do you know what happened? Because this does raise an interesting point. I phoned the Paymaster people. They admitted that this fellow had worked for them. They admitted that he was no good. They said, "Phone the office ·collect· in Calgary, our office collecr in Calgary." I said, "Will they accept the long distance phone call collect?" "Certainly, go ahead and phone them." I did and I'll bet you I spent fifteen minutes on the phone and the outfit in Calgary paid for it and not the ta. ... payers of this province. Well, Mr.

Chairman, if I am encouraged I may speak a little longer, but I think that that will do for the time being and I hope that I will have an answer to the three queries that I have put to my honourable friend. MR. PETERS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back to the probation officers again. The Attorney -G eneral assured me that in cases that the magistrates have the services of a pro bation officer.

Now I know of one case in particular that happened oh, three or four years ago, where a fellow on his first offence, and I admit it was a serious charge, but there were no services of a probation officer offered in that case.

He pleaded guilty, and immediately was sentenced; and I think that in this case that there was a miscarriage of justice and I might say, in fairness to the Law Society they did provide a lawyer to take up an appeal, and his sentence was cut down to less than a third of what he was originally given, but had the magistrate had the services of a probation officer, probably he wouldn't have imposed the sentence that he did in the first instan:Je.

I would appeal to the Attorney- General to make sure that in all cases that before a sentence is passed, that the services of a probation officer are given to the magistrate, not Just saying that H:rey're available, but they are made use of, so that there is no doubt left in anyone.'s mind that the fellow or p3rson accused, and although he has pleaded guilty, that they have the report of a probation officer, and he gets every benefit of the doubt.

I'd like that assurance from the Attorney-General, that he will make sure that in every case that they do get the help that many, many of these people do need in the first instance, because putting them in jail is not going to do us any good. The person that I'm talking about was 51 years of age, and I don't think he was on the road to a life of crime; his life was two-thirds over, and if he'd have had the services of a probation officer, things would have worked out different than they had. MR. CHAIRM AN: (

b) MR. ARTHUR E. WRIGHT (Seven Oaks): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask some ques tions about jurors but I was w.:>ndering whether the Minis ter would care to reply to the previous March 10, 1964 Page 949

(Mr. Wright, cont'd)... question before I do. Would it be all right to ask him now? Well, Mr. Chairman, last year I rose and read a letter from one of my constituents who had been asked to serve on two consecutive m'�rder trials, and after reading the letter a certain am:mnt of interest was generated; in fact, Val Werier of the Tribune went to se-e my constituent and wrote quite a story on i.t, and everything that he said was considered to be true. I just want to read an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune of last March because it puts it very succinctly. There's a word I wish Mr.

Chairman, we could get the committee to adopt for the rest of this committee here. It's headed "Jury Reform", and I quote: "Attorney-G eneral Sterling Lyon has promised to investigate complaints of the juror who served on two murder trials. The juror criticized the inadequate sleeping quarters in the Law Courts building for jurors locked up during a trial. He also objected to being forced to serve on two murder trials. Both of these com plaints are valid. The province should do better than provide overcrowded dormitory facilities for those chosen for one of the highest responsibilities in citizenship.

There is also no reason why a juror should be compelled to serve on tw0 murder trials during one assize session. The number of those empanelled can be easily increased if necessary. A great deal of time and energy is spent on preparing the list of jurors. 0·1tside of Winnipeg, a number representing one twentieth of the voters list is compiled.

In Winnipeg one thousand names are chosen by the City Clerk's staff from the city directory, divided equally from the letters of the alphabet, and finally these names, all numbered, are selected at random under the jurisdiction of the senior County Court- Judge, the Sheriff and Prothonotary. All it requires to increase the number of jurors is to pull a few more numbers out of the hat, and while the Attorney-General's depart ment is· looking into the reform of the Act it might also enquire into the great num':ler of exemptionsfrom jury duty. Women, for example, may be called but can refuse.

All bank employea3 and undertakers are not eligible. It is hardly conceivable that bank employee s or undertakers would have a vested interest in the life or death of a man on trial for murder." The

article ends up, Mr. Chairman, by saying, "the juror's complaints may set off more changes than he anticipated." Well, Mr. Chairm'i.n, I'm merely following up what I said last year to find out whether or not anything has been done.

And while I'm on my feet I'd like to say that last year I submitted that one of the reasons why women were ilOt called for jury duty in Manitoba was because there were no adequate housing facilities in which to keep them; and my colleague from :Srokenhead in speaking to a group of women the other night, told me that they were certainly interested in finding out why women were not called for jury duty in Manitoba. I'm just wondering whether the same conditions exist.

I also wish to ask the Minister, has any consideration been given to exempting farmers from jury duty during the months of May to October because I understand this exemption does exist in other provinces.? I spoke about the remuneration for jurors, pointing out last year that the fee of $9.0 0 a day was not sufficient and it's all right to say that a citizen surely wouldn't mind doing this for his country once in awhile.

I say again that it's not much comfort to a man buying a home with a large mortgage and trying to raise two ::>r three children, when he has to -- he's probably making at least $2. 00 an hour if he's a mechanic -- and when he is getting $9.00 while he is serving on a jury, it's of little comfort to him.

Last year in the Speech from the Throne, it was mentioned that the government would propose increasing the amo.mt paid to jurors and, if I remember right, a juror could, if he felt the $9.00 would not be sufficient to cover his expenses, he could make application I believe to the court, to cover his additional expenses. Now I'd appreciate if the Attorney -G eneral coJ.ld help me in following up this matter to �e able to go t.o my constituent and explain that the government is doing something about this. I'd be interested to know about it. MR. McLEAN: Mr.

Chairman, I can't say that anything has been done toward exempting farmers from jury duty. What the Honourable the Member for Seven Oaks said now i.s the first that I've heard of that suggestion. I would certainly agree that one person ought not to be called for two juries in one assize; in fact I would -- at the risk of getting in trouble with my frien �s in the Law Courts building -- I would hope that they would have enough sense to see that that didn't happen, and I certainly will make my views on that subject known if there's any suggestion.

I am informd that following the discussion on this topic which .t ook place a year ago, that my cvlleague the former Attorney -G eneral had examined and inspected the quarters for the jury at Page 950 March 10, 1964 •

(Mr. McLean, cont'd)... the Law Courts building, and that some improvements have been made. I have myself not seen them; I must say I'm not familiar with them at all, and I would think that certainly nothing has been done that particularly would make the quarters attractive for women. I'm an old Tory when it comes to this matter of women on juries. I always thought that was just a fiction to begin with and I don't really think that women want to be on juries.

I might be wrong but certainly it's part of the law now and tha cp.arters ought to be such that they can serve on the juries if called upon to do so, and provided of course they don't ask to be exempt. MR. PETERS: Mr.

Chairman, I would still like an answ�r frvm the Attorney-General and give me some assurance, inasfar as probation officers are concerned, that he's going to give me the assurance that every accused person, before sentence is passed on him, that they will get the service of a probation officer, ba,�ause justice will not be served by just p:.1tting someone in jail and saying, "You have committed a crime, you go there and you sit there 'til you've served your sentence and when you come out you better be a better guy or a better woman." There are times when people have made a mistake and they've oommitted a crime, and where the services of probation officers would be of very good service to the magistrate --help him in making his --we don't want to put people in jail.

It's not going to do us any good to put him in jail. It's going to cost us money. If we can make a good citizen out of that person, that's what we are trying to do, not just to put him in jail and say, here, you'Ve committed a crime, go and serve your sentence and then come out and behave yoursalf. I want the assurance from the Attorney-General that in all cases we 're going to get this service. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Chairman, I came in in time to hear the Attorney-General say two things; that, first of all, he was a Conservative when it came to having women on juries, and secondly, he made the point that he's not atallsure that women would want to be on juries. And I say to him that there is a :iifference between being a Conservative and a mossback, and he appears to be the latter in this regard because who would want to argue in this day and age that Ws not desirable to have a balance of view of the kind that only women can give in their capacity as jurors?

The other point he made, that he's not sure that women w.Juld want to serve on juries. I can tell him that one of the reasons why I'm late is because of a discussion on this very point with a group of about 65 women, and it was on this precise point that they are thinking of making presentations so that the Province of Manitoba will get aTonnd to pro viding the adequate facilities so that women could serve on juries in the first place.

I under stand that the reason why our present legislation is such that women can obtain an automatic exemption from jury duty is not because of our particular interest in giving them some sort of special favour, but for the very simple and mundane reason that our jury facilities are ina:i.aquate insofar as providing accomm::>dation for women jurors. And I simply want to let the Attorney General know that, from what consensus of opinion I could gather from this fairly large group of women, he is completely wrong when he says that he doesn't think that a good many would want to serve in that capacity. MR. J. M.

FROESE (Rhine land): Mr. Chairman, before the Minister answers, I would like to have ·an answer to my question that I put to him last night in connection with the qualific ations or requ irements that have to be met in order to he appointed as a Justice of Peace,_ or as a police magistrate in this province. I put the question to him last night. I didn't receive an answer. I hop•a I do get one. I also raised the matter of tax exemptions in connection with police cars. I understand the federal police, and apparently this is also extended to city police; do get an exemption when cars are purchased for this purpose.

