Manitoba Hansard — 8 May 1984 (Sitting 17B, 32nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

32-3-17b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Third Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXII No. 178 - 8:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 8 MAY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Hon. Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Q.C., Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Rusaell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.'ILJ. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon.Ytc SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKI� Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfiflld Thompson La Verend rye Min nedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Bon iface Aiel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Vir den Kirkfield Park· The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin- Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP IND NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 8 May, 1984. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY- ATTORNE Y-GENERAL MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: We propose to finish the Land Titles sect ion and then we will go back to Human Rights. We are right in the middle of considering 4.(

a) and 4.(b), Land Titles Offices, Salaries and Other Expenditures. The Honourable Mini ster. HON. R. PENNER: Just for the reco rd, Mr. Chairman, I'm giving the Member for St. Norbert the update

summary of the staff changes which I noted in my opening remarks. There may be some slight variance, but they are substantially the same. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned at 4:30, we were discussing the increased fees imposed by the Attorne y-General on users at the Land Titles Office and he was commenting, I believe, that charges have to be kept in line with the expenditures and the services rendered.

I note from the Estimates and the details of revenues that in the fiscal year ending March 31st, '84, the expenditures at the Land Titles Office were $4.35 million and the revenue was $6.64 million. In spite of the fact that the Land Titles Office therefore, made a profit of about $2.2 - 2.3 million the Attorney-General and the government have seen fit to impose exorbitant increases in the Land Titles Office fees that amount to almost 52 percent increase in fees charged to the purchaser of an average-priced home in the city.

Then this year expend itures are down approximately $9,000 and as a result of the new fees, the revenue will be up to $7.8 million. I simply want to state for the record, that I think the increase is simply not justified. lt is in effect a tax on the users of the Land Titles Offices. lt is unjustified . I suppose it's impossible now for the government to take any remedial action, but it should be stated for the record that this Is in effect a tax on users of the Land Titles Office. HON. R. PENNER: Just two additional notes.

When the new fee structure was proposed, the first proposal for change came in from the Registrar General. What was ultimately passed was considerably lower than that which was proposed by the Registrar General. That, however, doesn't deal entirely with the point.

I do want to say that before I arrived at a rec ommendation which was accepted by Executive Council, we looked at comparable tariffs, particularly after the latest change in Saskatchewan - and here memory must serve and I realize that's always an 546 unreliable guide, but I think not that unreliable - we were the same as or lower in almost every instance than the new Saskatchewan tariff. Finally, in fiscals '78,'79,'80, and'81, the revenues produced at the Land Titles Office considerably exceeded the cost of running the operation, so that particular feature is not novel to this administration. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, what the Land Titles fees are in Saskatchewan is Irrelevant and what the Registrar General recommended is irrelevant. There has been, I suppose, for a long period of years a situation where the Land Titles Office has generated revenue for the government. lt does appear this year, however, that in view of the fact that the Land Titles Office was previous to the increase generating a profit of some $2.3 million, that to impose an increase in charges of another $1. 2 or $1. 3 million would appear to be somewhat excessive. HON. R. PENNER: No, I think we both made our respective points.

I won't comment on the effect on the deficit at the lower tariff in the Land Titles Office. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the Attorney-General was referring to, but why should the users of the Land Titles Office be required to pay for the excessive costs of advertising and the 20 percent increase in administrative positions in the government? lt should be a fee generally relative to the service that's being rendered. HON. R. PENNER: Indeed, they're paying for one of the finest Land Titles system in the countr y, if not the finest, with the greatest guarantee of security of title.

I can only say that since the increase in the tariff in February we haven't had a single complaint, formal or informal. MR. G. MERCIER: You have now. HON. R. PENNER: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(

a) and (b)-pass; Land Titles Offices, Salaries and Other Expenditures. Resolution 21: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,339,900 for Attorney-General, Land Titles Office for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 19 85- pass. HON. R. PENNER: Could we then go back to the Human Rights Commission? Darlene Germscheid, Executive Director of The Manitoba Human Rights Commission is here, let me say, coming off holi days in order to do her civic duty. I use that in its generic term. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going back to what we skipped yesterd ay, which is 3.(b) (1) and 3. (b) (2), Manitoba Human Rights Commission: Salaries and Other Expenditures.

Tund8J, 8 May, 1884 The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Attorney General indicated in his opening remarks that the Human Rights Commission would be reduced by two members, from seven to five. HON. R. PENNER: No, that's the Law Reform Commission. MR. G. MERCIER: Could the Attorney-General indicate whether in view of what appears to be a reduction in salaries, is there a reduction in positions? HON. R. PENNER: No, again that's the 27th pay period. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, it was indicated last fall by the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Mr.

Gibson, that a package of proposed changes to Provincial Human Rights legislation would be sent to the Minister in the next two to three weeks and that was reported on October 25, 1983. Has the Minister received those recommendations and does he intend to introduce amendments to The Human Rights Act? HON. R. PENNER: Yes and no, respectively. Yes, I have received recomendations to the Commission.

I must commend the Commi ssion who worked for about a year and put in an enormous amount of time - there were hearings - and used their collective skills, which I judge objectively to be the best in the country in the human rights field , to come up with some recommendations, but there hasn't been an opportunity to have them stud ied internally and there are no plans to introduce changes at this Session. MR. G. MERCIER: Did the Commission hold public hearings on that review of the Act? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it did. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, in view of the fact that public hearings were held then, would the Minister not agree to table the report of the Human Rights Commission? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, as soon as I' ve had an opportunity - and I'm not being disingenuous here - to study the report, because I think that it's incumbent upon a Minister tabling a report of that kind to be able to respond to any of the suggestions that are made. That's certainly something that will be asked and in the fullne ss of time I want to be in R position to do that. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, could the Attorney General undertake to table that at this Session of the Legislature? HON. R. PENNER: I'll make an effort to do so. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Gla dstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't got, of course, the' 83 Annual Report in front of me, it 547 hasn't been published, so I was just wondering if there was any difference in the structure of the work being done. For instance, you still have one education officer? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MRS. C. OLESON: Is he full-tim e education and working with that type of thing, or does he have to float as well? HON. R.

PENNER: Full-time Educational Officer. MRS. C. OLESON: Full-time education. You have someone who goes to - I believe I saw an ad in the Brandon Sun - where there was an officer going out to Brandon periodically. How often is that and is it the same officer that goes out each time? HON. R. PENNER: lt's rotating, that is it will be a different officer, not necessarily the same and it's one day every two weeks. MRS. C. OLESON: You still have an investigating officer at The Pas, only one officer at The Pas? HON. R. PENNER: One officer at -:-he Pas. MRS. C.

OLESON: Does he also service the Thompson area �tnd have P.r. .:.tfice there periodically or how does that operate? HON. R. PENNER: That is right. The Human Rights Officer at The Pas makes trips to Thompson. MRS. C. OLESON: Is there any structural change within the Winnipeg office? How many investigating officers are assigned, how many assigned to investigations and just how is the structure operating within the Winnipeg office? HON. R.

PENNER: The only change of significance is that we were finally able to hire a Chief Enforcement Supervisor in December and, up to that time, because we could n't find a suitable person, the Executive Director was carrying both the load of Executive Director and that particular function. With the addition of that person, it's made an enormous difference because we were fortunate enough to be able to hire someone with legal training in that position who is able to very carefully instruct the officers in their legal obligations and duties. MRS. C.

OLESON: Well, what are the duties of that officer besides the training of the officers? HOi-1. R. PENNER: lt's supervisory. MRS. C. OLESON: Supervisory over the . . ? HON. R. PENNER: The Human Rights Officers. MRS. C. OLESON: The Human Rights Officers. Now, a while ago, I believe it originated in the Winnipeg Free Press, there was an

article to do with the sexual harassment case and I was rather appalled to see names, and quite explicit descriptions of the case. Later

TUeada� 8 Ma� 1984 in the Winnip eg Sun, I have that clipping with me and it says: "Legislation Eyed in Wake of Hum an Rights sex case," and in it Mr. Gibson suggested that they should be looking at legislation to deal with this sort of problem because it was, as the female in question was quo ted in the paper as saying, that if she had realized this was going to happen, she would never have testified. This brings a really great problem in focus with that sort of case, in that it's going to discourage anyone from making a complaint. After having read that

article I'm sure there are people that feel well, good grief, we don't need that hassle, as well as the problem we already have. Of course if you want to look at it in another light, it also would be detrimental to the reputation of someone who was complained against with all this information being pu blished. Is there anything that the Attor ney-General is contemplating doing with regard to that type of case? HON. R. PENNER: Thank you very much for that thoughtful question.

You really put your finger on what may be properly described as one of the intractable problems of the admin istration of justice, in all of its forms, trying to balance the right of the public to know and the media accordingly to be present and report against the human rights of individuals who are involved, whether it's in a human rights case, or indeed in a criminal prosecution where often enough, to make it a problem someone accused sometimes of a particularly heinous offence is found not guilty, nevertheless, the whole matter has been reported.

This now has become an even greater problem because, in particularly sensitive areas in th e admin istration of justice dealing with women and children, where previously the right of the

section in The Juvenile Delinquents Act -which we no longer have but just to use it as an example which allowed a judge to bar the media -could no longer be enforced because of the Charter. So we would run into a Charter problem if we attempted to legislate a blanket prohibition and that brings me to the point, and I don't understand the member to be proposing a blanket prohibition. You are concerned, as I think appropriately we all would be, about sensitive areas.

I'm expecting a report from the Chairperson of the Commission, Professor Gibson, and I think it may be possible to allow enquiry officers in boards of adjudication - I guess we'd call them formally -to have a discretion; because if it's done on a discretionary basis, the cases that have been decided under the Charter would seem to indicate that that may not infringe the other right in the Charter of freedom of press, freedom of the media. So that's the avenue that we're looking at.

So you could take a case like the one there and the complainant says look, I want a complaint and I want this adjudicated but I'm just not going to bring it forward for a whole numb er of reasons. 1t should be possible, in a particularly sensitive area for an adjudicator to say, close the doors. Now I want to be clear that I'm not, from this chair, proposing that as policy. I'm simply -for the member's benefit and other's -putting on the table a possible solution. 548 MRS. C. OLESON: No, I wasn't giving any positive idea either.

I just wanted to raise the question because I thought it was a very valid one, particularly because of this case. Of course, many of these cases are dealt with and never come to adjudication, and in that way would never be made public. But that one did and it was unfortuna te and I think it will probably set back the process. I think there were great strides being made in that particular area of human rights, and I think probably it's had a setback because of that particular incident.

Another question I was going to ask -and I will be dealing with this same sort of subject in the Estimates of the Minister who's in charge of social welfare. But there was recently an

article in the paper about a single father who applied for welfare and was denied because it was only available to mothers. lt seemed to me that that subject had come up when I was on the Human Rights Commission and we had talked about it then. I was just wondering if there is any thought to change legislation in that line, or would this fall strictly into the Department of Welfare, or would the Attorney-General be involved in it also? HON. R.

PENNER: I'm happy to be able to advise you that, in fact, legislation is dr afted which will be introduced in this Session in an amendment to provide allowances for sole support fathers. MRS. C. OLESON: I think that's ali i had at the moment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Item 3.(b)( 1) and 3.(b)(2) relating to Human Rights Commission: Salaries and Other Expenditures-pass. Resolution 20: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,330, 100 for Attorney-General, Boards and Commissions, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1985- pass.

