Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 59 (27th Legislature, 4th Session)

27-4-59

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

r • I I THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8: 00 o•clock, Monday, April 12th, 1965 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Health. 1495 MR. WITNEY: Mr.

Chairman, in providing other information that was requested of me, the six points on the individu al income were as follows: for 1962-63, $5, 163, 000; the corpora tion income 1 percent was $1,435, 000, for a total of $6, 598, 000; in 1963-64, the six points amounted 'to $�. 621, 000, the one percent corporation amounted to $1,659, 000 for a total of $7, 280; 000; 1964-65 the six points came to $6,372,000, the one percent came to $1,829,000, for a total of $8, 201, 000; and then to those three totals you have to add the grant of $3 million. I think the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface was asking what the $43. 3 million in cluded. It is the budget and capital and construction grants and in there is $1, 204; 866.79 capital and the amount of $21,360,671.45 which he was asking for, in there is $712,605.57 capital.

The other services that have been taken over by the Hospital Commission are the grants for direct costs of organized out-patient departments at the three medical teaching hospitals and there was an extension of out-patient services to cover certain minor surgical procedures, electro shock therapy, physiotherapy, occupational and speech thereapy at certain designated hospitals, and there were the out-patient cost of the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, the psychology screening service, the examination of tissue speci mens removed in a hospital, the hospital based home care programs, the preschool develop ment clinic at the Children's Hospital and the total cost of these services for the year 1964 was $1, 432, 000. 00. · MR.

SMERCHANISKI: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to Page 1463 on Hansard. I just got it this afternoon and I think if you refer back on your remarks on the bottom of Page 1463 you had passed (9) (

b) and 10 pass, but in reality it was oniy (9) (

b) pass, and then the Honourable Minister spoke on diagnostic service in reference to (9) (

b) and I had a conversation with him in reference to answers and questions, then I spoke at length and then the Honourable Minister spoke at length and I was not finished with (9) (

b) imd I do think that I did have the right to speak this afternoon on (9) (

b) because it was not passed. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. I•m of the opinion that it passed because we had gone on to (10) and we had words with regard to (10) and then when the Minister said that the services are provided in such areas as St. James, East Kildonan and Fort Garry, I allowed you to ask a question again, thinking you were going to refer to it this time which you didn 1t but you .• .. MR. SMERCHANSKI: No, Mr. Chairman, that was simply in connection with diagnostic service and that was under (9) (

b) and this is what we were talking about. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. MR. SMERCHANSKI: And when I had spoken last I still was not finished with question ing the Honourable Minister. He replied and the Honourable Minister of Industry and Com merce called the Committee to rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: The item had passed. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order I'm afraid ,I must disagree with you because if you will look at Hansard on page 1464 you will see that the Honourable Member for Burrows carried on with questioning of the Minister on those items and the Minister did reply, so ....•.. MR.

CHAIRMAN: As I was saying ... .. .. . MR. MOLGAT: Yes but, Mr. Chairman, now let's have one thing clear. Because Mr. Chairman yells "Pass" doesn't necessarily mean the item is passed. That may be your idea but that's not necessarily what happens and we may as well have this clear right now. The. item is passed if members have no further questions on the item, not simply because the Chairman said 11Pass11• MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that, MR. ROBLIN: I think we have been eminently fair with members of this committee in allowing wide ranging discussions.

A good many Chairmen would have asked members to keep to the item which nobody has done, through these estimates to be sure, and there's been a wide range of discussion and I think you•ve been very fair. MR. MOLGAT: Who said he hasn't been very fair? In face you weren't involved in the discuss ion at >all, but if you •ll look at ...... .. .. . . l\'IR. CHAIRMAN: . . . . . . . . a minute please. Now you'll see at the bottom of 1463 it says: . Mr. Chairman: (9) pass, (9) (

a) pass, (9) (

b) pass, (10) pass, and then the Honourable

1496 April 12th, 1965 (MR. CHAIRMAN cont•d.) ..... Member for Brokenhead discusses number (10) and we're into No. (1 0) and (9) had passed, all of (9) had passed. Then the Honourable Minister says that lab and X-ray services are provided to such areas as St. James, East Kildonan, anci Fort Garry and because he made this correction I allowed the Honourable Member from Burrows to ask a further question, but it had nothing to do with the fact that a correction had been made -- his further question.

It was a repetition again of what we had been discussing under (9) and under the Minister's Salary, and we had passed that. We 1ve been a long time on these estimates and we•ve had ample discussion on this question of No. (9), both under the Minister's Salary and �nder l\o. (9). MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, may we get onto No. (7)? I think that's the item that you have under discussion at the present time. Is that correct?

Can I take it then from the figures that the Honourable the Minister of Health has given to us -- because if I jotted down his figures cor·rectly this afternoon, he indicate£ that there has been a reduction insofar as personal income tax is concerned of his figures of 1964 of some six million four and his pro jection for the year under review of five million six. Insofar as contributions to the hospital fund is concerned there's a reduction there as the result of the lowering of the income tax per centage from the six to five. Then, if my figures are correct, Mr.

Chairman, for the year 1964 my honourable friend the Minister mentions that the contribution out of, I presume Con solidated Revenue was $3 million and for the year under review this has increased to four mil lion one. Then in other words, Mr.

Chairman, from the Consolidated Revenue we are going to have an increase of approximately $1 million to the Hospital Services Fund and as we well know, the Consolidated Revenue is made up of those taxes which are levied on the broad scale over the province as a whole and paid for by those who pay the ordinary taxes, among which for the year under review at the present time is the five percent utility tax. Now I'm not going to go, Mr.

Chairman, into an argument once again at this particular stage as to the inequity of the five percent utility taxes but it does appear to me once again, even in respect of the contributions toward hospital costs in the Province of Manitoba that those who are more able to pay, namely those who are receiving sufficient revenue to pay in come tax, are going to receive relief insofar as their taxes are concerned at the expense of those who make a contribution to the General Revenue included in which are those who are pay ing the five percent utility taxes.

Because -- and I want to get this clarified, if indeed it needs clarification, from my honourable friend the Minister of Health that

whereas in 1964 from the income taxes and corporation taxes levied in the Province of Manitoba, in respect of income tax it was about 6 million four, corporation tax one million eight-odd, on the figures that the Minister gave us just before we rose for the evening recess, income tax is going to raise about five million six, corporation tax about one million seven in respect of the contribution into the hospital taxes. I hope that I •ve got these figures right. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong.

And then in respect of the year under review from the Consolidated Revenues, or a direct contribution to the Hospital Services Fund from the Consolidated Revenue, the figure is going to be one million one,

whereas last year out ·of Consolidated Revenue, the figure was approximately three million. Now I want to ask my honourable friend the Minister of Health, is this correct? And if it is correct, if I have got the figures down right, Mr.

Chair man, then I respectfully suggest to him and also to the Provincial Treasurer, who of course is the First Minister of this province, that he is using, or that the government is using the ad ditional levies which were made as a result of the special ses_eion of 1964 in August, to pay directly towards hospital costs in the Province of Manitoba, an additional million dollars by way of granting to those of us who are fortunate enough to pay income tax in the Province of Manitoba, but is penalizing those people who do not earn sufficient to pay income tax who, be cause of the very nature of the taxes that have been imposed by the administration, such as the utility ta.xes.

And I say this is absolutely wrong; that when the province or the government decided two or three years ago -- and I believe it was in 1962 -- to make an additional levy in respect of income tax on the taxpayers in Manitoba for the purposes of hospitalization, and if I recall the Honourable the First Minister at that particular time took great pains to point out that the reason for the reduction in the premiums in respect of hospitalization was done be cause he recognized at that particular time that the $6. 00, if I recall correctly in respect of a couple, was too high and that many citizens and couples within the province found this $6,00 a month an onerous burden.

Then the Provincial Treasurer when he introduced the concept of income tax as being a foundation -- not the only one but one of the foundations, in respect of hospital premiums -- if

April 12th, 1965 1497 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd.) ..... I recall my honourable friend the Provincial Treasurer, the Premier of this province, correctly at that time, he said one of the reasons, or indeed the prime reason, for levying the income ta.", which was six percentage points at that time, was to relieve those people who were not able to pay for the then $6.00 premium �. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask my friend the Honourable the Provincial Treasurer what has caused him to change his mind, because it seems obvious to me that he must have changed his mind.

Because instead of the $3 million that was taken out of the Consolidated Fund, he is now asking, according to the figures that the Minister of Health gave us this after noon, that this be increased by $1 million plus. And at the same time a reduction, a reduction in the contribution that those in the province who are fortunate enough -- this I suggest, Mr. Chairman, most of us in this Assembly are - those fortunate enough to receive sufficient revenues to pay for hospitalization by way of income tax.

I want to hear either from the Provincial Treasurer, the First Minister, what justification has the government got, using as I recall them the words of the Honourable the First Minister at the time of the introduction of The Income Tax Act, I believe it was 1964, because as he said at that time -- and I'm not attempting to quote his words verbatim -- because this will bring about a more equitable charge in respect of hospitalization premiums. It does appear to me in the absence, at least up until the present moment, that the government has retraced its steps and in effect, in ef fect, Mr.

Chairman, is now asking those people irrespective of their ability to pay who now have to pay the five percent utilities tax to absorb a greater proportion of hospitalization costs, in accordance with the figures that were given us this afternoon by the Minister of Health; which absorption is contrary, I respectfully suggest, to the enunciations of the First Minister back in 1962 when he declared that the reason for putting on the six percent surcharge in re spect of income tax was for hospitalization purposes, was to relieve the premium holder, and I must hasten to add, Mr.

Chairman, that I agree that there hasn't been any indication that premiums will be increased. The Honourable the Minister of Health has suggested that there won't be, despite the deficit for the year '64 I believe it was three hundred and some odd thousands of dollars. But, Mr. Chairman, I ask the government, I ask this committee, is it not in effect, ir respective of whether or not the premiums for hospitalization have been increased as such, that the administration under the proposal that we have before us are asking the very people who need relief to start paying for it over again.

Because I suggest that many of the people who are going to have to pay in to the consolidated revenue through the five percent utility taxes are the very people who cannot afford it, are the very people, Mr. Chairman, that are going to collectively make up this additional million dollars that the Minister of Health says will be the increase from the three to the four millions of dollars and I say again, this is not fair, this is not fair, Mr.

Chairman, to the very people that the Honourable the First Minister told us back in 1962 that he was concerned with, that he wanted to bring about a reduction in premium payments by virtue of the income tax. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Chairman, I think I can offer some light on the problem that the honourable gentleman raises by pointing out to him that the province's yield from personal and corporation tax in this one year alone under discussion is over $6 million more than the previous year .and that explains why we are doing it this way we have an increase in the yield of our personal income. tax and our corporation tax of over $6 million. -- (Interjection) - Yes, we have, and over $1 million, that is before we come to this surtax business at all, be fore we come to the surtax business at all, there's an increase in our yield of some $6 million and $1 million of that could just as well b'e said to be the million dollars that we 're making up.

We•re getting more from our tax revenues in that way. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I•m prepared to accept this to some degree, the argu ment of my honourable friend. Of course it is true that ih accordance with the agreement with Ottawa and ourselves, that we are going to receive a greater proportion of income tax in the Province of Manitoba but my honourable friend is missing my point completely, because under the legislation proposed by the government in 1962 this money was allocated specifically for hospital purposes. This is where my honourable friend, I think, Mr.

Chairman, is going astray and I respectfully suggest to my friend that the reason that we•re getting more money in respect of personal income tax and corporation tax as a result of the abatement policies between Manitoba· and the federal authority is to lessen the burden, not on those -- not, Mr. Chairman on those who have not the ability to pay for these services, and in effect what is happening -- I can •t follow the arguments of the Provincial Treasurer -- a direct contribution

1498 April 12th, 1965 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd.) for hospital services in the Province of Manitoba out of Con- solidated Revenue irrespective of whether or not the revenue from our income tax is going up, but from the very sources of revenue in the Province of Manitoba that my honourable friend opposite increased as a result of the August last session, which as I say included the five per cent utility tax, out of that, is coming the increase in respect of hospital costs in the Province of Manitoba. I appreciate very much the difference insofar as the federal-provincial abatement policies are concerned but, Mr.

