Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 48 (27th Legislature, 2nd Session)

27-2-48

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF lYIANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Thursday, March 19, 1964. Opening Prayer by Madam Speaker. J.liiADAM SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees HON. STERLING R. LYON, Q. C. (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources)(Fort Garry): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources. MR . CLERK: Your Standing Com,mittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources beg leave to present the following as their first report.

Your Committee met for organization and appointed Honourable Mr. Lyon as Chairman. Your Committee recommends that for the remainder of this Session the quorum of this Committee shall consist of nine members. Your Committee met on Thursday, March 12th, 1964, and on Thursday, March 19, 1964. Your Committee has examined the 12th Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro Electric Board for the year ended March 31, 1963; and the Annual Report of the Manitoba Telephone System for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, as published.

Your committee received all information desired by any member from Heads of the Utilities above mentioned anq their staffs with re spect to matters pertainin g to the reports and business of these Utilities. The fullest opport unity was accorded to all members of the Committee to seek any information desired. Your Committee has considered Bills No. 37,

an Act to amend The Manitoba Telephone Act; No. 38,

an Act to amend The Manitoba Hydro Act; and has agreed to report the same without amend ment. A 11 of which is respectfully submitted. MR . LYON: Madam Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, that the report of the Committee be received. · Madam Speaker presented the motion. MR . GILDAS MOLGAT (Leader of the Opposition) (Ste.Rose): Madam Speaker, I'd like to make it very clear that insofar as the report of this Committee I do not agree with the two Bills.

And one of the statements, if I remember correctly, although I do not have the written copy of the statement made -- none by the way was asked in the Committee -- no such report was passed by the committee. This is a report that has been made exclusively by the Chair man of that Committee, and I want to point that out most clearly, Madam Speaker, that he has made some statements there of an extended nature on his own.

Insofar as the information obtained from the members of the commission who were there, certainly there was no attempt to hold back any information, this I agree; but I want to make it very clear, Madam Speaker, that because these gentlemen were present at that committee and because these gentlemen answered questions will in no way relieve the Minister, when we come along to the Public Utilities department, from being questioned and, I trust, answering questions from any mem ber of this House. MR.

RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the New Democratic Party) (Radisson): Madam Speaker·, I think maybe I should make a brief statement on the committee and the condnct. in the committee. I might say that as far as I was concerned as a member of the committee, and I'm sure that I'm speakin g for my colleagues that were on the committee, we appreciated very much the fact that we had an opportunity at VE'lry close hand to ask any questions that we des ired of the gentlemen who are charged with operating the Manitoba Hydro and also the Manitoba Telephone System.

As a matter of fact I was moved this morning, Madam Speaker, to com pliment particularly the management of the Manitoba Telephone System on the manner in whiCh they're operating this great utility in the PrC>vince of Manitoba. Many members of course of the House are not on that committee and they didn't have the opportunity as we had, being members of the committee, to see that insofar as telephone rates are concerned -- and I suggest that this is an area where we can make comparisons on a uniform basis across Canada, different from comparisons in Hydro rates.

In telephone rates at least we can make comparisons of prices, and we were very very pleased to see that where the telephone system is operated as a public utility the rates are considerably lower than those in other jurisdictions that are operated under so-called free enterprise private management, and I think it's only proper for me, Madam Speaker, to point this out to the House. March 19, 1964 Page 1257

(Mr. Paulley, cont•d ). .. I Now I don't agree also with everything that was said in the report of the committee, and I do wish we had of had an opportunity of hearing the report. Once again I rise to say that I support the bills with· the amendments that will make this an annual set-up, where automatically the members of the two utilities will be appearing before the committee as to their conduct over the past year. I only wish, Madam Speaker, quite frankly, that we wo�ld have the same opportunity in respect of natural gas in the Province of Manitoba.

I think it would be a lovely thing and a forward-looking situation in the Province of Manitoba if we were able to call the management of a publicly-operated natural gas u:tility before the committee of this House, and I trust and hope that before too long that we of the New Democratic Party will be able to convince the government- or become the governri1ent of Manitob�. -- in order that the natural gas utility will come under public ownership in order that we' may exploit fully the development of this great natural resource which we find so abtmdant in Canada, but �nfortul1ately not too abundant as yet in the Province of Manitoba.

So I say, Madam Speaker, I'm glad to have this opportunity of speaking on our public utilities. I presume that there is no inJ:lication because of the receipt of the report from the committee that if any question aris53s during further deliberations in this House that it is nec essary for the committee to reconvene to hear the experts of the utilities, Pm sure that-- at least I hope that this will be donE). MR D. L. CAMPBELL (Lakeside): Madam Speaker, may I ask a question of the Honour-: able Leader of the New Democratic Party?

I would like to ask the Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party if he was suggesting a little while ago that this House does not have the right to call the natural gas people in front of a committee if they wish to. And I'd like to ask him further, if he's of the opinion that they should be called here, why has he not taken some. action to ask this House to refer that matter to the committee and have them called? MR.

PAULLEY: Madam Speaker, I am of the opinion, and possibly wrong, that because of the gas utility being operated as a private enterprise that the only people we could call pro perly without special directive before this committee would be members of the Public Utility Board, in answer to any questions of discussions that they've had with the natural gas utility. I may be wrong in this and if I am wrong, I'd be glad to be corrected.

However, my main point, Madam Sp eaker, insofar as the gas utility is concerned and my remarks previously made, was to once again draw to the attention of this House the desirability, at least in our opinion in the New Democratic Party, of the gas utility being publicly owned. I don't know if these are the answers which will be satisfactory to my honourable friend, but this mainly \;.ras the reason for me mentioning the gas utility.

Again I confess I do not know whether we as a Committee of the Legislature have the right to call the President and management of the Greater Winnipeg Gas Company to appear before a committee of the Legislature, but rather do it through the Utility Board insofar as setting of rates and the likes of that is concerned. MR. CAMPBELL: Madam Speaker, I'm afraid to ask my honom·able friend another question because I recognize only too well that some of that natural gas that is produced in the Province of Manitoba would be forthcoming in this Chamber.

And so instead of asking another question, I would simply rise to inform my honourable friend that he should not forget that in the spheres, that have been allocated to it, the Province of Manitoba is .a sovereign body and they have the right to call any of these companies and any of their officials before it, public or private. lVIR. PAULLEY: My impression, if I may, Madam Speaker, the answer would be "Yes", providing it was by special directive of the Legislature of Manitoba. I doubt, however, whether this falls into the ambit of just automatically calling them before the Public utility Committee. MR.

CAMPBELL: Madam Speaker, the rules say that the only time that you can speak twiCe on the same subject is if your remarks were misunderstood or wrongly interpreted. My honourable friend certainly misunderstood what I was telling him, because I made it very plain to him that the fact was that it would be this House t)lat would have to give the direction. And providing my honourable friend has learned that lesson today, here endeth the first lesson. HON.

DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, it appears that the only people who can speak twice in the House are the Honourable Member for Lakeside and the Hon ourable Member for Transcona, because they're quite accustomed to doing that kind of thing. I don't wish to make any extended remarks on this occasion, merely to say that the government Page 1258 March 19, 1964

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) .. . will continue to discharge its full responsibility in connection with these utilities in Chamber and elsewhere as it has on previous occasions undertaken to do, and I wish there to be no misunderstanding on this point whatsoever.

May I say that I am personally well pleased with the work that the committee has done to date in examining the affairs of these two utiliti.es and I'm happy to know that after the bills con cerned receive Royal Assent, as I trust they will, that this will be an annual procedure and we will have this opportunity, by statute, every year to make sure this job is done. Madam Speaker put the question anci after a voice vote declared the motion carried.

MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion Introduction of Bills Before the Orders of the Day, I would like to attract your attention to the gallery where there there are 45 Grade 7 and 8 students from Stoney Mountain School under the direction of their teachers, Mr. Kerr and Mrs. Lee. This school is situated in the constituency of the Hon ourable the Minister of Agriculture. There are 38 Grade 6 students from West St. Paul School under the direction of their teachers, Mr. Batters hill and Mr. Clark and this school is also situated in the constituency of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

We welcome you here this afternoon. We hope that all that you see and hear in this Legislat;i.•;e Assembly will be of help to you in your studies. May this visit be an inspiration to you and stimulate your interest in provincial affairs. Come back and visit us again. MR . ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, before you call the Orders of the Day, the House might wish me to give a short statement on my visit yesterday in Ottawa with the Prime Minister in connection with the TCA problem. If that is agreeable I will merely say that I had two purposes in mind in visiting the Prime Minister on this occasion and about this matter.

The first was to clarify, if that could possibly be done, what the actual undertakings of the Federal Government were with respect to the TCA base and how those undertakings were being carried out. The second thing that I wanted to do was to try and find some new opening, some new approach to this problem to see whether we could not move forward in some constructive way to preparing for the future growth and development of that base.

It is of course inappropriate that I should give this House an account of my discussions with the Prime Minister but I want to say that they were very frank, very forthright and, I am bound to add, very friendly, and as a result of my conversations with him I posed three quest ions which I propose to read to the House, and they are in the following terms:

(1) In terms of - and these are questions addressed by me to the Prime Minister -- In terms of your statements in Parliament, what undertakings do you consider to have given about the maintenance of employment at the Winnipeg TCA overhaul base?

(2) Have these undertakings of the Federal Government been reflected in TCA p::�licy re employment and transfers at the Winnipeg overhaul base? And

(3) In view of Federal Government policy to encourage development of regional air centres, will the Fe deral Government, in co-operation with the Province of Manitoba, direct a study into the decisions to transfer TCA facilities from Winnipeg including a consideration and evaluation of the Dixon-Speas Report and of proposals for the future development of the Winnipeg base?

I am glad to say that while I was not able -- in fact it would be unreasonable to expect that I should be -- not able to receive answers to these three questions at the time of our meeting, I have been informed by the Prime Minister that we may expect to hear his replies to these questions very shortly, and I believe that to be so. I am hopeful that from his answers we may be able to discern the next step, not only in dealing with the current problem at that base but what is ��eh m9re �mport<tnt, getting down to brass tacks on our developmental plans for Winnipeg in this respect in the years that lie ahead. HON.

STEW ART E. McLEAN Q. C. (Attorney-General) (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I wish to table the Return to an Order of the House, No .. 23, on the motion of the Honourable the Member for St. George made the 28th :r·ebruary, 1964. Madam Speaker, I have .received replies from the Chief Justices, which I would now like to read to the members of the House. The first is a reply from the Chief Justice of Manitoba addressed to myself as Attorney-General. It reads as follows: "D ear Mr. Attorney: Your letter of March 12th with enclosures received. I have perused the material forwarded.

All the cases mentioned in your letter originated in the Court of Queen's Bench and the only one that came before us was the first More case. Chief Justice Tritschler advises me that he is replying March 19, 1964 Page 1259

Mr. McLean, cont'd). .. to your communication at some length. This seems to me more fitting as the proceedings being discussed were in the Queen's Bench. I will confine myself to gener alities. "I have read the comments of Mr. Guttormson, as reported in Debates and Proceedings on pages 882 to 886, 895 to 896, 899, 900 and 919. He does not specifically allege anything that would constitute a charge of secret, surreptitious or dishonest conduct, but the use of the word "deal" and similar references might imply that the member is of the opinion that the arrange ments made were improper.

I would say, both as a lawyer and as one of Her Majesty's judges, that since I have been practising law, and insofar as I know, every since criminal jurisprudence has assumed any. semblance of system, there has been in the courts of this country, and I fancy in Great Britain also, incidents similar to the type of arrangement made in the instance raised in the complaint of Mr. Guttormson. There is nothing secret or furtive about these arrange ments. There are made openly and aboveboard and I am quite sure with the interests of justice always uppermost in mind.