However, this is not extended to the polica in rural areas and the smaller centres in the province here would like to have the same exemption. Could the Minister tell us what the score is, and what is being done about it, or can h3 :lone about it, to secure these exemptions? MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the tax referred to by the Honourable the Member for Rhine land is a fedaral tax. We don't have a sales tax in Manitoba, and I would be unable to offer him any help in that regard. Qualifications of a Justice of the Peace, perhaps not too easily described.

The functions of a Justice of the Peace are really quite minimal now in th·a administration of justice and, genarally speaking, their duties relate to that of taking inform ation, swearing out warrants, dealing with mino.: cases, traffic offences and the like, and persons who bear a good reputation· and are known or thought to have good common sense are, generally spo3aking, the people who are appointed Justices ,Jf the Peace. A magistrate, under March 10, 1964 Page 951

(Mr. McLean, cont'd) ... the provisions of our Magistrates Act, are required to �e .:p'llified lawyers, because under the terms of the Criminial Code and many of our statutes, certain offences may be tried before a magistrate. Over the years there has been a considerable exten sion of the jurisdiction of magistrates. Many cases that say fifty yea-rs ago would have been tried by a judge an:l a jury are now tried by a magistrate, so that magistrates are required to be people with legal training. There are only one or two instances wb.ere people who are not lawyers are appointed magistrates.

They're referred to as Justices of the Peace 7li.th ex tended jurisdiction which brings them fairly close to the position of the magistrate. That is only done in special circumstances in isolated places, and in those instan::!es wh<3re the person is considered to be able to exercis,e discretion and good judgment. Now in all of these ini3tances, both Justices of the Peace and mE.gistrates are appointed by the Executive Council which means the Cabinet, by Order-in-Council, on the reco:::n:�e:1dation of the Attorney-General.

I'm not too certain whether the Honourable the Member for Brokenhead was looking for any comment from me, mossbaGk or no mossback. I have a strong suspicio.1 --and I suppose Mr. Chairman, if he and I have to have any differences of opinion this is about as unimportaat a matter as we could have. Women, when they think about jury duty, they're thinking about the juries that sit for the Perry Mason cases on television.

Jury duty in our system of justice is a very stern and a very important and sometimes a very demanding thing, and there are many men who don't like to have to :>er-ve on a jury and I think that perhaps it' dn:>n1t have quite the appeal. However, I'm not wanting to reverse the clock. The law is here and our job. is to make it work.

With regard to the assurance that the Honourable the Member for Elmwood has asked, I'm not just too certa:.n I can give him that assurance in exactly the terms that he asks it because, first of all, he was speaking of a case that occurred som•e three or four years ago and that's certainly quite possible; the probatioa staff has been increased tremendously in that period of time, but of course in this, as in all matters of this nature, there has to be some exercise of good ju:lgment.

I would presume that in cases· where the magistrate is going to impose, for example, a suspended sentence, that the services of a probation officer are not really too important. \Vhere the accused is represented by counsel who has undertaken to pre sent his case, there may be many instances there where the services of a probation officer are not required and then there are many cases -- more cases sometimes than the Crown Attorneys get credit for -- there are many cases when the.

Crown Attorney, very properly in the exercise of his task, makes certain that necessary facts which are helpful to :he aoeused person are brought to the attention of the magistrate so that the services of a probation officer would no� be required. Now all l'm trying to say is that on•e can't say that every individual person is going to have a probation officer sitting at his right hand because not every individual person needs a pro�ation officer.

VVnat we do say is that there are a fairly large number of probation officers- somebody's going to say not enough and I agree -- but there are a fairly large number of probation officers who are available, and I would think that there is no case in which an ac·Jused person asks for the services of a pro�ation officer that it is not available and there are many other cases where the services are made available to him t'1rough the magistrate, through the Crown Attorney, through his own defense counsel or through other officers of the court. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, the statements of the Minister with regards to women on jury duty are certainly a good example of the progressive thinking on the front benches opposite. My honourable friend admits readily that the only reason he doesn't turn the clock back is that he can't. I think this is certainly a good example of the typ3 of thinking we frequently are getting now from our friends on the opposite side. Earlier this evening, Mr. Chairman, certain comments were msde by the Member for Inkster, imputing motives to our group.

I was tempted to reply to them at that time but in view of the present situation I think pnsibly the less said the better. I would hope however, Mr. Chairman, that members in this House who wi.sh to impute motives to others m7.ght pay more attention to the debate in the House -- they might find out what is going on. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition would explain exactly what he means, because I listened very intently to my colleague from Inkster, and I, while not wanting to debate the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, am quite prepared to on this or any other subject. The honourable gentleman who made the statement, Page 952 March 10, 1964

(Mr. Paulley, cont'd). . . I think, has no basis whatever to make them on, and I refute them totally. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the matter of administration of justice by the government so far as some of the activities of its own ministers. I am referring to an

article that appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune on the 9th of September this year. The title is: "Minister Ignores Subpoena. Manitoba's Labour Minister, Dr. 0. B. Baizley, has ignored a subpoena to appear before an arbitration board. The subpoena was issued by the Court of Queen's Bench under a

section of Manitoba's Arbitration Act which permits either party in a dispute to take legal action and to get witnesses to appear before an arbitration board," and so on. Then it goes on: "Mr. Baizley said today that he was subpoened to appear before the Board which he appointed, and he proceeded to say that he refused to appear on the subpoena." And I'm interested in knowing on what basis a Minister of the Crown can, any more than any other individual in this province, refuse to accept an order of the Court of Queen's Bench, and appear on subpoena. MR.

McLEAN: The Leader of the Opposition had better not equate an order of the Bench and a subpoena, which he's just done in his very final comment. Many people oftentirnes refuse to obey a subpo·e,la for whatever reason they may consider fit. It's a civil matter, and the reasons -- while I'm not familiar with the case in question, I assume that the Minis ter of Labour had reasons for doing so just as many other people who don't wish to observe a sub poena do. A Court Order, on the -::>ther hand, is another matter, and I'm assuming we're not discussing that. MR. MOLG AT : Mr.

Chairman, is it not correct that in most cases where a subpoena is not answered that a w:tr .cant is issued? MR. McLEAN: Sometimes, if applied for by the party who has taken out the subpoena. MR. MO LG AT : The Minister then agrees that subpoenas should not be answered by people who receive them. MR. McLEAN: Now, Mr. Chairman, sorn·ebo::ly "!:lad something to say about imputing rnotiv•as a few moments ago -- interjection -- I'm not -- quite frankly, l'rn not interested in that kind of debating. I've answered the question. I have no thing further to say. MR. MOLG AT : Should people not answer subpoenas, Mr.

Chairman? That's a very simple question. MR. SCHRE YER: Mr. Chairmen, I don't want to pursue the matter of woman jurors at this time, but I do want to ask some miscellaneou,s !:ype questions of the Attorney-General. First of all, I want to protest the apparent lack of liaison betWeen this government and the federal go·1ernment when it comes to the matter of fixing salaries of Surrogate Court judges and the County Court judge who is one and the same person.

Last year, the former Attorney General drew ap before this House legislation which called for the upgrading of the salary of a Surrogate court judge ao.d just a few months later the federal go vernment increased the salary of the county court judge substantially. This is something which the Attorney -G eneral should have been looking into before he recommended the legislation to this House. Now, one can argue that these gentlemen are not being overpaid, and for the roost

part I would accept that, but the very fact that we're asked to provide for the increase of salary up to a level, which is then considered to be adeqLtate .::>bviously, and then a few months later to have the salary of that one and the same persons, to have it increased again substantially by the federal government must mean that they are now drawing a salary that was not anticipated at all by the govern ment, by the former Attorney -G eneral.

So, my: question then very simply is this: Doesn't the Attorney -G eneral make any kind of inq·.tiry to Ottawa as to what their intentions are with regard to the remuneration of County court judges? That's the first question. The second :ls -- is there a mandatory retirement age for p::>lice magistrates; and con versely, is there a minimum age? I don •t suppose that there is, but in view of some of the past appointments of tha Attorney -G eneral, . I suggest perhaps there should be a minimum age for appointment of police magistrates. MR. CHAIRMA N: 5 (

a) passed. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Honourable the M�,m':ler for Brokenhead both referred to the HJnourable Minister's comments about woman in juries, and neither were inclined to press it further than they did, -but !'m :Mu-ch 10, 1964 Page 953

(:Mr. Cherniack, cont'd ). .. afraid that I too, had my attention flagged by the Honourable Min ister's remarks, and I can't let the opportunity go just the way it has gone so far. I feel that the Honourable Minister should have a look at what he said, possibly tomorrow, and reflect as to whether or not what he said was a statement which bears repeating by him. I think he said that the task of being on a jury WJ.S not like a Perry Mason show but rather stern, important and demanding, and had no appeal.

From that d-33cription, I think that he implied that it was not likely that a woman would want to, or -- maybe I'm putting words in his mouth when I say "should" participate in jury work.

Well, I am glad he is shaking his head, because although I paid very scant attention to the news reports of the jury selection in Texas on the Ruby trial, I was yet much impressed by many of the answers given by prospective jurors where they indicated the seriousness with which they approached th3 problem as to whether or not they were qualified to sit on that jury; and I noted that women were interrogated and women seemed to take the position that they were prepared and felt able to deal with a matter, and I am sure that the women of this province would also -- not look forward, not seek out this type of work but would not reject it if they were given an opportu11ity to act on a jury, just as the men do, not with a pleasurable anticipatory attitude but rather one of a responsibility which they would not want to slough off.