Chairman, notwithstanding the fact that we are going to receive an in crease in the amount collected by personal income tax in the Province of Manitoba, by the very virtue of the decrease in this special tax for hospitalization from six to five percent, the people who can ill afford it are going to have to raise the money or give or be assessed to the govern ment in respect ofthe five percent utility taxes to make up for the increase in the $3 to $4 mil lion which contribution to the Hospital Services Plan will have to come out of the Consolidated Revenue and there is the difference between my honourable friend and myself.

MR. ROBLIN: Well I still don't agree with my honourable friend because if he's saying that the arrangements of last August were brought about because we wanted to -- in order to support the Hospital Services Plan, that 1s not correct, -- (Interjection) -- You •re saying that the arrangements of last August were brought about in order to pay for this million dollars.

Well I say that's not the case, and I say that the yield from our tax corporation, income tax and personal corporation, has gone up by reason of two factors, not only because of the larger abatement from Ottawa but because of various other increases in those yields as well, Now if we had reduced the payment to the Hospital Plan by that one percent or one point of which he talks, then I think he'd have a valid crit icism but we haven't done that, We continue to make it up, and we are making it up among other r�asons because we've $6 million more from per- sonal and corporation income taxes than we had last year, · MR.

PAULLEY: But, Mr. Chairman, my honourable friend is missing my point com pletely, because I'm saying t9 him, I1m saying to him that those people who are paying the five percent utility taxes are paying that into Consolidated Revenue, The figures that the Honourable the Minister of Health gave us today indicate from income tax purposes -- and I'm not concerned particularly whether we•re getting more on income tax as a result of the provin cial abatement, Dominion abatement policies or .not -- but the fact of the matter still is, Mr.

Chairman, that those people who are assessed the five percent utility tax are paying that into Consolidated Revenue which fund is supplying an additional million dollars and I say to my honourable friend, that notwithstand the increase in the amount of revenue that the Province of Manitoba will get, due to the abatement policies agreed upon between the Province of Manitoba and the federal authority in respect of income tax -- notwithstanding that, that if those who are paying on the basis of income tax in accordance with the legislation as passed in 1962, into the Hospital Fund they would be paying into that fund on the basis of ability to pay, and I'm say ing to my honourable friend that he 1s utilizing the taxes that many people who have the inability to pay, in respect of the five .percent utility tax, into the Consolidated Fund, are making their contribution now through the·four millions of dollars, into the very fund that my honourable friend the Provincial Treasurer told us in 1962, was a sort of an ability to pay basis, And if my honourable friend the Provincial Treasurer wanted to take into account the additional rev., enues that Manitoba will receive as a result of the abatement policy, it could have been used to reduce the amount which the Government of Manitoba are charging in respect of utilities.

And I say there's no basis at all of an ability to pay basis, that my honourable friend the Provincial Treasurer enunciated back in 1962, And this is my point, Mr. Chairman. MR. ROBLIN: But my honourable friend entirely overlooks the fact that the adjustments of last August were to help us finance a transfer to the municipalities and to local government of some $24 million in direct and indirect improvements this year. That my honourable friend entirely overlooks. That was the purpose of those taxes.

And they were imposed in lieu of a general provincial sales tax which would have been far tougher on the people that he •s talking about, than what was actually done. We are collecting this year·$6 million more on the ability to pay basis from these corporation and personal income taxes;· and we are therefore collect ing quite enough on that particular method of collecting taxation. It comes to some $71 million out of our total budget at the present time; $71 million are being raised on these two ability to pay taxes.

And to argue as. he does that we have -- as I take from him-'- that we imposed those taxes last August in order to be able to make up what is required for the Hospital Plan, he is quite wrong, We have done Iio such thing,· Now, we're just arguing from two different

April 12th, 1965 1499 MR. ROBLIN (cont1d.) bases, I can see that, but I think my argument is equally valid to his, MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, on February 24th, the First Minister, appearing on a television program, had quite a bit to say ort this and he repeated the same thing on a radio program two days later. And this is what he said, "In 1959, the first year of the plan, it cost the people as a whole $25 million. A few short years later, in 1964, now it costs $43 million, an enormous increase of $18 million.

And yet, as you know, your hospital premium hasn't gone up. It is the same today as it was in 1958. And there is a reason for that, and the reason is that the provincial treasury has been offering special aid to the Manitoba Hospital Plan. Then in 1958, our special aid to the Hospital Plan was $3. 6 million. In this year of grace, it will be over $11. 5 million, provincial aid to the hospital fund. Thanks to which we have been able to hold the hospital premium steady; the same today as they wer� in 1958. " He was then accused of misleading the people and he is doing the same thing tonight.

He is trying to mis lead the members of this House. Now, Mr. Chairman, just last year we had a special session to try to implement ability to pay, for the people to pay. Now, this had nothing to do -- shouldn't have had anything to do with this hospital tax; and this is what this income tax was. And all of a sudden, this tax is reduced by one percent. Now, definitely the First Minister is saying tonight that this money was put back, the full amount is there -- in fact, the full amount is in there -- he mentioned that the grant was 3. 6 and it •s up to $4, 121, 000 now.

Well that's not an increase of a million dollars; and then, one percent would be $1, 125,000. 00. But, the point is that this -- let's say that this is replaced. But it is not. It is replaced from a tax -- the Minister told us that it was on this general tax, this tax that was levied in the special session, and that's a tax on utilities, a tax on fuel that we•ve been talking so much about. Now, how can this be going for this ability to pay? I thought that income tax was about the most honest and best tax, as far as ability to pay? Now I•ve got the words of the First Minister in 1952.

First of all, he ex plains -- in 1962 -- now he explains to us why this was being done. And I won•t re ad it all, but he explained that you couldn't take this income tax unless you went right out of the plan like Ontario and Quebec did. And this is what he says, ''It will be collected for us'' -- this is the extra tax -- 11by Ottawa at no cost to us. Thus, under this tax collection agreement Ottawa will collect whatever rate of tax the province desire to impose, without charge.

And I would like to say, Sir, that we are taking advantage of this provision to raise an additional tax of one percent on the taxable personal income of our people and one percent on the corporation tax in the Province of Manitoba, and we are going to use this money to reduce the hospital premium that we are asking our people to pay. " This is very plain and this is his word. Now, he was talking about tlie premium, that the premium wasn't right; and this is what he was saying about the premium, Mr.

Chairman. 11That the fact is that it is the same rate of tax, the same number of dollars on all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. Rich and poor alike have to pay the same share. This rate was imposed when, in our opinion, at that time there was no alternative to doing so because we did not have an alternative means of raising the money and it must be raised somehow.

We did not have an alternative means of raising the money, unless we introduced the sales tax, which some gentlemen opposite might be advocating, to find this money to pay our hospital premiums. 11 This was instead of a sales tax and this is in 162, not last year. 11We arranged it with the greatest of regrets but we de termined that at the first possible opportunity we were going to relieve these premiums and to invoke the principle of ability to pay. 11 And this is what the Leader of the NDP is saying.

A little further, talking about this ability to pay, this is what he says, "We now have the ability to implement that policy in the way that I have suggested. Because it seems to me that a one percent increase in taxable personal income, on the people of our province, that it does intro duce that measure of ability to pay. 11 That's what he said in 1962.

IIPersonal income tax is, so far as I can see, one of the best measures yet devised of ability to pay and we are going to take advantage of it, But, Sir, we also maintain that there should be an added contribution such as the general -- .from the Consolidated Fund -- to the cost of our hospital system and for that reason we are raising one percent of our corporate income tax as well as to 'provide that extra money. " Now this was very clear.

We wanted to -- the people from this side; wanted at that time to make sure .that this was-- although we had these statements -- we wanted to make sure that this money would be kept for that purpose of paying the premiums. , We wanted to:make sure

1500 April 12th, 1965 (MR. DESJARDINS Cont'd. ) .. .. . and we even proposed an amendment. I think it was the Honourab le Member from Selkirk brought this amendment. The amendment: "Mr. Chairman, ' I have an amendment·to add, the new

section 7 (a). The amendment, the marginal note to the amendment read'S, •use of excess revenue from special tax'; and the ne\\' 7 (

a) would read, •where the amount received by the Treasurer, as per se of the taxes imposed under Sections 6 and 7, together with all revenue, received by the Commissioner of Hospitalization for the purposes of the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan in any year, exceed the cost of operating the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan in that year, the excess shall be deposited in the trust and special division of the Consolidated Fund and shall be used ,solely for the purpose of :reducing the premiums payable under The Hospital Services Insurance Act. 1 I wish to· move, seconded by the", and so on. ' Now this is what was clear, what we intended to do, what we wanted.

The First Minister answered -- the government didn •t vote for this, but this was the explanation of the First Minister at the time. "I imagine that the same goal or the same purpose that my honourable friend seeks can be obtained because we will be quite willing to give an accounting of what money came in in this respect and what was done with it. And that's what he wants, that he can hold us to account or have a full explanation of what became of money that was raised for this purpose, raised for this purpose.

Now that course is open to him and I will certainly be expecting that when the estimates are up next year, and the estimates of revenue and expendi ture before us, that we will be asked to give that information and we will be prepared to do so. But, we do think, Sir, that it would be wrong to accept the amendment at the present time because it's general constitutional principle that this business of ear-marking is undesirable, 1 1 That was the only reason. So, it se.ems that he agreed with us. We had assurance from him that this money would be used only for this.

And I can •t see now why this money isn •t used to reduce the premium? The First Minister said a while ago that this money was replaced. This is fine; but is he going to promise us this is going to be a commitment of the government, to see that the one percent will always be replaced? This is one thing. First of all, the ability to pay -- well, they can change their polic:y whenever they want. But this tax, it was put in there for one purpose.

Now the First Minister said, not too long ago, that this is going way up and he kind of gave me the impression anyway, in one of his radio talks or television talks, that not yet any way, the premium wasn't going to be raised. But, maybe; and this is what I think that the government is trying to do. We wanted them to ear-mark this money in 1962. Now they're taking one percent off; they're raising it somewhere else and it's going into the Consolidated Fund.; and one of these years say 110h no, this is five percent.

" Now, if he wants to reduce this five percent, we feel that it should be there because this is ability to pay. We agreed with him in 1962. Now if he wants to do that, that's fine; he can reduce the premium or reduce this, if there's too much money for health, But I hope he •s not going to come back, or the government will not come back in a year or so and raise the premiums, and say that this is going way up.

And I think that the people of Manitoba should know that this is what is mislead ing, that his words were misleading; because this is not because the government gave a grant, it's because that there was a tax, the premiums were replaced by a six percent income tax and a one percent corporation tax, That is the only reason and it •s very plain. The following year we asked the former Minister of Education what the total estimated amount raised by the special six percent income tax and the one percent corporation tax, and at this point, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make sure that there's no misunderstanding here.

The Minister gave us some figures today. This is not, I hope, only what the Minister is getting under the Department of Health, this is all the revenue derived from this six percent and this one percent corporation tax. This is the question that we•re asking. So let's make sure that we understand the question. Well, this was the answer of the former Minister at that time; and this was, by the way, March 27, 1963, Page 735 of Hansard.

"But the point is that all of the six percent income tax on taxable income, plus the one percent corporation tax, plus three million grant" -- I• ve got a note here, I checked thiE; the grant actually at the time was $3, 175, 000 -- "is turned right over to the Commission as this is the actual figure for last year of the ten million two" -- and it doesn •t look like it was turned over to the Commission now. And then I added, Mr.