"The suggestion for a reduced plea originates with counsel, usually experienced counsel, and may emanate from either counsel for the defence or for the Crown. Each counsel has a duty to the public. Each has a duty to the accused and each has a duty to the Court. I doubt if the approval of the Court is required with respect to arrangements made, but certainly if the judge involved felt there was a miscarriage of justice in a proposed reduction of the charge, or that it was improper, the Court would in my opinion be justified in intervening.

"The Crown has not only a right but a duty to the accused, and in the interests of justice generally to reduce a serious charge to a less serious one if Crown Counsel becomes convinced that an accused should not be placed in jeopardy in respect of a more serious charge. In my opinion, from the institution of proceedings until the matter is placed in the hands of jury, the Crown Counsel, has a duty to give continuous thought to this important feature of our criminal trials and should not hesitate to take the initiative towards a reduction of the charge.

The mere fact that a serious charge, say capital murder, has been.preferred by the Crown and a prelimin ary hearing held, and even a jury trial commenced, does not relieve Crown Co:msel from his responsibility' to reduce the charge to a proper one if the evidence being adduced so indicates.

"It is not only the right of the Attorney-General's departmental officials but in most cases their responsibility and duty to decide what charge, or charges should be laid against an accused person initially and whether, during the various stages of the proceedings against the accused, any reduction in the charge should be made. "The administration of justice, as we all know, lies in the hands of the Attorney-General and his officers.

These men must act fairly and honestly, but they must be able to perform their duties as responsible officers of the Cro\vn without being limited in the exercise of a reasonable and proper discretion as to what charges should be laid and as to what charges should be maintained and proceeded with; and, if necessary, when and on what charges pleas of guilty should be accepted. "The assertion made by Mr. Guttormson that the Attorney-General and his officers are substituting their opinion and judgment for the verdict of a jury has no meaning.

The jury can decide only what is submitted to them and it is the Attorney-General's duty and responsibility, acting usually through his Crown officials, to decide the conduct of the proceedings on behalf of the Crown, and it is within the range of the responsibilities of the Attorney-General's department to decide when and what pleas of guilty offered by an accused person should be accepted, unless of course the accused pleads guilty to the original charge laid by the Crown. · "To circumscribe the authority of the Crown in this field would not be, in my opinion, in the interests of justice.

The Crown now has more latitude in homicide cases than formerly. If the Crown felt it could not satisfy the heavy onus of establishing that a murder was planned and deliberate, the essential ingredients of a capital murder charge, then it seems to me that the ends of justice would be normally served by accepting the plea of guilty of non-capital murder which carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

"The amended code, which creates two types of murder, makes it fairly difficult for the Cro\vn to secure a conviction for capital murder, which carries the penalty of death, when the jury has the option of bringing in a verdict of not guilty of capital murder but guilty of non capital murder or, alternatively, manslaughter. This is so because the Crown has the onus Page 1260 March 19, 1964

(M r. McLean, cont'd) ... in a capital mu rder ca se of establ is hing a planned and deliber at e mu rder. In the days prio r to this legislation when th e alte rnatives were murder and man sla ught er only, th e Crow n wo uld natu rally be mo re reluctant to ac cept a reduced plea, but now there ar e tw o types of mu rder av ailable for the Crown's consideration in ad diti on to man sla ught er. Yours tru ly, C. C. Miller, C. J. M.

" I hav e received this seco nd letter from the Chi ef Justi ce of Ma nito ba , al so addressed to myse lf as Attorney-Ge neral, whic h reads :as follow s: "I sent over my letter yeste rday af te r noon . I noti ced that the papers have suggested this was a judicial enquiry. I thin k that that is exa ggerating the object of your lett ers to th e Chief Jus ti ces .

It see ms to me it wa s more in the natu re of a request for an opinio n as to wh eth er or not th ere had been impro pe r prac ti ces in th e courts in so far as Crown offic ers were concerned and pa rti cula rly as regar ds certain sp ecifi ed ca se s. "Your letter to me in di cat ed I wa s to ans we r it as Chi ef Ju sti ce and you ar e not seeking an opinio n from th e Court of Appeal as such . That is the basis upon whi ch I answered it . You gave me per mi ss io n to consult with the oth er judges as I mi ght desi re. Mr. Ju st ice Free dman is in Isra el and Mr . Ju st ice Guy is al so aw ay. Mr.

Just ice Monnin ha s pe rused the mat erial and al so my letter to you, and while expr ess ing grave doubt s as to th e pr opri ety of the matter , ag reed, as you ha d made a reques t, that I sh ould ans wer it in the ma nner in whic h I di d. Mr. Ju sti ce Schu ltz from the outse t took the po si tion that it wa s wr ong in prin ciple for th e Attor ney Ge neral to refer a matt er of current politi cal contr oversy to the Chie f Justi ce of the Provin ce for an express io n of pers onal opinio n and that you sh ould have been so ad vi s ed.

I am writing thi s letter so that there will be no mi su ndersta nding regarding th e opinion I gave as I do not wis h to give the impression that Mr. Ju sti ce Schu lt z wa s in ac cord with my replying to your letter or with what I sai d. Yours tr uly, C. C. Miller, C. J. M. " A letter from the Chief Jus ti ce of the Court of Queen's Bench, addressed to myself as Atto rney-G eneral: "Dear Mr. Attorney: Your letter of Ma rch 12th and its enclosures have been consi dered by the judges of thi s court .

We feel that be fore we answer your pa rti cular enqui ry, some general comments as to the matt er of dropping or reducing cha rges wo uld be he lpful. Alth ough th e di scus sions reveal ed by the enclosures with your letter have centred on indi ctmen ts for mu rder, the matt er of dropping cha rges or reducing the gravity of cha rges with or with out a plea of guilty to the reduced charge ha s always be en pr e sent in, an d, in our view , a pr oper par t of the general admi nis tr ation of criminal justice .

"When a perso n sus pe cted of ha ving committed an 0ffence is app rehended an d first charg ed, the pr eci se natu re and quality of th e evidence is often not known. Th e law being that a pers on may never be convic ted of an offence great er tha n the one cha rged but may some times be convicted of an offence less than that cha rged, the resu lt frequently is the initial selection of a cha rge of suffici ent grav it y which includes lesser offences or the layin g of sev eral different cha r ges.

As the time of tr ial appro ac he s, and whether the ca se is to be tr ied by a ma gis tr at e or a judge al one or a ju dge and a ju ry, the qu a ntity and quality of th e evid ence becomes more apparen t and th e stre ngth and we ak nesses of the ca se may be eval uated by counsel for th e Crown an d for the ac cused. A re- as sess me nt of the cha rges is then po ss ible and prope r. Th e ti me for re-a ssess me nt may som etim es not be reac hed until the attorneys wh o ar e to pr es ent the ca se have themselves inte rview ed the wi tnesses.

"If Crown Counsel concludes that the evidence av ailable does not support a count as grave as that cha rged but only a lesser count, he will ca use the in dictment to be reduced to a cha rge, or cha rges, whic h in his opinio n might rea s onably be supp orted by the ex pec ted evid ence. On the sam e grounds, defence counsel will often request a reducti on in the gravit y of the offence or offences cha rged. Some times a judge, ha ving consi dered the pr elimina ry enquiry evid ence, will rai se with counsel , the questi on whether th e exp ected evidence is likely to supp ort the char ge or cha rges lai d.

"Crown Counsel sh ould, and in our expe rience do, give pr oper consi derati on to the re as sess me nt of charg es . Justi ce to the ac cused demands it. We thi nk it fundamen tal that an accu sed has the right not to be put on tr ial for cha rges whi ch, on a reas onable opini on, ca nnot be supported by the exp ected evid ence. Fo r example , a per son who ha s caused th e death of an oth er in an unp remedita ted brawl , or a chance encounter whi ch cannot on the evidence am ount to more tha n manslaug hter , ha s th e right not to be put on tr ial for capital murder,. or even :March 19, 1964 Page 1261

(M r. McLean, cont'd) ... non- capital murder. "There ar e suggestions in th e mat erial you sent that if in such a ca se a cha rge of mu rder wa s ori ginally laid by th e Crow n, sh ould not, on a re- as sess me n t of the evidence reduce the charg e, and that to do so wo uld be to st rike at th e jury sys te m and to deny a jury it s suppo sed ri ght to deter min e th e fate of the accuse d . It is th e accuse d wh o ha s right s. A jud ge or jury ha s dut ies. A ju ry ha s not th e right to tr y an acc use d pe rso n, but a duty to tr y hiin if he comes to tr ial .

A jury ha s no ri ght in th e matt er of selection of charges to be pr eferred, but has a duty to co nsider such charges as may be pr eferred. It is the ri ght of an accu sed to plead guilty to any offences exc ept of course one pu nishab le by death . Thi s is wh y an accuse d ha s the . ri ght not to be faced with a charge more ser io us than is wa rranted by the expecte d evidence.

Other wi se , he is put to the jeopar dy, an guis h and ex pense of defending hi mse lf agai nst an unnecessar ily grave char ge, and is dep rived of the ri gh t which he mi ght wish to exer cise of pleading guilty to a le sser cha rge of which he consid ers him se lf to be gu ilty. · "The re are suggestions in the mater ial you sent that some injus tic e may be done an accuse d if he is per mitte d to exerci se hi s ri ght to pl ead guilty to a les ser charg e, beca use we re he forced to trial thro ugh th e Crown in sisting on a cha rge of hig her grav ity, the jury might ac quit him alt ogether.

Th e answer to this is simply that an accuse d's right to elect to plead guilty to a pr oper charge may quit e safel y be left to him and hi s co unsel to decid e, and that to force an accu sed to tr ial by unrea sonably refusing to reduce a charge de nies a fundamen tal right, Th e accu sed ha s a ri ght not to be tr ie d by jury sinc e he may plead guilty. Ex erci se of this ri ght should not be dee me d to st rik e a blo w at the jury syst em. "Of course there will frequently be room for a rea sonable di fferenc e of opinion as to the natu re of th e charge which is justi fied by th e anticipate d evid en ce.

In such a ca se , Crown Counsel will pr operly main tain the charges laid . Even then th e jury does not have th e duo/ of freely selecti ng th e offence of which th e acc used is to be found guilty. If the evid ence in th e opini on of the judge ca nnot supp ort a charg e, he has the · duty to di rect the jury acc ordingly, and th e jury ha s th e duty to follo w the judge' s di recti on. Th e judge may withd raw a charge or even the who le ca se from the jury.

"I thin k it is imp orta nt to empha size that in consid erin g th e dropping or reducing cha rges, th e nat ure of th e evid ence sh ould be th e crite ria. Such matt ers as anticipate d tr ouble and expense to the Crown of a pr otract ed trial sh ould not be a consider ati on . If, ir res pe ctive of th e time l y expense in volved by a trial the exp ecte d eviden ce in the conside red opi nion of the Crow n officers is su fficient to support the charges as laid, no reduction in charge should be ma de.

"I now deal with th e ca ses where the Crown of it s own motion or on th e suggestion of th e accuse d or of the Court concludes that th e evid ence wa rrants a dropping of a charge or a reduction in the charge ei th er with or with out a plea of guilty to a less er cha rge. It is ax iomatic that to exercise and give effect to th e Crown's duty and the acc used 's ri ght outli ned above ca n have only one resu lt, th e dropping of or reduction in th e charg e. Th e use of such wo rds as "deal s" and "collusion" to categorize what ar e common and wh olly pr oper acts of justic e is unwa rrant ed.