I hope that the 55 women to whom the Honourable Member of Brokenhead spoke today will make sure to let the Honourable the Attorney-General know their reaction to the thought as to whether or not they ought to sit on juries. And he said that, Mr. Chairman -- there are two other matters that I would like to raise. I recall that last year the Honom<tble Minister and I had some disagreement about certain amounts -- dollars. As I recall it last year, there was some disagreement involving figures of either 30 million or 150 million, or some s:.w;:� figures as that.

I have som3 figt1res to diSCtlSS with him today, and I waited with some patience for Hansard to come out to confirm to me some of the things I thought were said. And I'd like to refer to last night's brief discussion that I had with the Honourable Minister. It was very b1'ief -- reported on page 901 of Hansard- wherein I raised the question of the payment if disbursements to counsel appointed by the Law Society to act for lnd:gent accused; and I suggest that M:�.

Fraak Alleu, in his letter which was read at length here yesterday, had indicated that he did not feel sure that he wo·.1ld be repaid for the disbursements which h3 might feel bound to lay out, and I am quoted at the bottom of page 901 as saying "Wall, then the Honourable Attorney-General suggests that the letter of Mr. A llen's is an unusual one in connection with what he says is to his own gambling on whether or not he'd be paid," and the Honourable Minister -replied, "I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, if Mr.

Allen meant by his letter that he was gambling on what the province was going to pay him, he was quite wrong." So, having received the Hansard, I looked back to page 893, at the bottom, and the quotation of th3 letter from Mr. Allen reads in part as follows: "In the only other murder case that I have conducted as a result of having been appointed by the Law So::: iety, I hired and called as a witness a psychiatrist to whom a fee of $100 was paid.

The Attorney-General's department refused to compensate me for this, but did at the same time make an allowance of $50. 00 that I received over and above that they would normally allow." This seem;> to be some sort of contradiction ,ts b'>�een what Mr. Allen said in his letter a-::�d ·;v},a: I understood the Attorney-General to mean as a reply to my question, and since both are people whose word I respect and who are honourable in this regard I'm s�re that as between the two, one of them is correct and the other is mistaken, but innocently so.

But having raised this question of a difference between $50 and $100, I would like to raise another question irwolving money with the Honourable Minister and I waited with som.3 impatience for Hansard of Friday evening to tell me just what was said then. I had askea the Honourable Minister about the results in the budget which might be found from the report of the committee on services for juvenile and adult offenders of the Community Welfare Planning Council.

And in the Hansard on page 847, the Minister replied, very briefly, so that lean repeat what he said:"! have checked and cer tainly studied the report of the committee in the welfare report.In fact, Mr. Chairman, I can infor!I1 the Honourable Member for St. John's that he will be interested to know that our first calculation of the cost- - and it will be recognized that this is approximate only--of the recomm-omdati.oas that have be_en made,_am::mnts to $17 .,539, 890. That figure has given us a little pause. " W'.lll, Mr.

Chairman, I suppose it gave them c. little pause, because in the next paragraph the Honourable Minister says that in the Speech from th•3 Th:rone there was reference to a new Page 93·i March 10, 1964

(Mr. Cherni ack, cont'd) ... detention home, "and I presume" he says , "I presume �hat in part at least the answer to the ques tioa �e has asked. 11 Well, since he indic ates that that answer is only in

part I am now looking forward to the balance o� the answer, because this report is made by a commi ttee of very highly respec ted citizens who have received briefs from some 20 gov ernmental and voluntary agencies in Manitoba, which met at great length and came up with a report of some 40-odd pages containing some 50 recommendati ons , mo.>t of which would be referred to provincial go·<ernmental action.

And, according to the Honourable Min is ter, they have read the report, at least to :he extent ;where they already have a figu re , and although, as he says , the figure is approximate, yet it is a pretty exact figure if it comes to ending with the numbers $890, because if it were $10. 00 more and be around $9::l 0, then of coul'se it wouldn't be quite as accurate.

Therefo::: e, I am forced to the conclusion that these figur 3s, the $17 ,5 39, 890 can be traced back to a dollar for do!lar accounting of the costs which are •3Stim ated here, and I therefore appeal t0 the Ho:wurabl e Minister to make us all aware of ju st what these figu res are, recognizing as we must that they can only be estimat es, yet it would be of inter es t because I would have likai to have felt that before the figures of cost were calculated to this extent, that the fig ures of savings might have been calculated as well, so that there should be some comparison.

I would guess that if these reco mmendations are jus tifie d in some way, then surely there must be a suggestion made that the administr ation of justice mi ght become a less cos tly one or that the adminis tration of the jails or of the institutions of inc arceration would be reduced in some way. I would hope so. I would hope that possi bly the cost of crime as it is to soci ety would be reduced in some way, and I don't think that we oug11t to allow ourselves to be frighte ned by a figure of 17 mi llion and -- I needn't repeat the exact figure again; I'm sure my honourable fri en1 �nows it.

So that I would like to feel that, rather than.having what I think is a scare figure of 17 mi llion and some dollars, we should be given the pos itive side of the values that are seen in this program, and I bear in mi nd the fact that in my opinion there is money in that budget that could be made available for mtwh m.:>re than just that detention home, and Pm glad that the Honourable the Provincial Treasurer is here �eoanse he will no doubt be interested to comm :J.t on my sugges tion that there is a very subs tantial amount of money set aside in the budget for an ite m which I think is called Floodways, Etc. , of some mill ions of dollars , which could be 14 or 15 mi llion -- I forget -- which I suggest to him ·.vi.ll not be spent next year -- no, it's $9, 259, 000 -- which I suggest will not be entirely spent and could be made available for necessa ry work.

Now, I'm not sugg·esting that it'll be a terrible zask to find the money. I'm sugges ting that the Honourable the At torney-General could make us familiar wHh the nature of these costs and with som•o ide a of something that can be done about it and can be done this year, rather than wait for another budget period.

There is throughout this report a great deal of food for inve stigation, and I presume this report is available or could be made available to all members of this committ ee, but I want to take the liberty to read just little portions and excerpts from it which I think should be put on the :;:oecord so that we vv ill know what we have to ai.m at, and I am assumi ng, rightly or wrongly, that the people who presented this report are people th:1t are fully resp onsible and are not making a rash st atement.

Well on page 8 I find the statement, the paragraph starting out: "In the matter of pr:Jual reform we are lagging far behind the imp:-o7 ements made in other programs of social walfare in Manitoba. There is as yet no properly constituted ·�orrectional syste m in this province. Some of the services for offenders are based on the concept of remedial treatment, but others are merely of a custodial nature. The presence of gaps in services often prevents the reformation of offenders who could respond to rehabilitative measures. 11 At the bottom of the page, Mr.

Chair man, -- "A positive step towards impro ving the correctional program :n Manitoba appeared to be taken when the province appointed a Director of Corrections in 1957. However, this appoi ntment did not carry with it the statutory authority to develop a comprehen sive correctional program. " Further, on page 9: "W e recommend that legisla tiorr be enacted to provide the princ iples and the authority for the development of a comprehensive correctional system in the Province of Manit oba.

" I find on page 10 the sentence: "B ecause of these differ ences" -- which he deals with before that -- "we believe a special police youth detail with offi cers traine d in proble ms unique to the juveniles shoulc'l. be es tablish ed. " I find on page 13 : "However, the government should place much greater emphasis on expanding juvenile probation March 10, 1964 Page 955

(Mr. Cherniack, cont. d) . . . services so that more juveniles could be placed under probation and probation officers would have more ma nageable case loads." Further on the same page : "The somew hat lower salaries paid in Mnnito!Ja are undoubtedly a barrier to ob.taining professionally trained st aff. Salaries should be increas.ed, " Mr. Chairman, throughout this rep:Jrt are most challenging recomm endations which, as I say, ca nnot be set aside or brushed aside lightly with a scare figure of some $17 1/2 mi llion. Sentence on page 17: "Since the 1955 report parole services have been expanded.

However , staff shortages and their wurk with probationers' skills ma ke it impossi ble for parole officers to keep suffic iently in toueh with parolees . 11 Page 18 -- and I say this, we note that the amo unt given to the John Howard-Elizabeth Fry Society is the same as it was last year -- on page 18 a sentence: "A lthough the Jo:m Howard and Elizabeth Fry Society was organized as a voluntary 'afte r-care ' agency, it has so far limited its activities to working with adcrlt off enders because of insufficient financ ial resources.

An after-care service for juveniles .is needed, and wr� re,Jom mend that steps be taken to meet this need ," At the bottom :Jf page 2!, Mr. Chairman -- "If we accept the goals of rehabilitation as described earlier, then present facilities in Manito!Ja for the detention and clas sification of adult prisoners are compl etely inadequate to achieve those goals. S•.1!.table detention and classific ations of so::ne of these for adult prisoners should be provided. " On page 22, dealing with the courts: "In view of the impod ance of speedy trials, this is a m::ttter of coacern.