Chairman, 11Am I correct in taking from this answer that the total amount estimated, the amount raised all over the province by the six percent income tax and the one percent corporation tax, amounts to 7-l/2 million?" Which was the same point

r I April 12th, 1965 150 1 (MR.. DESJARDINS cont'd.) ..... that I was trying to make, to make sure that this was the full amount. "Mr. Johnson: Seven mi.�lion, two twenty. " Not 7-1/2. Now this is clear that although the First Minister explained and I accepted his explanation, he felt that constitutionally it wasn •t the right thing to do. And there •s another place -- I can find it if my friends want more proof -- that he stated definitely that this money was all going to reduce the premiums.

And then he explained why the premiums had been raised the year before -- and by the way they had been doubled but we had been told at the time that they were projecting, that you couldn't just raise every year, so that was quite a bit of money there then, more than needed -- and he explained then, we follow that these premiums, they had no alternative then. We accept this. And then that also they would put all this money in because they'were thinking of the ability to pay. We accept this also. But we want all this money earmarked ..•....... I think that this is a commitment that the government did.

I agree with the Leader of the NDP, I can't see where all of a sudden the First Minister says we need more money, we'll need more money in this field but we're going to reduce the tax by one percent. Awhile ago, Mr. Chairman, the First Minister tried to explain something that it was a re.distribution of tax -- well, that shouldn •t affect us at all -- and I think that the government if it's going to be honest and if it meant what it said in 1962, should tell us today that they will always replace it.

If they're going to reduce this they'll always replace whatever they've re duced -- in other words this one percent, what one percent which would bring in -- and this year we should have $1, 125, 000 plus about $175, 000 because the grant was not $3 million but $3, 175, 000 -- and it's not quite this, we •re starting to hedge a bit.

I want to make sure that this is not going to be just another way to get this money out of there because this is what we said .at the time -- and the First Minister was very pleased to be able to say during this election, 1962 election, who voted against the reduction in premium but Messrs. Molgat, Campbell and Desjardins. I don't know if he remembers that. This is what he said at the time and now he's misleading the people, he misled the people early in the session, and I don •t think it's fair. If we have something earmarked for hospitals and if it •s to reduce the premium we should reduce the premium.

Now the government can run their own show. This is fine. But if they want to reduce this, if they want to be honest, they have to say that they're going to replace this by what they take out. MR. ROJ?LIN: Mr . ....Chairman, we've lived up to that undertaking in every particular, in every particular.

That sum of money is dedicated and has been placed at the disposal of The Manitoba Hospital Services Commission and I predict without any hesitation at all, that if we're to keep premiums at the present level that they are now, that we'll probably have to make greater contributions from the Consolidated Fund than these surtaxes will raise, ev!'ln at the six percent rate. I'm quite free to predict that, I'm sure that will happen.

We've lived up to our undertaking in that in any particular and if I have any correction to make in anything I•ve said it is merely this, that the hospital premiums charged now are not the same as they were in 1958 -- they are actually somewhat lower. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, would the First Minister make a commitment that the contribution will be at least the equivalent of the one percentage point in income tax which has been decreased? MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, the government has already in 1962, given its commit ment in that respect. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Chairman, last Friday when we discussed this very item under No. 7, The Hospital Commission allocation, I requested a budget from the Minister on The Hos pital Services Fund and the Hospital Commission. I made two attempts to get this and I still insist on having a budget placed before the members of this House. I'm not prepared to pass this Item unless I do get it because we must have some reason for increasing the item from $11,200,000 to $11,426,000.00. On what is this based?

Surely we as members should have a right to the figures on which this increase is based, and I would like to have a budget placed before us. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK, Q. C. (St. John's): Mr. Chairman, I listened to what the Honourable the First Minister said and I'm under the impression that he said that ·some $24 million this year is being rebated in some way to the real property ratepayer. I wonder if I was correct in that impression. MR. �OBLIN: •... ..... reading my honourai;IIe friend's speech of Friday night and I intend to deal with what he said when the budget debate comes up again.

But as stated in the budget the increased allocations to local levels of government of all sorts in the present budget,

1502 April 12th, 1965 (MR. ROBLIN contrd.) ..••.. direct and indirect, some $24 million. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, the First Minister said they1ve committed them selves in 1962. Doesn't he agree then that these remarks were misleading to the people of Manitoba? MR. ROBLIN: No, I don't. MR.

DESJARDINS: Well if he doesn't agree, I guess he never will; but I think it's clear to the people of Manitoba when you say. to them that the premiums weren 1t raised because the government is giving a bigger grant, that this is false, because it is because the government brought in an income tax to pay for this instead of premiums. This is very clear. And then he used; my honourable friend used this question of $25 million in 1959 and $43 million this year, and in $43 million we found out just before dinner that some oft hls is for capital cost.

It shouldn •t be in there if you want to be fair with the people, if you really want to tell them what they're spending. And then there's new services that were brought in there with more grants from the government. The services in there are practically a million and a half of new.services that came in since 1958 and my honourable friend says and the re ason is that the provincial treasury has been offering special aid to Manitoba Hospital Plan.

Now when you speak to people over television and if you say it cost the people $25 mil lion the first year and now it costs them $43 million well the people are going to believe that they're paying that themselves. And then all of a sudden well it's just that the people -- this was brought in -- why? To defend his taxes of last year. His heat tax and so on and has nothing to do with this. This is why it was misleading. This was to defend -- all that speech on the television, his appearance, was questioning these new taxes that were brought in at this special session ..

And he says well all right we need the money because the premiums aren't going up. What are you getting for your money on these taxes? And that's not true at all. This was done in 1962 and all of a sudden -- the First Minister said just a minute ago we'll need more money and he is lowering the six percent, which is the best tax if you really want ability to pay, and he's reducing this this year. I can't follow this at all. MR. ROBLIN: What my honourable friend persists in overlooking is the fact that the yield from the ability to pay tax has been risin g very fast from one reason or another.

It's $6 million in the one year under discussion. Since 1962 it•s . far more than $.6 million. MR. DESJARDINS: If it's doing so well, Mr. Chairman, why change now. Why put a tax on heat? It doesn't make sense to me. MR. ROBLIN: Well, I•m not going to get into the budget debate but my honourable friend knows perfectly well that those taxes last August were brought on to finance· the redistribution of costs with the municipalities generally. MR. DESJARDINS: Why change the six percent? This is it. You•re trying to involve, like we always do when the First Minister said - who voted against this premium?

We voted not against the premium, we voted against �verything else, the reduction of premiums. We voted against everything else and it's always like. this. The First Minister is saying, now he is explaining this tax that he brought in last year at the special session. Well, what has this to do with the six percent income tax? The First Minister is saying that it's doing very well. Why do we reduce this? And the First Minister said that it'll cost more than this pretty soon. MR. ROBLIN: It's got nothing to do with it.

That's what I've been trying to tell my honourable friend the Leader of the NDP. -- (Interjection) -- MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm not concerned with the verbiage that is being used at the present time as. to whether the Honourable the First Minister; the Provincial Treasurer is misleading the public or . • . • . . . I don •t care a continental -- (Interjection) -- Yes you do because of the type of personality that you are. MR. DESJARDINS: Yes, that's .right ..•...... MR. PAULLEY: But I don't care a continental what the Honourable the First Minister or any mem.ber of government has said over TV or over radio.

I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the figures that we have before us that we are considering. I've said a few things over TV. and radio, and I'm sure the Honourable Membe.r for St. Boniface has. too, and -- (Interjection) -- No, I1m sure the Honourable First Minister doesn't like my speeches over radio and TV any more .than some other quarters. MR. ROBLIN: I 'm not objecting to your speeches. MR • . PAU�LEY: . But the poirlt though, Mr. Chairman, i:s simply this .. .. ... .. . MR. ,DESJARDINS: You s.cratch my back, I1ll scratch yours. MR. PAULLEY: No, it's.not a question of scratching anybody's back.

It's a question of r' !

April 12th, 1965 1503 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd.) placing before the record and before this committee what is actual and what is correct. And this is what I'm attempting to -- (I nterjection) -- No, I guess it wouldn't be parliamentary. A MEMBER: Write it down, Russ. MR. PAULLEY: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't mind kibitz from the side, either side. I am however concerned with what is happening to the taxpayer of the Province of Manitoba. What I am saying or trying to say, Mr.

Chairman, is simply this: That for the year under re view, namely, 165-66, on the basis of income tax and corporation tax the government is going to require or levy, or is estimating, a return of about $7.3 million, from these two sources. For the year just concluded the government received, according to the figure that was given to us this afternoon by the Honourable Minister of Health, approximately $8.2 million. In other words the recognized basis of ability to pay for the year just past revenues accrued to the province of about $8.2 million.

For the year 165-66 the amount from income tax and corpora tion tax will be $7 . 3 million. There was an excess of expenditure over revenue insofar as the Hospital Services Fund for the year ending December 31, 1964, and excess expenditure over revenue of some $318, 00 0. 00.

The Honourable the First Minister told me or told the commit tee in answer to me a few moments ago that the basis of the tax levied in respect of the special session last August, was for the purpose of relieving property taxpayers somewhere in the neighbourhood of $24 million. ·The point that I1m trying to make to my honourable friend opposite is that we•re going to have a reduction in the ensuing year on the basis of ability to pay of about a million dollars, and we•re going to require in order to recoup this reduction on the basis of ability to pay an additional $1 million of the basis of the not ability to pay taxes that were levied by the Provin cial Government last August, and I say to my honourable friend the First Minister notwith standing the escalator clauses that are contained in the agreement between Manitoba and Canada, that if the ability to pay basis was continued in respect of the allocations to the Hospital Services Fund, we could have levied on the basis of the utility taxes, $1 million at least less than we are doing at the present time.

And this is my argument, Mr. Chairman, with my honourable friend the First Minister that notwithstanding the escalator clauses in the Dominion-Provincial arrangement, he has assessed through the media of the utility taxes and other increases, $1 million more than he would have had to levy, had he of left the contribution out of income tax the same as it was before. Now I think, Mr. Chairman, this is the sum and substance of my whole argument.

To recapitulate, we are going to receive approximately $1 million less on the basis of income tax and corporation tax from the surcharge that was levied in 1962 by this government. We are going to have to make up that $1 million out of consolidated revenue and notwithstanding the increases as a result of the escalator clauses in the Dominion-Provincial arrangements, this amount of money is coming out of the pockets of those people who have not the ability to pay for it, through the five percent surcharge on our utilities.

I agree with my honourable friend, that we, I agree with my honourable friend we are going to receive more revenue as a result of the changing agreement between Ottawa and Manitoba, but I respectfully suggest for the consideration of this committee, Mr. Chairman, however, that if the ability to pay tax had been retained at the same level it was before, it would not have been necessary for the Provincial Treasurer or the government to levy, to the same degree at least, the taxes which are now being levied upon those people who in my opinion have the least ability to pay.

While my honourable friend mentions the amount of money that is going to relieve the property taxpayer .in the Province of Manitoba, he s11ys this would have been preferable to a general sales tax in the Province of Manitoba, this, Mr.

Chairman, I can argue with my honourable friend on some other occasion, but the fact still remains that if the ability to pay principal had been adhered to in respect of allocations toward hospital funds those least able to pay would have not been required to pay at least, I say this advisedly, the millions of dol lars extra that there is going to have to come out of the consolidated revenue funds of the Province of Manitoba. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Chairman, my point is that you can argue this same way on any particular set of expenditures in the whole province or any particular set of taxes, but I say you have to look at them as a whole and we are doing our best by some $24 million for direct and indirect ways of relieving the taxes on those who own homes and farms in the province. That can't be divorced from this argument.