Any suggestion that for th e purpo se of sa vin g time and tr ouble or expe nse law officers of th e Crown acc ept plea s of guilty to reduce d charges is , in our expe ri ence, unwarr ant ed. Th e law officers ar e, and under pr evio us admi nis tr ati ons have been , me n of energy, enth usia sm and competen ce, and we have never se en any indication of a disin clination for ha rd wo rk, nor ha s the question of exp ense ente red into their thin king. "As to the five ca se s mention ed in your lett er: (

a) Regina versus John Pa tton Th omas More . Th e acc use d wa s char ged 111ith capital mu rder. Th e jury found him guilty and recommend ed clemency. Th e Supr eme Court of Canada di rected a re- tr ial on the ground of a mi sdi rectio n in the jud ge's charge to the jury. When th e acc used wa s re- a rrai gned, the Crown acc epte d a plea of not guilty of capttal mu rder but guilt y of non- capital mu rder, and th e accused wa s sentenced to life imp ris onment. Mr. Just ic e Nitikman pr es id ed at th e first and sec ond trial s.

In hi s opinio n, and mi ne, the Crown's acce ptance of th e plea to the reduced charge wa s wh olly pr oper and warr ante d by the evid ence. "At th e first trial th e accuse d elected to rely upon th e de fence au to mati sm , claiming that his action wa s the in voluntary response to exter io r forces for which he wa s not res po nsible.

He in sist ed on hi s counsel stak ing the whole de fence on this unusual plea, and in siste d on hi s co unsel in th e pr e sence of the jury, waiv ing other matt e rs of de fen c e which mi ght have se rved the accuse d in good stead but which wo uld hav e be en incompatibl e with th e novel defence of Page 1262 Ma rch 19, 1964 I I I

(Mr . McLean, cont'd) ... au to ma tism . Acceptance of the defence of au to mati sm wou ld have re sulted in a verdi ct of not guilty and the ac cused wo uld ha v e gone entirely free . The jury wo uld not ac cept thi s defence. The ac cus ed had staked all on it and lost . The resu lt wa s a findin g guilt y coupled, as ha s been noted , wi th a re commendati on for mercy.

"Before the re -t rial , it be came eviden t the ac cused wo uld not a se cond time try the de fence of au tomati sm but this time wo uld permit hi s counsel to pr operly put be fore the Court many matter s whi ch wo uld jus tif y the jury in finding this a ca se of dimin is hed re spo nsibil ity. Th ·3 re sult wo uld ha v e been, in the opi nion of Mr. Ju stice Nitikman and myse lf, counsel for the defence and for the Crown, a finding of guilty of non-capital murder .

Conse quently, it was the course of ju stice and common sense to permit the accu sed to plead guilty to non-capital murder, thus saving him the burden of a sec ond trial . "There is comme nt in the material you se nt abou t the reas ons for judgment of judges of the Supreme Court of Ca n ada . With out going into detail as to the

interpretations whic h ha ve been pla ced on these reasons for judgment , nothing in these rea sons, and in my view in any wa y, ca st doubt s upon the ab solute pr opriety of Crown Counsel and De fence Counsel and the Court ac cepting a plea to the red uced char ge in this case . " (b): Regina ver sus Mi chael Sednyk. Th e acc used was char ged with capital murder. At the trial , a plea of not guilty to capital murder but guilty to non-capital murder wa s acc epted. Th e ac cused wa s sente nced to life imp ri s onment .

In the opinio n of counsel for the Crown the verdi ct which would ha ve been warran ted by the evide nce wa s one of guilty of non-capital mur der . Th e ac cused wa s de sir ous of pleading guilty to that char ge. Mr. Ju st ice Nitikman wh o pre sided at the trial concurred in the view of counsel for the Crown and the defence , and in hi s opinio n the correct cour se was followed in acc epting the plea to the red uced cha rge . " (c): Regina versus John Henry Wichikowski. The ac cused wa s char ged with capital murder.

He plea ded not guilty and wa s tried be fore a jury and found not guilty of capital mur der but guilty of mans la ughter . He wa s sente nced to ten year s impr is onment. Th is was not a ca se of accepting a plea of guilty to a red uced char ge. It illustra tes points alread y made . Here Crown Counsel's eval uation of the evide nce caused him to put the capital char ge to the jury. The trial judge did not withdraw it . The jury in coming to it s conclusion waiv ed the pleas of acc ident, prov ocati on, in sanity, and parti cularly that the ac cused had the mental intelligence of an 8 year -o ld.

Th is re sult, pr oper in it self, does not form ba sis for an ar gument that all ho mi cide s mu st go to jurie s and ac cused s be depri ved of their presen t legal ri ght s to plead guilty to non-capital murder in appr opriate ca ses. "(d) : Regina vs . Stephen Kozaru k. The ac cused was charged with capital murder. He pleaded not gui!.ty at the Febru ar y, 1964 ass ize. On the sec ond day of the trial the ac cus ed indi cated hi s wish to plead guilty to a red uced cha rge of non-capital murder. The plea wa s acc epted and the acc used wa s sente nced to life impri sonment. In the opinion of Mr.

Ju stice Ba sti n, wh o pres ided at the trial , there wa s sufficient evide nce of dimin is hed re sp onsibility of the ac cused , that the pr oper verdict wou ld ha ve been one of guilty of non-capital murder . Mr. Justice Ba stin fully concurred in the decision of Crown Counsel and Defen se Counsel on the matter of the plea to the red uced char ge. Th ere is reference in the material you sent to a misu nder standing abou t acc epting a plea to a red uced char ge whi ch aros e in thi s case betwee n Crown Counsel and De fense Counsel and De fense Counsel be fore the October , 1963 as size.

The ques tion whether Crown Counsel or Defense Counsel wa s re sp onsible for this mi s under standi ng is irrele va nt to the problem under review by me. " (e): Re gina vs Mary Elizabeth Sutherla n d . The ac cused wa s char ged wi th non-capital murder . At her trial she pleaded not guilty to non-capital murder and guilty of ma nsla ughter and wa s sente nced to two year s le ss one day in th e Ma nito ba Jail for Women at Portag e la Prairie. In the opi nion of Mr. Ju stice Dick s on, who pre sided at the trial, the acc epta nce of the plea on the red uced char ge wa s wh olly pr oper .

He agreed with the view of Crown Counsel and Defence Counsel that the evide nce could not ha v e warran ted a convicti on for any charge hi gher than mansla ughter . Th ere were very extenuating ci rcumstances whi ch were reflected in the sente nce imp osed . "Deali ng with the tw o ques tions put on Pa ge 2 of your lett er , the Judges of thi s Court as sure you with out he sitation that there wa s no impr opriety in the ac cepta nce of the red uced plea s in the four ca se s menti oned abov e where charges were red uced.

We are of the opini on that in these ca se s the decisions to red uce char ges were ba sed on an evaluat io n of anti cipated March 19, 1964 Pa ge 1263

{M r. McLean, cont'd) ... evidence and not on considerations of convenien ce or expense to the Crow n. It is our view that th e law offic ers of th e Crown acted in all five ca ses in commen dable and pr oper ma nner to ensu re that justice wa s done. "The question is rai sed in th e mat erial you sent as to why th e more ser io us cha rges ar e laid in the first place.

Th ose fami liar with th e ad minis tr ates of criminal justi ce will unders tand wh y it is pruden t and pr ope r for the Crown in th e first in stance to set it s si ght s rea s onably hi gh and why it is that lat er, on a ca reful study and re- ass ess me n t of the evidence, deci sions may be tak en to drop or to reduce cha rges or to acce pt plea s to less er cha rges. In our view thi s prac tice is pr oper and should not be subj ect to criticism. It is not a practice pec ulia r to th e pr ese nt' -�minis t rati on.

I have myse lf be en consulted by an Attorney- General under a pr evio us ad minis tration wh o had requested to . ac cept a plea of guilty to ma nslaughter where the indict ment laid a capital charge . Th e plea to the reduced charge was ac cepted an d, in my opinio n , quite pr operly. · "In our view th e Att orney-G eneral for the Pro vince of Ma nitoba under th e pr ese nt and former ad mi nistration have been fortunat e in hav ing Deput y Att orney-G eneral s and Crow n Counsel s of comp ete nce and inte grity. Th ose pr e sently serv in g ar e men of hig h calibre and enj oy th e respect of th e Court .

Ma ny former law offic ers of th e Crown under the pres ent an d pr evio tas ad minis tration , wh o received their train ing in th e Attorney- Ge neral's Departm ent , are now in private prac ti ce. Th ey ar e ornamen ts to th e legal pr ofes sio n. "You aRked for any recommen dations you may consider to be in th e inte res ts of th e ad min is tr ation of ju sti ce. Th e mater ial you forwa rded pr ompt s this suggesti on.

Fr om time to time a difference of opini on may devel op between counsel for an indigent ac cused and Crown Counse l as to wh eth er or not an expenditure is reas onable and ought to be undertak en by th e Crown on behalf of the ac cus ed. While we have not found Crown Counsel' s to be unreas onable in these matte .rs, we suggest that where differences of opinio n do ar ise , the judges of this cou rt might be consulted by defence and Crown Counsel. Th is wo uld p� obably result in a rea sonable soluti on.

"We believ e that as exper ience develop s with th e new law of capital mu rder, the capital charge wi ll be less freque ntly laid . Howev er, it will be very regret table if in th e selection of any char ges Crown Counsel we re to be influenced by fear of critic i sm for laying to o severe a charge in the first in sta nce.

It wo uld al so be quit e imp roper for Crown Counsel to re fuse to drop or to reduce cha rges or to a c cept pleas of guilty to le sser cha rges be cau se of fear of critici sm by pe rsons wh o wer e not aware why the mo re severe cha rge wa s lai d in th e first in sta nce, an d who might er roneously thin k that there wa s some thing dama ging to the jury system in th e. dropping or reduction of cha rges or the ac cepta nce of pleas of guilty to reduced cha rges.

"One ho pes that th e law officers of th e Crow n under the pr ese nt and futur e adminis t rat io ns wi ll not seek to a·:oid the respo nsibility involved in th e difficult task of sel ecting char ges whic h ar e sufficie ntly hig h to me et the requi rement s of th e new ad minis trates of ju sti ce but whi ch ar e not so unreas onably severe that in ju sti ce to an accused results, an d will never from fear of criticism refus e to drop or reduce cha rges or ac cept plea s to reduced cha rges .

While th ese ma tters are not subject to the appr oval of the Court, judges have the. duty to comment and may be counted on to do so if ever it seem s that law officers of th e Crown ar e not pr operly pe rforming their publi c duty. "We have given ca reful consi derati on to th e desi rabili ty or othe rwi se of wri ting this frank exp ress io n of our vi ews . We ar e aware that it is an unus ual cour se whi ch may be mi sunder st ood and be the sub ject of comment.

However , the mat erial enclosed with your lett er in dicat es a real unea si ness on the pa rt of some that the prac ti ces referred to mi ght be improper and impede th e due ad minis tr ation of ju sti ce in this pr ovi nce, and we came to the conclusion that this expr ess io n of our view s wa s necessary and appro priat e. Yours truly, G. E. Trit schle r, C.J. Q.B." · I lay th ese letters on th e Tabl e of the House. MR. MOLGAT: Ma dam Speaker , I realiz e that th e stat emen t made by the Mi nist er is not debatabl e and I do not ri se to debat e it.

I reser ve my po siti on an d that of my Pa rty when he firs t intr oduced this idea in the Hous e la st wee k, and I wi sh to state at thi s time that I will be int roducing a reso lution in th e Hous e, Madam Speaker , to make su re that this is su e gets full debate and recommending some po sit iv e cour ses of ac tion inso far as th e adm inistration of Page 1264 Ma rch 19, 1964

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd)... justice in this province. The two letters just read only point out to me all the more that there is a requirement for a thorough investigation. HON. ROBERT G. SMELLIE, Q. C. (Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Birtle-Russell): Madam Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to lay on the Table of the House a Return to an Order of the House No.38, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Portage. MR .