In the interest of jus tice , we would recom lD·�nd that cases be transferred to another court when there wot.t�.d otherwise be long delays in hearing of cas es. " There is much more, Mr. Chairman, but I think I have already indicated the import ance of this report on this eu.�lre question. I will only end with one of the ;:na:ters wi.th which I started, and that is , reference to what is said, in part, on legal aid. On page 23: "Nevertheless , it is reported" -- Oh, I mi ght as well give th3 sentence preceding.

"Instructions have bean issued to all ma gistrates and crown attorneys to advise accusad persons in need of free legal counsel. Nevartheless it is reported that there are som � iniigents appearing in court who are unaware of the Law Society plan. We n:re lnformed that some of these persons W'J:Ild �B.v·e asked for counsel had they been advised by the court of the existence of the plan. We understand also that thBre have b.een instances of cases not re.::ai'ring the attention they deserved, particularly because of shortages of experienced lawyers whose services are a 1ailable under the plan.

This ma y acco: .mt for S'Jme accused not requesting the services of free legal counsel and going to trial without represent a.tiou. One proposal ma de to this com mi ttee is th::tt the Law Society plan be supplem ented by a public defe nder syste m to handle the more difficult case s. The whole subject should be exami.ned ani re -assessed. Now this commi ttee was suffic ieiltly responsible not to say that there shall or should be a public defende r syste m, but this com mi .tte.e did iniicate that in its opinion, the subject should be exam ined and re-assessed, and I m•lst say, .Mr.

Chairman, tha'; I am forced to the conclusion, based only on the answers that I heard from the Honourable the form •3r Attorney-General last year, from the Honourable the present At torney-General this yea>:, that there is a fe eling of satisfac tion in connec tion with the nature in which free legal aid is being offe,:ed today.

I have the feeling that unless prOIDf-·ted or prodded further, that there will be nothing done to carry out this recomm endation that the question of legal aid be re-examined and re-assessed, and if I am wrong I'll be happy to discover next year that I was wrong; but I would hope that the honourable Minister will give this com mittee the benefit of his study, or that of his department, which must h�ve gone on, in relation to the :;:oep;Jrt which I think is a monumental co:�tribJ.tion to the whole proble m in this province and one which I am sure that the Minister is not prepared to !Jrush aside.

I think that we are entitle.:i to �m ow that not only is it be ing studied and studied seriously1 but that it is being studied from the vie·;vopolnt of im m ediate action in those matters whic�1 can be dealt with now, and "\Yith a proper sense of proportion of the returns that one gets from the improvem ents that are suggested in relatioa to the costs which have been suggested to us.

I am looking forward to knowing what these costs are , so that we -- I mean broken down -- so that we , and the com mi ttee which has given of its time volunt�.rily over a long period of tim e, will be able to assess and evaluate the costs which the Honourable Minister has indicated to us . MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, surely the Honourable Minister is going to answer .... MR. GUTTORMSON: If the Minister wishes to answer I'll .... Mr. Chairman, I have some figures here that I find rather disturbing and I'd like the Minister to explain to me the reason Page 956 March 10, 1964 I I I

(Mr. Guttormson, cont'd ). .. for them. During 1963, in the provincial police court, there were 170 convictions for persons charged with imJ.)aired driving, or having care of an automobile while impaired. During that same time, only four persons were charged or convicted of driving while intoxicated, which is two percent; which means that two percent of all those persons charged with impaired or drunkendriving , were drunken drivers. Now in the same City of Winnipeg in city magistrate's eo:.1rt during 1963, we had a total of 340 convictions for impaired and drunken criving , a total, which that means 27 percent.

I should give a qreak down of the figures, the drunken drivers, or have care while intoxicate d, were 103, while the impaired convictions were 237 , which means, Mr. Chair m:m, that 27 percent of all those persons charged for impaired or driving while intoxicated, were cbarged with a more serious offence. The point I'm raising that, why is there such a wide discrepancy in the handling of these cases in the same city. Twenty-seven percent are charged with drunken driving in the City Ma,oistrate's Court. 2 percent in provincial police court.

Now both courts deal primarily with the same general population, and I suggest that this is something that we should have an answer to. Now I'm not suggesting that the 27 percent is correct, or the 2 percent is correct. I don't know which, but there's certainly something very wrong, in my opinion, when you have such a wide discrepancy in two courts wi.thin approximately one mile of each other in the same city. Both these courts are administered by the Attorney-General's department, and I think that we should have an explanation for the discrepancy in these figures. Last year I raised a similar point.

I had similar figures for 1962, and unfortunately when the Minister of the day he replied , he gave me a flippant answer and did not deal with the matter. I'm hoping that the present Minister will deal with this mat ter in a more realistic manner, and perhaps try to explain why there is this discrepancy. . .. . .. Continued on next page. March 10, 1964 Page 957

IVIR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, while it is quite true the courts are unde r the juri sdic tion of the Attorney-General , the police forces are not, in the area referred to by the Honourable the Member for St. George , and I am afraid that I can give him no help as to the basis on which the charges are laid. I think we would have to assume that the police forces concerned are carrying out their duties and responsi bilities in accordance with the law; but in any event they don't report to the Attorney-General and I would be quite unable to assist hin1 in any way in ex plaining the figures that he has given us . Mr.

Chairman , just a word or two to the Honourable the Member for St . John' s, I'm so sorry that he has chosen to put the worst possible construction on the information which I gave the committee the other ni ght. I did not give any figures with the intention of suggesting that it was scare figures. I'm always curious as just a fellow from the country -- apparently some times it doesn't pay to be frank and disclose what information you have .

I only wanted to indi cate to the committee the -- sort of the dimensions in terms of dollars and cents of the task of working with the report which has received the attention of a large group of fine people who have given it a great deal of tim.e and attention. One of the things I didn't do, and I hope the members of the committee will not misunderstand this , was to give the bre akdown and I looked at the wr ong sheet.

I gave the correct total to point out that our prese nt estimate of the costs for capital amounted to 15.1 million just leaving off any odd dollars at the end , and the total annual recurring expenditures, for carrying out these tasks , amounted to 2. 3 million dollars , the two of them making up the figure of 17. 5 million which I mentioned to the committee . Now, Mr .

Chairma n , I would think that any off-the-cuff decis ion that I would have made by this time , would be quite valueless to this committee , and more particularly quite valueless to the Pro vince of Manitoba, and even though the Honourable Member may be distre ssed that final deci sions have not been made as to action to be taken, I must say that, in my opinion, it is well that all these measures be considered very carefully.

It may be of interest to him to know that even those who prepare d the report, are not fully -- I gather don't believe that their task is completed because they are only now in the process of appointing what is called an action committee, to further study and develop their own pro posals in the reports. In the meantime , the Honourable Member has my assu rance that I've read the report through several times. I understand that for the time that I'm in my prese nt post, that it's up to me to come to some conclusions about priorities and how to proceed, and I intend to do so.

I did say the other night that, of course , capital provision was being made for the detention home,a nd that's correct. It is . That decis ion has not been made as a result of this report. That recommendation was a fairly obvious one for the committee to make, and those of us who have had some responsi bilities here were aware of this need of course , and provision is going to be made . Now with regard to Mr.

Allen 's letter and this matter of disbursemen ts, I don't want to get into any discussion about that, except to say that unle ss the Honourable Member is able to give me the name of the case or the person to whom reference was made , I can give him no explana tion for the comments made by Mr . Allen , nor do I know if the comments were correct or ac curate in the particular case . If he wishes on some occasion to give me the details , I shall certainly be glad to get them . With respect to women on juri es, Mr .

Chairman , in the face of the views expressed by the Honourable the Member for Br okenhead and the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks , and the Honourable Member for St. John' s, and in accordance with what my wife has always told me , I cer tainly am prepared to withdraw from those terri ble statements I made and to say that I will be quite in favour -- quite in favour, of women being on juri es . In fact , I am just thinking that maybe we ought to have an all-women jury on some early'case , just to show that my heart is in the right place .

With regard to the retirement age for magistrates, I think that we have no official retire ment age, although for those magistrate,s who are "full-time", they would normally retire under the retirem ent provis ions of the Civil Service , and that would be age 65 , subject to any exte!l si ons that may be granted. For magistrates who are part-time magistrates, there is no age limit, and there is no policy. It's not like the case of County Court judges , or Queen's Bench judges , where there is a fixed retirem ent age in their cases; of course the age of 75.

I be lieve that my colleague, the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources is prepared to explain Page 958 March lOth, 1964 I

(Mr . McLean, Cont'd.) ... to the committee, Mr. Chairman, the consultatiuns which were held with the Minister of Justice at Ottawa, at some considerable length, before the increase was made in the salaries of the county court judges for the duties which they perform as judges of the Surrogate Court. MR . CH ERNIACK: Mr . Chairman , if I might thank the Honourable Minister for his com ments , the remarks he made regarding the letter from Mr. Frank Allen should have indicated to him that he knows as much as I do , because all I did was read the same letter that was read to us, and I think if Mr.

Allen is intereste.d enough in knowing the extent to which his name is discussed here , maybe he will get in touch with the Honourable Minister, and he will look after his own claim for $50, and not even pay me a commission if he collects it. I do want to suggest that the remarks about having an all-woman jury are almost as bad as the remarks about not having a women's jury, because one doesn't get juries on the basis of whether they -- of what their sex is , but rather on the basis of the contribution they can make to the adn;inistration of ju stice .