You have to also take into account the total con tribution being made on the ability to pay basis, and looked at in total figures it's millions of dollars more than it was in 1962 -- not just six million dollars more but probably at least

1504 April 12th, 1965 (MR. ROBLIN cont•d.) ........ double that over 1962. And I say that this situation is fair. Now if my honourable friend doesn •t agree with me that •s his right, but I think that we had sound grounds for the steps that we took. MR. PAULLEY: If I may be permitted, Mr. Chairman, and I don't want to pursue this unduly, but, Mr.

Chairman, I want to point out that �: 1:ms that government, it was that govern ment that back in 1962 suggested that the amounts of money on the six percent in respect of personal income and one percent on corporation income tax should be earmarked for purposes of the Hospitalization Fund and it's all very well, it's all very well for my friend the First Minister, the ProYincial Treasurer, ·to say to me that I could argue this in respect of alloca tions for different appropriations, I would say, Mr.

Chairman, that if we were only doing this in respect of the Hospital Services Fund, I would say that maybe my honourable friend is right, but the fact however, is, Mr. Chairman, that it was the government when in 1962 amended The Income Tax Act, said that this amount of money from income tax should be used for hospital services taxes and what in effect my objection is, Mr.

Chairman, that the govern ment has deviated from that at this time and taken $1 million out of the Consolidated Fund for Hospital Services Fund purposes at the same time as they had increased the contribution to the Hospital Services Fund by $1 million.

So I say to my honourable friend the Provincial Treasurer I would agree with him, that if my argument was based on allocation of different funds for different purposes, but I say to my friend the First Minister, that it was you, Sir, and your government that back in 1962, said in effect that we are going to use this method of the six point in respect of personal income tax and one percent on corporation tax so that we don •t have to increase premiums and levy a burden outside of the ability to pay basis for hospitalization in the Province of Manitoba. This, Mr.

Chairman, I respectfully suggest is the difference in the argument between my honourable friend and myself this evening, as far as the matter under consideration is concerned. . . . • . . continued on next page

April 12th, 1965 1505 MR. ROBLIN: I'll keep this short because !think we've probably exhausted this topic, but my honourable friend overlooks the fact that we are taking from the ability to pay segment of our population and through the ability to pay taxes, not the amount we took in 1962, but mil lions of dollars more than in 196 2, so I do not think that you can fairly say that they are not paying their share of the load. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, if more is being taken from that group, it is because they are able to pay more, because the rate hasn't been changed. The rate hasn 't gone up. It's the same rate.

MR. ROBLIN: Our share has gone up. MR. MO LGAT: Our share of it has gone up, but the total rate of taxation on income tax has not changed.

It's the same rate as originally was existing when this was set up and at that particular time the First Mini ster said very clearly that what we want to do -- thi s is the First Minister speaking, in October of 196 1, "What we want to do is, we want to dedicate one per cent of the total taxable incomes earned in Manitoba towards the support of the hospital system in the province, because we be lieve by that method we can transfer not a new burden on the people but transfer the burden from one set of people to another by means of this ability to pay tax." Now if that statement was correct in 1961 , if at that time one percent of the taxable income was a fair load to be placing on these peo ple, then there is no logic in reducing it now.

To say that there are more dollars coming from that source does not change the picture , be cause if there are more dollars coming it 's only beause they have more ability to pay than they had in 1961 beca use the rate of six percent which was going to the hospital plan was the same rate , it was the same six percent but the people who were in that category were in a position to pay more because they received more.

The government now is changing the principle by re ducing the cont ribution that will be made on the ability to pay principle and the Minister says, but we will keep up the same payments insofar as the hospital plan is concerned, and appar ently from the figure that he gives us , it will be very close. My calculation from the figures given to us by the Minister show that it 's within $200, 00 0.0 0. MR. ROB LIN: Exactly the same. MR. MOLGAT: Well it may be.

One of the complica tions in getting the totals is that the Hospital Services Commission operate on ac alendaryear and the government operates on a March 31st fiscal year and to make the relationship exact ly, is a litt le difficult at times. But if the First Minister says they are identical, fine.

But the facts are that to make up that other one percent point the money must come from elsewhere --from some other source -- it must come from general reven ues, therefore it is coming from the general other taxes that are being levied and he is departing from the principle that he laid down in 196 1 on ability to pay. Now I'd like to check some figures that were given to us. MR. ROBLIN: .. .. . deal with that before you .... Are you going to move to another topic? MR. MOLGAT: No , on the same topic but on some figures . That's fine go ahead. MR.

ROB LIN: I simply point out to my honourable friend that the rate has changed. The rate is now 21. That's the standard rate is now 21 for the provinc e. It was 18 at the time that we were talking. Our levy as a province on the income tax payers of this province has gone up since then . We are not levyin g 18 on the general levy we are levying 21 . It may be it 's per fectl y true that there 's a federal abatement of it but as far as we as a province are conc erned, we are levying more. MR. MOLGAT: .. .. . the taxpayer is paying exactly the same rate. MR. ROBLIN: .. .. same as the provin cial taxpayer. MR.

MOLGAT: .. .. the taxpayer is paying the same rate and the principle that was laid down in 1961 was to dedicate one percent of the total tax money .. .. MR. ROBLIN: That's what we 're doing. MR. MOLGAT: I submit that the Mini ster is moving away from that. MR. ROBLIN: That's exactly what we'r e doing. MR. MOLGAT: Insofar as the exact figures , did I understand the First Mini ster correct ly to say that the income tax on individuals and corporations had gone up by some $6 million . MR. ROBLIN: That's our total yield from that form of taxation , inc luding the equalization payment. MR.

MOLGAT: In what year is that ? MR. ROBLIN: Thi s present year. MR. MOLGAT: Well that doesn 't -- oh inc luding the equalization payment from Ottawa?

1506 April 12th, 1965 MR. ROBLJN: Ri ght . . MR. MOLGAT: Yes, because it ce rtainly doesn't show that in the revenue figures when you take income tax, individu al and corporation . MR. ROBLJN: Equalization is based-- is our return on what we should get on income tax and corporation taxes. MR. MOLGAT: I see. Well then the corporation tax figures doesn't seem to be correlated here , because the Mini ster of Health when he gave us the figures indica ted that the corporation income tax figures for this year were to be 1 milli on 699 and that for last year they were 1 mil lion 829 . MR. ROBLJN: One mil lion 633. MR.

MOLGAT: Well he gave us the figures 1 million 829 . MR. ROBLJN: Well l think the trouble is there that when our es timates come down, we work on the figures the Dominion Government give us and they gave us the hi gher figure that was stated.

When they actually came to pay the money over to us it turned out to be some what less -- and incid entally my friend I think has made some false deductions from that in his sp eech on the budget and I hope to point out those errors when I get an opportunity -- but the actual take was 1 million 633, not the amount that was estimated because that's based on an incorrect figure given us by the Federal Government. MR. MOLGAT: Well then· the Minister of Health gave us some incorrect figures toni ght, because these are the ones he gave to us just at 8 o' clock. MR.

ROBLJN: Well , and then again you have the added complic ation that one is on a calen dar year basis and the other is on a fiscal year ba sis. I'm looking at the fiscal year basi s. MR. MOLGAT: Well the figures I had asked for, and I asked for this last week, was the exact yield to Manitobans. How much did we get in fact -- since this new taxation started in 19 62, how much did we get each year from the six percent personal income tax and the one percent corporation tax which the government said was to be a hos pital tax and which was to go compl etely to the Hospital Plan to reduce premiums.

Now these are the figures I ask of the Minister. He gave me a reply tonight but apparently the reply is not correct. MR. ROB LJN: He's giving you es timated figures but the figure that I'm working on is the one that was shown in the budget speech. Now I do have to warn my honourable friend that the se figures do vary by several hundred thousand dollars between es tirriates and actual, between calendar year and fiscal year, but ift he point that he's seeking is whethe r or not we did in fact credit the Hospi tal Insurance Plan with the full yield, that one percent, I want to assure him that we have. MR.

MOLGAT: All right. Well then, I wonder if the First Minister or the Minist er of Health could prepare a sheet for us indica ting the exact revenue, becaus e apparently the figures we got tonight were es timates and I would like to have over the period that the tax has been in effect, the actual yield to the Province of Manitoba each year from this particu lar tax, probably on the basis of the fiscal year of the province so that we can see exactly what happen ed to it. :MR. P AULLEY: Mr, Chairman , there's one other . question I would like to ask either the Minister of Health or the Provincial Treasurer.

I'm interested to kno w what a projeCtion of the revenue would have been in respect of the year under review, namely, '6 5- 66 had we retained or had the government retained the six percen tage points and the one percent corpora tion tax for the year we 're in currently. MR. ROB LlN: I stand to be corrected but I be lieve the extra one point of which he talks is worth approximately $1 ,1 00 , 000. 00. ' MR. l?AULLEY: Then Mr.

Ch airman, this then estab lishes the point that I've been endeavouring to make that had the projec tion or the stipu lations as laid dOWl1 in The Income Tax Act of 1962 without a red1.wtion in the income tax amount or apportion toward the Hospital Services Fund been conti nued it would not have been necessa ry to take out the $1 million out of general revenue. or the Conso lidated Fund in respect of the hospitaliza tion fund. · .MR.

IWi3L1N; Well, I simply repeat that that had to be looked at in cons ideration of the fact that out s,hare of the income 't ax on the standard basi s went up from 18 to 21 percen t, so ins t�ad of 1a.St year we were makihg 18 plus 6, 24 poin ts , we are now taking 21 plus five, 26 points from the personal income taxpayers . MR. PAULLEY: This I appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman . It's not my purpose to carry on this very intere sting discussion. Again the point that I am m�ing is that irrespec tive of the : increase as tbe result of the abatement' in ; taxes betwee n Manitoba and Canada is

I April 12th, 1965 1507 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) .. .... concerned, had we continued the same policy of the six and one percent income tax cont ribution to the Hospital Services Fund we would not have had to levy from the Consoli dated Fund directly to the Hospital Fund this additional mil lions of dol lars. Now this is my whole point . MR. ROBLIN: I say that we've actually increased the personal income tax from 24 points to 26 points all in. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, every time the First Minister get up he -- (interject tion) -- the First Minister every ti me he gets up gives me more basis for my argument, be cause based on the ability to pay

whereas through income tax last year to the Hospital Services Fund we had approximately $6 .3 milli on we're on ly now on the basis of income tax returns going to get $5 . 6 million. And that's not counting, Mr. Chairman , the corporation tax. MR. ROBLIN: Well, I don't think you can overlook the fact that our total demands from the personal income taxpayer has risen from 24 points to 26 this year. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, they have not. This is my point with the Honourable the First Min ister in this regard. Our total demands insofar as Manitoba is concerned on the income taxpayer have not increased. • MR.

ROB LIN: Yes they have. MR. PAULLEY: All that has happened, Mr. Chairman , as my honourable friend well knows, that as a result of the agreement between Manitoba and Canada we're recei ving a greater proportion of the income tax that is levied here in the Province of Manitoba in lieu of the other shared agreements that we had prev iously. We're not levying any more insofar as income tax is concerned. As a matter of fact , Mr. Chairman, we're reducing it . This is actually what's happened insofar as the income taxpayer is concerned.

If the agreement be tween Ottawa and Manitoba didn't contain these esc alator cl auses , that is whereby the Pro vi nc e of Manitoba recei ved the greater proportion of the income tax that's collected in the province , we wouldn't be receivi ng this ex tra revenue . My honourable friend knows that. And I can't Mr. Chairman , for the life of me , understand his arguments contrary to this . This is a fact . Sure we 're getting more money now into the Provincial Treasury, but income taxes haven't increased.

The on ly increase insofar as dollars and cents are concerned -- and may I respectfu lly suggest , all too few dollars -- is as the result of greater income within the province itsel f. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, I have to point out to my honourable friend that we're no longer on the tax- sharing agreement. That's been abolished. That doesn't exist. We're on a tax collecti on agreement and we have to strike our own income tax rate and our own income tax rate in this provin ce with a standard rate plus the surtax was 24 points last year, it 's 26 points this year and that is the provincial tax structure. MR.