We're now considering Item 5.(a)( 1) and 5.(a )(2) relating to Law Courts, Courts Administration: Salaries and Other Expenditures. Mr. Minister. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you. Let me just introduce Marvin Bruce, our Director of Court Services, known to the Member for St. Norbert and, I think, a terrific administrator. Don't let that go to your head, Marv in, that was just for the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: lt is 5.(a)( 1) and 5.(a)(2) together, Cour ts Admi nistration: Salaries and Other Expenditures. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, perhaps the Attorney General could just indicate, it doesn't appear, but could he just advise us whether or not there's any significant change or new development or new policy in this category? HON. R. PENNER: Not in that categor y, no. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(a)( 1) and 5.(a)(2)-pass. 5.(b)( 1) and 5.(b)(2), relating to Court of Appeal, Queen 's Bench, County Courts and Surrogate Court: Salaries and Other Expenditures.

Mr. Minister. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you. Here I'll just note as I did in the opening, the two big developments are the amalgamation and the setting up of the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, we discussed this last year and in requesting the Law Reform Commission Report on amalgamation of the Court of Queen's Bench and County Court, I had also asked the Law Reform Commission to look at the Small Claims Court with a view to increasing their jurisdiction in view of the fact that the $1 ,000 limit on small claims matters has been in effect for many many years.

What with inflation and with the deterrent of high legal costs it was and still remains my view that the limitation on jurisdiction should be increased significantly. The Attorney-General had indicated last year that he was studying the Law Reform Commission Report which came out last spring and I would ask him if he has any intention to proceed at this Session of the Legislature to increase the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court? HON. R. PENNER: No, I haven't, and that's not because I'm not mindful of the problem.

What I had been hoping to do was just to step back a pace, as it were, and look at the whole Small Claims procedures. Now, in fact, that it's going to be auxiliary to the Queen's Bench, it raises the question of whether there may not be a more appropriate way of dealing with small claims.

But I think since that any change from the present system that mem bers are familiar with, of having in effect Court Clerks sit as ajudicators and have a right of appeal to what would now be the Court of Queen 's Bench, may entail some perhaps further study of the Law Reform Commis sion proposal than I've been able to give it, quite frankly, in the last year. I will say this, that if I don't -and I haven't been planning to bring in a simple change in the amount tha t can be adjudicated in the present structure in this Session - then I'll certainly give it very active consideration for the next Session. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 5.(bX 1) -the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the Attor ney-General one general question with regard to the change in the amalgamation of the courts.

Has the Attorne y-General given any consideration whatsoever to the traditional venue of courts and the disruption of service that has traditionally applied to various sectors in the Province of Manitoba, and the disruption that will occur in the Administration of Justice when he has amalgama ted the courts and has, in doing so, Inadvertently omitted certain areas of the province where justice was traditionally imparted? HON. R. P.ENNER: Did he say inadvertently? MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, maybe not inadvertently.

Maybe by design as removed from the public venue areas where justice had traditionally been imposed, and I'm referring specifically to the closing of the Virden courts. HON. R. PENNER: First of all, let me set something straight on the record. The Virden court is not being 549 closed. Indeed, we're in active discussion with the town officials with respect to court facilities, to upgrade the court facilities, so that certainly doesn't speak about closing the courts. The major court there, as in most rural areas, is the Provincial Jud ges Court.

That's the court that has the most frequent sittings in the centre, certainly in Virden. There was a study conducted by the then Chief Judge, Allan Philp, Chief Judge of the County Court, in 1977, I think, now a Member of the Court of Appeal, and he produc ed figures with respect to the amount of actual judicial activity there was in the 16 county courts.

I don't think I have the figures with me, but he, in looking at those figures, found what indeed on subsequent studies was verified, indeed a declining number of county court cases heard in a numb er -three or four -of the county court districts as they then were. lt was his recommendation that a number of them be closed as county courts. That was in '77. Sin ce then, of course, amalgamation is taking place.

Had amalgamation not taken place we still would have had to consider whether, for what is in effect one contested trial every two months, it warranted holding an apparatus and formally a county court district, so the recom mendation had been made by the then Chief Judge Philp, that Virdr.. 11, Beausejour, Klllarney and Russell, I think -Russell would be amalgamated with Minn edosa, and Vlr·den would look to Brandon , Beaur�1our tn E:;;i\irk -these were the recommendatons that were made and to some extent have been carried through with amalgamation.

But there is a difference, I think, and a substantial difference and that is, we are certainly maintaining, indeed as I say, upgrading court facilities, Virden and Flin Flon are the two -the Member for Northern Affairs is listening to this I hope, the Minister for Northern Affairs -I say that Flin Flon and Virden are the two places where we're really going ahead with upgrading court facilities regardless of whether or not they will be used for sittings of the Court of Queen 's Bench on a regular basis, but because of the Provincial Judges Court hearings. We've removed the sort of the formal kind of division.

All of Manitoba is now, in effect, one judicial district. We have a numb er of judicial centres and if the parties, let's say are both from Virden, and it's a major case which would formally as a Queen's Bench case have to be heard in the circuit sittings of the Queen's Bench in Brandon, they can ask to have their trial heard in Virden and the Superior Court of Queen's Bench will sit in Virden. So to the Member for Virden, I hope that I've assuaged his feelings or at least given him some reassurance that we're not closing down in the rural centres. MR. H.

GRAHAM: I thank the Honourable Attorne y General for those comments. Is he now telling me that the cases that have normally been heard in Virden, if both parties agree, those cases can still be heard in Virden whether it be Provincial Judg es Court, County Court or Queen 's Bench, they can still be heard in Virden if both parties agree? HON. R. PENNER: First of all, the Provincial Judg es Court will continue to sit there as a matter of regular

Tuesday, 8 May, 1984 routine -I'm not sure how many days a month it sits; it's three or four days a month -plus the Family Division of the Provincial Judges Court will sit there so that anybody who wants to bring a family case at the Provincial Court level can do so and it will be heard in Virden. The magistrate's work goes on on a daily basis, that will still be in Virden. Now, take the kind of case which normally would have been within the jurisdiction of the County Court -there will no longer be a County Court in any event so we're talking about the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench.

The parties normally would have that case heard in Brand on although it may be that someone from Virden is involved in a case which of necessity would be heard in Winnipeg. But if both of the parties to a court case that is a Queen's Bench case want to have it heard in Virden, then on a simple application to the court, the court may say, yes, that's where it will be heard . The discretion is left where I think it should be, in the hands of the court itself. lt will not be a decison of the Attorney-General. MR. H. GRAHAM: I thank the Honour able Attor ney General for that clarification.

Can the Honourable Attor ney-General honestly tell me that the Crown prosecutors would willingly move from Brandon or Winnipeg to a court in Virden if they knew that by saying no, say, they could have the case in Brandon where they wouldn't have to get up an hour-and-a-half earlier or something to appear in court? Is that the circumstance that the Attor ney-General is outlining to us here? HON. R. PENNER: No.

With respect to criminal cases heard at the Provincial Judges Court, they will continue to be heard of necessity in Virden if they arise in the Virden area and I can tell him the Crown attorneys just love to go to Virden. I mean, it's worth that extra hour and-a-half to travel through that beautiful countryside. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, they should. HON. R. PENNER: Absolutely. They're in line to go to Virden. I have to beat them off with a stick. MR. H. GRAHAM: No further questions. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 5.(b)( 1) and 5.(b)(2)-pass. 5.(c)(1), 5.(c)(2) relating to Provincial Judges Court: Salaries and Other Expenditur es -the Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to deal with the question of backlog in the Provincial Judges Court. When we assumed office in 19 71, there was a very significant backlog and through concentrating on that problem, the department was very successful in reducing court backlog to somewhere close to three months for a trial, perhaps a little bit over that -between three and four months.

In recent months, there have been news reports in December, for example, which indicated that spousal abuse victims were forced to wait six months to a year, often in fear, for their cases to go to trial because of a backlog in Manitoba's legal system. In Jan uary, the Vice-President of the Manitoba Trial Lawyers Association described the new Provincial court system introduced a year ago to speed up trials as an absolute disaster . There have been, quite vali dly, concerns expressed by Mr. Myshkowsky with respect to the numb er of no-shows for trials.

The Atto rney-General has, in his opening statement, referred to hiring a tria l co-ordina tor . Could the Attorne y-General indicate what the backlog presently is and what efforts will be made, I assume thr ough the trial co-ordinator, to reduce the existing backlog? HON. R. PENNER: First of all, with respect to the spousal abuse cases. what we've done to cope with that is in fact we've organ ized to hold special hearings and the backlog there is only five weeks. Now that in itself is too much, but on a comparable basis it's an improvement. We want to improve it more.

With respect to cases of those who are in custody, the range is from eight to 12 weeks. In what we call the calendar court cases, these are really the short trials, the sentencing hearings, the one-day-or-less trials, were on a 15 to 90 day cycle. Finally, in what we call the non-calendar court cases, which are those that are more than a day, the sort of cases set to go on, it's anticipated it will be more than a day, but no one is in custody, there the delay is five and six months. Now, these are too long in most of the instances and we know that it is too long.

An attempt was made by the Chief Provincial Judge to develop a system called the calendar court system -if you ask me to explain it, I'm lost, but nevertheless I think I can -which it was his hope would maxi mize the use of court time and the efficiency of the court services and cut down the delay. That hasn't worked . out as well as he had hoped, and on his recommendation and after studying the situation in Vancouver and Victoria with respect to a trial co ordina tor, Marvin Bruce went down with Chief Judge Gyles to look at both of those situations and with Wayne Myshkowsky.

They came back strongly recommending a trial co-ordinator and we have been able to find a position internally for a trial co-ordinator. it's up for classification as soon as it's classified. 550 lt will be advertised, or I think we will try to fill internally if we can, depending on the classification, and get cracking on it. I really think, having read some of the material on it, the report of Marvin Bruc e and Wayne Myshkowsky, that it will work. lt works in this way, just very briefly. One trial co-ordinator can handle four courts. I think we have run four courts at 373 Broadway. They will co-ordinate four .

There are 10 courts at 373 Broadway; they'll co-ordinate four. There is on any given day, just to take an example and I am perhaps oversimplifying, there will be a judge on duty there from 10 to 5, the regular sort of sitting hours, and you will have a couple of cases lined up for each one of those courts.

Supposing that case No. 1 before Judge A folds, a plea of guilty -and as the mem ber knows that's what happens that creates problems -then the trial co-ordinator who is on duty can im med iately ta ke the case in the lineup in Courtroom No. 2, waiting for Judge B who happens to be now involved in a trial that's going on longer than expected,. and switch it into the first courtroom; and

Tueeday, 8 May, 1114 the trial co-ordinator will have the power to say to counsel, your trial which you thought was going to be heard by Judge so-and-so is now in the next courtroom, you are going on in 15 minutes. I like the sound of it compared to what's been going on. Statistics show that you do more than double the amount of court time. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I can only hope that the situation then will be impr oved through the trial co-ordinator.

I would like to raise one other issue under this item, and it stems from the decision by the Attorney-General not to renew the appointment of Judge Baryluk as a Provincial Judge. The Atto rney-General had issued a statement the end of June 19 83, with respect to some remarks that had been made by Judge Baryluk to the effect, and I quote the Attorn ey-General, "lt cannot help but be seen by many as a mar ked departure from the high standard of judicial conduct and decorum expected of all members of the Bench.