CAMPBELL: Madam Speaker, the Honourable the Attorney-General has laid the letters on the table, but I assume that he would be willing -- I 'm asking him would he be willing to have copies made so that all groups would have copies. MR. GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Madam Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the Minister tell us what steps the conciliation department -- that his bureau is taking in bringing together the parties in the Grand Rapids labour dispute? HON.

OBIE BAIZ LEY (Minister of Labour) (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I'm sure the honourable members wilLbe happy to know that our conciliation services have been made avail able to the parties. Unfortunately, they were not sucaessful and the strike began on Tuesday morning. Now our services are still available but they're only available upon request of either party, and at the moment there has been no such request. MR . PAULLEY: M1dam Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, may I with supreme regret announce to the House that the former MP for the Province of Manitoba passed away in Dauphin this morning, namely Mr.

Fred Zaplitny. I'm sure he was acquainted with many of the members of this House and that they will join with me in expressing regrets to Ivir. Zaplitny's family. Funeral services have not been arranged as yet. It is contemplated pos sibly for Monday. The passing of my dear friend was quite sudden. MR . ROBUN: Madam Speaker, I'm sure we would all wish to join ourselves with the expression of condolence that has been offered by the Honourable the Leader of the New Demo cratic Party in every respect. MR.

MOLGAT: Madam Speaker, this is not one of normal condolence motions, but I want to add the thoughts of my group in this case. I knew Mr. Zaplitny very well. While he and I were not in the same party he was my federal representative for a number of years in his capacity as the federal member for Dauphin constituency. His home is originally in my own constituency. His father and his brothers are constituents of mine now. I know the family well and I share the loss to the Province of Manitoba of a man who was a devoted and interest ed public servant. MR .

McLEAN: Madam Speaker, I might just join with the others in saying that the late Mr. Zaplitny was a classmate of mine. We have been friends for a long time and I join with what has been said. MADAM SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR . GUTTORMSON: Madam Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Utilities. Yesterday he tabled a Return to an Order of the House No. 36. Question No. 2 was what additional grouting work was awarded, and I have just a list of names but there is no money shown in the order. Would the Minister undertake to pro vide that information please?

HON. MAITLAND B. STEINKOPF, Q. C. (Minister of Public Utilities) (River Heights): Yes, I'll get that information. MR. E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Madam Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Utilities. I submitted notice of the "question to his office and it may not have had time to work up to him, in which case he could take it as notice again.

Perhaps the Minister is aware that certain automobile owners who attached licence plates to their car in the wrong way" so that the numerals appear on the front plate have been charged by police officers in various parts of the province. I would like to know under what specific authority, under what statute, or what

section of The Highway Traffic Act or what regulation this is being done under. MR . STEINKOPF: I'll accept that as notice. MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 76. The Honourable the Leader of the New Democratic Party. MR . PAULLEY: Madam Speaker, I don't like doing this, but I would like this to stand. March 19, 1964 Page 1265

MR. STEINKOPF presented Bill No. 89,

an Act to provide for Relief from Certain Unconscionable Transactions, for second reading. Madam Speaker presented the question. · MR . STEINKOPF: Madam Speaker, I think this Bill can be best explained by reading Paragraph 3 of the Bill which says: "Where in respect of money lent the court finds that ,having regard to the risk and to all the circumstances, the cost of the loan is excessive and that the transaction is harsh and unconscionable, the court may .... " and it sets out what the court may do.

May I suggest, Madam Speaker, that 'this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Rules, Orders and Reg\llations !30 that it may be considered along with the. other bills that we have referred to this committee, with the intent that it not be brought back during this session. MR . T. P. ffiLLHOUSE, Q. C •. (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I'd like to compliment the Minister is bringing this bill in. I think there has been a long need of such a bill in the Prov ince of Manitoba and I want to congratulate you most sincerely for having done so. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK, Q. C. (St.

John's): Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased that this bill has come forward. It's an indication that the Honourable Minister, whom I did not have an opportunity to formally compliment and wish well because I did not speak on the Speech from the Throne , . but whom I would now like to compliment in regard to not only this bill but others which he has been bringing forwa!'d to us, which indicate the benefits of debates which we had last year.

Nevertheless, knowing as he does that even he is not perfect, I would like to draw to his attention certain questions which arose in my mind as I read this bill and possibly he would care to answer these questions when he closes debate, or at least they will be recorded so that when the bill is discussed on other occasions these matters could be dealt with if the committee in its wisdom thinks there is some point in what I have to say.

Firstly, I had hoped that the Honourable Minister would have commented on the case involving the Ontario Act in which an Ontario Unconscionable Transactions Relief Bill was de clared to be intra vires, to indicate to us whether that bill or that act was closely checked with this bill, to give us a feeling of assurance that this bill is within the jurisdictional powers of the province.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, I had hoped that this bill could have considered and contained relief against acceleration.and relief against forfeiture, both of which are matters which would ease the burden of those who are caught in a transaction with which they cannot cope because of acceleration and forfeiture clauses.

Thirdly, I note that in spite of the name, the title of the bill and the enthusiasm with which I was first inclined to greet it, that it is limited to loans only, and in view of the debate and discussions we had last year on The Time Sales Act and the fact that time sales themselves create a burden and a problem relating to the cost of extended time for payment, I deplore - that's a strong word --I wonder at the omission in this bill of dealing with other matters relating to payment over period of time and the costs of financing time payments.

And fourthly, I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether the sixth section-- no, I know I shouldn't name the number of the

section but I can refer to the principle involved-- in a saving clause for assignment for value as seeming to be a method whereby you could get out of the operation of this bill by arranging to assign the loan contract for value. It seems to me that the bill itself indicates a method whereby unscrupulous people may be able to avoid the effect of the act, and since it is aimed at unscrupulous people, we can rest assured that they will know this act very well in very short time after it is passed. So that I'm hoping that we could get clarif ication on these points that I have mentioned.

Madam Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, I wonder if y.ou would call the debate on ways and means, please? MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable the First Minister and the proposed amendment of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and the proposed amendment to the amendment by the Honourable the Member for Brokenhead. The Honourable the Member for Roblin. MR .

KEITH ALEXANDER (Roblin): Madam Speaker, I'd just like to say a few words at this time to take advantage of the opportunity of commenting on the actions and some of the statements made by the Opposition on this debate because this is one of their opportunities for Page 1266 March 19, 1964

(Mr. Alexander, cont'd) .•. showing reasons why the people of Manitoba should not have con fidence in the present government, and from what I can see we have got nothing of substance from them whatsoever. The Liberals are still battling with their split personality. Their main argument seems to be that the government has to do more and at the same time spend considerably less doing it. The Leader of the NDP commenting on this debate spent most of his time, I felt, doing an imitation of Jack Wells describing the actions of the member from Assiniboia, and I'd like to continue with that analogy.

I feel the honourable member is in the position now of finding himself deep in his own zone with the score about 45 to 0, and the quarterback of the team has fumbled the ball on the third down with the minute flag of the fourth quarter flying. As a matter of fact, the image I got was of a gentleman whistling as he walked past the graveyard where all dead political parties are buried.

I feel, Madam Speaker, that from the calibre of debate we have had from the opposition, the stands that have been taken by them, that the people of Manitoba have every gooi reason for casting them aside as alternatives to the present government and having oodles of confidence in this present administration. MADAM SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR . SCHREYER: Madam Speaker, could we get an

interpretation of that last bit of harangue there? Madam Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR . PAULLEY: Yeas and Nays please, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Call in the members. The question before the House is the pro posed amendment to the amendment by the Honourable the Member for Brokenhead. A standing vote was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Barkman, Campbell, Cherniack, Desjardins, Froese, Gray, Guttorrn son, Hillhouse, Hryhorczuk, Johnston, Molgat, Patrick, Paulley, Peters, 3chreyer, Shoemaker, Smerchanski, Tanchak, Vielfaure, Wright.

NAYS: Messrs. Alexander, Baizley, Beard, Bilton, Bjornson, Carrell, Cowan, Evans, Groves,. Harrison, Hutton, Jeannotte, Johnson (Gimli), Klym, Lissaman, Lyon, McDonald, McKellar, McLean, Martin, Moeller, Roblin, Seaborn, Smellie, Stanes, Steinkopf, Strickland, Watt, Weir, Witney and Mrs. Morrison. MR . CLERK: Yeas, 20; Nays, 31. MADAM SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost. The proposed motion in amendment by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. Are you ready for the question? .. .. . Continued on next page. March 19, 1964 Page 1267

MR. ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, I think perhaps it would not be wrong for me to make a comment on the somewhat unsatisfactory character of this debate so far . It is unfortunate that for one reason or another it has been strung out over so many days, so much so .that a good ma ny of us perhaps have forgotten whatever the Leader of the Opposition for example mig ht have said when he was producing his amendment to this motion on Ways and Means .

I suppose from some points of view that really is a good thing, because in my humble opinion, Madam , his address was so shallow and so superficial and so misl eading as to consti tute no real credit to himself, and certainly to shed very little li ght indeed upon the real state of the finances of the Province of Manitoba. I'm aware that those may sound as rather harsh comments on his presentation to us, and I understand my responsibility to lend some color of reason behind my feeling moved to speak this way about what he said to us when he introduced this motion of no confidence .

I think I may say that I can comment on Budget speeches and. on Budget addresses as som ething of an expert in this sense, that I have delivered more Budgets and I have replied to more Budgets, both on this side of the House and on the other, than any member of the Legis lature , except I believe the Honourable Member for Lakeside, whose experience in this connec tion certainly outranks us all . And on the basis of that experience, I can say that I know a half-baked Budget reply when I hear one.

In fact I, somebody said, made one, and I'm going to go along and say that I can bolster my opinion in this respect by admitting that at least on one occasi on I have ma de such a half-baked reply to a Budget speech, but not in the position occupied by my honourable friend. I know a clinker in Budget speeches when I hear one and that's what we got on February 17th. A muddle -headed classic is the desc ription that I mi ght like to ascri be to it .

Now what bothered me about that Budget was the apparent disreg ard for a closely re searched examination of the facts with which it was presented to us . ·T here is no Budget that cannot be improved upon and there 's no Budget that is not. the better for criticism, and I ac. knowledge that, but criticism it seems to me must be based on a careful respect for the facts upon which such criticism is based, and I feel that my honourable friend has not documented well the criticisms that he mak es . In fact, I think that many of his allegations are almost corn pletely unsupported by any reference to the facts .

Certainly it does not, in my opinion, convey a real appreciation· of Manitoba's financial position . Now I say to any member who is not interested in this subject, and I think that seems to apply to most of the honourable gentlemen opposite though not to all, that it will not disturb me if they leave the Chamber at present because I am going to take some time to deal with the matters that are before us and it may not be universally appealling. We don't all take an inter est in the same things .

But I would, however, like to start with some of the allegations my honourable friend made in respect of what I call the su bsidiary iss ues and then move on to those which struck him and perhaps will strike others as having been more impo rtant.

The first rather subsidiary comment that I have ma de an ote_of was his reference to the Department of Agriculture -- he never seems to like to give it its correct title, Agricu lture and Conservation -- and his rather off-hand remark that we were trying to fool the people -- I got that impression -- in the size of the Budget allocated to the Department of Agri culture and Conservation, in that most of it was for water control rather than for agriculture . Well I really can't see any force in that critici sm .