SMERCHANSKI: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the Honourable Minister of Health, does he in fact know the cost of renovation for the proposed changes at the Grace Hospi tal at the Arlington Street location ? I understand there have been some plans prepared, there has been ce rtain studies made on it . Is there in fact a figure that will be used in terms of the renovation of this site ? Does the Minister know th is ? MR. WITNEY: Mr. Chairman , the answer is no .

There 's been a functional program submitted to the Hospital Commis sion which still has to be debated between the Hospital and the Hospital Commissi on . I thought I had answered the Honourable Member for Rhine land the other night when I pointed out to him that the Manitoba Hospital Commiss ion were budgeting for $49 ,7 46 ,8 97 for 165. MR. SMERCHANSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I have been attempting to get from the Honourable Minister some facts in connecti on with the Grace Hospital and I have not been able to get them and it could be that maybe the Minister himself is not fully aware of the fact s; but it is my understanding that the proposed specialized serv ice and renovation at the Grace Hospital on Arlington Street, incl uding the new power house, including the additional land acquisit ion and the new facilities for a total of some 200 beds is going to run close to $4 milli on . Now at the St.

James site of the Grace Hospital, I understand that these additional 200 beds instead of being located at Arlington Street , could be just as effectivel y located at St. James for a cost of $2 1/2 million. To say that these two locations are going to be comple mentary and to be used as an acute hospital does not add up into a proper economic group. Also to say that these additional beds are not needed at the St. James site and yet on the other hand to be able 'to say that the two units will be operated joint ly and more effic iently does not make ec{)nomic -sense and I would recommend, Mr.

Chairman, to the Honourable Minis ter, that -

1508 April 12th, 196 5 (MR. SMERC HANSKI cont 'd) ..... somebody is wasting or spe nding a $1 1/ 2 million of the taxpayer's money. Now the thing is that the Grace Hospital on Arlington at the present ti me could quite conve nient ly be converted to a chronic hospital at a cost of some $5 00 ,0 00 and there is a definite need for additional chronic beds in Winnipeg. Now I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if there is not some other group that is moving along in this direction, and maybe the Minister is aware of it and maybe the Minister is not aware of it, but it would seem to me that this is cert ainly, Mr.

Chairman, ec onomic suic ide in terms of getting proper hospital acc ommodation in reference to these two locations and I would like to know from the Minister si mply why, why is it that you have these two locations ? Is it because the St. James Grace Hospital is like ly to end up with more beds than the General Hospi tal? How can we arrive at an economic balance and say that it is more efficient to oper ate two units completely separate from each othe r than it is to operate one unit which can be operated more effic iently ? Why are we making this costl y decision? What is the reason for it ?

Why should the Hospital Commission through this Government , wisely or directly or indirect l y be spen ding a million and a half dollars of the taxpayers ' money for no good reason. I would appreciate if the Honourable Minister would tell me simpl y why? MR. WITNEY: Mr. Chairman, there have been no decisions made.

As I mentioned to the Honourable Member for Burrows, the functional programs have been submitted to the Hospital Commission and they are merely programs to permit discus si ons with the Hospital Commission and those discussi ons are being he ld with the Manitoba Hospital Commiss ion, or will be soon, and the Salvation Army people. But there has been no commitment made. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister of Health one question dealing with hospital expansion and it concerns my home town, the City of Transcona.

I under stand that Council the othe r day agreed to allow an option to be held by the Seventh Day Ad ventists for the construction of a hospital in the Ci ty of Transcona. I've no objection, Mr. Chairman, to the Seventh Day Adventists or any other organization, but I'd like to know whether or not representation has been made to him as Minister of Health or if he 's aware of any that has been made to the Hospital Commiss ion in respect of buil ding a hospital in the City of Transcona.

As I review the Willard Commiss ion no mention has been made of this but I would like to hear because some people in my home city have raised this question to me as to whether or not there is a likelihood of permiss ion bei ng granted for the construct ion of a hos pital in the City of Transcona. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Honourable Minister for giving me the figure of $49, 746, 000 as being the budgeted amount required for the ensui ng year, the coming year.

Last year we spent some $45 million, a litt le better than $45 million, and from this $49 million I take it some $13 million will come in through premiums . Am I correct ? And that the balance will have to be made up by the federal government , which would be some $25 m illion. I would like the Minister to correct me later on if I was wrong, but then coming to the othe r si de of the picture , last year we spent $41 million for public general hospitals and $1 ,7 00, 000 on federal hospi tals , then $61 4, 000 on company hospi tals , and hospitals out si de the province $621, 000. 00.

Could he give me the figures that they antic ipate for the com ing year under these headings ? A further question is , we have an accumulated deficit of over 4 million in this Hospital Commiss ion at the present time. Does this budget of $49 milli on provide to cover any of those defici ts ? Are we going to reduce them? What happens to them - or are we going to increase them ? What is he budgeting for ? Is he budgeting for a surplus or for a deficit ? I would like to know the se things . MR. WITNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the figures with respect to the budget hospitals, they will be roughly about $41, 586 , OOO,a nd the non- budget hospitals will be about $2, 687,500. 00. Those are the two figures that he asked me about. With respect to the latter I'm not sure; I'll have to find out for him. MR. FROESE : Mr. Chairman, this would then provide funds to cover the deficit . Am I correct ? MR. ROB LIN: Mr.

Chairman, that deficit arose from the fact that when the hospital plan was started it began to get paid, began to take care of costs si x months before the pre miums were actually collected, and in a sense, that's really a bookkeepi ng deficit and it's not one that we intend to recover from premiums at the pres ent time . If you will remember the hospital plan came in on the first day of July 1958 but the premiums were coll ected for the si x-month period following that, so the first six months' costs beca me a deficit and have been reported as a deficit in the books of the hospital plan ever sin ce.

It's not intended to change that .

I • April 12th, 1965 1509 MR. CHAIRMAN: ..... passed. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, is that exactly correct that the Honourable the First Minister just mentione d? Wasn't it a fact that there was provis ion made for a grant from the Conso lidated Re venue to take care of that antic ipated defic it? MR. ROBLIN: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't think so. I think the grant from the Consoli dated Fund at that time had to do with taking over ce rtain welfare costs that were formerly ch arged -- hospital costs that were forme rly charged to welfare.

There was not an effort made at that time to budget for that anticipa ted defic it. MR. WITNEY: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the honourable member, I have had no re pres entations made to my office by the Seventh Day Adventists. I'm sorry I can't answer for the Manitob a Hospital Commiss ion because I'm not sure about that. MR. SMERC HANSKI: Ml'. Chairman, I can't figure this thing out then , that we are bud geting for $49 milli on and what the Minister just said amounts to $44 million, the expendit ures. Why are we budgeting for a $5 mil lion surplus then? Where is he going to spend this $5 million? MR.

WITNEY: Mr. Chairman, in that figure there is $1 million for construction grants, and there is $1 ,7 78, 000 which is going to be the es timated cost of operating the Commission, and the rest are for other things such as insured out-patient servi ces, and for consu ltants ' fees and home care programs. MR. CHAIRMAN: .... passed. MR. SMERC HANSKI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask an additional question on Hospital Services and that is , has there been a survey or a study undertaken in reference to the diag nosti c services as co vered under what is known as Plan HCX?

Now I spoke about this plan the other evening and it seems that I was unable to relate the exact si tuation. Now it has got so mething to do with the Manitoba Hospi tal Commission, and I'm wondering has there been any consi deration given to inc lude diagnostic service under the jurisdiction of the Commiss ion, and could this be done with some modification of what is known as the federal Bill 320 in terms of diagno stic service ? I think that this is of great importance, Mr.

Chairman, simply because at the present time we are in the provinc e, to the Manitoba Medical Service, and in particular in Metropolita n Winnipeg, are subsidizing this plan to the tune of $300, 000 per month, and I would like to have the Minister make an express ion because this is something that has been current not only in the last two months or six months or a year, and it would seem that the cost of diagnostic service in Winnipeg is completely unrealis tic .

It would appear that some body in the form of cl inics is making an undue amount of profit by us ing their equipment which is being subsidized by the subscribers and the practis ing doctors, and I think that something should be done ; a study should be made; a proper survey should be conducted; and resolve this matter in a proper manner because it is most unfair to the subscribers and to the prac tisi ng doctors in reference to the diagnostic service that is being rendered in Metropo litan Winnipe g. MR. WITNEY: .... Mr. Chairman, is yes.

The studies are co ntinuing and I have agreed to meet further with the Department of Health, the Manitoba Hospital Commission, the MMA and the MMS. MR. CHAIRMAN: ..... passed, Reso lution No. 55 -- passed. Res olution No. 56 -- passed. continued on next page

151 0 April 12th, 1965 :MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General 's Department, on Page 10, We are on Reso lution No. 48 . 5( a) (1) --passed; (2) .• . • . MR . C.AMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to ask in connection with 48 . I notice in the Public Acco unts that we have. some --as you 're aware, Mr. Chairman, . I am not dealing with No. (1), I'm dealing with No. (2) and perhaps while I'm at it with No. (3), but they are all covered under the one item that we are discussi ng of (a) (2) and (3 ). :MR. CHAIRMAN: 5(a ) (1) was passed. :MR. CAMPB ELL: 5 (a) (1) , well I'm not interested in this anyway .

I'm interested in (2) and (3 ), and under (2) , which covers a multitude of operationa there, I notice in last year's public accounts that we have legal fees $9, 037 and some cents , Now I realize that that's a year ago and I realize that there has been a fisca l year completed since that, and I would be interes ted in getting from the Honourable the Attorney-Genera l what the legal fees have been in this year that has just been completed, twelve days ago- -the amount of that. If the Honourable the Attorney-Gene ral hasn't it at the moment he. could get that for me, at his convenience .

Then a little further down, Miscellaneous --this is on page 132 of Public Accoun ts-- we have an item of $12, 485 of gra tuitie s to dis charged prisoners. No, that's the total, and then the item unde r that is gratuities to dis charged prisoners $2, 233. 50.

I'd be interested in knowing what that item is for the year subsequent to our present public accounts, that is, the yea r just closed, Then on iterri (3), the grant to the John Howard and Eliza beth Fry Society, I notice that thi s one is approximately $5, 000, exactly $5 ,0 00 I believe, hi gher than last year, and I am aware that other organizations contribute to this soci ety as well . The Government contributes this amount of money and several other organiza tions contribute some money. Now what I would like to receive from the Minister, Mr.

Chairman, would be the total budget of this Society and then the breakdown of the expenditures --I don't know, I wouldn't expect that the Minister would have it with him but he may have, and if he has I'd be glad to get it --the breakdown of the expenditures so that we can see to what purposes this contribution is directed.

Apparently the Society has commended itself to the government because it's getting $5, 000 more this year than last year, and I suppose that its total budget has gone up a certain amount , My interest is in the amount that it gets in total, the breakdown as between salaries, expenses, and then the amount of money that it disperses similar to this one that I have mentioned earlier, the gratuities to discharged prisoners . Now I suppose that it's a fact that the assis tance that's rendered by the John Howard and Eliza beth Fry Society is not just the handing out of money.

As a matter of fact perhaps that's a small part of the work that they do, but I would be inte r ested in just how much actual money they disperse in that way, and as well, the general break down of their --the total of their budget and the breakdown of it. :MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, my in terest in this item is chiefly what are they doing. It's not the $5, 000, If they do good work give them another $5, 000.

I'm not worrying about how much they are getting, I'm just worrying what are they doing and what's their success in their work, and how far are they going to help out those who need help and for those that they are getting a grant. :MR. IDLLHOUSE: Mr. Chairman, we did have some discussi on in committee respect ing bail, and I think it's generally agreed, which is correct, that the magistrate fixes the bail on the recommendation of the Crown-Attorney.