I have today advised Judge Baryluk of my concerns in this regard." Then the fact that the Attorney-General did not renew his appointment raises, I think, a very important question with respect to the independence of the judiciary. I am not defending, nor am I here to defend anything Judge Baryluk said, and that's not the issue. The issue is really, what should be the retirement age of a judge.

I think there should be a clear manda tory retirement age for a provincial judge so that it is not left open to this Attor ney-General, or any Atto rney General in the future, to appear to have made a decision not to renew the appointment of a judge because of a concern by that Attorney-General, that in his opinion the judge wasn't perfor ming properly. I think in order to retain that important principle of the independence of the judiciary, the Attorney-General should consider bringing forward perhaps in the form of an amendment to The Provincial Judges Act a mandatory retirement age for provincial judges.

I don't necessarily think that that should be age 65; probably it could be discussed with the Provincial Ju dges Associat ion, or perhaps an age of 70 might be appropriate perhaps in combination with an opportunity for judges to take some form of earlier retirement. But I would ask the Attorney-General if he has similar concerns and whether or not he intends to bring in any amendments to The Provincial Judges Act to legislate a mandator y retirement age. HON. R. PENNER: Are you planning early retirement, is that what it is? MR. G. MERCIER: He doesn't have any choice. HON. R. PENNER: I am closer to 70 than he is.

Are we on record? MR. CHAIRMAN: We are. HON. R. PENNER: Then we can't place bets. With respect to that question, I thank the member very much for raising it. Indeed, I think in all probabil ity, he is right in suggesting that the situation would be a lot better in this particular area because I don't want to make a general statement about mandator y 551 retirement, other than saying that is an issue that is very much close to the top of our agenda for discussion. I have to look at it in either a broader or a narrower context and, certainly, there is a case to be made in this one area.

I wouldn't want it to be seen as a precedent and, certain ly, th e provincial judges them selves would be happy with a specific age. There has arisen a great deal of -well, there isn't unanimity. I would say, essentially there seems to be a consensus with respect to an age, and I want to discuss that further with them and with my colleagues. I really do hope to bring in a specific amendment to The Judges Act on that issue, not this Session but at the next Session. Just one final remark.

I would like it noted for the record with respect to Judge Baryluk that he was -it's true that he was not renewed -but he was not replaced because of the switch of the family work in the Eastern Judicial District to the new Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench. Collectively, in the Provincial Judges Court, we have a surplus arguably from two to four judges. I didn't replace Judge Helper either when she was appointed.

Judge Baryluk had an opportunity for a part-time appointment to the federal court which he has taken, so he sits as a part-time judge on some cases - I am not sure if it's immigr ation appeal cases -but some cases in federal court which may expand to a little more work which he's quite comfortable with and, in the circumstances, it was the best resolution, but it w�s not p .. reonal. MR. G. MERCIER: Jus t one short comment, Mr. Chairman, because of a comment made by the Attor ney-General. I do not advocate compulsory retirement either. I do not support that, but I think this is one area where it is justified. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 5.(c)(1 )-pass; 5.(c)(2)-pass. 5.(d)(1) relat ing to Cour t Reporters : Salaries, Other Expenditu res-pass. 5.( e)(1) and 5.(e)(2) relating to Sheriffs and Bailiffs: Salaries and Other Expenditur es -the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I have received a copy of correspondence with the Attorney-General from a Mr. Ron W. Kimmel, particularly concerned about problems of per diem sheriffs' officers. The Attor ney General would have received it last June and he made a reply, and then a further response was made to the Attorne y-General and was referred to Mr.

Pilkey who was going to further investigate the concerns. I would simply ask the Attorney-General if he could perhaps undertake to review that matter and advise me, following the completion of the committee, whether those concerns have been further looked into. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I will undertake to do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: (5.(e)(1) to S.(f)(2) were each read and passed.) 5.(g )(1) -the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General had indicated that there were the additions of two investigators in this area, can he explain the need for that?

Tuesda� 8 May, 1984 HON. R. PENNER: Yes, actually it's a rationalization and indeed an improved service. Up until now, for the Chief Medical Examiner to be able to carry out his functions, he relied, with respect to investigations, on medical examiners out in the field on a fee basis. lt was both expensive and dilat ory, in the sense that there wasn't like "Johnny on the spot" sort of service and, in fact, many of these people would just simply pick up the phone and carry out "investigation" on a phone basis. On the recommendation of the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr.

Markesteyn, who looked into the situation, he recommende d strongly that the service of the Chief Medical Examiner, in investigating deaths, could be better and quicker and more cost efficient over time by having two staff whose full-time job was these kinds of investigations. MR. G. MERCIER: What, Mr. Chairman, accounts for the reduction in Other Expenditures of some almost $350,000.00? HON. R. PENNER: There are two components. The principle component is, in fact, a reduction in fees paid to these outside medical examiners because of the hiring of the two investigators.

Another component was that we had, I think, built into the line for last year an allowance for a negotiated fee increase to the medical examiners who were out there in their private practices, but earned fees on a fee-paid basis. After looking into the matter very carefully we didn't, in fact, increase the fees so that there was really less paid out on a fee basis then is reflected in the figure for'84. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(g)(1); 5.(g)

(2) Fatalities Inquiries Act-pass. Resolution 22: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $15,8 26,500 for Attorney-General Law Courts for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1985-p ass. We move on to 6.(

a) and 6.(

b) Legislative Counsel - Salaries, Other Expenditures - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, does the reduction in expenditures indicate a commitment on the part of this government to less legislation? HON. R. PENNER: Judging by this Session, yes. With respect to the next Session, only the shadow knows and he's sitting in the back of the hall. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(a); 6.(

b) Legislative Counsel - Salaries, Other Expendit ures-pass. Resolution 23: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $394,300 for Attorney General Legislative Counsel for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1985-pass. We move on to Item No. 7.(a)(1) and 7.(a)

(2) Law Enforcement Admin istration - Salarie s and Other Expenditures. Mr. Minister. HON. R. PENNER: Let me introduce the members of the committee - Charlie Hill, formerly with the Winnipeg Police, who is Director of Police Services replacing, in 552 part, Mr. Gordon Wiens who retired, but we've made it a full-time position. Mr.

Wiens devoted part of his time formerly to polic e matters and part to administration matters but, given the size of the Budget and the complexity of the matters that have to be dealt with in policing throughout the province- the municipal police forces and urban police forces and the RCMP and so on - we felt it advisable, and this was covered in last year's Estimates, to bring on a Director of Police Services. We feel ourselves exceptionally fortunate in being able to hire Charlie Hill.

He's been on duty since November 1st and we're really beginning to see the benefit of his services and his experiences as a police administrator. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(a)(1); 7.(a)(2) - Law Enforcement - Salaries and Other Expenditures- pass. 7.(b )(1); 7.(b )

(2) Canada-Manitoba Gun Control - Salaries and Other Expenditures-pass. 7.(

c) Provincial Police - the Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, could the Attor ney General indicate whether there are any increases or decreases in manpower of the RCMP serving Manitoba, and whether there are any changes in detachment offices planned during the forthcoming year? HON. R. PENNER: First of all, with respect to the establishm ent in the RCMP, the current situation, as we go into this fiscal year, is as follows: the total number, the total establishment at the end of fiscal' 84- 85 was 723.

That's made up of 588 - I may be out one or two because there's been some changes, and Charlie will correct me if I'm wrong - but 588 constables, officers; 87 public servants, that is civilians; 48 special constables for a total of 723. That's Special Indian Constables, I'm sorry. Now, that's the establishment. The corrected figures, the vast amount of increase in the 3.(

b) was not carried into effect, so what we were doing is we were holding or reducing, to some extent, detachments adjacent to reserves where the 3.(

b) Indian Program would be carried out as we phased that in. We didn't phase it in to quite the extent that we had anticipated so the actual figures, as we go in to this fiscal year, are 597 RCMP - 89 civilians and 32 Indian Special Constables. That's the staffing component. There hasn't been any significant increases other than, as I say, we're trying to work out a program over time to increase the number of Indian Special Constables and, indeed, to impro ve that program by locating some satellite detachments right in the reserve or on a reserve, and that's being phased in.

As we phase it in we're able to look at some reduction in adjacent detachments, that is, in the non-lndian constable part of the force and to redeploy. We have indeed been looking at the possibility of rationalizing. We're looking at workload statistics and we've received some information from the RCMP as to which detachments are up to their . . .

They have a norm that they use and we respect that norm, that they expect to do so many cases, measured in different ways, per constable, and they're constantly monitoring that and, in that respect, we've received reports that indicate the possibility of some detachment closing, but no

decision has been made by Executive Council to close any detachment. Indeed, I'm meeting with the RCMP this coming Monday, one of our regular meetings, but one of the items on the agenda will be to look at current statistics and to see what recommendations might be made formally to Executive Council with respect to the placement and staffing of various detachments in Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: There's a very small increase in Expenditures. Was there no increase under the Federal Provincial Agreement with respect to the cost of RCM P services? HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, there was a 1 percent increase on the contract. One of the reasons why there isn't a somewhat greater difference than is shown is that we have tra nsferred out of the Atto rney-Gen er al's Department, to Municipal Affairs, the police grants, which accounted for close to $200,000.00. The reason for doing that is because these were, in effect, grants in aid to municipalities and, with the Department of Municipal Affairs making other grants, they wanted to look at the whole grant structure because there were a lot of criticisms.

We had that, of necessity, artificial cutoff that, if you were under 750, you got free policing; if you were over 750, you had to pay and we're into some kind of an argument now - not an argument, a difference of opinion, we don't have arguments - as to the actual population of Emerson, just to use that as a case in point, where we have statistics from Statistics Canada that says it's 754. They're convinced that it's 746.

There may be some odds and sods moving in and out of town rather rapidly, but it may be that if a grant program were built on some kind of more graded basis we would n't run into those sorts of arguments, but that's no longer, fortunately, on the Attorney-General's plate, it's in the Minister for Municipal Affair's hands and he needs extra trouble. MR. G. MERCIER: I congratulate the Attorney-General on ridding himself of that responsibility. HON. R. PENNER: I bet you tried. MA. G.

MERCIER: No, we Increased the support. don't have with me the formula that was agreed to reluctantly with the Federal Government with respect to paying for RCMP services. Is the formula now fixed so that there will be no greater percentage increase in provincial share of RCMP costs? HON. R. PENNER: No, it goes up every year. We were at 58; we're into 59 percent and I think once we reach 60 it begins to go up by 2 percent a year until, in 1991, we reach 70 percent and that's pretty expensive. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I assume this area contains the grant to the Dakota-Ojibway Tribal Council Police Program.

The Attorney-General, I think, indicated the amount of the grant was $100,000.00. 553 HON. R. PENNER: Correct. MR. G. MERCIER: We discussed this during the past two sets of Estimates and has the Attorney-General yet received the review of that particular program? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I have, about a year ago, perhaps a little more.

The review, I think, on the whole I would have to say was positive, perhaps more so in subjective than in objective terms; that is, the force had a fairly good acceptance by its community and that's always important in policing. lt meant a lot to their eight reserves and that's important. Objectively, in terms of its effect on the work of the RCMP in adjacent detachments, one couldn't come to the same conclusion that you could really measure Its value in a cost benefit sort of way strictly on a dol lar and-cent basis.