He would have done better if he had examined the current agricultural share proper and compared it with what had been spent in previous years in tllat department if money is the measure, and it was in this case with him, and he would have found that it has risen from 2.1 million in 1958 to 3.8 million in 1964, an increase of 60 per cent. I think that in crease and the emphasis given to agriculture refutes right away any ex press ion of opinion that we are not doing what is rig ht and proper in that department, having regard to our total responsibility .

No one ever suggested that the expenditures for Floodway purposes, for example, were expenditures for agriculture in the s trict and proper se nse. I never heard anyone suggest that. My honourable friend berates us because he alleges we did suggest it . Well having knocked down that strawman, he then proceeds to cast a wayward dart at the watershed and the water control and conservation matters, and says: "When do we stop studying and when do we start working ?" Page 1268 March 19, 1964

(Mr .

Roblin, Cont' d.) Well if he doesn't know the answer to that question I despair of him , because placed be fore this Legisla ture in this ses sion was the large st si ngle program in the history of Manitoba -- floodway and major control matters aside altogether -- the large st si ngle proposal placed before this province for water control ; works on the Norq uay Floodway system, the Morris River, the Boyne River, $400, 000 ; the completion of the Grassmere Drain, $240, 000; Hespeler Floodway, another instalmen t of $2 10, 000 �new structures for Fish Lake and for Dennis Lake, some $328 ,0 00 being spent this year on that project; $385,0 00 for a series of public drainage works in the Red River Valley such as the Aux Marais River drain , the reconstruction of the boundary drain in Rhineland, reconstruction of the King drain in McDonald and the reconstruc tion of many other drains in that area, and a whole list of other projects here .

I'm not going to read them all off but undoubtedly, factually, demonstrative ly , the biggest program of water control in the ordinary sense of that word, excluding altogether the Red River Floo dway and the diversion and the Shellmouth and all the rest, that we'v e ever had in the his tory of our provi nce . And yet he asks us : "When do we stop studying and start working? " I ask him, when does he start studying so that he will know the facts that we've placed before the House ?

How can a man with the responsible leadersh ip post that he occupies as Leader of the Opposition make that statement in a budget speech when it is demonstratively open to the most direct contradiction. It seems to me tha t's not the kind of sensible criticism that we are en titled to expect from the Leader of the Opposition in dealing with budgetary ma tters in the Pro vince of Manitoba. He heard them in the estimates . He has forgotten them, but I doubt if the people who are affected have forgotten them .

I think they're pr etty well aware of what's going on; the biggest conservation and control program in the history of the Province of Manitoba. So it' s not such a big point. Let's pass on . Nothing much in that allegatio n. Well, in this broadside approach of his he takes another whack at my friend the Minister of Agriculture and Conservation and criticizes the speech the Minister ma de in which he re ferred to the rate of growth in the physical volume of production in Manitoba, and the Minister frankly said, and I agree with what he said: "Let's do better.

" I don't see any reason for com placency in this field, ei ther on the part of government or anybody else .

But I think the Minister of Agricu lture and Conservation was far too kind to the Leader of the Opposition when he ma de that speech because he could have pointed out -- perhaps he should have , except there's a limit to this business of political "one-upmanship"-- he should have pointed out that in the first part of the period under review which he was talking about were eleven years of Liberal admini stration in Manitoba, and during that period Manitoba's . average index of agricultural production declin ed.

In that period of eleven years prior to our coming into office -- immediately prior -- Manitoba' s average index of agricultural production declined by one percent . Since that time, in the six years in which i:ny friend the member for Rockwood-Iberville has mostly been responsible for agricultur e's adm inistr ation, the same index of agricultural production has risen 15 percent.

So that if the Minister was looking at that whole period as he was in giving a figure for the progress and saying that it was unsatisfactory, and I think he's right -- It is -- Why should we be satisfi ed ? -- I do n't think it's very sensible for the Leader of the Opposi tion to use that as a stick to beat him with, because during the Liberal term of office that index was stationary, or went down. The subsequent six years it is up some 15 percent. I don't see any reason why this government should expect anyone to accord it the full cre dit incidentally for that increase of 15 percent.

There's no need for us to take that posi tion; but I think that there is need to give those facts when we are being berated by my honourable friend when the situation is as I have described it . So here's another one of these criticisms of the present administration and its financial management , its general management which fizzles out when it's stacked up against the facts . That 's the gravamen of my charge against my hon ou rable friend in this speech of his. It fizzles out when stacked up against the facts, and I want ta give some more facts dealing with all the major points that he ma de in his address .

I want to suggest to him that he 'd better be careful about using that kind of an argun<ent in the farming communities of Manitoba because they know the f�cts as well as anybody else . I don't think they're going to be much more impressed than I am by the kind of argument that's !;!eing used in this connection. March 19, 1964 Page 1269

(Mr. Roblin , Cont' d. ) Well, having taken a whack or two at my colleague that si ts on the end of this row here , he then decided to have a word or two to say about my neig hbor on my ri ght here in the Depart ment of Industry and Commer ce .

And with a great "to-do" about split perso nalitie s, so it seemed to me , in the Department of Industry and Commer ce, how the Minister was marching br avely off in one direction when some of the important officials of the government were march ing bris kly off in another; that my honourable friend here was making speeches about the limita� tions of government investment and one of the impo rtant officials of the Crown was making speeches about the nece ssi ty for government investment.

We had this point being drawn to our attention that no wonder the Minister couldn't get on with his job, they couldn't even make up their minds which dire ction they were marching in in the same department , and it was a pretty poor piece of management all the way through . "Massi ve spending not the answe r, says the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce." "Massi ve expenditure by government key to growth says Mr . Kri stj anson, one of the important members of the government team." -- newspaper headlines .

The more I li sten to my honourable friend the Leader of the Oppos ition the more it occurs to me to wonde r whethe r he ever ever gets behind the newspaper headlin es .

I wonder when that Party over ther.e. are ever going to come to grips with real problems of administration and policy in Manitoba; when they're going to get tired of this continual pin-pricking which is the standard of conduct which they seem to set for themselves in dealing with their responsibilities here; and when they're going to pres ent us with some alternative polici es, because that's what the people are going to want to know when election time comes around.

But let's get back to these headline s that my honourable friend quoted with such devasta ting effect in respect of the split perso nality within. the Department of Industry and Comme rce. If my honourable friend had taken the trouble -- I almost said taken the trouble to read the rest of the newspaper story, but I haven't got it here so I'm not going to say that -- but if he 'd taken the trouble to read the speech made by the gentleman he referred to, Mr. Kristjanson, he would have found out what the pos ition taken by Mr.

Kr istjanson was , and it had no relationship what soever to the inte rpretation placed on it by my honourable friend. It simply doesn't ji ve ; it Soimply doesn't fit. Ariother case of this superficial examinati on. In his statement which was made in Br andon , I think, Mr . Krist janson said, and I'm go ing to quote parts of his speech -- I'm going to quote all the parts I believe are relevant, that bear on this point , and I trust I shall not mis represent Mr. Kristjanson or anybody else .

And in his speech, he says on page 2: "While there .are no surprises in these proje ctions , there are some no doubt surpr ised by the limited role ascribed to government ." He 's referring there to the COMEF report . "To quote the repor t, " and he quotes: "The re sponsibility of govern ment will be primarily to provide guidance and the creation of the appropriate business climate . Massive expenditu res by government are not the key to Manitoba's economic growth nor will they attain the goals that have been es tablished. " Mr.

Kris tjanson comments : "I for one find it difficult to agree wi t.h this conclusion as I shall show later. I would agre e, however, with the implications of this statement that the ·;:, necessa ry jobs will not be found if primary reliance is placed on government . This is not a serious disa greem ent with the report. I quite unde rstand what its authors wish to be perfectly clear, that in our scheme of things , primary alliance .must be placed on the private sector for . carrying out the development effort.

They tried to avoid leaving the impre ssi on that the government should take over the development effort in any substantial degr ee . I have no wish to detract from this impre ssion. " And then he goes on to say , as he said he would, the basis of his disagreemen t with the statements of COMEF , and after some discussion about the role of pri vate enter pri se, he says on page 4, "The other level at which corre ctive measures lie is in the opera tion of government .

This is so not because of the extensive partne rship between government and the individual that already exis ts , rather it is because the most important inve stment factor for growth has not been provided primarily by the priva te sector in the past and is not likely to be so provided in the future. I am referring to investment in knowledge , education and the training of individu als ." He 's making his point. And then he goes on, and I think that the thought follows logically and that I'm not in any Page 1270 March 19, 1964

(Mr . Roblin , Cont'd. ) .. . way misr epresenting his statement. "This line of reason ing raises one particularly interesti ng question so far as pl anning for economic growth is concerned . It is this . Who will make the substantially increased investm ent in knowledge, education and training ? Traditionally , the bulk of such investment has been made by government and public institutions and I can see no si gn that this tradit ion will not be upheld .

If this be so , then the government becomes an ever more important part of the investment picture and we will be in vesting larger amounts through public decision. It is in this respect that I take issue some what with the CO MEF report as indicated earlie r. This is not to minimize the importance of priva te investment decis ions of the traditional type , but it does point to a growing need for full public understanding of the operations of government to assure skillful allocation of public funds. It makes better planning of public .expenditures more necess ary ." It's quite apparent from this that Mr.

Kristjan son's concern is with the role of govern ment in investment , in education, in training, in those areas of concern on which we too for a number of years have placed our primary emphasi s. It's not at all a question of Mr . Kristj an son and the Minister dis agreeing . Even if that matter were important in itself -- and I don't maintain that it is -- if my honourable friend were stri ctly and literally right in this , I would be tempted to say "So what?" Certai nly there are diverg ence of views on the se various mat ters and they exist within the government ranks as well as anywhere else .

But the fact is that he was content , as far as I can see , to take some newspaper headline without any investi gations , without a reading of the speech, and use that information as a criticism of what the Minister is doing. Well, there are plenty of things the Minister does that are open to criticism . He'd be the first to admit that. But to choose this kind of approach to the province of criticism , I think re flects no credit on my honourable friend.

It certainly does not point to any degree of research or understanding of what he is doing when he makes those statements , because a perusal of the speech made by Mr. Krist janson , on which this allegation of split personality is based, com pletely destroys the charge . Mr. Kri stjanson is talking about investment in education and asso ci ated facilities with which we all fully agree , and not with the kind of investment si tuation that my honourable friend believes he was talking about when he made the .criticism of the government . Well , never mind. He's completely off base in my opinion on this matter.

It still isn't a ma tter of world- shaking importance in any case . I'm really rather surprised that it was brought into a budget speech, but seeing it was , I'm pretty well obliged to answer it . But my honourable friend says to himself no doubt, ''Well never mind , whatever you may say about Mr .

Kristjanson, the Department of Industry and Commerce only produced another 260 jobs in the last 10 years ." And when you make that bald statement in those terms it doesn't look very good for the Department of Industry and Commerce , but that's just another one of these cases where you really contribute nothing to a public understanding of the situation unless you go be hind those statements that look so conclusive and sweeping but which just skim over the sur face of reality.

And I say what contribution does a respons ible public man ma ke to the under standing of public issu es , which God knows are serious and difficult enough, by contenting himself with that sort of an approach to the problems we face here . I mig ht comment, since when did the Liberal Party for example believe that it was the responsibility of government to create all the jobs in the economy ? I really don't think that's his philosophy or the philos ophy of his Party. It's certainly not mine . What he can say quite justifiably is, "Is govermnent doing its part?

", even though we recognize that the main re sponsibility under our system rests on the twin pillars of initiative and the enterprise of our people . But let's take a look at this 260 job proposition which sounds so good if you don't bother to dig down beneath it and see what's th ere; which sotmds so good from the point of view of those who wish to condemn the work of a de.partment. Dig below them and see what the real facts are if you want to find some kind of realistic assessme nt of what is going on.