Finally, I want to say that Pm a little bit appeased by what the Honourable Minister said on the question of the report which I read. I think again that the remarks that he made on Fri day were pretty casual and almost appeared to slough off the effects of the report. I am glad that he gave some indication today that it is receiving the attention that it deserves , and I am still looking forward to the results . ../ MR.

PAU LLEY: I was greatly interested in the remarks of the Honourable the Attorney- General, particularly in respect of the amounts of money that would be required in his opinion, or in his department's opinion, to institute those things that have been recommended by the Community Welfare Planning Council Committee .

If you recall, last evening, just before we rose , there was a slight discussion between the Honourable the Provincial Treasurer or First Minister and myself in respect of what is being done in the Province of Manitoba on forwarding the desire in treating our juvenile delinquency and the whole problem of juvenile and adult delinquency. If you recall, Mr.

Chairman, I suggested to my honourable friends opposite that they had just taken a few feeble teensy weensy steps, and this seemed to rouse the ire of the Honourable the Provincial Treasurer, who stood up in rebuttal and gave us a. long history -- although it wasn't long in the space of time -- of what the present government had done -- (Interjection) - Oh, I loved to hear it, Mr. Chairman. I loved to hear it -- but it wasn't the answer to the still problem that we have before us here in the Province of Manitoba.

My honourable friend, the Premier of the Pr ovince, with great gusto , as he's quite capable of displaying, did indicate to us that some steps had been made in slum clearance long overdue , even for a young vigorous government such as they presume that they are and some of us on this side doUbt. He also , with just as fervent gusto , informed us that some housing had been provided for others that were not in receipt of it previously. But , Mr .

Chairman, I still think I am correct, when we take a look at the figures and, as I mentioned last evening, I did not have the remarks of the Honourable the Attorney-General of the amount that he suggested that the implementation of the report of Welfare Committee would cost the people of Manitoba before me . I do now. Approxi mately $17 million -- and what are we spending in the Department of the Attorney-General this year ? Approximately $5. 7 million. And how much of the $5.7 million is going towards the provision of those services and recommendations of the Thompson Committee?

I would suggest a very, very little; so I think that when one couples the report of Hansard of last Friday evening with the explanations that have now been given by the Attorney-G eneral, that my remarks of yester- evening of teensy weensy steps on the part of the government have been substantiated without any question of doubt. The Honourable the Attorney-General was not able to give any concrete answer to my col league for St . John's as to how he arrived at his estimate of 17 million. He did mention some thing to the effect, Mr.

Chairman, that he arrived at it by a figure of $15.1 million, if I jotted his fi gures down right for capital expenditure; $2. 3 million for the servicing of the capital ex penditure. But, Mr. Chairman, the recommendations of the -- what we will call the D. A. Thompson report -- had but ve ry little insofar as capital expenditures are concerned. It was dealing with the necessity of new programs, incr.eased services in the field of juvenile delin quency, probation and parole. As a matter of fact , I think the only reference -- in this I may March lOth, 1964 Page 959

(Mr . Paulley , Cont' d.) ... be wrong -- but as I read the report , the only reference to the D. A. Thompson report insofar as a capital nature is concerned, deals with the question of the location of a new Home for Boys , in which the report mentions on page 16 that when establish ing a new Home for Boys we would question the advisability of retaining it at Portage la Prairie. There is an advantage to locating the Home in the Winnipeg area, where more supporting agen cies and services are available .

This is what the Thompson report had to say in respect of the expansion -- (Interjection) -- centralization where services are available . And I can well ima gine , Mr . Chairman, why I receive the interjections of my reactionary friend from Lake side in respect of this matter . I have listened to them for a cons iderable number of years . But, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Honourable the Attorney-General that the answer that he has given is not sufficient, and I want to commend even further the committee that made this report, comprised as they were , Mr .

Chairman, of leaders in the community life; and I don't think that they have been mentioned in this committee as yet as to who they were , for the committee was established with the approval of the Attorney-Ge neral , Sterling Lyon, Q. C. -- the previous Attorney Lyon . The chairman of the committee was D. A. Thomp. son, Q.C. Othe r members were N. Elliot Rodger , Vice-C hairman; Most Reverend Howard Clark, Archbishop of Rupertsland, a primate of the Anglican Church of Canada; Reverend Gratten Feehan of the Roman Catholic diocese of St.

Boniface; Samuel Goodman of the Winni peg and District Labour Council; Mrs . Leslie Hancock, representing the W innipeg Coun--�: of Women; the late Abram Kravetz, Chief Rabbi of Winnipeg and West ern Canada; Rabbi Philip Shnairson, of the Council of Rabbis of Winnipeg; Mrs . S. P. M cArton, of the Manitoba Associ ation of Social Workers ; W. Scott Neal of the Winnipeg Chamber of Comma rce ; J. A. Scollin, a member of the Law Society of Manitoba; Mrs . 0. W. Struthers of the Manitoba Pr ovincial Council of Women; and Alderman Edith Tennant of the Council of the City of Winnipeg. And I would suggest, Mr .

Chairman, and I'm sure that the committee would agree , that each and every one of these people were very responsible people. They were not spendthrifts and were only concerned with what is needed and desired for the treatment of delinquents both at the ju venile and adult level in the Province of Manitoba. But to me, Mr . Chairman, it's very signi ficant what the Honourable the Attorney-General said this evening, and this is the point which we in this corner have attempted to establish. And the point that I'm referring to , Mr.

Chair man, is the fact that the Honourable the Attorney-General said that this group have formed an "action committee" to endeavour to see that their propos itions are enacted here in the Province of Manitoba. MR . McLEAN: I didn't say that. MR . PAU LLEY: Oh yes you did! MR . McLEAN: . MR . PAULLEY: Then why -- my honourable friend the Attorney-General, Mr . Chairman, said he didn't say it.

Then what does he mean by an "action committee"? -- (Interjection) - The only necessity for an "action committee" is to prod the government into accepting the re commendations as laid down -- the fifty of them -- in this report. And these people whose names I have now read out I'm sure , Mr. Chairman, are not members of the New Democratic Party, although I welcome them and I welcome their advanced thinking because it coincides with ours .

They feel that it's necessary to have an action committee to constantly prod the Attorney-General, the Provincial Treasurer , until such times as those items and recommen dations which they have made in this report are enacted or established here in the Province of Manitoba.

And I want to assure the Attorney-General and the First Minister of this Province and this committee , that because none of these people are able, by virtue of not being public representatives, to be able to stand in this House and prod the government, that they will find champions in some of U!? in this corner , and we will not rest . . • MR . McLEAN: This corner too l MR . PAU LLEY: Ah, "this corner too ," my honourable friend the Attorney-General says , Mr . Chairman, and I have no doubts -- I have no doubts whatsoever , Mr.

Chariamn, that . -- if we wait long enough - - if we wait long enough .. .•. if we have the patience of Job, and two or three succeeding elections, then they will be adopted by my honourable friends op posite . But I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that we will not be satisfied with this type of activity . Now I want to ask, because I see no reference to it in the estimates of the Attorney-G eneral's Page 960 March lOth, 1964 I

(Mr. Paulley, Cont 'd. ) .. . Departm ent, I want to ask in conclusion a specific question of my honourable friend. The Throne Speech mentione d appropriations for the erection of a new de tention home, I presume in the Greater Winnipeg area but I may be wrong in this assumption, but the Throne Speech definitely did mention a new detention home would be built.

In the lack of any evidence that I see, I would like to ask my friend the Attorney-General or the Provincial Treasurer what will be the appropriation for this new home ; where will it be built; and will the government, if it 's a new home for boys, a detention home for boys, whether or not the govern ment will be taking into account the recommendation of what I call the D. A. Thompson commit tee that it not be a further extension at Portage la Prairie. So in conclusion, Mr.

Ch airman, I want to say to my honourable friend the First Minister, when I was speaking last evening of teensy weensy and he added on the adjective "deensy" foot steps, I don't think that I was too far out, for I repeat, the Honourable the Attorney-General has said the implementation of the recommendation would be about $17 million, of which he says it's mainly capital, and we have before us estimates for the department of about $5. 7 million. One more question -- it just came to my mind.

Is there provision in the estimates that we have before us for increases in salary to our probation and parole officers as recom mended by the report to at least bring the salaries of these persons up to the medium which is being paid in other jurisdictions, or are those who are concerne d with parole and probation here in the province of Manitoba still going to be on the bottom of the totem pole insofar as wages are concerned ? MR.

LYON: The Honourable Member for Brokenhead raised the question to which the Attorney-General gave notice that I would attempt to answer with respect to the increase in emolument to the county court judges which was voted at the last session of the Legislature. I be lieve the essence of his question was because of the subsequent changes that took place in these salaries from Ottawa, that is the portion paid by Ottawa, that this indicated that there had been no consultation between Ottawa and this province with respect to salaries.

I merely rise to assure my honourable friend that before the bill was introduced in this House last year raising the provincial portion of their emolument, I be lieve the figure was to $3 , 000 , that I definitel y was in touch with the then Minister of Justice, the Honourable Donald Fleming .