Indeed, I had some reservations in that sense about the force. lt was having some difficulties with staff turnover and of course every time there was staff turnover it meant (

a) recruitment and (

b) training, and we would have invested training costs and time costs and lost it and have to start over again. lt would also, when tha t happened, lead to some temporary breakdowns in policing Sf" • .rvices and the RCMP would have to come in quite o�en to work the night shifts if one of two constables "Nas gone and they were waiting to hire Ca"i"ov\her or. � particular reserve. I am just using these numbers by way of example. Then they couldn't run the three shifts and the RCMP from the adjacent detachment would have to come in for those shifts.

The RC MP would have to come in, in any event for the serious crimes. So there were some problems. The costs were escalating, continue to escalate. So approximately a year ago, February 1983, I entered into discussions with the Department of Indian Affairs and with the Minister, Mr. Munro - you may have heard of him - and said, look, we are being asked for a greater provincial commitment, and not very prepared to make a greater provincial commitment without substantially more federal funds being guaranteed over the long haul. At that time it was not accepted by Mr. Munro, the Minister.

I think he is currently reviewing his position with respect to federal funding for the DOTC program. The DOTC people have said that if they don't get more funds they are going to close shop on that operation on July 1st. I hope they don't and I hope that there Is indeed a substantial federal commitment. If there is, we will look at our grant. There is a problem, quite frankly.

We are paying a huge amount of money for the RCMP and it has a basic infrastructure, admin istration, all of the technical equipment that is required for a modern police force, and 'here is no way you can really duplicate that other than at some considerable cost if you have a variety of police forces. I look upon the DOTC force as an experiment that has not yet proved itself one way or another. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Could the Attorney-General indicate to this committee how many communities there are in Manitoba that come

Tueeday, 8 May, 1984 close to that 750 magic figure where, according to the Attorney-General's own terms, the odds and sods are counted? HON. R. PENNER: Not many. In the last three years, I think there have been four communities affected one way or another that were previously charged and are now not charged, or were previously not charged and are now charged. I think a total of four, and Charlie Hill will ... MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Attorney-General indicate on what basis that count is used? Is it the census figures or what is the basis for his so-called odds and sods count used? HON. R. PENNER: Stats Canada.

MR. H. GR AHAM: Canada Statistics. Does the Canadian statistics refer to them as odds and sods? HON. R. PENNER: I never used the term "odds and sods." That was your term. MR. H. GRAHAM: I beg to differ with the Honourable Attorney-General. He was the person that raised the issue of odds and sods, and I would hope that he would apologize to the people of Manitoba for that terminology. HON. R. PENNER: First of all, the member should have raised it at the time. I was referring to the numb er that aren't there, not the people who are there; these unk nown six.

The number who are there who we count as 754 are not odds and sods, they are not a statistic; they are a commun ity. lt's the number about which everybody is uncertain, and I think are people who are just passing through and are residents of the lower mainland in British Columbia who I referred to as odds and sods. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, I am glad that the Attorney General has now confirmed that it's only those of the lower mainland of British Columbia that are odds and sods, and I would hope that he would confer that . HON. R. PENNER: Oh, sure. MR. H. GRAHAM: . . . to the Province of British Columbia. HON. R.

PENNER: Well, it's only that part of the lower mainland which actually is south of the border. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, then, refer them to Ronald Reagan. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(c) - the Memb er for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to ask the Attorney-General what criteria his department uses in deciding where there is to be a police detachment.

I am particulary concerned with two areas in my constituency and I am sure he knows which ones I mean before I say them. 554 Glenb oro has long been requesting a police detachment; and MacGregor, I think it finds itself this year in one of those situations where the extra people, one way or the other, some of these communities are almost setting up a barricade in front of their town so no one will move in so they'll be on the other side of that picture. Anyway, back to the detachment issue.

Naturally of course, they are costly, but what other criteria does your department look at when they are considering a request for a detachment? HON. R. PENNER: Actually, in the first instance, we rely very much on the senior staff of the RCMP. We use the criteria that they use; those criteria are based on long years of experience in terms of a per constable load, for one thing. They have a figure as to the number of - I'l l use the word "cases" - that's not quite the word - but that includes investigations, and response to calls and patrols. There is sort of a work quota, if you will, per constable.

Then, when they are looking at an area as a possible detachment area, they have to look at the viability of a detachment. You see, a one person detachment just isn't functional because you need some administration, you need shift, so it has to have that critical mass of cases which justifies the minimum detachment and when it reaches that point, it will be put on the list of possibilit ies when reorganizations take place. MRS. C. OLESON: Of course, when you talk about cases and statistics, particularly the Glenboro area always comes up with the argument.

I was on the council at one time when this request was made, that the statistics, of course, are cases that they are looking after, yet the argument always is that because there is no detachment there and because Glenboro is so far from neighbouring detachments that there would probably be a much larger caseload if there was someone there to work at it. Glen boro has found itself in the centre of a fairly large area and without a close detachment and have been, as you know, requesting for a long time that there be one put there. Is there any hope in the near future of that happening? HON. R.

PENNER: Not in the near future, I regret. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: If I might just help the Memb er for Gla dstone in their plight, Mr. Chairman, Gladstone, which has a detachment of several mem bers has become known as the radar capital of Canada and I'm sure they'd be glad to sever that staff and send half of them to Glenboro and leave half of them in Gladstone. HON. R. PENNER: But where does the radar equipment go? MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(c)- pass.

Resolution 24: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $26, 166,300 for Law Enforcement for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1985-p ass. We now proceed to Item B.(

a) and B.(

b) Public Trustee, Salaries, Other Expenditures. 8.(

a) and B.(b)- pass.

Resolution No. 25: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1 ,628, 100 for Public Trustee for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1985- pass. 9.(

a) and 9.(

b) Canada-Manitoba Legal Aid, Salaries, Other Expenditures - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, what was the amount of the supplementary funding that Legal Aid received during the last fiscal year over and above the 7.25 million? HON. R. PENNER: 865.000. MR. G. MERCIER: 865,000? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: Plus the 7.25 million from last year. HON. R. PENNER: Is that 7.25 adjusted for the amount? So one must add the 865 to the 7.2. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, the first question obviously then is, is 7.893 the amount budgeted for this year, a realistic figure?

How does the Attorney-General see Legal Aid ac complishing that? HON. R. PENNER: lt depends if you ask the Attorn ey General or the Executive Director of Legal Aid. You will note that in terms of the perc entage increase compared to the overall percentage increase of the department, it is a higher percentage increase. We started out on what I hope over two years will bring the funding of Legal Aid into line with its actual requirements because - and I will grant readily - it has been not a highly rational process.

Every year since Legal Aid started it has, in effect, been underfunded and and perhaps I'm can't speak for every year when the honourable member was Attorney-General, but every year when I was involved with Legal Aid there was supplementary funding that might have been anticipated. The Provincial Auditor commen ted on this and in effect said, why don't you fund instead of always coming back for supplementary because under your legislation you're obligated to deliver service. You deliver service, you have to pay the lawyers and there's no way of getting around it.

And if you have reasonable project ions that you're going to spend, say, 8 million, then vote 8 million and not 7.5 and come back at the end of the year for another half-million. We think we're fairly close. it's going to take some pretty tight controls within Legal Aid.

I may say that the initial statistics. not just to this year but from the time where the upturn in the economy began to have some effect, the growth rate has been considerably less than it was as a result of the recess ion, so that for the 12 months ending March 31, 1984 - pretty current - we see that the number of certificates issued to the private bar has declined by 3.9 percent year over-year.

Now since in fact, the bulk of what we'll pay - I may change the word "bulk" in a moment - a considerable amount of what we will pay in fiscal 1984- 85 relates to certificates issued in 19 83-84, we've 555 reasonable belief in expecting that we can keep within that voted figure or that estimated figure. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General may have the figure there. The last report indicated that as of March 31, 19 83, there were 11 ,738 uncompleted cases that would have a great effect on the cost for this year.

Does the Attorne y-General have those figures for the number of uncompleted cases as of March 31, 1984? HON. R. PENNER: 11 ,890. MR. G. MERCIER: it's hig her. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. And of those, 7,658 are 19 83- 84 certificates. But in that backlog some of them go back to 1973-74. I guess their filing systems are a little behind and we may never see the back of those certificates. MR. G. MERCIER: The Attorne y-General or Legal Aid must be anticipating an increase In certificates as a result of The Young Offenders Act. HON. R.

PENNER: Col lectively that is right, although it's really broken down intc. two components. Essentially, we are maintaining our :.ort of Legal Aid criteria with respect to eligibi lity for Legal Aid of young offenders, but ther� i.� u statutory obligation under The Young Offenders Act itself that regardless of the financial eligibil ity, and regardless of whether or not a young offender meets provincial criteria, if the young offender charged and proceeding with formal adjudication asks for counsel to be represented, the court directs that the Attorney-General appoint counsel.

Instead of setting up two structures, sort of an Attorney-General's young offenders advocacy program and legal aid, Legal Aid will administer the whole kettle of fish; small fish, but nevertheless kettle of fish, and that will increase the cost. Now the Federal Government has made an offer. They made an offer with respect to young offenders, most of which fall within the purview of the Minister of Community Services and Corrections, a whole number of programs that will be funded federally relating to young offenders.

The primary cost at the moment, which is eligible for federal funding, not hitherto eligible for federal funding, is with respect to legal counsel, and the offer that they've made to us and other provinc es is inadequate, therefore, negotiations have not been completed between the provinces and the Federal Government. I think we're waiting for an addition al response from the Federal Government. The last negotiating meeting was last week and we're waiting for a further and better response from the Fede. al Government.

The last federal offer would have shown an incre ase, in terms of representation for young pPvple, the federal share of a paltry $1 77,000, something in that order which we think to be inadequate. So we're hoping that we get a better offer. In the meantime. we are adding some staff and setting up, in fact , a Young Offenders Duty Counsel Office in the Fort Osborne barracks complex. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Executive Director was quo ted in January as indi cating that if the

Tuesday, 8 May, 1984 government holds funding increases to 3 percent Legal Aid will have to consider red ucing, or possibly eliminating, programs; could the Attor ney-General indicate what, if any, programs are being eliminated or reduced in Legal Aid in the forthcoming fiscal year. HON. R. PENNER: There are no plans at present to eliminate the programs. There were some programs that were looked, at in the event that the funding didn't come up to needed levels, but we think, hope certainly, that within the estimated amount we can keep existing programs functioning. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the last report referred to a study to which the Federal Department of Jus tice contributed some $40,000 to a $50,000 study, has that report been released or will it now be released? HON. R. PENNER: I understand from the Executive Director that report has been received and it's on its way to me. MR. G. MERCIER: lt's on its way to you? Mr. Chairman, the report, as of March 31, 1983, indicates the report was completed prior to the writing of this report. I suppose that may be . . HON. R. PENNER: We may be talking about two dif ferent repo rts. Would you mind repeating the question?

Which report are you referring to? MR. G. MERCIER: I am refer ring to a report with respect to -it was partially funded by the Federal Department of Jus tice, $40,000 with respect to financial guidelines that Legal Aid uses. Perhaps the Attor ney General could indicate what report he was referring to? HON. R. PENNER: The same report in two parts. The first part was just the data base. The second part, which has just arrived and is going to the board, is on the cost implications extrapolated from the data base, so it's the same report.