Now, in order to take care of bail, applica tions for bail, in rural Manitoba where perhaps there is no Crown-Attorney present and per haps there is no magistrate nearby and you have to rely upon the services of a JP, I would like to make this suggestion to the Honourable the Attorney-Gene ral, and that is this: That I don't think it would be impractical to set up a

schedule of suggested bail amounts and to furnish your JP's in the country with that schedule, so that if they are unable to contact the Crown Attorney for that particular district they could be guided by that

schedule in fixing the amount of bail. Now I make that suggestion believing that it might help to solve a situation which at some times can get rather annoying in rural Manitoba. Now, there's another matter that I'd like to deal with, Mr. Chairman, and that is the difference in practice prevailing in the Ci ty of Winnipeg as against rural Manitoba in respect of the incar ceration of people charged with impaired driving. My understanding is that in the Ci ty of Winnip eg, if a person is picked up for impaired driving, that person is usually released by the police without the necessi ty --of maybe on his own recognizance;

whereas in rural Manitoba that person is held in custody, usually overnight, if the offence takes place in the evening, and it's neces sary to have that person bailed out. Now I know of a lot of instances where that has happened, where the people that have been charged with impaired driving and

April 12th; 1965 · 151 1 (MR. IDLLHOUSE cont'd) ...•.•. who have been required to put up a bail bond, with sureties or without sureties, who were responsible .citizens in that area, and after ail the only reason why ' bai l is insisted upon is to ensure that person's presence at the trial, and it seems to me in those cases that there should be some attempt made at uniformity of practice between Winnipeg and rural Manitoba. MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead) : Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to appear to contra dict the Member for Selkirk, because he has more experience in this field, but my experience with this problem is just the opposite of what the Honourable Member for Selkirk relates. Two of my friends who were caught with impaired driving in the area of Winnipeg were incarcerated and in fact kept over night, and bail was not set until the next morning; whel'eas in rural Mani toba, in the arE;Ja that I'm more familiar with, it has been rather the opposite.

The situation that obtains in Winnipeg, according to my honourable friend, is the one that obtains in the rural area that I'm familiar with, so it seems that what we can deduce from all this is that it's a generally confused situation, and --I don't want honourable members to get the wrong ideas as to the kinds of friends I keep. MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the matter of the legal fees for the year April !, '64 to March 31 , 1965 arid gratuities to prisoners for the year April 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965, I of course will have to obtain, I will give what figure we can.

I'm not too certain that all ac counts are paid, but whatever the figure is . Now the budget of the John Howard Society, I can give the members this information. The John Howard and Eliza beth Fry Societ y operates on a fisca l year which coincide s with ·the calendar year, and I have their statement of cash receipts and disbursements for the year ended December 31 , 1964.

I find that they have total receipts of $48, 777. 15, and those receipts are made up of grants from the Province of Manitoba, from the Community Chest of Greater Winnipeg, the Winnipe g Foundation, the Government of Canada, the Ci ty of Winnipeg, donations and memberships.

And for that same period they had expendi tures of $52, 725. 68 and those disbursements cover a wide range of items, the main one how ever, being that of salarie s --$39, 354; and then there runs through various items : pens ion contributions , rent, telephone, postage, stationery, publicity and advertising, office equip ment, conferences and training. I notice one item --travelling expenses, $1, 695 , a little larger than some of the other items _:_ and then, there are emergency assi stance : meals, $2, 252; lodgings, $1, 732; some transportation; small items of $646; miscel laneous $6 72. 00.

That would make it appear that while the John Howard and Eliza beth Fry Society is not engaged in direct payments, as far as I'm aware, to the prisoners, they do obviously provide meals and transportation, lodging, and other assi stance of that nature. It will be noted, as I say, that for the year which ended on the 31 st of December 1964, that the Society had a deficit.

There is a tentative --or perhaps I shouldn't say tentative; it's an estimated statement of income and expenditure for the year 1965 in which they show estimated recei pts of $43, 200; and they have not shown the additional amount that is included in our estimates this year, so that if these estimates are approved that amount will increase by $50 00, 00. Their expendi tures --and the note here is "required to maintain present level of service "-- amounts to $52, 85 0, and that would leave them with a deficit or an amount to be recovered of $9, 650. 00.

Well, as I say; if we are succes sful in these estim ates, that will be reduced by that amount. I think that perhaps that would be the information that would be helpful there. On the same point, with regard to the Honourable the Member for Inkster, he asks what is the John H0ward and Eliza beth Fry Soci ety doing.

Well, they are very much involved in the matter of what we call after-care; that is to say, their representatives, the counsell ors, or workers I believe as they call them, on their staff interview the prisoners when they are in both the provincial jails and in our rehabilitation camps, and in the pentitentiary, of course, as well; discuss with them their plans upon their release.

They are, many of them, trained social workers; indeed they may all be trained social workers as far as I'm aware; and they endeavour to do what they can in the way of preparing for their disc harge and assis ting them after they have been dis charged. Many of the tasks which they perform are related to family problems, employment problems of course as well, and matters of that general nature that are designed to assist people on their discharge from ei ther the penitentiary or the jail. In addition, I would like to say they do things for the prisoners while they are in the jail.

For ex ample, they have upon occa sion --I think once or twic.e-- presented a piano which they have secured for the prisoners, the use of the prisoners . Perhaps two months ago --if the Honourable Member for Gladstone-Neepawa was here he might be speaking about the green sheet or the red sheet or whatever colour it was, which announced that the John Howard and

151 2 April 12 th, 1965 (MR. McLEAN cont'd) ••...•. Elizabeth Fry Society had presented a set of The Book of Know ledge for use at the jail, a very substantial contribution which they were able to se cure and which they pre sented for the use of the prisoners within the institution; and that is but only an illustration of the work which they do for the folks within the ja ils. Their as sistance is also extended to those who are in some of the outside jails --that is outside the Metropolitan are a of Winnipeg. They give assi stance to those who are in the ja il at Brandon, I know, and there 's a loca l

chapter or group of the Society formed at Br andon and I believe perhaps in some of the other ja ils as well, although not as extensive, beca use they don't have the number of per sonnel or the reso urces to give complete cove rage . The fact that the Government of Canada is interested in their work is indicated by the fact that in the year which closed, their grant from the Government of Ca nada was $13, 7.15 as compared to our own $12 , 400 . 00 --we 're fairly close there-- supported by both governmen ts. A sched ule of bail amounts; that's a good sugge stion and one worthy of conside ra tion.

This whole problem , as I'm certain the Honourable the Member for Selkirk from his own per so nal experience knows, is not an easy one . There are elements of judgment always involved in --I ce rtainly know that if the Honourable Member for Bro kenhead appe ared with his friends I would be inclined to let them out very quickly and without too much difficulty. But there are many considera tions that go into this question of granting bail, the nature of the ...•.• MR. SCHREYER : Mr .

Chairman, I don't want to interru pt but the Honourable Minister has left an unfortunate connotation, that I appeared with my friends in the course of setting bail, etc. This is not quite correct. I cert ainly didn't try to intercede in any way. I just mentioned that I knew from experience, from the experience of two of my friends, that they did have this problem. I wasn't even there in one case . In one case I did appear to set bail, to pay the bail. MR. McLEAN: Mr . Chairman, my apologie s.

In any event there are , as I say, many pro blems that one has to be taking into account, and it is perha ps a matter where a Justice of the Peace or a magistrate must make a fairly quick decision without always having all of the ' facts available, and I think by and large that wise decis ions are made but ce rtainly I know of case s and have had experiences myself where I was not too well satisfied with the result. Whether on reflection I would have thought othe rwise is another matter.

I believe that we are guided, or the members of the staff, the ma gistrate s and the justices of the peace are guided by the importance of remembering that the accused person is innocent until he has been proven guilty, that the obligation is to ensure the appearance of that person for his or her trial. I am glad to have the sugge stion, however, because we are planning a conference of magistrates for the end of May, assuming the Legislature is concluded by that time, and I will ask that this item be placed on the agenda for considera tion.

Now that 's a conference of ma gistrate s, not a conference of justices of the peace, but perhaps in that way we can begin considera tion of this important matter. MR . CAMPBE LL: Mr. Chairman, does the Honourable the Minister have the break down, or in the bre akdown does he have the figure of what contr ibution is made to the John How ard Elizabeth Fr y Society through membershi ps ? MR. McLEAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's shown for the year ending De c. 31 , 1964 as $548 .1 5, and in the budget for this current year they show it as one item, donations and mem berships $1500. 00.

It would look to me as if --yes, that's about-- beca use there was $91 4. 00 donations in the last year so they are probably estimating members, I would think, about $60 o. oo: MR . GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I wish I was not misunde rstood by criticising the work of the John Howar d Society. I know their work and I think they are doing a marvellous jo b, particularly interviewing the prison ers as far as Headingley jail is conc 3::ned, and trying to prepare for their rele ase . My criticism is that the grant that we are giving them is sufficient --that's No. 1.

No. 2, there are about 400 prisoners, close to 400 prisoners discharged every year, and the gratuities as far as Headingley ja il is conce rned is only $1, 087. 00. That gives very very little gratuity for a man to leave ja il, penniless, get to \Vinnipeg and at least .••.•.... out for the first meal until he gets a place somewh ere .

My criticism is that the gratuities are very small, and also that the John Howard Society, for the work they are doing, rehabilitating the priso ners, finding jobs for them, our contribution, although it's a little bit increased this year, is still not sufficient, bU:t I was not criticising their work. MR . ELMAN GUTTORMSON (St. Georg e): Mr. Chairman, the Minister, if I understood him correctly, sa id they were ope rating on a budget of some $52, 000 , and of this $3 9, 000 was

April 12th, 1965 15 13 (MR. GRAY cont'd) •••••••• paid out in salarie s. Could he tell me how much of the $39, 000 is paid to the chairman and how much money is paid --how many other employees have they got ? MR. McLEAN: This information I do not have, Mr. Chairman. It's just shown as "salari es". This is the only --it's the audited statement of the Society but they do not indicate individual persons. MR. GUT TORMSON: Mr. Chairman, is any grant made by the government to the Salvation Army for this type of work? MR. McLEAN: No. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr.

Chairman, I would wonder why that was, because in my ex perience in talking to people, ex-inmate s, the Salvation Army does more for di scharged prisoners than any other org anization that we have in the province, and if you talk to an ex-in mate they'll tell you that they frequently go to the John Howard Society and they're referred to the Salvation Army where they are given assistance and perhaps money to get home, and clothing. I sat in the courts for many years a few years back, and it was the Salvation Army who were always on hand to help the prisoners .

No other organiza tion did the job that the Salvation Army did, and I think that if considera tion is going to be given to anybody helping out the prisoners, the Salvation Army should come first. As the Member for Inkster just pointed out, I think some, maybe $1, 000 is given out in the course of a year. They just don't do anything for the prisoners in relationship to what the Salvation Army does.

The Salvation Army send men out to the penitentiaries; they're in court practic ally every day, and priso ners have told me -- and I'm assuming they are telling me the truth because the same story is borne out by different inmates-- that when they go to the John Howard Society they are ref<:)rred to the Salvation Army for help. Now something seems wrong when one agency who's getting the money is referr ing them to an agency which isn't getting the m� � - MR. CH ERNIACK: Mr. Chairma n, what item are you on? MR. CH AIRMAN: 5(a) (2) . MR. CHE RNIACK: 5 (a) (2) . I had planned, Mr.

Chairma n, to wait --I want to ask questions in rela tion to bail and in relation to pre-s entence probation officers' reports. Now I thought that would come up later but the Minister has already mentioned both matters just re cently in his replie s. Are you prepared for me to deal with these now or would you rather I waited until we came up later on in the estimat es ? MR . CH AIRMAN: ...•..• now to deal with bail. MR . CHE RNIACK: Bail ? Thank you, Mr . Chairman.