In tltis province , from 1958 to the present time , we have lost 5, 000 farm jobs it is esti mated, and I think that's on the low side . We lost those because of increasing technology and because of increasing structure of the farm system . In the same period of 1958 to 196 1, and it's probably been going on since then, there have been another 5, 000 jobs lost in the railway agencies and services in this province and I'm sure the Leader of the New Democr•atic Party March 19, 1964 Page 127 1

(Mr. Roblin, Cont'd. ) ... will understand some thing of the trem endous loss of job opportuni ties taking place in that industry because of technological advances. How many jobs have been lost in the vicissitudes of fortune of the TCA base is perhaps open to some debate .

I don't offer any opinion on that subject and I don't intend to go through all the other industrial under takings in this province to indicate the job losses that we have suffered, because these two cate gories of 10 , 000 jobs in the short time that I have mentioned are sufficiently indicative of the nature of our problem to make us , I think, be wise if we avoid the temptation to over-simplify the question by saying only 260 jobs in the last so many years, or whatever it was . The task of new job creation demands the best that we can do just to keep up with the progress of events in this field.

We look for a partnership between enterprise and government as being the way to approach it, and .that is the effective kind of partnership that we seek. If you say t!J me what jobs , if any, has this department produced; have all the jobs been pro duced to replace the 10, 000 we have lost been produced by somebody else? I'm sure a lot of them have ..

I don't want to take too much credit for that, but I can point to the one institution we have in the province, the Manitoba Development Fund , which is a major tool in the produc tion of jobs in Manitoba, and since that started to work, in 1960, I think they got into operation , they can claim the responsibility for 1200 new jobs .

Now my honourable friend the Minister of Industry and Commerce must be given credit for that operation if for nothing else , and to blandly say or to imply , and that's the implication of it, that we stood still or that nothing has happened or that progress hasn't been ma de or that pe ople aren't doing things and nothing is resu lting from this , is not a factual presentation of the situation. We have in this province lost jcbs and we have created ma ny new jobs, and the government can take some cre dit for having created a large number of new jobs , and to that extent we can regard that with satisfaction .

We can never say that we are totally satisfied. We can never say that this job has been done to the last degree of perfection or that we are not con stantly striving for new goals and new achievements . . My honourable friend would be a lot more useful in his function to the people of Manitoba if he would provide -- if he thinks he knows a better way of doing some of these things let him share that knowledge , because if he has good ideas we're not so proud that we won't take them · up.

But to be confronted with the statement 260 new jobs in so many years, the Minister and the department is a wash -out , is . a very shallow and superficial

interpretation of the task, and I say to the House that he does no service to the people to pretend otherwise . Let us put the plain facts on the table as best we can. I hope that I am not departing in what I say today from the facts . If I do it's inadvertent and I apologize for it now -- and I will gladly be corrected -- but I think it does not help our understanding of the situation to glide smoothly over the surface of these difficult problems as my honourable friend the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has done .

The Manitoba Development Fund has provided in its short term of life 1200 new jobs and a payroll of $3 .6 million. That is something, and I think it only right that I should mention it. Total employment in Manitoba from the period '58 to '6 3 has gone up by 6, 000 jobs, in spite of the fact that we've lost 10 in those two industries of which I speak. We've not only ma de good on those 10 but we've got 6, 000 mor e . Is that anything to throw your hat in the air about ? No it is not, beca use we must do better than that. That is our continual effort and we'll welcome all the help we can get from whatever quarter .

But take a look at the facts and just don't glide smoothly over the surface of things for the sake of a - well , what shall I say -- if you want to think of what appears to be a quite unsatisfactory ap proach to the problem of public affairs . My honourable friend owes the people of Manitoba something better. We will diligently continue to work. But, Madam Speaker, let me give you some of the facts about what has been going on in Manitoba as well as in this field of job creation.

Let me tell you something about the advance of the economy of this province in the general nature of that conception in the last few years , and let me compare it with what Canada is doing. That offers us a reasonable standard of comparison, and I want to give you some figures which have been taken from the Dominion Burea u of Statistics and which I place on the record as being the figures of the change from · 1958 to '6 3 in a number of interesting categories. Annual disposable income rose 31 percent.

Rema rkable isn't it, that from '58 to '6 3 it rose .31 percent in Canada -- rema rkable increase in those few years . It rose just a little better than 31 percent for us here in Manitoba. Farm Page 1272 March 19, 1964 I I

(Mr. Roblin, Cont'd. ) ... cash income rose 13 percent for the nation, rose 25 percent for us. That's not unusual because we'r e still an agricultural based province. It went up twice the rise for the Dominion as a whole. In construction -- here's an inte resting one -- the in crease in construction in Canada from '5 8 to '63 was 7 percent; this province it went up 21 percent -- three times. Manufacturing output, and this is a significant figure, Canada went up 30 percent. I'll frankly say we didn't match it, we went up 28 percent -- we're 2 points be hind .

Mining went up 42 percent in the nation as a whole and 200 percent here ; power went up 27 percent in the nation as a whole and 47 ·percent here. Now we've got nothing to be ashamed about in those figur es. They're heartening figure s, they're encouraging, and they ought to stimulate us to do better if we possibly can, but they are figures that indicate that in this general sweep of our economic march forward, this pro vince is not doin g badly compared to the Canadian average, and I think we have no right to de nigrate the effort of our people here in developing our economy. I trust that no one does that.

While the government does not desire to take the full credit for these advances, it is entitled to its share. The Leader of the Opposition says this govern..ment has failed to produce results from many of its progra ms . That will do on the hustings when no one is there to challenge you, I suppose. It isn't very precise. I thought it would have been better to take some of the pro grams of the government and see whether they have produced results -- many of its programs. Take the most important programs that the government has initiated, say in the field of agri culture. What about the crop insurance plan?

That's produced results -- produced results in the great drought of 1961 -- the·worst we ever had -- many farmers rescued with the crop insurance plan; produced results last year when we had bad water conditions, too much mois ture in eastern Manitob a, the crop insur ance plan was there. My honourable friends in days gone by were urged to bring it in and they never did. We did; we'r e gradually extending it; we'll extend it some more. That program has produced results. Take the Farm Credit Plan.

There wasn't any provincial farm credit plan till we came in, now we have $22 mill ion lent out , half of it to young farmers to restore and re-establish the family farm. You ask them whether the programs of this government have not produced results . I think they'll tell you another story. Take the question of our programs in education .

Members must know these figures by heart now because they are mentioned so many times, but my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition throws this in his grab bag of "failed to produce results from many of its pro grams ." Our programs in education failed to produce results ? What about the kids in high school, in the new high schools that have been bui lt ? A very large building program -- 64 to 65 mil lion dollars worth of new schools since we came in. How many students in high schools that weren't there before because there was no high school for them to go to ?

Those figures have been given in this House many times. Is that another one of these programs that failed to produce results ? What about the development of our univer sity and the increase in students and in the increase in facilities there? Mill ions of dollars inves ted; the university support grants tripled, apart altogether from any capital support that the Honourable Member for Bur rows talks about. Do those people think that our program doesn't produce any results ? It isn't necessary, you know, just that we should be convinced in here.

You've got to convince a few other people besides and make them see what's going on. Brandon College resurrected. I don 't think that's too strong a term . Brandon College resurrected by our educational policy and made into a flourishing inst itution wi th a tremendous future before it for western Manitoba. That's another one of these policies that don't pay off -- one of these programs that we can't really see any results from.

In hospit als, debated here the other day - - $25 milli on more or less in new hospital con struction under our juri sdiction -- over, what is it, 1,0 00 or 1, 500 new beds either built or about to be built in the near future ? The number of beds per thousand actually in creasing in this province. Ask the communities where new hospitals are built as to whether the policies of this adminis tration bring results or not . Go through the communi ties of Manitoba and look at the el derly persons' housing organ iza tions in all the smaller centres of Manitob a.

"All" is too strong a word -- they're not in all the centres but so many have elderly persons' housin g. Ask the old folks in ;hose homes whethe_r the policies of this government pay off or whether the.y don't. March 19, 1964 Page 1273

(Mr . Roblin , Cont'd. ) Consider the question of mental illness. What was it -- six people engaged in out-patient mental service when we came in and now 125 or so:rpething to that effect? The mental hospitals being emptied beca use we are ab le to get people back into their homes with better methods . Is that another one of these prog ram s that aren 't paying off? Take the roads of Manitob a. Get out the road map . Drive on them . Ask the driving pub lic whether or not the policies of this administration in the field of roads have paid off m· not.

We have made great stride s in improving our road system in this province and we have more yet to do, but to say that these policies don't pay off is something that the people of Manitoba will not belie ve , beca use they can see what has been done. To say that more should be done is a le gitimate approach to take , but to say that these program s have failed to produce is non sense, and we know it , all of us here , and I have quite a strong conviction that the people of Manitoba know it as well. And you can go through other programs that this government has initia ted.

In the field of roadside parks , for exampl e, and recrea tion facilities of all sorts. We 've spent a lot of money on these . There 's been 1, 600 miles of new or rebuilt hardtop established . There 's that wonderful highway to Flin Flan, the north-south ba ckbone of this provin ce . There 's 233 access roa ds to 233 municipalities that didn't have access roads before we came into office . If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know about these things I want to tell him the voters of Man itoba do . what about cultural grants ? Not an important matter in terms of money.

Cultural grants were a grand total of 10,000 when we came into office ; they're 97 ,000 today for that particular group of institutions. The people in the arts world know what the policies of this government mea n if my honourable friend doesn't , and I doubt that they would subscribe to the theory that our policies have not paid off or ma teria lized. What about welfare ? What about the old age pensioner who now can get social assi stance when he wants it? He couldn't get that before . He couldn't get Medicare before . He couldn't get tl,e facilities of that department to the degree that he can today .

Ask him whether the poli cies of this government pay off ? He may say, "You should do more." That's a human and natural thing to say, but I think he would do us the kindess to say that these policies have sub stantially in1proved the position in which he finds himself. Slum cleara nce ; urban renewal . These policies pay off. The bulldozers are at work. The builders are at work. The houses are going up ; the people are in them .

But those policies didn't exist before we ca me in, and these I suppose are more of these policies of the pre sent . administration which my honourable friend said in his resolution have failed to produce re sults . Elderly persons' housing -- I mentioned that . Forty-two new elderly persons' housing projects since we came in. There's been a quiet revolution in the field of the tre atment of the aged.

I want to just read you if I may, Madam Speake r, a statement made by one of the gentle men in this field: "A quiet revolution has taken place in the care of the age d, Willia m Smith, executive director of the Middlechurch Home , said at the annu al meeting Thursday . The im pr ovement in Manitoba has been no less spectacular than in the field of housing. Due to assess ment of individual needs and assi stance where require d, each person can plan and purchase in his own way, and accor ding to his own pattern. Another area that has been completely over hauled is Medica re , noted Mr. Smith.

He underlined that older people can now utilize the ser vi ces of their own priv ate physician in place of the endless waiting and impersonal use of hos pi tal out-patient departments . As of Janua ry , the executive director said, this private physi cian ca re has been extended into the hospital ." Quiet revolution in the care of the ag ed. The jo b clone ? No; much to do; but a quiet revolution has taken place and I say to my honourable friend that he ca nnot convince the people of this province that our policies in this field have failed to produce the results of which he speaks .