There was an additional grant of $1 0,000 ready to complete that second phase of it. So it's that part of it, the part which in fact will give us some essential information as to what changes in the financial eligibility criteria will do that I expect to receive, certainly by the end of this month. MR. G. MERCIER: Will that report be released to the public? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: Has the Selkirk office been closed? HON. R. PENNER: No. MR. G. MERCIER: There was a report, Mr. Chairman, at the end of last week that a new funding agreement had been signed with the Federal Government involving Manitoba.

HON. R. PENNER: That's right. That's the basic overall Criminal Legal Aid Agreement. 556 MR. G. MERCIER: How much will the province benefit by that agreem ent? HON. R. PENNER: I think in this year we go up a couple hundr ed thousand dollars. We will benefit in this fiscal year by approximately $200,000 - between $1 50,000 and $200,000.00. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Attorne y-General anticipate any increase in the legal aid tariff for the private bar? HON. R. PENNER: Not this year. MR. G. MERCIER: Are there any discussions or negotiations being contemplated? HON. R.

PENNER: und erstand there's reco mmendations coming from the Legal Aid Committee of the Law Society. There's something that's moving from that back burner to front burner. I expect to receive an application, a formal request, for an increase in the tariff, but I haven't received a formal request for an increase in the tariff. I can't remember receiving one in recent months. MR. G. MERCIER: Last year, Mr. Chairman, I asked questions with respect to certificates granted to groups, and groups denied a certificate by Legal Aid.

Can the Attor ney-General indicate which groups were granted certificates during the past year and which were refused. HON. R. PENNER: I'll supply the member with that information tomorrow, I haven't got it with me. Of course, those applications are not handled in my department, they're handled by Legal Aid. I may say again, although that isn't necessarily an indicator of anything very much, that I haven 't received any complaints about groups who have applied for Legal Aid and have been turned down.

I have, at least once a month, received a letter from an individual who has been denied Legal Aid and complained, but I haven't received any complaints from any groups. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, last year we discussed the legal aid policy of not granting a Legal Aid Certificate to someone on social assistance to attempt to collect arrears of maintenance, and I indicated at that time that, while that policy may have been in existence for some time it appeared to me, from a public interest point of view, that where there was a likelihood of recovering arrears of maintenance which would, in effect, reduce payments by the province for social assistance, that consideration should be given to granting a Legal Aid Certificate.

I wonder if the Attorney General undertook to review that with Legal Aid, and I wonder if there's been any change in policy. HON. R. PENNER: No, there hasn't. The approach that has been taken by Legal Aid is that the department itself, to the extent that it is really the singular, the only beneficiary of the action, if it wants to take the action to recover funds for departmental expenditures, should pay the legal costs that are involved, may do so directly or indirectly.

TUesdaJ, 8 ,.. , 1184 MR. G. MERCIER: Does Legal Aid intend to continue or expand their own criminal office that was established apparently to take over some of the work that had been referred to the private bar? HON. R. PENNER: Same establishment in this fiscal year as in last. MR. G. MERCIER: I have no further questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, I want to just question now that we're on the portion of the Estimates of Legal Aid, I just want to maybe get the Attorney-General 's views on a particular case that I have some interest in.

Approximately a year ago June, there were two incarcerated convicts, incarcerated for fairly serious crimes, that somehow or other became at large - the Attorney-General will probably be familiar with the case - and they arrived at Selkirk. They had been under some surveillance, I understand, for some many days by the law enforcement forces. They arrived In Selkirk and took a hostage in the Safeway store, and my interest in the case is the hostage happens to be an old and dear friend of mine.

She was subjected to several hours with a gun at her head, not knowing whether she was going to be dispatched at any moment or whatever, and probably through her efforts and the fact that the Safeway store was surrounded by some 30-odd armed police officers, with her efforts and the fact that they could n't get out anyway, they eventually surrendered themselves to the law enforcement officers. That particular case had a preliminary hearing in Selkirk, and I don't have to tell the Minister the trauma and the experience that lady has gone through.

She appeared in the morning hearing that lasted through the afternoon. She had to go and buy her own lunch at noon while they were taken handcuffed downtown to a fancy dinner, at the lunch hour. Now they're pleading not guilty through the benefit of Legal Aid, and she now has to come back in the Assizes, whenever they are, in late May or June, to go through several more days of ordeal, testifying on what has happened. My argument is, they were incarcerated for fairly serious crimes and somehow were at large, how can they now plead not guilty through the benefit of Legal Aid lawyers?

That, to the public, is just absolutely incomprehens ible and maybe the Mi nister might comment, to tell me how you get Legal Aid for someone that has been convicted of very serious crimes, and somehow gets at large and commits another crime where they're caught red-handed. There has been no compensation for the victim. I've applied for an application for her to apply for victim's compensation because she won't go out at nights any more, she has lost her shift at the store because it was a night shift. I just can't convince myself that these people should be allowed to have legal aid.

I don't mind naming the lawyers, one of them is Brodsky who is a very well-known criminal lawyer. How can these people get legal aid? They were already put away; they've committed a crime, they were caught 557 red-handed, how can they plead not guilty to this crime and cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars for legal aid to defend them again? I would just like to have the Minister's comments so that I might send the Hansard to my dear friend and tell her how this happens in our society. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you very much for the question.

The case to which the member refers is, in fact, not going to be heard in the Assizes, it's not jury trial, it will be heard in the County Court shortly but, nevertheless, that doesn't blunt the point of the question. No. 1, the fact that someone has previously been found guilty of a criminal offence could not be used in my view, and in the view, let me say, of almost all Provincial Attor neys-General, with one possible exception, could not be used as a criteria in denying someone legal aid who may be charged with a second offence.

That is so because of something that runs like a golden thread through the web of our English Common Law, and that is the presumption of innocence . A MEMBER: Are you s.;re it's a golden thread. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it's the presumption of innocence, and that has stood us in good stead as a principle of the administration of criminal justice. Sometimes it's difficult to accept it, but we accept it to protect the innocent and not to protect the guilty because, if that presumption wasn't there, then the chances of innocent people being convicted of crimes would be increased greatly.

That's something that goes back several centuries and, even if I wanted to I couldn't change it, it exists. So that's one aspect of it. The second aspect really relates to the same principle. You do find people who are caught "red-handed" - I can only assume that to be the case, I wasn't a witness, nor could I be, and I'm not the judge, nor will I be - who plead not guilty but, you see, if you stop to think about it, we could have an in teresting discussion.

Perhaps we might continue it after the formal Session here is closed or at another time, as to how could you devise a principle that could be applied fairly which said that, "If someone comes to the conclusion that in this particular case, the accused are as guilty as hell - and even if they say not guilty we're going to say they're guilty and therefore they don't get Legal Aid - how could you devise a principle that wouldn't in effect be a denial of the presumption of innocence to other people who will in effect not only deny that they were caught red-handed, but on analysis as the case develops there is insufficient evid�nce to convict.

That's the problem and I don't know how to solve it. This is not incidentally to lessen th: force of your concern, but to put it in the context of the principles of Criminal Justice which apply in this as in other areas of the criminal law. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can understand what the Minister is saying, but how do you tell that to John Q. Public out there, that knows exactly what happened; they haven't finished serving their time - which they probably got Legal Aid for to

Tllesct.y, 8 May, 1984 defend themselves in the first place - having never finished serving their time, somehow became at large -probably going to a hockey game or somewhere, at our expense -how do you convince the public that this is justice? This woman was subjected to God knows what, in the four or six hours that she was held hostage, thinking that she was going to be shot any minute. What compensation is there for her? I know with Criminal Injuries she may get something and she may get a thank you for being such a brave soul and talking them down into handing their guns out when they walked out of that store.

But, how do you convince the public of this Legal Aid? And I know the basic principles of it and I don't object with them, but in a case like this, how do you convince the public that that lawyer -and we know what's happening with Legal Aid -there's a hell of a lot of lawyers making a lot of money out of Legal Aid -how do we know that they are really serious about trying to defend an undefensible position of a non-guilty plea on these two men, and bleeding Legal Aid for God knows how many thousands of dollars for their fee? Mr.

Attorney-General, I'm saying to you, that is what's giving Legal Aid a bad name, and it's getting a bad name in a lot of areas. I don't object to the principle of it, I know what it stands for and I know it should be there, but there are cases like this that just put the taxpayer out there, who's footing the bill eventua lly, to say to himself, what are we getting ourselves into? This is just an impossible situation. How did we get into this? I don't know how you're going to explain that to the people out there. This particular case is just one example and there's probably humdr eds of others.

How can you justify these people pleading not guilty? I know what you've said about the threat of justice. They haven't completed their last sentence, and they've committed another heinous crime that the woman may never fully recover from for the injustic e she ha s suffered, and the humiliation and the trauma that she went through, how do you justify that in the minds of her and her family with what she went through? HON. R.

PENNER: I'm not going to rely entirely on the subjudicial rule, but the fact is that two people have pleaded not guilty of an offence and are presently before the courts, so, I can't comment on the particular case. Indeed, I haven't got sufficient information to comment upon it in any event. I share the members sentiments and concerns in the sense that the feelings that he's expressing, and I understand that in a particular instance those people who indeed have some information or connection with he incident, will feel that justice is not being done.

Ultimately, as we've come to know through the ages, justice has to be done according to law. There are legal principles which, as I say, have stood the test of time, but you can't really and I know you can't in some professorial way explain that to people who are concerned, they'll still think that it's not right and those will be the words that will be used. I simply say that I can't explain it in any other way than I've attempted to do in dealing with the issue. Just one more thing, if I may. I don't think however, with respect, that kind of incident is few and far 558 between.

I do want to speak up in defence of the Criminal Bar. My experience, and I'm just going to speak to Mr. Guy here, in a moment, the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister and the Director of Prosecu tions, the vast majority of persons who are charged with offences in fact plead guilty; ultima tely plead gui lty.

There are very few persons charged with an offence who go to trial, very few, and to a very considerable extent the role that the counsel plays - and counsel are responsible by large, there's the odd bad apple, the re is everywhere -is to say, "L ook, in these circums tances, you ain't got a hope." I hope they say it somewhat more elegantly than that, "And the best I can do with you, if you want, I'll speak to the Crown Attor ney, maybe it will be a question of speaking to sentence and we can do the best for you to get a reasonable sentence, but that's the way we've got to go." That's what they'll tell him, and that's what will happen ultima tely.

I have the name of the case to which you refer - I won't mention it here -but I can only say this to the member, I will look further into it. MR. D. BLAKE: Well, just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorn ey-General, and I do hope that he will give me something substantial to justify what has happened in this case, because he said it himself, they were caught red-handed. They haven't finished serving a previous sentence, so they ain't got a hope of beating this case. HON. R. PENNER: I didn't say that. Whoa, whoa, off the record, I didn't say that. I couldn't comment on that. MR. D.

BLAKE: Well, I was paraphrasing something that the Attor ney-General didn't say. But in my own words, Mr. Chairman, . . . HON. R. PENNER: In which case your paraph rase is accurate. !MR. D. BLAKE: . . . they ain't got a hope, and I think this lawyer is bleeding Legal Aid trying to tetl these guys they can plead not guilty and that he's maybe got a chance to get them something less than what they might get, but they ain't got a hope and why In the hell are we wasting this money on Legal Aid trying to defend them? They haven 't finished their last sentence yet and they're bad apples.