Well I have had occa sions, and others of us have had occasion to mention the bail system and the possibility that there are some shortcomings in it, and I recei ved an

article which I am sure the Honourable Minister will be glad to rea d in due time, when he has time, an

article prepared by Caleb Foote, profes sor of the University of Pennsylvania Law School on the bail system and equal justice. He starts out with a rather interesting quotation which I would like to read, Mr. Chairman. "The prosec ution in a murder case must at once demand bail from the defendant, and the latter shall provide three substantial securities as approved by the Court of the Judge s in such case, who guarantee to produce him at the trial, and if a man be unwilling or unable to provide these sureties the Co urt must take , bind and keep him and produce him at the trial of the, case.

I think that' s a statement of the philosophy of bail as it is today, and I don't know whether it's disturbing or comforting to realize that this was said some 2300 years ago by Plato, and I wonder whether he had quite the full approach to this problem." This article, which is lengthy and which I don't intend to quote further, deals with a study that was made in both New York City and in Philade lphia on the purpose and use of bail and the misuse of bail, and it points out the danger that the allegiance to the presumption of in nocence as a basic foundation of the protection of society is sometimes contradicted by the exces sive use, or the use of excess ive bail, and the study that was made was made in order to ascert ain just what the impact of bail was and whether it accomplished its purpose .

Now the conclusions to which they came point out that there are very serious deficien cies in the pre -trial release in these two citie s. It speaks of the fact that many defendants were unable to furnish bail even when the amount set was nominal. A large per centage , some 28 percen t in New York of those held in $500 bail couldn't raise it and were kept in ja il, and this is for minor offences.

As the amount of bail required rises above $1, 000 the likelihood that a defendant will obtain pre -trial release drops sharply, indica ting that -- and these statis-, tics I think are interesting-- 45 percen t cannot obtain release at a $1 500 bail, 63 percent at

15 14 April 12th, 1965 (:MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) ..•..•. a $2500 bail, 75 percen t at a $5000 bail, 86 perce nt at a $7500 bail, and they find that the statistics are pretty high in all cases in both citi es . Now he states that bail is supposed to be set in an amount sufficient to ensure the de - fendant's prese nce in court. This is the only standard, and suggests further that bail should be set no higher than is required for this purpose, and now I'm quoting for two or three sen tences, Mr.

Ch airman: "Our law does not sanction punishment before trial or deliberate denial ofpre-trialrelease because an alleged offender may be regarded as a potential reci divist or as otherwise undesira ble in the eyes of the Judge . To make the determ ination of the amount of bail which is required to ensure appeara nce for trial, the court is supposed to make an individual study of ea ch accused. All releva nt factors should be weighed, including the obvious one of the accused's financial ability.

" He says further: "If a defendent has lived and worked in the same community for a number of years and is currently employed, if he has a family with whom he lives, if he belongs to a church or a union or other social organization, he would appear to be a good bail risk, almost without regard to the crime with which he is charge d. " I don't want to quote further f�om this, Mr. Chairman.

You can see it is a lengthy article, but it's concluding sentence states That if expedience -- in regard to bail and easier release -- are "insuff icient to bring all accused to justice, it must be remembered that the bail system itself rests on the premise that conditional release on bail is a calculated ri·sk which the law takes as the price of our system of justice ," and here he quotes Mr . Justice Jackson in the United States Supreme Court case. · Now I would like to know, Mr.

Ch airma n, whether a study has been made by the At torney-Gen eral's Department of the impact of bail, of the nature in which bail is set and the rese arch which is done --or the inve stigation rather; that's a better word-- which is done into each individual case as is suggested in this article. It is my impress ion that there's a pretty superficial decis ion, or pretty superficial review made of a case. in question before bail is suggeste d.

I'm not saying "set" but "suggested, " and I know that there is a gre at deal of in vestig ation when the accused has a lawyer appearing and arguing his case for him, but I am conce rned about the manner in which bail is set in the very first day, right after the arrest --just how is it determ ined; what investiga tion take s place; and I would like to suggest that a study such as this one from which I am quoting would be made in this area, or would be made in Ca nada.

I do not believe that the excesses that are referred to in this report exist here, and for that reason I have stayed away from quoting the startling statements that some judges in New Yc,rk or Philadelphia are -- well, did make, in connection with bail setting. I don't want this to be taken out of perspective .

I'm not making any general accusation in order just to arouse the fire of the Attorney-Genera l but I would like to ask -- he is in no mood for fire, I see -- I would like to ask whether an inve stigation is made on occas ion, whether one has been made, or whether one is contemplated, to make sure that the rights of the man who cannot or does not engage legal help are fully protected and I mean that in the lesser case s. I've re cei ved letters --well, and so have we all, I suppose-- from Headingley complaining about bail bei ng set that was so high that the man couldn't get out.

One man here ref ers to the fact that he 's been in ja il --this letter is dated in April -- he says he's been in ja il since February 8, 1965, on a charge of brea king and entering of which he says he is innocent. But in any event, that was February 8th -- March, April, two months have gone by and he states in his letter- and again, I don't know his particular case and I'm just suggesting that inve stigations are im portant. He states in his letter that bail was set too high and that he is not a we althy man, but he is a married man with a seven year old son.

He was working at the time o£ his arrest and he states where he was workin g, · "thi s job now lost because of my arrest, " and he is in ja il. Now, he may well be guilty, but I doubt, I doubt very much if a man with a wife and a seven ye ar old . child, a man who has a job, would skip out and would be lost to society by his desire to avoid a trial. I would like to hear what inve stigation is being made and has been made, in terms of the pres ent practices in regard to bail. · MR. McLEAN: Mr.

Chairma n, I would say that the most re cent decision of the courts which outlines the basis oil which the Department proceeds, is set out in a decisi on, written decisi on, of the Honourable Mr. Justice Monnin of the Court of Appeal in the case of Rogway and Opicnic, and the Qile�il. And fu this d ecisio �, His Lordship reviews the 1aw and the pra CtiCe and set's out the considera tions that should apply in the case of applications for bail; and this "is the basis upori which the Department proceeds. ·H is Lordship sets out eight items

April 12th, 1965 1515 (MR. McLEAN cont'd) .•..•.. which are to be considered in applying for bail, pointing out that one of the consider ations is of course the basic test, as he calls it, is whether or not the ac cused will appear for trial. But that is not the only consideration; and then His Lordship goes on to set out the matters which are to be considered, including the matters to which reference has been made by the Honourable the Member for St. Joh n's. It's a rather different approach, I think, than the

article to which he ref ers. I received a copy of the len gthy document from Mr. Turner as I'm sure the Honourable the Member for St. John's did. I thought I had it with me but I seem to have mislaid it for tonight . However, happily, I don't have to answer, Mr. Chairman, fpr what goes on in the United States. It's bad enough what goes on in Manitoba. This matter of -- and perhaps I should say that His Lordship Mr. Justice Monnin sets forth in his judgment here, the cases which are the guiding cases, the decided cases of our courts which are followed.

Now, all I want to say is that while this wouldn't qualify as a study, but it 's a pretty thoughtful outline of the consid e rations which I believe ought to be follow�d and thi s is the basic document which is followed by the members of the Department of the Attorne y-General · in matters of this sort, that is, so far as the Crown Attorneys are concerned. Now, we do not tell the magistrates or the Justices of the Peace, what the bail shall be, but our repre sen tatives enslire that as far as possi ble the correct principles are applied.

There is always a difference, and I would be very foolish not to acknowledge it, between perhaps that person whb is able to secure counsel, who may be vigorous in pre senting the claims for bail and the person who does not have the benefit of counsel. However, I think we mustn't let this get out of proportion.

Virtually the only people who are in custody pending or awaiting trial are those who are charged with the most serious offences and to perhaps allow the impress ion to be created that large numbers of people charged with pe rhaps not so serious offences are lan guishing in custody because they can't get bail is perhaps not quite the impress ion, I am sure, that the honourable the members wish to leave .

In othe r words, people oftentimes --:-I'm sure that if one were to make a survey, you would find that those who are in custody awaiting trial are those who · are charged with serious offences, people who have perhaps a lengthy criminal record, people indeed who may have a record of having not complied with previous bail bonds; and when you'v e taken these folks into account, you've probably got pretty well all of the folks who are in custody awaiting the ir first trial.

And I just put that to the committee that I'm con sci ous of the importance of this, but I wouldn't want it to be distorted out of its proper perspe c - tive and just make that comment. · The othe r comment, and we try our very best to be particularly concerned about people who have not been perhaps represented by counsel, and who are in custody for maybe a longer pe riod than pe rhaps we would think ought to be the case, and I have be.en assured and indeed I am satisfied that the Crown does eve rything possi ble to ensure that where bail cannot be ar ranged, that the trial is brought on as quickly as possi ble .

Tha t's the one othe r thing we can do; and that is to have the adjudication as quickly as it is possi ble to do so and so we do move up those cases to the head of the list, or almost the head of the list, whenever we can. And we check with one another frequently, and I wouldn't say that our checking system is absolutely perfect, but we try to do our very best in that regard. This is not to say that the inves tigation which the Honourable Member for St. John' s says ought to be held, shouldn't take place. I'm quite willing to do that.

I think it's much more to the point to direct our attention to those people who are in custody awaiting trial be cause by and large, even in the short time since I was practis ing law, I'm sure that the condi tions of getting bail have been relaxed very greatly. I see people being released on bail now under conditions that would never have pertained even eight years ago and I speak from some pers onal experience; and I have the imp ression that it's a relatively easy matter except, as I say, in those cases where there are some serious conditions assoc iated with the case itself. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to thank the Honourable Minister for his statement. I do apprecia te the thought he has given to it and I share with him the desire not to take this problem out of perspect ive or proportion. I'm looking forward to see ing a further report on such studies to justify the statement that he has made, that it happens only in a small number of the cases. I hope that's true.

I don't question that it is true; I just would like to see that we can be assured that it 's so by a statistical study showing the nature of the crimes charged, the si ze of the bail, and the percentage that are unable to raise the bail, so that we can reassure ourselves that this is so. A..."!d as I say, I really have no doubt that it's so, but it would be comforting to have that info rmation.

15 16 April 12th, 1965 MR o GUTTORMSON: Mro Chairma n, the Minister indicated to an earlier question that he couldn't give me a bre akdown on the salaries to the John Howard Society. Would he be kind enough to undertake that and give it to me at a later date when he is able to obtain it ? MR . McLEAN: Mr. Chairm an, I wouldn't like to give that undertaking, prim arily be cause I do not think I have any right to ask for it.

The John Howard and Eliza beth Fry Society is a pri vate organiza tion, that is pri vate insofar as the Legislature is concerned, and I would have to say that I'd rather be in the position of not having to ask them for the information. I think they could deny it to me. It might embarrass them and me and every body else o I would prefer not. I think if that information is desired that perhaps the Honourable the Member for St. Georg e perhaps ought to seek it through the Society . MR . GUTTORMSON: Mro Chairma n, the fact remains that this legislative government is making a gr ant of $17, 400 to the organization.

Surely they are entitled to know how the money is being spent if they're making the grant to this organization. Therefore I feel that we are entitled to know this information. MR . McLEAN: Mr. Chairma n, that's a good argument. I would have to point out, of course, that out of say, $48, 000, the Province of Manitoba is only providing $17, 500 whateve r the figure is, and I'm not too ce rtain that that entitles us to it. But this is a two-edged sword, Mr o Chairman.

If we become involved in the -- shall we say the detailed administration of the John Howard and Elizabeth Fr y Society, then of course that gives them every reason in the world for saying, "Well, our salaries are not high enough; we now want more money . Since you've indicated your interest, we now want more money in order to pay higher salari es" , or I whatever the case might be . And I would be bound to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think it would be unwise for us to become involved in that kind of arra ngement.