There was an election which took place I think some time after our ·bill was passed in this House -- a change of government at Ottaw a -- that government saw fit to increase the salar ies of the superior court judges and the county court judges and we were not consulted about that, but I did want my honourable friend to know that before our bill was brought in and passed, this consultation did take place. The other increases came along after, and we didn't know about them until they came along. MR . SCHREY ER: Mr. Chairman , I'm sorry.

I take it that it was an unco-ordinated increase but through no fault of my honourable friend. MR . CAMP BE LL: I would like to ask the former Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, what had been the result of the discussions that he had with the then Minister of Justice at Otta wa ? Had they been planning on an increase for the judges? MR . LYON: No . MR . CAMPB ELL: No increase ? MR . LYON: No. March lOth, 1964 . continu ed on next page Page 961

lVIR . . ROB LIN: l\1r.

Chairman, I would like to resume the dialogue that my honourable friend the member for Radisson and I began last evening in connection with this general ques tion of the best public policy that can be devised and fitted in to the general budget of the prov ince with respect to this whole question of crime preven tion and particularly as it affects juvenile delinquents, because there 's no question in my mind that this is a very important sub ject, and I fully respect the rights of all members of the House to raise points of criticism with respect to what the governmen t is doing and in particular to bring to the attention of the commi ttee the report that has been the subject of much of our discussion tonight.

I really don •t think there is any difference in principle among any of us here with respect to our desires in connection with this particular ma tter. I think, however, that one has to fit the perfect into the pos sible, and we should never let, as I• m very fond of saying, we should never let the perfect become the enemy of the good, and if we cannot or do not do all the things that are suggested to us at once in conne ction with any field of public responsi bility, that really doesn •t mea n we •re disinterested.

It re ally doesn •t mea n that we may even disagree with the people who ma ke the recomm endations. It does mea n, howeve r, that we have the task of fitting all these demands from all points of the compass into the total dema nds that we make upon the goodwill of the people of Ma nitoba in rai sing our revenues. And not only that, we have to make judgments as to what comes first, and really in deal ing vvith so ma ny of these matters you get not into an argument about desir ability, you get into an argument with respect to priorit ies, and those are the places where we bog down.

Anyone who has had the respo ns ibility of trying to divide up a budget of $151 million or any fraction of that large sum among the various responsi bilities of provincial government will clearly unde r stand the kind of problem which faces us when we make decisio ns in respect of the am ount of mo ney for example that we •re going to spend in the Department of the Attorney-General.

Now I know that we should really be discus sing this item some place else, either on the Minister' s sa lary when it came up because we •re all over the lot here, but we can •t really avoid it when we get talking about this report that is before us and I think perhaps it would be in order for me to make a few rem arks about it. First of all, and I can say this, this report was prepared with the full knowledge, un der standing and co -operation of the government of Manitoba. In other words, we feel that in a sense we are partners in the prepara tion of this report.

We felt it would be wise to allow people who are not sa ddled with the responsi bi.lities of the governm ent to have a free reign with respect to what they saw and did and what they discussed, but our ser vices, our facilities were freely open to this body and we have no apologies to make for that whats oever. Now this report is a valuable document and it certainly is going to bring to the attention of the public many of the ways in which we can improve matters in connection with this whole field of the Department of the Attorn ey-G eneral.

In the report, if you will look at the recom men dations, you will see that quite a number do refer to very large capital investments indeed, and if members will take the frouble to turn to the recomm endations which are on Page 41, they can see what some of these capital recomm endations are. If you look at item 4, "The facilities of the court should be separated from the police facilities or so organized as to ensur e a maxi mum disassocia tion of the judicial function from the police function.

" Now. that is a recomm enda tion which I think we would find so me agreem ent in, but it calls for a great deal of new facilities in the way of capital construction that we do not have. To carry this into effect, a considera ble program of construction will be ca lled for. Looking on page -- the next pa ge of recomm endations -- Page 8, 11A new provincial de tention home for juveniles is urgently required to replace the unsatisfactory facilities at the Vaughan Street Detention Home. " That 's been the subject of many discussions here .

That is the item for which a sum of $1,2 00, 000 will be asked for in the capital estima tes. That is the first major project with respect of the recomm endations that this report talks about that will be under taken. My honourable friend has explained that this is something that has been before us not just on this occasion but on previous occasions, and we have now come to the stage where we feel we can recommend that this project be proceeded with. Then there is the request for a new home for boys, and a very sotmd argument is put out for the es tablishmen t of a new home for boys .

But members reca ll what it cost us to build the new home for girls which we did a few years ago, somet hing in the neighbourhood of a million, Page 962 March lOth , 19 64

(Mr. Roblin cont'd) ..•.. two million dollars -- a large investment. That too will have to be considered in its correct order of priorities with respect to all the functions that we are called upon to perform , Recommen dation 11. 11 A corre ctional institute for juvenile offenders from northern Mani toba should be established in the north in a similar ma nner to the new jail for women at The Pas, " There again, you have a considera ble capital investm ent that will be required. Turning over to recomm endation 27, 11 Suitable detention and classification services for adult priso ners should be provided.

"W e would like to do this . One of the things that is holding us up is not only the money involved but the fact that for years now, in fact it 's trying our patience -- it must be trying the patience of other people as well -- we have not been able to come to a con clusion with the federal government with respect to the Fauteux report.

Until we do that we are reluctant to proceed with this matter because if the Fauteux report is implemented, it may not be necess ary for us to make a new investment of this sort but we can convert some of our pres ent facilities in respect of this matter, Maybe we can, maybe we can •t, but this is one item which is closely related to the decisions on the Fauteux report. Now I· have been to a number of Dominion-Provincial conferences and at every one we have asked for implementation of that report, and I shall do so again on March 31 of this year. A MEMBER: Want some help? MR.

ROB IJN: Well, I'll be glad to have my honourable friend help because I think it•s time that matter was settled. Either they're going to implement it or they 're not. And if they 're not going to implemen t it, then we •re going to have to struggle on as best we can, but I think that it is sensi ble for us to do everything within our power to get a decision. Now we •re trying to do that, Turning to Page 32 - - Recomme ndation 32 -- "New facilities for the care and treatmen t of women prisoners should be provided to replace the Women's Jail at Portage la Prairie.

" Well I'll agree that the Women's Jail at Portage la Prairie is no rest home, rtrs a jail and it may very well be that it should be rebuilt and replaced, but that is not a recomm endation which one regards as outrageous, It is probably som ething that has a degree of impor tance but it has to be fitted in with the other capital requirements or other dem ands for money that the provin-· cial governm ent has, Then again, No, 40. 11M inimum security annexes at Headingley Jail shotlld be expanded to provide for recreational and educational facilities. " We •ve already done that once.

Members of the comm ittee know that we have expanded the minimum se curity regulations at the jail at Headingley and that we have improved the recrea tional and educational facilities. I'm not claim ing that we •ve done everything that mi ght be desired in a perfect world but we have done some thing there, and we have to fit this new dem and for inc reased facilities there into the rest of the various requirements that we have.

Now it's not necessa ry to go through every recomm endation and analyze it in this way, but a mere recital of those recomm endations that I have mentioned will indicate to the commi t tee som ething of the financial obligations that we will have to assume if this report is to be implemented in full at once. Now I think that this report, like so many other things that govern ments are called upon ·to do, have to be examined from the point of view of priorities within the Attorney-Gene ral's Department an:l then again priorities within the government as a whole.

It was our decision this year that the first priority under this report should be -- in connection with capital construction -- should be this new detention home of which we spoke, and we are prepared to recom mend to the Legislature that this large sum of money be appropriated for this purpose, and as time goes by and as we are able to do these things, we are going to do our very best to implement, in what we deem to be a suitable order of priority, the recommenda tions of this very valuable report. So nobody is down-grading it. Nobody is ignoring it.

It's being considered as carefully as we can, and we •re doing our best to fit what improvemen ts we can into the financial structure of the Province of Manitoba.

Now I want members to reco gnize that these jails have to compete with the hospitals; these jails have to compete with the schools; these jails have to compete with the universitie s; these jails have to compete with all the various so cial respons ibilities which are placed upon the governmen t of the province, and while I don't dispute that members have a right to take a different view of the priorities that we do, and I don •t dispute that members may call upon us March lOth , 1964 Page 963

(lVIr. Roblin cont'd) •...• to spend more money in a particular pri ority than what we actually happen to be doing, nevertheless, we have the resp onsibility of trying to find the best order in which these ma tters should be tackled; and we are going to approach that report in that way, and as far as follow-ups are concerned on the part of the Welfare Council, I know the Welfare Council and I know the pe ople on this report well enough to say that this is standard proced ure .

The Welfare Council don 1t let us forget any ·of the recomm endations that they are interested in, quite properly so, and they take upon themselves, I think, a legitimate public function in re minding us from time to tim e what they think , where they think we ma y be wrong in our priori-. ties, or wrong in our assessme nt of what we should be doing from time to time. So let's not approach this from this sort of attitude that we don't apprecia te this report, or that we •re ignoring it or down -grading it, or don •t intend to do anything about it. Because that isn 't true.

We •re going to do our best to proceed with the recomme ndations in what we think to be an app ropriate order of prioritie s, and we trust that our decisions in this nature will carry the judgment of the pe ople of Manitoba, beca use you have to fit what you are going to do about the administra tion of justice into all these other things that are going on. I don •t know why I should have to say this, beca use I1m s ure that me mbers of the commi ttee understand this just as well as I do.