I hope the Attorney-General looks into this case and gives me something that I can sort of cool my emotions with and maybe try and help my friend get back into a normal life, because she went through a tremendous traumatic six hours with a gun at her head and went through abuses like I won't describe to this committee. For those people to plead not guilty and have a hotshot lawyer that's making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, I don't know what lawyers make, Mr. Attorney-General, but I understand it's lots of money HON. R. PENNER: lt's not much if they're Attorney General. MR. D. BLAKE: . .

I don't see how you can justify giving Legal Aid to the lawyer that's defending these people because it's an indefensible position.

TuesclaJ, 8 ... , 1914 HON. R. PENNER: We'll look at it. I just say this about bad apples because the Chief Executive Officer of the Liquor Control Commission is here. Bad apples may not make good applesauce, but they sure as hell make good Calvados. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Member for Wolseley. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: I'd just like to ask the Attorney General if he would agree or address part of the question that the Member for Minnedosa raised, and I think there are two distinct problems, the one that the member was concerned about in terms of legal aid and all the legalities of how to deal with the perpetrators of the crime. There is also the separate area of the victims of the crime which regardless, she will be living with that trauma whether the persons are in jail for the rest of their lives or for two years and back on the streets, or whatever.

I think, in a totally different area, is the matter of compensation, and even if a person gets a couple of thousand dollars for compensation, she will still have to live with that trauma and those memories. No matter what happens in the courtroom, those will not be erased. Whether Legal Aid is paying the lawyer or whether the individuals are paying out of their own pockets, or their father is paying the lawyer, it doesn't take away the trauma of that experience.

So whether she feels better on one side that justice was done in her opinion in terms of retribution is one question, but it will never take away the mem ories or the emotional trauma. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: I thank the Mem ber for Wolseley for her sentiments and I agree with her completely. The problem is that in order to get some justification or some satisfaction from the Criminal Injur ies compensation, she will probably have to hire a lawyer in order to get some compensation and she is not entitled to Legal Aid. MR. CHAIRMAN: 9.(a), 9.(b) - the Mem ber for Virden. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there is another element that comes in here in this whole discussion, and it's a question of whether - I think we all agree that Legal Aid should always be there to assist those who are unable to defend themselves because of their own financial resources, are unable to protect themselves in a court of law, but there comes a time when you maybe want to mcke a distinction between defending a person who is a first offender as opposed to a person who is a repeated offender.

Is there any policy in Legal Aid which tries to differentiate between providing assistance to those who are first offenders as opposed to those who are repeated offenders? HON. R. PENNER: The only place where that's being looked at to my knowledge is in British Columbia where the Attorney-General, Brian Smith, in some public pronouncements within the past several months has announced that that was being seriously considered 559 by him.

I may only say that the criticism that he has received from many quarters in British Columbia for that suggestion would give me some pause in making the same suggestion myself - not because of the criticism, one gets use to that after a while - but I still think on terms of the principle which I annunciated that it is at best an unsafe course to take. MR. CHAIRMAN: 9.(a), 9.(b)-pa ss. Resolution 26: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $7,893,400 for Canada-Manitoba Legal Aid for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1985- pass. 10.(a), 10.(

b) Personal Property Security Registry, Salaries, Other Expendit ures- pass. Resolution 27: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $817,700 for Personal Property Security Registry for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1985- pass. Going back to the initial Item 1.(a), Minister's Salary. HON. R. PENNER: Do you want to deal with the Liquor Control first? Could I ask Mr. Emerson, lrene Hamilton, whoever else ... MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with the usual practice, the Chief Executiv e Officer of the Liquor Control Commission is with us, Mr. Emerson; Mr.

Janzen and lrene Hamilton also. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General has, through the Liquor Commission, supplied me - and perhaps a copy should be tabled with the committee - with a few sheets of paper that outline product price changes and mark-up comparison from November 17, 1981, a black day in Manitoba, Mr. Chairman, to the present time. A MEMBER: That's my birthday. HON. R. PENNER: When is your birthday, November 17th? I thought that was the date of the Russian Revolution. MR. G. MERCIER: These sheets, Mr.

Chairman, point out very substantial price increases that have taken place at the commission as a result of government imposed and increased provincial markups and sales tax, so much so, Mr. Chairman, that I believe it is fair to say - and perhaps the Attorney-General is aware of this through the Chairman of the Commission - that Manitoba's prices are now I believe the second overall highest priced jurisdiction in Canada.

In some little over two years the government, through its measures, is t.>xing this product to produce an additional $40 million over what it was taking in as revenue from the commission when they took office. They have made significant increases in the mark ups and many people don't understand this sytem. But what it means, for example, with im ported spirits, by increasing it from 115 percent - which was in effect November 17, 1981 - to 138 percent now, and the increase in sales tax means that whenever there is an

Tuesday, 8 May, 1984 increase in the price of the product the provincial government takes 138 percent of that imposed increase. I do want to say, because of the prices that the government has imposed, that the Attorney-General and the government should seriously consider reducing the markup back to the levels that it was in 1981 so that the price increases that the government takes will not be as exorbitant as they presently are. I believe those provincial markups are also second highest in Canada.

The sheets would indicate the prices of products of the Commission have increased, under this government, by some 40 percent, generally. This has had, I believe, with respect to the tourism and hospitality ind ustry, an adverse effect in that industry because people simply don't want to come to Manitoba to pay the kinds of prices that this government has produced.

I would ask the Attorney-General if he could confirm my belief, based on these statistics, that Manitoba would be the second highest priced jurisdiction in Canada and would he give some consideration to reducing the markup so that the government is not taking this exorbitant amount of money and adding it on to the price of the products in the future whenever other increases are imposed. HON. R.

PENNER: In terms of end cost on a sampling of various spirits, wine, our position in the provincial spectrum - with the 1984 budgets of PEI, Quebec and Ontario still to come, I think Ontario's is slated for May 15 - we're third highest, Seagram's Five-Star rye, fourth with respect to a variety of rum - and these are fairly typical - third on a vodka - I'll come to the worst one in a moment because I have a personal interest in it - third in one variety of gin, and fourth in another; sixth with respect to an imported wine, and sixth with respect to a domestice wine, so we're not second in these instances.

There's one instance where we do have the highest and it's, I regret to say very sadly, that it's Ballantyne's scotch. A MEMBER: You know where to hit a guy, don't you? HON. R. PENNER: They sure do, I want to tell you. But that's where we are. I should, having said that, point out just using this as an example, take the Canadian Spirit whiskey priced at $9.95, November 17, 1981 - I pick that date at random - with a provincial markup of 110 percent and the provincial sales tax at that level of 10 percent, that was $9.95.

That booze selling after September 1, 1983 and today at $14.10; but of that difference of $4.15, $2.35 is federal tax increases, so pin part of the tail on this easy-to-get along-with beast of burden, but not all of it MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, is the Attorney General prepared to gi ve some cons ideration to reducing the provincial markup as it applies to price increases in the future? HON. R. PENNER: The recent Budget is fresh in everyone's minds and will have noted that there was no increases in that Budget with respect to liquor. I can only say that that speaks for itself.

We do believe that we're, at least at present, gone as far as we should go. I don't want to be preaching, don't intend to be preachy. lt is true it seems to me, as reflected in the level of consumption of spirits, compared to wine, that the high price operates, to some extent, as a deterrent. Well, obviously it does, you're getting to a point where people cut down the amount of high-priced spirits which they're drinking and, indeed, that's reflected overall, an absolute decrease in the volume of spirits. For the first time in three years the per capita consumption of spirits in the province dropped.

There's something to be said for that and you can't, I know, automatically attribute it to high prices and, therefore, make a virtue out of high prices, but there is some relationship. One has to be careful in saying, let's do something that will fairly drastically reduce the price of booze, but may fairly drastically increase the consumption of booze. lt's very difficult to ride this uneasy balance which we have sought to do in Manitoba and, I think at this time, fairly successfully, between control and marketing. MR. G.

MERCIER: Does the Attorney-General intend to introduce amendments at this Session that would end the supper hour closing of beverage rooms? HON. R. PENNER: No. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Attorney-General intend to introduce legislation with respect to the restrictions on advertising? HON. R. PENNER: No. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Attorney-General have any further statistics to what he provided me with yesterday, with respect to the sale of South African products? HON. R. PENNER: Did I provide you with some statistics? 560 MR. G. MERCIER: Last year . . . HON. R. PENNER: Oh, last year, I thought you said, yesterday.

MR. G. MERCIER: Pardon me. last year th e commission, through you, indicated that in fiscal year 1983, sales of South African products amounted to a 341,038.7, reduction from fiscal year'82. HON. R. PENNER: There's been a further decline of 20 percent. South African products accounted for approximately $400,000, slightly less than .22 percent of total commission spirits and wine sales. Year-over year there's been a decline of 20 percent lt stands at about the same percentage, but there's been a decline, its volume being so small that the overall percentage I think remains the same, .22 percent. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to ask a fairly general question of the Attorney-General dealing with the Manitoba Liquor

Tunday, I May, 1184 Commission. lt appears to me, as a member of the Legislative Assembly, that while the province has many boards and commissions and agencies, that those agencies and boards and commissions that appear to lose money are referred to some committee of the Legislature, such as, the Utilities or the Economic - and I refer to Flyer and McKenzie Seeds and Telephone and Hydro and that - and yet we find that the Liquor Commission, which is a money-generating commission, reports through the Minister in his Estimates.

Has there been any consideration given to having the Liquor Commission report to a special committee of the Legislature, or would there be some concern, if that happened, they might lose money? HON. R. PENNER: We weren't sure whether we would classify it as a public utility or energy. No, we haven't Look, why do you fool around with a good thing? We hope in fiscal 1984-85 that it brings in $130 million; that's $130 million less that the taxpayers are going to have to pay for the valuable services which this government renders.

I think there is general agreement - the Memb er for Minnedosa is laughing and I think that's good because you sleep better after you laugh during the course of an evening. Seriously, I think no one can doubt that we have in Manitoba a very well-run, high-status, in terms of its public profile, Liquor Control Commission that we're all proud of. The quality of stores has improved enormously; the quality of product being marketed improved enormously; the quality of service to the public has im proved enormously. I think this method of reporting has worked well.

Certainly, if there is strong feeling from any group in the House or members of the public that we should report differently, I'm prepared to look at it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I call the Mem ber for Wolseley, the Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one or two quick questions to ask the Attorney-General. After observing two years of this government in office, I don't know how anybody in Manitoba can go to sleep laughing nowadays. I just wondered, is the Attorney General ... A MEMBER: Are you crying yourself to sleep? MR. D.

BLAKE: . . . giving any consideration to giving up this damne d-fool notion of having South African wines hidden behind the counter in the liquor stores of Manitoba? HON. R. PENNER: The member referred to a damned fool notion. I don't know of any notions that I have that are damned-fool notions. Now, if you are referring to our policy with respect to South African wines, no; no consideration is being given at present to changing that. MR. D.