We don't do it with re spect to any of the many associa tions to which grants are made in one form or another by and through the various departments o And I think I would have to decline . MR . GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairma n, I can see there are arguments supporting what the Mini ster has said, but on the other hand, -how are the members of this House to know whether they should approve of this money going to this society? I mean, I'm not saying it shouldn't or it should, but I feel we 're entitled to know how the money is being spent by this organization; and 17, 000, it 's a third of their budget.

Surely we 're entitled to know how this money is being spent. Members might feel after they know, that they don't want to give any more; or they mi ght want to give more; I don't know, but I still feel we 'r e entitled to know in view of the fact this money is being granted to the Society. MR . WRIGH T: Mr. Chairma n, I would like to ask the Honourable the Attorney-General if the pay for jurors has been increased from $9. 00 per day. The rate of pay for jurors, has it been increased from $9. 0 0? MR . McLEAN: I might have known, Mr. Chairman, that the Honourable Member would have asked me that question.

No, there has been no increase in the rate of pay for jurors. No, it 's the same . MR . WRIGHT: 'Mr. Chairma n, in April 10, 1962 , I raised this question and the Winnipeg Fr ee Press on the 11th carried the story and quoted the Attorney-General Sterling Lyon; at the time he agreed that the matter might have to be looked at again and I thought at the time that he was quite sympathetic to the idea because I made the point that times have changed espec ially so now, Mr . Chai rman, with the additional taxes.

Many people who are chosen for jury duty come from our lower income groups and I suggested a fee of $2. 00 per hour or $16 . 00 a day. Many of our people in industry are called upon to serve on juries and they are quite willing to do this little bit for their province but I suggest that it 's asking a little too much bec ause in this day and age of close budgets, when people have to pay their mortg age on time re gardless of how much money they make , they have to be very careful as to the financing. I would suggest that I think it 's time now for the government to consider raisi ng this $9.00 per day fee.

I think it's long overdue , In fact the Winnipeg Tri bune also carried an editorial, or at least an articl e on its editorial page in March, 1963, pointing out that jury: re form was much overdue.

It was commenting at the time that I mentioned the fact that a juror had been asked to sit on two consecutive murder tria ls but along with that it pointed out other complaints of jurors; and I want to sincerely suggest to the Attorney-G eneral that if I'm here next year I'd like to ask this question and find out that the government has given some sympa thetic conside ration to it because many people are adversely affected by this $9. 00 per day jury fee because many of them sit for many days on a jary .

April 12th, 196 5 15 17 MR . FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sort of interested in what the Honourable Member for St. George had to say in connection with the grants made to these organizations. I hope we're not setting a precedent here when the Minister refuses or says that this should not be of our concern or that .we should not have access to this information.

I for one feel that if we 're passing items here involving certain sums of money as grants to organizations certainly the members of this House should know for what purpose this is going, how it is spent and whether this is a fair grant that we're giving, and so on, and I for one certainly would think that we as members should have every right to question these items. MR . CHAIRMAN: 5 (a) (2) passed; MR .

SMERC HANSKI: I'm wondering if the Honourable Minister could give us some explanation as to the amount that is allotted for the ground search and rescue operations be cause under the Provincial Secretary's Estimates we had a certain amount of money allotted for this purpose through the Emergency Measures and then the Department of Health that we just recently passed we also had Emergency Transportation and then we also have got the RCA F Rescue Arm and it seems to me that this is coming from some four or five different sources.

Is there any type of co-ordination that is undertaken and I think it would be desirable to have this co-ordination under one department, one group, if it is applied to the same pur pose ? MR . GRAY: I'd like to make my same request that I've made for years here, that the Cr own Attorneys should not be called any more Prosecutors and cut out the word everywhere where there is prosecution.

It is not a modern word for a Crown Attorney who is the re not to prose cute, who is there not to convict an accused, but is there for the purpose of finding out all the facts of the accused and present it to the jury or the judge and I think it's time now in the twentieth century where we are making considerable progress in everything, except in the international diplomatic situation, I think it's time now to, not to be called the Crown Prose cutors but call him the Crown Attorney same as they do in the United States.

He's the At torney for the state or for the people, people's attorney, and I think it's time enough for so called progressive government here to do the same thing. MR . McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Honourable Member for Inkster and we use the term Crown Attorney now. I very seldom hear the term Cr own Prosecutor used, certainly so far as the Department is concerned. The item on ground search and rescue operation, Mr. Chairman, is only $500 .0 0. In actual, I just noticed .the actual expenditure for the last year that's noted in my book, which was 1963-64, was $9 8. 00.

Obviously it isn't a very large item and I would assume that this is just in connection with some emergency matter that comes under our jurisdi ction, related to policing. MR . CHAIRMAN: 5 (a) (2) pass ; (3) --pass; (4) --pass; (5) --pass; (b) (1) --pass. MR . CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I had occasion just a few minutes ago to deal with letters which I had received from Headingley Jail.

I found not only the written portion inter esting but also the printed portion on the back and not having a regular correspondence with inmates, I didn't have occasion to read the back of this until now and I'd like to draw the at tention of this committee, and of the Honourable Minister, to the back of the letter which no doubt he sees frequently. This is obviously a letterhead which is supplied to inmates. I sup pose it's chemically treated in some way to make sure that it is quite pure in all respects, and on the p-ack are printed instructions headed: "Provincial Jail, EJD, Headingley, Manitoba.

" Large Print. ''Newspapers are allowed only by subsc ription from the Jail. No detective or sexy type magazines allowed." Under parcels: "Inmates are not permitted to receive parcels containing, candy, gum, toothpaste or powder, ready-made cigarettes or food supplies. They are however allowed to receive fresh fruit and tobacco with the exception of grapefruit, cante loupe, coconuts, watermelon, etcetera. " -- (Interjection)-- There's no exclusion of hacksaws in this letter, no. Nothing here about that --apparently it's not denied. Under visits, Mr.

Chairman, "Only members of the immediate family of the inmate are permitted to make visits . Cousins, uncles, aunts or girl friends are not permitted to make visits . During the period in which the Assize Court is in session in Winnipeg, visits will not be perm itted to (

a) inmates awaiting trial, (

b) sentenced to the Penitentiary, (

c) detained pending the hearing of an appeal, and (

d) held by Immigration authorities. " That isn't all, Mr. Chairman, That's just some of the sentences I took out of it. There must be a reason for everything that's done and there must be a reason for all the prohibitions set out in this form but I wonder if the Honourable Minister would care to explain some of them to me . I don't

15 18 April 12th, 1965 (MR. CHERNIACKcont'd) ....... really undeTstand why candy, gum, toothpaste, ready··m ade cigarettes are not permitted,

whereas fresh fruit and ·tobacco is permitted, although it says food supplies are not permitted and yet it says that fresh fruit is permitted, with the exception of grapefruit, canteloupe, coconuts, watermelons, etcetera, not being permitted. I'm sure that this would prove of some interest to us to understand the reasonings for it. What I think is. more serious, Mr. Chairman, is the question of visits.

The fact that girl friends are not permitted; girl friends seem to me to be people who may be almost brides, or almost wives, and I wonder that an inmate is denied the privilege of seeing people other than his immediate family. I wonder too why a group of inmates are not permitted visits during the Assize Co urt and I hope that the Honourable Minister can clarify the reasoning behind these prohibitions. MR. GRAY: Before the Minister answers, I want to ask, --call his attention to another item. In the Public Accounts we find for instance; and you can find them all over, but take for instance the first item (a).

They have here an expenditure of automobiles, $9, 000. 00, over $9, 000 .0 0. A jail I consider is for two purposes; punishment is one, and rehabilitation is another and the prisoners should get as much education as possible in jail so that it would be easier to rehabilitate them. Now I see an item on Page 133 (

a) Automobiles $9, 000. 00; books, newspapers and periodi cals $61. 00. Now how many books and how many periodicals and how much education and how much preparation when he's released can you give a man for $61 . 00 ? MR. HRYHORCZU K: Mr. Chairman, before the Minister gets up I suppose it's just as well that we make our comments on this particular item all at one time. I wish to refer in particular to a press release, one of those propaganda sheets so commonly known. --(Interjec tion)-- It should be pink but I don't think it is .

This was released by the Provincial Secretary on December ll th, 1964, and deals with the rehabilitation camps established in the Duck Mountains and in the Whiteshell Forest Reserve and I have no choice, Mr. Chairman, as much as I dislike doing this, but I have to take issue with some of the information here and I was just wondering whether the Honourabh Minister had checked the information in this release before it was published. The first paragraph reads "The Manitoba Government prisoner rehabilitation program in operation since 1961, has helped prepare l, 500 men for life and work outs ide of the prison walls.

" Then it goes on to say how much they have earned, and they earned $69, 00 0 in wages at 75� a day, means that they earned an average of $46. 00 on their stay and the average stay was 60 days. Well I doubt whether a very large percentage of these people could be taught and be prepared for life and work outside of the prison walls in 60 days unless the Honourable Minister has some exceptionally good talent there that is teaching them how to live outside the prison walls and how to work. Now there's no question, Mr.

Chairman, that they do a necessary bit of work and I think the program insofar as the work that they accomplish in these camps are concerned is very good; that is the matter of clearing road allowances and so forth and so on, I think it's a good idea to keep them busy and make them useful. · It states further, however, that, arid I quote again, the second paragraph, "It has also accomplished extensive face lifting and beautification of provincial parks and recreation areas and has provided a valuable standby force of "disci-� plined" firefighters.

" Now, if the word "disciplined" wasn't in there, I would agree with that statement. But I'm quite sure that under no stretch of the imagination can they be termed as "disciplined firefighters". But that isn't the main matter in this that I take issue with. It's the following statement, and I quote, "The trainees, all good conduct volunteers nearing the end of their prison term" --now, watch the wording-- "The trainees, all good conduct volun teers nearing the end of their prison term ".

Well, I know for ·a fact that there are many in these camps that go there almost immediately after sentencing, and not because of being good conduct prisoners . Not only that, Mr. Chairman, if I hadn't seen this article, I wouldn't state what I learned last summer. I'd just keep it to myself. But I have no choice here. I think I should divulge it for the information of the committee. I know for a fact that there was a 13- year old boy and a 14-year old boy in the Cache Lake Camp.

Well, you can hardly call them "good conduct volunteers", or call them "disciplined firefighters" ; or one of the fifteen, or two of the fifteen hundred men that were prepared for life and work, I don't think that children of this age should be found in those camps, immaterial of how good the services are, or how good . the accommodations are. I think it's a mis take. I don't know how many more there were; but Mr. Chairman, I met these two lads myself and I was very much surprised when I fotilid that they were incarcerated in this so-called rehabilitation came at Cache Lake.

April 12th, 1965 1519 (MR. HRYHORCZU K con t'd) , ..• ,, In this particUlar release there's one other item that I'd like a little information on. At Cache Lake, the inmates are given credit with planting 122, 000 shrubs in what is to be a tree nursery, and also 133, 000 shrubs in a refore station project. I'd like to know where this was . Where were these trees planted in the Duck Mountains ? Their location. MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, I woUld have to confess and disappoint the Honourable Member for St.

John's and say that of all the letters I receive from people in various jails, I have really never paid that close attention to the back of the lAtter, that he has; and I thank him for having directed my attention to it. I think.the explanation woUld be simply that those who are charged with the administration and disci pline of the ja ils have felt that the rUles indicated are necessary for the proper operation, safe operation of the institutions concerned, That is not to say that some of them don't need to be changed in the light of modern circums tances; and we'll certainly be glad to have a look at it.

But I'm aware that perhaps various means known of course particUlarly to people who are engaged in this kind of work, the various means that are sometimes used for the transmis sion of drugs or equipment of one sort and another, is transmitted by way of food or whatever the case might be . And, as I say, I can only assume that these are rUles which have been developed in the course of the administration of these jails.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	27-4-59
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	27th 4th hansardpdf 59.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ccf182c89211ca0b5bc6317ac9cf5ca7a2398265

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