And I don' t object to my honourable friend or anyone else opposite saying 'get along a little faster. 1 I don't object to them sa ying •you should be doing som ething that you 're not doing this year . 1 That •s what we have oppositions for. But I want to explain to them the fact that these must be fitted into the total priorities which are placed before us, and our obli gations to spend in an appropriate ma nner the very large sum s of money that we collect from the taxpaye rs of this province. Now another thing that I want to do while I am on my feet.

I want to give the commi ttee some idea of the progress that is being ma de, and I do not sa y this because I want anyone oppo site to stand up and congrahtlate us when I'm through. I' m not saying this because I believe that I' m going to present some perfect record to the commi ttee which they can applaud, but I do think that it is useful from time to time to just see where we come from , and just see what we have got in these various fields, mo st of which are fields which have been touched upon in the details that are given to us in this report.

And just let me give you this record of progress in this department, and I think that if I do that, I have some grounds for sa ying that having made this progress so far in this field that it is legitimate to expect that we continue to ma ke progress as we are able to do so, and as the financial resources of the province allow us .

In dealing with this, I want first of all, to ma ke reference to the fact that, in writing this report, the authors ma de the very imp ortant point that what they are talking about has to be looked at in the context of the whole of the social spe ctrum -- the social welfare spe ctrum in the Pr ovince of Manitoba.

They told us quite rightly, that it isn 1t good enough to say 11I spent more money on jailers ", or som ething like that, or '' We built a new jail to keep all these criminals in, that come to the surface in this particular province. 11 They tell us that it's necess ary as well, in fact mo re important, to go back to the basic principles of family life, of public education faci lities, of welfare facilities, and of the services that we ma ke available to families , to try and minimize any problems that were likely to arise in this field of socia l conduct. And I think that•s right.

And I' m going to give you some figures on what has been done. I think first of all you have to look, as I say, at the whole spe ctrum of human resources, and I think they all have a be aring on one another, and if you take what we have spent on educa tion, health, welfare, and in this particular computation labour happens to be thrown in, though perhaps it's not germane to this discussion, you can disc otmt that; but in the last five years, our expenditures in this social field, this field of hum an betterment, this field of human re sources has risen from $42 million to $92 mi llion.

From forty-two million, that •s $50 million, $50 milli on, in the last.few yea rs. That 's an enormous increase, and on one hand we 're berated because we •re spending so much, and we •re berated because we •ve ha d to raise the gas oline tax and the corporation tax and income tax, and things like that, and it's true, we have -- (Inter jection) -- Well you'll have to wait -- sales tax on tobacco if you want to call it that way.

Well, these things have happened, but they have provided, am ong other things, the sum of fifty mil lion dollars, and that has been the increase that this Legislature has authorized in this grand field of social welfare. So I give you that as a background of the sort of thing that has happe ned. Now let me give you a few particular items that have a bearing on what •s sa id in this Page 964 March lOth, 1964

(Mr. Roblin cont1d) .. .••. debate. The item mentioned the other night that there has been ste ady expansion in our facilitie s� there •s been a new home for girls constructed, and we talked about that. I told you that there 's been improvements made in He adingley Jail for these minimum se curity regulations. Eve rybody knows that we •ve esta blished a number of work camps, rehabilitative work camps, for prisoners with short sente nce s, or would be usefully sent to a work camp in order to give them bette r habits to facilitate their re-en trance into soci ety. Everybody knows about that.

Those things have been done , Everybody knows that there have been two increa ses, apart from the regular increments in salarie s, two general pay increases for the probation officers, indeed for all the civil se rvants who serve the Government of Mani toba, and they have not been neglected.

Everybody knows that we have e" 1Janded the serv-ices in relatively minor ways , but important ones, in the esta blishment of a full time psycholog ist , in the Attorney- Gene ral's Department, in classi fication officers at Headingley Jail, ·i n chap lains at He adingley jail, and that there has been a general increase in all those various types of expenditures and services in this respect. Now let me give you some assess ment of some of the se improvements in term s of dollars and cents .

Now I said last night, and I say again, that isn't the only way to measure these ser vices, but it •s helpful, because they either indicate that we are giving support to more people at a higher level in the general society, or that we have more employees working for us in connection with this matter. Now take one important field that has a bearing in respect of the whole question of crime, and the whole quest ion of delinque ncy and that kind of thing. The im provements that have been made in psychiatric services in the Province of Manitoba.

Four or five years ago for the out-patient services for psych iatric institu tions, we spent $125, 000, and we em ployed four persons. Now we •re spending over $1 million and we •re emplo;y"ing sixty-si x perso ns to help people adjust to society. Some of those perhaps are being helped who might otherwise have been problems in this particular field. There has been a tremendous increase in that particular aspect. In the Child Guidance Clinic, we had twenty-seven pe ople working in the Child Guidance Clin ic. There are now thirty -six. Maybe there ought to be a hundred and thirty- sL'i:.

I won •t debate that, but I will say that some substantial improvement has been made in staffing that clinic and providing services for children who need it. In the field of -- take the grants of the John Howard Society -- $12, 400. 00, Not much you say. Well it was $5, 000, and it's more than doubled in this period. Perhaps it should be more, but at least it isn•t $5, 000 any more, it 's $12, 400. 00. Take the juvenile and family courts and the probation and parole services . Extremely important. Everybody urging us to do more .

I think that 's a legiti mate thing that we should be urged to do more, but a few years ago we were spending $156 , 000 for this purpose. We •re not spending $421, 000, mostly for salaries of new probation officer s. We are continually expanding the probation serv ice . More money is being asked this year for this purpose . I don't claim perfection because it's gone up from $156, 000 to $421, 000, but that is quite an improvement over the period. Take our detention homes. Our detention homes were costing us a few years ago, $38 9, 000. 00. That•s what we spent on detention homes.

One of the important facilitie s in this department. We •re now going to be asked to spend $775, 000. 00. Again, the world won •t come to an end on this account, and we don •t think the millenium •s been reached, but that 's a pretty substantial inc rease in that period. Then again, in ward main tenance which has to do with children, making sure that they 're supp orted in foster homes, making sure that the Children •s Aid Society and others have money and people to deal with the case- load of children who need the ki'ld of care which only the state is today in a position to supply .

A few years ago we were spending $235, 000 on ward maintena nce. What are we spending now ? -- $1, 887, 000 on wara maintenance. Again I don•t suggest that perfection has been reached, but that is an improvement, and I think the committee •s entitle d to take note of that. Childre n's Aid Soci ety -- they were getting $235, 000. 00. This year we are asking for $666, 000 for that particular purpos e. In total, the Department of the Attorney-General last year, as members can see by looking at the book, got about $5 million. This year we •re ask ing for over $5, 700, 000 for the same department.

That•s an increase of $700, 000 in one year. Add to that the $1, 200, 000 which will appear in the capital estimate s, and you get an increase of getting close to $2 million in one year approDriated for this department over the 5 million that they had on the previous occasion. Again I am not going to make any claim s in this committee that this represents anything about which we can expect to be sati sfied about. March lOth, 1964 Page 965

(iVIr. Roblin cont 'd) .. , .... •• I want to ma ke that clear . I'm not satis fied with that . I don •t suppose any member is satisfied with it; but I do say that when you consider progress has been made in recent years and the financial respo nsibilities that we had, that we can present to the people of Manitoba a fairly substantial record of improvement. A few years ago there was nothing spent for physical fitne ss, and for all that that involved. Youth sports activities and extra curricular activities throughout the Pr ovince of Manitoba. There was no policy for that a few years ago .

Now we are spending, as mem bers will !mow, over a hundred thousand dollars in this particular field. And you can go on, over the whole range of the estimate. In the general administra tion of just ice, we were spending $661, 000 a few years ago for jails. It's now $1, 338, 000. 00. I don•t !mow whether anyone should be very happy that we •re spending t>vice as much on jails now as we were in 1958-59.

I don't think that •s really a cause for much congratulati on, except to say, that it does indicate improved facilities as far as they go, it does indicate increased staff, and it does indicate the increasing size of the burden for the management of jails which the people of this province are expected to shoulder. Now, in Enforcement -- $750, 000 up to over a million; our police courts from $10 4, 000 to $224, 00 0. 00; Many of these increase are on acc ount of staff. We had 123 people running our jails a few years ago . We now have 210.

Some of those are there for reasons apart from the plain custody of the prisoners concerned that have to do with the efforts that we are making to assist them in making some kind of rehabilitati on of their lives. And I've given you the _;_�res for the Probation Services and for the Ju venile Detention and Correction, and you !mow the figures for the overall Administration of ,Justice.

And we have been supporting on a far mo re generous scale than ever before institutions like the Knowles Boys • Home, the Home for Girls and the Home for Boys, the Hugh John McDonald Hostel, the Roslyn House and all that kind of �hing., The Salvation Army, for example, are getting $20, 000 this year to look after people who drink too much, and that is one of the big problems in the crime prevention field. There was ·· none of that money available a few years ago.

It•s a drop in the bucket, you may say, but never theless it indicates the ste adily increasing demands that are being made on the taxpayers of Manitoba to try and provide these services that are necess ary for this field of public activity. Well, I don't think I should burden you any mo re, Mr. Chairman, \vith figures of this kind or with any further statement on this whole deal.