BLAKE: Well, it could become a long discussion because I happened to have a couple of friends visiting from South Africa a few days ago, and he tells me this apartheid thing is a bunch of nonsense, that coloured 561 folk are as welcome as anybody else and they're intermingled and it's a lot of nonsense hiding their wines behind the counter. So I just wondered, maybe in view of what has transpired over there with evolution and the natural process of integrating the people, that maybe he might think that this is was bit stupid, that maybe we should put Russian vodka behind the counter, too, and a few other things.

But besides that, my per ennia l quest ion, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General or to members of the commission, comes to Page 19 of their report, and I mentioned it before - Prosecutions under The Liquor Control Act I know it's a very delicate area to get into but, again, we come to the statistics, the numb er of convictions in information sworn by the City of Winnipeg, 920 fines totalling 47,52 1; rural Manitoba, 8,995 resulting in fines of $5,333 to our 96, and there are 600,000 people living in Winnipeg. HON. R. PENNER: Page 19? MR. D. BLAKE: Surely, Mr.

Attorney-General, this information that is given here has to be add ressed in some way. HON. R. PENNER: We had a similar question yesterday with respect to impaired driving convictions which show the same apparent disproportion. I think, substantial ly, it's a question of high versus low visibility; that is, that in a densely packed ur ban metro polis, such as Winnipeg, with the vast amount of police work that has to be done in a whole variety of ways, breaches of the act just aren't that obvious.

I'm sure there are just as many breaches of the Act taking place - a similar number, in any event, proportionally - but they are just not that obvious and just aren't, therefore, detected with the same frequency as they are in rural areas where there are smaller communities and everything is sort of visible. I think really that's what it is. MR. D. BLAKE: But, Mr. Attorney-General, you must recognize that that's a staggering difference . HON. R. PENNER: So to speak. MR. D. BLAKE: ... that's 9- 1. We're not bad people in the rural areas. HON. R. PENNER: No, you're just not careful enough. MR. D.

BLAKE: We can't slip up the back lane to the golf course and down through other alleys to get to our homes. We have to drive five or six miles . . . HO!II. R. PENNER: That's the point I was making yesterday. MR. D. BLAKE: That's the visibility you were referring to, but surely you can tell the boys to give a scant eye once in a while. HON. R. PENNER: A policeman's lot is not a happy one and it would be even more unhappy if I were to attempt to tell them how to carry out their duties. Not only that, I'd be swinging from the next sour apple tree.

Tuesday, 8 May, 1984 MR. D. BLAKE: I wouldn't want you to do that, but I know my editor is going pick this up when I give him the report tomorrow when I get home, that us rural folk are being put upon. HON. R. PENNER: Only those who drink. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairperson. Now that we've had comments from the Member for Minnedosa on his damned-fool ideas about South Africa, I'd like to follow up on the - (Interjection) - HON. R. PENNER: Can you do that in some other committee, the two of you? MS. M. PHILLIPS: The question I have is about . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order please. 11 reflects upon the committee. MS. M. PHILLIPS: The question I have is about inspections and prosecutions. Now that the Attorney General has moved the liquor store from The Bay down to the end of my street, it arises out of a concern that has been expressed to me by parents from Gordon Bell School, etc., and from the teenagers in my neighbourhood. Under Inspections, on Page 18, I see where the inspections are all dealing with hotels, restaurants, dining rooms, clubs, banquet halls, etc., etc. I'm wondering what kind of monitoring there is of liquor stores thems elves.

You have beer vendors being inspected. In fact, the inspections at beer vendors are, this year, 6,300 inspections. My concern is -something came to my attention - a term that in my naive, pristine world, I wasn't familiar with, but it came to my attention the term was "fishing." How did you kids get this liquor? Well, we went fishing. And I said, I haven't noticed if you stood on the Maryland Bridge and dropped a fishing line over that you came up with a 24.

So I, of course, explored the meaning of this new word in my vocabulary and found out that what it means is that you stand outside the liquor store and get someone to go in and make your pur chase for you. I presume the practice is not new. The term was certainly new to me, but I learn something every day. I guess my concern is that if the inspections are all taking place in all these places that are listed on Page 18, what kind of monitoring is going on at the liquor stores themselves throughout the province?

And what kind of policy is there about either City Police or liquor inspectors or checking out that, if kids are hanging around outside the liquor store, someone isn't walking out and negotiating with them for these pur chases. We talk about the increase in revenue and how that has to be turned over into preventative kind of programming and the damage that liquor does in our society and the rising number of teenage alcoholics. I think it's a very serious social problem and one that, at least, we could try to prevent at the source.

The Member for Minnedosa is nodding his head and, of course, you can never totally prevent it, but we could say that in terms of any of the other inspections. We 562 could say we could never prevent all the infractions in hotels or in beer vendors or in beverage rooms. So I don't buy the argument that we can't catch all of this, but I think an effort should certainly be made to make sure that at the liquor stores themselves, this is cut down to a minimum. HON. R.

PENNER: In fact, the staff in the stores, part of their duties is to monitor sales, with respect to the legality of sales, both with respect to age and with respect to anybody who's intoxicated. Their staff training takes place constantly and that is one of the matters that is taken up with staff as part of their duties. There's a supervisor for every five stores who includes in his or her duties the necessity of looking into any problems of that kind. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention.

Certain ly, I can only say that I would hope if ther e is something of that kind taking place, fishing, hustling, prospecting, whatever term is used for that method of procuring booze illegally and, as someone said, that goes a way back and I recall it, not personal ly, I've always been abstemious, but as a well-known phenomenon - that that should be brought to the attention immediately of store staff or let me encourage to bring it to the attention of the commission. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: My question then would be, are these supervisors on their rounds of five stores in the evenings or any time or the few times once every three or four months that I go into the store myself, it seems that the staff at the store are busy with their duties inside, either at the cash register or stocking shelves, not outside wandering around to see whether kids are hanging out and whether that individual who is not intoxicated, who is of age, is purchasing the liquor for the teenagers that are hanging around outside? I recognize the member's concerns about the country being oversupervised.

I'm concerned about the kids in my area who are finding it very simple to purchase liquor and my concern is that we are undersupervised. I don't know whether that's the duty of the inspectors or whether that's the duty of the City Police to be outside the stores. I haven 'I seen the staff from the stores outside. HON. R. PENNER: The supervisors do, I'm advised, circulate throughout the day and if something of that comes to their attention, action will be taken. MS. M. PHILLIPS: And the evening? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, but no complaints have been brought to the attention of the commission itself of this practice. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, there's a recent

article in the newspaper with respect to a compu terized wine selection system with Home Management Systems. Can the Attorney-General indicate the cost of this program? HON. R. PENNER: The maximum cost to the comm1s s1on is $4,000, and no ongoing cost to the commission after the test. The Home Mangement

�day, 8 May, 1884 Systems Inc., if it works out and we go ahead with it, would finance it entirely themselves from advert ising revenue. MA. G. MEACIEA: Mr. Chairman, was this program tendered or advertised or bids asked for? HON. A. PENNEA: I think it's a unique program. I don't think there are competitors in the field. lt's a unique program and they approached the commission with this program and the commission decided to give it a try. MA. G. MEACIEA: The cost is $3,000 or $4,000 for a three-month period to the commission? HON. A. PENNEA: Yes, that's a maximum cost. lt could be less. MA. G.

MEACIEA: A maximum cost. And if it is successful it would be continued in a store or stores? HON. A. PENNEA: Stores, more than one store. MA. G. MEACIEA: How would the operators of the system be financed? HON. A. PENNEA: They would finance it from the sale of advertising. MA. G. MEACIEA: The sale of advertising for what? HON. A. PENNEA: Wines. MA. G. MEACIEA: What form of advertising would this take? HON. A. PENNEA: lt shows up on the compu ter. I told you never to trust a comp uter. You press a button, you say what do I serve with fish?

The first answer, boiled potatoes; second answer, a good sauterne and presumably an advertisement for some sauterne. MA. G. MEACIEA: Does the Liquor Commission have any background information on a home management systems company? HON. A. PENNEA: Jt's a locally incorporated compa ny. MA. G. MEACIEA: Could the Attorney-General indicate who the directors are of the company? HON. A. PENNEA: Eugene Hyworon and Motria Kydon. MA. G. MEACIEA: They're the only two directors? HON. A. PENNEA: I am advised that there are four .

Those are the only two ones that the Chief Executive Officer knows of at the moment but we will obtain the information as to who the other two are. MA. G. MEACIEA: Could the Attorney-General, in reviewing that information, find out if another director is a Zorianna Hyworon who is the Assistant Deputy 563 Minister of the Department of Finance responsible for computer services in the gover nment? HON. A. PENNEA: I'll ascertain that, apparently there's a corporate shareholder. MA. G.

MEACIEA: In reviewing that information then, co•Jid the Attorne y-General indicate whether one of the corporate shareholders Z Holdings is a company of Mrs. Hyworon is a significant or sole shareholder. HON. A. PENNEA: I certainly will and I can assure the member if that is so and if it touches any of our conflict of-interest policy, then it will stop. MA. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MA. H. GAAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In dealing with the Liquor Commission, in general, I believe that there was -I'm not too sure if it was this year's Annual Report or a previous one -indicated that in the government -owned liquor stores in the province, I believe there were 10 that were not of a self-serve nature. I believe that there was an indication in some previous reports that th�re was a move toward total self-service thr oughout the province. lt may be last year's report, rather than this one. Could the Minister confirm tha t that is the move tha t the Liquor Commis sion is making toward total self-service thr oughout the province? HON. A.

PENNEA: Yes, it is. MR. H. GAAHAM: At the same time, could t("le Minister indicate whether or not there is a move on the part of the commission to change the type of store that is presently in the Town of Russell and convert that to a self-serve outlet? ' HON. A. PENNER: Yes, the Russell store is due for relocation and conversion to self-serve in this fiscal year. MR. H. GRAHAM: I believe it was also in last year's program that it was to be converted last year, could the Minister indicate whether tenders were called last year for the conversion of that store? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Was that tender acted upon? HON. A. PENNER: I am advised that it was tendered and then those tenders were not acted on, it was retendered in an attempt to reduce the square footage cost. lt was a successful attempt, too. MR. H. GRAHAM: In the subsequent retendering, can the Minister indicate whether the second retendering has been acted upon? HON. A. PENNER: What is now being looked at is a choice between leasing and building. MR. H. GRAHAM: When that decision is made, will the plans fall within the proposed plan of the Town of

1\;lescl,.y. 8 May, 1984 Russell for the redevelopment of their downtown area? Will the location fall within the accepted limits as set out by the Town of Russell and its Council in their long range building plans for the downtown area? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I'm advised that that has been taken into consideration. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, one question along the lines of what the Member for Virden was saying.

I should say, in complimenting the commission, the government store in Minnedosa was su bjected some years ago to numerous break and enter problems . A MEMBER: Rowdy town, eh. MR. D. BLAKE: . . . Not really, just some of the citizens passing through on the way to Clear Lake probab ly, likely from Winnipeg. But that was rectified probably four years ago, or five maybe, they put a large steel gate across the front of the store that is closed when the store is closed and there hasn't been a break and enter since that was established. So, Mr. Chairman, you have hit on an idea that has solved a problem in our village.