What about the Water Supply Board policy? Is that another one that's failed to pay off? Twenty-four c6mmunities in this province . A new policy that didn't exist before we ca me in -- tha t's one of ours . In his own community of Ste . Rose there is interest in this Water Supply Board. I\Toclern conveniences for twenty-four localities that knew it not before this policy was initiated by us . Another one of these policies which has failed to pay off. Number of people in our parks and ca mp grounds - 31, 000 used them in '59 , 109 ,0 00 in Page 1274 March 19, 1964 I

(Mr . Roblin, Cont' d.) ... 1963 ; number of camping areas up from 25 to 42 ; number of high way wayside points from 10 to 66 . More of these policies that don't pay off. I say to my honourable friend that he may go through as many of the policies of this government as he wishes , and while I will not be one who will maintain any sense of complacency about them, I do say that the charge made in this resol ution and this amendment that the poli cies of the government are not paying off in many particulars , has totally failed any substanti ation whatsoever from my hit-and-run fri<;md over there .

That kind of criticism does not ad vance the public business because it is not related to the facts as we all know them. Until there is that effort made by my honourable friend to relate his criticism to the facts I'm afraid that he will not be rendering that service to the people of this province which I feel he should in his post of responsibility . Well, so much for the odds and ends of my honourable friend' s speech.

I've probably given more emphasis to some than they deserve -- I'm sure I have; but I felt that it would be useful at some time in this sessi on to get on the record a few of the things that have been going on, and to demonstrate , as can easi ly be done , the fatuity of the type of criticism that we are rec eiving from gentlemen opposite .

I now want to spend a minute or two upon the other points which I believe he would re gard as his main char ges, namely to do with the finances of the Government of Manitoba; and in this respect the first point that comes to my attention is the fact that the Post-War Fund was "used up ." How can a man who can read and cipher make a statement like that? How can a man who obtends to criticize the finances of Manitoba make that statement?

Because to test the truth of it, all he has to do is to turn to page 299 of the Public Accoun ts , and if he does so he will find the disposition of that moneys and what it is invested in, and he will find that it is not used up , it has been lent and is available on demand. And if he says , "Ah, but that's differ ent from what it used to be ," then I'd say, turn to the Public Accounts of 1958 and you will see that at that time the investments of that fund were in -- among other things -- in Canadian bonds and in Provincial Treasu ry bills and in Manitoba Hyd ro . They were invested then just as they are today .

He made no charge that those funds were used up in '58 and thaJ is why , be cause they weren't; they were there and available, and they're there and available now , and to say that that fund is used up and not available is just simply not the case; and how can you , with the Public Acc otmts before you to which all of us may refer , come to this House with a state ment like that and expect to be taken -seriously as a financial critic? Frankly, I can't see it .

Well then he says , and this is a reprise -- I think that's the word in theatrical circles, a reprise of an old argument , that they juggled the figures on the other side ; they cooked the books just a little and all this talk about surplus is just for the birds . The government, he says shows a financial surplus for every year of the past six years but he says that's just so much malarkey -- my honourable friend says tommy-rot and I just don't know which word is more appropri ate -- but he says that the government's claim to have a surplus in these c01mections is not accura te .

He says there's a very substantial deficit every year, and in support of that allegation he produces the report of the Canadian Tax Foundation and acco rding to the informa tion contained in that report , which he is kind enough to give to us , with respect to Manitoba, the government, s claim to have surpluses is knocked into a cocked hat because it is shown there beyond peradventure of a doubt that they have a deficit in all these years instead.

Oh, the rascals and their surplu ses, and all the proof and all the impartiality of the Canadian Tax Foundation, and oh the cleverness of the Lea der of the Opposition to expose this fraud on the people of the Province of Manitoba; to have brought to the light of clay this financial trickery in which the Provincial Treasurer stands convicted by the Canadian Tax Foundation in misleading and deceiving the people of Manitoba.

Here is a real expose , and it certainly is a real expose because the Budget speeches made by me are written with two ends in mind, of course , one for the consideration of this House and the other for the cons ideration and study of every financial expert in Canada.

All the banks and all the bond houses and all the financing agencies and all the insur ance companies, both in Canada and the United States, read this statement of mine , and they think it's a statement that discloses a balanced budget and a fine and a sound order of finance in the province , but they've all been hoodwinked by Dttff until the peerless Leader of the Opposition read the Canadian Tax Foundation report to expose this to the world. Now , first of all, let me say that the Canadian Ta.. 'l: Foundation report is eve1:ything that March 19, 1964 Page 1275

(l\Ir. Roblin , Cont'd. ) .. . the Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition said about it . I wouldn't quarrel with him on that . It's an impartial document prepared by men of competence , and I don't quarrel with what they put in here ; but I say to my honoura ble friend , did he not have the intellectual curiosity to ask himself why is it that this document doesn't agree with the Provin cial Tr easurer ? Is it necessa ry to jump to the conclusion that "the Provincial Treasurer is a rascal" beca use his figures disagree with those in this Tax Foundation repor t ?

Did he not have the intellectual curios ity to ask himself, what is the reason for the differen ce ? Or does he just seek any stick to bea t the government with? Does he ac cept any aid in this connection without any examination of the validity of the figures that he chooses ?

Well, frankly, I could hardly bring myself to accuse my honoura ble friend of not knowing the reas ons for the difference in the figure s, but I can wond er , that if he knew, why he did not take the trouble to tell the House , beca use if he asked us to accept his criticism , I think he is bound to give the facts that lie behind the criticism that he put before us .

Beca use if you will look at this documen t on page 166 , you will see the record of the Province of Manitoba as figured up by the Cana dian Tax Foundation , and in the year 1963 we are shown as having a de ficit of $3 1,350, 000 during the same period when we were cla iming to have a surplus in our budgetary accoun ts. Well, why don't we take a took at the Province of Ontario , or did my hon ourable friend not have the curios ity to turn to the next page to see what they had.

In 1963, the Province of Ontario is shown with a deficit of $130, 480, 000 and yet the Provincial Treasurer of that Pr ovince declared a surplus of $66 million in the legisla ture of the Province of Ontario . Take a look at the figures for the Province of Quebec . The Province of Quebec for the same year showed a deficit accord ing to the Ca nadian Tax Foundation of $182 ,400 ,0 00 , and yet the Treasurer of that province who is the Premier , Monsieur Jean Lesage , declared a surplus of $17 million when he reported his budget to the treasury, to the legisla ture of that province .

Or take a look at the Province of Alberta if you will, and you will find that according to the Ca nadian Tax Foundation in 1963 they had a deficit of $4,S90 ,0 00, and at the same time their treasurer was forecasting a surplus of $52 million.

Well , when you come across that kind of a situation where you find the treasur ers of these other pr ovinces , not the reprehensible gentle man that has the shop in Manitoba, but these other men reporting surpluses of the kind tha t I have mentioned, and the Canadian Ta.x Foundation showing a deficit, one must ask are all -these men -- I won't use the word "liars" -- it's unparliam entary -- but are all these men misre presenting the facts of their budgets to their people as I have been accu sed, I should think, of doing here ? I don't think anyone would make that claim .

The facts are that the Canadian Tax Foundation combined the current and capital acc ounts together . Thus they get their own figure .• This province does not, and neither do the other province s, with the exception of Sa skatchewan which has its own system. It's not just Manitoba, but it's all the other provinces following the same system.

But it seems to me criticism on this ground just falls to pieces when you ana lyze it, because when we declared a surplus , as we have done, we declared a proper surplus and we deceived no one, and it has been accepted by all the responsible financial people in the northern hemisphere that are interested in this thing, and we are doing exactly what the other provinces do and have done for ma ny a long day . And yet to accuse us that we're misleading the people by means of false surpluses is I think a charge that simply can't· be strictly just ified on this bas is .

The difference between the two approaches is this : The Canadian Tax Foundation says that if you buy a house on time you are to include it in the expenditures of one year . Well now, that 's all ri ght with me , if you want to look at finances on that basis ; but to use that as a means of substantiating a charge of juggling , -- and that's the word -- against this government or in deed the governments of Ontario or Quebec or Alberta, is simply to be too ridiculous for words. Was the Leader of the Opposition too stupid to know about this?

Was he too lazy to turn the pages and see what the other provinces were doing? I don't think so, beca use I be lieve that he is neither stupid nor lazy .

I think he knew; but I say that if he did know -- and I believe he did -- that he should have told us when making this criticism what the basis of it was , beca use there has now been spread in our newspapers and in the length and breadth of Manitoba the allegation, which I have just now had the opportunity to reply to , that our books are juggled and that our surpluses are deficits, and that obviously the financial operations of the province are in very questionable shape indeed. Now, that kind of an attack is something Page 1276 March 19, 1964

(Mr . Roblin , Cont' d.) ... less than the public deserves in considering the importance of the matters we deal with . Once again, I think the attack fizzles when it is confronted with the facts of the situation . I think that the pres entation that the government has given in connection with our financial situation is true and solid and sound, and that it is accepted as such by those who are the experts in this field from one end of this country to the other.

Our financial status in the Dominion of Canada is the best proof that I can bring as to the soundness of the manage ment of our public affairs ; and to produce a statement based on this and give only the figures which seem to reflect unfavourably on Manitoba, without the explanation that ought to go with them , is again no service to a rational discussion of public finance in the Province of Manitoba. It's superficial. It's shallow. It won't do . Now I want to talk about the other principal cross upon which my honourable friend ha:: impaled himself. That has to do with the provincial debt.

The provincial debt horrifies the Liberal Party -- it doesn't horrify the CCF; they' re much too sensible for that. It horrifies the Honourable Member for Rhineland. -- (Interje ction) -- I always feel it desirable to say so mething nice about the Honourable Member for Radisson when I can, because there are times that I am not able to , but in this case I think I can.

And in introducing this question of debt, my honourable friend did me the considera ble honour to read for perhaps the sixth or seventh time in six or seven years an extract from a speech which I must admit was my own , delivered in this House from the other side -- I think from the seat now occupied by the Hon our able Member for Carillon. A very good seat, and I almost said, long may he oc cupy it , but I have some· other ambitions in that respect for him , but however that may be , he's a member of the House that I certainly respect and he's in a good seat.

Twelve years ago -- it's a long time, isn't it ? -- I made a speech. I wasn't the Leader of the Opposition as I was charged with by someone . I was a backbencher in the Opposition , but I had been let loose for the first time as Opposition financial critic . I think it was my maiden effort in that important field, and I was a pretty junior member to be allowed to say anything about finance twelve years ago, and I rather felt it quite an honour.

But in that speech ,· I made a statement which I'm going to read to the House , not because I don't think they know it by heart already , but just as wise to get the continuity of my remarks on the record. Here it does: "T here 's a funny thing about debt, Mr. Speaker, no matter what you call it you still have to pay it back , and I say that we regard the steady increase in the gross total of the debt of the province with some concer n. " The point in that sentence was later embodied in the resolution on the budget which was pre sented by me . I sup pose I could claim a number of excuses for that.

I could talk about youth -- a little younge r then . I could talk about inexpe rience in finance . I could talk about plain ignor ance . But I must admit, and not for the first time, that it'll be a long parliamentary day before more cert ain immaturity of financial judgment will be contained in one sentence as was contained in that sentence which I delivered myself in this Chamber twelve years ago . Not to put too fine a point about it , I was wrong , completely wrong; and the interesting

part is that the Grits didn't believe it then and they don't believe it now , because what did they do when I made my speech? Did they vote for it ? Did they stand up to the man and say "Ah, here comes the Solomon of finance . He'l l put his finger on the weakness of our policy. We have increased the debt. We've heard from him. By gad, we 'll put a stop to it . He's told us what the rule ought to be ." Did they do any of those things ? No , they didn't . The people of Mani toba -- (Interject ion) - well , I doubt if it is.