Suffice it to say that in terms of dollars and in terms of the number of people th at we are employing in this general field that the Att orney-General is res ponsible for, there have been very substantial increases in my opinion in the last few years. I sincerely hope that that trend will continue, not because I want to see crime continue , but because I want to see the probationary, the parole effort, the methods of dealing with young children and with young men and women before they get into the crime chan nel so to speak -- I want to see all those facilities improved.

I take seco nd place to nobody in the House with respect to my hopes in this field, but I come back to the same point, that this year we are act ually going to spend in the Att orney-General's Department, not the $5 million we spent last year, but som ething closer to $7 million when all is taken into acc Otmt ; and I say that when you compare the needs of other public services that have to compete with the services of the Crime Prevention and .Detention

section of our activities and all that kind of thing -- when you under stand the othe r dem ands that are on the Treasury and the pe ople of Manitoba -- then you have some appreciation of the pr obl em ; and I !mow tnat members in the Opposition are entitled to ignore that, and I• m not complaining about that . They're dealing with one particular point that 's before the committee right now, and they can beat the tar out of it. That 's their game .

That •s the way this committee operates, and I have had enough experience in it not to have any objectio n to that kind of thing, but I think that the publi c at large are en titled to !mow the general picture in which we have to operate , the increases -- the substantial increases that have been made in recent years ; the substantial increase planned for this year - and also to !mow the desire of the governm ent to, as far as its budgetary po sition will permit, to cont inue an expansion of these services where we think they will do good to people . We •re not particularly interested in keeping people in jail.

We •re much more interested in trying to deal with the root causes of crime. I doubt , however, whether any government will ever succeed in perfectly acc omplishing its aims in this field, because we are dealing with a segment of human nature which largely falls without the scope of government, which largely depends upon family life, the general atmospb.ere of the commun ity and all that kind of thing; and I don•t Pa ge 966 March lOth , 1964

(Mr. Roblin cont1d) .•.•.• think any member disagrees. We have our sector of responsi bility. While we don't move fast enough to suit the Honourable Member for Rhineland, I think we can fairly say that we have made substantial progress in the years, we plan to make progre ss this year, and I 'm m orally certain that we will continue. to make progress in this whole field of the Attorney-General's estimates. MR . PAU LLEY: Mr. Chairman, it was quite interesting to listen to the remar ks of the Honourable the First Minister. You know,. comparis ons are rather easy to make.

I remember it wasn't so many years ago as time flies, that the producers of eggs -- I don 't mean the chick ens -- were getting eight cents a dozen for them; when you could buy a pound of butter for 15 cents or a beefsteak for 25 cents a pound. So one can use figures to substantiate any argu ment that one wants to substantiate. And .I don 1t think anybody in this commi ttee, Mr. Chair man will dispute that there has been progre ss ma de in the Pro vince of Manitoba in the past few years. But what I do dispute, Mr.

Chairman, is the flippant manner in which my honour able friend the Pr ovincial Treasurer uses figures. -- (interjection) -- Yes, flippant. We had a discussion the other day on how he manipulates his budget. -- (interje ction) -- No, I' m not -- oh, I -- no, I'm not anticipating it. I1m awaiting mo st -- with great interest, your rebuttal, but I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, there's one part of the rebuttal that even such a well-qualified · individual as my honourable friend, the First Minister of this Hous e, will find it very hard to overcome, and that is the fact that in the estimates in the Department of Agriculture and Con- · . .-../ servation that there was a surplus of $4 millions created as the result of figures that were pro posed to this comm ittee a year ago.

And I also suggest it is likewise this year, and I have said so; and I sugge st to my honourable friend that while he took us on a Cook's Tour all over waterfronts of what his government has provided in the field of education, the field of hospital ization, social services and the like, that it didn't draw the tears to my eyes that the Honour able the Provincial Treasurer hoped that it might, because while he can use figures, he still has got figures in his estimates of this year, and I refer back again to the floodway.

He admitted the other day that he is going to have -- not he, but the taxpayer of the Province of Manitoba - is going to have to subsidize the federal government in respect of the floodway. I raised the point that the contribution from the Federal treasury was going to be $5 million in respect of the floodway. After these figures had been raised by myself in the House, my honourable friend gets on the wire down to Ottawa and I don 1t know what happened, who he got in touch with, but he found another two million for him .

It1s now apparently been announced from Ottawa that the $5 million has been increased to $7 million -- still short however, Mr. Chairman, of the $1 1 . 7 million that is provided for within the estimates. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, would you announce to the com mittee what item my honourable friend is discus sing at the mo ment. MR. PAU LLEY: What I am dealing with, �'Ir . Chairman ..... . MR . CHAIRMAN: ...•.. but I was hoping that he 'd come to this point soon. MR. PAU LLEY: Mr.

Chairman, my honourable friend the First lV!inister was privileged without interruption by the ex-prem ier of this province, which is all for the betterment of Manitoba. My honourable friend the First Minister toured the waterfront insofar as the finances are concerned, and I' m attempting to only give one illustration of where I would sugge st that monies might be forthcoming to implement to a degree the recomm endation of the Thompson report. I know my honourable friend and many in the area are quite concerned of the building of the Red River Floodway.

We have a target goal -- I believe it is 1968 -- for the completion of the floodway. But I will suggest that if it comes down -- and this is a point that my honour able friends made -- as to a proper area for allocations of funds, I will suggest to my honour able friend that a mo re proper allocation of the ftmds available in the Pr ovince of Manitoba should be in the field of human endeavour and the Attorney-General's Department, rather than subsidizing the federal government in respect of the floodway at the present time. And this is my point, Mr. Chairman.

Now then, my honourable friend was talking of staff increases. I have here, Mr. Chair man the staff counts over the years in the Attorney-General's department. My honourable friend the Pr ovincial Treasurer is perfectly correct when he sa ys that we have had to make provision for increased staff in the various departments of the Attorney-General's department. But what my honourable friend did not tell the commi ttee, Mr. Chairman, that the .greatest March lOth, 1964 Page 967

(Mr. Paulley, Cont' d.) ... increase in staff has been in personnel requi red to retain in con finement la.w-breakers in the Province of Manitob a, and the whole es sence of the Thompson re port and the whole argum ent that we're attempting to make in this corner is that if the emphasis was on prevention and not detention,. then the dollar of the taxpayer of Manitoba would be better us ed. And this is where thi s government is failing , because Mr.

Chairman, if one reads the opening paragraph of the report of the Thompson committ ee , it says this: "The committee on services for juvenile and adult offenders was appointed by the Community Welfare Planning Council in September 1961 to bring up-to-date the 1955 repo rt. " Now then, six years passed between the 1955 report and the time that this committee started on the new report, and Mr .

Chairman , I suggest to my honourable friend the First Mi niste r, if those things that he's tried to outline to us this evening had been accomplished , it wouldn't have been necessa ry for the committee to start back in 19 55, but they could have started from the year 19 61. That is what we are desirous of here in this group . Again , the emphasis should be laid and stres sed, not as my honourable friend the Fi rst Minister says. on the incre ases in staif for confin ement, but an added incentive in the field of prevention and then , and only then may I suggest, Mr .

Chairm an, will the expenditu res for the Attorney-General and the Province of Manitoba start showing a decrease. MR . ROBLIN: Mr . Chairman, I would like just to -- well, go ahead, I don't want to monopolize it . MR . HRYHO RC ZUK: Tha.llk you. Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to see that at long last I have some support from that corner in the field of prevention. I've been talking prevention for quite a number of years now and until this year I haven't had that support, and I'm certainly glad it's coming from there and probably it won't be long before we'll get it from across the floor of the House also.

There is no question about the fact that this government is spending considera bly more money than it did four or five years ago, or one year go , and that is true of all the services of government . It doesn't make any difference whether we're in this department or some oth er , we'll find that the estimates, the cost of the government is continually on the increase , a.lJ.d there would be something drastically wrong if we could start the trend the opposite way. But the point remains , Mr.

Chairman -- and this is what the government does not seem to grasp - the fact remains that if we took the total number of offenders under probation in our custodial institutions and in the after-care agencies , we would find that the numbers of our offenders have about doubled in the past six years . Now what does that indicate to me ?

That indicates to me that in spite of the additional custodial institutions , in spite of everything that the govern ment has done, the end result has not been what we would like to see , and I think it is the end result that we are concerned with, and that was my point yesterday. The Honourable Leader of the NDP Party points to the report and rightly so . This com mittee which has given thi s matter a great deal of consideration is telling the government that this is what you should be doing if you wish to decrease the numbers .

Probably by that it means you'll also be able to decrease the amount of expenditures you have for this department and attain better results than you are doing at the present time . That is the point that we have been trying to make on this side of the House . There are certain recommendations in the re that, as far as I can see in these estimates, those recommendations are not covered by these est imates. The works that are intended by tho se recommendations are not covered by these estimates, and we mustn't just be unifo rm and doing what others are doing .

If we find that that isn't the solution to the problems that face us in this department -- and I'm talking about .this department , none other -- if we find that our approach to the whole matter is not producing the results that we would like to see , then I say let's turn

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	27-2-37
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	27th 2nd hansardpdf 37.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	53153445004c7debd2202afa87debd5f95e53e22

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