We're talking about self-serve stores. Some time ago Rivers, which is in my constituency, has a one-man store; there was some thought to closing that store a while ago and there was a great hue and cry and representation from the town council and the municipalit y. Is it possible to convert a one-man store into a self-serve store, or are there any plans to close that store, or what are your plans for the Liquor Commission store in Rivers? HON. R. PENNER: To convert to self-serve with a target date of November, 1986. MR. D. BLAKE: And keep it as a one-man store. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 1. (a) -the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, last evening in dealing with the item under Crimina l Prosecutions, I dealt at length with the matter of the Attorney-General's action with respect to the prosecutions against Dr. Morgenta ler, and his personal intervention on his own wherein those charges were changed, despite the committal for trial on those charges . . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair wants to know if members of the committee are finished with the staff of the Liquor Control Commission, in which case they will be excused when we are on the Minister's Sal ary.

Are we finished with them? The Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I dealt at length with that particular matter and the Attorney-General's actions with respect to this prosecution, which I believe is a very serious matter that brings the administration of justice in Manitoba into disrepute. In the interests of time, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to repeat my comments which are on Pages 492-495 of Hansard which concluded with the Attorney-General 's acknowledgement that this was the only matter in which he had intervened in this manner. I consider it a very serious matter, Mr. Chairman.

I consider it so serious that I wish to move that the Sal ary of the Minister be reduced to the sum of $1 .00. HON. R. PENNER: You could have made it $2.00. Mr. Chairman, my remarks are also on record. The member's recollection is not entirely accurate because I gave as another example of using the authority which is vested in me as an Attor ney-General where fairly important issues of public policy arise, the commerical fraud case inv olving Play All, Nelles, Breck er, Balderston, in which the Member for St. Norbert, when he was Attorn ey-General, in fact refused to exercise his authori ty.

I exercised my authoriy and directed an indictment in that case, so to say that the decision I took with respect to a dir ect ind ictment in the Morgentaler case as the only example is wrong. Those are the only two examples, but they indicate the sparing use of the authority which I have with respect to directing indictments.

As I said last night and say again, I make no apologies for having hewed to a path in this case in which despite enormous pressures that there should be no prosecution initially or subsequently, enormous pressures that civil intervention should be allowed, that I had one view and one view only, namely, that a fair trial of the essential issue should be held. 564 Yesterd ay, in reciting the events with the Director of Prosecutions sitting at my side and hence the person, incidentally was witness to all of the discussions, I indicated that the fact, and I'll repeat that, that no decision was taken by me until after the evidence was taken at the preliminary and after the judge presiding over the prelimina ry indicated in clear terms that the essential defence which the accused wished to raise and which they have the right to raise, which in fact is guara nteed by the Charter in terms of full answer and defence making, could not be made as effectively in the context of the conspiracy charge as it could in a substantive charge.

I'll simply add and I'll say no more at this junc1ure, that charging in many cases, and this is one of them in my view, having perused the evidence which is more than the Member for St. Norbert has done, that in this case the substantive charge is a stronger case than the conspiracy charge, from the Crown's point of view and my view, it is a stronger case.

But, also, it is a better case for the public policy issue to be addressed which we all, as Manitobans, have the right to have addressed in the clearest possible terms, because it's clear, and this has been said now by many and certainly by the Minister of Justice, that the differences which there are about the law are not going to be resolved politically in the near future. No one's going to grasp the nettle federally and change the federal law.

In terms of how that law stacks up now in the light of the Charter, these trials in Toronto and in Winnipeg will really be determ inative of those issues for a long time to come.

All of us have a responsibility to make sure that that trial takes place in a way which is not only the strongest possible case for the Crown, but gives an opportunity for those defences which are open to an accused person to be canvassed to the fullest extent. lt was on that basis and that basis alone that my decision was made and, as I said last night, made by me alone.

I make no apologies for it and my spirited answer to the motion is not to protect myself for $9,000-odd dollars because after all my salary has been cut in half in this department, otherwise my defence would have been even more spirited, but because this was a decision over which I agonized in terms of making sure that what I did fell within the purview of the law and 1 examined the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Play All case in which the Chief Justice, as he now is, Mr. Justice Monnin, in upholding my action in the Play All case, in which the Chief Justice, as he now is, Mr.

Justice Monnin, in upholding my action in the Play All case, specifically delineated the authority that the Attorney-General has and must effectively operate in making sure that the appropriate charges are laid and pursued in criminal matters. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has attempted to deflect some criticism by reference to another case, of which I spoke to last night, in which I indicated that at that time officials of the department had indicated there may be an alternate procedure to be used to apply to a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench for a decision or, at least, advice.

That was a course that was chosen and a ruling was made. With respect to this matter, Mr. Chairman, the accused were committed for trial and charges laid by the Director of Prosecutions, committed for trial on the evidence before the judge. The Attorne y-General intervened, as he said, neither receiving a recommendation from senior departmental officials, nor asking for one, after he had indicated to the House that the prosecution would be handled by the Director of Prosecutions. He and his party have well-known views and policies with respect to this matter.

By acting as he did, without proper consultation with his department -Mr. Chairman, I had indicated last night and I repeat -he has violated at least an old maxim "that justice must, not only be done, but be seen to be done," and I suggest his actions have caused the admin istration of justice to be held in disrepute because of his personal actions with respect to this matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: With respect to the motion on the table, the Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I would just like to say, in defence of the Minister's Sal ary, that I think we have the privilege in Manitoba of having the best Attorney-General in Canada, and I think in the area of progressive legislatio n and progressive programming in the areas covered by his Estimates, whether they be the progress that's been made in terms of wife abuse, etc., etc., I think that the opposition should join with me in defeating this motion and recognizing that, not only does he deserve every penny of the $9,000 that's in these particular Estimates, but 565 that we have made, over the last year since we last dealt with the Attorney-General's Departm ent, some major and substantial strides in most of the areas covered by this particular Attorney-General.

I, personally, want to thank him for the advances and the hard work that he has done in many many areas that I have been part of the struggle for years and years, and it's glorious to see them actually coming into force, even if the kids are still fishing. MR. CHAIRMAN: With respect to the sitting of the committee after 10: 00 p.m., the relevant rule is Rule 65(9), which I would like to read: "Where the Commi ttee of Supply, or a

section of the Committee of Supply, is sitting after 10:00 p.m. on any day. "(

a) the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman of the Committee shall proceed to put the motions as the course of the business of the Committee dictates but shall not accept "(

i) any vote that defeats a motion approving an item in the estimates of the government, or "(ii) any vote that passes a motion varing an item in the estimates of the gover nment. "(a. 1) where 4 or more members demand that a formal vote be taken, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Committee shall defer the vote on the motion until the next sitting of the Committee of Supply in the Cham ber. " The motion before this committee, put forth by the Member for St. Norbert, is that the. Minister's Salar y be reduced to $1 .00. QUESTION put, MOTION defeated MR. G. MERCIER: Ayes and nays, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Since it is past 10: 00 p.m., this motion will be the first item of business before the entire Committee of Supply in the Chamber tomor row. A point of order is raised. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, not specifically with regard to the

interpretation of the rules, but just to clarify the manner in which members wish to proceed with regard to the taking of a vote. I, by way of point of order, would want to ask the Member for St. Norbert, Sir , thr ough you, whether it would then be their intention to also place the question on the main motion, as well as the amendment, when the committe e reconvenes tomorr ow, or if they wish to continue debate on the Minister's Salary tomorrow? MR. G. MERCIER: I have no objection to continued debate. HON. A. ANSTETT: So both questions would be put at the beginning of Supply tomorrow? MR. G. MERCIER: That's fine with me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Committee rise.

SUPPLY - NA TURAL RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources, Item 2.(k)

(1) Fire Suppression. The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDG ER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to draw to the Minister's attention - he read out some figures prior to adjournment of the Estimates earlier in the day about the number of fires that had taken place over the last five years, the amount of hectares involved per fire and the cost per fire. I just want to express a concern. The figure that the Minister is using in his Estimates is lower than any one of those years where there has been Fire Suppression costs. In fact, the majority of them are substantially higher.

I am wondering whether the Min ister is possibly underestimating his requirements for this year, because we're looking at a total of $6,682,900 which is much lower than any one of the figures that he was presenting to us. I just want to draw to the Min ister's attention that I hope that he is not underestimating his requirements when the figures over the years have shown substantially higher costs. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minis ter. HON. A. MACKLING: In each instance, where there have been fires in those years, then there are warrants to cover the difference. We don't build into the Estimate an unknown, a big unknown.

What we provide in the Estimates is for the supp ression expenses that involve the equipping of prevention facilities including men and planes and equipment and so on that are ongoing. In other words, we have to pay for them. They are there whether we have fires or not. Where we have a significant incidence of fires, then there's additional cost. That's the way the system has always worked and I could read to the honourable member the Budget in'80-8 1,'8 1-82 and then the total cost finall y, and it shows the same pattern. That's the way it's always been done. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: The only concern I have is that seemingly the expenses are always higher than the figures shown in the Estimates here and it leads to a false Impression that the costs are not that high, because invariably they have been high er. Regardless, I think the Min ister, especially in a year like this when we're starting off with possibly some concern about the kind of year it's going to be, that there's maybe - not a misconception - but maybe it doesn't accurately reflect the fact of what the costs are going to be of Fire Suppression, based on the last five years of the figures that the Minis ter read.

I just don't want to feel that the Special Warrants are not included in these things, but each year apparently there are Special Warrants that are being presented and it gives the impression that the costs are lower than they really are. HON. A. MACKLING: The Helitac program in those years that I gave the honourable member confirme d the activities and they're built in, those Helitac program costs, and I can give them to him if he's interested. In 566 19 81, the Heli tac program actioned 40 fires; in'82, 59; in 19 83, 99, for a three-year average of 66.

The average size, hectares, of those fires were: in'8 1, 4.8 hectares; in 1982, 4.7; in 1983, 3.3, an average of 4.27 hectares. Now, what I want to point out to the honourable member is that we don't know the fire season that we're going to get. lt did happen in 1982-83 that the Budget was $8,906,000 and the actual, according to this information was $8,1 82,000, so it can happen that if we have a light fire season as occured in '82-83, we still had 425 fires, but we were able to action them with the Helitac crews and existing water bomber fleet, and so on.

Where you have a major fire, then you have to hire additional aircraft , additional men. That happened in'83- 84, it happened in'81 -82. The Budget in'81- 82, when the Honourable Member from Pembina says that you were astutely In charge, the Budget was - now, I don't know which figure to use here - the actual figure in 1981- 82 was $3,937,300; there were Special Warrants of $7,831 ,500, a major fire had contention there; a total cost of $11 ,446,000.00. The previous year, 1980-1981 - (Interjection) - Well, the Honourable Member from Pembina continues to be helpful, I don't mind that. lt was a bad one.

In 19 80-81, the Budget was $2,450,000 and Special Warrants were $10 ,255,500; wound up with a total of $1 2,937,500 - the pattern is the same. We don't build into the Estimate figure a guesstimate as to major conflagrations. Where they happen, traditional ly, under previous governments and under this government, we will Special Warrant. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Fine. Mr.

Chairman, the point that I was trying to make is that I think it would be more realistic if the actual costs incurred in each year in terms of Fire Suppression, were there, because it leaves a sort of a vacant area when we talk of Special Warrants and, regardless of which government was in power, I think it doesn't quite relate the true picture of the moneys spent for Fire Suppression. That's the point 1 was trying to make. The Minis ter all

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-3-17b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 3rd hansardpdf 17b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e99a8b5b5c9e43b3c65660c87b1bccb629494b24

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