I think they had much better grounds for judgment than the speech I made twelve years ago in the back benches of the Opposi tion . Much better judgment than that. And I say this , that the Liberal Party voted against that sentiment as expressed in that sentence which has been quoted. They voted against it in 1952 and they voted against it in one form or another ever since . They don't believe the statement; they didn't believe it then. So what is the point of trotting it out now as if it were an

article of their faith ? -- (Interje ction) -- Well, ther e's a point -- it provides me with something amusing to talk about. But that's about the only point I can see in the whole thing. They have made themselves , these gentlemen oppos ite , they have made themselves party to practically every dollar that has been added to the public debt, whether you call it direct debt or indirect debt or guaranteed debt from 1952 until the pr ese nt time , because the debt is made by the votes of this House ; and who voted for it? Well, among others , the Grits . And let me give you the reco rd, because we are being damned, we March 19, 1964 Page 1277

(Mr. Roblin, Cont' d.) ... are being condemned on this question of debt, and one can only pre sume that a man who criticizes the debt policy of the government must have some other idea in mind. He must have some other policy. He must oppose this policy and support an other; and what evidence is there on the record that my honourable friemls ':lave done any of those things, although they stand up here quite ready to say on the occasi on of a budget debate that it is wrong ? Well, here we are : Loan Act No . 2, 1958 - - $33 million. Did my honourable friends vote against that? Not by a jugful !

Loan Act 1959 -- $59 mi llion . Did my honourable friends vote against that? Not by a jug ful ! Loan Act 1960 ; there were two of them that year , one for $48 million and one for ten. Did my honourable friends vote against either of those ? Ce rtainly not ! It was a policy that they obviously approved of. Ah, but come along to 1961 and what did they do ?

There was a bill in there for $39 -1/2 million and they said, "We are not interested in voting for $3-3/4 millions of it that belong to the Floodway," and they moved on concurrent and it's quite plain there that on account of the $33 -1 /4 million they weren't going to vote for that one . So there 's $33 -1/4 million that they can lay to their -- they can lay that flattering unction to their soul on the question of debt if they feel inclined to do so . In the same year there was another bill for $55 million. What was their view on that? They were' in favour of it. They voted for it.

In 1962 there was a bill for $43 mil lion and that one they voted against because they didn't bel ieve in the road policy the government was following at that time . Pre suma bly they were not opposed to the other things involved in it which were telephones and colleges and buildings and what, but on account of the road policy they voted against that one -- 1962 . Then the second Loan Act of 1962, they voted against that -- $14-1/2 million , for agricultural credit and business development. That they didn't like . We come along to 1963 and nothing bothered them that year .

They voted for $32 million 6 in one capital bill and $45 mi llion in another capital bill , and then way back in 1960 they voted for $150 million in another capital bill. So during that period in which this ter rible debt on which my honourable friends have raised their hands so high, of some $440 million of both direct and guaranteed debt , they actually voted, according to the record, against $36-1/ 4 million of that total . So $404 million they are just as much responsible for as anybody I suppose . If they didn't like it they could have voted against it. They never did.

And I say to this House , Madam Speaker, that you have to accept the consequences of your actions . They are entitled to complain about $36 -1/4 million of the $404 million increase but no mo re , beca use that's all that they declared them selves as being opposed to during that period. So it seems to me that it is , to put it in the mildest way, irresponsible , to stand up now and criticize the government for actions of which they were a party.

I am prepare d, however , Madam Speaker, and I want to make this clear , I am prepared to let my honourable friends be as irre sponsible as they like , and I am prepared to defend the government's capital borrowing policy on its own mer its as we were responsible for it and we proposed it. And however much of an accomplice my honourable friend may have been I am prepared to defend the government policy on its own meri ts .

Now in the Hansard in which my honourable friend's budget speech is recorded, he talks about the debt and says first of all, on page 250 up at the top of the page ; he criticizes the way in which we are showing our debt, and doesn't think we are coming clean. He doesn't think we are being honest, if I want to put it in a rather blunt way, with the way in which we have re ferred to the public debt in the Province of Manitoba.

He says that -- referring to the debt - "it is mentioned, but do we find any clear cut statement , Madam Speaker, of the total debt , including the guaranteed ?" That's what the argument was all about -- whether the guaranteed debt should be shown along with the direct provincial debt or not. And he sa ys, no , it wasn't included :in the total debt .

There are two tables -- one on page 30 and one on page 32, and if you carefully combine the right figures , as the Comptroller-General did for us in the public accounts committee .,--and this has to be done with some care and considerable ju ggling from page to page , if you do this carefully here and combine the right figures it is possible to get the total; but if you look at either table separately there is no clear picture , Madam Speaker . This was one of his important charges against us -- we weren't showing the de bt. Well, I would like to direct the attention of the House to a budget .

This budget is one that was pre sented in this Legislature , and if you care to look at page 18 of this budget -- and it was the one delivered in the spring of 1958 by the Honourable Charles E. Greenlay, Provincial Page 1278 March 19, 1964

(Mr . Roblin, Cont'd. ) . . . Treasurer of Manitob a -- the only reference that you will find to the provincial debt , either direct or guarante ed, in the budget statement as contained on page 18, "it is es timated that at the year end the dead weig ht debt of the province will amount to about $29 million. Detailed information respecting the make-up and distri bution of the provin ci al debt has been included in the table appearing in the index in this addres s." Tha t's all. In my budget speech, it's included in the text on two different pages .

In this budget speech -- the last one delivered before we had any responsi bility -- not mentioned in the text of the budget speech itself. No mention of guarante ed. But he sa id it 's in the chart s.

And here again my honourable friend says something about cha rts , again reading from his speech: "Similarly if you take the last page of this budget which shows this graph entitled "Province of Manitoba Public Debt ," one could reas onably expect that thi s would be a true presen tation of the total public debt of this province , but Madam Speak er, it does no t." This chart does not include the guarante ed debt of the Province of Ma nitob a. Well, let's turn to the chart that Mr . Greenlay had in his budget. Turn to page 42, tha t' s whe re the charts are to be found in connection with the budget .

Anything to be found in there about guarante ed debt or anything but the direct dead weig ht debt of the province ? Not a . . .. in the chart . Not so much of a scr uple of that debt do you find -- except half way down the page -- in rather small type that my honourable friend the Leader of the Op posi tion would have trouble reading , ju dging from his expe rience with my l:iudget -- a footnote . It got in . There was a footnote . In my budget: set out, documented, detail ed, th ere.

In this thin g, not a men tion in the budget prope r, and the best you can do, search as you wi ll, is to find a footnote among the cha rts . "Tri cky financing? " I don't think I every accused Mr. Charles E. Greenlay of tric h.-y financing. I thought he was an extremely strai ghtforward and candid person. I still think so. And I think his budget was a straig htfo rward and candid budget . It isn't as informa tive as mine to be sure on thi s question of debt , not as informative but I ce rtainly wouldn't hold him up to public ridicule on that ground.

I wonder why my honourable friend the Lea der of the Opp osi tion didn't tell us ab out the way they did things when they were in, when he criticizes us . -- (Int erject ion) -- No but you were sitting the re . You were sitting th ere . -- (Interject ion) - Didn't he know ? On this occasi on I'm inclined to think he didn't know . He knew all right but he'd forgotten. It was some time ago . But I think that in making charges like this , which are serious, about the validity of information contained in a provincial budget statement one must not be shallow and superf icia l.

And tha t's what my honourable friend is . He is shallow and superfic ial . 1\IIR . MOLGAT: It was accu rate . 1\IIR. ROBLIN : He heard it in the 1959 budget , he heard it read, he read it him self. He knows it and he should have told us . 1\IIR. MOLGAT: It 's accura te . 1\IIR . ROBLIN: Of course the reason for all this is perfectly obvious -- why Mr. Green lay did not show this in his budget and why I treat it the way I do -- because what ever you say the guaranteed debt is not a direct liability of the provin ce .

There is not one single penny to be found in the public accounts or the estimates placed before this to pay for items which are listed under the guara nteed debt of this province . The Comptroller -General is no tool of the Treasur y and tha t's the way he shows it in the public acc ounts ; that's the way it shows in the ba lance sheet of this provin ce ; tha t's the way it shows in our est imat es ; and tha t's the truth.

The guaranteed debt is not part of the direct obligations of this province , it is contingent , and the re is not a cent in the public accolmts charged up against that particular type of exp ense . And why, why is all thi s? Well, I'm going to give you another auth ority, and it's from another budget speech. This budget speech goes back a little furthe r, it's 1951, and I can't expect the Honourable Member for Ste . Rose to know anything about this one . But I can expect the Hon ourable Member for Lakesid e to know somethin g about it and he has been particularly noisy on this particular point .

And let me ask him to turn to page 20 of the budget of 1951 which he him self delivered in this House on the 21st day of Ma rch -- hav en't got long to go before we get th ere . And listen to what he sa ys about the way to treat guarant eed debt in the public accounts of this province, and I quote , "I think however that it is well to announce at thi s time a new policy with respect to our debt management which we plan to include at this sessi on of the Leg isla ture . The probable extent and scope of public power development from now on. makes it March 19, 1964 Page 1279

(Mr. Roblin, Cont'd . ) ... desira ble for us to deal with the future debt to be crea ted for power generation as have the other grea t public ownership provinces of Ontario , Quebec and British Columbia. We plan to authorize the Hydro Electric Board to is sue bonds in its own name with provision for guarantees by the province. This will mea n that in future the direct debt of the province will be shown separately from the debt of this expanding new utility. Hydro Board public borrowings will be made separately from borrowings for other provincia l purposes.

It is des irable if we are to keep the Board's financial affairs completely separa te from our own in suc.h a way as to be readily seen by all people at all times. It is a new departure for Manit oba, but one for which the trail has long since been blazed by the three largest provinces of Canada in the same field of public power ownership ." Now I ask you , where now does my hon oura ble friend' s criticism stand ?

He is criticizing us for following a sensible policy laid down in 1951, followed by all the treasurers from 1951 to '58 with respect to the treatment of the guara nteed debt; the way in which it should be considered ; its rela tionship to the provincial budget; where it should appear in the statement of acc ount and in the budgetary statements that I are made , and its affect on the taxpayers of Manitoba. Well , balderdash is the most discreet term that comes to my lips at this moment, but it indicates again the superficial nature of the charges made by my honourable friend in this connection. All right !

It is therefore realistic that we should separate this guar antee from the other debts of this province and it is also real- istic to treat them as we do with respect to the tax position of the people of Manitoba. My hon- ourable friend lumps them together.

In spite of the clear statement by one of the preceding provincial treasurers of this province that that was not the way to do it, as I have just read from the budget speech of 1951, my honourable friend lumps them altogether and he gives figures for the gross debt guaranteed and other of the Province of Manitoba, which would scare the hide off of anybody who took it at its face value , and I see some newspapers did. A dread- ful figure , if it were truly the debt that weighed upon the back of the taxpayers of the Province of Manitoba but it doesn't happen to be the case .

The actual direct debt, the per capita net debt of this province is $176 .7 1 per capita, not that horrific figure that received such wide publicity as the result of my honourable friend's irra tional and superficial statement. The figure that I'm using , I'm bound to point out, is not the same figure that appears for debt in, the Canadian Tax Foundation report beca use our figure is calculated after the deduction of sinking funds and s·elf-sustaining debt. Theirs is not. Tha t's the reason. I'm bound to explain the reason. I do so.

Manitoba is fifth in this list of provinces with respect to net per · capita debt -- $176 .7i -- 4 percent, four cents on the dollar is what it takes us to pay for it in the Provincial Budge

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	27-2-48
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	27th 2nd hansardpdf 48.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e28b30076b0ad62f6da6da731db54c5aeb897eb1

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